EPBC 2011/6213

Page 1 of 56

RECOMMENDATION REPORT

Abbot Point Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and

Terminal 3

Capital Dredging Project

Queensland (EPBC 2011/6213)

Photo credit: Aerial vista of the Port of Abbot Point – Public Environment Report,

North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, December 2012

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 2 of 56

1. Recommendation

1.1. That the proposed action, to undertake capital dredging and dredge spoil disposal for

Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 at the Port of Abbot Point, Queensland, be

approved subject to the conditions specified below.

2. Conditions

1. Dredging is limited to a total volume of up to 3 million m3 from the dredge site at

Attachment A.

2. The person taking the action must not dredge or dispose of more than 1.3 million m3 of

sediment in any calendar year.

3. Dredging and disposal activities must not be undertaken between 1 July and 1 March

each year.

4. Disposal of dredged material must only occur at the disposal site at Attachment B,

unless Condition 5 applies.

5. The Minister may approve in writing, an alternative site for the disposal of dredged

material if the person taking the action provides peer reviewed scientific evidence from

the implementation of the Disposal Site Analysis Plan (Condition 20) that demonstrates

that the use of an alternative disposal site would result in equivalent or lesser

environmental impacts for matters of National Environmental Significance (NES). The

approved site must be included in the approved Dredging and Spoil Disposal

Management Plan and Abbot Point Marine Ecosystem Research and Monitoring

Program (Conditions 7 and 14) and must be identified in any permit obtained under the

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981.

6. The person taking the action must comply with the requirements of any permit obtained

under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, including any conditions

attached.

Dredging and Spoil Disposal Management Plan

7. To protect matters of NES, the person taking the action must submit to the Minister for

approval a Dredging and Spoil Disposal Management Plan (DSDMP) prior to

commencement of dredging and disposal activities.

The DSDMP must include but not be limited to the following:

a) Engineering and operational controls to minimise impacts on matters of NES,

including but not limited to: consideration of appropriate dredging equipment, use

of capping techniques for dredged material, operation of the ‘green valve’ and

other overflow issues and their impact on ambient water quality, modifications to

timing of dredging/disposal, utilisation of relevant technology to minimise release of

fine sediments and modifications to the rate of discharge of dredged material;

b) Measures to monitor water quality and ecosystem health for the full period of the

dredging and disposal, and for a period prior to and after dredging and disposal

(which shall be defined in the DSDMP), and to determine the load of fine

sediments and nutrients released into the environment and their fate;

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 3 of 56

c) Water quality and ecosystem health trigger levels be developed for photosynthetic

active radiation, turbidity, total suspended solids, light attenuation and sediment

deposition rates, seagrass propogules and seed bank estimates, scallop bed

density. The water quality and ecosystem health trigger levels must be linked to

the adaptive management strategies in the event that trigger levels are reached.

The plan must also outline how the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

(GBRMPA) water quality guidelines will be taken into account, while also taking

account of the wind, tides, weather, seasons, temporal variation, and natural

background levels. Trigger levels must include:

i. Early-warning trigger levels for modifying the dredging/disposal action, and

ii. Trigger levels for ceasing the dredging/disposal action;

d) Measures to minimize the risk to flora and fauna in the vicinity of the dredging and

disposal activities;

e) A turtle exclusion device must be fitted to the dredger head at all times when

dredging occurs;

f) Measures that minimise the risk of the introduction of marine pest species via

vessels engaged in dredging or disposal activities;

g) Adaptive management strategies in the event that adverse impacts to matters of

NES are identified (e.g. from Abbot Point Marine Ecosystem Research and

Monitoring Program at Condition 14) and to address any results which indicate that

sediment movement is not occurring as predicted by the hydrodynamic modeling

undertaken for the Public Environment Report;

h) Measures to minimise the risk of, and respond to fuel, oil or chemical spills;

i) Outline the consultation process undertaken with the GBRMPA in developing the

DSDMP;

j) Report to the Minister in writing within one business day when injury to, or mortality

of, a listed threatened or migratory species occurs as a result of dredging or

disposal activities;

k) Report in writing within one business day to the Minister when a trigger level linked

to adaptive management strategies within the DSDMP is reached;

l) Details of responsible parties for each activity described in the DSDMP with an

organisational structure showing all responsible parties; and

m) Provide annual reviews of the DSDMP to the department and the independent

dredging Technical Advice Panel (TAP) (at Condition 23) to ensure continual

improvement measures are applied.

n) Include a table or similar quick reference document clearly setting out: the

conditions of this EPBC approval, the conditions of any permit under the

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, and the requirements of the

National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging; and the sections and page

references of the DSDMP that address those conditions and requirements.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 4 of 56

8. The DSDMP must comply with all requirements under the Environment Protection (Sea

Dumping) Act 1981, the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging and the Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s ‘Dredging and Spoil Disposal Policy’.

9. The DSDMP must be submitted for review by the independent dredging TAP (at

condition 23), to provide advice to the person taking the action on the development,

endorsement, implementation and adequacy of adaptive management measures of the

DSDMP. The independent dredging TAP must be consulted during the development of

the DSDMP, and prior to submission of the DSDMP to the Minister.

10. The person taking the action must provide to the Minister, a copy of all advice and

recommendations made by the independent dredging TAP and an explanation of how

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

person taking the action does not propose to implement certain recommendations. This

information must be provided to the Minister when the DSDMP is submitted for

approval.

11. The DSDMP must be submitted to the Minister for approval at least three months prior

to the commencement of dredging, unless otherwise approved in writing by the

Minister.

12. Dredging must not commence until the DSDMP has been approved by the Minister.

The approved DSDMP must be implemented.

13. The DSDMP must be submitted for review annually to the independent dredging TAP

and revised as per the advice of the independent dredging TAP, to enable continuous

improvement and adaptive management of dredge and spoil disposal methodology.

Any proposed revision to the DSDMP must be submitted to the Minister for approval.

The revised document must include a table or similar summary showing clearly the

proposed changes with cross reference to page and section numbers in the current

approved DSDMP.

Abbot Point Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program

14. The person taking the action must submit to the Minister for approval an Abbot Point

Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program (APERMP) prior to commencement of

dredging and disposal activities. The APERMP must allow for real-time response

measures to be implemented if necessary as well as ongoing monitoring, and include,

but not be limited to the following:

a) Methodology to validate the hydrodynamic modeling provided in the Public

Environment Report and the findings of the technical studies undertaken for the

Improved Dredge Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region during each

dredging campaign at both the dredge and disposal sites;

b) Implement a stochastic dredge plume model that uses 20 years of met-ocean data

in order to account for inter-annual variability in oceanographic conditions of the

Great Barrier Reef;

c) Processes to revise the hydrodynamic modeling, including peer review, prior to

undertaking any subsequent dredging campaigns;

d) Measures to monitor water quality, the turbidity plume, seagrass health and

recovery (especially the seed banks and associated seagrass propogules), benthic

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 5 of 56

habitat, scallop beds and coral health for the full period of dredging and for a

period prior to and after dredging (which shall be defined by the DSDMP) both

within the Port limits and with reference locations in adjacent areas of Abbot Point;

e) Consideration of how the APERMP can be aligned with any future Great Barrier

Reef water quality monitoring framework, including the Abbot Point Joint

Environmental Management Framework;

f) Locations of monitoring and reference sites and the reason for the site selections.

Water quality monitoring must be conducted at a network of sites in the impact

zones including in proximity to sensitive habitats and control/reference sites;

g) Ongoing monitoring capable of confirming any water quality changes or impacts

from suspended sediments, greater than those outlined in the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park Authority water quality guidelines and as provided for in the

DSDMP, on coastal fringes, inter-tidal zones and any sensitive habitats, including

seagrass, and coral habitats;

h) Turtle, dugong and commercial fish species monitoring programs will be developed

and implemented.

i) Social and economic monitoring of this proposed action will be undertaken.

j) Include a table or similar quick reference document clearly setting out: the

conditions of this EPBC approval, the conditions of any permit under the

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, and the requirements of the

National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging; and the sections and page

references of the DSDMP that address those conditions and requirements;

k) Outline the consultation process undertaken with the GBRMPA in developing the

APERMP; and

l) The timelines for the implementation of the elements of the APERMP, and the

required timeframe to monitor any impacts, including potential re-suspension of

fine sediments.

15. The APERMP must be submitted for review to the independent dredging TAP, to

provide advice to the person taking the action on the development, endorsement,

implementation and adequacy of the research and monitoring program outlined in the

APERMP. The independent dredging TAP must be consulted during the development

of the APERMP, and prior to submission of the APERMP to the Minister.

16. The person taking the action must provide to the Minister, a copy of all advice and

recommendations made by the independent dredging TAP and an explanation of how

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

person taking the action does not propose to implement certain recommendations. This

information must be provided to the Minister when the APERMP is submitted for

approval.

17. The APERMP must be submitted to the Minister for approval at least three months

prior to the commencement of dredging, unless otherwise approved in writing by the

Minister.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 6 of 56

18. Dredging must not commence until the APERMP has been approved by the Minister,

and the measures (as described under section 14 of this approval) of the approved

APERMP have been implemented.

19. The APERMP must be submitted for review annually to the independent dredging TAP

and revised as per the advice of the independent dredging TAP, to enable continuous

improvement and adaptive management of the research and monitoring program. Any

proposed revision to the APERMP must be submitted to the Minister for approval. The

revised document must include a table or similar summary showing clearly the

proposed changes with cross reference to page and section numbers in the current

approved APERMP.

Disposal Site Analysis Plan

20. The person taking the action must submit to the Minister for approval a Disposal Site

Analysis Plan (DSAP) one month prior to submission of the DSDMP and APERMP,

and prior to the commencement of dredging and disposal activities. The DSAP must

include, but not be limited to the following:

a) Identification of alternative disposal sites for further analysis (which must be

undertaken in consultation with the Department), taking account of the technical

studies undertaken for the Improved Dredge Management for the Great Barrier

Reef;

b) Methodology for undertaking a comparative assessment of the approved disposal

site (Attachment B) and the alternative disposal locations identified. The

comparative assessment must be undertaken in accordance with the National

Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (2009) and take account of the physical,

chemical and biological characteristics of the water-column and seabed, proximity

to sensitive areas, marine park zoning, fishing and other uses of the sea (including

shipping and anchorage channels, scallop beds, identified commercial and

recreational fishing areas, shipwrecks and aircraft), and potential impacts to

matters of NES; and

c) Processes for consultation with relevant stakeholders and the community on

alternative sites and the comparative assessment;

21. The approved DSAP must be implemented, and the results of the comparative

assessment undertaken under the approved DSAP must be reported to the

Department within 8 months of the date of this approval.

22. If the results of the comparative assessment indicate that an alternative site is

preferred over the approved site (Condition 4 and Attachment B), then approval of the

alternative site for the disposal of dredged material must be sought from the Minister. If

approval of an alternative site is sought, the DSDMP and ABERMP can only be

submitted for approval (Condition 5) once the Minister has made a final determination

on a disposal site.

Dredging Technical Advice Panel (TAP)

23. The person taking the action must establish, fund and manage an independent

dredging TAP, to be established prior to and for the duration of dredging operations to

provide advice to the person taking the action on the development, endorsement,

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 7 of 56

implementation and review for adaptive management purposes of the DSDMP,

APERMP and the Offsets Plan, referred to at Conditions 7, 14 and 30 consecutively.

24. The members of the TAP must include at least two independent scientific experts with

expertise in water quality and marine ecology, and an independent dredging technical

advisor. The membership of the TAP must receive written approval from the

department in consultation with GBRMPA, prior to the development and submission of

the DSDMP, APERMP and Offsets Plan.

25. The terms of reference of the TAP must include but may not be limited to the following:

a) Provide advice on the development and annual review of the DSDMP, APERMP

and Offsets Plan, including development and revision of appropriate trigger levels,

monitoring programs, management actions, dredging program, and dredge and

spoil placement methodology to protect World Heritage outstanding universal

values, water quality, cetaceans, dolphins, marine turtles, dugongs and their

habitat;

b) Provide advice on exceedance of trigger values and recommended changes to

dredging practices, through the DSDMP, as required;

c) Provide advice on the adequacy of the Offsets Plan to demonstrate net benefit

outcomes for the Great Barrier Reef, and to ensure that the APERMP is a

sufficiently robust measure for the achievement of a net benefit; and

d) Annually review the DSDMP, APERMP and Offsets Plan (by the date of the plan’s

approval) to enable continuous improvement and adaptive management of the

dredge and disposal methodology and the research and monitoring program.

26. The person taking the action must provide to the Minister, a copy of all advice and

recommendations made by the independent dredging TAP and an explanation of how

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

person taking the action does not propose to implement certain recommendations. This

information must be provided to the Minister when the DSDMP, APERMP and Offsets

Plan are submitted for approval.

Mitigation Measures for Protection of Threatened or Migratory Species

27. Before commencing dredging and disposal activities, the person taking the action must

check, using binoculars from a high observation platform on the vessel, for marine

mammals and turtles within the monitoring zone.

28. Observation must then continue for the duration of the dredging and disposal activities.

29. If any marine mammals or turtles are sighted in the monitoring zone, dredging and

disposal activities must not commence/continue in the monitoring zone until twenty

minutes after the last marine mammal or turtle is observed to leave the monitoring

zone or the vessel is to move to another area of the dredge/disposal site to maintain a

minimum distance of 300 metres between the vessel and any marine mammals or

turtle sighted.

30. A turtle exclusion device must be fitted to the dredger head at all times when dredging

takes place.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 8 of 56

Offsets Plan 31. The person taking the action must submit an Offsets Plan to the Minister for approval

prior to commencement of dredging and disposal activities. The Offsets Plan must

include the following:

a) Address the loss of seagrass from the dredge area and areas of potential seagrass

loss resulting from the dredge plume extent;

b) Outline the process to undertake actions that will result in a net benefit outcome for

the World Heritage Area, by reducing an equivalent fine sediments load entering

the World Heritage Area from the Burdekin and Don catchments and taking

account of the fine sediment load resulting from the dredging and disposal

activities;

c) Consider how these offsets will contribute to programs or incentives and align with

the broader strategies and programs for the Great Barrier Reef, including Reef

Trust 2050.

d) The total amount of fine sediments released or disposed into the marine

environment from the dredging and dredge spoil disposal activities must be offset

by an equivalent 150% reduction in the load of fine sediments entering the marine

environment from the Burdekin and Don catchments. This can take account of

information on the sedimentation of fine sediments as it becomes available;

e) Measure and monitor how the actions undertaken in the Burdekin and Don

catchments meet the targets required at 31(d);

f) Outline the consultation process undertaken with the GBRMPA in developing the

Offsets Plan;

g) Publish an annual public report outlining how the actions are achieving the targets

in 31(d) for the duration of this approval; and

h) Outline contingency actions and additional management measures to address any

deficiencies to meet the targets at 31(d).

