RECONSIDERATION DECISION . STATEMENT OF REASONS

RECONSIDERATION DECISION . STATEMENT OF REASONS

Permit application: G39785. ,

Permit: G, 8139785. , (re-issue)

Permission Holder: State of Queensland acting through the Department of Transportand Main Roads

The following statement of reasons relates to the decision dated 3 September 2018 to affirmthe decision dated 29 June 2018 to grant permit Gi8/39785. I to the QueenslandDepartment of Transport and Main Roads. '

Relevant terms

In this statement, words and phrases have the following meanings:

the term 'Applicants' refers to those third parties that made an application forI .I

reconsideration pursuant to regulation 185 of the GBRMP Regulations:

Cairns and Far North Environment Centre (CAFNEC)I .I .I

Queensland Conservation Council (QCC)

41.3. Alliance to Save Hinchinbrook

The Community for Coastal and Cassowary Conservation

1.15. the owners of Mission Beach Charters

1.16. Commercial Boat Operators Mission Beach

the term 'the application' refers to application G39785. I received by theAuthority on 23 June 2017 as varied by the permission holder on 19 February2018

the term 'the assessment report' refers to an assessment report dated29 June 2018 and prepared by the Authority's Assistant Director,Assessments and Permissions for consideration by the original decisionmaker

the term 'controlled action' refers to an action that is likely to have significantimpact on a matter of national environmental significance and requiresapproval under the EPBC Act

the term 'decision maker' refers to the Authority's delegate (Dr Simon Banks)who made the decision on reconsideration dated 3 September 2018

the term 'decision on reconsideration' refers to the decision made by thedecision maker on reconsideration dated 3 September 2018 to affirm theoriginal decision

I. 1.2

I. 1.4

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

The decision dated 29 June 2018 was jointly made with a delegate of the Chief Executive of the Queensland Department of

Environment and Science. This Statement of Reasons does not represent the views of the Queensland delegate

1.7 the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 7999 is referredto throughout this statement as the EPBC Act

the term 'further information requests' refers to any requests for informationissued by the Authority to the permission holder pursuant to regulation 88E ofthe GBRMP Regulations

the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is referred to throughout thisstatement as the Authority

the Great Barrier Reef Region is defined in section 3 of the GBRMP Act

the term 'GBRWHA' refers to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area asdefined in section 3 of the GBRMP Act

the term 'Intergovernmental Agreement' refers to the Great Barrier ReefIntergovernmental Agreement 2075 - an agreement signed by the PrimeMinister and Queensland Premier in 2015. The Intergovernmental Agreementsets out the current framework for the Australian and Queensland

governments to work together to protect the Great Barrier Reef

the 'Great Barrier Reef Coast Marine Park' refers to a State marine park thatruns the full length of the Marine Park from just north of Baffle Creek (north ofBundaberg) to Cape York, which is established under theMarine Parks Act 2004 (Qld) and is administered by the QueenslandGovernment

the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 7975 is referred to throughout thisstatement as the GBRMP Act

the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 relevant to this decisionis compilation number 51 and is referred to throughout this statement as theGBRMP Regulations

the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoriing Plan 2003 is referred to throughoutthis statement as the Zoriing Plan

the term 'Marine Park' as used throughout this statement refers to the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park as declared by the Great Barrier Reef (Declarationof Amalgamated Manhe Park Area) Proclamation 2004

the term 'original decision maker' refers to the Authority's delegate (Dr KirstinDobbs) who made the permit grant decision

the term 'original decision' refers to the decision of the original decision makerdated 29 June 2018 pursuant to Part 2A, Division 2A. 5 of the GBRMPRegulations, to grant application G39075. I to operate a facility, carry outworks (being reclamation), any other purpose (being transfer of fuel) and sixmooring facilities

the term 'the Permit' refers to permit G18/39785. I which was issued to thepermission holder on 29 June 2018 and re-issued on 5 July 2018 for theperiod 5 July 2018 to 30 June 2038 and includes permit conditions

1.8

1.9

1.10

1.11

1.12

1.13

1.14

1.15

2

1.16

1.17

1.18

1.19

1.20

1.21 the term 'permission holder' refers to the State of Queensland acting throughthe Department of Transport and Main Roads being the applicant that madethe application and was granted the permit

the term 'the Project' refers to the Clump Point boating facilities upgrade,being the current development proposal as described in the public informationpackage and the subject of the application

the term 'proposed conduct' refers to the activities listed in the application,namely boat ramp upgrade, breakwater upgrade, detached breakwater,access jetty, up to 6 pen berths, two berthing pontoons, one floating walkway,minor carpark expansion and six moorings

the term 'public consultation period' refers to the period of time between18 January 2018 and 19 February 2018 that the public could comment on theapplication

the term 'public information package' refers to the Mission Beach Clump PointBoating Infrastructure Project: Public Information Package dated24 November 2017 that detailed the application and was made available tothe public for comment on 18 January 2018. The period for public commentclosed on 19 February 2018

the term 'supplementary information public information package' refers to thedocument titled Supplementary - Information - Public Information PackageReport (SI-PIP) which was prepared by the permission holder to address thepublic comments received during the public consultation period

the Queensland Department of Environment and Science is referred tothroughout this statement as DES. For completeness references to DESincludes a reference to Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and the former

Queensland Department of National Parks, Sport and Racing

the term 'DES delegate' refers to the delegate of the Chief Executive of theQueensland Department of Environment and Science who jointly made theoriginal decision with the original decision maker

the term 'reasons for reconsideration' refers to the reasons provided by eachApplicant dated 24 July 2018 and 26 July 2018 supporting their request forreconsideration

1.22

1.23

1.24

1.25

1.26

1.27

3

1.28

1.29

Authority of GBRMPA delegate

2 The decision maker has delegated authority pursuant to section 47 of the GBRMPAct to make the decision on reconsideration

Specifically, the decision maker is authorised by instrument of delegation titled GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park Act, Regulations, Zoriing Plan and Plans of Management(GBRMPA) Delegations 2078 dated 28 June 2018 to make a decision to exercise thepower of the Authority under Part 2A, Division 2A. 5 of the GBRMP Regulations togrant a permission to which Part 2A of the GBRMP Regulations applies. Thedecision-maker is also delegated power under Part 13 to make a decision onreconsideration

3

4 A copy of the relevant instrument of delegation is available from the Authority uponrequest

Material relevant to the Decision

5 The decision maker referred to the following in making the decision onreconsideration

the GBRMP Act

the GBRMP Regulations

the EPBC Act

the Native Title Act 7993

the World Heritage Convention

the Zoriing Plan

the Intergovernmental Agreement

the permit

the deed of agreement for the permit

the assessment report

the application

5.12. the reasons for reconsideration

public information package

supplementary information public information package

public submissions received during the public consultation period

comments received from the Djiru Warrangburra Aboriginal CorporationRegistered Native Title Bodies Corporate dated 20 March, 22 April and I May2018 and received in response to a notice issued by the Authority pursuant tosection 24HA(7) of the Native Title Act 1993

Site Management Arrangements Clump Point, Mission Beach (GBRMPA2010)

Revised Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (July 2018)

Great Barrier Reef Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (GBRMPA 2013)

Environmental Impact Management Policy (GBRMPA 2010)

Environmental Impact Management - Permission System (GBRMPA 2017)

Moorings in the Great Barrier Reef Policy (GBRMPA 2014)

Recreation Management Strategy for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park(2012)

Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

5.13

5.14

4

5.15

5.16

5.17

5.18

5.19

5.20

5.21

5.22

5.23

5.24

6 In making the decision on reconsideration the decision-maker also considered theinformation prepared by the State of Queensland titled 'Queensland RecreationalBoating Facilities Demand Forecasting Study 2017" and the final Cumulative ImpactManagement Policy (GBRMPA July 2018)

Background

7 On 17 May 2016 the permission holder was granted permit G16/38578. I for theoperation and upgrade of a boat ramp, breakwater, pontoon walkways and parkingfacilities in the waters adjacent to Clump Point, Mission Beach. The permit wasissued jointly by the Authority and DES

On 27 July 2016 the permission holder applied for ten moorings in Boat Bay MissionBeach (application G39075. I )

On 23 June 2017 the permission holder applied for a continuation of permitG16/38578. I and sought to include a new detached breakwater, accessjetty, up tosix pen berths, two berthing pontoons, I floating walkway and minor carparkexpansion. As part of this application the permission holder confirmed that theproposed design for the Project as provided in the application had been referred tothe Department of Environment and Energy under the EPBC Act for consideration asto whether it would be a controlled action (reference EPBC 20,17924). TheAuthority was provided the decision of the delegate for the Minister of theEnvironment and Energy dated 19 May 2017 that determined the proposeddevelopment was not a controlled action for the purposes of the EPBC Act

On 27 June 2017 the Authority acknowledged receipt of the continuation application(G39785. I )

On 19 September 2017 the Authority issued a notice under regulation 880 of theGBRMP Regulations requiring the permission holder to publicly advertise applicationG39785. I by 31 January 2018

On 18 January 2018 the public consultation period commenced and closed on19 February 2018. The permission holder provided the public with a publicinformation package to provide further detail about the application and inform anysubmissions made. The Authority received more than 350 submissions fromindividuals, businesses, elected representatives and community and non-governmentorganisations in response to the public consultation

On 19 February 2018 the permission holder varied application G39785. I to includesix moorings and withdrew application G39075. I

On the same date the Authority determined that due to the significant variationsmade to the application to continue permit G16/38578. I it was no longer anapplication for a further permission of the same kind in relation to the same conductand as such it should be assessed as a new application. For completeness, theconduct relevant to the application comprised; boat ramp upgrade, breakwater

8

9

10

11

5

12

13

14

' Queensland Recreational Boating Facil^ties Demand Forecasting Study 20 77htt s:// ublications. Id. ovau/datasetrrecreational-boatin -facilities-demand-forecastin -stud20171resource/084a89et -Ob8d-4500-bfc3-5d66e2935bat

upgrade, detached breakwater, access jetty, up to 6 pen berths, two berthingpontoons, one floating walkway, minor carpark expansion and six moorings

On 26 February 2018 the Authority issued a notice pursuant to regulation 88E of theGBRMP Regulations requesting further information to address the matters raised inthe public submissions, as well as some additional matters identified by theAuthority3

On 2 March 2018 the Authority issued a Native Title Notification pursuant to section24HA(7) of the Native Title Act 1993 to the North Queensland Land Council and DjiruPeople #2 (QC02001/005) through the Djiru Warrangburra Aboriginal CorporationRNTBC (the Prescribed Body Corporate). The notification covered all activities listedin the application and noted at paragraph 14 above, a description of the area andidentified that the proposed permit term would not exceed 20 years. Any commentswere required by 3 April2018

On 19 March 2018 the permission holder provided the further information pursuant tothe Authority's notice dated 26 February 2018. The permission holder provided itsresponses to the public consultation and request for additional information by way ofa supplementary information public information package

On I May 2018 the Authority received correspondence from the Prescribed BodyCorporate on behalf of the Djiru native title holders in response to the Native TitleNotification dated 2 March 2018. That correspondence attached earlier responsesfrom the Prescribed Body Corporate dated 22 April2018 and 20 March 2018. Theearlier responses had not previously been received by the Authority for unknownreasons. The Authority accepted the earlier responses as being received within time

On 28 June 2018 the North Queensland Land Council, on behalf of their client the

Djiru People, advised that they had no further comments in response to the NativeTitle Notification

On 29 June 2018 the original decision maker granted application G39785. I andissued permit G18/39785. I with conditions for a period of 20 years

On 5 July 2018 permit G18/39785. I was re-issued to address an administrative error

On 29 June 2018 and 5 July 2018 a copy of the permit and re-issued permit andstatement of reasons was made available on the Authority's website and published

The Authority received 32 requests for reconsideration. Of those 32 requests theAuthority determined that 7 Applicants were 'persons whose interests were affected'by the decision for the purposes of regulation 185 of the GBRMP Regulations

On 4 September 2018 the decision maker on reconsideration affirmed the originaldecision

15

16

17

18

19

20

6

21

22

23

24

Legislative framework

25 The Authority is responsible for the management of the Marine Park

' The letter dated 26 February 2018 referenced regulation 120 of the GBRMP Regulations as the relevantregulation, this error was corrected by way of letter dated 7 March 2018 and confirmed the originalrequest for information remained

The GBRMP Act

26. The main object of the GBRMP Act is to provide for long term protection andconservation of the environment, biodiversity and heritage values of the Great BarrierReef Region (section 2A(I) GBRMP Act)

27. In making the decision on reconsideration, the decision maker is required to haveregard to, and seek to act in a way that is consistent with

the objects of the GBRMP Act in section 2A; and27.1

the principles of ecological Iy sustainable use; and

the protection of the world heritage values of the GBRWHA. '

The GBRMP Regulations

28. Part 2A of the GBRMP Regulations provides for the assessment of the application '

29. Division 2A. 4 of the GBRMP Regulations sets out mandatory matters in section 88Qwhich the decision maker must consider as well as discretionary matters in section88R which the decision maker may consider in determining the application. '

The Zoriing Plan

30. The Zoriing Plan stipulates that certain activities in the Marine Park require writtenpermission from the Authority

31. The activities that are the subject of the application are activities proposed in HabitatProtection Zone and require written permission from the Authority

27.2

27.3

Reasons provided by the Applicants to support their requests for reconsideration

32

7

The reasons provided by the Applicants in support of their requests forreconsideration are

the 'works' subject to the permit are not considered 'de minimis'32.1

there was inadequate public consultation prior to the application being made

the Authority failed to consider prudent and reasonable alternatives to theproposed conduct

the Authority failed to properly consider the heritage values of the locationwith particular reference to aesthetic significance

the Authority failed to consider the impacts of the proposed conduct on theenvironment with particular reference to seagrass, dugong populations andbuild-up of silt in Boat Bay as well as added pollutants from the wash downarea and potential spills from vessels

32.2

32.3

32.4

32.5

4

5

Section 7(3) GBRMP Act

Regulation 88(I)(b) of the GBRMP Regulations

Regulations 88Q and 88R of the GBRMP Regulations6

the Authority failed to consider whether the proposed conduct is fit for purpose(i. e. the current design will not withstand local environment conditions and willneed to be re-designed in the future)

commercial operators will not be able to use the facility during constructionwhich will cause financial distress for local operators and impact localbusinesses

the Authority failed to consider land based constraints on users32.8

the Authority failed to consider safety issues for marine park users32.9

As part of considering the decision afresh, the decision maker also considered theabove reasons against the relevant assessment criteria under regulations 88Q and88R of the GBRMPA Regulations. In summary, the decision maker concluded

the proposed reclamation of the Marine Park that may occur as a result of the33.1

extension of the boat ramp is minor and as such does not invoke theprocedures under section 31 of the GBRMP Act; in particular see paragraphs141-I 43 below

any public consultation prior to the application being made is not a relevantconsideration for the decision maker. The decision maker is satisfied that the

application was appropriate Iy advertised pursuant to regulation 880 of theGBRMP Regulations resulting in more than 350 submissions which wereaddressed by the permission holder as part of the supplementary informationpublic information package; see paragraphs 85-93 below

that prudent and reasonable alternatives have been considered in determiningwhether to grant the application, in particular refer to paragraph 94.8 below

the heritage values of the location with particular reference to aestheticsignificance have been appropriateIy considered at paragraphs 65-71,76.77and 101 below

the impacts of the proposed conduct on the environment with particularreference to seagrass, dugong populations and build-up of SIIt in Boat Bay aswell as added pollutants from the wash down area and potential spills fromvessels has been appropriateIy considered at paragraphs 42 to 61 below

the proposed conduct is fit for purpose and is appropriate Iy considered atparagraphs 53.54,72-75 and 94 below

commercial operators are expected to have access to the boat ramp duringthe construction phase; see paragraphs 72-75 below

land based constraints are outside the Marine Park, however the impact of theProject has been considered in the context of nearby and adjacent areas ofthe Marine Park, as well as any cumulative impacts at paragraphs 102,103and 121 below

the basis for the Project is to improve user safety, in particular see paragraphs72.90,91 and 94 below

32.6

32.7

33

33.2

33.3

8

33.4

33.5

33.6

33.7

33.8

33.9

Consideration and findings of material fact

34 In reaching the decision on reconsideration, the decision maker considered andmade findings on each of the mandatory and relevant discretionary criteria inregulations 88Q. and 88R of the GBRMP Regulations

In considering each of these criteria, the decision maker assessed the relevantimpact of the proposed conduct on each criterion

In each case, the decision maker also considered whether or not condition/s could be

imposed upon the permission holder against these assessment criteria

35

36

CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA - MANDATORY CONSIDERATIONS:

188Q(a)l

37

the'-potential Impacts of the ConductP/oposed to be permitted by-thepermis$101! (th:^ propt>'S^Id blonduict):objtheej7Vir. ohmehtand:obj:the Socialcultural and heritage'. values of the Marine ParkOr a part of the Marine Park

The decision maker considered that the following key factors related toenvironmental, social, cultural and heritage risks associated with the Project

impacts on the existing environment37.1

37.11. potential changes to water quality (turbidity, sedimentation, wastedisposal, fuel spills)

37.12. seagrass or coral damage during construction and operational Iy fromvessel movements and accidentslincidents

37.13. impacts on adjacent areas of intertidal and marine habitat fromreclamation activities (mangroves, algae)

37.14. damage to the benthic environment from the facility becomingdamaged (and unsecured) during cyclone weather events

371.5. coastal geo-morphology - e. g increased sedimentation cause by thenew breakwater and upgraded facilities

371.6. disturbance to or interference with marine wildlife (whales, dolphins,dugong, sea turtles), during construction and as a result of potentialincreased vessel movements

impacts on cultural and heritage values

372.1. traditional owner heritage (cultural) values

37.22. historic heritage values

37.23. world heritage and national heritage values

37.24. natural heritage values

impacts on social values

37.31. conflicts with other users of the Marine Park

373.2. visual amenity

9

37.2

37.3

38. The considerations specific to each of these factors and the findings are addressed indetail below

39. The decision maker noted the risks identified in the assessment report which foundthat the proposed conduct represents an overall Medium-Low risk associated withconstruction, an overall Low risk associated with maintenance and an overall Low-

Medium risk associated with operation

The decision maker also referred to and noted the proposed avoidance andmitigation strategies identified in the assessment report to address each of theserisks

41. Overall the decision maker concluded that the potential impacts of the proposedconduct posed a Low risk to the environment and on the social, cultural and heritagevalues of the Marine Park or a part of the Marine Park, however these risks could beappropriateIy managed and mitigated through permit conditions

Impacts on the existing environment

The Existing Environment

42. The decision maker considered the potential impacts of the proposed conduct on theexisting environment of Clump Point and Boat Bay being the location of the Project,as described below

The decision maker was satisfied that the existing environment may be relevantlydescribed as

Clump Point is a northerly facing headland two kilometres north of thetownship of Mission Beach. The headland provides access to the existingClump Point boat ramp facility and, shelters Boat Bay and a second small baywhich are exposed at low spring tides

The environment in proximity to the proposed conduct is characterised byintertidal and benthic communities containing sub tidal seagrass beds,mangrove forests, coral, algae and invertebrate in fauna

Clump Point and the adjoining submarine reefs are formed from Cainozoicbasalts. The occurrence of basalt substrate is of conservation significance asthis type of substrate does not occur anywhere else along the coast is theGreat Barrier Reef Region

The waters of the Project area are within the Tully River Basin. Theenvironmental values and water quality objectives have been scheduled forthis area under the Queensland Government Environmental Protection

(Watei) Pollby 2009, the waters of the area are mapped as

434.1. Boat Bay - enclosed coastal waters/lower estuary

4342. waters east of Clump Point and north of Boat Bay - open coastalwaters

The environmental values for these waters include aquatic ecosystems,human consumption, primary, secondary and visual recreation, and culturaland spiritual values

40

43

43.1

10

43.2

43.3

43.4

435 In 1998 surveys identified five species of seagrass adjacent to Clump Pointwith approximately 2.8ha of seagrass in eight meadows. In 2016 surveysidentified one seagrass species: Halodule uninervis, specifically two seagrassmeadows were identified; one with a total area of 0.34ha (<I% cover) and theother with a total area of 0.12ha (<I% cover). Other studies conducted in2013 indicated some sparse seagrass cover in other locations indicating theephemeral nature of the seagrass meadows.

There are some significant coral bornmies and some isolated corals closeto/adjacent to the area where the proposed conduct is to occur. The Projectarea lies predominantly over soft sandy sediments generally free from coralcommunities. The fringing reef to the east of Clump Point boat ramp, and thelarge coral bornmies near the shipwreck at the entrance to Boat Bay, havehigh coral cover and are considered to have high local-scale biodiversityvalues

43.6

43.7 Mangroves in the proposed Project area were surveyed and found tocomprise 7.2ha of Rhi^ophora dominated habitat and 0.15ha of AVIcenniamarina dominated habitat. This mangrove habitat is listed as of 'least concern'under Queensland's Regional Ecosystem framework with a total estimatedextent of 45000ha which is approximately 2000ha less than its estimated 'pre-clearing' extent of 47000ha. This habitat type is generally considered animportant fish nursery habitat (depending on the extent of tidal inundation) aswell as habitat for a range of invertebrate and vertebrate species adapted tothe specific levels of tidal flooding, salinity, wave and current action. A rangeof bird species could also be expected to feed and roost within this habitat

Surveys undertaken in July 2016 appear to confirm the findings of earliersurveys dated 20/3/2014 that benthic habitats located immediately north ofthe existing breakwater (within the proposed Project footprint) consist ofisolated, patchy low profile boulders and rubble on soft (sandy) sediment. Theboulders contain mixed assemblages of hard and soft corals as well asencrusting reef fauna. With boulders contained a diverse range of blota, theydid not contain large, complex hard and soft coral assemblages as can beseen to the east on the Clump Point fringing reef. The reef to the east of theboat ramp comprises approximately 1.8ha of hard coral

The proposed conduct at Clump Point is within the area of an existing andoperational public boat ramp, located of the lee side of an existing breakwaterwhich shelters the boat ramp from significant wind and waves

The proposed Project area may be accessed by sea turtles, dugong,nearshore dolphins (Australian humpback dolphin and Australian snubfindolphin) and possibly estuarine crocodiles

438

11

43.9

43.10

Water quality (turbidity, sedimentation, waste disposal, fuel spills)

Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe potential impacts on the water quality, including turbidity, sedimentation, wastedisposal and fuel spills:

44

Construction works have the potential to impact water quality throughsediment disturbance, exposure of Potential Acid Sulphate Soils orcontaminated sediments (from historical use) and accidents using machineryor equipment (oil/fuel spills, hazardous waste)

The proposed removal of sediments within the western reclamation area is nolonger required (page 47 Supplementary Information Public InformationPackage) which significantly reduces the risk of exposure of Potential AcidSulphate Soils

The placement of rock, movement of rock currently at the site and the worksin general have the potential to disturb sediments and even add new finesediments (dirty rock) to the water column

It is possible that current and ongoing use of the area for boating facilities hashad some localised and minor impacts on water quality (for example, minor oilcontamination from can park run-off, minor fuel spills) as indicated by previousbenthic sampling

Inadequate disposal of waste or dispersion of debris during installation, ormaintenance works, and by jetty users and vessels using the facility mayimpact water quality and ecology in the Project area

A refuelling operation has the potential for incidents that involve the loss offuel from the refuelling truck. Fuel spill incidents are a hazard to the marineenvironment

Having regard to the above findings the decision maker considered whether any ofthese risks could be mitigated, specifically

The permission holder provided the successful contractor will be required to45.1

develop an Acid Sulphate Soils Management Plan which requires measuresto ensure any Potential Acid Sulphate Soils are appropriate Iy managed. Assuch the risk of the works generating Acid Sulphate Soils and impacting localwater quality and ecology is considered low

The permission holder has committed to the use of SIIt curtains during theconstruction phase if turbidity monitoring indicates it is necessary

The permission holder has provided that they will ensure all rock brought intothe marine environment will be clean which would need to be detailed in a

construction environmental management plan

The permission holder must address waste management procedures,including storage, transport and disposal of waste which must be addressedin the construction and operational environmental management plans

The permission holder must have a fuel spill response plan, including the useof fuel spill response kits, absorbent pads and booms should be located in thevicinity of the refuelling activities. All personnel must be trained in using theequipment to manage a potential hydrocarbon spill

Fuel transfer will only occur via flexible hose from a mobile tanker operated byan accredited supplier

44.1

44.2

44.3

44.4

445

44.6

45

12

45.2

453

45.4

45.5

45.6

46. Based on these considerations, the decision maker concluded that any impacts of theproposed conduct on the water quality were able to be mitigated and managedthrough the actions of the permission holder, specifically environmental managementplans

Seagrass or coral damage during construction and operationalIy from vessel movements andaccidents/incidents

47 Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe potential impacts on seagrass or coral damage during construction andoperationalIy from vessel movements and accidents/incidents

The proposed design avoids any direct impact or loss of any existing orhistorically surveyed seagrass areas. The design is not expected to have asubstantial impact on local hydrodynamics (other than directly behind the newbreakwater) and will not substantially increase SIItation

The seagrass species currently present nearby (Halodu/e uninervis) is knownas an ephemeral species with rapid turnover and reproductive rates whichenable them to rapidly recover following disturbance

The existing seagrass meadows could potentially become impacted byturbidity associated with the construction phase of the proposed projectActivities that could increase turbidity include piling for jetty infrastructure,placement of new rock material, and removal of existing rock material andinstallation of moorings. Indirectly, sediments can also be disturbed byincreases in vessel movements in the area both during construction andoperation of the facilities. Vessels attempting to operate in water too shallowfor their design can also impact on seagrass beds through propeller scouring

The Project area lies predominantly over soft sandy sediments generally freefrom coral and seagrasses

The loss of reefs and rocky shores habitat will occur across an area of 772m'within the Marine Park. This includes a small area of reef assemblages underthe footprint of the new breakwater, and within the Clump Point reef andintertidal zone under the expanded footprint of the existing breakwater


The proposed design avoids any direct impact or loss of any existing orhistorically surveyed seagrass areas.

The permission holder has taken action to limit the extent of reefs and rockyshores habitat loss in the project design

Based on these considerations, the decision maker concluded that there was an

acceptable risk of potential impacts on seagrass or coral damage during constructionand operational Iy from vessel movements and accidents/incidents and that anypotential impacts could be appropriate Iy managed through the Construction andOperational Environmental Management Plans

47.1

472

47.3

13

474

47.5

48

48.1

49

48.2

Impacts on adjacent areas of intertidal and marine habitat from reclamation activities(mangroves, algae)

50. Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe potential impacts on adjacent areas of intertidal and marine habitat fromreclamation activities (mangroves, algae)

Mangrove vegetation will be impacted primarily along the eastern side of thecurrent carpark

The proposed Project footprint (in particular the increased boat ramp turningarea and the increase in the existing breakwater access footprint) will requirethe clearing of mangrove vegetation on the eastern side of the northerncarpark. It is estimated that approximately 1,013.5m' of mangroves will needto be cleared

This mangrove habitat is listed as of 'least concern' under Queensland'sRegional Ecosystem framework

Mangrove habitat is generally considered an important fish nursery habitat(depending on the extent of tidal inundation) as well as habitat for a range ofinvertebrate and vertebrate species adapted to the specific levels of tidalflooding, salinity, wave and current action. A range of bird species could alsobe expected to feed and roost within this habitat

51. Having regard to the above findings the decision maker considered whether any ofthese risks could be mitigated, specifically

The permission holder will be required to address the impact of removingmangrove vegetation in their Environmental Management Plan

The permission holder needs to enter into an agreed delivery arrangementwith Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (under the PlanningAct) to deliver an environmental offset to counterbalance the significantresidual impacts of the 10/3.5m' of marine plants (being mangroves). Theoffset will ensure that there is no net loss to the environment and as such

should ensure there are no cumulative impacts associated with the removal ofmangroves

Existing mangroves will be cleaned up by requiring the permission holder toremove abandoned floating walkway modules from nearby mangroves

The Construction Environmental Management Plan includes the need for thepermission holder to develop a Vegetation Clearing Plan (includingRehabilitation Plan) that clearly identifies the areas of vegetation that will bepermanently lost, areas that will be impacted and rehabilitated and areas thatwill be retained. This will minimise (as far as possible) any unplanned impactson mangroves


acceptable risk of potential impacts on adjacent areas of intertidal and marine habitatfrom reclamation activities (mangroves, algae) and any potential impacts are able tobe mitigated by the inclusion of the Environmental Offsets being proposed to

50.1

502

50.3

50.4

51.1

14

51.2

51.3

51.4

52

counterbalance the significant residual impacts of the matter/s of state environmentalsignificance being 1013.5m' of marine plants

Potential damage to the benthic environment from the facility becoming damaged (andunsecured) during cyclone weather events

53. Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe potential damage to the benthic environment from the facility becoming damaged(and unsecured) during cyclone weather events:

Benthic primary produces, including seagrass, mangroves, algae, and coralsare particularly susceptible to changes in water quality, in particular lightlimitations and changes in hydrodynamics

The corals and macro algae in these nearshore coral environments canwithstand periodic high turbidity conditions but are sensitive to longer termincreases in turbidity


The permission holder should be required to notify the Authority within 24hours of an event in order to reduce any potential risks to the environment.

The permission holder will be required to cover relevant clean-up or removalcosts, including costs to cover a damage assessment

Permit conditions will be required to reduce the threat of impacts from poorlymaintained facilities including requirements for compliance certificates everythree years to ensure the facilities have been maintained in a good state ofrepair and in accordance with as constructed drawings. In the event of acyclone or severe weather event, the permission holder will be required toprovide maintenance certificates to demonstrate that the facility has not beendamaged and/or the works have not compromised the structural stability ofthe facility


acceptable risk of potential damage to the benthic environment from the facilitybecoming damaged (and unsecured) during cyclone weather events and anypotential impacts are able to be mitigated by ensuring appropriate maintenanceprograms are in place to monitor performance and inspect the facility for potentialrepairs, replacements or damage

Coastal geo-morphology - e. g increased sedimentation cause by the new breakwater andupgraded facilities

56. Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered that the construction of the newbreakwater has the potential for siltation in the lee of the structure which has thepotential to impact on coastal geo-morphology. If substantial slitation were to occurthen maintenance dredging would be required.

57. Having regard to the above findings the decision maker considered whether any ofthe identified risks could be mitigated, specifically

53.1

53.2

54.1

54.2

54.3

15

55

The permission holder submitted two modelling reports in 2017 which usedhigh spatial resolution, phase-resolved wave modelling to investigate thewave structure interactions and the degree of sheltering offered by thestructure. The siltation impact predictions were undertaken using a coupledhydrodynamic, wave and sediment transport modelling approach

The permission holder also modelled the difference between the effect ofdifferent gap widths between the proposed breakwater and the existingbreakwater ramp. The outcome of the gap modelling showed that the 20mand 30m gap options provided virtually the same wave protection and siltationtrends. Both of these options would unlikely require dredging over the designlife. By contrast the 45m gap allowed more wave energy through, creatingsub-optimal wave protection, significant in orphological changes and increasedsiltation rates. Based on this a design gap of 25m was found to be suitable formeeting the mainland separation objective and minimal siltation rate

Based on these considerations, the decision maker concluded that it was not

anticipated that the proposed Project would interrupt sediment transport patterns orhave any notable effect on the coastal processes, hydrodynamics or geomorphologyon Boat Bay

Disturbance to or interference with marine wildlife (whales, dolphins, dugong, sea turtles),during construction and as a result of increased vesselmovements

59. Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe potential impacts on marine wildlife during construction and as a result ofincreased vessel movements

57.1

57.2

58

16

59.1 The proposed project area may be accessed by sea turtles, primarily greenturtles but flatback and loggerhead sea turtle species may also beencountered. The specific project area is not recognised as high valueforaging habitat for great turtles (paucity of seagrass beds) but given thegeneral mobility and feeding habits of this species it is expected thatindividuals will be encountered. The new breakwater would potentially providenew foraging habitat (following the settlement of benthic species onto therocks)

The location of the Project is a rocky headland with surrounding mangrovesand not deemed suitable for turtle nesting. The hydrodynamic modellingreport shows no impacts to coastal processes and beaches in the vicinity. Assuch there is no significant nesting turtle sites that will be directly impacted bythe proposed project

Dugong feed primarily on seagrass species with a high protein and low fibrecontent and generally uproot whole plants, producing distinctive feeding trailsThe seagrass species identified within the surveys described above includesome favoured by dugong. While much of Boat Bay is quite shallow (andtherefore has limited access with the tides) the specific footprint of the Projectis unlikely to impact on dugong habitat and the outer edge of the bay maypresent suitable feeding habitat

59.2

593

Nearshore dolphins (Australian humpback dolphin and Australian snubfindolphin) could occur within the area. Both species have a relatively broad dietand feed opportunistically and will travel into shallow water. Snubfin dolphinprefer water as shallow as I-2m while humpback dolphin appear to prefer 2-5m water depth

Estuarine crocodiles may also seek to access the proposed project areaparticularly during the warmer month when they are more mobile and seekingout new habitat and breeding partners. However, there are no significant riveror creek systems close to the proposed project site that would suggest thesite presents suitable habitat for permanent residence. It is unlikely thatregional crocodile populations would be impacted in any substantial way bythe proposed project


The permission holder proposes to undertake a soft start (ramp up) procedurewhereby machinery is started a low power and gradually increased to fullpower over a period of 30 minutes.

Marine mammal and marine reptile observers will also be utilised duringworks which will only occur during daylight hours where visibility above waterof up to one kilometre can be achieved. If marine mammals are observed witha 500m radius of the Project area, all machinery will be shut down until theanimal leaves the area. If the animal is not seen to leave the area, it isrecommended that the recommencement of works does not occur until the

animal is not sighted for 30 minutes

The introduction of go slow zones and signage installed to manage thepotential impacts on marine megafauna and raise awareness of users of thefacilities of the marine megafauna that are found in the Project area

61. Based on these considerations, the decision maker concluded that there was an

acceptable risk of potential impacts on marine wildlife and any potential impacts areable to be mitigated and managed through permit conditions, including therequirement for a Schedule of Works which must be approved by the Authority, anEnvironmental Site Supervisor and Operational Environmental Management Plan

Impacts on cultural and heritage values

59.4

59.5

60.1

60.2

17

60.3

Traditional owner heritage (cultureO values

62. Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe potential impacts on traditional owner heritage (cultural) values

The Djiru native title holders hold Native Title over the Project area and arerepresented by the Djiru Warrangburra Aboriginal Corporation RNTBC (thePrescribed Body Corporate) (QC02011/005)

The native title rights held by the Djiru People are non-exclusive and includethe right to access, and be present on the area, to hunt, fish and gather on theland and waters of the area for personal, domestic and non-commercial

62.1

62.2

communal purposes, and to maintain places of importance and areas ofsignificance to the native title holders under their traditional laws and customs

Under section 24HA(7) of the Native Title Act 7993 the Authority is required toconsult with Native Title holders prior to making a decision on the applicationThe Authority is not bound by any comments made. There was alsoopportunity during the public consultation period for further comments to bemade about the impacts of the application

Pursuant to section 24HA(7) of the Native Title Act 7993 the Authority notifiedthe Prescribed Body Corporate of the application and requested commentsabout whether the Project would impact on their claim area, and if so howwould the Project impact on their claim area. The Prescribed Body Corporateprovided comments dated 20 March 2018 and 22 April2018

The Project will reduce the amount of flora available to take and its624.1

reduction will impact on fauna that uses this for its livelihood

62.42. The Prescribed Body Corporate are concerned that the Project maydestroy a significant number of bush tucker and medicinal plants bothavailable with the mangrove system to be cleared and the rockyshoreline and also in the bay itself which may be directly or indirectlyimpacted on by the change in water flow and slit build-up because ofthis Project

62.43. The Project will reduce the amount of fauna available to take andreduce the amount of habitat available to support the same levels ofanimal populations as were in the area previously. The Djiru Peopleare concerned that this will undermine their rights to hunt and gatheron the land and in the waters

During construction of the Project access to the Djiru People'shunting grounds would also be impeded through both lack of accessfrom the existing boat ramp and also within what would be aconstruction zone where mackerel and crab are specifically huntedas well as other fauna

The Djiru People's Native Title rights and interests will be directlyaffected by the Project, and the ability of Djiru People to exercise andenjoy their rights and interests long term will also be significantlycurtailed

The area adjacent to the Project footprint contains cultural andethnographic sites significant to Djiru People

624.7. The permission should not be granted until a proper environmentalsurvey has been undertaken to ensure that there will be no direct orindirect impact on adjacent fish traps and shell and artefact scatterswhich are of cultural significance to Djiru People.

The Authority also received comments made during the public consultationperiod from a traditional owner and the decision maker has considered thesecomments

62.3

62.4

18

62.44

624.5

624.6

62.5


The granting of a permission does not extinguish native title rights63.1

The Project footprint does not lie over any known cultural artefacts

The permission holder has consulted with the Djiru People to ensure that allsignificant sites and measures will be undertaken to protect cultural heritagevalues of the area during construction and, the ongoing maintenance andoperation of the Project

The State of Queensland has a Cultural Heritage Management Plan with theDjiru People for the then Project dated 2 March 2016. The Plan does notaddress the current Project and as such must be updated to reflect thecurrent scope of the Project. It will be a condition of the permit that the Stateof Queensland produce evidence that the Plan has been updated inagreement with the Prescribed Body Corporate

It is noted that discussions between the Djiru People and the State ofQueensland are ongoing

64. Based on these considerations, the decision maker concluded that the impacts raisedby the Djiru People could be appropriate Iy managed to protect traditional ownerheritage (cultural) values

Historic heritage values

65. Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, determined that the Project area did notcomprise any matters of historic heritage value (including artefacts or features, orarchaeological artefacts), being matters that relate to the occupation and use of theMarine Park since the arrival of European and other migrants (for example, WorldWar 11 features and sites, voyages and shipwrecks)

World heritage and national heritage values

66. Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe potential impacts on world heritage and national heritage values

Public comment included concern that the project may impact the aesthetics66.1

of the area. However, the decision maker also considered that although thearea is acknowledged locally as an attractive part of the region this includesan existing facility (being the current breakwater and boat ramp)

The Project may contribute to the general degradation of natural beauty ofthe Marine Park by way of 'death by a thousand cuts'

The increased provision of visitor facilities to support sustainable tourismand enhance the appreciation of the property is an important contributor tothe realisation of aesthetic value of the Marine Park

The Project will add further built infrastructure onto a relatively rare exampleof coastal basalt substrate

63.2

63.3

63.4

63.5

19

66.2

66.3

66.4

Water quality may be impacted by the Project

There may be long term prospects for a number of key habitats and species,notably in the nearshore zone, such as to dugong, seagrass, fringing andnearshore coral reefs, and locally specific threatened populations such asthe snubfin dolphin


The scale of the project is small in comparison to many other human67.1

activities and developments within the GBRWHA

The Department of Environment and Energy considered impacts on mattersof national environmental significance and considered it was unlikely therewas a real chance or possibility that there would be a significant impact onthe World Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage propertyas a result of the proposed action

The Project does not substantially impact on the physical nature of thebasalt substrate (that is, it is still present and the impacts may be moreaesthetic); however, rocks will be moved where operational Iy feasible

The Project will have some minor (local scale) impacts to hydro-dynamicprocesses and therefore at a very minor level on geo-in orphologicalprocesses. At the scale of the GBRWHA and at geological times cales thismay be considered minor

68. Based on these considerations, the decision maker concluded that any potentialimpacts on the world heritage and national heritage values would be minimal inrelation to the whole World Heritage property and where necessary impacts may befurther managed through permit conditions

Natural heritage values

69. Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe potential impacts on natural heritage values

The natural heritage values of the Marine Park are based on its biodiversityand ecosystem process. The Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014recognised that these values are generally in good condition, though someare in decline particularly in the southern two-thirds of the Marine Park

The natural heritage values overlap with, and are addressed in the same wayas biodiversity values. The potential impacts are likely to be the same asidentified above


Permit conditions such as appropriate signage and operational environmentalmanagement plans will raise awareness and protect natural heritage values

66.5

66.6

67.2

67.3

67.4

20

69.1

69.2

70.1

71. Based on these considerations, the decision maker concluded that any potentialimpacts on the natural heritage values would be minimal and where necessaryimpacts may be further managed through permit conditions

Impacts on social values

72. Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe potential impacts on social values

Construction is anticipated to take approximately nine months. During thistime, use of the boat ramp by recreational users will not be possible andcommercial operators may also need to make other arrangements to accessthe Marine Park

Those tourism operators that rely upon access to the Marine Park from theexisting Clump Point boat ramp are likely to be impacted during theconstruction phase. These tourism operators will need to identify a newlocation to enter the Marine Park during the construction phase

The Project will provide for commercial use pen berths and swing mooringswhich will be allocated through a formal process run by Cassowary CoastRegional Council (as facility manager) with assistance from the permissionholder

Recreational users will have two floating walkways at the boat ramp which willno longer have to be shared with commercial operators

The proposed inner berth will include a public berthing side dedicated topublic use. If not constructed (due to budgetary constraints) the outer pontoonberth will include a dedicated side for recreational use

Potential increased vessel movements to and from the site following theexpansion. The Project is expected to improve safety for Marine Park users

The Project is intended to improve public and commercial access to theMarine Park and is therefore expected to see an increase in use in some

72.1

72.2

72.3

72.4

72.5

21

72.6

72.7

Conflict between users of the facilities - that is, conflict between recreational

and commercial users may arise as a result of the Project. The design makesefforts to separate uses, however it remains possible that there will beoverlapping uses that cause conflict


73.1. During the construction phase, and subject to the construction tender process,the permission holder will endeavour to provide access to a single boat ramplane whenever possible for essential commercial use. The permission holderwill need to provide a detailed Construction Environmental Management Planwhich will include a communication strategy to advise the public of closuredates and alternative ramp access including signage on-site

73.2. Notification of closure periods to the boat ramp during the construction phaseand advice on alternative ramp access arrangements to be provided by the

72.8

areas

73

permission holder to the Mission Beach community as soon as the timing ofworks are known

73.3. The Operational Environmental Management Plan will further manage day-to-day activities of the project including management strategies for vesselmovements, go-slow zones, signage about marine mega-fauna and how tominimise risk of harm

The decision maker also noted recent statement of the Queensland Minister for

Transport requesting the permission holder to further investigate options to maintainaccess for commercial operators

Based on these considerations, the decision maker concluded that any potentialimpacts on users of the Marine Park would be minimal and where necessary impactsmay be further managed through permit conditions

74

75

Visual amenity

76. Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe potential impacts on natural heritage values

Aesthetics is strongly influenced by an individual's perception. The permissionholder has provided before and after (computer generated) photographiccomposites of what Clump Point will look like with and without the proposeddevelopment (see the assessment report at page 41 and 63)

The permission holder has reduced visual impact as far as possible bykeeping the structure as low as possible, reduce the physical footprint asmuch as possible while still achieving a design that was suitable for boatingfacilities

The decision maker also considered the public submissions received duringpublic consultation. Some users were concerned about the negative visualamenity and aesthetics of the area. Others were concerned about the damageit would create to the 'village atmosphere' of Mission Beach

Other public submissions, who were supportive of the project, indicated thatthe project would not change the current aesthetics of the area and that theproject would simply mean that there were better and safer marine facilitiesavailable. They felt that their ability to appreciate the visual amenity andaesthetics of the Marine Park would be boosted by the proposed facilities

While it is acknowledged that the project will change the aesthetics of thespecific site it is considered that the overall aesthetic values of the areaincluding adjacent coastal and island areas will remain mostly intact


Based on these considerations, the decision maker concluded that evaluatingimpacts to social values was particularly subjective and what is a positiveimpact for one section of the community often creates a negative impact foranother section. Such subjective opinions can be difficult to evaluateobjective Iy in an assessment. The ultimate goal is to reduce risks and

76.1

76.2

22

76.3

76.4

76.5

77.1

188Q(b)l

enhance benefits for all sections of the community to the greatest extentpossible

78

options for monitoring, managing. and. mmgating the potenti^/impacts Of theproposed Conduct

Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe options for monitoring, managing and mitigating the potential impacts of theproposed conduct

The Authority uses a risk management framework for managing multiple uses78.1

and permits within the Marine Park

The existing permit held by the permission holder for monitoring will allow formonitoring of all activities during the entire construction phase, including therequirement for water quality and turbidity monitoring, cultural heritage sitemonitoring, marine fauna monitoring and gap monitoring

The standard permit conditions to be applied as set out in the assessmentreport at page 45

Inclusion of permit conditions to develop and implement a ConstructionEnvironmental Management Plan to manage construction related risks andinclude

78.41. the source of the reclamation area fill material

78.42. the source of the rockwall material

784.3. sediment curtains

78.44. construction methodologies

78.45. a clearing plan that clearly identifies the areas of vegetation that will bepermanently lost, areas that will be impacted and rehabilitated tominimise impact on mangroves and areas that will be retained

78.46. the proposed soft start procedures, Marine Mammal and MarineReptile Observers, sediment curtains, construction methodologies andturbidity monitoring requirements

Inclusion of permit conditions to develop and implement an OperationalEnvironmental Management Plan which would include

785.1. refuelling and incident response procedures

78.52. process for safe refuelling operations, including who is responsible forthis

78.53. gross pollutant traps, grassy verges, storm water management,sediment erosion controls and other design features to minimise oilywaste escape for the terrestrial carpark and roads conditions

78.54. details of go slow zones and appropriate signage about megafaunaand how to minimise the risk of impacting them and, a requirement

78.2

78.3

78.4

23

78.5

that the permission holder must notify of any incidents within 24 hoursin order to reduce any potential risks to the environment

Inclusion of a permit condition to require the permission holder to notify theAuthority within 24 hours of a cyclone, severe weather event, or other incidentthat causes environmental harm in order to reduce any potential risks to theenvironment and the inclusion of permit conditions that require the permissionholder to cover the cost of any damage assessment, clean-up and removal

Inclusion of permit conditions to reduce the threat of poorly maintainedfacilities, including requirements for compliance certificates to be providedevery three years to ensure the facilities have been maintained in a goodstate of repair and in accordance with as constructed drawings. Maintenancecertificates would also be required after a significant weather event or worksto ensure the facility has not been damaged and/or the works have notcompromised the structural stability of the facility

Inclusion of a permit condition to require an Environmental Site Supervisor

Inclusion of a permit condition to require a compliance certificate followingcompletion of the works to ensure the Project was constructed in accordancewith the approved Design Drawings

Inclusion of a permit condition that requires the permission holder to clean upthe stray floating walkway modules, remove any anchor chain in the existingcoral reef and conduct a general clean up around Boat Bay in order toincrease resilience of the existing coral and increase amenity value

Inclusion of a permit condition to require a Schedule of Works, which must beapproved by the Authority, for

78/11. reduction of the threat of impacts from proposed works includingremoval or decommissioning activities

78/12. providing access to the boat ramp during the construction phase,including the methodology to manage access and timings

Inclusion of permit conditions to manage and mitigate potential impacts frommoorings, such as

78,121. approved compliance certificates to be provided annually on theanniversary date of installation of each mooring that verifies eachmooring is installed and maintained in accordance with an approveddesign drawing and process those certificates within 21 days of beingcalled to do so

78.12.2. condition requiring schedule of works prior to the commencement ofany works including the installation and/or maintenance of moorings

78.12.3. condition allowing for Environmental Site Supervisor to supervisethe installation and also advice on suitability of the proposed site

78.12.4. conditions ensuring appropriate mooring design (fit for purpose, useof riser buoys) and site supervision during installation andmaintenance

78.6

78.7

78.8

78.9

78.10

78.11

24

78.12

78.13. Inclusion of permit conditions to ensure suitable conditions are in place tomanage the requirements and concerns of the Djiru Traditional Owners. ACultural Heritage Management Plan needs to be in place and approved by theDjiru Traditional Owners.

78.14. Inclusion of a permit condition that the permission holder needs to displayappropriate signage about the cultural significance of the area to the DjiruTraditional Owners

The decision maker concluded that the potential impacts of the Project could beappropriateIy managed, monitored and/or mitigated through the imposition ofappropriate conditions as identified above

79

'88Q(,)I

80

if the 'proposed !30nduct will take place. in an area towhich a zoriing planapplies +The. of!Iectives of the' zone' as Set Out Ih the zoriing plan

Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe relevant objectives of the zone as set out in the zoriing plan

Part of the Project area is within the Habitat Protection Zone in the waters of80.1

the Mission Beach coastal area (HP-17-5140) within the Marine Park. Theobjective of this zone is

80. I. I. to provide for the conservation of areas of the Marine Park though theprotection and management of sensitive habitats, generally free frompotentially damaging actiViti^s, and

807.2. sub^^ct to the obyective mentioned above, to provide opportunities forreasonable use

Subject to Part 3 (Remote Natural Area), Part 4 (designated Areas) and Part 5(Additional purposes for use and entry), the written permission of the Authorityis required to use or enter the Habitat Protection Zone, among other things,for the following purposes: "operatihg a facility for a purpose that I^ consistentwith the obyective for the zone, includ^^g. ' building, assembfing, fixing inposition, maintainihg or demoffshihg the facility, constructing or operatingmooring facilities for vessels; carrying out works for a purpose that I^consistent with the obyectives for the zone, including. .. . . reclamation, any otherpurpose that I^ consistent with the obyective of the zone. .."

The decision maker concluded that the proposed design avoids any direct impact onsensitive habitats and is generally consistent with the objective of the zone

25

80.2

81

'8Q(d)I if the proposed conduct also requires an approval or permit under theEnvironment Protectibn and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999:in Whethc^r the:aFiprova/ or permission. has been, or ISIik61y to. bel grantedahd, .ifg/anted, the term- s and condtions of it being granted. and(10 '^by/e/eVan. t assessment documentstibn (within the meaning given bysubsection 133(8) of that AGO Intelation to the'approval orpermit

82 Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters concerningthe EPBC Act

On 20 April2017 the permission holder referred the Mission Beach ClumpPoint Boating Infrastructure Project to the Australian Government Departmentof Environment and Energy (EPBC Act referral 2017/7924). The referralincluded the following scope of works: a detached breakwater offshore of theexisting breakwater, protecting an access jetty, with two berthing pontoonsand 5-6 pile berths and a boat ramp upgrade to three lanes as previouslyproposed, as well as an upgrade of the existing breakwater to provide a singlelane road access and a small expansion and, raising of the existing lowercarpark to facilitate functional operational of the facility

On 21 April2017 comments were invited from members of the public to bemade within 10 business days (on or before 5 May 2017)

On the same date, comments were sought from the Queensland Minister forEnvironment and Heritage Protection

On 19 May 2017 a delegate of the Minister for the Environment and Energydetermined that the Project was not a controlled action for the purposes of theEPBC Act, as such no ERBC approval is required for this Project

The decision maker also considered whether any changes to the Project designwould require a new EPBC referral. In considering this, the decision maker noted

the scope of works subject to EPBC Act referral 2017/7924, and83.1

the permission holder's undertaking that its obligations under the ERBC Act83.2

continue to be met

On the basis of the above, the decision maker concluded that

There is no requirement for the permission holder to hold an EPBC Act84.1

approval, and

The application did not require a new referral under the EPBC Act

82.1

822

82.3

82.4

83

26

84

188Q(e)l

84.2

85

any written comments received about the applicatibn in response to the publicadvertisement published in accordance with regulation 880

On 19 September 2017 the Authority advised the permission holder that it mustadvertise the application pursuant to regulation 880 of the GBRMP Regulations andinvite public comment

On 18 January 2018 the permission holder publicly advertised the application andinvited public comment by 19 February 2018. The permission holder made availablea public information package to provide members of the public with sufficient detail of

86

the application to be able to make informed comments on the proposal. The publicinformation package was approved by the Authority before it was made available tothe public

Public submissions in response to the public information package were provideddirectly to the Authority. More than 350 submissions were received by the Authority inresponse to the public advertising of the application

On 26 February 2018 the Authority, pursuant to regulation 88E of the GBRMPRegulations requested further information from the permission holder to address theissues raised in the public submissions

On 19 March 2018 the permission holder provided a supplementary information-public information package that responded to the matters raised in the request forfurther information

The decision maker considered the request for further information and the responsefrom the permission holder and agrees with the assessment report that the followingmatters were raised in opposition to the Project

pollution: fuel, oil, rubbish from barges, skips, vessels90.1

the Project area is a nursery for prawns and fish90.2

the Traditional Owners are not supportive

turtles nesting on nearby beaches

traffic issues (outside the jurisdiction of the Authority)

vessels crashing into each other (user conflict and safety)

user conflict between recreational and commercial vessels90.7

barges carrying dangerous good, rubbish and chemicals

whether the Project will form part of a lager development, for example a

87

88

89

90

90.3

90.4

90.5

90.6

27

908

90.9

90.40. potential for the proposed project to be half-finished

90.11. impacts to coral, seagrass, benthos and mangroves

90.12. issues with public consultation process recommending a letter box drop assome people don't use the internet or buy newspaper

90.13. some submission opposed the Project but agreed the additional boat rampand pontoon would be beneficial, and

90.14. concerns about the ability of the Cassowary Coast Regional Council tomanage the facility once constructed

The decision maker agreed that the assessment report had appropriateIysummarised the following matters in favour of the Project

the Project will improve user safety91.1

the Project will improve the enjoyment of the area for tourists and providebetter access to the Reef, and

marina

91

91.2

the proposed Project design was far superior to the design to redevelop PerryHarveyjetty

The decision maker was satisfied that the advertising of the public comment periodwas appropriate, reasonable in the circumstances and complied with therequirements under regulation 880 of the GBRMP Regulations. In particular, thedecision maker was satisfied that the period for public consultation was advertised

on the Authority's website92.1

on the permission holder's website

in the Cassowary Coast Independent newspaper on 18 and 25 January and,I, 8, and 15 February 2018, and

through the Local Marine Advisory Committee and members of both theTourism and Indigenous Reef Advisory Committees

The decision maker was also satisfied that the any written comments received aboutthe application in response to the public advertisement published have beenappropriate Iy considered in the course of this decision in the context of the relevantassessment criteria

92

91.3

92.2

92.3

93

92.4

,88(""

94

any other matters relevant to the orderly and proper management of theMarine Park

After reviewing the information provided to the decision maker, in making anassessment under this criteria, the decision maker considered the following matters

the permission holder has confirmed that there is no intention that the Project94.1

be expanded in the future

no capital dredging is involved in the Project

the Cassowary Coast Regional Council will be the facility manager andresponsible for regular maintenance of in-water infrastructure

the permission holder as the facility owner will be responsible for any majorrepairs including repairs required as a result of storm damage

allocation of moorings will be via a formal process run by the CassowaryCoast Regional Council with the assistance of the permission holder

final mooring installation positions will be subject to site specific assessmentto ensure that there is appropriate separate distances between moorings

climate change modelling and predictions for future sea-level and cycloneintensity should be considered within the design life of this facility. Thepermission holder has provided the following

947.1. the boat ramp needs to be designed to function at the current tidallevels and as such the design will allow for a future retrofit of thefacility subject to sea level rise, rather than a blanket design approval

94.72. the northern carpark has been raised by an approximate average of0.5m to bring it half a metre above the level of Highest AstronomicalTide and avoid spring tide and wind-driven inundation

28

94.2

94.3

94.4

945

94.6

947

94.73. the design of the reclamation area and changes to existingbreakwater does not include an additional vertical increase for sea

level rise as this would create a need to extend the boat ramp south,encroaching on the turning area and resulting in a significantincrease to the development footprint to maintain cantrailer capacity

947.4. the detached breakwater and associated infrastructure has been

designed with the application of 0.3m of sea level rise which exceedsthat recommended in As4997-2005, and

947.5. the design storm tide and wave conditions have been generatedusing the entire dataset from Clump Point and as such capture TCLarry and TC Yasi. On this basis the design conditions fully reflectthe increase in storm intensity seen during these two cyclones

prudent and feasible alternatives to the Project, including

94.81. an upgrade of the Perry Harvey jetty which was strongly opposed byboth environmental and boating groups. The decision maker notedthat in responding to public concerns the Queensland Governmentdetermined that the Project would focus on safer boatinginfrastructure at Clump Point only, with the Perry Harvey jetty beingleft as is; a good weather facility to support the Clump Pointupgraded works

94.82. do nothing, that is, maintain the current situation with the possibilityof upgrades to the road and modifications to the car parking. Thedecision maker noted that this option was supported by the publiccomments, however on balance considered that doing nothing wasnot a prudent alternative to address the boating safety issues andneed to improve facilities to provide for a protected and modernboating facility in the area

948.3. modified design, that is a larger or smaller design. The decisionmaker agreed with the assessment report at page 62 that the currentdesign represents a balance of the public views and requirements

On the basis of the considerations described above as well as the considerations and

conclusions reached in respect of regulations 88Q and 88R, the decision makerdetermined that granting the permit application would be consistent with orderly andproper management of the Marine Park

94.8

29

95

Consideration of Assessment Criteria - Discretion a

96 In reaching a decision the decision maker also considered and made findings on thefollowing criteria in regulation 88R of the GBRMP Regulations

''8R, ,, I

97

the requirement in section-37AA Of the. Act for users of the Marine' Park totake allreasonab/e steps to prevent or nilnim. ise harm to the. environment in"** ... ^

the Martne 'Park that might Or will be caused by. the- userls use o1. entry

The decision maker considered the range of impacts as identified in the assessmentreport, including the risk assessment and issues raised in public submissions against

Considerations

the matters in section 37AA of the GBRMP Act regarding determination of whether allreasonable steps have been taken to prevent or minimise harm, specifically

the risk of harm - regulation 88Q(a)97.1

the sensitivity of the environment - regulation 88Q(a)

any objectives for the zone specified in its zoriing plan - regulation 88Q(c)

the practicalities, including cost, of steps that will prevent or minimise harm -regulation 88Q(b) and below

whether or not the use complies with laws - regulation 88R(h)

whether or not the use complies with any relevant code of practice, standardor guideline - regulation 88R(d) and

whether or not the use is in accordance with permit conditions97.7

Taking into account the relevant material and evidence provided, in making adecision the decision maker specifically considered paragraph 101(d) above,specifically

The methods for monitoring, managing and mitigating the potential impacts of98.1

the Project, as detailed under criterion 88Q(b) above, have been agreed to bythe permission holder and there is no evidence before the decision maker thatwould cause him to believe that the permission holder would not meet therequirements

For the Marine Park, regular inspection, maintenance and monitoring is themost cost effective and practical means of minimising harm. If an incidentoccurs, the cost of response is much higher to both a permittee and theGovernment

To ensure reasonable resources are reserved and to avoid the Australian

public bearing the costs of dealing with an incident, the permission holder hasentered into a deed of agreement with the Authority that requires them to

983.1. maintain insurances related to matters such as removal, clean-up

and property damage

98.32. indemnify GBRMPA against any and all loss or damage

98.33. agree to pay the Authority's reasonable costs associated withenvironmental site supervision

The decision maker also noted that the methods for monitoring, managing andmitigating potential impacts are reflected in the permit conditions and have beenagreed to by the permission holder. The decision maker is satisfied on the evidencebefore him that the permission holder will comply with the permit conditions

Having regard for the above considerations, the decision maker concluded that

100.1. The permission holder has undertaken a rigorous project developmentprocess that has taken into account environmental factors

100.2. The permission holder is experienced in the development of projects of thisnature and has access to the required technical knowledge

97.2

97.3

97.4

97.5

97.6

98

98.2

30

98.3

99

100

100.3 The permission holder will undertake suitable tendering processes and allactivities will be suitably covered by Environmental Management Plans

To date, the permission holder has taken all reasonable steps to prevent orminimise harm to the environment in the Marine Park that might or will becaused by the permission holder's use or entry

100.4

188R(b)l

I01

the'effect. th^, tthe. grant:Of the permissidh Will have. dripUbli6appreciationUnderstanding'and erubymentbfth6 Marine/>ark, '.".": ' " ' '::, 1. , ' '; .

Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered these matters had beenadequately considered when taking into account the considerations in accordancewith regulation 88Q(a) and also considered the following

101.1. One of the key objectives of the Project is to provide improved access to andfrom the Marine Park, providing greater opportunity for the public to access,appreciate and enjoy the Marine Park in a safe manner

101.2. A reduction in public appreciation and enjoyment of the Marine Park could beexperienced as a result of loss of visual amenity and aesthetics. However thisis subjective as described in the assessment report on page 37 andparagraph 76 above

188R(c)l the impact of the conduct proposed to be permitted under the permission'in.. ..

the Context of other'conduct. in the relevant'area or nearby are^is, onn theMann. e Park, .that is being undertake. nilis'piahned, :is in progress, .oris.reasonably foreseeable'at*the time-of the. AuthorityIs consideration of the**.. .'*. .*. ..... .. ....

t^PPIiCationj whether or not* related toor a' Consequence. .of the prop:OSedConduct' I" '.**.' .. '.',"-'--,' , . ...., . ...* .

102

31

Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered

102.1. the Project includes conduct within the adjacent Great Barrier Reef StateMarine Park and on land

I02.2. the relevant assessment and approval documents including approvals underthe Queensland Environmental Protection Act 7994 (Qld), Coastal Protectionand Management Act 7995 (Qld) and Fisheries Act 7994 (Qld)

102.3. the Greater Mission Beach Area Foreshore Management Plan andCassowary Coast Planning Scheme with specific reference to the marine andcoastal development and infrastructure at Clump Point

I02.4. the application for a maintenance dredging permit at Boat Bay dated 28 April2016 (G38869) to remove 1500m' of material (over a ten year period) fromthe existing boat ramp as part of an ongoing maintenance requirement toensure access to the existing boat ramp

I02.5. the Queensland Recreational Boating Facilities Demand Forecasting Study2017 that states that Clump Point is a Priority I (as soon as possible) site thatrequires an Increase in capacity

103 On the basis of the considerations described above, the decision maker determined

that the impact of the conduct proposed to be permitted under the Permit had beenproperly considered in the context of the broader Project design being undertaken inthe adjacent Great Barrier Reef State Marine Park and nearby land

188R(d)I

The decision maker considered that eight (8) policies/guidelines were relevant to theproposed use, and considered each of these as described below

Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan (LTSP) (July 2078) (Revised Reef 2050 Plan)

The revised Reef 2050 Plan reflects the current 'state of play' for managing the ReefThe framework of the Plan, including the vision, outcomes and objective has notchanged

Part 4.5 of the revised Reef 2050 Plan requires decision makers to have regard tothe following four principles

maintaining and enhancing Outstanding Universal Value in every action106.1

basing decisions on the best available science

delivering a net benefit to the ecosystem

adopting a partnership approach to management106.4

In considering revised Reef 2050 Plan, the decision maker was satisfied that the keyprinciples had been addressed in the assessment report

Great Barrier Reef Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (GBRMPA 2073)

This strategy provides a framework for improving biodiversity consideration in theGreat Barrier Reef Region and establishes a process for determining anddocumenting the habitats, species and groups of species that are potentially at riskThe Authority has completed vulnerability assessments for some of these at riskhabitats, species or groups of species. These vulnerability assessments havehighlighted existing and future management actions to ensure the long-termprotection of these species or groups of species

In considering Great Barrier Reef Biodiversity Conservation Strategy, the decisionmaker concluded that the proposed conduct and the permit conditions hadsatisfactorily managed any associated risks and were generally consistent with theconservation priorities identified in the vulnerability assessments

Environmental Impact Management Policy (GBRMPA 2070)

This policy provides a transparent consistent approach to environmental impactmanagement within the Marine Park

In considering Environmental Impact Management Policy, the decision makerconcluded that the granting of the permit was consistent with the principles of thepolicy

104

any polities or guidelines issued by the Authority about the management ofthe Marine. Park'of the performance of the Authority^ fuhctions under the Actand these' Regulatibns

105

106

106.2

106.3

107

32

108

109

110

111

Environmental Impact Management Policy - Permission System (GBRMPA 2077)

This updated policy provides a transparent, consistent and contemporary approach to1/2

the joint management of permits

In considering Environmental Impact Management Policy (GBRMPA 2017), thedecision maker concluded that the granting of the permit was consistent with theprinciples of the policy

GBRMPA's site management arrangements

The site management arrangements for Clump Point acknowledge that the facilitieslocated in Boat Bay, including a boat ramp and jetty provide a departure point forcommercial and recreational users to access nearby Dunk Island and the MarinePark generally. The site management arrangements focus on the location of buoymoorings and were developed in conjunction with Maritime Safety Queensland,Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service and the Authority

The site management arrangements are triggered by the proposal to install andoperate moorings and depict areas to be free from moorings and areas set aside foranchoring vessels at Clump Point

In considering the relevant site management arrangements, the decision makerconcluded that the Project was consistent with the policy

Moorings in the Great Barrier Reef Policy (GBRMPA 2074)

This policy provides a framework for the management and use of tourism and1/7

recreational vessel moorings that protects the environment and promotes ecological Iysustainable access to the Marine Park

In considering Moorings in the Great Barrier Reef Policy, the decision makerconcluded that the permission holder had satisfactorily met the policy's proceduralrequirements

Recreation Management Strategy for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMPA 2072)

This strategy provides an overarching framework for managing recreation by the1/9

Authority. It is a risk-based strategy that focuses on

119.4. understanding recreational use

119.2. working with others

I19.3. education and public awareness

I I 9.4. best practice

119.5. in-park management

In considering the Recreation Management Strategy for the Great Barrier ReefMarine Park, the decision maker concluded that the Project was generally consistentwith the strategy's objectives

Cumulative Impact Management Policy (July 2078)

The commitments arising from the Reef 2050 Plan included a cumulative impact124

assessment policy. In light of these commitments the decision maker considered that

113

114

1/5

1/6

118

33

120

it was appropriate to consider the policy in the context of the Project. The decisionmaker concluded that

121.1. the assessment report considered the relevant pressures and impacts in thecontext of the risks identified in the policy

121.2. the overall impacts of the Project would not impair the overall condition of theecosystem, or a sensitive population or community on a local or wider level

121.3. the relatively minor nature and scale of the Project combined with themitigation measures proposed and identified throughout the assessmentreport and this statement of reasons should ensure that the public boatingfacilities can be constructed and operated without causing any seriouscumulative risks to local habitats and species

188R(e)I

122

if the application for the permission relates to an undeveloped proj'ect the costof which will be large . the capacity of the applicant to satisfactorily developand manage the project

Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration, considered the following matters relating tothe cost of the Project and the capacity of the permission holder to satisfactorilydevelop and manage the project

122.1. There is an existing boat ramp and the Project will be completed by thepermission holder, being the State of Queensland acting through theDepartment of Transport and Main Roads

122.2. Once completed the facilities at Clump Point will be owned by the permissionholder and managed by the Cassowary Coast Regional Council

122.3. The total available project budget is currently $184 million which will be spenton construction and any ongoing studies required during the construction ofthe Project. The permission holder has confirmed that the design is likely tobe achievable within the available budget

122.4. The permission holder is experienced in development projects and holds thetechnical knowledge and skill to develop and manage the Project

122.5. The permission holder has entered into a deed of agreement with theCassowary Coast Regional Council whereby the permission holder will be thelegal owner of the in-water infrastructure and Council appointed as themanager of the facility

Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration was satisfied that permission holder had thecapacity to develop and appropriate manage the Project in all phases

34

123

188R(01

124

if the proposed'conducta/sorequires, art'approval orpermission under'a law *Of Queens/artd*+-,. Whether, the'apjjrova/ orpermiSsiOh, has beeh, o11^^Ik61y tobe;.'granted and, if granted; .the terms and dohdrtions of itbeing 'granted .

Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the permit refusal decision concluded that:

124.1. The assessment report considered relevant criteria under bothCommonwealth and Queensland Marine Park legislation, and a joint decisionwould be made on the permit application

124.2. On 14 February 2018 the permission holder was granted an EnvironmentalAuthority under the Environment Protection Act 7994 for dredging(EA0001137)

124.3. On 5 March 2018 the permission holder was granted the relevant approval(No. 17/1-2484 SDA) under section 63 of the Planning Act 2076 (Qld) for:

124.3. I. Operational works for tidal works

124.3.2. Operational works for the removal, destruction and damage ofmarine plants

124.3.3. Environmentally relevant activities (dredging),

124.3.4. ("the development approval")

I24.4. The development approval is subject to the following requirements

124.4. I. The permission holder must enter into an agreed deliveryarrangement to deliver an environmental offset in accordance withthe Environmental Offsets Act 2074 (Qld) to counterbalance thesignificant residual impacts of the matterIs of state environmentalsignificance being 10/3.5m' of marine plants, and

124.4.2. The permission holder must prepare a ConstructionEnvironmental Management Plan (prior to the commencement ofconstruction)

On the basis of the above evidence, the decision maker concluded that anyapprovals required under Queensland laws had been appropriateIy obtained andwere consistent with the decision to grant the Permit

35

125

188R(g)I

126

any internatioha/ Convention 'to Which Australia is a signatory, or anyagreement between-the. Commonwealth and a State or' Territory, that isrelevant to the application

Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration concluded that the World HeritageConvention had been adequately dealt with under other criteria and that no otherrelevant conventions or agreements were identified

The decision maker noted the assessment report acknowledged that while risks wereidentified through the risk assessment process there were likely to be local in natureand were not likely to substantially impact the World Heritage Values of the GreatBarrier Reef

127

128 On the basis of the above considerations, the decision maker concluded that the

proposal does not uriacceptably conflict with any identified international Conventionto which Australia is a signatory, or any agreement between the Commonwealth anda State or Territory

The decision maker also considered the Great Barrier Reef IntergovernmentalAgreement 2075 between the Australian and Queensland governments and wassatisfied that the assessment of the application reflected the joint decision makingprocess envisaged by that agreement. 7

129

188R(h)I

I30

any relevant law of the Commonwealth, or a relevant law of Queensland as inforce from time to time, or a relevant plan made Under such a law, relating tothe management of the environment, or an area in the Marine Park

The decision maker considered that the EPBC Act applies to matters that are likely tohave a significant impact on Matters of National Environmental Significance. He wassatisfied that EPBC referral was not required

The decision maker considered the Native Title Act 7993 and noted that, followingestablished procedures, details of the proposed activity had been sent to all NativeTitle claimant groups the comments received in response have been appropriate Iyconsidered as part of this assessment

On the basis of the above considerations, the decision maker concluded that no

matters of Commonwealth legislation prevented the Authority from making a decisionto grant a permit for the Project

The decision maker was satisfied that there was no other relevant law of the

Commonwealth, or relevant law of Queensland, or a relevant plan made under eithersuch a law, relating to the management of the environment, or an area in the MarinePark (save for those which have been referred to in these reasons for decision) whichwas appropriate to consider in relation to the making of the decision onreconsideration

131

132

I33

36

188R(ill

134

any relevant recovery plan, wild/^fe conservation plan, threat abatement planor approved conservation advice, under the Environment Protection. andBiodiversity Conservatibn Act 7999

Having regard to the assessment report, the decision maker identified two recoveryplans relevant to the considerations

134.1. Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia dated 3 June 2017, namelyGreen Turtle, Loggerhead Turtle and Flatback Turtle

134.2. Sawfish and River Shark Multispecies Recovery Plan dated 7 November2015

The decision maker also considered the following approved conservation advice asrelevant to his assessment

135

' The decision maker noted that the decision on reconsideration and this statement of reasons onlyreflects the Commonwealth Marine Park permit and the relevant Queensland Marine Park permit issubject to a separate review process

135.1 . approved conservation advice for Dermochelys oortacea (Leather back turtle)

135.2. approved conservation advice for Pristis zjsron (Green sawfish)

135.3. approved conservation advice for Rhincodon typus (Whale Shark)

I35.4. approved conservation advice for Megaptera novaeangliae (Humpbackwhale)

The following threat abatement plan was considered relevant by the decision maker

136.1. the Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on VertebrateMarine Life - 2009.

Based on the assessment report, and having regard to the relevant recovery plans,approved conservation advice and threat abatement plan the decision makerconcluded that the grant of the permit was appropriate and no further managementstrategies were identified

136

137

188RO)l whether*the appltoant for' the permi^$10n is a. ' suitable person to hold such apermission, having regard'to:,'. -I ,.. I "' .'- -. - -I-.; I -' '- " ' " '.:.@1the 'applicj^'nt'ShiStoly. Intelatjon to'. ejjvir'ohjri6hta/ matters"and(101f. the' ap^/ICant i^' a body corpt^/ate- the. history of its executive Ohioers inrelation to ehvirohrtlenta/ matters and: .:". . ': 1'1 I ' '." I '.' -: ' ' ~(trillf the. ^PPIibQhtj$. acornpanythatisa subsjdia, ('Of another company(theparentb^d/) +ith^ histoiy'. of the'penent. body. andits e)êôr^ê officers'in'relation to' environmental matters and I '. ' ' - - " ' ' ' ' ' ' - .. ' .- ' -

(Iv:)'. any charge, collected amount Or penalty amount that is overdue forpayment by the applicant as the:'holder of a charge;able permission' (whetherOr not-'th^'permission 'ism force) .and00 any latep, a)(merit PenÎty that I^ payable' by'the. applicant asthe' holder ofa chargeable. Permission (Whether:Orbot the permiSSi^his in*force) 61nd-'.(!i)'any uhPaidfineôr. .civilp. eha/ttos, required. to*be paidby th^ applicantihrelation to a contray6ntidh' of the Act Or'of these Regulations

\

37

138 Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration considered

138.1. the permission holder has no outstanding environmental management chargeamounts or penalty amounts owing

I38.2. the permission holder has found to be non-compliant with permit conditions onthree occasions

I38.21. G17/33288. I failure to submit/comply with managementplan/schedule of works/report - permittee education conducted -October 2017 matter final ised and closed

I38.22. Gi7139574. I failure to submit/comply with managementplantschedule of works/report - permittee education conducted -October 2017 matter finalised and closed

138.2.3. Gi7/39574. I failure to displayproduce permit - permitteeeducation conducted - October 2017 matter finalised and closed

138.3. the permission holder does not have any unpaid fines or civil penalties thatare required to be paid in relation to a contravention of the GBRMP Act orGBRMP Regulations

139

138.4. the permission holder is the State of Queensland

The decision maker was satisfied that that the identified non-compliance matterswere minor in nature and the permission holder had remedied the issues

On the basis of the current evidence, the decision maker concluded that permissionholder was a suitable person to hold the permission requested

140

188R(k)l

141 Having regard to the relevant material and evidence provided, the decision maker, inmaking the decision on reconsideration considered whether the proposedreclamation of the Marine Park was such that the procedures under section 31 of theGBRMP Act ought to be applied

In considering whether the procedures under section 31 of the GBRMP Act appliedthe decision maker considered the following key matters

The removal of an area from the Marine Park or an addition of an area to the142.1

Marine Park, subject to very limited exception, requires a resolution of bothhouses of Commonwealth Parliament pursuant to the procedures set outunder section 31 of the GBRMP Act

Not every minor and incidental change to the boundary of the Marine Parkwill require affirmative resolutions from each House of Parliament pursuantto section 31 of the GBRMP Act, this is because there is a well-established

legal principle (de minimis non curet Iex) that means the law does notconcern itself with trivial matters. In particular, minor reclamation works, thatmay be involved in the construction of, for example, boat ramps or beachprotection works, may validly alter the Marine Park without the need to resortto section 31 procedures

The landward boundary of the Marine Park is determined by mean lowwater

An alteration to mean low water may alter the Marine Park boundary

The design for the boat ramp is an extension to an existing carpark(mainland Queensland) and is likely to require an area of the Marine Park tobe reclaimed

the total reclaimed area will not exceed 0095ha and as such is small in area

The purpose of the excision is to facilitate an extension of the existing boatramp

The reclamation is to occur within the Habitat Protection Zone which offers

increased level of protection up from General Use Zone

The nature of the proposed conduct is envisaged under section 23.4(I) and(in) of the Zoriing Plan and is consistent with the objects of the zone undersection 2.32

Having considered the circumstances relevant to the proposed reclamation that mayoccur as a result of the extension of the boat ramp the decision maker is satisfied that

any other matters relevant to achieving the objects of the Act

142

142.2

38

142.3

142.4

142.5

142.6

142.7

142.8

142.9

143

any proposed alteration of the Marine Park boundary would be minor and as such theprocedures under section 31 do not need to be followed

Conclusion

For the reasons provided above, the decision maker was satisfied that the applicationshould be granted and made the decision on reconsideration to affirm the originaldecision

The above statement accurately reflects the reasons for my decision dated 3 September

144

''""""'~"""^;'::. 1/11/1111. "'of""SportandMaj, Roads.2018 to a irm the original decision dated 29 June 2018 and grant application G39785. I by

Dr Simon Banks

General Manager, Strategic Protection BranchGreat Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Date ^o

39

RECONSIDERATION DECISION . STATEMENT OF REASONS

Documents

Transcript of RECONSIDERATION DECISION . STATEMENT OF REASONS