EPBC 2011/6213 RECOMMENDATION REPORTenvironment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/2011/6213/... ·...
Transcript of EPBC 2011/6213 RECOMMENDATION REPORTenvironment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/2011/6213/... ·...
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 1 of 56
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
Abbot Point Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and
Terminal 3
Capital Dredging Project
Queensland (EPBC 2011/6213)
Photo credit: Aerial vista of the Port of Abbot Point – Public Environment Report,
North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, December 2012
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 2 of 56
1. Recommendation
1.1. That the proposed action, to undertake capital dredging and dredge spoil disposal for
Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 at the Port of Abbot Point, Queensland, be
approved subject to the conditions specified below.
2. Conditions
1. Dredging is limited to a total volume of up to 3 million m3 from the dredge site at
Attachment A.
2. The person taking the action must not dredge or dispose of more than 1.3 million m3 of
sediment in any calendar year.
3. Dredging and disposal activities must not be undertaken between 1 July and 1 March
each year.
4. Disposal of dredged material must only occur at the disposal site at Attachment B,
unless Condition 5 applies.
5. The Minister may approve in writing, an alternative site for the disposal of dredged
material if the person taking the action provides peer reviewed scientific evidence from
the implementation of the Disposal Site Analysis Plan (Condition 20) that demonstrates
that the use of an alternative disposal site would result in equivalent or lesser
environmental impacts for matters of National Environmental Significance (NES). The
approved site must be included in the approved Dredging and Spoil Disposal
Management Plan and Abbot Point Marine Ecosystem Research and Monitoring
Program (Conditions 7 and 14) and must be identified in any permit obtained under the
Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981.
6. The person taking the action must comply with the requirements of any permit obtained
under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, including any conditions
attached.
Dredging and Spoil Disposal Management Plan
7. To protect matters of NES, the person taking the action must submit to the Minister for
approval a Dredging and Spoil Disposal Management Plan (DSDMP) prior to
commencement of dredging and disposal activities.
The DSDMP must include but not be limited to the following:
a) Engineering and operational controls to minimise impacts on matters of NES,
including but not limited to: consideration of appropriate dredging equipment, use
of capping techniques for dredged material, operation of the ‘green valve’ and
other overflow issues and their impact on ambient water quality, modifications to
timing of dredging/disposal, utilisation of relevant technology to minimise release of
fine sediments and modifications to the rate of discharge of dredged material;
b) Measures to monitor water quality and ecosystem health for the full period of the
dredging and disposal, and for a period prior to and after dredging and disposal
(which shall be defined in the DSDMP), and to determine the load of fine
sediments and nutrients released into the environment and their fate;
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 3 of 56
c) Water quality and ecosystem health trigger levels be developed for photosynthetic
active radiation, turbidity, total suspended solids, light attenuation and sediment
deposition rates, seagrass propogules and seed bank estimates, scallop bed
density. The water quality and ecosystem health trigger levels must be linked to
the adaptive management strategies in the event that trigger levels are reached.
The plan must also outline how the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
(GBRMPA) water quality guidelines will be taken into account, while also taking
account of the wind, tides, weather, seasons, temporal variation, and natural
background levels. Trigger levels must include:
i. Early-warning trigger levels for modifying the dredging/disposal action, and
ii. Trigger levels for ceasing the dredging/disposal action;
d) Measures to minimize the risk to flora and fauna in the vicinity of the dredging and
disposal activities;
e) A turtle exclusion device must be fitted to the dredger head at all times when
dredging occurs;
f) Measures that minimise the risk of the introduction of marine pest species via
vessels engaged in dredging or disposal activities;
g) Adaptive management strategies in the event that adverse impacts to matters of
NES are identified (e.g. from Abbot Point Marine Ecosystem Research and
Monitoring Program at Condition 14) and to address any results which indicate that
sediment movement is not occurring as predicted by the hydrodynamic modeling
undertaken for the Public Environment Report;
h) Measures to minimise the risk of, and respond to fuel, oil or chemical spills;
i) Outline the consultation process undertaken with the GBRMPA in developing the
DSDMP;
j) Report to the Minister in writing within one business day when injury to, or mortality
of, a listed threatened or migratory species occurs as a result of dredging or
disposal activities;
k) Report in writing within one business day to the Minister when a trigger level linked
to adaptive management strategies within the DSDMP is reached;
l) Details of responsible parties for each activity described in the DSDMP with an
organisational structure showing all responsible parties; and
m) Provide annual reviews of the DSDMP to the department and the independent
dredging Technical Advice Panel (TAP) (at Condition 23) to ensure continual
improvement measures are applied.
n) Include a table or similar quick reference document clearly setting out: the
conditions of this EPBC approval, the conditions of any permit under the
Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, and the requirements of the
National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging; and the sections and page
references of the DSDMP that address those conditions and requirements.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 4 of 56
8. The DSDMP must comply with all requirements under the Environment Protection (Sea
Dumping) Act 1981, the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging and the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s ‘Dredging and Spoil Disposal Policy’.
9. The DSDMP must be submitted for review by the independent dredging TAP (at
condition 23), to provide advice to the person taking the action on the development,
endorsement, implementation and adequacy of adaptive management measures of the
DSDMP. The independent dredging TAP must be consulted during the development of
the DSDMP, and prior to submission of the DSDMP to the Minister.
10. The person taking the action must provide to the Minister, a copy of all advice and
recommendations made by the independent dredging TAP and an explanation of how
the advice and recommendations will be implemented or an explanation of why the
person taking the action does not propose to implement certain recommendations. This
information must be provided to the Minister when the DSDMP is submitted for
approval.
11. The DSDMP must be submitted to the Minister for approval at least three months prior
to the commencement of dredging, unless otherwise approved in writing by the
Minister.
12. Dredging must not commence until the DSDMP has been approved by the Minister.
The approved DSDMP must be implemented.
13. The DSDMP must be submitted for review annually to the independent dredging TAP
and revised as per the advice of the independent dredging TAP, to enable continuous
improvement and adaptive management of dredge and spoil disposal methodology.
Any proposed revision to the DSDMP must be submitted to the Minister for approval.
The revised document must include a table or similar summary showing clearly the
proposed changes with cross reference to page and section numbers in the current
approved DSDMP.
Abbot Point Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program
14. The person taking the action must submit to the Minister for approval an Abbot Point
Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program (APERMP) prior to commencement of
dredging and disposal activities. The APERMP must allow for real-time response
measures to be implemented if necessary as well as ongoing monitoring, and include,
but not be limited to the following:
a) Methodology to validate the hydrodynamic modeling provided in the Public
Environment Report and the findings of the technical studies undertaken for the
Improved Dredge Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region during each
dredging campaign at both the dredge and disposal sites;
b) Implement a stochastic dredge plume model that uses 20 years of met-ocean data
in order to account for inter-annual variability in oceanographic conditions of the
Great Barrier Reef;
c) Processes to revise the hydrodynamic modeling, including peer review, prior to
undertaking any subsequent dredging campaigns;
d) Measures to monitor water quality, the turbidity plume, seagrass health and
recovery (especially the seed banks and associated seagrass propogules), benthic
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 5 of 56
habitat, scallop beds and coral health for the full period of dredging and for a
period prior to and after dredging (which shall be defined by the DSDMP) both
within the Port limits and with reference locations in adjacent areas of Abbot Point;
e) Consideration of how the APERMP can be aligned with any future Great Barrier
Reef water quality monitoring framework, including the Abbot Point Joint
Environmental Management Framework;
f) Locations of monitoring and reference sites and the reason for the site selections.
Water quality monitoring must be conducted at a network of sites in the impact
zones including in proximity to sensitive habitats and control/reference sites;
g) Ongoing monitoring capable of confirming any water quality changes or impacts
from suspended sediments, greater than those outlined in the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority water quality guidelines and as provided for in the
DSDMP, on coastal fringes, inter-tidal zones and any sensitive habitats, including
seagrass, and coral habitats;
h) Turtle, dugong and commercial fish species monitoring programs will be developed
and implemented.
i) Social and economic monitoring of this proposed action will be undertaken.
j) Include a table or similar quick reference document clearly setting out: the
conditions of this EPBC approval, the conditions of any permit under the
Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, and the requirements of the
National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging; and the sections and page
references of the DSDMP that address those conditions and requirements;
k) Outline the consultation process undertaken with the GBRMPA in developing the
APERMP; and
l) The timelines for the implementation of the elements of the APERMP, and the
required timeframe to monitor any impacts, including potential re-suspension of
fine sediments.
15. The APERMP must be submitted for review to the independent dredging TAP, to
provide advice to the person taking the action on the development, endorsement,
implementation and adequacy of the research and monitoring program outlined in the
APERMP. The independent dredging TAP must be consulted during the development
of the APERMP, and prior to submission of the APERMP to the Minister.
16. The person taking the action must provide to the Minister, a copy of all advice and
recommendations made by the independent dredging TAP and an explanation of how
the advice and recommendations will be implemented or an explanation of why the
person taking the action does not propose to implement certain recommendations. This
information must be provided to the Minister when the APERMP is submitted for
approval.
17. The APERMP must be submitted to the Minister for approval at least three months
prior to the commencement of dredging, unless otherwise approved in writing by the
Minister.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 6 of 56
18. Dredging must not commence until the APERMP has been approved by the Minister,
and the measures (as described under section 14 of this approval) of the approved
APERMP have been implemented.
19. The APERMP must be submitted for review annually to the independent dredging TAP
and revised as per the advice of the independent dredging TAP, to enable continuous
improvement and adaptive management of the research and monitoring program. Any
proposed revision to the APERMP must be submitted to the Minister for approval. The
revised document must include a table or similar summary showing clearly the
proposed changes with cross reference to page and section numbers in the current
approved APERMP.
Disposal Site Analysis Plan
20. The person taking the action must submit to the Minister for approval a Disposal Site
Analysis Plan (DSAP) one month prior to submission of the DSDMP and APERMP,
and prior to the commencement of dredging and disposal activities. The DSAP must
include, but not be limited to the following:
a) Identification of alternative disposal sites for further analysis (which must be
undertaken in consultation with the Department), taking account of the technical
studies undertaken for the Improved Dredge Management for the Great Barrier
Reef;
b) Methodology for undertaking a comparative assessment of the approved disposal
site (Attachment B) and the alternative disposal locations identified. The
comparative assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the National
Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (2009) and take account of the physical,
chemical and biological characteristics of the water-column and seabed, proximity
to sensitive areas, marine park zoning, fishing and other uses of the sea (including
shipping and anchorage channels, scallop beds, identified commercial and
recreational fishing areas, shipwrecks and aircraft), and potential impacts to
matters of NES; and
c) Processes for consultation with relevant stakeholders and the community on
alternative sites and the comparative assessment;
21. The approved DSAP must be implemented, and the results of the comparative
assessment undertaken under the approved DSAP must be reported to the
Department within 8 months of the date of this approval.
22. If the results of the comparative assessment indicate that an alternative site is
preferred over the approved site (Condition 4 and Attachment B), then approval of the
alternative site for the disposal of dredged material must be sought from the Minister. If
approval of an alternative site is sought, the DSDMP and ABERMP can only be
submitted for approval (Condition 5) once the Minister has made a final determination
on a disposal site.
Dredging Technical Advice Panel (TAP)
23. The person taking the action must establish, fund and manage an independent
dredging TAP, to be established prior to and for the duration of dredging operations to
provide advice to the person taking the action on the development, endorsement,
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 7 of 56
implementation and review for adaptive management purposes of the DSDMP,
APERMP and the Offsets Plan, referred to at Conditions 7, 14 and 30 consecutively.
24. The members of the TAP must include at least two independent scientific experts with
expertise in water quality and marine ecology, and an independent dredging technical
advisor. The membership of the TAP must receive written approval from the
department in consultation with GBRMPA, prior to the development and submission of
the DSDMP, APERMP and Offsets Plan.
25. The terms of reference of the TAP must include but may not be limited to the following:
a) Provide advice on the development and annual review of the DSDMP, APERMP
and Offsets Plan, including development and revision of appropriate trigger levels,
monitoring programs, management actions, dredging program, and dredge and
spoil placement methodology to protect World Heritage outstanding universal
values, water quality, cetaceans, dolphins, marine turtles, dugongs and their
habitat;
b) Provide advice on exceedance of trigger values and recommended changes to
dredging practices, through the DSDMP, as required;
c) Provide advice on the adequacy of the Offsets Plan to demonstrate net benefit
outcomes for the Great Barrier Reef, and to ensure that the APERMP is a
sufficiently robust measure for the achievement of a net benefit; and
d) Annually review the DSDMP, APERMP and Offsets Plan (by the date of the plan’s
approval) to enable continuous improvement and adaptive management of the
dredge and disposal methodology and the research and monitoring program.
26. The person taking the action must provide to the Minister, a copy of all advice and
recommendations made by the independent dredging TAP and an explanation of how
the advice and recommendations will be implemented or an explanation of why the
person taking the action does not propose to implement certain recommendations. This
information must be provided to the Minister when the DSDMP, APERMP and Offsets
Plan are submitted for approval.
Mitigation Measures for Protection of Threatened or Migratory Species
27. Before commencing dredging and disposal activities, the person taking the action must
check, using binoculars from a high observation platform on the vessel, for marine
mammals and turtles within the monitoring zone.
28. Observation must then continue for the duration of the dredging and disposal activities.
29. If any marine mammals or turtles are sighted in the monitoring zone, dredging and
disposal activities must not commence/continue in the monitoring zone until twenty
minutes after the last marine mammal or turtle is observed to leave the monitoring
zone or the vessel is to move to another area of the dredge/disposal site to maintain a
minimum distance of 300 metres between the vessel and any marine mammals or
turtle sighted.
30. A turtle exclusion device must be fitted to the dredger head at all times when dredging
takes place.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 8 of 56
Offsets Plan 31. The person taking the action must submit an Offsets Plan to the Minister for approval
prior to commencement of dredging and disposal activities. The Offsets Plan must
include the following:
a) Address the loss of seagrass from the dredge area and areas of potential seagrass
loss resulting from the dredge plume extent;
b) Outline the process to undertake actions that will result in a net benefit outcome for
the World Heritage Area, by reducing an equivalent fine sediments load entering
the World Heritage Area from the Burdekin and Don catchments and taking
account of the fine sediment load resulting from the dredging and disposal
activities;
c) Consider how these offsets will contribute to programs or incentives and align with
the broader strategies and programs for the Great Barrier Reef, including Reef
Trust 2050.
d) The total amount of fine sediments released or disposed into the marine
environment from the dredging and dredge spoil disposal activities must be offset
by an equivalent 150% reduction in the load of fine sediments entering the marine
environment from the Burdekin and Don catchments. This can take account of
information on the sedimentation of fine sediments as it becomes available;
e) Measure and monitor how the actions undertaken in the Burdekin and Don
catchments meet the targets required at 31(d);
f) Outline the consultation process undertaken with the GBRMPA in developing the
Offsets Plan;
g) Publish an annual public report outlining how the actions are achieving the targets
in 31(d) for the duration of this approval; and
h) Outline contingency actions and additional management measures to address any
deficiencies to meet the targets at 31(d).
32. The approved Offsets Plan must be implemented.
Standard Conditions
33. Within 7 days after the commencement of the action, the person taking the action must
advise the Department in writing of the actual date of commencement.
34. The person taking the action must maintain accurate records substantiating all
activities associated with or relevant to the conditions of approval, including measures
taken to implement the plans and program required by this approval, 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 publicised
through the general media.
35. The person taking the action must report any non-compliance with any of the
conditions of this approval to the department within two days of becoming aware of the
non-compliance.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 9 of 56
36. Within three months of every 12 month anniversary of the commencement of the
action, the person taking the action must publish a report on their website addressing
compliance with each of the conditions of this approval, including implementation of
any plans/programs/codes of conduct as specified in the conditions. Documentary
evidence providing proof of the date of publication and an annual summary of non-
compliance with any of the conditions of this approval must be provided to the
department at the same time as the compliance report is published.
37. Upon the direction of the Minister, the person taking the action 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.
38. If the person taking the action wishes to carry out any activity otherwise than in
accordance with the plans and program as specified in the conditions, the person
taking the action must submit to the department for the Minister’s written approval a
revised version of that plans and program. The varied activity shall not commence until
the Minister has approved the varied plans and program in writing. The Minister will not
approve a varied plan and program unless the revised plans and program would result
in an equivalent or improved environmental outcome over time. If the Minister
approves the revised plans and program, that plans and program must be implemented
in place of the plans and program originally approved.
39. If the Minister believes that it is necessary or convenient for the better protection of a
World heritage property, a National heritage place, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,
the Commonwealth marine area, listed threatened species and ecological
communities, and listed migratory species to do so, the Minister may request that the
person taking the action make specified revisions to the plans and program specified in
the conditions and submit the revised plans and program for the Minister’s written
approval. The person taking the action must comply with any such request. The revised
approved plans and program must be implemented. Unless the Minister has approved
the revised plans and program, then the person taking the action must continue to
implement the plans and program originally approved, as specified in the conditions.
40. If, at any time after five years from the date of this approval, the person taking the
action has not commenced the action, then the person taking the action must not
commence the action without the written agreement of the Minister.
41. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Minister, the person taking the action must
publish all plans and program referred to in these conditions of approval on their
website. Each plan and program must be published on the website within 1 month of
being approved.
Definitions:
The Action: is comprised of capital dredging of up to 3 million m3 and dredge spoil disposal as
part of the development of Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 at the Port of Abbot Point, Queensland (see EPBC Act referral No. 2011/6213).
Capping techniques: technique in which dredged material is covered with another layer of sediment to contain the disposed material.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 10 of 56
Cetaceans: Includes baleen whales and larger toothed whales (such as sperm whales, killer whales, false killer whales, pilot whales and beaked whales).
Commencement of the action: any works of the proposed action.
The Department: is the Australian Government Department responsible for administration of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Dolphin: includes the following species listed under the EPBC Act:
- Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis); - Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni); and; - Spotted Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops aduncus).
Dredging and disposal activities: includes all activities associated with the capital dredging and disposal of material, including: the excavation or dredging of the material, the loading and carriage of excavated or dredged material for the purpose of dumping at sea, and the dumping of the excavated or dredged material at sea within the prescribed spoil grounds.
Dredging campaign: means the dredging and disposal activity that occurs in a single calendar year.
Dumping activities: means all activities associated with the dumping at sea of dredged material, including:
(i) the loading and carriage of dredged material for the purpose of dumping;
(ii) the dumping of the material at the approved disposal site;
EPBC Act: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth).
EPBC listed threatened and migratory species: a native species that is a listed threatened species or a listed migratory species under the EPBC Act.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) water quality guidelines: Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMPA 2010).
Green valve: an overflow turbidity regulator valve designed to avoid the entrainment of air in the water / sediment mixture before the overflow water is discharged from the Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge.
Habitat: includes habitat that has been determined as either habitat suitable for the species or actual habitat for the species.
Improved Dredge Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region: This study is part of the Strategic Assessment of the Great Barrier Reef and will provide tools to improve decision making with regards to dredge material disposal in the Great Barrier Reef Region. More information can be found at the department’s web site on the Strategic Assessment of the Great Barrier Reef at: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/great-barrier-reef.html
Independent scientific expert: Scientists with relevant qualifications and expertise who are not affiliated with the proponent or with other parties affiliated with the project.
Joint Environmental Management Framework: Abbot Point Joint Environmental Management Framework (February 2013).
Marine mammals and turtles: Includes the following species listed under the EPBC Act:
Mammals: Dolphin, Cetaceans and Dugong.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 11 of 56
Turtles: - Flatback turtle (Natator depressus); - Green turtle (Chelonia mydas); - Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea); - Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta); - Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata); and - Olive Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea).
The Minister: is the Australian Government Minister who administers the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Monitoring zone: means the area within 300 metres of the vessel.
NES: the following matters of National Environmental Significance; World heritage property, National heritage place, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the Commonwealth marine area, listed threatened species and ecological communities, and listed migratory species.
Public Environment Report: Public Environment Report for the Abbot Point Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 Capital Dredging Project, received by Minister on 5 December 2011.
Technical Advice Panel (TAP): a panel including independent scientific experts to provide advice on various required plans.
Vessel: means any vessel or vessels used for or in connection with the loading and/or dumping activities
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 12 of 56
Attachment A
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 13 of 56
Attachment B
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 14 of 56
3. Background
3.1. Description of the project and location
3.1.1. On 5 December 2011 North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation Limited (NQBP)
referred a proposal under the EPBC Act to undertake capital dredging of
approximately 3 million cubic metres, and for the disposal of the dredged material.
This proposal would facilitate the development of Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and
Terminal 3 at the Port of Abbot Point, Queensland. The port is located 25 km north
west of Bowen on the Queensland coast. On 6 January 2012 the delegate of the
Minister determined the proposal to be a controlled action.
3.1.2. NQBP referred the capital dredging required for three coal terminals so that the
dredging impacts could be assessed and managed cumulatively. Different
proponents propose to develop Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3, and have
submitted separate EPBC Act referrals to expand the total coal export capacity of
the port. The status of each project is as follows:
Terminal 0: Adani Abbot Point Terminal Ltd (EPBC 2011/6194). Extension to
existing T1 coal terminal. This development will increase the coal export
capacity of the port by 35 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa). The proponent
submitted the final EIS on 21 June 2013. The final decision is currently due
8 November 2013.
Terminal 2: BHP Billiton (EPBC 2011/6185). Construction and operation of a
60 Mtpa coal terminal. The proponent is currently preparing a draft EIS.
Terminal 3: Hancock Coal Infrastructure Pty Ltd (EPBC 2008/4468).
Construction and operation of a 60 Mtpa coal terminal. The project was
approved by the Minister with conditions on 4 October 2012.
3.1.3. The referred capital dredging program includes the dredging of six new berth
pockets and ship apron areas using a trailer suction hopper dredger. The area to
be dredged is located approximately 3 km offshore within the port limits of the Port
of Abbot Point, but it is not located within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It is
also within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage property, which is also a National
Heritage place.
3.1.4. After referral of the proposal, NQBP undertook a multi criteria analysis to
determine the preferred option for the disposal of dredge material. NQBP stated in
the referral (page 6) that:
‘the principal disposal option is disposal to the existing offshore disposal area
which has previously been utilised for the initial capital dredging in 1982 and the
most recent capital and maintenance works in August 2008. Onshore disposal of
material suitable for beneficial use or recycling is also being investigated. The
multi criteria analysis is being undertaken in accordance with the NAGD (2009)
and will seek to achieve the best environmental outcome, within engineering
feasibility and schedule constraints and without incurring disproportionate costs.’
3.1.5. Officers from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and other
regulatory agencies attended a multi criteria analysis workshop to determine the
most suitable option to dispose of the dredged material. As a result of the multi
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 15 of 56
criteria analysis workshop, NQBP selected an offshore dredge material disposal
site 24 km from the dredge site, which is located within the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park (the Marine Park), the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage property, the
National Heritage place and the Commonwealth marine area.
3.1.6. On 13 December 2012 NQBP requested a variation to the proposal on the
following matters:
Limit dredging to a maximum of 3 million m3 of sediment;
Identify the dredge material disposal site approximately 24 km from the dredge
site;
Increase the dredge footprint by 10 ha (up to 185 ha), due to a change in the
alignment for safety reasons; and
Increase the dredge depth of certain berth pockets.
The delegate of the Minister agreed to the request.
3.1.7. Assessment of the proposal through a public environment report (PER) is being
undertaken jointly by the Department and GBRMPA under a Memorandum of
Understanding. NQBP will also require permit approvals from GBRMPA under the
Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 and the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Regulations 1983.
4. Controlling provisions
4.1. The proposal was determined to be a controlled action due to likely significant impacts
on a World heritage property, a National heritage place, the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park, the Commonwealth marine area, listed threatened species and ecological
communities, and listed migratory species.
4.2. World heritage property (sections 12 and 15A)
4.2.1. The Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the World Heritage List in October 1981
in recognition of the following outstanding natural universal value:
i. as an example of superlative natural phenomena The Great Barrier Reef 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.
ii. as an outstanding example representing the major stages in the earth's
evolutionary history
The Great Barrier Reef 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.
iii. as an outstanding example representing significant ongoing ecological
and biological processes
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
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 16 of 56
dynamic oceanic currents and ongoing ecological processes such as
upwellings, larval dispersal and migration.
iv. containing important and significant habitats for in situ conservation of
biological diversity
The enormous size and diversity of the Great Barrier Reef 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.
4.2.2. Integrity
4.2.2.1. Also encompassed in the outstanding natural universal value 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
managements it engenders.
4.2.2.2. At the scale of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem, most habitats or species
groups have the capacity to recover from disturbance or withstand ongoing
pressures. 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.
4.2.3. Particular natural values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
4.2.3.1. The Great Barrier Reef is the world's most complex expanse of coral reefs,
containing 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 listed migratory dugong. At least 30 species of
whales and dolphins occur, and it is a significant area for humpback whale
calving. Six of the world’s seven species of marine turtle occur in the Great
Barrier Reef.
4.2.3.2. Seagrasses have been found to vary spatially and temporally, and are
considered to be of high ecological and economic value. Seagrass
meadows provide important ecosystem services in the coastal environment
such as coastal protection, nutrient cycling and particle trapping. They are
also considered to be important due to the food resources they provide for
EPBC Act listed species, such as dugong and turtles. Fifteen species of
seagrass occur within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
4.2.3.3. The key elements for the survival of seagrass include:
• Suitable light • Limited sediments
• Appropriate salinity and temperature ranges
• An appropriate level of nutrients
• Minimal natural and human disturbance
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 17 of 56
4.2.3.4. Tolerance to different sediment, light and salinity regimes is known to vary
between species; however thresholds for individual species are not well
understood.
4.3. National heritage place (sections 15B and 15C)
4.3.1. In May 2007, the Great Barrier Reef was placed on the National Heritage List.
This list comprises natural and cultural places that contribute to our national
identity, providing a tangible link to past events, processes and people.
4.3.2. The National Heritage values of the GBR are:
(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;
4.4. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B, 24C)
4.4.1. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (the Marine Park) boundary generally follows
the coastline surrounding Abbot Point. It does not include the operational limits of
the port where the proposed dredging is to occur, but the disposal site is located in
the Marine Park. The Marine Park is a multiple-use area that supports a range of
communities and industries that depend on the Reef for recreation or their
livelihoods. Tourism, fishing, boating and shipping are all legitimate uses of the
Marine Park. The entire Marine Park is covered by a Zoning Plan that identifies
where particular activities are permitted and where some are not permitted. The
Zoning Plan separates conflicting uses, with 33 per cent of the Marine Park
afforded marine national park status.
4.4.2. Impacts on the Marine Park are assessed in terms of impacts on the environment
which is defined as follows under section 528 of the EPBC Act:
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 18 of 56
Environment includes:
(a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and
communities; and
(b) natural and physical resources; and
(c) the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas; and
(d) heritage values of places; and
(e) the social, economic and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in
paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).
4.4.3. The matters considered under the Marine Park controlling provisions under the
EPBC Act are similar to the mandatory considerations under section 88Q of the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983.