32. The approved Offsets Plan must be implemented.

Standard Conditions

33. Within 7 days after the commencement of the action, the person taking the action must

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

34. The person taking the action must maintain accurate records substantiating all

activities associated with or relevant to the conditions of approval, including measures

taken to implement the plans and program required by this approval, and make them

available upon request to the Department. Such records may be subject to audit by the

Department or an independent auditor in accordance with section 458 of the EPBC Act,

or used to verify compliance with the conditions of approval. Summaries of audits will

be posted on the Department’s website. The results of audits may also be publicised

through the general media.

35. The person taking the action must report any non-compliance with any of the

conditions of this approval to the department within two days of becoming aware of the

non-compliance.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 9 of 56

36. Within three months of every 12 month anniversary of the commencement of the

action, the person taking the action must publish a report on their website addressing

compliance with each of the conditions of this approval, including implementation of

any plans/programs/codes of conduct as specified in the conditions. Documentary

evidence providing proof of the date of publication and an annual summary of non-

compliance with any of the conditions of this approval must be provided to the

department at the same time as the compliance report is published.

37. Upon the direction of the Minister, the person taking the action must ensure that an

independent audit of compliance with the conditions of approval is conducted and a

report submitted to the Minister. The independent auditor must be approved by the

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

Minister and the audit report must address the criteria to the satisfaction of the Minister.

38. If the person taking the action wishes to carry out any activity otherwise than in

accordance with the plans and program as specified in the conditions, the person

taking the action must submit to the department for the Minister’s written approval a

revised version of that plans and program. The varied activity shall not commence until

the Minister has approved the varied plans and program in writing. The Minister will not

approve a varied plan and program unless the revised plans and program would result

in an equivalent or improved environmental outcome over time. If the Minister

approves the revised plans and program, that plans and program must be implemented

in place of the plans and program originally approved.

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

World heritage property, a National heritage place, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,

the Commonwealth marine area, listed threatened species and ecological

communities, and listed migratory species to do so, the Minister may request that the

person taking the action make specified revisions to the plans and program specified in

the conditions and submit the revised plans and program for the Minister’s written

approval. The person taking the action must comply with any such request. The revised

approved plans and program must be implemented. Unless the Minister has approved

the revised plans and program, then the person taking the action must continue to

implement the plans and program originally approved, as specified in the conditions.

40. If, at any time after five years from the date of this approval, the person taking the

action has not commenced the action, then the person taking the action must not

commence the action without the written agreement of the Minister.

41. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Minister, the person taking the action must

publish all plans and program referred to in these conditions of approval on their

website. Each plan and program must be published on the website within 1 month of

being approved.

Definitions:

The Action: is comprised of capital dredging of up to 3 million m3 and dredge spoil disposal as

part of the development of Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 at the Port of Abbot Point, Queensland (see EPBC Act referral No. 2011/6213).

Capping techniques: technique in which dredged material is covered with another layer of sediment to contain the disposed material.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 10 of 56

Cetaceans: Includes baleen whales and larger toothed whales (such as sperm whales, killer whales, false killer whales, pilot whales and beaked whales).

Commencement of the action: any works of the proposed action.

The Department: is the Australian Government Department responsible for administration of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Dolphin: includes the following species listed under the EPBC Act:

- Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis); - Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni); and; - Spotted Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops aduncus).

Dredging and disposal activities: includes all activities associated with the capital dredging and disposal of material, including: the excavation or dredging of the material, the loading and carriage of excavated or dredged material for the purpose of dumping at sea, and the dumping of the excavated or dredged material at sea within the prescribed spoil grounds.

Dredging campaign: means the dredging and disposal activity that occurs in a single calendar year.

Dumping activities: means all activities associated with the dumping at sea of dredged material, including:

(i) the loading and carriage of dredged material for the purpose of dumping;

(ii) the dumping of the material at the approved disposal site;

EPBC Act: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth).

EPBC listed threatened and migratory species: a native species that is a listed threatened species or a listed migratory species under the EPBC Act.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) water quality guidelines: Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMPA 2010).

Green valve: an overflow turbidity regulator valve designed to avoid the entrainment of air in the water / sediment mixture before the overflow water is discharged from the Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge.

Habitat: includes habitat that has been determined as either habitat suitable for the species or actual habitat for the species.

Improved Dredge Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region: This study is part of the Strategic Assessment of the Great Barrier Reef and will provide tools to improve decision making with regards to dredge material disposal in the Great Barrier Reef Region. More information can be found at the department’s web site on the Strategic Assessment of the Great Barrier Reef at: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/great-barrier-reef.html

Independent scientific expert: Scientists with relevant qualifications and expertise who are not affiliated with the proponent or with other parties affiliated with the project.

Joint Environmental Management Framework: Abbot Point Joint Environmental Management Framework (February 2013).

Marine mammals and turtles: Includes the following species listed under the EPBC Act:

Mammals: Dolphin, Cetaceans and Dugong.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 11 of 56

Turtles: - Flatback turtle (Natator depressus); - Green turtle (Chelonia mydas); - Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea); - Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta); - Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata); and - Olive Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea).

The Minister: is the Australian Government Minister who administers the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Monitoring zone: means the area within 300 metres of the vessel.

NES: the following matters of National Environmental Significance; World heritage property, National heritage place, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the Commonwealth marine area, listed threatened species and ecological communities, and listed migratory species.

Public Environment Report: Public Environment Report for the Abbot Point Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 Capital Dredging Project, received by Minister on 5 December 2011.

Technical Advice Panel (TAP): a panel including independent scientific experts to provide advice on various required plans.

Vessel: means any vessel or vessels used for or in connection with the loading and/or dumping activities

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 12 of 56

Attachment A

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 13 of 56

Attachment B

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 14 of 56

3. Background

3.1. Description of the project and location

3.1.1. On 5 December 2011 North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation Limited (NQBP)

referred a proposal under the EPBC Act to undertake capital dredging of

approximately 3 million cubic metres, and for the disposal of the dredged material.

This proposal would facilitate the development of Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and

Terminal 3 at the Port of Abbot Point, Queensland. The port is located 25 km north

west of Bowen on the Queensland coast. On 6 January 2012 the delegate of the

Minister determined the proposal to be a controlled action.

3.1.2. NQBP referred the capital dredging required for three coal terminals so that the

dredging impacts could be assessed and managed cumulatively. Different

proponents propose to develop Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3, and have

submitted separate EPBC Act referrals to expand the total coal export capacity of

the port. The status of each project is as follows:

Terminal 0: Adani Abbot Point Terminal Ltd (EPBC 2011/6194). Extension to

existing T1 coal terminal. This development will increase the coal export

capacity of the port by 35 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa). The proponent

submitted the final EIS on 21 June 2013. The final decision is currently due

8 November 2013.

Terminal 2: BHP Billiton (EPBC 2011/6185). Construction and operation of a

60 Mtpa coal terminal. The proponent is currently preparing a draft EIS.

Terminal 3: Hancock Coal Infrastructure Pty Ltd (EPBC 2008/4468).

Construction and operation of a 60 Mtpa coal terminal. The project was

approved by the Minister with conditions on 4 October 2012.

3.1.3. The referred capital dredging program includes the dredging of six new berth

pockets and ship apron areas using a trailer suction hopper dredger. The area to

be dredged is located approximately 3 km offshore within the port limits of the Port

of Abbot Point, but it is not located within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It is

also within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage property, which is also a National

Heritage place.

3.1.4. After referral of the proposal, NQBP undertook a multi criteria analysis to

determine the preferred option for the disposal of dredge material. NQBP stated in

the referral (page 6) that:

‘the principal disposal option is disposal to the existing offshore disposal area

which has previously been utilised for the initial capital dredging in 1982 and the

most recent capital and maintenance works in August 2008. Onshore disposal of

material suitable for beneficial use or recycling is also being investigated. The

multi criteria analysis is being undertaken in accordance with the NAGD (2009)

and will seek to achieve the best environmental outcome, within engineering

feasibility and schedule constraints and without incurring disproportionate costs.’

3.1.5. Officers from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and other

regulatory agencies attended a multi criteria analysis workshop to determine the

most suitable option to dispose of the dredged material. As a result of the multi

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 15 of 56

criteria analysis workshop, NQBP selected an offshore dredge material disposal

site 24 km from the dredge site, which is located within the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park (the Marine Park), the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage property, the

National Heritage place and the Commonwealth marine area.

3.1.6. On 13 December 2012 NQBP requested a variation to the proposal on the

following matters:

Limit dredging to a maximum of 3 million m3 of sediment;

Identify the dredge material disposal site approximately 24 km from the dredge

site;

Increase the dredge footprint by 10 ha (up to 185 ha), due to a change in the

alignment for safety reasons; and

Increase the dredge depth of certain berth pockets.

The delegate of the Minister agreed to the request.

3.1.7. Assessment of the proposal through a public environment report (PER) is being

undertaken jointly by the Department and GBRMPA under a Memorandum of

Understanding. NQBP will also require permit approvals from GBRMPA under the

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 and the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park Regulations 1983.

4. Controlling provisions

4.1. The proposal was determined to be a controlled action due to likely significant impacts

on a World heritage property, a National heritage place, the Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park, the Commonwealth marine area, listed threatened species and ecological

communities, and listed migratory species.

4.2. World heritage property (sections 12 and 15A)

4.2.1. The Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the World Heritage List in October 1981

in recognition of the following outstanding natural universal value:

i. as an example of superlative natural phenomena The Great Barrier Reef is of superlative natural beauty above and below

the water, and provides some of the most spectacular scenery on earth. It

is one of a few living structures visible from space, appearing as a

complex string of reefal structures along Australia's northeast coast.

ii. as an outstanding example representing the major stages in the earth's

evolutionary history

The Great Barrier Reef is a globally outstanding example of an

ecosystem that has evolved over millennia. The area has been exposed

and flooded by at least four glacial and interglacial cycles, and over the

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

iii. as an outstanding example representing significant ongoing ecological

and biological processes

The globally significant diversity of reef and island morphologies reflects

ongoing geomorphic, oceanographic and environmental processes. The

complex cross-shelf, longshore and vertical connectivity is influenced by

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 16 of 56

dynamic oceanic currents and ongoing ecological processes such as

upwellings, larval dispersal and migration.

iv. containing important and significant habitats for in situ conservation of

biological diversity

The enormous size and diversity of the Great Barrier Reef means it is one

of the richest and most complex natural ecosystems on earth, and one of

the most significant for biodiversity conservation. The amazing diversity

supports tens of thousands of marine and terrestrial species, many of

which are of global conservation significance. As the world's most

complex expanse of coral reefs, the reefs contain some 400 species of

corals in 60 genera.

4.2.2. Integrity

4.2.2.1. Also encompassed in the outstanding natural universal value of the

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

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

managements it engenders.

4.2.2.2. At the scale of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem, most habitats or species

groups have the capacity to recover from disturbance or withstand ongoing

pressures. Some of the key ecological, physical and chemical processes

that are essential for the long-term conservation of the marine and island

ecosystems and their associated biodiversity occur outside the boundaries

of the property and thus effective conservation programs are essential

across the adjoining catchments, marine and coastal zones.

4.2.3. Particular natural values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

4.2.3.1. The Great Barrier Reef is the world's most complex expanse of coral reefs,

containing some 400 species of corals in 60 genera. There are also large

ecologically important inter-reefal areas. The shallower marine areas

support half the world's diversity of mangroves and many seagrass species.

The waters also provide major feeding grounds for one of the world's

largest populations of the listed migratory dugong. At least 30 species of

whales and dolphins occur, and it is a significant area for humpback whale

calving. Six of the world’s seven species of marine turtle occur in the Great

Barrier Reef.

4.2.3.2. Seagrasses have been found to vary spatially and temporally, and are

considered to be of high ecological and economic value. Seagrass

meadows provide important ecosystem services in the coastal environment

such as coastal protection, nutrient cycling and particle trapping. They are

also considered to be important due to the food resources they provide for

EPBC Act listed species, such as dugong and turtles. Fifteen species of

seagrass occur within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

4.2.3.3. The key elements for the survival of seagrass include:

• Suitable light • Limited sediments

• Appropriate salinity and temperature ranges

• An appropriate level of nutrients

• Minimal natural and human disturbance

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 17 of 56

4.2.3.4. Tolerance to different sediment, light and salinity regimes is known to vary

between species; however thresholds for individual species are not well

understood.

4.3. National heritage place (sections 15B and 15C)

4.3.1. In May 2007, the Great Barrier Reef was placed on the National Heritage List.

This list comprises natural and cultural places that contribute to our national

identity, providing a tangible link to past events, processes and people.

4.3.2. The National Heritage values of the GBR are:

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

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

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

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

or cultural history;

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

potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of

Australia’s natural or cultural history;

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

importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of:

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

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

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

importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a

community or cultural group;

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

4.4.1. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (the Marine Park) boundary generally follows

the coastline surrounding Abbot Point. It does not include the operational limits of

the port where the proposed dredging is to occur, but the disposal site is located in

the Marine Park. The Marine Park is a multiple-use area that supports a range of

communities and industries that depend on the Reef for recreation or their

livelihoods. Tourism, fishing, boating and shipping are all legitimate uses of the

Marine Park. The entire Marine Park is covered by a Zoning Plan that identifies

where particular activities are permitted and where some are not permitted. The

Zoning Plan separates conflicting uses, with 33 per cent of the Marine Park

afforded marine national park status.

4.4.2. Impacts on the Marine Park are assessed in terms of impacts on the environment

which is defined as follows under section 528 of the EPBC Act:

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 18 of 56

Environment includes:

(a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and

communities; and

(b) natural and physical resources; and

(c) the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas; and

(d) heritage values of places; and

(e) the social, economic and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in

paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).

4.4.3. The matters considered under the Marine Park controlling provisions under the

EPBC Act are similar to the mandatory considerations under section 88Q of the

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983.

4.5. Commonwealth marine area (sections 23 and 24A)

4.5.1. The Commonwealth marine area boundary extends seaward from 3 nautical

miles from the baseline (generally the coast). Impacts on the Commonwealth

marine area are assessed in terms of impacts on the environment, which is defined

in section 4.4.2. under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park controlling provisions.

The proposed dredge footprint is not within the Commonwealth marine area,

however the disposal site is.

4.6. Listed threatened species and ecological communities (sections 18 and 18A)

4.6.1. Chapter 4 of the draft PER (page 4-17) identified six listed threatened species

known to occur within the project area: humpback whale, loggerhead turtle, green

turtle, hawksbill turtle, olive ridley turtle and flatback turtle. In addition, potential

habitat for the leatherback turtle is available in the project area, although the

species has not previously been recorded there. No conservation advice has been

approved for the species. Threat abatement plans to contain and manage impacts

to turtles and whale species and the recovery plan for marine turtles have been

taken into consideration in this assessment. Listed threatened bird species are

unlikely to be impacted by this proposal, as the expected impacts of the dredging

and disposal activities will be limited to the marine environment. The proposal is

also unlikely to have a significant impact on other listed threatened species and

ecological communities, on the basis of the area of marine habitat that is likely to

be impacted.

4.6.2. Humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae (vulnerable, migratory):

The draft PER identified 14 individuals being recorded during surveys (GHD 2010),

including sightings approximately 1 km north of the existing coal terminal jetty

which is directly adjacent to the project dredge area. Many whales were observed

to swim past the Abbot Point area without resting. Potential impacts to whales from

the dredging project include increased noise, decreased water quality and

increased shipping.

4.6.3. Marine turtles:

Loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta (endangered, migratory)

Green turtle, Chelonia mydas (vulnerable, migratory)

Olive Ridley turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea (endangered, migratory)

Hawksbill turtle, Eretmochelys imbricate (vulnerable, migratory)

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 19 of 56

Flatback turtle, Natator depressus (vulnerable, migratory)

Leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea (endangered, migratory)

4.6.4. Abbot Point provides foraging habitat for marine turtles. Marine turtles feed on

different foods. Their diet can include seagrasses and algae; soft bodied prey such

as sea cucumbers soft corals and jellyfish; and sponges. The green turtle has been

identified as the most frequent marine turtle within the port limits; it mostly feeds on

seagrass and algae. Various areas of the Great Barrier Reef provide an important

feeding area for green turtles. Low numbers of other marine turtles have been

noted in the area except for the leatherback turtle. No leatherback turtle has been

recorded within the project area; however suitable foraging habitat is noted to be

present.

4.6.5. The Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia 2003 (covering the loggerhead

turtle, green turtle, hawksbill turtle, olive ridley turtle, flatback turtle and leatherback

turtle) notes that the recovery of Australian marine turtle populations may take

decades and can be achieved through the reduction of current levels of mortality

throughout the range of the populations. A marine turtle may take up to 30–50

years to mature. In a breeding year they migrate over long distances between

feeding and nesting grounds and nest a number of times.

4.7. Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)

4.7.1. In addition to all of the threatened species mentioned above, which are also

listed as migratory species, the draft PER (page 4-2) identifies four other migratory

marine species are known to occur within the project area. Those other species are

the dugong, Australian snubfin dolphin, Indo – Pacific humpback dolphin and

estuarine crocodile.

i. Dugongs

Dugongs undertake long distance movements, and are known to move

between dugong protection areas north and south of Abbot Point. Dugongs

graze on seagrasses. The most important distribution areas for this species

are around Hinchinbrook Island, Cleveland Bay and Shoalwater Bay in the

Great Barrier Reef.

ii. Australian snubfin dolphin

The habitat of this species is shallow coastal and estuarine waters mainly in

the northern half of Australia. The species is not well surveyed across its

range. Home ranges and/or territories for this species appear to be large. The

Australian snubfin dolphin feeds on fish.

iii. Indo – Pacific humpback dolphin

This species generally occur in water less than 10 metres deep, and offshore

to 6 km. The total population size of the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin in

Australian waters is unknown. They display no apparent preference for clear

or turbid waters, and have been reported in a variety of coastal habitats, from

coastal lagoons and enclosed bays with mangrove forests and seagrass beds

through to open coastal waters with rock and/or coral reefs.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 20 of 56

iv. Estuarine crocodile (saltwater crocodile)

In Queensland the species is usually restricted to coastal waterways and

floodplain wetlands inhabiting the lower reaches of rivers. Primary food

sources are crustaceans, insects and mammals. This species is known to

occur within the project area with one individual having been recorded.

4.7.2. Listed migratory marine bird species are unlikely to be impacted by this proposal,

as the expected impacts of the dredging and disposal activities will be limited to the

marine environment. Species may feed in the area as there is potential feed

present; however, the draft PER (GHD 2012a, page 4-38) notes that there is only

one record of a fork-tailed swift within in the Abbot Point region from the Birds

Australia database. The proposal is also unlikely to have a significant impact on

other listed migratory species, on the basis of the area of marine habitat that is

likely to be impacted.

5. Other Projects Associated with the Port

5.1. In addition to the development of the three new terminals and associated capital

dredging, there are a number of proposed projects associated with the Port of Abbot

Point which are currently being considered for their impacts on matters of national

environmental significance. These include:

- the Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd’s proposal to develop the Terminal 0 at

Abbot Point (the T0 project - EPBC 2011/6194); one other coal export terminal

proposed by Waratah Coal (for which an EIS is being developed but is not

expected to be received until 2014);

- six rail only or mine/rail proposals, linking Galilee Basin coal mines to Abbot

Point. These include Adani’s Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail project (EPBC

2010/5736) which may link with Aurizon’s Central Queensland Integrated Rail

projects (EPBC 2012/6321 (“Brownfield”) and 2012/6322 (“Greenfield” )) or with

Adani’s North Galilee Basin Rail project (EPBC 2013/6885); and

- BHP Billiton recently advised its withdrawal of its referrals for the proposed

development of ‘Terminal 2’ and the Goonyella to Abbot Point rail line.

However, North Queensland Bulk Ports has advised that this will have no

impact on this capital dredging proposal, as it still expects the site to be

developed.

6. History of Development of the Port of Abbot Point

6.1. The existing Abbot Point Coal Terminal 1 is located approximately 2.8 km offshore and

has been operating since 1984. Recent expansion of that infrastructure was previously

considered under Australian Government legislation. In January 2008 the delegate of

the Minister determined additional dredging for an expansion to the Abbot Point Coal

Terminal (EPBC 2007/3884) was not a controlled action under the EPBC Act if

undertaken in a particular manner. In March 2008 the delegate of the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) issued a Marine Parks Permit and an Environmental

Protection (Sea Dumping) Act permit allowing for the dumping of up to 295,000 m³ of

dredge material within the current disposal site in the Marine Park.

6.2. On 7 April 2009, NQBP referred a proposal to construct a Multi Cargo Facility at Abbot

Point (EPBC 2009/5837). That proposal involved capital dredging and reclamation of up

to 38 million m3 of seabed material to provide a sheltered port, shipping access channel

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 21 of 56

and 12 berths for the import and export of bulk cargoes. The proposal was withdrawn

on 21 December 2012.

6.3. The Port of Abbot Point currently has the capacity to export 50 million tonnes of coal per

annum (Mtpa). NQBP states that further expansion of the port is required to meet the

increased demand for coal export infrastructure.

7. Other Assessment Processes

7.1. Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment

7.1.1. In addition to undertaking the PER assessment process, NQBP has participated

in a working group with the proponents of the coal terminals - GVK Hancock, Adani

and BHP Billiton, to develop a voluntary Cumulative Impact Assessment (the

assessment) of existing and proposed developments at Abbot Point. The objective

of the Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment (February 2013) is outlined in

Part A (page 1-9) of that report. The assessment is intended to provide a

comprehensive platform of environmental information to assess potential

cumulative impacts on matters of national environmental significance and World

Heritage values and to develop a framework for joint management, mitigation and

monitoring.

7.1.2. In the assessment, the three development proposals and the capital dredging

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

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

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

significantly impacted by the Abbot Point project. Port wide management

measures and monitoring are recommended to ensure port operations are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point the Cumulative Impact Assessment proposes the establishment of a Joint

Environmental Management Framework. The Joint Environmental Management

Framework would address the conservation objectives at the Port of Abbot Point to

ensure a coordinated approach to impact management. Part D of the Cumulative

Impact Assessment (page 15-2) recommends that the framework deliver

conservation objectives and environmental outcomes as port development

continues beyond what has been assessed in the Cumulative Impact Assessment

and the framework should continue to be in operation throughout the life of the port.

7.1.4. Four experts providing advice on the Cumulative Impact Assessment project supported those conclusions. They were:

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

Dr Peter Driscoll – migratory shorebirds

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 22 of 56

Emeritus Professor Peter Saenger (Southern Cross University) – marine

biodiversity

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

7.2. World Heritage Committee concerns regarding the state of conservation of the Great

Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

7.2.1. In March 2012 the World Heritage Centre and the International Union for

Conservation of Nature undertook a monitoring mission to assess the state of the

Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The monitoring mission’s findings were

published in June 2012. An extract from the Mission Report, Reactive Monitoring

Mission to Great Barrier Reef, 6-14 March 2012 (page 4) states:

‘The mission concludes that the Great Barrier Reef continues to demonstrate

Outstanding Universal Value. The property is iconic as the world’s largest coral

reef ecosystem of which the size, beauty, composition and biodiversity rate remain

exceptional. The property is one of the largest multiple use marine areas included

on the World Heritage List, and the efforts of the State Party to conserve the area

as a whole over the 31 years it has been inscribed on the World Heritage List are

remarkable. Since the listing of the Great Barrier Reef as World Heritage, the

property has tackled a series of threats effectively, notably through the successful

zoning system which increased no-take zones up to 33% of the property and

covers a representative selection of the marine ecosystems present in the

property. Threats that had been noted previously and range from oil and gas

development inside the property to recreation, fishing and tourism, and most

recently water quality from catchment run-off are being dealt with effectively and

indications are such that they will likely be further improved in the future. The

planning framework for surveillance, and the monitoring and evaluation of the

property are highly sophisticated. The mission concludes that the property is

affected by a number of current and potential threats and that decisive and

immediate action is required to secure its Outstanding Universal Value over the

long-term.’

7.2.2. A State Party Report on the state of conservation of the Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Area was provided by the Australian Government to the World Heritage

Centre on 1 February 2013, for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at

its 37th meeting in Cambodia. In that report the Australian Government set out its

response to the 2012 recommendations of the World Heritage Committee

(WHC 36 COM 7B.8) and the findings of the reactive monitoring mission, and

provided an update on conservation issues affecting the property.

7.2.3. In the State Party Report the Australian Government expressed its commitment

to ensure that ports and shipping activity will be managed so as to preserve the

integrity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. As such, the report stated

that developments (including port developments) will only be approved by the

Australian Government environment minister subject to robust and best-practise

conditions that ensure the integrity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is

conserved, that any remaining unavoidable impacts are minimised, and any

residual impacts are offset in a way that promotes an overall net benefit to the

outstanding universal value of the property.

7.2.4. At its 37th meeting, the World Heritage Committee considered the State Party

Report and made a new decision, welcoming progress made in relation to the

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 23 of 56

strategic assessment and independent review of the management arrangements

for Gladstone Harbour. The Committee requested that the independent review of

Gladstone Harbour result in the optimization of port development and operation

within the World Heritage Area, consistent with the highest internationally

recognized standards for best practise.

7.2.5. The World Heritage Committee also noted with concern ongoing coastal

development on the Reef, and urged the State Party to ensure rigorously that

development is not permitted if it would impact individually or cumulatively on the

outstanding universal value of the property, or compromise the Strategic

Assessment and resulting long-term plan for the sustainable development of the

property.

7.2.6. The World Heritage Committee also reiterated the mission’s recommendation

that the State Party ensure that no port developments or associated port

infrastructure are permitted outside the existing and long-established major port

areas within or adjoining the property.

7.2.7. The World Heritage Committee stated that the above-mentioned issues

represent a potential danger to the outstanding universal value of the property, and

requested the State Party submit an updated report on the state of conservation for

the property by 1 February 2014 for examination by the Committee at its

38th meeting in June 2014, with a view to considering, in the absence of substantial

progress, the inscription of the property on the List of World Heritage in Danger.

7.3. Strategic assessments

7.3.1. A strategic assessment of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and

adjacent coastal zone is being undertaken in collaboration between the Australian

Government, the Queensland Government and GBRMPA. The draft Strategic

Assessment Report (marine) (Attachment S) was released for public comments

from 1 November 2013 to 31 January 2014. Further information is available at the

web site: http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/environment-protection/strategic-

assessments/great-barrier-reef.

7.3.2. The draft marine strategic assessment report acknowledges the need to adopt a

strategic approach to port development through improving certainty around location

of ports, reducing fragmentation; strategic approach to planning, assessment and

management of port development; improved governance arrangements; greater

understanding and management of environmental impacts from dredging and

disposal placement – recognising the uncertainty surrounding duration, intensity

and extent of predicated dredge plumes and their impacts (Chapter 12,

Recommended Changes to Management, pg 12-11).

7.3.3. A recent study by the Queensland Department of State Development,

Infrastructure and Planning noted that Abbot Point only operated at one quarter of

its capacity in 2011-12. The worldwide trend is for longer, deeper draft ships, and in

order to accommodate these vessels more capital and maintenance dredging will

be required into the future (draft marine strategic assessment report, Chapter 5,

Drivers and Activities, pg 5-29)

7.3.4. In addition to the strategic assessment documents, a number of technical studies

were commissioned by GBRMPA in relation to the ‘Improved Dredge Management

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 24 of 56

for the Great Barrier Reef Region’. This is a high level study to inform future policy

and planning outcomes in relation to dredge material disposal in the Great Barrier

Reef Region. It is not intended to replace the detail required as part of an

environmental impact assessment process for any future dredge material

placement operations.

7.3.5. The modelling of dredging impacts undertaken for the technical studies is based

on hypothetical dredging campaigns and is a ‘maximum credible sediment

dispersal’ scenario and are not intended for impact assessment. The modelling

indicates dredge material placed at sea has the potential to migrate on much

greater spatial and temporal scales than indicated in previous modelling. The

limitations associated with the modelling have been acknowledged in the reports.

