INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE PORT OF GLADSTONE Supplementary Report

October 2013

1

© Commonwealth of Australia 2013

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to Department of the Environment, Public Affairs, GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 or email public.affairs@environment.gov.au

The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment.While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.

2

Contents

Figures 4

Glossary 5

List of shortened forms 6

Executive summary 7

Introduction 9

Background 9

Standards for ‘best practice’ 9

Relevant initiatives 10

Port activities 10

Construction and associated activities 14

Commodity processing 15

Vessel loading and unloading 15

Vessel anchorage 16

Vessel movements 17

Dredging (capital or maintenance) 17

Sea disposal of dredged material 18

Land reclamation 19

Best practice principles 21

Overarching principles 22

Planning 24

Environmental assessment and decision-making 29

Monitoring and reporting 31

Compliance and enforcement 32

Conclusion 35

Appendix 1: Table of meetings 36

Appendix 2: Information considered 37

Key publicly available documents 37

Additional information 41

3

Figures

Figure 1: Themes of principles identified by the Review 8

Figure 2: Port activity matrix 14

Figure 3: Port optimisation 21

Figure 4: Conceptual framework for environmental management and governance 22

Figure 5: Port planning hierarchy and relationship 27

4

Glossary

Comprehensive strategic assessment: the Comprehensive Strategic Assessment of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent coastal zone.

The department: the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (name at the time the Review was commissioned) – now the Australian Government Department of the Environment.

The initial report: Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone: Report on findings (July 2013), i.e. the report to which this report is a supplement.

The Minister: the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (title at the time the Review was commissioned), or the Australian Government Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Water (title at the time the initial report of the Review was published) or the Australian Government Minister for the Environment (current title).

PIANC: the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure.

Port of Gladstone: the area defined by the Port of Gladstone Port Limits together with adjoining islands and landside areas, including reclamation areas, that support existing or consented industrial developments or are proposed to cater for future port-related industrial activities and supporting infrastructure.

The Review: the Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone.

World Heritage Convention: Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage, adopted on 16 November 1972.

5

List of shortened forms

AMSA: Australian Maritime Safety Authority

DSDIP: Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning

EPBC Act: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

GBRMPA: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

GBRWHA: Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

GPC: Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited

IMO: International Maritime Organisation

MSQ: Maritime Safety Queensland

NAGD: National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009

OUV: outstanding universal value

QAL: Queensland Alumina Ltd

QRC: Queensland Resources Council

UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation

WHC: World Heritage Committee

6

Executive summaryIn July 2013, the Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone provided an initial report against the majority of the terms of reference for the Review. That report noted that further information about port optimisation would shortly become available and that the Review would provide a supplementary report, focused on the port optimisation component of the terms of reference, towards the end of 2013.

This report constitutes the supplementary and final advice of the Review. It examines planning arrangements and design standards for the optimisation of port development and operation that accord with best practice environmental standards that may be applicable to ports in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA).

There is no globally agreed suite of measures or standards considered to be best practice in the context of port development and operation. The term ‘port optimisation’ can have different meanings. Within the context of the Review’s terms of reference, it specifically relates to the optimisation of port development and operations in a way that achieves optimal environmental outcomes. Because environmental issues and considerations vary between ports, a prescriptive approach to port optimisation would have limited applicability. Such an approach would also quickly become out of date as technology evolves and understanding increases. Solutions need to be site specific and appropriate to the local environmental and social context.

The Review identified 21 principles to guide future planning and operations of ports within the GBRWHA. These comprise a set of overarching principles that are applicable to all aspects of port environmental management and government, and four sets of principles relating to the four elements of port environmental management and governance identified in the Review’s initial report:

Planning

Environmental assessment and decision-making

Monitoring and reporting

Compliance and enforcement.

The themes of the principles are summarised in Figure 1. The principles are detailed and explained in the body of this supplementary report.

This report describes the range of port activities that should be addressed through port environmental management and governance and to which the proposed principles should be applied.

7

Figure 1: Themes of principles identified by the Review

8

Introduction

BackgroundThe Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone (the Review), in line with its terms of reference, examined the environmental management and governance of the Port of Gladstone. The Review provided its Report on findings

9

(the initial report) to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Water (the Minister) on 30 July 2013. However, key documents relating to port optimisation (one part of the terms of reference) were not available for adequate consideration prior to the delivery of the initial report. The former Minister agreed that the Review could finalise its advice through the delivery of a supplementary report with a focus on port optimisation.

This report constitutes the supplementary and final advice of the Review.

This supplementary report is not intended to be a stand-alone document. It should be read in conjunction with the initial report. Recommendations from the initial report have not always been restated explicitly but many are also relevant under the term of reference dealt with in this report.

The initial report details the process undertaken by the Review and forms the framework upon which this supplementary report is built. Preparation of the supplementary report has involved additional research and consultation. Interviews conducted since August 2013 are outlined in Appendix 1. The panel is grateful for the assistance of stakeholders and experts from across a range of organisations who contributed to this work.

Information resources considered by the Review in preparing this supplementary report, additional to the information considered in the preparation of the initial report, are outlined in Appendix 2. However, the supplementary report was also significantly informed by the submissions, interviews and other information exchanges that occurred during the earlier phase of the Review.

The Review panel identified the need for additional expert input on port optimisation, operational matters and master planning. Under the direction of the panel, the department commissioned input from Jason Sprott (Sprott Planning & Environment Pty Ltd). The panel considered advice from Mr Sprott in developing this supplementary report and is grateful for his contribution.

The Review panel is also grateful to other experts who provided input and advice during the preparation of the supplementary report. In particular, sincere thanks are extended to Sally Noonan, Carolyn Cameron, Diane Tarte, Gary Carter and Kevin Kane for their participation in a discussion on draft principles.

The former Minister publicly released the initial report in early August 2013 and sought comment to inform the Australian Government’s consideration of the Review. Comments were due by 6 September 2013. Some of these comments were also provided by the submitters to the Review panel. The panel considered these comments in finalising advice in this supplementary report.

Finally, the panel wishes to express its gratitude to all the members of the secretariat, headed by Celeste Powell, for the significant contribution they made to the panel’s deliberations and finalisation of the report.

Standards for ‘best practice’Maritime activity has always been a key part of coastal development in Australia. Several new ports are currently under consideration in Australia. However, most decisions around port selection along the GBRWHA relate to redevelopment and expansion of existing port areas within the current defined port limits rather than new ‘greenfield’ developments. Historically, three main drivers have determined the demand for and site selection of ports:

1. Existence or proximity to urban social catchments

2. Proximity to minerals, resources, or agricultural economic catchments

3. Proximity to significant infrastructure networks and unique features such as national, state and regional highways or railways, and/or areas of naturally deep water (for shipping access).1

In 2012, Decision 36 Com 7B.8 of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) requested the Australian Government to:

1 GHD 2013a.10

… undertake an independent review of the management arrangements for Gladstone Harbour, that will result in the optimisation of port development and operation in Gladstone Harbour and on Curtis Island, consistent with the highest internationally recognised standards for best practice commensurate with iconic World Heritage status.

The scope of work of the Review, specified in the terms of reference, states:

The Review will consider and, if necessary, provide advice on any significant areas for improvement in relation to the following matters … planning arrangements and design standards for the optimisation of port development and operation that accord with best practice environmental standards that may be applicable to ports in the Great Barrier Reef Region …

In the initial report, the Review stated that it is possible to operate, manage and enhance the Port of Gladstone whilst also adequately protecting the environmental attributes of the area. However, it found that there is no globally agreed suite of measures or standards considered to be ‘best practice’ in the context of port development and operation.

The term ‘port optimisation’ can have different meanings. Within the context of the Review’s terms of reference, it specifically relates to the optimisation of port development and operations in a way that achieves optimal environmental outcomes. Because environmental issues and considerations vary between ports, a prescriptive approach to port optimisation is not considered to be appropriate and would quickly become out of date as technology evolves and understanding increases. Solutions need to be site specific and appropriate to the local environmental and social context.

The wide variance in types of ports around the world is such that, to address international best practice, port design and environmental management must consider the specific environmental settings of individual ports. For Gladstone and other ports within or adjacent to the GBRWHA, this requires consideration of nearshore and estuarine settings in tropical areas with linked ecological communities.

The Review considered a range of regulatory, policy and technical documents and inputs relating to the sustainable development and operation of ports. Drawing on this information, the Review identified a set of principles that should be used by decision makers and stakeholders to guide an adaptive process for optimisation of the future planning and operations of the Port of Gladstone. Although these principles have been developed with particular reference to materials relating to the Port of Gladstone, they have broader applicability to other ports within and adjoining the GBRWHA.

While ports should aim for sustainability and both best practice management and governance at every location, those located in or adjoining a particularly sensitive sea area such as a world heritage area have an additional responsibility to ensure that their activities do not have unacceptable or irreversible impacts on the values for which the area is protected.

Relevant initiativesWhilst currently there is no globally agreed suite of best practice standards and measures, there have been, and continue to be, projects conducted at various levels relevant to ensuring the optimisation of environmental management at major ports. This is a relatively new concept that has yet to be fully implemented on a broad scale. Research, analysis and the development of improved practice will be ongoing in this field.