4.5. Commonwealth marine area (sections 23 and 24A)
4.5.1. The Commonwealth marine area boundary extends seaward from 3 nautical
miles from the baseline (generally the coast). Impacts on the Commonwealth
marine area are assessed in terms of impacts on the environment, which is defined
in section 4.4.2. under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park controlling provisions.
The proposed dredge footprint is not within the Commonwealth marine area,
however the disposal site is.
4.6. Listed threatened species and ecological communities (sections 18 and 18A)
4.6.1. Chapter 4 of the draft PER (page 4-17) identified six listed threatened species
known to occur within the project area: humpback whale, loggerhead turtle, green
turtle, hawksbill turtle, olive ridley turtle and flatback turtle. In addition, potential
habitat for the leatherback turtle is available in the project area, although the
species has not previously been recorded there. No conservation advice has been
approved for the species. Threat abatement plans to contain and manage impacts
to turtles and whale species and the recovery plan for marine turtles have been
taken into consideration in this assessment. Listed threatened bird species are
unlikely to be impacted by this proposal, as the expected impacts of the dredging
and disposal activities will be limited to the marine environment. The proposal is
also unlikely to have a significant impact on other listed threatened species and
ecological communities, on the basis of the area of marine habitat that is likely to
be impacted.
4.6.2. Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae (vulnerable, migratory):
The draft PER identified 14 individuals being recorded during surveys (GHD 2010),
including sightings approximately 1 km north of the existing coal terminal jetty
which is directly adjacent to the project dredge area. Many whales were observed
to swim past the Abbot Point area without resting. Potential impacts to whales from
the dredging project include increased noise, decreased water quality and
increased shipping.
4.6.3. Marine turtles:
Loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta (endangered, migratory)
Green turtle, Chelonia mydas (vulnerable, migratory)
Olive Ridley turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea (endangered, migratory)
Hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricate (vulnerable, migratory)
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 19 of 56
Flatback turtle, Natator depressus (vulnerable, migratory)
Leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea (endangered, migratory)
4.6.4. Abbot Point provides foraging habitat for marine turtles. Marine turtles feed on
different foods. Their diet can include seagrasses and algae; soft bodied prey such
as sea cucumbers soft corals and jellyfish; and sponges. The green turtle has been
identified as the most frequent marine turtle within the port limits; it mostly feeds on
seagrass and algae. Various areas of the Great Barrier Reef provide an important
feeding area for green turtles. Low numbers of other marine turtles have been
noted in the area except for the leatherback turtle. No leatherback turtle has been
recorded within the project area; however suitable foraging habitat is noted to be
present.
4.6.5. The Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia 2003 (covering the loggerhead
turtle, green turtle, hawksbill turtle, olive ridley turtle, flatback turtle and leatherback
turtle) notes that the recovery of Australian marine turtle populations may take
decades and can be achieved through the reduction of current levels of mortality
throughout the range of the populations. A marine turtle may take up to 30–50
years to mature. In a breeding year they migrate over long distances between
feeding and nesting grounds and nest a number of times.
4.7. Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)
4.7.1. In addition to all of the threatened species mentioned above, which are also
listed as migratory species, the draft PER (page 4-2) identifies four other migratory
marine species are known to occur within the project area. Those other species are
the dugong, Australian snubfin dolphin, Indo – Pacific humpback dolphin and
estuarine crocodile.
i. Dugongs
Dugongs undertake long distance movements, and are known to move
between dugong protection areas north and south of Abbot Point. Dugongs
graze on seagrasses. The most important distribution areas for this species
are around Hinchinbrook Island, Cleveland Bay and Shoalwater Bay in the
Great Barrier Reef.
ii. Australian snubfin dolphin
The habitat of this species is shallow coastal and estuarine waters mainly in
the northern half of Australia. The species is not well surveyed across its
range. Home ranges and/or territories for this species appear to be large. The
Australian snubfin dolphin feeds on fish.
iii. Indo – Pacific humpback dolphin
This species generally occur in water less than 10 metres deep, and offshore
to 6 km. The total population size of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin in
Australian waters is unknown. They display no apparent preference for clear
or turbid waters, and have been reported in a variety of coastal habitats, from
coastal lagoons and enclosed bays with mangrove forests and seagrass beds
through to open coastal waters with rock and/or coral reefs.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 20 of 56
iv. Estuarine crocodile (saltwater crocodile)
In Queensland the species is usually restricted to coastal waterways and
floodplain wetlands inhabiting the lower reaches of rivers. Primary food
sources are crustaceans, insects and mammals. This species is known to
occur within the project area with one individual having been recorded.
4.7.2. Listed migratory marine bird species are unlikely to be impacted by this proposal,
as the expected impacts of the dredging and disposal activities will be limited to the
marine environment. Species may feed in the area as there is potential feed
present; however, the draft PER (GHD 2012a, page 4-38) notes that there is only
one record of a fork-tailed swift within in the Abbot Point region from the Birds
Australia database. The proposal is also unlikely to have a significant impact on
other listed migratory species, on the basis of the area of marine habitat that is
likely to be impacted.
5. Other Projects Associated with the Port
5.1. In addition to the development of the three new terminals and associated capital
dredging, there are a number of proposed projects associated with the Port of Abbot
Point which are currently being considered for their impacts on matters of national
environmental significance. These include:
- the Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd’s proposal to develop the Terminal 0 at
Abbot Point (the T0 project - EPBC 2011/6194); one other coal export terminal
proposed by Waratah Coal (for which an EIS is being developed but is not
expected to be received until 2014);
- six rail only or mine/rail proposals, linking Galilee Basin coal mines to Abbot
Point. These include Adani’s Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail project (EPBC
2010/5736) which may link with Aurizon’s Central Queensland Integrated Rail
projects (EPBC 2012/6321 (“Brownfield”) and 2012/6322 (“Greenfield” )) or with
Adani’s North Galilee Basin Rail project (EPBC 2013/6885); and
- BHP Billiton recently advised its withdrawal of its referrals for the proposed
development of ‘Terminal 2’ and the Goonyella to Abbot Point rail line.
However, North Queensland Bulk Ports has advised that this will have no
impact on this capital dredging proposal, as it still expects the site to be
developed.
6. History of Development of the Port of Abbot Point
6.1. The existing Abbot Point Coal Terminal 1 is located approximately 2.8 km offshore and
has been operating since 1984. Recent expansion of that infrastructure was previously
considered under Australian Government legislation. In January 2008 the delegate of
the Minister determined additional dredging for an expansion to the Abbot Point Coal
Terminal (EPBC 2007/3884) was not a controlled action under the EPBC Act if
undertaken in a particular manner. In March 2008 the delegate of the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) issued a Marine Parks Permit and an Environmental
Protection (Sea Dumping) Act permit allowing for the dumping of up to 295,000 m³ of
dredge material within the current disposal site in the Marine Park.
6.2. On 7 April 2009, NQBP referred a proposal to construct a Multi Cargo Facility at Abbot
Point (EPBC 2009/5837). That proposal involved capital dredging and reclamation of up
to 38 million m3 of seabed material to provide a sheltered port, shipping access channel
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 21 of 56
and 12 berths for the import and export of bulk cargoes. The proposal was withdrawn
on 21 December 2012.
6.3. The Port of Abbot Point currently has the capacity to export 50 million tonnes of coal per
annum (Mtpa). NQBP states that further expansion of the port is required to meet the
increased demand for coal export infrastructure.
7. Other Assessment Processes
7.1. Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment
7.1.1. In addition to undertaking the PER assessment process, NQBP has participated
in a working group with the proponents of the coal terminals - GVK Hancock, Adani
and BHP Billiton, to develop a voluntary Cumulative Impact Assessment (the
assessment) of existing and proposed developments at Abbot Point. The objective
of the Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment (February 2013) is outlined in
Part A (page 1-9) of that report. The assessment is intended to provide a
comprehensive platform of environmental information to assess potential
cumulative impacts on matters of national environmental significance and World
Heritage values and to develop a framework for joint management, mitigation and
monitoring.
7.1.2. In the 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.
7.1.3. In order to manage the potential cumulative impacts from the projects at Abbot
Point the Cumulative Impact Assessment 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 Cumulative
Impact Assessment (page 15-2) recommends that the framework deliver
conservation objectives and environmental outcomes as port development
continues beyond what has been assessed in the Cumulative Impact Assessment
and the framework should continue to be in operation throughout the life of the port.
7.1.4. Four experts providing advice on the Cumulative Impact Assessment project supported those conclusions. They were:
Associate Professor Peter Valentine (James Cook University) – World Heritage
Dr Peter Driscoll – migratory shorebirds
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 22 of 56
Emeritus Professor Peter Saenger (Southern Cross University) – marine
biodiversity
Professor Peter Harrison (Southern Cross University) – marine biodiversity.
7.2. World Heritage Committee concerns regarding the state of conservation of the Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
7.2.1. In March 2012 the World Heritage Centre and the International Union for
Conservation of Nature undertook a monitoring mission to assess the state of the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The monitoring mission’s findings were
published in June 2012. An extract from the Mission Report, Reactive Monitoring
Mission to Great Barrier Reef, 6-14 March 2012 (page 4) states:
‘The mission concludes that the Great Barrier Reef continues to demonstrate
Outstanding Universal Value. The property is iconic as the world’s largest coral
reef ecosystem of which the size, beauty, composition and biodiversity rate remain
exceptional. The property is one of the largest multiple use marine areas included
on the World Heritage List, and the efforts of the State Party to conserve the area
as a whole over the 31 years it has been inscribed on the World Heritage List are
remarkable. Since the listing of the Great Barrier Reef as World Heritage, the
property has tackled a series of threats effectively, notably through the successful
zoning system which increased no-take zones up to 33% of the property and
covers a representative selection of the marine ecosystems present in the
property. Threats that had been noted previously and range from oil and gas
development inside the property to recreation, fishing and tourism, and most
recently water quality from catchment run-off are being dealt with effectively and
indications are such that they will likely be further improved in the future. The
planning framework for surveillance, and the monitoring and evaluation of the
property are highly sophisticated. The mission concludes that the property is
affected by a number of current and potential threats and that decisive and
immediate action is required to secure its Outstanding Universal Value over the
long-term.’
7.2.2. A State Party Report on the state of conservation of the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area was provided by the Australian Government to the World Heritage
Centre on 1 February 2013, for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at
its 37th meeting in Cambodia. In that report the Australian Government set out its
response to the 2012 recommendations of the World Heritage Committee
(WHC 36 COM 7B.8) and the findings of the reactive monitoring mission, and
provided an update on conservation issues affecting the property.
7.2.3. In the State Party Report the Australian Government expressed its commitment
to ensure that ports and shipping activity will be managed so as to preserve the
integrity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. As such, the report stated
that developments (including port developments) will only be approved by the
Australian Government environment minister subject to robust and best-practise
conditions that ensure the integrity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is
conserved, that any remaining unavoidable impacts are minimised, and any
residual impacts are offset in a way that promotes an overall net benefit to the
outstanding universal value of the property.
7.2.4. At its 37th meeting, the World Heritage Committee considered the State Party
Report and made a new decision, welcoming progress made in relation to the
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 23 of 56
strategic assessment and independent review of the management arrangements
for Gladstone Harbour. The Committee requested that the independent review of
Gladstone Harbour result in the optimization of port development and operation
within the World Heritage Area, consistent with the highest internationally
recognized standards for best practise.
7.2.5. The World Heritage Committee also noted with concern ongoing coastal
development on the Reef, and urged the State Party to ensure rigorously that
development is not permitted if it would impact individually or cumulatively on the
outstanding universal value of the property, or compromise the Strategic
Assessment and resulting long-term plan for the sustainable development of the
property.
7.2.6. The World Heritage Committee also reiterated the mission’s recommendation
that the State Party ensure that no port developments or associated port
infrastructure are permitted outside the existing and long-established major port
areas within or adjoining the property.
7.2.7. The World Heritage Committee stated that the above-mentioned issues
represent a potential danger to the outstanding universal value of the property, and
requested the State Party submit an updated report on the state of conservation for
the property by 1 February 2014 for examination by the Committee at its
38th meeting in June 2014, with a view to considering, in the absence of substantial
progress, the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.
7.3. Strategic assessments
7.3.1. A strategic assessment of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and
adjacent coastal zone is being undertaken in collaboration between the Australian
Government, the Queensland Government and GBRMPA. The draft Strategic
Assessment Report (marine) (Attachment S) was released for public comments
from 1 November 2013 to 31 January 2014. Further information is available at the
web site: http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/environment-protection/strategic-
assessments/great-barrier-reef.
7.3.2. The draft marine strategic assessment report acknowledges the need to adopt a
strategic approach to port development through improving certainty around location
of ports, reducing fragmentation; strategic approach to planning, assessment and
management of port development; improved governance arrangements; greater
understanding and management of environmental impacts from dredging and
disposal placement – recognising the uncertainty surrounding duration, intensity
and extent of predicated dredge plumes and their impacts (Chapter 12,
Recommended Changes to Management, pg 12-11).
7.3.3. A recent study by the Queensland Department of State Development,
Infrastructure and Planning noted that Abbot Point only operated at one quarter of
its capacity in 2011-12. The worldwide trend is for longer, deeper draft ships, and in
order to accommodate these vessels more capital and maintenance dredging will
be required into the future (draft marine strategic assessment report, Chapter 5,
Drivers and Activities, pg 5-29)
7.3.4. In addition to the strategic assessment documents, a number of technical studies
were commissioned by GBRMPA in relation to the ‘Improved Dredge Management
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 24 of 56
for the Great Barrier Reef Region’. This is a high level study to inform future policy
and planning outcomes in relation to dredge material disposal in the Great Barrier
Reef Region. It is not intended to replace the detail required as part of an
environmental impact assessment process for any future dredge material
placement operations.