7.3.6. This was the first sediment plume modelling study at a scale that adopted a

regional approach in the Great Barrier Reef, incorporated large-scale circulation

and modelled material placement dredge plume dispersion over a 12 month period.

The assumptions used resulted in the model overestimating the dispersion of

dredged material from placement sites in both the amount and distances travelled.

As the purpose of the hydrodynamic modelling was for comparison purposes, the

modelling cannot be used in project specific impact assessment or risk

assessment. The study constitutes a screening-level “sensitivity analysis” of the

relative merits, if any, of potential alternative placement areas.

7.3.7. However, as part of the assessment process, those technical studies were

reviewed during this assessment process. They include the following documents:

Literature Review and Cost Analysis of Land-based Dredge Material Re-use

and Disposal Options

Modelling of bed Shear-Stress in the Vicinity of Queensland Trading Ports

Identification of Alternative Sites for the Placement of Dredge Material at Sea

Long-term Migration Patterns and Disposal Plume of Sediment Modelling

Sensitive Receptor Risk Assessment of Alternative and Current Dredge Material

Placement Sites

Final Water Quality Review and Monitoring Framework

Report on Strategies for Improved Dredge Material Management

7.3.8. In addition to the above strategic assessment documents, the Queensland

government released the Queensland Ports Strategy for public comment on

17 October 2013. This Strategy outlines the Queensland government’s

commitments in relation to port developments. The Strategy aims to increase

productivity through improvements to the planning, governance, environmental

management and supply chain connections of ports.

7.3.9. The Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone was released for public

comment in July 2013. A draft supplementary report was subsequently finalised.

Together these reports comment on planning arrangements and standards for the

optimisation of port development and operation applicable to ports in the Great

Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The review indentified 21 principles that will

provide guidance to future planning and port operations in the world heritage area.

The principles relate to port environmental management and government;

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 25 of 56

environmental assessment and decision-making; planning; monitoring and

reporting; and compliance and enforcement.

7.4. State/Territory Assessment and Approval

7.4.1. A submission from the delegate of the Queensland Minister for Environment was

received during the referral stage. This submission noted that the project is not a

‘significant project’ under the State Development and Public Works Organisation

Act 1971, that it was not being assessed under the Environmental Impact

Statement process in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994, and that

it was also unlikely to meet the requirements for assessment under the Sustainable

Planning Act 2009.

7.4.2. Further information can be found in section 1.14.1 of the draft PER report on the

State regulatory framework.

8. PER Assessment Process

8.1. The draft PER was released for public comment from 4 January 2013 to

15 February 2013. A total of 103 submissions were received, including comments from

the department and GBRMPA. Public submissions raised concerns about the validity of

the assessment and dredge plume modelling in the PER, and noted the potential

impacts of dredging and the offshore disposal of dredge material in relation to:

Recreational and commercial fisheries in the Bowen area

The recently discovered Catalina World War 2 plane wreck and associated

heritage and tourism values

Water quality and biodiversity

The local tourism industry

The Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage

Area.

8.1.1. Some public submissions also stated that the development of the Port of Abbot

Point as being important for the Bowen community.

8.2. Workshops:

8.2.1. Between February and August 2013, a number of workshops were held between

the department, GBRMPA, NQBP and the proponents of the various coal terminals

on the various issues raised during the assessment process (see minutes of

27 March 2013 workshop at Appendix A of PER Supplementary Report). In

particular, it focused on a review of the options for dredge spoil disposal; modelling

methodologies and the extension of trestles. It also included an evaluation of

engineering, environment and social impacts of alternatives to dredging and dredge

material disposal.

8.3. Public Environment Report Supplementary Report:

8.3.1. NQBP submitted the Supplementary Report to the PER to SEWPaC on

13 May 2013. In the PER Supplementary Report, NQBP states that the proposal

would have no significant impacts on matters of national environmental

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 26 of 56

significance. NQBP believes that environmental and dredging management

measures can be effectively applied to avoid and reduce impacts.

9. Existing environment

9.1. Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

9.1.1. The State Party Report on the state of conservation of the Great Barrier Reef

World Heritage Area to the World Heritage Committee (February 2013) outlines the

key challenges faced in managing the Great Barrier Reef as follows (Executive

Summary):

‘Like all coral reefs around the world, over time the GBR experiences natural

fluctuations in its health. The GBR is generally resilient to natural disturbance, such

as from typical storm events, but only if its normal life-support systems are intact

and functioning. Corals are adapted to live in a narrow temperature range and in

relatively clear, low nutrient waters. Many of the factors that impact on the GBR

occur naturally, including weather events such as storms and cyclones; coral

bleaching; run-off of fresh water from land to sea following heavy rainfall; and

predators, such as the crown-of-thorns starfish. Given sufficient time, coral reefs

have shown they will recover from such natural disturbances.

A key challenge facing the GBR is that climate change and other pressures are

likely to amplify these natural fluctuations, although the magnitude of these effects

is subject to considerable uncertainty. Climate change is predicted to increase the

intensity and frequency of extreme weather events, such as cyclones and storms.

Extreme weather events can cause very severe damage and reduce the time

available for the reef to recover. Absorption by the oceans of carbon dioxide from

the atmosphere is leading to ocean acidification, which is also likely to have a

significant impact on the long-term health of the property.

Additional human-induced pressures on the GBR, including land-clearing, fertiliser

use and other changes in adjoining catchments, have resulted in increased run-off

carrying higher levels of nutrients and sediments. Chemicals that have entered the

GBR over previous decades also continue to have an impact. There is strong

evidence that nutrient-rich flood waters arising from the extreme weather events of

2009 to 2011 have created conditions that result in increased numbers of the

crown-of-thorns starfish, which preys on coral.’

9.2. Fishing

9.2.1. During the assessment process NQBP consulted with both commercial and

recreational fishers. The draft PER states that no commercial fishing occurs

adjacent to the wharfs, and there are no high-value fisheries values in the area

(page xxiii). The document further identifies that the dominant species of the area

are not species of importance for commercial operations, and that the disposal site

is not considered to be of high fishery value. NQBP states that the commercial

catch data for the entire Abbot Point area was 219 tonnes in 2003-2004, and

dropped to 75 tonnes in 2007-2008. The dominant species included Spanish

mackerel, prawns and mud scallops.

9.2.2. A number of public comments were received on the importance of the proposed

disposal site for fishing, and NQBP undertook further evaluation of the importance

of the impacted areas and how issues concerning fishing may be managed. A

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 27 of 56

subsequent report outlining the value of the proposed dredge site and the disposal

site for both commercial and recreational fishing is provided in the PER

Supplementary Report (Appendix E).

9.3. Offshore Water Quality

9.3.1. NQBP considered various water quality guidelines that apply to the Abbot Point

marine environment, and the results of sampling undertaken in the vicinity of the

proposed dredge footprint for periods over 2008-2009 and 2011-2012 (draft PER,

pages 3-54 to 3-72). The various water quality guidelines include the:

Australian and New Zealand and Conservation Council/Agriculture and

Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand

(ANZECC/ARMCANZ), Australia and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and

Marine Water Quality (ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000) 95 % guideline values for

Tropical Australia, marine (inshore) waters;

Water Quality Guidelines for the GBRMP (GBRMPA 2010); and

Queensland Water Quality (QWQ) Guidelines (DERM 2009) for open coastal

waters.

9.3.2. The current water quality of Abbot Bay adjacent to the proposed disposal site is

described in the report: Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment Technical

Report Marine Water Quality Final (2012) GHD as follows:

“A number of parameters recorded results which were above the relevant

comparative statistic described in the ANZECC and GBRMP/Queensland Water

Quality (QWQ) Guidelines”.

Comparison of water quality parameters against guideline trigger values: Abbot Bay Water Quality

GBRMP Water quality Guidelines

ANZECC Water Quality Guidelines

Wet season average at Abbot Bay

[1]

Dry season average at Abbot Bay

[2]

Total Suspended Sediments (TSS) (mg/l)

2.0 N/A 10.7 – 20.2 16 – 20.3

Turbidity (NTU)

1 1 - 20 2.6 – 27.9 1.5 - 15

Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

0.14 0.1 0.35 – 0.94 0.28 – 0.98

Total Phosphorus (mg/L)

0.02 0.015 0.04 – 0.29 0.16 – 0.8

Chlorophyll a (ug/L)

0.45 0.7 - 1.4 3.78 1.04

Mean wet and dry season Total Suspended Solids concentration are above the

relevant GBRMP/QWQ guideline value of 2 mg/L.

Mean wet and dry season Total Phosphorus concentrations are above the

relevant GBRMP/QWQ guideline values of 0.02 mg/L.

[1] GHD. 2012. Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment Technical Report Marine Water Quality Final. GHD: Brisbane [2]

GHD. 2012. Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment Technical Report Marine Water Quality Final. GHD: Brisbane

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 28 of 56

Mean wet and dry season Total Nitrogen concentrations are above the relevant

GBRMP/QWQ guideline value of 0.14 mg/L.

Mean wet and dry season Chlorophyll a concentrations are above the relevant

GBRMPA/QWQ guidelines values of 0.45 ug/L.

9.3.3. In addition to those various guidelines, recent work has also been undertaken on

developing photosynthetic active radiation levels as triggers for impacts on

seagrass rather than turbidity levels (Chartrand et al., 2012). That work has helped

to quantify the impacts of light reduction and to develop early warning signs of

decline in seagrass health (page 5).

9.3.4. The GBRMPA (2010) water quality guidelines states that:

‘Exceedance of a trigger value indicates that there is a potential for an impact to

occur, but does not provide certainty that an impact will occur. Exceedance

activates management action. Action may include whether the source has been

contained, evaluating whether any impact on ecosystem health has occurred,

changing a land management practice, or any number of alternatives.’

9.3.5. The PER states that turbidity in Abbot Bay is seasonally variant and in general,

turbidity is lower in the dry season (May to October) and higher in the wet season

(November to April). Spatially, turbidity in the bay is higher in shallow more

energetic environments and lower in deeper offshore sites. The total suspended

solids (TSS) are generally seasonally variant and related to wind, wave and

terrigenous river sediment input. The TSS in Abbot Bay is elevated year round and

found to be above the relevant GBRMP/QWQ guidelines.

9.3.6. The median total nitrogen levels for 2008-2009 were above the guidelines for all

monitoring sites. The median levels of total phosphorus sampled during the dry

season were also above guideline levels at all monitoring sites for 2008-2009.

NQBP states that dry season peaks in total phosphorous and total nitrogen may be

driven by re-suspension following strong winds.

9.3.7. Median Chlorophyll a levels were above the GBRMP/QWC values, but between

the ANZECC upper and lower limits during the dry season. NQBP states that those

levels are exceeded during wet seasons in response to increased nutrients,

temperatures and irradiance.

9.3.8. Abbot Bay’s water quality is influenced by run off from the Don River Catchment

which covers an area of 3695 km2 and the Burdekin River catchment which covers

an area of 130,126 km. Approximately 92% of the Don River catchment has been

cleared, predominantly for agricultural use and around 73% of the Burdekin

catchment has been cleared for grazing. Nutrient export from both catchments is

classified as medium to high risk and collectively, the catchments contribute 4293 k

tonnes/yr of Total Suspended Solids, of which approximately 70% is fine sediment.

9.3.9. NQBP has indicated that the high levels of sediments and nutrients in the marine

environment originate from onshore, and may be re-suspended within the marine

environment under certain weather conditions. The Port of Abbot Point is situated

within the Burdekin Basin, which comprises the catchments of the Black, Ross,

Haughton, Burdekin and Don Rivers. Kroon et al. (2012) estimates that

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 29 of 56

approximately 4.7 million tonnes of total suspended solids are discharged into the

Great Barrier Reef each year from the Burdekin Basin (page 172). (Although the

Black and Ross catchments, which discharge approximately 0.12 million tonnes of

total suspended solids do not impact on Abbot Point.) Of the total sediment load of

the Burdekin Basin, approximately 4.1 million tonnes are of anthropogenic origin;

an increase of 7.8 times the natural pre-European sediment load.

9.3.10. Research on the mechanisms of the dispersal of land based sediments from the

Burdekin River was undertaken by Bainbridge et al. (2012). The Burdekin River

plume that resulted from a major flood event in December 2010 to January 2011

discharged approximately 2.8 million tonnes of sediment into the Great Barrier Reef

(page 246). Medium and coarse silts (> 15.6 µm) were rapidly deposited less than

10 km from the coastline. However the clay and fine silts (< 15.6 µm), which

comprised approximately 70% of the total suspended sediment load, were

observed to travel more than 100 km from the river mouth.

9.4. Proposed direct dredge footprint

9.4.1. NQBP proposes to dredge a site of approximately 185 hectares, which is about

3 km offshore, to a maximum depth of 21 metres. The dredge footprint is located

within the limits of the port, which is also within the World and National heritage

areas, but outside of the Marine Park.

9.4.2. As noted in section 9.3.9, the Port of Abbot Point and surrounding areas have

high sediment deposition from surrounding onshore catchments. SKM and APASA

(2013a) characterise the marine environment as open or muddy substrate with

isolated or medium density macroinvertebrates (page 101). The soft bottom habitat

supports various macroinvertebrate and macroflora communities such as

ascidians, echinoids, bivalves, soft corals, bryozoans and seagrasses. There are

no known reefs within the Port of Abbot Point, however the majority of Abbot Point

is surrounded by the Coastal Southern Reefs Bioregion, and the wider area within

a 50 km radius has 12 islands and 25 reefs. Cape Upstart Marine National Park

Zone is located approximately 32 km north-west from the proposed dredge site.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 30 of 56

Map 1. GBRMP zoning of the marine environment around Abbot Point and the proposed disposal

site (PER Supplementary Report, page 5-112)

9.4.3. Surveys by the Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development

and Innovation (McKenna et al., 2008 and Rasheed et al., 2005) indicate that the

Port of Abbot Point supports sparsely distributed seagrasses, which were noted by

McKenna et al. (2008) to cover approximately 42% of the studied area. The area in

the vicinity of Abbot Point supports low biomass (1-10% coverage) of meadows of

Halodule uninervis (thin, coastal shallow waters) and Halophila spinulosa (deeper

waters). While none of the macroinvertebrate or seagrass assemblages are

considered unique to Abbot Point, the seagrasses are known to provide food

resources to a range of species, including listed migratory species such as the

dugong, and may have a high fisheries value.

9.4.4. NQBP states that major declines in seagrass occurred after November 2010. The

reduction in density and distribution of seagrasses at Abbot Point was linked to

flooding and cyclonic events (draft PER, page 3-90). Recent surveys in April 2013

indicate that the seagrasses at Abbot Point have begun to recover from those

impacts (PER Supplementary Report, page 5-73).

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 31 of 56

Map 2. Extent of seagrass found from 1987-2008 and at April 2013 (PER Supplementary Report,

page 5-74)

9.5. Dredge material disposal site

9.5.1. The proposed 400 ha disposal site identified in the draft PER has a depth of 39-

44 metres. It is located 24 km from proposed dredge footprint, and is zoned for

general use within the Marine Park. NQBP states that the site was selected through

the multi criteria analysis process, and taking account of certain technical studies

commissioned by GBRMPA (PER Supplementary Report, page 2-10). That site is

located to the south west of the Nares Rock Habitat Protection Zone (4.1 km) and

the Holbourne Island Conservation Park Zone (6 km), as shown on Map 1. NQBP

states in the draft PER (Appendix E, page 84) that hard corals were only found

near Nares Rock, Holbourne Island, and three locations within 20 metres of water

in the vicinity of Abbot Point.

9.5.2. NQBP characterises the proposed disposal site as an open silty substrate with

sparse patches of epibenthic fauna, and an absence of seagrass and algae (draft

PER, page 3-129).

10. Key Issues

10.1. Dredging campaigns

10.1.1. NQBP proposes to use a trailer suction hopper dredger to conduct the dredging

campaign. The trailer suction hopper dredger, removes seabed material through

the use of suction pipes trailing along-side of the vessel. A dredge head attached to

the pipes uses ripping probes and water jets to loosen the seabed material and

then draw it up to hoppers on the vessel using suction.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 32 of 56

10.1.2. NQBP initially modelled the dredging of 3 million m³ to be undertaken in a single

campaign over a 6 week period. NQBP has subsequently revised the proposal, and

stated that it would be undertaken in a staged manner to reflect the progress of the

terminal development for each of the different proponents of the coal terminal

proposals (see section 3.1.2). The coal terminal proponents have proposed a

number of scenarios for dredging (PER Supplementary Report, pages 2-8 to 2-9).

NQBP has informed the department (email 5 June 2013) that staged dredging is

now proposed, in dredging campaigns of 2 to 6 weeks as follows:

Terminal 0 dredging commencing within the dredge window in 2014 (April to

June) of between 1 million m3 to 1.1 million m3;

Terminal 3 in 2014 or 2015, between 0.6 to 0.7 million m3; and

Terminal 2 is unlikely to be dredged until 2017 – 2020, up to 1.3 million m3.

10.1.3. This would result in a maximum of 1.3 million m3 being dredged in any single

year. NQBP states that while minor impacts will occur within the dredge footprint

during dredging, they will be short term, with directly impacted areas (i.e. the

dredge footprint) expected to recover within four years (draft PER, page 3-130).

10.1.4. Potential impacts of the dredging activity on seagrass growth and coral

spawning, which contribute to the outstanding universal values of the Great Barrier

Reef Marine Park, can be mitigated by limiting the window for dredging activities to

between March and June.

10.1.5. In conducting a dredge campaign with the trailer suction hopper dredge, some

overflow of fine sediment will occur. The dredge material drawn into the vessel’s

hoppers is fluidised, and the ratio of solid material to water may be 1:10 or greater.

Overflow dredging then occurs when the hopper is at capacity but dredging

continues to load more solid material into the hopper; the principle being that the

heavier material settles in the bottom of the hopper while the excess water is

decanted off the top and returned to the marine environment. This overflow water is

discharged via a pipe below the keel. Overflow dredging can result in a significant

turbid plume being produced around the dredger if the dredge material has a high

percentage of fine sediments, or if the material to be dredged is compacted and not

easily taken up by the dredge head. The impacts of this process will be discussed

further in the modelling section.

10.1.6. NQBP states in the draft PER (page 2-31) that Abbot Point is a naturally deep

water port, and that maintenance dredging is not anticipated for many years. Since

the construction of the port in 1984, capital and maintenance dredging has

occurred in 1986 and 2008, involving the disposal of 331,000 m³ of sediment.

Future maintenance dredging requirements have not been assessed as part of this

proposed action.

10.1.7. The Department concludes that the staged implementation of the dredge

campaign will have lesser immediate impacts than a single large campaign, and

that impacts will be further reduced if each campaign is required to be conducted in

different calendar years. In addition, dredging and disposal activities should only be

undertaken outside of July to February, which are important periods for seagrass

growth and coral spawning (also see findings in section 10.6).

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 33 of 56

10.2. Direct non-plume impacts of dredging within port limits

10.2.1. The removal of sediment from the 185 ha dredge area will result in the loss of

habitat for macroinvertebrates and an area previously occupied by seagrass before

significant flood events in December 2010 – January 2011 (see Map 2). NQBP

states that the surface sediment structure of the dredge site will change from a

greater fraction of sandy material to a greater fraction of clay material (draft PER,

page 3-130). NQBP also states that the loss from direct removal of seagrass is

expected to be temporary, and that recovery will occur within four years. The rate

of recovery will depend on the potential for re-colonisation of the site. Recovery of

seagrass is reliant on good conditions, sufficient light, low levels of pollutants,

integrity of the substrate and sufficient seeds or vegetative material.

10.2.2. The non-plume impacts to listed threatened and migratory species during the

dredging and disposal of dredged material can be mitigated through

implementation of standard measures. Measures to minimise the risk of impacts to

marine species such as cetaceans, turtles and dugongs, include the requirement

for observation for those species prior to the commencement of dredging or

disposal, the presence of a Marine Fauna observer for all dredging and disposal

activities, a 300 metre species exclusion zone around the dredging or dumping

activities, and the use of turtle exclusion devices when suction pumps are being

used.

10.2.3. The Department concludes that direct non-plume related impacts on listed

threatened and migratory species within the port limits can be minimised through

appropriate mitigation measures, and any long-term impacts of loss of potential

habitat for relevant species can be offset (see section 13).

10.3. Suitability of sediment disposal offshore

10.3.1. NQBP proposes to remove sediment from the 185 ha area to a maximum depth

of 5 metres (draft PER, page 3-130). Sampling and analysis across the proposed

dredge footprint was undertaken in accordance with the National Assessment

Guidelines for Dredging (2009). Sampling was undertaken at 69 sites within the

proposed dredge area and 10 sites within the proposed material relocation area

(PER Supplementary Report, pages 5-99 to 5-100).

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 34 of 56

10.3.2. NQBP states on page 44 of the Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan

Implementation Report (GHD 2012) that sampling results indicate that natural

residual geological materials are present below 0.5 to 1 m, and recently transported

sediments can be found above that. The sediment fractions are as follows:

Sediment Sample Data All (per cent)

Particle Size

(< µm)

Medium Sand - Gravel 53 150

Fraction 1 – Fine Sand 8 94

Fraction 2 – Coarse Silt 9 45

Fraction 3 – Medium Silt 4 23

Fraction 4 – Fine Silt 6 8

Fraction 5 – Clay 19 2

Table 1 - Seabed Sediment Distribution (per cent fraction) for T2, T3 and aprons (draft

PER, Appendix H1, page 14)

10.3.3. In analysing the samples, NQBP found that arsenic and manganese

concentrations were marginally above initial screening levels for some of the

samples, however, they were below 95% upper confidence levels for screening,

and were therefore considered suitable for ocean disposal. It should be noted that

offshore sediment samples often exceed the initial screening levels of the

guidelines due to high natural levels rather than anthropogenic contamination.

10.3.4. The sediment also had some acid producing potential, however, that is only

considered to be a concern if the sediment is to be disposed of onshore and

subsequently exposed to the air.

10.3.5. The Department concludes that the proposed dredge sediment is suitable for

offshore disposal, based on an analysis of the characteristics of the sediments at

the proposed dredge and disposal sites.

10.4. Proposed disposal site for dredge material

10.4.1. The proposed 400 ha disposal site for dredge material is 39-44 m deep. The site

is situated in a large band of mud, 24 km to the north east of Abbot Point, which is

described as the mid-shelf area in the Water Quality Guidelines for the Great

Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMPA 2010). NQBP states that the band of mud may

derive from the south east of the project area rather than the Burdekin River (draft

PER, Appendix E, page 84). The surface sediments were predominantly composed

of silts (50.5%) and clays (36.5%) (draft PER, Appendix G, page 45). In addition,

the sediments at the site had higher average concentrations of total nitrogen and

phosphorous than the sediments from the proposed dredge site (draft PER,

Appendix G, page 66).

10.4.2. The composition of the sediments at the proposed disposal site is generally finer

than the sediments of the proposed dredge site, as outlined in section 10.3.

Heavier dredged material is therefore predicted to stay on the bottom, while fine

sediments may be subject to dispersion. NQBP states that sediments from both

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 35 of 56

sites are terrigenous in origin, and that the similarity of the dredged material would

ensure that no major modifications of the marine habitat occur at the proposed

material relocation site, in accordance with the National Assessment Guidelines for

Dredging (2009).

10.4.3. The maximum predicted depth of dredge material disposed at the site was

modelled at 800 millimetres. Impacts will occur through covering of benthic fauna,

and their ability to persist and recover from the disposal of dredged material will

depend on their ability to burrow and migrate from the zone of impact (draft PER,

page 3-129). NQBP states that studies of the existing disposal area for Abbot Point

indicate that abundance and richness of communities recovered within four years

of the disposal of dredged material (draft PER, page 3-149). No seagrass or other

marine flora were located during surveys of the disposal site (draft PER,

page 3-91).

10.4.4. The department concludes that the proposed disposal site is suitable to take the

dredged material from Abbot Point.

10.5. Technical studies for improved dredge management in the Great Barrier Reef

10.5.1. As mentioned in section 7.3, GBRMPA commissioned a series of technical

studies on improved dredge management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Those

studies were conducted in response to the World Heritage Committee’s request for

Australia to undertake a strategic assessment of the Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Area, and focused on comparing potential impacts of disposal of dredged

material on existing sites compared to alternative sites within the Marine Park.

10.5.2. The modelling studies were undertaken with the following caveat (SKM & APASA

(2013b), page 20):

‘The purpose and scope of the hydrodynamic modelling and environmental risk

assessment reported herein are explicitly not intended to provide a

comprehensive EIA of specific, individual dredging projects at a level of rigour

and detail commensurate with best-practice management commensurate with the

iconic status of the World Heritage Area. Therefore, the results should not be

interpreted as concrete predictions of environmental impact from dredge material

placement at specific sites, for specific projects, or upon specific receptors.

Crucially, this study has reinforced the need for detailed, project-specific EIAs for

dredging projects in the World Heritage Area, and in no way does it supplant

those that have been conducted for previous and currently proposed projects.

Another benefit of the study has been to identify additional information

requirements for improved management of dredging material.’

10.5.3. The technical studies modelled a number of scenarios of impacts in relation to

potential port developments. In the case of the Port of Abbot Point, the studies

modelled the potential impacts of dredging and disposing of 3.5 million m³ of

sediment in a single campaign. This is double the amount of dredging that NQBP

proposes to undertake in a single campaign. The modelling was also based on

conditions for a highly energetic year (2011), associated with a La Niña event.

These conditions are considered likely to be relatively uncommon.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 36 of 56

10.5.4. A technical study (SKM & APASA (2013c)) was undertaken to map bed shear

stress within 50 km of the Port of Abbot Point, and identify areas that are likely to

be dispersive or retentive of different sediment particle sizes. This was used to

determine the relative stability of dredged material on the sea bed. In general, the

bed shear modelling predicted that the Abbot Point study area is a relatively low

energy retentive environment under average conditions (50th percentile), with

predicted shear-stress able to mobilise unconsolidated sediments up to fine silts.

Under 95th percentile conditions, the shear stress was sufficient to mobilise up to

fine sands (pages 55 to 57). It should be noted that this was a screening study, and

that the modelled mobilisation did not account for any consolidation of dredged

sediments.

10.5.5. Based on the information to map bed shear stress, another technical study

(SKM & APASA (2013a)) was undertaken to identify alternative sites for the

placement of dredge material. That study identifies two alternative sites for Abbot

Point: Model case 1 is 13 km north-east of Abbot Point, and Model case 2 is 15 km

north-west of Abbot Point. Those sites were considered less dispersive than the

current disposal site which is 2 km north-west of the proposed dredge area.

10.5.6. Long-term migration patterns of sediments were also modelled (SKM & APASA

(2013d)) for the current disposal site for dredge material, and the two alternative

Model sites. This modelling incorporates the influence of the East Australian

Current which has a northward drift, and was conducted using 2011 data on the

basis that currents during that year would exert the greatest forces toward a

number of sensitive receptors. It was also undertaken over one year to incorporate

potential impacts of re-suspension of sediments. The study concludes that the use

of large-scale currents in modelling dredge plumes in the Great Barrier Reef is

important and that dredge material may travel longer distances through greater re-

suspension from the material placement site than previously understood. Although

the geographical extent of sediment dispersal may be greater than originally

appreciated, this does not necessarily imply ecological significance.

10.5.7. A technical study (SKM & APASA (2013b)) was also undertaken of the potential

impacts on sensitive receptors from disposal of dredge spoil at the two identified

Model sites. That study found that the two Model sites generated smaller plumes of

lower intensity and had minimal overlap with sensitive receptors compared to

plumes from the existing disposal site. The impacts of an increase in total

suspended solids on the two Model sites were given a low risk rating for all

sensitive receptors. Similarly, the impacts of an accumulation of sediments from

disposal at the sea bed at the two Model sites were given a low risk rating for most

sensitive receptors. Finally, the impacts of an increase in the rate of sediment

deposition at the two alternative Model sites were given a low to medium risk rating

for most sensitive receptors, except for fish habitat areas which had a high risk

rating.

10.5.8. In addition to the caveat on the applicability of the modelling undertaken for the

technical studies, the modelled input of a 3.5 million m³ single dredging campaign

would be expected to significantly overstate the impacts of the staged NQBP

proposal. The technical studies also modelled impacts at two Model sites that are

13 – 15 km from Abbot Point. Those two Model sites are closer to the shore than

NQBP’s proposed site, which is 24 km from the dredge site. Notwithstanding the

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 37 of 56

limitations of the technical studies, they found that the risks of the modelled impacts

on sensitive receptors to be generally low.

10.5.9. The Department acknowledges the technical studies undertaken in relation to

improved dredge management for the Great Barrier Reef Region and notes they

modelled a disposal scenario that was significantly greater than the current

proposal being assessed. In addition, while the modelled scenario indicates that

the site for the disposal of dredged material is a relatively low energy retentive

environment, and that the risk rating of impacts on the various sensitive receptors

were generally considered low to medium, further research is required to develop

and validate that work as outlined in the caveat for modelling studies. This work

should be undertaken through the monitoring of impacts of dredging and disposal

activities. The findings of the monitoring should also be and be reviewed by a

technical panel and modelling experts, and the results used to refine the modelling

of potential impacts.

10.6. Modelled impacts from dredge and disposal plumes

10.6.1. NQBP has conducted the modelling of impacts of dredging up to 3 million m³ of

sediment in a single campaign. It enhanced the existing 2D model to 3D mode.

Modelling was undertaken on both the dredging and the disposal activities for both

95th and 50th percentile outputs. That is, the 95th percentile modelling was

undertaken to indicate impacts for a worst case scenario. The model extended over

a distance of 56 km in the alongshore direction and 29 km offshore, and simulated

dredge plumes that would have occurred if the proposal was to be undertaken from

July to August in 2007. NQBP states that the model underwent a process of

calibration and was peer reviewed. As noted in the previous section on the

technical studies for improved dredge management in the Great Barrier Reef

Region, project specific analysis is required to provide the rigour and detail to

evaluate likely impacts.

10.6.2. The 3D modelling undertaken included, hydrodynamic modelling, sediment

transport modelling, dispersion and re-suspension of sediments, and representative

conditions during a dry season when the proposed dredging is planned (draft PER,

page 3-131).

10.6.3. A number of seagrass species have been recorded within the limits of the Port of

Abbot Point. The Halodule universis species dominates the coastal meadows,

which generally occur in less than 8 metres depth, and has high light requirements,

while Halophila spinulosa dominates the deep water meadows and has lower light

requirements. Mckenna and Rasheed (2011) state that the Halodule universis

dominated coastal meadows at Abbot Point are more susceptible to longer term

impacts of reduced light, than the coastal meadows of Halophila spinulosa, which

are more resilient to reduced light and have a high capacity for recovery through

seed reserves (page 26). These seagrass meadows expand and contract over

time, so the modelled impacts are derived from the maximum area of all

distributions from collective mapping, and are therefore likely to overstate any

potential impacts (draft PER, page 3-152).

10.6.4. NQBP states that up to 2,000 ha of potential Halophila spinulosa dominated deep

water meadows may be impacted through reduced light from dredge plumes, and

that no coastal habitat are predicted to be impacted by light loss (draft PER,

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 38 of 56

page 3-157). However those potential impacts would not be expected to eventuate

if the temporal duration of dredging campaigns is limited, and by restricting the

timing of dredging for the period when those seagrasses senesce during the dry

season.

10.6.5. NQBP’s modelling also indicates that about 765 ha of potential habitat of the

coastal Halodule universis species may be impacted through sedimentation

(PER Supplementary Report, page 3-2). NQBP adopted a critical threshold of

10 millimetres of sedimentation from the plume to determine the likely impacts on

potential seagrass habitat. That threshold was formulated on the basis of a review

of scientific findings on the resilience of seagrass species to sedimentation rates

(Erftemeijer and Lewis 2006). NQBP also took account of the fact that ambient net

deposition rates across Abbot Point are not well known. Seagrass may be

impacted by both smothering and by a reduction in light important to the growth of

seagrass at critical times. Therefore the timing of dredging is important, as well as

sedimentation rates.

10.6.6. Caution is however required in interpreting the modelling results, as it was

undertaken on the basis of a single campaign, and the refined dredging program

has significantly reduced the dredging to be undertaken over a single year.

Nevertheless, the modelled impact on 765 ha of potential habitat of the coastal

Halodule universis through sedimentation, is in addition to the loss of 185 ha

potential seagrass habitat at the proposed dredge site. As indicated in other

sections, NQBP states that recovery from any impacts on seagrass and benthic

fauna is expected to occur within four years.

10.6.7. Outputs of the modelling undertaken will depend on how accurately the inputs

can represent the likely ambient conditions under which the proposal will take

place. Criticism has been made that the modelled plumes may not represent a

worst case scenario in relation to the use of data representing conditions in 2007.

While that may be the case, the important element is to determine appropriate

thresholds or trigger levels for adverse impacts on sensitive receptors such as

seagrass, to ensure that mitigation measures, including triggers to cease work are

applied. This will ensure that impacts predicted under a worst case scenario will not

eventuate.

10.6.8. There is a general recognition that the primary cause of the prevailing adverse

water quality is the result of the deposition of sediments and nutrients from

onshore, as outlined in section 9.3. In addition, the work undertaken for the

technical studies for improved dredge management in the Great Barrier Reef

Region indicates that fine sediments may travel further than initially thought, and

re-suspend during certain weather conditions. If that hypothesis is validated, then

impacts may occur over a broader scale and over a longer timeframe than most

modelling currently indicates.

10.6.9. In evaluating the extent of likely impacts of the dredging proposal, consideration

is required of the fact that the water quality at Abbot Point is already degraded, as

outlined in section 9.3. This raises concern that any proposal that involves dredging

will place further pressure on an ecosystem already under stress. While NQBP

concludes that the proposal is unlikely to have significant impacts on matters of

National Environmental Significance, recognition is required that steps must be

taken to ensure that proposals are undertaken in a manner that can demonstrate

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 39 of 56

an overall net benefit for the outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier Reef

World Heritage Area.

10.6.10. The Australian and Queensland governments have developed a joint

Reef Water Quality Protection Plan (2009) (The Reef Plan) that specifically focuses

on non-point-source pollution. This is where irrigation or rainfall carries pollutants

such as sediments, nutrients and pesticides into waterways and the reef lagoon.

The initiative has set goals to halt and reverse the decline in water quality entering

the reef and to ensure that the quality of water entering the reef from adjacent

catchments has no detrimental impact on the health and resilience of the Great

Barrier Reef. It has also set water quality targets for reducing nutrient and sediment

loads.

10.6.11. The Reef Plan has two primary goals. The immediate goal is to halt and

reverse the decline in water quality entering the Reef by 2013. The long-term goal

is to ensure that by 2020 the quality of water entering the Reef from adjacent

catchments has no detrimental impact on the health and resilience of the Reef. The

plan will be reviewed in 2013 to ensure it is delivering the intended outcomes.

10.6.12. In addition to implementing various mitigation measures to minimise

impacts of the proposed dredging, NQBP has proposed to contribute to and work

with National Resource Management bodies to address the primary source of the

sediments and nutrients entering the Great Barrier Reef as outlined in the Reef

Water Quality Protection Plan. Such as funding the development and

implementation of a Water Quality Improvement Plan for the Don River catchment.

This has been identified as a current gap in the wider Burdekin Catchment National

Resource Management Plan. NQBP is proposing to undertake this work in a

manner that will result in a net reduction in the total fine sediment and nutrient load

entering the Great Barrier Reef, and therefore take account of fine sediments that

are likely to impact on sensitive receptors through the dredge proposal.

10.6.13. The modelling undertaken by NQBP indicates that the deposition of

700 millimetres of sediment over the disposal site will not be affected by wave

action. This is supported by the research by Orpin et al. (1999), who found that re-

suspension seldom occurs on the middle shelf under normal conditions, noting that

the disposal site has a depth of 40 metres. NQBP also states that the deposited

sediment will erode over time from tidal currents to 500 to 600 millimetres (PER

Supplementary Report, page 5-96). However, the assumptions underpinning the

modelling by NQBP need to be validated by a monitoring program to determine

whether or not fine sediments travel further than previously modelled.

10.6.14. Public concerns were also raised about the value of the proposed dredge

material disposal site for fishing. The information provided in the draft PER

concluded that the disposal of dredge material at the proposed site would have

limited impact on fishing. In response to public comments, NQBP has undertaken

further consultation with fishers and undertaken further analysis of impacts to

fisheries (PER Supplementary Report, Appendix E). The report at Appendix E

notes that material placement on the spoil ground has the potential to impact the

trawl fishery. Impacts to target species at the location as well as changes to the

seabed which may make trawling impractical (page 25). However the report also

stated that the impact is unlikely to be permanent. NQBP has indicated that it is

willing to investigate an alternate disposal site in consultation with the fishers, and

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 40 of 56

that if impacts cannot be avoided, management and offset programs will be

implemented to reduce impacts. The proposed area of investigation is shown in

Map 3:

Map 3. NQBP’s proposed investigation area for an alternative disposal site (PER Supplementary Report,

page 2-12)

10.6.15. The technical study undertaken on bed shear stress (SKM & APASA

2013c) indicates that the proposed area of investigation identified in the map is

composed of clay and fine silt and is also in a relatively low-energy retentive

environment.

10.6.16. Concerns were raised during the public review process about potential

impacts on the World War 2 wreckage of a Catalina aircraft, approximately 3 km

south of the proposed disposal site for dredge material. NQBP states that mapping

of the plume shows that it is unlikely to intersect with the Catalina wreckage;

however NQBP indicated a willingness to investigate an alternate site to further

reduce any risks of impact.

10.6.17. The Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009 makes the following

comments on the impacts of ports and shipping:

‘The impacts of dredging and construction of port facilities - such as seabed disturbance, transport or resuspension of contaminants, alteration of sediment movement and changes in coastal processes - can be significant, but are localised. For example, monitoring of the Hay Point dredging project in 2007 showed significant environmental impacts at the dredge and disposal sites and minor impacts to corals at sites up to 12 kilometres away (recovery is expected at these sites).’

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 41 of 56

Notwithstanding those comments, there has been a general recognition that the

health of the Great Barrier Reef has declined since the report was published, new

research has indicated that the re-suspension of sediments may have greater

impacts than previously thought, and greater scrutiny is required of new port

developments.

10.6.18. The department concludes that implementation of mitigation measures is

required to address potential impacts of the plumes and sedimentation resulting

from dredging and disposal of dredge spoil. That includes limiting the duration of

campaigns, restricting dredging during the dry season (March to June), and

appropriate monitoring and the implementation of trigger levels for work to cease if

adverse impacts become evident, which should be reviewed by a panel with

appropriate expertise in the management of dredging activities and marine

ecosystems. However, the proposed dredging will place further pressure on an

ecosystem under stress, and to address those cumulative impacts, the proponent

is required to implement an offset strategy which will have a net benefit for the

Great Barrier Reef by reducing the total sediment and nutrient load originating from

onshore. NQBP should also undertake a process of investigating an alternative

dredge site in addition to the current site outlined in the draft PER, in order to

address public concerns about the potential environmental impacts at the current

site. The investigation has the caveat that any alternative sites should only be

considered in the context of demonstrating that potential impacts to the

environment are further reduced from those likely to occur at the current proposed

site.

10.7. Alternatives

10.7.1. NQBP outlined a process to evaluate options for re-use and disposal of dredge

material through a multi criteria analysis (draft PER, pages 2.11 to 2-25). That

analysis concluded that disposal of dredge material at the site shown on map 1

was the best option. After the public comment period for the draft PER closed,

NQBP held several workshops with the department and GBRMPA to further

discuss options for extending trestles for terminals to obviate the need for dredging

and also reviewed onshore disposal options.

10.7.2. Some of the options to extend the trestles were not considered feasible due to

maritime safety concerns. NQBP costed other trestle extension options at

$1.35 billion for no dredging, and $430 million for reduced dredging of

0.5 million m³ of sediment (Supplementary PER, pages 5-19 to 5-41), additional to

the cost of the proposed terminals mentioned in section 3.1.2. Those options would

also extend the proposed coal terminals into the Marine Park and at best would

allow for no net increase in additional impacts through the dispersion of fine

sediments.

10.7.3. In addition, NQBP provided information on several options for the onshore

disposal of dredged material. NQBP costed those options at $120 to $460 million,

noting that they would also have other environmental impacts that would require

further assessment. As mentioned in section 7.3, GBRMPA undertook a series of

technical studies in relation to improved dredge management in the Great Barrier

Reef. That included a ‘Literature Review and Cost Analysis of Land-based Dredge

Material Re-use and Disposal Options’ (SKM 2013e). The study reached similar

conclusions to NQBP’s assessment of the options to re-use and dispose of the

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 42 of 56

dredge material onshore and the costs involved. In order to further evaluate those

alternatives, a further comprehensive assessment would be required of each option

in order to consider the range of impacts they would have.

10.7.4. The department concludes that the various alternative options to dredging and

offshore disposal of dredged material would involve significant expenditure, and

would require full assessments to determine whether they would potentially reduce

expected environmental impacts to any degree. A decision to allow offshore

disposal of dredged material, with a requirement to offset any additional fine

sediments through onshore actions, has the benefit of facilitating a long term

reduction in the fine sediment load entering the Marine Park in a cost effective

manner. That option would yield a net benefit for the Marine Park.

11. Cumulative impacts on the region

11.1. In addition to the coal terminal projects at Abbot Point, there are eight major

EPBC projects in the region currently under assessment – see section 5 for a list of the

other projects.

11.2. The proponent is proposing mitigation and offset measures relating to cumulative

impacts in the Abbot Point region. These measures are being informed by the Abbot

Point Cumulative Impact Assessment (Part E, page 18-2). Port wide management

measures and monitoring were recommended in that report as well as development of a

biodiversity management plan; measures to address climate change – such as port

design, and minimising greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operation.

Procedures to deal with ship groundings or collisions through enhanced management

arrangements were also proposed (Part C, chapter 13 – Shipping). The report proposes

the establishment of a joint management authority and Joint Environmental

Management Framework.

12. Shipping in the Great Barrier Reef

12.1. The Great Barrier Reef is recognised as a Particularly Sensitive Sea Area by the

International Maritime Organisation. As such it requires special protection. The

International Maritime Organisation website states that ‘when an area is approved as a

particularly sensitive sea area, specific measures can be used to control the maritime

activities in that area, such as routeing measures, strict application of MARPOL

discharge and equipment requirements for ships, such as oil tankers; and installation of

Vessel Traffic Services.’

12.2. A report on North East Shipping Risk Assessment was undertaken by

Det Norske Veritas (DVN 2013) for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority. That report

assessed current shipping traffic and projected future shipping traffic in 2020 and 2032.

Addressing the potential future risks of increased shipping traffic, the report makes a

number of recommendations to reduce risks relating to pilotage, port state control

(inspection of foreign ships) and monitoring of ship positions.

12.3. A review of shipping in the Great Barrier Reef was prepared for the Abbot Point

Working Group Cumulative Impact Assessment (PGM Environment, 2012). The review

provided an analysis of current and forecast shipping activity in the Great Barrier Reef.

It concluded that routine shipping presented no substantial risk of lasting damage to the

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 43 of 56

Great Barrier Reef and the forecast increased shipping traffic would present minimal

change in overall risk if managed correctly.

12.4. The review’s analysis of impacts and risks to the Great Barrier Reef found that

shipping operations are well managed and would continue to improve in order to

address increased shipping volumes and any associated risks. In comparison to world

practices, the management of shipping in the Great Barrier Reef was seen as

comparable to the very highest standards (page 135). However, the review also

highlighted the need to address any potential risk change due to the likely increase in

shipping and capacity of existing management procedures. Some 30 recommendations

were made to address emergent risks, including an initial ‘action list’ intended to guide

responses to risks and knowledge gaps (table 31, page 137 of the report).

12.5. The department concludes that the implementation of the relevant actions from

the report for the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the review for the Abbot Point

Working Group will address future risks of increased shipping in the Great Barrier Reef.

The management of shipping for the whole Great Barrier Reef should be considered

through the strategic assessment process outlined in section 7.3.

13. Offsets

13.1. NQBP has provided an Offsets Discussion Paper in the PER Supplementary

Report at Appendix C. That report states that the proposed activity will not result in a

significant impact on matters of national environmental significance based on an

analysis using the significance criteria for matters of national environmental significance

under the EPBC Act (Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts,

2009). In determining the significance of the activity the proponent should also consider

that the criteria are intended to provide general guidance on the types of actions that

will require approval and the types of actions that will not require approval. They are not

intended to be exhaustive or definitive. Undertaking an action that will add further

pressure to a widely acknowledged stressed ecosystem of the Great Barrier Reef

provides the basis for determining that the action is likely to have a significant impact.

13.2. The EPBC Act Offsets Policy (October 2012) notes that offsetting in poorly

understood ecosystems such as the marine environment is challenging. However it

states that ‘conservation gain in the marine environment may include improving

protection of important protected species habitat, such as sea grass, or by addressing

pressures on the protected matter or its habitat, such as removing derelict fishing nets

and other marine debris.’

13.3. NQBP’s discussion paper provides the basis for considering a number of water

quality improvement opportunities to protect and enhance terrestrial, freshwater and

marine habitats and communities within local catchments. These opportunities have

been identified in close consultation with North Queensland Dry Tropics NRM group,

which considers that the overall health and resilience of the coastal and inshore

ecosystems associated with these catchments would be strengthened through the

proponent’s involvement.

13.4. Within the broader context of pressures on the reef (e.g. long term legacy

impacts from agricultural runoff, clearly outside of Port influence) a number of measures

are proposed to help address key issues affecting the marine environment. In order to

maintain the integrity of the outstanding universal values of the Great Barrier Reef

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 44 of 56

World Heritage area, effective conservation programs are essential across the adjoining

catchments, marine and coastal zones.

13.5. An offsets and enhancement strategy is being developed that will provide a

range of measures to ensure positive outcomes for the Great Barrier Reef. Those

measures will principally take the form of:

Fish habitat offsets that are required under Queensland legislation will also

provide a concurrent benefit as offsets for matters protected under the

EPBC Act. Those offsets focus on seagrass habitat, so they will benefit those

species which rely on seagrass habitat, including dugong and turtles. One

option currently being considered is the installation of seagrass friendly screw

moorings in seagrass areas that currently are being impacted by traditional

moorings or free-anchoring. The installation and maintenance of seagrass

friendly moorings would allow recovery of seagrass in degraded areas,

protection in other areas and provide a long term benefit well beyond the

expected temporary duration of seagrass impacts.

Contributions to water quality enhancement programs implemented by the

North Queensland Dry Tropic Natural Resource Management group. These

programs would aim to address one of the key threats to water quality in the

GBR by tackling legacy terrestrial runoff issues. For example, one option would

be the development and implementation of a Water Quality Improvement Plan

for the Don River catchment (where Abbot Point is located), which is currently a

gap within the wider Burdekin Catchment Natural Resource Management Plan.

13.6. The offsets and enhancement strategy will be finalised in consultation with

Commonwealth agencies and implemented on commencement of dredging, noting the

need for a staged approach.

13.7. The department concludes that the proposed offsets address the need to

develop a strategy to require proposals that impact on the already stressed Great

Barrier Reef ecosystem to deliver a net benefit in the short to medium term.

14. Considerations for Approval and Conditions

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

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

provisions of the EPBC Act:

World heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A);

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

Listed threatened species and ecological communities (sections 18 and 18A);

Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A);

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

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

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 45 of 56

14.2. Mandatory considerations – section 136(1)(b) Economic and social matters

14.2.1. The proposed project will facilitate the development of three new terminals at the

Port of Abbot Point. NQBP states in the draft PER that the project will support 20 to

30 workers over a total period of approximately eight to ten weeks in the Bowen

region.

14.2.2. Great Barrier Reef ports fast facts:

a) average annual throughput of GBR ports (2006-2011): 196 million tonnes

b) approximate value of export trades from GBR ports (2011-2012): $40 billion

c) portion of total volume of throughput in Queensland annually (2010-2011): 78 per

cent

d) portion of total throughput volume at GBR ports from coal (2010-2011): 79 per

cent.

14.2.3. NQBP states in the supplementary PER (Appendix E) that the proposed project

would have potential impacts on commercial and recreational fisheries. The report

identified a number of recommendations for mitigation measures, ongoing

monitoring to address data gaps and a structural adjustment program for

commercial fishing operators to prevent displacement of commercial fishing.

14.2.4. The department has considered economic and social matters in recommending

the proposed approval, including the conditions, for this project.

14.3. Factors to be taken into account – section 391 Precautionary Principle

14.3.1. The precautionary principle states that the lack of full scientific certainty should

not be used as a reason for postponing a measure to prevent degradation of the

environment where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage.

14.3.2. The Mission Report of the World Heritage Committee expressed concerns about

threats to the long-term prospects for the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great

Barrier Reef. It also recommended that future port development be restricted to

existing and long-established major port areas. The proposal will result in further

development of the existing Port of Abbot Point.

14.3.3. In the judgement of Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006]

NSWLEC 133, Justice Preston found that:

166. The precautionary principle embraces the concept of proportionality. The

concept of proportionality is that measures should not go beyond what is

appropriate and necessary in order to achieve the objectives in question. Where

there is a choice between several appropriate measures, recourse should be had

to the least onerous measure and the disadvantages caused should not be

disproportionate to the aims pursued.

14.3.4. NQBP has acknowledged that the Great Barrier Reef is under stress and has

proposed offset measures to ensure that a net benefit outcome is achieved, by

reducing impacts associated with onshore legacy activities. The alternatives

options outlined in section 10.7 are considered financially onerous in terms of the

outcomes required to improve the health of the Great Barrier Reef, and will not in

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 46 of 56

themselves reduce the primary sources of sediments and nutrients which originate

onshore.

14.3.5. In addition, NQBP has provided scientific evidence that the damage generally

caused by dredging is not irreversible. That evidence includes monitoring of the

recovery of previous dredge disposal sites.

14.4. Factors to be taken into account – section 136(2)(a) Principles of ecologically

sustainable development

14.4.1. One of the objects of the EPBC Act is to promote ecologically sustainable

development through the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of natural

resources. Section 3A of the EPBC Act lists the principles of ecologically

sustainable development as follows:

(a) decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and

short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations;

14.4.1.1. NQBP undertook a multi criteria analysis of options for the dredging and

disposal of dredged material. In recommending the approval of this proposal,

the department has considered the long and short-term economic impacts as

well as other environmental, social and equitable impacts in accordance with

section 3A(a) of the EPBC Act. The department considers that the likely

impacts on the environment as a result of this project are satisfactory in terms

of the long term, short term social and equitable impacts.

14.4.1.2. Some of the key ecological, physical and chemical processes that are

essential for the long-term conservation of the marine and island ecosystems

and their associated biodiversity occur outside the boundaries of the property

and thus effective conservation programs are essential across the adjoining

catchments, marine and coastal zones.

(b) if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full

scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to

prevent environmental degradation;

14.4.1.3. See section 14.3.

(c) the principle of inter-generational equity – that the present generation should

ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is

maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;

14.4.1.4. The department has taken the principle of inter-generation equity into

consideration in recommending the project be approved. The recommended

conditions of approval will ensure protection of the Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Area and National Heritage Place, the Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park, listed migratory and threatened species and communities. Those

recommended conditions allow for the project to be delivered and operated in

a sustainable way to protect the matters protected under the EPBC Act,

including the outstanding universal values of the World Heritage property and

the environment for future generations.

(d) the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a

fundamental consideration in decision-making;

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 47 of 56

14.4.1.5. The department has considered the importance of conserving biological

diversity and ecological integrity in relation to all of the controlling provisions

for this project, and the advice provided within this document reflects that

consideration. The department has recommended conditions which will

mitigate and offset the loss of seagrass habitat for listed threatened species

and listed migratory species. The department also considers that the

conditions will provide for the protection of the biodiversity values of the Great

Barrier Reef which are key features of the World and National Heritage values

of the place.

(e) improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.

14.4.1.6. The implementation of the offsets strategy demonstrates how the

proposal will result in a net benefit for the health of the Great Barrier Reef

through improved valuation of the outstanding universal values of the World

Heritage property.

14.5. Factors to be taken into account – section 136(2)(c) – public environment report

14.5.1. In accordance with section 136(2)(c)(i), the finalised public environment report

(draft PER and PER Supplementary Report) relating to the action given to the

Minister under section 99 is at Attachments E and F to the proposed decision

brief.

14.5.2. In accordance with section 136(2)(c)(ii), this document forms the

recommendation report relating to the action given to the Minster under

section 100.

14.6. Requirements for decisions about World Heritage – section 137

14.6.1. In deciding whether or not to approve, for the purposes of section 12 or 15A, the

taking of an action and what conditions to attach to such an approval, the Minister

must not act inconsistently with:

(a) Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention; or

(b) the Australian World Heritage management principles; or

(c) a plan that has been prepared for the management of a declared World

Heritage property under section 316 or as described in section 321.

14.6.2. Note the requirements of the World Heritage Convention at:

http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf. On the basis of the recommended

mitigation measures and offsets outlined in this report, the department considers

that approval, and the proposed conditions, would not be inconsistent with the

above obligations.

14.6.3. Note the World Heritage management principles at schedule 5 of the EPBC

Regulations:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/epabcr2000697/sch5.html.

14.6.4. An assessment process, which included public review and technical input, was

undertaken in accordance with the management principles. The department

considers that approval of this action, and the proposed conditions, would not be

inconsistent with the World Heritage management principles.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 48 of 56

14.6.5. A plan of management for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area has not

been prepared under sections 316 or 321 of the EPBC Act.

14.7. Requirements for decisions about National Heritage places– section 137A

14.7.1. In deciding whether or not to approve for the purposes of section 15B or 15C the

taking of an action, and what conditions to attach to such an approval, the Minister

must not act inconsistently with:

(a) the National Heritage management principles; or

(b) an agreement to which the Commonwealth is party in relation to a National

Heritage place; or

(c) a plan that has been prepared for the management of a National Heritage

place under section 324S or as described in section 324X.

14.7.2. Note the National Heritage management principles at schedule 5B of the EPBC

Regulations:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/epabcr2000697/sch5b.html.

14.7.3. An assessment process, which included public review and technical input, has

been undertaken in accordance with the management principles. The department

considers that approval of this action, and the proposed conditions, would not be

inconsistent with the National Heritage management principles

14.7.4. The Commonwealth has not reached agreement with any party in relation to the

management of the National Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef. A

management plan for the Great Barrier Reef has not been prepared under

section 324 of the EPBC Act.

14.8. Requirements for decisions about threatened species and endangered

communities – section 139

14.8.1. (1) In deciding whether or not to approve for the purposes of a subsection of

section 18 or section 18A the taking of an action, and what conditions to attach to

such an approval, the Minister must not act inconsistently with:

(a) Australia’s obligations under:

(i) the Biodiversity Convention; or

(ii) the Apia Convention; or

(iii) CITES; or

(b) a recovery plan or threat abatement plan.

14.8.2. Note the above conventions at the following links:

http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1990/41.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1976/29.html

14.8.3. The 1976 Convention on Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (the Apia

Convention) was suspended with effect from 13 September 2006, as all Parties

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 49 of 56

were also Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity which encompasses the

subject matter of the Apia Convention. Although the convention has been

suspended, Australia’s obligations under that Convention were taken into account

in the assessment process.

14.8.4. The Convention on the Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (Apia

Convention), which was suspended with effect from 13 September 2006, is

available for your consideration at:

www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/RecordDetails?id=TRE-000540&index=treaties.

14.8.5. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna

and Flora (CITES) is available for your consideration at: www.cites.org

14.8.6. On the basis of the analysis undertaken in this report, the following listed

threatened species were considered likely to be impacted by the proposal:

Humpback Whale;

Loggerhead Turtle;

Green Turtle;

Hawksbill Turtle;

Olive Ridley Turtle; and

Flatback Turtle

14.8.7. The recovery plans relevant to this proposal are at Appendix L to the proposed

decision brief They are:

Environment Australia (EA), 2003, Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in

Australia - July 2003; and

Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2005, Humpback

Whale Recovery Plan 2005 – 2010, DEH, Canberra.

14.8.8. The above listed threatened species are mentioned in one or more of the

following threat abatement plans.

The Threat abatement plan for the impacts of marine debris on vertebrate marine life references the Flatback Turtle, Green Turtle, Hawksbill Turtle, Loggerhead Turtle, Olive Ridley Turtle and Humpback Whale. The plan is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/marine-debris.html.

The Threat Abatement Plan for Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs references the Hawksbill Turtle and Flatback Turtle. The plan is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pig.html.

The Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox references the Loggerhead Turtle, Green Turtle and Flatback Turtle. The plan is available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/foxes08.html.

14.8.9. The department has taken into consideration Australia’s obligations, recovery

plans and threat abatement plans and the likely impacts of the proposed action on

listed threatened species and determined that the proposal would not be

inconsistent with the above obligations or the recovery/abatement plans. The

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 50 of 56

department has determined that these impacts will be acceptable, based on the

temporary nature of most of the impacts outlined in this report, provided the action

is undertaken in accordance with the recommended conditions and is consistent

with the mitigation and offset measures recommended by the department.

14.8.10. (2) If:

(a) the Minister is considering whether to approve, for the purposes of a

subsection of section 18 or section 18A, the taking of an action; and

(b) the action has or will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on a

particular listed threatened species or a particular listed threatened

ecological community; the Minister must, in deciding whether to so approve

the taking of the action, have regard to any approved conservation advice for

the species or community.

14.8.11. The action is considered to have, or likely to have, a significant impact on

the following listed threatened species and endangered communities:

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae);

Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta);

Pacific Ridley, Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea);

Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas);

Leathery Turtle, Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea);

Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate); and

Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus).

14.8.12. The approved conservation advice relevant to this project is the:

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008, Commonwealth

Conservation Advice on Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback Turtle).

14.8.13. The department has taken into consideration conservation advice and the

likely impacts of the proposed action on listed threatened species and determined

that the proposal would not be inconsistent with the conservation advice. The

department has determined that these impacts will be acceptable, based on the

temporary nature of most of the impacts outlined in this report, provided the action

is undertaken in accordance with the recommended conditions and is consistent

with the mitigation and offset measures recommended by the department.

14.9. Requirements for decisions about migratory species – section 140

14.9.1. In deciding whether or not to approve for the purposes of section 20 or 20A the

taking of an action relating to a listed migratory species, and what conditions to

attach to such an approval, the Minister must not act inconsistently with Australia’s

obligations under whichever of the following conventions and agreements because

of which the species is listed:

(a) the Bonn Convention;

(b) CAMBA;

(c) JAMBA;

(d) an international agreement approved under subsection 209(4).

14.9.2. This section requires that you must not act inconsistently with Australia’s

obligations under the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention),

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 51 of 56

the Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), the China-Australia

Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) or the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory

Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA).

14.9.3. The Bonn Convention is available for your consideration at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/ATS/1991/32.html.

14.9.4. CAMBA is available for your consideration at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1988/22.html.

14.9.5. JAMBA is available for your consideration at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1981/6.html.

14.9.6. ROKAMBA is available for your consideration at:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/2007/24.html.

14.9.7. The department has taken these agreements into account for this project

assessment and has given consideration to the likely impacts of the proposed

action on listed migratory species, in particular on:

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaengliae);

Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta);

Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas);

Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate);

Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus);

Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea);

Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea);

Dugong (Dugong dugon);

Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni);

Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis);and

Saltwater Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus).

14.10. The department has taken into consideration the likely impacts of the proposed action

on listed migratory species and determined that the proposal would not be inconsistent

with the above obligations. The department has determined that these impacts will be

acceptable, based on the temporary nature of most of the impacts outlined in this

report, provided the action is undertaken in accordance with the recommended

conditions and is consistent with the mitigation and offset measures recommended by

the department.

14.11. Bioregional Plans – section 176(5)

14.11.1. In accordance with section 176(5), the Minister is required to have regard

to a bioregional plan in making any decision under the Act to which the plan is

relevant.

14.11.2. There is currently no bioregional plan for the Coral Sea marine reserve,

which is the one most closely located near the action – surrounds GBRMPA.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 52 of 56

14.12. Person’s environmental history – section 136(4)

14.12.1. NQBP’s documentation notes that it has a satisfactory record of

responsible environmental management and references the following management

documents to support this:

Port of Abbot Point Draft Environmental Management Plan in place (NQBP,

2009)

Environment Policy which covers all of NQBP’s activities

Environment Management System that is externally certified as being compliant

with the international standard AS/NZS ISO 14001: 2004.

14.12.2. NQBP has also referred a number of other actions under the EPBC Act:

Abbot Point Multi Cargo Facility Project (EPBC 2009/4837)

X110 Expansion: Dredging Project (EPBC 2008/4438)

X110 Expansion: Infrastructure Development Project (EPBC 2008/4468)

Abbot Point Coal Terminal Stage 3 (X50) Expansion (EPBC 2005/2154)

Additional dredging at Abbot Point associated with X30 (maintenance and apron

area) (EPBC 2007/3884)

Port of Hay Point Berth and Apron Area Capital Dredging (EPBC 2004/1775)

Seismic and sonar surveys – Abbot Point (EPBC 2008/4289)

14.12.3. NQBP advised in the draft PER that there are no proceedings against the

corporation in relation to any non-compliance with any Commonwealth or State.

NQBP also stated that the planning framework relevant to the project is in

accordance with the Port of Abbot Point Environmental Management Plan and

Land Use Plan (2010).

14.13. Considerations in deciding on condition – section 134

14.13.1. In accordance with section 134(1), the Minister may attach a condition to

the approval of the action if he or she is satisfied that the condition is necessary or

convenient for:

(a) protecting a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval

has effect (whether or not the protection is protection from the action); or

(b) repairing or mitigating damage to a matter protected by a provision of Part 3

for which the approval has effect (whether or not the damage has been, will be

or is likely to be caused by the action).

14.13.1.1. As detailed in the assessment section above, all recommended

conditions attached to the proposed approval are necessary or convenient to

protect, repair and/or mitigate impacts on a matter protected by provision of

Part 3 for which this proposed approval has effect.

14.13.2. In accordance with section 134(4), in deciding whether to attach a

condition to an approval the Minister must consider:

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 53 of 56

(a) any relevant conditions that have been imposed, or the Minister considers are

likely to be imposed, under a law of a State or self-governing Territory or

another law of the Commonwealth on the taking of the action;

14.13.2.1. The project is not being assessed by the Queensland Government. An

application for a sea dumping permit under the Environment Protection (Sea

Dumping) Act 1981 has been lodged with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Authority for assessment. If a sea dumping permit is to be approved, any

conditions should be compatible with the requirements imposed under the

EPBC Act.

(a) information provided by the person proposing to take the action or by the

designated proponent of the action; and

14.13.2.2. The information provided by the person proposing to take the action has

been considered. Documentation provided by the person taking the action is

at Attachments E, F , I, K, M, O and R to the proposed decision brief.

(b) the desirability of ensuring as far as practicable that the condition is a cost

effective means for the Commonwealth and a person taking the action to

achieve the object of the condition.

14.13.2.3. The department considers that the proposed conditions outlined in this

report are a cost effective means of achieving the environmental objective of

mitigating potential impacts. They would require the proponent to undertake

measures that have been proposed and described by the proponent in the

PER documents at Attachments E and F to the proposed decision brief or

that have been developed in consultation with the relevant authorities. The

person proposed to take the action will be given 10 business days to comment

on the proposed decision, and the practicability of proposed conditions.

15. Conclusion

15.1. The proposed action is likely to impact on the outstanding universal values of a

World heritage property, a National heritage place, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park,

the Commonwealth marine area, listed threatened species and ecological communities,

and listed migratory species. The department considers that the likely impacts of the

proposed action on all of those matters will be acceptable, provided the action is

undertaken in accordance with the recommended conditions and consistent with the

mitigation and offset measures recommended by the department. Having considered all

matters required to be considered under the EPBC Act, the department recommends

the proposed action be approved, subject to the recommended conditions.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 54 of 56

16. References

ANZECC & ARMCANZ, 2000, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Volume 1. The Guidelines. October 2000.

Bainbridge, Z.T., Wolanski, E. & Álvarez-Romero, J.G. 2012, Fine sediment and nutrient dynamics related to particle size and floc formation in a Burdekin River flood plume, Australia, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 65, 236-248.

CDM Smith 2013, Abbot Point, Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 Capital Dredging Public Environment Report Supplementary Report, prepared for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, May 2013.

CDM Smith 2013, Abbot Point, Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 Capital Dredging Public Environment Report Supplementary Report Appendices, prepared for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, May 2013.

Chartrand K.M., Ralph P.J., Petrou K. & Rasheed M.A. 2012 Development of a Light-Based

Seagrass Management Approach for the Gladstone Western Basin Dredging Program. DAFF

Publication. Fisheries Queensland, Cairns.

Department of Environment and Resource Management 2009, Queensland Water Quality Guidelines, version 3, Queensland Government, September 2009.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 2009, Matters of National Environmental Significance. Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, Commonwealth of Australia, October 2009.

Department of the Premier and Cabinet 2009, Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, Queensland Government, Brisbane.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Populations and Communities 2012, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy, Commonwealth of Australia, October 2012.

DNV 2013, North East Shipping Risk Assessment, rev 1, Report for Australian Maritime Safety Authority, February 2013.

Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd, Open Lines Consulting Pty Ltd & Abbot Point Working Group 2013, Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment. February 2013.

Erftemeijer, P.L.A. & Robin Lewis III, R.R. 2006, Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrass: A review, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 52, 1553-1572.

Erftemeijer, P.L.A., Riegl, B., Hoeksema, B.W. & Todd, P.A. 2012, Environmental impacts of dredging and other sediment disturbances on corals: A review, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 64, 1737-1765.

GHD 2010, Proposed Abbot Point Multi Cargo Facility Environmental Impact Statement, prepared for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation.

GHD 2012a, Abbot Point, Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 Capital Dredging Public Environment Report, prepared for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, December 2012.

GHD 2012b, Abbot Point, Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 Capital Dredging Public Environment Report Appendices – Volume 1 of 2, prepared for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, December 2012.

GHD 2012c, Abbot Point, Terminal 0, Terminal 2 and Terminal 3 Capital Dredging Public Environment Report Appendices – Volume 2 of 2, prepared for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, December 2012.

GHD 2012d, Terminals 0, 2 and 3, Abbot Point, Queensland, Capital Dredging Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report, report for North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation Limited

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 55 of 56

GHD 2013, International Best Practice Environmental Standards for Ports Draft Report, prepared for Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, April 2013.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2009, Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report, Townsville.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2010, Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, rev edn, Townsville.

Great Barrier Reef Second Report Card 2010 Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2013, Queensland Government.

Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment Reports (drafts) – marine and adjacent coastal zone (two reports); released for public comment 1 November 2013 (closing 31 January 2014)

Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone – report on findings, July 2013

Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone – supplementary report, October 2013

Kroon, F.J., Kuhnert, P.M. & Henderson B.L. 2012, River loads of suspended solids, nitrogen, phosphorus and herbicides delivered to the Great Barrier Reef lagoon, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 65, 167-181.

Land and Environment Court of New South Wales 2006, Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council [2006] NSWLEC 133.

Maynard, S. 2013, email, 1.1 Project Modifications, 5 June 2013.

McKenna, S., Rasheed, M. & Unsworth, R. 2008, Port of Abbot Point Seagrass Baseline Surveys – Wet and Dry Season 2008, DPI&F Publication PRO8-4140, Queensland Government.

National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Orpin, A.R., Ridd, P.V. & Stewart, L.K. 1999, Assessment of the relative importance of major sediment-transport mechanisms in the central Great Barrier Reef lagoon, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences: An International Geoscience Journal of the Geological Society of Australia, 46:6, 883-896.

McKenna, S.A. & Rasheed, M.A. 2011, Port of Abbot Point Long-Term Seagrass Monitoring: Update Report 2008-2011, DEEDI Publication, Fisheries Queensland, Cairns.

PGM Environment 2012, Great Barrier Reef Shipping: Review of Environmental Implications, prepared for Abbot Point Working Group, 22 October 2012.

Port Trade Statistics, Ports Australia; Office of Economic and Statistical Research (as cited in Queensland Government draft Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy, 2012)

Queensland Ports Strategy (draft), The State of Queensland, Department State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, October 2013

Rasheed, M., Thomas, R. & McKenna, S. 2005, Port of Abbot Point seagrass, algae and benthic macro-invertebrate community survey – March 2005, DPI&F Information Series QI05044, Queensland Government.

Recovery Plans: Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia 2003, Commonwealth of Australia, July 2003. Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005-2010, Natural Heritage Trust, Department of Environment and Heritage, Commonwealth of Australia

SKM & APASA 2013a, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Identification of Alternative Sites for the Placement of Dredge Material at Sea, rev 1.3, 10 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.

SKM & APASA 2013b, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Sensitive Receptor Risk Assessment of Alternative and Current Dredge Material Placement Sites, rev 2.3, 10 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.

EPBC 2011/6213

Page 56 of 56

SKM & APASA 2013c, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Modelling of Bed Shear-Stress in the Vicinity of Queensland Trading Ports in the Great Barrier Reef Region, rev 1.2, 10 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.

SKM & APASA 2013d, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Modelling Sediment Migration from Current and Hypothetical Alternative Placement Sites, rev 2.5, 12 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.

SKM 2013e, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Literature Review and Cost Analysis of Land-based Dredge Material Re-use and Disposal Options, rev 2.4, 15 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.

SKM 2013, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Water Quality Review and Monitoring Framework, rev 2.2, 10 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.

SKM & APASA 2013, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Synthesis Report, rev 1.3, 15 July 2013, Report to GBRMPA.

SKM 2013, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region. Strategies for Improved Dredge Material Management, rev 0, 10 June 2013, Report to GBRMPA.

State Party Report on the State Of Conservation of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (Australia) in Response to the World Heritage Committee Decision 2013, Commonwealth of Australia, February 2013.

United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization 2012, Mission Report. Reactive Monitoring Mission to great Barrier Reef (Australia). 6th to 14th March 2012, Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, World Heritage Committee, Thirty-sixth session, 24 June – 6 July 2012, Saint Petersburg.

Vision Environment (2012). WBDDP Water Quality Monitoring – Methodology Overview: Version 2, July 2012. Gladstone, QLD

Wolanski, E, Fabricius, K.E. & Cooper, T.F. 2007, Wet season fine dynamics on the inner shelf of the Great Barrier Reef, Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited.