The campaign to protect the Pumicestone Passage, a complex marine habitat and Ramsar wetland with tidal entrances at Caloundra and the southern end of Bribie Island, was fought with great passion by Kathleen McArthur. Her book Pumicestone Passage: a living waterway formed the basis for a submission to protect the values of the Passage against the threat of dredging for residential canal development.

Following other threats from woodchip plant and paper mill proposals, and more campaigning, the Moreton Bay Marine Park including the Pumicestone Passage was declared in 1982 (updated in 2004 and reviewed in 2009). While Kathleen was not convinced that this status would fully protect the biodiversity of the Passage, the waterway remains an important resource for commercial and recreational fisheries as a nursery for juvenile fish and crustacea, and fulfils a need for escape to wild places in a growing population.

Kathleen McArthur’s book was instrumental in the inclusion of the Passage and Bribie Island on the Australian Heritage Council’s Register of the National Estate in 1992. Kathleen was an ever-vigilant watchdog concerning this beloved area, and the need for vigilance for the future of the Passage and its catchment continues with population pressure in south-east Queensland.

Nambour Chronicle 8 March 1979

WORRY ON WOODCHIP THREAT TO PASSAGE

Establishment of a $300 million woodchip industry in Landsborough Shire would create a Pumicestone Passage pollution threat, according to conservationist Kathleen McArthur.

Mrs McArthur, who is president of the Caloundra branch of the Wildlife Preservation Society and an authority on the Passage, was commenting on Landsborough Shire Council’s call on its two State Parliamentarians––Mr Mike Ahern, Landsborough, and Mr Des Frawley, Caboolture, to press for the establishment of the industry within Shire boundaries. ‘The suggestion shocks me,’ Mrs McArthur said. ‘That type of industry would be unfortunate for Pumicestone Passage from a pollution viewpoint and out of character with Caloundra as a tourist area.’

Society secretary Mr Stan Tutt called for an environmental impact study if the Shire’s bid was successful. He also said candidates for the March 31 council poll should state their views on the proposal before the election. Mr Tutt said residents should also be told:

If the industry would take water from residents;
What provision would be made to control pollution;
Where pine supply would be drawn from; and
Why it is possible to export woodchip when Australians have been told for years that pine supplies were low and areas were planted to supply the local market.

‘I feel our representatives should not be blinded by a long string of figures before giving the proposal careful consideration,’ Mr Tutt said. ‘The Society realises progress is necessary and supports planned progress where pollution is controlled. But an environmental impact study must be made, and its findings made public, before this project proceeds. This is the most important aspect of the entire plan.’

Mrs McArthur said all authorities recognised that Pumicestone Passage should be retained for recreational purposes. ‘The 1974–75 coastal management report said the passage was of crucial concern,’ she said. ‘This view supports a 1972 report on the Moreton Bay region.’

A woodchip industry in the area, however, had been in the pipeline for many years. When the government agreed to increase the size of the national park in the Conondale area it indicated, though not in so many words, that conservationists would have to accept a woodchip industry in the future. ‘It looks as if the future has arrived,’ she said. Mrs McArthur said the Landsborough Shire Council’s suggestion, despite some advantages it might have, stunned her.

Leading Council discussion on the proposal this week, Cr Owen Brown said the Landsborough Shire was the most suitable area for a woodchip industry.

Reproduced with permission of Sunshine Coast Newspapers
© WPSQ, Sunshine Coast & Hinterland Inc

Nambour Chronicle August 1979

FUTURE OF THE PASSAGE

The prevailing ‘bigger the better’ attitude of development could make implications of the conservation alternative to projected development in the Bribie Island/Pumicestone Passage area difficult for many people to appreciate, Caloundra’s conservationist author Kathleen McArthur said this week.

Mrs. McArthur was speaking about three alternative plans contained in a report for future development of that area which was submitted to State cabinet by the Co-ordinator General’s Department this week. The alternatives are described as the Conservation approach, the Access Centre approach and the Development approach. In effect these are two extreme plans suggested as a guide to development by the year 2000, and a ‘compromise’ plan, namely the Access Centre approach. The report is now released for public consideration and will be open for public comment until mid February.

‘Unfortunately most people have not accepted the need to limit growth although these ideas have been discussed for ten years or more,’ Mrs. McArthur said. ‘These development plans look forward to the year 2000. You have only to look at what has been done over the past 20 years to see the value in planning for the next 20.’

As the author of Pumicestone Passage, a book that brings the Bribie area under focus and which was used as a reference for the report; as president of the Caloundra branch of the Wildlife Preservation Society; and as someone who has for many years fought for preservation of the distinctive character of the island and passage, Mrs McArthur said she naturally favoured the conservation alternative––but with qualifications.

Overall she said the interim report was a well-considered document showing the result of thorough studies of the environmental, demographic and tourist points of view. She outlined the main points of all three alternatives, pointing out that all of them disallowed development on the Bribie Island spit.

The Conservation approach wanted no extension of Caloundra beyond Bell’s Creek, and limitation of population in the Pumicestone catchment to 10,000. No dredging was to be allowed south of Lamerough Creek, Golden Beach, and no development at the mouth of Dux Creek. Population of Donnybrook, Toorbul and Ningi were each to be restricted to populations of 500 and the population of Bribie island to 7000. No canals were to be allowed.

The Access Centre approach again called for no extension of Caloundra beyond Bell’s Creek and limitation of the Pumicestone catchment population to 18,000. Minimum dredging was to be allowed to keep waterways clear, and Dux Creek development with artificial bays and islands permitted. Donnybrook, Toorbul and Ningi were to be developed as Access Centres with populations of 3000 each. Bribie Island’s population was set at 13,000 without the Dux Creek development. No canals were to be allowed, but modification of the shore front to provide bays and islands was viewed favourably.

Mrs. McArthur described the Development approach as ‘open slather for developers with no holds barred’. It set a population limit of 75,000 for Pumicestone Passage and allowed expansion of Caloundra beyond Bell’s Creek with the Pumicestone catchment population limit to 17,000 including 3000 on the canals. The mouth of Dux Creek would be developed for 5000 people including 1500 on canals. Donnybrook would be an Access Centre of 3000 people. Toorbul and Ningi would have 20,000 residents, 3000 of them on canals, while an Access Centre at the north end of Bribie Island would accommodate 1500. Mission Point on the island would be another Access Centre with 1500 people while the south end of the island would accommodate 17,000.

Mrs. McArthur said she was in the process of noting down her thoughts on the report, which she would later combine in a comment to the Co-ordinator General’s department. These include the following:

‘With the Premier’s recent proposal for the electrification of the State’s railways, railway towns like Beerwah and Glasshouse could support a much larger and cheaper living population than has been suggested. Bikeways and walkways between them and the Passage would provide useful and healthful means of access to a generation that would probably suffer extreme fuel shortages.

‘There is sufficient foreshore between Bell’s and Currimundi Creeks to allow urban development to go westward, not huddle round the coast.

‘The most important resource of the Pumicestone Passage is its fisheries. These would be damaged by dredging.

‘No canals at all, please. In low-lying areas the water table is high and a domestic water supply can be drawn off through pumps. Canal development would interfere with this supply by changing the water table.

‘All reports on Bribie Island/Pumicestone Passage have agreed that it should be retained as a recreation area with limited growth.

‘In the text of this report they are suggesting a deep-water boat harbour for Caloundra. This would mean putting in a bund or breakwater like any of those artificial harbours. A north-south groyne or wall would mean sand would build up on one side and starve the other side, the Spit side. Studies by the engineering department of Queensland University have resulted in them advising against interference of the Caloundra bar.

‘As regards development in this region, it is worth remembering an instance in 1931 when there was a rise of 3.14 metres in the water level at the pile light for 24 hours due to a drop in barometric pressure before a cyclone. The Golden Beach area was not settled down then and no-one was affected, but the sea rose six feet over it. The only parts of Bribie Island not covered at that time were the sand dunes.’

Reproduced with permission of Sunshine Coast Newspapers
© WPSQ, Sunshine Coast & Hinterland Inc

Nambour Chronicle 3 October 1981

Wildlife and Landscape

IT’S UP TO THE COMMUNITY

In Tokyo, in February 1974, an agreement was signed between Japan and Australia for the protection of migratory birds and their environment, which are dependent on both countries. It was ratified by the Japanese Parliament in April of the same year, but ratification by Australia was delayed until December 1980. This was due to adjustments to State and Commonwealth legislation, which had to be made in order to ensure full implementation of the provisions of the agreement. The agreement, now in force, is as follows:

Both sides will forbid the taking of birds migrating between Australia and Japan and their eggs and internal distribution of manufactured goods using birds and their eggs.
Both sides will regulate the import and export of birds in danger of extinction as well as goods manufactured using these birds.
Both sides will provide for the exchange of scientific information and data on migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction.
Both sides will take appropriate steps for the preservation and betterment of the habitats of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction.

It is Number 4 that is of the greatest concern to the Sunshine Coast, for it is the habitat here of migratory species that is constantly harassed––the sand and mud flats exposed at low tide and the samphire flats used by resting birds exposed at low tide. Much of this habitat has already been lost in the construction of canal estates and the dredging and filling of our estuaries.

Australia is also a signatory to the International Convention of Wetlands of Importance sponsored by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), for promoting national and international awareness of the problems of wetlands conservation. The two major wetlands of the Sunshine Coast would be Pumicestone Passage and the Noosa River system.

In the long term, as always, the responsibility for honoring international agreements and the preservation of our natural heritage is for the community itself.

Kathleen McArthur
Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Caloundra Branch

Sunshine Coast Daily 10 October 1981

Wildlife and Landscape

MORE DEVELOPMENTS AT BELLS CREEK

In 1997 the Queensland Government set up a committee under the auspices of the Co-ordinator General’s Department to examine the question of further urban development adjacent to Pumicestone Passage.

In 1979 an interim report was published and distributed widely as a discussion paper with a request for comments from all those with an interest in this important topic. Those comments had to be with the Department by February 15, 1980. Since then, presumably, the committee has been considering the matter, but no final report has yet been seen.

The interim report contained three Alternative Approaches in the following categories: 1 Conservation; 2 Access Points; 3 Development. The first statements in categories 1 and 2 read ‘No extension of Caloundra beyond Bells Creek’. In the Development category, the first statement reads: ‘Extension of Caloundra beyond Bells Creek with some canal development’.

As the author of Pumicestone Passage––A Living Waterway, which is listed in the bibliography of the report, I received a copy, studied it carefully and submitted an opinion on it. A second copy was received by the Wildlife Preservation Society and similarly responded to.

With this background participation, it was most disturbing to read in the Daily of October 1, 1981 that the Landsborough Shire Council has approved a 247-allotment first stage of a proposed 297 hectare land development on Pumicestone Passage south of Bells Creek, [and that] the ‘original proposal for the total development had included a futuristic plan with canals’.

So it would seem that in granting this approval the LSC has pre-empted the findings of a committee that has been set up by State Cabinet. It seems it has instigated the implementation of the Development Approach with complete disregard for those people and organisations who were requested to contribute their knowledge and opinions to the study.

People so treated will, not surprisingly, look upon Council’s action as not just undemocratic, but uncouth in the extreme.

Kathleen McArthur,
Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Caloundra Branch


	Home Who is Kathleen McArthur? Introducing Kathleen A book of Queensland wildflowers Practising what she preaches Kathleen keeps on fighting Sunshine Coast Citizen of the Century Engage Engaging the community Painting with purpose Introduction Inspiration The paintings Banding together Writing for the newspapers Showing and telling Educate The power of education Newspapers Lunch Theatre Working with Golden Beach State School The books Energise Energising the community Growing and showing Campaigning Environmental advocacy Cooloola The Pumicestone Passage Beach protection Volunteering Past and future Reflecting on the past Disappearing species Vanishing habitat Currimundi Park When the mind opens Sources
	The Passage Worry on woodchip Future of the Passage Up to the community Bells Creek The campaign to protect the Pumicestone Passage, a complex marine habitat and Ramsar wetland with tidal entrances at Caloundra and the southern end of Bribie Island, was fought with great passion by Kathleen McArthur. Her book Pumicestone Passage: a living waterway formed the basis for a submission to protect the values of the Passage against the threat of dredging for residential canal development. Following other threats from woodchip plant and paper mill proposals, and more campaigning, the Moreton Bay Marine Park including the Pumicestone Passage was declared in 1982 (updated in 2004 and reviewed in 2009). While Kathleen was not convinced that this status would fully protect the biodiversity of the Passage, the waterway remains an important resource for commercial and recreational fisheries as a nursery for juvenile fish and crustacea, and fulfils a need for escape to wild places in a growing population. Kathleen McArthur’s book was instrumental in the inclusion of the Passage and Bribie Island on the Australian Heritage Council’s Register of the National Estate in 1992. Kathleen was an ever-vigilant watchdog concerning this beloved area, and the need for vigilance for the future of the Passage and its catchment continues with population pressure in south-east Queensland. © WPSQ, Sunshine Coast & Hinterland Inc Nambour Chronicle 8 March 1979 WORRY ON WOODCHIP THREAT TO PASSAGE Establishment of a $300 million woodchip industry in Landsborough Shire would create a Pumicestone Passage pollution threat, according to conservationist Kathleen McArthur. Mrs McArthur, who is president of the Caloundra branch of the Wildlife Preservation Society and an authority on the Passage, was commenting on Landsborough Shire Council’s call on its two State Parliamentarians––Mr Mike Ahern, Landsborough, and Mr Des Frawley, Caboolture, to press for the establishment of the industry within Shire boundaries. ‘The suggestion shocks me,’ Mrs McArthur said. ‘That type of industry would be unfortunate for Pumicestone Passage from a pollution viewpoint and out of character with Caloundra as a tourist area.’ Society secretary Mr Stan Tutt called for an environmental impact study if the Shire’s bid was successful. He also said candidates for the March 31 council poll should state their views on the proposal before the election. Mr Tutt said residents should also be told: If the industry would take water from residents; What provision would be made to control pollution; Where pine supply would be drawn from; and Why it is possible to export woodchip when Australians have been told for years that pine supplies were low and areas were planted to supply the local market. ‘I feel our representatives should not be blinded by a long string of figures before giving the proposal careful consideration,’ Mr Tutt said. ‘The Society realises progress is necessary and supports planned progress where pollution is controlled. But an environmental impact study must be made, and its findings made public, before this project proceeds. This is the most important aspect of the entire plan.’ Mrs McArthur said all authorities recognised that Pumicestone Passage should be retained for recreational purposes. ‘The 1974–75 coastal management report said the passage was of crucial concern,’ she said. ‘This view supports a 1972 report on the Moreton Bay region.’ A woodchip industry in the area, however, had been in the pipeline for many years. When the government agreed to increase the size of the national park in the Conondale area it indicated, though not in so many words, that conservationists would have to accept a woodchip industry in the future. ‘It looks as if the future has arrived,’ she said. Mrs McArthur said the Landsborough Shire Council’s suggestion, despite some advantages it might have, stunned her. Leading Council discussion on the proposal this week, Cr Owen Brown said the Landsborough Shire was the most suitable area for a woodchip industry. Reproduced with permission of Sunshine Coast Newspapers © WPSQ, Sunshine Coast & Hinterland Inc Nambour Chronicle August 1979 FUTURE OF THE PASSAGE The prevailing ‘bigger the better’ attitude of development could make implications of the conservation alternative to projected development in the Bribie Island/Pumicestone Passage area difficult for many people to appreciate, Caloundra’s conservationist author Kathleen McArthur said this week. Mrs. McArthur was speaking about three alternative plans contained in a report for future development of that area which was submitted to State cabinet by the Co-ordinator General’s Department this week. The alternatives are described as the Conservation approach, the Access Centre approach and the Development approach. In effect these are two extreme plans suggested as a guide to development by the year 2000, and a ‘compromise’ plan, namely the Access Centre approach. The report is now released for public consideration and will be open for public comment until mid February. ‘Unfortunately most people have not accepted the need to limit growth although these ideas have been discussed for ten years or more,’ Mrs. McArthur said. ‘These development plans look forward to the year 2000. You have only to look at what has been done over the past 20 years to see the value in planning for the next 20.’ As the author of Pumicestone Passage, a book that brings the Bribie area under focus and which was used as a reference for the report; as president of the Caloundra branch of the Wildlife Preservation Society; and as someone who has for many years fought for preservation of the distinctive character of the island and passage, Mrs McArthur said she naturally favoured the conservation alternative––but with qualifications. Overall she said the interim report was a well-considered document showing the result of thorough studies of the environmental, demographic and tourist points of view. She outlined the main points of all three alternatives, pointing out that all of them disallowed development on the Bribie Island spit. The Conservation approach wanted no extension of Caloundra beyond Bell’s Creek, and limitation of population in the Pumicestone catchment to 10,000. No dredging was to be allowed south of Lamerough Creek, Golden Beach, and no development at the mouth of Dux Creek. Population of Donnybrook, Toorbul and Ningi were each to be restricted to populations of 500 and the population of Bribie island to 7000. No canals were to be allowed. The Access Centre approach again called for no extension of Caloundra beyond Bell’s Creek and limitation of the Pumicestone catchment population to 18,000. Minimum dredging was to be allowed to keep waterways clear, and Dux Creek development with artificial bays and islands permitted. Donnybrook, Toorbul and Ningi were to be developed as Access Centres with populations of 3000 each. Bribie Island’s population was set at 13,000 without the Dux Creek development. No canals were to be allowed, but modification of the shore front to provide bays and islands was viewed favourably. Mrs. McArthur described the Development approach as ‘open slather for developers with no holds barred’. It set a population limit of 75,000 for Pumicestone Passage and allowed expansion of Caloundra beyond Bell’s Creek with the Pumicestone catchment population limit to 17,000 including 3000 on the canals. The mouth of Dux Creek would be developed for 5000 people including 1500 on canals. Donnybrook would be an Access Centre of 3000 people. Toorbul and Ningi would have 20,000 residents, 3000 of them on canals, while an Access Centre at the north end of Bribie Island would accommodate 1500. Mission Point on the island would be another Access Centre with 1500 people while the south end of the island would accommodate 17,000. Mrs. McArthur said she was in the process of noting down her thoughts on the report, which she would later combine in a comment to the Co-ordinator General’s department. These include the following: ‘With the Premier’s recent proposal for the electrification of the State’s railways, railway towns like Beerwah and Glasshouse could support a much larger and cheaper living population than has been suggested. Bikeways and walkways between them and the Passage would provide useful and healthful means of access to a generation that would probably suffer extreme fuel shortages. ‘There is sufficient foreshore between Bell’s and Currimundi Creeks to allow urban development to go westward, not huddle round the coast. ‘The most important resource of the Pumicestone Passage is its fisheries. These would be damaged by dredging. ‘No canals at all, please. In low-lying areas the water table is high and a domestic water supply can be drawn off through pumps. Canal development would interfere with this supply by changing the water table. ‘All reports on Bribie Island/Pumicestone Passage have agreed that it should be retained as a recreation area with limited growth. ‘In the text of this report they are suggesting a deep-water boat harbour for Caloundra. This would mean putting in a bund or breakwater like any of those artificial harbours. A north-south groyne or wall would mean sand would build up on one side and starve the other side, the Spit side. Studies by the engineering department of Queensland University have resulted in them advising against interference of the Caloundra bar. ‘As regards development in this region, it is worth remembering an instance in 1931 when there was a rise of 3.14 metres in the water level at the pile light for 24 hours due to a drop in barometric pressure before a cyclone. The Golden Beach area was not settled down then and no-one was affected, but the sea rose six feet over it. The only parts of Bribie Island not covered at that time were the sand dunes.’ Reproduced with permission of Sunshine Coast Newspapers © WPSQ, Sunshine Coast & Hinterland Inc Nambour Chronicle 3 October 1981 Wildlife and Landscape IT’S UP TO THE COMMUNITY In Tokyo, in February 1974, an agreement was signed between Japan and Australia for the protection of migratory birds and their environment, which are dependent on both countries. It was ratified by the Japanese Parliament in April of the same year, but ratification by Australia was delayed until December 1980. This was due to adjustments to State and Commonwealth legislation, which had to be made in order to ensure full implementation of the provisions of the agreement. The agreement, now in force, is as follows: Both sides will forbid the taking of birds migrating between Australia and Japan and their eggs and internal distribution of manufactured goods using birds and their eggs. Both sides will regulate the import and export of birds in danger of extinction as well as goods manufactured using these birds. Both sides will provide for the exchange of scientific information and data on migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction. Both sides will take appropriate steps for the preservation and betterment of the habitats of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction. It is Number 4 that is of the greatest concern to the Sunshine Coast, for it is the habitat here of migratory species that is constantly harassed––the sand and mud flats exposed at low tide and the samphire flats used by resting birds exposed at low tide. Much of this habitat has already been lost in the construction of canal estates and the dredging and filling of our estuaries. Australia is also a signatory to the International Convention of Wetlands of Importance sponsored by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), for promoting national and international awareness of the problems of wetlands conservation. The two major wetlands of the Sunshine Coast would be Pumicestone Passage and the Noosa River system. In the long term, as always, the responsibility for honoring international agreements and the preservation of our natural heritage is for the community itself. Kathleen McArthur Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Caloundra Branch Reproduced with permission of Sunshine Coast Newspapers © WPSQ, Sunshine Coast & Hinterland Inc Sunshine Coast Daily 10 October 1981 Wildlife and Landscape MORE DEVELOPMENTS AT BELLS CREEK In 1997 the Queensland Government set up a committee under the auspices of the Co-ordinator General’s Department to examine the question of further urban development adjacent to Pumicestone Passage. In 1979 an interim report was published and distributed widely as a discussion paper with a request for comments from all those with an interest in this important topic. Those comments had to be with the Department by February 15, 1980. Since then, presumably, the committee has been considering the matter, but no final report has yet been seen. The interim report contained three Alternative Approaches in the following categories: 1 Conservation; 2 Access Points; 3 Development. The first statements in categories 1 and 2 read ‘No extension of Caloundra beyond Bells Creek’. In the Development category, the first statement reads: ‘Extension of Caloundra beyond Bells Creek with some canal development’. As the author of Pumicestone Passage––A Living Waterway, which is listed in the bibliography of the report, I received a copy, studied it carefully and submitted an opinion on it. A second copy was received by the Wildlife Preservation Society and similarly responded to. With this background participation, it was most disturbing to read in the Daily of October 1, 1981 that the Landsborough Shire Council has approved a 247-allotment first stage of a proposed 297 hectare land development on Pumicestone Passage south of Bells Creek, [and that] the ‘original proposal for the total development had included a futuristic plan with canals’. So it would seem that in granting this approval the LSC has pre-empted the findings of a committee that has been set up by State Cabinet. It seems it has instigated the implementation of the Development Approach with complete disregard for those people and organisations who were requested to contribute their knowledge and opinions to the study. People so treated will, not surprisingly, look upon Council’s action as not just undemocratic, but uncouth in the extreme. Kathleen McArthur, Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland, Caloundra Branch Reproduced with permission of Sunshine Coast Newspapers © WPSQ, Sunshine Coast & Hinterland Inc