Strategic assessment information resources

The WHC requested in 2011 that the Australian Government undertake a strategic assessment to enable a long-term plan for sustainable development that will protect the outstanding universal value (OUV) of the GBRWHA. Several of the research reports commissioned through the comprehensive strategic assessment of the GBRWHA are directly relevant to understanding the concept of best practice as it applies to ports in the GBRWHA. Of

11

particular relevance are:

Environmental best practice port development: An analysis of international approaches (GHD 2013a)

Identification of impacts and proposed management strategies associated with ship anchorages in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GHD 2013b)

Improved dredge material management for the Great Barrier Reef region (SKM 2013).

All of these reports are publicly available on the department’s website.2

Environmental best practice port development: An analysis of international approaches

The purpose of this study was to identify international benchmarks in the management of environmental impacts of ports and their potential application in an Australian context. It was of particular relevance for this supplementary report as it focused on activities fundamentally controlled or influenced by ports that could cause environmental threats and/or have the potential for significant impacts on matters of national environmental significance. The report includes a broad literature review and analysis of relevant international case studies (largely from Europe and North America) for which the most information was publicly available. It identifies best practice from international examples to help benchmark current Australian management approaches and identifies opportunities and constraints for implementation.

The report describes eight areas of environmental impact or risk that could result from port operations:

Water and sediment quality

Coastal processes and hydrology

Noise and vibration

Lighting

Aesthetic

Direct ecosystem impacts

Air quality

Invasive species.

The report identifies real examples of innovative approaches to avoiding and minimising these impacts or risks.

Identification of impacts and proposed management strategies associated with ship anchorages in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

The purpose of this study was to identify current and potential environmental impacts of offshore anchoring for the five major ports in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and propose management options. It identified impacts using a risk-based environmental impact assessment desktop study but indicated that current anchorages are generally located in areas that have little effect on the majority of biodiversity values for which the Great Barrier Reef is recognised. The study also identified opportunities across all port anchorages to improve management, reduce impact potential and achieve environmental benefits.

Improved dredge material management for the Great Barrier Reef region

The purpose of this study was to provide analysis and information to inform future dredge spoil management decisions for the five major ports and one marina (Rosslyn Bay). It investigated beneficial reuse and land disposal of dredge material, a general framework of water quality monitoring and the long-term sediment migration from sea

2 http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/regional-development/gbr/index.html12

disposal sites, using three-dimensional modelling incorporating large-scale currents.

The study found that, whilst there may be options for reuse of some rocky or sandy dredged material, beneficial reuse and land disposal are unlikely to be viable strategies for dredge material disposal in the long term. This is largely because most of the dredge material in ports within the GBRWHA is dominated by silts and clays that are unsuitable for some uses, and land disposal would require vast areas for dewatering and involves significant engineering constraints. The study made a range of recommendations about water quality monitoring including adaptive management approaches and the establishment of independent technical advisory bodies.

The study found that dredge material has the potential to travel for longer distances than previously assumed. It used environmental conditions from 2011 (characterised by strong south-east winds and currents and extreme weather events) and therefore shows a worst-case scenario for northerly sediment travel. More research is required, including to differentiate between different sources of sedimentation and possible impacts on different indicators.

North-East Shipping Management Plan

In August 2013, the Australian Government released a draft North-East Shipping Management Plan for public comment. The draft plan outlines measures underway to manage the safety of shipping in the sensitive marine environments of Australia’s north-east region and proposes options to further minimise the environmental impact of activities in the future. It discusses shipping safety risks both within and outside port areas and outlines relevant international standards for environmental protection measures. It also contains a proposed work plan that specifies actions, lead agencies and target completion timeframes.

Collaborative initiatives

Whilst standards for environmental performance are commonly imposed through government regulation, there are many examples of initiatives driven by industry that demonstrate substantial environmental and social outcomes as well as significant efficiency and economic outcomes. The most successful of these are generally developed in consultation with interest groups and governments from the earliest stages of site analysis and planning.

Ecoshape

The Ecoshape consortium of partners from industry, government and research organisations has been pursuing a Building with Nature innovation program. It aims to align the interests of economic development and care for the environment, working with the natural system in such a way that society’s infrastructure needs and the interests of stakeholders are met while benefits are created for nature. The program has been implementing pilot projects in which ecosystem processes are observed and innovative solutions are identified (De Vriend and Van Koningsveld 2012). This program was initiated in the Netherlands but has been expanding internationally.

PIANC

PIANC is the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure. Members include governments, public authorities, corporations and interested individuals. It provides guidance for sustainable port activities through the development of technical reports developed by working groups of experts from around the world. Several technical reports currently under development focus on the sustainable development and master planning of ports. PIANC hosted a Sustainable Ports workshop in Sydney from 9 to 10 September 2013, which was attended by a member of the Review.

PIANC is promoting a ‘Working with Nature’ philosophy that focuses on achieving project objectives in an ecosystem context rather than assessing consequences of a predefined project design (PIANC 2011). It focuses on identifying win-win solutions and engaging with stakeholders throughout planning and operational processes. An online database of case studies has been established providing information on instances where Working with Nature has been implemented and accredited by PIANC through certificates of recognition. This incentive system

13

also includes a four-yearly Working with Nature award.3

The Review was provided with an advance draft of the PIANC Working Group 150 report ‘Sustainable ports: A guide for port authorities’. The report provides tools and guidance to show how proactive environmental measures can contribute to obtaining consent for future port operations and developments, how opportunities can be created through the port’s own initiatives and how sustainable growth can be realised. Whilst the report draws predominantly on European and Northern American port examples, it contains a wide range of practical considerations for environmental management relevant to this supplementary report.

The PIANC report also lists sustainability initiatives underway in ports around the world. The applicability to the Australian setting of many of these initiatives may be limited due to the operational and environmental context of Australian ports. For example, commercial vessels calling at Australian ports may not be engineered to take advantage of emerging environmental technologies such as shore-based power systems (i.e. land power supply to ships while at berth). Australian ports are not generally equipped with such infrastructure and may not have the same environmental risks and social needs.

Ports Australia

Ports Australia is the peak body representing the interests of port and marine authorities in Australia. In August 2013, Ports Australia released Leading practice – Ports master planning. This guide recognises the importance of transparent, collaborative master planning to help facilitate improved productivity outcomes, increased investment confidence and greater environmental protection.

The guide outlines the importance of port master planning and includes suggested master plan content for all port situations. It elevates the importance of adopting a ‘beyond the port boundary’ approach to master planning activities and also suggests greater use of strategic assessment provisions under the EPBC Act (at relevant port locations) to drive regulatory streamlining and improved management of environmental values.

Other regional initiatives

In addition to the international and national initiatives described above, there is continuing research specific to the GBRWHA that is relevant to this Review. For example, a collaboration of scientists has recently produced a paper ‘Guiding principles for the improved governance of port and shipping impacts in the Great Barrier Reef’ (Grech et al. 2013). The authors identify 13 principles for improved governance and environmental management, which have been considered by the Review.

3 www.pianc.org/workingwithnature14

Port activities

Different types of port activities call for different environmental management approaches and responses. The Review identified eight general activity types to describe port operations. These activities are governed by multiple authorities at various levels. They are not solely the responsibility of the port authority – in this case Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC).

Ancillary activities outside of the port area (e.g. freight transport infrastructure) have not been examined in detail by the Review, nor have activities within the port area that are not related to port operations (e.g. fishing). Such activities are, however, important considerations in planning processes and addressing cumulative impacts.

Port-related activities are shown in Figure 2 with an indication of the possible environmental impacts or risks that they present. For some activities, impacts are likely to be temporary; for others, some impacts may be permanent. Some impacts may also be exacerbated by accumulation of impacts from multiple activities. The list of environmental impacts or risks in Figure 2 was drawn from the report Environmental best practice port development: An analysis of international approaches (GHD 2013a), which was commissioned through the comprehensive strategic assessment of the GBRWHA.

Figure 2: Port activity matrix

Environmental impacts or risks

Act

iviti

es

Con

stru

ctio

n an

d as

soci

ated

ac

tiviti

es

Com

mod

ity

proc

essi

ng

Vess

el lo

adin

g an

d un

load

ing†

Vess

el

anch

orag

e*

Vess

el

mov

emen

ts

Dre

dgin

g (c

apita

l or

mai

nten

ance

)

Sea

disp

osal

of

dred

ge s

poil

Land

recl

amat

ion

Aesthetics F F F F F F F

Air quality F F F

Coastal processes and hydrology

F F F

Direct ecosystem impacts

F F F F F

Invasive species F F F F F

Light pollution F F F F F F

Noise pollution and vibration

F F F F

Water and sediment quality

F F F F F F F

? includes all activities undertaken at berth (such as ship waste disposal) and associated commodity transport* includes all activities undertaken at anchor

15

The Review examined the environmental impacts and risks of port activities. This analysis was instrumental in the formulation of the principles outlined later in this report. Management approaches used in the Port of Gladstone were examined and compared to approaches implemented in other ports, both in Australia and globally. Multiple layers of governance were considered, including international, national, state and local requirements.

The following description of port activities is intended to provide general information about the range of activities that should be covered by port environmental management and governance. The potential impacts identified should be greatly minimised through the application of the recommended principles. Indicative environmental impacts and risks for each activity outlined below are listed in the order of the matrix in Figure 2, and not according to relative importance.

Construction and associated activitiesConstruction is the process of building new facilities or extending, maintaining or improving existing facilities. Construction-related port activities include clearing, levelling, stockpiling, earthworks, building of structures, and pile driving.

Construction activities have been undertaken frequently within the Port of Gladstone in recent times. Different stakeholders within the port may undertake construction activities at different times and for various reasons. A range of action-specific guidelines are available for construction activities, such as the Queensland Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry (Queensland Government 2000) and the Standard for Marine Construction Activities within Gladstone Harbour (Maritime Safety Queensland 2012). Conditions of both Commonwealth and Queensland Government project approvals also often include regulation of construction impacts with respect to protected environmental matters.

Construction and associated activities may result in:

temporary and ongoing aesthetic impacts through changes to the landscape

temporary and ongoing changes in air quality through the impacts of airborne dust, diesel fumes from machinery and emissions arising from the use of other chemicals

temporary and ongoing changes to coastal processes and hydrology where the construction activities affect the coastline or waterways

direct ecosystem impacts through habitat removal and direct mortality of species

introduction or exacerbation of invasive species through landscape disturbance, changes to land use and nutrient levels in runoff

temporary and ongoing impacts on light levels through construction site lighting and any ongoing lighting requirements

temporary noise pollution and vibration impacts

temporary impacts on sediment and water quality through the effects of landscape clearing.

Commodity processingCommodity processing typically involves the handling and/or conversion of raw bulk material into more convenient, ready-to-use end products or ready-to-export end products. In the context of this report, commodity processing encompasses both the act of processing and the associated storage of materials at different stages. Material storage also often includes management measures, such as the watering of coal stockpiles to minimise the effect of airborne coal dust on local air quality.

The Port of Gladstone began commodity processing in the 1950s and, though the commodities have changed over 16

time, processing in one form or another has been ongoing since that time. For example, the Port of Gladstone is home to an alumina refinery run by Queensland Alumina Ltd (QAL), which commenced operation in 1967. The alumina product is stored prior to export and the bauxite residue from the clarification stage of the refining process is also stored on site in large residue storage dams. QAL’s bauxite residue storage area comprises a 1000 hectare area on Boyne Island. Bauxite residue is deposited in the dams as slurry and allowed to dry, with the remaining water being discharged to the estuary. Bauxite residue is generally disposed of in such dams indefinitely but, due to its high alkalinity, some of QAL’s residue has been used to treat acid sulfate soils and remediate acid mine drainage at mine sites (QAL 2010).

Commodity processing is typically licensed and regulated by the Queensland Government. Port authorities have limited powers relating to ongoing regulation of these activities, other than those potentially available under tenure management. For example, GPC informed the Review that recent changes to Queensland legislation have removed the requirement for the port authority to be consulted prior to a change in land use by a tenant on ‘strategic port land’, despite the port authority remaining the landholder.

Commodity processing is generally considered to result in ongoing impacts at the Port of Gladstone, as most commodity processing facilities are components of ongoing industries. Ongoing impacts of commodity processing may include:

aesthetic impacts from processing facilities and their waste streams or emissions, stockpiles and structures

air quality impacts from facility emissions or from airborne particulate matter such as coal dust from coal stockpiles

light pollution from operational, safety and security lighting of facilities

noise pollution and vibration resulting from the day-to-day operation of commodity processing facilities

water and sediment quality impacts from wastes and by-products.

Vessel loading and unloadingVessel loading and unloading includes all activities undertaken while a vessel is at berth. This includes the physical process of loading and unloading commodities, cleaning, repairs, and transfers of power, wastes, fuel and supplies. International and national vessel safety and pollution requirements continue to apply to vessels at berth as well as to the Australian Government (e.g. international obligations relating to the provision of port waste reception facilities). The impacts of vessel loading and unloading activities differ according to commodity type.

Vessel loading and unloading activities may result in:

aesthetic impacts from ship loading, site management and associated operational structures

air quality impacts from airborne dust or other contaminants mobilised during ship loading

the establishment of invasive species, which are more likely to mobilise while the vessel is still at berth

light pollution from operational, safety and security lighting required for berthing activities

noise from ship loading machinery and other operational structures

water and sediment quality impacts from cleaning, repair activities and cargo spillage within port confines.

17

Vessel anchorageThe term vessel anchorage refers to the act of dropping anchor and any related activities vessels may undertake while at anchor. Anchorages are an essential component of safe and efficient port operations and are critical for port development.

Vessels may be at anchor for different time periods and purposes. Common activities undertaken at anchor include refuelling, transfer of supplies, vessel cleaning and other operational activities as well as general provisioning and scheduled on-board maintenance.

Vessel anchorage in the Port of Gladstone occurs in specific areas and is regulated by the Gladstone Vessel Traffic Service under Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ) control. It occurs most frequently in the outer anchorage area, located outside the port limits in an area south-east of Facing Island comprising 22 722 hectares. There is also an inner anchorage area to the west of Facing Island within the port limits, comprising just 1403 hectares, but this area is rarely used and is kept mainly for emergency use (GHD 2013b).

The Port of Gladstone currently experiences 1500 ship arrivals per year, of which 80 per cent proceed directly to anchor (GHD 2013b). On average, three ships per day use the anchorage areas and these stay at anchor for approximately four days (GHD 2013b).

The majority of vessels using the anchoring areas at the Port of Gladstone are waiting for a berth in order to conduct scheduled loading and unloading activities. Some vessels may stop briefly at Gladstone while in transit to other destinations in order to transfer fuel or other supplies.

Depending on the exact location of regulated anchorage areas, vessel anchoring may result in:

temporary aesthetic impacts through the presence of vessels

direct ecosystem impacts through habitat destruction on the sea floor or habitat avoidance due to the presence of ships

the introduction of invasive species (species are more likely to move off ship while the vessel is at anchor than when it is moving)

temporary lighting impacts from operational, safety and security lighting used on board stationary vessels

water and sediment quality impacts from unintentional discharges including spills of fuels or chemicals.

Vessel movementsThe movement of vessels is an activity that is central to the operation of any port. In the context of this report it is described as the movement of vessels within and around the port in order to facilitate the import and export of commodities. This can include tugboats and ancillary vessels as well as ocean-going ships. For this report it does not include recreational vessel movements, as these are not considered to be port operations. It also does not include dredge vessel movements, as the impacts from dredging are addressed separately. Time spent at anchor, loading and unloading are dealt with separately.

MSQ is responsible for the monitoring and management of the safe movement of ships in Queensland waters. The Gladstone Regional Harbour Master assists Gladstone Ports Corporation in controlling traffic movement in the port, maintaining on-water safety distances, and responding to any emergency situation.

In periods of peak construction there is a substantial increase in the number and types of vessels using the harbour. This can result in an increased likelihood of marine incidents. For example, in 2012 the combination of substantial construction activities and normal vessel movements saw the Gladstone marine incident rate increase

18

by 55 per cent while incident rates at other ports in Queensland decreased (DTMR 2013).

Vessel movements may result in:

temporary aesthetic impacts from the presence of vessels

temporary air quality impacts from the use of marine fuels

direct ecosystem impacts through vessel collisions with fauna

the introduction of invasive species

temporary noise impacts from vessel engine noise

temporary lighting impacts from shipboard lights

water quality impacts from unintentional discharges including spills of fuels or chemicals.

Dredging (capital or maintenance)Dredging is the process of removing sediment from the sea bed in order to render vessel movements safe and port operations efficient. It is carried out at ports in nearly all locations around the world. Dredging can be split into two broad categories: capital dredging and maintenance dredging.

Capital dredging is often associated with major new developments. It involves dredging of new areas and/or depths (e.g. new channels, berth pockets, approach and departure paths). Capital dredging is also undertaken to deepen and/or widen existing channels and berth pockets to enable access for larger vessels, or for engineering purposes such as to create trenches for underwater pipelines and ancillary infrastructure.

Maintenance dredging is undertaken to ensure existing defined areas are maintained at their designed operational dimensions. It is often undertaken at regular intervals in response to ongoing sedimentation. Maintenance dredging allows ports to remain operational and plays a critical part in overall environmental protection by facilitating the safe and efficient movement of vessels.

The risks associated with capital or maintenance dredging are largely determined by the scale of the dredging, the chemical and physical characteristics, the biological implications of the sediments to be dredged and the sensitivity of the surrounding environment. The National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (NAGD) outline relevant regulatory requirements for dredging operations in Australia.

Several different types of dredges are employed globally. Mechanical dredges such as bucket, grab or backhoe dredges are generally used at a fixed point and mechanically scoop sediment from the seabed. Hydraulic dredges such as suction hopper, cutter suction and trailing suction hopper dredges are usually more mobile and suck the sediment up from the sea floor. Water-injection dredges are relatively new. They move sediment by injecting water into it so that it becomes fluid and is moved either by gravitational forces or by currents.

Dredging may result in:

temporary aesthetic impacts from the dredge plumes

temporary and ongoing changes to coastal processes and hydrology through alteration of channels and coastal morphology

direct ecosystem impacts such as entrainment of fauna in the dredge

the introduction of marine invasive species that may be transported on the dredge when it travels from international ports

temporary light pollution from the dredge

19

temporary noise pollution and vibration from the action of the dredge

temporary water quality impacts, such as light attenuation and nutrient fluxes from the dredge plume.

Sea disposal of dredged materialSea disposal of dredged material refers to the disposal of dredge sediment into the ocean. The 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter 1972 (the London Protocol) prohibits dumping of wastes at sea, except for possibly acceptable wastes included in an annex to the treaty (IMO 2013). Australia’s obligations under the London Protocol are implemented through the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (the Sea Dumping Act). Australia reports annually to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) on all permitted and emergency sea dumping activities in Australian waters. The Australian Government’s objectives under the Sea Dumping Act are to protect and preserve the marine environment from pollution related to dumping at sea, minimising impacts on living marine resources, human health and other uses of the marine environment.

Under the Sea Dumping Act, parties can apply for sea dumping permits to dispose of dredged material at sea. Sea dumping permits regulate the impacts of sea disposal on the environment. Port operators account for the majority of sea dumping permits.

Prior to gaining a sea dumping permit, an applicant must have evaluated alternatives to ocean disposal, including the environmental, social and economic impacts of each disposal option in accordance with the NAGD (Commonwealth of Australia 2009).

Developed by the Commonwealth Government in 2009, the NAGD set out the framework for the environmental impact assessment and permitting of the ocean disposal of dredged material. Specifically, the framework includes:

evaluating alternatives to ocean disposal

assessing loading and disposal sites

assessing potential impacts on the marine environment and other users

determining management and monitoring requirements.

As well as demonstrating that dredged sediments are suitable for disposal following scientific analysis, permit applicants must also choose a suitable ocean disposal site where impacts on the environment will be minimised. In Gladstone, the East Banks Sea Disposal Site (as shown in Figure 1 of the Initial Report) has historically been used for disposal of dredged material.

Sea disposal of dredged material may result in:

temporary aesthetic impacts from the dredge plume

temporary and ongoing changes to coastal processes and hydrology through alteration of seabed and coastal morphology

direct ecosystem impacts such as smothering of habitats

the introduction of marine invasive species that may be transported on the dredge

temporary water quality impacts such as light attenuation and nutrient fluxes from the dredge plume.

Land reclamationLand reclamation refers to the conversion of existing substrate by depositing materials to create land in a low-lying coastal area or water body such as a lake, estuary or ocean. In a port area this process is often used to enable

20

industrial expansion such as the Fisherman’s Landing area at the Port of Gladstone. It can also be used to create new land for residential, recreational or environmental purposes, such as the artificial tern island built in 2005 at the Port of Antwerp (Port of Antwerp 2006). The process of land reclamation is usually completed through the use of bund walls to create an enclosed area, which is then filled with substrate such as dredge spoil. Land reclamation also presents an alternative to sea disposal of dredged material, when the material displays the correct engineering properties for such purpose.

Land reclamation may result in:

permanent aesthetic impacts from changed, or newly created, landforms or seascapes

permanent changes to coastal processes and hydrology through alteration of coastal morphology

direct ecosystem impacts including clearing or smothering of habitats

temporary light pollution from operational, safety and security lighting during the reclamation of the area, and ongoing light pollution if lighting is required for the newly reclaimed area

temporary water quality impacts from turbid runoff and disturbance of acid sulfate soils.

21

Best practice principles

The Review considered a range of documentation relating to the potential economic growth and subsequent requirement for port developments along the Queensland coast. At the request of the Review, the Queensland Resources Council (QRC) provided a forecast of likely commodity growth and port infrastructure requirements based on current market predictions. While there is no consensus between relevant stakeholder groups on the extent or form of growth requirements, ongoing growth of port capacity along the coast adjacent to the GBRWHA is anticipated into the future.

Ensuring that growth does not compromise the OUV of the GBRWHA will require both concentrating development within existing port footprints and continually improving environmental management within those ports (see Figure 3). Furthermore, ports cannot be managed in isolation and environmental management and governance should be addressed holistically, having regard to the regional context in which the ports occur.

Figure 3: Port optimisation

PORT OPTIMISATION =

Better use of long-established port

nodes+

Leading/best practice:Port planning

Environment assessment & decision-making

Monitoring & reporting

Compliance & Enforcement

It should not be assumed that all ports within the GBRWHA will need to expand. Smaller ports not subject to significant growth should continually improve their environmental performance but may not require the same level of environmental management as larger ports if the environmental risks and impacts are low. The nature and volumes of products imported and exported and the use of harbours by other industries (e.g. tourism and fishing) will continue to fluctuate over time, and the level of environmental management and governance should be proportionate to the risks presented.

The initial report outlined a conceptual framework for environmental management and governance in line with the terms of reference (see Figure 4). While the elements of governance adapt over time in response to new knowledge, this figure is not intended to represent an adaptive management cycle. The conceptual framework does not operate in a true linear fashion. The elements interact in a dynamic way and the arrows are not intended to represent a particular sequence of activity. For example, planning should be regularly reviewed, including to incorporate new information and knowledge from environmental assessment and decision-making.

22

Figure 4: Conceptual framework for environmental management and governance

The Review used the conceptual framework to structure advice about optimisation of the environmental management and governance of ports, identifying principles that sit within each of the four elements of the governance framework. The Review also identified a number of overarching principles that apply to all elements.

In developing the principles, the Review examined in detail the possible environmental issues and risks arising from the range of port activities in the Port of Gladstone. Information about how ports more broadly have responded to these issues and risks, including international case studies, was drawn on in the analysis and formulation of advice in this supplementary report.

Overarching principlesWorld heritage recognition of an area creates a duty of care to manage it so that the outstanding universal value for which it was nominated can be maintained. In the case of a coastal or marine area this requires application of best practice environmental standards applicable to ports within or adjacent to the area. The area’s status as a property of value to the world, and the obligations to protect, conserve, present and transmit that heritage to future generations, should be a consideration in all elements of port environmental management and governance. It should not be just a consideration in environmental assessments and decision-making.

Principle 1:The OUV of the GBRWHA should be an intrinsic consideration in all aspects of environmental management and governance of ports in the Great Barrier Reef region.

Stakeholder trust is crucial for the planning and implementation of optimised environmental management. This requires the establishment of regular consultative mechanisms for engaging, informing and sharing information with stakeholders. The initial report discussed the need for meaningful engagement with stakeholders and the value such engagement can provide. It highlighted the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership as a new initiative to address some of the communication issues that have arisen in Gladstone.

23

To be meaningful, strategies should be designed to engage with and reflect the social and economic context of the range of stakeholders that are affected by port operations. Environmental and societal values should be considered from the start of planning activities in a consultative and transparent manner that helps to identify and implement sustainable solutions.

Principle 2:Meaningful engagement strategies should be implemented throughout planning and operational processes so that all stakeholders can be aware of environmental condition and progress in achieving a shared vision.

Access to relevant information resources used by decision makers is important for developing shared understanding and trust. The initial report discussed the importance of transparency and the timely and free release of relevant information. Determining whether a document should be considered to be ‘relevant information’ will depend on the extent to which it was relied upon to reach a decision, regardless of whether that decision related to an environmental approval, the formulation of a plan or the establishment of an adaptive monitoring regime.

Principle 3:Relevant information used in decision-making should be freely accessible in a timely manner.

Decisions on environmental management and governance should be informed by the best available environmental, social and economic data and analysis; published information on operational experience in relevant comparable situations; and local knowledge of traditional owners, residents and users of the area. The objectivity of decision makers is very important and helps to ensure that decisions are not biased by vested interests.

In the planning stage, available data should be augmented by specifically commissioned studies to address gaps and uncertainties. In the longer term, systematic operational monitoring and other studies should be conducted to determine the performance of management and the achievement of environmental outcomes. This will help to inform stakeholders and provide a robust basis for periodic review and adaptation where necessary. The information developed through monitoring, specific studies and syntheses of technical and professional literature should be subjected to independent expert peer review.

Principle 4:Environmental management and governance should be objective, transparent and informed by best available knowledge.

Knowledge about environmental processes, and the impacts of human interaction upon them, is constantly evolving. This also applies to improvements in technology, particularly technology that will result in greater environmental protection. Improvements in information and technology should be considered in the regular review of planning and operational arrangements.

Within Australian ports, the environmental assessment phase is where the most current information and

24

technological options are considered and are able to inform conditions of approval. However, there is limited capacity to use existing regulatory processes to compel or encourage companies operating within ports to improve their performance once the environmental approval is granted, unless provisions are built into the approval. Under historic tenancy agreements and leases, port authorities can also be very limited in their ability to compel companies to improve their environmental performance by adopting technological advances. This is particularly an issue where a tenant has a long-term lease that was established many decades ago.

Companies and industries operating within the GBRWHA should regard continual improvement in environmental performance as a standard requirement of operating within such an important and valuable area. Governments and port authorities will need to work closely with all users to ensure that advances in technology and knowledge are adopted in a timely and effective way, using a combination of regulatory and incentive-based approaches. The application of up-to-date knowledge and technology is also particularly important in the context of decommissioning outdated or redundant infrastructure.

Principle 5:Port planning and operations should be reviewed and improved regularly, informed by advances in technology and knowledge.

PlanningSite selection and master planning activities generally determine land uses and the form of development in ports.

Site selection is the process by which broader strategic drivers in the region are considered through an allocation of suitable areas for port development. Good site selection considers ‘beyond-the-port-boundary’ operational requirements such as the ability to connect with critical allied infrastructure, including regional surface transport linkages. The activity must also consider societal and environmental values as a consequence of site options. This is particularly important in the context of obligations under the World Heritage Convention.

Port master planning typically follows site selection and essentially deals with planning of land use and activities inside port boundaries. However, as ports evolve and grow, the two activities merge into the single strategic activity of master planning, which deals with the longer-term specifics of an individual port. Ideally, comprehensive port master planning should use a development horizon of approximately 15 to 30 years,4 regardless of port size (current or projected), cargo type or environmental setting. It is focused on creating an operationally efficient land use system with an emphasis on safety, security and environmental responsibility – within and beyond the port.

Management of ports should be holistic, consolidating measures to address human and environmental health and safety, wellbeing and efficiency. Traditionally, port planning has been based primarily on economic, logistic and engineering drivers. The benefits in considering environmental objectives at the early stages of, and throughout, master planning are increasingly recognised, including in the master planning guidance developed by Ports Australia.

The initial report found that there has been variable consideration of world heritage and environment matters in the state and port strategic planning processes for the Port of Gladstone. When these matters have been considered, there has been inadequate avoidance or mitigation of impacts on world heritage values. If this approach is maintained it is not likely to be possible to demonstrate reasonable commitment to management for the long-term maintenance of the environmental assets in Gladstone or other ports in the GBRWHA.

Prospects for new port developments have been mooted, both in areas as yet undisturbed within port limits (e.g.

4 In line with the National Ports Strategy.25

Balaclava Island) and at greenfield sites that have not yet been formally gazetted as port facilities. Further development or redevelopment should be concentrated within existing established port areas prior to opening up of new areas. Minimising the geographical extent of impacts, including aesthetic impacts, will contribute to greater regional environmental resilience.

Principle 6:Existing developed footprints within port areas should be optimised to the greatest extent possible prior to expansion into greenfield sites, including through the consolidation and sharing of infrastructure.

The outstanding universal value of the GBRWHA is protected under national environmental legislation as a matter of national environmental significance in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. The GBRWHA is a multiple use area, and ports existed prior to its inscription on the World Heritage List. Planning for future development along the adjacent coast should aim for the highest possible levels of environmental performance to ensure the ongoing protection of the OUV of the GBRWHA. Hence, any expansion and development of ports needs to consider Australia’s world heritage commitments in relation to maintaining the world heritage values of the area.

Environment protection legislation in Australia allows for landscape-scale environmental assessments through a range of strategic approaches. Strategic assessments entail a more holistic assessment than individual project assessments and require the consideration of relevant environmental matters at the beginning of the process. For example, strategic assessment provisions in the EPBC Act allow the federal environment Minister to endorse a port master plan, following which the minister can approve actions, or classes of actions, taken in accordance with that plan.5 Such an approach should result in better environmental outcomes and greater certainty for industry, the community and government. Proponents of new developments would have an immediate incentive to develop in accordance with the port master plan or otherwise face additional research, assessment and approval requirements.

5 http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/guide-to-strategic-assessments.html26

Principle 7:Port plans should specifically identify and address environmental objectives, including the maintenance of the outstanding universal value of the GBRWHA, and the plans should be subject to risk-based environmental assessments.

There is a growing body of experience in port design and operation. Optimisation of any existing or potential port involves the consideration of a combination of physical (geographic, tidal and climatic), environmental, societal, scale and logistical factors. No single approach or technology can be applied broadly to every port in the GBRWHA, but scientific and experiential information can be used to investigate the best way to proceed to meet a particular development need.

Safety, efficiency and ease of access for vessel movements through navigation channels and shipping lanes are key considerations in planning. However, identifying a site and/or a design that simply meets an economic or traditional engineering need and then simply justifying environmental impacts is no longer an appropriate approach. Consideration of environmental factors, and meaningful stakeholder engagement from the commencement of project planning, will help to ensure that resulting designs and solutions are site specific and regionally appropriate. It will also help to ensure that the impacts of new developments are considered within the context of the cumulative pressures upon the receiving environment.

Principle 8:Planning and management solutions should be site specific and fit for purpose within the local and regional environmental and social context, including having regard to cumulative pressures.

In Australia, port planning is within the jurisdiction of state governments and there is not currently a consistent approach to regulation. However, in July 2012 the Council of Australian Governments agreed to the National Ports Strategy, which identifies port master planning as key to the development of efficient and sustainable ports and associated freight logistics (Infrastructure Australia 2011).

The Queensland Government released a draft Queensland Port Strategy for public comment on 17 October 2013. It was informed by public comment on a draft Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy 2012–2022 that was released in 2012, and has been prepared with reference to the National Ports Strategy. It states that statutory master planning will be mandatory for priority port development areas (PPDAs). The Queensland Government will prepare a statutory master planning guide to lead industry practice that may be used by all ports and will be compulsory for PPDAs (DSDIP 2013).

In response to the 2011 decision of the World Heritage Committee, the Australian Government undertook to provide a long-term plan for sustainable development that will protect the OUV of the GBRWHA to the WHC in 2015 (Australian Government 2013). An agreed long-term vision for the GBRWHA will be important for ensuring the long-term sustainability of the area and provide certainty for stakeholders, including industry, about acceptable development into the future.

Port authorities are commercial operations and most are established as commercial entities responsible to shareholders. It is therefore necessary for governments to provide a clear framework and guidance to ports around regional, state and national infrastructure, development priorities and environmental objectives.

High-level strategies that take a broader view of infrastructure requirements for the jurisdiction could be used to

27

establish a triple-bottom-line framework that allows competition between ports but at the same time does not unreasonably compromise social and environmental objectives in any one area. Proposals for individual port expansions could also meet national and state interests as well as those of a single port or company. To do this, social and environmental objectives would need to be clearly articulated, and adequate processes for consultation provided. The relationship between the different levels of planning is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Port planning hierarchy and relationship

Principle 9:Individual port plans should be consistent with regional, state and national port and freight logistics plans within a long-term shared vision.

The initial report included a recommendation that a single master plan be developed for the whole of the Port of Gladstone, including strategic port land and the State Development Area, with full stakeholder engagement and fully considering protection of environmental and world heritage values in identifying areas for future expansion. It discussed the various planning processes that had occurred in Gladstone with differing geographical extents. The Review also recommended that the Queensland Government and GPC consistently delineate between different port areas in their plans (particularly between the Port of Rockhampton and the Port of Gladstone) and include greater explanation in their public consultation processes.

Ports should develop and maintain a single master plan that encompasses the entire port area, including adjoining land areas that are likely to be associated with port developments. This would necessarily involve collaboration between landowners, port authorities and the Queensland Government.

28

Principle 10:Port master plans should encompass the entire extent of port limits and adjoining land likely to be associated with port development and operation.

The implementation of plans is directly affected by legal management responsibility for particular areas of the port and related land. All users and stakeholders in the area have an interest in the ongoing management of the port. The extent of ownership of the plan by the variety of stakeholders is a key element in ensuring its success. Key to broad ownership is an explicit and transparent process for analysing and managing environmental risks. Transparency of the plan, including the development and finalisation processes, is important to gain and maintain a shared vision. The weighting of environmental and social criteria within the planning process will also affect the likelihood of acceptance by affected stakeholder groups.

Scenario planning and option analysis can take various forms. There are benefits and limitations to the different planning methodologies used and documented globally. The approach taken should be appropriate to the scale of the port and the complexities involved. A risk-based approach in which economic, social and environmental considerations are explained, weighted and clearly documented will help to ensure the best outcome in a way that can be understood by diverse interest groups.

Principle 11:Planning criteria and option analysis should be risk-based, documented and publicly available, including economic, social and environmental considerations.

While port plans can provide site-based direction for planned growth and operation, they can also identify beneficial operational strategies and objectives to address other aspects of port governance. For example, should a port authority become aware of the need to accommodate high levels of waste from calling vessels, it may (through a planning process) make on-shore waste reception facilities part of compulsory ship-berthing fees. Identifying such strategies within formal plans provides clarity and certainty to port users and demonstrates how the port authority will contribute to the protection of the environment within and outside of the port limits.

As environmental credentials continue to grow in importance, ports that have a strong sustainability focus and mandate with clear environmental objectives will in turn attract customers who have aligned objectives. In the future, port authorities that use incentives such as reductions in fees to encourage reduced energy and water use on shore will gain a stronger environmental reputation that will improve social acceptance and enhance a social licence to operate.

Principle 12:Ports should implement incentive schemes to encourage use of the best available environmental technology and operational practice.

Environmental assessment and decision-making

29

Environmental assessment is the process of assessing the environmental impacts of potential development. The initial report outlines the different layers and systems of environmental assessment and decision-making that apply in the Port of Gladstone, including Commonwealth, state and local government requirements. Other ports within the GBRWHA are subject to the same environmental protection legislation.

Environmental assessments are a key legislative requirement leading to some form of decision-making on the acceptability (or not) of the project and usually contain certain conditions to mitigate or improve environmental impact. The conditions imposed by environmental approvals are key parts of the adaptive environmental management and governance of ports, adding substantial safeguards that govern port operations. Currently, each development proposal is individually assessed, which poses challenges in quantifying the cumulative effects of a set of developments over time. Globally, no methodology for quantifying cumulative impacts has been established that has gained wide acceptance. However, there are strategic assessment options, including through the EPBC Act, that can be used on a voluntary basis to take a landscape-scale approach to environmental assessment and decision-making.

Decision makers will never have perfect information available to them to inform their decisions. There will always be a degree of uncertainty in the likelihood and consequences of predicted impacts. A risk-based approach allows decision makers not to be unduly constrained in times of uncertainty and, instead, to implement a precautionary approach. However, when scientifically rigorous information is available it should be used to inform the management of port operations. Experience-based evidence, particularly from observing actual impacts from previous similar developments, can also be very important and should be taken into account where relevant.

Potential impacts of port development and operations on hydrology, coastal processes, hydrodynamic conditions and water quality of receiving waters should be adequately analysed and forecast through tools such as numerical models. The level of modelling required should be proportionate to the identified risks of the development. In addition, the assumptions in the models should be identified and the models should reflect potential short- and long-term risks and drivers (e.g. catchment sources, point sources and extreme weather events) to the receiving waters.

Principle 13:A consistent, robust and transparent integrated modelling and decision support framework should be available to stakeholders and regulators.

The consistent application of assessment tools or models can help to establish a shared whole-of-system understanding and confidence in the predictive science. In the Port of Gladstone, numerous hydrodynamic models are in use to predict the likely water movement and quality in response to environmental conditions within the harbour. Intellectual property and commercial constraints have contributed to the lack of a collaborative approach and comparability across these various models. This in turn can make it challenging for regulators to ensure that decisions are informed by the best available science.

The need for assessment and consideration of cumulative impacts was identified in the initial report as one of the three key areas for improvement. Research projects currently underway through the comprehensive strategic assessment include:

an integrated monitoring framework for the GBRWHA

a Great Barrier Reef resilience decision framework

a coastal ecosystems assessment framework.

30

These studies were not completed in time for consideration by the Review. However, preliminary results indicate that they should help decision makers and port managers better understand the complex dynamics of the total receiving environment. A system for better consideration of cumulative pressures should result.

Principle 14:Environmental assessment and decision-making should be based on a whole-of-system understanding of the receiving environment and impacts of cumulative pressures.

The current environmental management hierarchy used in the Australian environmental assessment system specifies a preference for impact avoidance, followed by minimisation and finally offsetting. Collaborative initiatives such as Building with Nature and Working with Nature effectively install benefit at the top of the hierarchy to encourage best possible solutions to be the first considerations (De Vriend and Van Koningsveld 2012, PIANC 2011). However, without a shared vision or target for the local environment area, the idea of an environmental benefit can be subjective. For example, the construction of a rock wall may encourage and support an increase in commercially and recreationally valuable fish species but may have an adverse flow-on effect on ecosystem services or on a threatened or vulnerable species.

The concept of delivering the benefits of offsets in advance of the impact occurring has also been observed in port developments around the world. This is much simpler for a proponent to deliver if strategic offsetting opportunities have already been identified and agreed by a collaboration of stakeholders and governments such as through port master planning. Where it is not possible for the offsets to be secured prior to the impacts occurring, additional compensatory measures may be required.

In the initial report, the Review recommended that the Australian Government build on the offsets policy launched in October 2012 and establish a list of appropriate offsets for the GBRWHA. The adoption of a regional approach, based on an understanding of the most effective offsets to deal with environmental impacts, provides the opportunity for strategic delivery of positive environmental outcomes. This approach, which is likely to involve a combination of direct and indirect offsets, will enhance public confidence in port development.

Principle 15:Environmental offsets should be strategic, measurable and in place prior to impacts occurring, while aiming for a net environmental gain.

Some submissions to the Review expressed concern and frustration at the lack of effective consultation, transparency and data availability in relation to port development and management. Important considerations for port planning and a shared long-term vision for the GBRWHA have been articulated above. One of the three key areas for improvement identified in the initial report was the need for meaningful and ongoing stakeholder engagement to improve information and community confidence in environmental management and governance.

Consideration of such plans and vision by decision makers through environmental assessments will be crucial. If the plans are not actually implemented, they will have little to no value. If such guidance documents are not taken into account in environmental approval decision-making their value is greatly diminished, as is the confidence of stakeholders who participated in good faith in their development. Plans should be informed by environmental assessments and adapted to ensure that unacceptable impacts will not occur.

31

Principle 16:Decision-making and development approvals should be consistent with port planning and a shared vision for the region.

Monitoring and reportingThe overall health of the environment at and around a port should be continuously monitored so that short-term and long-term environmental condition and trends can be detected. During project construction works, additional project-specific monitoring programs should be targeted and, where possible, in line with overall whole-of-port monitoring systems. Regular and consistent reporting and communication of monitoring results is also important for maintaining stakeholder understanding and confidence.

Mandatory conditions on the development and operation of an activity will normally include requirements for monitoring of environmental indicators and identify acceptable thresholds or trigger levels for those indicators. These should reflect the level of risk to environmental values identified in the decision-making process. Conditions will similarly require reasonable monitoring and reporting of management activities to reflect compliance with and effectiveness of operational procedures. Such monitoring should be mandatory, scheduled and transparent.

One mechanism for increasing public confidence in monitoring and reporting is the involvement of a multi-stakeholder body reflecting the range of community interests in the operation of the port. To increase community confidence in monitoring and reporting, data should be publically available and subsequent analysis should be subject to technical peer review. The production of relevant information in a form that is understandable to the public (such as report cards that clearly indicate performance against thresholds or targets) can also assist to improve public confidence in industry-funded monitoring and reporting. However, such summaries should not be the only form in which information is available to stakeholder groups.

Identification of appropriate environmental or impact thresholds, targets and objectives is critical for the monitoring, evaluation and reporting of the overall health of the environment of a port in the context of multiple sources of impacts. All monitoring programs need to be properly developed to ensure that they include both near and distant receiving environments. For example, water quality can be impacted by all of the port activities described earlier, as well as by a multitude of other activities upstream in the catchment. Water quality values that are ecologically meaningful and deliver social outcomes can be incorporated into an adaptive management framework so that, if values are exceeded, action can be taken to avoid, minimise or contain the impacts. Impact thresholds should take into account the duration, frequency and intensity of impacts, as well as cumulative impacts.

For port operations, approvals generally protect water quality through high-level management and governance-oriented conditions. Water quality protection measures (including plans for managing the environment, aquatic values, dredging and shipping) are generally based on national and state guidelines as well as monitoring against established local baseline data.

Principle 17:Appropriate indicators, thresholds and methods for monitoring ecological health should be identified through a risk-based whole-of-system approach and consistent with a regional integrated monitoring framework.

32

The introduction of invasive marine pest species to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is a threat to its outstanding universal value. The threat of invasive species imported in ballast waters was specifically mentioned in the World Heritage Committee’s mission report (Douvere and Badman 2012, pp. 32 and 58). Approximately 250 introduced marine species were reported around Australia in 2009, and species such as the Asian green mussel and the Asian bag mussel have been found in ports along the Great Barrier Reef coastline (GBRMPA 2009).

The report Environmental best practice port development: An analysis of international approaches (GHD 2013a) identified that the best way to manage invasive marine pest species in ports is through a combined approach of:

education, awareness and information sharing regarding risks and actions to prevent the spread of marine pest species

pre-entry quarantine actions

monitoring to demonstrate effectiveness of management measures and enable a rapid response by early detection of new marine pest species

emergency procedures to enable rapid response to new reported marine pest species.

The risks of oil spills in ports are addressed through contingency plans. While each port has its own responsibility to develop, maintain and implement oil response management plans within port limits, oil spills should be managed consistently on a region-wide basis. As such, emergency response and environmental management of oil spills should be coordinated. Best practice, multi-tiered governance response to spills should be underpinned by a strong risk framework whereby capability and response times are proportional to the local environment and any sensitive environmental factors (GHD 2013a). By planning and rehearsing targeted oil spill response ahead of time, the impact on the environment can be minimised or prevented.

The Oil Spill Response Atlas in Australia’s National Plan for Maritime Environmental Emergencies6 provides a means of identifying marine and coastal areas of sensitivity that could be impacted in the event of an oil spill, as well as providing valuable resource and critical logistical information to federal and state/territory combat authorities and industry during such events.

Responsibilities for preventing, detecting and responding to significant environmental incidents are vested in a range of government agencies at the Commonwealth and state levels. Port authorities also have key responsibilities within port boundaries, particularly in relation to rapid response. Continuation of a collaborative approach between responsible parties will be critical in the success of monitoring and response initiatives.

Principle 18:Adequate capacity should be maintained in port areas to prevent, detect and rapidly respond to significant environmental incidents such as marine pest species incursions and oil spills.

Compliance and enforcementProject development and operational approvals contain conditions to ensure that environmental impacts are avoided, minimised and offset. The compliance and enforcement powers that can be used to ensure that condition requirements are being met are generally enacted in legislation from multiple levels of government. These were discussed in detail in the initial report.

6 www.amsa.gov.au/environment/maritime-environmental-emergencies/national-plan33

A key component of compliance with conditions imposed on any development is the need for monitoring of the actions undertaken and reporting of the results of these actions. Under Commonwealth environmental legislation, a risk-based approach to auditing of major projects is used, meaning that not all projects are actively monitored or audited by the government. There is an onus on the proponent to ensure adherence to, and adequacy of, reporting requirements. Transparency and public confidence in the results of operational reporting and monitoring of compliance with conditions are crucial components of effective port management, and these reports should be publically available.

Ports operating in sensitive environments need to develop and maintain the public confidence that provides a social licence to operate. A key way to do this is through confidence in the policing of approval conditions on developments. It is important to minimise infringements and operational mishaps and report those that do occur. Timely statutory reporting and participation in and compliance with voluntary codes of practice demonstrating constantly improving environmental performance can improve public confidence. Reporting of these activities helps to build a social licence to operate.

Principle 19:Compliance with regulatory controls should be monitored and the results published regularly, including in the event of an infringement.

While there is some public reporting on and auditing of individual projects in meeting the conditions of their environmental approvals, there has been very minimal reporting of analysis of performance against overarching port planning and environmental objectives. Some ports have been proactive in this regard. For example, GPC released the Curtis Coast coastal and marine resource inventory report (GPC 2012) in June 2013 to describe the history, society and natural resources of the region. However, in the absence of a shared regional vision and environmental objectives, information resources of this kind can be disconnected and disregarded by some stakeholders.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority produces a regular stock-take of the management and future of the Great Barrier Reef through the Great Barrier Reef outlook report. This provides information on ecosystem condition and management effectiveness on a reef-wide and macro-regional scale. A similar approach scaled for ports and with compatible methods would assist public confidence and the ability for responsible agencies to improve activities over time.

Principle 20:Performance against port planning and environmental objectives should be regularly assessed and publicly reported.

The initial report discussed the environmental performance of approved developments in the Port of Gladstone. It included a recommendation that all confirmed cases of non-compliance be publicly announced on both the department’s and the proponent’s websites, along with details of remedial action. Public exposure of misbehaviour and the resulting risk of reputation damage play important deterrent roles.

It is important that the penalties are sufficient to deter infringements, both for ensuring that proponents take their obligations seriously and for public confidence in the regulatory process. Financial penalties may have limited effect

34

where they are relatively small compared to overall operational costs.

Principle 21: Penalties for non-compliance should be sufficient to deter infringements.

35

Conclusion

Many activities that occur within a port are essential to the operation of the port. All port activities should be subject to transparent, objective and consultative environmental management and governance in an integrated and holistic manner. Consideration of environmental objectives in all elements of governance is important to ensure that temporary and permanent environmental impacts are understood, consistent with management objectives and minimised to acceptable levels. Importantly, the cumulative environmental impacts should be taken into account to ensure an appropriate and optimal management response.

Port activities in the GBRWHA are subject to multiple levels of governance, many of which are outside the control of the port authorities. A shared long-term vision, combined with clear national and state port strategies, should provide a robust framework for identifying the level of development required in individual ports. The application of principles such as those proposed in this report should help to guide sustainable development within ports in a way that is predictable for stakeholders, is adaptive and achieves optimised environmental outcomes. It should also assist to ensure that operational activities are adaptive and continually improve in response to emerging technology and information.

There is a clear need for some ports within the GBRWHA to continue to change and grow over time. However, this growth should not necessarily occur at all ports, and acceptance of the possibility of growth should not be treated as a carte blanche opportunity for substantial expansion into greenfield areas. The protection of environmental values, including the outstanding universal value of the GBRWHA, should be a fundamental consideration in port planning for predicted growth. Early and sustained meaningful engagement with stakeholders will be important to achieve the best possible outcomes and broad stakeholder support.

It is possible to operate, manage and enhance ports within the GBRWHA whilst also adequately protecting the environmental attributes of the area. The Review has identified a set of principles that should be used in future consideration of the development and operation of ports within the GBRWHA. These principles may also have broader applicability to ports in or adjoining other sensitive sea areas or world heritage properties. International experience and movement towards more sustainable ports will continue to provide insights and examples showing how development and operations can be improved over time.

36

Appendix 1: Table of meetings

Date and location

Panel members (NB: the secretariat was present at all meetings)

Attendees

21 August, Brisbane

Anthea Tinney Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) officers(Sally Noonan and Katherine Mcaulay)

Anthea Tinney QRC(Michael Roche, David Rynne and Bronwyn Story)

23 August, Canberra

Nil. Secretariat authorised to meet on panel’s behalf.

Infrastructure Australia(John Austen and Tracey Lines)

6 September, Gladstone

Eva Abal and Richard Kenchington Chad Hewitt

Eva Abal and Richard Kenchington GPC(Leo Zussino, Gary Carter, John Sherriff and Gordon Dwane)

9–11 September, Sydney

Richard Kenchington PIANC Sustainable Ports Workshop and Coasts and Ports Conference

27 September, Canberra

Anthea Tinney, Eva Abal, Ian Cresswell and Richard Kenchington

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA)(Russell Reichelt)

Anthea Tinney, Eva Abal, Ian Cresswell and Richard Kenchington

Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)(Mick Kinley)

10 October, Brisbane

Anthea Tinney, Eva Abal, Ian Cresswell and Richard Kenchington

Sally Noonan, Diane Tarte, Jason Sprott, Gary Carter, Carolyn Cameron and Kevin Kane

Anthea Tinney GPC(Craig Doyle)

25 October, Canberra

Anthea Tinney Department of the Environment(Gordon de Brouwer and Kimberley Dripps)

37

Appendix 2: Information considered

The Review considered information from a number of sources including submissions, websites of relevant organisations and bodies, media articles, journals, reports and reviews, departmental policies and guidelines, Commonwealth and Queensland government legislation, Hansard and statutory notices.

The majority of information sources considered in the Review are outlined in the initial report. This appendix outlines further information received since that time and sources used for this supplement.

Key publicly available documentsThe key publicly available documents considered by the Review, in addition to those outlined in the initial report, are referenced below.

Australian Government (2005a) National standards for criteria air pollutants in Australia: Air quality fact sheet. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Web page accessed 21 August 2013. URL: http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/standards.html

Australian Government (2005b) Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan 2005–2010. Recovery plan under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of the Environment and Heritage.

Australian Government (2005c) Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005–2010. Recovery plan under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of the Environment and Heritage.

Australian Government (2012) Conservation Management Plan for the Southern Right Whale 2011–2021. Recovery plan under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Australian Government (2013) State party report on the state of conservation of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (Australia) property ID N154. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Australian Maritime Safety Authority (2013) North-east shipping management plan: August 2013 draft. Buhaug, Ø., Corbett, J.J., Endresen, Ø., Eyring, V., Faber, J., Hanayama, S., Lee, D.S., Lee, D., Lindstad, H., Markowska, A.Z., Mjelde, A., Nelissen, D., Nilsen, J., Pålsson, C., Winebrake, J.J., Wu, W. and Yoshida, K. (2009) Second IMO GHG study 2009. International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Breitling, U. (2010) Sustainable shipping and port development. 5th Regional EST Forum in Asia.

Chapman, L. (2007) ‘Transport and climate change: A review’. Journal of Transport Geography. 15(5): pp. 354–367.

Commonwealth of Australia (2009) National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009.

Commonwealth of Australia (2012) The national system for the prevention and management of marine pest incursions. Website accessed 6 August 2013. URL: http://www.marinepests.gov.au/national_system

De Vriend, H.J. and Van Koningsveld, M. (2012) Building with Nature: Thinking, acting and interacting differently. EcoShape.

38

Dobbs, K. (2001) Marine turtles in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area: A compendium of information and basis for the development of policies and strategies for the conservation of marine turtles. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Douvere, F. and Badman, T. (2012) Mission report: Reactive monitoring mission to Great Barrier Reef, Australia. World Heritage Centre, UNESCO.

Erbe, C. (2013) Underwater passive acoustic monitoring and noise impacts on marine fauna – A workshop report. Acoustics Australia. 41(1): pp. 211–217.

European Sea Ports Organisation (2012) ESPO green guide – Towards excellence in port environmental management and sustainability.

Finstad, B., Kroglund, F., Bjørn, P.A., Nilsen, R., Pettersen, K., Rosseland, B.O., Teien, H.C., Nilsen, T.O, Stefansson, S.O., Salbu, B. and Ebbesson, L.O.E. (2012) ‘Salmon lice-induced mortality of Atlantic salmon postsmolts experiencing episodic acidification and recovery in freshwater’. Aquaculture. 362: pp.193–199.

Garnaut, R. (2008) The Garnaut climate change review – Final report. Cambridge University Press.

GHD (2013a) Environmental best practice port development: An analysis of international approaches. Report prepared for Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

GHD (2013b) Ship anchorage management in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC) (n.d.) Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project: Environmental impact statement. URL: http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/environmental_impact_statement

Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC) (2012) Curtis Coast coastal and marine resource inventory report.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) (2009) Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2009.

Grech, A., Bos, M., Brodie, J., Coles, R., Dale, A., Gilbert, R., Hamann, M., Marsh, H., Neil, K., Pressey, R.L., Rasheed, M.A., Sheaves, M. and Smith, A. (2013) ‘Guiding principles for the improved governance of port and shipping impacts in the Great Barrier Reef’. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 75(1–2): pp. 8–20.

Grech, A., and Marsh, H. (2008) ‘Rapid assessment of risks to a mobile marine mammal in an ecosystem-scale marine protected area’. Conservation Biology. 22(3): pp. 711–720.

Hazel, J. and Gyuris, E. (2006) ‘Vessel-related mortality of sea turtles in Queensland, Australia’. Wildlife Research. 33: pp. 149–154.

Hazel, J., Lawler, I.R., Marsh, H. and Robson, S. (2007) ‘Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green turtle Chelonia mydas’. Endangered Species Research. 3: pp. 105–113.

Hester, K.C., Peltzer, E.T., Kirkwood, W.J. and Brewer, P.G. (2008) ‘Unanticipated consequences of ocean acidification: A noisier ocean at lower pH’ [Abstract]. Geophysical Research Letters. 35(19).

Hewitt, C. and Campbell, M. (2010) The relative contribution of vectors to the introduction and translocation of invasive marine species. Report for the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry under the National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions.

Hildebrand, J.A. (2009) ‘Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean’. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 395(5).

Hodgson, A.J. (2004). Dugong behaviour and responses to human influences. Doctoral dissertation. James

39

Cook University.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P.J., Hooten, A.J., Steneck, R.S., Greenfield, P., Gomez, E., Harvell, C.D., Sale, P.F., Edwards, A.J., Calideira, K., Knowlton, N., Eakin, C.M., Iglesias-Prieto, R., Muthiga, N., Bradbury, R.H., Dubi, A. and Hatziolos, M.E. (2007). ‘Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification’. Science. 318(5857): pp. 1737–1742.

Holt, M.M., Noren, D.P., Veirs, V., Emmons, C.K. and Veirs, S. (2008) ‘Speaking up: Killer whales (Orcinus orca) increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise’. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 125(1): pp. EL27–EL32.

Infrastructure Australia (2011) National Ports Strategy.

Infrastructure Australia (2013) National Infrastructure Plan June 2013.

International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (2009) Guidance document for minimising the risk of ship strikes with cetaceans. MEPC.1/Circ.674, Ref. T5/1.01.

International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (2013) International Maritime Organisation. Website accessed 21 August 2013. URL: http://www.imo.org

Jensen, F.H., Bejder, L., Wahlberg, M., Aguilar Soto, N. and Madsen, P.T. (2009) ‘Vessel noise effects on delphinid communication’. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 395: pp. 161–175.

Kroglund, F., Finstad, B., Pettersen, K., Teien, H.C., Salbu, B., Rosseland, B.O., Nilsen, T.O., Stefansson, S., Ebbesson, L.O.E., Nilsen, R., Bjørn, P.A. and Kristensen, T. (2012) ‘Recovery of Atlantic salmon smolts following aluminum exposure defined by changes in blood physiology and seawater tolerance’. Aquaculture. 362: pp. 232–240.

Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S. and Podesta, M. (2001) ‘Collisions between ships and whales’. Marine Mammal Science. 17(1): pp. 35–75.

Landos, M. (2013) Response to Gladstone Ports Corporation scientist submissions http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/gbr/gladstone/submissions/pubs/24gpc.pdf which critiqued the Future Fisheries Veterinary Service report: “Investigation of the Causes of Aquatic Animal Health Problems in the Gladstone Harbour and Nearshore Waters”.. Submission 45 to the Senate Standing Committees on Environment and Communications inquiry into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Great Barrier Reef) Bill 2013. Available from http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/greatbarrierreef2013/submissions

Lewis, S., Hewitt, C.L. and Melzer, A. (2001) Port survey for introduced marine species Port Curtis. Final report to the Gladstone Port Authority.

Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ) (2012) Standard for Marine Construction Activities within Gladstone Harbour.

Meager, J.J. and Limpus, C.J. (2012) Marine wildlife stranding and mortality database annual report 2011: III. Marine Turtle. Conservation Technical and Data Report. 3: pp.1–46.

OSPAR Commission (2009) ‘Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine environment’. Biodiversity Series. 441.

Petrou K., Jimenez-Denness I., Chartrand K., McCormack C., Rasheed M. and Ralph, P.J. (2013) ‘Seasonal heterogeneity in the photophysiological response to air exposure in two tropical intertidal seagrass species’. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 482:

40

pp. 93–106.

PIANC (2011) Working with nature. PIANC position paper October 2008, revised January 2011.

Ports Australia (2013) Leading practice: port master planning.

Port of Antwerp (2006) Annual report 2006.

QGC Limited (2009) Environmental impact statement: Queensland Curtis LNG.

Queensland Alumina Limited (QAL) (2010) Red mud fact sheet. URL: http://www.qal.com.au/Media_LatestNews.asp

Queensland Curtis LNG (n.d.) Dredge management plan – Construction Dock.

Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2011) Ballast water. Website accessed 6 August 2013. URL: http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/avm/vessels/quarantine_concerns/ballast

Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2013) New biosecurity legislation. Website accessed 6 August 2013. URL: http://www.daff.gov.au/bsg/biosecurity-reform/new-biosecurity-legislation

Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (2011) Fish health sampling reports: Gladstone Harbour as at 8 December 2011.

Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (2012) Fish health sampling reports: Gladstone Harbour as at 27 February 2012.

Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Transport (2013) Ballast water management. Website accessed 6 August 2013. URL: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/maritime/environment/ballast.aspx

Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) (2013) Queensland Ports Strategy: Draft for consultation.

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) (2013) Marine incidents in Queensland 2012.

Queensland Government (2000) Queensland Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry.

Rasheed, M.A., Thomas, R., Roelofs, A.J., Neil, K.M., and Kerville, S.P. (2002) Port Curtis and Rodds Bay seagrass and benthic macro-invertebrate community baseline survey: November/December 2002. Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries Information Series Q103058.

Santos (2009) Environmental impact statement: Gladstone liquefied natural gas facility. URL: http://www.santosglng.com/resource-library/glng-eis.aspx

Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee (2013) Inquiry into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Great Barrier Reef) Bill 2013. Commonwealth of Australia.

SKM (2013) Improved dredge material management for the Great Barrier Reef region. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Teien, H.C., Kroglund, F., Salbu, B. and Rosseland, B.O. (2006) ‘Gill reactivity of aluminium-species following liming’. Science of the Total Environment. 358(1): pp. 206–220.

Teien, H.C., Salbu, B., Kroglund, F., Heier, L.S. and Rosseland, B.O. (2007) ‘The influence of colloidal material on aluminium speciation and estimated acid neutralising capacity (ANC)’. Applied Geochemistry. 22(6): pp. 1202–1208.

41

Teien, H.C., Salbu, B., Kroglund, F., and Rosseland, B.O. (2004) ‘Transformation of positively charged aluminium-species in unstable mixing zones following liming’. Science of the Total Environment. 330(1): pp. 217–232.

Van Waerebeek, K., Baker, A.N., Felix, F., Gedamke, J., Iniguez, M., Sanino, G.P., Secchi, E., Sutaria, D., Van Helden, A. and Wang, Y. (2007) ‘Vessel collisions with small cetaceans worldwide and with large whales in the Southern Hemisphere, an initial assessment’. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals. 6(1): 43–69.

Weilgart, L.S. (2007) ‘The impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on cetaceans and implications for management’. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 85(11): pp.1091–1116.

Additional informationThe Review received and considered a variety of unpublished documentation including correspondence, meeting minutes, presentations, internal departmental documents, witness statements and other information from relevant organisations and bodies, members of the public and stakeholders.

Key additional information received, in addition to that outlined in the initial report, is outlined below. Some documents may already be publicly available. Some documents were provided by more than one source but are only listed once below.

Source Details

Andrew Jeremijenko Several emails pertaining to acid sulfate soils, aluminium, dredging, liming, fish and Corexit 9500, providing personal evidence and other information sources

Satellite images of turbidity, reclamation works and the bund wall in Gladstone Harbour

Proof Hansard of the public hearing of the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Great Barrier Reef) Bill 2013 on Thursday, 23 May 2013 in Brisbane

Dr Matt Landos Several emails pertaining to monitoring and management in Gladstone, the Gladstone Fish Health Scientific Advisory Panel process, seagrass, dredging, fish health, water quality and the Western Basin bund wall, providing personal evidence, scientific papers, photos, data and other supporting evidence

Document ‘How the Queensland Government arrived at the wrong conclusion about the cause of the disease outbreak in Gladstone’

Presentation ‘Gladstone: Clearing the mud from the waters – why the animals died’

Dr Michael Rasheed Email pertaining to priorities for seagrass research and associated information sources

GBRMPA Information on flooding in Gladstone, turbidity and dugong protected areas

Information on a potential project monitoring potential impacts of dredge spoil disposal at the East Banks Soil Disposal Area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership

Internal report on avoiding duplication in monitoring and research programs in Gladstone

42

GPC Communications concerning additional information requested for the Review

Gladstone Port Authority Land Use Plan 2045 image

Details of the changes to the update of the Curtis Coast coastal and marine resource inventory report between the draft given to the panel in March 2013 and the official release

Extract from the corporation’s 2013 national infrastructure plan

Materials relating to recovery of seagrass in Gladstone Harbour

Feedback on the initial report with supporting documents

Infrastructure Australia Report ‘The economic significance of Gladstone’

Law Essentials Several emails and supporting documents pertaining to dredging, reclamation, acid sulfate soils, toxic algal blooms, fish and crab health, water quality and turbidity, providing personal evidence and other supporting material

Law Essentials final report ‘Cover-ups, breaches and failures: A review of the environmental management, monitoring, reporting and regulation of Gladstone Port developments’ (26 June 2013)

PIANC Draft of the PIANC-IAPH WG 150 report on sustainable ports ‘Sustainable ports: A guide for port authorities’

QRC Predictions for the Queensland coal sector

43