G40185.1

Page 1 of 41

PERMIT ASSESSMENT

PART A – APPLICATION DETAILS

Application overview

North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation (the applicant) applied for a 10 year maintenance dredging and spoil dumping permit. They have not undertaken maintenance dredging since 2010.

The Port of Hay Point is located about 40 kilometres south of Mackay. The Port includes two separate coal terminals, Hay Point Coal Terminal and Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal. Port capability includes purpose-built rail in-loading facilities at both terminals, onshore stockpiling areas and offshore wharves serviced by conveyor systems and supported on jetties that run out to sea and allow loading in deep water.

The total volume proposed to be dredged and dumped is up to 756,553m3, plus a further 200,000 cubic metres contingency for sediments deposited by extreme weather events such as cyclones. It is proposed that 756,553m3 is dredged and dumped over three campaigns, 356,553m3 in year one (over 40 days), 200,000m3 between years two to five (over 20 days) and 200,000m3 between years five to ten (over 20 days).

The majority of area determined to require maintenance dredging is within the Port Exclusion Area. Only the departure channel is within the Marine Park. Therefore the application for maintenance dredging is for up to a maximum of 33,509 m3 of dredge spoil material from the Approved Dredge Area and the full volume of up to 956,553m3, including contingency, has been applied for dumping within the Approved Dredge Spoil Disposal Area.

The application was publically advertised fortnightly in the Daily Mercury (Mackay) and Whitsunday Times to seek public comment from 23 June 2018 until 21 August 2018 (60 day period). The public advertising was undertaken in accordance with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983.

The specific permissions, conduct and zones applied for are:

General Use Zone - Carrying out works – being the maintenance dredging of up to a maximum of 33,509m3 of dredge spoil material from the Approved Dredge Area and bed levelling within the Approved Dredge Area – General Use Zone

General Use Zone and Habitat Protection Zone - Carrying out works - the dumping of up to a maximum of 756,553m3 of maintenance dredge material and a maximum of 200,000m3 of contingency maintenance dredge material within the Approved Dredge Spoil Disposal Area – General Use Zone, Habitat Protection Zone

The total proposed dredging time is approximately 100 days over 10 years (2.7 per cent of the total permit term).

Timeline associated with permit application

DATE PROJECT ASSESSMENT MILESTONES

8/12/2017 Marine Park Application received

22/06/2018 Public comment period commenced

21/082018 Public comment period closed

25/9/2018 Further information request sent

25/10/2018 Sea Dumping Permit application received

6/12/2018 Further information response received

23/01/2019 Decision

Assessment approach: public information package (Subdivision 2A.3A.2)

Permit Application Assessment Fee: $8,610 paid 02/02/2018

Native Title Notification: Individual notifications sent on 04/10/2018. No comments were received.

G40185.1

Page 2 of 41

Sea Dumping Act: Assessment under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 recommends approval of the application (SD19/01) with the same permit conditions as recommended in this Marine Park assessment report where relevant.

Post-permit requirements:

Deed of Agreement – Yes

Bond – No

Environmental Management Plans – Yes

Environmental Site Supervision - Yes

Recommendation

Assessment Officer GBRMPA

Recommendation Comments

Signature:

Name: Julia Chandler

PN659

Date:

☐ Grant the permit

☐ Grant the permit with conditions

☐ Refuse the application

Expiry Date:

31 January 2029

Period: 10 years

Decision

Delegate Decision Comments

Signature: ______________

Name: Simon Banks

Position: General Manager- Reef Protection (PN393)

Delegate of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Date:

☐ Grant the permit

☐ Grant the permit with conditions

☐ Refuse the application

The decision for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is made under the Instrument of Delegation signed by the Acting Chief Executive Officer (Bruce Elliot) on 29 October 2018.

As Delegate, I confirm that I have read and considered the assessment and agree that it complies with all relevant requirements under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983.

23/01/2019

23/01/2019

G40185.1

Page 3 of 41

PART B - CONSIDERATION OF ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 (the Regulations) outline the matters the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (the Authority) must have regard to in the assessment of applications for permissions. Under the Regulations the mandatory considerations for assessment of permission applications are specified in regulation 88Q.

Consideration A: Zoning

88Q(a) if the proposed conduct will take place in a zone – the objectives (if any) of the zoning plan for the zone;

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003 applies to the area. The proposed area of use and entry includes the General Use Zone and Habitat Protection Zone offshore Port of Hay Point.

The objective of the General Use Zone is to: Provide for the conservation of areas of the Marine Park, while providing opportunities for reasonable use. The objectives of the Habitat Protection Zone are to (a) provide for the conservation of areas of the Marine Park through the protection and management of sensitive habitats, generally free from potentially damaging activities; and (b) subject to the objective mentioned in paragraph (a), to provide opportunities for reasonable use.

Both zones allow for the use or entry to the Marine Park with the written permission of the Authority for the purposes of:

operating a facility for a purpose that is consistent with the objectives of the zones, including building, assembling, fixing in position, maintaining or demolishing the facility; or

Carrying out works for a purpose that is consistent with the objectives of the zones, including dredging or dumping of spoil.

Public submissions

No public submissions commented on the objectives of the Zones as an issue.

Possible permit conditions

The permitted Zones and locations are included in the permit core matters. There are no additional permit conditions required to mitigate risks under this criterion.

Conclusion

The proposed conducts are consistent with the objectives of the requested zones provided relevant permit conditions and other statutory requirements and management arrangements are complied with.

Consideration B: Other Statutory Instruments

88Q (b) if the proposed conduct will take place in a specific area of the Marine Park to which a legislative instrument under the Act (whether these Regulations or another instrument), or a provision of such a legislative instrument, applies – that instrument or provision;

There are no other legislative instruments under the Act that apply.

Public submissions

No public submissions commented on the legislative instruments under the Act as an issue.

Conclusion

Not applicable

Consideration C: Suitable Person

G40185.1

Page 4 of 41

88Q(c) whether the applicant for the permission is a suitable person to hold a permission for the proposed conduct, having regard to:

i. the applicant’s capacity to engage in and manage the proposed conduct to the satisfaction of the Authority; and

ii. the applicant’s history in relation to environmental matters; and

iii. if the applicant is a body corporate—the history of its executive officers in relation to environmental matters; and

iv. if the applicant is a subsidiary of a holding company—the history of the holding company and its executive officers in relation to environmental matters; and

v. whether the applicant owes any fee or other amount payable under the Act or these Regulations;

vi. any other relevant matters.

In completing and submitting the application form, the applicant was required to make a lawful declaration in relation to the applicant’s suitability to hold a Marine Parks permission. Making a false declaration is an offence under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and this is stated within the application form where the declaration is required to be made.

The applicant has made several declarations as part of submitting their application, which addresses the following: The applicant* and any associated persons**1

have no charges for breaking any law, and have not been found guilty of, pleaded guilty to, or been convicted by a court of any relevant offences in Australia or any other nation. Nor is the applicant aware of any pending legal proceedings, under Australian law or internationally, which may be relevant to this application

have not had a relevant authority suspended, cancelled or revoked in the past 5 years

does not currently have any charge, collected amount or penalty amount that is overdue; or any late payment penalty amount that is payable or any bond amount that is outstanding under a current Marine Parks permission (whether the permission is in force or not)

The applicant is considered to be a suitable person to hold the permissions applied for, through meeting the above requirements specified in the statutory declaration.

The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads monitors the performance and provides oversight over Queensland’s port government-owned corporations including the applicant. The applicant is a government owned corporation (GOC), incorporated under the Corporations Act 2001 and subject to the requirements of the Government Owned Corporations Act 1993. The Queensland Government owns all shares in the applicant, which are held by two shareholding ministers: the Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Partnerships; and the Minister for Transport and Main Roads. The applicant applies ‘good practice’ corporate governance to help it achieve its outcomes and obligations through sound planning and risk management. Corporate governance guides decision-making and improves accountability so that people working for the applicant have a framework for good business conduct and integrity in dealings. The board of the applicant assumes overall responsibility for corporate governance. It monitors the performance of the business, its management and employees, both directly and through the established board committees.

As the Port Authority under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (Qld), the applicant carries out maintenance dredging to maintain navigable depths for vessels, and:

is the current and previous permit holder for State and Commonwealth permits for maintenance dredging at each of the Ports of Hay Point, Mackay, Abbot Point and Weipa

1 * for body corporates – including the body corporate, its executive officers, its parent body, and the parent

body’s executive officers. ** includes other persons who will be regularly or usually be in charge of the activity or business, or will regularly direct staff of the activity or business in their duties, or will be in a position to control or substantially influence the activity or business.

G40185.1

Page 5 of 41

has a long history of good management of maintenance dredging in Queensland.

has had an ISO140001 accredited EMS since 1999

The applicant has not had any significant environmental incidents or compliance actions.

The applicant’s Board of Directors are appointed by the Governor-in-Council on the recommendation of shareholding Ministers. All Directors are members or have graduated from the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Further information on NQBP’s current Directors and governance can be found here.

The applicant is not a subsidiary of a holding company.

The applicant has paid $8,610.00 pursuant to Part 7 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Regulations 1983 for assessment of this Marine Park Permit application. No other fees are outstanding or payable.

There are no other relevant matters identified as part of this assessment.

Public submissions

No public submissions commented on the suitability of the applicant to hold permissions for the proposed conducts.

Possible permit conditions

It is recommended to include the standard deed permit conditions, requiring the Permit Holder to execute a Deed of Agreement with relevant indemnity, insurance, clean up and restoration cost recovery provisions. Being a government-owned corporation, it is considered that a bond is not required.

Conclusion

The applicant is considered suitable to hold permissions for the proposed conducts.

Consideration D: Reasonable steps to prevent and minimise harm

88Q(d) the requirement in section 37AA of the Act for users of the Marine Park to take all reasonable steps to prevent or minimise harm2 to the environment in the Marine Park that might or will be caused by the user’s use or entry.

The following have been considered in assessing whether all reasonable steps have been taken by the applicant to prevent or minimise harm from the proposed use and/or entry:

Nature and scale of the potential harm and risk of harm – The risk assessment under Assessment Consideration G outlines the potential impacts of the proposed conduct as well as the potential values affected. When conducted in accordance with the limitations prescribed in the risk table, environmental management plans and through permit conditions, the proposed activities are assessed as ‘low risk’. Permit conditions are recommended to limit the amount of dredge material to be dumped in the Marine Park during any individual campaign. The applicant has developed a Long Term Monitoring and Management Plan that addresses the management of dredging at the Port of Hay Point over a 25 year period, an Environmental Thresholds Report, a Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan, and Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan. It is recommended to include permit conditions requiring these plans be implemented (as approved by the Managing Agency) and regularly updated to ensure continual improvement of dredging and dredge spoil dumping.

The sensitivity of the environment and the objectives of the zone where the activity is proposed – The proposed conducts have been assessed as consistent with the objectives of the zone under ‘Assessment Consideration A – Objects of the Zone’. The applicant’s studies indicate there is already a high, natural level of sediment resuspension in the area of the proposed conducts and that their proposed activities are highly unlikely to exceed the levels of resuspension that occurs naturally. The departure path and the dredge material placement area are already in existence and used. The proposed conduct has occurred on an irregular basis over many decades so the receiving

2 Section 37AA of the Act defines harm to include any adverse effect, direct or indirect harm to which the

person’s use or entry has contributed.

G40185.1

Page 6 of 41

environment is not unaccustomed to the effects, which are likely to be further reduced with more contemporary techniques and monitoring programs being put in place.

The peer reviewed numerical modelling, based on three years of water quality data, demonstrated that maintenance dredging and dumping of up to 400,000m3 of spoil resulted in water clarity comparable to that experienced during calm conditions (wind speeds of 15 knots and under).

The applicant has overseen an ambient marine (water quality, seagrass, and coral) monitoring program since 2014. The program is undertaken in partnership with James Cook University marine scientists and helps the applicant understand the natural marine environment and collects data to inform continual improvement. The Marine Environmental Monitoring plan submitted for approval with the application commits to implementing an adaptive monitoring program providing real-time water quality information during each dredge campaign at four sites, Round Top Island, Victor Island, Slade Island, and Freshwater Point. This monitoring information will be available to the public and regulators in real-time on the applicant’s website during each dredge campaign.

Also refer to Assessment Consideration G Relevant Impacts for more detail.

The practicality, including cost, of steps that will prevent or minimise the harm – All reasonable steps required to prevent or minimise potential harm associated with an activity of this scale are considered practical and affordable, and within reasonable expectations of the proposed conduct. Mitigation and environmental best practice actions are incorporated into the Dredge Environmental Management Plan, which will be reviewed after each campaign and updated based on lessons learned and improved modelling over the life of the permit. A detailed monitoring program is proposed for ongoing ambient, impact (pre, during and post dredging activities) and adaptive management components of the long term management of sediment at the Port of Hay Point. Refer to Assessment Consideration E where feasible and prudent alternatives were considered.

Compliance with relevant laws, codes of practices, standards, guidelines and permit conditions – The assessment assumes that the applicant will comply with any other laws and regulations when undertaking the proposed conduct in the Marine Park. A permit condition requiring such compliance is a standard inclusion in all permits. The option for the Authority to conduct environmental site supervision during the works is also recommended for inclusion in the permit conditions. Cost recovery for environmental site supervision by the Authority can be pursued through the Deed of Agreement. Standard Deed of Agreement conditions are also recommended.

Queensland’s Maintenance Dredging Strategy for Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Ports (the Maintenance Dredging Strategy) provides a framework for sustainable, leading practice management of maintenance dredging at ports in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA). The framework builds on the current regulatory requirements to ensure the ongoing protection of the Reef's values and the continued operating efficiency of ports within the GBRWHA. The Strategy sets up a framework for maintenance dredging management and requires ports within the GBRWHA to develop and implement long-term maintenance dredging management plans. The applicant has developed a long-term maintenance dredging management plan consistent with the guidelines under the Maintenance Dredging Strategy. Implementation of the Plan is a permit condition requirement and it is recommended to include approval of this plan for implementation in the permit cover letter, if the permit is granted.

Ports Australia’s Environmental Code of Practice for Dredging and Dredged Material Placement 2016 sets out a number of environmental principles that Australian ports meet when undertaking dredging and dumping of dredged material. The principles have been defined on the basis of ecologically sustainable development principles. The applicant is a Member of Ports Australia, as such has endorsed the principles contained in this document and are committed to conducting activities consistent with the Code. All Management Plans developed as part of this permit application process are consistent with the Code.

Refer also to Assessment Considerations J, N and O below.

Additional applicant commitments beyond the scope of the proposed conduct

A 3-year, $3M partnership agreement with James Cook University’s Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research Centre (TropWATER) to demonstrate an ongoing commitment to a marine water quality and habitat program.

EcoPorts Program, including ongoing ambient monitoring programs across all Port operations are already in place (refer Your Ports 2017). The marine components of the overall monitoring

G40185.1

Page 7 of 41

operations are supported to continue through implementation of Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan submitted with this permit application and recommended for approval.

Public submissions

Public submissions commented on the following in relation to this criterion:

Perceived risk to tourism industry through negative publicity if dumping of maintenance dredge spoil was to occur in the Marine Park

Perceived risk of impacts to water quality in the vicinity of Cabbage Tree Creek

The scale of sedimentation/resuspension resulting from sea dumping would significantly impact the Whitsundays

Possible permit conditions

Standard condition about complying with all laws in force in the State of Queensland and the Commonwealth.

The requirement for a deed, insurance and indemnity provisions, and environmental site supervision.

Spoil dumping only allowed under approved NAGD SAP testing to ensure sediment is uncontaminated, within maximum volumes restricted by the recommended permit conditions.

Conducting activities in accordance with Managing Agency approved environmental management plans.

Monitoring results from impact and adaptive monitoring are reported on and reviewed after each campaign to ensure any improvements identified are incorporated into revisions of the dredge and monitoring management plans prior to next campaign.

Reporting requirement to publish a report on the applicant’s website addressing compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Thresholds Report, Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan and the Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan, as verified by an independent audit. That audit report must include but not be limited to the following:

a. Deviations from the Environmental Thresholds Report; b. Identification of any changes that would be required to the Maintenance Dredging

Environmental Management Plan, the Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan or the Environmental Thresholds Report before the next dredge campaign.

Managing Agency must approve the auditor in writing prior to commencement of each independent audit

Also refer to Risk table 1 below at Criterion G.

Conclusion

All reasonable steps to prevent or minimise harm to the environment in the Marine Park that might or will be caused by the applicant’s use or entry have been incorporated in the applicant’s dredge and monitoring management plans and risks of environmental harm are considered to be adequately managed through existing laws, recommended permit conditions and associated management plans.

Modelling does not predict any increase in sedimentation/turbidity or any changes to current flows at Cabbage Tree Creek above natural conditions. Cabbage Tree Creek is located between Victor Island and Freshwater Point adaptive monitoring sites. Any water quality changes above the monitoring plan threshold values will trigger management responses in accordance with the monitoring plan.

G40185.1

Page 8 of 41

Consideration E: Feasible and prudent alternatives

88Q(e) whether there are feasible and prudent alternatives to the proposed conduct.

Maintenance dredging

The applicant explored methods to avoid or reduce the need for maintenance dredging at the Port of Hay Point. A comprehensive analysis of these efforts is provided in the Sustainable Sediment Management Assessment (the SSMA). The SSMA found that:

“Not dredging” is not a viable option at the Port of Hay Point as maintenance to declared depths is essential to ensure safe navigation in the approach channel, the harbour and berth pockets. Sediment accumulation at the Port of Hay Point is predominantly influenced by littoral drift and no practical solutions exist to completely avoid the accumulation of sediment within the Port area (Appendix C of the SSMA - Hay Point sediment dynamics). Bathymetric analysis and modelling predicts accumulation of between 200,000 – 250,000m3 every 3-5 year period (See Appendices D1 and D2 and E of the SSMA).

Regular bed levelling/drag barring would potentially reduce accumulation, but not completely avoid ongoing sediment build up (Appendix H of the SSMA – Assessment for navigational maintenance). It is predicted that regular bed levelling/drag barring would effectively reduce maintenance dredging needs to approximately 200,000m3 over each 5-year period (rather than every three years as current forecasts predict). Therefore, regular bed levelling has been included in the operational measures to be implemented under the Long term Maintenance Dredge Management Plan to reduce the frequency of maintenance dredging.

Tropical cyclones (TC) can significantly alter sediment dynamics within navigational infrastructure. Modelling associated with TC Debbie in March 2017 (See Appendices D1 Port of Hay Point bathymetric analysis and modelling; and D2 port of Hay Point bathymetric analysis – TC Debbie of the SSMA) supports that a contingency of approximately 200,000m3 is prudent to account for similar events that result in significant additional siltation and accumulation in port berths and channels.

Analysis of sediments

An assessment of the engineering properties of sediments in the navigational infrastructure at the Port of Hay Point (see Appendix J of the SSMA) was undertaken to inform a Comprehensive Beneficial Reuse Assessment (see Appendix I of the SSMA). Feasible reuse options identified were limited given the characteristics of the marine sediments consisting predominantly of fine silts/clays (60%), mixed with sand (36%) and small amounts of gravel (4%).

Habitat restoration (particularly mangrove restoration) has been identified as a potential future reuse option, although significant additional supporting studies will need to be undertaken to assess if feasible opportunities exist in or near the Port of Hay Point area. The applicant has committed to investigate the habitat restoration or creation beneficial reuse options further and has established a scientific advisory group to help scope a feasibility assessment. Refer to ‘Beneficial Reuse of Maintenance Dredged Material – Habitat Restoration Feasibility Assessment’.

Land Reclamation was also assessed as part of the Comprehensive Beneficial Reuse Assessment. Although reclamation can be achieved using dredged maintenance material, this would not result in the load-bearing capacity necessary to support port uses. Onshore placement (disposal on land) can also be achieved if a confinement facility were to be constructed, however future uses of this land would similarly be limited by the load bearing capacity of the sediment.

Potential beneficial reuse and at-sea disposal have been comparatively assessed using a comprehensive structured decision making process with the findings presented in Appendix I of the SSMA. Overall, no feasible solutions were found to completely avoid ongoing sediment accumulation at the Port of Hay Point, with traditional maintenance dredging and at-sea disposal being, on balance of environmental, social and economic considerations, the most appropriate option.

Dumping of maintenance dredge spoil material

Alternatives to at-sea disposal were considered by the applicant for the Port of Hay Point. A process of selection and evaluation of alternatives to at-sea disposal was undertaken over a number of years. The following technical reports underpinned the comparative analysis:

G40185.1

Page 9 of 41

Appendix C Sediment Dynamics Report Appendix D1 Bathymetric Analysis and Modelling Report Appendix D2 TC Debbie Bathymetric Analysis Report Appendix E Predictive Modelling Technical Report Appendix F Sedimentation Impacts on Port Operations Appendix G Economic Impacts on not Maintaining Sediment Accumulation Appendix H Assessment for Navigational Maintenance Appendix I Comprehensive Beneficial Reuse Assessment Appendix J Marine Sediment Properties Assessment Appendix K Onshore Pond and Reclamation Engineering Design Appendix L Environmental Values Assessment

The findings are presented in Appendix B of the SSMA. Using a structured decision-making process, 11 decision objectives and 14 discrete measures were developed by a stakeholder advisory group. These spanned across a number of key categories or themes including:

Environmental

Cultural Heritage

Port Economics and Operations

Health and Safety

Social

Innovation

World Heritage

An initial analysis of eight options indicated:

At-sea disposal at the existing or potential new mid-shelf Dredge Material Placement Area (DMPA) would be necessary to deal with the immediate maintenance needs at the Port.

Habitat restoration, if feasible, may only be a ‘one-off’ solution and would require several years lead time. It is recommended that an agreement be entered into under section 19 of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (the Sea Dumping Act) would be the most appropriate management tool to require the applicant to demonstrate the feasibility (or not) of habitat restoration and creation options.

Disposing of dredged material within a constructed reclamation at the Port of Mackay was found to be the worst performing single alternative across most themes (assessment criteria) and did not warrant further analysis.

A combination of these alternatives may be required as part of a long-term solution (~25 years).

G40185.1

Page 10 of 41

From this initial analysis, 11 long term strategies were developed, combining the various alternatives, over a 25-year timeframe. The structured decision making process showed how each of the eleven strategies compared when equally considering each of the key themes, as well as how the comparison would change if the outcomes were significantly weighted (75%) to any one particular theme. The results identified three higher performing options:

continued and ongoing at-sea disposal at the existing inshore disposal location.

a combination of continued at-sea disposal at the existing inshore disposal location and habitat restoration or creation at some time in the future (pending a range of additional studies and feasibility assessment), reverting to continue at-sea disposal thereafter.

a combination of at-sea disposal at a new mid-shelf disposal location and habitat restoration or creation at some time in the future (pending a range of additional studies and feasibility assessment), reverting to continue at-sea disposal thereafter.

Independent peer review

An independent assessment of the following components of the applicant’s information was commissioned by the Authority (Attachment A). The conclusions of that assessment are as follows:

Independent Peer Review - Comparative analysis technical report – Appendix B

The approach used for the comparative analysis of dredge material disposal strategies provides a robust and transparent process for assessing disparate measures. Importantly, the “Principles of Structured Decision Making” process is an entirely appropriate and robust methodology for the comparative analysis of the various dredge material disposal options presented. This is of particular note from a sustainability/ Triple Bottom Line perspective, with consideration of the interplay between then social, economic and environmental aspects together. The non-linear, iterative approach is noted and commended.

Relatively strong evidence is provided in the document to substantiate conclusions. However, some evidence was derived from other reports, which have not been part of this review (see assumptions / qualifications). Notwithstanding the above comment, it is the review teams’ opinion that the results are logical and findings sound.

The reviewers also found that:

the structured decision making process was appropriate for the comparative analysis of various dredge material disposal strategies

the decision making process was legitimate and transparent with the results for each material disposal strategy supported by accurate and factual evidence

In Step 2, all the appropriate themes have been identified and all appropriate objectives and measures have been developed to measure the performance of alternative options against

In Step 4, the units of measure used to determine the performance score/measure for each objective are supported by evidence and are accurate relative to the evidence provided

there is not any alternative credible evidence that could be reasonably used to derive a significantly different performance score/measure for each objective

In Step 5, the process of applying normalised scores and weighted scores is a credible process that can be used to compare the performance of each strategy without introducing bias

In the development of the combined options, no reasonably viable long term combined options have been left out; and

the conclusions are reasonably supported by evidence within the document.

Independent Peer Review- Assessment for navigational maintenance – Appendix H

The approach adopted to evaluate prudent and feasible alternatives to dredging and disposal is based on both World Association for Waterbourne Transport Infrastructure (PIANC) and US Army Corps of Engineers guidance for minimising harbour and channel sedimentation. This guidance is considered best practice and subsequent methodology used for the comparative assessment sound.

With regard to the assessment criteria, the review team concluded that the rationale for rejecting siltation reduction solutions were valid; the costs estimates for the siltation reduction solutions were reasonably accurate; and the constraints analysis are reasonably accurate and justified. While there

G40185.1

Page 11 of 41

are some minor inconsistencies in the analysis, these do not affect the overall results and conclusions, which are reasoned and justified.

Independent Peer Review- Comprehensive beneficial reuse assessment - Appendix I

The approach adopted to undertake the beneficial reuse investigations is detailed and robust, with a comprehensive list of performance criteria taken into consideration. The performance evaluation provides adequate and clear definition as to what constitutes high, medium and low performance for each of the criteria. Noting the nature of the dredged material, it is considered that the authors have evaluated all reasonable alternatives for beneficial reuse with the results justified. The cost estimates appear to be relatively thorough, with clearly stated and reasonable assumptions.

The reviewers also found that:

the analysis method is robust and adequate to identify reuse options and analyse their opportunity, feasibility and achievability

all reasonable alternative options for use of the dredge material have been identified

all the relevant performance criteria have been considered and are sufficiently measurable

the beneficial reuse analysis of each reuse option does accurately determine a level of performance for each performance criteria

the level of performance is reasonably supported

no alternative credible evidence can be identified that would support an alternative level of performance for each performance criteria

the costs (financial and time) stated are reasonably accurate.

Independent Peer Review- Onshore Pond and Reclamation Engineering - Section 5.2 of Appendix K

The approach adopted is considered sound and the assumptions in terms of activities, operations, materials volumes etc. are reasonably well outlined. The resultant cost estimates are considered reasonable. The GHG [greenhouse gas] Protocol method used to calculate likely GHG emissions is considered one of the most robust “best practice” methodologies for these types of calculations. The calculations and resulting GHG emissions figures are therefore considered adequate to support the conclusions.

The reviewers also found that:

the technical reasons for rejecting each onshore pond and reclamation option are valid;

the rough order of magnitude cost estimates for each dredging campaign are reasonably accurate; and

the greenhouse gas emissions are reasonably accurate.

Public submissions

Key issues relevant to this criteria raised in public submissions included:

“The applicant should be assisted through facilitation of an onshore solution as a matter of urgency. The applicant has onshore options but is pushing for sea disposal at the existing site primarily due to time constraints.”

“Acknowledge the applicant’s need to dredge in 2019 due to urgent access issues. However, their short-term gain from sea disposal would benefit only them and be to the detriment of all other stakeholders, including the marine environment itself.”

Possible permit conditions

The following points are recommended for permit conditions:

Requirement of long-term and campaign-specific dredging and monitoring management plans to be approved by the Managing Agency and implemented.

A limit on the amount of material that could be dumped during each campaign.

An overall limit on the amount of material that could be dumped.

G40185.1

Page 12 of 41

A limit on the amount of contingency material that could be dumped over the permit term.

Additional management tools are available under the Sea Dumping Act to require further investigation of options to avoid or minimise the need for at-sea disposal of dredge spoil into the future, particularly through the execution of an agreement under section 19 of the Sea Dumping Act.

Conclusion

There are no alternatives available that would completely avoid the need for maintenance dredging.

There is potential for options, other than at-sea disposal, after an initial campaign to dispose of 356,553m3 of maintenance dredge material. It is recommended that the Delegate enter into an Agreement with the applicant under paragraph 19(9)(b) of the Sea Dumping Act to ensure the feasibility of beneficial re-use options are fully studied and, if superior disposal or re-use options are identified that the applicant will implement those options prior to disposal in the Marine Park.

Consideration F: Public comment

88Q(f) any written comments received under Division 2A.3A in connection with the application;

The applicant advertised their application because the proposed conduct had the potential:

for direct and indirect impacts, and the potential cumulative impacts of the conduct (in conjunction with other conduct, events and circumstances), on the environment, biodiversity, and heritage values, of the Marine Park or a part of the Marine Park; and

to restrict reasonable use by the public of a part of the Marine Park and the extent of that restriction (if any).

The applicant advertised their application consistent with the terms of reference required by the Authority (Attachment B). The applicant advertised their application on their website from 23 June 2018 through 22 August 2018. They also advertised their application fortnightly in the Daily Mercury (Mackay) and the Whitsundays Times during this 60 day consultation period..

The Authority’s website provided a link to the applicant’s public information package and supporting information. The Authority’s standard practice was followed to also notify the Chairs of all 12 Local Marine Advisory Committees as well as members of the Tourism Reef Advisory Committee and Indigenous Reef Advisory Committee of the opportunity for public comment.

Public submissions

Seven submissions were received during the 60 day public comment period. These comprised of four submissions from individuals, two representative tourism industry bodies, and one representing membership of the Whitsunday Local Marine Advisory Committee.

Key themes raised in submissions were: impacts on coral, impacts on water quality, river siltation, impacts from coal and effects from increased sedimentation/turbidity on the ongoing viability of coastal land based businesses. On 25 September 2018, the applicant was sent a further information request seeking their responses to these issues and their response was received on 6 December 2018

These themes are addressed in more detail in the relevant assessment criteria.

No submissions raised issues relating to restricting reasonable use by the public of a part of the Marine Park.

Possible permit conditions

Refer to other Assessment Considerations that recommend relevant permit conditions. There are no further permit conditions specifically required to address this criterion.

Conclusion

Written comments received under Division 2A.3A in connection with the application have been considered throughout this assessment report.

G40185.1

Page 13 of 41

Consideration G: Relevant impacts

88Q(g) the relevant impacts3 of the proposed conduct;

A Risk Assessment has been prepared in accordance with the Risk Assessment Procedure and is provided below. Relevant impacts are identified in the risk assessment and further consideration is given to mitigation measures under ‘Assessment Considerations H and I’.

Assumptions:

All Regulatory requirements will be followed by the permit holder.

All permit conditions will be complied with.

3 Relevant impacts of proposed conduct or permitted conduct means: (a) the potential direct and indirect impacts

of the conduct, and the potential cumulative impacts of the conduct (in conjunction with other conduct, events and circumstances), on the environment, biodiversity, and heritage values, of the Marine Park or a part of the Marine Park; or (b) the risk of the proposed conduct restricting reasonable use by the public of a part of the Marine Park and the extent of that restriction (if any).

G40185.1

Page 14 of 41

Risk Table 1 - Potential risk and management measures for proposed conducts.

Activity Hazard(s) Factors Value(s)

Risk event

Impact

Pre management Post management

Se

ns

itiv

ity

Ex

po

su

re

Proposed mitigation (measures proposed by the applicant to be implemented)

Co

ns

eq

uen

c

e

Lik

eli

ho

od

Init

ial

Ris

k

Ra

tin

g

Additional avoidance, mitigation, offset measures or monitoring and management measures (Assessment Considerations H and I)

Co

ns

eq

uen

c

e

Lik

eli

ho

od

Re

sid

ua

l

Ris

k R

ati

ng

Permission: carrying out works – dredging and bed levelling

Dredging

Change in natural light Change in hydrodynamics Change in noise Change in nutrients Change in sedimentation Contamination of water or sediment Direct damage, removal or destruction of non-living things Direct death or removal of living things, including vessel strike Direct injury or disturbance of living things, including translocation Exotic species or diseases Marine debris

Sediment plumes

Release of contaminants and nutrients

Change in water quality

Accidental spill of hazardous substance

The area of works is located within the marine part of the Yuwibara country.

Disturbed areas more likely to support IMPs

Disposal site is in close proximity to ship anchorage areas.

Dredger can be a vector for IMPs from biofouling and water exchange.

Coal that has fallen off berths onto the seafloor is mobilised.

Benthic infauna Coral Macro algae Mangroves Seagrass Water quality H H

Mortality or changes in coral and seagrass cover/diversity

Sediment deposition resulting in coral loss

Change to water clarity during important ecological processes, particularly coral spawning

Temporary loss of benthic habitat

The Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan (MD-EMP) outlines proposed mitigation and management measures including for the following:

Dredger specifications (Table 5)

Cultural heritage (Table 6)

Waste management including general waste, sewage, hazardous waste, emissions (Table 7)

Ballast water and wash-down procedures (Table 8)

Adaptive management measures including thresholds and triggers (section 6.2) – Also refer to Environmental Thresholds Report and Marine Environmental Monitoring Program

Marine fauna (Table 17)

Incident management (section 6.3)

Reporting (section 7)

N P L

Must implement mitigation, management and monitoring as outlined in the MD-EMP, Environmental Thresholds Report, Marine Environmental Monitoring Program

Requirement for a deed including insurance, indemnity and Environmental Site Supervisor provisions

Should maritime cultural heritage sites be located or found existing legislation requires that relevant stakeholders are notified.

Identification of a specific at-sea disposal site (permit condition) and type of dredging allowed (MD- EMP)

Must notify of harm or potential harm to the Marine Park

Condition to not dredge during mass coral spawning period

Notice to Mariners to be provided by MSQ prior to the commencement of works.

N P L

Cultural heritage

L L

Disturbance is at locations previously disturbed.

Suction from vessel during dredging

Direct death or removal of living things, including vessel strike Direct injury or disturbance of living things, including translocation

Dredger is slow moving

Lowering and raising of dredge head

Marine turtles

L L

Potential for lethal and sub-lethal effects on marine biota

Potential for marine fauna to be caught

Movement of dredge vessel to dredge material placement area

Direct death or removal of living things, including vessel strike Direct injury or disturbance of living things, including translocation Marine debris

Departure path goes through General Use Zone where fishing and trawling are allowed.

Maximum 3-6 weeks of activity for an individual dredging and dumping campaign

Dolphins Dugongs Marine turtles Whales Reasonable use

L L

Potential for marine fauna strike

Permission: carrying out works – dumping spoil

Movement of dredge vessel to/from the dredge material placement area

Direct death or removal of living things, including vessel strike Direct injury or disturbance of living things, including translocation Marine debris

Departure path goes through General Use Zone where fishing and trawling are allowed.

Maximum 3-6 weeks of activity for an individual dredging and dumping campaign

Dolphins Dugongs Marine turtles Whales Reasonable use

L L Potential for marine fauna strike

Potential for other users to be displaced for a period of time

The Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan (MD-EMP) outlines proposed mitigation and management measures including for the following:

Dredger specifications (Table 5)

Dredge material placement requirements (page 5)

Cultural heritage (Table 6)

Waste management including general waste, sewage, hazardous waste, emissions (Table 7)

N P L

Only maintenance dredge spoil will be allowed to be dumped

Requirement to further explore non-sea disposal options before being allowed to dispose at sea for second and third campaigns

10 year permit duration with limits on amount that can be disposed in any campaign.

Limit on the locations where dredge material can be disposed

Reporting of results of monitoring

Reporting of dumped amounts

Must implement mitigation, management and monitoring

N P L

Dumping dredge material

Change in natural light Change in hydrodynamics Change in noise Change in nutrients Change in sedimentation Contamination of water or sediment Direct damage, removal or destruction of non-living things Direct death or removal of living things, including vessel strike

Sediment plumes

Smothering benthic fauna

Release of contaminants

Disposal area in General Use & Habitat Protection Zones where fishing is allowed.

Disposal site is in close proximity to ship anchorage areas.

Benthic infauna Coral Macro algae Mangroves Seagrass Water quality Reasonable use

H H Temporary loss of benthic habitat

Changes to water quality leading to mortality or changes in coral and seagrass cover/diversity

Sediment deposition resulting in coral loss

Potential for lethal and sub-lethal effects on marine biota

G40185.1

Page 15 of 41

Activity Hazard(s) Factors Value(s)

Risk event

Impact

Pre management Post management

Se

ns

itiv

ity

Ex

po

su

re

Proposed mitigation (measures proposed by the applicant to be implemented)

Co

ns

eq

uen

c

e

Lik

eli

ho

od

Init

ial

Ris

k

Ra

tin

g

Additional avoidance, mitigation, offset measures or monitoring and management measures (Assessment Considerations H and I)

Co

ns

eq

uen

c

e

Lik

eli

ho

od

Re

sid

ua

l

Ris

k R

ati

ng

Direct injury or disturbance of living things, including translocation Exotic species or diseases Marine debris

Unburnt coal that has been collected in the dredger is mobilised.

Potential for marine fauna to be caught

Ballast water and wash-down procedures (Table 8)

Adaptive management measures including thresholds and triggers (section 6.2) – Also refer to Environmental Thresholds Report and Marine Environmental Monitoring Program

Marine fauna (Table 17)

Incident management (section 6.3)

Reporting (section 7) Weight of evidence appraisal of impacts of unburnt coal at Port of Hay Point – no concern

as outlined in the MD-EMP, Environmental Thresholds Report, Marine Environmental Monitoring Program

Requirement for a deed including insurance, indemnity and Environmental Site Supervisor provisions

Should maritime cultural heritage sites be located or found existing legislation requires that relevant stakeholders are notified.

Identification of a specific at-sea disposal site

Must notify of harm or potential harm to the Marine Park

Notice to Mariners to be provided by MSQ prior to the commencement of works.

G40185.1

Page 16 of 41

Summary

Direct impacts that may occur from the proposed conduct on the environment, biodiversity and heritage values include:

Potential for marine fauna to be caught in dredger or struck by vessel movements associated with the proposed conducts.

Temporary loss of benthic habitat

Changes to water quality leading to mortality or changes in coral and seagrass cover/diversity

Temporary loss of benthic habitat, corals or seagrass

Potential for lethal and sub-lethal effects on marine biota due to risk of mobilising coal in the marine environment

Potential for other users to be displaced during each ~20-40 days dredge campaign every 3-5 years.

Positive impact on local community through jobs and income

Indirect impacts that may occur from the proposed conduct on the environment, biodiversity and heritage values include:

Potential for sediment resuspension and loss of material from approved dredge spoil disposal area, which can lead to water clarity and turbidity issues

Potential for negative publicity causing economic loss to tourism businesses in the Whitsundays

Environment4

A wide-ranging Environmental Values Assessment (EVA) for the Port of Hay Point / Mackay area has been developed to identify the location of amenities, values and other important features in the area.

Ecosystem processes The primary ecosystem process that is likely to be relevant to the proposed conducts is resuspension of sediments. Maintenance dredging and dumping creates plumes that are shorter in duration, and more localised, than capital dredging (McCook et al 2015). Generally both disposed sediments and dispersed sediments from dredge plumes have the potential to be resuspended and transported by waves and ocean currents, and to contribute to the long-term, chronic increase in fine suspended sediment concentrations in the inshore Great Barrier Reef. The effects of any campaign will be context dependent and will differ between locations, types and extent of dredging and sediment dumping activities. (McCook et al 2015)

The applicant’s numerical plume modelling, which the Authority had independently reviewed, shows that for the majority of the time suspended solids concentrations (SSC) resulting from dredging at Port of Hay Point and relocation to the existing approved dredge spoil disposal area are less than 2mg/l, with isolated occurrences above 5mg/l. A study of natural resuspension of marine sediments in the Hay Point area demonstrated that maintenance dredging and relocation of up to 400,000m3 results in low excess SSC, comparable to natural SSC during calm conditions (wind speeds of 15 knots and under). A further analysis investigated the intensity, duration, and frequency of natural SSC using three years of continuous water quality data from the applicant’s Port of Hay Point Ambient Marine Monitoring Program (provided by James Cook University’s TropWater). Modelling showed that the SSC would remain within the natural range of the Hay Point area, up until 800,000m3 or more was dredged and disposed in a single campaign.

Approximately sixty percent of the spoil volume will be finer material, of which two-thirds is expected to remain directly within the approved placement area. Most of the remainder spoil will settle out adjacent to the placement area and quickly consolidate into seafloor sediment matrix. Dominant sediment transport processes are to the north, but ‘direct’ passage of fine silts to the Whitsundays is unlikely as sediment particles do not remain in suspension. Finer material will start to consolidate into the seafloor matrix within one week to one month after dumping, after which normal wave and wind energy will be insufficient to mobilise this material. Minor resuspension regularly occurs as a result of wave and tidal conditions, but

4 As defined in the EPBC Act as: includes: (a) ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and

communities; and (b) natural and physical resources; and (c) the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas; and (d) heritage values of places; and (e) the social, economic and cultural aspects of a thing mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d).

G40185.1

Page 17 of 41

resuspension will occur mostly during high energy events as would widespread resuspension of the surrounding seabed.

The Authority had the dredge plume modelling covered in Appendix A Part 1 and Part 2 of the applicant’s Environmental Risk Assessment independently peer reviewed (Attachment C). The review concluded the following:

The overall report is well written and the approach to the dredging conceptualisation and sediment resuspension scenarios are well considered and sound. The models applied have the necessary physics and ability to model the behaviour of suspended sediment concentrations associated with dredging operations and resuspension weather and tide events.

The report does not provide a clear indication of vertical shear and the existence of any bottom boundary layer at the timescales presented so that the significance or not of these phenomena is accounted for. Tidal currents can have significant phase lags in the current profile and can at times have reversals from top to bottom. These are important considerations that will impact SSC behaviour.

Regardless of the adequacy of the 3D hydrodynamic modelling the sedimentary module applied only uses the depth averaged hydrodynamics not the full water column profile.

Assumptions of other aspects of the model setup are appropriate and reasonable however the boundary forcing for waves is less than optimal. The Mackay wave rider buoy to the north is used to force the deeper southern boundary.

The model in general does perform well in the validation exercises however there are some areas that should be improved in any future effort. The short period spiking in SSC at key resuspension events are not well replicated by the model.

The availability of data for validation and calibration of currents and SSC is limited and spread across a number of years rather than simultaneously made. It is recommended that a more comprehensive spatial and concurrent set of observations be made over periods long enough to capture all weather conditions that impact Hay Point are made to improve any future modelling and inform any dredging campaigns in the future.

The full suite of comments from the review were provided to the applicant as a formal further information request. Their responses were provided in the Applicant’s Supplementary Information Package (Attachment D), including a Technical Note providing additional detail. A summary of responses included:

Baseline information

In August 2018, the applicant installed two Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCPs) at the Port of Hay Point. One ADCP was installed at the northern end of DBCT berths and one ADCP was installed at the southern end of HPCT berths. NQBP will use data from these ADCPs, along with its continued ambient water quality monitoring program, to inform any future dredging programs.

2D vs 3D modelling

The dredge plume model was setup with five sigma layers, with each representing 20% of the water column. The MIKE21/3 Flexible Mesh model has a dynamic timestep, meaning that the model will calculate the timestep required throughout the simulation (with the upper limit to this being specified by the user, in this case 60 seconds was set as the maximum timestep). The outer part of the Hay Point departure channel does not adhere to the Authority’s recommendation that a minimum of two grid cells are included in the width of a dredged channel to ensure changes to the hydrodynamics are represented. This is because there is minimal difference between the dredged channel and the natural bathymetry in this area (less than 1 m, dredged channel is -14.7m LAT and surrounding bathymetry is less than -14m LAT) and so the channel would not be expected to result in a noticeable change to the hydrodynamics.

All natural SSC modelling and the 12 month long simulations of resuspension from the DMPA were undertaken using a 2D approach. This was considered appropriate given the understanding of the physical processes within the study area and uniformity of current speeds through the water column, as shown by the measured data.

To ensure the modelling activities associated with excess SSC met the Authority’s guidelines, all dredge plume sediment transport model simulations were undertaken using the 3D model. As noted above, the 3D model consisted of 5 sigma layers to include any vertical variability in the tidal currents through the water column.

Model calibration and validation

G40185.1

Page 18 of 41

The attached Technical Note Point 2 addresses the wave boundary. It makes the assumption that the wave conditions at the site are similar to that of the Mackay wave rider buoy. The graphs provided show a close correlation between the predicted and actual water movement. Improvements to the model should occur through the actions outlined in Point 1 of the review for extended time frames and more significant weather events.

Sediment transport models

Natural sediment simulations are not prescribed in the Authority’s guideline requirements. The guidelines (paragraph 14.g) require modelling to be performed to establish the re-suspension that occurs after dumping and initial settling.

Vertical shear and bottom boundary layer

The calibration graphs provided in the Technical Note do demonstrate a high level of calibration between the simulated and actual data.

Assumption that suspended sediment concentrations is uniform through the water column

The presentation of the simulations as depth averaged plots of SSC does not assume that the SSC is uniform through the water column, it assumes that the variation in SSC through the water column can be adequately represented by averaging the SSC (i.e. the spatial and temporal patterns in SSC are similar through the water column, it is just the concentration which differs (higher near the bed, lower near the surface)). The dredge plume modelling results confirm this (see Section 4 of accompanying Technical Note). Additional water quality logging is being undertaken to further assess this (concurrent logging near bed and near surface).

Model does not perform well in simulating the observed short time-scale spiking during some weather events

The short duration spikes are being further investigated as part of ongoing data collection works, as it is possible that they could be due to short duration localised near-bed resuspension and therefore not representative of the SSC throughout the water column. Based on the findings of the further work, future modelling will be refined to better represent the natural SSC.

It is important to note that the underestimation of the wave conditions noted is only during the peak of the largest wave events over a 12 month period (TC Ului), which is not important for the dredge plume modelling as dredging would not occur during cyclonic weather events and the periods selected do not include any wave events of this size.

The wave model validation shows that the 99th percentile significant wave height (Hs) is within 0.02 m of the measured data at the Hay Pt WRB (measured = 1.72m, modelled = 1.74m) which shows that the model provides a very good representation of the more typical larger wave events which occur at Hay Point.

The guidelines (paragraph 14.f) only require “probable hydrodynamic conditions, weather events and dredge equipment scenarios”.

Influence of tidal currents on the wave conditions

The influence of tidal currents on the wave conditions was not included in all SSC model runs, as it was only observed to result in a noticeable improvement in Hs at MK1, which was located directly to the east of Mackay Harbour in an area where very high tidal currents occur. Comparison between the measured and modelled wave conditions at the Hay Point WRB suggest that the influence of tidal currents on the waves are not required to accurately represent the wave conditions in this area. The hydrodynamic model does take into account the tides, wind and waves as specified in the Authority’s guidelines.

The applicant has addressed the majority of the reviewer’s comments in an informative and comprehensive manner. The proponent has committed to and commenced additional long term monitoring to further improve the model for suspended solid concentration (SSC) and this action will address the majority of the reviewer’s comments.

Biodiversity values5

The biodiversity values identified with the potential for impact from the proposed conducts are outlined in Risk Table 1 above. A summary of the environmental values and where they are found in relation to the Marine Park boundary comes from Figure 1 of the applicant’s Marine Environmental Monitoring Program.

5 Biodiversity is the variety among all living things. It includes all natural variation, from genetic differences within a

species to variations across a habitat or a whole ecosystem.

G40185.1

Page 19 of 41

Figure 1: A summary of the environmental values and where they are found in relation to the Marine Park boundary

Based on the risk assessment above, impacts to sensitive habitats such as seagrass and coral communities are considered to be low risk.

The Port of Hay Point supports both inshore shallow water (five species of the genus Halophila) and mid-shelf deeper water (dominated by Halophila decipiens) seagrass meadows. Halophila species are

G40185.1

Page 20 of 41

colonising species that can tolerate frequent disturbances (McMahon et al 2017). The seagrass communities in the Hay Point area are naturally low density and ephemeral. The deepwater meadows in particular were found to occur annually, being present only between July and December each year. Studies have shown the meadows in the area to recover post-dredging (York et al 2015).

Fringing coral communities grow in waters surrounding Victor Island, Round Top Island, Flat Top Island, Slade Islet and Hay Reef. Sparse coral communities can also be found in the shallow waters of Dalrymple bay and southward from Dungeon Point. The hard coral species common to the area are those typical of turbid inshore environments of the Marine Park. A sparse, but diverse range of soft corals, sponges, sea fans, ascidians and hydroids are also associated with these inshore coral communities.

Identified coral communities lie outside of the area predicted to be impacted by turbidity and sedimentation, and ecologically relevant turbidity thresholds will be used during dredging to further prevent impacts. Turbidity and sedimentation can reduce recruitment, survival and settlement of coral larvae (Erftemeijer et al 2012). It is recommended to include a permit condition to not allow the dredging and dumping works to be undertaken during the mass coral spawning periods each year.

Protected species are unlikely to be significantly impacted by maintenance dredging. There are a number of protected fauna species that are known to occur at the Port at times, including marine turtles, whales, dolphins, dugong, migratory shorebirds and the Water Mouse, but the area does not provide critical habitat resources for any marine species and disturbance to habitats will be low. There is evidence of very low levels of mortality of marine turtles during dredging excavations, which is reduced by the use of turtle deflection devices (McCook et al 2015). The Maintenance Dredge Management Strategy submitted with the application includes commitment to use dredge vessels fitted with turtle deflection devices. Open water fast moving species such as sharks, fin fish and dolphins are rarely impacted directly by dredging activities or dredge vessels due to the slow speeds at which vessels move. Any indirect impacts leading to habitat alienation from vessel presence, noise or turbidity will be temporary and short term in nature. Significant impacts are not expected.

Detailed information and past studies can be found in Environmental Risk Assessment Introduction and Synopsis.

Unburnt Coal

When present in the marine environment in sufficient quantities, coal will have physical effects on organisms similar to that of suspended or deposited sediment, i.e. abrasion, smothering, reduced light availability and clogging of respiratory or feeding organs (Aherns et al 2005). Toxic effects of contaminants in coal, such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and trace metals/metalloids, are dependent on coal composition. In response to concerns about the presence of coal on some beaches north of the Port of Hay Point, the Applicant commissioned a weight of evidence review to better understand the potential environmental impacts associated with unburnt coal in the marine environment with respect to the operations at Port of Hay Point. The review findings included:

Coal is not currently a significant part of the sediment matrix in the maintenance material at Port of Hay Point. In accordance with agreed procedures for analysis of maintenance sediments in accordance with the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009, sediments samples that contained visible coal particles are sieved through 400 μm screen to ensure sediment testing is not compromised. In the recent 2018 sediment assessment, coal fragments were only observed in 4 of 43 sampling locations. Studies in 2014 resulted in trace amounts of coal in sediments at Half Tide Tug Harbour (<0.6%) and the percentage of coal at an offshore control site ranged from 0.1% to 0.2%.

Coal shipped through the Port of Hay Point originates from the Bowen Basin and can be characterised as being high rank bituminous and predominantly metallurgical coals, uniformly of low sulphur content and very low acid-generating potential, low capacity to release metal contaminants, and undefined PAHs properties.

A recent investigation by the Queensland Department of Environment and Science of coal samples taken from the Mackay beaches concluded that “while is it not entirely possible to pinpoint the exact region this coal (came) from, it is possible to rule out that this coal originated from the Bowen Basin and Galilee Basin. If it is from Australia, it is most likely to come from the Southern Queensland coalfields or the NSW coalfields.”

An assessment in accordance with the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009 undertaken at the Port of Hay Point in 2018 concluded that all maintenance dredge areas samples were suitable for unconfined ocean disposal. Therefore, if finer coal particles are

G40185.1

Page 21 of 41

present in the maintenance material, it is unlikely that they are providing a source of contamination.

Stormwater outflows from the Port of Hay Point were within water quality guidelines for pH (acidity), most metals and PAHs. Metals that exceeded guideline values were determined to be within the background concentration for the Port area. During stormwater overflow from the coal terminals, coal content in immediate receiving waters at the Port of Hay Point did not exceed 2.8 mg/L at the Half Tide Tug Harbour monitoring location and were less than 0.01mg/L immediately outside the Half Tide Tug Harbour. Suspended coal particles were also determined to be of very small size (95% <10 μm).

Preliminary examination of water and sediment PAHs indicates a higher carcinogenic/mutagenic potential in the immediate vicinity of port operational areas. This potential appears to diminish away from port operations. It is probable that this is primarily derived from combustion engine emissions.

A study has been undertaken to examine the human health risks associated with potential bioaccumulation of contaminants in selected biota including mud crabs, fish and whelks at the Port of Hay Point (Koskela Group 2014a and 2014b). This study did not identify the accumulation of any metal above the accepted background concentration for these food types as listed in FSANZ guidelines and FSANZ (2003). Elutriate and pore water have been considered in previous sediment quality assessments at the Port of Hay Point, and there has been no forthcoming concerns regarding toxicity or bioavailability. It is acknowledged that the interactions of coal with sediment quality, pore water and surface waters have not been directly investigated to date.

In 2012 composite coal samples from Hay Point Coal Terminal were tested in accordance with criteria under MARPOL Annex V. MARPOL is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships which was adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 1973. Based on the results of a freshwater and marine transformation/dissolution test, the composite coal sample did not meet the criteria for classification as an Environmentally Hazardous Substance considered harmful to the marine environment under MARPOL Annex V, or the criteria of a Class 9 dangerous good for the purpose of land (ADG, 2011) or marine (IMO, 2010) transport.

It is noted that knowledge gaps exist with respect to: Potential release of PAHs from coal, either as export product or as fugitive coal residing

on the seabed or beaches; Quality of pore water and the relationship between sediment, pore water and surface

water, as this relates to metals and PAHs; Source attribution of PAHs within the coastal environment; and Bioaccumulation and the appraisal of either mutagenic or carcinogenic potential within

selected biota. Based on this weight of evidence report, we expect very low potential for unburnt coal to impact on the marine environment in any of the following ways:

bioavailability of leachate from coal

leaching from coal

floating ashore or contaminating turtle nesting beaches

causing human health issues in relation to people swimming at beaches adjacent to the approved dredge spoil disposal area

contaminating fish or invertebrates caught by recreational or commercial fishers, or

being toxic to any marine wildlife including crocodiles

Social and Economic values

The GBRMPA Social Value Assessment Guidelines describe social values of the Marine Park to include access, appreciation/understanding/enjoyment, personal connection, aesthetics, human health, empowerment, equity- intra and inter-generational and employment and income.

One of the most challenging aspects of evaluating impacts to social values is that a positive impact for one section of the community often creates a negative impact for another section. For example, an activity may generate employment and income in the port industry (and flow-on benefits to the broader regional economy) but may result in a reduction in aesthetics or amenity. Such ‘trade-offs’ can be difficult to evaluate objectively in an assessment but the goal is to reduce risks and enhance benefits for all sections of the community to the greatest extent possible. Some impacts described here (e.g. aesthetics) are difficult to quantify in terms of levels of impacts (negative or positive). It therefore follows that consideration of potential ways to mitigate identified (potential) impacts below is equally challenging.

G40185.1

Page 22 of 41

The applicant has committed to continue to have a Technical Advisory and Consultative Committee and also to making their monitoring information publically available. This should assist with greater public awareness and understanding about the proposed conduct, by providing real-time data and long term monitoring results, which will show whether the modelling is accurate and improve transparency over the long term port operations.

The Zoning Plans provides for the proposed conduct as well as the reasonable use and enjoyment, of other users, of the different zones within the Marine Park. It is unlikely that the proposed conduct will significantly impact the commercial fisheries that operate near the Port of Hay Point given the short time frame (100 days over 10 years) for all campaigns associated with the proposed conduct.

Economic values associated with the proposed conduct include the flow on employment and income to individuals associated with Port operations as well as the flow on impact to the broader region. Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal (DBCT) Pty Ltd undertook a study looking at the likely loss of capacity and potential economic flow on effects if maintenance dredging was not undertaken in their berth pockets (see review of the economic impact). This review found that without maintenance dredging over a 16-year period, the Mackay, Isaac and Whitsunday Region economy is projected to reduce by a cumulative total of $2.7 billion (average economic losses of $170.2 million per year). These 16 year projections include a $450 million loss in coal royalties and the loss of 1,685 additional employee years of full-time equivalents or 105 full-time jobs on average.

Heritage values

Traditional Owner heritage values6

The Yuwibara (Yuibera) People are the registered native title claimants of an area that includes the Port of Hay Point (QC2013/007). The Yuwibara people therefore have priority as parties as a registered native title claimant for the area covering the port including coastal waters. These rights are considered registered as an entry made on the National Native Title Register. They must be consulted with regard to the Indigenous cultural heritage of the area and any assessment of its significance.

The Wiri (Widi), Barada Barna Kabalbara and Yetimarla, Yuibera (Yuwibara), Birri-Gubba and Kungalburra peoples all have strong associations with the Mackay area and therefore Hay Point. They each have interests in terms of the cultural heritage of the area but recognise that the Yuwibara people have the particular care of the area related to the Port of Hay Point and therefore specific knowledge about traditions, observances, customs or beliefs associated with the area.

The applicant has consulted with the representatives of the Yuwibara people and the other Indigenous people of the area about plans for dredging (including placement of dredged material) and other development.

Few Indigenous cultural heritage surveys and studies have been conducted in and around the Port of Hay Point area. Of those that have many are unpublished or not available in full. However, it is considered unlikely that there are significant unknown heritage sites in the area that have not yet been investigated. It is, however, assessed as likely that the sand dune area in the Louisa Creek area parallel to the freshwater swamp and going along the beach towards Mount Hector may contain sub-surface archaeological material.

Cultural heritage assessment consistently identifies Dudgeon Point as an area of Indigenous cultural significance. For the Yuwibara people (and other Indigenous groups in the area) the importance of Dudgeon Point is linked to Mount Hector and the coastline.

In 2003 and 2004 some areas of Aboriginal cultural significance were identified primarily in the Dudgeon Point coastal zone, outside the Marine Park. The majority of these sites were concentrated on the bar of sand that extends from Dudgeon Point to Mount Hector along the coast (approximately 3 km). This dune system separates the freshwater lagoon from the littoral zone and appears to have been a focal point for subsistence activity in the past. In general the whole dune could be described as a significant Aboriginal area, but two main concentrations of artefacts have been located. Of these two scatters, the larger,

6 Traditional Owner heritage is a unique, dynamic and diverse living heritage. Traditional Owners express their

cultural heritage through their relationships with country, people, beliefs, knowledge, lore, language, symbols, ways of living, sea, land and objects. Traditional Owner values are described in four categories: sacred sites, sites of particular significance and places important for cultural tradition; Indigenous structures, technology, tools and archaeology; stories, song lines, totems and languages; and cultural practices, observances, customs and lore. Traditional Owner values are interconnected and interrelated with other values. Many traditional cultural practices include plants, animals and the environment, making nature inseparable from cultural identity. Furthermore, ecosystem health is essential for maintaining Traditional Owner wellbeing.

G40185.1

Page 23 of 41

southerly one includes material that suggests a number of activities were occurring in the area. Individual stone artefacts were also found in all of the environments, from the coastal strip, to the cleared grazing land and into the remnant forest strip to the south.

From the perspective of Aboriginal people living a traditional lifestyle, the Dudgeon Point area offered a range of natural systems that feature access to fresh water and different types of food and raw materials. It was rich in resources, including food and medicine. It is reasonable to suggest that key places for resources would have been:

Louisa Creek, where extensive shell middens are still visible.

Sandringham Bay with its wide sandy estuarine conditions.

Hay Point which contains the remnants of a traditional fish trap.

The large lagoons along the coastline, such as at Dudgeon Point and west of Half Tide Beach near Hay Point.

The proposed conduct is unlikely to pose a risk to the overall condition of Traditional Owner heritage values in the Marine Park. Provided these activities are conducted in accordance with permit conditions and existing management arrangements the environmental risks are considered low, therefore the risks to local Traditional Owner heritage values and impacts to Traditional Owners through connection with this land and sea country are considered manageable.

Future act notification

Pursuant to the requirements of the Native Title Act 1993, each application for permission is referred to the relevant Native Title claimants and/or the representative body of the Traditional Owners, for a period of 31 days7. Traditional Owner heritage values are considered in all Marine Parks planning, zoning, site management and policy. No comments were received in response to the notification.

Historic heritage values

There are no known historic heritage sites within the proposed areas of conduct. However, given the activities have been occurring at the same location for decades, it is unlikely that new historic heritage values will be discovered. The proposed conduct poses a low risk to the overall historic heritage values of the Marine Park.

Other heritage values8

There are no known scientific heritage values associated with the area of the proposed conduct. For Traditional Owners, the p natural and cultural environment relevant to the proposed conduct has inherent social significance and is dealt with above under Traditional Owner heritage values.

Social heritage values are associated with the ‘a place’s natural and cultural environment having... social significance... for current and future generations of Australians’. The perception of significance varies according to societal attitudes, as well as an individual’s personal perspectives and their relationship to the Reef. Particular aspects of an area’s natural and cultural environment (such as a place, a species or an activity) can be of social significance to an individual, a family or a community. This may be as a result of employment, stewardship activities, recreational experiences, or family, personal or spiritual connections. This social significance builds personal connection to the Reef.

The aesthetic heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef are generally associated with the attributes of the natural values and environment such as the quality and diversity of corals and marine life, the clarity of water and beauty of surrounding landscapes. It is unlikely, given the short duration of each dredging and dumping campaign that there would be ongoing negative effects on aesthetic heritage values associated with the proposed conduct.

The following is from the applicant’s information: Despite significant sailing activity past Hay and Dudgeon Points in the late eighteenth century, the first Europeans only landed on the Presto at Sandy Creek, just north of Dudgeon Point in 1862. The process of European settlement had a significant impact on the Aboriginal people of the region. An Aboriginal reserve was established in 1871 in the area with

7 The purpose of Native Title notification is to ensure that the possible impact of the grant of the permission on Native

Title rights is not overlooked by the decision maker. Any comments received within that consultation period are taken

into consideration when assessing the application. It is not intended that any permission resulting from this application would extinguish Native Title.

8 The Outlook Report identifies other heritage values to include social, aesthetic and scientific heritage values.

G40185.1

Page 24 of 41

14,080 acres set aside near the Cape Palmerston and Homebush pastoral runs. By 1879 government funding for the reserve was cut and the land reclaimed for settlement, forcing the Aboriginal residents to move elsewhere. Between 1898 and 1967 there were 72 documented removals of Aboriginal people from the Mackay district by the Queensland Government. Most were removed to the reserves and missions at Yarrabah, Barambah (now Cherbourg), Woorabinda and Palm Island.

Development began in the southwest of Dudgeon Point in 1896, when a tramway from Plane Creek Sugar Mill to the mouth of Louisa Creek was completed. In the late 1960s the Utah Development Company (USA) and Mitsubishi (Japan) began coal mining on a large scale at Goonyella, about 150 km southwest of Mackay. The consortium built a separate rail track, running parallel with the Queensland rail route in parts and proceeding through the Sarina district to Hay Point, the site for a large purpose built coal export terminal. The first coal was loaded from it in 1971. Since 1983 a government owned facility, leased to the private sector, has operated nearby at Dalrymple Bay.

World heritage and national heritage values

The Great Barrier Reef was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981 and at that time it met four of the natural World Heritage listing criteria. In 2007 the Reef gained national heritage listing for its world heritage values. The Port of Hay Point had already been established at the time of the World Heritage listing.

None of the specific locations referred to in the World Heritage listing for the Great Barrier Reef occur within or near the area of proposed conduct. There are no coral cays in the area of proposed conduct, so it does not contribute to those aspects of outstanding universal value (OUV) specific to cays. Dugong are sometimes seen in the area of the proposed conduct; however, there are no major feeding grounds and no resident population.

Similarly, while low density marine turtle nesting occurs there are no regionally significant rookeries. No major seabird breeding sites are known in the area of the proposed conduct. Significant Reef fish spawning aggregations are unlikely to occur on the fringing reefs in the area of the proposed conduct. No known spawning aggregations occur in the area of the proposed conduct.

The area of the proposed conduct does make some contribution to OUV under the majority of the Property’s listing criteria. In all cases, this contribution is incremental, in that the area supports a subset of the features and processes (e.g. natural beauty, biodiversity, coral reef accretion) identified in the listing. However, none of the area’s contributions to OUV are critical contributions at the scale of the 348,000 square km World Heritage Property.

Of the environmental values present in the region, three are considered to provide a higher contribution to the OUV of the GBRWHA (SSMA Appendix H Assessment for navigational maintenance). These are:

Internationally recognised migratory shorebird roosting sites at Sandringham Bay and Mackay

Town Beach, which support 23,000 shorebirds each year during their annual migration

A core aggregation/calving area for the east coast population of humpback whales approximately 80 km east of Mackay

A high diversity of mangrove species within estuarine areas.

Whilst some localised impacts may occur, such as short-term disturbance to marine life, seabirds and aesthetics, most impacts are likely to cease once the activity stops. The activities associated with this permission have been assessed as unlikely to pose a risk to the overall condition of the world and national heritage values of the Marine Parks. Provided the activities are conducted in accordance with permit conditions and management arrangements, the risks to these values are considered manageable and low.

Commonwealth heritage values9

There are no Commonwealth heritage listed sites within the area of the proposed conduct.

9 The Commonwealth Heritage List includes natural, Indigenous and historic heritage places owned or managed by

the Australian government 1 that have contributed to Australia’s development as a nation.

G40185.1

Page 25 of 41

Natural heritage values

The natural heritage values of the Marine Park are based on its biodiversity and ecosystem processes. These values overlap with, and are assessed in the same way as, the ecosystem health, biodiversity values and the environment as considered above.

Risk of the proposed conduct restricting reasonable use by the public of a part of the Marine Park and the extent of that restriction

Proposed conduct within the departure path have been restricted for non-Port users for many decades. There is no change in the use of that area by the public.

Direct physical impact with other port users from collision with the maintenance dredge vessel is unlikely as the vessel will be moving at a slow pace. During maintenance dredging operations the dredge will be displaying the lights and day shapes as required by orders and regulations for preventing collisions at sea. There will be restricted safety zones around the maintenance dredge equipment. However, this will be minimal and will be designed to ensure the safety of the boating and fishing public.

Port users and mariners will also be provided with notifications and information regarding maintenance dredging operations. There may be some minor delays to boating through restricted access to the public boat ramp at the Half Tide Tug Harbour (which is outside the Marine Park) while the dredger is within the harbour.

Commercial fishing is already restricted within operational port limits, as such it is considered that use of the existing dredge approved dredge spoil disposal area will not restrict fisheries access substantively above current restrictions. Disruption will be short-term and recreational fishers have sufficient alternate sites within the region to utilise. The risk to habitats is low, so indirect effects to fishers are also low and full access is expected to be restored after each campaign.

Each dredging and dumping campaign is likely to last between 3-6 weeks. The applicant anticipates approximately 100 days of dredging and dumping over the 10 year term requested. This equates to 2.7 per cent of the total time.

Potential cumulative impacts of the conduct (in conjunction with other conduct, events and circumstances)

The Regulations specify consideration be given to cumulative impacts, that is the interaction of effects between one or more impacts and past, present and reasonably foreseeable future pressures. Under the Reef2050 Plan Cumulative Impact Management Policy, cumulative impacts will be considered to the extent permissible under legislation with respect to the planning, assessment and approval processes operating within and adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. Implementation will take a risk-based approach focussing first on addressing the pressures and impacts that present a Very High or High level of risk. None of the proposed conducts were identified as meeting this risk level in Risk Table 1 above.

This assessment focuses on the merits of the individual application and cumulative impacts are generally considered in the context of the existing limitations posed by management arrangements, such as those listed above. However, to ensure potential cumulative impacts are adequately identified, monitored and managed, permit conditions requiring the implementation of Authority approved Maintenance Dredging Environmental Plans, Marine Environmental Monitoring Program and using the applicant’s Environmental Thresholds Report, have also been recommended.

Resuspension of sediments from maintenance dredging is comparable to natural suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) during calm conditions. Analysis against intensity and duration thresholds indicated that dredging would not drive conditions outside those experienced naturally at dredge volumes up to 800,000 m3.

Public submissions

The issues raised in public submissions in relation to impacts in the Marine Park included:

• Concerns about the effect of water quality to Whitsunday tourism business viability, including:

o Snorkelling and diving operations: Snorkelling is one of the biggest attractions the Whitsundays has to offer. Tourists from all around the world travel to the Whitsundays (with their expectations) to experience these activities.

o Whale watching and observation of sea creatures: The ability to see whales, dolphins, sharks, dugongs and other area creatures as clearly as possible from a tourism vessel is essential.

G40185.1

Page 26 of 41

o Reef recovery after Cyclone Debbie being impeded by poor water quality. Coral growth needs to be allowed and encouraged wherever, and whenever possible. A coral colony is always in competition with various forms of algae. Poor water quality disadvantages the coral and can destroy even healthy reefs let alone cyclone damaged areas.

o Impact on the international guests’ impression of the overall health of the reef. With the rise of technology meaning more and more people are networked it only takes a few ideological virtue signalling bloggers to trash the image of the area.

o Being able to educate guests about what steps government is taking to secure the reef’s future.

• Concerns about the impact on coastal land-based business viability.

• Concerns about the presence of coal on some beaches north of the Port of Hay Point and the potential toxicity of its contaminants

Possible permit conditions

Must implement mitigation, management and monitoring as outlined in the Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan, Environmental Thresholds Report, Marine Environmental Monitoring Program

Requirement for a Deed of Agreement to be executed including insurance, indemnity and Environmental Site Supervisor provisions

Should maritime cultural heritage sites be located or found existing legislation requires that relevant stakeholders are notified.

Identification of a specific at-sea disposal site (permit condition) and type of dredging allowed (Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan)

Must notify of harm or potential harm to the Marine Park

Condition to not dredge during mass coral spawning period

Require bathymetric surveys to be conducted pre and post dredging to ensure only maintenance dredge spoil is dumped

Requirement, via Part 19(9) of Sea Dumping Act to further explore feasibility of non-sea disposal options before being allowed to dispose at sea for second and third campaigns

10 year permit duration with limits on amount that can be disposed in any campaign.

Reporting of results of monitoring

Reporting of dumped amounts

Reporting requirement to publish a report on their website addressing compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Thresholds Report, Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan and the Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan, as verified by an independent audit. That audit report must include but not be limited to the following:

o Deviations from the Environmental Thresholds Report; o Identification of any changes that would be required to the Maintenance Dredging

Environmental Management Plan, the Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan or the Environmental Thresholds Report before the next dredge campaign.

Managing Agency must approve the auditor in writing prior to commencement of each independent audit

G40185.1

Page 27 of 41

Conclusions

The applicant’s conclusions from their risk assessment are consistent with the Authority’s risk assessment above. These are:

Resuspension of sediments from maintenance dredging and material relocation is comparable to natural suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) during calm conditions

Water quality monitoring results and numerical modelling of sediment transport demonstrates that natural SSC levels are much higher than those generated by maintenance dredging

Analysis against intensity and duration thresholds indicated that dredging would not result in impacts to sensitive environmental values if the dredging volume is under 800,000m3. Accordingly, proposed dredging campaigns of 356,553m3 and future 200,000m3 are rated low risk to sensitive environmental values

Risks to sensitive habitats such as seagrass and coral communities are likely to be low. Seagrass communities are naturally low density and ephemeral and have been shown to recover post-dredging. Coral communities lie outside of the area predicted to be impacted by turbidity and sedimentation. It is recommended to exclude dredging and dumping works during mass coral spawning periods to avoid potential impacts to recruitment processes.

Protected species, listed as MNES, are also unlikely to be significantly impacted by maintenance dredging. The Port of Hay Point does not provide critical habitat resources for any marine species and disturbance to habitats will be low.

Risks to protected areas including the GBRWHA and GBR Marine Park will be low.

Other marine users, such as recreational fisherman, may experience disruptions to their activities during each dredge campaign, but other sites are able to meet community needs and access will be restored after each campaign.

There is very low potential for unburnt coal originating from Port of hay Point operations to impact on the marine environment.

If all laws and permit conditions are complied with, the relevant impacts10 of the proposed conducts are considered to represent a low risk to the values of the Marine Park.

Consideration H: Avoid, mitigate, offset

88Q(h) options for avoiding, mitigating and offsetting those relevant impacts

Avoidance and Mitigation

Also refer to Assessment Consideration E where an independent peer review was undertaken of:

Dredging: “Not dredging” is not an option at the Port of Hay Point as maintenance to declared depths is essential to ensure safe navigation in the approach channel, the harbour and berth pockets. Sediment accumulation at the Port of Hay Point is predominantly influenced by littoral drift and no practical solutions exist to completely avoid the accumulation of sediment within the Port area. Bathymetric analysis and modelling predicts accumulation of over 200,000m3 every 3-year period (See Appendices D1 and E of the SSMA). As such the potential impacts to values as highlighted in the risk table (Assessment Consideration G) above cannot be avoided. However, various mitigation measures are proposed as outlined in the risk table above, the environmental management plans and through proposed permit conditions and a deed to address relevant dredging impacts to values of the Marine Park.

The Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan (MD-EMP) outlines proposed mitigation and management measures in relation to the proposed dredging, including for the following:

Dredger specifications (Table 5)

10 Relevant impacts of proposed conduct or permitted conduct means: (a) the potential direct and indirect impacts of the conduct, and the potential cumulative impacts of the conduct (in conjunction with other conduct, events and circumstances), on the environment, biodiversity, and heritage values, of the Marine Park or a part of the Marine Park; or (b) the risk of the proposed conduct restricting reasonable use by the public of a part of the Marine Park and the extent of that restriction (if any).

G40185.1

Page 28 of 41

Protection of Cultural heritage (Table 6)

Waste management including general waste, sewage, hazardous waste, emissions (Table 7)

Ballast water and wash-down procedures (Table 8)

Adaptive management measures including thresholds and triggers (section 6.2) – Also refer to Environmental Thresholds Report and Marine Environmental Monitoring Program

Marine fauna (Table 17)

Incident management (section 6.3)

Reporting (section 7)

Dumping of maintenance dredge spoil material: The various mitigation measures are proposed as outlined in the risk table above (Assessment Consideration G) and will be implemented through the environmental management plans, proposed permit conditions and execution of a Deed of Agreement. The residual risk of the proposed conduct is rated low. However, in accordance with the London Protocol, the Applicant is required to continue to investigate the feasibility and regulatory approvals of alternative disposal locations other than at-sea. It is recommended to require, via a Part 19(9) Agreement under the Sea Dumping Act, an assessment of feasibility and scoping of those options (alternatives) to ascertain their viability and ensure these options are implemented if found feasible.

The Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan (MD-EMP) outlines proposed mitigation and management measures in relation to the proposed dumping including for the following:

Dredger specifications (Table 5)

Dredge material placement requirements (page 5)

Cultural heritage (Table 6)

Waste management including general waste, sewage, hazardous waste, emissions (Table 7)

Ballast water and wash-down procedures (Table 8)

Adaptive management measures including thresholds and triggers (section 6.2) – Also refer to Environmental Thresholds Report and Marine Environmental Monitoring Program

Marine fauna (Table 17)

Incident management (section 6.3)

Reporting (section 7)

Offsetting

Offsets are implemented when avoidance and mitigation measures are in place, but significant residual impacts are still likely to occur. As the risk assessment did not identify any significant residual impacts to the values of the Marine Parks, offset measures are not considered necessary.

Public submissions

Key concerns in relation to relevant impacts raised in public submissions included:

Short term concerns:

The disposal location is not naturally an area where finer silts settle out and therefore the water currents are likely to be too high for the dredge material to settle.

The sediment suspended during the release of material from the dredge barge will make its way north to the Whitsundays and impact water clarity.

Permitting spoil to be taken from a deep location (14 to 19m as proposed) and depositing it in a shallow location (10 to 12m) where it has little chance of stabilising and will be more easily resuspended is not seen as an appropriate solution.

Long term concerns

Due to the shallow depth of the dredge material placement site (10 to 12 m), the natural processes of tides, winds, currents and wave energy will continue to resuspend material long after it has been placed. If, as per past dredging works, 36% of the material is expected to be resuspended this will potentially impact water clarity in the Whitsundays for years to come.

G40185.1

Page 29 of 41

Tables 58 onwards in NQBP’s Appendix B show at-sea disposal at the existing site as achieving the worst score for a performance measure from an environmental water quality performance perspective.

Possible permit conditions

Must implement mitigation, management and monitoring as outlined in the MD-EMP, Environmental Thresholds Report, Marine Environmental Monitoring Program

Requirement for a Deed of Agreement to be executed, including insurance, indemnity and clean-up cost recovery

Permit conditions recommended to allow for environmental site supervision by the Managing Agency

Should maritime cultural heritage sites be located or found existing legislation requires that relevant stakeholders are notified.

Identification of a specific offshore disposal site and type of dredging allowed

Must notify of harm or potential harm to the Marine Park

Condition to not dredge during coral spawning season

Reporting requirement to publish a report on their website addressing compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Thresholds Report, Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan and the Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan, as verified by an independent audit. That audit report must include but not be limited to the following:

o Deviations from the Environmental Thresholds Report; o Identification of any changes that would be required to the Maintenance Dredging

Environmental Management Plan, the Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan or the Environmental Thresholds Report before the next dredge campaign.

Managing Agency must approve the auditor in writing prior to commencement of each independent audit.

Conclusion

The strategies for avoiding and mitigating relevant impacts through compliance with all laws and permit conditions, including implementation of the approved management plans, are considered adequate and the identified residual risks are rated low. Offset measures are not considered necessary.

Consideration I: Monitoring and managing

88Q(i) Options for monitoring and managing those relevant impacts;

Monitoring Program

The applicant will oversee the implementation of a three-tiered monitoring plan, with each component being undertaken by appropriately qualified marine scientists. The monitoring plan is made up of a combination of regular ambient monitoring (long-term monitoring) and individual dredging event related monitoring (short-term and real time monitoring). The environmental monitoring plan aims to:

Assess the long-term baseline environmental condition of the Port and nearby sensitive receptors and allow for corresponding management of operations

Detect any impacts from maintenance dredging, both immediately after dredging campaigns and over time

Respond to real time environmental conditions during maintenance dredging to prevent unpredicted environmental conditions during dredging

Collect data that will be used to drive continual improvement.

The scope of this monitoring plan consists of three tiers of monitoring program:

Ambient monitoring – ongoing to assess long-term baseline environmental condition

Impact monitoring – undertaken before, during and after each maintenance dredging to detect impacts

Adaptive monitoring – real time monitoring during each maintenance dredging campaign to prevent incidents of serious environmental harm.

G40185.1

Page 30 of 41

The parameters listed below will be monitored as part of the monitoring plan.

Parameter Type of monitoring

Ambient Impact Adaptive

Marine water quality X X X

Island fringing corals X X

Seagrass and benthic habitat X

Invasive marine pests X X

Sediment quality Prior to each campaign as per NAGD

Marine megafauna X

Water quality parameters will be monitored during all tiers of the monitoring plan. Good water quality underpins the ecological success of key sensitive environmental receptors in the Hay Point region, including seagrass and corals. Water quality monitoring will be undertaken during all phases of this plan. Monitoring across both ambient and impact programs allows for an understanding of long-term trends, which may be analysed in conjunction with trends in ecological data. Key water quality parameters (NTU, SSC) can also be effectively monitored in real time during dredging campaigns. With the application of appropriate trigger levels, real time adaptive management actions can be undertaken, with the aim of ensuring predicted water quality targets are being tracked and met, and that water quality does not deteriorate to levels that may cause unacceptable environmental harm. Water quality monitoring data may also be used as part of the program of continual improvement, including to provide validation of hydrodynamic modelling.

Island fringing corals are one of the key sensitive environmental receptors in the Hay Point region. These communities are at risk from poor water quality, both due to decreased light levels and physical smothering. Effects post-dredging may take some time to become evident, particularly if stresses are sub lethal. Monitoring of island fringing corals will be undertaken across ambient and impact programs. This will allow for an understanding of annual trends, which can be reviewed in the broader context of GBR inshore reef health. Impact monitoring will specifically test for effects from maintenance dredging.

Seagrasses are a sensitive environmental receptor within the Hay Point region that, can be impacted from poor water quality, however their presence both temporal ephemeral and spatially patchy. Monitoring of seagrasses will be undertaken during the ambient program only. This will allow for an understanding of annual trends, which can be reviewed in the broader context of conditions and events in the region, including dredging and dumping. Impact monitoring of seagrasses is not proposed. The ephemeral and spatially patchy nature of the seagrass in the area is unlikely to allow meaningful data to be collected, particularly if dredging occurs during January – June when seagrasses are not present. If declines are detected during the ambient program in years post-dredging, further investigations will be scoped in collaboration with relevant marine scientists.

Invasive marine pests (IMP) have the capacity to enter into ports in ballast water, internal seawater systems and on the hulls of vessels (ships and yachts). The operation of the dredge vessel is a small contributing factor to the overall risk of IMPs. Monitoring via the deployment and quarterly checking of settlement plates will be undertaken as part of the baseline program.

Monitoring of sediment characteristics at the Port will be undertaken to ensure dredge material is suitable for ocean disposal as per the requirements of the NAGD. This guideline requires 5-year data currency and will therefore be undertaken as necessary to ensure currency of data.

Marine megafauna will only be monitored during the adaptive monitoring, whilst the dredge is operating. The primary aim of this is to prevent interactions between the vessel and any marine fauna.

The applicant proposed that the plan will be periodically reviewed to update (maintain, increase or decrease) monitoring effort and focus, based on the new and historical findings from the monitoring data.

Environmental thresholds

The applicant also has developed an Environmental Thresholds Report for the Port of Hay Point, which will guide trigger values for the monitoring program. A brief summary follows. The applicant commissioned an assessment which summarises key knowledge on relevant ecological thresholds and ambient water quality conditions at the Port of Hay Point. The intent of the assessment was to inform the management of dredging activities at the Port of Hay Point. The assessment included a review of published environmental thresholds, which were contextualised with the local environmental conditions at and around Hay Point, using actual measured water quality and deposition data.

G40185.1

Page 31 of 41

The main subtidal habitats around Hay Point are open sandy bottoms, rocky reefs and seagrass beds, therefore maintenance dredging may impact upon the seagrass and coral communities. Statistical analysis of the data was undertaken using an intensity, duration and frequency (IDF) approach, to understand the natural variability of the natural environment (temporal and spatial) in terms of suspended sediment concentrations (SSC) / turbidity (NTU), benthic light availability (PAR) and sediment deposition.

Statistical analysis was undertaken on a three (3) year marine water quality dataset collected by James Cook University’s (JCU) TropWATER unit. Using an intensity, duration, frequency (IDF) approach, the inshore marine environment in the Mackay / Hay Point area is naturally more turbid than many of the published guidelines, so they would offer little value for managing to natural conditions.

However, the analysis did identify that an intensity threshold of 15mg/L (11 NTU) would be appropriate at offshore locations and specifically at the inshore Round Top Island, which had considerably lower turbidity than other inshore areas. The report concludes that Round Top Island is considered a key location on which to develop intensity and duration triggers, given its proximity to the preferred, inshore disposal ground, and similarity between published intensity thresholds and the natural conditions measured.

Intensity thresholds have been based on an intensity value of 15mg/l (11 NTU) at Round Top Island, which reflects the:

92nd percentile of natural suspended solids concentration (SSC) in the wet season, and

95th percentile of natural suspended solids concentration (SSC) in the dry season

An example of how the trigger values is intended to work is contained in the Environmental Thresholds Report.

Management

Consistent with Criterion H, management of the proposed conducts will be by way of dredge and monitoring management plans which must be approved by the Authority. The proposed monitoring plan has key links to the Port of Hay Point Long-term Maintenance Dredging Management Plan (2018 – 2028), which sets out the process by which the results of the monitoring will be reviewed, analysed and reported.

Public submissions

No public submissions raised any concerns in relation to this criterion.

Possible permit conditions

Standard conditions including Authority review and approval of monitoring plans, the requirement that such approved plans be implemented and that such plans be updated with information gleaned from each campaign to better inform subsequent similar actions. Each approved plan must be available on the Permit Holder’s website.

Reporting requirement to publish a report on their website addressing compliance with the requirements of the Environmental Thresholds Report, Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan and the Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan, as verified by an independent audit. That audit report must include but not be limited to the following:

o Deviations from the Environmental Thresholds Report; o Identification of any changes that would be required to the Maintenance Dredging

Environmental Management Plan, the Marine Environmental Monitoring Plan or the Environmental Thresholds Report before the next dredge campaign.

Managing Agency must approve the auditor in writing prior to commencement of each independent audit

Requirement for a Deed of Agreement

Conclusion

There are sufficient options for monitoring and managing potential impacts from the proposed conducts. The Marine Environmental Monitoring Management Plan is recommended for Delegate approval for implementation.

G40185.1

Page 32 of 41

Consideration J: Other legislation

88Q(j) a law of the Commonwealth or of Queensland as in force from time to time, or a relevant plan (as in force from time to time) made under such a law that:

i. relates to the management of the environment, or to an area in the Marine Park; and

ii. is relevant to the proposed conduct;

except so far as that law or plan is covered by paragraph 88Q(b)

Maintenance dredging programs are subject to several Commonwealth and Queensland government

laws and policies. This includes the Queensland Government’s Maintenance Dredging Strategy for Great

Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Ports.

An application by the applicant has been assessed under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping Act)

1980 (Attachment C).

The Port of Hay Point Long-term Maintenance Dredging Management Plan describes the key

environmental, cultural and planning legislation and policies that apply to dredging and dredge material

placement projects undertaken at the Port of Hay Point. The applicant’s proposed Maintenance Dredging

Environmental Management Plan and the Marine Environmental Monitoring Program outline additional

specific measures to manage potential impacts to the environment of the Marine Park in relation to the

proposed conducts.

Public submissions

No public submissions raised any concerns in relation to this criterion.

Possible permit conditions

Standard conditions require the permit holder must conduct all activities in accordance with the provisions of Commonwealth and State laws in place from time to time.

Conclusion

Relevant Commonwealth and Queensland laws and plans relevant to the proposed conducts have been considered.

Consideration K: EPBC approvals

88Q(k) if the proposed conduct also requires and approval or permit under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

i. whether the approval or permit has been, or is likely to be, granted and, if granted, the terms and conditions of it being granted; and

ii. any relevant assessment documentation (within the meaning given by subsection 133(8) of the Act) in relation to the approval or permit;

A referral under the EPBC Act is required to be made if a proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). The applicant undertook an assessment against EPBC Act significant impact criteria for MNES. The applicant’s environmental risk assessment report identified that significant impacts are unlikely. Direct links to the relevant appendices of their environmental risk assessment report are included below:

Appendix E - Likelihood of Occurrence Assessment

Appendix F - Protected Matters Search Tool results

Appendix G - Method for Identifying Local Expression of OUV in the GBRWHA

Appendix H - Threatened and Migratory EPBC Act Significant Impact Assessments

If a project is likely to have a Significant Impact against one or more EPBC Act MNES the Authority must refer it to the Minister for consideration – the assessment below will identify likely impacts against the EPBC Act Significant Impact Criteria http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/nes-guidelines.html. As part of this assessment, the Authority has conducted its own assessment of significance against the criteria (Table 1 below). Note that wetlands of international importance and nuclear actions were not part of the significant assessment as those matters of national environmental

G40185.1

Page 33 of 41

significance were not relevant to the proposed conducts. Also, there are no listed threatened ecological communities within the Marine Park and relevant to the proposed conducts.

Table 1. Assessment of significance for G40185.1

Controlling Provision (MNES)

Significant Impact Criteria Significant Impacts

Listed Threatened Species (S18 and 18A)

Vulnerable species – an action is likely to have a significant impact on a vulnerable species if there is a real chance or possibility it will:

Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species

Reduce the area of occupancy or fragment an important population of a species

Adversely impact habitat critical to the survival of a species

Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability of habitat to the extent that a species is likely to decline

Introduce disease or invasive species to important habitat for a threatened species

Interfere substantially with the recovery of a species

Endangered or critically endangered species – an action is likely to have a significant impact on an endangered or critically endangered species if there is a real chance or possibility it will:

Lead to a long-term decrease in size of a population

Reduce the area of occupancy

Fragment an existing population

Adversely affect the habitat critical to survival

Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population

Introduce invasive species, pests or diseases

Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability of habitat to the extent that a species is likely to decline

Interfere with the recovery of the species

Unlikely

World Heritage Properties (S12 and 15A)

An action is likely to have a significant impact on World Heritage Values of a declared World Heritage property if there is a real chance or possibility that it will cause:

One or more of the World Heritage values to be lost

One or more of the World Heritage values to be degraded or damaged

One or more of the World Heritage values to be notably altered, modified, obscured or diminished

Unlikely

National Heritage Places (S15B and 15C)

An action is likely to have a significant impact on the National Heritage Values of a declared National Heritage place if there is a real chance or possibility that it will cause:

One or more of the National Heritage values to be lost

One or more of the National Heritage values to be degraded or damaged

One or more of the National Heritage values to be notably altered, modified, obscured or diminished

Unlikely

Listed Migratory Species (s20)

An action is likely to have a significant impact on a migratory species if there is a real chance or possibility that it will:

substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species

result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species, or

seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.

Unlikely

G40185.1

Page 34 of 41

Controlling Provision (MNES)

Significant Impact Criteria Significant Impacts

Commonwealth Marine Environment (S23 and 24A)11

An action is likely to have a significant impact on the Commonwealth marine environment if there is a real chance or possibility that the action will:

Result in a known or potential pest species becoming established in the Commonwealth Marine Environment

Modify, destroy, fragment isolate or disturb an important or substantial area of habitat such that an adverse impact on marine ecosystem functioning or integrity occurs

Have a substantial adverse effect on a population of marine species or cetacean including its life cycle

Result in substantial changes in air or water quality which may adversely impact biodiversity, ecological integrity, social amenity or human health

Result in persistent organic chemicals, heavy metals or other potentially harmful chemicals accumulating in the marine environment such that biodiversity, ecological integrity, social amenity or human health may be adversely effected

Have a substantial adverse impact on heritage values of the Commonwealth Marine Area including damage or destruction of an historic shipwreck

Unlikely

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (S24B and 24C)

An action is likely to have a significant impact on the environment of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park if there is a real chance or possibility that the action will:

Modify, destroy, fragment or disturb an important, substantial, sensitive, or vulnerable are of habitat or ecosystem component such that an adverse impact on marine ecosystem health functioning or integrity in the GBRMP

Have a substantial adverse effect on a population of a species or cetacean including its lifecycle

Result in a substantial change in air quality or water quality (or temperature) which may adversely impact on biodiversity, ecological health or integrity, social amenity or human health

Result in a known or potential pest species being introduced or becoming established in the GBRMP

Result in persistent organic chemicals, heavy metals or other potentially harmful chemicals accumulating in the GBRMP such that biodiversity, ecological integrity, social amenity or human health may be adversely effected

Have a substantial adverse impact on heritage values of the GBRMP including damage or destruction of an historic shipwreck

Unlikely

Public submissions

No public submissions raised any concerns that the proposed conducts had not been referred under the EPBC Act.

Possible permit conditions

There are no conditions required relevant to this criterion.

Conclusion

The proposed conducts are not considered likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance, therefore the Authority has not referred this application under the EPBC Act.

11 Any part of the sea including waters, seabed and airspace within Australia's Economic Zone and over the

continental shelf that is not State or Territory waters. It stretches from 3 to 200 nautical miles from the coast.

G40185.1

Page 35 of 41

Consideration L: Queensland approvals

88Q(l) if the proposed conduct also requires an approval or permission under a law of Queensland — whether the approval or permission has been, or is likely to be, granted and, if granted, the terms and conditions of it being granted.

In most cases the Authority’s approval is not conditional on securing other approvals. The applicant should be afforded liberty to determine the most logical sequence of obtaining approvals based on their own circumstances.

The applicant has State approvals for maintenance dredging in place for the Port of Hay Point.

Environmental Authority (31 January 2014) – Environmentally relevant activity (EPPR01742813) to undertake maintenance dredging of navigational infrastructure

Development Approval (27 February 2006) – Operational Works / Tidal Works (PDC00339006A12 / IPDE00339106A22) for placement of dredged material below high-water mark

Public submissions

No public submissions raised any concerns that the proposed conducts may require an approval or permission under a law of Queensland.

Conclusion

The applicant already has in place approvals under a law of Queensland.

Consideration M: Recovery and conservation plans and advices

88Q(m) any recovery plan, wildlife conservation plan, threat abatement plan or approved conservation advices under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, that is relevant to the proposed conduct;

An EPBC Act Protected Matters Report for the area where the proposed conducts are to occur was produced by the applicant. The report was used to identify threatened, migratory and marine species, and threatened ecological communities, that occur or could occur within the study area. In summary, the following were identified:

There are no threatened ecological communities in the area in which the proposed conducts are proposed.

Threatened species and Recovery Plans and conservation advices

Green turtles and flatback turtles are the predominant species found within the area of the proposed conduct, with the possibility of loggerhead turtles also being in the vicinity. The Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia – 2017 identified the following as the greatest threats to the marine turtle stocks relevant to this application:

Green Turtle, Southern Great Barrier Reef (G-sGBR) Stock - climate change, marine debris and chemical and terrestrial discharge.

Loggerhead Turtle, South-west Pacific (LH-swPac) Stock. Marine debris, entanglement and ingestion; light pollution; climate change and variability (extreme weather); fisheries bycatch (international longline)

Flatback Turtle, Eastern Queensland (F-eQld) Stock. Light pollution; Climate change and variability (temperature)

A review of the recovery plan did not identify any further management strategies or actions (with specific relevance to the proposed conducts) beyond what is already recommended within the assessment documentation.

The Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaengliae) is the only listed threatened whale species (EPBC Act) that is likely to occur near the proposed project area. A review of Approved Conservation Advice for Megaptera novaeangliae (Humpback whale) did not identify any further management strategies or actions (with specific relevance to the proposed conducts) beyond what is already recommended within

The scalloped hammerhead (Sphyrna lewini) is listed as Conservation Dependant under the EPBC Act and hence is a protected species within the Marine Park. No conservation advice, recovery plan, or threat abatement plan has been approved and/or adopted for this species.

G40185.1

Page 36 of 41

Listed migratory species and wildlife conservation plans

The Australian Humpback Dolphin Snubfin Dolphin, dugongs and estuarine crocodiles are listed migratory species (EPBC Act) and are expected to enter the area at times. No Wildlife Conservation Plan has been identified as being relevant for these species.

A review of the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds, did not identify any additional requirements for the proposed conducts. Also it is unlikely that migratory shorebirds will be affected by the proposed conducted given the locations proposed in the Marine Park. However, if the habitat rehabilitation/creation option is progressed this may have some benefits to migratory shorebirds in the longer term; however, such habitat rehabilitation/creation would occur outside the Marine Park boundary.

Key threatening processes

Only one key threatening process was identified as relevant to the proposed conducts. The Threat abatement plan for the impacts of marine debris on vertebrate wildlife on Australia’s coasts and oceans incorporates actions needed to abate the listed key threatening process, particularly actions to develop understanding about microplastic impacts and the potential role of new technologies in waste management. The plan binds the Commonwealth and its agencies to respond to the impact of marine debris on vertebrate marine life, and identifies the research, management and other actions needed to reduce the impacts of marine debris on affected species. The applicant’s Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan includes (refer Table 7) strategies for the management of waste including general waste that would be considered ‘marine debris’.

Public submissions

No public submission identified any concerns with the proposed conducts in relation to this assessment criterion.

Possible permit conditions

There are no conditions required relevant to this criterion that have not already been proposed under other criteria.

Conclusion

Relevant recovery plans, threat abatement plans or approved conservation advices under the EPBC Act and relevant to the proposed conduct were considered. The proposed conducts is proposed to occur consistent with those documents.

Consideration N: Agreements and conventions

88Q(n) any relevant international Convention to which Australia is a signatory, or any agreement between the Commonwealth and a State or Territory, that is relevant to the application;

Australia is party to numerous environmental conventions and agreements including the World Heritage Convention as well as the JAMBA, CAMBA and ROCKAMBA agreements for international protection of migratory birds. This assessment process contributes towards meeting the requirements of such conventions by assessing the impacts of proposals to the values of the Marine Park, within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

The Authority manages the Region in accordance with its obligations under the World Heritage Convention. The proposed conducts have been identified and mitigated to be low impact which can be managed through existing arrangements and permit conditions.

Dumping of waste and other material (such as dredged sediments) from any vessel, aircraft or platform in Australian waters is prohibited under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, unless a permit has been issued. Permits are most commonly issued for dredging operations and the creation of artificial reefs. The Act fulfils Australia’s international obligations under the London Protocol (to prevent marine pollution by controlling dumping of wastes and other matter). The Act is administered by the Authority for activities inside the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The applicant submitted a permit application under the Sea Dumping Act on 25 October 2018, which is currently under assessment. The assessment recommendations will be submitted to the delegate for consideration at the same as this Marine Parks permit assessment.

The Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability Plan was released by the Australian and Queensland governments in March 2015 and is the overarching framework for protecting and managing the Reef until 2050. The Plan is a world-first document that outlines concrete management measures for the next 35

G40185.1

Page 37 of 41

years to ensure the Outstanding Universal Value of the Reef is preserved now and for generations to come.

The Queensland Government’s Maintenance Dredging Strategy for Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Ports provides a framework for sustainable, leading practice management of maintenance dredging at ports in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA). Further details are provided in Section 1.3 and 1.4 of the Port of Hay Point Long-term Maintenance Dredging Management Plan.

Public submissions

No public submission identified any concerns with the proposed conducts in relation to this assessment criterion.

Possible permit conditions

There are no conditions required relevant to this criterion.

Conclusion

The proposed conducts are consistent with the World Heritage Convention; JAMBA, CAMBA and ROCKAMBA agreements for international protection of migratory birds; and the London Protocol. The proposed conducts are consistent with the Reef 2050 Long-term Sustainability Plan and the Queensland Government’s Maintenance Dredging Strategy for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage.

Consideration O: Policies and guidelines

88Q(o) any policies that are relevant to the proposed conduct and the management of the Marine Park or of its environment, biodiversity or heritage values and are:

i. published by the Authority under paragraph 7(4)(a) of the Act; or

ii. adopted by the Department administer by the Minister administering the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999;

A range policies and guidelines provide a framework for the assessment of proposed actions within the Marine Parks. Those considered in relation to the proposed conducts included:

Authority policies and guidelines

Environmental impact management policy: permission system

Dredging and dredge spoil material disposal policy

Guidelines for the Use of Hydrodynamic Numerical Modelling for Dredging Projects in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Social value assessment guidelines

Seagrass value assessment guidelines

Traditional Owner heritage assessment guidelines

Guidelines: Permission assessment and decision

Great Barrier Reef Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2013

National / EPBC

National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging

Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 - Matters of National Environmental Significance

EPBC Act referral guidelines for the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

Reef 2050 Policies

Cumulative impact management

Net benefit

Good practice management for the Great Barrier Reef

G40185.1

Page 38 of 41

The Reef 2050 Plan also includes a number of port related actions that make clear the need for port authorities to understand the sedimentation characteristics of their ports, to avoid and reduce the impacts where possible and establish sustainable long-term management arrangements.

Public submissions

No public submission raised concerns about policies that are relevant to the proposed conduct and the management of the Marine Park or of its environment, biodiversity or heritage values.

Possible permit conditions

There are no conditions required relevant to this criterion.

Conclusion

The proposed conducts are consistent with the above-mentioned policies.

Consideration P: Any other matters

88(p) any other matters relevant to the proposed conduct and either:

i. achieving the objects of the Act; or

ii. orderly and proper management of the Marine Park

Achieving the objects of the Act

The main object of the Act is to provide for the long term protection and conservation of the environment, biodiversity and heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef Region. This assessment has determined that the proposed conducts pose low risk to long term protection and conservation of the environment, biodiversity and heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef Region.

The 2016 Final report of the Great Barrier Reef Water Science Task Force concluded:

Transformational change for Reef water quality outcomes will occur when there is a fundamental shift in the way the land is managed. For example, alternative crops, calculating fertiliser based on zonal or ‘management unit yield potential’, better fertilisers that improve nitrogen use efficiency and repurposing or land use conversion of some areas.

Other land and coastal uses, such as industry, ports and dredging, mining, sewage treatment plants and urban residential activity are relatively small overall sources of pollutants to the Reef; however they can be locally significant.

The 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement on Land Use Impacts on Great Barrier Reef Water Quality and Ecosystem Condition does not highlight dredging or dumping of dredge material at sea as being major contributors to the deterioration of water quality in the Mackay Region (rather it is land based run-off being the major contributor including sediments from the Fitzroy River. An Australian Government and Queensland Government joint publication of Frequently Asked Questions: Reef Water Quality Improvement Plan and 2017 Scientific Consensus Statement summarises that disposing of dredge material affects water quality. The impacts depend on the quantity of material, the method of dumping, how close it is to sensitive ecosystems, and how much the material will disperse. Dredging and its dumping may be a significant source of fine sediments in specific locations within the World Heritage Area, in addition to other sources, such as land run-off. A general comparison shows that past large dredging projects produced amounts of fine sediment similar in magnitude to natural loads coming from land run-off in the same region. However, with the Sustainable Ports Development Act 2015 in place (prohibition of capital dredge spoil dumping), projections indicate that dredging will contribute much less fine sediment in the future – potentially about 5–10% of the estimated long-term average sediment input from rivers, in comparison (McCook et al 2015). The applicants structured decision making process utilised on the sustainable sediment management assessment contributes to one of the statement’s recommendations “Encourage experimentation and innovation by scientists working with local stakeholders to develop, test and evaluate potential new solutions.” They have also incorporated greenhouse gas emissions into their options analysis, which aligns with the recommendation of “Address the significant risks to Great Barrier Reef ecosystems from other policy areas by implementing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, ….. that may increase risks to the Great Barrier Reef.”

The other objects of this Act are to do the following, so far as is consistent with the main object:

G40185.1

Page 39 of 41

allow ecologically sustainable use of the Great Barrier Reef Region for purposes including the following:

public enjoyment and appreciation;

public education about and understanding of the Region;

recreational, economic and cultural activities;

Direct physical impact with other port users from collision with the maintenance dredge vessel is unlikely as the vessel will be moving at a slow pace. During maintenance dredging operations the dredge will be displaying the lights and day shapes as required by orders and regulations for preventing collisions at sea. There will be restricted safety zones around the maintenance dredge equipment. However, this will be minimal and will be designed to ensure the safety of the boating and fishing public.

Port users and mariners will also be provided with notifications and information regarding maintenance dredging operations. There may be some minor delays to boating at the Half Tide Tug Harbour (which is outside the Marine Park) while the dredger is within the harbour.

Each dredging and dumping campaign is likely to last between 3-6 weeks. The applicant anticipates approximately 100 days of dredging and dumping over the 10 year term requested. This equates to 2.7 per cent of the total time.

Orderly and proper management of the Marine Park

The proposed conducts are unlikely to result in an excessive demand for increased management resources. The applicant is required to comply with all laws of the Commonwealth and Queensland in force from time to time. Environmental site supervision is recommended through permit conditions.

Permit holders are required to comply with any conditions included on the permit to manage impacts to the values of the Marine Park. Environmental site supervision, regular review of relevant management plans before each dredging and dumping campaign and Authority attendance at TACC meetings should ensure Marine Park management requirements are met.

Applicant commitments

The applicant has established and will continue to improve their website in relation to real time monitoring information being available to the public.

The applicant will maintain the established Technical Advisory and Consultative Committee (TACC) for long-term management of the maintenance dredging and dumping. The TACC will be required to be involved in the review of any management plans associated with the proposed conducts. TACC membership consists of a range of stakeholders, including representation from the Authority (see Appendix A of the SSMA).

Public submissions

The Queensland and Australian Governments have invested significantly in water quality improvement initiatives both GBR-wide and on the Mackay/Whitsunday coast and the applicant’s proposal is counter-productive to those investments.

A 2015 review of the progress in water quality improvements by a Water Science Task Force concluded only transformational changes (well beyond current management arrangements) will be necessary to achieve water quality targets. Sea dumping of 956,553 cubic metres of dredge material at sea in an already threatened area of the coast could hardly be classed as transformational change.

Possible permit conditions

Conducting activities only in accordance with Managing Agency approved environmental management plans.

Monitoring results from impact and adaptive monitoring are reported on and reviewed after each campaign to ensure any improvements identified are incorporated into revisions of the dredge and monitoring management plans prior to next campaign.

Conclusion

Risks to the environment in the Marine Park that might or will be caused by the applicant’s use or entry have been incorporated in the applicant’s dredge and monitoring management plans and risks of environmental harm are considered to be adequately managed through existing laws, recommended permit conditions and associated management plans. It is considered that granting the permit with the

G40185.1

Page 40 of 41

recommended permit conditions is in accordance with achieving the objects of the Act and in maintaining orderly and proper management of the Marine Park.

Supporting Information

The following information was used to inform this assessment.

Supporting information submitted with the application

Sustainable Sediment Management Assessment (SSMA)

Sustainable Sediment Management Summary

Appendix A List of Technical Advisory Consultative Committee Members

Appendix B Comparative Analysis Technical Report

Appendix C Sediment Dynamics Report

Appendix D1 Bathymetric Analysis and Modelling Report

Appendix D2 TC Debbie Bathymetric Analysis Report

Appendix E Predictive Modelling Technical Report

Appendix F Sedimentation Impacts on Port Operations

Appendix G Economic Impacts on not Maintaining Sediment Accumulation

Appendix H Assessment for Navigational Maintenance

Appendix I Comprehensive Beneficial Reuse Assessment

Appendix J Marine Sediment Properties Assessment

Appendix K Onshore Pond and Reclamation Engineering Design

Appendix L Environmental Values Assessment

Economic Reviews

Peer Reviews

Beneficial Reuse - Habitat Restoration or Creation - Feasibility Study

Environmental Risk Assessment

Environmental Risk Assessment Introduction and Synopsis

Appendix A Plume Modelling Assessment - part 1

Appendix A Plume Modelling Assessment - part 2

Appendix B Natural Sediment Resuspension Assessment

Appendix C Sediment Analysis Plan

Appendix D Risk Assessment Methodology

Appendix E Likelihood of occurrence Assessment

Appendix F Protect Matters Search Tool Results

Appendix G OUV in the GBRWHA

Appendix H EPBC Act Significant Impact Assessment

Management Plans

Management Plans Port of Hay Point Summary

Environmental Thresholds Report

Long-term Maintenance Dredge Management Plan

Maintenance Dredging Environmental Management Plan

Marine Environmental Monitoring Program

Sediment Characterisation Report

Attachments

A. Cardno Independent Review – Technical Appendices H, I, K and B of NQBP Sustainable Sedmient Management Assessment for Navigational Maintenance, Rev 0, dated 22 October 2018

B. Public Information Package

C. Steinberg and Brinkman (2018) Review of Report: Hay Point Maintenance Dredging, Dredge Plume Modelling Assessment prepared for GBRMPA, Australian Insitute of Marine Science, Townsville.

D. Applicant’s Supplementary Information Package

G40185.1

Page 41 of 41

References

Erftemeijer PLA, Riegl B, Hoeksema BW, Todd P (2012) “Environmental impacts of dredging and other sediment disturbances on corals: A review” Marine Pollution Bulletin 64: 1737-1765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.05.008

Koskela Group 2014a Receiving Environment Monitoring Program for BM Alliance Coal Operations Pty Ltd Hay Point Coal Terminal. 239pp plus appendices. Koskela Group 2014b Receiving Environment Monitoring Program for Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal. 242pp plus appendices. McCook, L.J.; Schaffelke, B.; Apte, S.C.; Brinkman, R.; Brodie, J.; Erftemeijer, P.; Eyre, B.; Hoogerwerf, F.; Irvine, I.; Jones, R.; King, B.; Marsh, H.; Masini, R.; Morton, R.; Pitcher, R.; Rasheed, M.; Sheaves, M.; Symonds, A.; Warne, M.St.J. (2015) Synthesis of current knowledge of the biophysical impacts of dredging and disposal on the Great Barrier Reef: Report of an Independent Panel of Experts, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville. http://hdl.handle.net/11017/2935 McMahon K, Lavery P, McCallum R and Hernawan U (2017) Current state of knowledge regarding the effects of dredging-related ‘pressure’ on seagrasses. Report of Theme 5 - Project 5.1.1 prepared for the Dredging Science Node, Western Australian Marine Science Institution, Perth, Western Australia, 64 pp.

York PH, Carter AB, Chartrand K, Sankey T, Wells L, Rasheed MA (2015) “Dynamics of a deep-water seagrass population on the Great Barrier Reef: annual occurrence and response to a major dredging program” Scientific Reports, 5, Article number 13167. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13167