INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE
PORT OF GLADSTONE
Supplementary Report
October 2013
1
© Commonwealth of Australia 2013
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced
by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and enquiries concerning
reproduction and rights should be addressed to Department of the Environment, Public Affairs,
GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 or email public.affairs@environment.gov.au
The views and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those
of the Australian Government or the Minister for the Environment.While reasonable efforts have been made to
ensure that the contents of this publication are factually correct, the Commonwealth does not accept responsibility
for the accuracy or completeness of the contents, and shall not be liable for any loss or damage that may be
occasioned directly or indirectly through the use of, or reliance on, the contents of this publication.
2
Contents
Figures
4
Glossary
5
List of shortened forms
6
Executive summary
7
Introduction
9
Background
9
Standards for ‘best practice’
9
Relevant initiatives
10
Port activities
10
Construction and associated activities
14
Commodity processing
15
Vessel loading and unloading
15
Vessel anchorage
16
Vessel movements
17
Dredging (capital or maintenance)
17
Sea disposal of dredged material
18
Land reclamation
19
Best practice principles
21
Overarching principles
22
Planning
24
Environmental assessment and decision-making
29
Monitoring and reporting
31
Compliance and enforcement
32
Conclusion
35
Appendix 1: Table of meetings
36
Appendix 2: Information considered
37
Key publicly available documents
37
Additional information
41
3
Figures
Figure 1:
Themes of principles identified by the Review
8
Figure 2:
Port activity matrix
14
Figure 3:
Port optimisation
21
Figure 4:
Conceptual framework for environmental management and governance
22
Figure 5:
Port planning hierarchy and relationship
27
4
Glossary
Comprehensive strategic assessment: the Comprehensive Strategic Assessment of the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area and adjacent coastal zone.
The department: the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities (name at the time the Review was commissioned) – now the Australian Government Department of
the Environment.
The initial report: Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone: Report on findings (July 2013), i.e. the report to
which this report is a supplement.
The Minister: the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities (title at the time the Review was commissioned), or the Australian Government Minister for the
Environment, Heritage and Water (title at the time the initial report of the Review was published) or the Australian
Government Minister for the Environment (current title).
PIANC: the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure.
Port of Gladstone: the area defined by the Port of Gladstone Port Limits together with adjoining islands and
landside areas, including reclamation areas, that support existing or consented industrial developments or are
proposed to cater for future port-related industrial activities and supporting infrastructure.
The Review: the Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone.
World Heritage Convention: Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage,
adopted on 16 November 1972.
5
List of shortened forms
AMSA: Australian Maritime Safety Authority
DSDIP: Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
EPBC Act: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
GBRMPA: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
GBRWHA: Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
GPC: Gladstone Ports Corporation Limited
IMO: International Maritime Organisation
MSQ: Maritime Safety Queensland
NAGD: National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009
OUV: outstanding universal value
QAL: Queensland Alumina Ltd
QRC: Queensland Resources Council
UNESCO: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
WHC: World Heritage Committee
6
Executive summary
In July 2013, the Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone provided an initial report against the majority of the
terms of reference for the Review. That report noted that further information about port optimisation would shortly
become available and that the Review would provide a supplementary report, focused on the port optimisation
component of the terms of reference, towards the end of 2013.
This report constitutes the supplementary and final advice of the Review. It examines planning arrangements and
design standards for the optimisation of port development and operation that accord with best practice
environmental standards that may be applicable to ports in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
(GBRWHA).
There is no globally agreed suite of measures or standards considered to be best practice in the context of port
development and operation. The term ‘port optimisation’ can have different meanings. Within the context of the
Review’s terms of reference, it specifically relates to the optimisation of port development and operations in a way
that achieves optimal environmental outcomes. Because environmental issues and considerations vary between
ports, a prescriptive approach to port optimisation would have limited applicability. Such an approach would also
quickly become out of date as technology evolves and understanding increases. Solutions need to be site specific
and appropriate to the local environmental and social context.
The Review identified 21 principles to guide future planning and operations of ports within the GBRWHA. These
comprise a set of overarching principles that are applicable to all aspects of port environmental management and
government, and four sets of principles relating to the four elements of port environmental management and
governance identified in the Review’s initial report:

Planning

Environmental assessment and decision-making

Monitoring and reporting

Compliance and enforcement.
The themes of the principles are summarised in Figure 1. The principles are detailed and explained in the body of
this supplementary report.
This report describes the range of port activities that should be addressed through port environmental management and
governance and to which the proposed principles should be applied.
7
Figure 1: Themes of principles identified by the Review
Intrinsic consideration of ‘outstanding universal value’
Overarching
Meaningful engagement strategies
Transparency of relevant information
Objectivity, informed by best available knowledge
Regular review and continual improvement
Planning
Optimisation of
existing footprints
Key themes
Environmental
objectives
addressed and
plans subject
to risk-based
assessment
Site-specific
solutions, fitfor
purpose within
local and regional
context
Aligned with
relevant state and
Commonwealth
strategies
Encompass full
extent of port
Risk-based
option analysis,
including
economic,
social and
environmental
considerations
Environmental
assessment and
decision-making
Use of consistent,
robust, shared
and integrated
modelling
Decisions based
on wholeof-system
understanding
of receiving
environment
and cumulative
impacts
Use of strategic
and measurable
offsets, in place
prior to impacts
occurring, with
net environmental
gain
Monitoring and
reporting
Compliance and
enforcement
Risk-based
indicators,
thresholds
and methods,
consistent
with a regional
monitoring
framework
Compliance
monitored and
results published
Capacity to
prevent, detect
and rapidly
respond to
environmental
incidents
Performance
against
planning and
environmental
objectives
assessed and
published
Non-compliance
penalties
that deter
infringements
Project decisions
consistent with
port master plan
and shared vision
Incentives
for uptake of
best available
technology and
practice
8
Introduction
Background
The Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone (the Review), in line with its terms of reference, examined the
environmental management and governance of the Port of Gladstone. The Review provided its Report on findings
(the initial report) to the Australian Government Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Water (the Minister) on
30 July 2013. However, key documents relating to port optimisation (one part of the terms of reference) were not
available for adequate consideration prior to the delivery of the initial report. The former Minister agreed that the
Review could finalise its advice through the delivery of a supplementary report with a focus on port optimisation.
This report constitutes the supplementary and final advice of the Review.
This supplementary report is not intended to be a stand-alone document. It should be read in conjunction with the
initial report. Recommendations from the initial report have not always been restated explicitly but many are also
relevant under the term of reference dealt with in this report.
The initial report details the process undertaken by the Review and forms the framework upon which this
supplementary report is built. Preparation of the supplementary report has involved additional research and
consultation. Interviews conducted since August 2013 are outlined in Appendix 1. The panel is grateful for the
assistance of stakeholders and experts from across a range of organisations who contributed to this work.
Information resources considered by the Review in preparing this supplementary report, additional to the
information considered in the preparation of the initial report, are outlined in Appendix 2. However, the
supplementary report was also significantly informed by the submissions, interviews and other information
exchanges that occurred during the earlier phase of the Review.
The Review panel identified the need for additional expert input on port optimisation, operational matters and
master planning. Under the direction of the panel, the department commissioned input from Jason Sprott (Sprott
Planning & Environment Pty Ltd). The panel considered advice from Mr Sprott in developing this supplementary
report and is grateful for his contribution.
The Review panel is also grateful to other experts who provided input and advice during the preparation of the
supplementary report. In particular, sincere thanks are extended to Sally Noonan, Carolyn Cameron, Diane Tarte,
Gary Carter and Kevin Kane for their participation in a discussion on draft principles.
The former Minister publicly released the initial report in early August 2013 and sought comment to inform the
Australian Government’s consideration of the Review. Comments were due by 6 September 2013. Some of these
comments were also provided by the submitters to the Review panel. The panel considered these comments in
finalising advice in this supplementary report.
Finally, the panel wishes to express its gratitude to all the members of the secretariat, headed by Celeste Powell,
for the significant contribution they made to the panel’s deliberations and finalisation of the report.
Standards for ‘best practice’
Maritime activity has always been a key part of coastal development in Australia. Several new ports are currently
under consideration in Australia. However, most decisions around port selection along the GBRWHA relate to
redevelopment and expansion of existing port areas within the current defined port limits rather than new
‘greenfield’ developments. Historically, three main drivers have determined the demand for and site selection of
ports:
9
1. Existence or proximity to urban social catchments
2. Proximity to minerals, resources, or agricultural economic catchments
3. Proximity to significant infrastructure networks and unique features such as national, state and regional
highways or railways, and/or areas of naturally deep water (for shipping access). 1
In 2012, Decision 36 Com 7B.8 of the World Heritage Committee (WHC) requested the Australian Government to:
… undertake an independent review of the management arrangements for Gladstone Harbour, that
will result in the optimisation of port development and operation in Gladstone Harbour and on Curtis
Island, consistent with the highest internationally recognised standards for best practice
commensurate with iconic World Heritage status.
The scope of work of the Review, specified in the terms of reference, states:
The Review will consider and, if necessary, provide advice on any significant areas for improvement in
relation to the following matters … planning arrangements and design standards for the optimisation of
port development and operation that accord with best practice environmental standards that may be
applicable to ports in the Great Barrier Reef Region …
In the initial report, the Review stated that it is possible to operate, manage and enhance the Port of Gladstone
whilst also adequately protecting the environmental attributes of the area. However, it found that there is no
globally agreed suite of measures or standards considered to be ‘best practice’ in the context of port development
and operation.
The term ‘port optimisation’ can have different meanings. Within the context of the Review’s terms of reference, it
specifically relates to the optimisation of port development and operations in a way that achieves optimal
environmental outcomes. Because environmental issues and considerations vary between ports, a prescriptive
approach to port optimisation is not considered to be appropriate and would quickly become out of date as
technology evolves and understanding increases. Solutions need to be site specific and appropriate to the local
environmental and social context.
The wide variance in types of ports around the world is such that, to address international best practice, port design
and environmental management must consider the specific environmental settings of individual ports. For
Gladstone and other ports within or adjacent to the GBRWHA, this requires consideration of nearshore and
estuarine settings in tropical areas with linked ecological communities.
The Review considered a range of regulatory, policy and technical documents and inputs relating to the sustainable
development and operation of ports. Drawing on this information, the Review identified a set of principles that
should be used by decision makers and stakeholders to guide an adaptive process for optimisation of the future
planning and operations of the Port of Gladstone. Although these principles have been developed with particular
reference to materials relating to the Port of Gladstone, they have broader applicability to other ports within and
adjoining the GBRWHA.
While ports should aim for sustainability and both best practice management and governance at every location,
those located in or adjoining a particularly sensitive sea area such as a world heritage area have an additional
responsibility to ensure that their activities do not have unacceptable or irreversible impacts on the values for which
the area is protected.
Relevant initiatives
Whilst currently there is no globally agreed suite of best practice standards and measures, there have been, and
1
GHD 2013a.
10
continue to be, projects conducted at various levels relevant to ensuring the optimisation of environmental
management at major ports. This is a relatively new concept that has yet to be fully implemented on a broad scale.
Research, analysis and the development of improved practice will be ongoing in this field.
Strategic assessment information resources
The WHC requested in 2011 that the Australian Government undertake a strategic assessment to enable a longterm plan for sustainable development that will protect the outstanding universal value (OUV) of the GBRWHA.
Several of the research reports commissioned through the comprehensive strategic assessment of the GBRWHA
are directly relevant to understanding the concept of best practice as it applies to ports in the GBRWHA. Of
particular relevance are:

Environmental best practice port development: An analysis of international approaches (GHD 2013a)

Identification of impacts and proposed management strategies associated with ship anchorages in the
Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GHD 2013b)

Improved dredge material management for the Great Barrier Reef region (SKM 2013).
All of these reports are publicly available on the department’s website. 2
Environmental best practice port development: An analysis of international approaches
The purpose of this study was to identify international benchmarks in the management of environmental impacts of
ports and their potential application in an Australian context. It was of particular relevance for this supplementary
report as it focused on activities fundamentally controlled or influenced by ports that could cause environmental
threats and/or have the potential for significant impacts on matters of national environmental significance. The
report includes a broad literature review and analysis of relevant international case studies (largely from Europe
and North America) for which the most information was publicly available. It identifies best practice from
international examples to help benchmark current Australian management approaches and identifies opportunities
and constraints for implementation.
The report describes eight areas of environmental impact or risk that could result from port operations:

Water and sediment quality

Coastal processes and hydrology

Noise and vibration

Lighting

Aesthetic

Direct ecosystem impacts

Air quality

Invasive species.
The report identifies real examples of innovative approaches to avoiding and minimising these impacts or risks.
Identification of impacts and proposed management strategies associated with ship anchorages in the Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
The purpose of this study was to identify current and potential environmental impacts of offshore anchoring for the
2
http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/regional-development/gbr/index.html
11
five major ports in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and propose management options. It identified
impacts using a risk-based environmental impact assessment desktop study but indicated that current anchorages
are generally located in areas that have little effect on the majority of biodiversity values for which the Great Barrier
Reef is recognised. The study also identified opportunities across all port anchorages to improve management,
reduce impact potential and achieve environmental benefits.
Improved dredge material management for the Great Barrier Reef region
The purpose of this study was to provide analysis and information to inform future dredge spoil management
decisions for the five major ports and one marina (Rosslyn Bay). It investigated beneficial reuse and land disposal
of dredge material, a general framework of water quality monitoring and the long-term sediment migration from sea
disposal sites, using three-dimensional modelling incorporating large-scale currents.
The study found that, whilst there may be options for reuse of some rocky or sandy dredged material, beneficial
reuse and land disposal are unlikely to be viable strategies for dredge material disposal in the long term. This is
largely because most of the dredge material in ports within the GBRWHA is dominated by silts and clays that are
unsuitable for some uses, and land disposal would require vast areas for dewatering and involves significant
engineering constraints. The study made a range of recommendations about water quality monitoring including
adaptive management approaches and the establishment of independent technical advisory bodies.
The study found that dredge material has the potential to travel for longer distances than previously assumed. It
used environmental conditions from 2011 (characterised by strong south-east winds and currents and extreme
weather events) and therefore shows a worst-case scenario for northerly sediment travel. More research is
required, including to differentiate between different sources of sedimentation and possible impacts on different
indicators.
North-East Shipping Management Plan
In August 2013, the Australian Government released a draft North-East Shipping Management Plan for public
comment. The draft plan outlines measures underway to manage the safety of shipping in the sensitive marine
environments of Australia’s north-east region and proposes options to further minimise the environmental impact of
activities in the future. It discusses shipping safety risks both within and outside port areas and outlines relevant
international standards for environmental protection measures. It also contains a proposed work plan that specifies
actions, lead agencies and target completion timeframes.
Collaborative initiatives
Whilst standards for environmental performance are commonly imposed through government regulation, there are
many examples of initiatives driven by industry that demonstrate substantial environmental and social outcomes as
well as significant efficiency and economic outcomes. The most successful of these are generally developed in
consultation with interest groups and governments from the earliest stages of site analysis and planning.
Ecoshape
The Ecoshape consortium of partners from industry, government and research organisations has been pursuing a
Building with Nature innovation program. It aims to align the interests of economic development and care for the
environment, working with the natural system in such a way that society’s infrastructure needs and the interests of
stakeholders are met while benefits are created for nature. The program has been implementing pilot projects in
which ecosystem processes are observed and innovative solutions are identified (De Vriend and Van Koningsveld
2012). This program was initiated in the Netherlands but has been expanding internationally.
PIANC
PIANC is the World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure. Members include governments, public
authorities, corporations and interested individuals. It provides guidance for sustainable port activities through the
12
development of technical reports developed by working groups of experts from around the world. Several technical
reports currently under development focus on the sustainable development and master planning of ports. PIANC
hosted a Sustainable Ports workshop in Sydney from 9 to 10 September 2013, which was attended by a member
of the Review.
PIANC is promoting a ‘Working with Nature’ philosophy that focuses on achieving project objectives in an
ecosystem context rather than assessing consequences of a predefined project design (PIANC 2011). It focuses
on identifying win-win solutions and engaging with stakeholders throughout planning and operational processes. An
online database of case studies has been established providing information on instances where Working with
Nature has been implemented and accredited by PIANC through certificates of recognition. This incentive system
also includes a four-yearly Working with Nature award.3
The Review was provided with an advance draft of the PIANC Working Group 150 report ‘Sustainable ports: A
guide for port authorities’. The report provides tools and guidance to show how proactive environmental measures
can contribute to obtaining consent for future port operations and developments, how opportunities can be created
through the port’s own initiatives and how sustainable growth can be realised. Whilst the report draws
predominantly on European and Northern American port examples, it contains a wide range of practical
considerations for environmental management relevant to this supplementary report.
The PIANC report also lists sustainability initiatives underway in ports around the world. The applicability to the
Australian setting of many of these initiatives may be limited due to the operational and environmental context of
Australian ports. For example, commercial vessels calling at Australian ports may not be engineered to take
advantage of emerging environmental technologies such as shore-based power systems (i.e. land power supply to
ships while at berth). Australian ports are not generally equipped with such infrastructure and may not have the
same environmental risks and social needs.
Ports Australia
Ports Australia is the peak body representing the interests of port and marine authorities in Australia. In August
2013, Ports Australia released Leading practice – Ports master planning. This guide recognises the importance of
transparent, collaborative master planning to help facilitate improved productivity outcomes, increased investment
confidence and greater environmental protection.
The guide outlines the importance of port master planning and includes suggested master plan content for all port
situations. It elevates the importance of adopting a ‘beyond the port boundary’ approach to master planning
activities and also suggests greater use of strategic assessment provisions under the EPBC Act (at relevant port
locations) to drive regulatory streamlining and improved management of environmental values.
Other regional initiatives
In addition to the international and national initiatives described above, there is continuing research specific to the
GBRWHA that is relevant to this Review. For example, a collaboration of scientists has recently produced a paper
‘Guiding principles for the improved governance of port and shipping impacts in the Great Barrier Reef’ (Grech et
al. 2013). The authors identify 13 principles for improved governance and environmental management, which have
been considered by the Review.
3
www.pianc.org/workingwithnature
13
Port activities
Different types of port activities call for different environmental management approaches and responses. The
Review identified eight general activity types to describe port operations. These activities are governed by multiple
authorities at various levels. They are not solely the responsibility of the port authority – in this case Gladstone
Ports Corporation (GPC).
Ancillary activities outside of the port area (e.g. freight transport infrastructure) have not been examined in detail by
the Review, nor have activities within the port area that are not related to port operations (e.g. fishing). Such
activities are, however, important considerations in planning processes and addressing cumulative impacts.
Port-related activities are shown in Figure 2 with an indication of the possible environmental impacts or risks that
they present. For some activities, impacts are likely to be temporary; for others, some impacts may be permanent.
Some impacts may also be exacerbated by accumulation of impacts from multiple activities. The list of
environmental impacts or risks in Figure 2 was drawn from the report Environmental best practice port
development: An analysis of international approaches (GHD 2013a), which was commissioned through the
comprehensive strategic assessment of the GBRWHA.
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Coastal processes and
hydrology
Direct ecosystem
impacts
Invasive species
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Light pollution
F
F
Noise pollution and
vibration
F
F
Water and sediment
quality
F
F
Land reclamation
Air quality
Sea disposal of
dredge spoil
F
Dredging (capital
or maintenance)
F
Vessel
movements
F
Vessel
anchorage*
Vessel loading
and unloading†
Aesthetics
Activities
Commodity
processing
Environmental impacts
or risks
Construction and
associated
activities
Figure 2: Port activity matrix
F
F
F
F
? includes all activities undertaken at berth (such as ship waste disposal) and associated commodity transport
* includes all activities undertaken at anchor
14
The Review examined the environmental impacts and risks of port activities. This analysis was instrumental in the
formulation of the principles outlined later in this report. Management approaches used in the Port of Gladstone
were examined and compared to approaches implemented in other ports, both in Australia and globally. Multiple
layers of governance were considered, including international, national, state and local requirements.
The following description of port activities is intended to provide general information about the range of activities
that should be covered by port environmental management and governance. The potential impacts identified
should be greatly minimised through the application of the recommended principles. Indicative environmental
impacts and risks for each activity outlined below are listed in the order of the matrix in Figure 2, and not according
to relative importance.
Construction and associated activities
Construction is the process of building new facilities or extending, maintaining or improving existing facilities.
Construction-related port activities include clearing, levelling, stockpiling, earthworks, building of structures, and
pile driving.
Construction activities have been undertaken frequently within the Port of Gladstone in recent times. Different
stakeholders within the port may undertake construction activities at different times and for various reasons. A
range of action-specific guidelines are available for construction activities, such as the Queensland Code of
Practice for the Building and Construction Industry (Queensland Government 2000) and the Standard for Marine
Construction Activities within Gladstone Harbour (Maritime Safety Queensland 2012). Conditions of both
Commonwealth and Queensland Government project approvals also often include regulation of construction
impacts with respect to protected environmental matters.
Construction and associated activities may result in:

temporary and ongoing aesthetic impacts through changes to the landscape

temporary and ongoing changes in air quality through the impacts of airborne dust, diesel fumes from
machinery and emissions arising from the use of other chemicals

temporary and ongoing changes to coastal processes and hydrology where the construction activities
affect the coastline or waterways

direct ecosystem impacts through habitat removal and direct mortality of species

introduction or exacerbation of invasive species through landscape disturbance, changes to land use
and nutrient levels in runoff

temporary and ongoing impacts on light levels through construction site lighting and any ongoing lighting
requirements

temporary noise pollution and vibration impacts

temporary impacts on sediment and water quality through the effects of landscape clearing.
Commodity processing
Commodity processing typically involves the handling and/or conversion of raw bulk material into more convenient,
ready-to-use end products or ready-to-export end products. In the context of this report, commodity processing
encompasses both the act of processing and the associated storage of materials at different stages. Material
storage also often includes management measures, such as the watering of coal stockpiles to minimise the effect
of airborne coal dust on local air quality.
The Port of Gladstone began commodity processing in the 1950s and, though the commodities have changed over
15
time, processing in one form or another has been ongoing since that time. For example, the Port of Gladstone is
home to an alumina refinery run by Queensland Alumina Ltd (QAL), which commenced operation in 1967. The
alumina product is stored prior to export and the bauxite residue from the clarification stage of the refining process
is also stored on site in large residue storage dams. QAL’s bauxite residue storage area comprises a 1000 hectare
area on Boyne Island. Bauxite residue is deposited in the dams as slurry and allowed to dry, with the remaining
water being discharged to the estuary. Bauxite residue is generally disposed of in such dams indefinitely but, due
to its high alkalinity, some of QAL’s residue has been used to treat acid sulfate soils and remediate acid mine
drainage at mine sites (QAL 2010).
Commodity processing is typically licensed and regulated by the Queensland Government. Port authorities have
limited powers relating to ongoing regulation of these activities, other than those potentially available under tenure
management. For example, GPC informed the Review that recent changes to Queensland legislation have
removed the requirement for the port authority to be consulted prior to a change in land use by a tenant on
‘strategic port land’, despite the port authority remaining the landholder.
Commodity processing is generally considered to result in ongoing impacts at the Port of Gladstone, as most
commodity processing facilities are components of ongoing industries. Ongoing impacts of commodity processing
may include:

aesthetic impacts from processing facilities and their waste streams or emissions, stockpiles and
structures

air quality impacts from facility emissions or from airborne particulate matter such as coal dust from coal
stockpiles

light pollution from operational, safety and security lighting of facilities

noise pollution and vibration resulting from the day-to-day operation of commodity processing facilities

water and sediment quality impacts from wastes and by-products.
Vessel loading and unloading
Vessel loading and unloading includes all activities undertaken while a vessel is at berth. This includes the physical
process of loading and unloading commodities, cleaning, repairs, and transfers of power, wastes, fuel and supplies.
International and national vessel safety and pollution requirements continue to apply to vessels at berth as well as to
the Australian Government (e.g. international obligations relating to the provision of port waste reception facilities).
The impacts of vessel loading and unloading activities differ according to commodity type.
Vessel loading and unloading activities may result in:

aesthetic impacts from ship loading, site management and associated operational structures

air quality impacts from airborne dust or other contaminants mobilised during ship loading

the establishment of invasive species, which are more likely to mobilise while the vessel is still at berth

light pollution from operational, safety and security lighting required for berthing activities

noise from ship loading machinery and other operational structures

water and sediment quality impacts from cleaning, repair activities and cargo spillage within port
confines.
16
Vessel anchorage
The term vessel anchorage refers to the act of dropping anchor and any related activities vessels may undertake
while at anchor. Anchorages are an essential component of safe and efficient port operations and are critical for
port development.
Vessels may be at anchor for different time periods and purposes. Common activities undertaken at anchor include
refuelling, transfer of supplies, vessel cleaning and other operational activities as well as general provisioning and
scheduled on-board maintenance.
Vessel anchorage in the Port of Gladstone occurs in specific areas and is regulated by the Gladstone Vessel
Traffic Service under Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ) control. It occurs most frequently in the outer anchorage
area, located outside the port limits in an area south-east of Facing Island comprising 22 722 hectares. There is
also an inner anchorage area to the west of Facing Island within the port limits, comprising just 1403 hectares, but
this area is rarely used and is kept mainly for emergency use (GHD 2013b).
The Port of Gladstone currently experiences 1500 ship arrivals per year, of which 80 per cent proceed directly to
anchor (GHD 2013b). On average, three ships per day use the anchorage areas and these stay at anchor for
approximately four days (GHD 2013b).
The majority of vessels using the anchoring areas at the Port of Gladstone are waiting for a berth in order to conduct
scheduled loading and unloading activities. Some vessels may stop briefly at Gladstone while in transit to other
destinations in order to transfer fuel or other supplies.
Depending on the exact location of regulated anchorage areas, vessel anchoring may result in:

temporary aesthetic impacts through the presence of vessels

direct ecosystem impacts through habitat destruction on the sea floor or habitat avoidance due to the
presence of ships

the introduction of invasive species (species are more likely to move off ship while the vessel is at
anchor than when it is moving)

temporary lighting impacts from operational, safety and security lighting used on board stationary
vessels

water and sediment quality impacts from unintentional discharges including spills of fuels or chemicals.
Vessel movements
The movement of vessels is an activity that is central to the operation of any port. In the context of this report it is
described as the movement of vessels within and around the port in order to facilitate the import and export of
commodities. This can include tugboats and ancillary vessels as well as ocean-going ships. For this report it does
not include recreational vessel movements, as these are not considered to be port operations. It also does not
include dredge vessel movements, as the impacts from dredging are addressed separately. Time spent at anchor,
loading and unloading are dealt with separately.
MSQ is responsible for the monitoring and management of the safe movement of ships in Queensland waters. The
Gladstone Regional Harbour Master assists Gladstone Ports Corporation in controlling traffic movement in the port,
maintaining on-water safety distances, and responding to any emergency situation.
In periods of peak construction there is a substantial increase in the number and types of vessels using the
harbour. This can result in an increased likelihood of marine incidents. For example, in 2012 the combination of
substantial construction activities and normal vessel movements saw the Gladstone marine incident rate increase
17
by 55 per cent while incident rates at other ports in Queensland decreased (DTMR 2013).
Vessel movements may result in:

temporary aesthetic impacts from the presence of vessels

temporary air quality impacts from the use of marine fuels

direct ecosystem impacts through vessel collisions with fauna

the introduction of invasive species

temporary noise impacts from vessel engine noise

temporary lighting impacts from shipboard lights

water quality impacts from unintentional discharges including spills of fuels or chemicals.
Dredging (capital or maintenance)
Dredging is the process of removing sediment from the sea bed in order to render vessel movements safe and port
operations efficient. It is carried out at ports in nearly all locations around the world. Dredging can be split into two
broad categories: capital dredging and maintenance dredging.
Capital dredging is often associated with major new developments. It involves dredging of new areas and/or depths
(e.g. new channels, berth pockets, approach and departure paths). Capital dredging is also undertaken to deepen
and/or widen existing channels and berth pockets to enable access for larger vessels, or for engineering purposes
such as to create trenches for underwater pipelines and ancillary infrastructure.
Maintenance dredging is undertaken to ensure existing defined areas are maintained at their designed
operational dimensions. It is often undertaken at regular intervals in response to ongoing sedimentation.
Maintenance dredging allows ports to remain operational and plays a critical part in overall environmental
protection by facilitating the safe and efficient movement of vessels.
The risks associated with capital or maintenance dredging are largely determined by the scale of the dredging, the
chemical and physical characteristics, the biological implications of the sediments to be dredged and the sensitivity
of the surrounding environment. The National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (NAGD) outline relevant
regulatory requirements for dredging operations in Australia.
Several different types of dredges are employed globally. Mechanical dredges such as bucket, grab or backhoe
dredges are generally used at a fixed point and mechanically scoop sediment from the seabed. Hydraulic dredges
such as suction hopper, cutter suction and trailing suction hopper dredges are usually more mobile and suck the
sediment up from the sea floor. Water-injection dredges are relatively new. They move sediment by injecting water
into it so that it becomes fluid and is moved either by gravitational forces or by currents.
Dredging may result in:
temporary aesthetic impacts from the dredge plumes

temporary and ongoing changes to coastal processes and hydrology through alteration of channels and
coastal morphology

direct ecosystem impacts such as entrainment of fauna in the dredge

the introduction of marine invasive species that may be transported on the dredge when it travels from
international ports

temporary light pollution from the dredge
18

temporary noise pollution and vibration from the action of the dredge

temporary water quality impacts, such as light attenuation and nutrient fluxes from the dredge plume.
Sea disposal of dredged material
Sea disposal of dredged material refers to the disposal of dredge sediment into the ocean. The 1996 Protocol to the
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter 1972 (the London
Protocol) prohibits dumping of wastes at sea, except for possibly acceptable wastes included in an annex to the
treaty (IMO 2013). Australia’s obligations under the London Protocol are implemented through the Environment
Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (the Sea Dumping Act). Australia reports annually to the International Maritime
Organisation (IMO) on all permitted and emergency sea dumping activities in Australian waters. The Australian
Government’s objectives under the Sea Dumping Act are to protect and preserve the marine environment from
pollution related to dumping at sea, minimising impacts on living marine resources, human health and other uses of
the marine environment.
Under the Sea Dumping Act, parties can apply for sea dumping permits to dispose of dredged material at sea. Sea
dumping permits regulate the impacts of sea disposal on the environment. Port operators account for the majority
of sea dumping permits.
Prior to gaining a sea dumping permit, an applicant must have evaluated alternatives to ocean disposal, including
the environmental, social and economic impacts of each disposal option in accordance with the NAGD
(Commonwealth of Australia 2009).
Developed by the Commonwealth Government in 2009, the NAGD set out the framework for the environmental
impact assessment and permitting of the ocean disposal of dredged material. Specifically, the framework includes:

evaluating alternatives to ocean disposal

assessing loading and disposal sites

assessing potential impacts on the marine environment and other users

determining management and monitoring requirements.
As well as demonstrating that dredged sediments are suitable for disposal following scientific analysis, permit
applicants must also choose a suitable ocean disposal site where impacts on the environment will be minimised. In
Gladstone, the East Banks Sea Disposal Site (as shown in Figure 1 of the Initial Report) has historically been used
for disposal of dredged material.
Sea disposal of dredged material may result in:

temporary aesthetic impacts from the dredge plume

temporary and ongoing changes to coastal processes and hydrology through alteration of seabed and
coastal morphology

direct ecosystem impacts such as smothering of habitats

the introduction of marine invasive species that may be transported on the dredge

temporary water quality impacts such as light attenuation and nutrient fluxes from the dredge plume.
Land reclamation
Land reclamation refers to the conversion of existing substrate by depositing materials to create land in a low-lying
coastal area or water body such as a lake, estuary or ocean. In a port area this process is often used to enable
19
industrial expansion such as the Fisherman’s Landing area at the Port of Gladstone. It can also be used to create
new land for residential, recreational or environmental purposes, such as the artificial tern island built in 2005 at the
Port of Antwerp (Port of Antwerp 2006). The process of land reclamation is usually completed through the use of
bund walls to create an enclosed area, which is then filled with substrate such as dredge spoil. Land reclamation
also presents an alternative to sea disposal of dredged material, when the material displays the correct engineering
properties for such purpose.
Land reclamation may result in:

permanent aesthetic impacts from changed, or newly created, landforms or seascapes

permanent changes to coastal processes and hydrology through alteration of coastal morphology

direct ecosystem impacts including clearing or smothering of habitats

temporary light pollution from operational, safety and security lighting during the reclamation of the area,
and ongoing light pollution if lighting is required for the newly reclaimed area

temporary water quality impacts from turbid runoff and disturbance of acid sulfate soils.
20
Best practice principles
The Review considered a range of documentation relating to the potential economic growth and subsequent
requirement for port developments along the Queensland coast. At the request of the Review, the Queensland
Resources Council (QRC) provided a forecast of likely commodity growth and port infrastructure requirements
based on current market predictions. While there is no consensus between relevant stakeholder groups on the
extent or form of growth requirements, ongoing growth of port capacity along the coast adjacent to the GBRWHA is
anticipated into the future.
Ensuring that growth does not compromise the OUV of the GBRWHA will require both concentrating development
within existing port footprints and continually improving environmental management within those ports (see Figure
3). Furthermore, ports cannot be managed in isolation and environmental management and governance should be
addressed holistically, having regard to the regional context in which the ports occur.
Figure 3: Port optimisation
Leading/best practice:
Port planning
PORT
OPTIMISATION
=
Better use of
long-established port
nodes
+
Environment assessment &
decision-making
Monitoring & reporting
Compliance & Enforcement
It should not be assumed that all ports within the GBRWHA will need to expand. Smaller ports not subject to
significant growth should continually improve their environmental performance but may not require the same level
of environmental management as larger ports if the environmental risks and impacts are low. The nature and
volumes of products imported and exported and the use of harbours by other industries (e.g. tourism and fishing)
will continue to fluctuate over time, and the level of environmental management and governance should be
proportionate to the risks presented.
The initial report outlined a conceptual framework for environmental management and governance in line with the
terms of reference (see Figure 4). While the elements of governance adapt over time in response to new
knowledge, this figure is not intended to represent an adaptive management cycle. The conceptual framework
does not operate in a true linear fashion. The elements interact in a dynamic way and the arrows are not intended
to represent a particular sequence of activity. For example, planning should be regularly reviewed, including to
incorporate new information and knowledge from environmental assessment and decision-making.
21
Figure 4: Conceptual framework for environmental management and governance
Planning
Compliance and
enforcement
Transparency
Engagement
Objectivity
Environmental
assessment and
decision-making
Monitoring and
reporting
The Review used the conceptual framework to structure advice about optimisation of the environmental
management and governance of ports, identifying principles that sit within each of the four elements of the
governance framework. The Review also identified a number of overarching principles that apply to all elements.
In developing the principles, the Review examined in detail the possible environmental issues and risks arising
from the range of port activities in the Port of Gladstone. Information about how ports more broadly have
responded to these issues and risks, including international case studies, was drawn on in the analysis and
formulation of advice in this supplementary report.
Overarching principles
World heritage recognition of an area creates a duty of care to manage it so that the outstanding universal value for
which it was nominated can be maintained. In the case of a coastal or marine area this requires application of best
practice environmental standards applicable to ports within or adjacent to the area. The area’s status as a property
of value to the world, and the obligations to protect, conserve, present and transmit that heritage to future
generations, should be a consideration in all elements of port environmental management and governance. It
should not be just a consideration in environmental assessments and decision-making.
Principle 1:
The OUV of the GBRWHA should be an intrinsic consideration in all aspects of environmental management
and governance of ports in the Great Barrier Reef region.
Stakeholder trust is crucial for the planning and implementation of optimised environmental management. This
requires the establishment of regular consultative mechanisms for engaging, informing and sharing information with
stakeholders. The initial report discussed the need for meaningful engagement with stakeholders and the value
such engagement can provide. It highlighted the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership as a new initiative to
address some of the communication issues that have arisen in Gladstone.
22
To be meaningful, strategies should be designed to engage with and reflect the social and economic context of the
range of stakeholders that are affected by port operations. Environmental and societal values should be considered
from the start of planning activities in a consultative and transparent manner that helps to identify and implement
sustainable solutions.
Principle 2:
Meaningful engagement strategies should be implemented throughout planning and operational processes
so that all stakeholders can be aware of environmental condition and progress in achieving a shared
vision.
Access to relevant information resources used by decision makers is important for developing shared
understanding and trust. The initial report discussed the importance of transparency and the timely and free
release of relevant information. Determining whether a document should be considered to be ‘relevant information’
will depend on the extent to which it was relied upon to reach a decision, regardless of whether that decision
related to an environmental approval, the formulation of a plan or the establishment of an adaptive monitoring
regime.
Principle 3:
Relevant information used in decision-making should be freely accessible in a timely manner.
Decisions on environmental management and governance should be informed by the best available environmental,
social and economic data and analysis; published information on operational experience in relevant comparable
situations; and local knowledge of traditional owners, residents and users of the area. The objectivity of decision
makers is very important and helps to ensure that decisions are not biased by vested interests.
In the planning stage, available data should be augmented by specifically commissioned studies to address gaps
and uncertainties. In the longer term, systematic operational monitoring and other studies should be conducted to
determine the performance of management and the achievement of environmental outcomes. This will help to
inform stakeholders and provide a robust basis for periodic review and adaptation where necessary. The
information developed through monitoring, specific studies and syntheses of technical and professional literature
should be subjected to independent expert peer review.
Principle 4:
Environmental management and governance should be objective, transparent and informed by best
available knowledge.
Knowledge about environmental processes, and the impacts of human interaction upon them, is constantly
evolving. This also applies to improvements in technology, particularly technology that will result in greater
environmental protection. Improvements in information and technology should be considered in the regular review
of planning and operational arrangements.
23
Within Australian ports, the environmental assessment phase is where the most current information and
technological options are considered and are able to inform conditions of approval. However, there is limited
capacity to use existing regulatory processes to compel or encourage companies operating within ports to improve
their performance once the environmental approval is granted, unless provisions are built into the approval. Under
historic tenancy agreements and leases, port authorities can also be very limited in their ability to compel
companies to improve their environmental performance by adopting technological advances. This is particularly an
issue where a tenant has a long-term lease that was established many decades ago.
Companies and industries operating within the GBRWHA should regard continual improvement in environmental
performance as a standard requirement of operating within such an important and valuable area. Governments and
port authorities will need to work closely with all users to ensure that advances in technology and knowledge are
adopted in a timely and effective way, using a combination of regulatory and incentive-based approaches. The
application of up-to-date knowledge and technology is also particularly important in the context of decommissioning
outdated or redundant infrastructure.
Principle 5:
Port planning and operations should be reviewed and improved regularly, informed by advances in
technology and knowledge.
Planning
Site selection and master planning activities generally determine land uses and the form of development in ports.
Site selection is the process by which broader strategic drivers in the region are considered through an allocation of
suitable areas for port development. Good site selection considers ‘beyond-the-port-boundary’ operational
requirements such as the ability to connect with critical allied infrastructure, including regional surface transport
linkages. The activity must also consider societal and environmental values as a consequence of site options. This
is particularly important in the context of obligations under the World Heritage Convention.
Port master planning typically follows site selection and essentially deals with planning of land use and activities
inside port boundaries. However, as ports evolve and grow, the two activities merge into the single strategic activity
of master planning, which deals with the longer-term specifics of an individual port. Ideally, comprehensive port
master planning should use a development horizon of approximately 15 to 30 years, 4 regardless of port size
(current or projected), cargo type or environmental setting. It is focused on creating an operationally efficient land
use system with an emphasis on safety, security and environmental responsibility – within and beyond the port.
Management of ports should be holistic, consolidating measures to address human and environmental health and
safety, wellbeing and efficiency. Traditionally, port planning has been based primarily on economic, logistic and
engineering drivers. The benefits in considering environmental objectives at the early stages of, and throughout,
master planning are increasingly recognised, including in the master planning guidance developed by Ports Australia.
The initial report found that there has been variable consideration of world heritage and environment matters in the
state and port strategic planning processes for the Port of Gladstone. When these matters have been considered,
there has been inadequate avoidance or mitigation of impacts on world heritage values. If this approach is
maintained it is not likely to be possible to demonstrate reasonable commitment to management for the long-term
maintenance of the environmental assets in Gladstone or other ports in the GBRWHA.
4
In line with the National Ports Strategy.
24
Prospects for new port developments have been mooted, both in areas as yet undisturbed within port limits (e.g.
Balaclava Island) and at greenfield sites that have not yet been formally gazetted as port facilities. Further
development or redevelopment should be concentrated within existing established port areas prior to opening up
of new areas. Minimising the geographical extent of impacts, including aesthetic impacts, will contribute to greater
regional environmental resilience.
Principle 6:
Existing developed footprints within port areas should be optimised to the greatest extent possible prior to
expansion into greenfield sites, including through the consolidation and sharing of infrastructure.
The outstanding universal value of the GBRWHA is protected under national environmental legislation as a matter
of national environmental significance in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
(EPBC Act) and through the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975. The GBRWHA is a multiple use area, and
ports existed prior to its inscription on the World Heritage List. Planning for future development along the adjacent
coast should aim for the highest possible levels of environmental performance to ensure the ongoing protection of
the OUV of the GBRWHA. Hence, any expansion and development of ports needs to consider Australia’s world
heritage commitments in relation to maintaining the world heritage values of the area.
Environment protection legislation in Australia allows for landscape-scale environmental assessments through a
range of strategic approaches. Strategic assessments entail a more holistic assessment than individual project
assessments and require the consideration of relevant environmental matters at the beginning of the process. For
example, strategic assessment provisions in the EPBC Act allow the federal environment Minister to endorse a port
master plan, following which the minister can approve actions, or classes of actions, taken in accordance with that
plan.5 Such an approach should result in better environmental outcomes and greater certainty for industry, the
community and government. Proponents of new developments would have an immediate incentive to develop in
accordance with the port master plan or otherwise face additional research, assessment and approval
requirements.
5
http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/guide-to-strategic-assessments.html
25
Principle 7:
Port plans should specifically identify and address environmental objectives, including the maintenance of
the outstanding universal value
of the GBRWHA, and the plans should be subject to risk-based environmental assessments.
There is a growing body of experience in port design and operation. Optimisation of any existing or potential port
involves the consideration of a combination of physical (geographic, tidal and climatic), environmental, societal,
scale and logistical factors. No single approach or technology can be applied broadly to every port in the
GBRWHA, but scientific and experiential information can be used to investigate the best way to proceed to meet a
particular development need.
Safety, efficiency and ease of access for vessel movements through navigation channels and shipping lanes are
key considerations in planning. However, identifying a site and/or a design that simply meets an economic or
traditional engineering need and then simply justifying environmental impacts is no longer an appropriate approach.
Consideration of environmental factors, and meaningful stakeholder engagement from the commencement of
project planning, will help to ensure that resulting designs and solutions are site specific and regionally appropriate.
It will also help to ensure that the impacts of new developments are considered within the context of the cumulative
pressures upon the receiving environment.
Principle 8:
Planning and management solutions should be site specific and fit for purpose within the local and
regional environmental and social context, including having regard to cumulative pressures.
In Australia, port planning is within the jurisdiction of state governments and there is not currently a consistent
approach to regulation. However, in July 2012 the Council of Australian Governments agreed to the National Ports
Strategy, which identifies port master planning as key to the development of efficient and sustainable ports and
associated freight logistics (Infrastructure Australia 2011).
The Queensland Government released a draft Queensland Port Strategy for public comment on 17 October 2013.
It was informed by public comment on a draft Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy 2012–2022 that was released in
2012, and has been prepared with reference to the National Ports Strategy. It states that statutory master planning
will be mandatory for priority port development areas (PPDAs). The Queensland Government will prepare a
statutory master planning guide to lead industry practice that may be used by all ports and will be compulsory for
PPDAs (DSDIP 2013).
In response to the 2011 decision of the World Heritage Committee, the Australian Government undertook to provide
a long-term plan for sustainable development that will protect the OUV of the GBRWHA to the WHC in 2015
(Australian Government 2013). An agreed long-term vision for the GBRWHA will be important for ensuring the longterm sustainability of the area and provide certainty for stakeholders, including industry, about acceptable
development into the future.
Port authorities are commercial operations and most are established as commercial entities responsible to
shareholders. It is therefore necessary for governments to provide a clear framework and guidance to ports around
regional, state and national infrastructure, development priorities and environmental objectives.
High-level strategies that take a broader view of infrastructure requirements for the jurisdiction could be used to
26
establish a triple-bottom-line framework that allows competition between ports but at the same time does not
unreasonably compromise social and environmental objectives in any one area. Proposals for individual port
expansions could also meet national and state interests as well as those of a single port or company. To do this,
social and environmental objectives would need to be clearly articulated, and adequate processes for consultation
provided. The relationship between the different levels of planning is shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Port planning hierarchy and relationship
National and state
strategies
GBRWHA long-term
shared vision
Port master plans
• National Ports Strategy
• National Freight Strategy
• Queensland Ports Strategy
• Comprehensive strategic
assessment
• Long-term plan
• Targeted strategic
assessments
• Land use plans and codes
• Environmental assessments
Individual project plans
• Environmental guidance
material
Principle 9:
Individual port plans should be consistent with regional, state and national port and freight logistics plans
within a long-term shared vision.
The initial report included a recommendation that a single master plan be developed for the whole of the Port of
Gladstone, including strategic port land and the State Development Area, with full stakeholder engagement and
fully considering protection of environmental and world heritage values in identifying areas for future expansion. It
discussed the various planning processes that had occurred in Gladstone with differing geographical extents. The
Review also recommended that the Queensland Government and GPC consistently delineate between different
port areas in their plans (particularly between the Port of Rockhampton and the Port of Gladstone) and include
greater explanation in their public consultation processes.
Ports should develop and maintain a single master plan that encompasses the entire port area, including adjoining
land areas that are likely to be associated with port developments. This would necessarily involve collaboration
between landowners, port authorities and the Queensland Government.
27
Principle 10:
Port master plans should encompass the entire extent of port limits and adjoining land likely to be
associated with port development and operation.
The implementation of plans is directly affected by legal management responsibility for particular areas of the port
and related land. All users and stakeholders in the area have an interest in the ongoing management of the port.
The extent of ownership of the plan by the variety of stakeholders is a key element in ensuring its success. Key to
broad ownership is an explicit and transparent process for analysing and managing environmental risks.
Transparency of the plan, including the development and finalisation processes, is important to gain and maintain a
shared vision. The weighting of environmental and social criteria within the planning process will also affect the
likelihood of acceptance by affected stakeholder groups.
Scenario planning and option analysis can take various forms. There are benefits and limitations to the different
planning methodologies used and documented globally. The approach taken should be appropriate to the scale of
the port and the complexities involved. A risk-based approach in which economic, social and environmental
considerations are explained, weighted and clearly documented will help to ensure the best outcome in a way that
can be understood by diverse interest groups.
Principle 11:
Planning criteria and option analysis should be risk-based, documented and publicly available, including
economic, social and environmental considerations.
While port plans can provide site-based direction for planned growth and operation, they can also identify beneficial
operational strategies and objectives to address other aspects of port governance. For example, should a port
authority become aware of the need to accommodate high levels of waste from calling vessels, it may (through a
planning process) make on-shore waste reception facilities part of compulsory ship-berthing fees. Identifying such
strategies within formal plans provides clarity and certainty to port users and demonstrates how the port authority
will contribute to the protection of the environment within and outside of the port limits.
As environmental credentials continue to grow in importance, ports that have a strong sustainability focus and
mandate with clear environmental objectives will in turn attract customers who have aligned objectives. In the future,
port authorities that use incentives such as reductions in fees to encourage reduced energy and water use on shore
will gain a stronger environmental reputation that will improve social acceptance and enhance a social licence to
operate.
Principle 12:
Ports should implement incentive schemes to encourage use of the best available environmental
technology and operational practice.
Environmental assessment and decision-making
28
Environmental assessment is the process of assessing the environmental impacts of potential development. The
initial report outlines the different layers and systems of environmental assessment and decision-making that apply
in the Port of Gladstone, including Commonwealth, state and local government requirements. Other ports within the
GBRWHA are subject to the same environmental protection legislation.
Environmental assessments are a key legislative requirement leading to some form of decision-making on the
acceptability (or not) of the project and usually contain certain conditions to mitigate or improve environmental
impact. The conditions imposed by environmental approvals are key parts of the adaptive environmental
management and governance of ports, adding substantial safeguards that govern port operations. Currently, each
development proposal is individually assessed, which poses challenges in quantifying the cumulative effects of a
set of developments over time. Globally, no methodology for quantifying cumulative impacts has been established
that has gained wide acceptance. However, there are strategic assessment options, including through the EPBC
Act, that can be used on a voluntary basis to take a landscape-scale approach to environmental assessment and
decision-making.
Decision makers will never have perfect information available to them to inform their decisions. There will always
be a degree of uncertainty in the likelihood and consequences of predicted impacts. A risk-based approach allows
decision makers not to be unduly constrained in times of uncertainty and, instead, to implement a precautionary
approach. However, when scientifically rigorous information is available it should be used to inform the
management of port operations. Experience-based evidence, particularly from observing actual impacts from
previous similar developments, can also be very important and should be taken into account where relevant.
Potential impacts of port development and operations on hydrology, coastal processes, hydrodynamic conditions
and water quality of receiving waters should be adequately analysed and forecast through tools such as numerical
models. The level of modelling required should be proportionate to the identified risks of the development. In
addition, the assumptions in the models should be identified and the models should reflect potential short- and
long-term risks and drivers (e.g. catchment sources, point sources and extreme weather events) to the receiving
waters.
Principle 13:
A consistent, robust and transparent integrated modelling and decision support framework should be
available to stakeholders and regulators.
The consistent application of assessment tools or models can help to establish a shared whole-of-system
understanding and confidence in the predictive science. In the Port of Gladstone, numerous hydrodynamic models
are in use to predict the likely water movement and quality in response to environmental conditions within the
harbour. Intellectual property and commercial constraints have contributed to the lack of a collaborative approach
and comparability across these various models. This in turn can make it challenging for regulators to ensure that
decisions are informed by the best available science.
The need for assessment and consideration of cumulative impacts was identified in the initial report as one of the
three key areas for improvement. Research projects currently underway through the comprehensive strategic
assessment include:

an integrated monitoring framework for the GBRWHA

a Great Barrier Reef resilience decision framework

a coastal ecosystems assessment framework.
29
These studies were not completed in time for consideration by the Review. However, preliminary results indicate
that they should help decision makers and port managers better understand the complex dynamics of the total
receiving environment. A system for better consideration of cumulative pressures should result.
Principle 14:
Environmental assessment and decision-making should be based on a whole-of-system understanding of
the receiving environment and impacts of cumulative pressures.
The current environmental management hierarchy used in the Australian environmental assessment system
specifies a preference for impact avoidance, followed by minimisation and finally offsetting. Collaborative initiatives
such as Building with Nature and Working with Nature effectively install benefit at the top of the hierarchy to
encourage best possible solutions to be the first considerations (De Vriend and Van Koningsveld 2012, PIANC
2011). However, without a shared vision or target for the local environment area, the idea of an environmental
benefit can be subjective. For example, the construction of a rock wall may encourage and support an increase in
commercially and recreationally valuable fish species but may have an adverse flow-on effect on ecosystem
services or on a threatened or vulnerable species.
The concept of delivering the benefits of offsets in advance of the impact occurring has also been observed in port
developments around the world. This is much simpler for a proponent to deliver if strategic offsetting opportunities
have already been identified and agreed by a collaboration of stakeholders and governments such as through port
master planning. Where it is not possible for the offsets to be secured prior to the impacts occurring, additional
compensatory measures may be required.
In the initial report, the Review recommended that the Australian Government build on the offsets policy launched
in October 2012 and establish a list of appropriate offsets for the GBRWHA. The adoption of a regional approach,
based on an understanding of the most effective offsets to deal with environmental impacts, provides the
opportunity for strategic delivery of positive environmental outcomes. This approach, which is likely to involve a
combination of direct and indirect offsets, will enhance public confidence in port development.
Principle 15:
Environmental offsets should be strategic, measurable and in place prior to impacts occurring, while
aiming for a net environmental gain.
Some submissions to the Review expressed concern and frustration at the lack of effective consultation,
transparency and data availability in relation to port development and management. Important considerations for
port planning and a shared long-term vision for the GBRWHA have been articulated above. One of the three key
areas for improvement identified in the initial report was the need for meaningful and ongoing stakeholder
engagement to improve information and community confidence in environmental management and governance.
Consideration of such plans and vision by decision makers through environmental assessments will be crucial. If
the plans are not actually implemented, they will have little to no value. If such guidance documents are not taken
into account in environmental approval decision-making their value is greatly diminished, as is the confidence of
stakeholders who participated in good faith in their development. Plans should be informed by environmental
assessments and adapted to ensure that unacceptable impacts will not occur.
30
Principle 16:
Decision-making and development approvals should be consistent with port planning and a shared vision
for the region.
Monitoring and reporting
The overall health of the environment at and around a port should be continuously monitored so that short-term
and long-term environmental condition and trends can be detected. During project construction works, additional
project-specific monitoring programs should be targeted and, where possible, in line with overall whole-of-port
monitoring systems. Regular and consistent reporting and communication of monitoring results is also important for
maintaining stakeholder understanding and confidence.
Mandatory conditions on the development and operation of an activity will normally include requirements for
monitoring of environmental indicators and identify acceptable thresholds or trigger levels for those indicators.
These should reflect the level of risk to environmental values identified in the decision-making process. Conditions
will similarly require reasonable monitoring and reporting of management activities to reflect compliance with and
effectiveness of operational procedures. Such monitoring should be mandatory, scheduled and transparent.
One mechanism for increasing public confidence in monitoring and reporting is the involvement of a multistakeholder body reflecting the range of community interests in the operation of the port. To increase community
confidence in monitoring and reporting, data should be publically available and subsequent analysis should be
subject to technical peer review. The production of relevant information in a form that is understandable to the
public (such as report cards that clearly indicate performance against thresholds or targets) can also assist to
improve public confidence in industry-funded monitoring and reporting. However, such summaries should not be
the only form in which information is available to stakeholder groups.
Identification of appropriate environmental or impact thresholds, targets and objectives is critical for the monitoring,
evaluation and reporting of the overall health of the environment of a port in the context of multiple sources of
impacts. All monitoring programs need to be properly developed to ensure that they include both near and distant
receiving environments. For example, water quality can be impacted by all of the port activities described earlier, as
well as by a multitude of other activities upstream in the catchment. Water quality values that are ecologically
meaningful and deliver social outcomes can be incorporated into an adaptive management framework so that, if
values are exceeded, action can be taken to avoid, minimise or contain the impacts. Impact thresholds should take
into account the duration, frequency and intensity of impacts, as well as cumulative impacts.
For port operations, approvals generally protect water quality through high-level management and governanceoriented conditions. Water quality protection measures (including plans for managing the environment, aquatic
values, dredging and shipping) are generally based on national and state guidelines as well as monitoring against
established local baseline data.
Principle 17:
Appropriate indicators, thresholds and methods for monitoring ecological health should be identified
through a risk-based whole-of-system approach and consistent with a regional integrated monitoring
framework.
31
The introduction of invasive marine pest species to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is a threat to its
outstanding universal value. The threat of invasive species imported in ballast waters was specifically mentioned in
the World Heritage Committee’s mission report (Douvere and Badman 2012, pp. 32 and 58). Approximately 250
introduced marine species were reported around Australia in 2009, and species such as the Asian green mussel
and the Asian bag mussel have been found in ports along the Great Barrier Reef coastline (GBRMPA 2009).
The report Environmental best practice port development: An analysis of international approaches (GHD 2013a)
identified that the best way to manage invasive marine pest species in ports is through a combined approach of:

education, awareness and information sharing regarding risks and actions to prevent the spread of
marine pest species

pre-entry quarantine actions

monitoring to demonstrate effectiveness of management measures and enable a rapid response by
early detection of new marine pest species

emergency procedures to enable rapid response to new reported marine pest species.
The risks of oil spills in ports are addressed through contingency plans. While each port has its own responsibility
to develop, maintain and implement oil response management plans within port limits, oil spills should be managed
consistently on a region-wide basis. As such, emergency response and environmental management of oil spills
should be coordinated. Best practice, multi-tiered governance response to spills should be underpinned by a strong
risk framework whereby capability and response times are proportional to the local environment and any sensitive
environmental factors (GHD 2013a). By planning and rehearsing targeted oil spill response ahead of time, the
impact on the environment can be minimised or prevented.
The Oil Spill Response Atlas in Australia’s National Plan for Maritime Environmental Emergencies6 provides a means
of identifying marine and coastal areas of sensitivity that could be impacted in the event of an oil spill, as well as
providing valuable resource and critical logistical information to federal and state/territory combat authorities and
industry during such events.
Responsibilities for preventing, detecting and responding to significant environmental incidents are vested in a
range of government agencies at the Commonwealth and state levels. Port authorities also have key
responsibilities within port boundaries, particularly in relation to rapid response. Continuation of a collaborative
approach between responsible parties will be critical in the success of monitoring and response initiatives.
Principle 18:
Adequate capacity should be maintained in port areas to prevent, detect and rapidly respond to significant
environmental incidents such as marine pest species incursions and oil spills.
Compliance and enforcement
Project development and operational approvals contain conditions to ensure that environmental impacts are
avoided, minimised and offset. The compliance and enforcement powers that can be used to ensure that condition
requirements are being met are generally enacted in legislation from multiple levels of government. These were
discussed in detail in the initial report.
6
www.amsa.gov.au/environment/maritime-environmental-emergencies/national-plan
32
A key component of compliance with conditions imposed on any development is the need for monitoring of the
actions undertaken and reporting of the results of these actions. Under Commonwealth environmental legislation, a
risk-based approach to auditing of major projects is used, meaning that not all projects are actively monitored or
audited by the government. There is an onus on the proponent to ensure adherence to, and adequacy of, reporting
requirements. Transparency and public confidence in the results of operational reporting and monitoring of
compliance with conditions are crucial components of effective port management, and these reports should be
publically available.
Ports operating in sensitive environments need to develop and maintain the public confidence that provides a
social licence to operate. A key way to do this is through confidence in the policing of approval conditions on
developments. It is important to minimise infringements and operational mishaps and report those that do occur.
Timely statutory reporting and participation in and compliance with voluntary codes of practice demonstrating
constantly improving environmental performance can improve public confidence. Reporting of these activities helps
to build a social licence to operate.
Principle 19:
Compliance with regulatory controls should be monitored and the results published regularly, including in
the event of an infringement.
While there is some public reporting on and auditing of individual projects in meeting the conditions of their
environmental approvals, there has been very minimal reporting of analysis of performance against overarching
port planning and environmental objectives. Some ports have been proactive in this regard. For example, GPC
released the Curtis Coast coastal and marine resource inventory report (GPC 2012) in June 2013 to describe the
history, society and natural resources of the region. However, in the absence of a shared regional vision and
environmental objectives, information resources of this kind can be disconnected and disregarded by some
stakeholders.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority produces a regular stock-take of the management and future of the
Great Barrier Reef through the Great Barrier Reef outlook report. This provides information on ecosystem condition
and management effectiveness on a reef-wide and macro-regional scale. A similar approach scaled for ports and
with compatible methods would assist public confidence and the ability for responsible agencies to improve
activities over time.
Principle 20:
Performance against port planning and environmental objectives should be regularly assessed and
publicly reported.
The initial report discussed the environmental performance of approved developments in the Port of Gladstone. It
included a recommendation that all confirmed cases of non-compliance be publicly announced on both the
department’s and the proponent’s websites, along with details of remedial action. Public exposure of misbehaviour
and the resulting risk of reputation damage play important deterrent roles.
It is important that the penalties are sufficient to deter infringements, both for ensuring that proponents take their
obligations seriously and for public confidence in the regulatory process. Financial penalties may have limited effect
33
where they are relatively small compared to overall operational costs.
Principle 21:
Penalties for non-compliance should be sufficient to deter infringements.
34
Conclusion
Many activities that occur within a port are essential to the operation of the port. All port activities should be subject
to transparent, objective and consultative environmental management and governance in an integrated and holistic
manner. Consideration of environmental objectives in all elements of governance is important to ensure that
temporary and permanent environmental impacts are understood, consistent with management objectives and
minimised to acceptable levels. Importantly, the cumulative environmental impacts should be taken into account to
ensure an appropriate and optimal management response.
Port activities in the GBRWHA are subject to multiple levels of governance, many of which are outside the control
of the port authorities. A shared long-term vision, combined with clear national and state port strategies, should
provide a robust framework for identifying the level of development required in individual ports. The application of
principles such as those proposed in this report should help to guide sustainable development within ports in a way
that is predictable for stakeholders, is adaptive and achieves optimised environmental outcomes. It should also
assist to ensure that operational activities are adaptive and continually improve in response to emerging technology
and information.
There is a clear need for some ports within the GBRWHA to continue to change and grow over time. However, this
growth should not necessarily occur at all ports, and acceptance of the possibility of growth should not be treated
as a carte blanche opportunity for substantial expansion into greenfield areas. The protection of environmental
values, including the outstanding universal value of the GBRWHA, should be a fundamental consideration in port
planning for predicted growth. Early and sustained meaningful engagement with stakeholders will be important to
achieve the best possible outcomes and broad stakeholder support.
It is possible to operate, manage and enhance ports within the GBRWHA whilst also adequately protecting the
environmental attributes of the area. The Review has identified a set of principles that should be used in future
consideration of the development and operation of ports within the GBRWHA. These principles may also have
broader applicability to ports in or adjoining other sensitive sea areas or world heritage properties. International
experience and movement towards more sustainable ports will continue to provide insights and examples showing
how development and operations can be improved over time.
35
Appendix 1: Table of meetings
Date and
location
Panel members (NB: the
secretariat was present at all
meetings)
Attendees
21 August,
Brisbane
Anthea Tinney
Queensland Department of State Development,
Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) officers
(Sally Noonan and Katherine Mcaulay)
Anthea Tinney
QRC
(Michael Roche, David Rynne and
Bronwyn Story)
23 August,
Canberra
Nil. Secretariat authorised to meet
on panel’s behalf.
Infrastructure Australia
(John Austen and Tracey Lines)
6 September,
Gladstone
Eva Abal and Richard Kenchington
Chad Hewitt
Eva Abal and Richard Kenchington
GPC
(Leo Zussino, Gary Carter, John Sherriff and Gordon
Dwane)
9–11 September,
Sydney
Richard Kenchington
PIANC Sustainable Ports Workshop and Coasts and
Ports Conference
27 September,
Canberra
Anthea Tinney, Eva Abal, Ian
Cresswell and Richard Kenchington
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA)
(Russell Reichelt)
Anthea Tinney, Eva Abal, Ian
Cresswell and Richard Kenchington
Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)
(Mick Kinley)
Anthea Tinney, Eva Abal, Ian
Cresswell and Richard Kenchington
Sally Noonan, Diane Tarte, Jason Sprott, Gary Carter,
Carolyn Cameron and Kevin Kane
Anthea Tinney
GPC
(Craig Doyle)
Anthea Tinney
Department of the Environment
(Gordon de Brouwer and Kimberley Dripps)
10 October,
Brisbane
25 October,
Canberra
36
Appendix 2: Information considered
The Review considered information from a number of sources including submissions, websites of relevant
organisations and bodies, media articles, journals, reports and reviews, departmental policies and guidelines,
Commonwealth and Queensland government legislation, Hansard and statutory notices.
The majority of information sources considered in the Review are outlined in the initial report. This appendix outlines
further information received since that time and sources used for this supplement.
Key publicly available documents
The key publicly available documents considered by the Review, in addition to those outlined in the initial report,
are referenced below.
Australian Government (2005a) National standards for criteria air pollutants in Australia: Air quality fact
sheet. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Web page accessed 21 August 2013. URL:
http://www.environment.gov.au/atmosphere/airquality/publications/standards.html
Australian Government (2005b) Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan 2005–2010. Recovery plan under
the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of the Environment and
Heritage.
Australian Government (2005c) Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005–2010. Recovery plan under the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of the Environment and
Heritage.
Australian Government (2012) Conservation Management Plan for the Southern Right Whale 2011–2021.
Recovery plan under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of
Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.
Australian Government (2013) State party report on the state of conservation of the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area (Australia) property ID N154. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population
and Communities.
Australian Maritime Safety Authority (2013) North-east shipping management plan: August 2013 draft.
Buhaug, Ø., Corbett, J.J., Endresen, Ø., Eyring, V., Faber, J., Hanayama, S., Lee, D.S., Lee, D., Lindstad,
H., Markowska, A.Z., Mjelde, A., Nelissen, D., Nilsen, J., Pålsson, C., Winebrake, J.J., Wu, W. and Yoshida,
K. (2009) Second IMO GHG study 2009. International Maritime Organization (IMO).
Breitling, U. (2010) Sustainable shipping and port development. 5th Regional EST Forum in Asia.
Chapman, L. (2007) ‘Transport and climate change: A review’. Journal of Transport Geography. 15(5): pp.
354–367.
Commonwealth of Australia (2009) National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009.
Commonwealth of Australia (2012) The national system for the prevention and management of marine pest
incursions. Website accessed 6 August 2013. URL:
http://www.marinepests.gov.au/national_system
De Vriend, H.J. and Van Koningsveld, M. (2012) Building with Nature: Thinking, acting and interacting
differently. EcoShape.
37
Dobbs, K. (2001) Marine turtles in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area: A compendium of information
and basis for the development of policies and strategies for the conservation of marine turtles. Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority.
Douvere, F. and Badman, T. (2012) Mission report: Reactive monitoring mission to Great Barrier Reef,
Australia. World Heritage Centre, UNESCO.
Erbe, C. (2013) Underwater passive acoustic monitoring and noise impacts on marine fauna – A workshop
report. Acoustics Australia. 41(1): pp. 211–217.
European Sea Ports Organisation (2012) ESPO green guide – Towards excellence in port environmental
management and sustainability.
Finstad, B., Kroglund, F., Bjørn, P.A., Nilsen, R., Pettersen, K., Rosseland, B.O., Teien, H.C., Nilsen, T.O,
Stefansson, S.O., Salbu, B. and Ebbesson, L.O.E. (2012) ‘Salmon lice-induced mortality of Atlantic salmon
postsmolts experiencing episodic acidification and recovery in freshwater’. Aquaculture. 362: pp.193–199.
Garnaut, R. (2008) The Garnaut climate change review – Final report. Cambridge University Press.
GHD (2013a) Environmental best practice port development: An analysis of international approaches. Report
prepared for Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities.
GHD (2013b) Ship anchorage management in the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area.
Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC) (n.d.) Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project: Environmental
impact statement. URL:
http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/environmental_impact_statement
Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC) (2012) Curtis Coast coastal and marine resource inventory report.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) (2009) Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2009.
Grech, A., Bos, M., Brodie, J., Coles, R., Dale, A., Gilbert, R., Hamann, M., Marsh, H., Neil, K., Pressey,
R.L., Rasheed, M.A., Sheaves, M. and Smith, A. (2013) ‘Guiding principles for the improved governance of
port and shipping impacts in the Great Barrier Reef’. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 75(1–2): pp. 8–20.
Grech, A., and Marsh, H. (2008) ‘Rapid assessment of risks to a mobile marine mammal in an ecosystem-scale
marine protected area’. Conservation Biology. 22(3): pp. 711–720.
Hazel, J. and Gyuris, E. (2006) ‘Vessel-related mortality of sea turtles in Queensland, Australia’. Wildlife
Research. 33: pp. 149–154.
Hazel, J., Lawler, I.R., Marsh, H. and Robson, S. (2007) ‘Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green
turtle Chelonia mydas’. Endangered Species Research. 3: pp. 105–113.
Hester, K.C., Peltzer, E.T., Kirkwood, W.J. and Brewer, P.G. (2008) ‘Unanticipated consequences of ocean
acidification: A noisier ocean at lower pH’ [Abstract]. Geophysical Research Letters. 35(19).
Hewitt, C. and Campbell, M. (2010) The relative contribution of vectors to the introduction and translocation
of invasive marine species. Report for the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and
Forestry under the National System for the Prevention and Management of Marine Pest Incursions.
Hildebrand, J.A. (2009) ‘Anthropogenic and natural sources of ambient noise in the ocean’. Marine Ecology
Progress Series. 395(5).
Hodgson, A.J. (2004). Dugong behaviour and responses to human influences. Doctoral dissertation. James
38
Cook University.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Mumby, P.J., Hooten, A.J., Steneck, R.S., Greenfield, P., Gomez, E., Harvell, C.D.,
Sale, P.F., Edwards, A.J., Calideira, K., Knowlton, N., Eakin, C.M., Iglesias-Prieto, R., Muthiga, N., Bradbury,
R.H., Dubi, A. and Hatziolos, M.E. (2007). ‘Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification’.
Science. 318(5857): pp. 1737–1742.
Holt, M.M., Noren, D.P., Veirs, V., Emmons, C.K. and Veirs, S. (2008) ‘Speaking up: Killer whales (Orcinus
orca) increase their call amplitude in response to vessel noise’. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
125(1): pp. EL27–EL32.
Infrastructure Australia (2011) National Ports Strategy.
Infrastructure Australia (2013) National Infrastructure Plan June 2013.
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (2009) Guidance document for minimising the risk of ship strikes
with cetaceans. MEPC.1/Circ.674, Ref. T5/1.01.
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) (2013) International Maritime Organisation. Website accessed 21
August 2013. URL: http://www.imo.org
Jensen, F.H., Bejder, L., Wahlberg, M., Aguilar Soto, N. and Madsen, P.T. (2009) ‘Vessel noise effects on
delphinid communication’. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 395:
pp. 161–175.
Kroglund, F., Finstad, B., Pettersen, K., Teien, H.C., Salbu, B., Rosseland, B.O., Nilsen, T.O., Stefansson,
S., Ebbesson, L.O.E., Nilsen, R., Bjørn, P.A. and Kristensen, T. (2012) ‘Recovery of Atlantic salmon smolts
following aluminum exposure defined by changes in blood physiology and seawater tolerance’. Aquaculture.
362: pp. 232–240.
Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S. and Podesta, M. (2001) ‘Collisions between ships and
whales’. Marine Mammal Science. 17(1): pp. 35–75.
Landos, M. (2013) Response to Gladstone Ports Corporation scientist submissions
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/gbr/gladstone/submissions/pubs/24gpc.pdf which critiqued the Future
Fisheries Veterinary Service report: “Investigation of the Causes of Aquatic Animal Health Problems in the
Gladstone Harbour and Nearshore Waters”.. Submission 45 to the Senate Standing Committees on
Environment and Communications inquiry into the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Amendment (Great Barrier Reef) Bill 2013. Available from
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Co
mpleted_inquiries/2010-13/greatbarrierreef2013/submissions
Lewis, S., Hewitt, C.L. and Melzer, A. (2001) Port survey for introduced marine species Port Curtis. Final
report to the Gladstone Port Authority.
Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ) (2012) Standard for Marine Construction Activities within Gladstone
Harbour.
Meager, J.J. and Limpus, C.J. (2012) Marine wildlife stranding and mortality database annual report 2011: III.
Marine Turtle. Conservation Technical and Data Report. 3: pp.1–46.
OSPAR Commission (2009) ‘Overview of the impacts of anthropogenic underwater sound in the marine
environment’. Biodiversity Series. 441.
Petrou K., Jimenez-Denness I., Chartrand K., McCormack C., Rasheed M. and Ralph, P.J. (2013) ‘Seasonal
heterogeneity in the photophysiological response to air exposure in two tropical intertidal seagrass species’.
Marine Ecology Progress Series. 482:
39
pp. 93–106.
PIANC (2011) Working with nature. PIANC position paper October 2008, revised
January 2011.
Ports Australia (2013) Leading practice: port master planning.
Port of Antwerp (2006) Annual report 2006.
QGC Limited (2009) Environmental impact statement: Queensland Curtis LNG.
Queensland Alumina Limited (QAL) (2010) Red mud fact sheet. URL:
http://www.qal.com.au/Media_LatestNews.asp
Queensland Curtis LNG (n.d.) Dredge management plan – Construction Dock.
Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2011) Ballast water. Website accessed 6
August 2013. URL: http://www.daff.gov.au/biosecurity/avm/vessels/quarantine_concerns/ballast
Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2013) New biosecurity legislation. Website
accessed 6 August 2013. URL: http://www.daff.gov.au/bsg/biosecurity-reform/new-biosecurity-legislation
Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (2011) Fish health
sampling reports: Gladstone Harbour as at 8 December 2011.
Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (2012) Fish health
sampling reports: Gladstone Harbour as at 27 February 2012.
Queensland Department of Infrastructure and Transport (2013) Ballast water management. Website
accessed 6 August 2013. URL: http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/maritime/environment/ballast.aspx
Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) (2013) Queensland
Ports Strategy: Draft for consultation.
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) (2013) Marine incidents in Queensland
2012.
Queensland Government (2000) Queensland Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry.
Rasheed, M.A., Thomas, R., Roelofs, A.J., Neil, K.M., and Kerville, S.P. (2002) Port Curtis and Rodds Bay
seagrass and benthic macro-invertebrate community baseline survey: November/December 2002.
Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries Information Series Q103058.
Santos (2009) Environmental impact statement: Gladstone liquefied natural gas facility. URL:
http://www.santosglng.com/resource-library/glng-eis.aspx
Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee (2013) Inquiry into the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Great Barrier Reef) Bill 2013. Commonwealth of
Australia.
SKM (2013) Improved dredge material management for the Great Barrier Reef region. Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority.
Teien, H.C., Kroglund, F., Salbu, B. and Rosseland, B.O. (2006) ‘Gill reactivity of aluminium-species
following liming’. Science of the Total Environment. 358(1):
pp. 206–220.
Teien, H.C., Salbu, B., Kroglund, F., Heier, L.S. and Rosseland, B.O. (2007) ‘The influence of colloidal
material on aluminium speciation and estimated acid neutralising capacity (ANC)’. Applied Geochemistry.
40
22(6): pp. 1202–1208.
Teien, H.C., Salbu, B., Kroglund, F., and Rosseland, B.O. (2004) ‘Transformation of positively charged
aluminium-species in unstable mixing zones following liming’. Science of the Total Environment. 330(1): pp.
217–232.
Van Waerebeek, K., Baker, A.N., Felix, F., Gedamke, J., Iniguez, M., Sanino, G.P., Secchi, E., Sutaria, D.,
Van Helden, A. and Wang, Y. (2007) ‘Vessel collisions with small cetaceans worldwide and with large
whales in the Southern Hemisphere, an initial assessment’. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals.
6(1): 43–69.
Weilgart, L.S. (2007) ‘The impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on cetaceans and implications for
management’. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 85(11): pp.1091–1116.
Additional information
The Review received and considered a variety of unpublished documentation including correspondence, meeting
minutes, presentations, internal departmental documents, witness statements and other information from relevant
organisations and bodies, members of the public and stakeholders.
Key additional information received, in addition to that outlined in the initial report, is outlined below. Some
documents may already be publicly available. Some documents were provided by more than one source but are
only listed once below.
Source
Details
Andrew Jeremijenko
Several emails pertaining to acid sulfate soils, aluminium, dredging, liming,
fish and Corexit 9500, providing personal evidence and other information
sources
Satellite images of turbidity, reclamation works and the bund wall in
Gladstone Harbour
Proof Hansard of the public hearing of the Senate Environment and
Communications Legislation Committee Inquiry into the Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Great Barrier Reef)
Bill 2013 on Thursday, 23 May 2013 in Brisbane
Dr Matt Landos
Several emails pertaining to monitoring and management in Gladstone, the
Gladstone Fish Health Scientific Advisory Panel process, seagrass,
dredging, fish health, water quality and the Western Basin bund wall,
providing personal evidence, scientific papers, photos, data and other
supporting evidence
Document ‘How the Queensland Government arrived at the wrong
conclusion about the cause of the disease outbreak in Gladstone’
Presentation ‘Gladstone: Clearing the mud from the waters – why the
animals died’
Dr Michael Rasheed
Email pertaining to priorities for seagrass research and associated
information sources
GBRMPA
Information on flooding in Gladstone, turbidity and dugong protected areas
Information on a potential project monitoring potential impacts of dredge
spoil disposal at the East Banks Soil Disposal Area of the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park
41
Gladstone Healthy Harbour
Partnership
Internal report on avoiding duplication in monitoring and research programs
in Gladstone
GPC
Communications concerning additional information requested for the
Review
Gladstone Port Authority Land Use Plan 2045 image
Details of the changes to the update of the Curtis Coast coastal and marine
resource inventory report between the draft given to the panel in March
2013 and the official release
Extract from the corporation’s 2013 national infrastructure plan
Materials relating to recovery of seagrass in Gladstone Harbour
Feedback on the initial report with supporting documents
Infrastructure Australia
Report ‘The economic significance of Gladstone’
Law Essentials
Several emails and supporting documents pertaining to dredging,
reclamation, acid sulfate soils, toxic algal blooms, fish and crab health,
water quality and turbidity, providing personal evidence and other
supporting material
Law Essentials final report ‘Cover-ups, breaches and failures: A review of
the environmental management, monitoring, reporting and regulation of
Gladstone Port developments’ (26 June 2013)
PIANC
Draft of the PIANC-IAPH WG 150 report on sustainable ports ‘Sustainable
ports: A guide for port authorities’
QRC
Predictions for the Queensland coal sector
42