Landsborough to Nambour Rail Corridor Study .../media/Projects/L/Landsborough... · Landsborough to...

Environmental Impact Statement

Landsborough to Nambour Rail Project 1

This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared for the Landsborough to Nambour Rail Project (the project).

The project involves construction of a double track railway along an improved alignment, with provision for up to two additional tracks if required in the future.

This approach has been adopted as there is currently no identified need for two additional tracks. The purpose of establishing a corridor that allows for additional tracks in the future is to provide long term land use certainty and future flexibility, should the need for additional track capacity arise.

The project will improve the efficiency, service frequency, operating speeds and reliability of rail services on this section of the North Coast Line (NCL). It will provide capacity to cater for the anticipated increased demand for rail services in the corridor, arising from projected population and freight transport growth.

The project is proposed to be operational by 2026, in accordance with the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program 2008-2026 (SEQIPP), subject to whole-of-government priorities and funding availability.

The project has been declared a ‘significant project for which an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required’ pursuant to Section 26(1)(a) of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act).

The EIS addresses the following:

land requirements, environmental impacts, economic and social ßimpacts generated by the corridor identified for the project, which allows for up to two additional rail tracks, maintenance and access roads, earthworks and associated infrastructure

environmental, social, economic and transport impacts ßgenerated by the construction and operation of the double track railway

environmental, economic, social and transport impacts ßgenerated by the decommissioning of the existing rail.

Typically, rail infrastructure has a design and service life of over 100 years, subject to maintenance, surrounding land use patterns, and advances in rail technology. Provision for a future third and fourth track will ensure that the longevity of this corridor is maximised. The whole of life cycle of the railway is discussed in Chapter 2, Description of the project.

The project proponent is the Department of Transport and Main Roads. The Department of Transport and Main Roads is an agency of the Queensland Government and is the lead agency responsible for developing and managing the land, air and sea transport environments in Queensland.

Queensland Transport Directions, the Strategic Plan 2007-2011 of Queensland Transport (now the Department of Transport and Main Roads), outlines the following vision and mission:

vision ß : better transport for Queensland—connecting people, places, goods and services to enhance economic, social and environmental wellbeing

mission ß : to develop, lead and manage transport in Queensland which is safe, secure, efficient, inclusive, ecologically sustainable and promotes a strong economy.

The Department of Transport and Main Roads is involved in a number of environmental initiatives to improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainable transport. These include:

planning and delivery of public transport projects ßacross Queensland

the ß South East Queensland Cycle Network Program, which aims to improve bicycle networks and facilities through South East Queensland (SEQ)

development of TravelSmart, an individualised travel behaviour ßchange program that encourages people to replace their car trips with walking, cycling, public transport and car pooling

the Government Energy Management Strategy (GEMS), ßwhich is a whole-of Queensland Government initiative to improve government agencies’ use of energy and water.

The project will upgrade approximately 22 km of the existing NCL between Landsborough and Nambour. This will result in the construction of approximately 20.9 km of double track railway, within a corridor that could provide for an ultimate four track configuration to allow for future upgrades, if and when required. The average design speed of the project is 120-140 km/hr.

The project also includes the following:

maintenance and emergency service access within the corridor ß

reprovision of roads impacted by the project ß

grade separation options for the provision of grade separated ßroad/rail crossings at Gympie Street North in Landsborough and Mooloolah Connection Road/ Brays Road in Mooloolah

construction of new stations at Mooloolah, Eudlo, ßPalmwoods and Woombye

upgrade of Nambour station facilities, including additional ßplatforms and the upgrade of the disabled access to current standards

provision of pedestrian access, public transport interchange, ßcar parking and station access

reprovision of private access to properties whose current ßaccess arrangements are affected by the railway corridor

relocation of public utilities impacted by the project ß

tunnels south of Mooloolah and south of Eudlo ß

decommissioning of unused sections of the existing ßrailway corridor.

These features are indicated on Figure 1.2a, and are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2, Description of the project.

Environmental Impact Statement 2

The following terms will be referred to throughout this EIS:

the ß project area

This is the original study area that was defined at the start of the project, consisting of a 3 km (east-west) by 22 km (south-north) area, within which constraints were identified, and a refined study focus area was determined.

the ß study focus area

This was the refined area, within which a number of possible route options were identified, based on constraints information.

the ß preferred route

This was identified in the Route Identification Report (March 2008), and forms the basis of the project. Some refinements have been made to the preferred route since its original release in April in 2008, particularly through Mooloolah and at the crossings of the Mooloolah River and Paynter Creek.

the ß project

This refers to the proposed railway corridor and the construction of the double track railway, as well as areas identified as required for stations, car parks, road realignments or access reprovisions.

the ß study area

This was defined for the purpose of the social and economic assessments and consists of the relevant Collector District areas. It is shown on Figure 8.1a in Chapter 8, Economic environment.

the ß proposed railway

This generally refers to the areas required for the track, ballast, service roads, structures, embankments, and cuttings associated with both the two track (the project) or the four track arrangements.

chainage ß

Chainages are a measure of distance expressed in metres. On this project, Roma Street is the point of origin. These have been used to describe particular locations in the project design. These are references to the drawings set included in Drawings C002 to C028, and C102 to C128.

The project area (or original study area), the study focus area, and the preferred route are shown on Figure 1.2b.

The Landsborough to Nambour Rail Corridor Study (the study), includes work undertaken to investigate the proposal. The study encompasses work carried out to identify the preferred route for the project, undertake the preliminary design and prepare the environmental impact statement.

The following activities have been undertaken:

identification of the preferred route for the proposed ßrail corridor

The Route Identification Study (March 2008) documents the process and reasons for the identification of the preferred route.

preliminary design ß

An appropriate level of engineering design has been carried out to allow for assessment of the impacts, determination of mitigation strategies, and to provide sufficient information for the process of acquisition of land for the project to begin.

preparation of an EIS for the project in accordance with ßthe provisions of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act).

Consultation with stakeholders, including all levels of government, the local community and other interested parties has provided important information of value to these activities.

The next phase of the project involves approvals. Upon completion of this phase, the formal process of land acquisition for the project can proceed. Detailed design, construction and commissioning of the double track railway will follow, though the exact timeframes for this are not yet determined. A framework for ongoing consultation throughout the future phases of the project is included as part of the environmental management plans included in Chapter 22, Environmental management plans.

Figure 1.2c shows the staging and timeframes for the project, which are subject to:

future infrastructure delivery priorities and funding decisions ßof the Queensland Government

outcomes of community consultation and technical issues ßidentified during future stages of the project.


Figu

re 1

.2a:

Pro

ject

Fea

ture

s

MC

GIL

CH

RIS

T

PASKINS ROAD

COES CREEK ROAD

WIN

DS

OR

RO

AD

MC

KEE

S R

OA

D

PRIN

GL

E R

O

CARTER R

OAD

OLD PALMWOODS ROAD

WO

OM

BYE

PALM

WOODS R

OAD

TAINTONS ROAD

D

PINE GROVE R

OAD

EN R

OAD

MU

LLE

RS

RO

AD

NAMBOUR CONNECTION ROAD

REDMONDS RO

AD

ATK

INS

ON

S

RSHUTE ROAD

HOSPITAL R

OAD

OLD CHEVALLUM ROADBATT ROAD

CORLIS AVEEUDLO ROADW

OO

MB

YE

NA

MB

OU

R

PALM

WO

OD

S

New

brid

gefo

r Bla

ckal

l-R

ange

Roa

d

Prop

osed

W

oom

bye

Stat

ion

New

rail

brid

ge o

ver

Aru

ndel

l Ave

nue

Payn

ter

Cre

ekbr

idge

Nam

bour

St

atio

n

Prop

osed

Bac

k W

oom

bye

Roa

d O

verp

ass

Prop

osed

Cut

an

d C

over

St

ruct

ure

Leeo

ns R

oad

brid

ge o

ver

rail

Prop

osed

Tob

y C

ourt

/Lee

ons

Roa

d R

ealig

nmen

t

Prop

osed

Pa

lmw

oods

St

atio

n

Prop

osed

R

ealig

ned

Che

vallu

m

Roa

d

Exis

ting

Woo

mby

e Pa

lmw

oods

Roa

d

Prop

osed

Sp

ackm

an L

ane

Rea

lignm

ent

Brid

ge o

ver

Payn

ter C

reek

Prop

erty

acc

ess

brid

ge o

ver r

ailw

ay

Petr

ie C

reek

brid

ges

PAYN

TER

CR

EEK

PETRIE CRE

EK

EUD

LO C

REE

K

Figu

re N

o

Fig.

1.2

a S

cale

at A

3

Dra

win

g Ti

tle

Job

Titl

e

00.

250.

50.

751

Kilo

met

res

Pre

ferr

ed R

oute

Cen

trelin

e

Roa

d D

esig

n

Exi

stin

g R

ail L

ine

Stre

et

Cre

ek

QLD

Env

ironm

enta

l Est

ate

Dat

a so

urce

d fro

m th

e D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

and

Mai

n R

oads

, and

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f En

viro

nmen

t and

Res

ourc

e M

anag

emen

t.

1:30

,000

Lan

dsbo

roug

h to

Nam

bour

R

ail P

roje

ct -

EIS

Proj

ect F

eatu

res

°

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Bruce Highway

Nor

ther

nEx

tent

(rig

htw

indo

w)

Sout

hern

Exte

nt(le

ftw

indo

w)EU

DLO

BLI

BLI

TAN

AW

HA

WO

OM

BYE

NA

MB

OU

R

PALM

VIEW

MO

OLO

OLA

H

PALM

WO

OD

S

LAN

DSB

OR

OU

GH

DALES ROA

TUNNEL RIDGE ROAD

EUDLO ROAD

GAT

TER

A R

OA

D

OLD

GYM

P

KOW

AL

NO

BE

LS

ROAD

BEEC

H R

OADM

OO

LOO

LAH

CO

NN

EC

TI

ON

R

OA

D

VALLEY VIEW RISE

BR

AY R

OA

D

CORLIS AVE

EUDLO ROA

EUD

LO

MO

OLO

OLA

H

LAN

DSB

OR

OU

GH

Prop

osed

Cut

an

d C

over

St

ruct

ureEu

dlo

Stat

ion

Rai

lbr

idge

over

Logw

oods

Roa

dPr

opos

ed C

ut

and

Cov

er

Stru

ctur

e

Sout

h M

oolo

olah

R

iver

-pr

opos

ed b

ridge

Prop

osed

Gym

pie

Stre

et N

orth

ro

ad o

ver r

ail

grad

e se

para

tion

Cul

vert

Brid

ge/c

ulve

rtov

er A

ddlin

gton

Cre

ek

Prop

osed

C

ut a

nd C

over

St

ruct

ure

Prop

osed

tunn

el(4

50m

)

Prop

osed

Brid

geNei

ll R

oad

brid

ge o

ver r

ail

Prop

osed

Cut

an

d C

over

St

ruct

ure

Prop

osed

Tu

nnel

(600

m)

Brid

ge S

truc

ture

over

Hig

hlan

ds R

oad

Prop

osed

Cut

an

d C

over

St

ruct

ure

Prop

osed

Moo

lool

ah

Roa

d gr

ade

sepa

ratio

n op

tion

Prop

osed

Moo

lool

ahSt

atio

n

Rai

l brid

geov

er E

udlo

Scho

ol R

oad

Brid

ge o

ver

Eudl

o C

reek

Brid

ge o

ver

Moo

lool

ahR

iver

Prop

osed

Nei

llR

oad

unde

rpas

s

MEL

LUM CREEK

EUD

LO C

REEK

MO

O

LOOLAH RI

VER

ADDL

INGTO

N C

RE

EK

SOUT

H M

OO

LOO

LAH

RIV

ER

LITT

LE

RO

CK

Y C

RE

EK

Whi

lst ev

ery c

are h

as b

een

taken

to en

sure

the a

ccur

acy o

f thi

s data

, the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rt an

d M

ain R

oads

mak

es n

o re

pres

entat

ions

or w

arra

nties

abou

t its

accu

racy

, reli

abili

ty, c

ompl

etene

ss o

r sui

tabili

ty fo

r any

par

ticul

ar p

urpo

se an

d di

sclai

ms a

ll re

spon

sibili

ty an

d all

liab

ility

(inclu

ding

with

out

limita

tion,

liab

ility

in n

eglig

ence

) and

costs

whi

ch m

ight

be i

ncur

red

as a

resu

lt of

the p

lan b

eing

inac

cura

te or

inco

mpl

ete in

any w

ay an

d fo

r any

reas

on.


Figu

re 1

.2b:

Pro

ject

Are

a, S

tudy

Foc

us A

rea

and

Pref

erre

d Ro

ute

MC

GIL

CH

RIS

T

PASKINS ROAD

COES CREEK ROAD

WIN

DS

OR

RO

AD

MC

KEE

S R

OA

D

PRIN

GL

E R

CARTER R

OAD

OLD PALMWOODS ROAD

WO

OM

BYE

PALM

WOODS R

OAD

TAINTONS ROAD

AD

PINE GROVE R

OAD

EN

RO

AD

MU

LLE

RS

RO

AD


REDMONDS RO

AD

ATKI

NS

ON

S

LANDERSHUTE ROAD

HOSPITAL R

OAD


CORLIS AVEEUDLO ROADW

OO

MB

YE

NA

MB

OU

R

PALM

WO

OD

S

PAYN

TER

CR

EEK

PETRIE CRE

EK

EUDLO

CR

EEK

Figu

re N

o

Fig.

1.2

b S

cale

at A

3

Dra

win

g Ti

tle

Job

Titl

e

00.

250.

50.

751

Kilo

met

res

Dat

a so

urce

d fro

m th

e D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

and

Mai

n R

oads

, and

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f En

viro

nmen

t and

Res

ourc

e M

anag

emen

t.

1:30

,000

Lan

dsbo

roug

h to

Nam

bour

R

ail P

roje

ct -

EIS

Proj

ect A

rea,

Stu

dy F

ocus

Are

a an

dPr

efer

red

Rou

te

°

DALES ROA

TUNNEL RIDGE ROAD

EUDLO ROAD

GAT

TER

A R

OA

D

OLD

GYM

P

KOW

AL

NO

BE

LS

ROAD

BEEC

H R

OADM

OO

LOO

LAH

CO

NN

EC

TI

ON

R

OA

D

VALLEY VIEW RISE

BR

AY R

OA

D

CORLIS AVE

EUDLO RO

EUD

LO

MO

OLO

OLA

H

LAN

DSB

OR

OU

GH

MEL

LUM CREEK

EUDLO

CR

EE

K

MO

O

LOOLAH R

IVER

ADD

LIN

GTO

N C

RE

EK

SOUTH

MOOLO

OLAH

RIV

ER

LITT

LE

RO

CK

Y C

RE

EK

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Bruce Highway

Nor

ther

nEx

tent

(rig

htw

indo

w)

Sout

hern

Exte

nt(le

ftw

indo

w)EU

DLO

BLI

BLI

TAN

AW

HA

WO

OM

BYE

NA

MB

OU

R

PALM

VIEW

MO

OLO

OLA

H

PALM

WO

OD

S

LAN

DSB

OR

OU

GH

Pre

ferr

ed R

oute

Cen

trelin

e

Exi

stin

g R

ail L

ine

Stre

et

Cre

ek

QLD

Env

ironm

enta

l Est

ate

Pro

ject

Are

a

Stu

dy F

ocus

Are

a

Whi

lst ev

ery c

are h

as b

een

taken

to en

sure

the a

ccur

acy o

f thi

s data

, the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rt an

d M

ain R

oads

mak

es n

o re

pres

entat

ions

or w

arra

nties

abou

t its

accu

racy

, reli

abili

ty, c

ompl

etene

ss o

r sui

tabili

ty fo

r any

par

ticul

ar p

urpo

se an

d di

sclai

ms a

ll re

spon

sibili

ty an

d all

liab

ility

(inclu

ding

with

out

limita

tion,

liab

ility

in n

eglig

ence

) and

costs

whi

ch m

ight

be i

ncur

red

as a

resu

lt of

the p

lan b

eing

inac

cura

te or

inco

mpl

ete in

any w

ay an

d fo

r any

reas

on.


Figure 1.2c: Indicative project timeline

* Subject to outcomes of community consultation and technical issues encountered by the study

Subject to government priorities and funding availability

*

†

The North Coast Line (NCL) connects Brisbane and Cairns, stretching for a distance of approximately 1,661 km. The section of the NCL between Landsborough and Nambour fulfils a State and regional role by:

supporting and enhancing the regional and State economies ßthrough efficient freight movement

supporting and enhancing the transport needs of the region ßand State

providing a reliable alternative for longer distance ßintrastate travel.

The Landsborough to Nambour section of the NCL also provides a strategically important function in offering choice and travel options for residents along the railway and the wider Sunshine Coast area. It currently offers a combination of park and ride facilities at Nambour, Woombye and Mooloolah, and interchange options with bus services to Nambour and Landsborough. Bus services to Landsborough provide connectivity to Caloundra as well as Maroochydore via the University of the Sunshine Coast, while bus services from Cooroy, Eumundi and Noosa connect with the trains at Nambour.

This corridor forms part of the wider SEQ rail network which offers options of travel to many locations in SEQ including Brisbane, the Gold Coast and Ipswich.

The section of the NCL between Landsborough and Nambour faces operational pressures due to:

the various types of rail traffic it carries, including CityTrain, ßTravelTrain, TiltTrain and freight services

the wide variation in operating characteristics of the rolling ßstock involved

the capacity constraints of the existing single track line ß

the substandard horizontal and vertical alignment of the ßexisting line.

The track capacity and horizontal and vertical alignment issues significantly impact upon achievable operating speeds between Landsborough and Nambour, with some services travelling at less than 50km/hr for many sections of the track.

The current configuration of passing loops and single platforms at stations also results in delay to the running time of some passenger services, resulting from the need to wait in passing loops for express services or services passing in the opposite direction, and then to turn back to access platforms.


There are 12 weekday rail services travelling south from Nambour (13 on Fridays - an additional service runs at 8.15 pm), supplemented by 12 Railbus services. Of the supplementary RailBus services, five of these run express from Nambour to Landsborough.

Between 6.00 am and 9.00 am, there are four CityTrain Services, with an average service frequency of 35 minutes. When considering the supplementary RailBus services (of which one is an express Nambour to Landsborough service), there are seven southbound services, at an average frequency of 29 minutes between 6.00 am and 9.00 am.

Currently, other parts of the suburban rail network in SEQ experience on average half-hourly off peak services, and more frequent services during the peak. For comparative purposes, the southbound Shorncliffe CityTrain average service frequency between 6.00 am and 9.00 am is 20 minutes, with eight services travelling in this period.

The operational pressures and corridor deficiencies discussed in Section 1.3.1 limit the capacity of the corridor and thus impact on achievable service frequencies.

The project will deliver a double track railway, which will allow for the provision of greater passenger service frequency for this section of the NCL. It is anticipated that this will also remove the need to run supplementary RailBus services between Landsborough and Nambour.

According to current timetables, travel times between Landsborough and Nambour for CityTrain services range from 24 to 45 minutes. This variation in travel time can be attributed to some services waiting in passing loops for express services or services travelling in the opposite direction to pass. Additionally, services travelling north in the morning peak have been observed to enter the Mooloolah passing loop to allow another service to pass, then turn back to the south, to re-enter the main line and access the platform (located on the east) at Mooloolah station.

According to current timetables, travel times between Landsborough and Nambour for TravelTrains and TiltTrains are approximately 25-30 minutes.

Operational modelling carried out by Systemwide for this project shows for travel between Landsborough and Nambour on the existing NCL:

CityTrain services (all stops) should take around ß26-27 minutes

1 Based on a review of timetable information as of October 2008, and checked against April 2009 timetable information.

TravelTrain services (stopping at Nambour station) should ßtake around 26 minutes

electric TiltTrain services (stopping at Landsborough and ßNambour stations) should take around 19 minutes

intermodal freight services (no stops) should take around ß27 minutes

bulk freight (livestock, grain) should take between 29 and 32 ßminutes (no stops), depending on the direction of travel.

Assumptions and outcomes of the operational modelling are discussed in Chapter 7, Transport.

By comparison, travel times by car between Landsborough and Nambour are:

via Steve Irwin Way, the Bruce Highway, and Nambour ßConnection Road: approximately 30 km, at 30 minutes

This is the less direct route, but quicker than the alternative road route due to the higher speeds travelled.

via the railway townships between Landsborough and ßNambour: approximately 27 km, but at 37 minutes travel time.

This is the more direct route, but slower than the first route, due to road geometry constraints.

The project will deliver a double track railway and at least two platforms at each station between Landsborough and Nambour, thus removing the need for passenger and freight services to wait in passing loops, or double back to access platforms.

According to the operational modelling undertaken for the project, the improved alignment and double track railway is anticipated to deliver the following travel time savings between Landsborough and Nambour:

CityTrain services: around 9 minutes, or 36% travel time saving ß

TravelTrain services: between 9 minutes and 11 minutes, or ß34-41% travel time, depending on direction of travel

electric TiltTrain services: around 7 minutes, or 36% travel ßtime saving

intermodal freight services (containerised freight): around 10 ßminutes, or 37% travel time saving

bulk freight services (livestock, grain): between 4 and 7 ßminutes travel time saving, or 1 and 23% travel time saving, depending on direction of travel.

Current timetables for services between Caboolture and Nambour show travel times are on average one hour for CityTrain Services.

According to the Caboolture to Landsborough Rail Corridor Study, the upgrade of the NCL between Caboolture and Landsborough is anticipated to deliver travel time savings of up to eight minutes for CityTrain services. The operational modelling undertaken for the Landsborough to Nambour Rail


Project, indicates travel time savings for CityTrain services in of around nine minutes. Therefore, the combined travel time savings resultant from both upgrade projects equate to approximately 17 minutes from a one hour trip, around 30% travel time saving on a Caboolture to Nambour trip.

For comparative purposes, the travel time between Brisbane (Central Station) and Nambour Station are as follows:

express service, Central to Caboolture (stopping only at ßFortitude Valley, Bowen Hills, Northgate and Petrie), and all stops to Nambour : 1 hour 50 minutes, according to the current CityTrain timetable

all stops service, Central to Nambour: 2 hours 12 minutes ß(including 13 minute wait at Caboolture station), according to the current CityTrain timetable

drive, Turbot Street (chosen to represent Central Station) to ßMill Street, Nambour: 1 hour 44 minutes, according to the RACQ Trip Planner website. This trip estimation does not account for traffic congestion, travel at peak time or parking.

With the anticipated travel time savings resulting from upgrades to the Caboolture to Nambour section of the corridor, a CityTrain trip from Central to Nambour could be achieved in as little as 1 hour 33 minutes, based on current timetables. This estimation does not take into account future upgrade requirements south of Caboolture. This comparison shows that rail will become a competitive alternative to road based travel, in particular when traffic congestion is taken into account.

Several policies and plans relating to transport provision have been identified as relevant to this project. These are discussed below. Other legislation, policies, and plans relating to other aspects addressed in this EIS are discussed in the relevant chapters.

The strategy document sets out the broad strategic and policy framework under which it is intended that governments will cooperatively make decisions and take actions to pursue Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) in Australia. It is used by governments to guide policy and decision making and is critical in setting the scene for the required broad change in direction and approach that governments will need to take in order to ensure that future development is ecologically sustainable.

With respect to urban and transport planning, the objectives of the strategy seek to encourage the future development of urban transport systems which provide opportunities to limit the use of fossil fuels and to promote urban forms which minimise transport requirements and improve the efficiency of land supply and infrastructure provision. Since its introduction, the strategy has gradually been integrated into local, State and national policy.

South east Queensland (SEQ) is recognised as one of Australia’s fastest growing regions. The South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005 – 2026 (SEQ Regional Plan) provides a framework for managing rapid growth, associated change, land use and development through a series of strategic directions and regional policies over the next 20 years. The development of an integrated transport system throughout SEQ is identified as a ‘desired regional outcome’ in the plan, with rail playing a key role in achieving this outcome.

In the context of the project area, the SEQ Regional Plan sets out to:

support regional landscape and rural production values ß

enhance the identities of regional communities ß

build more compact urban areas ß

integrate land use and transport. ß

The SEQ Regional Plan identifies the section of the NCL between Landsborough and Nambour as ‘rail investigation’ (Table 15, page 116).

The Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009–2031, which refines and modifies the strategic directions, principles and policies of the SEQ Regional Plan 2005 to respond to the emerging issues, is expected to be finalised in July 2009. The draft plan includes the Caboolture to Nambour rail improvement projects in the network plan 2009-31 and the NCL is mapped as a priority freight route.

The South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program (2008 -2026) (SEQIPP) sets out a framework for the provision of infrastructure over the next 20 years in SEQ. It establishes timeframes and funding patterns, with a focus on the provision of regional level infrastructure. The SEQIPP also details the mechanisms by which the objectives of the SEQ Regional Plan will be met over the next 20 years.

In particular, SEQIPP notes the following objectives relevant to the project:

increasing the capacity of the NCL and upgrading ßconnections between the rail line and coastal activity centres

investigating the long-term transport requirements in the ßsubregion and preserving transport corridors to cater for future growth.

SEQIPP also provides an indication of the funding level required to achieve these objectives, pending the completion of this current study and future stages of project development.


The Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland 1997 (IRTP) sets out a 25 year vision for the transport system and is ‘a blue print for the transport system which meets the region’s looming transport challenges’. A key aim of the IRTP is to moderate unrestrained traffic growth. To achieve this, it establishes targets for increased use of public transport, ride sharing, walking and cycling. The IRTP is an umbrella document, identifying a number of public transport initiatives that are now incorporated into the SEQ Regional Plan and SEQIPP, and other more recently prepared planning and policy documents.

The Department of Transport and Main Roads is currently reviewing the IRTP. The Department is also preparing a new regional transport plan for South East Queensland titled Connecting SEQ 2031: An Integrated Regional Transport Plan for South East Queensland (Connecting SEQ 2031). Connecting SEQ 2031 will provide a 22-year regional transport plan that serves the long term needs of the people living, working, recreating and conducting business in the region.

As well as the need to manage the sustained growth of the Region, some significant new challenges have emerged for the transport system since the release of the original IRTP in 1997. These include:

the need to reduce emissions to respond to climate change ß

dwindling supply and the increasing price of oil ß

increasing congestion, impacting on the region’s quality of ßlife and economic growth

increasing costs to provide transport infrastructure and services. ß

The final Connecting SEQ 2031 plan will deliver a strategy to address the critical issue of transport for the region’s ongoing success and outline response of the Department of Transport and Main Roads to the draft South East Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 framework for growth within the region.

It is expected the Connecting SEQ 2031 draft plan will be exhibited for public consultation in late 2009 and residents of SEQ will have an opportunity to provide their ideas and comments on the plan.

The TransLink Network Plan for South East Queensland 2007 (TNP) guides how public transport will be improved across SEQ. It identifies public transport service and infrastructure improvements over the next 10 years (the 10 year program) and details a four year action plan for specific infrastructure investments.

Strategic priorities of the plan include improving speed, frequency and reliability of public transport, and delivering public transport infrastructure that will attract and cater for growth in the South East Queensland region.

Particular priorities for rail highlighted in the TNP include:

increase the number of services, particularly in peak periods ß

improve stations, parking facilities and bus–rail interchanges ß

increase the capacity of rail track to meet demand ß

investigate and construct extensions to the rail network. ß

The TNP notes:

Improvements to the quality of public transport services will not only increase their capacity to cater for demand, but also increase the attractiveness of services where capacity already exists to cater for growth.

Planning for the upgrade of the NCL between Landsborough and Nambour is highlighted as an important initiative under the 10 year program, along with continued upgrading of the NCL between Caboolture and Landsborough.

Table 1.3.4 summarises the relevant strategic priorities identified in the Translink Network Plan.

Table 1.3.4: TransLink Network Plan Strategic Priorities

Category Strategic Priority

Relevance to project

Making services connect

Integration of the network

Coordination of timetables

Provision of more interconnecting bus services

Greater coordination of services from key transfer locations including Landsborough, Nambour and coastal centres.

Making services fast, frequent and reliable

Deliver fast and frequent services

Make services run on time

Invest in the rail network

The project would improve speed and capacity (and therefore potential to increase service frequency)

A two track railway would help to reduce the potential for delays and longer running times for services.

The project would represent a significant investment in the rail network.

Filling the gaps

Meet minimum standards for service frequency and operating hours

Extend the network into developing areas

Deliver innovative service options

Ensure services are well patronised

The project would assist in delivering minimum standards for service provision

Although areas around existing stations are not ‘developing areas’, the potential service improvements that would result from the project may attract more public transport users from the townships along the corridor

The project would attract additional patronage due to improved travel times and service frequencies- i.e. become an attractive alternative to car transport.


Category Strategic Priority

Relevance to project

Making it easy, comfortable and safe,

Make it easy to use and understand

Make it easy to access

Enhance safety and security

The project would include new and upgraded stations to improve station accessibility (and Disability Discrimination Act compliance)

The project will improve station accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists, private vehicles and other public transport modes

The project provides the opportunity to improve station safety.

The aim of the Rail Network Strategy for Queensland (RNSQ) is to identify specific strategies relating to policy and planning for the future of Queensland’s rail infrastructure and rail corridors. It covers the period 2001 – 2011. The strategy is concerned with the land and fixed rail infrastructure forming the rail network.

The stated objectives of the RNSQ are as follows:

enhance the role of the rail network in implementing the ßGovernment’s objectives and priorities

develop a reference framework for the investments made by ßthe State in its rail network

encourage innovative private sector investment in the ßrailway network in Queensland

obtain the maximum benefit from National Competition ßPolicy (NCP) for the State’s rail network

gain acceptance of, and encourage joint Commonwealth- ßState partnerships in developing Queensland’s nationally significant rail corridors

develop strategic, rail-based linkages between individual ßregional transport plans

control and manage rail corridor land effectively ß

promote the concurrent use of rail corridors for both rail and ßnon-rail purposes.

Three fundamental principles underlie and support each of the objectives:

safe ß

The rail network in Queensland must be safe for operators, users and the public. Legislation together with appropriate accountability mechanisms must require and enforce safe practices on and near the State’s rail network.

ecologically sustainable ß

The rail network will support and promote initiatives introduced by the State to provide a transport system that provides net benefits to the environment.

financially responsible ß

Rail investment decisions must be informed, prudent and responsible. Decision-makers must base their investment decisions on a detailed analysis of costs and benefits of all practicable infrastructure and non-infrastructure options.

The overarching objective has been to identify a corridor for the project, which is technically feasible, is environmentally sustainable and that is economically viable. This work is documented in this EIS, and the supporting Route Identification Report (Queensland Transport, now Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2008).

Table 1.3.6 summarises the benefits the project is anticipated to generate. These are discussed in further detail throughout this EIS.

Table 1.3.6: Anticipated project benefits

Type of benefit Nature of benefit

Local, regional, State

Increase passenger service capacity

Local, regional, Provide a more attractive rail service, for both inter and intra regional trips, that compares favourably with private vehicle transport for comparable distance trips

Regional, State, national

Increased freight service capacity on this section of the NCL

Environmental Reduced Greenhouse gas emissions from comparable distance road based tripsReduced Greenhouse gas emissions from comparable length trips on the existing railway between Landsborough and Nambour

Local, regional Reuse of decommissioned sections of the existing railway corridor for recreational trails and tourist links

Local, regional Construction of rail and road bridges to modern standards, removing height constraints and addressing some substandard road conditions, such as flooding

Local Opportunities for grade separation of open level crossings, addressing risk and traffic movement issues

Local Opportunities for regeneration and coordinated land use and transport planning in the railway towns

Social Provision of stations that comply with Disability Discrimination Act requirements

Environmental Improved design of rail infrastructure, allowing for fauna movement, environmental management measures (spill containment etc.)


Type of benefit Nature of benefit

Operational Dual track allowing bi-directional movements and eliminating the need for passing loops

Operational Reduced timetabling complexity

Operational Reduced potential for service delays and cancellations

Operational Removes the need to supplement rail services with Railbus services

Operational Reduce maintenance and operational complexities, by improving the alignment and thus reducing wear and tear and operating and maintenance costs

Operational Reduces maintenance and operational delays by providing a second track, which can be kept open during maintenance on the other track

Operational Reduced energy consumption per service

Currently there are numerous infrastructure projects (including rail and other services) in varying stages of delivery across SEQ. The following projects are underway across the Sunshine Coast, and have been deemed relevant due to their proximity to the project area, or because they contribute to the regional public transport network.

The South East Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026, South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program 2008-2026 and TransLink Network Plan 2007 all identify the strategic objective of improving public transport services across the wider Sunshine Coast Region. Projects and longer term initiatives include the improvement of rail and bus service routes and frequencies, and investigation of future corridors for public transport provision.

These public transport projects are discussed in Table 1.4.1 and shown on Figure 1.4a.

Table 1.4.1: Public transport projects in the Sunshine Coast region

Project/Study Discussion

Caboolture to Landsborough Rail Upgrade

The fist stage of the Caboolture to Landsborough Rail Upgrade involves realignment and duplication of 14km of rail line between Caboolture and Beerburrum, and upgrades to the Elimbah and Beerburrum rail stations. The second stage involves realignment and duplication of the remaining 17km of existing railway line between Beerburrum and Landsborough, with upgrades to the Glasshouse Mountains and Beerwah rail stations. This project lies directly to the south of the Landsborough to Nambour project area, and construction of this section needs to be completed prior to the commencement of construction of the Landsborough to Nambour project. Operational analysis undertaken for the Landsborough to Nambour section of the NCL has taken into account the operational, travel time and capacity improvements delivered from Caboolture through to Nambour.

CAMCOS The Caboolture to Maroochydore Corridor Study (CAMCOS) identified a corridor for the implementation of a passenger rail service branching off the NCL at Beerwah and extending through to Caloundra and Maroochydore. This study was completed in 2001. Two realignments to the corridor are currently being investigated at Caloundra South and Maroochydore. The operational analysis undertaken for the Landsborough to Nambour section of the rail corridor has taken into account services running north from Caboolture, onto Landsborough and also prospective services from Beerwah to Caloundra and Maroochydore. On completion of CAMCOS and the Landsborough to Nambour Rail project, it would be possible to travel by rail to the coastal strip (Caloundra to Maroochydore) via Beerwah.

CoastConnect The Queensland Government, as part of the South East Queensland Infrastructure Plan and Program 2008 - 2026, has committed to deliver CoastConnect: Caloundra to Maroochydore Quality Bus Corridor, a road-based solution to give buses priority on main roads between Caloundra and Maroochydore.

1 http://www.trackstar.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81&Itemid=98

Table 1.3.6 continued


Figure 1.4a: Public Transport Projects on the Sunshine Coast

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

SunshineCoast Airport

EUDLO

BLI BLI

BEERWAH

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

YANDINA

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MUDJIMBA

CALOUNDRA

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

MOOLOOLABA

LANDSBOROUGH

MAROOCHYDORE

POINT ARKWRIGHT

Figure NoScale at A4

Drawing Title

Job Title

0 2 4 6 8

Kilometre

Preferred Route Centreline

Existing Rail Line

SEQ Regional Plan Land Use

Landscape & Rural Area

Rural Living Area

Urban Footprint

CAMCOS Alignment

Caboolture Landsborough RailUpgrade Project Alignment

CoastConnect Alignment

Data sourced from the Department of Transport and Main Roads, and the Department of Environment and Resource Management.

1:200,000

Landsborough to Nambour Rail Project - EIS

Public Transport Projectson the Sunshine Coast

°

Fig. 1.4a

Whilst every care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this data, the Department of Transport and Main Roads makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibility and all liability (including without limitation, liability in negligence) and costs which might be incurred as a result of the plan being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason.


During the route identification and EIS process, several other infrastructure projects were identified in the project area. These are discussed in Table 1.4.2 and shown on Figure 1.4b.

Table 1.4.2: Other infrastructure projects in the project area

Project/Study Discussion

Proposed Gatton to Gympie gas pipeline

A corridor has been identified for a future gas pipeline between Gatton and Gympie. The corridor runs from the south west to north east into Mooloolah, crossing the project area to continue on the eastern side of Eudlo, Palmwoods, Woombye and Nambour. Timing for the design and construction of this pipeline could not be confirmed at the time of writing.

Northern Pipeline Interconnector (NPI)

The proposed NPI pipeline is a drought emergency pipeline, with completion of construction of Phase 1 (between Morayfield and Mooloolah) scheduled for December 2008. The pipeline easement is on the eastern side of the project from Landsborough to Nambour. The EIS has recently been released for phase 2 of the NPI project, which runs from the end point of Phase 1 to the Noosa Water Treatment Plant. The Coordinator-General is currently assessing submissions to determine whether a supplemetary report to the EIS is required.

The study team has liaised with the NPI team on several occasions, due to the location of the pipeline in relation to the project. The Environmental Impact Statement prepared for Phase 1 of the NPI project was also reviewed for spatially relevant information. The outcomes of this review can be found in Chapter 20, Cumulative impacts. Co-location options were investigated and were not considered feasible due to the different construction timeframes for the projects.

Suncoast- Palmwoods to West Maroochydore- Pacific Paradise corridor

The Suncoast project involves the duplication of the 132kV transmission lines primarily in the existing easement from the existing Powerlink Palmwoods substation to the existing ENERGEX West Maroochydore substation. The existing easement traverses the project, passing over both the existing rail and the preferred route for the proposed rail corridor approximately 1km to the north of the town of Eudlo, at chainage 92300 on Drawing C015. ENERGEX has been consulted as to the design, and constraints associated with the traversing of this corridor.

An Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared for the Suncoast project. This has been reviewed for spatially relevant information. The outcomes of this review can be found in Chapter 20, Cumulative impacts.


Figure 1.4b: Other Infrastructure Projects in the Project Area

TUNNEL RIDG

E ROAD

KIN

G R

OAD

MYLA ROAD

GATTERA ROAD

MOOLOOLAH ROAD

CALDERWO OD

ROAD

D

South Moolo

olah

River

Addlington Creek

Mellum Creek

MOOLOOLAH

LANDSBOROUGH


Drawing Title

Job Title

0 200 400 600 800

Meters


Existing Rail Line

Cadastre

Creek

Proposed Gas Pipeline

NPI Alignment Stage 1(Nov. 2007)

Energex Transmission Line

Data sourced from the Department of Transportand Main Roads, and the Department ofEnvironment and Resource Management

1:20,000


Other Infrastructure Projectsin the Project Area

°

Sheet 1 of 4Fig. 1.4b -

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Br uce Highway

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH




EUD

LO R

OAD

EUDLO SCHOOL ROAD

P ERRI

NS ROAD

NOBEL S ROAD

LOGWOODS ROAD

BUSH

LARK

RO

AD

ANZAC ROAD

ANDERSEN ROAD

CULGOA ROAD

CORLIS AVE

Moo

loolah River

Eudlo

Creek

EUDLO


Drawing Title

Job Title

0 200 400 600 800

Meters


Existing Rail Line

Cadastre

Creek





1:20,000



°


!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Br uce Highway

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH




MCKEES ROAD

EUDLO

R

OAD

CITRUS ROAD

EU

WOOMBYE PALMWOODS ROAD

NICKLI

N R

OAD

TAINTONS ROAD

RIFLE RANGE ROAD

LEEONS ROAD

BAMBOO ROAD

CULGOA ROAD

TECO

MA

ROAD

OLD CHEVALLUM

ROAD

Paynter Creek

PALMWOODS


Drawing Title

Job Title

0 200 400 600 800

Meters


Existing Rail Line

Cadastre

Creek





1:20,000



°


!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Br uce Highway

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH




WINDSOR ROAD

CARTER ROAD

COBBS ROAD

PARK ROAD

D

REIDS ROAD

MU LLER S ROAD

NAMBOUR CONNECTION RO

AD

BLAX

LAN

D R

OAD

REILLY ROAD

ERBACHE R ROAD

REDMONDS ROAD

PARSO

NS

KNO

B R

OAD

HO

SPITAL ROAD

KELK

S HI

LL ROAD

MCKENZIE ROAD

LAIDL

AW ROAD

ERBACHER ROAD

Paynte r Creek

Petrie

Creek

Coes Creek

Whalleys C

reek

Petri e Creek

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR


Drawing Title

Job Title

0 200 400 600 800

Meters


Existing Rail Line

Cadastre

Creek





1:20,000



°


!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Br uce Highway

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH



The project will have direct and flow on benefits for the project area both in terms of spending on the project and employment, injection to the local economy during the construction phase, assisting businesses through improved rail access and supporting tourist travel.

The total cost of the project has been estimated to be approximately $1.7 bn. An economic analysis was undertaken and is discussed in Chapter 8, Economic environment. During the construction period, there will be approximately 2,786 total jobs supported in the Queensland economy on average and the total impact (output) of the project on State economy will be approximately $4.57 bn. In addition, social and environmental impacts of the project are considered in this EIS.

While the number of jobs related to construction will be relatively fixed, consideration has been given to local employment opportunities and the potential for training associated with the project. In keeping with the State Government Building and Construction Contracts Structured Training Policy (10% Policy), a Skills Development Plan must be prepared and implemented with monitoring by the Department of Education and Training. It is recommended that the Nambour TAFE and University of the Sunshine Coast develop courses aimed at attracting trainees and apprentices.

In addition to these quantifiable economic impacts associated with the spending arising from the project, there are other economic impacts which have not been costed. These are typically addressed in the cost benefit analysis, which is to be undertaken as a separate exercise for this project. These include:

savings in time and distance travelled ß

Savings in time and distance travelled will be achieved through the proposed corridor improvement. However, regional public transport connections will create much greater potential for residents to benefit due to the increased choice of travel destinations. These wider connections are currently being planned for as shown in Table 1.4.1. Savings will also be boosted by efficient provision of services (scheduling and frequency). It is understood that the vast majority of freight on the subject rail line is travelling through the area rather than freight originating or being sent to the project area. It is understood that savings in freight transport will accrue mainly with freight travelling through the project area at higher speeds and less time.

savings in private vehicle operating cost ß

Savings in private vehicle operating costs will be boosted through the enhanced appeal of the north coast rail passenger service and connections with the wider public transport links to the coastal strip.

reduced growth in road accidents ß

Reduction in the growth of road accidents will be boosted through improved utilisation of public transport along the corridor and wider public transport links to the coastal strip. Benefits will also be boosted by efficient provision of services (scheduling and frequency).

industry concentration effects ß

The potential benefit of employment and industry concentration effects could most likely be maximised through sensitive and innovative redevelopment of existing town centres, where offices and high value businesses could be located. Good links to industrial areas such as those at Forest Glen, Yandina, Beerwah and Nambour will boost public transport use to these work places and make them attractive options for high value businesses.

social connectivity benefits ß

Social connectivity could be enhanced through the provision of affordable housing in close proximity to the rail stations. Such development would need to be sensitive to the existing character of the townships.

more comfortable public transport travel ß

The new rail corridor will result in higher speeds, smoother operation and less stops at passing loops. This will result in a more comfortable public transport experience, which would be expected to increase patronage.

social inclusion ß

Social inclusion could be improved through a focus on local benefits, including employment, training, and local sourcing of inputs. There should be a focus on capacity building and benefits that will sustain the area beyond the construction phase.

induced public transport travel ß

Induced public transport travel will be improved through regional public transport connections. Frequency and scheduling of services are important, while access to the stations and an attractive station environment will also influence travel choices and therefore result in economic savings of higher rates of public transport use.

accommodation ß

It is expected that rail project workers will come from the local area where possible. However, the sourcing of workers will be dependant on the economy and labour market conditions at the time of construction. A significant workforce from outside of the area is likely to require short to medium term accommodation.


The current rail alignment between Landsborough and Nambour is winding and undulating. This significantly impacts upon achievable operating speeds for this section of the track, with some services limited to speeds of 50 km/hr in some sections.

This section of the NCL is single track, with passing loops at stations. Mooloolah, Eudlo, Palmwoods and Woombye all have a single platform. The current configuration of passing loops and single platforms at stations results in delay to the running time of some passenger services, due to the need to wait in passing loops for express services or services passing in the opposite direction, and then turn back to access platforms.

There are numerous at grade crossing points, including open level crossings, an occupational crossing and pedestrian crossing along the existing corridor, which can cause delays, safety and road traffic concerns.

The do-nothing option would contradict the strategic priority of delivering fast, frequent and reliable services in the TransLink Network Plan. It would eventually result in the deterioration of the service provided to rail users.

The current maximum freight train length is restricted to the length of the passing loops. The shortest passing loop for this section between Landsborough and Nambour is approximately 680 metres at Palmwoods. The duplication of the NCL from Caboolture to Nambour could assist in the future operation of longer trains. However, this would be a very long-term scenario and would be subject to upgrades of numerous other passing loops on the NCL. The do-nothing option would considerably reduce the flexibility for future service improvements.

A winding, undulating horizontal and vertical alignment is generally considered to have higher maintenance and operational costs compared with a consistent speed alignment. This can be attributed to the increased need for trains to accelerate and decelerate to negotiate the track curvature or climb areas of steep vertical alignment. Laird and Michell (2002)2 discuss the cost implications of not running services at consistent speeds, impacting on operational efficiencies and maintenance costs. Additionally, there are costs associated with delays whilst trains wait in passing loops to allow express services or services travelling in the opposite direction to pass.

2 Smooth Running – A Route To Cost Reduction Michell and Laird, Conference on Railway Engineering 2002 pages 227-237

Finally, the do-nothing option would have an adverse impact on social inclusion in the region. It would limit the choice for travellers between transport modes, which would affect the mobility of people who do not own a car. In addition, the existing stations are generally not fully compliant with disabled access requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, lacking tactile markers or low ticket counters.

The deterioration of the public transport service provided on the line as a result of the do-nothing option would encourage the use of the private car and increase road traffic, with associated increased emissions from road traffic.

The do-nothing option is not compatible with the Government’s objectives stated in the SEQ Regional Plan, the SEQIPP, the TransLink Network Plan and the Rail Network Strategy. It would result in the degradation of the service to rail users and increased costs to run the service. It would indirectly encourage the use of the car, resulting in environmental harm. The do- nothing option is not considered desirable.

Given the deficiencies of the existing corridor, it was determined that upgrading the existing corridor would not meet all of the objectives for the project, particularly those relating to operating speeds and service efficiencies. While duplication would mean that services would no longer have to wait in passing loops for other services to pass, achievable speeds would still be likely to be below 60 km/hr in places due to the horizontal and vertical alignment of the corridor.

The existing corridor would also need to be widened to accommodate the two tracks, access and maintenance roads, platform and station works, and to preserve the potential for future tracks if required in the long-term. This would involve land requirements from many adjoining properties.

Upgrading the existing corridor would also require realignment or reprovision of roads, including bridges and would limit opportunities for identifying optimal road crossing points.

Upgrading the existing corridor with curve easings to improve achievable speeds was also considered. The land requirements for the curve easings and corridor widening requirements (to comply with the four track standards) would result in land requirements that are broadly comparable to those of an offline upgrade.

With or without curve easings, upgrading the existing corridor would not provide opportunities to improve the vertical geometry of the alignment (gradients) and could potentially worsen it. This has implications on achievable speeds and additional operating costs through the need to accelerate and decelerate up and down steeper sections of the track.


Both alternative options for upgrading the existing corridor also have the following issues:

constructability penalties ß

Construction of long sections of track adjacent and parallel to existing track has significant operational and cost implications. Track occupations or closures would be a long term construction implication, generating service impacts, potentially extending the construction period and necessitating more night work than construction of offline sections of corridor.

tunnelling complexities ß

The existing tunnel only has sufficient width for a single track and does not meet current design standards. A new two track tunnel would be required. However, the safe working distance for construction of a second tunnel is five tunnel widths from the existing tunnel.

The existing upgrade option would also have significant cost implications for operations and maintenance. A winding, undulating horizontal and vertical alignment is generally considered to have higher maintenance and operational costs compared with a consistent speed alignment. Duplication of the corridor, with or without curve easings, would therefore still incur greater operational and maintenance costs.

Upgrading the existing corridor with or without curve easing would go some way towards achieving the Government’s objectives stated in the SEQ Regional Plan, the SEQIPP, the TransLink Network Plan and the Rail Network Strategy. It would increase capacity, provide some travel time benefits through the removal of delays at passing loops, but would still have significant property impacts, slower travel times and generate additional maintenance and operational costs compared to the proposed new corridor. Generally, the options to upgrade of the existing corridor (with or without curve easings) are considered not to be an optimal outcome, as these options do not deliver the best return for the significant investment required and would still have significant property and environmental impacts.

The Route Identification Report (March 2008) identified the preferred route for the proposed rail corridor after reviewing a range of identified feasible alternatives for the location of the corridor.

Route options were developed and evaluated against technical design objectives, transport objectives, environmental, economic and land use constraints. Information provided by the community during the early stages of the project was also considered in the development and assessment of route options.

A study focus area was defined, and divided into five sections, to assist in the route evaluation process. These were:

Landsborough: section A ß

Mooloolah: section B ß

Eudlo: section C ß

Palmwoods to Woombye: section D ß

Nambour: section E. ß

The section were defined at points where it was considered possible to interchange between route options, and therefore allow the study team to assess each individual route section and identify a preference for each section. Figure 1.6a shows the different route options that have been considered.

Constraints and issues within each section were reviewed and documented, which provided the basis for the evaluation of route options within each section.

The relative performance of the route options were then compared on a section by section basis. That is, all route options within section A were compared against each other on the basis of environmental, social, transport, land use and planning, economic and engineering criteria to identify the best performing route for section A. This process was then repeated for sections B through E.

The best performing route sections from sections A through E were then combined to provide a continuous route from Landsborough to Nambour. Some refinement and adjustment was necessary at points where different route sections were joined to make up the preferred route for the proposed rail corridor. Table 1.6.3 summarises the routes selected. Further information about the route identification process can be found in the Route Identification Report (Queensland Transport, now the Department of Transport and Main Roads, March 2008), or in Appendix D, the Route Identification Report Executive Summary.


Table 1.6.3 – Route selection summary

Section Summary

Section A - Landsborough

Five route options were identified within section A, shown on Figure 1.6b. These routes all pass through Dularcha National Park, and require a new tunnel at the northern end of section A. All routes also cross Addlington Creek close to the existing rail corridor crossing, and affect the western edge of the Landsborough Recreational Reserve.

The preferred route in section A was selected as it was considered to have a lesser impact on Dularcha National Park and its ecological values than other routes considered in this section. It also has fewer direct property impacts than other routes in this section, as it takes a slightly more eastern alignment travelling north from Landsborough station. The design speed, although reduced to minimise the impacts, was considered acceptable given the surrounding significant environmental and topographical constraints.

Section B – Mooloolah

Five route options were identified in section B, shown on Figure 1.6c. These included three eastern, and two western alternatives. Eastern routes were discounted due to the following:

Impacts on town centre resulting from ßrelocating the station approximately 600 m to the east

Conflicts with the Northern Pipeline ßInterconnector corridor (B1 and B3) with the potential implication of relocation of this significant infrastructure in the future

Poor pedestrian access (particularly for ßschool students and elderly)

Property impacts and difficulties in providing ßaccess to adjoining properties.

The preferred route in section B – Mooloolah was selected as it maintains the proposed new station close to the existing station location and town centre, and was considered to present comparatively lesser environmental impacts than routes to the east. However, this route would impact on the town centre, requiring grade separation of Brays Road/Mooloolah Connection Road. Refinement of the Mooloolah River crossing has subsequently occurred, to minimise the impact of this river crossing.

Section Summary

Section C – Eudlo

Five route options were identified in section C, shown in Figure 1.6d, including three western and two eastern routes. An option submitted by a community group was also assessed for this section.

The preferred route through section C was selected, as it provides the opportunity to relocate the station close to the Eudlo town centre and avoids traversing large areas of flood-prone land, which would require costly and visually intrusive structures. It also avoids impacting on areas identified as important for federally listed species within the eastern portion of Eudlo Creek National Park.

Section D – Palmwoods to Woombye

Route options through Palmwoods were extremely constrained due to the urban nature and topography of the area. Four routes were identified in section D, shown in Figure 1.6e.

All routes considered in this section require numerous or complex crossings of Paynter Creek and tributaries. The preferred route in section D was selected on the basis of property impacts and design standards.

Section E – Nambour

Five routes were identified in section E, with all generally following the existing rail alignment into Nambour Station. These are shown in Figure 1.6f.

All routes in this section are considered to have complex constructability issues due to their proximity to the existing rail corridor or requirement for multiple crossings of Petrie Creek.

The preferred route through section E was selected as a result of property and environmental considerations.


Figu

re 1

.6a:

Rou

te o

ptio

ns a

sses

sed

prev

ious

ly (Ro

ute

Iden

tific

atio

n Re

port

200

8)

MC

GIL

CH

R

PASKINS ROAD

COES CREEK ROAD

WIN

DS

OR

RO

AD

MC

KEE

S R

OA

D

PRIN

GL

E

CARTER R

OAD

OLD PALMWOODS ROAD

WO

OM

BYE

PALM

WOODS R

OAD

TAINTONS ROAD

OAD

PINE GROVE R

OAD

RE

EN

RO

AD

MU

LLE

RS

RO

AD


REDMONDS RO

AD

ATK

INS

O

LANDERSHUTE ROAD

HOSPITAL R

OAD


CORLIS AVE

EUDLO ROADWO

OM

BYE

NA

MB

OU

R

PALM

WO

OD

S

Sect

ion

C

Sect

ion

D

Sect

ion

E

PAYNTE

R C

RE

EK

PETRIE CRE

EK

EUDLO

CR

EE

K

Figu

re N

o

Fig.

1.6

a S

cale

at A

3

Dra

win

g Ti

tle

Job

Titl

e

00.

250.

50.

751

Kilo

met

res

Exi

stin

g R

ail L

ine

Stre

et

Cre

ek

Rou

te O

ptio

ns:

Opt

ion

1

Opt

ion

2

Opt

ion

3

Opt

ion

4

Opt

ion

5

Opt

ion

C7

Dat

a so

urce

d fro

m th

e D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

and

Mai

n R

oads

, and

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f En

viro

nmen

t and

Res

ourc

e M

anag

emen

t.

1:30

,000

Lan

dsbo

roug

h to

Nam

bour

R

ail P

roje

ct -

EIS

Rou

te O

ptio

ns A

sses

sed

Prev

ious

ly(r

oute

iden

tific

atio

n re

port

, 200

8)°

DALE

TUNNEL RIDGE ROAD

EUDLO ROAD

D AD

GAT

TER

A R

OAD

OLD

GY

KOW

NO

BE

LS

ROAD

BEEC

H R

OADM

OO

LOO

LAH

CO

NN

EC

TI

ON

R

OA

D

VALLEY VIEW RISE

BR

AY R

OA

D

CORLIS AVE

EUDLO RO

EUD

LO

MO

OLO

OLA

H

LAN

DSB

OR

OU

GH

Sect

ion

A

Sect

ion

BSect

ion

C

MEL

LUM CREEK

EUD

LO C

RE

EK

MO

O

LOOLAH R

IVER

ADD

LIN

GTO

N C

REE

K

SOUTH M

OOLOOLA

H R

IVER

LITT

LE

RO

CKY

CR

EEK

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Bruce Highway

Nor

ther

nEx

tent

(rig

htw

indo

w)

Sout

hern

Exte

nt(le

ftw

indo

w)EU

DLO

BLI

BLI

TAN

AW

HA

WO

OM

BYE

NA

MB

OU

R

PALM

VIEW

MO

OLO

OLA

H

PALM

WO

OD

S

LAN

DSB

OR

OU

GH

Whi

lst ev

ery c

are h

as b

een

taken

to en

sure

the a

ccur

acy o

f thi

s data

, the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rt an

d M

ain R

oads

mak

es n

o re

pres

entat

ions

or w

arra

nties

abou

t its

accu

racy

, reli

abili

ty, c

ompl

etene

ss o

r sui

tabili

ty fo

r any

par

ticul

ar p

urpo

se an

d di

sclai

ms a

ll re

spon

sibili

ty an

d all

liab

ility

(inclu

ding

with

out

limita

tion,

liab

ility

in n

eglig

ence

) and

costs

whi

ch m

ight

be i

ncur

red

as a

resu

lt of

the p

lan b

eing

inac

cura

te or

inco

mpl

ete in

any w

ay an

d fo

r any

reas

on.


Figure 1.6b: Route Options - Segment A

Figure No

Fig. 1.6b Scale at A4

Drawing Title

Job Title



Route Options - Section A

TUNNEL R

IDG

E R

OAD

MYLA ROAD

GYMPIE STREET NORTH

CALOUNDRA STREET

MALENY STREET

BEECH ROAD

FORD ROAD

MILL STREET

CALDERWOO

D R

OAD

GLASS HOUSE MOUNTAINS ROAD

DULARCHA DRIVE

ROSE ROAD

GATTERA ROAD

OLD

LAN

DSB

OR

OU

GH

RO

AD

ADDLINGTON STREET

GA

NTR

Y RO

AD

UGH MALENY ROAD

ADDL I NGTON CREEK

MELLUM CREEK

Existing Rail Line

Cadastre

Creek

Route Options:

A1

A2

A3

A4

A5

1:15,000

°0 200 400 600

Meters

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!B

r uce Highw

ay

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH



Figure 1.6c: Route Options - Segment B

Figure No

Fig. 1.6c Scale at A4

Drawing Title

Job Title



Route Options - Section B

EUD

LO R

OAD

NE

ILL RO

AD

OLD GYMPIE ROAD

KIN

G R

OA

D

NOBEL S RO AD

BIRDSONG

DRIVE

MOOLOOLAH ROAD

BRAY ROA D

DORSON DRIVE

S MIT

H DR

IVE

SOUTH RIVER D

RIVESU

ZEN

COURT

C O NNECTION ROAD

EAGLE VIEW LANE

TUN

NEL

RID

GE

RO

AD

MADDOCK AVENUE

MC

GR

EGO

R C

OU

RT

MOOL OOLAH RIVER

SOUTH MOOLOOLAH RIVER

MOOLOOLAH

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3

Option 4

Option 5

Existing Rail Line

Creek

Major Roads

1:15,000

°0 200 400 600

Meters

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!B

r uce Highw

ay

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH

Existing Rail Line

Creek

Cadastre

Route Options:

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5



Figure 1.6d: Route Options - Segment C

Figure No

Fig. 1.6d Scale at A4

Drawing Title

Job Title



Route Options - Section C

PASK

INS

RO

AD

ILKLEY ROAD

TANIA AVENUE

OODS ROAD

RO

BIN

DLO SCHOO

L ROAD

ANDS ROAD

LEEONS ROAD

SLAUGHTER YA

BAMBOO ROAD

BANYA N ROAD

ANZAC ROAD

CULGOA ROAD

E ROAD

E TEC

OM

A R

OAD

DS SCHOOL ROAD

EUDLO C

REEK

EUDLO

Existing Rail Line

Creek

Cadastre

Route Options:

C1

C2

C3

C4

C5

C6

C7

1:15,000

°0 200 400 600

Meters

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!B

r uce Highw

ay

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH



Figure 1.6e: Route Options - Segment D

Figure No

Fig. 1.6e Scale at A4

Drawing Title

Job Title



Route Options - Section D

B

LACKALL STREET

WELLS STREET

OLD

PA

LMW

OO

DS

RO

AD

NIC

KLIN

RO

AD

TAINTONS ROADCHEVALLUM ROAD

REDMONDS ROAD

WOOMBYE PALMWOODS ROAD

NA

MB

OU

R C

ON

NECTION ROAD

REIDS ROAD

ABBOTS ROAD

MULLER S ROAD

OLD

CH

EVALLUM

RO

AD

PALMWOODS MONTVILLE ROAD

MCKEES ROAD

PAYNTER C

REEK

WOOMBYE

PALMWOODS

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5

Existing Rail Line

Creek

Major Roads

1:15,000

°0 200 400 600

Meters

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!B

r uce Highw

ay

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH

Existing Rail Line

Creek

Cadastre

Route Options:

D1

D2

D3

D4

D5



Figure 1.6f: Route Options - Segment E

Figure No

Fig. 1.6f Scale at A4

Drawing Title

Job Title



Route Options - Section E

ASPL

AN

D S

TRE

ET

COBBS ROAD

PARK ROAD

CARTER ROAD

COES C

RE

EK

RO

AD

REILLY ROAD

BL

ACKALL RANGE

ROAD

NA

MBO

UR CONNECTION ROAD

ERBACHE R ROAD

H

OSPITAL ROAD

PERWILLOWEN ROADWINDSOR ROAD

MCKENZI E ROAD

COUR

T RO

AD

LAIDL

AW ROAD

LAMIN

GTO

N TER

RACE

CHILT ERN COURT

BONNEY STREET

KELK

S HI

LL R

OAD

BLAX

LAN

D R

OAD

PE

TRIE

PA

RK

RO

AD

MAPLETON ROAD

LOWE STREET

ERBACHER ROAD

PETRIE C

REEK

CO

ES CREEK

WHALLEYS CREEK

NAMBOURExisting Rail Line

Creek

Major Roads

1:15,000

°

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!B

r uce Highw

ay

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH

0 200 400 600

Meters

Existing Rail Line

Creek

Cadastre

Route Options:

E1

E2

E3

E4

E5



In September 2008, Queensland Transport (now the Department of Transport and Main Roads) announced the refinement of the preferred route, through Mooloolah town, at the Mooloolah River crossing and at Eudlo. These refinements are shown on Figure 1.7a, and include:

approximately 2.7 km realigned through Mooloolah, ßreducing the footprint of the corridor, and avoiding the hairpin bend in the Mooloolah River (this outcome was in response to environmental concerns)

approximately 1km realigned at Eudlo, to allow the station ßto be located on a straight.

The width of the proposed rail corridor was also reduced through Mooloolah, Palmwoods and other areas where the railway is on structure and where no additional earthworks or access road requirements are needed.

At the time of this announcement, options for road network connection were also released for comment. These are shown in Figures 1.7b to 1.7e. Two grade separation options were identified for Mooloolah, which have since been refined in response to community feedback, as reflected in Figure 1.7f.

The proposed layout through Mooloolah allows for the reduction of the corridor’s width and an optimal track and station layout through Mooloolah, which minimises the land requirements for the project. The revised initial track layout is shown on Drawings C107 to C109. It provides a compact long term solution and allows the land requirements for the ultimate four track corridor to be identified, protected and later acquired, if and when the fourth track is required. By planning for an initial three track configuration through Mooloolah, the footprint of the initial and future station and railway land requirements can be minimised. This allows the project construction to occur, but does not require land from the properties on Karanne Drive, until the need for construction of the fourth track arises.

The initial three track design incorporates the two existing tracks through Mooloolah, with a new third track to the west of these. The new track and the existing eastern track will service the two platforms, creating a compact station design solution and minimising the overall corridor footprint through the town. The existing western track will become a through running track providing additional capacity for express or non-stop services when operational requirements require it. If and when the fourth track is required, the eastern side platform will become an island platform to service the additional fourth track on the easternmost side as shown in Drawing C007.

Retention of the existing level crossing at Bray Road/ Mooloolah Connection Road is not desirable in the longer term due to risk and traffic congestion considerations. The Queensland Government has a preference for the replacement of open level crossings where made possible by concurrent rail upgrade programs. However, the solution identified allows for implementation of the grade separation at a time when risk and traffic congestion considerations determine the need for closure of the open level crossing.

Land impacts associated with the refinement and road requirements are discussed in Chapter 3, Land use and infrastructure and Chapter 9, Social environment.

The approaches to the proposed tunnels at Rose Road, Mooloolah and The Pinch Lane, Eudlo, have been revised following geotechnical field investigations, ecological survey and community consultation. Tunnel extents are now longer, and cuttings have been reduced in depth and length. These design revisions are shown in Drawings C005, C010 and C011.

In December 2008, the preferred route was further refined between Palmwoods and Woombye, following further ecological investigations and community consultation. The amended design reduces the impact of the project on Paynter Creek, with the removal of two crossings of Paynter Creek. These design revisions are shown in Drawings C020, C021 and C022. These changes are further discussed in Chapter 21, Special management areas.

The construction of the double track railway from Landsborough to Nambour provides capacity to operate additional Citytrain passenger services to Nambour. The Landsborough to Nambour Rail Project EIS makes assumptions on a likely service frequency to run between Brisbane and Nambour for the purposes of assessing the various impacts. Should the assumed service frequency be introduced for the Sunshine Coast, additional train stabling will be required. However, the location and scale of such facilities need to be considered in the overall context of rail services to the region, including the requirements for CAMCOS services. Accordingly, the TransLink Transit Authority, as the responsible authority for the provision of public transport services, has identified the need to examine the requirement for stabling across the broader network, and is now conducting a wider study to determine the most appropriate stabling location from an operational, land use and environmental perspective. Therefore stabling is not assessed in this EIS.


Figure 1.7a: Realignments

Figure No

Fig. 1.7a - Sheet 1 of 2 Scale at A4

Drawing Title

Job Title

Data sourced from the Department of Transportand Main Roads, and the Department ofEnvironment and Resource Management.


Realignments

! Railway Stations

Existing Rail Line

Highway

Main Road

Street

Cadastre

Current Preferred RouteTrack Lines (Sept. 2008)

Original PreferredRoute Track Lines

1:10,000

°0 100 200 300 400

Meters

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!B

r uce Highw

ay

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH



Figure 1.7a: Realignments

Figure No

Fig. 1.7a - Sheet 2 of 2 Scale at A4

Drawing Title

Job Title

Data sourced from the Department of Transportand Main Roads, and the Department ofEnvironment and Resource Management.


Realignments

! Railway Stations

Existing Rail Line

Highway

Main Road

Street

Cadastre

Current Preferred RouteTrack Lines (Sept. 2008)

Original PreferredRoute Track Lines

1:7,500

°0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Meters

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!B

r uce Highw

ay

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH



Figu

re 1

.7b:

Opt

ions

for

Roa

d N

etw

orks

- c

onne

ctio

ns in

Eudl

o

Figure No

Fig 1.7bScale at A3

Drawing Title

Job Title

0 50 100 150

Metres


1:4,000

Landsborough to NambourRail Project - EIS

Options for Road NetworkConnections in Eudlo

°!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

B ruce Highw

a y

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH

Preferred route

Re-established localroad network

Land availablefor re-use

Initial two track upgrade

Provision for future tracks

Station area

Proposed car park

Whi

lst ev

ery c

are h

as b

een

taken

to en

sure

the a

ccur

acy o

f thi

s data

, the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rt an

d M

ain R

oads

mak

es n

o re

pres

entat

ions

or w

arra

nties

abou

t its

accu

racy

, reli

abili

ty, c

ompl

etene

ss o

r sui

tabili

ty fo

r any

par

ticul

ar p

urpo

se an

d di

sclai

ms a

ll re

spon

sibili

ty an

d all

liab

ility

(inclu

ding

with

out

limita

tion,

liab

ility

in n

eglig

ence

) and

costs

whi

ch m

ight

be i

ncur

red

as a

resu

lt of

the p

lan b

eing

inac

cura

te or

inco

mpl

ete in

any w

ay an

d fo

r any

reas

on.


Figu

re 1

.7c:

Opt

ions

for

Roa

d N

etw

orks

- c

onne

ctio

ns in

Palm

woo

ds

Figure No

Fig 1.7cScale at A3

Drawing Title

Job Title

0 50 100 150

Metres


1:3,500


Options for Road NetworkConnections in Palmwoods

°

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

B ruce Highw

a y

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH

Preferred route





Station area

Proposed car park

Whi

lst ev

ery c

are h

as b

een

taken

to en

sure

the a

ccur

acy o

f thi

s data

, the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rt an

d M

ain R

oads

mak

es n

o re

pres

entat

ions

or w

arra

nties

abou

t its

accu

racy

, reli

abili

ty, c

ompl

etene

ss o

r sui

tabili

ty fo

r any

par

ticul

ar p

urpo

se an

d di

sclai

ms a

ll re

spon

sibili

ty an

d all

liab

ility

(inclu

ding

with

out

limita

tion,

liab

ility

in n

eglig

ence

) and

costs

whi

ch m

ight

be i

ncur

red

as a

resu

lt of

the p

lan b

eing

inac

cura

te or

inco

mpl

ete in

any w

ay an

d fo

r any

reas

on.


Figu

re 1

.7d:

Opt

ions

for

Roa

d N

etw

orks

- c

onne

ctio

ns in

Woo

mby

e

Figure No

Fig 1.7dScale at A3

Drawing Title

Job Title

0 50 100 150

Metres

1:3,500


Options for Road NetworkConnections in Woombye

°!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Br uce Highw

a y

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH

Preferred route





Station area

Proposed car park


Whi

lst ev

ery c

are h

as b

een

taken

to en

sure

the a

ccur

acy o

f thi

s data

, the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rt an

d M

ain R

oads

mak

es n

o re

pres

entat

ions

or w

arra

nties

abou

t its

accu

racy

, reli

abili

ty, c

ompl

etene

ss o

r sui

tabili

ty fo

r any

par

ticul

ar p

urpo

se an

d di

sclai

ms a

ll re

spon

sibili

ty an

d all

liab

ility

(inclu

ding

with

out

limita

tion,

liab

ility

in n

eglig

ence

) and

costs

whi

ch m

ight

be i

ncur

red

as a

resu

lt of

the p

lan b

eing

inac

cura

te or

inco

mpl

ete in

any w

ay an

d fo

r any

reas

on.


Figu

re 1

.7e:

Opt

ions

1 a

nd 2

for

Roa

d N

etw

ork

Conn

ection

s in

Moo

lool

ah

Figu

re N

o

Fig.

1.7

eSc

ale

at A

3

1:5,

000

Dra

win

g Ti

tle

Job

Title

Land

sbor

ough

to N

ambo

urR

ail P

roje

ct -

EIS

Opt

ions

1 a

nd 2

for R

oad

Net

wor

kC

onne

ctio

ns in

Moo

lool

ah

Dat

a so

urce

d fro

m th

e D

epar

tmen

t of T

rans

port

and

Mai

n R

oads

, and

the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Env

ironm

ent a

nd R

esou

rce

Man

agem

ent

°

Opt

ion

1

Opt

ion

2 !

! !

!

! !

!

!

!

Bruce Highway

EUD

LO

BLI

BLI

WO

OM

BYE

NA

MB

OU

R

PALM

VIEW

MO

OLO

OLA

H

PALM

WO

OD

S

LAN

DSB

OR

OU

GH

050

100

150

200

Met

res

Whi

lst ev

ery c

are h

as b

een

taken

to en

sure

the a

ccur

acy o

f thi

s data

, the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rt an

d M

ain R

oads

mak

es n

o re

pres

entat

ions

or w

arra

nties

abou

t its

accu

racy

, reli

abili

ty, c

ompl

etene

ss o

r sui

tabili

ty fo

r any

par

ticul

ar p

urpo

se an

d di

sclai

ms a

ll re

spon

sibili

ty an

d all

liab

ility

(inclu

ding

with

out

limita

tion,

liab

ility

in n

eglig

ence

) and

costs

whi

ch m

ight

be i

ncur

red

as a

resu

lt of

the p

lan b

eing

inac

cura

te or

inco

mpl

ete in

any w

ay an

d fo

r any

reas

on.


Figu

re 1

.7f: R

efine

d Ro

ad N

etw

ork

Conn

ection

Opt

ion

for

Moo

lool

ah (Opt

ion

3)

Figure No

Fig 1.7fScale at A3

Drawing Title

Job Title

0 50 100 150

Metres

Data sourced from the Department of Transport and Main Roads, and the Department of Environment and Resource Management

1:3,500


Refined Road Network ConnectionOption for Mooloolah (option 3)

°!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

Br uce Highw

a y

EUDLO

BLI BLI

TANAWHA

WOOMBYE

NAMBOUR

PALMVIEW

MOOLOOLAH

PALMWOODS

LANDSBOROUGH

Preferred route





Station area

Proposed car park

Whi

lst ev

ery c

are h

as b

een

taken

to en

sure

the a

ccur

acy o

f thi

s data

, the

Dep

artm

ent o

f Tra

nspo

rt an

d M

ain R

oads

mak

es n

o re

pres

entat

ions

or w

arra

nties

abou

t its

accu

racy

, reli

abili

ty, c

ompl

etene

ss o

r sui

tabili

ty fo

r any

par

ticul

ar p

urpo

se an

d di

sclai

ms a

ll re

spon

sibili

ty an

d all

liab

ility

(inclu

ding

with

out

limita

tion,

liab

ility

in n

eglig

ence

) and

costs

whi

ch m

ight

be i

ncur

red

as a

resu

lt of

the p

lan b

eing

inac

cura

te or

inco

mpl

ete in

any w

ay an

d fo

r any

reas

on.


The project has been declared a ‘significant project for which an EIS is required’ pursuant to Section 26(1)(a) of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act). This declaration was made due to a range of factors, including the project’s potential impact on significant infrastructure, potential environmental effects and the strategic significance of the project.

The Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) requires activities affecting matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) to be referred to the Commonwealth Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. The project was referred on 4 April 2008, because Giant Barred Frogs (Mixophyes iteratus) were found to be utilising several creek lines within or immediately adjacent to the Project Area. Giant Barred Frogs are listed as ‘endangered’ under the EPBC Act and are therefore a matter of National Environmental Significance.

In the referral, it was proposed to develop and implement a Threatened Fauna Management Plan (TFMP) for the sites where Giant Barred Frogs are located. The TFMP would aim to retain 30 metre wide buffers along each side of the waterways, use ‘soft’ construction methods for the bridges to maximise habitat retention, minimise disturbance to the waterways, conduct pre- construction surveys and keep construction outside of the peak breeding season. The referral can be found in Appendix F. The delegate of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts made the decision that the activity (the project) was not a ‘controlled action’ under the EPBC Act because the mitigation measures proposed were adequate to address the impacts on the Giant Barred Frog.

However, the project has evolved since the time of the referral and is expected to be refined further during the detailed design process. Following finalisation of the detailed design stage (once all additional flooding and geotechnical investigations have been completed), should there be significant changes to the current proposed design that may significantly affect ‘matters of National Environmental Significance’, it is proposed that the current referral would be withdrawn and an amended referral be submitted for further assessment.

Other species found on site are listed under the EPBC Act. The Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) is listed as vulnerable. The proposed action is not anticipated to have a significant impact on the species mostly because there will be no impacts on flying-fox camps or roost sites and the impact will be restricted to a short-term, small reduction in fruit and blossoming resources.

In addition, eight species listed as migratory under the EPBC Act have been identified within the project area. All observed migratory species identified during the survey are common within the local area and unlikely to be significantly impacted by the proposed activities.

The SDPWO Act sets out the process for the preparation of an EIS for a ‘significant project’. The Department of Infrastructure and Planning manages the EIS process on behalf of the Coordinator-General, who is responsible for the oversight of the EIS process and the evaluation of impacts. This process includes:

preparation and public notification of draft Terms of ßReference (ToR) (July 2008)

preparation of the EIS in response to the final ToR ß(October 2008)

release of EIS and public review ß

review of public and Advisory Agency submissions by ßCoordinator-General

Coordinator-General evaluation of the environmental impact ßstatement and public submissions

preparation and submission (if required) of a supplementary ßreport by the proponent that responds to the Coordinator-General’s requests for further information

provision by the Coordinator-General of copies of the ßsupplementary report to the relevant State and government agencies for further comment and to members of the public and organisations who made comments for their information

evaluation by the Coordinator-General of information and ßpreparation of the Coordinator-General’s report under section 35 of the SDPWO Act regarding the EIS, recommending whether the project should proceed and whether the project should be subject to conditions.

There are two formal mechanisms for stakeholder input in this process in relation to the requirements of the terms of reference and the content of the EIS. The ToR have been prepared, notified and finalised by the Coordinator-General. A copy of the ToR is included in Appendix A.

If the project is recommended for approval, it will then be subject to a series of other statutory approvals before construction can commence. A list of these approvals appears in Section 1.10. Section 35A of the SDPWO Act specifies that the Coordinator-General’s report can lapse after four years, unless a different timeframe is specified in the Coordinator-General’s report.

Given the construction horizon for this project, it is not possible to anticipate all future development activities in the project area, and therefore the effects discussed in this EIS are those based on existing knowledge of planning and development information at the time of writing.


The Department of Transport and Main Roads (or its agent/s) will be responsible for securing all subsidiary approvals required to facilitate the development activities. Information collected and analysed as part of this EIS will need to be maintained and any key changes identified when they arise and, where appropriate, updated. Depending on the timing and method of delivery chosen for the construction of the project, further investigations may be required into specific matters necessary to obtain these approvals and further consultation may be appropriate.

The EIS has been prepared by the proponent (the Department of Transport and Main Roads) to address the requirements set by Coordinator-General in the ToR. Each chapter includes:

a description of the baseline environmental conditions ß

an identification of the impacts of the project ß

an assessment of the significance of the identified impacts ß

recommended mitigation measures. ß

The impacts identified are assessed as beneficial or adverse. The significance of impacts is assessed in light of significance criteria listed in Table 1.8.1. Generally, the impact significance depends on the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of the change. The impacts are assessed on the following scale: negligible, low, moderate and high.

Table 1.8.1 presents the method being adopted for assigning significance to the environmental impacts identified.

Table 1.8.1: Significance criteria

High Adverse Impact is a major problem. These impacts are likely to be important considerations at the national or State level. If adverse, they are potential concerns to the project, depending upon the relative importance attached to the issue during the decision making process. Mitigation measures and detailed design work are unlikely to remove all of the impacts upon the affected communities or interests. Residual impacts would predominate.

Moderate Adverse

Impact is moderate. While important at a State, regional or local scale, these are not likely to be key decision making issues. They represent issues where impacts would be experienced but mitigation measures and detailed design work may ameliorate/enhance some of the consequences upon affected communities or interests. Some residual impacts would still arise. Nevertheless, the cumulative impacts of such issues may lead to an increase in the overall impacts upon a particular area or on a particular resource and hence may become key decision making issues.

Low Adverse Impact recognisable but acceptable. Only local impacts would be included in this category and are unlikely to be of importance in the decision making process. Nevertheless, they are of relevance in enhancing the subsequent design of the project and in the consideration of mitigation or compensation measures.

Negligible Minimal Change. No impacts or those which are beneath levels of perception, within normal bounds of variation or within the margin of forecasting error.

Beneficial Impact Beneficial to the Environment. The beneficial impacts can also be Low, Moderate or High.

These significance criteria have been tailored for each of the topics covered in the EIS. For each topic, potential impacts have been identified and described based on the absence of mitigation or management. Suitable mitigation or management measures have then been noted and the residual impacts have been described and assessed based on the significance criteria approach noted in Table 1.8.1. Residual impacts describe the impact of the project upon the element considered, after appropriate mitigation and management has been applied. The Terms of Reference checklist is included in Appendix B.

The EIS is a high level planning document that assesses the impacts of the project based on preliminary design. The purpose of the EIS is to:

provide public information on the need for the project, ßalternatives to it and options for its implementation

present the likely effects of the project on the natural, social ßand economic environment

detail acceptable standards and levels of impacts (both ßbeneficial and adverse) on environmental values

demonstrate how environmental impacts can be managed ßor mitigated through the protection and enhancement of environmental values.

Recommendations for the management of impacts are detailed within each of the topical chapters (Chapter 3, to 20) and collated in the Chapter 22, Environmental management plans (EMP). Detailed design for the project will be undertaken closer to construction. During the detailed design stage, the management recommendations from the EIS will be integrated into the plans for construction, often in the format of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Statutory approvals listed in Section 1.9 are discussed in Chapter 22, Environmental management plans in relation to their relevance to future stages of the project.

Table 1.8.1 continued


The likely effects of the project have been scoped in accordance with the ToR. The structure of this EIS is shown in Table 1.8.4.

Table 1.8.4: EIS structure

Section Chapter

PART A: Introduction and project description

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Chapter 2 – Description of the project

PART B: Environmental values and management of impacts

Chapter 3 - Land use and infrastructure

Chapter 4 - Land: Topography

Chapter 5 - Land: Geology and soils

Chapter 6 – Landscape character and visual amenity

Chapter 7 – Transport

Chapter 8 – Economic environment

Chapter 9 – Social environment

Chapter 10 – Cultural heritage

Chapter 11 – Nature conservation: Terrestrial flora

Chapter 12 – Nature conservation: Terrestrial fauna

Chapter 13 - Nature conservation: Aquatic biology

Chapter 14 – Water resources

Chapter 15 – Noise and vibration

Chapter 16 – Air quality

Chapter 17 – Climate and natural disasters

Chapter 18 – Waste

Chapter 19 – Hazard and risk

Chapter 20 – Cumulative impacts

PART C: Special Management areas

Chapter 21 - This part of the EIS identifies the Special Management Areas (SMAs) that are likely to be affected by the project. It aims to assist stakeholders in gaining information about the management of certain areas that may be of particular interest to them, combining the information from various disciplines into one section with a locality focus, rather than the traditional discipline focus.

PART D: Environmental Management Plans

Chapter 22 – Environmental management plans

PART E: Summary and Conclusions

Chapter 23 – Summary and conclusions

Appendices A – Terms of Reference for this EIS

B – Terms of Reference Checklist

C – Development Approvals

D – Route Identification Report Executive Summary

E – Study Team

F – Technical Data and Baseline Studies

Submissions on the EIS may be made to the Coordinator- General during the submission period set by the Coordinator- General.

For an environmental impact statement, a properly made submission means a submission that:

(a) is made to the Coordinator-General in writing; and

(b) is received on or before the last day of the submission period; and

(c) is signed by each person who made the submission; and

(d) states the name and address of each person who made the submission; and

(e) states the grounds of the submission and the facts and circumstances relied on in support of the grounds.

Properly made submissions must be considered by the Coordinator-General alongside the environmental impact statement and other material relevant to the project.

Submissions must arrive by 5pm (AEST) Monday 24 August 2009. Submissions should be addressed to the Coordinator-General and sent via:

Post: Coordinator-General Att: EIS Project Manager: Landsborough to Nambour Rail Project

Significant Projects Coordination Department of Infrastructure and Planning PO Box 15009, City East, Qld 4002 Australia

Fax: +61 7 3225 8282

Email: [email protected] (scanned signed letters)

Submissions received during the submission period will be collated by the Department of Infrastructure and Planning and where additional information is required to address the submissions, response requirements will be issued to the proponent, which will be addressed in a supplementary report, as outlined under Section 1.8.1. The supplementary report together with the EIS will constitute the final report considered by the Coordinator-General.


An open community engagement strategy was designed for the Landsborough to Nambour Rail Corridor Study, which is an early part of the Landsborough to Nambour Rail Project, as described in Section 1.2. The purpose of the strategy has been to inform and educate the community about the project, while providing opportunities for the community to participate in and comment on the route selection, preliminary design and EIS phase of the project.

Whilst this strategy focuses on the identification of the preferred route for the project and delivery of the EIS, ongoing consultation will be required in the lead up to construction and operation of the project, should it proceed. This EIS identifies actions and objectives recommended for implementation in future phases of the project.

The community engagement strategy has the following overall aims:

to undertake engagement activities to reach a wide audience ßof identified stakeholders and encourage those affected by the study to take an active interest in engagement activities

to provide opportunities for the community to input into the ßroute identification and analysis process

to support the preparation of the EIS for the project ß

to increase knowledge within the community about the ßproject and its EIS process

to build a knowledge base within the community to assist ßpeople and groups in assessing the EIS

to inform stakeholders of the outcome of the EIS process ßon completion

to establish a framework for continued community involvement ßand information beyond the completion of the EIS.

Community engagement objectives relevant to these aims were identified for each stage of the study and were used to evaluate each consultation phase. Section 1.9.6 outlines the communication aims for each of the four phases of consultation.

To achieve the overall community engagement aims and meet each of the project stage objectives, the umbrella approach to community engagement was used to:

keep all information as simple as possible without affecting ßits integrity

develop engagement materials and activities to suit specific ßstakeholder groups in relevant situations

select communication formats suitable to a wide range of ßpeople and groups

make information available in a timely manner ß

provide adequate channels for community feedback and ßinform the community of feedback received

ensure feedback from the community flows through to ßthe EIS team for consideration in preparing reports and developing management and mitigation strategies.

The community engagement strategy was designed to offer engagement opportunities to people and groups currently or potentially affected by the project or those individuals and groups who may have an interest in the project. The scope of the community engagement strategy was determined by three means:

Stakeholders’ proximity to the current north coast line (NCL) - A linear approach was taken to identify stakeholders currently directly affected by the NCL (i.e. landowners with property adjoining the rail reserve, people who use open level crossings around the rail line, businesses in close proximity to current rail stations).

Stakeholders’ proximity to the project area – stakeholders who were not directly affected by the NCL but fell within the project area.

Stakeholders’ interest in a specific issue related to the project – people and groups from many different geographic locations and positions within the community with an active interest in the project. The areas of interest were related to topics such as:

environmental concerns – i.e. waterways, specific species, ßnational parks

rail/railway interest ß

amenity and lifestyle ß

public transport. ß

The community engagement program was designed to reach individuals and groups who fell within the following identified stakeholder involvement levels.

Level 1 Groups and individuals with an active interest in the issues or with the potential to be directly impacted physically, socially or economically

Level 2 Groups and individuals with an active interest in the engagement activities around a specific issue related to the project

Level 3 Groups and individuals who have only a general interest in the project, further described as people who want to know broadly what is being considered and decided

Level 4 Groups and individuals who have no interest in the project, but fall within the project area and are therefore encouraged to take an interest in the project.

Table 1.9.3 outlines stakeholders identified for the project.


Table 1.9.3: Identified stakeholders

Stakeholder Type Involvement level

Australian Government

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA)

Level 2

State Government

Elected representatives in the region Level 1

TransLink Transit Authority Level 1 and 2

Queensland Rail (QR) Level 1 and 2

Department of Environment and Resource Management

Level 2

Queensland Treasury Level 2

Department of Infrastructure and Planning (DIP) Level 1

Other relevant State Government Departments including

Department of Communities ß

Department of Community Safety ß

Department of Employment, Economic ßDevelopment and Innovation

Department of Public Works ß

Department of Health ß

Department of Police ß

Level 2

Local Government

Elected representatives in the region

Mayor Bob Abbott, Sunshine Coast Regional ßCouncil

Cr Jenny McKay, Councillor Division 5 ß

Cr Anna Grosskruetz Division 1 ß

Cr Paul Tatton Division 10 ß

Other Councillors of the Sunshine Coast ßRegional Council

Level 2

Sunshine Coast Regional Council Level 2

Community

Community members who have registered on the project database/contacted the study team

Level 1/2

Landowners and businesses within the project area Level 3/4

Landowners and businesses directly affected by the project

Level 1

Landowners adjacent to the project Level 1

Stakeholder Type Involvement level

Landowners affected by township options and refinements to the proposed alignment

Level 1

People who use the NCL Level 2

Landowners and businesses in close proximity to the existing NCL or the project

Level 2

Landowners and Businesses within the wider region surrounding the NCL – townships of Landsborough, Mooloolah, Eudlo, Palmwoods, Woombye and Nambour

Level 3

People living within the townships of Landsborough, Mooloolah, Eudlo, Palmwoods, Woombye and Nambour and surrounds

Level 4

Media

PrintRadioTelevision

Level 1

A suite of community engagement tools and activities were used to communicate with the community regarding the project. This section details these tools and activities. The specific use of each tool or activity is discussed in Section 1.9.6.

A comprehensive stakeholder database was developed at the commencement of the study and has been used throughout during each stage of the community engagement process. The database was used to track interaction with stakeholders and to understand the history of contact with individuals.

A free call 1800 information line was established as an enquiry and feedback source for the community. The information line number was published widely and staffed by members of the public engagement team during normal working hours. Where questions of a technical nature arose that could not be answered immediately, details of the query were taken and a response provided as soon as possible. All calls to the information line are logged in the project database.

A dedicated project website at www.landsborough-nambour.com.au was established at the commencement of the study. The site contains information related to the project and was updated throughout each stage. The site contains contact details for the study team and provided a means for stakeholders to provide feedback via the project email address [email protected].


A project-specific enquiry email address was included to facilitate community enquiries. The email address has been advertised widely in engagement materials as a key contact point for the community. Enquiries sent via email were answered in a timely manner and details of email contact logged in the project database.

Elected representative briefings were included in the community engagement strategy to ensure elected representatives were informed about the relevant stages of the study.

Key members of the study team and the Department of Transport and Main Roads conducted these briefings in individual settings. Briefings sessions were used at all stages of the community engagement process.

Information kits were developed for the project and distributed to relevant parties. The information kits were updated at each stage of the project to reflect the aims and objectives of the particular stage. Information kits contained items such as:

fact sheets ß

maps and diagrams of the project area, preferred route for ßthe proposed rail corridor and township options

feedback forms ß

study updates/surveys ß

project contact cards. ß

The community engagement strategy included landowner meetings to inform, educate and build relationships with landowners affected by the project. The aim of these visits was to:

inform landowners of the project and the anticipated impact ßon their property

develop an understanding of how the project would affect ßeach landowner’s property

educate landowners about the acquisition process, their ßrights and compensation

establish a dialogue with landowners so that issues can be ßaddressed in a timely manner.

These visits assisted with the Government’s intention to acquire land for the rail corridor. A property officer from the Department of Transport and Main Roads and member of the study team attended the landowner meetings.

Letters to stakeholders (including landowners and other interested parties) were used to communicate project milestones, as well as to encourage participation in community engagement activities.

General letters were also sent to all other stakeholders on the project database to inform individuals about project milestones. Each letter sent from the study team contained details of feedback channels, including the 1800 information line and the study email address.

Five study update newsletters, fact sheets and a survey were included in the community engagement program and were distributed and made available via appropriate means to reach relevant stakeholders. Materials were produced both in hard copy and uploaded to the project website.

Print advertising was used at all stages throughout the community engagement program to communicate relevant milestones including the release of surveys and study updates and to encourage the community to provide feedback and attend community information sessions.

Throughout the public engagement program, the media are utilised to disseminate project related information to the community through the preparation and distribution of media releases.

Contact cards were developed for use throughout the duration of the study to give community members quick reference to contact details for the study team. The cards contained phone, email and postal contact details and were distributed in information kits, at stakeholder briefings and landowner meetings and community information sessions.

Public displays and information sessions were held as part of the community engagement strategy for the project to provide the community with access to the study team and the Department of Transport and Main Roads at relevant project milestones.

Information sessions provided a forum for community members to learn, ask questions and provide feedback about the project. The information sessions were planned events, held in easily accessible venues for a set period of time. Stakeholders were advised of their times and locations and encouraged to attend a session. The sessions gave the community the opportunity to learn about the project by viewing displays, posters, mapping, computer simulations/modelling and asking questions.


Public displays were included in the community engagement strategy for the project to give the community access to newsletters and surveys, mapping and reports (including the Route Identification Report).

Displays were held in places frequented by targeted stakeholders including, community centres/general stores/Post Offices, libraries or other community facilities.

Community meetings provided a forum for community members to learn, ask questions and provide feedback about the project.

Consultation activities for the project have been broken into a number of phases. This section outlines the activities undertaken within each phase, the timing and the communication tools used. Below is a description of the communication aims of each phase:

Initial consultation activities were aimed at introducing the project to stakeholders along the NCL including the townships of Landsborough, Mooloolah, Eudlo, Palmwoods, Woombye and Nambour.

The main communication tools used to achieve this were a survey, static public displays, advertising and a media release.

A community values and transportation survey was distributed to these stakeholders to capture information about travel patterns and preferences, and also establish an understanding of the significant features and values of the area. This feedback was used by the study team in the identification and understanding of constraints, and also in the definition of the study focus area. A total of 1006 community value surveys were submitted to the study team.

Key themes from this phase one consultation included:

Transport infrastructure on the Sunshine Coast needs to keep ßup with population growth and demand for services.

Rail services need to be more frequent with better connection ßto areas within the Sunshine Coast region.

Environmental impacts need to be carefully managed. ß

Travel times need to be reduced. ß

Stations and trains need to be wheelchair and pram accessible. ß

Trains and railway facilities need to be modern and comfortable. ß

Traffic on roads close to the current rail line is affected by ßlow bridges and open level crossings.

Consultation activities undertaken in this phase focused on displaying the study focus area to the communities of each of the townships and notifying landowners within the study focus area that they could potentially be affected by the corridor for the project.

The purpose of the phase was to obtain feedback from the community about the study focus area, which would assist in the identification of the preferred route for the proposed rail corridor. Primary communication tools were a study update newsletter, landowner letters, community information sessions and fact sheets.

The study team received 453 submissions during the consultation on the study focus area. This information assisted in the route identification and evaluation process, which was documented in the Route Identification Report.

Key themes from phase two consultation included:

for Mooloolah and Eudlo, high concern about removing or ßrelocating the railway station

for Mooloolah and Eudlo, concern for the historical and ßcultural heritage significance of the townships

for Mooloolah and Eudlo, the current location of both ßstations considered suitable and easily accessible, with the townships already centred around these facilities.

Eastern and western options were considered during this phase. Many submissions favoured a western option, following the existing railway line. Community concerns associated with the eastern option included flooding, significant ecological areas, potential for increased noise levels and greater property impacts.

Environmental concerns centred on:

Dularcha National Park ß

bushland south of Eudlo ß

Eudlo Creek National Park ß

aquatic ecosystems of the South Mooloolah River and the ßMooloolah River

potential for the decrease of biodiversity in the region. ß

Phase three involved the release of the Route Identification Report and the preferred route for the proposed rail corridor. Consequently this phase involved notifying landowners in the study focus area about whether the preferred route resulted in a land requirement from their property.

The main communication tools during this phase were landowner letters, a study update, landowner meetings and a community meeting. This phase also included the release of the EIS draft ToR by the Coordinator-General.

Feedback from these activities assisted the study team in the refinement of the preferred route for the proposed rail corridor, and identification of specific areas where further investigations, environmental management or design treatments would be required.


Phase four involved the release of options for the townships of Mooloolah, Eudlo, Palmwoods and Woombye. These options identified opportunities for grade separation at Mooloolah, indicative station areas, station access, road realignments and areas of remnant rail corridor land potentially available for future uses. The refinement of the Mooloolah River crossing and of the alignment in Eudlo were also announced during this phase.

The main communication tools were information sessions, 3D visualisations, a study update and landowner letters.

Feedback from these information sessions was primarily focused on the township options presented. Following on from these sessions, a community working group was established to follow the progress of the further refinement of the project through Mooloolah.

The communication tools used in each phase of the public engagement program are detailed in table 1.9.6.

Table 1.9.6: Public engagement program

Phase Action Timing Engagement tools used

One Introduce project to the community

Sept 07 – end Oct 07

Elected representative briefings. ß

A ß media release was distributed to relevant media outlets

Advertisements ß were placed in the Sunshine Coast Daily, Nambour Weekly, Sunshine Valley News, Glasshouse Country News and the Range News advising the commencement of the project, contact details for the project team, avenues for obtaining more information and urging the community to fill out a survey form.

The project ß website was launched. The website’s address was included in the media release and advertisements.

A ß Community Values and Transportation Survey was prepared and uploaded to the project website. The survey was sent via unaddressed mail to the area surrounding the NCL between Landsborough and Nambour (an area 22km long x 3km wide). Surveys were also distributed to schools, emergency services locations and libraries within the townships as well as Council Administration Centres and elected representatives offices. Members of the study team also distributed these at stations in the project area during the morning and evening peak. 20,000 surveys were distributed during this phase. The study team received more than 1,000 completed surveys.

A free call ß 1800 information line, enquiry email address and reply paid postal address were established for the project and these details were included in the media release, the advertisements and the survey. Throughout October 2007 the study team received more than 60 phone calls from members of the community requesting copies of the survey.

A ß project database was established to capture all contact with stakeholders in relation to the project. By the end of the first phase there were more than 550 members of the community registered on the project database.

Staffed mobile public displays ß were set-up in each township outside relevant locations including Post Offices, General Stores/Shopping Centres, Newsagents and at each railway station between Landsborough and Nambour. Materials available at these displays included pull-up banners detailing information about the project. Two study team members were in attendance, to discuss broad objectives and drivers for the project.

Two Release of study focus area (study focus area)

Nov 07 – March 08

Elected representative briefing ß

A ß media release was distributed (Nov 07) to relevant media outlets advising the release of the study focus area and information sessions details.

Study update #1 newsletter ß (Nov 07) which included a feedback form was sent by unaddressed mail to local communities surrounding the NCL within an approx 22km x 3km area. Study updates were also distributed to libraries within the townships and selected Post Offices/ general stores/ newsagents as well as elected representatives offices and uploaded to the project website. During the feedback period, which concluded on 14 December, the study team received almost 400 feedback forms.

Landowner letters ß were sent to all landowners located within the study focus area advising that their property was located in the study focus area (study update #1 included with letter). The letter encouraged landowners to contact the study team, and provide feedback on important features in the study focus area that the study team should be aware of.



Two (cont.)

Release of study focus area (study focus area)

Nov 07 – March 08

General letters ß were sent to all individuals on the project database (study update #1 included with letter).

Advertisements ß were placed in the Sunshine Coast Daily, Nambour Weekly, Sunshine Valley News, Glasshouse Country News and the Range News advising of the release of the study focus area, information session times and locations and urging the community to provide feedback on the study focus area.

Community information sessions ß were held in Woombye, Palmwoods, Eudlo, Landsborough, Nambour and Mooloolah where the community could view displays, posters and mapping and ask the study team questions about the project.

Nine project ß fact sheets were developed for distribution at the information sessions or on request from the study team via the 1800 information line.

Unstaffed public displays ß featuring study update #1 and feedback boxes were located at the Department of Transport and Main Roads Service Centres and Council Administration Centres.

The ß project website was updated at the beginning of this phase with new information about the study focus area and fact sheets, study update #1 and new mapping.

The ß database continued to be updated with all stakeholder contact. By the end of phase two, the database had increased to more than 1,600 individuals.

Continued operation of the ß project email and free call information line.

Three Release of the Route Identification Report (RIR) and the preferred route for the proposed rail corridor

April 2008 – August 2008

Elected representative briefings ß

A ß media release was distributed to relevant media outlets announcing the release of the preferred route for the proposed rail corridor and locations for viewing the route.

Advertising ß in the Sunshine Coast Daily, Nambour Weekly, Sunshine Valley News, Glasshouse Country News and the Range News advising the release of the preferred route, locations to view the route and locations to view the RIR.

Study update #2 ß newsletter (April 08) was sent by unaddressed mail to local communities surrounding the NCL within an approx 22km x 3km area. Study updates were also distributed to libraries within the townships and selected Post Offices/ general stores/newsagents as well as elected representatives offices. The newsletter was also uploaded onto the project website.

Display of the Route Identification Report ß in relevant location within each township.

Maps ß of the preferred route for the proposed rail corridor were also available on the project website, from the study team via the 1800 number and project email and were available to be viewed in the offices of State elected representatives.

Landowner letters ß were sent to all landowners within the study focus area advising the preferred route and notifying landowners of whether or not their property would be affected by the preferred route (included study update #2) and offering the opportunity to meet the study team and the Property Officers from the Department of Transport and Main Roads in April-May 2008.

General letters ß were sent to all other stakeholders on the database advising release of the preferred route (included study update #2).

Meetings ß were held with affected landowners following the release of the preferred route. The Property Officers from the Department of Transport and Main Roads were on site from the day of announcement and members of the study team attended these meetings, which were primarily held at the Palmwoods and Mooloolah community halls.

The ß project website was updated with study update #2, maps of the preferred route and the RIR.


The ß database continued to be updated with all stakeholder contact. By the end of phase three, the database had increased to 1,700 individuals.

Community Meeting

May 08 A community meeting was held in May 08 in response to a request from residents from the township of Mooloolah.

Representatives from the Study Team presented information about the project at this meeting, and answered questions from the community. Approximately 180 members of the community attended the meeting.

Table 1.9.6: continued



Three (cont.)

Release of the Draft Terms of Reference for the Environmental Impact Statement

July 08 The Coordinator – General released the Draft ToR for the EIS. The Coordinator General also ßcoordinated the Agency Reference Group, to brief the relevant government agencies on the project. Members of the study team also attended this briefing.

A ß general letter was sent from the study team to all individuals on the project database advising the release of the draft ToR and their opportunity to comment.

Four Release of options for townships

Sept 08 – October 2008

A ß media release was distributed to relevant media outlets advising the release of options for townships and information session times and locations.

Advertising ß in the Sunshine Coast Daily, Nambour Weekly, Sunshine Valley News, Glasshouse Country News and the Range News advising the release options for townships and information session times and locations.

Study update #3 ß newsletter (Sept 08) was sent by unaddressed mail to local communities surrounding the NCL within an approx 22km x 3km area. Study updates were distributed to elected representatives offices. The newsletter was also uploaded onto the project website.

Refined ß maps of the preferred route were available on the project website, and from the study team via the 1800 number and project email.

Landowner letters ß were sent to all affected landowners advising that the options for townships had been released. Letters offering a meeting with the Department’s Property Officers and members of the study team were sent to newly affected landowners impacted by changes to the preferred route and those potentially impacted by the township options (included study update #3).

General letters ß were sent to all other stakeholders on the database advising release of the options (included study update #3).

Information sessions ß were held in Mooloolah, Eudlo, Palmwoods and Woombye to display township options to each town. Display materials included posters, fact sheets and real time 3D visualisations of the townships. Study team representatives were available at the information sessions to answer questions.

Feedback forms ß were available at the information sessions for the community to submit their comments on the township options. Approximately 70 feedback forms were received during the feedback period.

Seven ß fact sheets were developed for distribution at the sessions and upon request from the study team.

Meetings ß were offered to newly affected landowners, landowners where there would be a changed impact and those potentially impacted by township options.

The ß project website was updated with study update #3, refined maps of the preferred route for the proposed rail corridor and fact sheets.


The ß database continued to be updated with all stakeholder contact. By the end of phase four the database had increased to 1,750 individuals.

Briefings for elected representatives (where requested). ß

Briefings with Sunshine Coast Regional Council. ß

Meetings with key government agencies, Sunshine Coast Regional Council Officers and key ßstakeholders groups.

EIS pre-release November 2008

A letter was sent to all stakeholders on the database advising that the EIS was planned for release in 2009.




Five EIS public comment period

minimum of six weeks

A ß media release was distributed to relevant media outlets advising the release of the EIS display locations and information session times and locations.

Advertising ß in the Sunshine Coast Daily, Nambour Weekly, Sunshine Valley News, Glasshouse Country News and the Range News advising the release options for townships and information session times and locations. The Coordinator-General places a notice in the Courier Mail.

General letters ß to be sent to all other stakeholders on the database advising release of the EIS (included study update #4).

Study update #4 ß newsletter (February 09) was sent by unaddressed mail to local communities surrounding the NCL within an approx 22km x 3km area. Study updates were distributed to elected representatives offices. The newsletter was also uploaded onto the project website.

Information sessions about the EIS held in each of the townships along the corridor. ß

Fact sheets are available on the project website summarising the EIS findings. ß

The EIS document is on display during the submission period in the following locations: ß

- State Library of Queensland, Cultural Centre, Stanley Place, South Bank, Brisbane

- Office of the Member for Glasshouse, Suite 14, Kingsgate Centre, 42 King Street, Caboolture

- Office of the Member for Caloundra, Shop 1, Pia Place, 118 Bulcock Street, Caloundra

- Office of the Member for Nicklin, Shop 3, 51 Currie Street, Nambour

- Morris House Neighbourhood Centre, 478 Old Landsborough Road, Landsborough

- Mooloolah Valley Community Centre, 43 Bray Road, Mooloolah Valley

- Eudlo General Store, 7/9 Rosebed Street, Eudlo

- Palmwoods Post Office, 5 Margaret Street, Palmwoods

- Woombye Post Office, Unit 1, 12 Blackall Street, Woombye

- Nambour Community Centre, 2 Shearer Street, Nambour

- Sunshine Coast Regional Council Administration Centre (Nambour), Cnr Currie and Bury Streets, Nambour

- Sunshine Coast Regional Council Administration Centre (Caloundra), 1 Omrah Avenue, Caloundra

- Sunshine Coast Regional Council Mobile Library – South

- Sunshine Coast Regional Council Mobile Library – Central

- Department of Transport and Main Roads Customer Service Centre, Cnr Stanley Street and Coronation Avenue, Nambour

The ß project website was updated with study update #4, maps of the project and the EIS.

Continued operation of the project ß email and free call information line.

Briefings for elected representatives (where requested). ß

Briefings with Sunshine Coast Regional Council. ß

Meetings with key government agencies, Sunshine Coast Regional Council Officers and other ßkey stakeholders.

Ongoing landowner meetings as required. ß

Agency Reference Group briefings (coordinated by the Coordinator-General, materials ßdeveloped by the Proponent).



As this project is in an early phase, it will be important to maintain the level of information provided to the community throughout its delivery.

Key points in future phases of the project where specific consultation activities are recommended are listed in Table 1.9.7. The timing of these future activities would be subject to any proposals for staging of the project, i.e. if particular sections of the project were brought forward, the associated consultation tasks listed below should be conducted as a minimum.

Table 1.9.7: Key recommendations for ongoing consultation

Milestone Recommended activities (in addition to statutory requirements)

Release of the Coordinator-General report on the EIS

Notification to the stakeholder database of the decision and release of the report.

Commencement of the formal land acquisition process

Ongoing consultation and communication between the Department of Transport and Main Roads and affected landowners.

Development of preferred station concepts

Engagement with community working groups to determine appropriate station design and character. Likely to involve the Department of Transport and Main Roads, the TransLink Transit Authority, and QR Limited.

Detailed design of the project – input to objectives and performance measures for construction management plans.

Ongoing liaison with affected landowners and adjacent landowners, and residents in the surrounding areas to establish an understanding of project timeframes and activities, including field work such as geotechnical testing and sampling. Consultation could also include design issues, such as noise barrier design, and visual treatment options, such as landscaping. Responsibility for the management of this activity will be dependent on the chosen form of project delivery beyond the EIS phase. Materials should include project newsletters, website, and letters in relation to specific activities or investigations.

Consultation and construction notifications throughout the construction and commissioning phase of the project.

This will be particularly important as the construction phase is typically the point in time where the project becomes ‘real’ and the scale and nature of construction activities become fully appreciated. Responsibility for the management of this phase will be dependent on the chosen form of project delivery beyond the EIS phase. Materials should include project newsletters, website, letters, and site based project office. Key strategies should include notification of construction timeframes, nature of works, who to contact with queries, information about temporary road closures and detours, and reporting on performance objectives for environment, social, economic and transport outcomes.

Engagement with owners and occupants of premises and with the management of critical premises such as hospitals, nursing homes and schools adjacent to the proposed construction works will be on-going. In addition, complaints will be investigated and responded to promptly with the information and action required. When necessary, the complaint process will allow for special procedures such as face-to-face meetings and on-going communications with affected parties to respond to validated complaints.

Communication with stakeholders during the operation of the project is anticipated to be managed through the relevant QR Limited or TransLink Transit Authority processes.

Once operational, it is envisaged that QR Limited and the TransLink Transit Authority would assume responsibility for ongoing consultation in relation to operation of the railway, track maintenance, and management of incidents.

In addition to the EIS approval process under the SDPWO Act, the project will require approvals under other Queensland legislation prior to construction and operations commencing. Details of the other legislation and policies controlling and influencing the approvals process relevant to the project are provided in this section.

The Integrated Planning Act (IPA) forms the foundation of Queensland’s planning and development legislation, by setting a framework to integrate planning and development assessment so that development and its effects are managed in a way that is ecologically sustainable. In accordance with section 1.2.1 of the Act, the purpose of the IPA is to achieve ecological sustainability by:


a) coordinating and integrating planning at the local, regional and State levels

b) managing the process by which development occurs (i.e. the Integrated Development Assessment System or IDAS)

c) managing the effects of development on the environment (including managing the use of premises).

In Queensland, there are numerous ‘topic specific’ Acts, which, amongst other things, regulate development by setting out minimum standards aimed at managing and protecting the environment (e.g. the Water Act 2000). The IPA and the IDAS provide these specific Acts with a common process for assessing development.

Under section 1.3.2 of the IPA, development comprises making a material change of use, reconfiguring a lot and the carrying out of operational, building or plumbing and drainage work. Even where projects are exempt under IPA, approvals under other Acts and regulations will still be required.

The IPA provides the Department of Transport and Main Roads with concurrence agency powers, which the Department will use to protect the project area for future implementation of the project.

The IPA deems that all development is exempt unless it is regulated either under Schedule 8 (of IPA) or a local government planning scheme. Development that is exempt from assessment against a planning scheme is specified in Schedule 9 of the IPA. Item 5 of Table 5 of Schedule 9 specifies that all aspects of development for community infrastructure prescribed under a regulation are exempt from assessment against a local government planning scheme. In this context, Section 13 and Schedule 11 of the Integrated Planning Regulation 1998 indicates that all aspects of development for the maintenance, repair, upgrading, augmentation or duplication of rail transport infrastructure on rail corridor land or commercial corridor land under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 is development for community infrastructure. Therefore, development of the project on rail corridor land will be exempt from assessment against the planning schemes for the former Caloundra City and Maroochy Shire local government areas. Despite this, it will still be necessary to obtain various approvals under other State legislation for the development of the new rail infrastructure.

The power of the Chief Executive of the Department of Transport and Main Roads to acquire property on behalf of the State of Queensland is contained in Section 25 of the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 (TPC Act). Property may be acquired by agreement or by resumption. Section 25 of the TPC Act states that the Chief Executive may acquire land for a transport purpose or for a purpose incidental to transport. The Chief Executive of the Department of Transport and Main Roads is a constructing authority within the meaning of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (ALA) which sets out the procedure to follow in acquiring

land and how compensation is determined. The Department of Transport and Main Roads, as the proponent, proposes to utilise the powers under the TPC Act to acquire the rail corridor.

The Transport Infrastructure Act (TIA) aims to provide a regime that allows effective management and planning of all forms of transport infrastructure in Queensland.

The TIA establishes the process for land acquired under the provisions of the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994 or the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 to be transferred to unallocated State land, and subsequently leased as railway, under section 239AI and 240. The TIA also permits the State to delay transfer of acquired land to unallocated State until after the railway and associated infrastructure is constructed, to allow for greater certainty of boundaries. Section 240A of the TIA also allows for the surrender of sub-leased railway land, which then reverts back to unallocated State land. This is particularly relevant in areas where future proposals for reuse of railway corridor land are being investigated.

Part 8, Section 249 of the TIA also provides the Minister with powers to gazette roads that are intersected by future rail to be declared as a common area, to allow construction and operation of the railway over or under the road. For example, this includes:

level crossings ß

a bridge or other structure to allow the rail to pass over ßthe road

a bridge or other structure that allows the road to pass over ßthe rail.

Section 250 of the TIA outlines the powers and responsibilities associated with the lowering of roads and related infrastructure.

Section 258 of the TIA outlines the role of the assessment manager, or referral agency, in considering the impact of proposed development on the safety and operational integrity of railways and future railways.

The Water Act 2000 provides for the sustainable planning and management of the State’s water resources. The Act is administered by Department of Environment and Resource Management and requires that most water-related development is assessed and approved under IDAS.

Under Section 266 of the Water Act, works that involve the destruction of vegetation, excavation or placing fill within the bed and banks of a watercourse, lake or spring or any other water-related development require approval (i.e. a riverine protection permit). Project works such as the bridge construction within the defined extent of a watercourse would require a riverine protection permit. Significant efforts to minimise the number and nature of waterway crossings have been undertaken in the selection and refinement of the preferred route.


The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) places emphasis on managing Queensland’s environment within the principles of ecologically sustainable development. The EP Act is administered by the Department of Environment and Resource Management.

Under the EP Act, approval is required for:

a) activities that could cause actual or potential environmental harm via the generation of emissions or through carrying out the activity

b) Environmentally Relevant Activities (ERA)

c) activities likely to cause land contamination (see notifiable activities recorded on the Environmental Management Register)

d) all other notifiable activities listed in Schedule 2 of the EP Act.

An ERA is an activity that has been identified as one that will, or has the potential to, release contaminants into the environment causing environmental nuisance or harm. If a development application involves an activity that is an ERA, the application must be assessed against the EP Act. The environmental impacts associated with the activities are primarily managed through licensing ERAs under the IPA and the EP Act. Schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection Regulation 1998 lists and describes the activities that are ERAs.

Depending on the type of the ERA, the administering authority for a particular ERA could be the Department of Environment and Resource Management, another State Department, or a Council. The designated administering authority for the activity carries out this assessment. The applicable IDAS trigger for ERAs is Schedule 8, Part 1, Table 2, Item 1.

A number of ERAs may potentially be triggered during the construction stage, including ERA 7 - Chemical storage; ERA 11 - Crude oil or petroleum product storage; or, ERA 84 – Regulated Waste Transport. Approvals for these potential ERAs would be the responsibility of a construction contractor, should it be necessary for such activities to occur on site.

The Vegetation Management Act 1999 regulates the clearing of mapped, remnant vegetation and essential habitat on freehold land. The Act was introduced to halt broadscale clearing in Queensland. The objectives of the Act are to:

preserve remnant regional ecosystems that are endangered or ßof concern

preserve vegetation in areas of high nature conservation ß

preserve areas vulnerable to land degradation ß

ensure clearing does not cause land degradation ß

maintain or increase biodiversity ß

maintain ecological processes and encourage ecologically ßsustainable land use.

The project area includes numerous regional ecosystems, some of which are recognised as Endangered or Of Concern or are in ‘Moratorium areas’. As the project has been declared a significant project under the SDPWO Act, it is recognised as a ‘relevant’ purpose under Section 22A of the Vegetation Management Act. As such it will be assessed under part 5 of the Regional Vegetation Management Code: South East Queensland Bioregion (a provision of the Vegetation Management Act 1999). Offset requirements and processes under the VMA are discussed on the following page.

The Native Title Act 1993 is the recognition in Australian law that some Indigenous people continue to hold rights to their lands and waters, which come from their traditional laws and customs. Native title exists as a bundle of rights and interests in relation to land and waters where the following conditions are met:

the rights and interests are possessed under the traditional ßlaws currently acknowledged and the traditional customs currently observed by the relevant Indigenous people

those Indigenous people have a ‘connection’ with the area in ßquestion by those traditional laws and customs

the rights and interests are recognised by the common law ßof Australia.

Native title has its source in the body of law and custom acknowledged and observed by the claimant’s ancestors when Australia was colonised by Europeans. Those laws and customs must have been acknowledged and observed in a ‘substantially uninterrupted’ way from the time of settlement until now.

This matter is discussed further in Chapter 10, Cultural heritage.

The Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 provides the legislative framework for managing and protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage issues associated with any development project that involves disturbance of the landscape. Amongst other things, the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act provides for the development and approval of a Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) as to how a project is to be managed to avoid harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage.

A CHMP is required to be developed and approved under Part 7 of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act where an EIS is required for a project under other legislation. Therefore, on the basis that an EIS is required under the SDPWO Act for the project, the Department of Transport and Main Roads is required to prepare and seek approval for a CHMP in accordance with Section 87 of the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act. This matter is discussed further in Chapter 10, Cultural heritage.


The Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) provides that wildlife is to be managed in accordance with:

a) the management principles prescribed by this division for the class of the wildlife

b) the declared management intent for the wildlife

c) any conservation plan for the wildlife.

Native flora and fauna species of conservation significance are listed as Endangered, Vulnerable, Rare, or Near-Threatened in the Queensland Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006.

All native plants in Queensland are deemed ‘protected plants’ according to the NC Act. The Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service administers the Act. A clearing permit can only be granted if not prohibited within the plan and the taking of plants would not have significant impact on a viable population or community of wildlife.

In regard to the project, a clearing permit may be triggered by the ‘taking’ of plants or habitat for animals listed under the NC Act in association with the construction of the railway and associated infrastructure. The presence of significant plants or habitat within the project area is described in Chapter 11, Terrestrial flora; Chapter 12, Terrestrial fauna; and Chapter 13, Aquatic biology.

The Queensland Government has developed an Environmental Offsets Policy (QGEOP) that came into effect on 1 July 2008. This policy sets up a co-ordinated framework for an offsets scheme to operate in Queensland. Under the policy there are several ‘specific issues‘ policies, namely Marine Fish Habitat, Vegetation Management, Koala Habitat and others to be developed (including biodiversity and waste water). The framework also includes an underlying offset fund, which has been named EcoFund. The EcoFund will be the body responsible for identifying and securing offsets on the ground with the project proponents.

In reference to ‘significant projects’ under the SDPWO Act, if these projects trigger a specific issue offsets policy (after all efforts have been made to avoid or minimise impacts), the need for offsets should be considered at the EIS assessment stage. For significant projects, the proponent may also be required to provide offsets for impacts not currently covered by a specific-issue offsets policy (e.g. biodiversity). In this case, the principles and guidelines of the QGEOP are to be followed in setting offset conditions.

In relation to the project, the vegetation clearing would trigger the Vegetation Management Offsets Policy within the QGEOP. Under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 the establishment of the rail corridor is assessable development. Hence, the future clearing of remnant vegetation resulting from the construction must be assessed by the Department of Environment and Resource Management when clearing permits are sought. The clearing would be assessed under Part P, Regional Vegetation Management Code for SEQ. There are various parts of the code that the project would not be able to satisfy without providing an offset in accordance with the Vegetation Management Offsets Policy. There are seven criteria within the policy that have to be met by the proposed offsets.

1. Vegetation must not be currently protected.

The area cannot currently be mapped as remnant -vegetation (unless it has been approved for clearing or is suffering an immediate threatening process).

The area cannot be protected by conditions within a -Development Application.

The area must not be identified as protected vegetation -as highlighted on a Property Map of Assessable Vegetation (PMAV).

The area must not be protected already by any -other legislation.

2. Vegetation must be in the same geographical area (i.e. same bioregion) and be the same Regional Ecosystem if the vegetation is endangered or essential habitat or at least have the same status in other scenarios.

3. Vegetation must be at least two hectares in area and be capable of attaining remnant status within a maximum of 20 years unless otherwise specified.

4. The vegetation offset must be ‘Ecologically Equivalent’ to the area proposed for clearing. This considers all things that make a patch of vegetation self-sustaining, i.e. area to perimeter ratio, condition, age, connectivity, size. Generally, removal of high quality vegetation would necessitate a much larger area of regrowth vegetation as an offset or a smaller area of high quality regrowth to compensate for the risk / uncertainty associated with establishment.

5. A Vegetation Management Plan must be presented to describe how the offset would be managed to ensure it attains and retains remnant status.

6. Offset must be legally secured, i.e. purchased and subject to a covenant, under an agreement or handed to State or Local government as conservation area.

A financial contribution is not considered an offset.


The provisions of IPA enable the Queensland Government to prepare and adopt State Planning Policies (SPPs) to establish the government’s position in regard to planning and development matters of State significance. There are currently four SPPs that have been identified as relevant to the Landsborough to Nambour Rail project. These are discussed below.

The protection of agricultural land from unplanned or inappropriate development is essential to maintain the future productivity and efficiency of rural industries. The Queensland Government considers that good quality agricultural land is a finite resource that must be protected and managed for the longer term. This SPP provides for the conservation of good quality agricultural land and sets out broad principles to protect this resource from inappropriate development.

The impact of the construction and operation of the railway in respect to good quality agricultural land is addressed in Chapter 3, Land use and planning, and Chapter 5, Geology and soils.

SPP 2/02 focuses on managing the potential adverse impacts on the environment and human health when undertaking activities such as excavation or filling in locations where ASS are known or likely to occur.

Section 2.2 of SPP 2/02 states that the policy applies to all land, soil and sediment at or below 5 m AHD where the natural ground level is less than 20 m AHD that is the subject of development involving any of the following activities:

excavating or otherwise removing 100 m ß 3 or more of soil or sediment

filling of land involving 500 m ß 3 or more of material with an average depth of 0.5 m or greater.

Areas of Acid Sulfate Soil Risk are discussed in Chapter 5, Geology and soils. These have been identified around Paynter and Petrie Creeks.

SPP 1/03 relates to the consideration and mitigation of adverse impacts relating to flood, bushfire and landslide, events that are potentially relevant to the project. In the case of this project, the potentially relevant events are likely to be related to flooding, bushfire and landslide.

The former local government areas within which the project and associated infrastructure will be located (i.e. Caloundra City and Maroochy Shire), have identified natural hazard management areas in the respective planning schemes in accordance with SPP 1/03.

The potential impact of natural hazards including flooding, landslide and bushfire are addressed in Chapter 19, Hazards and risks.

The SPP sets out the State’s interests concerning development on or in the vicinity of extractive resources of State significance (referred to as Key Resource Areas or KRAs). KRAs throughout Queensland are identified by the SPP, including both extraction and processing areas (including future expansions of mines/quarries) and a separation area designed to buffer the extractive industries from surrounding land uses.

Both State and local government have planned for the future development of the project area through the South East Queensland Regional Plan, the Draft Caloundra Local Growth Management Strategy, and the Draft Maroochy Local Growth Management Strategy. Although Caloundra City Council and Maroochy Shire Council have amalgamated and are now part of the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, it is understood that a similar vision would continue for the future planning of the project area. Further discussion of local government planning frameworks is provided in Chapter 3, Land use and infrastructure.

Although the local government planning framework has been considered in the selection of the preferred route for the project, it is not necessarily a key driver for the project itself. The need for improved public transport in the region, including an upgraded rail service is recognised at a strategic level in the local government planning framework, but provision of infrastructure to achieve this outcome is not addressed at a land use level in any of the planning documents as this is a State responsibility. As the project requires consideration of planning beyond 2026 which exceeds the life span of the current Regional Plan and local government planning schemes, it is intended that these plans would, in time, be amended to reflect the opportunities and constraints arising from the project.

A number of different major approval pathways for the future development of the Landsborough to Nambour Rail project have been evaluated to determine the most appropriate process. Key factors to be considered in determining the preferred major approval pathway for the project are:


the need for an established approvals pathway ß

the duration of the approval ß

whether the pathway constitutes a ‘whole of ßgovernment approval’

the land acquisition requirements associated with the ßapproval pathway

whether the approvals pathway is subject to third ßparty challenge.

It should be noted that subsidiary approvals will be required under various Commonwealth and State Acts. In particular, various elements of the Landsborough to Nambour project will require approvals triggered under Schedule 8 of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (IPA).

There are five major approval pathways available to the Department of Transport and Main Roads for the development of the project. These are:

Integrated Development Assessment System (IDAS) under ßChapter 3 of IPA

designation of Land for Community Infrastructure (CID) ßunder Chapter 2, Part 6 of IPA

ministerial direction to Sunshine Coast Regional Council ßto amend its existing planning scheme/s by including appropriate provisions that exempt the development of the project from assessment under Section 2.3.2 of IPA

through the “State Interest Review” step of the planning ßscheme preparation process (refer Schedule 1 of IPA), request the Sunshine Coast Regional Council to include appropriate

provisions in its new planning scheme for the amalgamated Council area to exempt the development of the project from assessment against the planning scheme; or

‘Authorised Works’ under the ß State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971.

Each of these options is described further below.

Application for material change of use for the project would normally follow the IDAS process under Chapter 3 of the IPA. However, as the project has been declared a ‘significant project’ for which an EIS is required under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, any application for material change of use will not require the referral stage (including the information request) or the notification stage of IDAS to apply to the assessment process.

The Coordinator-General’s Report on the EIS will have the same effect as if it were a concurrence agency’s response (i.e. it may direct that certain conditions be attached to the approval, that the approval must be for only part of the development, that a preliminary approval only may be given, or that the application be refused). The report must give reasons for whatever action is directed in the report.

The decision stage of IDAS does not commence until the Coordinator-General gives the assessment manager a copy of the report (or if the Coordinator-General is the assessment manager, the proponent is given a copy of the report). Figure 1.10.2 diagram illustrates the IDAS process that would be relevant to a material change of use application for the project:

SD&PWO Act

CoGdeclares

significantproject

CoG invitessubmissions on

draft ToR forEIS

CoGfinalises

ToR of EIS

Proponentprepares and

publiclynotifies EIS

COG assessesEIS andpreparesreport

Proponent makesdevelopment

application underIDAS

Asessment manager assessesdevelopment application –includes COG’s response

IDAS

NOINFORMATION& REFERRAL

STAGE

NONOTIFICATION

STAGE

Figure 1.10.2: Potential IDAS process

Source: IDAS Implementation Note 30 – IPA and the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (QDLGPSR, July 2007)


As CID facilitates the integration of land use and infrastructure planning it is appropriate to use the mechanism in the case of existing community infrastructure if substantial extensions are proposed, or if extensions include development that varies from the purpose or requirements of an existing designation. This is relevant to the project.

Development which constitutes ‘community infrastructure’ is listed under Schedule 5 of IPA, including category (m) railway lines, stations and associated facilities, into which it is considered the project will fall.

CID is determined based on a Minister’s assessment that the proposed infrastructure satisfies the matters outlined in Section 2.6.2 of IPA. The CID proposal must pass a public benefit test to ensure the designation is justified. The Minister must be satisfied the community infrastructure will contribute to environmental protection, ecological sustainability, and satisfy community expectations for the efficient and timely supply of infrastructure.

Further, a Minister must be satisfied, under section 2.6.7(1), that for development the subject of a proposed designation, there has been adequate environmental assessment, including adequate public consultation, and also adequate account has been taken of the issues raised in the public consultation. Section 2.6.7(3) provides that adequate environmental assessment and public consultation has been carried out if one of five statutory processes has been completed (which includes the EIS process under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 under which this EIS is being undertaken).

An effect of CID is that development under a designation is exempt development under the planning scheme (refer Section 2.6.5 of IPA). Accordingly, development does not require an approval under the planning scheme, nor need to meet any scheme requirements.

Schedule 9 of IPA makes all aspects of development for community infrastructure prescribed under a regulation exempt from assessment under a planning scheme. This development is listed in Schedule 11 of the Integrated Planning Regulation 1998 and includes all aspects of development in certain circumstances for—

State-controlled roads ß

other transport infrastructure (including rail transport ßinfrastructure)

electricity infrastructure. ß

Under section 2.3.2 of the IPA, if a Minister is satisfied that it is necessary to give a direction to protect or give effect to a State interest, the Minister may direct a local government to take an action in relation to its local planning instrument or a proposed local planning instrument.

The Department of Transport and Main Roads has a State interest under the plan-making provisions of IPA to ensure that local government planning schemes seek to promote and protect public transport services through their development assessment requirements. This State interest is based on the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, Transport Operations (Passenger Transport) Act 1994 and the Transport Planning and Coordination Act 1994.

One way that the State interest of the Department of Transport and Main Roads can be reflected is by Sunshine Coast Regional Council nominating the development of the project as exempt development in its planning schemes.

Therefore, the Minister for Transport could direct the council to amend its planning schemes to exempt the project from assessment in accordance with Section 2.3.3 of IPA.

As identified for the ministerial direction option, the Department of Transport and Main Roads has a State interest under the plan-making provisions of IPA to ensure that local government planning schemes seek to promote and protect public transport services through their development assessment requirements.

It is understood that the Sunshine Coast Regional Council are currently proceeding with the preparation of a new planning scheme for the amalgamated council area.

The process for making or amending a planning scheme under Schedule 1 of IPA includes the requirement for the council to consider the State interests when drafting the development assessment provisions. Therefore, as part of the ‘State Interest Review’ step of the planning scheme preparation process, the Department of Transport and Main Roads could request the council to include appropriate provisions in its new planning scheme for the amalgamated council area to exempt the development of the project from assessment against the planning scheme.


To provide a legal mechanism to facilitate the development of the project, an application can be made to the Coordinator- General to pass a regulation under Section 100 of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971. This provides the Coordinator-General (having assessed the consequences of the project through the EIS process) to direct that particular works for the project be undertaken.

Schedule 9 of IPA makes all aspects of development a person is directed to carry out under a notice, order or direction made under a State law as exempt.

A summary of the performance of each of the major approvals pathway options against the evaluation criteria is summarised in the development approval matrix in Appendix C. In summary, the ministerial direction option is the only option that is not considered to be an established approval pathway. As for the Planning Scheme Exemption option, the approval is permanent, whereas the duration of a development permit for material change of use under IDAS is four years and the duration of a CID six years. The ministerial direction and ‘Authorised Works’ options do not provide any opportunity for community input. None of the options provide opportunities for third party appeal.

Based on the evaluation of the five options described, it is recommended that the Department of Transport and Main Roads proceed with the option of seeking the inclusion of an exemption from development approval in the new planning scheme being prepared for the Sunshine Coast Regional Council area through the ‘State interest review’ step of the plan making process specified in Schedule 1 of IPA. This is due to the following factors:

The long term nature of the delivery of the project (not ßrequired to be operational until 2026) means that a ‘short’ pathway leading to a ‘quick’ approval will not be necessary.

Ensuring that the new planning scheme for the Sunshine ßCoast Regional Council area includes an appropriate exemption in regard to the development of rail transport infrastructure (including railway lines, stations and associated facilities) will benefit both the delivery of the project and other similar rail projects within the area, such CAMCOS.

The plan making process under Schedule 1 of IPA is an ßestablished process which includes significant opportunity for the local community to be involved with the drafting of the new planning scheme and to consider the implications of including an exemption from development approval in regard to the project. This ensures a high level of transparency.

The inclusion of an exemption in the new planning scheme ßwill not necessarily require the Department of Transport and Main Roads to expedite the acquisition of land required to implement the project.

The State interest of the Department of Transport and ßMain Roads under the plan-making provisions of IPA to ensure that local government planning schemes seek to promote and protect public transport services through their development assessment requirements is already well-know to the Sunshine Coast Regional Council. Therefore, the process of voluntarily including an exemption in the new planning scheme through the “State interest review” step of the plan making process is likely to be politically palatable.

A number of other approvals, permits and licences will be required for the construction of the project triggered under specific legislation. Appendix C provides a summary of the approvals, permits and licences that will likely be required for the construction of the project. This list of approvals is likely to require updating as the project progresses towards the construction phase.

The technical investigations documented in this Environmental Impact Statement have been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the terms of reference, where appropriate. Information provided by the community through submissions, meetings and discussions with members of the study team at community information sessions has also been considered during the preparation of this Environmental Impact Statement. Whilst anecdotal in most circumstances, this information has been reviewed and considered in the assessment of impacts and finalisation of the preliminary project design.

This Environmental Impact Statement was originally commissioned by and prepared for Queensland Transport, now the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

Landsborough to Nambour Rail Corridor Study .../media/Projects/L/Landsborough... · Landsborough to...

Documents

Transcript of Landsborough to Nambour Rail Corridor Study .../media/Projects/L/Landsborough... · Landsborough to...