7.3.5. The modelling of dredging impacts undertaken for the technical studies is based
on hypothetical dredging campaigns and is a ‘maximum credible sediment
dispersal’ scenario and are not intended for impact assessment. The modelling
indicates dredge material placed at sea has the potential to migrate on much
greater spatial and temporal scales than indicated in previous modelling. The
limitations associated with the modelling have been acknowledged in the reports.
7.3.6. This was the first sediment plume modelling study at a scale that adopted a
regional approach in the Great Barrier Reef, incorporated large-scale circulation
and modelled material placement dredge plume dispersion over a 12 month period.
The assumptions used resulted in the model overestimating the dispersion of
dredged material from placement sites in both the amount and distances travelled.
As the purpose of the hydrodynamic modelling was for comparison purposes, the
modelling cannot be used in project specific impact assessment or risk
assessment. The study constitutes a screening-level “sensitivity analysis” of the
relative merits, if any, of potential alternative placement areas.
7.3.7. However, as part of the assessment process, those technical studies were
reviewed during this assessment process. They include the following documents:
Literature Review and Cost Analysis of Land-based Dredge Material Re-use
and Disposal Options
Modelling of bed Shear-Stress in the Vicinity of Queensland Trading Ports
Identification of Alternative Sites for the Placement of Dredge Material at Sea
Long-term Migration Patterns and Disposal Plume of Sediment Modelling
Sensitive Receptor Risk Assessment of Alternative and Current Dredge Material
Placement Sites
Final Water Quality Review and Monitoring Framework
Report on Strategies for Improved Dredge Material Management
7.3.8. In addition to the above strategic assessment documents, the Queensland
government released the Queensland Ports Strategy for public comment on
17 October 2013. This Strategy outlines the Queensland government’s
commitments in relation to port developments. The Strategy aims to increase
productivity through improvements to the planning, governance, environmental
management and supply chain connections of ports.
7.3.9. The Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone was released for public
comment in July 2013. A draft supplementary report was subsequently finalised.
Together these reports comment on planning arrangements and standards for the
optimisation of port development and operation applicable to ports in the Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The review indentified 21 principles that will
provide guidance to future planning and port operations in the world heritage area.
The principles relate to port environmental management and government;
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 25 of 56
environmental assessment and decision-making; planning; monitoring and
reporting; and compliance and enforcement.
7.4. State/Territory Assessment and Approval
7.4.1. A submission from the delegate of the Queensland Minister for Environment was
received during the referral stage. This submission noted that the project is not a
‘significant project’ under the State Development and Public Works Organisation
Act 1971, that it was not being assessed under the Environmental Impact
Statement process in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994, and that
it was also unlikely to meet the requirements for assessment under the Sustainable
Planning Act 2009.
7.4.2. Further information can be found in section 1.14.1 of the draft PER report on the
State regulatory framework.
8. PER Assessment Process
8.1. The draft PER was released for public comment from 4 January 2013 to
15 February 2013. A total of 103 submissions were received, including comments from
the department and GBRMPA. Public submissions raised concerns about the validity of
the assessment and dredge plume modelling in the PER, and noted the potential
impacts of dredging and the offshore disposal of dredge material in relation to:
Recreational and commercial fisheries in the Bowen area
The recently discovered Catalina World War 2 plane wreck and associated
heritage and tourism values
Water quality and biodiversity
The local tourism industry
The Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area.
8.1.1. Some public submissions also stated that the development of the Port of Abbot
Point as being important for the Bowen community.
8.2. Workshops:
8.2.1. Between February and August 2013, a number of workshops were held between
the department, GBRMPA, NQBP and the proponents of the various coal terminals
on the various issues raised during the assessment process (see minutes of
27 March 2013 workshop at Appendix A of PER Supplementary Report). In
particular, it focused on a review of the options for dredge spoil disposal; modelling
methodologies and the extension of trestles. It also included an evaluation of
engineering, environment and social impacts of alternatives to dredging and dredge
material disposal.
8.3. Public Environment Report Supplementary Report:
8.3.1. NQBP submitted the Supplementary Report to the PER to SEWPaC on
13 May 2013. In the PER Supplementary Report, NQBP states that the proposal
would have no significant impacts on matters of national environmental
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 26 of 56
significance. NQBP believes that environmental and dredging management
measures can be effectively applied to avoid and reduce impacts.
9. Existing environment
9.1. Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
9.1.1. The State Party Report on the state of conservation of the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area to the World Heritage Committee (February 2013) outlines the
key challenges faced in managing the Great Barrier Reef as follows (Executive
Summary):
‘Like all coral reefs around the world, over time the GBR experiences natural
fluctuations in its health. The GBR is generally resilient to natural disturbance, such
as from typical storm events, but only if its normal life-support systems are intact
and functioning. Corals are adapted to live in a narrow temperature range and in
relatively clear, low nutrient waters. Many of the factors that impact on the GBR
occur naturally, including weather events such as storms and cyclones; coral
bleaching; run-off of fresh water from land to sea following heavy rainfall; and
predators, such as the crown-of-thorns starfish. Given sufficient time, coral reefs
have shown they will recover from such natural disturbances.
A key challenge facing the GBR is that climate change and other pressures are
likely to amplify these natural fluctuations, although the magnitude of these effects
is subject to considerable uncertainty. Climate change is predicted to increase the
intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, such as cyclones and storms.
Extreme weather events can cause very severe damage and reduce the time
available for the reef to recover. Absorption by the oceans of carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere is leading to ocean acidification, which is also likely to have a
significant impact on the long-term health of the property.
Additional human-induced pressures on the GBR, including land-clearing, fertiliser
use and other changes in adjoining catchments, have resulted in increased run-off
carrying higher levels of nutrients and sediments. Chemicals that have entered the
GBR over previous decades also continue to have an impact. There is strong
evidence that nutrient-rich flood waters arising from the extreme weather events of
2009 to 2011 have created conditions that result in increased numbers of the
crown-of-thorns starfish, which preys on coral.’
9.2. Fishing
9.2.1. During the assessment process NQBP consulted with both commercial and
recreational fishers. The draft PER states that no commercial fishing occurs
adjacent to the wharfs, and there are no high-value fisheries values in the area
(page xxiii). The document further identifies that the dominant species of the area
are not species of importance for commercial operations, and that the disposal site
is not considered to be of high fishery value. NQBP states that the commercial
catch data for the entire Abbot Point area was 219 tonnes in 2003-2004, and
dropped to 75 tonnes in 2007-2008. The dominant species included Spanish
mackerel, prawns and mud scallops.
9.2.2. A number of public comments were received on the importance of the proposed
disposal site for fishing, and NQBP undertook further evaluation of the importance
of the impacted areas and how issues concerning fishing may be managed. A
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 27 of 56
subsequent report outlining the value of the proposed dredge site and the disposal
site for both commercial and recreational fishing is provided in the PER
Supplementary Report (Appendix E).
9.3. Offshore Water Quality
9.3.1. NQBP considered various water quality guidelines that apply to the Abbot Point
marine environment, and the results of sampling undertaken in the vicinity of the
proposed dredge footprint for periods over 2008-2009 and 2011-2012 (draft PER,
pages 3-54 to 3-72). The various water quality guidelines include the:
Australian and New Zealand and Conservation Council/Agriculture and
Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand
(ANZECC/ARMCANZ), Australia and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and
Marine Water Quality (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000) 95 % guideline values for
Tropical Australia, marine (inshore) waters;
Water Quality Guidelines for the GBRMP (GBRMPA 2010); and
Queensland Water Quality (QWQ) Guidelines (DERM 2009) for open coastal
waters.
9.3.2. The current water quality of Abbot Bay adjacent to the proposed disposal site is
described in the report: Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment Technical
Report Marine Water Quality Final (2012) GHD as follows:
“A number of parameters recorded results which were above the relevant
comparative statistic described in the ANZECC and GBRMP/Queensland Water
Quality (QWQ) Guidelines”.
Comparison of water quality parameters against guideline trigger values: Abbot Bay Water Quality
GBRMP Water quality Guidelines
ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines
Wet season average at Abbot Bay
[1]
Dry season average at Abbot Bay
[2]
Total Suspended Sediments (TSS) (mg/l)
2.0 N/A 10.7 – 20.2 16 – 20.3
Turbidity (NTU)
1 1 - 20 2.6 – 27.9 1.5 - 15
Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
0.14 0.1 0.35 – 0.94 0.28 – 0.98
Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
0.02 0.015 0.04 – 0.29 0.16 – 0.8
Chlorophyll a (ug/L)
0.45 0.7 - 1.4 3.78 1.04
Mean wet and dry season Total Suspended Solids concentration are above the
relevant GBRMP/QWQ guideline value of 2 mg/L.
Mean wet and dry season Total Phosphorus concentrations are above the
relevant GBRMP/QWQ guideline values of 0.02 mg/L.
[1] GHD. 2012. Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment Technical Report Marine Water Quality Final. GHD: Brisbane [2]
GHD. 2012. Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment Technical Report Marine Water Quality Final. GHD: Brisbane
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 28 of 56
Mean wet and dry season Total Nitrogen concentrations are above the relevant
GBRMP/QWQ guideline value of 0.14 mg/L.
Mean wet and dry season Chlorophyll a concentrations are above the relevant
GBRMPA/QWQ guidelines values of 0.45 ug/L.
9.3.3. In addition to those various guidelines, recent work has also been undertaken on
developing photosynthetic active radiation levels as triggers for impacts on
seagrass rather than turbidity levels (Chartrand et al., 2012). That work has helped
to quantify the impacts of light reduction and to develop early warning signs of
decline in seagrass health (page 5).
9.3.4. The GBRMPA (2010) water quality guidelines states that:
‘Exceedance of a trigger value indicates that there is a potential for an impact to
occur, but does not provide certainty that an impact will occur. Exceedance
activates management action. Action may include whether the source has been
contained, evaluating whether any impact on ecosystem health has occurred,
changing a land management practice, or any number of alternatives.’
9.3.5. The PER states that turbidity in Abbot Bay is seasonally variant and in general,
turbidity is lower in the dry season (May to October) and higher in the wet season
(November to April). Spatially, turbidity in the bay is higher in shallow more
energetic environments and lower in deeper offshore sites. The total suspended
solids (TSS) are generally seasonally variant and related to wind, wave and
terrigenous river sediment input. The TSS in Abbot Bay is elevated year round and
found to be above the relevant GBRMP/QWQ guidelines.
9.3.6. The median total nitrogen levels for 2008-2009 were above the guidelines for all
monitoring sites. The median levels of total phosphorus sampled during the dry
season were also above guideline levels at all monitoring sites for 2008-2009.
NQBP states that dry season peaks in total phosphorous and total nitrogen may be
driven by re-suspension following strong winds.
9.3.7. Median Chlorophyll a levels were above the GBRMP/QWC values, but between
the ANZECC upper and lower limits during the dry season. NQBP states that those
levels are exceeded during wet seasons in response to increased nutrients,
temperatures and irradiance.
9.3.8. Abbot Bay’s water quality is influenced by run off from the Don River Catchment
which covers an area of 3695 km2 and the Burdekin River catchment which covers
an area of 130,126 km. Approximately 92% of the Don River catchment has been
cleared, predominantly for agricultural use and around 73% of the Burdekin
catchment has been cleared for grazing. Nutrient export from both catchments is
classified as medium to high risk and collectively, the catchments contribute 4293 k
tonnes/yr of Total Suspended Solids, of which approximately 70% is fine sediment.
9.3.9. NQBP has indicated that the high levels of sediments and nutrients in the marine
environment originate from onshore, and may be re-suspended within the marine
environment under certain weather conditions. The Port of Abbot Point is situated
within the Burdekin Basin, which comprises the catchments of the Black, Ross,
Haughton, Burdekin and Don Rivers. Kroon et al. (2012) estimates that
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 29 of 56
approximately 4.7 million tonnes of total suspended solids are discharged into the
Great Barrier Reef each year from the Burdekin Basin (page 172). (Although the
Black and Ross catchments, which discharge approximately 0.12 million tonnes of
total suspended solids do not impact on Abbot Point.) Of the total sediment load of
the Burdekin Basin, approximately 4.1 million tonnes are of anthropogenic origin;
an increase of 7.8 times the natural pre-European sediment load.
9.3.10. Research on the mechanisms of the dispersal of land based sediments from the
Burdekin River was undertaken by Bainbridge et al. (2012). The Burdekin River
plume that resulted from a major flood event in December 2010 to January 2011
discharged approximately 2.8 million tonnes of sediment into the Great Barrier Reef
(page 246). Medium and coarse silts (> 15.6 µm) were rapidly deposited less than
10 km from the coastline. However the clay and fine silts (< 15.6 µm), which
comprised approximately 70% of the total suspended sediment load, were
observed to travel more than 100 km from the river mouth.
9.4. Proposed direct dredge footprint
9.4.1. NQBP proposes to dredge a site of approximately 185 hectares, which is about
3 km offshore, to a maximum depth of 21 metres. The dredge footprint is located
within the limits of the port, which is also within the World and National heritage
areas, but outside of the Marine Park.
9.4.2. As noted in section 9.3.9, the Port of Abbot Point and surrounding areas have
high sediment deposition from surrounding onshore catchments. SKM and APASA
(2013a) characterise the marine environment as open or muddy substrate with
isolated or medium density macroinvertebrates (page 101). The soft bottom habitat
supports various macroinvertebrate and macroflora communities such as
ascidians, echinoids, bivalves, soft corals, bryozoans and seagrasses. There are
no known reefs within the Port of Abbot Point, however the majority of Abbot Point
is surrounded by the Coastal Southern Reefs Bioregion, and the wider area within
a 50 km radius has 12 islands and 25 reefs. Cape Upstart Marine National Park
Zone is located approximately 32 km north-west from the proposed dredge site.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 30 of 56
Map 1. GBRMP zoning of the marine environment around Abbot Point and the proposed disposal
site (PER Supplementary Report, page 5-112)
9.4.3. Surveys by the Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development
and Innovation (McKenna et al., 2008 and Rasheed et al., 2005) indicate that the
Port of Abbot Point supports sparsely distributed seagrasses, which were noted by
McKenna et al. (2008) to cover approximately 42% of the studied area. The area in
the vicinity of Abbot Point supports low biomass (1-10% coverage) of meadows of
Halodule uninervis (thin, coastal shallow waters) and Halophila spinulosa (deeper
waters). While none of the macroinvertebrate or seagrass assemblages are
considered unique to Abbot Point, the seagrasses are known to provide food
resources to a range of species, including listed migratory species such as the
dugong, and may have a high fisheries value.
9.4.4. NQBP states that major declines in seagrass occurred after November 2010. The
reduction in density and distribution of seagrasses at Abbot Point was linked to
flooding and cyclonic events (draft PER, page 3-90). Recent surveys in April 2013
indicate that the seagrasses at Abbot Point have begun to recover from those
impacts (PER Supplementary Report, page 5-73).
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 31 of 56
Map 2. Extent of seagrass found from 1987-2008 and at April 2013 (PER Supplementary Report,
page 5-74)
9.5. Dredge material disposal site
9.5.1. The proposed 400 ha disposal site identified in the draft PER has a depth of 39-
44 metres. It is located 24 km from proposed dredge footprint, and is zoned for
general use within the Marine Park. NQBP states that the site was selected through
the multi criteria analysis process, and taking account of certain technical studies
commissioned by GBRMPA (PER Supplementary Report, page 2-10). That site is
located to the south west of the Nares Rock Habitat Protection Zone (4.1 km) and
the Holbourne Island Conservation Park Zone (6 km), as shown on Map 1. NQBP
states in the draft PER (Appendix E, page 84) that hard corals were only found
near Nares Rock, Holbourne Island, and three locations within 20 metres of water
in the vicinity of Abbot Point.
9.5.2. NQBP characterises the proposed disposal site as an open silty substrate with
sparse patches of epibenthic fauna, and an absence of seagrass and algae (draft
PER, page 3-129).
10. Key Issues
10.1. Dredging campaigns
10.1.1. NQBP proposes to use a trailer suction hopper dredger to conduct the dredging
campaign. The trailer suction hopper dredger, removes seabed material through
the use of suction pipes trailing along-side of the vessel. A dredge head attached to
the pipes uses ripping probes and water jets to loosen the seabed material and
then draw it up to hoppers on the vessel using suction.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 32 of 56
10.1.2. NQBP initially modelled the dredging of 3 million m³ to be undertaken in a single
campaign over a 6 week period. NQBP has subsequently revised the proposal, and
stated that it would be undertaken in a staged manner to reflect the progress of the
terminal development for each of the different proponents of the coal terminal
proposals (see section 3.1.2). The coal terminal proponents have proposed a
number of scenarios for dredging (PER Supplementary Report, pages 2-8 to 2-9).
NQBP has informed the department (email 5 June 2013) that staged dredging is
now proposed, in dredging campaigns of 2 to 6 weeks as follows:
Terminal 0 dredging commencing within the dredge window in 2014 (April to
June) of between 1 million m3 to 1.1 million m3;
Terminal 3 in 2014 or 2015, between 0.6 to 0.7 million m3; and
Terminal 2 is unlikely to be dredged until 2017 – 2020, up to 1.3 million m3.
10.1.3. This would result in a maximum of 1.3 million m3 being dredged in any single
year. NQBP states that while minor impacts will occur within the dredge footprint
during dredging, they will be short term, with directly impacted areas (i.e. the
dredge footprint) expected to recover within four years (draft PER, page 3-130).
10.1.4. Potential impacts of the dredging activity on seagrass growth and coral
spawning, which contribute to the outstanding universal values of the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park, can be mitigated by limiting the window for dredging activities to
between March and June.
10.1.5. In conducting a dredge campaign with the trailer suction hopper dredge, some
overflow of fine sediment will occur. The dredge material drawn into the vessel’s
hoppers is fluidised, and the ratio of solid material to water may be 1:10 or greater.
Overflow dredging then occurs when the hopper is at capacity but dredging
continues to load more solid material into the hopper; the principle being that the
heavier material settles in the bottom of the hopper while the excess water is
decanted off the top and returned to the marine environment. This overflow water is
discharged via a pipe below the keel. Overflow dredging can result in a significant
turbid plume being produced around the dredger if the dredge material has a high
percentage of fine sediments, or if the material to be dredged is compacted and not
easily taken up by the dredge head. The impacts of this process will be discussed
further in the modelling section.
10.1.6. NQBP states in the draft PER (page 2-31) that Abbot Point is a naturally deep
water port, and that maintenance dredging is not anticipated for many years. Since
the construction of the port in 1984, capital and maintenance dredging has
occurred in 1986 and 2008, involving the disposal of 331,000 m³ of sediment.
Future maintenance dredging requirements have not been assessed as part of this
proposed action.
10.1.7. The Department concludes that the staged implementation of the dredge
campaign will have lesser immediate impacts than a single large campaign, and
that impacts will be further reduced if each campaign is required to be conducted in
different calendar years. In addition, dredging and disposal activities should only be
undertaken outside of July to February, which are important periods for seagrass
growth and coral spawning (also see findings in section 10.6).
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 33 of 56
10.2. Direct non-plume impacts of dredging within port limits
10.2.1. The removal of sediment from the 185 ha dredge area will result in the loss of
habitat for macroinvertebrates and an area previously occupied by seagrass before
significant flood events in December 2010 – January 2011 (see Map 2). NQBP
states that the surface sediment structure of the dredge site will change from a
greater fraction of sandy material to a greater fraction of clay material (draft PER,
page 3-130). NQBP also states that the loss from direct removal of seagrass is
expected to be temporary, and that recovery will occur within four years. The rate
of recovery will depend on the potential for re-colonisation of the site. Recovery of
seagrass is reliant on good conditions, sufficient light, low levels of pollutants,
integrity of the substrate and sufficient seeds or vegetative material.
10.2.2. The non-plume impacts to listed threatened and migratory species during the
dredging and disposal of dredged material can be mitigated through
implementation of standard measures. Measures to minimise the risk of impacts to
marine species such as cetaceans, turtles and dugongs, include the requirement
for observation for those species prior to the commencement of dredging or
disposal, the presence of a Marine Fauna observer for all dredging and disposal
activities, a 300 metre species exclusion zone around the dredging or dumping
activities, and the use of turtle exclusion devices when suction pumps are being
used.
10.2.3. The Department concludes that direct non-plume related impacts on listed
threatened and migratory species within the port limits can be minimised through
appropriate mitigation measures, and any long-term impacts of loss of potential
habitat for relevant species can be offset (see section 13).
10.3. Suitability of sediment disposal offshore
10.3.1. NQBP proposes to remove sediment from the 185 ha area to a maximum depth
of 5 metres (draft PER, page 3-130). Sampling and analysis across the proposed
dredge footprint was undertaken in accordance with the National Assessment
Guidelines for Dredging (2009). Sampling was undertaken at 69 sites within the
proposed dredge area and 10 sites within the proposed material relocation area
(PER Supplementary Report, pages 5-99 to 5-100).
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 34 of 56
10.3.2. NQBP states on page 44 of the Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan
Implementation Report (GHD 2012) that sampling results indicate that natural
residual geological materials are present below 0.5 to 1 m, and recently transported
sediments can be found above that. The sediment fractions are as follows:
Sediment Sample Data All (per cent)
Particle Size
(< µm)
Medium Sand - Gravel 53 150
Fraction 1 – Fine Sand 8 94
Fraction 2 – Coarse Silt 9 45
Fraction 3 – Medium Silt 4 23
Fraction 4 – Fine Silt 6 8
Fraction 5 – Clay 19 2
Table 1 - Seabed Sediment Distribution (per cent fraction) for T2, T3 and aprons (draft
PER, Appendix H1, page 14)
10.3.3. In analysing the samples, NQBP found that arsenic and manganese
concentrations were marginally above initial screening levels for some of the
samples, however, they were below 95% upper confidence levels for screening,
and were therefore considered suitable for ocean disposal. It should be noted that
offshore sediment samples often exceed the initial screening levels of the
guidelines due to high natural levels rather than anthropogenic contamination.
10.3.4. The sediment also had some acid producing potential, however, that is only
considered to be a concern if the sediment is to be disposed of onshore and
subsequently exposed to the air.
10.3.5. The Department concludes that the proposed dredge sediment is suitable for
offshore disposal, based on an analysis of the characteristics of the sediments at
the proposed dredge and disposal sites.
10.4. Proposed disposal site for dredge material
10.4.1. The proposed 400 ha disposal site for dredge material is 39-44 m deep. The site
is situated in a large band of mud, 24 km to the north east of Abbot Point, which is
described as the mid-shelf area in the Water Quality Guidelines for the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMPA 2010). NQBP states that the band of mud may
derive from the south east of the project area rather than the Burdekin River (draft
PER, Appendix E, page 84). The surface sediments were predominantly composed
of silts (50.5%) and clays (36.5%) (draft PER, Appendix G, page 45). In addition,
the sediments at the site had higher average concentrations of total nitrogen and
phosphorous than the sediments from the proposed dredge site (draft PER,
Appendix G, page 66).
10.4.2. The composition of the sediments at the proposed disposal site is generally finer
than the sediments of the proposed dredge site, as outlined in section 10.3.
Heavier dredged material is therefore predicted to stay on the bottom, while fine
sediments may be subject to dispersion. NQBP states that sediments from both
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 35 of 56
sites are terrigenous in origin, and that the similarity of the dredged material would
ensure that no major modifications of the marine habitat occur at the proposed
material relocation site, in accordance with the National Assessment Guidelines for
Dredging (2009).
10.4.3. The maximum predicted depth of dredge material disposed at the site was
modelled at 800 millimetres. Impacts will occur through covering of benthic fauna,
and their ability to persist and recover from the disposal of dredged material will
depend on their ability to burrow and migrate from the zone of impact (draft PER,
page 3-129). NQBP states that studies of the existing disposal area for Abbot Point
indicate that abundance and richness of communities recovered within four years
of the disposal of dredged material (draft PER, page 3-149). No seagrass or other
marine flora were located during surveys of the disposal site (draft PER,
page 3-91).
10.4.4. The department concludes that the proposed disposal site is suitable to take the
dredged material from Abbot Point.
10.5. Technical studies for improved dredge management in the Great Barrier Reef
10.5.1. As mentioned in section 7.3, GBRMPA commissioned a series of technical
studies on improved dredge management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Those
studies were conducted in response to the World Heritage Committee’s request for
Australia to undertake a strategic assessment of the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area, and focused on comparing potential impacts of disposal of dredged
material on existing sites compared to alternative sites within the Marine Park.
10.5.2. The modelling studies were undertaken with the following caveat (SKM & APASA
(2013b), page 20):
‘The purpose and scope of the hydrodynamic modelling and environmental risk
assessment reported herein are explicitly not intended to provide a
comprehensive EIA of specific, individual dredging projects at a level of rigour
and detail commensurate with best-practice management commensurate with the
iconic status of the World Heritage Area. Therefore, the results should not be
interpreted as concrete predictions of environmental impact from dredge material
placement at specific sites, for specific projects, or upon specific receptors.
Crucially, this study has reinforced the need for detailed, project-specific EIAs for
dredging projects in the World Heritage Area, and in no way does it supplant
those that have been conducted for previous and currently proposed projects.
Another benefit of the study has been to identify additional information
requirements for improved management of dredging material.’
10.5.3. The technical studies modelled a number of scenarios of impacts in relation to
potential port developments. In the case of the Port of Abbot Point, the studies
modelled the potential impacts of dredging and disposing of 3.5 million m³ of
sediment in a single campaign. This is double the amount of dredging that NQBP
proposes to undertake in a single campaign. The modelling was also based on
conditions for a highly energetic year (2011), associated with a La Niña event.
These conditions are considered likely to be relatively uncommon.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 36 of 56
10.5.4. A technical study (SKM & APASA (2013c)) was undertaken to map bed shear
stress within 50 km of the Port of Abbot Point, and identify areas that are likely to
be dispersive or retentive of different sediment particle sizes. This was used to
determine the relative stability of dredged material on the sea bed. In general, the
bed shear modelling predicted that the Abbot Point study area is a relatively low
energy retentive environment under average conditions (50th percentile), with
predicted shear-stress able to mobilise unconsolidated sediments up to fine silts.
Under 95th percentile conditions, the shear stress was sufficient to mobilise up to
fine sands (pages 55 to 57). It should be noted that this was a screening study, and
that the modelled mobilisation did not account for any consolidation of dredged
sediments.
10.5.5. Based on the information to map bed shear stress, another technical study
(SKM & APASA (2013a)) was undertaken to identify alternative sites for the
placement of dredge material. That study identifies two alternative sites for Abbot
Point: Model case 1 is 13 km north-east of Abbot Point, and Model case 2 is 15 km
north-west of Abbot Point. Those sites were considered less dispersive than the
current disposal site which is 2 km north-west of the proposed dredge area.
10.5.6. Long-term migration patterns of sediments were also modelled (SKM & APASA
(2013d)) for the current disposal site for dredge material, and the two alternative
Model sites. This modelling incorporates the influence of the East Australian
Current which has a northward drift, and was conducted using 2011 data on the
basis that currents during that year would exert the greatest forces toward a
number of sensitive receptors. It was also undertaken over one year to incorporate
potential impacts of re-suspension of sediments. The study concludes that the use
of large-scale currents in modelling dredge plumes in the Great Barrier Reef is
important and that dredge material may travel longer distances through greater re-
suspension from the material placement site than previously understood. Although
the geographical extent of sediment dispersal may be greater than originally
appreciated, this does not necessarily imply ecological significance.
10.5.7. A technical study (SKM & APASA (2013b)) was also undertaken of the potential
impacts on sensitive receptors from disposal of dredge spoil at the two identified
Model sites. That study found that the two Model sites generated smaller plumes of
lower intensity and had minimal overlap with sensitive receptors compared to
plumes from the existing disposal site. The impacts of an increase in total
suspended solids on the two Model sites were given a low risk rating for all
sensitive receptors. Similarly, the impacts of an accumulation of sediments from
disposal at the sea bed at the two Model sites were given a low risk rating for most
sensitive receptors. Finally, the impacts of an increase in the rate of sediment
deposition at the two alternative Model sites were given a low to medium risk rating
for most sensitive receptors, except for fish habitat areas which had a high risk
rating.
10.5.8. In addition to the caveat on the applicability of the modelling undertaken for the
technical studies, the modelled input of a 3.5 million m³ single dredging campaign
would be expected to significantly overstate the impacts of the staged NQBP
proposal. The technical studies also modelled impacts at two Model sites that are
13 – 15 km from Abbot Point. Those two Model sites are closer to the shore than
NQBP’s proposed site, which is 24 km from the dredge site. Notwithstanding the
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 37 of 56
limitations of the technical studies, they found that the risks of the modelled impacts
on sensitive receptors to be generally low.
10.5.9. The Department acknowledges the technical studies undertaken in relation to
improved dredge management for the Great Barrier Reef Region and notes they
modelled a disposal scenario that was significantly greater than the current
proposal being assessed. In addition, while the modelled scenario indicates that
the site for the disposal of dredged material is a relatively low energy retentive
environment, and that the risk rating of impacts on the various sensitive receptors
were generally considered low to medium, further research is required to develop
and validate that work as outlined in the caveat for modelling studies. This work
should be undertaken through the monitoring of impacts of dredging and disposal
activities. The findings of the monitoring should also be and be reviewed by a
technical panel and modelling experts, and the results used to refine the modelling
of potential impacts.
10.6. Modelled impacts from dredge and disposal plumes
10.6.1. NQBP has conducted the modelling of impacts of dredging up to 3 million m³ of
sediment in a single campaign. It enhanced the existing 2D model to 3D mode.
Modelling was undertaken on both the dredging and the disposal activities for both
95th and 50th percentile outputs. That is, the 95th percentile modelling was
undertaken to indicate impacts for a worst case scenario. The model extended over
a distance of 56 km in the alongshore direction and 29 km offshore, and simulated
dredge plumes that would have occurred if the proposal was to be undertaken from
July to August in 2007. NQBP states that the model underwent a process of
calibration and was peer reviewed. As noted in the previous section on the
technical studies for improved dredge management in the Great Barrier Reef
Region, project specific analysis is required to provide the rigour and detail to
evaluate likely impacts.
10.6.2. The 3D modelling undertaken included, hydrodynamic modelling, sediment
transport modelling, dispersion and re-suspension of sediments, and representative
conditions during a dry season when the proposed dredging is planned (draft PER,
page 3-131).
10.6.3. A number of seagrass species have been recorded within the limits of the Port of
Abbot Point. The Halodule universis species dominates the coastal meadows,
which generally occur in less than 8 metres depth, and has high light requirements,
while Halophila spinulosa dominates the deep water meadows and has lower light
requirements. Mckenna and Rasheed (2011) state that the Halodule universis
dominated coastal meadows at Abbot Point are more susceptible to longer term
impacts of reduced light, than the coastal meadows of Halophila spinulosa, which
are more resilient to reduced light and have a high capacity for recovery through
seed reserves (page 26). These seagrass meadows expand and contract over
time, so the modelled impacts are derived from the maximum area of all
distributions from collective mapping, and are therefore likely to overstate any
potential impacts (draft PER, page 3-152).
10.6.4. NQBP states that up to 2,000 ha of potential Halophila spinulosa dominated deep
water meadows may be impacted through reduced light from dredge plumes, and
that no coastal habitat are predicted to be impacted by light loss (draft PER,
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 38 of 56
page 3-157). However those potential impacts would not be expected to eventuate
if the temporal duration of dredging campaigns is limited, and by restricting the
timing of dredging for the period when those seagrasses senesce during the dry
season.
10.6.5. NQBP’s modelling also indicates that about 765 ha of potential habitat of the
coastal Halodule universis species may be impacted through sedimentation
(PER Supplementary Report, page 3-2). NQBP adopted a critical threshold of
10 millimetres of sedimentation from the plume to determine the likely impacts on
potential seagrass habitat. That threshold was formulated on the basis of a review
of scientific findings on the resilience of seagrass species to sedimentation rates
(Erftemeijer and Lewis 2006). NQBP also took account of the fact that ambient net
deposition rates across Abbot Point are not well known. Seagrass may be
impacted by both smothering and by a reduction in light important to the growth of
seagrass at critical times. Therefore the timing of dredging is important, as well as
sedimentation rates.
10.6.6. Caution is however required in interpreting the modelling results, as it was
undertaken on the basis of a single campaign, and the refined dredging program
has significantly reduced the dredging to be undertaken over a single year.
Nevertheless, the modelled impact on 765 ha of potential habitat of the coastal
Halodule universis through sedimentation, is in addition to the loss of 185 ha
potential seagrass habitat at the proposed dredge site. As indicated in other
sections, NQBP states that recovery from any impacts on seagrass and benthic
fauna is expected to occur within four years.
10.6.7. Outputs of the modelling undertaken will depend on how accurately the inputs
can represent the likely ambient conditions under which the proposal will take
place. Criticism has been made that the modelled plumes may not represent a
worst case scenario in relation to the use of data representing conditions in 2007.
While that may be the case, the important element is to determine appropriate
thresholds or trigger levels for adverse impacts on sensitive receptors such as
seagrass, to ensure that mitigation measures, including triggers to cease work are
applied. This will ensure that impacts predicted under a worst case scenario will not
eventuate.
10.6.8. There is a general recognition that the primary cause of the prevailing adverse
water quality is the result of the deposition of sediments and nutrients from
onshore, as outlined in section 9.3. In addition, the work undertaken for the
technical studies for improved dredge management in the Great Barrier Reef
Region indicates that fine sediments may travel further than initially thought, and
re-suspend during certain weather conditions. If that hypothesis is validated, then
impacts may occur over a broader scale and over a longer timeframe than most
modelling currently indicates.
10.6.9. In evaluating the extent of likely impacts of the dredging proposal, consideration
is required of the fact that the water quality at Abbot Point is already degraded, as
outlined in section 9.3. This raises concern that any proposal that involves dredging
will place further pressure on an ecosystem already under stress. While NQBP
concludes that the proposal is unlikely to have significant impacts on matters of
National Environmental Significance, recognition is required that steps must be
taken to ensure that proposals are undertaken in a manner that can demonstrate
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 39 of 56
an overall net benefit for the outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area.
10.6.10. The Australian and Queensland governments have developed a joint
Reef Water Quality Protection Plan (2009) (The Reef Plan) that specifically focuses
on non-point-source pollution. This is where irrigation or rainfall carries pollutants
such as sediments, nutrients and pesticides into waterways and the reef lagoon.
The initiative has set goals to halt and reverse the decline in water quality entering
the reef and to ensure that the quality of water entering the reef from adjacent
catchments has no detrimental impact on the health and resilience of the Great
Barrier Reef. It has also set water quality targets for reducing nutrient and sediment
loads.
10.6.11. The Reef Plan has two primary goals. The immediate goal is to halt and
reverse the decline in water quality entering the Reef by 2013. The long-term goal
is to ensure that by 2020 the quality of water entering the Reef from adjacent
catchments has no detrimental impact on the health and resilience of the Reef. The
plan will be reviewed in 2013 to ensure it is delivering the intended outcomes.
10.6.12. In addition to implementing various mitigation measures to minimise
impacts of the proposed dredging, NQBP has proposed to contribute to and work
with National Resource Management bodies to address the primary source of the
sediments and nutrients entering the Great Barrier Reef as outlined in the Reef
Water Quality Protection Plan. Such as funding the development and
implementation of a Water Quality Improvement Plan for the Don River catchment.
This has been identified as a current gap in the wider Burdekin Catchment National
Resource Management Plan. NQBP is proposing to undertake this work in a
manner that will result in a net reduction in the total fine sediment and nutrient load
entering the Great Barrier Reef, and therefore take account of fine sediments that
are likely to impact on sensitive receptors through the dredge proposal.
10.6.13. The modelling undertaken by NQBP indicates that the deposition of
700 millimetres of sediment over the disposal site will not be affected by wave
action. This is supported by the research by Orpin et al. (1999), who found that re-
suspension seldom occurs on the middle shelf under normal conditions, noting that
the disposal site has a depth of 40 metres. NQBP also states that the deposited
sediment will erode over time from tidal currents to 500 to 600 millimetres (PER
Supplementary Report, page 5-96). However, the assumptions underpinning the
modelling by NQBP need to be validated by a monitoring program to determine
whether or not fine sediments travel further than previously modelled.
10.6.14. Public concerns were also raised about the value of the proposed dredge
material disposal site for fishing. The information provided in the draft PER
concluded that the disposal of dredge material at the proposed site would have
limited impact on fishing. In response to public comments, NQBP has undertaken
further consultation with fishers and undertaken further analysis of impacts to
fisheries (PER Supplementary Report, Appendix E). The report at Appendix E
notes that material placement on the spoil ground has the potential to impact the
trawl fishery. Impacts to target species at the location as well as changes to the
seabed which may make trawling impractical (page 25). However the report also
stated that the impact is unlikely to be permanent. NQBP has indicated that it is
willing to investigate an alternate disposal site in consultation with the fishers, and
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 40 of 56
that if impacts cannot be avoided, management and offset programs will be
implemented to reduce impacts. The proposed area of investigation is shown in
Map 3:
Map 3. NQBP’s proposed investigation area for an alternative disposal site (PER Supplementary Report,
page 2-12)
10.6.15. The technical study undertaken on bed shear stress (SKM & APASA
2013c) indicates that the proposed area of investigation identified in the map is
composed of clay and fine silt and is also in a relatively low-energy retentive
environment.
10.6.16. Concerns were raised during the public review process about potential
impacts on the World War 2 wreckage of a Catalina aircraft, approximately 3 km
south of the proposed disposal site for dredge material. NQBP states that mapping
of the plume shows that it is unlikely to intersect with the Catalina wreckage;
however NQBP indicated a willingness to investigate an alternate site to further
reduce any risks of impact.
10.6.17. The Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009 makes the following
comments on the impacts of ports and shipping:
‘The impacts of dredging and construction of port facilities - such as seabed disturbance, transport or resuspension of contaminants, alteration of sediment movement and changes in coastal processes - can be significant, but are localised. For example, monitoring of the Hay Point dredging project in 2007 showed significant environmental impacts at the dredge and disposal sites and minor impacts to corals at sites up to 12 kilometres away (recovery is expected at these sites).’
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 41 of 56
Notwithstanding those comments, there has been a general recognition that the
health of the Great Barrier Reef has declined since the report was published, new
research has indicated that the re-suspension of sediments may have greater
impacts than previously thought, and greater scrutiny is required of new port
developments.
10.6.18. The department concludes that implementation of mitigation measures is
required to address potential impacts of the plumes and sedimentation resulting
from dredging and disposal of dredge spoil. That includes limiting the duration of
campaigns, restricting dredging during the dry season (March to June), and
appropriate monitoring and the implementation of trigger levels for work to cease if
adverse impacts become evident, which should be reviewed by a panel with
appropriate expertise in the management of dredging activities and marine
ecosystems. However, the proposed dredging will place further pressure on an
ecosystem under stress, and to address those cumulative impacts, the proponent
is required to implement an offset strategy which will have a net benefit for the
Great Barrier Reef by reducing the total sediment and nutrient load originating from
onshore. NQBP should also undertake a process of investigating an alternative
dredge site in addition to the current site outlined in the draft PER, in order to
address public concerns about the potential environmental impacts at the current
site. The investigation has the caveat that any alternative sites should only be
considered in the context of demonstrating that potential impacts to the
environment are further reduced from those likely to occur at the current proposed
site.
10.7. Alternatives
10.7.1. NQBP outlined a process to evaluate options for re-use and disposal of dredge
material through a multi criteria analysis (draft PER, pages 2.11 to 2-25). That
analysis concluded that disposal of dredge material at the site shown on map 1
was the best option. After the public comment period for the draft PER closed,
NQBP held several workshops with the department and GBRMPA to further
discuss options for extending trestles for terminals to obviate the need for dredging
and also reviewed onshore disposal options.
10.7.2. Some of the options to extend the trestles were not considered feasible due to
maritime safety concerns. NQBP costed other trestle extension options at
$1.35 billion for no dredging, and $430 million for reduced dredging of
0.5 million m³ of sediment (Supplementary PER, pages 5-19 to 5-41), additional to
the cost of the proposed terminals mentioned in section 3.1.2. Those options would
also extend the proposed coal terminals into the Marine Park and at best would
allow for no net increase in additional impacts through the dispersion of fine
sediments.
10.7.3. In addition, NQBP provided information on several options for the onshore
disposal of dredged material. NQBP costed those options at $120 to $460 million,
noting that they would also have other environmental impacts that would require
further assessment. As mentioned in section 7.3, GBRMPA undertook a series of
technical studies in relation to improved dredge management in the Great Barrier
Reef. That included a ‘Literature Review and Cost Analysis of Land-based Dredge
Material Re-use and Disposal Options’ (SKM 2013e). The study reached similar
conclusions to NQBP’s assessment of the options to re-use and dispose of the
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 42 of 56
dredge material onshore and the costs involved. In order to further evaluate those
alternatives, a further comprehensive assessment would be required of each option
in order to consider the range of impacts they would have.
10.7.4. The department concludes that the various alternative options to dredging and
offshore disposal of dredged material would involve significant expenditure, and
would require full assessments to determine whether they would potentially reduce
expected environmental impacts to any degree. A decision to allow offshore
disposal of dredged material, with a requirement to offset any additional fine
sediments through onshore actions, has the benefit of facilitating a long term
reduction in the fine sediment load entering the Marine Park in a cost effective
manner. That option would yield a net benefit for the Marine Park.
11. Cumulative impacts on the region
11.1. In addition to the coal terminal projects at Abbot Point, there are eight major
EPBC projects in the region currently under assessment – see section 5 for a list of the
other projects.
11.2. The proponent is proposing mitigation and offset measures relating to cumulative
impacts in the Abbot Point region. These measures are being informed by the Abbot
Point Cumulative Impact Assessment (Part E, page 18-2). Port wide management
measures and monitoring were recommended in that report as well as development of a
biodiversity management plan; measures to address climate change – such as port
design, and minimising greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operation.
Procedures to deal with ship groundings or collisions through enhanced management
arrangements were also proposed (Part C, chapter 13 – Shipping). The report proposes
the establishment of a joint management authority and Joint Environmental
Management Framework.
12. Shipping in the Great Barrier Reef
12.1. The Great Barrier Reef is recognised as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area by the
International Maritime Organisation. As such it requires special protection. The
International Maritime Organisation website states that ‘when an area is approved as a
particularly sensitive sea area, specific measures can be used to control the maritime
activities in that area, such as routeing measures, strict application of MARPOL
discharge and equipment requirements for ships, such as oil tankers; and installation of
Vessel Traffic Services.’
12.2. A report on North East Shipping Risk Assessment was undertaken by
Det Norske Veritas (DVN 2013) for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. That report
assessed current shipping traffic and projected future shipping traffic in 2020 and 2032.
Addressing the potential future risks of increased shipping traffic, the report makes a
number of recommendations to reduce risks relating to pilotage, port state control
(inspection of foreign ships) and monitoring of ship positions.
12.3. A review of shipping in the Great Barrier Reef was prepared for the Abbot Point
Working Group Cumulative Impact Assessment (PGM Environment, 2012). The review
provided an analysis of current and forecast shipping activity in the Great Barrier Reef.
It concluded that routine shipping presented no substantial risk of lasting damage to the
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 43 of 56
Great Barrier Reef and the forecast increased shipping traffic would present minimal
change in overall risk if managed correctly.
12.4. The review’s analysis of impacts and risks to the Great Barrier Reef found that
shipping operations are well managed and would continue to improve in order to
address increased shipping volumes and any associated risks. In comparison to world
practices, the management of shipping in the Great Barrier Reef was seen as
comparable to the very highest standards (page 135). However, the review also
highlighted the need to address any potential risk change due to the likely increase in
shipping and capacity of existing management procedures. Some 30 recommendations
were made to address emergent risks, including an initial ‘action list’ intended to guide
responses to risks and knowledge gaps (table 31, page 137 of the report).
12.5. The department concludes that the implementation of the relevant actions from
the report for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the review for the Abbot Point
Working Group will address future risks of increased shipping in the Great Barrier Reef.
The management of shipping for the whole Great Barrier Reef should be considered
through the strategic assessment process outlined in section 7.3.
13. Offsets
13.1. NQBP has provided an Offsets Discussion Paper in the PER Supplementary
Report at Appendix C. That report states that the proposed activity will not result in a
significant impact on matters of national environmental significance based on an
analysis using the significance criteria for matters of national environmental significance
under the EPBC Act (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts,
2009). In determining the significance of the activity the proponent should also consider
that the criteria are intended to provide general guidance on the types of actions that
will require approval and the types of actions that will not require approval. They are not
intended to be exhaustive or definitive. Undertaking an action that will add further
pressure to a widely acknowledged stressed ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef
provides the basis for determining that the action is likely to have a significant impact.
13.2. The EPBC Act Offsets Policy (October 2012) notes that offsetting in poorly
understood ecosystems such as the marine environment is challenging. However it
states that ‘conservation gain in the marine environment may include improving
protection of important protected species habitat, such as sea grass, or by addressing
pressures on the protected matter or its habitat, such as removing derelict fishing nets
and other marine debris.’
13.3. NQBP’s discussion paper provides the basis for considering a number of water
quality improvement opportunities to protect and enhance terrestrial, freshwater and
marine habitats and communities within local catchments. These opportunities have
been identified in close consultation with North Queensland Dry Tropics NRM group,
which considers that the overall health and resilience of the coastal and inshore
ecosystems associated with these catchments would be strengthened through the
proponent’s involvement.
13.4. Within the broader context of pressures on the reef (e.g. long term legacy
impacts from agricultural runoff, clearly outside of Port influence) a number of measures
are proposed to help address key issues affecting the marine environment. In order to
maintain the integrity of the outstanding universal values of the Great Barrier Reef
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 44 of 56
World Heritage area, effective conservation programs are essential across the adjoining
catchments, marine and coastal zones.
13.5. An offsets and enhancement strategy is being developed that will provide a
range of measures to ensure positive outcomes for the Great Barrier Reef. Those
measures will principally take the form of:
Fish habitat offsets that are required under Queensland legislation will also
provide a concurrent benefit as offsets for matters protected under the
EPBC Act. Those offsets focus on seagrass habitat, so they will benefit those
species which rely on seagrass habitat, including dugong and turtles. One
option currently being considered is the installation of seagrass friendly screw
moorings in seagrass areas that currently are being impacted by traditional
moorings or free-anchoring. The installation and maintenance of seagrass
friendly moorings would allow recovery of seagrass in degraded areas,
protection in other areas and provide a long term benefit well beyond the
expected temporary duration of seagrass impacts.
Contributions to water quality enhancement programs implemented by the
North Queensland Dry Tropic Natural Resource Management group. These
programs would aim to address one of the key threats to water quality in the
GBR by tackling legacy terrestrial runoff issues. For example, one option would
be the development and implementation of a Water Quality Improvement Plan
for the Don River catchment (where Abbot Point is located), which is currently a
gap within the wider Burdekin Catchment Natural Resource Management Plan.
13.6. The offsets and enhancement strategy will be finalised in consultation with
Commonwealth agencies and implemented on commencement of dredging, noting the
need for a staged approach.
13.7. The department concludes that the proposed offsets address the need to
develop a strategy to require proposals that impact on the already stressed Great
Barrier Reef ecosystem to deliver a net benefit in the short to medium term.
14. Considerations for Approval and Conditions
14.1. Mandatory Considerations – section 136(1)(a) Part 3 controlling provisions
14.1.1. 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 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).
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 45 of 56
14.2. Mandatory considerations – section 136(1)(b) Economic and social matters
14.2.1. The proposed project will facilitate the development of three new terminals at the
Port of Abbot Point. NQBP states in the draft PER that the project will support 20 to
30 workers over a total period of approximately eight to ten weeks in the Bowen
region.
14.2.2. Great Barrier Reef ports fast facts:
a) average annual throughput of GBR ports (2006-2011): 196 million tonnes
b) approximate value of export trades from GBR ports (2011-2012): $40 billion
c) portion of total volume of throughput in Queensland annually (2010-2011): 78 per
cent
d) portion of total throughput volume at GBR ports from coal (2010-2011): 79 per
cent.
14.2.3. NQBP states in the supplementary PER (Appendix E) that the proposed project
would have potential impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries. The report
identified a number of recommendations for mitigation measures, ongoing
monitoring to address data gaps and a structural adjustment program for
commercial fishing operators to prevent displacement of commercial fishing.
14.2.4. The department has considered economic and social matters in recommending
the proposed approval, including the conditions, for this project.
14.3. Factors to be taken into account – section 391 Precautionary Principle
14.3.1. The precautionary principle states that the lack of full scientific certainty should
not be used as a reason for postponing a measure to prevent degradation of the
environment where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage.
14.3.2. The Mission Report of the World Heritage Committee expressed concerns about
threats to the long-term prospects for the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great
Barrier Reef. It also recommended that future port development be restricted to
existing and long-established major port areas. The proposal will result in further
development of the existing Port of Abbot Point.
14.3.3. In the judgement of Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006]
NSWLEC 133, Justice Preston found that:
166. The precautionary principle embraces the concept of proportionality. The
concept of proportionality is that measures should not go beyond what is
appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objectives in question. Where
there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse should be had
to the least onerous measure and the disadvantages caused should not be
disproportionate to the aims pursued.
14.3.4. NQBP has acknowledged that the Great Barrier Reef is under stress and has
proposed offset measures to ensure that a net benefit outcome is achieved, by
reducing impacts associated with onshore legacy activities. The alternatives
options outlined in section 10.7 are considered financially onerous in terms of the
outcomes required to improve the health of the Great Barrier Reef, and will not in
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 46 of 56
themselves reduce the primary sources of sediments and nutrients which originate
onshore.
14.3.5. In addition, NQBP has provided scientific evidence that the damage generally
caused by dredging is not irreversible. That evidence includes monitoring of the
recovery of previous dredge disposal sites.
14.4. Factors to be taken into account – section 136(2)(a) Principles of ecologically
sustainable development
14.4.1. One of the objects of the EPBC Act is to promote ecologically sustainable
development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural
resources. Section 3A of the EPBC Act lists the principles of ecologically
sustainable development as follows:
(a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and
short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations;
14.4.1.1. NQBP undertook a multi criteria analysis of options for the dredging and
disposal of dredged material. In recommending the approval of this proposal,
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. The department considers that the likely
impacts on the environment as a result of this project are satisfactory in terms
of the long term, short term social and equitable impacts.
14.4.1.2. 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.
(b) 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;
14.4.1.3. See section 14.3.
(c) the principle of inter-generational equity – that the present generation should
ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is
maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;
14.4.1.4. The department has taken the principle of inter-generation equity into
consideration in recommending the project be approved. The recommended
conditions of approval will ensure protection of the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area and National Heritage Place, the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park, listed migratory and threatened species and communities. Those
recommended conditions allow for the project to be delivered and operated in
a sustainable way to protect the matters protected under the EPBC Act,
including the outstanding universal values of the World Heritage property and
the environment for future generations.
(d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a
fundamental consideration in decision-making;
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 47 of 56
14.4.1.5. The department has considered the importance of conserving biological
diversity and ecological integrity in relation to all of the controlling provisions
for this project, and the advice provided within this document reflects that
consideration. The department has recommended conditions which will
mitigate and offset the loss of seagrass habitat for listed threatened species
and listed migratory species. The department also considers that the
conditions will provide for the protection of the biodiversity values of the Great
Barrier Reef which are key features of the World and National Heritage values
of the place.
(e) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.
14.4.1.6. The implementation of the offsets strategy demonstrates how the
proposal will result in a net benefit for the health of the Great Barrier Reef
through improved valuation of the outstanding universal values of the World
Heritage property.
14.5. Factors to be taken into account – section 136(2)(c) – public environment report
14.5.1. In accordance with section 136(2)(c)(i), the finalised public environment report
(draft PER and PER Supplementary Report) relating to the action given to the
Minister under section 99 is at Attachments E and F to the proposed decision
brief.
14.5.2. In accordance with section 136(2)(c)(ii), this document forms the
recommendation report relating to the action given to the Minster under
section 100.
14.6. Requirements for decisions about World Heritage – section 137
14.6.1. 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.
14.6.2. Note the requirements of the World Heritage Convention at:
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf. On the basis of the recommended
mitigation measures and offsets outlined in this report, the department considers
that approval, and the proposed conditions, would not be inconsistent with the
above obligations.
14.6.3. Note the World Heritage management principles at schedule 5 of the EPBC
Regulations:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/epabcr2000697/sch5.html.
14.6.4. An assessment process, which included public review and technical input, was
undertaken in accordance with the management principles. The department
considers that approval of this action, and the proposed conditions, would not be
inconsistent with the World Heritage management principles.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 48 of 56
14.6.5. A plan of management for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area has not
been prepared under sections 316 or 321 of the EPBC Act.
14.7. Requirements for decisions about National Heritage places– section 137A
14.7.1. 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.
14.7.2. Note the National Heritage management principles at schedule 5B of the EPBC
Regulations:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/epabcr2000697/sch5b.html.
14.7.3. An assessment process, which included public review and technical input, has
been undertaken in accordance with the management principles. The department
considers that approval of this action, and the proposed conditions, would not be
inconsistent with the National Heritage management principles
14.7.4. 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 324 of the EPBC Act.
14.8. Requirements for decisions about threatened species and endangered
communities – section 139
14.8.1. (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.
14.8.2. Note the above conventions at the following links:
http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1990/41.html
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1976/29.html
14.8.3. The 1976 Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (the Apia
Convention) was suspended with effect from 13 September 2006, as all Parties
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 49 of 56
were also Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity which encompasses the
subject matter of the Apia Convention. Although the convention has been
suspended, Australia’s obligations under that Convention were taken into account
in the assessment process.
14.8.4. 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.
14.8.5. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) is available for your consideration at: www.cites.org
14.8.6. On the basis of the analysis undertaken in this report, the following listed
threatened species were considered likely to be impacted by the proposal:
Humpback Whale;
Loggerhead Turtle;
Green Turtle;
Hawksbill Turtle;
Olive Ridley Turtle; and
Flatback Turtle
14.8.7. The recovery plans relevant to this proposal are at Appendix L to the proposed
decision brief They are:
Environment Australia (EA), 2003, Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in
Australia - July 2003; and
Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2005, Humpback
Whale Recovery Plan 2005 – 2010, DEH, Canberra.
14.8.8. The above listed threatened species are mentioned in one or more of the
following threat abatement plans.
The Threat abatement plan for the impacts of marine debris on vertebrate marine life references the Flatback Turtle, Green Turtle, Hawksbill Turtle, Loggerhead Turtle, Olive Ridley Turtle and Humpback Whale. The plan is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/marine-debris.html.
The Threat Abatement Plan for Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs references the Hawksbill Turtle and Flatback Turtle. The plan is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pig.html.
The Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox references the Loggerhead Turtle, Green Turtle and Flatback Turtle. The plan is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/foxes08.html.
14.8.9. The department has taken into consideration Australia’s obligations, recovery
plans and threat abatement plans and the likely impacts of the proposed action on
listed threatened species and determined that the proposal would not be
inconsistent with the above obligations or the recovery/abatement plans. The
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 50 of 56
department has determined that these impacts will be acceptable, based on the
temporary nature of most of the impacts outlined in this report, provided the action
is undertaken in accordance with the recommended conditions and is consistent
with the mitigation and offset measures recommended by the department.
14.8.10. (2) If:
(a) the Minister is considering whether to approve, for the purposes of a
subsection of section 18 or section 18A, the taking of an action; and
(b) 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; the Minister must, in deciding whether to so approve
the taking of the action, have regard to any approved conservation advice for
the species or community.
14.8.11. The action is considered to have, or likely to have, a significant impact on
the following listed threatened species and endangered communities:
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); and
Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus).
14.8.12. The approved conservation advice relevant to this project is the:
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008, Commonwealth
Conservation Advice on Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback Turtle).
14.8.13. The department has taken into consideration conservation advice and the
likely impacts of the proposed action on listed threatened species and determined
that the proposal would not be inconsistent with the conservation advice. The
department has determined that these impacts will be acceptable, based on the
temporary nature of most of the impacts outlined in this report, provided the action
is undertaken in accordance with the recommended conditions and is consistent
with the mitigation and offset measures recommended by the department.
14.9. Requirements for decisions about migratory species – section 140
14.9.1. 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).
14.9.2. This section requires that you must not act inconsistently with Australia’s
obligations under the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention),
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 51 of 56
the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), the China-Australia
Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) or the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory
Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA).
14.9.3. The Bonn Convention is available for your consideration at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/ATS/1991/32.html.
14.9.4. CAMBA is available for your consideration at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1988/22.html.
14.9.5. JAMBA is available for your consideration at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1981/6.html.
14.9.6. ROKAMBA is available for your consideration at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/2007/24.html.
14.9.7. The department has taken these agreements into account for this project
assessment and has given consideration to the likely impacts of the proposed
action on listed migratory species, in particular on:
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);
Dugong (Dugong dugon);
Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni);
Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis);and
Saltwater Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus).
14.10. The department has taken into consideration the likely impacts of the proposed action
on listed migratory species and determined that the proposal would not be inconsistent
with the above obligations. The department has determined that these impacts will be
acceptable, based on the temporary nature of most of the impacts outlined in this
report, provided the action is undertaken in accordance with the recommended
conditions and is consistent with the mitigation and offset measures recommended by
the department.
14.11. Bioregional Plans – section 176(5)
14.11.1. In accordance with section 176(5), the Minister is required to have regard
to a bioregional plan in making any decision under the Act to which the plan is
relevant.
14.11.2. There is currently no bioregional plan for the Coral Sea marine reserve,
which is the one most closely located near the action – surrounds GBRMPA.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 52 of 56
14.12. Person’s environmental history – section 136(4)
14.12.1. NQBP’s documentation notes that it has a satisfactory record of
responsible environmental management and references the following management
documents to support this:
Port of Abbot Point Draft Environmental Management Plan in place (NQBP,
2009)
Environment Policy which covers all of NQBP’s activities
Environment Management System that is externally certified as being compliant
with the international standard AS/NZS ISO 14001: 2004.
14.12.2. NQBP has also referred a number of other actions under the EPBC Act:
Abbot Point Multi Cargo Facility Project (EPBC 2009/4837)
X110 Expansion: Dredging Project (EPBC 2008/4438)
X110 Expansion: Infrastructure Development Project (EPBC 2008/4468)
Abbot Point Coal Terminal Stage 3 (X50) Expansion (EPBC 2005/2154)
Additional dredging at Abbot Point associated with X30 (maintenance and apron
area) (EPBC 2007/3884)
Port of Hay Point Berth and Apron Area Capital Dredging (EPBC 2004/1775)
Seismic and sonar surveys – Abbot Point (EPBC 2008/4289)
14.12.3. NQBP advised in the draft PER that there are no proceedings against the
corporation in relation to any non-compliance with any Commonwealth or State.
NQBP also stated that the planning framework relevant to the project is in
accordance with the Port of Abbot Point Environmental Management Plan and
Land Use Plan (2010).
14.13. Considerations in deciding on condition – section 134
14.13.1. 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
(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).
14.13.1.1. As detailed in the assessment section above, all recommended
conditions attached to the proposed approval are necessary or convenient to
protect, repair and/or mitigate impacts on a matter protected by provision of
Part 3 for which this proposed approval has effect.
14.13.2. In accordance with section 134(4), in deciding whether to attach a
condition to an approval the Minister must consider:
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 53 of 56
(a) any relevant conditions that have been imposed, or 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;
14.13.2.1. The project is not being assessed by the Queensland Government. An
application for a sea dumping permit under the Environment Protection (Sea
Dumping) Act 1981 has been lodged with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority for assessment. If a sea dumping permit is to be approved, any
conditions should be compatible with the requirements imposed under the
EPBC Act.
(a) information provided by the person proposing to take the action or by the
designated proponent of the action; and
14.13.2.2. The information provided by the person proposing to take the action has
been considered. Documentation provided by the person taking the action is
at Attachments E, F , I, K, M, O and R to the proposed decision brief.
(b) the desirability of ensuring as far as practicable that the condition is a cost
effective means for the Commonwealth and a person taking the action to
achieve the object of the condition.
14.13.2.3. The department considers that the proposed conditions outlined in this
report are a cost effective means of achieving the environmental objective of
mitigating potential impacts. They would require the proponent to undertake
measures that have been proposed and described by the proponent in the
PER documents at Attachments E and F to the proposed decision brief or
that have been developed in consultation with the relevant authorities. The
person proposed to take the action will be given 10 business days to comment
on the proposed decision, and the practicability of proposed conditions.
15. Conclusion
15.1. The proposed action is likely to impact on the outstanding universal values of a
World heritage property, a National heritage place, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,
the Commonwealth marine area, listed threatened species and ecological communities,
and listed migratory species. The department considers that the likely impacts of the
proposed action on all of those matters will be acceptable, provided the action is
undertaken in accordance with the recommended conditions and consistent with the
mitigation and offset measures recommended by the department. Having considered all
matters required to be considered under the EPBC Act, the department recommends
the proposed action be approved, subject to the recommended conditions.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 54 of 56
16. References
ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Volume 1. The Guidelines. October 2000.
Bainbridge, Z.T., Wolanski, E. & Álvarez-Romero, J.G. 2012, Fine sediment and nutrient dynamics related to particle size and floc formation in a Burdekin River flood plume, Australia, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 65, 236-248.
CDM Smith 2013, Abbot Point, Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 Capital Dredging Public Environment Report Supplementary Report, prepared for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, May 2013.
CDM Smith 2013, Abbot Point, Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 Capital Dredging Public Environment Report Supplementary Report Appendices, prepared for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, May 2013.
Chartrand K.M., Ralph P.J., Petrou K. & Rasheed M.A. 2012 Development of a Light-Based
Seagrass Management Approach for the Gladstone Western Basin Dredging Program. DAFF
Publication. Fisheries Queensland, Cairns.
Department of Environment and Resource Management 2009, Queensland Water Quality Guidelines, version 3, Queensland Government, September 2009.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2009, Matters of National Environmental Significance. Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, Commonwealth of Australia, October 2009.
Department of the Premier and Cabinet 2009, Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, Queensland Government, Brisbane.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities 2012, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy, Commonwealth of Australia, October 2012.
DNV 2013, North East Shipping Risk Assessment, rev 1, Report for Australian Maritime Safety Authority, February 2013.
Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd, Open Lines Consulting Pty Ltd & Abbot Point Working Group 2013, Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment. February 2013.
Erftemeijer, P.L.A. & Robin Lewis III, R.R. 2006, Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrass: A review, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52, 1553-1572.
Erftemeijer, P.L.A., Riegl, B., Hoeksema, B.W. & Todd, P.A. 2012, Environmental impacts of dredging and other sediment disturbances on corals: A review, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64, 1737-1765.
GHD 2010, Proposed Abbot Point Multi Cargo Facility Environmental Impact Statement, prepared for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation.
GHD 2012a, Abbot Point, Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 Capital Dredging Public Environment Report, prepared for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, December 2012.
GHD 2012b, Abbot Point, Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 Capital Dredging Public Environment Report Appendices – Volume 1 of 2, prepared for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, December 2012.
GHD 2012c, Abbot Point, Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 Capital Dredging Public Environment Report Appendices – Volume 2 of 2, prepared for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, December 2012.
GHD 2012d, Terminals 0, 2 and 3, Abbot Point, Queensland, Capital Dredging Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report, report for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation Limited
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 55 of 56
GHD 2013, International Best Practice Environmental Standards for Ports Draft Report, prepared for Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, April 2013.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2009, Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report, Townsville.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2010, Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, rev edn, Townsville.
Great Barrier Reef Second Report Card 2010 Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2013, Queensland Government.
Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment Reports (drafts) – marine and adjacent coastal zone (two reports); released for public comment 1 November 2013 (closing 31 January 2014)
Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone – report on findings, July 2013
Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone – supplementary report, October 2013
Kroon, F.J., Kuhnert, P.M. & Henderson B.L. 2012, River loads of suspended solids, nitrogen, phosphorus and herbicides delivered to the Great Barrier Reef lagoon, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 65, 167-181.
Land and Environment Court of New South Wales 2006, Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133.
Maynard, S. 2013, email, 1.1 Project Modifications, 5 June 2013.
McKenna, S., Rasheed, M. & Unsworth, R. 2008, Port of Abbot Point Seagrass Baseline Surveys – Wet and Dry Season 2008, DPI&F Publication PRO8-4140, Queensland Government.
National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Orpin, A.R., Ridd, P.V. & Stewart, L.K. 1999, Assessment of the relative importance of major sediment-transport mechanisms in the central Great Barrier Reef lagoon, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences: An International Geoscience Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, 46:6, 883-896.
McKenna, S.A. & Rasheed, M.A. 2011, Port of Abbot Point Long-Term Seagrass Monitoring: Update Report 2008-2011, DEEDI Publication, Fisheries Queensland, Cairns.
PGM Environment 2012, Great Barrier Reef Shipping: Review of Environmental Implications, prepared for Abbot Point Working Group, 22 October 2012.
Port Trade Statistics, Ports Australia; Office of Economic and Statistical Research (as cited in Queensland Government draft Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy, 2012)
Queensland Ports Strategy (draft), The State of Queensland, Department State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, October 2013
Rasheed, M., Thomas, R. & McKenna, S. 2005, Port of Abbot Point seagrass, algae and benthic macro-invertebrate community survey – March 2005, DPI&F Information Series QI05044, Queensland Government.
Recovery Plans: Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia 2003, Commonwealth of Australia, July 2003. Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005-2010, Natural Heritage Trust, Department of Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia
SKM & APASA 2013a, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Identification of Alternative Sites for the Placement of Dredge Material at Sea, rev 1.3, 10 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.
SKM & APASA 2013b, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Sensitive Receptor Risk Assessment of Alternative and Current Dredge Material Placement Sites, rev 2.3, 10 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.
EPBC 2011/6213
Page 56 of 56
SKM & APASA 2013c, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Modelling of Bed Shear-Stress in the Vicinity of Queensland Trading Ports in the Great Barrier Reef Region, rev 1.2, 10 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.
SKM & APASA 2013d, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Modelling Sediment Migration from Current and Hypothetical Alternative Placement Sites, rev 2.5, 12 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.
SKM 2013e, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Literature Review and Cost Analysis of Land-based Dredge Material Re-use and Disposal Options, rev 2.4, 15 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.
SKM 2013, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Water Quality Review and Monitoring Framework, rev 2.2, 10 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.
SKM & APASA 2013, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Synthesis Report, rev 1.3, 15 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.
SKM 2013, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Strategies for Improved Dredge Material Management, rev 0, 10 June 2013, Report to GBRMPA.
State Party Report on the State Of Conservation of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (Australia) in Response to the World Heritage Committee Decision 2013, Commonwealth of Australia, February 2013.
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 2012, Mission Report. Reactive Monitoring Mission to great Barrier Reef (Australia). 6th to 14th March 2012, Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, World Heritage Committee, Thirty-sixth session, 24 June – 6 July 2012, Saint Petersburg.
Vision Environment (2012). WBDDP Water Quality Monitoring – Methodology Overview: Version 2, July 2012. Gladstone, QLD
Wolanski, E, Fabricius, K.E. & Cooper, T.F. 2007, Wet season fine dynamics on the inner shelf of the Great Barrier Reef, Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited.