INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE
PORT OF GLADSTONE
Report on Findings
July 2013
1
© Commonwealth of Australia 2013
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be
reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and
enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to Department of Sustainability,
Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Public Affairs, GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 or email
public.affairs@environment.gov.au
The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
those of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Water.
While reasonable efforts have been made to ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct,
the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and
shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or
reliance on, the contents of this publication.
2
Contents
Glossary
7
List of shortened forms
8
Executive summary
10
Findings and recommendations
12
1. Introduction
15
Background
15
Review process
17
Preliminary matters
18
Study area – Port of Gladstone
19
Environmental management and governance
21
References
24
2. Outstanding Universal Value
25
Introduction
25
The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
25
The Port of Gladstone and surrounds
26
Protection of Outstanding Universal Value
29
Conclusion
30
References
30
3. Previous Reviews and Development Approvals
32
Introduction
32
Information used as a basis of existing approvals
34
Projects currently undergoing assessment
38
Conclusion
38
4. Planning, Development and Management
40
Introduction
40
Port of Gladstone 50 Year Strategic Plans
40
Gladstone Ports Corporation land use plans
42
LNG Site Selection Study
42
Gladstone State Development Area
43
The Western Basin Master Plan
44
3
Planning issues
45
Conclusion
46
5. Environmental Concerns and Performance
47
Introduction
47
Key Pressures
47
Environmental concerns raised
50
Post approval compliance of approved developments
56
Conclusion
58
References
58
6. Port Optimisation
60
Introduction
60
Defining ‘best practice’
60
Further information required
60
Conclusion
61
7. Programs and Arrangements
62
Introduction
62
Requirements of the Queensland Government
62
Requirements of EPBC Act approvals
65
Other initiatives
67
Integration of water quality governance measures
68
Public confidence
70
Conclusion
71
8. Implications for Traditional Owners and the Local Community
72
Introduction
72
Indigenous matters relating to development in Gladstone
72
Implications for local community
73
Conclusion
74
Appendix 1: Review Panel
75
Appendix 2: Table of Submissions
77
Appendix 3: Information Considered
78
Appendix 4: Table of Meetings
84
4
Appendix 5: Outstanding Universal Value
88
Appendix 6: OUV Attributes Expressed in the Port of Gladstone and Surrounds
91
Appendix 7: Developments and Permits
93
Appendix 8: Improvements to the Assessment and Approval Process since 2009
96
5
Figures and tables
Figure 1:
Port of Gladstone
19
Figure 2:
Port of Gladstone and surrounds
20
Figure 3:
Conceptual framework for environmental management and governance
23
Figure 4:
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
26
Figure 5:
The Port of Gladstone in 1981, 1999 and 2012
33
Figure 6:
Gladstone State Development Area
44
Figure 7:
Gladstone Airport Monthly Rainfall from 2009 to April 2013
48
Figure 8:
Land use and habitat changes in the Boyne and Calliope catchments
49
Figure 9:
Catchment loads of nutrients and sediments delivered to Port Curtis
49
Figure 10: Turtle strandings in Queensland ‘hotspot’ regions for the period 1 January 2009 – 30 April 2013 53
Table 1:
Heavy industry located adjacent to the Port of Gladstone
49
Table 2:
Port of Gladstone turtle strandings data
53
6
Glossary
ANZECC guidelines: Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council guidelines for fresh
and marine water quality (2000).
Comprehensive strategic assessment: The Comprehensive Strategic Assessment of the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area and adjacent coastal zone.
The department: The Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population
and Communities.
Environmental authorities: Legal instruments of authority relating to environmental protection legislation
including but not limited to approvals, licences and permits.
EPBC approvals: approvals under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
The Minister: The Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities (title at the time the Review was commissioned) or the Australian Government Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Water (current title).
Operational Guidelines: the Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
Port of Gladstone: the area defined by the Port of Gladstone Port Limits together with adjoining islands and
landside areas, including reclamation areas, that support existing or consented industrial developments or
are proposed to cater for future port-related industrial activities and supporting infrastructure.
QASSIT guidelines: Queensland Acid Sulfate Soils Investigation Team guidelines for Acid Sulfate Soil
Management.
The Review: The Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone
Sea Dumping Permits: Permits provided under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping)
Act 1981
World Heritage Convention: Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and National
Heritage, adopted on 16 November 1972
7
List of shortened forms
AMSA: Australian Maritime Safety Authority
DEHP: Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
DSEWPaC: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
DTRP: Dredge Technical Reference Panel
EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment
EIS: Environmental Impact Statement
EPBC Act: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
ERMP: Port Curtis and Port Alma Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program
FFVS: Future Fisheries Veterinary Service
GBRMP: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
GBRMPA: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
GBRWHA: Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
GHHP: Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership
GPA: Gladstone Ports Authority
GPC: Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited
IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature
LNG: Liquefied Natural Gas
MNES: Matters of National Environmental Significance
NAGD: National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009
NPI: National Pollutant Inventory data
OUV: Outstanding Universal Value
PASS: Potential Acid Sulfate Soil
PCCC: Port Curtis and Coral Coast Traditional Owners
PCIMP: Port Curtis Integrated Monitoring Program
QCLNG: Queensland Curtis Liquefied Natural Gas
QER: Queensland Energy Resources
SAP: Sampling and Analysis Plan
SDA: State Development Area
ToR: Terms of Reference
TUMRA: Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreement
8
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
WBDDP: Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project
WHC: World Heritage Committee
WICT: Wiggins Island Coal Terminal
9
Executive summary
The Port of Gladstone is the largest bulk commodity port in Queensland and the sixth largest in Australia. The
area below the low water mark is within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA). The area is
important for cultural and social reasons, used and valued by Traditional Owners, residents and visitors and
it contains environmental attributes that contribute to the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the Great
Barrier Reef.
The Port of Gladstone existed well before the Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the World Heritage List in
1981 and the existing port limits have been in place since 1955. The port has expanded its capacity and
development footprint since that time. There is a range of industries serviced by the port including
agriculture, coal, bauxite and liquefied natural gas (LNG). The major industrial development in the area has
occurred since the 1950s. The proximity of Gladstone to the resource extraction areas, sheltered waters, deep
water and shipping channels has made the Port of Gladstone a critical link in the national, state and local
freight network.
The protection of the environment while economic growth is facilitated is often subject to a broad range of
stakeholder views. In the GBRWHA, ports have become a key focus of attention. Ports occur in visible and
sensitive inshore areas and involve activities that are necessary for economic performance and growth that
can impact the environment both within and outside the port area. Planning, regulatory and management
systems by multiple levels of government, designed to facilitate economic growth and maintain their function
in the national, state and regional freight network, are often complex and poorly understood by the
community.
In 2010 and 2011 the approval of three LNG processing facilities on Curtis Island attracted international
concern. Following significant weather events in early 2011 (including category five Cyclone Yasi), further
concerns about the health of the Port of Gladstone emerged. In this context, the World Heritage Committee
requested Australia to report regularly on progress in responding to its decisions and invite a reactive
monitoring mission to visit the area. A joint World Heritage Centre / International Union for Conservation of
Nature (IUCN) reactive monitoring mission visited the Great Barrier Reef in March 2012. The mission heard
strong concerns from some groups about the environmental management and governance of the Port of
Gladstone and called for an independent review by internationally recognised and widely respected scientific
experts. The World Heritage Committee (WHC) supported the mission’s recommendation in June 2012. This
Review commenced in February 2013.
The Review has found that environmental management and governance within the Port of Gladstone is
generally comprehensive. However, the multiple layers and mechanisms in place can contribute to
stakeholder confusion and mistrust. The three key areas for improvement are:
1. the need to incorporate world heritage and other environmental protection considerations in a
single, comprehensive and consultative port planning process
2. the need for assessment and consideration of cumulative impacts
3. the need for meaningful and ongoing stakeholder engagement to improve information and
community confidence in environmental management and governance.
The Port of Gladstone is one of the most studied ports in Australia. In general, the port and its industry
partners have invested in and used advanced environmental science and monitoring to inform decision
making. There are information gaps (for example, baseline information on fish health) but these gaps are not
unique to Gladstone, and steps have been taken to correct many of them. While there is substantial
monitoring in the port, community confidence in the science implemented by the port, industry and
governments appears to be very low.
10
Concerns were raised during the Review about inconsistent community engagement, withholding of data and
potential conflicts of interest. The Queensland Government has responded to this mistrust between users in
the Port of Gladstone by promoting the establishment of the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership,
supported by an Independent Science Panel. It has committed substantial funds for the next two years,
contingent on matching of recurrent funding by corporate partners. The partnership presents an excellent
opportunity for addressing environmental issues and building stakeholder and public confidence in the
future. However, it is yet to fully form, and industry partners are yet to commit funds.
It is possible to operate, manage and enhance the Port of Gladstone whilst also adequately protecting the
environmental attributes of the area. Understanding how the OUV of the GBRWHA is expressed in specific
areas has evolved substantially over time and quite recently for the Gladstone area. In particular, the
importance of the islands (especially Curtis Island), the Narrows and the relatively undeveloped coastline to
the north and south of the Port of Gladstone has become much more evident.
Port planning and site selection processes undertaken in the past by the Gladstone Ports Corporation and
the Queensland Government have not sufficiently addressed the world heritage setting of the port. The
existing plans cover different geographical extents, contributing to confusion and lack of confidence by
stakeholders. A single master plan for the entire Port of Gladstone, incorporating port land and the Gladstone
State Development Area, should be developed with meaningful stakeholder engagement and fully
incorporating protection of world heritage values.
Assessment of the cumulative impacts of multiple developments and other pressures (from both within and
outside the port area) has been limited. The comprehensive strategic assessment currently under way by the
Australian and Queensland Governments under the EPBC Act offers an important opportunity to examine and
improve some of the systemic issues in the way that ports are managed, expanded and understood. A single
master plan for the entire Port of Gladstone could be the subject of a focused strategic assessment under the
EPBC Act which would help to provide more certainty, ensure that future decisions in the port are made with the
best available information and encourage future growth in the most environmentally sensitive way.
Past decisions to approve major projects were made in accordance with relevant legal and administrative
requirements at the time of approval. Many of the environmental protection measures currently in place
within the Port of Gladstone are informed by research undertaken for the assessment processes, or
implemented as a result of conditions imposed through environmental approvals. Changes to assessment
and approval processes made since these developments were approved will lead to improved decisionmaking in the future. Continual improvement and adaptive management are fundamental to the ongoing
protection of the GBRWHA.
The environmental health of the Port of Gladstone has been variable over recent years. The fish health issues
in 2011 were alarming to many stakeholders and drew substantial attention. There is no clear single cause for
the conditions observed in 2011. They are likely to be the result of multiple pressures, in particular extreme
weather events and associated overcrowding from fish that moved into the area after overspilling Awoonga
Dam. These conditions have improved since 2011. Sampling and analysis of sediment and water
demonstrates that the dredged sediments are not contaminated to levels that would lead to toxicological
effects.
Although some of the findings and recommendations in this report relate to port optimisation, more time is
required to examine this topic adequately, noting that there is no globally agreed suite of measures or
standards for ‘best practice’ in the context of port development and operation. There is a range of work under
way by government, research and industry bodies that relates to port optimisation which was not completed
in time for detailed consideration in this report. The Review intends to deliver a supplement to this report
towards the end of 2013, focused on port optimisation.
The Review has considered and provided advice on significant areas for improvement in relation to the
matters outlined in the terms of reference. Context and justification for the findings and recommendations are
detailed in relevant chapters of the report. Some of the Recommendations may be relevant for other port
areas within and adjacent to the GBRWHA. The comprehensive strategic assessment currently under way
11
affords an opportunity to address some of these broader concerns.
Findings and recommendations
Chapter 1. Introduction
Recommendation 1. That the Minister publicly release this Report on Findings and allow for responses to be received
and considered in formulating the Australian Government’s response.
Chapter 2. Outstanding Universal Value of the Port of Gladstone and surrounds
Finding 1. The OUV of the GBRWHA is expressed in the Port of Gladstone.
Recommendation 2. That the Australian Government continue to refine and improve guidance and procedural
requirements for protection of OUV of the GBRWHA in response to increased understanding and other
advances in relevant science.
Chapter 3. Previous reviews and development approvals
Finding 2. Existing approvals for projects in the Port of Gladstone were made consistent with the world
heritage protection provisions of the EPBC Act at the time of the approvals.
Finding 3. There is no oil or gas exploration or extraction occurring on Curtis Island as part of the LNG plant
developments.
Finding 4. The sea dumping permits issued for the disposal of dredged material in the Port of Gladstone were
consistent with the requirements of the Sea Dumping Act at the time of approval.
Recommendation 3. That the Australian Government promote a consistent approach to presenting and
assessing world heritage impact information and investigate the development of impact thresholds and
targets for attributes of OUV.
Recommendation 4. That the Australian Government make EPBC approval recommendation reports publicly
available through the department’s website.
Recommendation 5. That the Australian Government reaffirm its position against mining exploration and
exploitation within the GBRWHA.
Recommendation 6. That the Australian Government implement an effective information management system
for sea dumping permits and subject the information to the same level of transparency as assessments under
the EPBC Act.
Recommendation 7. That the Australian Government build on the offsets policy launched in October 2012 and
establish a list of appropriate offsets for the GBRWHA.
Chapter 4. Planning, development and management
Finding 5. The current version of GPC’s 50 Year Strategic Plan is not likely to be adequate as a plan, policy or
program to form the basis of a strategic assessment under the EPBC Act.
Finding 6. There has been variable consideration of world heritage and environment matters in the state and
port strategic planning processes for the Port of Gladstone. When these matters were considered, there was
inadequate avoidance or mitigation of impacts to world heritage values.
Recommendation 8. That the Queensland Government not declare any more SDAs within or adjoining the
GBRWHA without detailed consideration of impacts to world heritage values and robust consultation,
including with the Australian Government.
Recommendation 9. That the Queensland Government and GPC consistently delineate between different port
12
areas in their plans (particularly between the Port of Rockhampton and the Port of Gladstone) and include
greater explanation in their public consultation processes.
Recommendation 10. That a single master plan be developed for the whole of the Port of Gladstone,
including strategic port land and the SDA, with full stakeholder engagement and fully considering
protection of environment and world heritage values in identifying areas for future expansion.
Chapter 5. Environmental concerns and performance
Finding 7. The ANZECC Guidelines contain a suitable framework for determining the species protection
guideline trigger levels for toxicants in water in the Port of Gladstone and have been appropriately applied.
Finding 8. The National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009 (NAGD) contain a robust framework for
determining the suitability for ocean disposal of dredged material from the Port of Gladstone.
Finding 9. Sediment sampling and analysis in the Port of Gladstone were undertaken in accordance with the
NAGD and the data showed that the sediments to be dredged were compliant with the requirements of the
NAGD for ocean disposal (i.e. all contaminants were below the 95 per cent UCL of relevant Screening Levels).
Finding 10. Dredging and disposal of PASS-containing sediments in the marine environment are unlikely to
result in either significant oxidation of this material, acid production, or release of significant quantities of
heavy metals to the water column.
Finding 11. There is no clear single cause identified for the fish health issues observed in the Port of
Gladstone in 2011. They are likely to be the result of multiple pressures, in particular extreme weather events
and associated overcrowding from fish that moved into the area after overspilling Awoonga Dam.
Recommendation 11. That the Australian and Queensland Governments ensure that the health and
contaminant levels in green turtles from Gladstone and suitable control populations are monitored.
Recommendation 12. That, if the ERMP process does not collect comprehensive population information for
dugong and dolphins within the sub-region of the southern Great Barrier Reef that contains the Port of
Gladstone, this information be considered as a priority for the GHHP.
Recommendation 13. That the Queensland Government continue to address and respond to the
recommendations of the Fish Health Panel, specifically that future studies be undertaken to understand
cause-effect relationships of fish health and environmental factors.
Recommendation 14. That proponents of developments within the Port of Gladstone ensure that any
voluntary independent audits are conducted consistent with best practice standards and seek to obtain the
department’s agreement to the criteria.
Recommendation 15. That all confirmed cases of non-compliance be publicly announced on both the
department’s and proponent’s website along with details of any remedial actions.
Chapter 6. Port optimisation
Finding 12. There is no globally agreed suite of measures or standards considered to be ‘best practice’ in the
context of port development and operation.
Chapter 7. Programs and arrangements
Finding 13. The GHHP and its associated Independent Science Panel is an excellent opportunity for
addressing environmental issues and building stakeholder and public confidence in the future environmental
management of the Port of Gladstone.
Finding 14. Approval conditions that facilitate and enable cooperation and collaboration between proponents,
and avoid duplication, are a useful mechanism for maximising environmental benefits, minimising regulatory
burden and creating certainty for industry and the broader community.
13
Finding 15. The public release of PCIMP’s monitoring data would improve public confidence in the program.
Finding 16. High quality baseline information on water quality, sediment quality and seagrass in the Port of
Gladstone was available to inform approval of projects in 2010–11. However, baseline information on
megafauna and fish health in the Port of Gladstone is limited.
Recommendation 16. That the Australian Government continue to engage in and support the establishment of
the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership.
Recommendation 17. That, if the projected GHHP funding arrangements are not realised and the GHHP is
unable to form, an alternative community engagement, monitoring and reporting model be established to
address these functions.
Recommendation 18. That, as dredging operations transition from capital to maintenance works, monitoring
and reporting be continued in a transparent and consistent manner.
Recommendation 19. That the Australian Government review the ERMP to determine whether a revised model
may better meet the intent of the EPBC approval.
Recommendation 20. That the Australian Government (including the department and GBRMPA) develop a
coordinated approach for active engagement in post-approval advisory and technical bodies.
Chapter 8. Implications for Traditional Owners and the local community
Finding 17. Aboriginal involvement in policy, planning and management of the Port of Gladstone has been
limited to date.
Recommendation 21. That Traditional Owners be supported to design and conduct a comprehensive study to
identify and register cultural heritage sites within the Port of Gladstone and surrounds.
Recommendation 22. That the Australian Government develop clear policy and guidelines for proponents and
decision makers to promote active engagement and involvement of Traditional Owners and local
communities in proposals that may impact on OUV.
Recommendation 23. That the Australian Government inform future decision making by investigating realised
social, cultural and economic impacts of development in the Port of Gladstone against impacts predicted in
EIS documentation.
14
1. Introduction
This chapter provides background to the commissioning of the Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone
and the process implemented to reach the findings contained within this report. It outlines general
information about the Port of Gladstone and makes recommendations about the handling of the outcomes
and information relevant to the Review.
Background
At its 36th meeting in June 2012, the World Heritage Committee (WHC) issued Decision 36 COM 7B.8 relating
to the state of conservation of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Property. In its decision, the committee
requested that the Australian Government:
...undertake an independent review of the management arrangements for Gladstone Harbour that will
result in the optimisation of port development and operation in Gladstone Harbour and on Curtis Island,
consistent with the highest internationally recognised standards for best practice commensurate with
iconic World Heritage status.
The WHC also requested the government take note of the findings of the joint World Heritage
Centre/International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) reactive monitoring mission undertaken in
March 2012 and address the mission’s recommendations in its future protection and management of the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA).
The reactive monitoring mission took place from 6–14 March 2012. The report of the mission was released in
June 2012 and was concerned with the coastal development in the Port of Gladstone and surrounds, which
they assessed as impacting on the outstanding universal value of the property. It concluded:
An independent review of the environmental concerns of the developments in Gladstone Harbour and on
Curtis Island is essential and recommendations from the review need to propose measures that will
ensure future management, development and operations in the harbour and its surroundings are
consistent with the high standards for conservation of the Outstanding Universal Value as applied in other
parts of the property. Resulting recommendations and measures need to have the confidence of
stakeholders involved and be in place prior to consenting further developments. The mission also notes
that developments of Curtis Island are not consistent with the leading industry commitment to not develop
oil and gas resources in natural World Heritage properties.
Terms of Reference
1. Purpose
The role of the Independent Review is to:
Examine and report on the management arrangements for the Port of Gladstone, to respond to the World
Heritage Committee’s Decision 36 Com 7B.8.
Advise the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities on other relevant
matters to inform decision-making under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999, in response to the World Heritage Committee’s decision, or any other matters as requested by the
Minister.
2. Background
The World Heritage Committee’s Decision 36 Com 7B.8 requests the Australian Government to
15
”undertake an independent review of the management arrangements for Gladstone Harbour, that will result in the
optimisation of port development and operation in Gladstone Harbour and on Curtis Island, consistent with the highest
internationally recognised standards for best practice commensurate with iconic World Heritage status”.
The Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (the Minister) has, following
consultation with the Queensland Government, commissioned the conduct of the Independent Review in
accordance with these Terms of Reference.
3. Membership
The Review will be undertaken by a Chair and up to 3 suitably qualified members, appointed by the Minister.
4. Geographic Boundary
The geographic scope of the Review will include the Port of Gladstone and offshore areas that may be used
for the disposal of dredge material or may be otherwise affected directly or indirectly by port development
within the Port of Gladstone.
5. Scope of Work
The Review will consider and, if necessary, provide advice on any significant areas for improvement in
relation to the following matters:
a. all previous review findings and information used as a basis for the current approvals for
development in the Port of Gladstone;
b. current and future planning, development and management of the Port of Gladstone, having regard
to the Gladstone Ports Corporation 50 Year Strategic Plan and associated developments and
activities within Gladstone Harbour and adjoining land and offshore areas;
c. environmental concerns in the Port of Gladstone, including the environmental performance of
consented developments and operations and the impacts of other contributory factors, such as
natural causes, catchment runoff, established industrial operations, urban expansion and floodplain
changes;
d. planning arrangements and design standards for the optimisation of port development and
operation that accord with best practice environmental standards that may be applicable to ports in
the Great Barrier Reef Region; and
e. key current and proposed management, monitoring and reporting programs and arrangements
within the Port of Gladstone, and surrounds and report on their adequacy, and if necessary, provide
advice on any significant areas for improvement. This analysis should consider any potential areas
of duplication, perceived monitoring gaps, opportunities for integration and other areas where
governance arrangements may be improved.
In considering the above, the Review will have regard to and, if necessary, provide advice on, lessons learned for the
future development and operation of Gladstone and other port areas within and adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage property, including the implications for Traditional Owners and the local community dependent on
the resources of the area.
6. Conduct
The Review shall be conducted in an independent and transparent manner. Public submissions may be
sought. Public submissions (unless confidentiality requirements apply) and the final report to the Minister will
be made publicly available.
7. Timing
The Chair will provide a final report of the Independent Review’s findings and advice by no later than 30 June
16
2013.
8. Secretariat
The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities will provide secretariat
support to the Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone.
i For the purposes of these Terms of Reference the term “Port of Gladstone” means the area defined by the Port of Gladstone Port Limits together with
adjoining islands and landside areas, including reclamation areas, that support existing or consented industrial developments or are proposed to cater for
future port-related industrial activities and supporting infrastructure.
Review process
The former Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, the Hon. Tony
Burke MP, announced the establishment of an independent review of environmental management
arrangements and governance of the Port of Gladstone on 1 February 2013. The terms of reference for the
Review were released on 19 February 2013 along with an accompanying issues paper and a call for public
submissions. Minister Burke appointed Ms Anthea Tinney as chair of the panel and Associate Professor Eva
Abal, Doctor Ian Cresswell and Professor Richard Kenchington as members (Appendix 1).
The Review was non-statutory and administrative governance matters not detailed within the terms of
reference were determined through agreement of the Review panel, consistent with public sector standards
and procedures. The terms of reference were drawn from the 2012 recommendations of the WHC and the joint
World Heritage Centre and IUCN reactive monitoring mission.
Submissions
The release of the terms of reference on 19 February 2013 called for public submissions by 20 March 2013. A
website was established1 which contained information about the Review and guidance on the preparation and
provision of submissions. Advertisements were placed in local, state and national press. An issues paper
was released to assist parties and individuals with making submissions. This was mailed to key stakeholders
and experts and also posted online.
Extensions were granted to several parties who applied for more time to prepare their submission.
Twenty-six individual submissions and one campaign submission were received. Approximately 1800
submissions were received as part of the campaign. The submissions are listed at Appendix 2 and were
posted on the Review’s website on 11 April 2013.
The Review considered various publicly available information resources. Other information was provided at
the request of the panel from various groups, organisations and individuals including the Australian
Government, Queensland Government and Gladstone Ports Corporation. Supplementary information was
provided by a number of individuals and parties. This additional information was considered by the Review
but, given time and resource constraints, was not published on the website prior to the release of this report.
Supplementary information received is outlined in Appendix 3.
Interviews
The Review panel met with a range of stakeholders (including many of the individuals and parties who
provided public submissions) to explore issues that were raised in submissions and other materials pertinent
to the Review.
The Review panel inspected the Port of Gladstone and surrounds on the 8 March 2013 and also met with key
1
www.environment.gov.au/gladstonereview
17
stakeholders and experts in Cairns, Townsville, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Brisbane, Sydney and Canberra
during the Review. Appendix 4 outlines all of the meetings that occurred during the Review.
Additional expert advice
The Review panel identified the need for additional expert input in two key areas. Under the direction of the
panel, the department commissioned work by Dr Vic Semeniuk (V&C Semeniuk Research Group) to advise
the panel on the geoheritage attributes of the Port of Gladstone; and Dr Ian Irvine (Pollution Research Pty Ltd)
to provide advice on the sediment sampling and analysis for dredging projects within the Port of Gladstone.
Advice from these experts was considered by the panel in developing the findings in this report and the panel
is grateful for their contributions.
A comprehensive strategic assessment of the GBRWHA2 (the comprehensive strategic assessment) is being
undertaken in parallel to the Review. Information resources are being compiled for that purpose and, where
available in either draft or final form, were drawn on by the review.
Forward process
The Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone provides this advice to the Minister for his consideration.
The findings of the Review were due to be provided to the Minister by 30 June 2013. However, the former
Minister agreed that more time could be taken to provide this initial report. The former Minister also agreed
that the Review could finalise its advice through the delivery of a supplementary report with a focus on port
optimisation towards the end of the year. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 6.
Many of the findings of this report relate to the importance of transparency and communication with regards
to the management of the Port of Gladstone. The report and the supplement should be subject to public
scrutiny and transparency. The findings of the report may also be relevant for the comprehensive strategic
assessment process and the preparation of a sustainable development plan, which is expected to be
completed mid-2015. Retaining information about the Review, including information submitted by third
parties, in the public domain throughout this period would be useful.
Preliminary matters
Recommendation 1. That the Minister publicly release this report on findings and
allow for responses to be received and considered in formulating the Australian
Government’s response.
The Review was commissioned in response to concerns by the WHC, which is primarily concerned with
protection of the OUV of the GBRWHA. The Review has focused its work and findings on environmental
management and governance matters relevant to the protection of world heritage values.
Findings and recommendations of the review are made throughout the report and consolidated in the
Executive Summary. Findings are concluding statements of opinion of the Review, based on the
information considered. Recommendations are findings that involve a specific course of action.
The Review used best endeavours to consider all available information and specifically requested additional
information where the need was identified. In the time available for the Review, it was not feasible to examine
the detail of all possible information resources. In some cases, the Review identified a high-level finding or
recommendation where it was not possible to be more specific.
2
www.environment.gov.au/gbr
18
Findings and recommendations are based on detailed consideration of the evidence available. The Review
has endeavoured to provide context and explanation for the findings and recommendations. However,
considering the breadth of issues covered and volume of material examined, not all aspects of analysis or
details of evidence relevant to each finding and recommendation have been described in this report. Key
information resources considered by the Review are outlined in Appendix 3.
Figure 1: Port of Gladstone
Study area – Port of Gladstone
The geographic scope of the Review includes the Port of Gladstone and offshore areas that may be used for
the disposal of dredge material or may be otherwise affected directly or indirectly by port development within
the Port of Gladstone (see Figure 1). The term ‘Port of Gladstone’ means the area defined by the Port of
Gladstone Port Limits together with adjoining islands and landside areas, including reclamation areas, that
support existing or consented industrial developments or are proposed to cater for future port-related
industrial activities and supporting infrastructure.
The port limits lie within the GBRWHA and partially within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (see Figure 2).
The port had been operating for many decades by the time the GBRWHA was listed in 1981. Facing Island and
Curtis Island are also located within the world heritage area, as are many of the other smaller islands within
the port.
The natural attributes that make up the Port of Gladstone and how those attributes contribute to the OUV of
the GBRWHA are described in Chapter 2. The port is also culturally significant in terms of traditional
Aboriginal use of land and sea country together with aesthetic and recreational uses and values of residents
and visitors to the Gladstone area.
19
Figure 2: Port of Gladstone and surrounds
Regionally, the Port of Gladstone is a developed hub with relatively undisturbed coastal environments
stretching from Tannum Sands to Seventeen Seventy in the south and to Keppel Sands in the north.
The Port of Gladstone is managed by Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC). GPC also manages the ports of
Rockhampton and Bundaberg (See Chapter 4). The Queensland Government established the Gladstone State
Development Area (SDA) of approximately 29 000 hectares on the mainland north of Gladstone’s central
business district and on Curtis Island progressively between 1993 and 2010 to accommodate expected future
industrial development. A major dredging campaign has been approved for the Western Basin of the port to
facilitate increased shipping associated with increased industrial activity.
The region contains the single largest concentration of major industry and port facilities in Queensland.
These industries are reliant on the import and export of material through the Port of Gladstone. The proximity
of the port to resource extraction sites in inland central Queensland and the supporting freight infrastructure
in place have made it a port of choice for the export, import and general throughput of some bulk
commodities.
Continued operation of the Port of Gladstone is of economic significance to the local, state and national
economies. Figures on throughput below have been drawn primarily from a report by the Bureau of
Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics titled Australia’s Bulk Ports [1]. Estimates of value and
employment generation were provided to the Review through Infrastructure Australia based on information
provided by the Queensland Resources Council.
In 2011–12, the total value of the key export commodities from the Port of Gladstone was approximately $10
billion and approximately 84 million tonnes of throughput (including exports and imports) were handled.
Coal is by far the Port of Gladstone’s current largest export commodity. Gladstone is the country’s third
largest coal-exporting port and the world’s fourth largest coal-exporting port. In 2011–12, coal was 71 per cent
20
of total cargo throughput and approximately 60 million tonnes of coal were exported through the RG Tanna
and Barney Point terminals. The value of the coal exported through the port was around $7.5 billion and
generated around 21 000 jobs through direct and indirect employment. If the Wiggins Island Coal Terminal is
constructed to its maximum proposed capacity, it will double the coal export capacity of the port. Much of
this additional capacity is expected to involve the use of larger vessels and therefore will not result in a
doubling of ship movements.
There were also a number of other economically significant commodities moved through the Port of
Gladstone in 2011–12:

Over five million tonnes of alumina was produced in the Gladstone catchment area, with an
estimated value of $1.5 billion and generation of around 13 400 direct and indirect jobs.

Over 23 million tonnes of bauxite was produced in Weipa, the majority of which was shipped to
Gladstone for processing into alumina. This production is estimated to be around $700 million and
to have generated around 1800 direct and indirect jobs.

Australia’s largest cement plant operates out of Gladstone, with around two million tonnes of
cement and clinker moving through the Port of Gladstone, accounting for around $80 million and
estimated to have generated around 4000 direct and indirect jobs.
Three LNG plants are currently being constructed within the Gladstone SDA on the south-western end of
Curtis Island and approvals are being sought under national and state law for a fourth LNG plant to be
constructed in that area. The capacity of these plants is currently planned to be 25.3 million tonnes per year.
In 2014, the export of LNG will commence out of the Port of Gladstone and by 2020–21 as a result of
anticipated expansion of production capacity, it is estimated that over 33 million tonnes of LNG will be
exported through the port, valued at approximately $13.6 billion.
Environmental management and governance
Regulation of natural resource management and environment protection in the Port of Gladstone is primarily
the responsibility of the Queensland Government. The Australian Government’s role is related to protection
of matters of National Environmental Significance (including the GBRWHA) and other aspects of national
interest. The Queensland Government is also responsible for managing activities adjoining and upstream of
the Port of Gladstone including land clearing and pollutant discharges.
Key Australian Government legislation applicable in the Port of Gladstone includes:

the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981

the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975
Key Queensland Government legislation applicable in the Port of Gladstone includes:

the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995

the Environment Protection Act 1994

the Fisheries Management Act 1994

the Land Act 1994

the Marine Parks Act 2004

the Nature Conservation Act 1992

the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971

the Sustainable Planning Act 2009
21

the Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995

the Vegetation Management Act 1999

the Water Act 2000.

Both levels of government also use policies, plans, strategies and guidelines to clarify and drive
environmental management and governance.
The Gladstone Regional Council governs an area of more than 10 000 square kilometres through powers
conferred by the Queensland Government. The council does not have jurisdiction on port land, in the
Gladstone State Development Area or in the marine environment. However, decisions made in the broader
council area can impact the environment within the Port of Gladstone, particularly decisions about planning,
urban growth and the management of water, waste and land. The growth within the port has direct
implications for the council (including consequential social needs such as housing) and one of the key values
of the council is sustainable, environmentally managed growth [2].
The GPC is responsible for management and operation of the port under powers conferred by the
Queensland Government. Its approach to environmental management centres on an environmental
management system which has been independently certified to AS/NZS ISO 14001:2004.
Companies, leaseholders and operators of developments within the Port of Gladstone are also subject to
governance requirements applied by their own company, industry or shareholders. This includes codes of
conduct, social license requirements and individually applied standards and reporting.
The Review examined a large range of environment management and governance activities within the Port of
Gladstone. It considered these activities in line with the conceptual framework shown in Figure 3. The Review
determined the framework to articulate the key elements of environmental management and governance
relative to the terms of reference of the Review. These elements were deemed to be the most important to
effective governance in the port. The Review mainly addressed each of the elements of the framework
separately in relevant chapters. However, the framework is used to examine specifically the governance
measures to protect water quality in Chapter 7.
Environmental management and governance for the Port of Gladstone has evolved over time. The Review
generally examined environmental management and governance as it currently exists, noting that some
elements discussed (e.g. environmental assessment) necessarily relate to the system as it existed at previous
points in time.
22
Figure 3: Conceptual framework for environmental management and governance
Planning
Compliance and
enforcement
Transparency
Engagement
Objectivity
Environmental
assessment and
decision-making
Monitoring and
reporting
Planning
Planning is an essential part of environmental governance. If done well, planning can provide certainty to
industry and communities whilst also providing well considered and efficient environment protection. To
date, the most relevant environmental planning procedures in the Port of Gladstone have been conducted by
the Queensland Government (through the Coordinator-General) and the GPC. The planning processes
implemented to date are discussed in Chapter 4.
Environmental assessment and decision-making
Environmental assessment is an aspect of numerous pieces of Queensland and Australian Government
legislation. The conditions imposed by environmental approvals are important parts of the environmental
management and governance of the Port of Gladstone. They add substantial safeguards to the existing
governance system, with a focus on the key impacts of major developments. Environmental assessments and
approvals are discussed in Chapter 3 and conditions arising from approval decisions are discussed in
Chapter 7.
Monitoring and reporting
Effective adaptive management depends on robust monitoring and reporting. Monitoring and reporting are
particularly important for ensuring that the governance arrangements are effective and to give confidence
that issues of concern will be detected and appropriately responded to. Within the Port of Gladstone, there
are numerous environmental monitoring programs and requirements to report on environmental performance
of approved developments as well as programs implemented to respond to particular incidents. Monitoring
and reporting programs and arrangements are discussed in Chapter 7.
Compliance and enforcement
Compliance with environmental protection legislation and environmental authorities can help to avoid
unnecessary damage to the environment, community confidence and the reputation of industry. Within the
Port of Gladstone, there is a range of government agencies that are responsible for ensuring compliance with
Australian and Queensland Government requirements. The environmental performance of the major approved
23
projects in the Port of Gladstone is discussed in the context of environmental concerns in Chapter 5.
Transparency, engagement and objectivity
Information used to inform environmental management should be transparent and translatable. However,
making information available is not sufficient on its own to ensure meaningful engagement with stakeholders.
Meaningful engagement can improve the quality of the information as well as stakeholder confidence and
stewardship of the governance arrangements. The objectivity of decision-makers is also very important and
helps to ensure that decisions are not biased by vested interests. These elements are discussed throughout
the report.
References
1. Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2013) Australia’s bulk ports,
Report 135, Canberra ACT
2. Gladstone Regional Council (2012) Annual report 2011–12.
24
2. Outstanding Universal Value
Introduction
Maintenance of environmental values is important in every community. Environmental management and
governance becomes particularly important for ports within, or accessed through, the GBRWHA because the
environmental attributes of the area are not only important locally, but also contribute to the OUV of the entire
World Heritage property. This chapter outlines what OUV means and how the OUV of the GBRWHA is
expressed in the Port of Gladstone and surrounds, based on the information available. Understanding OUV is
necessary to assess whether the attributes in the Port of Gladstone are adequately protected by
environmental management and governance.
The World Heritage List is established under the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural
and National Heritage, adopted on 16 November 1972 (the World Heritage Convention). Sites on the World
Heritage List are places that are important to and belong to everyone, regardless of where in the world they
are located. They are irreplaceable legacies that the global community wants to protect for the future.
Broadly, the definition of OUV follows the common sense interpretation of the words:
Outstanding: For properties to be of OUV they should be exceptional, or superlative – they should be the most
remarkable places on earth.
Universal: Properties need to be outstanding from a global perspective. World heritage listing does not aim to
recognise properties that are remarkable from solely a national or regional perspective.
Value: What makes a property outstanding and universal is its ‘value’, or the natural and/or cultural worth of a
property.
Further information and sources can be found in Appendix 5.
The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
The GBRWHA was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981 for all four of the natural heritage criteria
established in a nomination document prepared in accordance with the 1978 World Heritage Operational
Guidelines (the Operational Guidelines) [3]. The boundary of the world heritage area is shown in Figure 4. The
nomination addressed the holistic and interconnected nature of the OUV of the very large complex coastal
marine ecosystem. At the time, substantial areas were unsurveyed and while the nomination provided a broad
description and inventory of the natural and cultural heritage at the broad ecosystem scale, nomination
documents were not required to identify values at any greater level of specificity.
The area was nominated on the basis of management for conservation and reasonable multiple use through
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and associated arrangements
with the Queensland Government with respect to day-to-day management. Longstanding uses included: port
operations; shipping; commercial, recreational and Indigenous fisheries; recreation; tourism; and activities
on islands, coastal lands and catchments within, adjacent to or discharging into the waters of the GBRWHA.
25
Figure 4: Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
Since inscription, management, monitoring and reporting requirements for world heritage areas have become
more rigorous and substantial and the WHC adopted Operational Guidelines have been amended. It is clear
that information in the 1981 nomination provided an inadequate benchmark for addressing the reporting
obligations.
A report by Lucas et al. (1997) [4] was commissioned by the Australian Government to document the OUV of
the GBRWHA against the more substantial contemporary criteria. It provided an authoritative ecosystem
scale benchmark against 29 natural heritage attributes. The report highlighted the difficulty of assigning
relative component attribute values at discrete or particularly important localities because of the connectivity
and size of the Great Barrier Reef.
Current practice, for the purposes of management and monitoring the state of conservation of a World
Heritage property, is that a property’s integrity and the condition of the attributes are benchmarked by the
WHC at the time the property is included on the World Heritage List. There was no such requirement in 1981.
In 2012, the WHC adopted a retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area [5], which Australia had prepared.
The 2012 Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area [5] is now the
26
primary reference point for monitoring and reporting to the WHC. However other technical documents,
including those listed below, are also relevant to understanding the OUV of the property:

The management arrangements for the property

The original nomination dossier and supporting documentation

The original recommendations of IUCN to the WHC

Lucas et al. (1997) [4]

The Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009 [6]

Recent research on the values.
Although the 2012 Statement of Outstanding Universal Value [5] sets out the basis for the property’s inclusion
on the World Heritage List, the values of the property may change over time as research improves
understanding of the attributes through which the values are expressed.
Gladstone and other ports existed and operated prior to inscription of the Great Barrier Reef on the World
Heritage List. Like other site-focused activities, port developments result in local impacts and the
management of their operations requires finer scale or local consideration of attributes within and affected
beyond their boundaries. World heritage recognition is designed to be compatible with continued multiple
use. Continued operation of ports within the GBRWHA can be consistent with protection of OUV if well
managed.
The Port of Gladstone and surrounds
The 2012 Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area [5] establishes
that the GBRWHA meets all four natural heritage criteria of the current Operational Guidelines [7]:

Aesthetic values and superlative natural phenomena

Ongoing geological processes

Ecological and biological processes

Biodiversity conservation
Attributes of the OUV of the GBRWHA are present within the Port of Gladstone (see Appendix 6 for a
summary). These attributes address one or more of the natural world heritage criteria, and are discussed
below under four broad themes. The relative importance of protection of these attributes will vary over time
depending on their extent and condition (locally, regionally and property-wide) as well as in response to ever
improving knowledge.
Connectivity
The water column is the crucial nurturing and linking habitat within marine ecosystems and between
terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Inshore waters are a particularly important marine habitat because natural
runoff from the land brings nutrients and trace elements that are essential for productivity of phytoplankton
in the water column and of algae, seagrasses and corals attached to the seabed. The primary productivity of
phytoplankton in the illuminated upper layers of the water column provides the basis of most marine food
chains, feeding microscopic planktonic animals in a complex food web with many links to fish and top
predators.
Water quality and the extent, condition and associated communities of seabed habitat for seagrasses and
intertidal and subtidal habitat of mangroves are critical marine habitat matters within and beyond the Port of
Gladstone. The sheltered inshore waters that sustain seabed and mangrove habitats are important breeding
and nursery feeding areas and provide linkages between inshore nursery areas and offshore populations of
some fish and invertebrates.
27
Property-wide, the water column is important in terms of impacts from land and nearshore activity on
offshore water quality whether these are chronic operational activities (including maintenance dredging and
catchment runoff), catastrophic events resulting from accident or incompetence, or occasional severe
weather-related events.
Geological features
Curtis and Facing Islands are situated on a bedrock base with a north-northwest grain trend. Their eastern
coasts comprise rocky shores, sandy beaches and indented bays with mangroves that are backed by salt
flats in larger bays. The pattern of indented bays fronted by mangroves and, in larger bays backed by salt
flats, is continued in the southern and western coasts.
The Narrows is a shore-parallel mud-dominated tidal exchange channel between the mainland and the island
chain of Curtis Island and Facing Island. The channel runs north-northwest becoming shallower and narrower
from v-shaped Port Curtis towards the substantial complex of tidal mud flat fronted by mangrove vegetation
of the Fitzroy River delta.
The Narrows is an important mangrove-vegetated channel between a bedrock island and the mainland,
providing sheltered water and connectivity. It is a locally and nationally significant geoheritage feature and a
distinctive attribute of the southern GBRWHA.
At approximately 58 000 ha, Curtis Island (maximum elevation 161 metres) is the largest Island in the
GBRWHA. In size and coastal location close to major rivers, Curtis Island may be compared to Hinchinbrook
Island which is the second largest within the GBRWHA (39 350 ha, maximum elevation 1130 metres). Both
islands have an indented bay form with mudflats and mangroves. However, Curtis Island has relatively
extensive low-lying lands, no mountain range, lower rainfall and is located at the southern limit of coral reefs.
Detailed geoheritage analysis indicates that Curtis and Facing Islands are an internationally significant island
complex, and a distinctive physical element of the southern GBRWHA.
The shallow sedimentary seabed and sheltered waters of the Port Curtis Basin with linked mudflat, mangrove,
sandy beach and intact vegetated shoreline areas are core physical attributes in the Port of Gladstone.
The extensive mangroves to the north of the Western Basin and associated saltmarsh/saltflat habitats link
through the Narrows to Port Alma and beyond. That complex is regionally and whole-of-property significant
because it and Hinchinbrook Channel are the only large areas of narrow coastal channel sheltered by large
continental islands.
The geological and hydrological features of the Port of Gladstone and connected areas also provide the
setting for plant communities and dependent animal communities.
Biological diversity
The Port of Gladstone sustains a broad range of the plant and animal biological diversity of the Southern
GBRWHA coastal and continental islands. This includes mangrove communities, invertebrates such as mud
crabs and fish such as barramundi and mangrove jack. The seagrass meadows are feeding and nursery areas
for many listed species including dugong and turtles. The sheltered waters are habitat for other marine
mammals and the saltmarshes and wetlands are habitat for resident and migratory shorebirds and seabirds.
Biological diversity is a crucial, and in some instances threatened, attribute expressed within the Port of
Gladstone. The significance extends further to linked nearshore habitats and populations to the north and
south as well as to species whose lifecycles depend on the coastal and offshore coral reef ecosystems.
Human interaction
Aesthetic values are linked to attributes that are also part of the OUV of the GBRWHA under other criteria. For
example, the sheltered waters of Port Curtis, the Narrows, the islands, coastal, mangrove, sandy beach and
intact vegetated shoreline areas are core physical elements in the Port of Gladstone. They are examples of
superlative natural phenomena and areas of exceptional natural beauty of the inshore southern GBRWHA.
28
In general terms, the aesthetic experience within the Port of Gladstone when the property was listed in 1981
included many industrial elements. These industrial elements do not contribute to the OUV of the GBRWHA
but, as they were pre-existing, they cannot be considered to be a significant detraction from it. The
undeveloped areas on the islands and towards the Narrows continue to present a very different, natural
aesthetic experience.
The Port of Gladstone is within the area subject to Native Title Claim by the Port Curtis Coral Coast Native
Title Claim Group. The area contains Aboriginal cultural heritage sites and is important for continuation of
cultural practice, traditional foods and resources. Since European settlement, the natural attractions of the
area have been important for nature based recreation, fishing and as an environmental setting for residents
and visitors to Gladstone.
The Port of Gladstone contains a wide range of attributes that are important for the cultural and recreational
amenity of Traditional Owners, residents and visitors. The accessibility of these attributes in sheltered waters
gives them particular significance because of the opportunities, through tourism and recreational activities,
to address the obligation under the World Heritage Convention to present World Heritage properties for the
appreciation and enjoyment of the global community.
Protection of Outstanding Universal Value
Finding 1. The OUV of the GBRWHA is expressed in the Port of Gladstone.
When the Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the World Heritage List, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act
1975 was identified as the primary legislative means for management through the Act’s powers to regulate
purposes of use or entry within the marine park. Outside the marine park, powers were restricted to
regulating or prohibiting acts that may pollute the water in a manner harmful to plants and animals within the
marine park. Subsequently, the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 provided specific but limited
powers to protect world heritage areas. This 1983 Act was subsumed by the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) which requires that a person must not take an action that is
likely to have a significant impact on the values of a World Heritage property without approval from the
Minister.
Since the most recent EPBC Act assessments in the Port of Gladstone began in late 2009, several changes
have improved the assessment and approval process and subsequently the protection of environmental
attributes. In particular:

adoption of the retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value: Great Barrier Reef [5] in 2012,
which provides greater clarity on attributes of OUV

amendment of the EPBC Act to recognise the ‘environment’ of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
as a matter of National Environmental Significance in its own right in 2009

a standard requirement in Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) for consideration of cumulative
impacts

release of the national Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental
Offsets Policy3 in 2012

inclusion of standard monitoring and audit conditions in all EPBC Act approvals

release of the Interim Guidelines on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef
World Heritage Area – for Proponents of Actions4 in May 2013
3
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/environmental-offsets-policy.html
4
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/gbr-interim-guidelines.html
29

amendment of the bilateral agreement with the Queensland Government in 2012 to provide a
mechanism to ensure that if the Queensland Government believes that the agreed requirements
cannot be met then early written notification will be provided, seeking that the Commonwealth
complete the work.
Chapter 3 and Appendix 8 provide more detail on the above changes.
Adaptive management and continual improvement will be essential for the ongoing protection of the
GBRWHA.
The assessment and approval of projects that are likely to have significant impacts on the values of the
GBRWHA has considerable bearing on the environmental management and governance of the Port of
Gladstone. Information collated for assessments is drawn on as key management resources and conditions
imposed through the approvals set the framework for ongoing research, monitoring, impact mitigation and
Recommendation 2. That the Australian Government continue to refine and improve
guidance and procedural requirements for protection of OUV of the GBRWHA in
response to increased understanding and other advances in relevant science.
offsetting. Chapter 3 examines the assessment and approval process in more detail and makes findings and
recommendations in relation to their relevance to environmental management and governance in the Port of
Gladstone.
Conclusion
Understanding about OUV has evolved over time. The current description of OUV for the GBRWHA was only
adopted by the WHC in 2012. However, recent guidance by the Australian Government should lead to better
and more consistent consideration of OUV in future planning and decision-making. Continual refinement,
guidance and standard-setting by the department will assist proponents, regulators, planners and other
stakeholders better to predict, understand and mitigate impacts.
The OUV of the GBRWHA is expressed in the Port of Gladstone. Understanding how OUV is expressed within
a pre-existing industrial port is challenging but becomes more important as port activities evolve over time
and the cumulative impacts of human activities are superimposed on the dynamics of natural impacts of
severe episodic weather events that are expected to increase in frequency. It is possible to continue to
operate and enhance the port whilst also managing impacts of development to levels that are consistent with
protection of OUV.
Protection and management of the environment within the Port of Gladstone cannot be separated from
decisions about the surrounding coastal and upstream areas. The relative value of attributes in a local area
will change over time in relation to the status and condition of the attributes at the sub-regional, regional and
GBRWHA-wide scales.
References
3. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and Intergovernmental Committee
for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1978) Operational Guidelines for the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention. World Heritage Centre. Editor.
4. Lucas, P.H.C., Webb, T., Valentine, P.S. and Marsh, H. (1997) The outstanding universal value of the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
5. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) Statement of
outstanding universal value: Great Barrier Reef.
6. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2009) Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2009.
7. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and Intergovernmental Committee
30
for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (2012) Operational guidelines for the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention. World Heritage Centre. Editor.
31
3. Previous Reviews and
Development Approvals
All previous review findings and information used as a basis of the current approvals for development in
the Port of Gladstone.
Introduction
The Port of Gladstone was an existing port at the time of inscription of the GBRWHA. Over the past 32 years
the importance of the port has grown substantially. In that same period the environmental regulatory regime
has expanded and port developments have been subject to both Queensland and Commonwealth
environmental assessments. The Australian and Queensland Governments have sought to improve
assessment processes as both the regulatory regime and the size and scale of developments have become
more complicated.
Most of the central and eastern components of the port were in place prior to inscription. The majority of the
major developments in the Western Basin and on Curtis Island have occurred since protection of world
heritage values was enshrined in Commonwealth environmental legislation. Figure 5 shows the port at
inscription (1981), when the EPBC Act was established (1999), and recently (2012).
Of most relevance to this Review were approvals of major developments in the Port of Gladstone between
2003 and 2011 by the Australian Government under the EPBC Act and the Environment Protection (Sea
Dumping) Act 1981 (Sea Dumping Act), and by the Queensland Government Coordinator-General under the
State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971. When a significant project assessment was invoked
by the Queensland Coordinator-General in the Port of Gladstone, the assessment was coordinated across
multiple Queensland agencies and Acts.
Previous reviews and relevant studies
There have been limited overarching reviews undertaken specifically of the Port of Gladstone. The Review
considered a series of documents that dealt with the ongoing expansion of activities in the Port of Gladstone
and associated environmental impacts in so far as they were applicable to the Review. While no previous
‘whole-of-environment’ reviews of the governance of the entire Port of Gladstone have been undertaken,
there have been many focused environmental studies. A list of information resources considered by the
Review is provided at Appendix 3.
The findings of these previous reviews and studies are discussed in this chapter in relation to the specific
approvals processes for developments and elsewhere in this report in relation to other elements of the terms
of reference.
32
Figure 5: The Port of Gladstone in 1981, 1999 and 2012
33
Information used as a basis of existing approvals
EPBC approvals
The Review considered seven projects within the Port of Gladstone that were assessed under the EPBC Act
and were determined likely to have significant impacts on the GBRWHA at the referral stage (see Appendix 7
for details). These approvals relate to 13 separate EPBC Act project assessments as the different components
of the LNG plants on Curtis Island were referred separately, but in parallel. There have been no approvals
within the study area since 21 February 2011.
Projects are approved under the EPBC Act with conditions designed to ensure that the impacts are avoided,
minimised and offset to acceptable levels. Chapter 5 discusses the environmental performance of approved
projects.
All of the seven projects were assessed by the Queensland Coordinator-General, but only six of them were
assessed by the Queensland Government for the purposes of the EPBC Act under an accredited bilateral
assessment process. The four components of the Queensland Curtis LNG (QCLNG) Project were assessed
separately by the Australian Government.
The Review considered information related to world heritage matters that was used by decision makers in
granting approvals in the Port of Gladstone under the EPBC Act. Information examined in detail included
publicly available documents (e.g. referral documentation, environmental impact assessments Queensland
Coordinator-General’s reports and the approval documents) and internal departmental documents (e.g.
briefing documents, supplementary departmental advice and correspondence). Information considered by the
Minister was vast, comprehensive and detailed. The information was examined with regard to the world
heritage legislative and administrative requirements at the time approvals were granted and also in light of
advances in understanding since that time.
Decisions under the EPBC Act are at the discretion of the Minister (or delegate) who is required to consider,
have regard to, take into account and not be inconsistent with requirements of the legislation. The decision
advice from the department explicitly lists the legislative requirements and addresses each in turn. Approval
decisions are the subjective determination of the Minister (or delegate) and are not appellable on merit, only
on administration. Regardless of whether a person agrees with the decision or outcome, the decision is only
invalid if the administrative requirements have not been met. The Review did not find any evidence that
approval decisions for projects in the Port of Gladstone were not made in accordance with legal and
administrative requirements at the time of approval.
During the Review, some organisations and members of the public expressed concern that comments they
had provided during assessment processes had been disregarded. Without publication of decision briefs, or
some other form of feedback, members of the public are not informed of how proposals may have been
Finding 2. Existing approvals for projects in the Port of Gladstone were made
consistent with the world heritage protection provisions of the EPBC Act at the time
of the approvals.
modified, from which they may be able to draw conclusions about whether their comments were taken into
account by the decision maker. EPBC decision processes could be more transparent and accountable. The
Review supports the undertaking in the Australian Government Response to the Report of the Independent Review
of the EPBC Act (2011)5 to publish departmental recommendation reports for approval decisions.
5
www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/epbc-review-govt-response.html
34
Up until recently, there has been no guidance for proponents about understanding the OUV of the GBRWHA.
There has been, however, general guidance in Significant Impact Guidelines and the department’s website
about the values of World Heritage properties. The lack of guidance on OUV has led to inconsistent treatment
in assessment and approval documentation and confusion about what the values are and what level of impact
is acceptable in a working port. Emphasis was generally on well-known attributes (e.g. coral reefs and iconic
macrofauna) and less attention was given to aesthetic values, ecological connectivity and geoheritage. In
Recommendation 3. That the Australian Government make EPBC approval
recommendation reports publicly available through the department’s website.
addition, the relative importance of rare attributes was not highlighted. For example, Curtis Island is one of
only a few bedrock continental islands within the GBRWHA and the impacts to the attribute cannot be
understood by examining the areal percentage of disturbance in relation to the entire area of GBRWHA.
The past lack of guidance and understanding of OUV in the area also led to claims that the ‘degraded’ nature
of the industrialised component of the Port of Gladstone and the previously grazed and ‘disturbed’ Curtis
Island environment were reasons why impacts would be acceptable. Evidence shows that parts of the Port of
Gladstone are in relatively good condition compared to many ports in Australia and worldwide. This is in
contrast to previous claims that the area contributed little value to the overall OUV of the GBRWHA. The
contribution of the Port of Gladstone and surrounds to the OUV of the GBRWHA is described in Chapter 2.
There are no defined or specific thresholds for impacts on attributes of OUV, which limits assessment of
cumulative impacts from different developments and sources. The decision on acceptability of impacts is a
determination by the Minister (or delegate) at a particular point in time. Clear impact thresholds or targets
would facilitate more consistent, evidence-based decision-making. The comprehensive strategic assessment
of the GBRWHA affords an opportunity to investigate this option.
The WHC holds a position that exploration and development of oil and gas should not take place within World
Heritage properties. This position has been reaffirmed in decisions over time. One of the main points
associated with the WHC’s objection to the Curtis Island LNG plant developments appeared to be that the
developments were considered to relate to oil and gas exploration and exploitation. The reactive monitoring
mission noted that:
…developments on Curtis Island are not consistent with the leading industry commitment to not develop
oil and gas resources in natural world heritage properties.
There is no oil or gas exploration or extraction occurring on Curtis Island as part of the LNG plant
developments. The developments include the construction of extensive pipelines from the source of the gas,
between 430 and 730 kilometres away. Liquefaction, processing and shipping activities are mining-related in
so far that they are integral links in a supply chain. However, these activities are no different in principle to
the storage, processing and export of other bulk commodities. It is unclear how such activities may affect the
OUV of a World Heritage property beyond the direct, indirect and consequential impacts that could occur
from any development type. This may be examined through the comprehensive strategic assessment and
associated sustainable development plan.
Mining operations (operations or activities connected with, or incidental to, the mining or recovery of
minerals, including prospecting for or exploring for minerals) are prohibited within the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park. However, the park boundary does not include the entire GBRWHA and the majority of the Port of
Finding 3. There is no oil or gas exploration or extraction occurring on Curtis Island
as part of the LNG plant developments.
Gladstone, including islands, falls outside the boundary of the marine park. An intergovernmental agreement
between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Queensland relating to the protection and
35
management of the Great Barrier Reef6 was signed in 2009. Both governments reaffirmed their ongoing
commitment to prohibit activities for the exploration and recovery of minerals or petroleum, and any drilling
and mining within the GBRWHA, including for the purposes of depositing materials.
A pilot oil shale operation has existed at Gladstone in various forms under different companies since the late
1990s and is currently being conducted by Queensland Energy Resources (QER). The mining tenement
currently extends from the mainland at Yarwun to underneath the GBRWHA. QER has explicitly addressed
Recommendation 5. That the Australian Government reaffirm its position against
mining exploration and exploitation within the GBRWHA.
this in the Frequently Asked Questions part of their website 7, stating:
While a part of the oil shale deposit does extend under Fisherman’s Landing and is therefore within the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, QER has absolutely no intention of mining that part of the
deposit – now, or at any time in the future. In fact, QER has committed to incorporating a 100 metre
buffer zone ‘above’ the High Astronomical Tide limit to define our potential reserves within the deposit.
Sea dumping permits
The Review also considered sea dumping permits granted by the Australian Government for the sea disposal
of dredged material in the Port of Gladstone. The Review’s consideration was limited by the availability of
information. There were five sea dumping permits issued between 2007 and 2010 that lie within the
geographic boundary of the Review (Appendix 7). The spoil dump site for all five permits is the East Banks
Dredge Spoil Disposal Site shown in Figure 1.
The statutory and administrative considerations for granting sea dumping permits are directly linked to
assessment and permitting requirements of the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine
Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972, commonly referred to as the London Protocol. The
National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (NAGD) were released in 2009 to provide greater certainty
about the assessment and permitting process for the sea disposal of dredged material.
The Review considered assessment and decision documentation for sea dumping permits in the Port of
Gladstone. It did not find any evidence that permit decisions were not made in accordance with the legal and
administrative requirements at the time. Information about the sediment sampling and analysis processes in
the Port of Gladstone is provided in Chapter 5.
Concerns were raised during the Review about dredging operations, their effect on the environment and the
relationship between the EPBC and Sea Dumping Acts. Not all dredging operations require an assessment
under the EPBC Act. However, new dredging regimes that are likely to have a significant impact on the world
heritage values of the GBRWHA will require assessment and approval. Concerns were also raised about the
lack of transparency in the sediment sampling and analysis process. Concerns raised in relation to dredging
are discussed in Chapter 5.
Finding 4. The sea dumping permits issued for the disposal of dredged material in the
Port of Gladstone were consistent with the requirements of the Sea Dumping Act at
the time of approval.
Reporting on sea dumping permits consists only of a summary of applications received and permits granted
that is published in the government gazette. Exceptions include where a sea dumping permit is associated
6
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/how-the-reefs-managed/field-management-of-the-great-barrier-reef-marine-park/gbr-intergovernmental-
agreement
7
www.qer.com.au
36
with an assessment under the EPBC Act or the applicant voluntarily releases information publicly on their
website.
The current lack of transparency and limited reporting in the sea dumping permitting process contributes to
mistrust amongst community and non-government organisations. An improved information management
system is required for records of sea dumping permits and related information. Unlike assessments under the
EPBC Act, sea dumping permit information was difficult to obtain for the Review and it appears there is no
central database for recording information against sea dumping permits. In order for sea dumping
assessment and permitting processes to be transparent, the information must be organised and accessible.
Queensland Coordinator-General’s significant project assessments
The Queensland State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 has been used in the Port of
Gladstone to coordinate the assessment of declared significant projects across various Queensland Acts. In
December 2012, a change to the process resulted in current and future reference to ‘coordinated projects’
Recommendation 6. That the Australian Government implement an effective
information management system for sea dumping permits and subject the
information to the same level of transparency as assessments under the EPBC Act.
rather than ‘significant projects’. The Queensland Coordinator-General conducts the assessment and
recommends whether the project should be approved and what conditions should be imposed. The decisionmakers under each Act then consider the recommendations in the issuance of the actual environmental
authorities.
The Australian Government has accredited this Queensland assessment process under an Assessment
Bilateral Agreement8. Under the agreement, the Coordinator-General assesses projects on the
Commonwealth’s behalf and makes recommendations to the Australian Government Minister but the
proposed action still requires approval from the Australian Government Minister under the EPBC Act before it
can proceed. The agreement aims to reduce duplication of environmental assessment and regulation between
the Commonwealth and states/territories. Therefore, the environment information provided by the proponents
of developments for the EPBC approvals under the bilateral agreement was predominantly the same as that
used by the Coordinator-General in recommendation reports. However, the Coordinator-General is not
required under Queensland legislation to consider protection of world heritage values explicitly in approval
decisions and the assessment is not focused purely on environmental matters. The Australian Government
Minister may also consider additional environment information provided through the department.
There was a lack of understanding by some stakeholders during the Review about the role of the Queensland
Government and the bilateral process under which the Queensland Government assessed major projects in
the Port of Gladstone.
Cumulative impact assessment
The understanding of, and ability to assess, cumulative impacts has improved in recent years. By placing
greater emphasis on understanding those factors that are key to the integrity of the GBRWHA it is then
possible to make more definitive statements around cumulative impacts from multiple developments. As part
of its guidelines released in May 20139, the department included the need to determine impacts on ‘integrity’
as a specific component of the OUV. Where several projects are proposed within close geographic proximity
to each other (e.g. the proposals to build LNG plants on Curtis Island), or together have a combined impact
on the value, then the level of cumulative impacts on the GBRWHA must be ascertained and factored into
decision-making.
8
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/assessments/bilateral/qld.html
9
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/notices/assessments/great-barrier-reef.html
37
The need to provide information on cumulative impacts is now included as a standard requirement for
relevant projects in EIS Guidelines produced by the department. For example, in 2012 both the EIS Guidelines
for the Development of the Yarwun Coal Terminal and the Port of Gladstone Gatcombe and Golding Cutting
Channel Duplication Project included a section on cumulative impacts 10.
The assessment of cumulative impacts by proponents under individual EPBC Act assessments is a relatively
new initiative, and quality of the material submitted to the department for consideration and review is likely to
vary depending on the proponent. No clear model has yet been endorsed by the Australian Government but
general guidance is available about strategic assessments under the EPBC Act. This provides a tool for
considering cumulative impacts by assessing and endorsing plans, policies and programs rather than
individual proposals.
Offsets
Offsets are used if it is not possible to avoid or mitigate an impact and their role in protecting and conserving
components of the environment can be of considerable value. On 3 October 2012 the Australian Government
released the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy 11. It
provides guidance on the role of offsets in environmental impact assessments, and how the department
considers the suitability of a proposed offset. A draft policy had been in place prior to its release. The
Queensland Government Environmental Offsets Policy was implemented in 2008 and administers the state offset
requirements for biodiversity, vegetation and koala habitat in south-east Queensland.
While offsets have been used for most of the Gladstone LNG projects on Curtis Island, their practical value to
offset damage to specific world heritage values has been questioned, including by the reactive monitoring
mission. The use of indirect offsets that at best improve regional environmental outcomes but do not address
either the direct loss of habitat or function or the flow-on effect of that loss (i.e. reduced resilience of grazers
from reduced seagrass meadows) are considered to be a suboptimal outcome.
The submissions and consultations differed widely on the value of the offsets negotiated for the Port of
Gladstone. Views included that the offsets were useful to get a greater area of land under environmental
covenant than was impacted by the development, dismay that the actual impact was not addressed, and
concern that an offset which simply improves the tenure of a land parcel unlikely to be developed was not a
significant achievement. There is no publicly available consolidation of information about direct and indirect
offsets secured for developments within the Port of Gladstone. The EPBC approval documents containing the
conditions are publicly available on the department’s website, but the actual offsets to meet the conditions
are usually delivered subsequent to approval decisions and agreed by the decision maker through
correspondence. The evidence considered by the Review did not demonstrate that the design and
implementation of the package of offsets for approved projects in the Port of Gladstone has resulted in a
significant environmental benefit, noting that some offsets are still to be delivered.
In the absence of an agreed priority list for offsets, proponents and the community are subject to uncertainty
and environmental benefits are limited. The development of an agreed priority list would provide certainty to
the community and proponents on the manner in which environmental offset benefits are to be addressed.
This list could address activities within the GBRWHA as well as activities outside the area that will impact on
the OUV (e.g. coastal developments).
Projects currently undergoing assessment
In the study area there are five projects currently being assessed under the EPBC Act that lie within the Port
of Gladstone and were considered likely to have significant impacts on the GBRWHA at the referral stage (see
Appendix 7 for details). In addition, there is one project that is being assessed under the Environment Protection
(Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Appendix 7).
10
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/index.html
11
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/environmental-offsets-policy.html
38
Some of the findings and recommendations of the review may be generally relevant for decision-making
about whether to approve these proposals and what conditions to impose. The Port Optimisation
Supplement, proposed to be delivered towards the end of 2013, is expected to provide further advice that will
be relevant to the approval decisions for these projects.
Conclusion
Information compiled through environmental assessments and conditions imposed through environmental
approvals are important aspects of the environmental management and governance of the Port of Gladstone
at both the state and national levels.
The EPBC Act provides a robust framework for assessing the impacts of individual proposals on the OUV of
the GBRWHA. The Australian Government has improved assessment processes and continues to put in place
revised guidelines and procedures that should enable better decision-making and increased certainty in the
future. Strategic assessment of plans, policies and programs presents an opportunity to address some of the
broad-scale limitations relevant to individual project assessments.
Community representatives who engaged with the Review generally expressed a low level of confidence in
the assessment and approval process for developments within the Port of Gladstone. Increased transparency
in these processes could help to improve public confidence. Transparency of data and information is
discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.
39
4. Planning, Development and
Management
Current and future planning, development and management of the Port of Gladstone, having regard to
the GPC 50 Year Strategic Plan and associated developments and activities within Gladstone Harbour
and adjoining land and offshore areas.
Introduction
There is a multitude of planning documents that are relevant for environmental management and governance
within the Port of Gladstone. The plans have been generated by different levels of government, with widely
differing public consultation processes. Some stakeholders expressed the view that there have been so many
planning documents in relatively quick succession with increasing development options and there is little
point in providing input as the outcome never changes in response to comments provided.
The planning and management of the Port of Gladstone cannot be separated from the broader strategic
context of use and management of the wider central Queensland hinterland, the adjoining catchments
draining to the Boyne and Fitzroy Rivers and other areas where economic activities generate demands for
shipping services that are provided through Gladstone. This chapter discusses whether planning and
management of the Port of Gladstone have adequately ensured the OUV of the GBRWHA is maintained.
Between 1914 and 1987 the Port of Gladstone was run by the Gladstone Harbour Board, which became
Gladstone Port Authority (GPA) in 1987. The Authority became a Queensland Government owned corporation
under the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993 in 1994. The GPA was merged with the Rockhampton Port
Authority in 2004 and commenced operations as the Central Queensland Ports Authority. The Authority was
changed to become a ‘company government owned corporation’, the GPC Limited, in 2008. The GPC is
responsible for the operation and management of the Port of Gladstone (Queensland’s largest multicommodity port), the Port Alma Shipping Terminal (Port of Rockhampton) and the Port of Bundaberg.
The Gladstone Ports Authority/Corporation has a strategic plan outlining the intended growth strategy for the
port which is regularly updated. The Review considered four major iterations of the Strategic Plan produced in
1992, 1998, 2008 and 2012. The Gladstone Port Authority/Corporation also produced a Port of Gladstone Land
Use Plan in 1995, 1999 and another in 2012.
The former Queensland Government Department of Infrastructure and Planning commissioned Connell
Wagner to produce a Site Selection Study—Gladstone Port LNG Production and Export Precinct in 2008. The
Queensland Government Coordinator-General produced the Port of Gladstone Western Basin Master Plan in
2010.
Port of Gladstone 50 Year Strategic Plans
The first 50 Year Strategic Plan was produced in 1992 by the GPA for the purpose of setting the basis for the
most efficient allocation of commercial resources within the port, addressing port lands, provision of
recreational services, buffer zone and foreshore development, and environmental planning. It proposed future
land use for each of the major port precincts and outlined the current and future state of land tenure,
recreational facilities, environment and planning, and air and land transport. In the background section, it
stated:
This plan is not to be interpreted as a commitment by the Port Authority, Industry, Government or other
organisations to carry out the works shown in the plan. Rather it is a forecast of what is expected to be
needed and the time when it is likely to be needed. Thus, it will contribute to rational development of the
40
Port.
In August 1992 a public consultation process was carried out on the 1992 Strategic Plan calling for public
comment. A summary of public comments was provided to the Review by GPC. Comments covered a broad
range of issues, and Queensland Environment Department comments included effects of dredging, impacts
on heritage areas and Curtis Island Development (though a copy of these comments was not provided to the
Review). Development on Curtis Island was not shown in the 1992 Strategic Plan, though comments from the
Gladstone City Council (comments not provided to Review) requested it be shown in the plan.
The 1998 Strategic Plan, produced by the Gladstone Ports Authority (by now a statutory government-owned
corporation), did include proposed development on Curtis Island. It clarifies the status of the plan by stating:
The Plan is not to be interpreted as a commitment by the Gladstone Port Authority (GPA), industry,
government or other organisations to carry out the works shown in the Plan. Rather, it is a forecast of
what is expected to be needed and the time when it is likely to be needed. Therefore, in addition to
catering for proposed trade expansion, the Plan needs to be flexible to cater for those trades which are
unknown at this particular time.
The 1998 plan follows a similar structure to the 1992 version with an introductory section followed by
scenarios. The state of the port in 1962 is provided for comparison, the ‘present day’ (1997) status is
summarised, with future development projections for 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017, 2027 and 2047 based on
population and trade forecasts. It appears that no formal public consultation processes were undertaken for
this plan. However, GPC suggests there was substantial community and stakeholder engagement and a
statement in the introduction states:
Public input is welcome into this Strategic Plan but also at any time, please write to the following address
with your comments or advice.
The 2008 plan is a very high-level document (four-page brochure) and was prepared with minimal public
consultation, distributed in the local newspaper with a contact phone number for the GPC’s Community
Relations Team.
The 2012 plan presents several potential development possibilities in the major port localities and provides
comment on development within the port that is already under way. Like the 2008 plan, it is not a detailed plan
with definite language and indicative timeframes and had no formal public consultation.
None of these plans provided information as to the extent of world heritage values or how any potential
impact was ascertained. Without any overarching regional or strategic assessment it would appear all
impacts are only evaluated on a case-by-case, project-by-project basis. The EPBC Act currently does not
allow the decision maker to consider other less impactful sites once an assessment reaches the approval
stage. This could lead to a less than optimal spread of development. The EPBC Act does, however, allow for
voluntary strategic assessments. The Australian Government has prepared a Guide to undertaking strategic
assessments12 which explains how strategic assessments can consider a much broader set of issues than
individual assessments. A strategic assessment can result in an endorsement of a plan, policy or program
and approval of actions or classes of action undertaken in accordance with it. The Minister must be satisfied
that actions taken in accordance with an endorsed plan will not have unacceptable impacts on protected
matters, such as the world heritage values of the GBRWHA. GPC’s 50 Year Strategic Plan does not currently
address protection of world heritage values.
Finding 5. The current version of GPC’s 50 Year Strategic Plan is not likely to be
adequate as a plan, policy or program to form the basis of a strategic assessment
under the EPBC Act.
A comparison of the major iterations of the Port of Gladstone 50 year plan by locality shows a marked
increase in the planned footprint of the port over the years, with key changes being:
12
www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/guide-to-strategic-assessments.html
41

expansion of Fisherman’s Landing occurring more rapidly than initially projected

delay in development of the Wiggins Island wharf

increasing emphasis on development of port and associated industrial facilities on and around
Curtis Island

inclusion or exclusion of the Port of Rockhampton (Port Alma Shipping Terminal).
GPC’s 50 Year Strategic Plan is a useful tool to understand the port industry’s vision and intentions for the
Port of Gladstone. In this regard, it is a leading example for other ports in the country. However, the lack of
incorporation of environment protection considerations and meaningful stakeholder engagement limit its
usefulness as an environmental management and governance mechanism.
Gladstone Ports Corporation land use plans
In 1995, 1999 and 2012 the Gladstone Ports Authority/Corporation released land use plans for the Port of
Gladstone to meet requirements under the Queensland Transport Infrastructure Act 1994, to facilitate
management and assessment of development on Strategic Port Land in both the Port of Gladstone and Port
Alma (the Port of Bundaberg has a separate Land Use Plan). The plans present a framework for assessment
of developments on strategic port land and identify areas of land that the port is interested in acquiring at
some time in the near future.
Both the 2012 and 1995 land use plans underwent a public consultation process that requested submissions
from the community and included newspaper advertisements and public seminars. The 1999 update does not
appear to have included any public consultation.
LNG Site Selection Study
The Queensland Government commissioned Connell Wagner to produce a Site Selection Study—Gladstone Port
LNG Production and Export Precinct in 2008, which identified and ranked sites within the Port at which plant and
associated infrastructure could be located to form an LNG precinct. The report of the study provided to the
Review was a public release version which noted that any information considered confidential at the time of
writing the report and not considered appropriate for public release had been deleted.
The context of the study provided by the Queensland Government outlined that the study should identify an
LNG precinct located in the Gladstone Region. The Review did not receive any evidence of preceding broader
strategic planning to clarify why the Port of Gladstone was considered to be the most appropriate place for
this development.
The criteria for site selection within the Port of Gladstone were heavily weighted to engineering, logistics and
costs, and the subset of criteria entitled ‘Environment and community’ did not address world heritage
explicitly. It was not obvious how any of the environmental factors that were listed as criteria were taken into
account apart from the apparent downgrading of one site due to concerns (amongst others) regarding
‘Ecological and aesthetic values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area’. However as environmental
factors were not explicitly considered for each site it is very difficult to ascertain how they were taken into
account for all the other sites within the WHA. It is not clear that any weighting was placed on port
optimisation and containment of the overall port development footprint.
The site selection study concluded that two sites on Curtis Island (North China Bay and Hamilton Point West)
ranked highest as the preferred sites. It noted that the North China Bay site had the attraction of additional
adjacent areas suitable for further LNG operations expansion or for synergistic development. Soon after the
completion of the report of the study, the Gladstone SDA was expanded (in July 2008) to include a new
component on Curtis Island that encompassed the area identified in the site selection study.
42
Gladstone State Development Area
Under the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 the Queensland Government can declare
an SDA and then manage land-use precincts and land-use activities, particularly industrial development of
state regional significance, through a Development Scheme. Development Schemes will generally override
any local planning scheme in force, and any other local and state government planning instrument related to
the use of the land.
The Coordinator-General can compulsorily acquire any part of the Gladstone SDA if the Coordinator-General
is satisfied that such a declaration is in the public interest. The Coordinator-General is responsible for the
planning, establishment and ongoing management of SDAs throughout Queensland. For each SDA, the
Coordinator-General is responsible for controlling land-use activities, implementing the development
scheme, and assessing and approving relevant development.
SDAs are clearly defined areas of land established to promote economic development in Queensland and, as
such, the Gladstone SDA exerts a significant influence on the future planning, development and management
of the port. The Gladstone SDA was declared in December 1993 (Figure 6). Since that time it has undergone
successive expansions:

Dec 1997 a materials transport and services corridor, buffer area and the Yarwun Industrial Estate
were added.

Dec 2001 additional land was added at Aldoga and Yarwun and the materials transport and services
corridor was extended. The Clinton Precinct was also added at this time.

Dec 2002 the Targinnie Precinct was added.

March 2007 three new areas in the Aldoga and Yarwun Precincts were added.

July 2008 three new precincts were determined:

o
Portion of Curtis Island added as the Curtis Island Industry Precinct
o
Curtis Island Environmental Management Precinct designated
o
Kangaroo Island added as a Restricted Development Precinct.
In 2010, new corridor precincts were added to Curtis Island and, on the mainland, changes to existing
precincts were made. The boundary between the Industry Precinct and the Environmental
Management Precinct on Curtis Island was altered and Kangaroo Island was redesignated as an
Environmental Management Precinct.
43
Figure 6: Gladstone State Development Area as declared in 1993 and as at June 2013
The Review did not find any evidence that the impacts to world heritage values of declaring an SDA within
and adjoining the GBRWHA were considered in the declaration process. Consultation about the declaration
process was also not evident. In particular, there was no evidence of consultation between the Australian and
Queensland Governments about world heritage protection implications of the declarations. SDAs are
intended to promote economic growth. Decisions about the declaration of any new SDAs within or adjoining
the GBRWHA should take world heritage protection into account. This consideration should also apply to any
decisions about reviewing existing SDAs that are within or adjoin the GBRWHA.
Recommendation 8. That the Queensland Government not declare any more SDAs
within or adjoining the GBRWHA without detailed consideration of impacts to world
heritage values and robust consultation, including with the Australian Government.
The Western Basin Master Plan
In 2010, the Queensland Coordinator-General released the Port of Gladstone Western Basin Master Plan, a 30year Queensland Government Statutory Plan approved under the State Development and Public Works
Organisation Act 1971. This sets out the strategic planning framework against which the Coordinator-General
and other approval agencies will consider future development in the Western Basin section of the port. It
applies from Kangaroo Island in the north through to Port Central in the south and does not cover the entire
extent of the Gladstone SDA or the Port of Gladstone.
The document highlights that road and rail connections to the Curtis Island Industry Precinct of the
Gladstone SDA from the mainland have been considered since at least 2008. It also includes existing oil shale
tenements that underlie the Yarwun precinct from the western side of Kangaroo Island down along the shore
of the port and the seabed beneath Fisherman’s Landing, concluding that it is possible within the life of the
master plan that an application to mine and refine the shale oil could be forthcoming (although the current
44
proponent has stated there is no intention of mining within the GBRWHA, see Chapter 3).
The Western Basin Master Plan 2010 refers to the need for compliance with Commonwealth environmental
law, and flags interest in exploring strategic assessment under the EPBC Act. However, there is no evidence
of consideration of world heritage values and only cursory consideration of environmental matters at a high
level. The need to broaden the master planning process to ensure environmental management is undertaken
effectively in the region and that cumulative impacts are thoroughly considered was flagged by the
department in correspondence to the Queensland Government on the draft Master Plan in September 2009. It
is not evident this occurred.
Planning issues
Neither the 50 Year Strategic Plan nor the Land Use Plan 2012 present clear timeframes for development or
provide detail of all major development planned to occur. Visionary documents should be subject to regular
review and this has been the case for both of these documents. The Land Use Plan 2012 only applies to
strategic port land and land the port authority intends to acquire, so does not identify developments
proposed by other parties on land that is not owned by the port authority including the Gladstone SDA.
Several areas are flagged for development in the 50 Year Strategic Plan and the Land Use Plan 2012 within the
GBRWHA, including a substantial general cargo complex at Hamilton Point, development at Tide Island and
the associated infrastructure corridor from the mainland. These are examples of where consideration of the
totality of impacts to world heritage values appear to be absent from long-term port planning. Consideration
of world heritage values at the planning phase is important to achieve greater certainty and avoid
unnecessary contention, expense and delays in individual project approvals.
It appears that the Queensland Government did not seek world heritage advice on planning matters that
impact on the GBRWHA and that proactive guidance and engagement by the Australian Government was very
limited. Overall, it is not clear that adequate, sustained and coordinated input into key Queensland strategic
planning processes has occurred, with the Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning and GPC
working on a development agenda to meet current and predicted future economic demands, albeit with due
regard to meeting individual project environmental assessment and conditions.
In 2011, the WHC requested the Australian Government undertake a comprehensive strategic assessment of
the GBRWHA to enable a long-term plan for sustainable development that will protect the OUV. The
Australian Government has undertaken to provide a sustainable development plan to the WHC in 2015.
Concentrated areas of development (such as ports) should be a particular focus of this planning process.
The National Ports Strategy was agreed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in July 2012. It
identifies improved environmental management regimes for ports as a priority and port master planning as
key to the development of efficient and sustainable ports and associated freight logistics. Ports Australia has
initiated the development of guidelines for ports master planning. A single master plan, incorporating world
heritage considerations and aligning planning for port areas and the SDA, could be investigated further
through the Port Optimisation Supplement (see Chapter 6). In October 2012, the Queensland Government
released the Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy for consultation. This consultation will inform a Queensland
Ports Strategy that is being prepared by the Queensland Government.
Geographic extent of port planning
In the course of the Review, it became clear that there is confusion around the geographic extent of the Port
of Gladstone. This confusion flows over into media and public knowledge. For example, a media release by
the Queensland Government on 31 October 2012 stated “We will confine future development to the existing major
Recommendation 9. That a single master plan be developed for the whole of the Port
of Gladstone, including strategic port land and the SDA, with full stakeholder
engagement and fully considering protection of environment and world heritage
values in identifying areas for future expansion.
45
ports where there is considerable scope for future development ... and at several locations such as Balaclava Island
and Port Alma in the Port of Gladstone.” (emphasis added). Balaclava Island and Port Alma do not lie within
the limits of the Port of Gladstone. The Port of Gladstone and the Port Alma Shipping Terminal are two
different ports managed by the same port authority.
This unnecessary confusion arises from the treatment and management of the different port areas within GPC
responsibility. GPC is a government-owned corporation responsible for the operation and management of the
Port of Gladstone, Port Alma Shipping Terminal and the Port of Bundaberg. However, the planning and
management of these three distinct areas are not clearly delineated in GPC’s documents. For example, the
50 Year Strategic Plan 2012 only applies to the Port of Gladstone but the 2008 version of the 50 Year Strategic
Plan also included the Port Alma Shipping Terminal. The Land Use Plan 2012 applies to the Port of Gladstone
and Port Alma Shipping Terminal but does not include Bundaberg (the Bundaberg Land Use Plan was gazetted
in 2009, before GPC became the port authority), whereas the original Land Use Plan in 1999 only includes the
Port of Gladstone (at that time the GPA did not govern any other ports).
Conclusion
Since the time of inscription of the GBRWHA, there have been numerous port, regional and state-wide
planning processes relevant to the Port of Gladstone. There is little evidence that consideration of world
Recommendation 10. That the Queensland Government and GPC consistently
delineate between different port areas in their plans (particularly between the Port of
Rockhampton and the Port of Gladstone) and include greater explanation in their
public consultation processes.
heritage values has significantly influenced planning decisions. In the absence of any explicit policy or Great
Barrier Reef wide sustainability plan, the Queensland Government and GPC have undertaken substantial
development planning, but it would appear that this has been in the absence of Commonwealth involvement.
Furthermore, there is no guidance for proponents about where development could or should occur consistent
with protection of OUV. Advice on world heritage policy to date has been associated with individual
assessments rather than the GBRWHA more broadly or as part of any of the previous Gladstone planning
processes.
The comprehensive strategic assessment and associated long-term plan for sustainable development affords
an opportunity to improve the way that development is planned and implemented in the future. Port specific
planning should incorporate protection of world heritage values, particularly when it could lead to the
declaration of SDAs. A single master plan for the Port of Gladstone, including the Gladstone SDA, could
address many of the limitations in planning processes to date.
Improved and meaningful engagement with stakeholders in planning processes would help build community
confidence. This is relevant beyond planning processes and is discussed in more detail in Chapters 7 and 8.
46
5. Environmental Concerns and
Performance
Environmental concerns in the Port of Gladstone, including the environmental performance of consented
developments and operations and the impacts of other contributory factors, such as natural causes,
catchment runoff, established industrial operations, urban expansion and floodplain changes.
Introduction
This chapter outlines the environmental concerns in the Port of Gladstone, including the environmental
performance of consented developments and the impacts of other contributory factors such as climate
variability, land use, catchment runoff and established industrial operations.
Impacts to the GBRWHA from activities within the Port of Gladstone need to be considered in relation to the
impacts of extreme weather events and diffuse pollution. In order to make findings in relation to the
environmental concerns in the Port of Gladstone and the environmental performance of consented
developments, the Review had to consider firstly the key pressures on the Port of Gladstone, including
operations and the impacts of other contributory factors.
The Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Report Card 2011 [8] was released by the Australian and Queensland
Governments in mid-July 2013 and concluded that whilst management change and water quality
improvements are on a positive trajectory, extreme weather events in 2010–2011 resulted in much higher than
average discharge for most rivers that feed into the GBRWHA.
Key Pressures
The waters of the Port of Gladstone are generally turbid with higher turbidity levels in the summer wet season
when rivers discharge high sediment loads. Coastal areas within and adjoining the Port of Gladstone
comprise a variety of habitats including soft substrate, reefs, saltmarsh, mangroves, intertidal creeks, coral,
macroalgae and seagrass meadows. These habitats support a variety of species and contain areas of high
conservation value.
The Port of Gladstone has a large tidal range (up to approximately four metres) and the associated tidal prism
induces high current velocities in the main channel. This is the driving force for the wetting and drying of the
extensive intertidal areas. Freshwater flows may originate from the Boyne and Calliope Rivers. There is also
some influence through the Narrows from the Fitzroy River.
The waters of the Port of Gladstone are generally well mixed both vertically and horizontally. The flushing
time (i.e. the time for total mass of material to decrease to a third of its original mass) for the estuary is of the
order of 15–20 days. The sedimentation rate since industrialisation is approximately 0.6 centimetres per year
[9].
Climate variability
Climate in the Port of Gladstone is highly variable, with a mean annual rainfall of 847.2 millimetres. The area
has been subject to major flood events. Figure 7 demonstrates the remarkable high rainfall events of the past
few years.
Rainfall on its own is not sufficient as a measure of flooding. Flows are a combination of rainfall locally and in
the catchment. In northern Queensland, the most conspicuous dynamic feature of discharge is the dramatic
inter-annual, seasonal and event-coupled variability of flow [10]. These events were also documented in an
analysis titled Gladstone Seasonal Events, produced in December 2011 for the Gladstone Harbour Fish
47
Health/Water Quality Extended Oversight Committee [11].
The GBRMPA outlook report 2009 [6] notes that whilst there is scientific uncertainty about the future impact of
climate change on inter-annual climate variability and rainfall along the Great Barrier Reef, observed patterns
indicate an increase in severity of extreme events.
millimetres
Figure 7: Gladstone Airport Monthly Rainfall from 2009 to April 2013 (Source: Bureau of Meteorology 13,
accessed 29 May 2013)
Land use and catchment runoff
Significant land use changes have occurred in the Boyne and Calliope catchments since European
settlement, as outlined in Figure 8. This has resulted in increases in the nutrient and sediment loads in the
Port of Gladstone (Figure 9).
No sewage is discharged directly to the Port of Gladstone. Treated effluent is currently reused via land
irrigation or through beneficial reuse by the surrounding heavy industry. Nutrient and sediment loads
associated with wastewater treatment have been included in the National Pollutant Inventory data (NPI).
No estimate of the potential impact that stormwater may be having on the Port of Gladstone is available. All
new housing developments must implement water sensitive urban design methodology in accordance with
the Queensland Government’s Urban Stormwater Quality Planning Guidelines 2010.
The main water storage in the area, Awoonga Dam, has a capacity of 250 000 Mega Litres. 2010 was the first
time Awoonga Dam overflowed since it was raised in 2002. It has now overflowed several times. While the
Boyne basin has been assessed as being in low-moderate condition with highly modified hydrology and
riparian zones and is severely modified due to the presence of barriers to flow, the Calliope basin has been
assessed as being relatively unmodified [12].
13
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/index.shtml
48
Figure 8: Land use and habitat changes in the Boyne and Calliope catchments [13],
6% Rainforest
4% Rainforest
75% Forest
37% Forest
7% Woodland
0% Woodland
9% Forested
o
flodpl ai n
2% Forested
o
flodpl ai n
3% Estuary
2% Estuary
55% Estuary
Figure 9: Catchment loads of nutrients and sediments delivered to the Port of Gladstone [14]
Operations of the Port of Gladstone
There is a range of heavy industry located in or adjacent to the Port of Gladstone, the largest of which are
listed in Table 1. Discharges into the marine environment from these operations are regulated by the
Queensland Government. Key impacts associated with industries include those from shipping, dredging,
operational discharges, noise, light, air quality and changes to social amenity. These issues are expected to
be examined through a Port Optimisation Supplement to be delivered towards the end of the year.
Table 1: Heavy industry located adjacent to the Port of Gladstone
Type of industry
Current operator
Commenced
Aluminium smelter
Boyne Smelters Pty Ltd
1982
Aluminium refinery
Queensland Alumina Ltd
1967
Coal fired power station
NRG Gladstone Operating
Services Pty Ltd
1982
Sodium cyanide, ammonia nitrate,
chlorine plant
Orica Australia Pty Ltd
1990
Aluminium refinery
Rio Tinto Aluminium Yarwun
2004
Oil shale miner and medium shale
oil and naptha plant
QER Pty Ltd
1980s
49
Cement and clinker plant
Cement Australia
1981
The dredging in the Western Basin of the Port of Gladstone attracted a lot of attention and was raised in a
large number of submissions as one of the major environmental concerns. Concerns related to the
temporary generation of turbidity plumes and consequent impacts on benthic ecosystems, including
seagrasses, through sedimentation, perceived contamination and light attenuation.
GPC began a dredging campaign in March 2011 to remove 25 million cubic metres from the Western Basin
area. GPC had planned that the initial dredging would run over a period of two and a half years. Recent media
reports speculate the dredging of the first stages may finish by August 201314. The EPBC approval for the
dredging operation covers further stages of dredging for up to an additional 21 million cubic metres,
contingent on approval of a specific management plan that must be submitted two years prior to the
additional dredging commencing.
This is not the first dredging to have occurred in the Port of Gladstone and surrounds. Maintenance dredging
has been carried out for many years. Since 1996, the rate has been around 100 000 cubic metres each year,
with the volume of maintenance dredging varying depending on the siltation that has settled in the existing
channels and berths. Figure 1 in Chapter 1 shows the path of the shipping channels. Immediately prior to
dredging under the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project, dredging was also occurring under other
approvals including the early works dredging associated with one of the LNG projects.
Environmental concerns raised
Concerns were raised by the reactive monitoring mission over development activities at the Port of
Gladstone and their potential to impact the OUV of GBRWHA. Activities of particular concern include the
developments on Curtis Island, increased shipping, dredging and sea dumping activities.
Similar concerns were raised during the Review about the impacts of increased shipping through the
GBRWHA as a result of increased capacity in Gladstone. Concerns particularly relate to risks of operational
and accidental pollution from increasing numbers of ships travelling through the reef with the possibility of
groundings and oil and cargo spills. Groups have also raised concerns about capital and maintenance
dredging operations in the Port of Gladstone which result in the temporary generation of turbidity plumes and
consequent impacts on benthic ecosystems including seagrasses though sedimentation and light
attenuation.
Four key areas of concern were examined in detail in the Review: water and sediment quality; turtles,
dugongs and dolphins; fish health; and seagrass health. Many of the other concerns raised (e.g. those
associated with marine noise, light, accidental operational discharge, anchoring, sea disposal and shipping)
will be further explored in the preparation of a Port Optimisation Supplement.
Water and sediment quality
Although a number of concerns were raised about the declining water quality as a result of dredging, analysis
of water quality data from February 2010 to August 2011 by the Queensland Department of Environment and
Heritage Protection attributed variation in water quality primarily to seasonal conditions [11].
14
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-22/gladstone-harbour-dredging-on-track-for-early-finish/4705464
50
Water quality sustains ecological processes that support fish, vegetation, wetlands and birdlife as well as
associated human use such as fishing, industry, recreation and meeting cultural and spiritual needs.
Australia’s National Water Quality Management Strategy15 was devised in the 1990s to provide a sciencebased framework for water quality management. The strategy includes the Australian and New Zealand
Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC Guidelines) which were revised most recently in
2000. The guidelines set water quality objectives to maintain various levels of acceptable ecosystem
condition while also meeting the needs of people who use the water. They also include water quality
objectives for the protection of ecologically valuable rivers and wetlands where human needs are minimal or
purely aesthetic.
Finding 7. The ANZECC Guidelines contain a suitable framework for determining the
species protection guideline trigger levels for toxicants in water in the Port of
Gladstone and have been appropriately applied.
During the Review, criticisms were raised that the Queensland Government had used a 95 per cent protection
level for water quality rather than a 99 per cent protection level. For toxicants, the Queensland water quality
guidelines use the ANZECC guideline values. The ANZECC Guidelines were developed over many years by a
large group of independent scientists, after considerable public consultation, were peer-reviewed and have
been used successfully in Australia for many years. They are currently under review. The guidelines include
marine trigger values for toxicants for three levels of protection, 90 per cent, 95 per cent and 99 per cent.
These levels relate to the percentage of species naturally occurring in an ecosystem that would be protected
by maintaining water quality at the specified level. For slightly to moderately disturbed water bodies, the
guidelines recommend use of the 95 per cent trigger level. Ports and harbours serving coastal cities are
provided as examples of highly disturbed systems where stakeholders may accept use of the 90 per cent
trigger level.
Given that the Port of Gladstone lies within the GBRWHA management of the port should ensure a higher
environmental protection level than may otherwise be required. However, it is a working port that pre-existed
the world heritage listing and it would not be reasonable to expect it to be managed as a pristine area of high
conservation value (which use of a 99 per cent trigger level would infer). Continued management of the port
as a slightly to moderately disturbed ecosystem (i.e. using the 95 per cent trigger level as per current
practice) is consistent with maintaining the OUV of the GBRWHA expressed in the port.
The ANZECC Guidelines encourage the development of local specific guidelines, noting that the national
guidelines should not be considered as ‘blanket’ guidelines as ecosystem types vary widely. The Queensland
Government is developing specific guidelines for the Gladstone Region.
As part of the approval process for the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project, sediment sampling was
undertaken in accordance with the Australian Government’s National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009
(NAGD) [15]. The panel sought the advice of Dr Ian Irvine of Pollution Research Pty Ltd to review the sediment
sampling and analysis plans and implementation reports, with regard to the key requirements of the NAGD.
The NAGD prescribes the sampling and analysis process required to determine whether sediment is suitable
for sea disposal. It includes requirements for sampling numbers, depths and methods as well as quality
assurance and control. The NAGD is used by the Australian Government to determine whether sediment is
‘contaminated’.
The NAGD [15] prescribes the use of the ‘upper 95 per cent confidence limit of the mean’ (referred to as the
Upper Confidence Limit or UCL) for each analytical parameter against prescribed Screening Levels. It states
(on page 38):
15
www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/quality/
51
If the 95 per cent UCL does not exceed the Screening Level, this means there is a 95 per cent probability
that the mean concentration of that contaminant within the material to be dredged will not exceed the
Screening Level. If the 95 per cent UCL of a contaminant exceeds the specified Screening Level, it is a
Contaminant of Potential Concern (COPC) and comparison to ambient baseline levels for sediments of
comparable grainsize is then required.
Analysis of the samples within the dredging footprint in the Port of Gladstone revealed that some individual
samples exceeded Screening Levels. However, when the 95 per cent UCL was compared to the Screening
Levels, there were no exceedences. Throughout the Review, several people questioned the scientific validity
of this averaging process. The NAGD were developed in cooperation with independent scientific expertise
and drew on experience with sediment sampling and analysis over many years. The requirements are
statistically robust and have been used consistently and successfully across Australia for several years.
Finding 8. The National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009 (NAGD) contain a
robust framework for determining the suitability for ocean disposal of dredged
material from the Port of Gladstone.
Criticism was also raised that there are no Screening Levels within the NAGD for some metals such as
vanadium, manganese, iron and aluminium. In the Port of Gladstone, the 95 per cent UCL of such metals were
compared with the requirements of the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency Environmental
Investigation Levels (1998) and did not exceed these values.
A large number of sediment and water quality investigations have been carried out throughout the Port of
Gladstone over the past 20 years. While several of these studies have found some contaminants to be
elevated in some individual samples, there is no evidence that heavy metals and metalloids, or other
contaminants, are significantly elevated in the sediments throughout the Port of Gladstone. Therefore, there
is no reason to expect that exposure to or disturbance of these sediments will cause toxicological effects.
Finding 9. Sediment sampling and analysis in the Port of Gladstone were undertaken
in accordance with the NAGD and the data showed that the sediments to be dredged
were compliant with the requirements of the NAGD for ocean disposal (i.e. all
contaminants were below the 95 per cent UCL of relevant Screening Levels).
This conclusion is supported by the water quality monitoring data.
The Review received expert advice that dredging and disposal of Potential Acid Sulfate Soil (PASS)containing sediments in the marine environment is unlikely to result in either significant oxidation of this
material, acid production, or release of significant quantities of heavy metals (where present), because:
1. seawater is alkaline and well buffered, therefore any acidity formed by oxidation of PASS materials
will immediately be neutralised by the surrounding seawater
2. the small amounts of metals released during oxidation of PASS materials will be rapidly removed
from the water column into the sediments
3. the pH of the seawater does not change, there is no acidity to mobilise additional metals from the
sediments
4. oxidation will cease soon after the dredged sediment settles, because microorganisms quickly use
up the available oxygen in bottom sediments. Marine sediments are anoxic apart from a thin oxic
layer (typically ranging from a few millimetres to a few centimetres) at the sediment-water interface.
Once this happens no PASS oxidation can occur.
Turtles, dugongs and dolphins
52
In October 2011 the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority reported a significant increase in the number of
dugong and turtle deaths in the southern Great Barrier Reef. Seagrass beds were stressed by repeated
periods of murky water and low salinity following major flooding events in Queensland in early 2011.
A regular update on marine strandings is available16, which compares the stranding numbers of turtles and
Finding 10. Dredging and disposal of PASS-containing sediments in the marine
environment are unlikely to result in either significant oxidation of this material, acid
production, or release of significant quantities of heavy metals to the water column.
dugong in Queensland with the previous year. Strandings are reported against a one-degree square and
therefore results for the Gladstone area are headed ‘Rockhampton’ and also include Rodds Bay, Port Alma,
Keppel Bay and Yeppoon.
Turtles
Current data from the Queensland Marine Strandings database (StrandNet) for turtle strandings for the period
1 January 2009 to 30 April 2013 are shown in Figure 10.
Stranding data Queensland-wide clearly demonstrates an increase in strandings along the entire Queensland
coast, particularly in 2011. The increase seen in 2011 in the Rockhampton region (including Port of
Gladstone) was also observed in other coastal hotspot areas identified by the Queensland Government.
Strandings within the Port of Gladstone in 2011 were very high (see Table 2). Comparison of Figure 10 and
Table 2 demonstrates that more than half of the reported strandings in the Rockhampton reporting region
were outside the Port of Gladstone. Of the reported strandings within the Port of Gladstone in 2011, 72
per cent resulted in death of which about 68 per cent were of unknown cause.
Figure 10: Turtle strandings in Queensland ‘hotspot’ regions for the period 1 January 2009 – 30 April 2013
(Source: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. StrandNet. Accessed 28th May 2013)
Table 2: Port of Gladstone turtle strandings data
Turtles
16
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013*
http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/caring-for-wildlife/marine-strandings-data.html
53
Total annual strandings
19
11
149
17
5
41
2
19
6
108
15
3
Vessels
2
3
21
5
2
Natural
1
8
Fisheries
1
3
10
1
Number escaped/rehabilitated
Total annual mortalities
3
Ingestion
Dredging
Other anthropogenic
Unknown
2
1
1
14
2
74
In July 2011, an investigation [16] into the contaminant levels in green turtles was conducted. The objective of
the study was to measure the concentration of contaminants in blood of live green turtles captured in the
Boyne River estuary near Gladstone, and to evaluate whether the contaminant levels were elevated and may
have posed a risk to the health of the turtle population. The recommendations of this report are available [16].
The study found that the levels of the metals/metalloids arsenic, cadmium, cobalt, mercury, nickel, selenium,
and vanadium were elevated in turtles sampled. While the results suggest that these elements should be
considered a concern to the health of the turtle population, information about the sensitivity of green turtles
to such elements and other contaminants is very limited. Comparing results for green turtles with results
from other vertebrates has limited value. There is, therefore, an uncertainty involved when evaluating the
effects that a particular concentration of contaminants may have on the health of turtles.
Furthermore, this phenomenon is not necessarily restricted to the Port of Gladstone. For example, tissue
samples were taken from a mass stranding of approximately 70 green turtles in Upstart Bay (between Bowen
and Townsville, approximately 700km from Gladstone) in 2012 and may also show elevated levels. The results
of these tests have not yet been released. Continued monitoring is required to determine the cause and
consequences of high metal levels in green turtles.
Recommendation 11. That the Australian and Queensland Governments ensure that
the health and contaminant levels in green turtles from Gladstone and suitable
control populations are monitored.
Dugong and dolphins
StrandNet data for dugongs and dolphins in the Rockhampton reporting region as well as specifically the Port
of Gladstone were considered by the Review. The data showed low levels of mortality since January 2009
with highest stranding rates in the Port of Gladstone observed in 2011 (five dugong and three dolphins).
Concerns were raised about the disappearance of the resident population of inshore dolphins from the Port
of Gladstone. The absence of adequate baseline information on dugong and dolphin populations within the
Port of Gladstone makes it difficult for the Review to make any firm conclusions on changes to the population
in recent years or the efficacy of impact mitigation measures. The importance of the Port of Gladstone in
supporting regional populations of these migratory species is unclear. Some of the new research under way
may help to address this knowledge gap (see Chapter 7).
Recommendation 12. That, if the ERMP process does not collect comprehensive
population information for dugong and dolphins within the sub-region of the southern
Great Barrier Reef that contains the Port of Gladstone, this information be considered
as a priority for the GHHP.
54
Fish health
Fish health in the Port of Gladstone attracted a lot of attention in 2011, and was raised in a large number of
submissions as one of the major environmental concerns. There have also been concerns around the
potential impacts of dredging operations in relation to observed fish illness. These concerns relate to the
potential for mobilisation of contaminants from dredged sediments to affect marine organisms, including
commercial fishing species.
On 27 September 2011, the Queensland Government announced the establishment of the Gladstone Fish
Health Scientific Advisory Panel (the Fish Health Panel) to provide independent scientific advice. The primary
role of the Fish Health Panel was to review the Queensland Government’s existing monitoring programs and
examine the available information with a view to identifying a possible cause(s) of the fish health issues being
observed in Gladstone Harbour and its surrounds, with a secondary role being to consider the water quality
monitoring programs currently in place and human health issues where appropriate.
The findings and recommendations of the Fish Health Panel’s Final Report [17] include that:
The Panel noted that identifying the cause(s) of the disease(s) and prevalence of parasites on fish in
Gladstone Harbour is a complex and difficult task. This task is further complicated by the extreme flood
events of the 2010-2011 summer and the historical and ongoing industrial development of the Harbour,
which have changed the local environment.
Determining conclusively whether any environmental changes have anything to do with the reported fish
health problems is a formidable and perhaps impossible undertaking given the available data for fish and
human diseases has been collected using descriptive study designs (e.g. case series, cross sectional
surveys) without the benefit of normal baseline values for fish and human diseases making determination
of causation difficult. Nevertheless, it was the Panel’s view there is an issue of concern around the health
of some species of fish in Gladstone Harbour and this is possibly caused by environmental factors.
The Fish Health Panel recommended that the fish health issue be an ongoing focus for the Queensland
Government. In particular, they suggested that ongoing monitoring of the prevalence of the parasite, lesions
and skin discolouration and the associated pathology investigations should continue and be guided by a
conceptual model of possible cause-effect relationships. The panel provided suggestions to the Queensland
Government on ways ongoing studies, such as the Port Curtis Integrated Monitoring Program (PCIMP) and
other monitoring activities, could be expanded in the future to understand the relationship between fish
health and environmental changes, including addressing the need for comparative information from similar
unaffected systems. The Review agrees with these comments and recommendations.
Finding 11. There is no clear single cause identified for the fish health issues
observed in the Port of Gladstone in 2011. They are likely to be the result of multiple
pressures, in particular extreme weather events and associated overcrowding from
fish that moved into the area after overspilling Awoonga Dam.
The Review heard many claims about information that had not been made available to the Fish Health Panel
and criticisms of the monitoring and investigative work undertaken by GPC and governments throughout
2011. Claims were also made to the Review that fish health continues to be an issue in the Port of Gladstone.
Ongoing focus and monitoring should help to ensure that limitations faced by the Fish Health Panel can be
overcome in the future.
Future Fisheries Veterinary Service (FFVS) was commissioned by the Gladstone Fishing Research Fund to
undertake a veterinary investigation into the health problems reported in 2011 [18]. This report has been
55
published online17 and concludes that observed aquatic animal health disorders in Gladstone are most likely
to be a direct consequence of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project. FFVS also provided
substantial supplementary information to the Review (see Appendix 3). Available sampling and analysis has
demonstrated that dredged sediments are not contaminated to levels that would lead to general toxicological
effects and improved understanding about the relationship between fish health and environmental changes is
required before any definitive conclusion can be reached about the cause of fish health issues seen in 2011.
The Queensland Government has undertaken a comprehensive tissue testing regime of fish and crabs
harvested within the Port of Gladstone. The final results from these tests are expected to be released in mid2013 but were not available in time for consideration by the Review.
Recommendation 13. That the Queensland Government continue to address and
respond to the recommendations of the Fish Health Panel, specifically that future
studies be undertaken to understand cause-effect relationships of fish health and
environmental factors.
Seagrass health
The impacts of dredging on seagrasses include the physical removal and/or burial of vegetation and effects
of increased turbidity and sedimentation. A key aspect in understanding the resilience of seagrass meadows
to stressors is their capacity to recover from impact.
Large areas of seagrass were first identified in the Port of Gladstone region as part of broad-scale state-wide
seagrass surveys conducted in 1988 [19] and have been the subject of extensive monitoring since 2002 by
the James Cook University TropWATER seagrass group (formerly the Marine Ecology Group, Fisheries
Queensland) in partnership with GPC. In 2009, proposed developments in the Western Basin including a
number of reclamations and large scale dredge campaigns led to the requirement for more detailed
information on inter- and intra-annual seagrass dynamics in the Gladstone area [20].
The seagrass meadows in the Port of Gladstone and Rodds Bay are of regional significance as they are the
only known major areas of seagrass between Hervey Bay (170 kilometres south) and Shoalwater Bay (170
kilometres north) [21].
A light-based management approach is used to protect Gladstone seagrasses from dredge plume turbidity
impacts associated with the Western Basin dredging program. The management plan and trigger levels are
based on findings from two years of seagrass research in the Port of Gladstone directed at establishing the
required light levels for local seagrass survival.
Although there have been some criticisms of using the adaptive light-based seagrass monitoring triggers
rather than turbidity triggers, use of these direct measures is likely to be more effective at protecting
seagrass than using a surrogate measure based on turbidity. The use of the light attenuation triggers was
supported by the Queensland and Australian Governments in accordance with relevant conditions of
approval.
Comprehensive seagrass monitoring is currently conducted through the DTRP, which is discussed in
Chapter 7. Monitoring of seagrass from 2009 to 2012 showed significant declines in seagrass abundance at
all sites, particularly following the 2010/2011 floods. Some sites have shown substantial recovery, particularly
in the outer harbour, but inner harbour sites have yet to recover to pre-flood levels. Seed banks for some
seagrass species have been detected at some locations in the Port of Gladstone from which recovery could
be initiated when conditions become favourable [20].
Reduction in seagrass coverage was also observed at this time elsewhere along the Queensland coast south
17
http://www.gladstonefishingresearchfund.org.au/
56
of Cooktown following major flooding, cyclones and extended periods of cloud cover [22].
Post approval compliance of approved developments
Proposals that are approved under environment protection legislation are typically approved with conditions
to ensure that the impacts can be avoided, minimised and offset. The monitoring of projects to ensure that
condition requirements are being met is undertaken by the relevant agencies, through the analysis of
information from a variety of sources [22]. Although there is ongoing monitoring and auditing of major
projects that have been referred under the EPBC Act, not every project is actively monitored or audited and
not every allegation results in an investigation. The department targets its compliance and enforcement
activities using risk analysis to address the most serious regulatory risks [23].
The Australian and Queensland Governments manage compliance and enforcement through separate
legislative instruments. However, they cooperate in compliance and enforcement activities where feasible,
including through membership of the Australasian Environmental Law Enforcement and Regulators Network
(AELERT). A joint protocol was agreed between the two governments specifically addressing communication
with each other about the CSG-LNG proponents, including about the LNG plants on Curtis Island. The
protocol would come into effect in the event of a complaint or report that is likely to lead to, or is being
investigated with a view to commencing, enforcement or compliance action.
Governance and reporting conditions have not been applied consistently across all EPBC approvals within
the Port of Gladstone. In principle, not all projects require the same level of scrutiny because they do not
involve the same level of risk or magnitude of impact. However, public reporting of compliance can help to
improve public confidence.
The majority of the approvals require the proponents to publish their annual compliance reports, often known
as Annual Environmental Returns, by a specified date. One approval only requires the proponent to provide
annual compliance reports to the department without any requirement to publish (EPBC 2005/2376). Two
older approvals do not require annual reporting or associated publication (EPBC 2001/160 and 2005/2374).
However, the absence of a condition requiring either self reporting and/or annual reports does not prevent the
proponent from doing so. Self-regulation and publication can be useful in compliance and enforcement
efforts and to improve public awareness and confidence in industry compliance.
All but one of the oldest EPBC approvals contain a condition that means they may be subject to an audit at
some stage, as either directed by the department or the Minister. However, none of the projects have been
subjected to a request or directed audit. Criticisms were raised during the Review that an independent audit
undertaken by GPC was not done in accordance with the conditions of the EPBC approval. This audit was not
directed by the department and was undertaken voluntarily by GPC. Voluntary compliance audits and
publication of the audit reports, such as that undertaken by GPC, are positive measures and should be
encouraged.
Recommendation 14. That proponents of developments within the Port of Gladstone
ensure that any voluntary independent audits are conducted consistent with best
practice standards and seek to obtain the department’s agreement to the criteria.
The department has begun to standardise the wording of conditions that relate to compliance reporting and
audit to ensure greater consistency. Proponents are required to report on potential non-compliance within a
specified number of business days (typically five) and produce annual compliance reports to the department
and publish the reports on their website by a specified date. Also, proponents are required to maintain
records relevant to the conditions of approval. This consistency has benefits for the department, proponents
and the public, giving them greater certainty.
When an environmental impact occurs it does not by definition mean that a condition has been contravened
or breached. For example, the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project (2009/4904) contains a condition
that states:
57
The design, construction materials and construction methodology and management for the outer bund
wall of the Western Basin land reclamation area must ensure appropriate design of the reclamation area
to prevent water quality impacts from leaching material through the bund wall, decant waters and
stormwater run-off.
In October 2011, the Minister was notified by a member of the public that the bund wall appeared to be
leaking. The leak appeared to be a breach of this condition and the incident was examined by the department.
The sealing of the bund wall was considered in the approved dredge management plan, a requirement of a
separate condition, which provided for the filling of the reclamation area. In this instance the proponent,
acting in accordance with approved management plans, halted dredging with the cutter suction dredge on
discovery of the leak. The proponent sought advice from the Dredge Technical Reference Panel and installed,
amongst other things, a finer geo-textile fabric within the bund wall. Although the bund wall was leaking, the
proponent had acted in accordance with their approved plans and as a result this incident was not found to
be a contravention or breach of the conditions by the department.
There have been multiple allegations of possible non-compliance in relation to several of the projects. For all of
the EPBC approved projects, 11 infringement notices have been issued, five for failing to meet reporting
requirements and six for minor contraventions of conditions. Based on the evidence available to the Review,
cases of non-compliance are being responded to appropriately by the department and no other substantive noncompliance by EPBC approval holders was found. Some of the allegations made throughout the Review were
circumstantial or related to impacts for which causality was not established. Allegations rarely referred to actual
conditions of approval.
Compliance and enforcement outcomes are published in accordance with the department’s various policies
and guidelines, subject to any confidentiality obligations and the legislative requirements relating to
information security and privacy.
Recommendation 15. That all confirmed cases of non-compliance be publicly
announced on both the department’s and proponent’s website along with details of any
remedial actions.
Conclusion
The environment of the Port of Gladstone is subject to multiple pressures. Land use and management
upstream can have a major effect on the environment within the port, particularly when combined with the
highly variable and substantial climatic events observed in recent years. The impacts of significant weather
events have been observed along the Queensland coast in recent years and the resulting condition of
environmental attributes (such as seagrass and species dependent on it) are not unique to the Port of
Gladstone. Activities within the Port of Gladstone are unlikely to be the major or sole cause of decreased
environmental condition but they may affect the ability of the environment to respond and recover from
external pressures. Decisions about new developments and the adaptive management of existing
developments should be made with regard to the accumulation of impacts on the receiving environment.
The fish health issues in 2011 were alarming to many stakeholders and drew substantial attention. There is no
clear single cause for the conditions observed in 2011. They are likely to be the result of multiple pressures,
including extreme weather events and associated overcrowding from fish that moved into the area after
overspilling Awoonga Dam. These conditions have improved since 2011. Sampling and analysis of sediment
and water demonstrates that the dredged sediments are not contaminated to levels that would lead to
toxicological effects.
Environmental concerns raised during the Review were not always clearly substantiated or evidence-based.
Community confidence in the environmental performance of approved developments within the port is generally
low. However, it appears from the evidence available that compliance and enforcement is being managed in an
appropriate way, relative to the environmental risks of non-compliance. Chapter 7 discusses community
confidence in more detail.
58
References
6. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2009) Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2009.
7. Australian and Queensland Governments (2013) Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2011 Reef Water
Quality Protection Plan.
8. Herzfeld, M., Parslow, J., Andrewartha, J., Sakov, P. and Webster, T. (2004) Hydrodynamic modelling of
the Port Curtis Region Project. CRC for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management Technical
Report 7.
9. Furnas, M., Mitchell, A., and Skuza, M. (1995) River inputs of nutrients and sediment to the Great Barrier
Reef. in State of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area workshop. Townsville, Queensland,
Australia.
10. Department of Environment and Resource Management (2011) Gladstone seasonal events. Gladstone
Harbour Fish Health/ Water Quality Extended Oversight Committee. Editor.
11. Australian Government. (2009) Australian natural resources atlas. [cited 2013 25 March]; Available
from: http://www.anra.gov.au/index.html.
12. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2012) Informing the outlook for Great Barrier Reef coastal
ecosystems. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.
13. Kroon F, Kuhnert K, Henderson B, Henderson A, Turner R, Huggins R, Wilkinson S, Abbott B, Brodie
J, and Joo M. (2010) Baseline pollutant loads to the Great Barrier Reef. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy
Country Flagship Report series ISSN: 1835-095X. 41 pp.
14. Commonwealth of Australia (2009) National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009. Canberra.
15. Gaus, C., Grant, S. Ling Jin, N., Goot, K., Chen, L., Villa, A., Neugebauer, F., Qi, L. and Limpus, C.
(2012) Investigation of contaminant levels in green turtles from Gladstone.
16. Gladstone Fish Health Scientific Advisory Panel (2012) Gladstone Fish Health Scientific Advisory Panel:
Final report.
17. Landos, M. (2012) Investigation of the causes of aquatic animal health problems in the Gladstone harbour
and nearshore waters. Gladstone Fishing Research Fund. Editor.
18. Coles, R. G., Lee-Long, W. J., Helmke, S. A., Bennett, R. E., Miller, K. J., & Derbyshire, K. J. (1992).
Seagrass beds and juvenile prawn and fish nursery grounds, Cairns to Bowen. in Queensland Department
of Primary Industries Information Series, pp 1-64.
19. Amies, R., McCormac, C., and Rasheed, M. (2013) Gladstone permanent transect seagrass monitoring:
Monthly report March 2013. James Cook University. Editor.
20. Thomas, R., Unsworth, R.K.F., and Rasheed, M.A. (2010) Seagrasses of Port Curtis and Rodds Bay and
long term seagrass monitoring, November 2009. DEEDI, Cairns.
21. McKenzie, L. J., C. Collier, and M. Waycott (2012) Reef Rescue Marine Monitoring Program – Inshore
seagrass, annual report for the sampling period 1st July 2010–31st May 2011. Fisheries Queensland,
Cairns. 230pp.
22. Commonwealth of Australia (2012) Compliance and Enforcement Policy: Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Canberra.
59
6. Port Optimisation
Planning arrangements and design standards for the optimisation of port development and operation that
accord with best practice environmental standards that may be applicable to ports in the Great Barrier
Reef Region.
Introduction
This chapter discusses the challenges of determining what ‘best practice’ would mean for development and
operation of the Port of Gladstone and recommends further investigation through a Port Optimisation
Supplement. The findings and recommendations contained in this report may be refined during the
preparation of the Port Optimisation Supplement.
Defining ‘best practice’
There is currently no agreed international definition or standards for best practice port optimisation
development and operation, and limited information on specific measures that should be applied to ports
generally, or to those within or adjoining World Heritage properties specifically. Various international bodies
with particular expertise have issued guidance for certain aspects and activities relevant to port development
and operation but there is no consolidation or overarching endorsement or otherwise of particular
approaches and methods. In order to achieve superior results, a practice should seek to achieve the best
environmental outcome that is practicable. This may include using new or innovative methods not commonly
used for environmental management.
One of the reports commissioned through the comprehensive strategic assessment is titled Environmental
best practice port development: An analysis of international approaches. The Review considered a draft of this
report and a Review panel member participated in a workshop to inform this report on 31 May 2013.
Finding 12. There is no globally agreed suite of measures or standards considered to
be ‘best practice’ in the context of port development and operation.
The varying context of ports is such that international best practice port design and management has to be
considered for a range of very different environmental settings from deep water high latitude to estuarine
shallow continental shelf tropical waters and from urban multi-cargo container to remote area bulk cargo.
There are few port areas located adjacent to world heritage areas. The ports of Hamburg, Bremen and
Rotterdam, close to the Waddensee World Heritage Area are major urban multi-cargo ports for the European
Union. The environmental issues there relate largely to legacy issues of water quality impacts from historical
development, measures to minimise current operational impacts reaching the ecosystems of the Waddensee,
and a focus on measures for avoidance of and response preparedness for catastrophic accidental impacts of
shipping in the heavy traffic lanes of the eastern North Sea and Baltic.
For Gladstone and other ports within or adjacent to the GBRWHA the matter of determining best practice
requires consideration of measures applied to address management of environmental issues in shallow
shelf/estuarine settings and in tropical areas with linked ecological communities from coastal marshes,
mangroves, seagrasses, seabed communities and coral reefs. This has not been possible in the time available
and in the absence of the other reports listed below.
Further information required
A range of information resources relevant to analysis of the core issue of port optimisation options was not
completed in time for a detailed consideration by the Review in this report. This work includes:
60

Environmental best practice port development: An analysis of international approaches (a report
commissioned through the comprehensive strategic assessment)

Identification of impacts and proposed management strategies associated with ship anchorages in the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (a synthesis report commissioned through the comprehensive
strategic assessment)

Improved dredge material management for the Great Barrier Reef Region (a synthesis report
commissioned through the comprehensive strategic assessment)

Best practice port master planning – Leading approaches and future opportunities (commissioned by
Ports Australia)

Draft north-east shipping management plan (developed by Australian Maritime Safety Authority)

Guiding principles for the improved governance of port and shipping impacts in the Great Barrier Reef
(academic paper by Grech et al.).
Consideration of the information resources above, combined with active engagement of GPC and relevant
experts, will enable the Review to conduct a robust and detailed analysis with a clear understanding of the
benefits, limitations and likely consequences of port optimisation alternatives. The Review proposes to
deliver principles-based findings on port optimisation in a supplement to this report towards the end of 2013.
Conclusion
Many of the findings and recommendations discussed in other chapters of this report are fundamental to the
issue of port optimisation that accords with best practice environmental standards. Recommendation 9 from
Chapter 4, which relates to a single master plan for the Port of Gladstone, is particularly relevant in this
context.
More time is required to address this part of the terms of reference in full. The Review will provide a
supplementary report to the Minister focused on port optimisation towards the end of 2013.
61
7. Programs and Arrangements
Key current and proposed management, monitoring and reporting programs and arrangements within the
Port of Gladstone, and surrounds and report on their adequacy, and if necessary, provide advice on any
significant areas for improvement. This analysis should consider any potential areas of duplication,
perceived monitoring gaps, opportunities for integration and other areas where governance arrangements
may be improved.
Introduction
There are several key management, monitoring and reporting programs and arrangements within the Port of
Gladstone and surrounds. Some programs are ongoing and others have a limited life span, most usually associated
with requirements of environmental approvals. Governance arrangements are in place at multiple levels including
national, state, regional, local, port and company.
This chapter outlines the key programs and arrangements and makes findings about opportunities for
improvement in the future. It uses water quality as an example to illustrate how the multiple levels of
governance work together to protect environmental attributes.
Requirements of the Queensland Government
As the primary government responsible for protection of the environment and natural resource management,
the Queensland Government has implemented a range of monitoring and reporting programs to ensure
effective environmental management in the Port of Gladstone. As discussed in Chapter 5, the Queensland
Government responded to the fish health issues in 2011. Limitations faced by the Queensland Government and
its Fish Health Panel have been noted, particularly relating to the lack of baseline data on fish health. Fish health
is discussed in Chapter 5.
Conditions of approval
Chapter 1 lists the key Queensland Government legislation that relates to environmental management and
governance in Queensland port areas. In the Port of Gladstone, environmental assessment of the major
projects has been undertaken by the Coordinator-General. When this process is applied, environmental
authorisations are issued under the various Acts by the relevant decision-makers taking into account the
recommendations of the Coordinator-General. For activities in the Gladstone SDA, the Coordinator-General
also controls land-use activities, implements the development scheme, and approves relevant development.
Conditions imposed by the Queensland Government usually include specific limits on discharges (including
noise, light, water, pollutants, nutrients and gas) as well as requirements for management plans, monitoring
and offsets. Some conditions are very similar in intent to those issued by the Australian Government. The
conditions are usually drafted broadly enough to allow a single plan to meet the requirements of both levels
of government.
Queensland Government approvals also include conditions relating to other users of the environment and
social amenity, extending also to the safety and welfare of people employed through the projects. An example
of this are the conditions imposed on the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project by the Queensland
Government that relate to compensation to commercial fishermen for temporary and permanent loss of
access to fishing areas and marine fish habitat attributable to development of the Western Basin. In response
to this requirement, GPC developed the WBDDP Commercial Fisheries Compensation Program18 under which
eligible commercial fishing operators were invited to make an application for compensation between 12
18
www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/commercial-fisheries-compensation-program
62
March and 10 May 2013, with GPC expected to make payment of compensation to applicants by July/August
2013. The amount of compensation to be paid is calculated based on the operator’s income earned in the
affected areas in previous years using a set formula. This approach was determined by the Queensland
Government.
Management plans are generally used to identify and outline detailed management measures and responses.
They can be specific to a species or group of species (e.g. migratory shorebirds) or to a particular activity
(e.g. dredge management plan). There are a very large range of management plans that have been developed
or are currently under development to meet Queensland and Australian Government conditions of approval.
Monitoring plans are used to outline the detail of the environmental and compliance monitoring regimes.
Examples of such plans within the Port of Gladstone include groundwater and surface water monitoring,
water discharge monitoring plan, far-field monitoring plan, water quality monitoring programs, monitoring
marine megafauna, migratory shorebirds and seagrass.
Offset plans usually detail a combination of direct and indirect offsets that are used to compensate for residual
impacts once impacts have been avoided and mitigated as far as possible.
Broader monitoring initiatives
There is a range of other monitoring programs that also occur within the Port of Gladstone, including:

Central Queensland water quality monitoring

marine strandings

air quality monitoring

Capricorn Reef Monitoring Program

National Pollution Inventory

National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting

Paddock to Reef Integrated Monitoring, Modelling and Reporting Program

aerial surveys of waterbirds in Eastern Australia

flood monitoring.
Data from such programs can supplement and enhance those from locally targeted programs. They are
generally available for use in environmental management and governance of the Port of Gladstone.
Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership
On 4 May 2012, the Queensland Premier announced the GHHP as a new initiative to ensure the ongoing
monitoring and improvement of Gladstone Harbour and surrounding catchments. The purpose of the
partnership is to align activities, harness the co-investment potential, implement an adaptive management
framework and deliver a shared vision for a healthy Gladstone Harbour. The guiding principles of the
partnership are open, honest and accountable management, annual reporting of the health of the Gladstone
Harbour and management recommendations, and action based on rigorous science and strong stakeholder
engagement.
The approach is similar to that used successfully in Moreton Bay. Governance and funding arrangements for
the partnership are under development and the Queensland Government announced on 1 May 2013 that it
was willing to commit $4 million over two years, providing Gladstone’s industry and other partners match the
recurrent funding ($1.5 million per year for two years).
Members are to include representatives from government, industry, research, community and other interests.
The partnership will be informed by open, transparent and independent peer-reviewed science, through an
63
Independent Science Panel. The Chair of the Science Panel, Dr Ian Poiner, was appointed on 23 November
2012 and the panel met for the first time on 5 March 2013.
The role of the Science Panel is to ensure environmental, social and economic challenges of policy, planning
and actions to achieve the vision of the partnership are supported by credible science through the provision
of independent scientific advice, review and direction. Importantly, this includes the synthesis of science
information and communication of findings in a timely and appropriate manner to technical and non-technical
audiences.
The Chair of the Independent Science Panel informed the Review that in the first 12 months the science panel
would be responsible for progressing the following:

Mapping of existing research, monitoring and mitigation programs in the Gladstone Harbour

Development of a draft conceptual model of Gladstone Harbour that depicts the synthesis of
current understanding

Identification of monitoring and research duplication and gaps in the understanding of the harbour
and the processes that impact on its water quality and ecosystem health, as well as its relationship
with the Great Barrier Reef

Program design recommendations to GHHP for an integrated research and monitoring framework
to inform a future Healthy Harbour Report Card

Making recommendations to the GHHP on actions required to address any emerging science issues
required for Gladstone Harbour.
During the Review, it was suggested that the Independent Science Panel could integrate and manage the
various monitoring initiatives. Having an independent umbrella organisation could be helpful. However, as
some of the current initiatives such as the DTRP and ERMP are required under EPBC Act approvals, transfer
of responsibility to such a panel would require careful consideration about governance and transitional
arrangements. The Independent Science Panel of the GHHP will not be able to oversee every single research,
monitoring or other information procedure. However, it should ensure that monitoring and management is
based on a whole-of-system approach such that environmental issues can be detected and responded to in a
cohesive and well informed manner.
The Review also heard from industry, research and community representatives that the uncertainty around
the funding model for the GHHP is problematic and a decision on whether to enter into the partnership may
not be possible until the end of the 2013 calendar year. The GHHP will only be successful in gaining public
confidence if it is fully inclusive, transparent and responds to future incidents of concern. Delays in
confirming investment in, and commitment to, the partnership to match investment by the Queensland
Government will increase the chance of mistrust by stakeholder groups.
Finding 13. The GHHP and its associated Independent Science Panel is an excellent
opportunity for addressing environmental issues and building stakeholder and public
confidence in the future environmental management of the Port of Gladstone.
Recommendation 16. That the Australian Government continue to engage in and
support the establishment of the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership.
Recommendation 17. That, if the projected GHHP funding arrangements are not
realised and the GHHP is unable to form, an alternative community engagement,
monitoring and reporting model be established to address these functions.
64
Requirements of EPBC Act approvals
Each of the 13 EPBC approvals within the Port of Gladstone has a number of conditions attached (from five to
nearly 100 conditions). The Minister may only attach, or vary, a condition to the approval if he or she is
satisfied that the condition is necessary or convenient for protecting, repairing or mitigating damage to
matters protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act, such as the GBRWHA.
The majority of the conditions imposed on the EPBC approvals for developments in the Port of Gladstone
relate to the protection of biodiversity, predominantly listed species and their habitats. Conditions are
generally linked to a desirable outcome (e.g. protection of a listed species) to be achieved through a process
of further information gathering and the development of plans and management responses. There are also
numerous conditions relating to administration, record keeping, reporting and auditing.
Plans
The process used for the finalisation of plans varies depending on the wording of the conditions. Generally
each of the management, monitoring and offset plans is reviewed and approved by the Minister or delegate
following preparation by the proponent. Usually, relevant work cannot commence until the plan has been
approved. The Minister may ask the proponent to make specific revisions to the approved plan or the
proponent may propose changes. The Minister must approve any changes and the proponent must then
implement the revised plan instead of that previously approved.
Over time the conditions of EPBC approvals relating to these management plans have been standardised
such that the wording in one condition is replicated across multiple developments, particularly where
activities and the flora and fauna present are very similar.
As the EPBC Act does not allow the Minister to condition a third party through an approval, each of the
proponents must separately develop and provide particular plans. Whilst the approvals do not prevent
proponents from cooperating or even submitting a single plan for multiple developments, they cannot compel
such cooperation. This can lead to disconnected plans and proposals and causes confusion for stakeholders
as well as less than optimal environmental outcomes and financial inefficiencies. Joint plans allow for the
reduction in duplication for the proponents and regulators.
Each of the three proponents of the LNG facilities on Curtis Island agreed to cooperate in the preparation of a
long-term marine turtle management plan and to participate in industry-wide discussions. The LNG
proponents have jointly submitted a single long-term marine turtle management plan, which is currently
under review by the department. Once approved, it will be published on their websites. In the event that such
a plan could not be agreed on an industry-wide basis, then each proponent would be required to prepare a
long-term marine turtle management plan in consultation with the other LNG proponents.
GPC is undertaking the dredging work on behalf of all the LNG proponents. Where for instance GPC
undertakes dredging work on behalf of LNG proponents, it makes sense to use a joint approach. Joint
approaches are allowed under some of the conditions. Under the Santos LNG facility approval, a condition
contains a note that states:
These conditions do not prevent the Gladstone Ports Corporation, on behalf of the proponent, from
submitting a single dredge management plan which relates to both dredging for the construction dock
under these conditions, and dredging undertaken under conditions attached to the approval for the
Gladstone Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project (EPBC 2009/4904).
Finding 14. Approval conditions that facilitate and enable cooperation and
collaboration between proponents, and avoid duplication, are a useful mechanism for
maximising environmental benefits, minimising regulatory burden and creating
certainty for industry and the broader community.
65
Specific requirements of note
Dredge Technical Reference Panel (duration of dredging works in the Western Basin)
The DTRP was established as a result of an EPBC Act condition of approval for the Western Basin Dredging
and Disposal Project. The DTRP provides advice on, reviews and oversees all aspects of water quality
monitoring, including the water quality monitoring programs. It also assesses any exceedance of trigger
values and seagrass changes, and advises changes to dredging practices. Members of the DTRP must
include regulators, independent scientific experts in seagrass and benthic habitat research and management,
and a technical expert in dredging matters. The DTRP is required to meet regularly for the duration of the
project. GPC provides secretariat support to the panel.
The DTRP routinely reviews water quality monitoring data, seagrass health and dredging practices 19. Results
of the monitoring are publicly available on their website 20. The DTRP is able to make recommendations (if
deemed necessary) to government regulators for changes to water quality monitoring practices or the
dredging management plan (e.g. the implementation of light attenuation trigger levels to replace turbidity
triggers). The proponent is required to provide to the Minister a copy of all the recommendations made by the
DTRP and an explanation of how these recommendations have been, or will be, implemented.
The DTRP process appears to be robust and effective at ensuring adequate protection of seagrass and water
quality. However, there is a distinct lack of awareness and confidence by some stakeholder groups that have
not been involved in the DTRP process. This view appears to be associated with a general distrust by some
groups in science funded by industry and used to inform decision-making.
The DTRP is only focused on the capital works project. Consultation regarding maintenance dredging is
usually conducted through a Technical Advisory Consultative Committee that is convened by GPC. This
committee has not been examined in detail through the Review.
Recommendation 18. That, as dredging operations transition from capital to
maintenance works, monitoring and reporting be continued in a transparent and
consistent manner.
Port Curtis and Port Alma Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program (duration: 2011 to at least 2020)
The Port Curtis and Port Alma ERMP was established as a result of an EPBC Act condition of approval for the
Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project. The purpose of the ERMP is to acquire a detailed ecological
understanding of the marine environment of Port Curtis and Port Alma that can be used to monitor, manage
and/or improve the regional marine environment and to offset potential impacts from the project.
The ERMP is developed and implemented by an independent panel of marine experts 21. It includes a Research
Advisory Panel to assist in the design and ongoing review of the ERMP such that the research is relevant and
incorporated into the adaptive management of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project. Members
must include independent scientific experts of whom at least one must be a scientist with expertise in inshore
dolphins, another in marine reptiles, another in migratory shorebirds and another in tropical marine ecology.
The terms of reference set out the purpose, objectives, functions, membership, meetings and the process for
resolving conflicts of interest within the ERMP. A number of possible improvements are currently under
consideration by the ERMP, specifically in relation to future external reviews of projects, improving the turnaround times for ERMP advice and quorum arrangements. GPC provides secretariat support to the panel.
The ERMP funds research projects to examine the short, medium and long-term impacts on a range of marine
19
http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/dredge_technical_reference_panel
20
http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/water_quality_monitoring/section/environmental
21
http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/ermp/section/environmental
66
megafauna and plant life. A triage approach is adopted for prioritising projects. Following the cessation of
existing seagrass monitoring programs, the Research Advisory Panel will oversee annual seagrass
monitoring for the remaining duration of the program. Management of seagrass monitoring and research is
currently undertaken by the Dredge Technical Reference Panel, with copies of reports and findings being
forwarded to the Research Advisory Panel for review and comment. The proponent is required to make the
findings, including related data, of any or all of the studies publicly available upon request by any interested
parties.
Concerns were raised by numerous stakeholders during the Review that the ERMP is not currently working
effectively. Criticisms focused on a lack of independence, both in relation to panel members (e.g. members and
chair also tender to conduct the research) and the secretariat (e.g. extensive representations at meetings and
filtering of advice). Concerns were also raised about inadequate recognition of previous and existing work (e.g.
work of the DTRP) as well as a lack of clarification about funding for research not specific to turtles or seabirds.
The range of concerns raised, and the evidence provided to support them, were significant and lead to the
conclusion that that the intent of the EPBC approval could be met better with a revised model.
Recommendation 19. That the Australian Government review the ERMP to determine
whether a revised model may better meet the intent of the EPBC approval.
Other initiatives
Port Curtis Integrated Monitoring Program (duration: 2001–ongoing)
The PCIMP is an incorporated association, which facilitates collaboration of 15 local industries and
organisations, and which focuses on ambient mid- to far-field monitoring, based on discharges and
compliance requirements (primarily those of the Queensland Government). It was established in 2001.
In 2011, PCIMP was restructured to improve governance, including formalising procedural and management
controls. As part of this restructure the program was independently reviewed and, based on the recommendations
of the review, PCIMP’s Technical Sub-Committee designed an interim water quality monitoring program. The new
interim program, which commenced in 2012, was also independently reviewed by both government specialists
and some of the experts from the original review panel. PCIMP advised that it has responded to the
recommendations of the review and noted that some of the recommendations are likely to be addressed through
the GHHP.
PCIMP currently carries out an interim quarterly water quality monitoring program, which includes
bioaccumulation of metals in oysters. The data from each research theme is analysed, collated, interpreted
and presented in the form of a Port Curtis Ecosystem Health Report Card 22. Concerns were raised during the
Review that these underlying data are not publicly accessible.
Finding 15. The public release of PCIMP’s monitoring data would improve public
confidence in the program.
Curtis Coast coastal and marine resource inventory report
The GPC released the Curtis Coast coastal and marine resource inventory report in June 2013. It sought to
provide an update to the Curtis Coast study resource report that was released in 1994, and to provide a
comprehensive description of the history, society and natural resources of the Curtis Coast region. It draws
on a range of research undertaken in the region and provides various references for more in depth
consideration. Such compilations of information are useful and relatively rare for Australian ports.
22
http://www.pcimp.com.au
67
Integration of water quality governance measures
Understanding how each of the programs and levels of governance work together to protect the environment,
and particularly the OUV of the GBRWHA, can be very challenging. The Review specifically examined how
each of the measures work together to maintain water quality within the Port of Gladstone. It used the model
of governance outlined in Figure 3 in the Introduction and provides analysis under the headings of the
different elements.
Planning
In late June 2013, the Queensland Government released a Draft Central Queensland Regional Plan for public
consultation. Whilst the plan acknowledges the state’s interest in environment protection, including healthy
waters, it does not contain specific measures or standards for water quality, inferring that existing state and
national legislation and local government planning schemes are sufficient.
The Gladstone Regional Council adopted a 20-year Gladstone Region Community Plan on 17 May 2011. The
plan includes environmental and social responsibility and appreciation of the region’s natural environment as
core values, and outlines how water quality is protected under the topics of ‘protecting and enhancing the
environment’ and ‘environmental monitoring’. The council makes development decisions about land use and
discharges in line with planning schemes which are publicly available online.
The Gladstone SDA Development Scheme was released in September 2012. The objectives of the scheme
include recognition and protection of environmental, cultural heritage and community values as well as
ensuring impacts of development on the environment, including cumulative impacts, are minimised. One
purpose of the environmental management precincts within the SDA is to provide areas for open space where
remnant vegetation, wetlands, waterways and areas of ecological significance can remain, and where
revegetation can occur.
There are also policy measures both at the national level, such as the National Water Quality Management
Strategy, ANZECC Guidelines (see specific discussion in Chapter 5), and the state level, such as the
Environmental Protection Act 1994, the Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 and the Queensland Water
Quality Guidelines 2009. The Queensland Government is currently working on specific regional water quality
guidelines.
Environmental assessment and decision-making
Within the Port of Gladstone, conditions are placed on project approvals to protect water quality from new
developments. Conditions vary from project to project depending on the project’s impacts, and standardised
approaches have changed over time in line with improved information and methods. For the 13 projects
examined by the Review, there is a plethora of conditions that relate directly or indirectly to the protection of
water quality.
The EPBC Act approvals generally protect water quality through high-level management and governance
oriented conditions. This includes requirements for numerous management plans that must include water
quality protection measures (including plans for managing the environment, aquatic values, dredging and
shipping). Other conditions specify minimum requirements for water quality in line with published national
and state guideline documents (e.g. for discharge of treated sewage effluent) or in line with baseline data
collected through monitoring. The conditions also require establishment of reference groups such as the
DTRP which has a specific, technical role related to the protection of water quality.
The Queensland Coordinator-General’s conditions of approval reflect the greater specificity of state legislation in
relation to water resources. State approvals require management plans (e.g. for construction, operations,
wastewater management, erosion and sediment control, wastewater disposal) but are generally much more
prescriptive about what a plan should contain. Water quality standards are also generally more targeted, including
specific standards for potable water quality, quality of released contaminants such as treated sewage effluent and
reverse osmosis concentrate, permitted release points and the use and disposal of hydrostatic test waters.
68
Standards are also imposed for stormwater, erosion and sediment control measures and their maintenance.
Environmental authorities granted under the Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994 build on many of
the conditions recommended by the Coordinator-General (such as finalised permitted contaminant release
and discharge points), and can include additional requirements such as specified limits for the quality,
quantity and dilution of contaminants and additional mitigation measures.
GPC’s environmental governance mechanisms also apply in the operation of the port. GPC’s Environmental
Management System and Environmental Policy link with their Environmental Management Plans and Continuous
Improvement Plans developed for specific operations. During 2011–12, GPC experienced a large number of
incidents where stormwater discharges exceeded the limits set in their development approvals. They have made
changes in line with their environmental governance mechanisms to address this and other issues such as dust
management.
Legislation and guidelines also apply to activities upstream from the Port of Gladstone, including the
regulation of land clearing, fertiliser loads and water discharges. The Review did not examine the governance
mechanisms outside the Port of Gladstone in any detail.
Monitoring and reporting
Water quality monitoring includes compliance monitoring (e.g. monitoring discharge points to ensure
volumes and quality meets requirements) and environmental monitoring. In some cases in the Port of
Gladstone, environmental monitoring is linked formally to an adaptive management regime (e.g. stop
dredging if light monitor readings drop below thresholds). In other cases it aims to collect information that
can be used in future decision-making. Some of the monitoring requirements are imposed as conditions of
approval (e.g. DTRP). Others, such as PCIMP, are voluntary initiatives which have the potential to provide
information that could be used to meet conditions of approval.
The monitoring programs described earlier in this chapter all include some data relevant to water quality. There
has been substantial monitoring of water quality within the Port of Gladstone for many years. Some of the
information has been gathered through ongoing monitoring programs (e.g. the Central Queensland Water
Quality Monitoring by the Queensland Government) and some has been gathered through short- to mid-term
monitoring campaigns for specific purposes (e.g. sediment sampling and analysis by GPC). The Independent
Science Panel of the GHHP has been mapping the various monitoring programs within the Port of Gladstone to
identify the scope and purpose of the programs as well as the data format and accessibility.
The various monitoring programs under way within the Port of Gladstone have different reporting
arrangements. For example, the DTRP regularly uploads data to the Internet, the Central Queensland Water
Quality Monitoring makes data available upon request and PCIMP publishes reports based on highly derived
information and the underlying data is not released. Compliance monitoring results appear to be provided to
regulators as per conditions of approval.
Compliance and enforcement
Compliance and enforcement efforts are not specific to environmental attributes or the purpose of particular
requirements. They are generally applied consistently under a piece of legislation. There are no compliance
and enforcement measures specifically targeted to water quality protection. However, the majority of
allegations of non-compliance made to the Review related to impacts to water quality through dredging,
construction of Fisherman’s Landing reclamation area, discharges and sea disposal. The compliance of
existing developments within the Port of Gladstone is discussed in Chapter 5.
Transparency, engagement and objectivity
The numerous requirements across different levels of governance that may apply to any one part of a
development can be very confusing for a third party to decipher. The Review heard significant frustratio n
by some stakeholder groups about perceived non-compliance and inaction of governments to respond to
allegations particularly relating to water quality. Generally, these allegations were circumstantial and did
69
not relate specifically to the wording of conditions of approval.
The Australian and Queensland Government conditions relating to water quality involve different information
requirements and timing. Conditions that require water quality monitoring and management plans to be
developed result in the final on-ground action required only being articulated in final approved plans.
Conditions of approval can also be varied, so interested parties must keep abreast of updated conditions,
monitoring data, management plans and licences in order to understand how the impacts of a single
development are being regulated. If these documents were made easily accessible through a single wellpublicised portal, transparency and accountability could be improved. In the absence of a comprehensive
engagement mechanism in the past, such as the GHHP, public concern over environmental impacts and lack
of adequate regulation has not been adequately addressed.
Overall, the environmental management and governance in place in the Port of Gladstone to protect water
quality is very comprehensive and based on sound science. However, the multiple layers can give rise to
unnecessary duplication and result in confusion for stakeholders. The GHHP may assist to minimise this
confusion in the future.
Public confidence
The lack of confidence of some stakeholder groups in the scientific investigations and assessments under
way within the Port of Gladstone is a concern. Claims range from misrepresentation of results through to
deliberate interference in data collection.
Data availability
Data availability was a key concern raised in the Review. Data collected by government agencies are
generally available to members of the public and available on the Internet e.g. marine strandings data. On the
other hand monitoring data for a specific consented development are only typically available to members of
the public where the condition requires it to be, or the proponent chooses to do so. Alternatively, some
conditions only require the data to be released if someone requests the information. As a general principle,
data collected in response to regulatory requirements should be made freely available.
GPC is required to make the ERMP findings, including related data, of any or all of the studies publicly
available upon request by any interested parties. The DTRP findings are publicly available on their website23.
Summaries of EPBC Act audits are posted on the department’s website and the results of audits may also be
publicised through the general media.
Numerous claims were raised throughout the Review that there was no baseline data prior to the approval of
dredging and LNG plant constructions in 2010–11. Whilst this appears to be true for some parameters (e.g.
turtles and dugong), the broader water quality, sediment sampling and seagrass information was substantial,
far exceeding that of most other ports within Australia. This is discussed further in Chapter 5.
Finding 16. High quality baseline information on water quality, sediment quality and
seagrass in the Port of Gladstone was available to inform approval of projects in 2010–11.
However, baseline information on megafauna and fish health in the Port of Gladstone is
limited.
Science translation and communication
In the current climate of suspicion and distrust, the effective communication of science is a critical iss ue.
23
http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/water_quality_monitoring/section/environmental
70
The GHHP and associated Independent Science Panel provides an opportunity for addressing potential
conflicts between funders, expert design, product review panels and contractors.
Conversion of data into information that is understandable and relevant to the general public is important but is
only effective when the public have confidence in the source. It was clear from submissions and discussions
that stakeholder engagement processes, including those associated with strategic planning, were poor, with
inadequate availability of information, little effective explanation or discussion of plans or ways of addressing
issues of concern and distrust.
The role of representatives of the regulators in the operation of technical advisory bodies within the Port of
Gladstone appears variable. Whilst departmental officials receive advice from the DTRP and ERMP, they do
not attend every technical or advisory meeting for every project. The GBRMPA engages in advisory fora and
workshops on a case-by-case basis. The lack of clarity of the role of regulators in advisory bodies was a
factor in public lack of confidence. Locally-based advisory bodies provide an avenue for access to regulators
that are usually not readily available to some stakeholder groups.
Recommendation 20. That the Australian Government (including the department and
GBRMPA) develop a coordinated approach for active engagement in post-approval
advisory and technical bodies.
Conclusion
There is a range of management, monitoring and reporting programs under way within the Port of Gladstone.
Each program is designed for a specific purpose and there are variable levels of integration of the programs
and interaction with the community.
In a general sense, the Port of Gladstone is one of the most intensively studied port areas in Australia. Large
corporations are increasingly investing more in high quality research to meet their social and environmental
responsibilities. For some attributes, such as water quality, there is high quality information available.
Requirements of environmental approvals provide additional safeguards to environmental attributes and
improve the quality of information available to manage the impacts of existing developments and predict
impacts of new developments in the future.
There are some inadequacies in the way some monitoring and reporting programs are undertaken, including
the potential for unnecessary duplication and the manner that results are communicated. Once fully
established, the GHHP model should be a suitable mechanism to identify areas of duplication, monitoring
gaps and opportunity for integration in the future. For the partnership to be successful it will need to remain
transparent, inclusive and responsive. Decision-making by potential corporate partners about investment in
the partnership should be considered a priority.
71
8. Implications for Traditional Owners
and the Local Community
... lessons learned for the future development and operation of Gladstone and other port areas within and
adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage property, including the implications for Traditional
Owners and the local community dependent on the resources of the area.
Introduction
The Port of Gladstone is situated within the northern section of the area covered by the Port Curtis and Coral
Coast (PCCC) Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreement (TUMRA) between the Traditional Owners and
the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The PCCC grouping, comprising four tribal groups of Traditional
Owners: Gooreng Gooreng; Gurang; Bailai and Tarebilang Bunda, engaged in the Review through the
Steering Committee for the Native Title representative body, the Gidarjil Development Corporation.
The local community in Gladstone engaged through submissions and discussions with community groups
such as the Gladstone Regional Environment Network and the Fitzroy Basin Association, as well as local
sectoral interests such as fishing and conservation.
The Port of Gladstone and surrounds contain values of social amenity and cultural importance, including
management of land and sea country and associated traditional knowledge. Concerns were raised during the
Review that these values have not been adequately considered or protected in the expansion and operation
of the Port of Gladstone in recent years.
Concerns were also raised during the Review about human health implications of development. These were
primarily linked to concerns about fish health in the Port of Gladstone. Fish health is discussed in Chapter 5.
Findings and recommendations throughout this report are relevant to implications for Traditional Owners and
the local community, in particular those related to public confidence and community engagement. This
chapter does not replicate these findings, but highlights additional specific matters of direct relevance.
Indigenous matters relating to development in Gladstone
Lands within the Bundaberg and Gladstone region are the subject of a Native Title Claim by the Port Curtis
Coral Coast Native Title Claim Group 24. GPC indicated to the Review that they were investigating the potential
to negotiate a possible Indigenous Land Use Agreement under Native Title legislation for future actions within
the Port of Gladstone area.
The Gidarjil Development Corporation submission to the Review stated that Traditional Owners want to
become actively involved in policy, monitoring and management of the protection of Gladstone Harbour. The
current processes for engagement by GPC with Traditional Owners are unclear. This may be addressed in the
establishment of the Gladstone Healthy Harbours Partnership, but Traditional Owners considered that they
have not been meaningfully involved or consulted in the past. Meaningful engagement with Traditional
Owners and local communities should involve more than providing large technical documents
(e.g. Environmental Impact Statements) for review. For example, arrangements such as those under the
TUMRAs between the Traditional Owners and Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority are helpful to
coordinate input and build capacity within Aboriginal organisations to engage in policy, planning and
management of their land and sea country.
24
The Port Curtis Coral Coast Claim: National Native Title Tribunal file no QC2001/029; Federal Court of Australia file
no QUD6026/2001.
72
Finding 17. Aboriginal involvement in policy, planning and management of the Port of
Gladstone has been limited to date.
The Gidarjil Development Corporation submission to the Review included a review of Aboriginal cultural
heritage issues for the Port of Gladstone and raised the issue of more comprehensive identification and
registration of cultural heritage sites. In discussion concerning the lack of information on cultural heritage
sites and unintended destruction of such sites in past development in Gladstone, Traditional Owners
explained that there was some resistance to documentation of sites because of concern that this would lead
to their deliberate destruction, but documentation of cultural sites and the likely historical use of the coastal
areas by Aboriginal communities is needed. This would enable more robust identification and consideration
of sensitivities related to such sites in management and future development of the Port of Gladstone and
surrounding areas.
Recommendation 21. That Traditional Owners be supported to design and conduct a
comprehensive study to identify and register cultural heritage sites within the Port of
Gladstone and surrounds.
The Gidarjil Development Corporation submission stated that proponents do not generally involve Traditional
Owners in monitoring and management activities. Traditional Owners have substantial knowledge of the
behaviour and biology of the environment and species of dietary or cultural significance. Paired with
scientific knowledge and data management, such knowledge can improve the information base for resource
and environment management. Traditional Owner engagement in environmental monitoring and management
activities can enable this pairing of knowledge and provide employment opportunities for Aboriginal people.
Recommendation 22. That the Australian Government develop clear policy and
guidelines for proponents and decision makers to promote active engagement and
involvement of Traditional Owners and local communities in proposals that may
impact on OUV.
Implications for local community
Fishing, boating, swimming, and other recreational activities in the sheltered waters, islands and mangrove creeks
of the Port of Gladstone have been central to human use of the area since before the port was established. While
employment in the port and associated industries has enabled the city to grow, community groups are concerned
that this growth should not come at the cost of significant loss or damage to the natural environment. During
consultation for the Review, concerns were raised that the majority of impacts from recent developments in the
Port of Gladstone is borne by the local communities, whereas the majority of the benefits flows to the wider state
area. Submissions to the Review expressed concern and frustration at the lack of effective consultation,
transparency and data availability in relation to port development and management. The Gladstone Healthy
Harbour Partnership is intended to provide a forum for community engagement, information and consultation.
This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.
The recent history of Gladstone reflects local impacts of fluctuations in housing costs and employment
opportunities for local people from periods of intense development construction. The effect of fly in fly out
construction workers housed on site but with no affiliation with Gladstone has changed this dynamic but the
consequences for the local economy and employment are unclear.
The projected potential for impacts (both benefits and costs) to the local communities in Gladstone was
detailed in the Gladstone LNG Project EIS. It acknowledged that the Gladstone Region had experienced a
strong property market and tight rental market in recent years, attributed to previous large construction
projects. The strain on local facilities and services was rated as extreme risk, but reduced to low risk by
73
proposed mitigation strategies, such as worker accommodation on Curtis Island.
Predicted environmental impacts of approved developments are usually monitored and reported. However,
similar monitoring and reporting rarely occurs for predicted social and economic impacts. Reporting by
companies about the social and economic benefits of their projects can be perceived as promotional rather
than factual. An independent assessment of the overall social and economic impacts of development in the
region may assist to resolve the disjunct between community and industry perceptions and improve future
predictions and decision-making.
Recommendation 23. That the Australian Government inform future decision-making
by investigating realised social, cultural and economic impacts of development in the
Port of Gladstone against impacts predicted in EIS documentation.
Conclusion
Traditional Owners and some members of the local community expressed to the Review that recent major
approval decisions have insufficiently addressed implications for their use of resources of the area. Active
involvement of local communities from the start of a project can increase community confidence and improve
communication with developers and managers. It can also improve the quality of information gathered.
Initiatives under way, in particular the GHHP, have the potential to improve engagement in the future. However,
clear guidance to proponents about standards and principles for engagement in individual project proposals
would also assist to establish an effective and consistent approach.
Reconciling the predicted impacts to local communities of major developments with the actual impacts can
be useful to build community confidence and improve the way predictions about costs and benefits are made
in the future. However, in a growing area like the Port of Gladstone, it can be challenging to assign a
particular social benefit or cost to any single development. In addition, unless the information is prepared by
a trusted source, it may not be accepted by community representatives.
74
Appendix 1: Review Panel
Anthea Tinney PSM (Chair)

Chair, Sydney Harbour Federation Trust (2011 – present)

Chair, Australian National Commission for UNESCO (2009–2013)

Member, Australian Government’s Independent Communications Committee (2010 – present)

Non-executive Director, Cooperative Research Centre for Contamination Assessment and
Remediation of the Environment (CARE) (2011 – present)

Chair, Land and Water Australia (2009)

Deputy Secretary, federal environment portfolio (1997–2008)

Head, Cabinet Office, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (1990–1995).
Associate Professor Eva Abal

Chief Scientific Officer, Great Barrier Reef Foundation (2008 – present)

Director, University of Queensland Water Initiative (2013 – present)

Member, Gladstone Healthy Harbour Independent Science Panel (2013 – present)

Associate Professor, University of Queensland (2009 – present)

Convenor, SEQ Science Integration Panel (2011–2012)

Chief Scientist, International Water Centre Partnership (2007–2012)

Member, Asian Water Development Outlook 2011 Team (2009–2011)

Science Program Director, SEQ Healthy Waterways (1996–2011)

Research Assistant, The University of Queensland (1992–1996)

PhD, Botany. The University of Queensland (1992–1996).
Professor Richard Kenchington

Visiting Professor, Australian Centre for Ocean Resources and Security, University of Wollongong
(1999 – present)

Principal Investigator, CSIRO joint flagships Coastal Cluster research program (2009 – present)

Expert briefing, United Nations Informal Consultative Process (2002)

Degree of Honorary Doctor of Science (2001)

President of the Australian Committee, IUCN (1998–1999)

Global Co-ordinator, International Coral Reef Initiative (1997–1998)

Secretary, Inquiry into the uses and management of Australia ‘s Coastal Zone (1990–1993)

Foundation staff member, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (1977).
75
Dr Ian Cresswell

Science Director, CSIRO Wealth from Oceans Flagship (2008 – present)

Chair, National Environmental Research Program Marine Biodiversity Hub Steering Committee
(2011 – present)

Chair, Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities (CERF) Marine Biodiversity Hub Steering
Committee (2008–2011)

Chair, Australian National Marine Mammal Scientific Committee (2009 – present)

Member, Pacific Australia Climate Change Science and Adaptation Program Management
Committee (2011 – present)

Member, Atlas of Living Australia Management Committee (2009 – present)

Chair, Marine and Coastal Committee Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Taskforce (2009–2011)

Chair, Marine and Coastal Committee Marine Biodiversity Decline Taskforce (2007–2009).
76
Appendix 2: Table of Submissions
Submission
number
Submitted by
1
Future Fisheries Veterinary Service Pty Ltd
2
Australians for Animals
3
Australian Institute of Marine Science
4
BirdLife Capricornia
5
Individual submission
6
Individual submission
7
Individual submission
8
Gidarjil Development Corporation
9
Gladstone Conservation Council
10
Gladstone Region Environmental Advisory Network
11
Port Curtis Integrated Monitoring Program
12
Queensland Conservation Council
13
Queensland Ports Authority
14
Queensland Tourism Industry Council
15
Save the Reef
16
Sunfish Queensland
17
World Wildlife Fund & Australian Marine Conservation Society
18
Queensland Seafood Industry Association
19
Arrow Energy Pty Ltd
20
Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation
21
Law Essentials
22
Rio Tinto
23
Queensland Resources Council
24
Gladstone Ports Corporation
25
GetUp! Campaign – 1794 submissions
26
Capricorn Conservation Council Inc.
27
Ports Australia
77
Appendix 3: Information Considered
Key documents
The Review considered information from a number of sources including submissions, websites of relevant
organisations and bodies, media articles, journals, reports and reviews, departmental policies and guidelines,
Commonwealth and Queensland government legislation, Hansard and statutory notices.
The Review also considered a variety of documentation associated with the assessment, approval and postapproval management of projects under the EPBC Act.
The key documents reviewed outlined below.
Amies, R., McCormack, C., and Rasheed, M. (2013) Gladstone Permanent Transect Seagrass Monitoring:
Monthly report March 2013. James Cook University. Editor.
Andersen, L.E. (2003) A study into the epidemiology of mud crab (scylla serrata) shell disease [manuscript] /
Leonie Elizabeth Andersen. Central Queensland University. Faculty of Arts, Health and Sciences.
Australian and Queensland Governments (2013) Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2011 Reef Water Quality
Protection Plan.
Australian Government. (2009) Australian Natural Resources Atlas. [cited 2013 25 March]; Available from:
http://nrmonline.nrm.gov.au
Australian Government (2009) Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement
Australian Government (2012) Queensland Bilateral Assessment Agreement
Australian Government (2013) State party report on the state of conservation of the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area (Australia) property ID N154. The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities. Editor.
Australian Government. (2013) Bureau of Meteorology Queensland annual climate summary archive. Available
from: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/qld/archive.
Bridgewater, P. (1993) World Heritage and its role in a national nature conservation system: An Australian
perspective. Australian Parks and Recreation. 29(3): p. 35–41.
Brodie, J., McCulloch, M., Coles, R., Mumby, P., Fernandes, L., Pandolfi, J., Hoegh-Guldberg, O.,
Possingham, H., Marsh, H. and Richmond, B. (2013) Declaration by concerned scientists on industrial
development of the Great Barrier Reef coast.
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE) (2013) Australia’s bulk ports. Report
135. Canberra ACT.
Cagnazzi, D., Parra, G.J., Westley, S., and Harrison, P.L. (2013) At the heart of the Industrial boom:
Australian snubfin dolphins in the Capricorn Coast, Queensland, need urgent conservation action. PLOS One.
8(2).
Central Queensland Ports Authority (2006) Wiggins Island coal terminal: Environmental impact statement.
Coles, R.G., Lee Long, W.J., Helmke, S.A., Bennett, R.E., Miller, K.J., and Derbyshire, K.J. (1992)
Seagrass beds and juvenile prawn and fish nursery grounds, Cairns to Bowen. in Queensland Department of
Primary Industries lnfonnalion Series. p. 64.
Collier, C.J., Waycott, M., and McKenzie, L.J. (2012) Light thresholds derived from seagrass loss in the
coastal zone of the northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Ecological Indicators. 23: p. 211-219.
78
Commonwealth of Australia (2009) National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009. Canberra.
Commonwealth of Australia (2012) Compliance and Enforcement Policy: Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Canberra.
Connell Wagner (2008) Site selection study: LNG production and export precinct — Public release document.
Report prepared for the Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Planning.
Davies, J.N., McCormack, C.V. and Rasheed, M.A. (2012) Gladstone Permanent Transect Seagrass
Monitoring – October 2012 Update Report, DAFF Publication, Fisheries Queensland, Cairns, 16pp.
Department of Environment and Resource Management (2011) Gladstone seasonal events. Gladstone
Harbour Fish Health/ Water Quality Extended Oversight Committee. Editor.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) Statement of
Outstanding Universal Value: Great Barrier Reef.
Douvere, F. and Badman, T. (2012) Mission report: Reactive Monitoring Mission to Great Barrier Reef
(Australia) 6th to 14th March 2012. in World Heritage Committee thirty-sixth session. UNESCO World Heritage
Centre and IUCN. Editor: Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation.
Furnas, M., Mitchell, A., and Skuza, M. River inputs of nutrients and sediment to the Great Barrier Reef. in
State of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Workshop. 1995. Townsville, Queensland, Australia.
Gaus, C., Grant, S., Jin, N.L., Goot, K., Chen, L., Villa, A., Neugebauer, F., Qi, L., and Limpus, C. (2012)
Investigation of contaminant levels in green turtles from Gladstone.
Gladstone Fish Health Scientific Advisory Panel (2012) Gladstone Fish Health Scientific Advisory Panel:
Final report.
Gladstone Harbour Fish Health Interdepartmental Committee (2013) Gladstone Harbour Integrated Aquatic
Investigation Program 2012 report. Queensland Government Department of Environment and Heritage
Protection. Editor.
Gladstone Ports Corporation (2009) Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project, Appendix L: Sediment
quality assessment.
Gladstone Ports Corporation (2009) Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project, Appendix K: Water
quality report.
Gladstone Ports Corporation (2011) Port Curtis and Port Alma Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program
(ERMP) Advisory Panel Terms of Reference.
Gladstone Port Authority (1997) Strategic Plan 1997–2047
Gladstone Ports Corporation (2012) 50 Year Strategic Plan.
Gladstone Ports Corporation (2012) Land Use Plan.
Gladstone Ports Corporation (2012) Transitional environmental program Western Basin bund sealing.
Gladstone.
Gladstone Ports Corporation (n.d.) Dredge Management Plan – Construction dock Queensland Curtis Island
LNG, Doc# 521532, Revision G.
Gladstone Ports Corporation. (2013) Western Basin port development environmental reports. [cited 2013
May 10]; Available from:
http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/environmental_reports/section/environmental.
Gladstone Regional Council (2012) Annual report 2011–12.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2009) Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2009.
79
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2012) Informing the outlook for Great Barrier Reef coastal
ecosystems.
Herzfeld, M., Parslow, J., Andrewartha, J., Sakov, P. and Webster, T. (2004) Hydrodynamic modelling of the
Port Curtis Region Project.
Infrastructure Australia (2011) National Ports Strategy.
Kroon, F., Kuhnert, P., Henderson, B., Henderson, A., Turner, R., Huggins, R., Wilkinson, S., Abbott, B.,
Brodie, J., and Joo, M. (2010) Baseline pollutant loads to the Great Barrier Reef. in Water for a healthy
country flagship.
Kroon, F.J. (2012) Towards ecologically relevant targets for river pollutant loads to the Great Barrier Reef.
Marine Pollution Bulletin. 65: p. 261-266.
Landos, M. (n.d.) Current status Great Barrier Reef Work Heritage Area – Gladstone Region. Gladstone
Fishing Research Fund.
Landos, M. (2012) Investigation of the causes of aquatic animal health problems in the Gladstone Harbour and
nearshore waters. Gladstone Fishing Research Fund. Editor.
Lucas, P.H.C., Webb, T., Valentine, P.S., and Marsh, H. (1997) The Outstanding Universal Value of the Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
Magnetic Island Community Development Association Incorporated (2006) Review of Kenchington and
Hegerl (2005) “World Heritage attributes and values Identified for Magnetic Island and the surrounding marine
environment”.
Marques, J.C., Costa, M.J., and de Jonge, V. (2013) Introducing “Assessing ecological quality in estuarine
and coastal systems – Management perspective”. Ocean & Coastal Management. 72: p. 1-2.
McCormack, C. V. and Rasheed, M.A. (2012) Gladstone Permanent Transect Seagrass Monitoring –
February 2012 interim update report, DEEDI Publication. Fisheries Queensland, Cairns, 11pp.
McCormack, C. V. and Rasheed, M.A. (2012) Gladstone Permanent Transect Seagrass Monitoring – May
2012 interim update report, DAFF Publication, Fisheries Queensland, Cairns, 11pp.
McCormack, C.V., Sankey, T.L., Davies, J.N., Carter, A.B. and Rasheed, M.A. (2012) Gladstone Permanent
Transect Seagrass Monitoring – August 2012 update report, DAFF Publication, Fisheries Queensland,
Cairns, 16pp.
McKenzie, L. J., C. Collier, and M. Waycott (2012) Reef Rescue Marine Monitoring Program – Inshore
seagrass, annual report for the sampling period 1st July 2010–31st May 2011. Fisheries Queensland, Cairns.
230pp.
Queensland Government Department of Environment and Resource Management (n.d.) Queensland
Government response to the Gladstone Fish Health Scientific Advisory Panel’s final report.
Queensland Government Department of Environment and Resource Management (2011) Port Curtis and
tributaries comparison of current and historical water quality. Brisbane.
Queensland Government Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (2012) Great
Barrier Reef Ports Strategy 2012–2022: For public consultation.
Rist, L., Campbell, B.M., and Frost, P. (2012) Adaptive management: where are we now? Environmental
Conservation. 40(1): p. 5-18.
Soto, A.B., Cagnazzi, D., Everingham, Y., Parra, G.J., Noadm, M. and Marsh, H. (2013) Acoustic alarms
elicit only subtle responses in the behaviour of tropical coastal dolphins in Queensland, Australia. Endangered
Species Research. 20: p. 271-282
80
Thomas, R., Unsworth, R.K.F., and Rasheed, M.A. (2010) Seagrasses of Port Curtis and Rodds Bay and
Long Term Seagrass Monitoring, November 2009. Cairns.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and Intergovernmental Committee for
the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1978) Operational guidelines for the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention. World Heritage Centre. Editor.
Whiteway, T., Smithers, S., Potter, A., and Brooke, B. (2013) Geological and geomorphological features of
Outstanding Universal Value in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritatge Area. in Technical report prepared for
the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Geoscience Australia
and James Cook University. Editor.
World Heritage Committee. State of conservation of World Heritage properties inscribed on the World
Heritage List. 2012.
World Wildlife Fund Australia and Australian Marine Conservation Society (2013) Status of
implementation of recommendations in World Heritage Committee decision 36 COM 7B.8, Great Barrier Reef
(Australia) and the March 2012 Reactive Monitoring Mission in Report to the UNESCO World Heritage
Committee.
UNESCO Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/guidelines/
Additional information
The Review received and considered a range of additional information including correspondence, meeting
minutes, presentations, internal departmental documents, witness statements and other information from
relevant organisations and bodies, members of the public and stakeholders.
The Review also considered a variety of unpublished documentation associated with the assessment,
approval and post-approval management of the projects under the EPBC Act.
The key additional information is outlined below. Some may also be publicly available. Some material was
provided by more than one source but has only been listed once below.
Source
Details
Australian Maritime Safety
Agency
Port State Control Statistics;
Australians for Animals
Backgrounder on PBR – dugongs and dolphins – Gladstone
Department of Resources, Energy
and Tourism
Comments regarding Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone’s
terms of reference and importance of Gladstone to Australia in terms of
industry and export
Dr Alana Grech, James Cook
University
Guiding principles for the improved governance of port and shipping
impacts in the Great Barrier Reef (unpublished)
Dr Andrew Jeremijenko
Email about Shewenella, toxic algae and senate committee findings
Dr Michael Rasheed, James Cook
University
Priority funding areas for seagrass research projects Priorities current
from October 2009 Review date December 2010, by Fisheries
Queensland a service of the Department of Employment, Economic
Development and Innovation
Environmetrics Australia
Email from Environmetrics Australia concerning comments attributed to
Environmetrics Australia in FFVS submission
Anchorage statistics
81
Fitzroy Basin Association
Report from Australian Marine Mammal Centre (AMMC) titled Population
genetics and phylogeography of Australian snubfin and humpback dolphins:
defining appropriate management units for conservation – Stage 1, Chief
Investigator Dr Guido J. Parra, Flinders University, Season 2009/10,
Activity Period 31 January 2010 – 31 November 2010
Future Fisheries Veterinary
Service
Assessment, monitoring and management of the Western Basin
Gladstone Harbour Development;
Recaptures of barramundi in the Central Queensland area from Yeppoon
to Sandy Straits. Recaptures in February;
Report by Gladstone Fish Health Scientific Advisory Panel about fish
health issues observed in Gladstone Harbour and surrounding areas in
the latter half of 2011;
Future Fisheries Veterinary
Service
Fish data and water quality hatchery sheets;
A technical review of the Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC) Western
Basin Dredging and Disposal Project (WBDDP), including the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Environmental Monitoring
associated with this project. By Debra A. Weeks, Ph.D. Funded by
Australians for Animals;
Response to GPC scientist submissions reviewing the FFVS’s report
Investigation of the Causes of Aquatic Animal Health problems in the
Gladstone Harbour and Nearshore Waters
Gidarjil Development Corporation
Ltd
Letter from Gidarjil Development Corporation Ltd about involvement in
the Gladstone management;
PCCC TUMRA – Environmental monitoring analysis 2012
Gladstone Healthy Harbour
Partnership, Independent Science
Panel
Draft table of ongoing environmental monitoring programs in Gladstone
Harbour;
Gladstone Ports Corporation
Limited (GPC)
Letter from GPC about Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project –
environmental reports;
Draft Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership, Independent Science
Panel, Terms of Reference, November 2012 to September 2013
Draft Curtis Coast coastal and marine resource inventory report January 2012,
GPC;
Curtis Island Vegetation Assessment 1999;
GPC 1992 Strategic Plan;
Site selection study LNG production and export precinct – Public release
document Department of Infrastructure and Planning 2008;
Review of Petus and Devlin (2012): Using satellite maps to document the
extent of sediment plume associated with dredging activity in Gladstone
Port’s Western Basin, Queensland. Prepared for GPC by Richard
Brinkman, Craig Steinberg and Lyndon Llewellyn of AIMS;
Third Party Audits of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project–
An overview;
Key Messages Summary – DSEWPaC Review;
Dredging information and specifications;
Draft Central Queensland Ports Authority Strategic Plan 2005-2055 (2006)
82
Unfinished report by Buckley Vann
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority
Wetland/Fish Habitat Values;
Infrastructure Australia
Draft report from Infrastructure Australia titled The economic significance
of Gladstone
Law Essentials
Chronology and compilation of events
Flooding and sediment loads
Letter from Law Essentials regarding further materials and commentary
in relation to the Law Essentials submission;
Letter from Baseline (Australasia) Pty Ltd about inspection of fish and
possible attribution of Red Spot Disease initiation at Gladstone;
Review of Gladstone Commercial Fish Catch Data, period July 2011 to
February 2012 vs same period in earlier years – Queensland Fisheries
Data
Pollution Research Pty Ltd
Final report titled Independent Review, Dredging and Sea Disposal of
Dredge Spoil Port of Gladstone
Port Curtis Integrated Monitoring
Program
Independent Review of the Port Cutis Integrated Monitoring Program –
Executive summary and recommendations
Ports Australia
Report response to the National Ports Strategy released in 2012
regarding port master planning
Turnstone Archaelogy, Port Curtis
Coral Coast (PCCC) and
Traditional Use of Marine
Resource Agreement (TUMRA)
Review of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Issues for the Port of Gladstone
for PCCC and TUMRA by Turnstone Archaeology 2013;
V & C Semeniuk Research Group
Review of Geoheritage Attributes Expressed as part of the Outstanding
Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area in relation
to the Port of Gladstone and surrounds
Wiggins Island Coal Export
Terminal Pty Ltd (WICT)
Letter from WICT about current status of Wiggins Island Coal Export
Terminal
World Wildlife Fund
Review of legislative changes undertaken by the Queensland
Government relevant to management of the Great Barrier Reef and
adjacent coastal ecosystems;
Letter from Environmental Defenders Office Queensland about recent
proposed changes to Queensland Vegetation Bill
83
Appendix 4: Table of Meetings
Date and
location
Panel members (NB: the secretariat
was present at all meetings)
Attendees
8 February,
Canberra
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington
and Eva Abal
DSEWPAC officers
12 February,
Brisbane
Anthea Tinney
GHHP Science Panel chair and secretariat
20 February,
Canberra
Anthea Tinney
26 February,
Townsville
Anthea Tinney
1 March,
Canberra
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
DSEWPAC Officers
8 March,
Gladstone
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
GPC – Flyover
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
Qld Parks and Wildlife – Harbour tour
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington
and Ian Cresswell
Gladstone Region Environmental Advisory Network
Anthea Tinney
Infrastructure Australia
12 March,
Sydney
(Kynan Gowland, Dieter Kluger, Emma Cully, Chris
Murphy, Charlie Brister and Ryan Black)
(Ian Poiner, Tony Robertson, John Lane, Kirsten
Kenyon and Lucy Hall)
GPC
(Leo Zussino)
GBRMPA
(Russell Reichelt, Andrew Skeat, Margaret Johnson,
Bruce Elliot, Adam Smith, Hugh Yorkston, Rean
Gilbert and Leigh Gray)
(Greg Terrill and Mary Colreavy)
(Leo Zussino and pilot)
(David Orgill and crew)
(Col Chapman)
(John Austen)
Anthea Tinney
GHHP and Fitzroy Basin Association
(Paul Birch)
28 March,
Canberra
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
DSEWPAC Officer
9 April
Brisbane
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
GHHP Science Panel
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
World Wildlife Fund and Australian Marine
Conservation Society
(Mary Colreavy)
(Ian Poiner and Emma McIntosh)
(Richard Leck and Di Tarte)
84
10 April
Gladstone
10 April
Gladstone
11 April
Gladstone
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
Qld Parks and Wildlife expert
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
Queensland Resources Council
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
Queensland Tourism Industry Council
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
Western Basin Dredge Technical Review Panel
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
State MP for Gladstone
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
PCIMP
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
Maritime Safety Queensland
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
Gladstone Region Environmental Advisory Network
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
Fitzroy Basin Association
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
APLNG, QGC and Santos
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
GPC
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington,
Eva Abal and Ian Cresswell
Law Essentials – commercial fishermen and
processors
(Col Limpus)
(Nicola Garland, Jamie Reilly, John Linden, Tom
Kaveney, Sue-Ern Tan, Ryan Duysen, Robert
Jeremy)
(Daniel Gschwind)
(Rick Morton)
(Liz Cunningham)
(Chad Hewitt and Anja Steinberg)
(John Fallon)
(Col Chapman, Kurt Heidecker, Jan Arens, Natalie
Dearden, Peter Bradley, Cheryl Watson)
(Paul Birch, Kurt Heidecker, Leo Neill-Ballantine,
Tom Coughlin, Shane Westley, Danielle Cagnazzi)
(Jamie Reilly, Andrew Betts)
(Leo Zussino, Peter O’Sullivan, Daniel Spooner,
Michel DeVos and Anjana Singh)
(Marnie Campbell)
(Michael Garrahy, Allan Holland, Neville Samuels,
Des Mercer, Jeff Robson, Lucy Robson, Mark
McMillan, Trevor Falzon, Gary Otto, Chris Sipp,
Simon Cunningham)
85
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington
and Eva Abal
Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation and
Sunfish
(Judy Lynne, Doug Sanderson and Greg O’Reilly)
12 April
Bundaberg
Anthea Tinney and Richard
Kenchington
Gidarjil Development Corporation
13 April,
Gladstone
Richard Kenchington
Port Curtis Coral Coast (PCCC) TUMRA Steering
Committee
(Kerry Blackman, Rick Fenestri, Aletha Blackman
and Colin Johnson)
(Chair – Kerry Blackman and committee members
and observers)
19 April,
Brisbane
Anthea Tinney and Eva Abal
Queensland Government officials
23 April,
Canberra
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington
and Ian Cresswell
DSEWPAC
Anthea Tinney, Richard Kenchington
and Ian Cresswell
Australian Maritime Safety Authority
30 April,
Brisbane
Richard Kenchington, Eva Abal and
Ian Cresswell
FFVS and Australians for Animals
1 May,
Ian Cresswell
James Cook University – Seagrass
(EHP – Andrew Chesterman, John Lane, Kirstin
Kenyon, Nicole Blackett, DAFF – Jim Thomson,
OCG – Phillip Kohn)
Cairns
(Mary Colreavy, Barbara Jones, James Barker, Paul
Murphy and Shane Gaddes)
(Mick Kinley)
(Matt Landos and Sue Arnold)
(Rob Coles and Michael Rasheed)
1 May,
Gladstone
Richard Kenchington
Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership
(NB Eva Abal also in attendance)
(Chair – Paul Birch and meeting attendees)
2 May,
Townsville
Richard Kenchington, Eva Abal and
Ian Cresswell
GBRMPA
Richard Kenchington, Eva Abal and
Ian Cresswell
James Cook University
Richard Kenchington, Eva Abal and
Ian Cresswell
Australian Institute of Marine Science
3 May,
Townsville
Richard Kenchington and Eva Abal
GBRMPA
14 June,
Canberra
Anthea Tinney
19 July,
Canberra
Anthea Tinney
(Bruce Elliot, Hugh Yorkston, Leigh Gray, Josh
Gibson, Hilary Skeat, Adam Smith and Rean Gilbert)
(Helene Marsh)
(John Gunn, Britta Schaffelke, and
Lyndon Llewellyn)
(Russell Reichelt)
DSEWPAC
(Paul Grimes and Kimberley Dripps)
DSEWPAC
(Paul Grimes, Kimberley Dripps and Carolyn
Cameron)
86
29 July,
Brisbane
Anthea Tinney and Eva Abal
Queensland Government officials
(EHP - Andrew Chesterman, Tony Roberts, John
Lane, DSDIP - Barry Broe (Coordinator-General),
Michael Allen, Phillip Kohn, and Sally Noonan)
87
Appendix 5: Outstanding Universal
Value
Sites on the World Heritage List are places that are important to and belong to everyone, regardless of where
in the world they are located. They are an irreplaceable legacy that the global community wants to protect for
the future.
To be inscribed on the World Heritage List, properties must:
1. meet one or more of 10 criteria for OUV
2. meet the conditions of integrity (for natural properties) or authenticity (for cultural properties)
3. have an adequate system of protection and management to safeguard their future.
Broadly, the definition of OUV follows the common sense interpretation of the words:
Outstanding: For properties to be of OUV they should be exceptional, or superlative – they should be the most
remarkable places on earth.
Universal: Properties need to be outstanding from a global perspective. World Heritage listing does not aim to
recognise properties that are remarkable from solely a national or regional perspective.
Value: What makes a property outstanding and universal is its ‘value’, or the natural and/or cultural worth of a
property. This value is determined based on standards and processes established under the UNESCO’s 2012
Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention (Operational Guidelines).
The Operational Guidelines state that protection and management of World Heritage properties should ensure
that their OUV, including the conditions of integrity at the time of inscription, are sustained or enhanced over
time.
Under UNESCO’s Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (the World
Heritage Convention), State Parties have an obligation ‘to ensure that effective and active measures are taken
for the protection, conservation and presentation of the cultural and natural heritage situated on its territory.’
The Operational Guidelines recognise that ‘no area is totally pristine and that all natural areas are in a
dynamic state and to some extent involve contact with people’ and that human activities ‘may be consistent
with the OUV of the area where they are ecologically sustainable’
When a property inscribed on the World Heritage List is threatened by serious and specific dangers, the
World Heritage Committee considers placing it on the List of World Heritage in Danger. When the OUV of the
property which justified its inscription on the World Heritage List is destroyed, the committee considers
deleting the property from the World Heritage List.
Integrity
Integrity does not equate to an absence of human activities from a World Heritage property. The GBRWHA
was nominated in 1981 as a very large coastal marine ecosystem managed for conservation and reasonable
multiple use.
The Operational Guidelines describe the integrity of World Heritage properties as ‘a measure of the
wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its attributes’.
Examining the conditions of integrity, therefore, requires assessing the extent to which the property:
88
a. includes all elements necessary to express its OUV
b. is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and processes which
convey the property’s significance
c. suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect.
In 1995 the Great Barrier Reef started a process to ‘develop a comprehensive list of Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Values, including their approximate geographic location where known’. The emerging report [3]
considered “that ‘the outstanding universal value’ of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area should be
treated as distributed through the whole area rather than being found in discrete locations unevenly
distributed throughout the area.” This reflected a view of the role of world heritage in a national conservation
system that the holistic nature of the area is critical [20].
In the Port of Gladstone, there are areas that have suffered from adverse effects of development. The
challenge is to understand the extent of the elements of the OUV expressed within the Port of Gladstone and
the extent to which those elements are crucial to the adequacy of representation of features and processes
which convey the property’s significance
Criteria for Outstanding Universal Value
The Operational Guidelines set out 10 criteria for OUV – six cultural and four natural. While the underlying
concepts have remained stable the criteria, guidelines and reporting processes have evolved over time.
Table: Natural world heritage criteria for assessment of OUV and corresponding conditions of integrity [1]
Criterion
Condition of integrity
(vii) Contain superlative natural phenomena
Be of outstanding universal value and
or areas of exceptional natural beauty
include areas that are essential for
and aesthetic importance.
maintaining the beauty of the property. (Paragraph
92, Operational Guidelines)
(viii) Be outstanding examples representing
Contain all or most of the key interrelated
major stages of earth’s history, including
and interdependent elements in their natural
the record of life, significant ongoing
relationships. (Paragraph 93, Operational Guidelines)
geological processes in the
development of landforms, or significant
geomorphic or physiographic features.
(ix) Be outstanding examples representing
Have sufficient size and contain the
significant ongoing ecological and
necessary elements to demonstrate the key
biological processes in the evolution and
aspects of processes that are essential for
development of terrestrial, fresh water,
the long-term conservation of the
coastal and marine ecosystems and
ecosystems and the biological diversity they
communities of plants and animals.
contain. (Paragraph 94, Operational Guidelines)
(x) Contain the most important and
Be the most important properties for the
significant natural habitats for in-situ
conservation of biological diversity. Only
conservation of biological diversity,
those properties that are the most
including those containing threatened
biologically diverse and/or representative are
89
species of outstanding universal value
likely to meet this criterion. Properties should
from the point of view of science or
contain habitats for maintaining the most
conservation.
diverse fauna and flora characteristic of the
biogeographic province and ecosystems
under consideration. (Paragraph 95, Operational
Guidelines)
References
7. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and Intergovernmental Committee for
the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (2012) Operational guidelines for the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention. World Heritage Centre. Editor.
4. Lucas, P.H.C., Webb, T. et al. (1997) The Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area.
27. Bridgewater, P. (1993) World Heritage and its role in a national nature conservation system: An Australian
perspective. Australian Parks and Recreation. 29(3): p. 35-41.
90
Appendix 6: OUV Attributes
Expressed in the Port of Gladstone
and Surrounds
Overview of attributes
Criterion vii –
aesthetic values
and superlative
natural
phenomena
Connectivity: cross-shelf,
longshore & vertical
Criterion viii –
ongoing
geological
processes
Criterion ix –
ecological and
biological
processes
Criterion x –
biodiversity
conservation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Continental islands
•
Beaches
•
Dune systems
•
•
Fringing reefs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inshore turbid reefs
River deltas
•
Marine faunal groups
diversity
•
Coral species – diversity
& extent
•
Total species diversity
•
•
•
Island plant species
diversity
•
•
•
Seagrass
•
•
•
•
Mangroves
•
•
•
•
Marine turtles
•
•
Whales
•
•
•
•
Threatened &
endangered species
Dolphins
•
Seabirds
•
Traditional Owner
interaction with the
natural environment25
•
•
•
•
While the Great Barrier Reef is not listed for cultural values, ‘man’s interaction with his natural environment’ was part of the natural heritage
criteria in use at the time of listing. While the criteria have changed and it is no longer explicit, the value is recognised in the property’s Statement of OUV in
25
91
relation to criterion ix – ongoing ecological processes
92
Appendix 7: Developments and Permits
Approved under the EPBC Act
EPBC no.
Title (proponent)
Approval
date
Current status
2001/160
Aldoga Aluminium Smelter Gladstone (Aldoga Aluminium Smelter Pty Ltd)
19-Mar-03
Works have been suspended
since 2004. The approval has
effect until 24 March 2043.
2005/2374
Wiggins Island Coal Terminal (Central QLD Ports Authority & QLD Rail)
1-Apr-08
Under construction.
2005/2376
HPAL Nickel Plant (Gladstone Pacific Nickel)
1-May-09
Expected to commence
December 2013.
2008/4057
Gladstone LNG Project – Development of a Natural Gas Liquefaction Park (Santos Ltd)
22-Oct-10
Under construction.
2008/4058
Gladstone LNG Project – Development of marine facilities to service natural gas liquefaction
park (Santos Ltd)
22-Oct-10
Under construction.
2008/4096
Gladstone LNG Project – Gas Pipeline & Alternative Pipeline to Supply Natural Gas Liquefaction
Plant (Santos Ltd)
22-Oct-10
Under construction.
2008/4399
Queensland Curtis LNG Project – Pipeline Network (BG International Ltd and QGC Ltd)
22-Oct-10
Under construction.
2008/4401
Queensland Curtis LNG Project – LNG Marine Facilities (BG International Ltd and QGC Ltd)
22-Oct-10
Under construction.
2008/4402
Qld Curtis LNG Project – LNG plant and Onshore Facilities (BG International Ltd and QGC Ltd)
22-Oct-10
Under construction.
2008/4405
Shipping Activity Assoc with QLD Curtis LNG Project
22-Oct-10
Under construction.
2009/4904
Port of Gladstone Western Basin Strategic Dredging and Disposal Project (Gladstone Ports
Corporation Ltd)
22-Oct-10
Stage 1 is 65% complete.
2009/4976
Australia Pacific LNG Project – Construct and operate 447km high pressure gas transmission
pipeline (Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited)
21-Feb-11
Under construction.
2009/4977
Australia Pacific LNG Project – LNG Plant and Ancillary onshore and marine facilities (Australia
21-Feb-11
Under construction.
93
Pacific LNG Pty Limited)
Sea dumping permits issued in Gladstone26
Permit Number
Purpose (applicant)
Date permit
issued
Permit valid
range
Volume
permitted
(cubic metres)
Volume
dumped26
(cubic metres)
Associated
EPBC
assessment
SD2007/0622
Gladstone five year maintenance dredging (Central
Queensland Ports Authority)
07-Nov-07
5 years from
date issued
1 000 000
956 000
No
SD2008/0922
Gladstone capital dredging Clinton Bypass Wedge
(Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd)
13-Nov-08
1 year from
date issued
100 000
0
No
SD2010/1442
Capital dredging to construct a construction dock for
access to Curtis Island for LNG early works (Gladstone
Ports Corporation Ltd)
24-Dec-10
1 year from
date issued
70 000
0
2008/4401
SD2010/1742
Western Basin Dredging Project (Gladstone Ports
Corporation Ltd)
22-Oct-10
5 years from
date issued
11 000 000
4 553 000
2009/4904
SD2010/1743
Capital dredging in order to widen the southern entrance
of the Clinton Bypass Channel (Gladstone Ports
Corporation Ltd)
06-Dec-10
2 years from
date issued
65 000
57 000
No
26
data current as of the end of December 2012
94
Currently being assessed under the EPBC Act (as of June2013)
EPBC no.
Title (proponent)
Controlled action decision date
Current status
2008/4406
Queensland Curtis LNG Project – Swing Basin and
Channel Dredging (BG International Ltd & QGC Ltd)
15-Sep-08
To be lapsed
2009/5007
Investigating the Development of a Liquefied Natural
Gas Facility (Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd)
21-Aug-09
Bilateral assessment. Awaiting
assessment report.
2009/5008
Construction of a high pressure gas pipeline, Gladstone
City Gate to Curtis Island, Qld (Shell CSG (Australia) Pty
Ltd)
21-Aug-09
Bilateral assessment. Awaiting
assessment report.
2012/6348
Development of the Yarwun Coal Terminal (Tenement to
Terminal Ltd)
15-May-12
Assessment by EIS. Proponent
preparing Draft EIS.
2012/6558
Port of Gladstone Gatcombe & Golding Cutting Channel
Duplication Project (Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd)
23-Oct-12
Assessment by EIS. Proponent
preparing Draft EIS.
Current sea dumping permit applications (as of June 2013)
Permit number
Purpose (applicant)
Status of application
Volume applied for
(cubic metres)
Associated EPBC?
SD2012/2362
Port of Gladstone five year maintenance dredging permit
(Gladstone Ports Corporation Ltd)
Under assessment
Under assessment
No
95
Appendix 8: Improvements to the
Assessment and Approval Process
since 2009
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park legislative and regulatory instruments
that protect OUV
Through an amendment of the EPBC Act the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was recognised as a matter of
National Environmental Significance on 25 November 2009. Consequently, an activity needs to be referred to the
federal environment Minister if it is likely to have a significant impact on:
1. the environment, if the activity is within the marine park
2. the environment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park or other nationally protected matters if the
activity is outside the marine park.
Zoning plans and regulations under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act prescribe purposes for which the
marine park may be used or entered. Under the plans uses may be ‘as-of-right’, ‘as-of-right subject to
notification’ or ‘allowed subject to a permit’. Activities that are not specified may be allowed by permit where
the Authority is satisfied that the use is not inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning plan for the area in
question. In order to streamline regulatory burden the department has put in place a memorandum of
understanding with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for the integration and application of the
EPBC Act and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975.
While the memorandum of understanding aims to ensure that environment assessment and approval under
both Acts are effectively integrated and streamlined with consistent decision-making and efficient and costeffective administration, there is little information available to provide guidance on how effective this is as the
changes are relatively new.
Through the recognition of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as a matter of National Environmental
Significance and the memorandum of understanding, the framework for assessment of the impacts of
proposals on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is strengthened.
The recognition of the GBRMP as a matter of National Environmental Significance occurred after the
controlled action decision date for all of the consented developments within the Port of Gladstone (the most
recent decision was 3 August 2009). This meant that the GBRMP was not considered as a controlling
provision in the assessment of any of the developments. Controlling provisions (the matters of National
Environmental Significance that may be significantly impacted by the action) must be identified in the
controlled action decision instrument. Actions considered since 25 November 2009 can be triggered for
impacts to the GBRMP.
Assessment bilateral agreement
In the case of the consented developments in the Port of Gladstone, it would appear the Australian
Government had little involvement in the assessment of the projects completed under the bilateral agreement
with the Queensland Government. Australian Government assessment officers do not appear to have been
given the opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the analysis of impacts to world heritage values in the
draft assessment documentation until the end of the assessment process, thus limiting options for
improvements or corrections. Public submissions and consultations revealed a lack of understanding of the
bilateral process, and some suspicion as to whether the assessments undertaken by the Queensland
96
Government under the bilateral agreement would be of the same standard as when they were undertaken by
the Commonwealth.
On 14 June 2012, the bilateral agreement with the Queensland Government was amended to clarify the roles
of the Commonwealth and Queensland Government. In particular it provides a mechanism to ensure that if
the Queensland Government believes that the agreed requirements cannot be met then early written
notification will be provided, seeking that the Commonwealth complete the work.
Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value
The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value was
finalised and submitted to the World Heritage Centre in 2012, and was officially adopted by the WHC in
decision 36COM 8E. A Statement of Outstanding Universal Value represents a formalisation, in an agreed
format, of the reasons why a World Heritage property has outstanding universal value. A guidance document
on the concept of OUV and how it is protected was also produced by the department in 2012. An additional
guidance note providing initial advice on specifically how the OUV of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area is considered in the EPBC Act referral and assessment process was released by the department in May
2013.
Previous assessments of impacts to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area under the EPBC Act have
focused on a fairly high level list of world heritage values. The expression of the world heritage values makes
up the OUV of the world heritage area. The retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value provides
more detailed information on those specific world heritage attributes for which the site was listed and places
renewed emphasis on the importance of integrity of the values within the property. This in turn assists in a
more detailed and comprehensive impact assessment by providing more information on the OUV of the site
for both assessment officer and developers preparing environmental impact assessments.
Improvements in understanding Outstanding Universal Value
Since the WHC’s decision in June 2012 that drew attention to Australia’s management of OUV in the
GBRWHA, the Australian Government has undertaken a range of activities to improve the way it assesses the
potential impacts, including relevant cumulative impacts, of proposed developments on the OUV of the
GBRWHA, including:
1. commissioning expert research into aesthetic and geological values of the Great Barrier Reef and
gathering historical data in relation to baseline condition of the property at the time of listing
2. developing advice for proponents and departmental assessment officers in relation to how impacts
to OUV should be considered in assessment processes under the EPBC Act
3. incorporating OUV explicitly into the terms of reference of the strategic assessments
4. incorporating OUV explicitly into guidelines of environmental impact assessments and other formal
impact assessment documentation for individual proposals. This will ensure that in the future
impacts to OUV must be explicitly identified in all development proposals.
Refining assessment of impacts to world heritage areas is ongoing. The department recently reviewed its
internal administrative procedures to ensure that all relevant elements of the OUV of the GBRWHA are
considered explicitly in the assessment of individual projects referred under the EPBC Act. Additional work is
also being undertaken by the department to provide further information about the condition of the property at
the date of inscription in 1981, as a benchmark for current and future assessments. Industry proponents are
also increasingly considering the combined, cumulative and possible consequential impacts of development,
infrastructure and associated activities on the OUV of the GBRWHA.
Improving the understanding among the department, proponents and the public will lead to greater
understanding and awareness of OUV in environmental impact assessments. This in turn should provide a
greater information base for decision makers to facilitate evidence-based decision-making.
97