epbc 2011/6194 - Department of the Environment

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

RECOMMENDATION REPORT

ABBOT POINT COAL TERMINAL 0, PORT OF ABBOT POINT,

QUEENSLAND (EPBC 2011/6194)

1. Recommendation

That the proposed action, to construct a coal terminal at the Port of Abbot Point comprising

offshore and onshore infrastructure associated with a coal terminal be approved subject to the

conditions specified below.

Conditions

1. The approved action must be undertaken in the project area depicted in Figures 2-4a and

2-4b at Attachment C Annexure A.

2. The approval holder must not cut down, clear or remove any of the listed endangered

ecological community Semi-evergreen Vine Thicket of the Brigalow Belt (North and South)

and Nandewar Bioregions as shown in Figure 3-76 at Attachment C Annexure B.

Pile Driving Operations

3. The approval holder must implement conditions 4 to 10 (inclusive) related to any pile

driving operations to minimise the impacts of underwater noise and disturbance on the

following identified protected matters:

i. Listed turtle species;

ii. Listed dolphin species;

iii. Dugong (Dugong dugong); and,

iv. Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).

4. Visual observations for the protected matters at condition 3 must be undertaken across the

entire observation zone. The visual observations must be undertaken by a suitably

qualified marine observer for at least 30 minutes immediately preceding the commencement

of piling activities, and during pile driving operations. The criteria for a suitably qualified

marine observer must be submitted to the Minister for approval and records must be kept of

marine observers subsequently engaged. Pile driving activities must not commence until the

criteria has been approved in writing by the Minister.

5. The approval holder must develop the exclusion zones to ensure that each of the

protected matters at condition 3 are not exposed to sound exposure levels of greater than

or equal to 183 dB re 1µ Pa2.s from piling activities. The exclusion zones must be

informed by noise modeling based at the site of the piling activities. Piling activities must

not commence until the exclusion zones have been approved in writing by the Minister.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

6. If Humpback Whales, listed turtle species, Dugongs or listed dolphin species are sighted

within the relevant exclusion zone, the approval holder must cease all piling activities

within the relevant exclusion zone within two minutes of the sighting or as soon as possible

if it is unsafe to cease piling operations within two minutes. If piling activities do not cease

within two minutes, the approval holder must report the incident (including remedial actions)

to the Minister in writing within one business day of the incident occurring.

7. Piling activities must not commence again until Humpback Whales, listed turtle species,

Dugongs or listed dolphin species are observed to move outside the exclusion zone or

30 minutes have passed since the last sighting of the Humpback Whales, listed turtle

species, Dugongs or listed dolphin species within the exclusion zone.

8. Piling activities must be initiated at the soft start level and then built up to full operating

impact force. The soft start procedures can only commence if no Humpback Whales,

listed turtle species, Dugongs or listed dolphin species have been sighted in the

exclusion zone during the pre-start-up visual observations.

9. Marine piling activities must not occur between the hours of sunset and sunrise during:

a) the peak southern migration of Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) defined

as 1 September to 30 November in any year; and,

b) the nesting season for the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) and Flatback Turtle

(Natator depressus) defined as 1 November to 30 April in any year.

Any injury to, or mortality of, a protected matter at condition 3 from piling activities must be

reported to the Minister within one business day of the incident occurring.

Marine and Shipping Management Plan

10. The approval holder must develop a Marine and Shipping Management Plan, covering all

construction and operation activities in the marine environment for the project, to ensure

the protection of the following protected matters:

i. the world heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area;

ii. the National Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef National Heritage place;

iii. the environment in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park;

iv. the environment of the Commonwealth marine area;

v. Listed turtle species;

vi. Listed dolphin species;

vii. Dugong (Dugong dugong); and,

viii. Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).

11. The Marine and Shipping Management Plan must include effective adaptive management

strategies to avoid, minimise and mitigate each potential impact for each of the matters

protected at condition 10.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

12. The Marine and Shipping Management Plan must include; desired outcomes; benchmarks;

readily measureable performance indicators and goals; timeframes for reporting and

implementation; corrective actions; contingency measure; and, specify the persons/roles

with responsibility for implementing actions including, but not limited to:

a. impacts to the marine environment that provides traversing, foraging and/or

breeding habitat for the protected matters at condition 10, including seagrass,

corals, and listed turtle species’ nesting and/or foraging habitat;

b. artificial light spill related impacts on listed turtle species (including hatchlings)

nesting beaches and adjacent marine environment including, but not limited to,

lighting from construction and operation, shipping and/or barge activity, and

anchored/moored vessels. The measures implemented must consider lighting

sources, lighting intensity, directionality and shrouding;

c. measures to ensure shipping activities are undertaken in accordance with the most

current version of plans that manage shipping activities through the Great Barrier

Reef (including, but not limited to, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning

Plan (2003));

d. mechanisms to implement best practice mitigation and management measures for

ship loading and unloading, and all other aspects of shipping activities to minimise

impacts on the marine environment (including from waste, coal dust deposition

and/or other contaminant spills into the marine environment);

e. impacts from vessel strike to listed turtle species, listed dolphin species,

Dugongs and Humpback Whales including, but not limited to, restricting vessel

speed limits to 6 knots within the limits of the Port of Abbot Point;

f. impacts from underwater noise including, but not limited to anchoring, seismic

and/or bathymetric surveying, pile driving activities at conditions 3 to 9 (inclusive),

and shipping;

g. measures that minimise the risk of introduced marine pest species over the life of the project, including ballast water management. The marine pest monitoring program must be consistent with the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s Australian Marine Pest Monitoring Manual (version 2.0), or its most current version;

h. measures to restrict people and/or vehicle access, as it relates to the Terminal 0

project, on Abbot Beach (refer ‘Category B’ and ‘Category C’ Turtle Nesting

Suitability in Figure 3-64 at Attachment C Annexure C) during the nesting season for

the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) and Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus) defined

as 1 November to 30 April in any year. This does not apply to those activities related

to construction or operation occurring between the hours of sunrise and sunset;

and,

i. measures to avoid injury to, or mortality of, listed turtle species, listed dolphin species, Dugong or Humpback whales from marine and shipping activities.

13. The Marine and Shipping Management Plan at condition 10 must be informed by the most

current information available (including, but not limited to, National Water Quality

Management Strategy, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water

Quality (ANZECC 2000)).

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

14. The Marine and Shipping Management Plan at condition 10 may be submitted to the

Minister in the following stages, and the respective stages must not commence until the

Minister has approved each respective plan in writing:

a. a construction plan related to impacts associated with marine related construction activities, including pile driving operations at condition 3 to condition 10 (inclusive); and,

b. an operational plan to reflect impacts associated with operation of the terminal.

15. The Marine and Shipping Management Plan at condition 10 for activities related to

operations must be developed in consultation with relevant Commonwealth agencies,

including the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Authority; state agencies including Maritime Safety Queensland, and with the North

Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation.

16. The Marine Management and Shipping Management Plan at condition 10 must be reviewed,

revised and submitted to the Minister for written approval within 18 months of

commencement of operation, and then every five (5) years thereafter for the life of the

approval.

17. The approved Marine and Shipping Management Plans must be implemented.

Terrestrial Management Plan

18. The approval holder must submit a Terrestrial Management Plan for impacts associated with

the land based construction and operation activities of the project to effectively define,

avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate impacts to the following protected matters:

i. Semi-evergreen Vine Thicket of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar

Bioregions;

ii. Squatter Pigeon (Geophaps scripta scripta);

iii. Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis); and,

iv. Listed migratory bird species.

19. The Terrestrial Management Plan at condition 18 must include effective adaptive

management strategies to mitigate each potential impact for the matters protected at

condition 18.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

20. The Terrestrial Management Plan at condition 18 must include; desired outcomes;

benchmarks; readily measureable performance indicators and goals; timeframes for

reporting and implementation; contingency measures; corrective action; and, specify the

person/s roles with responsibility for implementing actions, including but not limited to:

a. water related impacts including, but not limited to:

i. the downstream impacts to the Caley Valley Wetland;

ii. erosion;

iii. acid sulphate soils;

iv. construction and operation of the sediment ponds;

v. stormwater runoff;

vi. flood events;

vii. controlled and non-controlled discharge events;

viii. pollutants (including hydrocarbon spills, chemicals and waste);

ix. runoff from coal stockpiles; and,

x. those impacting on marine habitat for matters protected at condition 10;

b. impacts on the listed endangered ecological community Semi-evergreen Vine

Thicket of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions including,

but not limited to, downstream water impacts, coal dust, sedimentation, erosion, and

pest and weed incursion; and,

c. impacts from artificial light associated with construction and operation including,

but not limited to the :

i. Caley Valley Wetland; and,

ii. marine environment (including nesting beaches) for listed turtle species.

d. pests and weed management, dust management (including coal dust deposition in

the marine environment for matters protected at condition 10), lighting, noise and

vibration, and fire management.

21. The Terrestrial Management Plan must be informed by the most current information

available (including, but not limited to National Water Quality Management Strategy or

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC

2000)) to avoid, manage or mitigate impacts associated with the project.

22. The Terrestrial Management Plan at condition 18 may be submitted to the Minister in the

following stages, and the respective stages must not commence until the Minister has

approved each respective plan in writing:

a) a construction plan related to impacts associated with construction; and,

b) an operational plan to reflect impacts associated with operation.

23. Within 18 months of commencement of construction, a revised Terrestrial Management

Plan at condition 18 must be submitted to the Minister for written approval. The Terrestrial

Management Plan must be reviewed, revised and submitted to the Minister for written

approval every three (3) years thereafter for the first nine (9) years (unless otherwise agreed

by the Minister in writing) and thereafter every ten (10) years for the life of the approval.

24. The approved Terrestrial Management Plans must be implemented.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan

25. The approval holder must prepare an Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan to:

a) effectively define, avoid, mitigate and adaptively manage impacts on Indigenous

heritage values (including middens and grave sites) as these contribute to the

outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area;

b) demonstrate effective ongoing consultation with Indigenous people;

c) implement employment arrangements (e.g. under an Indigenous Land and Sea

Program) for Indigenous persons in relation to conditions specified in this approval,

where appropriate; and,

d) detail mechanisms for reporting the number of local indigenous person/s actually

employed in the implementation of any of the conditions specified in this approval.

26. Where material required for the Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan at condition 25

is culturally sensitive and cannot be disclosed with the explicit and written consent of the

relevant Indigenous people with rights, claims or interests in the area, the approval holder

must advise the department of the extent to which it cannot comply with condition 25 for

that reason. The commencement of the action cannot take place until the Minister has

provided written notice approving the non-disclosure of any material and/or requesting

further documentation required to satisfy condition 25.

27. Construction must not commence until the Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan has

been approved by the Minister in writing. The Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan

must be reviewed every five (5) years for the first ten (10) years, then every ten (10) years

thereafter for the life of the approval. The approved Indigenous Consultation and Heritage

Plans must be implemented.

Marine Offset Strategy

28. To compensate for residual impacts from this action on the listed Green Turtle and Flatback

Turtle, and to achieve a net benefit to the outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier

Reef World Heritage Area, the approval holder must implement a Marine Offset Strategy for

the period of this approval. This Strategy must include a:

a) Turtle Plan – an annual program to reduce the level of feral pig, dog and fox

predation on Green Turtle and Flatback Turtle species nests; and, enhance the

marine habitat (including seagrass and corals) for those species within the North

Queensland Dry Topics and/or Reef Catchment natural resource management

regions (refer Attachment C Annexure D); and,

b) Marine Plan - to reflect the most appropriate natural resource management priorities

(which may include research) relating to the impacts of this action on the outstanding

universal value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

29. The Marine Offset Strategy at condition 28 must be developed in consultation with the

department, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and relevant Natural resource

Management bodies to ensure activities (including research which, unless otherwise agreed

by the Minister in writing, must not account for greater than 10% of funding at condition 33)

funded through this Strategy reflect the most appropriate management priorities relating to

the residual impacts of this action to matters protected.

30. Mechanisms for review of the Marine Offset Strategy, at least every three years, must also

be identified in consultation with relevant agencies at condition 29.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

31. The Marine Offset Strategy at condition 28 must specify targeted outcomes; benchmarks;

readily measureable performance indicators and goals; timeframes for reporting and

implementation; timeframes to demonstrate when the net benefit to outstanding universal

values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area will be achieved; contingency

measures; corrective actions; and, the person or organisation responsible for implementing

actions identified in the Marine Offset Strategy.

32. The Marine Offset Strategy at condition 28 must be consistent with the department’s

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets

Policy (October 2012).

33. The approval holder must provide a minimum of $450,000 per annum (GST exclusive, and

CPI adjusted annually) for the period of this approval to fund the implementation of the

Marine Offset Strategy. Consideration must be given to how these funds will contribute to

programs or incentives and align with the broader strategies and programs for the Great

Barrier Reef including Reef Trust 2050.

34. Where relevant, the findings from the Marine Offset Strategy must be used to inform the

respective management plans required under this approval on an ongoing basis.

35. Construction must not commence until the Marine Offset Strategy has been approved by

the Minister in writing. An approved Marine Offset Strategy must be implemented.

Independent Review Requirements

36. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minister, each plan or strategy specified in the

conditions must be independently peer reviewed prior to submission to the Minister for

approval. The approval holder must nominate an Independent Peer Reviewer to the

Minister. The Independent Peer reviewer must be approved by the Minister, prior to the

commencement of the review. The independent peer review criteria must be agreed to by

the Minister and any reviews undertaken must address the criteria to the satisfaction of the

Minister.

37. An Independent Peer Review undertaken for the purposes of condition 36 must include an

analysis of the effectiveness of the avoidance and mitigation measures in meeting the

outcomes, targets or management measures identified in the plan/s or strategies being

reviewed.

38. Unless otherwise specified in these conditions or notified in writing by the Minister, the

approval holder must provide to the Minister a copy of all advice and recommendations

made by the Independent Peer Reviewer with the plan or strategy, and an explanation of

how the advice and recommendations will be implemented, or an explanation of why the

approval holder does not propose to implement certain recommendations.

Plan and Strategy Submission

39. If the Minister is not satisfied that a plan or strategy specified in this approval adequately

addresses the conditions specified in the approval, the approval holder will be notified in

writing by the Minister that they must update a plan or strategy to meet the conditions that

have not been adequately addressed.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

40. To avoid duplication, the approval holder may provide the Minister with any plan or

strategy prepared for the State provided the plans or strategy meets the conditions

specified in this approval. The plans or strategy must include a cross reference table that

clearly identifies:

a. the condition specified in this approval for which the plan and strategy is being

provided; and

b. the relevant folder, chapter, section number and page number in the plan or strategy

where the condition has been addressed.

Publication Requirements

41. All survey data and methodology collected for the project must be recorded in accordance

with the applicable approved management plan or strategy. When requested by the

department, the approval holder must provide to the department survey data and

information related to protected matter. This information must be provided within

30 business days of request, or in a timeframe agreed to by the department in writing. The

department may use the survey data for other purposes. The approval holder must also

provide the survey data and methodology that is related to a protected matter, within 30

business days, to anyone who requests the survey data and methodology in writing.

Notification of the availability of the survey data and methodology must be provided on the

approval holder’s website for the duration of this approval.

42. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minister, the approval holder must, every

12 months after the commencement of the action, publish on their website for the

duration of this approval, all survey methodologies, reports and related analysis of survey

data that is related to a protected matter and which was undertaken for the purposes of a

plan, strategy or other condition specified in this approval. The department must be notified

within ten (10) business days of publication.

43. The approval holder must publish the Final Environmental Impact Statement on their

website within five (5) business days from this approval. The Final Environmental Impact

Statement must remain on the approval holder’s website for the duration of this approval.

44. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Minister, the approval holder must publish on

their website, for the life of the project including decommissioning, all current approved

strategies, plans or reviews (including the Independent Peer Review) referred to in these

conditions of approval. Each approved plan, review or strategy (including revised versions)

must be published on the approval holder’s website within one (1) month of approval.

General

45. Within ten (10) days after the commencement of the action, the approval holder must

advise the Minister in writing of the actual date of commencement.

46. The approval holder must maintain accurate records substantiating all activities associated

with or relevant to the conditions of approval, including measures taken to implement a plan

or strategy as specified in these conditions and make them available upon request to the

department. Such records may be subject to audit by the department or an independent

auditor in accordance with section 458 of the EPBC Act, or used to verify compliance with

the conditions of approval. Summaries of audits will be posted on the department’s

website. The results of audits may also be published through the general media.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

47. Within three (3) months of every 12 month anniversary of commencement of the action,

the approval holder must publish a report on their website, for the duration of this approval,

addressing compliance with the conditions of this approval over the previous 12 months,

including implementation of any plan or strategy as specified in the conditions.

48. The approval holder must notify the Department in writing of any non-compliance with any

condition of this approval as soon as practicable and, in any event, no later than two (2)

business days after becoming aware of the non-compliance. The notice provided to the

Department must specify:

a. the condition which the approval holder has breached;

b. the nature of the non-compliance;

c. how the non-compliance will affect the approved action;

d. how the non-compliance will affect the impacts of the approved action, in particular

how the non-compliance will impact on any protected matter by this approval;

e. the measures the approval holder will take to address the impacts of the non-

compliance on the protected matter and rectify the non-compliance; and,

f. the time by when the approval holder will rectify the non-compliance.

49. Every three (3) years from the commencement of the action, the approval holder must

ensure that an independent audit of compliance with the conditions of approval is

conducted and a report submitted to the Minister. The independent auditor must be

approved by the Minister prior to the commencement of the audit. Audit criteria must be

agreed to by the Minister and the audit report must address the criteria to the satisfaction

of the Minister.

50. The approval holder must, in respect of each plan or strategy it is required to submit to the

Minister for approval under these conditions (including revised plans or strategies),

maintain a register recording:

a. the date on which each plan or strategy was approved by the Minister;

b. if a plan or strategy has not been approved the date on which it was, or is

expected to be, submitted to the Minister;

c. the dates on which revised reports or reviews have been approved by the

Minister; and,

d. the dates on which the subsequent reviews are due.

The register must be submitted to the department, at the time the annual compliance report

is published, but does not form part of the report.

51. If the approval holder wishes to carry out any activity otherwise than in accordance with an

approved plan or strategy as specified in the conditions, the approval holder must submit

to the department for the Minister’s written approval a revised version of that plan or

strategy. The varied activity must not commence until the Minister has approved the

varied plan or strategy in writing. The Minister will not approve a varied plan or strategy

unless the revised plan or strategy would result in an equivalent or improved

environmental outcome over time. If the Minister approves the revised plan or strategy

they must be implemented in place of the plan or strategy originally approved.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

52. If, at any time after the first five (5) year anniversary of the date of this approval, the

approval holder has not commenced the action, then the approval holder must not

commence the action without the written agreement of the Minister.

53. If the Minister believes that it is necessary or convenient for the better protection of a

World Heritage property (sections 12 & 15A), a National Heritage place (section 15B

&15C), listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 & 18A), listed migratory

species (section 20 & 20A), a Commonwealth marine area (sections 23 & 24a) and/or the

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C) to do so, the Minister may request

that the approval holder make specified revisions to the plan or strategy specified in the

conditions and submit the revised plan or strategy for the Minister’s written approval. The

approval holder must comply with any such request. If the Minister approves the revised

plan or strategy, the revised plan or strategy must be implemented. Unless the Minister

has approved the revised plan or strategy then the approval holder must continue to

implement the plan or strategy originally approved, as specified in the conditions.

2. Definitions:

Commencement of the action: Any works that are required to be undertaken

for construction.

Construction: Includes site preparation and clearing of vegetation, seismic and/or bathymetric

surveying; earthworks, civil works, associated infrastructure (such as workshop, administration

facilities, sewerage treatment plan or amenities facilities) and marine works. Construction does

not include:

a. minor physical disturbance necessary to undertake pre-clearance surveys or establish

monitoring programs; or

b. activities that are critical to project activities that are associated with mobilisation of

plant and equipment, materials, machinery and personnel prior to the start of port or

road development or construction only if such activities will have no adverse impact on

a protected matter, and only if the approval holder has notified the department in

writing before an activity is undertaken.

Department: The Australian Government department administering the Environment Protection

and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).

Exclusion zone: A radius, from the centre of the pile to be driven, around pile driving

operations for Humpback Whales, listed dolphin species, listed turtle species and Dugongs,

which must be visually observed at all times during piling activities, and where piling

activities must cease if Humpback Whales, listed dolphin species, listed turtle species and

Dugongs are observed within the relevant radius.

Final Environmental Impact Statement: Comprises the Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0 Project,

Final Environmental Impact Statement (June 2013).

Impacts: Has the same meaning as in section 527E of the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).

Indigenous heritage values: Has the same meaning as in section 528 of the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Independent peer review / independently peer reviewed: Assessment of the assumptions,

calculations, extrapolations, alternate interpretations, methodologies, performance goals and

performance criteria, and conclusions pertaining to the plan, strategy and/or program specified

in these conditions by an independent peer reviewer.

Independent peer reviewer: A person/organisation/technical committee, independent of the

approval holder and/or employed in any subsidiary company of the approval holder. This

person/organisation/technical committee must have demonstrated expertise in the protected

matter being reviewed and be approved by the Minister prior to commencement of the review.

Listed dolphin species: Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni) and Indo-Pacific

Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis).

Listed migratory bird species: Listed migratory species under the Environment Protection

and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) as identified in Annexure E.

Listed turtle species: Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas), Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys

imbricate); Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus); Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta); Olive

Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea); and Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea).

Minister: The Minister administering the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation

Act 1999 (Cth), and includes a delegate of the Minister.

Observation zone: A horizontal radius from the pile hammer for Humpback Whales, listed

dolphin species, Dugongs, listed turtle species that must be at least 300 metres greater than

the approved exclusion zone for the Humpback Whales, listed dolphin species, Dugongs,

listed turtle species.

Operation/s: Refers to activities associated with the transport of coal, from the unloading of

coal trains through to shipping of the coal through the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

This does not include activities associated with construction.

Period of low visibility: Where continuous visual observations to a distance of two (2)

kilometers from the marine piling activity are not possible for a time greater than one (1) hour.

Piling activity / Piling activities: Driving one and/or multiple structural supports into the ground

below the waterline.

Protected matters: Means a ‘matter protected’ as that term is defined in section 34 of the

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)) by a provision of Part 3

of the EPBC Act for which this approval has effect.

Publish/ed: a plan, program, strategy, independent peer review or other documentation as it

relates to this approval that is made available on the approval holder’s website for the duration

of the action (including decommissioning).

Reef Trust 2050: means the Reef Trust created under the Reef 2050 plan.

Soft start procedures: Initiated at the commencement of all marine piling activities by piling

at low energy levels and then build up to full impact force. The first five impacts from the piling

activity must be at no more than 50% of full hammer weight (e.g. a hammer with an adjustable

stroke height of 0.6 metres at least 5 times during a ‘soft start procedure), to encourage animals

to move away from subsequent blows.

3. Background

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

3.1. On 15 November 2011, Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd (Adani) (the proponent)

referred the proposed Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0 Project (the T0 Project) at the Port of

Abbot Point, Queensland to the Minister under the Environment, Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act).

3.2. The Port of Abbot Point is located 25 km north west of Bowen on the Queensland coast.

The T0 Project is proposed to be located to the east of and adjacent to the existing

Abbot Point Coal Terminal 1 (T1).

3.3. The proposed action involves the construction and operation of onshore and offshore

infrastructure associated with the coal terminal (Figures 1 and 2) including the following

key components:

a) onshore:

i. rail in-loading and out-loading facilities to offshore infrastructure;

ii. coal handling facilities and coal stockpiles;

iii. stockyard machinery, transfer towers, surge bins and a sampling plant for

the new stockyard;

iv. potential installation of additional fuel facilities;

v. provision of additional water settlement pondage for the new stockpile area;

vi. upgrade of an existing service jetty;

vii. additional sewage treatment for the construction workforce; and

viii. screening of rock; and concrete batching.

b) offshore:

i. a 2.75 km out-loading trestle jetty and conveyor (widening the existing T1

facilities);

ii. new wharves, shiploaders and berths for two cape size vessels (adjacent to

the two existing T1 berths);

iii. marine works associated with the initial survey and design investigations,

engineering and construction of the wharf, jetty structures and berth pockets,

including sediment sampling for analysis of contaminants (note that dredging

required for the operation of T0 is being assessed separately under the

EPBC Act (2011/6213)); and

iv. the use of a jack-up barge to take core samples in the offshore works areas

and seismic/bathymetry studies for geotechnical analysis.

3.4. On 15 November 2011, the referral was published on the department’s website, and

public comments were invited for 10 business days. The department received one public

submission which identified concern regarding the environmental history of the

proponent and an associated company Mundra Port Pty Ltd, which operates in India.

The environmental history of actions in India by Mundra Port Pty Ltd cannot be

considered as part of this decision as it is beyond the jurisdiction of the EPBC Act.

3.5. On 15 November 2011, the department wrote to the following Commonwealth Ministers

in accordance with section 74(1) of the EPBC Act, inviting them to provide comments on

the referral within 10 business days:

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

a) Ms Jo Mulder, delegate for the Hon Greg Combet MP, the then Minister for

Climate Change and Energy Efficiency; and

b) the Hon Martin Ferguson MP, the then Minister for Resources and Energy.

No comments were received in response to those invitations

\

Figure 1. The Terminal 0 (T0) Project offshore component

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Figure 2. The T0 Project onshore component

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

3.6. On 15 November 2011, the department wrote to Mr Lindsay Delzoppo, delegate for the

Hon Vicky Darling MP, the then Queensland Minister for Environment, inviting comments

on the referral within 10 business days, as required by section 74(2) of the EPBC Act.

3.7. On 1 December 2011, Mr Bill Dixon, from the then Queensland Department of

Environment and Resource Management wrote to the department, advising that the then

Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation has reviewed the

referral documentation and advised that the Coordinator-General had not received a

request for declaration of this proposal as a significant project under Part 4 of the State

Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld). He also stated that the

Department of Local Government and Planning had advised that the proposed

development was unlikely to meet the requirements for assessment under Chapter 9,

Part 2 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld). Some general comments about the

receiving environment were also included.

3.8. On 13 December 2011, a delegate of the Minister determined the proposed action was a

controlled action to be assessed by environmental impact statement (EIS), due to likely

significant impacts on:

a) World Heritage properties (s12 & s15A);

b) National Heritage places (s15B & s15C);

c) listed threatened species and communities (s18 & s18A);

d) listed migratory species (s20 & s20A);

e) Commonwealth marine areas (s23 & s24A); and

f) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (s24B & s24C).

3.9. On 22 June 2013, the EPBC Act was amended to provide that water resources are a

matter of national environmental significance, in relation to coal seam gas and large coal

mining development. As the T0 Project is neither a coal seam gas nor large coal mine

development, you are not required to consider this controlling provision.

3.10. On 12 June 2012, the department received a formal request from Adani to vary

the proposed action under s156A of the EPBC Act. The variation constituted more

refined details regarding the rail in-loading facility as well as the inclusion of a second rail

loop option.

3.11. The variation was accepted and notified on the department’s website on

25 June 2012.

3.12. On 7 August 2012, the then Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water,

Population and Communities, the Hon Tony Burke MP (Minister Burke), released the

Draft Guidelines for an Environmental Impact Statement for Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0

(the draft EIS guidelines) for public comment for a period of 25 business days.

3.13. The draft EIS guidelines were available for public consultation between

21 August 2012 and 21 September 2012. Two public submissions were received.

3.14. The public submissions identified concerns regarding:

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

a) impacts from coal dust;

b) impacts to seagrass communities;

c) impacts to migratory species;

d) impacts to the Caley Valley Wetland;

e) the World Heritage Committee Decision; and

f) CO2 emissions.

3.15. On 1 November 2012, having had regard to the public comments, Minister Burke

released the Final Guidelines for an Environmental Impact Statement for Abbot Point

Coal Terminal 0 to Adani.

3.16. On 2 November 2012, Adani provided the Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0 Draft

Environmental Impact Statement (the draft EIS) to the department.

3.17. On 11 December 2012, the department provided comments on the draft EIS to

Adani.

3.18. On 18 January 2013, Adani provided a revised draft EIS to the department.

3.19. On 23 January 2013, the department provided comments on the revised draft

EIS to Adani.

3.20. On 4 February 2013, Adani provided a second revised draft EIS to the

department.

3.21. On 7 February 2013, the department directed Adani to publish their draft EIS for

a period of no less than 30 business days under section 103 of the EPBC Act.

3.22. The draft EIS was published for public consultation between 18 February 2013

and 3 April 2013.

3.23. The department was provided with a draft response to public submissions on

7 June 2013. A total of 17 written submissions and 26,336 petition style submissions

were received by Adani. On 13 June 2013, the department provided comments on the

draft response to public submissions to Adani.

3.24. The public comments highlighted a variety of concerns including:

impacts to air quality;

impacts from coal dust;

limitations of the approval process;

impacts to the ecology of the aquatic environment;

potential exacerbation of climate change and increased green house gas emissions;

consequential and cumulative impacts of the proposal;

economic matters;

impacts from dredging and spoil placement;

impacts to fishing activities (commercial and recreational);

impacts to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park;

marine ecology (particularly turtle nesting and seagrass);

impacts to matters of national environmental significance;

suitability of offsets;

effectiveness of port regulation;

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

impacts to road traffic and transport;

impacts of increased shipping;

social impacts;

impacts to the ecology of the terrestrial environment;

impacts to the on-site water balance; and

impacts to world heritage properties.

3.25. The Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0 Project Final Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) was provided to the department on 21 June 2013.

3.26. On 15 August 2013, the decision on whether or not to approve the T0 Project

was extended, pursuant to section 130(1A) of the EPBC Act, by a delegate of the

Minister for 3 months until 8 November 2013.

3.27. On 21 October 2013, the decision on whether or not to approve the T0 Project

was extended, pursuant to section 130(1A) of the EPBC Act, by a delegate of the

Minister for 6 weeks until 13 December 2013.

4. Other Projects related to the proposed action

4.1. A number of proposed projects at Abbot Point, or associated with the Port of Abbot

Point, are currently being assessed under the EPBC Act for their impacts on Matters of

National Environmental Significance (MNES). These include:

a) Waratah Abbot Point Coal Terminal (2012/6250);

b) Alpha Coal Project - Port Options Development (2008/4647);

c) Terminal 0, 2 & 3 Capital Dredging (2011/6213);

d) Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project (2010/5736);

e) Waratah Coal Mine and Rail Project (2009/4737);

f) Goonyella to Abbot Point Rail Project (2011/6082);

g) Central Queensland Integrated Rail Project “Brownfield” (2012/6321);

h) Central Queensland Integrated Rail Project “Greenfield” (2012/6322);

i) Galilee Infrastructure Corridor (2012/6489); and

j) North Galilee Basin Rail Project (2013/6885).

4.2. There are currently two projects that are associated with the Port of Abbot Point that

have approval under the EPBC Act:

a) Alpha Coal Mine and Rail (2008/4648) – approved 23 August 2012; and

b) Abbot Point Coal Terminal 3 (2008/4468) – approved 4 October 2012.

4.3. In December 2012, the Queensland Government requested registrations of interest for

the first stage of expansion of coal terminal infrastructure within the Abbot Point State

Development Area. In addition, the Queensland Government is seeking registrations

from parties interested in developing non coal related industries and infrastructure in this

area. This process is in the early planning stages, and no new referrals in relation to the

possible expansion projects have been received by the department.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

4.4. Figure 3 provides an overview of coal terminal projects at Abbot Point, excluding the

proposed Waratah Abbot Point Coal Terminal Project.

4.5. The proponent is part of a working group (with BHP Billiton, GVK-Hancock Coal and

North Queensland Bulk Ports) that developed a voluntary Cumulative Impact

Assessment (CIA) of existing and proposed developments at Abbot Point (refer

Section 7 – Assessment, for further information regarding the CIA).

Figure 3. Coal terminal projects at Abbot Point, excluding the Waratah Abbot Point

Coal Terminal Project.

5. State/Territory Assessment and Approval

5.1. The EIS states that the proponent has not yet obtained any relevant approvals under

Queensland State legislation. However, the following environmental and development

approvals will be required prior to construction:

Port Development Approval – Concept Application under the Transport

Infrastructure Act 1994 (Qld) (Abbot Point Land Use Plan). This will be

required only for the initial concept approval, prior to comprehensive Port

Development Approval application.

Port Development Approval under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (Qld)

(Abbot Point Land Use Plan). This will be required for: early works; offshore

works; and onshore works.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Material Change of Use Development Permit for Environmentally Relevant

Activities under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) and Environmental

Protection Act 1994 (Qld). These will be required for the following activities:

ERA 8 – Chemical storage; ERA 38 – Surface coating; ERA 50 – Bulk

material handling; ERA 63 – Sewage treatment; and ERA 64 – Wastewater

treatment.

Operational Works Development Permit under the Sustainable Planning Act

2009 (Qld). This will include approval for:

- Clearing of native vegetation for construction of the Terminal

infrastructure, under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld);

- Interfering with coastal dunes that are in an erosion prone area for the

material offloading facility and potential for service roads, under the

Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 (Qld);

- Tidal Works and works within a Coastal Management District, under

the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 (Qld); and

- Interference with marine plants for the construction of the trestle jetty,

ship berth and potentially the material offloading facility, under the

Fisheries Act 1994 (Qld).

5.2. The proponent will also require permits for the movement of protected animals, clearing

of protected plants, and movement of wildlife under the Nature Conservation Act 1992

(Qld). For instance, where interfering with flora species listed in the Nature

Conservation (Protected Plants) Conservation Plan 2000 (Qld), a permit to clear

protected plants will be required. The EIS states that the locations of these flora

species will be determined during pre-clearing surveys. This permit will be required for

clearing:

Dietrich’s Morning Glory (Bonamia dietrichiana); and

The Croton (Croton magneticus).

5.3. The Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) contains restrictions on taking protected

animals, and the keeping or use of unlawfully taken protected animals. A person must

not take a protected animal unless appropriately authorised. Fauna spotters may be

required during the construction phase and will identify protected animals if they occur

in the T0 Project area. Accordingly, the EIS states that a permit for the movement of

protected animals may be required for the:

Striped-tailed Delma (Delma labialis) - legless lizard; and

Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus).

6. Environmental Record

6.1. The EIS states that the proposed action will be developed and operated by Adani Abbot

Point Terminal Pty Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adani Enterprises Limited.

6.2. The EIS asserts that Adani has not been subject to any proceedings under a

Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the

conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

6.3. Advice from the department’s Compliance Section states that the department is currently

assessing a number of non-compliances in regard to Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty

Ltd’s Stormwater Return Dam Project (EPBC 2010/5561). Initial advice is that, these

non-compliances appear to be minor in nature.

6.4. Media reports (including The Australian, 9 August 2013) covered the findings of a review

of the operations of an Adani subsidiary, Adani Ports, at Mundra in the Indian state of

Gujarat. An assessment conducted by a government appointed expert panel, found

“incontrovertible evidence” that Adani Ports violated environmental clearances and

bypassed approval processes. The panel recommended that the government revoke

approval for an additional port at Mundra and that Adani pay at least $36 million towards

environmental restoration.

6.5. The department notes that the environmental history of actions undertaken in a country

other than Australia cannot be considered as part of this decision as it is beyond the

jurisdiction of the EPBC Act.

7. Assessment

Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment

7.1. In addition to undertaking the EIS assessment process, Adani participated in a working

group with other proponents associated with development at Abbot Point - GVK

Hancock, NQBP and BHP Billiton, to develop a voluntary Cumulative Impact

Assessment (CIA) of existing and proposed developments at Abbot Point. The objective

of the Abbot Point CIA (Ecological Australia and OpenLines, 2013) is outlined in Part A

(page 1-9) of that report. The companies involved in its development stated that the

assessment is intended to provide a comprehensive platform of environmental

information to assess potential cumulative impacts on MNES, including world heritage

values and to develop a framework for joint management, mitigation and monitoring.

7.2. In that assessment, the three development proposals and the capital dredging proposal

are collectively referred to as ‘the Abbot Point Project’. Some of the key findings of the

assessment (refer to Part E, page 18-2/3) are as follows:

It is unlikely the marine environment and marine fauna species will be

significantly impacted by the Abbot Point Project. Port wide management

measures and monitoring are recommended to ensure port operations are

compatible with the ongoing use of Abbot Point by key marine species; and

Abbot Point has some World Heritage attributes, but is not an iconic or highly

sensitive site within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. It was

considered unlikely for there to be a loss in the Outstanding Universal Value or

decline in the integrity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (either reef

wide or locally) as a result of the Abbot Point Project.

7.3. In order to manage the potential cumulative impacts from the projects at Abbot Point the

CIA proposes the establishment of a Joint Environmental Management Framework. The

Joint Environmental Management Framework would address the conservation

objectives at the Port of Abbot Point to ensure a coordinated approach to impact

management. Part D of the CIA (page 15-2) recommends that the framework deliver

conservation objectives and environmental outcomes as port development continues

beyond what has been assessed in CIA and the framework should continue to be in

operation throughout the life of the port.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

7.4. Four experts providing advice on the CIA supported the conclusions of the assessment. They were:

Associate Professor Peter Valentine (James Cook University) – World Heritage;

Dr Peter Driscoll – migratory shorebirds;

Emeritus Professor Peter Saenger (Southern Cross University) – marine

biodiversity; and

Professor Peter Harrison (Southern Cross University) – marine biodiversity.

Mandatory Considerations – section 136(1)(a) Part 3 controlling provisions

7.5. The proposal was determined a controlled action under the following controlling

provisions of the EPBC Act:

World heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A);

National heritage places (sections 15B and 15C);

listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A);

listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A);

Commonwealth marine areas (sections 23 and 24A); and

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C).

These controlling provisions are discussed respectively, below.

8. World Heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A) and National Heritage places

(sections 15B and 15C)

8.1. The Port of Abbot Point is located adjacent to and within the Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Area (GBRWHA) and National Heritage place.

8.2. The GBRWHA was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981 for all four of the natural

heritage criteria specified in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organisation’s 2012 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World

Heritage Convention; criteria (vii), (viii), (ix) and (x).

8.3. The current natural heritage criteria for World Heritage properties are that they:

vii. contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural

beauty and aesthetic importance;

viii. be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history,

including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the

development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;

ix. be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and

biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water,

coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals; and

x. contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ

conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species

of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

8.4. The heritage values that the GBRWHA has as a result of meeting the above criteria,

contribute to the property’s outstanding universal value (OUV). Also encompassed in

the OUV of the property is its integrity (i.e. the wholeness and intactness of the property

and its ability to convey the values it holds), and the protection and management regime

in place for the property.

8.5. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) was one of 15 World Heritage properties included in the

National Heritage List in 2007. The GBR National Heritage place has national heritage

values in respect of the following national heritage criteria:

a. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s

importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia’s natural or cultural history;

b. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s

possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or

cultural history;

c. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s

potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia’s

natural or cultural history;

d. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s

importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of:

i. a class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; or

ii. a class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments;

e. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s

importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a

community or cultural group.

8.6. The heritage values that cause the GBR National Heritage place to meet the above

criteria (its national heritage values), are the same heritage values which cause it to

meet the world heritage criteria set out above.

8.7. The GBRWHA and National Heritage place stretches more than 2,300 km along the

northeast coast of Queensland, from the tip of Cape York to just north of Bundaberg. Its

outer boundaries are defined by coordinates of latitude and longitude. Its width varies

from around 90 km to around 300 km (refer Figure 4).

8.8. The Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report prepared by the GBRMPA in 2009 focuses on

four key factors that were either currently affecting the property, or were projected to

affect the property – climate change, coastal development, catchment runoff and direct

use. GBRMPA further identifies over 40 emerging threats to the health of the GBR.

8.9. The 2012 Reactive Monitoring Mission by the World Heritage Centre and the

International Union for the Conservation of Nature identified that the current and

potential threats to the long-term conservation of the GBRWHA are climate change,

catchment runoff, coastal development, ports and shipping and direct extractive use.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Figure 4 – Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

8.10. An assessment of impacts to matters of national environmental significance

(including OUV) as a result of the proposed action is detailed below. The assessment

has included the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed action. Many

issues are relevant to more than one criterion; however they are only described under

one criterion to avoid repetition. As the world heritage values of the GBR are the same

as it’s national heritage values, the following assessment is also relevant to the impacts

of the proposed action on the national heritage values of the GBR National Heritage

place.

Assessment under criterion (vii)

8.11. The criterion states: contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of

exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance.

8.12. The statement of outstanding universal value of the GBRWHA, adopted by the

UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2012, describes how the GBR meets this

criterion as follows:

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

The GBR is of superlative natural beauty above and below the water, and

provides some of the most spectacular scenery on earth. It is one of a few living

structures visible from space, appearing as a complex string of reefal structures

along Australia's northeast coast.

From the air, the vast mosaic patterns of reefs, islands and coral cays produce

an unparalleled aerial panorama of seascapes comprising diverse shapes and

sizes. The Whitsunday Islands provide a magnificent vista of green vegetated

islands and spectacular sandy beaches spread over azure waters. This contrasts

with the vast mangrove forests in Hinchinbrook Channel, and the rugged

vegetated mountains and lush rainforest gullies that are periodically cloud-

covered on Hinchinbrook Island.

On many of the cays there are spectacular and globally important breeding

colonies of seabirds and marine turtles, and Raine Island is the world’s largest

green turtle breeding area. On some continental islands, large aggregations of

over-wintering butterflies periodically occur.

Beneath the ocean surface, there is an abundance and diversity of shapes, sizes

and colours; for example, spectacular coral assemblages of hard and soft corals,

and thousands of species of reef fish provide a myriad of brilliant colours, shapes

and sizes. The internationally renowned Cod Hole near Lizard Island is one of

many significant tourist attractions. Other superlative natural phenomena include

the annual coral spawning, migrating whales, nesting turtles, and significant

spawning aggregations of many fish species.

8.13. Based on this statement, the department considers that the proposed action may

impact on the OUV of the GBRWHA through impacts on visual amenity (both above and

below the ocean surface), seabirds, dugongs, whales, dolphins and marine turtles.

These impacts are discussed below.

Visual Amenity of the terminal structure

8.14. Visual amenity impacts occur from changes in the physical environment, which

may give rise to changes in its visual character and how this is experienced. This may in

turn affect the value of the visual environment.

8.15. The T0 Project is at the northern tip of Abbot Point, with bays connecting north to

Cape Upstart and south to the township of Bowen. The coastline area is generally flat

with mountains and hills and patches of native coastal vegetation. The T0 Project is

proposed to be constructed adjacent to an existing active terminal which currently

comprises an outloading trestle jetty and conveyor of approximately 2.75 km length,

stockyard machines, transfer towers, surge bins, fuel facilities, water settlement ponds,

wharves, ship loaders and berths.

8.16. Adjacent to the existing terminal is the Caley Valley Wetland (CVW). The CVW is

low lying and is therefore not typically visible from publically accessible areas. The

Wetland is a diverse area, altering seasonally with areas of freshwater during the wetter

months and saltwater tidal flows in drier months.

Likely Impacts

8.17. The EIS states that the natural topography coupled with existing vegetation has

significant potential to provide a natural screen and absorb the visual change associated

with the T0 Project. Specifically, vegetation present along the foreshore at Abbot Point

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

consists of vine thicket vegetation communities situated on the hind dune system. This

vegetation forms a thick screen between the T0 Project area and the foreshore.

Vegetation surveys conducted by Saunders Havill Group in 2012 at this location

identified that canopy vegetation ranged from 6-15 m in height.

8.18. The proposed T0 jetty and berths will extend 2.75 km from the Abbot Point

headland into the GBRWHA in a north easterly direction. However, this jetty will be

adjacent to an existing jetty of similar dimensions.

8.19. The EIS also states that Abbot Point does not encompass areas of exceptional

natural beauty (e.g. National Parks and conservation reserves), but rather is

representative of broad-scale coastal features impacted by both industrial and

agricultural development.

8.20. The department considers that notwithstanding this conclusion in the EIS,

impacts to aesthetic values are not limited to National Parks and conservation reserves

and aesthetic values of the GBRWHA could potentially be impacted by the T0 Project

such as from increased shipping as discussed further on.

8.21. The T0 Project site is not visible from the Bruce Highway or the North Coast rail

line, and lands around the site are not publicly accessible. The Port environs (excluding

security restricted areas) are accessible by vessel however, there are limited areas

where visitors to the GBR might stop, within about 40 km of the T0 Project and no

residential areas in close proximity to the Port. Therefore, it is expected that recreational

traffic is likely to be low in the area.

8.22. In addition, the landforms in the vicinity of the T0 Project area limit the viewpoints

from which the site will be visible, thereby limiting the visual exposure of the T0 Project.

However, existing port infrastructure can be seen protruding above the vegetation from

the waters of Edgecumbe Bay, south of Abbot Point.

8.23. It is expected that passing boats will be able to view construction activities,

however, the EIS states that the comparatively small scale of construction infrastructure

when compared to the scale of the existing infrastructure will be a low visual impact.

8.24. Abbot Point is clearly visible from the air on a cloudless day. The Abbot Point

area is an existing active port with infrastructure and coal stockpiles similar to the

proposed T0 Project. The T0 Project will increase the viewable footprint of coal

stockpiles and infrastructure but, with consideration of the existing Terminal 1 structure,

is not expected to increase impacts to visual amenity to a level that would be considered

unacceptable.

Mitigation

8.25. The EIS states that the proponent will commit to ensuring that the T0 Project

structures are of similar colours to the existing infrastructure to ensure that no built

elements stand out significantly.

8.26. The EIS also states that the opportunity exists to further limit these impacts

through the maintenance of vegetation buffers between the development and sensitive

viewing points if required.

Conclusion

8.27. The T0 Project is to be developed adjacent to an existing active coal terminal in

an area with limited public viewpoints that is generally obscured by vegetation and

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

natural land undulation. Therefore, it is considered that the visual amenity of T0 Project

infrastructure is unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on the outstanding universal

value of the GBRWHA. Consequently, the above mitigation measures are not

recommended to be required as conditions on the approval.

Lighting (aesthetics)

8.28. Artificial lighting has the potential to impact on the aesthetic values of the

GBRWHA, particularly at night.

8.29. The EIS has drawn on a study undertaken for the CIA to model and assess

artificial light impacts from the existing terminal and proposed projects at the Port of

Abbot Point.

8.30. The existing T1 operation (including jetty, wharves, and vessels) is a lit site with

direct light spill of approximately 52 ha onto the marine environment. The onshore and

offshore components of the T0 Project are proposed to be located adjacent and parallel

to the existing terminal.

8.31. The T0 Project proposes to upgrade the existing Material Offloading Facility

(MOF) at the northern end of Abbot Beach. The MOF will be extended out to a maximum

of 80 m and will be used during both construction and operational phases and require

artificial light, thus increasing the existing light levels.

Likely Impact

8.32. The EIS states that although most of the construction activities will occur during

the day, some of the works may be required to be carried out at night, therefore.

intermittently increasing light levels during this time. In contrast, operation of the terminal

is expected to be 24 hours a day 7 days a week, involving an ongoing impact from

lighting. The existing terminal currently operates to this timeframe, therefore already

contributing to lighting impacts on the GBRWHA.

8.33. The EIS states that it is expected that the construction of the MOF upgrade will

result in an increase of 0.2 ha in the amount of light spill at an intensity equivalent to a

full moon on a clear night. In addition, construction and operation of conveyors and

stacker/reclaimers adjacent to Abbot Beach will increase the sky glow over Abbot

Beach. Overall, operation of the T0 Project is not expected to result in direct light spill to

Abbot Beach, however, sky glow will increase as a result of the additional jetty, wharf,

berth and vessels.

8.34. The T0 Project have proposed to install a higher standard of lighting fixtures than

are installed for T1 and it is therefore expected that light spill to the marine environment

will, for the majority of the terminal, be less than it is currently for T1. Lighting adjacent to

the wharf however, will be increased.

8.35. The EIS notes that at night, when viewed from a passing boat, lights from the T0

Project will look similar to lights from a small coastal settlement.

8.36. As the T0 Project is developed and increases operational capacity, an increased

number of ship calls will be required. This will result in an increasing number of ships

required to be at anchorage offshore from Abbot Point and contribute to a cumulative

increase in light emissions associated with increases in port utilisation.

8.37. The department notes that there are a number of proposals for additional

terminals at Abbot Point which have been or are currently being considered under the

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

EPBC Act. The department notes that although the T0 Project may only result in a

relatively minor increase in light in the Port of Abbot Point, the cumulative impacts of all

proposed terminals, if approved, will be greater. The remaining/additional proposals at

the Port of Abbot Point will be assessed separately and considered on their merits

having regard to the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the relevant proposal.

Mitigation measures

8.38. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in relation to

lighting impacts on the OUV of the GBRWHA including an Illumination Plan which will be

developed, describing each light source in terms of its purpose, location, footprint,

intensity and spectral composition and document steps to avoid, mitigate and manage

the impacts of each source. For example through minimising lighting within the

development, minimising long wavelength lights, and installing timers and motion

detectors where possible.

8.39. The proponent states that with measures such as the type of lighting used,

direction of light installation, use of only necessary lighting, and other mitigation and

management measures, lighting impacts can be limited.

Conclusion

8.40. The department considers that as Abbot Point is an existing port with existing

lighting impacts the T0 Project will not create, but rather intensify, the current impact.

8.41. The department’s view is that the proponent’s proposed Illumination Plan, as

referred to above, provides a sufficient framework for reducing any impacts on the OUV

of the GBRWHA from lighting.

8.42. It is recommended that a condition be attached to the approval that requires the

proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial Management Plan and a Marine and

Shipping Management Plan that incorporates the Illumination Plan, to ensure that all

aspects of required lighting during the construction and operation of the T0 Project that

could impact on OUV of the GBRWHA are appropriately managed.

8.43. To ensure that outcomes are met and maximum benefit is achieved, it is

recommended that the Terrestrial Management Plan and the Marine and Shipping

Management Plan be provided to you for review and approval prior to the proponent

commencing the action.

Shipping (aesthetics)

8.44. The EIS states that during 2008-2009 there were approximately 4,200 vessels

that made 26,700 port calls across Australia’s 70 international ports. Ports on the east

coast of Queensland are typically the first ports entered in Australian waters for

international ships. Dedicated sea lanes have been developed for vessels entering

Australian and Queensland waters and through the GBR. A GBR zoning plan has been

created which sets restrictions and prohibits activities within certain areas. Under the

plan, shipping movements have been restricted to designated shipping and general use

areas.

8.45. The Port of Abbot Point can be approached from either the north-east or north-

west, direct from the inner shipping route of the GBR (which runs between the GBR and

the Queensland Coast, over 2,000 km from the Tropic of Capricorn in the south to the

Torres Strait in the north). However, most vessels enter the port area from the north,

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

using Palm Passage (traverses the GBR off Townsville, linking the inner route to the

Coral Sea) to connect to the inner shipping lane.

8.46. Utilisation of the port by ships varies annually depending on throughput and the

types of vessels which load at the facility. In the 2011/12 Financial Year the T1 facility

had a throughput of 13.6 million tonnes of coal which equated to 174 ship calls to the

port.

Likely Impacts

8.47. The EIS states that based on estimates provided within the CIA Report

approximately 1 Mtpa of throughput equates to 8 ship calls. Therefore, the T0 Project will

result in roughly 280 additional ship calls within Phase 1 (35 Mtpa) per annum and 280

additional ship calls (560 in total for 70 Mtpa) during Phase 2 per annum.

8.48. GBRMPA (2013) estimates that there will be approximately 4247 coal ship calls

to GBR ports per annum by 2020, compared to 1,649 coal ship calls to GBR ports in

2012.

8.49. Recreational users of the GBRWHA will see these ships, together with ships

traversing designated shipping routes. The inner route, passes between the outer reef

and the mainland, and ships using this route are visible to recreational and tourism

vessels which may be travelling from the mainland to the reef. Increased shipping will

also have an impact on the ‘unparalleled aerial panoramic seascapes’ which are an

important component of the outstanding universal value of the property under

criterion vii. All ships are required to stay within the designated shipping areas.

8.50. The anchorage area servicing the Port of Abbot Point is located approximately

5 km north-north-west of the port. A recently published report as part of the

Comprehensive Strategic Assessment on ship anchorage in the GBRWHA (refer

paragraphs 7.36 – 7.46 of this recommendation for a summary of that report) states that

recent surveys indicate that sediments across the anchorage area in Abbot Point are

likely to be comprised of sands and silts, and is likely to support sparsely distributed

epibenthic macroinvertebrates. Coral reefs do not occur within the anchorage area of

Abbot Point, however, sparsely distributed Cnidarians may be present in the form of

solitary fungid and soft corals, sea pens and anemones.

8.51. The CIA includes a ‘multicriteria analysis’ to determine the most appropriate

anchorage locations for the Port of Abbot Point. As a result, two potential anchorage

locations have been identified approximately 10 km north and north-east of Abbot Point.

This is within the study area of the anchorage report discussed above.

8.52. Abbot Point is not a residential centre. The only facilities at Abbot Point are

associated with the operation of the existing port with the nearest residential centre

being at Bowen, located approximately 30 km south of Abbot Point. The anchorage area

at Abbot Point does not, therefore, have a high level of visibility to residents and visitors

to Bowen. The anchorage area is transited principally by commercial vessels servicing

the Port of Abbot Point but is also transited by fishing vessels travelling between

southern centres and northern reefs.

Mitigation Measures

8.53. No mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce the visual impacts of

shipping through the GBR with the exception of confining shipping to designated

shipping routes. However, Adani has proposed to develop a Shipping Management Plan

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

that will be prepared prior to commencement of operation to address and mitigate

potential impacts from shipping including those arising from physical impacts, pollution

events, lighting and introduced pests.

Conclusion

8.54. The department considers that as shipping activities are restricted to existing

designated active shipping routes and the Abbot Point area is currently frequented by

coal ships, that an unacceptable impact on the aesthetic OUV of the GBRWHA from

shipping is unlikely.

Seabirds and Marine Turtles

8.55. The EIS states that four of Australia’s six species of marine turtles are known to

occur in the T0 Project area; Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus), Green Turtle

(Chelonia mydas), Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) and the Hawksbill Turtle

(Eretmochelys imbricata). There has been one confirmed sighting of the Olive Ridley

Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) in the Abbot Point area.

8.56. Abbot Beach, adjacent to the proposed T0 Project area, is a known nesting

beach for the Green and Flatback Turtles.

8.57. The EIS identifies the presence of a number of migratory birds in the CVW.

Among these are: the Lesser Crested Tern (Thalasseus bengalensis); the Eastern

Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis); the Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus); the White-

Bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leuccogaster); the Rainbow Bee-Eater (Merops ornatus);

and the Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia).

Likely impacts

8.58. Likely impacts associated with the above mentioned species are discussed in

Section 9 and 10 of this recommendation report. Avoidance and mitigation measures

proposed for these species will ensure protection of species relevant to the OUV of the

GBRWHA.

Conclusion of assessment under criterion (vii)

8.59. The department is of the opinion that the proposed action will result in an

increased risk of potential impacts on the GBRWHA but provided the measures outlined

in this report and in the conditions of approval, are implemented, unacceptable impacts

on the GBRWHA will not occur as a result of the proposed action.

Assessment under criterion (viii)

8.60. The criterion states: to be outstanding examples representing major stages of

earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in

the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features.




The GBR, extending 2,000 kilometres along Queensland's coast, is a globally

outstanding example of an ecosystem that has evolved over millennia. The area

has been exposed and flooded by at least four glacial and interglacial cycles, and

over the past 15,000 years reefs have grown on the continental shelf.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

During glacial periods, sea levels dropped, exposing the reefs as flat-topped hills

of eroded limestone. Large rivers meandered between these hills and the

coastline extended further east. During interglacial periods, rising sea levels

caused the formation of continental islands, coral cays and new phases of coral

growth. This environmental history can be seen in cores of old massive corals.

Today the GBR forms the world’s largest coral reef ecosystem, ranging from

inshore fringing reefs to mid-shelf reefs, and exposed outer reefs, including

examples of all stages of reef development. The processes of geological and

geomorphological evolution are well represented, linking continental islands,

coral cays and reefs. The varied seascapes and landscapes that occur today

have been moulded by changing climates and sea levels, and the erosive power

of wind and water, over long time periods.

One-third of the GBR lies beyond the seaward edge of the shallower reefs; this

area comprises continental slope and deep oceanic waters and abyssal plains.


impact on the OUV of the GBRWHA through the increased risk of ship groundings,

hydrodynamics and impacts to coral.

Hydrodynamics and associated movement of sediment

8.63. The T0 Project proposes to construct a jetty structure adjacent to the existing

jetty spanning out northwards from the Abbot Point Headland and to upgrade a MOF at

the northern end of Abbot Beach.

8.64. Construction and establishment of these structures has the potential to

permanently influence coastal and marine currents and tidal levels.

Likely Impacts

8.65. Modelling provided in the EIS indicates that the existing piled jetty structure has

likely resulted in the following changes:

very small localised increases in tidal current speed as a result of the jetty

trestles blocking flow;

some scour around piles during high wind and wave condition; however,

scour would be extremely localised around individual piles and naturally infill

over time due to longshore sediment movement leaving no residual impact;

very localised changes in longshore sediment transport pathways as a result

of the trestle abutment. As the revetment (being a structure to prevent

erosion or subsidence) is located along the eastern end of Dingo Beach (a

boulder beach interspersed with sand), only minor changes are expected to

have occurred to the longshore sediment transport where it extends into the

sandy subtidal areas. Very minor and localised changes to the longshore

transport pathways are also expected to have occurred as a result of the

trestles and piles; and

very localised changes in wave condition as a result of the trestles.

8.66. The EIS states that all the impacts to coastal processes from the existing over-

water infrastructure would be negligible. Studies have modelled the impacts of trestle

piles associated with a jetty similar to the proposed development on tidal currents in the

area and predicted changes in localised current speed of less than 0.004 meters per

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

second. This magnitude of change in tidal current velocities to an area localised around

the trestle piles would be considered minor and would not result in any subsequent

impacts to the coastal processes.

8.67. As the T0 jetty is proposed to replicate the existing jetty, it is expected that the

impacts described above would sufficiently describe any impacts pertaining to the new

jetty.

8.68. In contrast to the over water structures, the existing MOF has impacted the

shoreline alignment and sediment transport regime by stopping sediment transport

northwards along Abbot Beach resulting in sand accreting to the south of the

breakwater.

8.69. The existing MOF has a rock breakwater blocking the movement of sand along

the shoreline. This has created a groyne (a build up of sand) on the southern side. This

groyne has accreted to capacity and currently bypasses sand. The T0 Project proposal

includes the extension of the MOF by up to 60 m in a northerly direction, parallel to the

coastline. This may have the effect of pushing the sediment pathway approximately

20 m further offshore, and increasing the groyne effect by an equivalent distance. This

would result in a small volume of additional accretion until the groyne capacity is

reached, at which time bypass is expected to resume. The lee of the groyne is not

further exposed to erosion by the extension as it is a rocky stretch of coast although this

may result in a reduction in sand deposition.

8.70. The EIS states that as modifications to the MOF would only involve a 60 m

extension to the existing wharf with the extension running parallel to the coastline,

impacts to tidal currents are expected to be minimal. This conclusion is supported by

modelling undertaken as part of the Abbot Point CIA Report.

Mitigation Measures

8.71. The proponent has suggested a number of potential mitigation measures

including periodically pumping sand accreting to the south of the MOF to the north of the

MOF, and its access channel so that the material is not lost to the system.

8.72. It is considered that this is likely to create further disturbance to the area and

increase turbidity in a known turtle nesting area, therefore it is not recommended that

this be included as a condition of approval.

Conclusions

8.73. The EIS indicates that the proposed T0 Project infrastructure has been shown

through modelling to generally have a negligible impact on hydrodynamics and waves.

There are likely to be some minor impacts in the immediate vicinity of the infrastructure,

but these are not predicted to result in any adverse impacts.

8.74. The EIS also concludes that beach stability and future shoreline evolution is not

predicted to be impacted by the overwater infrastructure associated with the

development. Minor short term impacts to sediment transport are expected at the

proposed MOF extension; however, no long-term impact to the longshore sediment

transport rate is expected.

8.75. The department agrees with these conclusions and considers that an

unacceptable impact on the hydrodynamics and associated sediment movement aspect

of the OUV of the GBRWHA is unlikely.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Corals

8.76. The east-west cross section of the GBRWHA contains significant coral reefs, a

wide lagoon, and further reefs at the edge of the continental shelf. The T0 Project is

proposed to be located along the Queensland coast within the Port of Abbot Point near

Bowen.

8.77. The EIS states that the marine environment in the T0 Project area and

surrounding waters is typified by soft sandy sediments, variable water depths and the

presence of commonly occurring seagrasses and algae communities. Surface sediments

are primarily composed of sand and do not support extensive or diverse marine

macroinvertebrate communities. Similar to much of the GBR where calcium carbonate

concentrations are highest towards the mid-shelf reefs, calcium carbonate levels in the

T0 Project area increase with distance from the Port of Abbot Point, and are highest on

the seaward side of the shipping channels, some 40 km offshore.

8.78. The marine environment within the T0 Project area includes Clark Shoal, a

shallow sand depositional site, mudflat, rocky reef, soft sediments, mangrove and

seagrass habitats. These areas provide foraging habitats for a number of marine fauna

species including turtle, dugong, dolphin and fishes, and are heterogeneously populated

with habitat forming sessile benthic organisms and macroinvertebrates which are

interspersed throughout the substrate at varying densities.

8.79. The EIS states that surveys have identified a total of 5,568 benthic individuals

(including corals) from ten distinct functional groups. However, of the ten groups

represented, over 50% of taxa identified were ascidians (sea squirts) and echinoderms

(sea stars, urchins, sea cucumbers and the like). These findings are also consistent with

other regions of the GBRWHA which are dominated by soft sediments and are not

associated with port developments and infrastructure and have not been exposed to

dredging (as has occurred at the Point of Abbot Point). This suggests that the low

diversity of macroinvertebrate fauna within the T0 Project area is not a product of

anthropogenic activities which occur in relation to current port activities, but rather the

natural underlying environment.

8.80. Among the benthic surveys discussed in the EIS was the observation of the

phylum Cnidarias. The phylum includes corals, jellyfish, anemones and small

Hydrozoans, which provide food and sheltering resources for a number of marine fauna

species. Surveys of the T0 Project area have identified the presence of small and

heterogeneous populations of Cnidarians. Anemones, sea pens and Hydrozoans were

most abundant; however, small populations of soft and hard corals were also recorded.

8.81. External to the Port limits, the most structurally complex and diverse

environments with respect to Cnidarians are located at Camp Island to the west and

Nares Rock and Holbourne Island to the north east. These habitats support a relatively

high density of hard corals.

8.82. The anchorage area servicing the Port of Abbot Point is located approximately

5 km north-north-west of the port. A report by GHD (2013) states that recent surveys

indicate that sediments across the anchorage area are likely to be comprised of sands

and silts and is likely to support sparsely distributed epibenthic macroinvertebrates.

Coral reefs do not occur within the anchorage area of Abbot Point, however, sparsely

distributed Cnidarians may be present in the form of solitary fungid and soft corals, sea

pens and anemones. The report concludes that the anchorage area servicing the Port of

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Abbot Point does not contain significant extant or extinct coral communities, including

outer reefs.

Likely Impacts

8.83. The EIS concludes that no noted coral habitats or populations occur within the T0

Project area, however, the department considers that an impact to corals in the Abbot

Point area is likely.

8.84. Direct impacts from the T0 Project are likely to occur during pile driving as a

result of the placement of pile structures for the jetty. The proponent has estimated that

direct marine habitat affected by piling will be up to 0.13 ha. Only a portion of this area is

likely to contain corals. Indirect impacts are likely to occur through shading from the jetty,

reduced water quality from construction and operation of the T0 terminal and increased

risk of introduced pests as a consequence of shipping.

Mitigation Measures

8.85. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in the EIS with

the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to matters of national

environmental significance from decreased water quality, introduced exotic pests and

degradation from increased anchorage during the action, including:

A Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Management Subplan including:

a Dust Management Plan to limit impacts from dust generated during the

construction phases and coal dust when operational, including a variety of

dust suppression techniques;

A Water Management Subplan including:

a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed and

implemented prior to commencement of construction and will include

provisions for treatment, recycling and/or reuse and or discharge of flows

and measures for water quality monitoring. The SWMP will be reviewed and

updated as the project management system changes;

Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be prepared for each construction

activity, prior to commencement of construction;

a Hazard and Risks Management Plan for construction and operation to

minimise risks of hazardous material entering the environment and providing

protocols in the case of a spill;

A Land Management Subplan including:

an Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) Management Plan including a site specific

investigation in areas that have been identified as ASS or potential ASS;

Contaminated Land control strategies including a site remediation plan to be

developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination;

A Marine Ecology Management Subplan including:

a Shipping Management Plan that will be prepared prior to commencement

of operation to address and mitigate potential impacts from shipping

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

including those arising from physical impacts, pollution events, lighting and

introduced pests; and

A Waste Management Subplan including:

a Waste Management Plan to manage waste from construction and operation

of the project in such a way that any potential impacts to the environment are

minimised or avoided.

8.86. In addition to the above measures, the proponent has proposed a number of

monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not all

of these have an adaptive management function. For further information regarding the

mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP refer Section

5 of the EIS.

Conclusion

8.87. The department considers that the above elements of the proposed Terrestrial

Flora and Fauna, Water, Land and Waste Management Subplans provide an adequate

framework for reducing any potential impacts on coral communities from decreased

water quality and smothering of corals from coal dust provided they include an adaptive

management function.

8.88. It is recommended that conditions be attached to the approval that requires the

proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial Management Plan that includes (but is

not limited to) the measures discussed in the above management subplans. It is

recommended that the Terrestrial Management Plan also contain provisions for

performance indicators (including trigger levels) and contingency measures. This would

enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate

potential negative impacts to the OUV of the GBRWHA.

8.89. The department considers that the shipping element of the proposed Marine

Ecology Management Subplan provides an adequate framework for reducing any

potential impacts on coral communities that represent the OUV of the GBRWHA from

introduced exotic pests and degradation from increased anchorage.

8.90. It is recommended that a condition be attached to the approval that requires the

proponent to include the measures discussed above (but not limited to) for the Shipping

Management Plan in the previously mentioned Marine and Shipping Management Plan.

It is recommended that this section of the Marine and Shipping Management Plan also

contain provisions for performance indicators (including trigger levels) and contingency

measures. This would enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively

manage and mitigate potential negative impacts to the OUV of the GBRWHA.

8.91. To ensure that outcomes are met and maximum benefit is achieved, it is

recommended that the Terrestrial Management Plan, and the Marine and Shipping

Management Plan are provided to you for review and approval prior to the proponent

commencing the action.

Ship Groundings

8.92. Shipping through the GBR poses a number of challenges due to the vast

complex of islands and reefs which make up the reef system. To manage the natural

environment and ensure the safe and efficient transit of cargo it is essential that

appropriate measures exist to facilitate the movement of large vessels. Over the last 20

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

years a number of measures have been developed to improve navigational safety

through the GBR.

8.93. As detailed above, the proposed action will result in an increase in shipping

through the GBRWHA. As such, there is an associated increased risk in ship

groundings and collisions.

Likely Impacts

8.94. Ship groundings can result in significant damage to the marine environment

including to corals as discussed above. Further damage to the substrate can result from

activities required to free the vessel. Vessels may have to be dragged over benthic

substrates, or blasting of the substrate may be required to clear a path for the grounded

vessel. Decisions on vessel recovery are made by the delegated regulatory authorities in

conjunction with appointed salvage experts. The priorities of any salvage action are

protecting life and the environment, and minimising the risk of a marine oil spill.

Existing management practices

8.95. Since the listing of the GBR on the World Heritage List, a number of

management initiatives have been developed and implemented to manage shipping

within the GBR. Examples include compulsory and recommended pilotage regimes, a

ship reporting system (ReefREP) which was subsequently updated to a vessel traffic

system (ReefVTS); establishment of Designated Shipping Areas and defined traffic

routes; increased navigation aids and a differential GPS service; and, the requirement

for vessels to carry Automatic Identification Systems.

8.96. ReefVTS was implemented in 1996 to increase navigational safety within the

area north of Gladstone to the Torres Strait. Under this system, all vessels over 50m in

length, special product carriers, and certain vessels under tow have systems requiring

mandatory position reporting at specific points along the inner GBR Designated Shipping

Area and automated position reporting via satellite. The reporting system is integrated

with a system of navigation aids including VHF radio, radar monitoring and a network of

differential global positioning systems and AIS stations situated throughout the GBR.

Automated Position Reporting via Inmarsat C is now the primary means for ships to

provide position reports.

8.97. The EIS states that currently, the annual probability of a grounding or major

incident (groundings and collisions) since the introduction of the ReefVTS relative to the

average annual number of ship calls (~3750) equates to 0.000033 groundings and

0.00037 incidents per ship call per annum. Based on estimates provided within the

Abbot Point CIA Report, approximately 1 Mtpa of throughput equates to 8 ship calls.

Therefore, if current probabilities of groundings and major incidents are maintained, the

T0 Project has the potential to result in an additional 0.018 groundings and 0.20 major

incidents at full operational capacity per annum (approximately 560 ship calls per

annum).

8.98. New offences under the Navigation Act 2012 (Cth) for operating a vessel in a

manner that causes pollution or damage have also been introduced, including increased

penalties for failure to report an incident in the GBR.

8.99. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) developed the draft North East

Shipping Management Plan an released it for public comment between 2 August and 4

October 2013.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

8.100. The draft North East Shipping Management Plan (outlines measures currently in

place to manage the safety of major shipping in the (GBRWHA), and the Coral Sea and

Torres Strait regions. To manage likely increases in shipping in this region in the coming

decades the draft Plan also proposes 55 ongoing and future commitments in relation to

improved environmental protection, shipping safety, shipping navigation and emergency

response. The draft Plan specifically considers shipping-related risks to the outstanding

universal value of the GBRWHA and identifies measures for preventing or mitigating

ship-sourced pollution and other environmental impacts. Impacts considered include

those associated with major incidents and general shipping operations, such as

disturbance to the seabed from anchoring, marine pest introduction from ballast water

discharge, interference with marine species behaviour and altered aesthetic value.

Mitigation Measures

8.101. The proponent has proposed to develop a Marine Ecology Management Subplan

which includes a shipping component, prior to the commencement of operation to

mitigate and manage potential impacts from shipping. This includes using low risk

shipping channels like Palm Passage whenever possible. This is required to be

incorporated into a Marine and Shipping Management Plan as a condition on approval.

Conclusion

8.102. The department considers the proponent’s proposed management plan as

detailed above provides a sufficient framework for reducing any potential impacts on the

OUV of the GBRWHA from increased risk of ship groundings.

8.103. As discussed above, it is recommended that conditions be attached to the

approval that requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Marine and Shipping

Management Plan that includes (but is not limited to) the measures discussed in the

above management subplan.

Conclusion of assessment under criterion (viii)

8.104. The department is of the opinion that the proposed action will result in an

increased risk of potential impacts on the GBRWHA and that provided the measures

outlined in this report and in the conditions of approval, are implemented, unacceptable

impacts on the GBRWHA will not occur as a result of the proposed action.

Assessment under criterion (ix)

8.105. The criterion states: to be outstanding examples representing significant on-

going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial,

fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals.




The globally significant diversity of reef and island morphologies reflects ongoing

geomorphic, oceanographic and environmental processes. The complex cross-

shelf, longshore and vertical connectivity is influenced by dynamic oceanic

currents and ongoing ecological processes such as upwellings, larval dispersal

and migration.

Ongoing erosion and accretion of coral reefs, sand banks and coral cays

combine with similar processes along the coast and around continental islands.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Extensive beds of Halimeda algae represent active calcification and accretion

over thousands of years.

Biologically the unique diversity of the GBR reflects the maturity of an ecosystem

that has evolved over millennia; evidence exists for the evolution of hard corals

and other fauna. Globally significant marine faunal groups include over 4,000

species of molluscs, over 1,500 species of fish, plus a great diversity of sponges,

anemones, marine worms, crustaceans, and many others. The establishment of

vegetation on the cays and continental islands exemplifies the important role of

birds, such as the Pied Imperial Pigeon, in processes such as seed dispersal and

plant colonisation.

Human interaction with the natural environment is illustrated by strong ongoing

links between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their sea-country, and

includes numerous shell deposits (middens) and fish traps, plus the application of

story places and marine totems.


impact on the OUV of the GBRWHA through the increased risk of ship groundings,

through direct impacts associated with impacts to coral.

Halimeda algae

8.108. Algal communities support a range of biodiversity values, providing food

resources for turtles, crustaceans and fish species.

Likely Impact

8.109. The EIS states that a number of algae species (including many Halimeda

species) have been identified in the T0 Project area. Surveys in 2005 identified algae

present in low densities across approximately 50% of the T0 Project area. A survey

conducted in 2009 identified similar species distribution and abundance estimates.

8.110. A recent anchorage report (GHD, 2013) states that surveys undertaken in the

anchorage area outside of the Port limits indicates that no significant Halimeda banks

are known to occur, however, Halimeda is present.

8.111. The T0 Project could potentially impact on Halimeda algae from reduced water

quality run off as a result of construction and operation activities, increased anchorage

and the introduction of exotic species through shipping.

Mitigation Measures










EPBC 2011/6194

of 141






















a Waste Management Plan to manage waste from construction and

operation of the project in such a way that any potential impacts to the

environment are minimised or avoided.




mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer

Section 5 of the EIS).

Conclusion

8.114. As no Halimeda algae species are listed threatened species, there are no

available recovery plans, conservation advice or threat abatement plans. Halimeda

algae is considered in this recommendation report as a value of the GBRWHA.

8.115. The department considers the above elements of the proposed Terrestrial Flora

and Fauna, Water, Land and Waste Management Subplans provide a sufficient

framework for reducing any potential impacts on Halimeda algae from decreased water

quality and smothering of algae from coal dust provided they include an adaptive


8.116. The department considers the shipping element of the proposed Marine Ecology

Management Subplan provides a sufficient framework for reducing any potential impacts

on Halimeda algae that represent the OUV of the GBRWHA from introduced exotic pests

and degradation from increased anchorage.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141


approval that requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial

Management Plan, and a Marine and Shipping Management Plan that includes (but is

not limited to) the measures discussed in the above management subplans. This would



Seagrass

8.118. Seagrass meadows are important coastal ecosystems. Seagrass meadows

assist in the capture and recycling of nutrients, providing food and shelter for marine

organisms, and assisting in sediment stabilisation. In addition, seagrasses are

considered internationally important as they provide a food source for a number of EPBC

Act listed species including Dugong and several species of marine turtles. Seagrasses

have also been identified as having the potential to sequester significant amounts of

carbon from the atmosphere and may act as significant global carbon sinks. As such,

seagrasses are recognised as significant marine ecosystems which also influence the

broader global environment.

8.119. The EIS states that Seagrasses have been documented as the most dominant

benthic flora within the Port of Abbot Point, however, they occur in low density. Deep

and shallow water species of seagrass co-exist throughout the T0 Project area and their

presence has been attributed to the low turbidity waters of the port. The most extensive

high density seagrass meadows occur directly to the south-east of the port boundaries in

deeper waters offshore of Euri Creek and Abbot Beach.

8.120. Seagrass meadows are highly variable with both density and distribution varying

significantly from year to year within the T0 Project area. Seagrasses at Abbot Point are

considered to be highly dynamic and heavily influenced by seasonality and major

weather events, resulting in changes in density and distribution.

8.121. The EIS states that a recent survey reported that major declines in seagrass

density and biomass at Abbot Point have occurred since November 2010, and where

they remained, they were in low biomass. It was also noted that the loss in seagrass was

not specific to Abbot Point and had also been experienced across a number of locations

along the coast of Queensland.

8.122. Declines in seagrass density and distribution have been observed over multiple

seasons and it is likely they are in response to La Niña conditions. These conditions

include increased rainfall and increased cyclone frequency (e.g. Cyclone Yasi) leading to

significant freshwater influx near the coast, ultimately increasing sedimentation and

reducing light intensity in the area. These impacts significantly affect seagrass growth.

Although the distribution and density of seagrasses has declined within the T0 Project

area, it could be expected that seagrass populations will recover over time, dependent

upon the species present and the availability of seed reserves.

Likely Impacts

8.123. Pile driving for the construction of the jetty will result in removal of seagrass

within the T0 Project area. Pile driving will also result in increased localised turbidity. The

activities associated with the construction and operation of the T0 Project will likely lead

to decreased water quality in the marine environment, consequently reducing the

viability of seagrass meadows.

Mitigation Measures

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141





































mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer


Conclusion

8.126. As no seagrass species or communities are listed threatened species, there are

no available recovery plans, conservation advice or threat abatement plans. Seagrass is

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

considered in this recommendation report as a value of the GBRWHA and as habitat for

listed migratory species (such as dugong).


and Fauna, Water, Land and Waste Management Subplans provide a sufficient

framework for reducing any potential impacts on seagrass communities from decreased

water quality and smothering of algae from coal dust provided they include an adaptive


8.128. The department considers the shipping element of the proposed Marine Ecology

Management Subplan provides a sufficient framework for reducing any potential impacts

on seagrass communities from introduced exotic pests and degradation from increased

anchorage.



Management Plan and a Marine and Shipping Management Plan that includes (but is




Migratory species

8.130. Marine and migratory species contribute to the values of the GBRWHA through

faunal diversity, feeding/breeding grounds and species of conservation significance such

as marine turtles, dugongs, humpback whales and dolphins are all relevant to this value.

A number of these listed migratory species have been identified as present in the vicinity

of Abbot Point and are discussed in Section 10 of this report. The discussion addresses

all of the relevant impacts to and mitigation measures required to protect the listed

migratory species relevant to the OUV of the GBRWHA. It is considered that this

discussion and mitigation measures would also pertain to any migratory species not

listed under the EPBC Act.

Middens

8.131. Although the GBRWHA is not inscribed on the World Heritage List under cultural

criteria, the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for the property acknowledges the

‘strong ongoing links between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their sea-

country’ with respect to this criterion, as the criteria at the time of listing made reference

to ‘man's interaction with his natural environment’.

8.132. Cultural features pertaining to this criterion in the GBRWHA include for example;

middens, fish traps, story places and marine totems.

Likely Impacts

8.133. The EIS states that surveys did not identify any cultural heritage objects within

the T0 Project area, however, they did identify shell middens to the east of the T0

Project area on the coastal beach ridges and dunes. This area is directly adjacent to the

GBRWHA boundary.

8.134. The EIS also states that there are no recorded burial sites registered on the

Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs register.

However, during consultation with the Juru People, who are the registered claimants for

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

native title in the area affected by the T0 Project, it was noted that they believe that

burial grounds exist within the east coast shell midden complexes at Abbot Point.

8.135. The area containing the middens is not proposed to be developed or utilised as

part of the T0 Project.

Mitigation Measures

8.136. The proponent has proposed to develop a Cultural Heritage Management Plan to

mitigate and manage potential impacts to any cultural heritage values discovered on site

during construction works as well as to protect known values adjacent to the T0 Project

area.

Conclusion

8.137. The EIS states that Adani and the Juru People have negotiated, agreed and

signed both a Cultural Heritage Management Plan and an Indigenous Land Use

Agreement (ILUA) that has identified, addressed and put in place agreed methodologies

for identifying and preserving significant cultural heritage sites and areas. The ILUA was

authorised on 6 May 2013 and is due to be registered by early November 2013. The

agreed terms of these agreements include:

cultural heritage surveys to be undertaken prior to initial ground disturbance

in the T0 Project area;

management responsibilities of cultural heritage identified during surveys to

be agreed;

involvement of the Juru People’s archaeologist in ongoing assessment and

management;

contingencies for unexpected finds and discovery of human remains;

engagement of all Juru cultural heritage surveyors and monitors through the

nominated entity, Juru Enterprises Ltd;

establishment of a cultural heritage committee to assist with implementation

of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan; and

dispute resolution processes to assist the parties to reach agreement where

necessary.

8.138. The department considers the proponent’s proposed Cultural Heritage

Management Plan and ILUA provides sufficient means for reducing any potential

impacts on any cultural heritage values within the vicinity of the T0 Project area.


proponent to prepare and implement an Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan that

includes measures listed above to ensure continuing consultation with the Juru People

as well as to provide opportunities for employment as they relate to implementing the

recommended conditions, where possible.

Conclusion of assessment under criterion (ix)

8.140. The department considers that the proposed action will result in an increased risk

of impacts on the GBRWHA but provided the measures outlined in this report and in the

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

conditions of approval are implemented, unacceptable impacts on the GBRWHA will not

occur as a result of the proposed action.

Assessment under criterion (x) Up to here

8.141. The criterion states: to contain the most important and significant natural habitats

for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened

species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science and

conservation.




The enormous size and diversity of the GBR means it is one of the richest and most complex natural ecosystems on earth, and one of the most significant for biodiversity conservation. The amazing diversity supports tens of thousands of marine and terrestrial species, many of which are of global conservation significance.

As the world's most complex expanse of coral reefs, the reefs contain some 400 species of corals in 60 genera. There are also large ecologically important inter-reefal areas. The shallower marine areas support half the world's diversity of mangroves and many seagrass species. The waters also provide major feeding grounds for one of the world's largest populations of the threatened dugong. At least 30 species of whales and dolphins occur here, and it is a significant area for humpback whale calving.

Six of the world’s seven species of marine turtle occur in the GBR. As well as the world’s largest green turtle breeding site at Raine Island, the GBR also includes many regionally important marine turtle rookeries.

Some 242 species of birds have been recorded in the GBR. Twenty-two seabird

species breed on cays and some continental islands, and some of these

breeding sites are globally significant; other seabird species also utilize the area.

The continental islands support thousands of plant species, while the coral cays

also have their own distinct flora and fauna.


impact on the OUV of the GBRWHA through impacts on threatened species of OUV

from the point of view of science and conservation.

Threatened species of outstanding universal value

8.144. A discussion of likely impacts on threatened and migratory species of

outstanding universal value is provided at Section 9 and 10 of this Recommendation

Report, respectively. Avoidance and mitigation measures proposed for these species will

ensure protection of species relevant to the OUV of the GBRWHA.

Conclusion of assessment under criterion (x)


of potential impacts on the GBRWHA but provided the measures outlined in this report

and in the conditions of approval are implemented, unacceptable impacts on the

GBRWHA will not occur as a result of the proposed action.

Integrity

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141




The ecological integrity of the GBR is enhanced by the unparalleled size and

current good state of conservation across the area. At the time of inscription it

was felt that to include virtually the entire GBR within the property was the only

way to ensure the integrity of the coral reef ecosystems in all their diversity.

A number of natural pressures occur, including cyclones, crown-of-thorns

starfish outbreaks, and sudden large influxes of freshwater from extreme

weather events. As well there is a range of human uses such as tourism,

shipping and coastal developments including ports. There are also some

disturbances facing the GBR that are legacies of past actions prior to the

inscription of the property on the World Heritage list.

At the scale of the GBR ecosystem, most habitats or species groups have the

capacity to recover from disturbance or withstand ongoing pressures. The

property is largely intact and includes the fullest possible representation of

marine ecological, physical and chemical processes from the coast to the deep

abyssal waters enabling the key interdependent elements to exist in their natural

relationships.

Some of the key ecological, physical and chemical processes that are essential

for the long-term conservation of the marine and island ecosystems and their

associated biodiversity occur outside the boundaries of the property and thus

effective conservation programs are essential across the adjoining catchments,

marine and coastal zones.

8.147. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage

Convention published by UNESCO require that all properties nominated for inscription

on the World Heritage List satisfy conditions of integrity, where integrity is defined as ‘a

measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its

attributes’. Examining the conditions of integrity therefore requires assessing the extent

to which a property:

includes all elements necessary to express its outstanding universal value;

is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance; and,

suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect.

8.148. The T0 Project area is surrounded by existing port infrastructure (which has been

operating since 1984 with a number of expansions), future proposed infrastructure, and

natural features. Abbot Point has been designated by the Queensland Government as a

State Development Area (the T0 Project is outside this area) and the port limits have

been excised from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

8.149. Factors that could impact on the GBRWHA as a whole (for example the integrity)

as a result of the proposed development include:

changes to water quality within the GBRWHA; and,

excessive visual impacts along a large extent of the GBRWHA.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

8.150. Visual impacts have been discussed in detail under criterion vi. That discussion

is also relevant to a consideration of the impacts of the proposed action under this

criterion. Water quality impacts have been discussed, however, a more substantial

discussion of impacts is set out below.

Water Quality

8.151. Water quality and hydrology (addressed under criterion (vii)) are integral to many

of the listed values of the GBRWHA and are captured explicitly as the integrity of the

inter-connections between reef and island networks in terms of dispersion, recruitment,

and the subsequent gene flow of many taxa.

8.152. There are a number of aspects of the construction and operation of the T0

Project that could contribute to decreased water quality in the marine environment.

Acid Sulphate Soils

8.153. There is potential for the mobilisation of contaminants, including acid sulphate

soil, into the water column from the sediment into the wetland and surrounding marine

area.

8.154. Acid sulphate soils commonly occur in Quaternary-aged sediments of marine or

estuarine origin and are predominantly confined to coastal lowlands with elevations

typically below 5 metres Australian Height Datum (mAHD).

8.155. Actual acid sulphate soils (AASS) are formed through oxidation of potential acid

sulphate soils (PASS) materials. PASS materials are benign as long as they remain in

environments, which prevent them from interacting with oxygen, usually by remaining

below the watertable in a region. If oxidised, as a result of exposing these soils to

oxygen, either through digging them up or lowering water tables these soils generate

sulphuric acid. The production of sulphuric acid impacts on the pH of ecosystems and

increases the mobility of toxic metals normally bound in the soil, causing:

extreme acidification of soil and adjacent wetlands;

the release of heavy metals and other containments into the soil and adjacent environments; and

de-oxygenation of aquatic and marine environments.

8.156. The impacts are long lasting and difficult to remediate once activated. Once the

oxidation process has been initiated, AASS can continue to be discharged for centuries.

Likely Impact

8.157. The majority of the proposed earthworks will involve the placement of fill for the

development of the coal stockyard. Therefore, the likelihood of exposing acid sulphate

soils is considered low. Excavation works will be undertaken to construct the dump-

station facility (within the existing rail loop corridor) at depths of approximately 20 m

below the existing ground level.

Mitigation Measures

8.158. The EIS states that the characterisation of AASS and PASS will be undertaken

using the methods and requirements set out in the Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis

of Acid Sulphate Soils in Queensland and will include the volume, location and

neutralisation requirements for acid sulphate soils. This will be undertaken as part of the

proposed Acid Sulphate Soil Management Plan.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Coal Dust, Waste, Hazardous Material, Contaminated Soils and Increased Sedimentation in

Runoff

8.159. The construction and operation of the T0 Project is within and adjacent to the

GBRWHA and within the vicinity of the CVW which forms important habitat for a number

of species considered as values of the GBRWHA.

Likely Impacts

8.160. The above factors (coal dust, waste, hazardous material, contaminated soils and

increased sedimentation in runoff ) which can contribute to decreased water quality run

off, can result in the following changes:

smothering of vegetation and benthic habitat making it unviable for use by fauna;

reduced photosynthesis and primary production as a result of reduced light penetration; and,

contamination by toxicants leading to mortality of flora and fauna.

8.161. In particular, there are numerous opportunities for coal dust to be released to the

marine environment as the process of transferring coal involves the coal being exposed

to the air on numerous occasions. In addition, dust suppression techniques of coal

stockpiles such as dewatering, increases coal dust runoff.

8.162. The EIS states that modelling undertaken for the Abbot Point CIA predicted total

suspended solid (TSS) concentrations and sediment deposition levels resulting from

coal dust would be very low relative to background TSS variability. It was considered

that it is highly unlikely that the predicted increase in TSS and sediment deposition levels

would result in detectable changes to marine flora and fauna habitats, communities or

species when all projects (T0, T1, T2 and T3 cumulatively) were operational.

8.163. Stormwater has the potential to increase the level of runoff into the marine

environment and consequently increasing the level of contaminants.

8.164. The existing sediment ponds SP1 and SP2 have been sized to retain on-site, the

runoff from a 1 in 10 year recurrence interval 24 hour storm event. The existing ponds

that will be used for construction of phase 1 of the T0 Project are designed not to

overtop in events smaller than a 1 in 10 year 24 hour rain event. However, these ponds

are permitted to overflow in significant rain events under Queensland Government

environmental approval (to maintain freeboard in the sediment ponds to handle further

rainfall events), although controlled releases must not exceed 50% of the capacity of the

sediment pond. Due to the ongoing management and treatment of water in the sediment

ponds, the EIS states that it is not expected that a controlled discharge or overflow event

exceeding a 1 in 10 year 24 hour rain event will have an adverse affect on the

ecological, chemical and physical condition of the Wetland. Currently, in larger rainfall

events, stormwater will overflow from SP1 into SP2 and from SP2 via a weir to the

Wetland via the existing SP2 spillway.

8.165. New sediment ponds for Phase 2 will be designed to retain the runoff from a 1 in

10 year recurrence interval 24 hour storm event and their design will be consistent with

the design of the existing T1 sediment ponds. The base of the sediment pond will be

below ground level, with perimeter bunds above ground level to achieve the required

capacity requirements. As water draining into the existing sediment ponds will only be

contaminated with coal particulates, the existing sediment ponds have not be lined and

water can leach slowly through the walls and base.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

8.166. There is a small potential for water from the existing sediment ponds to seep.

Due to the large distance between the T0 Project area and freshwater surrounds, the

EIS states that it is not predicted that this will have an adverse affect on the aquatic

ecological function of the CVW or any surrounding water bodies.

8.167. It is possible that water in the sediment ponds may be slightly acidic, depending

on contact time and the nature of the coal material in the stockpile area. The EIS states

that water quality within the ponds will be monitored for pH, to both ensure water quality

is suitable for birds that settle on that water and for reuse within the site. Where

monitoring indicates pH values that are outside the water quality requirements for

discharge from the ponds (pH of 6 to 8 and suspended solids of less than 30 mg/L),

chemical additives (lime or similar neutralising agent and/or flocculants) may need to be

added to the water. However, the sediment ponds will be designed to allow adequate

settlement of particulates as per the design of the T1 sediment ponds. Other

contaminants are not expected due to the short contact time that stormwater will have

with coal in the stockpiles.

8.168. Water in the sediment ponds is proposed to be pumped to the existing

Stormwater Return Dam (SRD) to maintain adequate freeboard in the sediment ponds

for storm events. Further, sediment ponds will be cleaned out occasionally to prevent

particulates building up to the extent that the ability of the sediment ponds to contain the

1 in 10 year storm event is compromised. Utilising these management arrangements is

expected to mitigate any potential impacts on surrounding water bodies.

8.169. The existing SRD allows for optimal usage of the storage area and reduces the

chance of overtopping during high intensity rainfall events. Overtopping may still happen

during extreme rainfall events (infrequently) and through the engineered SRD spillway,

however, water will already be treated through sediment settlement and being pumped

through a water treatment plant. The SRD spillway will discharge back into the site's

stormwater system, which drains to SP1 and then SP2. The SRD spillway and outlet

pipes and channels are designed to contain a volume of water generated by a Q100 (1

in 100 year) rainfall event. The spillway design includes also a freeboard of 0.5 m

between the dam crest and the design top water level during normal operations. No new

stormwater discharge points are proposed as part of the Phase 1 or 2 works. Based on

the full operational capacity of the water system, the frequency of discharge of the T0

Project will be less than the current discharge frequency of the existing regime, thereby

reducing impact on either the hydrology or water quality of the CVW. Utilising these

management arrangements will reduce frequency of releases from T1 overall and

mitigate potential impacts on the CVW.

8.170. Increased shipping through the GBRWHA is also likely to contribute to decreased

water quality through release of ballast water, oil or chemical spills and waste discharge.

These issues have been discussed in detail in section 11 of this report.

Mitigation measures

8.171. The proponent has proposed a number of measures in the EIS with the aim of

avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to the OUV of the GBRWHA through

decreased water quality, including:


EPBC 2011/6194

of 141




















A Marine Ecology management Subplan including:











of these have an adaptive management function. The mitigation measures proposed

within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer Section 5 of the EIS).

Conclusion


Flora and Fauna, Water, Land and Waste Management Subplans provide a sufficient

framework for reducing any potential impacts on the GBRWHA from decreased water

quality and smothering of algae from coal dust, provided they include an adaptive


8.174. The department considers that the shipping element of the proposed Marine

Ecology Management Subplan provides a sufficient framework for reducing any potential

impacts on the GBRWHA from introduced exotic pests.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141







8.176. Whilst acknowledging that the integrity of the GBRWHA is likely to be impacted

by the proposed action, the department is of the view that, provided the mitigation

measures are implemented and conditions adhered to, long-term impacts to the

GBRWHA will not be unacceptable.

Conclusion of assessment under integrity


of potential impacts on the GBRWHA but provided that the measures outlined in this

report and in the conditions of approval, are implemented, unacceptable impacts on the

GBRWHA will not occur as a result of the proposed action.

Property Management Arrangements

8.178. The statement of OUV of the GBRWHA states:

The Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999 (EPBC Act) provides an overarching mechanism for protecting the

World Heritage values from inappropriate development, including actions

taken inside or outside which could impact on its heritage values. This

requires any development proposals to undergo rigorous environmental

impact assessment processes, often including public consultation, after

which the Federal Minister may decide, to approve, reject or approve

under conditions designed to mitigate any significant impacts. A recent

amendment to the EPBC Act makes the GBR Marine Park an additional

'trigger' for a matter of National Environmental Significance which

provides additional protection for the values within the GBR.

8.179. The EPBC Act referral and assessment process has considered the potential

impacts of the proposed action on the GBRWHA.

8.180. The proposed EPBC Act approval and the recommended conditions will ensure

that the OUV of the GBRWHA is not unacceptably impacted as a result of the proposed

action.

8.181. The department considers that the proposed action will not result in a decrease

in the protection and management mechanisms of the GBRWHA.

Conclusion for assessment of impacts on world heritage properties and national heritage

places

8.182. The department considers that provided the recommended conditions discussed

are implemented, an unacceptable impact on the world heritage and national heritage

values of the GBRWHA and National Heritage place is unlikely.

8.183. The department also considers that while there is unlikely to be an unacceptable

impact, there are significant residual impacts on the GBRWHA and National Heritage

place from the proposed action. A discussion of mechanisms required to offset these

significant residual impacts is at Section 13.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

8.184. The department considers the proposed decision and recommended conditions

for the project, including offsets requirements, are not inconsistent with the World

Heritage Committee’s position including that no port developments or associated port

infrastructure be permitted outside the existing and long-established major port areas

within or adjoining the property.

9. Listed threatened species and ecological communities (sections 18 and 18A)

9.1. The department’s Environmental Reporting Tool (ERT) indicates that a total of 32 listed

threatened species and ecological communities may occur within an 8 kilometre radius

of Abbot Point. In accordance with section 158A of the EPBC Act, only species listed

under the EPBC Act at the time of the controlled action decision (13 December 2011)

have been considered in this recommendation report. Three species that were listed in

the ERT Report have been de-listed since the controlled action decision and therefore

are not considered in this recommendation report (Striped-tailed Delma (Delma

labialis), Croton magneticus and Leucopogon cuspidatus). Based on the location of the

action and likely habitat present in the area, the department considers potential impacts

may occur on the following listed species and ecological communities:

Squatter Pigeon (southern) (Geophaps scripta scripta) – Vulnerable;

Black-throated Finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta) – Endangered;

Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis) – Vulnerable;

Water Mouse, False Water Rat (Xeromys myoides) – Vulnerable;

Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) – Vulnerable;

White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea), White-bellied Storm-Petrel

(Australasian) (Fregetta gralleria gralleria) – Vulnerable;

Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) – Endangered;

Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) – Vulnerable;

Spectacled Flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) – Vulnerable;

Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus philippinensis (large

form)) - Endangered;

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus) –

Critically Endangered;

Yakka Skink (Egernia rugosa) – Vulnerable;

Ornamental Snake (Denisonia maculate) – Vulnerable;

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) – Endangered;

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) – Vulnerable;

Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) – Endangered;

Pacific Ridley, Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) – Endangered;

Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) – Vulnerable;

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Leathery Turtle, Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) – Vulnerable;

Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) – Vulnerable;

Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus) – Vulnerable;

Green Sawfish, Dindagubba, Narrowsnout Sawfish (Pristis zijsron) –

Vulnerable;

Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) – Vulnerable;

Black Ironbox (Eucalyptus raveretiana) – Vulnerable;

Siah’s Backbone, Sia’s Backbone, Isaac Wood (Streblus pendulinus) –

Endangered);

Minute Orchid, Ribbon-root Orchid (Taeniophyllum muelleri) – Vulnerable;

Omphalea celata – Vulnerable;

Ozothamnus eriocephalus – Vulnerable; and

Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and

Nandewar Bioregions – Endangered.

9.2. All data on relevant flora and fauna species has been sourced from the departmental

Species Profile and Threats database (SPRAT), unless otherwise stated. The

information represented in SPRAT takes into account conservation advice and

recovery plans for species, as well as marine bioregional plans and threat abatement

plans, where relevant.

Listed Terrestrial Species (and the Water Mouse)

9.3. The department considers that potential direct and indirect impacts from the proposed

action to the following species are likely to occur.

Squatter Pigeon (southern) (Geophaps scripta scripta) – Vulnerable

9.4. The Squatter Pigeon was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category on

11 July 2000.

9.5. The Squatter Pigeon (southern) occurs mainly in grassy woodlands and open forests

that are dominated by eucalypts. It has also been recorded in: sown grasslands and

scattered remnant trees; disturbed habitats; scrub; acacia growth; and remains

common in heavily-grazed country north of the Tropic of Capricorn. The species is

commonly observed in habitats that are located close to bodies of water.

9.6. There is currently no recovery plan in place for this species.

Threat Abatement Plans

9.7. There are three threat abatement plans that list the Squatter Pigeon as a species of

interest. These plans are the Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land

Degradation by Rabbits (DEWHA, 2008) and Background document for the Threat

Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Rabbits (DEWHA, 2008a)

(Rabbit TAP), Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by European Red Fox (DEWHA,

2008b) and Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

European Red Fox (DEWHA, 2008c) (Fox TAP), Threat Abatement Plan for Reduction

in Impacts of Tramp Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its Territories (DEH, 2006)

and Background Paper to the Threat Abatement Plan for Reduction in Impacts of

Tramp Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its Territories (DEH, 2006a) (Tramp Ant

TAP).

9.8. The Approved Conservation advice for Geophaps scripta scripta (Squatter Pigeon

(southern)) (TSSC, 2008) (Squatter Pigeon Conservation Advice) also lists the Threat

Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats (DEWHA, 2008b) and the Background

Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats (DEWHA, 2008c)

(Cat TAP). All of these documents are provided for your consideration at Annexure 1

and are described below.

Rabbit Threat Abatement Plan

9.9. The goal of the Rabbit TAP is to minimise the impact of rabbit competition and land

degradation on biodiversity in Australia and its territories. The five main objectives

and associated recovery actions in order to achieve this goal are as follows:

i. Prevent rabbits from occupying new areas in Australia and eradicate

rabbits from high- conservation-value ‘islands’ by:

o collating data on all islands (including isolated mainland ‘islands’);

and

o developing and implementing management plans for ‘islands’ with

high conservation value.

ii. Promote the maintenance and recovery of native species and ecological

communities that are affected by rabbit competition and land degradation

by:

o identifying priority areas and conducting and monitoring regional

rabbit control in these priority areas; and

o applying existing and new incentives to promote and maintain on-

ground rabbit control on private or leasehold lands within or

adjacent to these priority sites.

iii. Improve knowledge and understanding of rabbit impacts and interactions

with other species and other ecological processes by:

o developing methods for monitoring rabbit populations and their

impacts;

o identifying the importance of rabbits for maintaining other pest

animals and the effects of removing predators; and

o identifying unintended effects of rabbit control conducted in

isolation.

iv. Improve the effectiveness, target specificity, integration and humaneness

of control options for rabbits by:

o enhancing current methods for poisoning, warren ripping and

warren fumigation;

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

o developing programs to help land managers;

o conducting research to maximise effectiveness of existing

biocontrols and investigate new biocontrols; and

o continuing to promote the adoption of the model codes of practice

and standard operating procedures for effective and humane

management of rabbits.

v. Increase awareness of all stakeholders of the objectives and actions of

the TAP, and of the need to control and manage rabbits by:

o promoting understanding of the threat to biodiversity posed by

rabbits and support for their control, including the use of humane

and best-practice cost-effective controls.

Fox Threat Abatement Plan

9.10. The goal of the Fox TAP is to minimise the impact of foxes on biodiversity in

Australia and its territories. The five main objectives and associated recovery actions in

order to achieve this goal are as follows:

i. Prevent foxes occupying new areas in Australia and eradicate foxes from

high-conservation-value ‘islands’ by;

o collating data on offshore islands and developing and

implementing management plans to prevent, monitor, contain and

eradicate and fox incursions.


communities that are affected by fox predation by;

o identifying priority areas for fox control and conducting and

monitoring regional fox control in these areas; and

o applying incentives to promote and maintain on private or lease

hold land within or adjacent to priority areas.

iii. Improve knowledge and understanding of fox impacts and interactions

with other species and other ecological processes by:

o developing simple and cost effective methods for monitoring

populations and impacts of foxes;

o investigating interactions between foxes and native carnivores;

o determining the nature of interactions between foxes and other

pest animals;

o identifying unintended effects of fox control conducted in isolation;

and

o estimating the environmental and other costs of impacts from

foxes.

iv. Improve the effectiveness, target specificity, integration and humaneness

of control options for foxes by:

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

o conducting further work on the development of new, or

improvements to existing control techniques;

o investigating feasibility of control techniques to target foxes and

not dingos in some areas;

o developing training programs to assist land owners control foxes;

o ensuring habitat rehabilitation and management of potential prey,

competitors and predators of foxes are considered in fox control

programs; and

o continuing to promote procedures for the humane management of

foxes.


this threat abatement plan, and of the need to control and manage foxes

by:


foxes and support for their control, including the use of humane

and best-practice cost-effective controls.

Tramp Ant Threat Abatement Plan

9.11. The Tramp Ant TAP contains objectives, with supporting actions at all stages of the

invasion sequence. The six main objectives and associated recovery actions in order to

achieve this goal are as follows:

i. Increase science-based knowledge and expertise, incorporate Indigenous

traditional ecological knowledge, quantify impacts, and improve access to

information for priority tramp ant species by:

o increasing science-based knowledge, innovation, and expertise

for management of tramp ants in Australia and its territories;

o incorporating Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge into

tramp ant management;

o assessing tramp ant impacts in Australia and its territories; and

o creating a central repository or linked network for knowledge

relevant to the management of tramp ants;

ii. Prevent entry and spread of tramp ants by increasing diagnostic capacity,

offshore surveillance, inspection, treatment, and national and state and

territory surveillance by:

o improving diagnostic capacity and service;

o improving offshore surveillance, inspection, and treatment; and

o enhancing national and state/territory surveillance.

iii. Prepare for rapid response to tramp ant incursions and spread through

risk assessment of tramp ant species and pathways of introduction, and

development of contingency plans by:

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

o producing risk assessments for tramp ants, pathways, and regions

and habitats susceptible to invasion and impact; and

o developing generic, specific, and context dependent contingency

plans.

iv. Enhance emergency response to tramp ant incursions by improving

reporting and response rates, and by developing tools for response and

follow-up by:

o improving reporting of new detections of tramp ants;

o accelerating response to new detections of tramp ants; and

o developing effective control/delivery technologies and efficient

monitoring/surveillance protocols.

v. Build stewardship by engaging, educating, and informing the Australian

community about the impacts of invasive tramp ants and effective means

of response by:

o building on the awareness campaign for the red imported fire ant;;

o developing educational curricula;

o initiating national awareness campaigns for best practices; and

o developing community outreach programs to encourage

participation in management projects.

vi. Coordinate Australian Government, state and territory government, and

local management activities in Australia and the region by:

o coordinating Australian Government, state, territory, and local

management activities for tramp ants in Australia; and

o cooperation through bilateral agreements and partnerships within

Australia’s region.

Cat Threat Abatement Plan

9.12. The goal of the Cat TAP is to minimise the impact of cats on biodiversity in

Australia and its territories. The five main objectives and associated recovery

actions in order to achieve this goal are as follows:

i. Prevent feral cats occupying new areas in Australia and eradicate feral

cats from high- conservation-value ‘islands’ by:

o collating data on offshore islands and developing and

implementing management plans to prevent, monitor, contain and

eradicate any cat incursions;

o working with communities to prevent incursion; and

o monitoring native prey species in areas eradicated of cats.


communities that are affected by feral cat predation by:

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

o identifying priority areas for cat control and conducting and

monitoring regional cat control in these areas; and

o applying incentives to promote and maintain on private or lease

hold land within or adjacent to priority areas.

iii. Improve knowledge and understanding of feral cat impacts and

interactions with other species and other ecological processes by:

o developing simple and cost effective methods for monitoring

populations and impacts of foxes;

o investigating interactions between foxes and native carnivores;

o determining the nature of interactions between foxes and other

pest animals;

o determining impacts of cat-borne diseases; and

o identifying unintended effects of fox control conducted in isolation.

iv. Improve effectiveness, target specificity, humaneness and integration of

control options for feral cats by:

o developing an effective toxin-bait for cats;

o determining appropriate baiting strategies;

o ensuring habitat rehabilitation and management of potential prey;

o testing and disseminating information on exclusion fence designs

regarding cost-effectiveness; and

o continuing to promote the adoption and adaptation of model codes

of practice and standard operating procedures for the humane

management of feral cats.


the TAP, and of the need to control and manage feral cats by:


feral cats and support for their control, including the use of

humane and best-practice cost-effective controls; and

o developing communication campaigns to accompany the release

of new broadscale cat control techniques.

Conservation Advice

9.13. The Squatter Pigeon Conservation Advice identifies the following research

priorities that would inform regional and local priority actions:

identify preferred food plants, and the responses of these to fire and grazing

regimes;

determine patterns of dispersal or residency, and the factors that may

determine these; and

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

assess reproductive success, and the factors that affect this.

9.14. The regional and local priority actions to support the recovery of the Squatter

Pigeon are to reduce the impacts of: habitat loss, disturbance and modification;

trampling, browsing or grazing; animal predation or competition and increasing

conservation information. The actions to achieve these are:

monitor known populations to identify key threats;

monitor progress of recovery, including adapting management actions if

necessary;

identify populations of high priority;

manage threats to areas of vegetation that support important populations;

protect populations through covenants, conservation agreements or inclusion

in reserve tenure;

develop and implement a stock management plan for key sites;

develop and implement a management plan to control feral herbivores in

areas inhabited by Squatter Pigeon (southern);

raise awareness within local communities; and

implement the appropriate recommendations in the Threat Abatement Plan for

Predation by the European Red Fox (EA, 1999a) and the Threat Abatement

Plan for Predation by Feral Cats (EA, 1999).

9.15. The Cat TAP and Fox TAP referred to in the Squatter Pigeon Conservation

Advice were updated in 2005. The current approved threat abatement plans are

referred to throughout this report.

Threats and Assessment of Impacts

9.16. The main threats to the Squatter Pigeon (southern) as identified in the Squatter

Pigeon Conservation Advice are: loss of habitat due to clearing for agriculture or

development purposes; degradation of habitat by grazing species; and predation.

9.17. The EIS indicates that there have been regular observations of the Squatter

Pigeon at Abbot Point, in particular to the west of the subject site. There have also

recently been five individuals recorded in the proposed phase 2 laydown area and a

single individual recorded nearby on Abbot Point Road. It is stated that habitat for this

species within the terminal area is degraded and generally unsuitable with the

exception of the Phase 2 laydown area.

9.18. Only minor direct impacts from vegetation clearing and potential vehicle strike

are anticipated due to the low number of individuals observed within the T0 Project

area at any one time. However, potential indirect impacts include degradation of nearby

habitat through increased noise and light pollution, smothering of habitat from coal

dust, alteration of habitat through introduced species and decreased water quality.

Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis) – Vulnerable

9.19. The Australian Painted Snipe was listed as a threatened species in the

vulnerable category on 15 August 2003.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

9.20. The referral decision for this proposal was determined on 13 December 2011.

Although the Australian Painted Snipe was up-listed from vulnerable to endangered

under the EPBC Act on 15 May 2013, for the purposes of this decision on approval,

you must consider this species as a vulnerable species (refer section 158A of the

EPBC Act).

9.21. The Australian Painted Snipe has been recorded at wetlands in all states of

Australia and the Northern Territory. It is most common in eastern Australia, where it

has been recorded at scattered locations throughout much of Queensland, New South

Wales, Victoria and south-eastern South Australia. The Australian Painted Snipe

generally inhabits shallow terrestrial freshwater (occasionally brackish) wetlands,

including temporary and permanent lakes, swamps and claypans.

9.22. There is currently no approved recovery plan in place for this species.


9.23. There are two threat abatement plans listed in the Approved Conservation advice

for Rostratula australis (Australian Painted Snipe) (TSSC, 2013) (Australian Painted

Snipe Conservation Advice) as relevant to the species (provided for your consideration

at Annexure 1). These plans are the Fox TAP and the Cat TAP, and are discussed

above.

Conservation Advice

9.24. The Australian Painted Snipe Conservation Advice states that the research

priorities to inform regional and local priority actions include:

o continue to monitor the species to more precisely assess population size,

distribution and the relative impacts of threatening processes;

o support and enhance existing programs for the Australian painted snipe that

are managed by BirdLife Australia;

o identify and describe the ecological and hydrological character of sites that

are suitable for the Australian painted snipe, particularly those known to be

used by the species for breeding;

o investigate potential food resources for the species and monitor changes to

the abundance and diversity of these resources (e.g. invertebrates); and

o directly monitor the breeding and non-breeding behaviour of the Australian

painted snipe with the use of radio transmitters and/or tagging methods.

9.25. The regional priority recovery actions and threat abatement actions to support

the recovery of the Australian Painted Snipe are to reduce: habitat loss, disturbance

and modification; invasive weeds; tramping, browsing or grazing; animal predation or

competition; fire; and increase conservation information. The actions to achieve these

are:

o developing management guidelines for habitat;

o monitoring the progress of recovery, including adapting management actions

if necessary;

o ensuring no disturbance in breeding areas;

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

o controlling access to existing and future breeding sites on public land;

o suitably managing access on private and other land;

o minimising adverse impacts from land use at known sites

o managing changes to hydrology;

o investigating formal conservation arrangements, management agreements

and covenants on private land;

o managing other known, potential or emerging threats;

o implementing the Parkinsonia (Parkinsonia aculeate) Strategic Plan within the

range of the Australian Painted Snipe;

o identifying and removing weeds in wetland areas;

o ensuring weed eradication methods do not adversely impact the Australian

Painted Snipe;

o developing and implementing a stock management plan for relevant roadside

verges and travelling stock routes;

o if appropriate, managing total grazing pressure at important breeding sites;

o implementing the Fox TAP and Cat TAP in the species range and continue

baiting control of feral animals;

o developing and implementing a suitable fire management strategy; and

o raise awareness of the Australian Painted Snipe with a number of

stakeholders.


9.26. The approved Australian Painted Snipe Conservation Advice states that the

primary factor in the decline of the Australian Painted Snipe has been a loss and

alteration of wetland habitat. It is estimated that since European settlement

approximately 50% of wetlands in Australia have been converted for other uses.

Predation by feral animals is also a potential threat to the Australian Painted Snipe.

9.27. The T0 Project area occurs centrally in the known distribution for the Australian

Painted Snipe. The EIS refers to several targeted bird and migratory bird species

surveys that have been undertaken over the past five years in the CVW with the most

recent survey in June 2012 resulting in the observation of 24 individuals including a

number of juveniles, indicating potential breeding is occurring on site. Extrapolation to

unsurveyed areas of suitable habitat results in an estimate of 35 individuals utilising the

CVW. This equates to 2.3% of the estimated Australian population of the species and

therefore the CVW is likely to be an important area for this species.

9.28. The T0 Project is not positioned within the CVW, however, it is in close proximity

and the rail loop is proposed to be positioned adjacent to the CVW. Direct impacts

through habitat removal and mortality are considered unlikely. Potential indirect

impacts include degradation of the CVW through increased noise and light pollution,

smothering of habitat from coal dust, alteration of habitat through introduced species

and decreased water quality.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Black-throated Finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta) – Endangered

9.29. The Black-throated Finch has been listed as a threatened species in the

endangered category since 14 February 2005.

9.30. The Black-throated Finch (southern) occurs at two locations: in the Townsville

region, where it is considered to be locally common at a few sites around Townsville

and Charters Towers; and, at scattered sites in central-eastern Queensland.

9.31. The Black-throated Finch (southern) occurs mainly in grassy, open woodlands

and forests, typically dominated by Eucalyptus, Corymbia and Melaleuca tree species,

and occasionally in tussock grasslands or other habitats (for example freshwater

wetlands), often along or near watercourses or in the vicinity of water.

Recovery Plan and Conservation Advice

9.32. The overall recovery objective of the National Recovery Plan for the Black-

throated Finch Southern Subspecies (Poephila cincta cincta) (BTFRT, 2007) (Black-

throated Finch Recovery Plan) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) is to

manage and protect the Black-throated Finch and its habitat, and to promote the

recovery of the southern subspecies. The specific objectives, and a summary of their

recovery actions, identified in the Black-throated Finch Recovery Plan are as follows:

i. to identify and quantify threats by investigating:

o breeding requirements; and

o feeding and other habitat requirements.

ii. quantify distribution and abundance by:

o documenting sightings;

o developing standard survey guidelines;

o undertaking mapping and habitat modelling; and

o undertaking targeted surveys.

iii. protect and enhance habitat by:

o securing selected sites for conservation;

o addressing threats on grazing lands;

o monitoring management effectiveness; and

o investigating development of other statutory planning instruments

to minimise impacts of development on the species.

iv. investigate the potential for captive birds contributing to a re-introduction

project by:

o determining suitability of birds currently in captivity for

reintroduction project

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

v. increase public awareness by:

o providing copies of the recovery plan to appropriate libraries and

local government offices.

9.33. The Conservation Advice for the Black-throated Finch (TSSC, 2005) (provided

for your consideration at Annexure 1) provides a very brief summary of the above

objectives and therefore is not described further in this report.


9.34. There are two threat abatement plans that list the Black-throated Finch as a

species of interest. The Rabbit TAP has been discussed above. The Threat Abatement

Plan to Reduce the Impacts on Northern Australia’s Biodiversity by the Five Listed

Grasses (2012b) and Background Document: Threat Abatement Plan to Reduce the

Impacts on Northern Australia’s Biodiversity by the Five Listed Grasses (2012c) (Five

Grasses TAP) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1), is discussed below.

9.35. The goal of the Five Grasses TAP is to minimise the adverse impacts of the five

listed grasses on affected native species and ecological communities. The six main

objectives and associated recovery actions in order to achieve this goal are as follows:

i. Develop an understanding of the extent and spread pathways of

infestation by the five listed grasses by:

o undertaking mapping of the five listed grasses and developing a

better understanding of spread pathways.

ii. Support and facilitate coordinated management strategies through the

design of tools, systems and guidelines by:

o encouraging complementary weed status for the five listed

grasses across all jurisdictions to which the TAP applies;

o developing best practice guidelines and encouraging their

implementation;

o developing hygiene protocols;

o including strategic management in management plans;

o improving and promoting understanding of invasive grass control

and land rehabilitation methods; and

o facilitating collaborative applied research to inform or improve

management.

iii. Identify and prioritise key assets and areas for strategic management by:

o identifying key assets for priority protection.

iv. Build capacity and raise awareness among stakeholders by:

o developing and delivering communication strategies to raise

awareness of the threats posed by the five listed grasses; and

o assisting the capacity of Indigenous people to participate in

management.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

v. Implement coordinated, cost-effective on-ground management strategies

in high-priority areas by:

o fostering a coordinated partnership approach to management;

o implementing immediate management actions in high-priority

areas and other infested areas;

o applying land rehabilitation to high priority areas as they are

successfully managed; and

o liaising with land managers of areas containing key assets to

identify resources available for the implementation of priority

actions.

vi. Monitor, evaluate and report on the effectiveness of management

programs by:

o ensuring that management plans for high priority areas include

recognition of the asset being protected as well as appropriate

monitoring of managed sites.


9.36. The Black-throated Finch Recovery Plan states that the threats to this species

include: habitat loss and/or degradation; introduction of exotic weeds and predators;

illegal trapping; and hybridisation with the northern subspecies.

9.37. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have resulted in one

confirmed record of this species along Splitters Creek approximately 14 km south west

of the T0 Project area.

9.38. The EIS also stated that there is no suitable habitat within the T0 Project area.

There is however, suitable habitat within the Abbot Point region for this species that

could be indirectly impacted by degradation through increased noise and light pollution,

smothering of habitat from coal dust, alteration of habitat through introduced species

and decreased water quality.

Water Mouse, False Water Rat (Xeromys myoides) – Vulnerable

9.39. The Water Mouse was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category

on 16 July 2000.

9.40. In south central Queensland, the Water Mouse has only been captured in the

high inter-tidal zone in tall, closed fringing mangrove forest containing only Ceriops

tagal and/or Bruguiera spp. The type specimen (used to describe the species) from

near Mackay was caught in a permanent reed swamp, covered with tall grass, shrubs

and Pandanus. The moist wallum, heath, sedgeland and freshwater influences along

mangrove ecotones as described by Van Dyck (1996) were not present to any large

degree at the capture sites in south central Queensland and more typically comprised

distinct ecotones between mangroves and dry sclerophyll woodlands and/or saltpan.

9.41. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species or

relevant threat abatement plans.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Recovery Plan

9.42. The overall objective of the National Recovery Plan for the Water Mouse (False

Water Rat) Xeromys myoides (DERM, 2010) (Water Mouse Recovery Plan) (provided

for your consideration at Annexure 1) is to improve the conservation status of the water

mouse and its habitat through habitat protection, reducing threats to species’ survival,

research and increasing public participation in recovery activities. The specific

objectives, and a summary of their recovery actions, identified in the Water Mouse

Recovery Plan are as follows:

i. Identify habitats supporting populations of the water mouse and map the

current distribution by:

o conducting surveys to confirm the current distribution;

o consolidating existing databases to for a national dataset;

o producing high-quality GIS mapping and spatial analysis of habitat

supporting extant populations; and

o conducting surveys and assessments of potential habitat.

ii. Describe key biological and ecological features of the water mouse and

its habitat by:

o determining whether genetic differentiation exists across

populations;

o understanding the reproductive biology; and

o investigating selected field populations to describe poorly known

ecological features.

iii. Monitor population trends and identify and manage threats to species’

survival by:

o conducting a monitoring program of selected populations to

measure trends and abundance and efficacy of management

actions;

o assessing the impact of known threats on extant populations; and

o investigating the relative impact of potential threats;

iv. Rehabilitate habitat to expand extant populations by:

o regenerating habitat corridors at five specified sites (none of which

occur in the Abbot Point Region); and

o evaluating the potential for artificial nesting structures.

v. Increase public awareness of, and involvement in, water mouse

conservation by:

o collaborating with Indigenous landowners to exchange knowledge;

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

o investigating opportunities for protecting the habitat of extant

populations through establishment of voluntary conservation

agreements;

o developing and implementing management plans for populations

of water mouse that occur on land under voluntary conservation

agreements; and

o developing and implementing a community awareness and

education program.


9.43. As stated in the Water Mouse Recovery Plan the removal and degradation of

habitat as a result of development actions is the principal threat to the survival of the

Water Mouse. Habitats used in south central Queensland are often directly adjacent to

terrestrial areas that are subject to ongoing disturbance, modification and clearing,

aquaculture and housing.

9.44. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this

species and there are no Wildnet database records. However, this species requires

targeted surveys (which were not undertaken) and is difficult to detect. It is stated that

this species may occur in mangroves south of Abbot Point and in the estuarine habitat

of the CVW.

9.45. Acknowledging that there is potential habitat in the area, it is considered unlikely

that the T0 Project will result in substantial direct impacts. Potential indirect impacts

include degradation of nearby habitat through smothering of habitat from coal dust,

alteration of habitat through introduced species and decreased water quality.

Mitigation Measures for listed threatened terrestrial species and Water Mouse


the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to listed threatened fauna

species discussed above that have the potential to reduce habitat quality during the

action, including:


a Threatened Species Pre-clearing Survey Plan to confirm the presence (or

absence) of listed threatened fauna species in order to identify appropriate

methods for management;




an Illumination Plan will be developed describing each light source in terms

of its purpose, location, footprint, intensity and spectral composition and

document steps to avoid, mitigate and manage the impacts of each source.

For example through minimisation of lighting within the development,

minimising long wavelength lights and installing timers and motion detectors

where possible;

an integrated Feral Animal and Weed Management Plan will be prepared in

association with the Port Authority for the construction and operational

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

phases of the T0 Project, including a control/eradication plan for pests that

may potentially occur on the site and identification of treatment methods and

techniques;

















A Noise and Vibration Management Subplan including:

Land based noise control strategies to limit the level of noise travelling to the

surrounding environment through equipment modifications and minimising

use of equipment; and






monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not

all of these have an adaptive management function. For further information regarding

the mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer


9.48. The Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Management Subplan refers to translocation

potentially being utilised for some species. However, no details have been provided for

any translocation programs.

9.49. The EPBC Act Policy Statement – Translocation of Listed Threatened Species –

Assessment under Chapter 4 of the EPBC Act, states that salvage translocation

(translocation from an area affected by development) may actually increase the

impacts of that action and not reduce them. The low success of translocation proposals

mean that, unless it can be shown that there is a high degree of certainty that a

translocation will be successful in contributing to the long term conservation of a

species, a proposal for translocation associated with an action will be unlikely to be

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

approved. Accordingly, the onus would be on the proponent to demonstrate that any

translocation proposals, included in any subsequent management plans, would be an

acceptable mitigation measure.

Conclusion for listed threatened terrestrial species and Water Mouse

9.50. The above assessment drew upon information provided in approved

conservation advice for the Squatter Pigeon (southern) (TSSC, 2008), the approved

conservation advice for the Australian Painted Snipe (TSSC, 2013), the National

Recovery Plan for the Black-throated Finch southern subspecies (BTFRT, 2007) and

the National Recovery Plan for the Water Mouse (DERM, 2010), all of which detail

threats to the respective species’ survival and priority recovery and conservation

actions as well as other general and biological information.

9.51. Based on this assessment, the department considers that the above mentioned

elements of the proposed Terrestrial Flora and Fauna, Water, Land and Waste

Management Subplans provide a sufficient framework (with the exception of

translocation) for reducing any potential impacts on listed threatened terrestrial species

and the Water Mouse from, smothering of habitat from coal dust, degradation of habitat

including decreased water quality, increased noise pollution and introduced exotic

species (terrestrial and marine), provided they include an adaptive management

function.






potential negative impacts to listed threatened terrestrial species and the Water Mouse.

9.53. It is also recommended that a condition be attached to the approval that requires

the proponent to include the mitigation measures discussed above (but not limited to)

for the Noise and Vibration Management Subplan in the previously discussed

Terrestrial Management Plan. It is recommended that the relevant section of the

Marine and Shipping Management Plan also contain provisions for performance

indicators (including trigger levels) and contingency measures. This would enable the

proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate potential

negative impacts to listed threatened terrestrial species and the Water Mouse.

9.54. The department considers that the proposed approval decision, and the

conditions attached to the proposed approval, are not inconsistent with any approved

National Recovery Plans or Threat Abatement Plans and the department has had

regard to approved conservation advices for the Squatter Pigeon, Australian Painted

Snipe, Black-throated Finch and Water Mouse, in the following ways:

Squatter Pigeon:

o a Terrestrial Management Plan is required which contains a pest management

component to undertake management of exotic fauna in the Abbot Point

region;

o the Abbot Point Region is not known to support an important population of

Squatter Pigeon, therefore removal of the small amount of habitat on site

within the Phase 2 laydown area (approximately 9 km south of Abbot Point

encompassing approximately 60 ha and located adjacent to Abbot Point

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Road) will unlikely have a substantial impact on the Squatter Pigeon or

increase threats to the vegetation in the surrounding area that contain

Squatter Pigeon; and

o the department considers that the T0 Project will not hinder the action of

monitoring populations of Squatter Pigeon.

Australian Painted Snipe:

o the Terrestrial Management Plan contains a requirement to manage any water

related impacts to manage impacts to any changes in hydrology that may

affect the CVW, being habitat for the Australian Painted Snipe, as well as

other downstream water related impacts from the onshore component of the

T0 Project;

o the Terrestrial Management Plan also contains a requirement to manage

indirect noise and lighting impacts on the CVW (approximately 700 m east of

the T0 Project site); and

o the Terrestrial Management Plan contains a pest management component to

ensure the management of exotic flora and fauna in the Abbot Point region as

well as a requirement for fire management.

Black-throated Finch:

o No Black-throated Finch have been observed within the T0 Project area and

there is no suitable habitat on site. The one record of Black-throated Finch in

the Abbot Point region is approximately 14 km southeast of the T0 Project.

Therefore, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will hinder any investigations into

the ecology of the species or surveys undertaken as required by the actions in

the Black-throated Finch Recovery Plan. Therefore conditions relating to

these matters is considered unnecessary.

Water Mouse:

o It is unlikely that the T0 Project will hinder the recovery actions listed in the

Water Mouse Recovery Plan as it will not prevent investigations into the

ecology of the Water Mouse, monitoring of populations or studies into the

assessment of impacts. The Abbot Point region does not contain one of the

five priority sites for regenerating habitat corridors. Therefore conditions

relating to these matters is considered unnecessary; and

o the required Marine and Shipping Management Plan contains a shipping

component which includes management of introduced exotic species through

ballast water and biofouling, which could impact on the Water mouse.

9.55. Considering the above, and presuming compliance with the department’s

recommended approval conditions, the department is of the view that the proposed

action will not have an unacceptable impact on the Squatter Pigeon, Australian Painted

Snipe, Black-throated Finch or the Water Mouse.

Additional Terrestrial Threatened Species

9.56. The department considers that substantial potential direct and indirect impacts

from the proposed action to the following species are unlikely. Consequently, impacts

of the proposed action on these species are considered to be acceptable. However as

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

they have been identified as potentially occurring in the area, consideration is set out

below.

Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) – Vulnerable

9.57. The Red Goshawk was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category

on 16 July 2000.

9.58. The Red Goshawk occurs over wooded and forested areas of tropical and warm-

temperate Australia, coastal and sub-coastal. This species prefers forest and woodland

with a mosaic of vegetation types, large prey populations (birds), and permanent water.

The vegetation types include eucalypt woodland, open forest, tall open forest, gallery

rainforest, swamp sclerophyll forest, and rainforest margins.

9.59. The Red Goshawk nests in tall (emergent) trees beside or within 1km of

permanent water and generally within open, biologically-rich habitat. It avoids very

dense and very open habitats. It is estimated that there are approximately 100 to 200

breeding pairs in Queensland.

9.60. It has been observed that Red Goshawks are difficult to find, difficult to identify,

and the nests are exceptionally hard to find when in rugged terrain. The relatively low

number of sightings and breeding records, combined with the Red Goshawk's

unobtrusive behaviour, cryptic plumage, and occupancy in sparsely inhabited areas

suggests that the Red Goshawk is unusually difficult to detect and identify.




9.62. The National Recovery Plan for the Red Goshawk (DERM, 2012) (provided for

your consideration at Annexure 1) states that the main cause of decline of the Red

Goshawk in eastern Queensland is the widespread clearance of native forests and

woodlands for agriculture.


species and that no database records exist. It is also stated that the surrounding

landscape is predominately cleared, however the Eucalyptus woodland along the

eastern boundary of the CVW could potentially provide habitat for this species.

Conclusion

9.64. Acknowledging that there is potential habitat in the area but that the species does

not appear to utilise the area, it is considered unlikely that the T0 Project will result in

substantial direct or indirect impacts on this species. The department concluded that

approval of the proposed action subject to the proposed conditions would not be

inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for the Red Goshawk.

White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea), White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Australasian) (Fregetta

gralleria gralleria) – Vulnerable

9.65. The White-bellied Storm Petrel (Tasman Sea) was listed as a threatened species

in the vulnerable category on 16 July 2000.

9.66. The White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea) occurs across sub-tropical and

tropical waters in the Tasman Sea, Coral Sea and, possibly, the central Pacific Ocean.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

In the non-breeding season, it reaches and forages over near-shore waters along the

continental shelf of mainland Australia. It breeds, in Australian territory, on offshore

islets and rocks in the Lord Howe Island group.

9.67. The White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea) forages by skimming low over the

ocean, sometimes pattering the water with its feet, and plucking small crustaceans and

squid from beneath the surface of the water. It forages both during the day and at night,

usually far from shore.

9.68. No recovery plan or approved conservation advice is available for this species.

The department has considered this action in relation to the Threat Abatement Plan for

Predation by Feral Cats (DEWHA, 2008d); the Background Document for the Threat

Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats (DEWHA, 2008e); Threat Abatement Plan

to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian offshore islands of

less than 100 000 hectares (DEWHA, 2009b); the Background Document for the

Threat Abatement Plan to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on

Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000 hectares (DEWHA, 2009c) (all

provided for your consideration at Annexure 1).


9.69. The only potential threat to the White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea) that has

been identified is the accidental introduction of exotic terrestrial predators, specifically

rats or cats, to the offshore islets and rocks on which the White-bellied Storm-Petrel

(Tasman Sea) breeds.


species and there are no database records. It is also stated that no suitable habitat

occurs in the area.

9.71. The department also considers that the proposed approval decision, and the

conditions to the proposed approval, have taken into account the Threat Abatement

Plan to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian offshore

islands of less than 100 000 hectares (DEWHA, 2009b); the Background Document for

the Threat Abatement Plan to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on

Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000 hectares (DEWHA, 2009c); and Cat

TAP.

Conclusion

9.72. As this species does not appear to utilise the area and there is no suitable

habitat, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will result in substantial direct or indirect

impacts. The department concluded that approval of the proposed action subject to the

proposed conditions would not be inconsistent with these plans.

Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) – Endangered

9.73. The Northern Quoll was listed as a threatened species in the endangered

category on 12 April 2005.

9.74. The Northern Quoll, while once widespread, now only occurs in five regional

populations across Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia both on

the mainland and on offshore islands. This species occupies a diversity of habitats

across its range including rocky areas, eucalyptus forest and woodlands, rainforests,

sandy lowlands and beaches, shrubland, grasslands and desert. Northern Quolls are

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

known to occupy non rocky lowland habitats such as beach scrub communities in

central Queensland. Northern Quoll habitat generally encompasses some form of rocky

area for denning purposes with surrounding vegetated habitats used for foraging and

dispersal.

9.75. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species.


9.76. According to the National Recovery Plan for the Northern Quoll Dasyurus

hallucatus (Hill and Ward, 2010) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1), the

main threat to the Northern Quoll is Cane Toads (Bufo marinus). There is also

evidence that decline is associated with habitat degradation. Other potential threats

include: weeds; disease; isolation of populations; inappropriate fire regimes; and

predation by feral animals.


species. There is one Wildnet record within 25 km of the T0 Project area and the

species is known from Cape Upstart (being approximately 39 km north of Abbot Point).

It is stated that rocky outcrop habitat exists on the T0 Project site however it is subject

to ongoing disturbance from the existing terminal and is relatively isolated from suitable

habitat to the south and west of the region.

Conclusion

9.78. Acknowledging that there is potential habitat in the area but that the species does

not appear to utilise the area, it is considered unlikely that the T0 Project will result in

substantial direct or indirect impacts on this species. The department concluded that


inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for the Northern Quoll.

Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) – Vulnerable

9.79. The Grey-headed Flying-fox was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable

category on 6 December 2001.

9.80. The Grey-headed Flying-fox is Australia's only endemic flying-fox and occurs in

the coastal belt from Rockhampton in central Queensland to Melbourne in Victoria.

However, only a small proportion of this range is used at any one time, as the species

selectively forages where food is available. As a result, patterns of occurrence and

relative abundance within its distribution vary widely between seasons and between

years.

9.81. The Grey-headed Flying-fox requires foraging resources and roosting sites. It is a

canopy-feeding frugivore and nectivore, which utilises vegetation communities

including rainforests, open forests, closed and open woodlands, Melaleuca swamps

and Banksia woodlands. Roost sites are typically located near water, such as lakes,

rivers or coastal waters. Roost vegetation includes rainforest patches, stands of

Melaleuca, mangroves and riparian vegetation.




EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

9.83. The Draft Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus

(DECCW NSW, 2009) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) states that the

threats to this species include: habitat loss; deliberate destruction associated with

commercial horticulture; negative public attitudes and conflict with humans;

electrocution; entanglement; climate change and disease.


species and there are no Wildnet database records within 25 km. The EIS does not

state if there is potential habitat in the area for this species and therefore the

department considers for the purpose of this approval that you should consider the

possibility that habitat may be present.

Conclusion

9.85. Acknowledging that there may be potential habitat in the area but that the

species does not appear to utilise the area, it is considered unlikely that the T0 Project

will result in substantial direct or indirect impacts on this species. The department

concluded that approval of the proposed action subject to the proposed conditions

would not be inconsistent with the Draft Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox.

Spectacled Flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) – Vulnerable

9.86. The Spectacled Flying-fox was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable

category on 14 May 2002.

9.87. The Spectacled Flying-fox occurs in north-eastern Queensland, north of Cardwell

with historical records from Brisbane and Chillagoe. The Spectacled Flying-fox is

associated primarily with rainforest and sometimes with mangroves containing Black

Flying-foxes (Pteropus alecto – not listed under the EPBC Act). Roosts are always

found within 6 km of rainforest.




9.89. According to the Recovery Plan for the Spectacled Flying fox Pteropus

conspicillatus (DERM, 2010a) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) known

threats to this species include; habitat loss; illegal killing and incidental mortality of

flying foxes in commercial fruit crops; harassment by humans; natural events;

electrocution and entanglement.


species and there are no Wildnet database records. It is indicated that the nearest

suitable roosting habitat lies to the north of the area, above Townsville (being

approximately 175 km north of the T0 Project area).

Conclusion


habitat, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will result in substantial direct or indirect

impacts. The department concluded that approval of the proposed action subject to the

proposed conditions would not be inconsistent with the Recovery Plan for the

Spectacled Flying-fox.

Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus philippinensis (large form)) - Endangered

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

9.92. The Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat was listed as a threatened species in

the endangered category on 4 April 2001.

9.93. The Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat occurs only in northern Queensland.

The southern limit of its range has not been clarified, however it might be present south

of Townsville at Mt Elliott and Cape Cleveland.

9.94. The Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat is found in lowland rainforest, along

gallery forest-lined creeks within open eucalyptus forest, Melaleuca forest with

rainforest understorey, open savannah woodland and tall riparian woodland of

Melaleuca, Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) and Moreton Bay Ash

(Eucalyptus tesselaris). At night, they forage mainly in open forest and wattle-

dominated ridges in rainforest.




9.96. According to the Recovery Plan for Cave-dwelling Bats, Rhinolophus

philippinensis, Hipposideros semoni and Taphozous troughtoni 2001–2005

(unpublished) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1), the main threat to this

species is the destruction and disturbance of rooting sites.


species and there are no database records. The known southern limit of the range for

this species is Townsville, to the north of the Abbot Point.

Conclusion

9.98. As the T0 Project area is outside of the species’ known home range, there is no

suitable habitat and does not appear to utilise the area, it is unlikely that the T0 Project

will result in substantial direct or indirect impacts. The department concluded that


inconsistent with the Recovery Plan for Cave-dwelling Bats.

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus) – Critically Endangered

9.99. The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat was listed as a threatened species in the

critically endangered category on 4 April 2001.

9.100. The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat was described from specimens collected around

Cardwell, North Queensland. Occasional individuals have been collected from a narrow

coastal region (less than 40 km inland) between Ayr and Cooktown, North Queensland,

with one isolated specimen from north of Coen on Cape York Peninsula.

9.101. Only anecdotal information is available for this species and it is based on habitat

around roosts or from shot specimens. No information is available on foraging habitat

shifts between the dry and wet seasons. The small number of confirmed roosts in

Australia have all been in tree hollows of the Poplar gum (Eucalyptus platyphylla),

Darwin Woollybutt (Eucalyptus miniata) and Darwin Stringybark (Eucalyptus

tetradonta). Nearly all confirmed records of this species have been a consequence of

vegetation removal. The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat has been suggested to forage

over habitat edges such as the edge of rainforest and in forest clearings.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141




9.103. According to the National Recovery Plan for Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat

Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus (Schulz and Thomson, 2007) (provided for

your consideration at Annexure 1) the distribution, habitat preferences and biology of

the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat are poorly known and the identification of known and

likely threats facing this species are incomplete, however, it is considered that the main

known threat to this species is habitat loss. Potential threats include: vegetation

change; timber removal; competition for hollows; disease and climate change.

9.104. The proponent did not address potential impacts on this species and neither

does the CIA. The department’s environmental databases for this species have

recently been updated with newly published information for this species in particular it

is now known to occur within the vicinity of the Abbot Point region.

9.105. The GHD Terrestrial Ecology Report provided to the department as part of the

North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation Abbot Point Multi-cargo Facility EIS included

ultrasonic echolocation monitoring. The results of this monitoring were analysed by

Greg Ford, a microbat expert. Although 13 species of bats were confirmed present, the

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat was not one of these.

9.106. The EIS does not state whether there is potential habitat in the area for this

species and therefore the department considers for the purpose of this approval that

you should consider the possibility that habitat may be present.

Conclusion

9.107. Acknowledging that there may be potential habitat in the area but that the

species does not appear to utilise the area, it is considered unlikely that the T0 Project

will result in substantial direct or indirect impacts. The department concludes that


inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bats.

Yakka Skink (Egernia rugosa) – Vulnerable

9.108. The Yakka Skink was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category

on 11 July 2000.

9.109. The known distribution of the Yakka Skink extends from the coast to the

hinterland of sub-humid to semi-arid eastern Queensland. The Yakka Skink is known to

occur in open dry sclerophyll forest, woodland and scrub. The core habitat of this

species is within the Mulga Lands and Brigalow Belt South Bioregions.

9.110. Important Yakka Skink populations occur where colonies are identified or within

5km of known records of the species. Any contiguous patch of vegetation which is

suitable for the long-term persistence of a population, or for maintaining genetic

diversity across the landscape, is important habitat for the species.



EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

9.112. The Draft Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile Recovery Plan (Richardson, 2006)

(provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) states that the main threats to the

Yakka Skink include: loss of habitat; inappropriate roadside management; removal of

woody debris and rocks and feral animals. The Yakka Skink occurs in the Brigalow Belt

Bioregion, an area of high human impact. Much of this land has been modified through

agricultural and urban development.


species and there are no Wildnet database records. It is stated that no suitable habitat

occurs in the T0 Project area. There is however, potentially suitable habitat within the

vicinity of the T0 Project.

Conclusion

9.114. Acknowledging that there is potential habitat in the vicinity of the T0 Project area

but not on site, and that the species does not appear to utilise the area, it is considered

unlikely that the T0 Project will result in substantial direct or indirect impacts. The

department concluded that approval of the proposed action subject to the proposed

conditions would not be inconsistent with the Draft Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile

Recovery Plan.

Ornamental Snake (Denisonia maculate) – Vulnerable

9.115. The Ornamental Snake was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable

category on 11 July 2000.

9.116. The species is known only from the Brigalow Belt North and parts of the Brigalow

Belt South biogeographical regions. The core of the species' distribution occurs within

the drainage system of the Fitzroy and Dawson Rivers.

9.117. Ornamental Snake habitat is likely to be found in Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla),

Gidgee (Acacia cambagei), Blackwood (Acacia argyrodendron) or Coolibah

(Eucalyptus coolabah) dominated vegetation communities, or pure grassland

associated with gilgais (melon holes).



9.119. The Draft Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile Recovery Plan (Richardson, 2006)

(provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) states that potential threats to this

species include grazing effects and introduced predators.


species and there are no Wildnet database records. It is stated that the nearest known

occurrence is approximately 200 km west of Abbot Point. The EIS does not state if

there is potential habitat in the area for this species and therefore the department

considers for the purpose of this approval that you should consider the possibility that

habitat may be present.

Conclusion

9.121. Acknowledging that there may be potential habitat in the area but the nearest

known occurrence is approximately 200 km from the T0 Project area and the species

does not appear to utilise the area, it is considered unlikely that the T0 Project will

result in substantial direct or indirect impacts. The department concluded that approval

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

of the proposed action subject to the proposed conditions would not be inconsistent

with the Draft Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile Recovery Plan.

Listed Threatened Whale Species

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) – Endangered

9.122. The Blue Whale was listed as a threatened species in the endangered category

on 16 July 2000.

9.123. Blue Whale sightings in Australian waters have been widespread, and it is likely

that the whales occur around the entire continent at various times of the year. The only

known areas of significance to Blue Whales are feeding areas around the southern

continental shelf, notably the Perth Canyon, in Western Australia, and the Bonney

Upwelling and adjacent upwelling areas of South Australia and Victoria.



9.125. The Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate

Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009) and the Background Document for the Threat Abatement

Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009a)

(Marine Debris TAP) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) states that

impacts on the species from marine debris can occur from entanglement; ingestion; as

well as social, economic and aesthetic impacts on marine habitat and environments.

Marine Debris Threat Abatement Plan

9.126. The aim of the Marine Debris TAP is to provide a coordinated national approach

to the implementation of measures to prevent and mitigate the impacts of harmful

marine debris on vertebrate marine life. The four main objectives and associated

recovery actions in order to achieve this goal are as follows:

i. contribute to the long-term prevention of the incidence of harmful marine

debris by;

o improving waste management practices on land and at see

through collaboration between, state, territory and Australian

Governments, industry, non-government organisations and

indigenous communities;

o state and territory governments considering to review legislation to

ensure that details of waste reception facilities for ships are

included in port environment plans; and

o state and territory governments to investigate how Australia’s

obligations under MARPOL (International Convention for the

Prevention of Pollution from Ships) (i.e. to provide adequate waste

reception facilities for ship waste) are encompassed in domestic

legislation and policies.

ii. remove existing harmful marine debris from the marine environment and

monitor the quantities, origins and impacts of marine debris and assess

the effectiveness of management arrangements over time for the

strategic reduction in marine debris by:

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

o development of a national approach to information collection and

management; and

o improvement of the understanding of the origins of harmful marine

debris.

iii. mitigate the impacts of harmful marine debris on marine species and

ecological communities by:

o facilitating implementation of wildlife research; and

o identifying measures to promote the use of biodegradable and

oxodegradable plastic in marine-based industries.

Recovery Plan

9.127. The overall objective of the Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recover Plan 2005-2015

(DEH, 2005b) (Whale RP) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) is to outline

the measures necessary to ensure recovery of the Australian populations of these

species. The specific objectives, and a summary of their recovery actions, identified in

the Whale Recovery Plan are as follows:

the objectives are:

o the recovery of populations of Blue, Fin and Sei Whales utilising Australian

waters so that the species can be considered secure in the wild; and

o to maintain the protection of Blue, Fin and Sei Whales from human threats.

the actions are:

o implement a program to measure population abundance, trends and recovery

for Australian populations;

o implement a program to better define the characteristics (spatial, temporal,

physical) of calving, feeding and migratory areas;

o prevent commercial whaling and/or the expansion of scientific whaling;

o protect habitat important to the species;

o monitor and manage the potential impacts of prey depletion due to

overharvesting; and

o monitor climate and oceanographic change.


9.128. According to the Whale Recovery Plan, the main threats to the Blue Whale are:

commercial whaling and/or the expansion of scientific whaling; and habitat degradation;

while potential threats include climate and oceanographic change and prey depletion

due to over-harvesting.

9.129. The EIS indicates that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this

species and states that Blue Whales are typically associated with deep temperate

waters and are rarely drawn into shallow waters.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

9.130. As this species does not appear to utilise the area, substantial direct impacts are

considered unlikely. However there is the potential for the species to be indirectly

impacted through increased operational shipping (boat strike and increased marine

noise pollution).

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) – Vulnerable

9.131. The Humpback Whale was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable


9.132. The Humpback Whale forms two distinct populations around Australia, one of

which migrates along the east coast and one which migrates along the west coast. The

GBR and the Kimberley Region are important breeding and calving grounds for these

Humpback Whale populations. Hervey Bay and the Whitsundays appear to be

important resting grounds for mothers and calves of the east coast population on their

southward migration. Also on the east coast, aerial surveys conducted off North

Stradbroke Island suggested that most whales remained within 10 km of the coastline

in that area during the northward migration. The exact extent of the Humpback Whale

feeding grounds is unknown; the width of the migratory corridor (which differs for the

northward and southward migrations) is unknown and the exact area of the breeding

grounds is unknown, especially for the east coast migratory population.

9.133. The exact timing of the migration period can vary from year-to-year depending on

water temperature, sea ice, predation risk, prey abundance and the location of feeding

grounds. In general, Humpback Whales are sighted in southern Australian waters in

May and migrate slowly up the east and west coasts. By October the majority of whales

have started their southward migration and sightings are rare after November.

However, Humpback Whales have been sighted in the northern waters of the GBR

between October and January.


There is one threat abatement plan that lists the Humpback Whale as a species of

interest, being the Marine Debris TAP and is discussed above.

Recovery Plan

9.135. The overall objective of the Humpback Whale Recover Plan 2005-2015 (DEH,

2005c) (Humpback Whale Recovery Plan) (provided for your consideration at

Annexure 1) is to outline the measures necessary to ensure recovery of the Australian

populations of Humpback Whales. The specific objectives, and a summary of their

recovery actions, identified in the Humpback Whale Recovery Plan are as follows:

the objectives are:

o the recovery of populations of humpback whales utilising Australian waters so

that the species can be considered secure in the wild;

o a distribution of humpback whales utilising Australian waters that is similar to

the pre-exploitation distribution of the species; and

o to maintain the protection of humpback whales from human threats.

the actions are:

o implement a program to measure population abundance, trends and recovery

for Australian populations;

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

o implement a program to better define the characteristics (spatial, temporal and

physical) of calving, resting, feeding and migratory areas;

o prevent commercial whaling and move to ban scientific whaling;

o protect habitat important to the survival of the species;

o monitor and manage the potential impacts of prey depletion due to over

harvesting; and

o monitor climate and oceanographic change.

Threats and Assessment of impacts to listed threatened whale species

9.136. According to the Humpback Whale Recovery Plan, the main threats to the

Humpback Whale are: commercial whaling and/or the expansion of scientific whaling

and habitat degradation; while potential threats include climate and oceanographic

change and predation by Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) on calves.

9.137. The proposed action is located within the east coast migratory corridor and an

identified aggregation (resting and feeding) area. The construction and operation of the

proposed action will occur year round and therefore will coincide with Humpback Whale

migration periods.

9.138. The EIS states that adult and calf Humpback Whales have been observed during

field surveys passing through and resting in the port limits in waters ranging from 5 to

20 m deep during the annual migration period. A study carried out over a period of 12

months (2008/2009) comprising nine surveys for marine megafauna within the Port

limits recorded Humpback Whales in September 2008 only. It is also stated that

populations of Humpback Whales are known to utilise shallow northern waters in the

Abbot Point region during winter.

9.139. Increased boating activity during construction is likely to impact on Humpback

Whales. Shipping activity during operation is likely to increase the incidence of boat

strikes on Humpback and Blue Whales.

9.140. Operational shipping and ships at anchorage increase noise pollution in the

marine environment. This can impact whales through altering natural behaviours and

inhibiting communication. Increased shipping will increase the risk of introduced

species which can negatively alter the marine environment, including habitat for listed

threatened whale species.

9.141. Piling activities associated with the construction of the jetty has the potential to

impact the Humpback Whale through direct contact and noise/vibration disturbance,

potentially causing negative behavioural and physiological changes.

9.142. Construction of the onshore components of the proposed action is likely to

decrease water quality in an area utilised by Humpback Whales, through potential

increased runoff of sediments, acid sulphate soil, contaminated soil, coal dust,

stormwater and pollutants such as chemicals and waste.

Mitigation Measures for listed threatened whale species


the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to listed threatened whale

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

species that have the potential to increase mortality and negative behavioural and/or

physiological changes during the action, including:

A Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Management Subplan including:





Marine Based control strategies including marine fauna observation and

exclusion zones (however these areas have not been defined), gradual or

soft start procedures, adequate spacing of pile driving plants to minimise

cumulative impacts and adaptive management techniques;





introduced pests;
















developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination; and








EPBC 2011/6194

of 141



Conclusions for listed threatened whale species

9.145. The above assessment drew upon information provided in the Blue, Fin and Sei

Whale Recovery Plan 2005-2010 (DEH, 2005b) and Humpback Whale Recovery Plan

2005-2010 (DEH, 2005c), which detail threats to the species’ survival and recovery

actions, as well as other general and biological information. Based on this assessment

the department considers that above elements of the proposed Noise and Vibration

and Marine Ecology Management Subplans provide a sufficient framework for reducing

any potential impacts on listed threatened whale species from, degradation of habitat

through decreased water quality, increased noise pollution and introduced exotic

species, provided they include an adaptive management function.



Management Plan that includes (but is not limited to) the measures discussed above in

the Marine Ecology, and Noise and Vibration Management Subplans. It is also

recommended that the proponent be required implement measures that mitigate

impacts associated with pile driving. This would enable the proponent to effectively

define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate potential negative impacts to listed

threatened whale species.

9.147. In addition, it is recommended that the Marine and Shipping Management Plan

include a requirement for measures to avoid, mitigate and manage impacts to listed

threatened whale species from increased marine vessels during construction and noise

generated from operation shipping.


conditions attached to the proposed approval, are not inconsistent with any approved

Recovery Plans or Threat Abatement Plans, for the Blue and Humpback Whales in the

following ways:

the Marine and Shipping Management Plan required as a condition on approval,

that requires the proponent to manage potential impacts in the marine environment

from the T0 Project including impacts arising from increased shipping through the

GBR and Commonwealth Marine areas where important habitat for Blue and

Humpback Whales may occur;

the T0 Project is unlikely to hinder programs implemented to determine ecological

characteristics and population trends of Blue and Humpback Whales. The T0

Project will not facilitate commercial or scientific whaling and does not involve

harvesting of prey species, therefore conditions relating to these matters is

considered unnecessary;

the Terrestrial Management Plan contains a waste component in order to manage

any waste generated during terrestrial activities that could enter the GBRWHA (and

contribute to increased marine debris); and

9.149. the Marine and Shipping Management Plan contains a shipping component,

which includes a requirement to manage ship waste (and consequently marine

debris).Considering the above and presuming compliance with the department’s


action will not have an unacceptable impact on Blue and Humpback Whales.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Listed Threatened Marine Turtles

Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) - Endangered

9.150. The Loggerhead Turtle was listed as a threatened species in the endangered


9.151. In Australia, the Loggerhead Turtle occurs in the waters of coral and rocky reefs,

seagrass meadows and muddy bays throughout eastern, northern and western

Australia. While nesting is concentrated in southern Queensland and from Shark Bay to

the North West Cape in Western Australia, foraging areas are more widely distributed.

9.152. Data for the eastern Australian genetic stock indicate that sexual maturity is

reached at between 22 to 27 years of age. Breeding life has been estimated from

overseas stocks at 32 years. While it is not clear how long a juvenile Loggerhead Turtle

will stay in the open ocean, once it moves to its chosen feeding area, it will be a further

13 years or so before it is ready to breed. Some movement between chosen feeding

areas to the open ocean during the juvenile period have been demonstrated off the

coast of North America but fidelity to the feeding area is strong. Once it has reached

breeding age, it will move between its chosen feeding area and its chosen breeding

area for the rest of its life.



9.154. There are three threat abatement plans that list the Loggerhead Turtle as a

species of interest. The Fox TAP and Marine Debris TAP are discussed above. The

Threat Abatement Plan for Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease

Transmission by Feral Pigs (2005) (Pig TAP) (provided for your consideration at

Annexure 1) is discussed below.

Pig Threat Abatement Plan

9.155. The Pig TAP sets out a national framework to guide the coordinated

implementation of the objectives and actions considered necessary to manage the

environmental damage caused by feral pigs to species and ecological communities

affected by the process. The five main objectives and associated recovery actions in

order to achieve this goal are as follows:

i. To prevent feral pigs from establishing in areas where they currently do

not occur or are in low eradicable numbers, and where they are likely to

pose a threat to biodiversity, especially where they would impact on

nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities by:

o identifying areas currently free from feral pigs or where they are

eradicable;

o verifying presence or absence of feral pigs in priority areas and

developing and implementing management strategies to remove

feral pigs from priority areas;

o providing awareness programs to recreational hunters,

bushwalkers and land managers; and

o reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness of existing legislation.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

ii. To integrate feral pig management plans and their implementation into

natural resource planning and investment at the regional, state and

territory, and national level through consultation and liaison with key

stakeholders by:

o coordination between the department and relevant state and

territory agencies to set out key concerns and issues to be

included in Natural Resource management plans and to establish

protocols and use funding and other relevant mechanisms to

improve the consistency and coordination of actions across

tenures and jurisdictions.

iii. To increase awareness and understanding of land managers and the

general community about the damage that feral pigs cause and

management options by:

o assessing the adequacy of available information and

dissemination of appropriate material to target groups; and

o supporting the completion, dissemination and adoption of the pest

management component of the Conservation and Land

Management Training Package being developed by the National

Training Authority.

iv. To quantify the impacts feral pigs have on biodiversity (especially

nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities) and

determine the relationship between feral pig density and the level of

damage by:

o identifying priority areas under threat by feral pigs; and

o developing and implementing appropriate studies that aim to

determine the impact of feral pigs on listed species and the level

of control required to reduce the impact to a significant level.

v. To improve the effectiveness, efficiency and humaneness of techniques

and strategies for managing the environmental damage due to feral pigs

by:

o assessing the need for the development of more effective and

humane techniques and strategies when managing feral pigs; and

o assessing these techniques and strategies through an analysis of

costs and benefits, safety, potential impact on non target species,

legal issues and any other practical considerations, and formulate

a regional best practice approach.

Pacific Ridley, Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) - Endangered

9.156. The Olive Ridley Turtle was listed as a threatened species in the endangered


9.157. The Olive Ridley Turtle is the smallest of the Australian sea turtles with a mean

curved carapace length of approximately 70 cm and weight of 40 kg. Nesting has not

been observed along the eastern Australian coast. A substantial part of the immature

and adult population forage over shallow benthic habitats from northern Western

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Australia to south-east Queensland though large juvenile and adult Olive Ridley Turtles

have been recorded in both benthic and pelagic foraging habitats.

9.158. Foraging habitat for this species can range from depths of several metres to over

100 m. However, most individuals captured by trawlers in the East Coast Otter Trawl

fishery in Queensland were in depths of between 11–40 m. The most comprehensive

feeding study in Australia documented mostly gastropod and bivalve molluscs from the

stomachs of 36 adult Olive Ridley Turtles. Apart from one exception, Olive Ridley

Turtles have not been recorded in coral reef habitat or shallow inshore seagrass flats.


There is one threat abatement plan that lists the Olive Ridley Turtle as a species of

interest, the Marine Debris TAP, which is discussed above.

Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) - Vulnerable

9.160. The Green Turtle was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category

on 16 July 2000.

9.161. Green Turtles nest, forage and migrate across tropical northern Australia. Once

Green Turtles reach 30 to 40 cm curved carapace length, they settle in shallow benthic

foraging habitats such as tropical tidal and sub-tidal coral and rocky reef habitat or

inshore seagrass meadows. The shallow foraging habitat of adults contains seagrass

meadows or algae mats on which Green Turtles mainly feed. In the southern Great

Barrier Reef, mating begins in October and nesting occurs between October and

March, peaking in January.


There are two threat abatement plans that list the Green Turtle as a species of interest,

the Fox TAP and Marine Debris TAP, which are discussed above.

Leathery Turtle, Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) - Endangered

9.163. The Leatherback Turtle has been listed as a threatened species in the

endangered category since 8 January 2009.

9.164. Leatherback Turtles are the largest of all sea turtles, with adult females having a

mean size of 1.6 m curved carapace length and some females reaching up to 1 tonne

in weight. They are known from waters all around Australia and can be found foraging

year round over Australian continental shelf waters. Adults feed mainly on pelagic soft-

bodied creatures such as jellyfish and tunicates, which occur in greatest concentrations

at the surface in areas of upwelling or convergence. The regular appearance of

Leatherback Turtles in cool temperate waters is probably due to the seasonal

occurrence of large numbers of jellyfish.

9.165. The approved conservation advice for the Leatherback Turtle (TSSC, 2008a)

(Leatherback Turtle Conservation Advice) (provided for your consideration at

Annexure 1) states that the main identified threats include incidental capture in

commercial fisheries; harvest of eggs and meat; ingestion of marine debris; boat strike;

predation on eggs by wild dogs, pigs and monitor lizards; degradation of foraging

areas; and, changes to breeding sites. Possible impacts from climate change are likely

to exacerbate current threats.

9.166. The priority actions listed in the Leatherback Turtle Conservation Advice are a

summary of the key management actions in the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Australia (Environment Australia, 2003) (Marine Turtle Recovery Plan) (provided for

your consideration at Annexure 1) and are discussed below.

9.167. There are two threat abatement plans that list the Leatherback Turtle as a

species of interest, the Fox TAP and the Marine Debris TAP, which are discussed

above.

Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) - Vulnerable

9.168. The Hawksbill Turtle was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable


9.169. Major nesting of Hawksbill Turtles in Australia occurs at Varanus Island and

Rosemary Island in Western Australia, and in the northern Great Barrier Reef and

Torres Strait, Queensland. In Queensland, Milman Island and the inner Great Barrier

Reef Cays north from Cape Grenville are important foraging grounds and juvenile

habitat for Hawksbill Turtles. Once Hawksbill Turtles reach 30 to 40 cm curved

carapace length, they settle and forage in tropical tidal and sub-tidal coral and rocky

reef habitat. They primarily feed on sponges and algae. They have also been found,

though less frequently, within seagrass habitats of coastal waters, as well as the

deeper habitats of trawl fisheries.


There are two threat abatement plans that list the Hawksbill Turtle as a species of

interest, the Pig TAP and the Marine Debris TAP, which are discussed above.

Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus) - Vulnerable

9.171. The Flatback Turtle was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category

on 16 July 2000.

9.172. The Flatback Turtle is found only in the tropical waters of northern Australia,

Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya and is one of only two species of sea turtle without a

global distribution. Nesting is confined to Australia and four genetic stocks are

recognised, one of which occurs in eastern Queensland.

9.173. In eastern Queensland nesting occurs between Bundaberg in the south and

northwards to Torres Strait. The main nesting sites occur in the southern Great Barrier

Reef at Peak, Wild Duck and Curtis Islands. Minor nesting occurs at Mon Repos and

the Mackay Region. Scattered periodic nesting occurs on mainland and inshore islands

between Townsville and Torres Strait. Studies of feeding behaviour have not been

conducted, however juveniles are known to eat gastropod molluscs, squid and

siphonophores (soft corals, hydroids, jellyfish).


There are three threat abatement plans that list the Flatback Turtle as a species of

interest, the Fox TAP, Pig TAP and the Marine Debris TAP, which are discussed

above.

Recovery Plan for listed threatened marine turtles

9.175. The overall recovery objective of the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan (for the Green,

Flatback, Leatherback, Olive Ridley, Loggerhead and Hawksbill Turtle species) is to

reduce detrimental impacts on Australian populations of marine turtles and hence

promote their recovery in the wild. The Marine Turtle Recovery Plan noted the

continued decline of the eastern Australian population of the Loggerhead Turtle and

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

identified the need for its conservation to be implicit in all actions. The specific

objectives, and a summary of their recovery actions, identified in the Marine Turtle

Recovery Plan are as follows:

i. To reduce the mortality of marine turtles and, where appropriate, increase

natural survivorship, including through developing management strategies

with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities for the sustainable

use of marine turtles by:

o reducing bycatch of marine turtles in fisheries;

o facilitating sustainable harvesting of turtles and eggs by Aboriginal

and Torres Strait Islander people;

o reducing levels of marine debris;

o reducing mortality of marine turtles during shark control activities;

o reducing incidences of boat strike on marine turtles;

o reducing lighting impacts and entanglement incidences from Pearl

Farming and other Aquaculture activities; and

o reducing potential impacts from Department of Defence activities.

ii. To develop programs and protocols to monitor marine turtle populations

in Australia, assess the size and status of those populations, the causes

of their mortality and address information gaps by:

o monitoring key populations and strandings of marine turtles;

o measuring recovery; and

o facilitating the genetic identification of Australian marine turtle

populations and their ecology.

iii. To manage factors that affect marine turtle nesting by:

o reducing light pollution in the marine environment;

o ensuring minimal impacts on turtle habitat (including nesting

beaches) from tourism and recreational activities;

o managing vehicle access to nesting beaches; and

o minimising faunal predation of marine turtle eggs.

iv. To identify and protect habitats that are critical for the survival of marine

turtles by:

o ensuring that activities impacting land use and water quality on or

in proximity to marine turtle habitat are subject to an

environmental impact assessment and the development of best

practice coastal management guidelines across Queensland;

o protecting critical marine turtle benthic and seagrass habitats;

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

o managing of oil spills and operational discharges by lead agencies

and appropriate environmental assessment of related activities;

and

o ensuring soft start procedures are implemented in seismic surveys

and monitoring literature on the effect of noise on marine turtles.

v. To communicate the results of recovery actions and involve and educate

stakeholders by:

o reviewing the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan and evaluating its

effectiveness;

o raising awareness and involvement of the community; and

o raising awareness in northern Australian indigenous communities.

vi. To support and maintain existing agreements and develop new

collaborative programs with neighbouring countries for the conservation

of shared turtle populations by:

o the Commonwealth Government maintaining existing and

developing new bilateral or multilateral agreements to ensure that

international conservation and management of marine turtles is

consistent with domestic policies and international treaty

obligations.

Threats and Assessment of Impacts to listed threatened marine turtles

9.176. The Marine Turtle Recovery Plan lists the main threats to the listed threatened

turtle species as bycatch, harvesting, predation of eggs by native and introduced

animals, coastal development (including lighting impacts), deteriorating water quality,

marine debris and loss of habitat.

9.177. The Marine Turtle Recovery Plan also lists boat strike as a threat on the following

turtle populations: Loggerhead Turtles from the eastern Australian population; Green

Turtles from the southern Great Barrier Reef population; Hawksbill Turtles from the

northeastern Australian populations; and Flatback Turtles from Queensland.

9.178. The Leatherback Turtle Conservation Advice reiterates the above mentioned

threats in the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan.

9.179. The EIS states that Loggerhead, Green, Flatback and Hawksbill turtles have all

been observed in the Abbot Point region and within the T0 Project area during marine

surveys. Green and Flatback turtles are also known to nest along Abbot Beach to the

east of the T0 Project area.

9.180. The EIS states that the Olive Ridley Turtle has not been observed in the area

and is unlikely to occur however previous assessment documentation submitted to the

department (Preliminary Documentation for Abbot Point Coal Terminal 3 – EPBC

2008/4468) referred to a report that noted the capture of an Olive Ridley Turtle foraging

in the port environment of Abbot Point. Although this is a confirmed observation of only

one individual, it indicates that the Olive Ridley Turtle does utilise the Abbot Point

region to some degree.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

9.181. The EIS states that northern GBR Green turtle stocks are estimated to be as high

as 30,000 breeding females, compared to approximately 8,000 breeding females for

southern GBR stocks. The individuals using the area around Abbot Point are located at

the northern limit of the southern GBR breeding stock’s distribution. The EIS indicates

that overall the southern population has remained stable since 1967 although there are

indications of an excessive loss of adult turtles.

9.182. A study by Bell (2003) states that although Flatback Turtles nest in low densities,

the port area of Abbot Point provides important mainland nesting habitat in north

Queensland and that caution should be exercised in interpreting low density nesting as

“unimportant”, as low density nesting can make an important reproductive contribution.

This is particularly the case if low density nesting on mainland beaches produces a

disproportionate number of female hatchlings compared to island beaches of higher

density nesting. From a regional perspective Abbot Beach may be considered less

important than offshore nesting sites; however, given each marine turtle’s fidelity to its

natal nesting beach the site should be considered as locally important.

9.183. The Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division advice commented that surveys

undertaken on Abbot Beach for the EIS were carried out in December 2012, which is

after the peak nesting season for Flatback Turtles and that the survey undertaken in

January 2013 was a week after Cyclone Oswald which is likely to have impacted on

turtle hatching success. They state that as the surveys were limited, a clear indication

of the importance of the site is not possible.

9.184. The Abbot Point area is not listed as an important area in the Marine Turtles

Recovery Plan, however it is listed within a high priority foraging area (Upstart Bay to

Midge Point) for Green turtles. The direct impact on seagrass communities as a result

of construction of the jetty structure is approximately 0.0206 ha, with some possible

reduction in seagrass health caused by shading from the jetty structure.

9.185. The removal of seagrass constitutes a loss of habitat for the Green Turtle and

Loggerhead Turtle. Decreased water quality as a result of runoff and coal dust is likely

to impact and potentially decrease the remaining seagrass in the area. In addition, coal

dust in the marine environment smothers marine plants, potentially further reducing

seagrass in the area.

9.186. Boat strike and damage to turtles from boat propellers has been identified as a

threat in the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan. Increased boating activity during

construction and shipping activity during operation is likely to increase the incidence of

boat strikes on all five species identified within the area (the exception being the

Leatherback Turtle) as well as contribute to increased noise pollution. An increased

workforce in the Bowen region from the T0 Project may also facilitate an increase in

recreational boat users in the area. Increased shipping will also increase the risk of

introduced species which can negatively alter the marine environment, including habitat

for listed threatened turtle species.


decrease water quality in an area utilised by listed threatened turtle species, through

potential increased runoff of sediments, acid sulphate soil, contaminated soil, coal dust,


9.188. Piling activities associated with the construction of the jetty have the potential to

impact these species through direct contact and noise/vibration disturbance.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

9.189. In addition, increased lighting during the construction and operational phases

can impact listed threatened turtle species through changing crucial behavioural

patterns, including avoidance of nesting beaches by Green and Flatback Turtles and

disorientation of hatchlings, resulting in loss of habitat. Increased light emissions also

increase the risk of predation on nesting turtles and hatchlings.

9.190. The EIS states that predation of turtle eggs by pigs, foxes and wild dogs is a

known threat to marine turtles and that clearing activities associated with the T0 Project

will increase access for feral animal species to turtle nesting sites (including Abbot

Beach).

Mitigation Measures for listed threatened marine turtles


the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to listed threatened turtle species

that have the potential to degrade foraging and breeding habitat and negatively

influence hatchling behaviour during the action, including:



construction phases, and coal dust when operational, including a variety of


an Illumination Plan that will be developed describing each light source in

terms of its purpose, location, footprint, intensity and spectral composition

and document steps to avoid, mitigate and manage the impacts of each

source. For example through minimisation of lighting within the development,

minimising long wavelength lights and installing timers and motion detectors

where possible;





techniques;















EPBC 2011/6194

of 141




Marine Based control strategies including marine fauna observation and

exclusion zones (however these areas have not been defined), gradual or

soft start procedures, adequate spacing of pile driving plants to minimise

cumulative impacts and adaptive management techniques;















Conclusion for listed threatened marine turtles

9.193. The above assessment drew upon information provided in the approved

Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia (Environment Australia, 2003) and the

approved conservation advice for the Leatherback Turtle (TSSC, 2008a), which details

threats to the species’ survival and recovery actions; as well as other general and

biological information. Based on this assessment, the department considers that the

above elements of the proposed Terrestrial Flora and Fauna, Water, Land, Waste,

Noise and Vibration and Marine Ecology Management Subplans provide a sufficient

framework for reducing any potential impacts on listed threatened turtle species from,

degradation of habitat through decreased water quality, smothering of habitat by coal

dust, increased noise pollution and introduced exotic species, provided they include an

adaptive management function.



Management Plan that includes the measures discussed in the Marine Ecology

Management Subplan as well as impacts from marine construction vessels and

operational ship noise. It is also recommended that the proponent be required

implement measures that mitigate impacts associated with pile driving. This would


potential negative impacts to listed threatened turtle species.

The department considers that the proposed approval decision, and the conditions

attached to the proposed approval, are not inconsistent with the Marine Turtle

Recovery Plan or relevant Threat Abatement Plans, for listed threatened marine

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

turtles and have had regard to the approved conservation advice for the

Leatherback Turtle (TSSC, 2008a) in the following ways: under the recommended

conditions, a Terrestrial Management Plan and, a Marine and Shipping

Management Plan is required and this must include a lighting component

specifically aimed at reducing lighting impacts on marine turtles, including nesting

areas;

the Marine and Shipping Management Plan must also include a shipping

component which is requires the approval holder to manage boat strike impacts

from both construction and operational vessels (including implementation of speed

limits within the Port of Abbot Point);

under the recommended conditions, a Terrestrial Management Plan is also

required, and this must include a pest management component to undertake

management of exotic fauna, including those which may predate marine turtle

nests at Abbot Beach;

the Terrestrial Management Plan must also include a waste component in order to

manage any waste generated during terrestrial activities that could enter the

GBRWHA (and contribute to increased marine debris); and

the shipping component of the Marine and Shipping Management Plan must

include a requirement to manage ship waste (and consequently marine debris).

9.195. In addition, as the Port of Abbot Point, including Abbot Beach, is largely

inaccessible to the public, it is not expected that vehicles on Abbot Beach or tourism

and recreational activities will increase in the area as a result of the T0 Project.

Tourism and recreational activities may increase in the Bowen Region as a result of the

T0 Project but it is expected that this increase will be minimal.

9.196. Considering the above and presuming compliance with the department’s


action will not have an unacceptable impact on the Loggerhead, Olive Ridley, Green,

Leatherback, Hawksbill and Flatback Turtles.

Listed Threatened Sharks Species

Green Sawfish, Dindagubba, Narrowsnout Sawfish (Pristis zijsron) – Vulnerable

9.197. The Green Sawfish was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category

on 7 March 2008.

9.198. The Green Sawfish is a species of large ray from the family Pristidae. In

Australian waters, Green Sawfish have historically been recorded in the coastal waters

off Broome, Western Australia, around northern Australia and down the east coast as

far as Jervis Bay, NSW. Records indicate that the Green Sawfish occurred along the

east coast of Queensland and NSW prior to the 1960s, however, after this period there

have been no reports of this species south of Cairns. The Green Sawfish inhabits

muddy bottom habitats and enters estuaries.

9.199. There is currently no recovery plan available for this species or relevant threat

abatement plans.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141


9.200. According to the Approved Conservation Advice for the Green Sawfish (TSSC,

2008b) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) threats to the Green Sawfish

include; bycatch; shark finning; and habitat degradation.

9.201. The EIS states that although there is suitable habitat in the area for this species,

it has not been observed south of Cairns since the 1960’s and therefore is unlikely to

occur at Abbot Point. The department agrees with this conclusion.

9.202. As this species does not appear to utilise the area, it is unlikely that the T0

Project will result in substantial direct impacts. The department considers that as the

most likely shipping route will be through Palm Passage and out towards the Coral

Basin, substantial indirect impacts relating to increased shipping are also unlikely to

occur.

Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) – Vulnerable

9.203. The Whale Shark was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category

on 16 October 2001.

9.204. In Australia, the Whale Shark is known from NSW, Queensland, Northern

Territory, Western Australia and occasionally Victoria and South Australia, but it is most

commonly seen in waters off northern Western Australia, Northern Territory and

Queensland. The Whale Shark is an oceanic and coastal, tropical to warm-temperate

pelagic shark. It is often seen far offshore, but also comes close inshore and

sometimes enters lagoons of coral atolls.



Recovery Plan

9.206. The objective of the Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) Recovery Plan 2005-2010

(DEH, 2005d) (Whale Shark Recovery Plan) (provided for your consideration at

Annexure 1) is to maintain existing levels of protection for the whale shark in Australia

while working to increase the level of protection afforded to the whale shark within the

Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian region to enable population growth so that the

species can be removed from the threatened species list of the EPBC Act. The specific

recovery actions, identified in the Whale Shark Recovery Plan are as follows:

to increase the level of cooperation with other range states, particularly in the

Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian region to protect the Whale Shark, through

engagement in multilateral fora such as the Convention for Migratory Species; and

to monitor numbers of the Whale Shark visiting Australian waters.


9.207. The Whale Shark Recovery Plan states that the main threat to the Whale Shark

is commercial harvest outside of Australia, however, potential future threats to Whale

Sharks visiting Australian waters include; predation; habitat disturbance, modification

and degradation; pollution and marine debris; climatic and ocean change; and

disturbance from tourism, research or interference.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141


species and that no suitable habitat exists within the T0 Project area.

9.209. As this species does not appear to utilise the area, it is unlikely that the T0

Project will result in substantial direct impacts. However, indirect impacts may occur

through increased shipping.

Mitigation measures for listed threatened shark species


the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to listed threatened shark

species that have the potential to decrease potential impacts from the action, including:





introduced pests.






Conclusion for listed threatened shark species

9.212. The above assessment drew upon information provided in the approved

Conservation Advice for the Green Sawfish (TSSC, 2008b) and the Whale Shark

(Rhincodon typus) Recovery Plan 2005-2010 (DEH, 2005d), which details threats to

the species’ survival and recovery actions; as well as other general and biological

information. Based on this assessment the department considers that above elements

of the proposed Marine Ecology Management Subplan provides a sufficient framework

for reducing any potential impacts on listed threatened shark species from, degradation

of habitat through increased noise pollution and introduced exotic species, provided

they include an adaptive management function.




Marine Ecology Management Subplan and noise generated from shipping activities.

This would enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and

mitigate potential negative impacts to listed threatened shark species.


conditions attached to the proposed approval, are not inconsistent with the Whale

Shark Recovery Plan in that the T0 Project is unlikely to impact on cooperation

between Australia and other range states or hinder monitoring of Whale Sharks visiting

Australian waters. Therefore conditions relating to these matters is not considered

necessary.


conditions attached to the proposed approval, have had regard to the approved

conservation advice for the Green Sawfish (TSSC, 2008b).

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141



action will not have an unacceptable impact on the Green Sawfish and Whale Shark.

Listed Threatened Flora Species

9.217. The department considers that substantial potential direct and indirect impacts

from the proposed action to following species are unlikely. Consequently, impacts of

the proposed action on these species are considered to be acceptable without further

compensation. However as they have been identified as potentially occurring in the

area, a discussion is provided below.

Black Ironbox (Eucalyptus raveretiana) – Vulnerable

9.218. The Black Ironbox was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category

on 16 July 2000.

9.219. The species has a wide distribution in coastal and sub-coastal areas of

Queensland, from south of Townsville to Nebo, around Rockhampton and areas

100 km west of the city. Black Ironbox usually grows along watercourses, and

sometimes on river flats or open woodland. Altitudinal range is 0–300 m and the

climate of the area is sub-tropical with an annual rainfall of 650–1100 m. The species is

said to be highly salt tolerant. Black Ironbox does not occur in pure stands, but is co-

dominant with species such as Broad-leaved Teatree (Melaleuca leucadendra), M.

fluviatilis, Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis), Carbeen (Corymbia

tessellaris) (Queensland Regional Ecosystem 11.3.25a) and occasionally in Semi-

evergreen Vine Thicket.


abatement plans.


9.221. The approved conservation advice for Eucalyptus raveretiana (Black Ironbox)

(TSSC, 2008c) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) states that the main

identified threats to Black Ironbox are habitat disturbance and smothering by Rubber

Vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora). Other potential threats to the healthy regeneration of

Black Ironbox include increased fire frequency from fuel associated with weeds and

introduced grasses; and land management that increases stream bank erosion.


species and there is only one Wildnet database record within 25 km. It is also indicated

that there are no remnant ecosystems associated with this species present within the

T0 Project area.

Conclusion

9.223. As this species does not appear to be present in the area and there appears to

be no suitable habitat, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will result in direct or indirect

impacts. The department also considers that the proposed approval decision has had

regard to the approved conservation advice.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Minute Orchid, Ribbon-root Orchid (Taeniophyllum muelleri) – Vulnerable

9.224. The Minute Orchid was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category

on 25 November 2003.

9.225. This species is distributed from Bellingen, NSW into Cape York, Queensland,

however, there appears to be relatively few records for this species. In Queensland, 26

populations are known ranging in size from a handful of individuals to several hundred

plants.

9.226. The preferred habitat of this species consists of rainforest and vine forest as well

as sheltered sites, directly adjacent to drainage lines in areas generally consisting of

alluvial soils. The Minute Orchid has been documented to co-occur with Araucaria

cunninghamii, Argyrodendron trifolium, Dissiliaria baloghioides, Brachychiton discolour,

Beilschmiedia obtusifolia, Diospyros pentamera, Grevillea robusta, Gmelina

leichhardtii, Ficus macrophylla and Callistemom salignus.

9.227. The conservation advice and recovery plan listed on the department’s SPRAT

website for this species, is for the Norfolk population which in 2006, was determined to

be a separate species (Taeniophyllum norfolkianum). Therefore, there is no approved

conservation advice or recovery plan available for this species. There are no relevant

threat abatement plans to this species.


9.228. As the Minute Orchid relies on native species such as Araucaria cunninghamii

and Callistemon salignus, any species that may potentially have negative impacts upon

the host species will indirectly impact upon the Minute Orchid. Direct threats include

invasive weeds such as Panicum maximum, Lantana camara and Lantana

montevidensis. Other impacts may result from: alteration of light penetration; humidity;

and airflows within the micro-environment. In addition, any increased risk of fire is likely

to result in a decrease in the abundance of the species.


species and there are no database records. It also indicates that there is no suitable

habitat for this species in the T0 Project area.

Conclusion


habitat, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will result in direct or indirect impacts.

Omphalea celata – Vulnerable

9.231. Omphalea celata was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category

on 16 July 2000.

9.232. Omphalea celata is restricted to the central Queensland coast and is only known

from three sites. Locations include: Hazlewood Gorge, near Eungella; Gloucester

Island, near Bowen; and Cooper Creek in the Homevale Station area, north-west of

Nebo. Populations at all these sites are small with the largest population stated to be

several dozen mature individuals.

9.233. At Hazelwood Gorge plants grow in fragmented SEVT along a more or less

permanent watercourse on weathered metamorphics in a steep sided gorge at an

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

altitude of about 570 m. On Gloucester Island they grow in a rocky granitic gully near to

Araucarian microphyll vineforest.


abatement plans.


9.235. The approved conservation advice for Omphalea celata (DEH, 2008d) (provided

for your consideration at Annexure 1states that the main potential threats to Omphalea

celata include invasion by exotic weeds, such as Lantana (Lantana camara), and

damage to plants from a landslide at the Hazelwood Gorge population.


species and there are no Wildnet records. It is also indicated that there is no suitable


Conclusion

9.237. As this species does not appear to utilise the area and there is no suitable habitat

available, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will result in direct or indirect impacts. The

department also considers that the proposed approval decision has had regard to the

approved conservation advice.

Ozothamnus eriocephalus – Vulnerable

9.238. Ozothamnus eriocephalus was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable


9.239. This species is restricted to the central coast of Queensland, from the Bowen and

Mackay districts, with a distributional range of about 180 km. It is known from Mt

Abbott, Gloucester Island, Lake Elphinstone area, Clarke Range and near Sydney

Heads (Denham Range).

9.240. This species is known from a range of habitat types, including the margins of

disturbed notophyll vine forest, margins of gallery forest, microphyll vine forest, tall

open Eucalyptus andrewsii - E. resinifera forest with an understorey of Allocasuarina

littoralis, in open eucalypt forest and on rocky ridges with Eucalyptus spp. - Acacia spp.

scrub. It is also known from the edge of creek banks and in crevices on steep granite

slopes, often in sunny positions.


abatement plans.


9.242. According to the approved conservation advice for Ozothamnus eriocephalus

(DEH, 2008e) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1), the main potential

threats are degradation of the habitat by weed species such as Lantana (Lantana

camara); inappropriate grazing and fire regimes and disturbance of habitat due to

timber harvesting.


species and there are no Wildnet records. It is also indicated that there is no suitable


Conclusion

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141


habitat, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will result in direct or indirect impacts. The

department also considers that the proposed approval decision has had regard to the

approved conservation advice.

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities

Semi-evergreen Vine Thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions

– Endangered

9.245. Semi-evergreen Vine Thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and

Nandewar Bioregions was listed as a threatened ecological community in the

endangered category on 4 April 2001.

9.246. The term Semi-evergreen Vine Thicket (SEVT) is widely used in the scientific

literature when referring to the type of vegetation that comprises this ecological

community. In Queensland, SEVT remnants are often referred to as bottle tree scrub or

vine scrub.

9.247. The Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (north and south) and

Nandewar Bioregions threatened ecological community (SEVT TEC) is composed of

dry seasonal subtropical rainforest, and is also known as Bottle Tree scrub or vine

scrub. Data from 2005 indicated that almost 4000 remnant patches of the listed SEVT

TEC remained in Queensland at that time. Of these, 62% were 10 ha or less in size,

36% had areas of 10–100 ha and only 3% had areas > 100 ha.

9.248. The listed SEVT TEC has been extensively cleared over most of its range for

cropping, grazing and pasture in Queensland. In the northern parts of the Brigalow Belt

Bioregion, almost 70% of SEVT vegetation is thought to have been converted to

pasture. SEVTs occur naturally as discrete patches associated with other vegetation

types.

9.249. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this ecological

community or relevant threat abatement plans.

Recovery Plan

9.250. The overall recovery objective of the National Recovery Plan for Semi-evergreen

Vine Thickets of the Brigalow Belt (north and south) and Nandewar Bioregions

Ecological Community (McDonald, 2010) (provided for your consideration at

Annexure 1) (SEVT Recovery Plan) is to maintain and conserve the environmental

values of the SEVT TEC over the long term, by minimising the loss of both remnant

and regrowth SEVT TEC and improving their condition and management. The specific

objectives, and a summary of their recovery actions, identified in the SEVT Recovery

Plan are as follows:

i. Identify and evaluate the extent, biodiversity value and condition of

remnant and regrowth areas of SEVT TEC in the Brigalow Belt (North and

South) and Nandewar Bioregions by:

o completing mapping of remnant SEVT TEC in NSW and refine

mapping of the Queensland SEVT remnants where necessary;

o evaluating methodologies for condition assessment in the SEVT

TEC and establish benchmark sites for each component regional

ecosystem;

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

o determining the extent and condition of areas of SEVT TEC

affected by invasive plant species;

o surveying poorly known species;

o identifying key ecosystem components and processes and

determine their response to common management practices; and

o monitoring selected populations of the EPBC-listed species

Cadellia pentastylis, Cossinia Australiana, Denhamia parvifolia,

Macropus dorsalis, Paradelma orientalis, Turnix melanogaster and

Zieria verrucosa across the SEVT TEC.

ii. Establish a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of SEVT

TEC areas across the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar

Bioregions, protected either by reservation or conservation agreements

(including MOU’s) by:

o increasing the extent and representativeness of SEVT TEC within

the conservation estate; and

o encouraging landholders to enter into conservation agreements

over SEVT.

iii. Ensure ‘best-practice” management is applied to sites containing the

SEVT TEC by:

o liaising with landholders and other natural resource managers to

develop burning practices and other procedures to minimise fire

damage to remnant areas of SEVT TEC on private and public

lands;

o determining through exclosure trials the impact of grazing on

remnant areas of SEVT TEC and developing guidelines and

recommendations for fencing;

o developing and implementing a pest management program to

control feral animals in SEVT TEC remnants;

o developing strategies to minimise adverse impacts of native

macropods on remnant SEVT TEC;

o encouraging landholders through appropriate incentive programs

to protect and foster regrowth SEVT TEC and associated

vegetation;

o undertaking studies of the impact of invasive shade-tolerant

grasses and other ground stratum species; and

o researching and developing use of SEVT species for landscape

rehabilitation in areas SEVT TEC would naturally have occurred

prior to clearing.

iv. Encourage involvement of landholders and the community in the

conservation and management of the SEVT TEC by:

o establishing a SEVT Conservation Management Network;

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

o undertaking consultation with traditional owner groups to

determine the level of indigenous knowledge of and association

with the SEVT TEC; and

o consulting with and involving traditional owners when conducting

works in SEVT TEC.

v. Enhance the ability of government and non-government organisations at

the national, regional and local levels (including consent authorities) to

recognise and incorporate SEVT TEC conservation issues into all

planning processes by:

o developing and implementing an educational program to increase

the awareness of government and non-government organisations

regarding SEVT TEC conservation.


9.251. The SEVT Recovery Plan states that the high level of fragmentation, lack of

connectivity between fragments, continued clearing, inappropriate fire regimes,

invasion by introduced pasture species and increased grazing by domestic stock and

native animals are all considered to be main on-going threats to SEVT remnants.

9.252. The most serious of these threats to the community are fire and invasive plants.

While the recovery plan lists a number of invasive weed species, including parthenium,

it goes on to state, “[o]f these weed species, Rubber Vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora)

and Lantana (Lantana camera) are considered to pose a serious threat... Both species

can cause broad-scale displacement of native plants, while lantana promotes the

spread of fire into vine thickets”.

9.253. Current Queensland Government mapping indicates that the T0 Project area

contains approximately 28 ha of the listed SEVT in two sections on the coastal dune

ridges. The proponent has conducted on ground surveys in this area and confirms that

the SEVT occurs in these two sections however revised mapping reduces the extent to

approximately 20 ha.

9.254. The proponent has stated that no clearing of the SEVT will occur however,

potential indirect impacts include degradation of habitat through weed incursion, coal

dust deposition and decreased quality of water resources utilised by SEVT.

Mitigation measures for Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South)

and Nandewar Bioregions


the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts that have the potential to

degrade the existing SEVT habitat during the action, including:



absence) of listed flora species and ecological communities in order to

identify appropriate methods for management;




EPBC 2011/6194

of 141



phases of the T0 Project, including measures for a pre-construction weed

audit, a control/eradication plan for weeds that occur onsite, regular surveys

and inspections within the construction site and weed hygiene protocols from

any vehicles and machinery brought onsite;















Contaminated Land control strategy including a site remediation plan to be











9.257. The department considers that these proposed mitigation measures are not

inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the

Brigalow Belt (north and south) and Nandewar Bioregions Ecological Community

(McDonald, 2010).

Conclusion for Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and

Nandewar Bioregions

9.258. The above assessment drew upon information provided in the National Recovery

Plan for Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (north and south) and

Nandewar Bioregions Ecological Community (McDonald, 2010), which details threats

to the species’ survival and recovery actions; as well as other general and biological

information. Based on this assessment the department considers that the proposed

Terrestrial Flora and Fauna, Water, Land and Waste Management Subplans provide a

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

sufficient measures for reducing potential impacts on listed SEVT from smothering by

coal dust, degradation of habitat through decreased water quality and introduced exotic

species, provided they include monitoring and an adaptive management function.


proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial Management Plan that includes (but

is not limited to) the measures discussed in the above management subplans. This

would enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and

mitigate potential negative impacts to listed SEVT.

9.260. Consistent with the proponent’s commitment in the EIS, it is also recommended

that a condition be attached to the approval of this proposed action that prohibits the

clearing of any SEVT over the life of the T0 Project. This will ensure that the extent of

potential impacts remain consistent with those assessed in this recommendation

report.


conditions attached to the proposed approval, are not inconsistent with the National

Recovery Plan for Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (north and south)

and Nandewar Bioregions Ecological Community (McDonald, 2010) in the following

ways:

the Terrestrial Management Plan contains a pest management component to

ensure the management of exotic flora and fauna in the Abbot Point region;

the Terrestrial Management Plan also contains a requirement for fire management;

and

an Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan is required to ensure that all relevant

Indigenous people are consulted during the construction and operation of the T0

Project, including when any part of the action may impact on the SEVT.



action will not have an unacceptable impact on the Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the

Brigalow Belt (north and south) and Nandewar Bioregions Ecological Community.

Conclusion for assessment of impacts on listed threatened species and communities


are implemented, there will not be an unacceptable impact on listed threatened species

and ecological communities.

9.264. The department also considers that while there will not be an unacceptable

impact, there are significant residual impacts on listed threatened marine turtle species,

in particular, the Green and Flatback Turtles from the proposed action. A discussion of

mechanisms required to offset these significant residual impacts is at Section 13.

10. Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)

10.1. The department’s ERT indicates that a total of 39 listed migratory species may

occur within a 10 kilometre radius of Abbot Point. In accordance with section 158A of

the EPBC Act, only species listed under the EPBC Act at the time of the controlled

action decision (13 December 2011) have been considered in this recommendation

report.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

10.2. The EIS has provided an indication of the known or likely occurrence for

migratory species in the Abbot Point region as tabled below including if the species has

been detected in the Abbot Point region during any surveys.

Table 1. Migratory Shorebirds (presence as indicated in Table 3-66 of the EIS)

Species name Detected at Abbot

Point Likelihood of Occurrence

Greater Sandplover (Charadrius leschenaultia) Yes Occurs

Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa) Yes Occurs

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) Yes Occurs

Pacific Golden Plover (Pulvialis fulva) Yes Occurs

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (Calidris acuminate) Yes Occurs

Red-necked Stint (Calidris ruficollis) Yes Occurs

Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia) Yes Occurs

Marsh Sandpiper (Tringa stagnatilis) Yes Occurs

Wandering Tattler (Tringa incana) Yes Occurs

Little Curlew (Numenius minutus) Yes Occurs

Latham's Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) Yes Occurs

Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) Yes Occurs

Common Sandpiper (Acititis hypoleucos)1 No Potential

Red Knot (Calidris canutus) No Potential

Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) No Potential

Great Knot (Calidris tenuirostris) No Potential

Lesser Sand Plover (Charadrius mongolus) No Potential

Broad-billed Sandpiper (Limicola falcinellus) No Potential

Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica) No Potential

Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) No Potential

Grey-tailed Tattler (Tringa brevipes) No Potential

Terek Sandpiper (Xenus cinereus) No Potential

Sanderling (Calidris alba) No Unlikely

Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) No Potential

Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola) No Potential

Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) No Potential 1 Other sections of the EIS and the CIA Report state that this species occurs in the area.

Table 2. Other Migratory Birds (presence as indicated in the EIS)

Species Name Detected at

Abbot Point Likelihood of Occurrence

White-Bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leuccogaster) Yes Occurs

Eastern Osprey (Pandion cristatus) Yes Occurs

Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis) Yes Occurs

Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta) Yes Occurs

Eastern Reef Egret (Egretta sacra) Yes Occurs

Glossy Ibis (Piegadis faicinellus) Yes Occurs

Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia) Yes Occurs

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Lesser Crested Tern (Thalasseus bengalensis) Yes Occurs

Crested Tern (Thalasseus bergii) Yes Occurs

Rainbow Bee-Eater (Merops ornatus) Yes Occurs

Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons) Yes Occurs

Australian Reed Warbler (Acrocephalus australis) Yes Occurs

Little Tern (Sternula albifrons) Yes Occurs

Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis) Yes Occurs

Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus) Yes Occurs

White-throated Needletail (Hirundapus caudacutus) No Likely

Masked Booby (Sula dactylatra) No Unlikely

Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster) No Unlikely

Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) No Potential

Bridled Tern (Onychoprion anaethetus) No Unlikely

Black-naped Tern (Sterna sumatrana) No Unlikely

Oriental Cuckoo (Cuculus optatus) No Potential

Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha melanopsis) No Potential

Spectacled Monarch (Symposiarchus trivirgatus) No Potential

Table 3. Migratory Marine Species (presence as indicated in EIS)

Species Name Detected at

Abbot Point Likelihood of Occurrence

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) No Unlikely

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaengliae) Yes Occurs

Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) Yes Occurs

Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Yes Occurs

Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) Yes Occurs

Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus) Yes Occurs

Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) No Low

Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) No Low

Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) No Low

Dugong (Dugong dugon) Yes Occurs

Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni) Yes Occurs

Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis) Yes Occurs

Killer Whale (Orcunus orca) No Unlikely

Saltwater Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) No Potential

Porbeagle Mackerel Shark (Lamna nasus) No Unlikely

Bryde’s Whale (Balaentoptera edeni) No Unlikely

10.3. The EIS has not addressed two listed migratory species in the department’s ERT

report (Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) and Satin Flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca)).

However, the CIA report (ELA and Openlines, 2013) does address the presence of

these two species and indicates that the Barn Swallow has the potential to occur and

the Satin Flycatcher is known to occur. The EIS also addresses a further 29 listed

migratory species not listed in the department’s ERT report.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

10.4. A comparison of the likelihood of occurrence of each migratory species between

the EIS and the CIA report illustrates a number of discrepancies. A number of species

listed in the EIS as potentially occurring have been confirmed as known to occur in the

CIA Report (ELA and Openlines, 2013). These species include;

Oriental Cuckoo;

Black-faced Monarch;

Common Tern;

Common Sandpiper; and,

Grey-tailed Tattler.

10.5. A further two species, the Oriental Plover (Charadrius veredus) and White-

winged Black Tern (Chlidonias leucopterus) were not mentioned in Table 3-66 of the

EIS but stated in the CIA Report (ELA and Openlines, 2013) as known to occur.

10.6. A further species, the Spectacled Monarch, was included in the CIA Report (ELA

and Openlines, 2013) as unlikely to occur whereas the EIS states that it has the

potential to occur.

10.7. These discrepancies are mentioned as the CIA Report (ELA and Openlines,

2013) and EIS conclusions are based on the same data. The department has

considered that any species stated as known to occur, regardless of inconsistencies,

occurs at Abbot Point.

Caley (Kaili) Valley Wetlands

10.8. The CVW is a large coastal wetland system located on the central Queensland

coast approximately 21 km northwest of Bowen and approximately 700 m west of the

T0 Project area. The CVW covers an area of approximately 5,154 ha on a low-lying

coastal plain comprising estuarine and brackish/freshwater habitat. The CVW

catchment includes Saltwater, Six Mile, Main and Mount Stuart Creeks. The western

section of the CVW includes mangrove communities and intertidal/subtidal salt flats

and the eastern section comprises an extensive seasonal freshwater to brackish area.

The two sections are separated by a causeway which restricts movement of water

between the eastern section and Abbot Bay.

10.9. Vegetation in the CVW varies seasonally. During the wet season, the eastern

section is composed of submerged and emergent sedgeland, creating a patchwork of

open water and vegetated areas providing suitable habitat for a variety of wetland

birds.

10.10. In the wet season, the CVW can be 18 km long and 6 km wide (GHD, 2009).

Fresh water is provided by local runoff from the Salisbury Plain and the slopes of

Mount Roundback and Mount Little. Spring, Table Top, Main and Mount Stuart creeks

drain into Curlewis Bay to the northeast, while Six Mile, Goodbye and Saltwater creeks

drain into the main body of the CVW. Saltwater Creek is also connected to the up-

gradient Euri Creek and Don River systems during flood events. During the wet season

there tends to be a reversible movement of fresh and brackish waters westwards from

the CVW and into Curlewis Bay.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

10.11. During the dry season tidal movements tend to dominate the system (GHD,

2009). With very limited inflow, much of the Wetlands dries and loses vegetative cover.

Under dry conditions the wetted section of the Wetlands can contract to the area

known as Lake Kaili, in the centre of the Wetlands, which provides one of the few

permanent non-tidal waterbodies in the area.

Listed Migratory Birds

10.12. The CVW is known to be a part of the East Asian Australasia Flyway. There are

approximately 60 species of migratory wetland species which use the East Asian-

Australasian Flyway. It is one of eight major flyways in the world. The East Asian

Australasia Flyway Site Network covers 31 sites across 10 signatory countries

(DSEWPaC, 2009).

Shorebirds

10.13. The proponent has provided an assessment against the criteria for important

habitat for migratory shorebirds as described in the draft EPBC Policy Statement 3.2.1

Significant Impact guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species (noting that you are not

considering the significance of the impact but whether the impact is acceptable). These

guidelines state that important habitat for migratory shorebirds (excluding Lathams

Snipe) includes sites that support;

at least 0.1% of the estimated flyway population of a single species;

at least 2000 individual migratory shorebirds; and/or

at least 15 migratory shorebird species.

10.14. Lathams Snipe has different habitat requirements and behaviours to the other

species and does not aggregate in large numbers. Habitat is considered to support an

important population if at least 18 individuals have been observed and the site is a

naturally occurring open freshwater wetland with vegetation cover nearby.

10.15. Based on the surveys undertaken by BAAM (2012) and previous studies, BAAM

concluded that the CVW meets the requirements to consider the wetland as important

habitat for migratory shorebirds.

10.16. In 2012, the CVW supported >0.1% of the flyaway population of the following

three species of migratory shorebird:

Red-necked Stint;

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper; and

Australian Painted Snipe.

10.17. The CVW was also estimated to support approximately 54 individuals of Lathams

Snipe (from a direct count of 29 in February 2012).

10.18. In addition, the CVW and adjoining coast line is known to support 16 migratory

shorebirds. Therefore, the CVW qualifies for three of the four criteria (noting only one

criteria is needed to be met) to classify it as important habitat for migratory shorebirds.


EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

10.19. The main identified threats to migratory shorebirds as defined in the Background

Paper to the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (AGDEH 2005)

include:

Loss of habitat - One of the many complexities of the life cycle of a migratory

shorebird is its tendency for site fidelity, generally returning to the same sites

year after year. Habitat of a certain type (eg. coastal mudflats at the mouth of

a river) and location, although apparently suitable habitat for shorebirds, may

not be visited by shorebirds in significant numbers, or at all. Appropriate

management of specific sites which support significant numbers of migratory

shorebirds is, therefore, more important than defining habitat type. However,

as our knowledge of migratory shorebirds and their habitat is incomplete,

particularly for those species of migratory shorebirds that do not aggregate

or are widely dispersed, there is a case for some level of protection for

potential habitat;

Modification and degradation of habitat - Migratory shorebirds are

particularly vulnerable to modification of habitat. Their ability to complete

long flights depends on the availability of suitable habitat at sites across the

Flyway and the capacity of those habitats to provide adequate food and

resting opportunities (roosts), so that birds can build enough energy reserves

to sustain their annual migration;

Disturbance of shorebirds - Disturbance of migratory shorebirds may occur

as a result of many activities, such as industrial operations and construction,

recreational fishing, four wheel driving on beaches, unleashed dogs and jet

skiing. Migratory shorebirds are most susceptible to disturbance during

daytime roosting and foraging periods. Research suggests that the energetic

costs of disturbance of shorebirds can be quite high and may compromise

their capacity to build enough energy reserves to undertake their migration;

and

Introduced species - Many wetlands across Australia have been adversely

affected by the introduction of plant species such as water hyacinth

Eichhornia crassipes, Ludwigia peruviana, Salvinia sp. and Mimosa pigra.

These plants can lead to long-term changes of the nature and biodiversity of

the wetlands; in turn, this has had significant effects on the use of these

wetlands by shorebirds and other species. Introduced animals such as pigs,

cane toads and European carp are also well known for their destructive

impacts on wetland areas. Of particular concern for migratory shorebirds is

the introduction of exotic marine pests which may result in loss of benthic

food sources at important intertidal migratory shorebird habitat.

10.20. The T0 Project is likely to result in impacts on migratory shorebirds from

modifying/degrading wetland habitat and increasing the likelihood of introduced

species. Modification of habitat can arise from a range of different activities. Such

activities may result in increased silt in the water, pollution (including coal dust), weed

and pest invasion, all of which can change the ecological character of the site,

potentially leading to deterioration of the quantity and quality of food and other

resources available to support migratory shorebirds. In addition, catchment run-off

carries nutrients, sediments and pollutants into waterways and eventually wetlands.

Excess nutrients cause eutrophication, a process where water bodies receive excess

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

nutrients that stimulate excessive plant growth, resulting in changes to the biological

and chemical processes within wetlands.

10.21. The T0 Project is also likely to increase disturbance to migratory shorebirds

through increased noise and lighting, including cumulatively in combination with other

terminal projects at Abbot Point. The EIS states that the operation of the coal terminal

will occur 24 hours a day 7 days a week, indicating that these impacts will be

continuous.

Other Migratory Birds

10.22. Surveys in the Abbot Point region have determined that the CVW meets one

criterion for recognition as important habitat for at least two migratory bird species:

Caspian Tern; and

Eastern Great Egret.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia)

10.23. The largest tern in Australia, the Caspian Tern has long, slender backswept

wings and a slightly forked tail. This species is gregarious when breeding, though

single nesting does occur. Outside of breeding, the Caspian Tern occurs mostly singly

or in small groups. Occasional larger groups of 30 or more birds are seen, often at rich

fishing areas or at nightly roost sites, where they may roost with other terns. The

species may also aggregate into flocks on passage (migration).

10.24. Within Australia, the Caspian Tern has a widespread occurrence and can be

found in both coastal and inland habitat. The Caspian Tern is mostly found in sheltered

coastal embayments (harbours, lagoons, inlets, bays, estuaries and river

deltas) and those with sandy or muddy margins are preferred. They also occur on near-

coastal or inland terrestrial wetlands that are either fresh or saline, especially lakes

(including ephemeral lakes), waterholes, reservoirs, rivers and creeks. They also use

artificial wetlands, including reservoirs, sewage ponds and saltworks.

10.25. The age of first breeding is four years old or occasionally three years old.

Caspian Terns return to their natal areas to breed. The species breeds between

September–December in the southern hemisphere, though timing varies in different

areas. In Australia, the Caspian Tern is a resident and present throughout the year at

sites where breeding occurs year round and also at some sites where breeding is

protracted.

Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta)

10.26. The Eastern Great Egret is a moderately large bird (83–103 cm in length, 700–

1200 g in weight) with white plumage, a black or yellow bill and long reddish and black

legs. Eastern Great Egrets often occur singly, or in small groups when feeding. They

roost in large flocks that may consist of hundreds of birds. The species usually nest in

colonies and rarely in solitary pairs.

10.27. Eastern Great Egrets are widespread in Australia. They occur in all

states/territories of mainland Australia and in Tasmania. They have also been recorded

as vagrants on Lord Howe, Norfolk and Macquarie Islands. The global population size

of the Eastern Great Egret is estimated at approximately 60 000 to 300 000 individuals.

A preliminary population estimate of 60 000 individuals was derived from data on

breeding colonies and supports the current published population estimate of 25 000 to

100 000 individuals.

10.28. The overall population trends of the Eastern Great Egret in Australia are not well

understood. This is due, at least in part, to the difficulty associated with assessing

trends for a species that occupies individual sites erratically, and often in highly

variable numbers, across a wide geographic area. Overall, the Australian population is

considered to fluctuate in size, in recognition of the highly variable availability of

suitable wetland habitat. The Eastern Great Egret has been reported in a wide range of

wetland habitats (for example inland and coastal, freshwater and saline, permanent

and ephemeral, open and vegetated, large and small, natural and artificial).

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141


10.29. The Caspian Tern is more vulnerable to threats when it is younger. Once it

reaches adulthood, birds may live for a considerable time. The species is at risk from a

range of threats including:

habitat loss or degradation through the introduction of exotic plant species;

human disturbance and trampling by cattle at breeding sites. This

disturbance causes terns to rise from their nest, leaving eggs and small

chicks exposed to predation by gulls. Human visitation has been observed to

have a negative impact on a breeding population in the GBR, Queensland;

exposure to and bioaccumulation of contaminants in fish could be lowering

the species' reproductive success; and

Newcastle disease and avian botulism, especially at local high density

populations.

10.30. In Australia, the Eastern Great Egret is threatened by loss and/or degradation of

foraging and especially breeding habitat through alteration of water flows, drainage

and/or clearing of wetlands for development, frequent burning of wetland vegetation

used as nest sites, salinisation and invasion by exotic plants or fishes.

10.31. The T0 Project footprint is located adjacent (rail loop only) and to the east of the

CVW with the existing terminal in between. The majority of works are located

approximately 700 m east of the wetland with only the rail loops adjacent however, the

rail loops are proposed to be contained within the existing rail loop corridor. Therefore,

it is not anticipated that the T0 Project will result in any direct removal of wetland

habitat for these two species.

10.32. The T0 Project is likely to impact on these species through increased noise and

lighting, resulting in disturbance to resident populations and consequently reduced

fitness. Indirect impacts on wetland habitat are likely through a potential increase in

pest and weed species as well as decreased water quality in the CVW as a result of

runoff and smothering of habitat from coal dust.

10.33. The T0 Project could also contribute to decreased water quality through

controlled and uncontrolled releases of water from the existing sediment ponds into the

CVW and marine environment. These sediment ponds will hold runoff from the T0

Project which will contain coal particles and sediment, and potentially hazardous

material and pollutants.

Mitigation Measures for listed migratory birds


the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to listed migratory bird species

that have the potential to be impacted during the action, including:



absence) of listed threatened and migratory species in order to identify

appropriate methods for management;

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141




an Illumination Plan that will be developed describing each light source in

terms of its purpose, location, footprint, intensity and spectral composition

and document steps to avoid, mitigate and manage the impacts of each

source. For example through minimisation of lighting within the

development, minimising long wavelength lights and installing timers and

motion detectors where possible;





techniques;













Land based noise control strategy to limit the level of noise travelling to the

surrounding environment through equipment modifications and minimising

use of equipment;




Contaminated Land control strategy including a site remediation plan to be

developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination; and





EPBC 2011/6194

of 141






Conclusion for listed migratory birds


Flora and Fauna, Water, Land, Noise and Vibration, and Waste Management Subplans

provide a sufficient framework for reducing any potential impacts on listed migratory

bird species from degradation of habitat from decreased water quality associated with

discharges from sediment pond and surface water runoff, smothering of habitat by coal

dust, increased noise and light pollution and introduced exotic species, provided they

include an adaptive management function.


proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial Management Plan that includes (but

is not limited to) the measures discussed in the above management subplans. This

would enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and

mitigate potential negative impacts to listed migratory bird species.

10.38. Whilst acknowledging that listed migratory bird species are likely to be impacted

by the proposed action, the department is of the view that, provided the mitigation

measures are implemented and conditions adhered to, long-term impacts to EPBC Act

listed migratory bird species discussed above will not be unacceptable.


recommended conditions, are not inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under the

Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention), the Japan-Australia

Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

(CAMBA) or the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA)

Listed Migratory Marine Species

10.40. A number of migratory marine species listed in Table 3 are also listed threatened

species, namely the Blue Whale, Humpback Whale, Loggerhead Turtle, Green Turtle,

Hawksbill Turtle, Flatback Turtle, Leatherback Turtle, Olive Ridley Turtle and Whale

Shark. The impacts of the proposed action on those species have been addressed in

section 10. The remaining 7 species are addressed below. All information is taken from

SPRAT unless stated otherwise.

Bryde’s Whale (Balaenoptera edeni)

10.41. Bryde's Whales are found year-round in waters between 40° S and 40° N,

primarily in temperatures exceeding 16.3 °C. The coastal form of Bryde's Whale

appears to be limited to 200 m water depth, moving along the coast in response to

availability of suitable prey, whilst the offshore form is found in deeper water (500 m to

1000 m). Insufficient information exists as to how Australian Bryde's Whales use their

habitat, as no specific feeding or breeding grounds have been discovered off Australia.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141


10.42. The threats to the Bryde’s Whale mainly include, pollution, including increasing

amounts of plastic debris at sea, oil spills, bio-accumulation of toxic substances in body

tissues of marine mammals and collisions with large vessels.


species.

10.44. The department considers that there is suitable habitat within the Abbot Point

region however, as this species does not appear to utilise the area, substantial direct

impacts are considered unlikely. There is however, the potential for the species to be

indirectly impacted through increased shipping.

Salt-water Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus)

10.45. The Salt-water Crocodile is found in Australian coastal waters, estuaries,

freshwater sections of lakes, inland swamps and marshes. In Queensland the Salt-

water Crocodile inhabits reef, coastal and inland waterways from Gladstone, to and

throughout the Cape York Peninsula and west to the Queensland-Northern Territory

border. In Queensland the species is usually restricted to coastal waterways and

floodplain wetlands. Preferred nesting habitat for the Salt-water Crocodile includes

elevated isolated freshwater swamps that do not have the influence of tidal

movements.


10.46. In Australia, threats to the Salt-water Crocodile include incidental mortality from

fishing nets and habitat destruction.


species. However, tracks potentially identified as that of Saltwater Crocodile have been

anecdotally recorded along Saltwater Creek near the T0 Project area. The most

suitable habitat is in estuarine habitat located in the western areas of the CVW, as well

as seasonally along Saltwater Creek.

10.48. Substantial direct impacts through habitat removal and mortality are considered

unlikely however potential indirect impacts include degradation of habitat through

decreased water quality and introduced species.

Dugong (Dugong dugon)

10.49. A significant proportion of the world's Dugongs are found in north Australian

waters from Shark Bay, Western Australia, in the west, to Moreton Bay, Queensland, in

the east, with an estimated 14,000 individuals populating the GBRWHA. The Dugong

feeds on seagrass, foraging in shallow coastal habitat were they aggregate to feed.

Foraging habitat is normally found in shallow protected bays, mangrove channels and

in the lee of large inshore islands.

10.50. Dugongs are long-lived with a low reproductive rate, long generation time, and a

high investment in each offspring. The availability of seagrass is one factor in

reproduction; when there is not enough to eat, Dugongs delay breeding.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

10.51. The Port of Abbot Point is located between two Dugong Protection Areas

(DPAs), one being in Upstart Bay approximately 50 km to the north west of Abbot Point

and the other encompassing most of Edgecumbe Bay approximately 13 km south of

Abbot Point.


10.52. Threats to this species include; incidental catch, habitat loss and degradation,

boat strike and boating activities, acoustic pollution and disease and parasites.

10.53. The Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate

Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009) and the Background Document for the Threat Abatement

Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009a) (all

provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) states that impacts on the species from

marine debris can occur from entanglement; ingestion; and, social, economic and

aesthetic impacts on marine habitat and environments.

10.54. The EIS states that this species has been detected in the Abbot Point Region

during marine surveys. It is also stated that only low value foraging habitat is present in

the area.

10.55. While the waters off of Abbot Point have not been identified as important habitat

for Dugong they are likely to provide an important thoroughfare between the two

nearby Dugong Protection Areas (DPA). The coastal waters near Abbot Point contain

large seagrass beds which are likely to be important in supporting the movement of

Dugong between the established DPAs.

10.56. For a comprehensive discussion on impacts to seagrass, refer to section 8 of this

report.

10.57. Decline in seagrass beds in Queensland, associated with extended periods of

flooding resulting in increased sediment loads, have demonstrated the importance of

maintaining foraging habitat for Dugong. In areas where these declines have been

observed increases in Dugong mortality have also increased (QLD & DSEWPaC,

2011).

10.58. Maitland et al. (2007) noted that the risk of boat strike to dugongs occurred in

shallow waters from high speed vessels; reduction in vessel speed and increased

water depth significantly reduces the potential for boat strike on dugong. The T0

Project will result in an increase of vessel movements during construction and

operation which will increase the risk of boat strike to Dugongs. Construction activities

will increase acoustic pollution potentially resulting in negative behavioural and

physiological changes and increased shipping will increase the risk of introduction of

disease and parasites through ballast water and biofouling.

10.59. Construction of the jetty including piling activities has the potential to impact

Dugongs through direct contact and noise/vibration disturbance, potentially causing

negative behavioural and physiological changes.


decrease water quality in an area utilised by the Dugong, through potential increased

runoff of sediments, acid sulphate soil, contaminated soil, coal dust, stormwater and

pollutants such as chemicals and waste.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsoni)

10.61. Records indicate that Australian Snubfin Dolphins occur only in waters off the

northern half of Australia. All available data on the distribution and habitat preferences

of Australian Snubfin Dolphins indicate that they mainly occur in one location: shallow

coastal and estuarine waters of Queensland, Northern Territory and north Western

Australia. There appear to be 'hotspots' of higher Australian Snubfin Dolphin densities

along the Queensland coast and preliminary data suggest that they occur in small,

localised populations.

10.62. The only reliable local estimate of population size of Australian Snubfin Dolphins

is for Cleveland Bay, north-east Queensland, where a population of less than 100

individuals inhabits the area. The information available for Cleveland Bay indicates that

Australian Snubfin Dolphins are not permanent residents in the Bay, but use the area

regularly from year to year following a model of emigration and re-immigration.

10.63. Based on the low numbers of Australian Snubfin Dolphins sighted during aerial

and boat based surveys of the east coast of Queensland the population at a regional

level (Queensland) is likely to be in the thousands rather than tens of thousands.

Considering the length of coastline and area of suitable shallow habitat and the

apparent occurrence of Snubfin Dolphins in small localised groups, it is likely that

mature Australian Snubfin Dolphins do not number more than 10 000 individuals.

Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinesis)

10.64. The distribution of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins in Australia is linked to the

warm eastern boundary current. Known localities in Queensland include the Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park; Moreton Bay; the lower reaches of the Brisbane River, and

adjacent offshore waters. The total population size of the Indo-Pacific Humpback

Dolphin in Australian waters is unknown. Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins inhabit

shallow coastal, estuarine, and occasionally riverine habitats, in tropical and subtropical

regions. The species usually occurs close to the coast, generally in depths of less than

20 m, but they have been seen 55 km offshore in shallow water.

10.65. Populations at various locations along the Queensland coast have been

surveyed, and some regional population estimates made. Preliminary results for

Cleveland Bay, in the Central Section of the Great Barrier Reef, suggest a population

less than 200 animals, however, regional population levels (e.g. Queensland) are likely

to be in the order of thousands rather than tens of thousands. The Indo-Pacific

Humpback Dolphin is known to occur within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as well

as the Queensland Marine Protected Area and is regarded as a species of priority for

management and research by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Threats and Assessment of Impacts to Australian Snubfin Dolphin and Indo-Pacific Humpback

Dolphin

10.66. The current threats to Australian Snubfin Dolphin and Indo-Pacific Humpback

Dolphin include:

habitat degradation and loss - is primarily a concern along the Queensland

coast with its high level of development and related activities; and

interaction with vessels - the coastal near-shore distribution of both dolphin

species leads to the high probability of interactions with vessels. Australian

Snubfin Dolphins can be expected to exhibit vessel avoidance behaviour,

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

potentially negatively affecting their extent of occupancy and life history, as

per other nearshore dolphins. Additionally, the frequencies of whistles

produced by both dolphin species are likely to fall within the range often

emanating from boat traffic, suggesting that noise pollution may a problem for

these species.

10.67. The calving interval of Australian Snubfin Dolphins is unknown, however, as per

most Delphinidae, it is expected to be approximately one calf born every two to three

years. This low reproductive rate could result in a slow population recovery from any

threatening processes.

10.68. The EIS states that these two dolphin species have been detected in the Abbot

Point Region during marine surveys. It is also stated that there is suitable habitat for

both species in the Abbot Point region.

10.69. The EIS indicates that during a year long period, nine two day marine surveys

were undertaken. During this time a total of 20 sightings were made of the Australian

Snubfin Dolphin within three surveys and a total of 112 sightings were made of the

Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin within seven of the nine surveys.

10.70. The EIS states that there is the potential for the area to support relatively small

populations of each species and given the variability of sightings it is unclear whether

the small number of individuals recorded are transient or resident or as to the viability

of a potential local populations.

10.71. Advice from the Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division states that both of these

dolphin species have small discreet populations which show high site fidelity and that

the numbers sighted in the Abbot Point area should not be considered small as is

concluded in the EIS.

10.72. Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division have also advised that although the Abbot

Point area is known to be utilised by these two species, the importance of this area for

these species is uncertain in the absence of baseline surveys (the EIS only provided

information for presence/absence surveying). However, having regard to the surveys

undertaken, it is apparent that the Australian Snubfin Dolphin and Indo-pacific

Humpback Dolphin regularly utilise the Abbot Point area and due to these species

showing high site fidelity, the department considers for the purpose of this assessment

that you should consider Abbot Point important habitat for these two dolphin species.

10.73. The T0 Project will result in an increase of vessel movements during construction

and operation which will increase the risk of boat strike to both dolphin species.

Construction activities will increase acoustic pollution potentially resulting in

behavioural and physiological damage and increased shipping will increase the risk of

introduction of disease and parasites through ballast water and biofouling.

10.74. Increased boating activity during construction and shipping activity during

operation is likely to increase the incidence of boat strikes on both dolphin species.

10.75. Construction of the jetty including undertaking piling has the potential to impact

these two species through direct contact and noise/vibration disturbance, potentially

causing negative behavioural and physiological changes.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141


decrease water quality in an area utilised by listed migratory dolphin species, through

potential increased runoff of sediments, acid sulphate soil, contaminated soil, coal dust,


Killer Whale (Orcinus orca)

10.77. The preferred habitat of Killer Whales includes oceanic, pelagic and neritic

(relatively shallow waters over the continental shelf) regions, in both warm and cold

waters. They may be more common in cold, deep waters, but off Australia, Killer

Whales are most often seen along the continental slope and on the shelf, particularly

near seal colonies. The habitat of Killer Whales is difficult to categorise due to the

cosmopolitan nature of the species and its ability to inhabit all oceans. This may lead to

individuals/groups experiencing, and utilising, a large variety of habitats.


10.78. Threats to Killer Whales include pollution, targeted hunting and illegal killing, and

interactions with fisheries, including the potential for incidental capture.


species. Habitat in the Abbot Point region does not appear to be suitable for this

species.


considered unlikely, however if present, there is the potential for the species to be

indirectly impacted through increased shipping through boat strike and noise pollution.

Porbeagle Mackerel Shark (Lamna nasus)

10.81. The Porbeagle is a wide-ranging shark inhabiting the subtropical and temperate

waters of the North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere. In Australia, it occurs from

southern Queensland to south-west Australia, typically in oceanic waters on the

continental shelf, although it is occasionally found in coastal waters. The Porbeagle is

known to use the water column to depths of at least 1360 metres. The species

undertakes extensive seasonal migrations. In the North Atlantic, mature females have

migrated to nursery areas in subtropical waters. Little data exists for Southern

Hemisphere populations, although they are thought to give birth off New Zealand and

Australia in winter. Porbeagles are also known to segregate populations by size and

sex. They feed mainly on teleost fish and squid (DSEWPaC, 2012).


10.82. The life history characteristics of sharks make them vulnerable to a range of

pressures in the marine environment. In general, sharks show slow growth, late

attainment of sexual maturity and low fecundity. The main threats to this species are

changes in sea temperature, ocean acidification and impacts from shipping

(DSEWPaC, 2012).

10.83. The CIA Report states that the Porbeagle Mackerel Shark has not been recorded

during any surveys in the Abbot Point region. The EIS states that there is no preferred

habitat for this species in the T0 Project area as this is species is typically found in

cooler pelagic waters to the south of the region.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141


considered unlikely, however there is the potential for the species to be indirectly

impacted through increased shipping through boat strike and noise pollution.

Mitigation Measures for listed migratory marine species


the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to listed migratory marine

species that have the potential to be impacted during the action, including:

















a Marine Based control strategies including marine fauna exclusion zones,

gradual or soft start procedures, adequate spacing of pile driving plants to

minimise cumulative impacts and adaptive management techniques;









environment are minimised or avoided; and




EPBC 2011/6194

of 141


introduced pests.






Conclusion for listed migratory marine species


and Fauna, Water, Land, Noise and Vibration, Waste and Marine Ecology

Management Subplans provide a sufficient framework for reducing any potential

impacts on listed migratory marine species from degradation of habitat through

decreased water quality, smothering of habitat by coal dust, increased noise pollution

and introduced exotic species, provided they include an adaptive management

function.


proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial Management Plan and a Marine and

Shipping Management Plan that includes (but is not limited to) the measures discussed

in the above management subplans. In addition, this plan will include requirements to

manage impacts from construction vessels and noise generated from operational

shipping activities, including the implementation of speed limits within the Port of Abbot

Point. It is also recommended that the proponent be required implement measures that

mitigate impacts associated with pile driving. This will enable the proponent to

effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate potential negative impacts to

listed migratory marine species.

10.89. It is also recommended that conditions for manage and mitigate impacts on the

marine environment (being habitat for listed migratory marine species) from terrestrial

activities (including downstream water impacts, coal dust deposition and waste) will be

managed through the previously discussed Terrestrial Management Plan.

10.90. Whilst acknowledging that listed migratory marine species are likely to be

impacted by the proposed action, the department is of the view that, provided the

mitigation measures are implemented and conditions adhered to, long-term impacts to

listed migratory marine species discussed above will not be unacceptable.


conditions to the proposed approval, have taken into account and not been inconsistent

with the Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine

Life (DEWHA, 2009) and the Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for

the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009a).

Conclusions of assessment of impacts on listed migratory species


are implemented, there will not be unacceptable impacts on listed migratory species.

11. Commonwealth marine areas (sections 23 and 24A)

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

11.1. The Commonwealth marine area (CMA) is any part of the sea, including the

waters, seabed, and airspace, within Australia's exclusive economic zone and/or over

the continental shelf of Australia, that are not State or Northern Territory waters.

11.2. The CMA stretches from 3 to 200 nautical miles from the coast. Marine protected

areas are marine areas which are recognised to have high conservation value.

11.3. The EIS states that the only direct impact from the T0 Project on the CMA would

be removal of habitat through construction, however, as construction will not occur

within the CMA, there will be no direct impacts. They also state the indirect impacts

may occur on marine fauna through increased underwater noise.

11.4. The department considers that this is a very minimal approach and that there are

many additional impacts that could occur on the CMA from shipping. It is noted

however, that impacts from shipping have been addressed separately. These impacts

are detailed below.

11.5. It is noted that you are required to have consideration to any impacts on the

recently developed marine bioregional plans. These impacts are also detailed below.

11.6. The department considers that listed threatened and/or migratory marine fauna

that are also values of the CMA should also be considered. An assessment of impacts

on threatened and migratory marine species is provided in section 9 and 10 of this

Recommendation Report.

Marine Bioregional Plans

11.7. Marine bioregional plans have been developed for the Commonwealth marine

area to support the decision-making process for marine-based industries under the

EPBC Act. As part of this process, new Commonwealth marine reserves have been

identified by the department for the conservation of marine ecosystems and biodiversity

of Australia’s oceans. These reserves are intended to meet Australia’s commitments to

establish a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas.

11.8. Five marine regions have been identified as part of the bioregional planning

process, including Southwest, North-west, North, East (Temperate East and Coral Sea)

and South-east Marine Regions.

11.9. There is currently no bioregional plan for the Coral Sea marine reserve, which is

the one most closely located near the proposed action – surrounds the Great Barrier

Reef Marine Park. The department does not consider there to be any relevant

bioregional plan for the purposes of the Minister’s decision.

Shipping

11.10. The EIS states that at full capacity, the T0 Project will result in approximately an

additional 560 ships traversing the CMA.

11.11. There are a range of potential impacts associated with shipping activity in the

CMA including:

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

accidents, incidents and groundings;

impacts to or loss of aesthetic values;

oil or chemical spills;

waste discharges;

introduction and translocation of invasive marine species;

anchor damage to the benthos;

vessel strike on threatened or migratory species; and

increased underwater noise (resulting in displacement, hearing loss,

stranding etc).

11.12. Many of these issues have been addressed in previous sections of this report

(refer section 8, World Heritage properties and National heritage places, section 9,

listed threatened species and ecological communities and section 10 listed migratory

species). The remaining issues are discussed below.

Displacement of feeding animals

11.13. In addition to vessel strike, the increase in anthropogenic noise and the potential

impact on marine mammals has been of increasing concern over at least the last two

decades. One of the most commonly observed behavioural responses to noise is

displacement. Reported source levels for vessels and tugboats range from 152 dB at 1

m for a small outboard engine vessel to 170 dB at 1 m for a 25 m tugboat pulling an

empty barge, with most sound energy occurring between 100 Hz-1kHz.

Introduction of marine pests

11.14. The EIS states that there are over 250 introduced marine species within

Australian waters. However, there are no known established invasive pests within the

Port of Abbot Point.

11.15. All vessels entering Australian waters are required to meet stringent quarantine

regulations and may be inspected by AQIS officers once at port. Quarantine measures

are designed to mitigate the risk of pest invasion and establishment in Australian

waters and marine ecosystems. The EIS states that all vessels associated with the T0

Project will adhere to Commonwealth and State regulations in relation to biosecurity

and quarantine. The Port of Abbot Point has existing quarantine procedures in place

and these will be extended to accommodate the increased shipping volumes

associated with the T0 Project.

Ballast water and biofouling management

11.16. One of the most significant quarantine concerns associated with shipping

activities is the movement of ballast waters. Shipping vessels utilise ballast waters to

moderate buoyancy relative to the cargo load which they are carrying. Taking on

ballast waters ensures that the vessel sits at the appropriate depth within the water

column to maximise buoyancy and propulsion. As such, a vessel will fill its ballast tanks

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

when it unloads cargo and release ballast waters prior to loading. Under the

Quarantine Act 1908, Australia has implemented stringent regulations regarding the

discharge of ballast water in Australian waters. Under the Australian Ballast Water

Management Regulations, it is prohibited to discharge ballast waters which originate

from areas deemed to be of high risk. AQIS defines all salt water from ports and

coastal waters outside Australia’s territorial sea as high risk. Under these regulations,

ballast water exchange (if required) can only occur outside Australian waters.

11.17. The EIS states that all shipping vessels associated with the T0 Project will

adhere to Australian quarantine regulations relating to ballast water management in

Australian waters. Where vessels are carrying ballasts sourced from potable water or

waters from approved open ocean sources and wish to discharge at Port of Abbot

Point, the required appropriate documentation will be provided to the Port Authority

prior to release. The Port of Abbot Point has the capacity to undertake full quarantine

arrival assessments and will maintain the integrity of this role for any increased

shipping anticipated for the port as a result of the Project. Adani will ensure that

vessels associated with the T0 Project adhere to all assessment criteria and provide all

documentation and access to quarantine officials as requested. As an integrated

company, it is possible that Adani managed or leased vessels will be used to export

material from the T0 Project.

11.18. Biofouling also provides opportunity for marine pests to be translocated to and

around Australia via vessel hulls and niche areas such as bilges and sea chests. The

EIS states that Adani is committed to implementing national guidelines and

requirements relating to biofouling.

General Waste

11.19. A range of waste products (e.g. general wastes, food and other organic waste)

associated with shipping activities are regarded as quarantine threats in Australia as

they have the potential to harbour pest species and therefore, pose a biosecurity risk.

General waste must be managed in strict accordance with the relevant Commonwealth

and State legislation and regulations. The EIS states that Adani will adhere to all

relevant quarantine and biosecurity guidelines and legislation and ensure best practice

management systems are in place for all waste material. Adani will develop and

implement management plans for waste materials that reflect the Port Authority

requirements in accordance with legislation.

Chemical and Oil Spills

11.20. Major oil and chemical spills have the potential to devastate the marine

environment. Typically major spills are a result of severe grounding or collisions

between shipping vessels. The EIS states that due to the strict pilotage systems in

place for the GBR and low level of groundings which have historically occurred, it is

unlikely that major oil spills will occur as a result of shipping activities associated with

the T0 Project.

11.21. Smaller spills may occur as a result of various causes. Depending on the

situation and/or cause, smaller spills may vary from locally confined spills to oil and fuel

spills impacting a relatively large area. MARPOL regulations prohibit the discharge of

oily wastes in the marine environment. Only filtered water containing less that 15 parts

per million (ppm) oil in water is permitted to be discharged and only while a ship is

underway. Any waste at a concentration higher than 15 ppm must be contained on the

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

vessel. The EIS states that Adani will ensure that vessels used to transport coal for the

Project are equipped with adequate waste management facilities.

Mitigation Measures

11.22. The proponent has proposed to develop a Shipping Management Plan that will

be prepared prior to commencement of operation to address and mitigate potential

impacts from shipping including those arising from physical impacts, pollution events,

lighting and introduced pests.

Conclusion

11.23. The department considers that the Shipping Management Plan provides a

sufficient framework for reducing any potential impacts on the environment in the CMA

from shipping provided it includes an adaptive management function.




Shipping Management Plan. As previously discussed, the Marine and Shipping

Management Plan will also include measures to manage impacts from noise generated

from operational ships. This will enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid,

adaptively manage and mitigate potential negative impacts to the environment in the

CMA.

11.25. Whilst acknowledging that environment in the CMA is likely to be impacted by the

proposed action, the department is of the view that, provided the mitigation measures

are implemented and conditions adhered to, long-term impacts to the environment in

the CMA will not be unacceptable.

Conclusion of assessment of impacts on the CMA


are implemented, impacts to the Commonwealth marine area will not be unacceptable.

12. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

12.1. Areas of the GBR have been progressively included in the Commonwealth Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) since the late 1970s. Today, almost the entire

GBR ecosystem is included within the Marine Park, which extends over 2300 km along

the coast of Queensland and covers approximately 344,400 km2.

12.2. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a multiple use marine park, supporting a

wide range of uses, including: commercial marine tourism; fishing; ports and shipping;

recreation; scientific research; and indigenous traditional use.

12.3. Threats and impacts to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as a result of the

proposed action are assessed throughout this recommendation report:

an assessment of impacts on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and

National Heritage place is provided in Section 8;

an assessment of impacts on EPBC Act listed threatened marine species is

provided in Section 9; and

an assessment of impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory species is provided in

Section 10.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

12.4. GBRMPA’s comments to the department on the Final EIS did not provide a

detailed review of the EIS documentation. However, they stated that they were

concerned about the general lack of port master planning at Abbot Point which they

consider to be fundamental in being able to assess the likely impacts from this Project

in the immediate and long-term. In particular, they expressed concern about North

Queensland Bulk Ports’ Terminal 0, 2 & 3 Capital Dredging proposal and that a

determination about this project should be made following the final approval decision

for the dredging project.

Conclusion of assessment of impacts on the GBRMP


are implemented, impacts to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will not be

unacceptable.

13. Offsets

13.1. Offsets are measures that compensate for the residual adverse impacts of an

action on the environment. The department’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offset Policy -October 2012 (DSEWPaC, 2012d)

(Offset Policy) applies to all matters protected under the EPBC Act and outlines the

approach to the use of offsets. The Offset assessment guide (which accompanies the

Offset Policy) applies where the impacted matter is a threatened listed species or

community.

13.2. The department considers that all of the impacts identified by the proponent for

the construction and operational activities for the proposed terminal (including

increased lighting on a known nesting beach for EPBC listed Green and Flatback Turtle

species; impacts to aesthetic values from increased shipping numbers in the Great

Barrier Reef World Heritage Area; increased pollutants such as coal dust, chemical

toxins, total suspended solids; alteration to physical qualities of benthic habitats and

communities; and, chemical contamination) will lead to long term degradation of the

marine environment. Therefore, the department considers that the T0 Project will have

significant residual impacts to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and listed

Green and Flatback turtle species foraging, nesting and traversing habitat.

13.3. To compensate for significant residual impacts to listed Green and Flatback

Turtle species, and the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, the department

recommends that conditions be attached to the approval which require the proponent

to prepare and implement a Marine Offset Strategy for the life of this approval that

comprises a:

Turtle Plan to reduce the level of feral pig, dog and/or fox predation on Green

Turtle and Flatback Turtle nests, and to enhance the marine habitat

(including seagrass and corals) for these species, within the NQ Dry Topics

and/or Reef Catchment regional Natural Resource Management bodies;

Marine Plan - to reflect the most appropriate natural resource management

priorities including research, relating to impacts of this action on the

outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area;

and

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

is funded by an annual contribution of $450,000 (indexed) for activities

identified as priorities in the plans.

13.4. The Marine Offset Strategy must be developed in consultation with the

department, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and relevant Natural

Resources Management bodies to ensure activities (including research which, unless

otherwise agreed by the Minister, must not be greater than 10% of the activities

undertaken) funded through this Plan reflect the most appropriate management

priorities relating to the residual impacts of this action.

Consistency with Offset Policy

13.5. In determining an appropriate offset, the Offset Policy states that an offset must

deliver an overall conservation outcome that improves or maintains the viability of the

protected matter. For impacts on heritage values specifically, the offset should improve

the integrity and resilience of the heritage values impacted by the T0 Project. For direct

offsets in the marine environment, the Offset Policy requires that the relevant governing

jurisdictions are engaged to identify suitable areas of habitat that may be improved to

achieve a conservation gain, and be implemented for the duration of the impact.

13.6. The Offset Policy also requires a minimum of 90 percent of the offset

requirements for any given impact must be met thought direct offsets. However, there

are provisions for other compensatory measures that are anticipated to lead to benefits

for the impacted matter to be provided as an offset. The department acknowledges the

difficulty in providing direct offsets for marine related impacts and therefore has

included provisions for the Marine Offset Strategy for compensatory measures (such as

research).

13.7. The Marine Offset Strategy recommended by the department provides for the

above requirements and is therefore consistent with the Offset Policy.

Consistency with other EPBC projects at Abbot Point

13.8. The Marine Offset Strategy will compliment offsets for other EPBC related

projects at Abbot Point. The approved Abbot Point Coal Terminal 3 (2008/4468) and

the Terminal 0, 2 & 3 Capital Dredging proposal (EPBC 2011/6213) project conditions

include offset provisions that provide mechanisms for the ongoing protection and

conservation of seagrass habitat, and actions that will result in a net benefit outcome

for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Consistency with Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans

13.9. Managing factors that affect marine turtle nesting (including light pollution and

faunal predation of marine turtle eggs) and, identifying and protecting habitats that are

critical to the survival of marine turtles (including managing impacts from land use

practices that impact water quality) are recovery objectives (with associated recovery

actions) identified in the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia - July 2003 for

EPBC listed turtle species. Therefore, the Turtle Plan and Marine Plan required to be

developed and implemented through the Marine Offset Strategy are consistent with this

Recovery Plan.

13.10. The department also considers that the outcomes of the Marine Offset Strategy

are consistent with the relevant Threat Abatement Plans (all provided for your

consideration at Annexure 1), and as follows:

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Threat Abatement Plan for Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition

and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs (DEH, 2005) by integrating

feral pig management plans and their implementation into natural

resource planning and investment at the regional, level through

consultation and liaison with key stakeholders;

Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox

(DEWHA, 2008) and the Background Document for the Threat

Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox (DEWHA,

2008a) by promoting the maintenance and recovery of native species

and ecological communities that are affected by fox predation; and

Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate

Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009) and the Background Document for the

Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate

Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009a) by not impeding the implementation of

measures to prevent and mitigate the impacts of harmful marine debris

on vertebrate marine life.

13.11. The proposed conditions also require the Proponent to consult with the

department, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and relevant Natural

resource Management bodies to ensure funded through the Marine Offset Strategy

reflect the most appropriate management priorities and addressing priority recovery

actions for matters of national environmental significance.

14. Considerations for Approval and Conditions

Mandatory Considerations

14.1. Under Section 136 of the EPBC Act, in deciding whether or not to approval an

action and what conditions to attach to the approval, you must consider the following,

so far as they are not inconsistent with any other requirement of Subdivision B, Division

1, Part 9 of the Act:

Matters relevant to any matter protected by the controlling provisions

World heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A);

National heritage places (sections 15B and 15C);

listed threatened species and ecological communities (sections 18 and 18A);

listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A);

Commonwealth marine areas (sections 23 and 24A); and

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B, 24C).

14.2. The T0 project was assessed by Environmental Impact Statement under section

87 of the EPBC Act (Attachment A2). The Secretary’s Recommendation Report,

which addresses the matters protected extensively, is at Attachment B. The

department’s recommended approval conditions are at Attachment C.

Economic and social matters - Section 136(1)(b)

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

14.3. You must consider economic and social matters when deciding whether or not to

approve the T0 project.

14.4. The EIS states that the proposed action is forecast to provide the following

economic benefits:

Construction Phase 1

Estimated direct employment of approximately 313 people in the Mackay

region;

indirect employment of approximately 342 people in the Queensland, and

88 people nationally; and

the total output of consumption anticipated to peak in 2014 and 2015 at

$131.7 million locally, $109.7 million in Queensland, and $29.8 million

nationally.

Construction Phase 2

Estimated direct employment of approximately 445 people in the Mackay

region;

indirect employment of approximately 417 people in the Queensland, and

100 people nationally; and

the total output of consumption anticipated to peak in 2014 and 2015 at

$197.0 million locally, $134.9 million in Queensland, and $34.0 million

nationally.

Operations Phase

Direct employment (including contractors) of approximately 174 people in

the local region; and 65 people elsewhere in Queensland;

indirect employment of approximately 120 people locally, and 29-69 people

elsewhere in Queensland; and

the total output of consumption is anticipated to be $52.4 million to $111.1

million across the local region and between $19.4 million to $47.5 million

per annum in Queensland.

14.5. Overall, the financial value of the T0 Project is expected to generate between

$1.4 billion and $2.8 billion per annum in gross regional product.

14.6. The EIS also noted there were some potential negative economic impacts,

namely: increased labour costs in the region; infrastructure pressures in the local and

regional area; and, property market inflation.

14.7. The commercial fishing industry raised a number of concerns regarding potential

impacts on the economic viability of commercial fishing in the area. In particular, the

impacts of increased shipping and construction work on catch levels; access to fishing

areas and anchorage locations; and, the potential for ships to damage fishing nets. The

EIS notes that any impacts on commercial fishing would be related to overall

development at the Port of Abbot Point. As such, Adani has committed to participate in

ongoing consultation with North Queensland Bulk Ports and other port proponents to

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

develop a port-wide approach to addressing the commercial fishing industry’s

concerns.

14.8. In regard to social impacts, the EIS states:

The T0 Project will result in an increase in population within the Bowen region.

Population growth increases demand on local government for housing, services,

utilities provision and transport. A short–term spike in demand will occur during the

construction phase with longer-term demand during the operation phase. Adani is

committed to developing a traffic management and emergency response plan to

minimise pressure on the existing community resources. The proponent will also

provide construction programs and anticipated workforce numbers will be projected

and communicated to the relevant authorities and agencies. This will assist in

planning to reduce strain on local infrastructure.

Adani will develop a worker accommodation strategy with the objective of minimising

housing and accommodation impacts during all phases of the T0 Project. The

strategy is intended to ensure there are appropriate and well planned non-residential

accommodation camps for construction workers to minimise impacts on the diversity

and affordability of housing stock within the Bowen township. The EIS notes that the

operational workforce is anticipated to seek housing in Bowen and this may lead to

increased housing demands. The local council has indicated there is sufficient

supply of residential land to accommodate the demand for additional housing

generated by the T0 Project.

Adani has consulted with the Juru people who noted their main concerns with the

proposal were employment of indigenous community and measures to ensure

cultural heritage sites located adjacent to the development are protected. The EIS

states Adani’s commitment to ongoing consultation with the Juru people to ensure

improved employment outcomes are achieved for indigenous people in the Bowen

Basin, through securing training, employment opportunities and accommodation,

where required.

14.9. The department has considered economic and social matters in recommending

the proposed approval, including the conditions, for theT0 project.

Factors to be taken into account

14.10. In considering the above matters, you must take into account:

Principles of ecologically sustainable development (set out in section 3A of the EPBC Act) and

the precautionary principle (set out in section 391(2) of the EPBC Act).

14.11. The principles of ecologically sustainable development, as defined in section 3A

of the EPBC Act, are:

i. The integration principle;

In recommending approval of the T0 Project, the department has considered the

long and short-term economic impacts as well as other environmental, social and

equitable impacts in accordance with section 3A(a) of the EPBC Act.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

The department considers that the likely impacts on the environment as a result of

the T0 Project are satisfactory in terms of their long term and short term social and

equitable impacts.

ii. The precautionary principle;

In accordance with section 3A(b) of the EPBC Act; if there are threats of serious or

irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be

used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.

The department has considered the precautionary principle in making the approval

recommendation. In recommending approval of the T0 Project the department

notes that there is sufficient scientific information to conclude that the proposal will

be unlikely to result in unacceptable impacts to world heritage properties, national

heritage places, listed migratory species, listed threatened species and

communities, Commonwealth marine areas and the Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park.

iii. The intergenerational principle;

In accordance with section 3A(c) of the EPBC Act; the present generation should

ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained

or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

The department has taken the intergenerational principle into consideration in

recommending the T0 Project be approved. The recommended conditions of

approval include measures which the department considers are adequate for

mitigating impacts to world heritage properties, national heritage places, listed

migratory species, listed threatened species and communities, Commonwealth

marine areas and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

The recommended conditions allow for the T0 Project to be delivered and

operated in a sustainable way to protect matters of national environmental

significance, and the environment for future generations.

iv. The biodiversity principle (Ecologically sustainable development (ESD));

Section 3A(d) of the EPBC Act requires the conservation of biological diversity and

ecological integrity as a fundamental consideration in decision making. The

department has included the biodiversity principle and ecological integrity in

relation to all of the controlling provisions for the T0 Project, and has

recommended conditions which will mitigate and offset impacts to matters of

national environmental significance.

v. The valuation principle;

Section 3A(e) of the EPBC Act requires the promotion of improved valuation,

pricing and incentive mechanisms. The referral and assessment documentation

includes information on a range of proposed mitigation measures for reducing

impacts to the matters protected (as identified in the Secretary’s Recommendation

Report at Attachment B) for world heritage properties, national heritage places,

listed migratory species, listed threatened species and communities,

Commonwealth marine areas, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

The department considers that the impacts of the action will be suitably

compensated through requirements for offsets for all unavoidable residual

significant impacts. The department considers that the cost of the required offsets,

both direct and indirect, will be commensurate with the likely impacts on matters of

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

national environmental significance including degradation of habitat for listed

threatened species.

14.12. In formulating this recommendation, the department has taken into account the

principles of ecologically sustainable development outlined above. In particular:

This report and the assessment documentation provided (specifically the finalised

environmental impact statement and associated appendices (Attachment A2))

contain information on the long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social

and equitable considerations that are relevant to the decision and are presented for

your consideration.

Any lack of certainty in relation to the potential impacts of the T0 Project is

addressed by conditions that restrict impacts, impose monitoring requirements and

adopt standards which if not achieved, require the application of response

mechanisms in a timely manner to avoid additional adverse impacts.

The proposed conditions will ensure potential impacts on world heritage properties,

national heritage places, listed threatened species and communities, listed migratory

species, Commonwealth marine areas and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

resulting from the proposed action are reduced and mitigated to the greatest extent

possible. Any residual impacts that are regarded as significant in accordance with

the department’s policies and guidelines are required to be offset. The purpose of

offsets is to ensure the proposed action results in conservation gains for the

environment which will be maintained in the long-term. To safeguard against any

uncertainties associated either with the proposed offsets or measures to manage

potential impacts to environmental values, contingency measures have also been

incorporated into the proposed conditions of approval.

The department has considered the importance of conserving biological diversity

and ecological integrity in relation to all of the controlling provisions for the T0

Project, and the advice provided within this document (and the Secretary’s

Recommendation Report at Attachment B) reflects that consideration.

The department’s advice includes reference to economic and social impacts of the

proposal. The department has sought to ensure that financial costs of compliance

with the proposed approval decision are reasonable to the extent that the T0 Project

can proceed whilst also making a fair contribution to environmental protection.

The assessment report relating to the action

14.13. In accordance with section 136(2)(ca)(i) the finalised environmental impact

statement relating to the action given to you under section 104 is at Attachment A2.

14.14. In accordance with section 136(2)(ca)(ii) the Secretary’s recommendation report

relating to the action given to you under section 105 is at Attachment B.

Any other information the Minister has on the relevant impacts of the action

14.15. All information on the relevant impacts of the action is available in this briefing

package (including the attachments).

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Other considerations

Any relevant comments given to the Minister by another Minister in accordance with an

invitation under section 131 or 131AA and 131A.

14.16. Letters inviting comments from relevant Ministers are at Attachment F for your

signature.

14.17. A letter inviting comment from the Proponent and the Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park Authority are also at Attachment F for your signature.

14.18. Any comments received in response to these invitations will be included in the

final approval decision briefing package for your consideration.

Requirements for decision regarding World Heritage – section 137

In deciding whether or not to approve, for the purposes of section 12 or 15A, the taking

of an action and what conditions to attach to such an approval, the Minister must not act

inconsistently with:

(a) Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention; or

(b) the Australian World Heritage management principles; or

(c) a plan that has been prepared for the management of a declared World

Heritage property under section 316 or as described in section 321.

14.19. Note the requirements of the World Heritage Convention at:

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf.

14.20. A plan of management for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area has not

been prepared under section 316 or section 321 of the EPBC Act.

14.21. The Australian World Heritage management principles at schedule 5 of the

EPBC Regulations are at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/epabcr2000697/sch5.html.

Requirements for decision about National Heritage places – section 137A

In deciding whether or not to approve for the purposes of section 15B or 15C the taking

of an action, and what conditions to attach to such an approval, the Minister must not act

inconsistently with:

(a) the National Heritage management principles; or

(b) an agreement to which the Commonwealth is party in relation to a National

Heritage place; or

(c) a plan that has been prepared for the management of a National Heritage

place under section 324S or as described in section 324X.

14.22. The Commonwealth has not reached agreement with any party in relation to the

management of the National Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef. A management

plan for the Great Barrier Reef has not been prepared under section 324S or section

324X of the EPBC Act.

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/epabcr2000697/sch5.html

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

14.23. The National Heritage management principles as prescribed in schedule 5B of

the EPBC Regulations are at:

http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/about/pubs/mgt-principles.pdf.

Requirements for decision about threatened species and endangered communities –

section 139

1. In deciding whether or not to approve for the purposes of a subsection of section

18 or section 18A the taking of an action, and what conditions to attach to such an

approval, the Minister must not act inconsistently with:

(a) Australia’s obligations under:

(i) the Biodiversity Convention; or

(ii) the Apia Convention; or

(iii) CITES; or

(b) a recovery plan or threat abatement plan.

2. In considering whether to approve, for the purposes of a subsection of section

18 or section 18 A, the taking of an action and the action has or will have, or is likely to

have, a significant impact on a particular listed threatened species or a particular listed

threatened ecological community; you must, in deciding whether to so approve the

taking of the action, have regard to any approved conservation advice for the species or

community.

14.24. The Convention on Biological Diversity is available for your consideration at:

www.cbd.int.

14.25. The Convention on the Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (Apia

Convention), which was suspended with effect from 13 September 2006, is available

for your consideration at: www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/RecordDetails?id=TRE-

000540&index=treaties.

14.26. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora (CITES) is available for your consideration at: www.cites.org.

Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans

14.27. The action is considered to have, or likely to have, a significant impact on the

following listed threatened species and endangered communities:

Squatter Pigeon (southern) (Geophaps scripta scripta);

Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis);

Black-throated Finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta);

Water Mouse, False Water Rat (Xeromys myoides);

Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus);

White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea), White-bellied Storm-Petrel

(Australasian); (Fregetta gralleria gralleria);

Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus);

Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus);

Spectacled Flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus);

Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus philippinensis (large form));

http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/RecordDetails?id=TRE-000540&index=treaties

http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/RecordDetails?id=TRE-000540&index=treaties

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus);

Yakka Skink (Egernia rugosa);

Ornamental Snake (Denisonia maculate);

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus);

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae);

Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta);

Pacific Ridley, Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea);

Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas);

Leathery Turtle, Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea);

Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate);

Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus);

Green Sawfish, Dindagubba, Narrowsnout Sawfish (Pristis zijsron);

Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus);

Black Ironbox (Eucalyptus raveretiana);

Siah’s Backbone, Sia’s Backbone, Isaac Wood (Streblus pendulinus);

Minute Orchid, Ribbon-root Orchid (Taeniophyllum muelleri);

Omphalea celata;

Ozothamnus eriocephalus; and,

Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and

Nandewar Bioregions.

14.28. The Recovery Plans relevant to the T0 Project are:

National recovery plan for the Red Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus.

(Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management,

Brisbane;

National recovery plan for the Black-throated Finch southern subspecies

Poephila cincta cincta . Report to the Department of the Environment and Water

Resources, Canberra. Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW),

Hurstville and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane;

Department of the Environment and Resource Management 2010. National

recovery plan for the water mouse (false water rat) Xeromys myoides. Report to

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and

Communities, Canberra. Department of the Environment and Resource

Management, Brisbane;

Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2005, Whale Shark

(Rhincodon typus) Recovery Plan 2005-2010;

Schulz, M. and Thomson, B. 2007. National recovery plan for the bare-rumped

sheathtail bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus. Report to Department of

the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. Queensland Parks and

Wildlife Service, Brisbane;

McDonald, W.J.F. 2010. National recovery plan for the “Semi-evergreen vine

thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions”

ecological community. Report to Department of the Environment, Water,

Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Queensland Department of Environment and

Resource Management, Brisbane;

Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management 2010.

National recovery plan for the spectacled flying fox Pteropus conspicillatus.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and

Communities, Canberra;

Environment Australia (EA), 2003, Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia

- July 2003;

Hill B.M. and Ward S.J. (2010). National Recovery Plan for the Northern Quoll

Dasyurus hallucatus. Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts

and Sport, Darwin;

Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2005, Humpback Whale

Recovery Plan 2005 – 2010, DEH, Canberra;

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW. 2009. Draft

National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus.

Prepared by Dr Peggy Eby. Department of Environment, Climate Change and

Water NSW, Sydney;

Recovery plan for cave-dwelling bats, Rhinolophus philippinensis, Hipposideros

semoni and Taphozous troughtoni 2001–2005. Unpublished report to

Environment Australia, Canberra;

Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), (2005) Blue, Fin and Sei

Whale Recovery Plan 2005 – 2010, DEH, Canberra; and,

Richardson, R. (2006). Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile Recovery Plan 2008 –

2012. Report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the

Arts, Canberra. WWF-Australia, Brisbane.

14.29. These Recovery Plans are provided at Annexure 1.

14.30. The Threat Abatement Plans relevant to the T0 Project are:

Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2005) Threat Abatement Plan

for Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by

Feral Pigs, DEH, Canberra;


for the Reduction in Impacts of Tramp Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its

Territories, DEH, Canberra;

Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2006a) Background

Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for Reduction in Impacts of Tramp

Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its Territories, DEH, Canberra;


for Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by

Feral Pigs, DEH, Canberra;

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008).

Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Rabbits,

DEWHA, Canberra;

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

(2008a). Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for Competition

and Land Degradation by Rabbits, DEWHA, Canberra;


(2008b). Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox,

DEWHA, Canberra;

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141


(2008c). Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by

the European Red Fox, DEWHA, Canberra;


(2008d). Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats, DEWHA, Canberra;


(2008de). Background document for the threat abatement plan for predation by

feral cats, DEWHA, Canberra;

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2009).

Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine

Life, DEWHA, Canberra;


(2009a). Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts

of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life, DEWHA, Canberra;


(2009b). Threat Abatement Plan to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on

biodiversity on Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000 hectares 2009,

DEWHA, Canberra;


(2009c). Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan to reduce the

impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian offshore islands of less

than 100 000 hectares, DEWHA, Canberra;

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

(DSEWPaC) (2012b), Threat Abatement Plan to Reduce the Impacts on

Northern Australia’s Biodiversity by the Five Listed Grasses. DSEWPAC,

Canberra; and,

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

(DSEWPaC) (2012c), Background Document: Threat Abatement Plan to

Reduce the Impacts on Northern Australia’s Biodiversity by the Five Listed

Grasses. DSEWPAC, Canberra.

14.31. These Threat Abatement Plans are provided at Annexure 1.

Approved Conservation Advices

14.32. The approved Conservation Advices relevant to the T0 Project are:

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008, Commonwealth

Conservation Advice on Eucalyptus raveretiana (Black Ironbox);


Conservation Advice on Geophaps scripta scripta (Squatter Pigeon (southern));


Conservation Advice for Pristis zijsron (Green Sawfish);


Conservation Advice on Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback Turtle);


Conservation Advice on Omphalea celata;

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141


Conservation Advice on Ozothamnus eriocephalus; and,


Conservation Advice on Rostratula australis (Australian Painted Snipe).

14.33. These approved Conservation Advices are provided at Annexure 1.

Requirements for decision about migratory species – section 140

In deciding whether or not to approve for the purposes of section 20 or 20A the

taking of an action relating to a listed migratory species, and what conditions to

attach to such an approval, the Minister must not act inconsistently with Australia’s

obligations under whichever of the following conventions and agreements because

of which the species is listed:

(a) the Bonn Convention;

(b) CAMBA;

(c) JAMBA;

(d) an international agreement approved under subsection 209(4).

14.34. This section requires that you must not act inconsistently with Australia’s obligations

under the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention), the Japan-

Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), the China-Australia Migratory Bird

Agreement (CAMBA) or the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement

(ROKAMBA).

14.35. The Bonn Convention is available for your consideration at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/ATS/1991/32.html.

14.36. CAMBA is available for your consideration at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1988/22.html.

14.37. JAMBA is available for your consideration at:


14.38. ROKAMBA is available for your consideration at:


14.39. The department has taken these agreements into account for the T0 Project

assessment and has given consideration to the likely impacts of the proposed action on

listed migratory species, in particular on:

Greater Sandplover (Charadrius leschenaultia);

Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa);

Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus);

Pacific Golden Plover (Pulvialis fulva);

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (Calidris acuminate);

Red-necked Stint (Calidris ruficollis);

Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia);

Marsh Sandpiper (Tringa stagnatilis);

Wandering Tattler (Tringa incana);

Little Curlew (Numenius minutus);

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Latham's Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii);

Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis);

Common Sandpiper (Acititis hypoleucos);

Red Knot (Calidris canutus);

Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea);

Great Knot (Calidris tenuirostris);

Lesser Sand Plover (Charadrius mongolus);

Broad-billed Sandpiper (Limicola falcinellus);

Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica);

Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola);

Grey-tailed Tattler (Tringa brevipes);

Terek Sandpiper (Xenus cinereus);

Sanderling (Calidris alba);

Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos);

Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola);

Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres);

White-Bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leuccogaster);

Eastern Osprey (Pandion cristatus);

Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis);

Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta);

Eastern Reef Egret (Egretta sacra);

Glossy Ibis (Piegadis faicinellus);

Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia);

Lesser Crested Tern (Thalasseus bengalensis);

Crested Tern (Thalasseus bergii);

Rainbow Bee-Eater (Merops ornatus);

Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons);

Australian Reed Warbler (Acrocephalus australis);

Little Tern (Sternula albifrons);

Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis);

Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus);

White-throated Needletail (Hirundapus caudacutus);

Masked Booby (Sula dactylatra);

Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster);

Common Tern (Sterna hirundo);

Bridled Tern (Onychoprion anaethetus);

Black-naped Tern (Sterna sumatrana);

Oriental Cuckoo (Cuculus optatus);

Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha melanopsis);

Spectacled Monarch (Symposiarchus trivirgatus);

Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus);

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaengliae);

Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta);

Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas);

Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate);

Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus);

Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea);

Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea);

Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus);

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Dugong (Dugong dugon);

Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni);

Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis);

Killer Whale (Orcunus orca);

Saltwater Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus);

Porbeagle Mackerel Shark (Lamna nasus); and

Bryde’s Whale (Balaentoptera edeni).

Bioregional plans

14.40. In accordance with section 176(5), the Minister is required to have regard to a

bioregional plan in making any decision under the EPBC Act to which the plan is

relevant.

14.41. The department does not consider there to be any relevant bioregional plan for the

purposes of your decision.

Person’s environmental history

14.42. In accordance with section 136(4) the Minister may also consider whether the

person proposing to take the action is a suitable person to be granted an approval,

having regard to the person’s history in relation to environmental matters and if the

person is a body corporate, the history of its executive officers and if relevant, the

history of the parent company and its executive officers in relation to environmental

matters.

14.43. Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd’s EIS states that it has not been subject to any

proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the

environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. The

department’s compliance section states that the department is currently assessing a

number of non-compliances in regards to Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltds

Stormwater Return Dam Project (EPBC 2010/5561). Initial advice is that, these non-

compliances appear to be minor in nature.

14.44. In addition, as discussed at paragraph 6.3, an Adani subsidiary operating at the Port

of Mundra, in Gujarat, India has been found to breach Indian Government

environmental approval processes, the department notes that the environmental history

of actions undertaken in a country other than Australia cannot be considered as part of

this decision as it is beyond the jurisdiction of the EPBC Act.

Minister not to consider other matters

14.45. In deciding whether or not to approve the taking of an action, and what conditions to

attach to an approval, you must not consider any matters that you are not required or

permitted, by Subdivision B, Division 1, Part 9 of the EPBC Act, to consider.

Considerations in deciding on conditions

14.46. In accordance with section 134(1), the Minister may attach a condition to the

approval of the action if he or she is satisfied that the condition is necessary or

convenient for:

a) protecting a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has

effect (whether or not the protection is protection from the action); or

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

b) repairing or mitigating damage to a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for

which the approval has effect (whether or not the damage has been, will be or

is likely to be caused by the action).

14.47. In accordance with section 134(2), the Minister may attach a condition to the

approval of the action if you are satisfied that the condition is necessary or convenient

for:

a) protecting from the action any matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for

which the approval has effect; or

b) repairing or mitigating damage that may or will be, or has been, caused by the

action to any matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval

has effect.

14.48. As discussed in this report, the department considers that the recommended

conditions at Attachment C are necessary or convenient to:

protect, repair and/or mitigate impacts on a matter protected by Part 3 of the

EPBC Act for which the proposed approval has effect; and,

protect from the action, or repair or mitigate any damage that may or will be, or

has been caused by the action to, a matter protected by Part 3 for which the

proposed approval has effect.

Section 134(3)

14.49. Section 134(3) prescribes conditions that you may attach to an approval. The

department has recommended a number of conditions consistent with this section (for

example: financial contributions to protect, repair or mitigate damage to listed

threatened species; environmental audits; and management plans for conserving

habitat).

Section 134(4)

14.50. In accordance with section 134(4), in deciding whether to attach a condition to an

approval the Minister must consider:

a) any relevant conditions that have been imposed, or that the Minister considers

are likely to be imposed, under a law of a State or self-governing Territory or

another law of the Commonwealth on the taking of the action;

The T0 Project will require some environmental and development approvals under

Queensland legislation but there are no approvals currently in place.

b) information provided by the person proposing to take the action or by the

designated proponent of the action; and

The referral and assessment documentation provided by the proponent has been

included in this briefing package and has been considered by the department in

preparing this proposed decision package.

c) the desirability of ensuring as far as practicable that the condition is a cost

effective means for the Commonwealth and the person taking the action to

achieve the object of the condition.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

The department considers that the proposed conditions of approval will be cost effective

and will ensure that matters of national environmental significance are protected over

time.

14.51. The proponent will be given up to 10 business days to comment on the proposed

decision, and the practicability of proposed conditions at Attachment C.

15. Conclusion

The department considers the proposal should be approved, subject to the conditions to

ensure the impacts on listed threatened species and ecological communities, listed

migratory species, world heritage properties and natural heritage places, Commonwealth

marine area and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are acceptable.

16. Duration of approval

16.1. The department recommends that the approval remain valid for a period of 40

years.

17. Material used to prepare Recommendation Report

17.1. In addition to the material listed in the References section, the department also

considered the following documents:

o Referral Documentation for the project

o Final Environmental Impact Statement (Attachment A2)

o Departmental Line Advice (Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division; Great Barrier

Reef Taskforce; Compliance and Enforcement Branch; Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park Authority; and Legal Section).

18. Annexures

A: Recovery Plans, Conservation Advices and Threat Abatement Plans (on CD).

19. References

Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage (2005) Background Paper to the Wildlife

Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds, DEH, Canberra.

BAAM 2012, ‘Cumulative Impact Assessment: Migratory Shorebird and Waterbird Surveys, Caley Valley Wetland, Port of Abbot Point’, Prepared for Abbot Point Working Group, October 2012.

Bell, I, 2003, Turtle population dynamics in the Hay Point, Abbot Point and Lucinda Port Areas. Report to

PCQ.

Black-throated Finch Recovery Team (BTFRT), Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW)

and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Recovery Plan for the Black-throated Finch

southern subspecies Poephila cincta cincta . Report to the Department of the Environment and Water

Resources, Canberra. Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW), Hurstville and

Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane.

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW. 2009. Draft National Recovery Plan for

the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus. Prepared by Dr Peggy Eby. Department of

Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2006) Threat Abatement Plan for the Reduction in

Impacts of Tramp Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its Territories, DEH, Canberra.

Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2006a) Background Document for the Threat

Abatement Plan for Reduction in Impacts of Tramp Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its Territories,

DEH, Canberra.

Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2005) Threat Abatement Plan for Predation, Habitat

Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs, DEH, Canberra

Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2005b, Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan

2005 – 2010, DEH, Canberra

Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2005c, Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005 –

2010, DEH, Canberra

Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2005d, Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) Recovery

Plan 2005-2010

Department of the Environment and Resource Management 2010. National Recovery Plan for the Water

Mouse (False Water Rat) Xeromys myoides. Report to Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,

Population and Communities, Canberra. Department of the Environment and Resource Management,

Brisbane.

Department of Environment and Resource Management 2012. National Recovery Plan for the Red

Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus. Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,

Population and Communities, Canberra. Queensland Department of Environment and Resource

Management, Brisbane.

Department of Environment and Resource Management 2010a. National Recovery Plan for the

Spectacled Flying Fox Pteropus conspicillatus. Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment,

Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008). Threat Abatement Plan

for Competition and Land Degradation by Rabbits, DEWHA, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008a). Background Document

for the Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Rabbits, DEWHA, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008b). Threat Abatement Plan

for Predation by the European Red Fox, DEWHA, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008c). Background Document

for the Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox, DEWHA, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008d). Threat abatement plan

for predation by feral cats, DEWHA, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008e). Background document

for the threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats, DEWHA, Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2009). Threat Abatement Plan

for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life, DEWHA, Canberra

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2009a). Background Document

for the Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life, DEWHA,

Canberra

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2009b). Threat Abatement Plan

to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000

hectares 2009, DEWHA, Canberra.

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2009c). Background Document

for the Threat Abatement Plan to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian

offshore islands of less than 100 000 hectares, DEWHA, Canberra.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2012),

Supporting the Marine Bioregional Plan for the Temperate East Marine Region, Species Group Report

Card – Sharks

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2012b),

Threat Abatement Plan to Reduce the Impacts on Northern Australia’s Biodiversity by the Five Listed

Grasses. DSEWPAC, Canberra.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2012c),

Background Document: Threat Abatement Plan to Reduce the Impacts on Northern Australia’s

Biodiversity by the Five Listed Grasses. DSEWPAC, Canberra.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2012d), Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy,

DSEWPAC, Canberra.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2009). The

East Asian-Australasian shorebird site network.

www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/waterbirds/infosrn1.html, accessed July 2013

Ecological Australia (ELA) and OpenLines 2013, ‘Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) Synthesis Report’, Report prepared for the Abbot Point Working Group, February 2013.

Environment Australia (EA) 1999, Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats, Biodiversity Group

Environment Australia

Environment Australia (EA) 1999a, Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox,

Biodiversity Group Environment Australia

Environment Australia (EA), 2003, Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia - July 2003

GHD (2009), Report for the Proposed MCF: Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecological Assessment, GHD

Brisbane.

GHD, 2013, Ship Anchorage Management in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Great Barrier

Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (May, 2013) Ports and Shipping Information Sheet, accessed

from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/26775/Ports-and-Shipping-Information-sheet-

29May2013.pdf

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2009). Outlook Report 2009. Retrieved July 2013 from

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report/full-report-and-individual-

chapters.

Hill B.M. and Ward S.J. (2010). National Recovery Plan for the Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus.

Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport, Darwin.

Maitland, R. N., I. R. Lawler, and J. K. Sheppard. (2007). “Assessing the risk of boat strike ondugongs (Dugong dugon) at Burrum Heads, Queensland, Australia”. Pacific Conservation Biology 12:321-327.

McDonald, W.J.F. 2010. National recovery plan for the “Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt

(North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions” ecological community. Report to Department of the

Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Queensland Department of Environment and

Resource Management, Brisbane.

QLD & DSEWPaC (2011). Report on the Australian and Queensland Government Dugong Task Force, October 2011.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/26775/Ports-and-Shipping-Information-sheet-29May2013.pdf

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/26775/Ports-and-Shipping-Information-sheet-29May2013.pdf

EPBC 2011/6194

of 141

Recovery Plan for Cave-dwelling Bats, Rhinolophus philippinensis, Hipposideros semoni and Taphozous

troughtoni 2001–2005. Unpublished report to Environment Australia, Canberra.

Richardson, R. (2006). Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile Recovery Plan 2008 – 2012. Report to the

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. WWF-Australia, Brisbane. Accessed

from http://www.qmdc.org.au/publications/download/52/

Schulz, M. and Thomson, B. 2007. National Recovery Plan for the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat

Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus. Report to Department of the Environment and Water Resources,

Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2013, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Rostratula australis (Australian painted snipe) Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Geophaps scripta scripta (Squatter Pigeon (southern)) Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008a, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback Turtle) Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008b, Commonwealth Conservation Advice for Pristis

zijsron (Green Sawfish)

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008c, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Eucalyptus raveretiana (Black Ironbox)

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008d, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on

Omphalea celata

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008e, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Ozothamnus eriocephalus Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2005, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Black-throated Finch southern subspecies Poephila cincta cincta Van Dyck, S. (1996). Xeromys myoides Thomas, 1889 (Rodentia: Muridae) in mangrove communities of North Stradbroke Island, southeast Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 42:337-366.

http://www.qmdc.org.au/publications/download/52/

epbc 2011/6194 - Department of the Environment

Documents

Transcript of epbc 2011/6194 - Department of the Environment