Reef Trust Offsets Plan and calculator€¦ · Web view1.Background ‘Biodiversity offsetting’...

Reef Trust Offsets Plan and Calculator

October 2017

SUMMARY1. Background‘Biodiversity offsetting’ is a mechanism whereby the permitted environmental impacts of development projects are compensated through conservation activities that yield a gain at least equivalent to the impact. This project is an extension of a project that was funded by the National Environmental Science Programme’s (NESP) Tropical Water Quality Hub (“Phase 1”). The purpose of the Phase 1 project was to design a scientifically robust calculation approach to determine the amount of money that a proponent would pay when voluntarily using the Reef Trust as an offset provider (Maron et al. 2016). The current project was funded by the Department of the Environment and Energy (Department) to address the gaps in the prototype calculator and develop a Reef Trust Offsets Plan. Background and methods are detailed in Appendix 1.

2. PurposeThe purpose of the Reef Trust Offsets Plan (Plan) is to provide guidance on determination of offset costs, actions, and locations for Great Barrier Reef (Reef) biodiversity offsets delivered through the Reef Trust on behalf of approval holders under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).

3. StructureThe Reef Trust Offsets Plan and Calculator includes this summary document and five appendices, and the calculation spreadsheet:Appendix 1. Background and MethodsAppendix 2. Offset Approach for SurrogatesAppendix 3. Summary of Literature Review and Expert ElicitationAppendix 4. Case StudiesAppendix 5. References

Reef Trust Calculator (xls)

4. ContextOffsets will be implemented by the Reef Trust only 1) after impacts have been avoided and mitigated according to the mitigation hierarchy, 2) in accordance with the EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy and other relevant policies and guidelines, and 3) through voluntary arrangements with proponents (Figure 1) which then become binding conditions of approval. The Plan and Calculator are appropriate for biodiversity values, but are not designed to be used for cultural, social, heritage, and other non-biodiversity values.

REEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 2 of 141

https://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/epbc-act-environmental-offsets-policy

http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/reef-trust

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjHoY2Ak4nQAhVrr1QKHYCXBNQQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnesptropical.edu.au%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2FNESP-TWQ-3.12-FINAL-REPORTa.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEpvoEmb4Gw1S6ahgnBe3kEZWRR8Q


Figure 1: Scope and Context of Plan. *NB: The Minister (or delegate) decision on the referred action must be consistent with the EPBC Offsets Policy “having regard to the likely impact on environmental matters protected, together with economic and social factors, is the proposed action acceptable?” (Figure 1 in EPBC Offsets Policy 2012)

*

5. SurrogatesThe Plan uses twenty-two surrogates as proxies for biodiversity-related Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). These are drawn from the key values and attributes of MNES, and key environmental processes relevant to MNES, identified in the Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment (GBRMPA 2014). Impacts to surrogates are considered through a three-tier system - water quality, habitats, and species. The tiered surrogate system was developed in Phase 1 (see Appendix 1). The surrogates are listed in Table 1 below and defined in Appendix 2.

For each surrogate, the Plan provides guidance on the offset action, cost and location according to the best available data for that surrogate (Table 1). Each column of Table 1 is explained in more detail in following sections, with supporting information in Appendices 2 and 3.

The adequacy of cost and efficacy data for offsets is inconsistent across the surrogates. Since offsets need to be implemented before comprehensive, GBR-specific information about every surrogate is available, the Department will use the best available data and adopt a review and adaptation cycle which will enable the calculator to be used for more surrogates as data become available. The colours in Table 1 represent the relative offset data availability for each surrogate (green indicates GBR-specific restoration cost data available, yellow indicates global restoration cost data available, red indicates low availability of offset cost data). Note that offsets for the red-shaded surrogates may still be implemented through the Reef Trust, but

the design and cost would be negotiated through an ad hoc delivery arrangement until there are sufficient data for inclusion in the calculator.


Table 1: Summary of Surrogates and Recommended Offset Actions, Costs, and Locations

6. Surrogate TiersTo ensure that all significant residual impacts requiring an offset are handled, but not double-counted, the Plan and Calculator use a tiered approach (Figure 2). This approach guides the user through three levels of surrogates in a process that continues until all impacts requiring an offset are accounted. The tiers are organised in such a way that the most commonly-encountered impact types are considered first, and if all impacts are accounted for in this first step, there is no need to go further through the process. However, the tiered nature of the process is purely for ease of use, and implies nothing about the relative importance of the different surrogates.


Figure 2: Tiered Approach to Surrogates

7. Offset ActionsThe Plan provides guidance on appropriate offset actions for each surrogate. As per the EPBC Act Offsets Policy 2012, suitable offsets must be built around direct offsets but may include up to 10% other compensatory measures (including research, education, and other non-direct actions). Offset actions should be coordinated with and additional to other ongoing and planned conservation interventions - by governments, non-profits, communities, and industries - to maximise positive outcomes. Actions that benefit multiple surrogates should receive higher priority (given that the impacted value is adequately offset by the action).

Restoration actions should be designed in accordance with international and national best practice, including but not limited to the 2016 National Standards for the Practice of Ecological Restoration in Australia.

For the water quality surrogates – suspended fine sediment and nitrogen – actions should be guided by the underfunded priority actions of each Natural Resources Management (NRM) region’s Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP). Actions should focus on catchment restoration and decreasing polluted run-off, but must be above the minimum thresholds of industry best practices at the offset site. Details about proposed offset actions for water quality are contained in Appendix 2.

For the habitat surrogates for which adequate offset data are available – mangroves, seagrasses, shallow reefs, and saltmarsh – actions include restoration and threat mitigation (see details in Appendix 2.)

For the habitat and species surrogates for which adequate offset data are not available - island vegetation, deep reefs, lagoon, shoals, halimeda, intertidal, bony fish, sharks and rays, sea snakes, marine turtles, crocodiles, seabirds, shorebirds, whales, dolphins, and dugongs - offsets in the form of compensatory projects will be negotiated between Departmental assessment officers and the proponent. Relevant data and conservation strategies are included in Appendix 2 to provide guidance to the Department and proponents when considering these offsets.

8. Offset CostsThe Plan includes a Calculator to estimate the financial liability for offsets delivered through the Reef Trust. Adequate offset cost data are currently available for six surrogates - sediment, nitrogen, mangrove, seagrass, shallow reef, and saltmarsh - and therefore the calculator is available for these surrogates. For the remaining fourteen surrogates, costs must be estimated on an ad hoc basis until further data are available for the Calculator.

The calculator estimates the financial liability for offsets delivered through the Reef Trust for the six surrogates for which there are currently adequate data (Table 1). The calculator is summarised in Table 2.


http://www.seraustralasia.com/standards/contents.html


Surrogate Name

Risk-adjusted cost per unit per surrogate

Predicted Significant Residual Impact

Handling and Monitoring Fee

Offset liability ($AUD )

One row for each of the six surrogates for which calculator data are available

Drop-down list that allows selection of surrogate and region and then inputs standard cost per unit; see Table 3 for values and Section 8.1 for detail

Data from assessment entered here; see Section 8.2 for detail

Set by the Department, 15%; see Section 8.3 for detail

Calculated output for each surrogate; total liability is summed across rows

Suspended Fine Sediment

DIN

Mangrove

Seagrass

Shallow Reef

Saltmarsh

TOTAL

Table 2: Summary of the Reef Trust Offsets Financial Calculator

8.1 Risk-Adjusted Cost per UnitSeveral components of risk have been identified as being material to the offset liability calculation (see Table 3).

RESTORATION COST PER UNIT Appendix 2 contains the restoration cost per unit data for each surrogate. How these data were selected is described in Appendix 1, and further data and literature analysis is presented in Appendix 3.

Water quality offset cost per unit are based on a peer-reviewed analysis of on-ground conservation and restoration actions in the Reef region (Rolfe and Windle 2016).

Costs for mangroves, seagrasses, shallow reefs, and saltmarsh are based on a peer-reviewed global meta-analysis of 235 studies with 954 observations from worldwide coastal and marine restoration projects (Bayraktarov et al. 2016), due to the lack of data for the Reef region specifically. The median costs for developed countries for each surrogate have been extracted and converted from 2010 USD to 2016 AUD.

SUCCESS RATE MULTIPLIERThe success rate multiplier accounts for the likelihood that an offset will achieve the no net loss target, and is based on peer-reviewed data about the efficacy of offset methods. In the future, when adequate data are available, this multiplier will vary for each method and each surrogate. For now, the multiplier uses averaged success rates for each surrogate based on available data. For example, in a global meta-analysis, restoration techniques in mangrove habitats led to a 53% chance of survival (Bayraktarov et al. 2016) and therefore to achieve 1 ha of restored mangrove, on average, 1.9 ha must be replanted. Therefore the success rate multiplier for mangroves is 1.9. The success rate multipliers for seagrass, shallow reef, and


Table 3: Risk-Adjusted Cost per Unit per Surrogate

Surrogate NRM Region

Unit Restoration Cost per unit (2016 AUD)

Success Rate Multiplier

Cost Data Confidence Multiplier

Surrogate Condition Multiplier

Time Delay Factor

Risk-Adjusted Cost (2016 AUD)

See Section 8.1.1

See Section 8.1.2

See Section 8.1.3

See Section 8.1.4

See Section 8.1.5

Suspended Fine Sediment

All

Regions tonnes $259 1.1

1

1 1.63 464.39

DIN All

Regions kg $150 1.1

1

1 1.63 268.95

Mangrove

All

Regions ha $58,546 1.9 2 1 1 $222,475

Seagrass

All

Regions ha $160,373 2.6 2 1 1 $833,940

Shallow

Reef

All

Regions ha $2,742,928 1.6 2 1 1 $8,777,370

Saltmarsh

All

Regions ha $100,818 1.6 2 1 1 $322,618

saltmarsh are calculated in the same manner using data from Bayraktarov et al. 2016. For water quality surrogates, the success rate multiplier is set at the default of 1.1 until adequate data are available.

COST DATA CONFIDENCE MULTIPLIERThe cost data confidence multiplier accounts for the confidence that the cost data underlying the calculator will be sufficient to fund the achievement of no net loss. For the water quality surrogates, for which the cost data are based on actual Great Barrier Reef project cost data, confidence is high and therefore the confidence multiplier is set to 1 (no change in cost). For the four habitat surrogates – mangrove, seagrass, shallow reef, and saltmarsh – the cost data are based on global median data from outside of the Great Barrier Reef region because regional data are not sufficient. This results in less confidence that the cost will be sufficient to achieve no net loss, and therefore a multiplier of “2” has been set for these surrogates to allow greater likelihood that the liability will be sufficient to cover the Reef Trust actual costs in meeting the targets.

SURROGATE CONDITION MULTIPLIERThe surrogate condition multiplier was devised in Phase 1 to account for the ability of the impact site - based on the condition and trend of relevant MNES at that site - to respond to an intervention. In theory, a degraded site will be more difficult to restore and therefore a higher cost will be required. However due to the insufficient amount of quantified data, this multiplier is set to a default of “1” until significant new data becomes available.

TIME DELAY FACTORThe time delay factor accounts for the time lag between the planned start of implementation of the offset, and the predicted achievement of the offset benefits. A discount rate of 5% is used for the time delay factor (see Table 4). For example, for sediment and DIN, the average time to achieve benefits in the Reef is approximately ten years (Bainbridge et al. 2009, Darnell et al. 2012, Dutson et al. 2015), and therefore the time delay factor is 1.63.



# Years between planned start of offset and predicted achievement of no net loss target

Time Delay Factor

0 1.00

1 1.05

2 1.10

3 1.16

4 1.22

5 1.28

6 1.34

7 1.41

8 1.48

9 1.55

10 1.63

11 1.71

12 1.80

13 1.89

14 1.98

15 2.08

16 2.18

17 2.29

18 2.41

19 2.53

20 2.65

Table 4: Time Delay Factor

8.2 Predicted Significant Residual ImpactThe predicted significant residual impact(s) is/are determined during the assessment of the referred action, before the Plan and calculator are used. The quantities of predicted impacts against the six surrogates in the calculator are provided by the assessment to be entered into the calculator.

8.3 Handling and Monitoring FeeThere are two components to this fee, which has been set by the Department:

1. A 10% handling fee. This fee is not retained by the Department but provides for the engagement of expertise to design and deliver offset projects.

2. A 5% fee to ensure the monitoring and reporting obligations of on-ground delivery partners are covered.

9. Offset Location


The location of the offsets will be selected to maximise the likelihood of achieving no net loss. When relevant, co-location of offsets with other offsets and conservation interventions is preferred to leverage positive outcomes and to increase cost-effectiveness of implementation and monitoring. Offsets will be implemented in areas where the environmental conditions are supportive of natural recovery, which will often

be away from the impact site. For water quality and habitat surrogates, offsets will be implemented within the same catchment as the impact when possible, and at a minimum within the same NRM region as the impact (see Figure 3). The location of species surrogate offsets will be proponent negotiated on an ad hoc basis, based on the considerations provided in Appendix 2.

10. Case StudiesThe Plan and calculator have been tested with four realistic case studies (see Appendix 4 and summaries below).


1. PORT EXPANSION

2. NEW MARINA

3. AQUA-CULTURE

Large port terminal expansion involving 1 million cubic metres capital dredge

$15 million liability for sediment and seagrass offsets, plus additional (not yet costed) offsets required for whales, dolphins, dugongs, turtles

Construction of new resort and marina

$22 million liability for mangrove, seagrass, and shallow reef offsets, plus additional (not yet costed) offsets required for turtles, whales, dolphins, turtles and dugongs

Construction of new aquaculture facility

$1 million liability for seagrass offsets plus additional (not yet costed) offsets required for intertidal habitat and turtles

Construction of a harbour $19 million liability for sediment, nitrogen, mangrove, seagrass, and saltmarsh

Figure 3: NRM Regions

11. Review and AdaptationThe Plan and calculator will be reviewed and adapted over time to ensure that offsets can most effectively and efficiently lead to no net loss.

It is recommended that data on offset and non-offset projects in the region – including but not limited to restoration, revegetation, threat mitigation, and other conservation actions – are collected in a transparent and publicly-available database to allow for ongoing review of the cost and efficacy of relevant actions. The database and the review of the Plan and calculator should be connected to the Reef 2050 - Reef Integrated Monitoring and Reporting Program when possible.

It is recommended that the Plan and calculator be reviewed initially after two years (2019) and then every five years in line with the GBR Outlook Report, or when significant new data become available (as determined by the Reef Trust). The Reef Integrated Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Reef 2050 Independent Expert Panel may be consulted on significant new data.

The discount rate should be reviewed if the Australian Government provides new guidance that supersedes the February 2016 guidance.

It is recommended that stakeholders – including but not limited to industry representatives, managers, scientists, and practitioners – be included in the review and adaptation of the Plan and calculator.


Construction of a harbour $19 million liability for sediment, nitrogen, mangrove, seagrass, and saltmarsh

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwj1iJnhn6LSAhVJHZQKHTWrDJMQFggtMAI&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dpmc.gov.au%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpublications%2Fcosst-benefit-analysis.docx&usg=AFQjCNGOtYm1hcsZ6exLHUvaq0K-1w8Fqw&bvm=bv.147448319,d.dGo

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report

Appendix 1. Background and Methods1.1 Offsets Overview‘Biodiversity offsetting’ is a mechanism whereby the permitted environmental impacts of development projects are compensated through conservation activities that yield a gain at least equivalent to the impact. Biodiversity offsets are increasingly being used globally in both marine and terrestrial environments, though the policy principles, design and technical approaches used for these offsets vary among jurisdictions and schemes.

International best practice in biodiversity offsets calls for quantifiable conservation gains to counteract any significant biodiversity loss, based on adherence to the ‘mitigation hierarchy.’ The mitigation hierarchy requires that all impacts to biodiversity must first be avoided or minimised; any residual damage to biodiversity can then be offset as a last resort, to achieve the primary objective of ‘no net loss’ (NNL) of biodiversity (Ten Kate et al. 2004). Biodiversity offsets can only achieve the goal of NNL by adherence to stringent conditions (Dutson et al. 2015).

To ensure offsets are commensurate with impacts the two must be of the same magnitude, and offset exchanges should follow the principle of ‘like for like or better’ equivalence of biodiversity values (BBOP 2012). This relates to two factors, character (or biodiversity value) and quality (important attributes) equivalence (Dutson et al. 2015). For any biodiversity value being offset these factors could include both species and functional diversity, species composition, species condition, ecological integrity or ecosystem services values (BBOP 2012). Offsets should also be ‘additional’ to what would have occurred to the biodiversity value without either the impact or the offset, this is termed the “counterfactual” (Ferraro, 2009). To ensure offsets have ‘additionality’ and to more accurately quantify the amount of change that is relevant to the project under consideration, the counterfactual must take into account both regional scale trends (e.g., GBR outlook report), targets, and all funded interventions (e.g., government commitments to achieve water quality improvements).

Biodiversity offsets are not appropriate for all development impacts as there are limits to what can feasibly be offset. This concept of ‘offsetability’ is important in instances where NNL is unable to be achieved as a result of the irreplaceability or vulnerability of the biodiversity value, or is ecologically or practically infeasible (BBOP 2012a, b; Pilgrim et al. 2013).

Current offsets in Australia, while inclusive of the marine environment, were conceptualised primarily for terrestrial ecosystems and have most often been applied in terrestrial settings. However, the marine and terrestrial environments are fundamentally different mediums for offset application. Two primary examples of these differences are ownership and connectivity (Bos et al. 2014), which can make offsets in the marine environment more difficult. Unlike land, marine and coastal resources are public commodities, making sustained legal protection more difficult than terrestrial offsets in many cases (Bell et al. 2014; Dutson et al. 2015). Marine environments also have greater spatial and hydrological connectivity, enabling many impacts to flow further and affect a greater range of species and ecosystems (Carr et al. 2003; Bell et al. 2014; Bos et al. 2014).

The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) encompasses the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and some island and nearshore areas (Dutson et al. 2015). The entire Great Barrier Reef ecosystem, including the catchment area underpin key ecosystem processes and provide ecosystem services to the region. The GBRWHA is jointly managed by the Australian and Queensland governments via intergovernmental agreements (1978, 2009) and various laws and regulations, while the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is the statutory authority with the primary responsibility for the management of the park (GBRMPA 2014). Biodiversity offsets within the Reef are covered under both state and national legislation.

In Queensland, offsets are regulated by the Environmental Offsets Act 2014, including the Environmental Offsets Policy 2016, which seeks to counterbalance any significant residual impacts on matters of national,


local or state environmental significance. This includes matters protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and any species listed under the Nature Conservation Act 1992, areas classified as highly protected zones under the Marine Parks Act 2004, referable wetlands and watercourses in protection areas or in high ecological value waters, fish habitat areas and marine plants under the Fisheries Act 1994 and legally secured offset areas (Queensland Government 2014). The EPBC Act Environmental Offsets Policy sets out the Australian Government’s approach to offsetting significant residual impacts on matters of national environmental significance (MNES) which are protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). In the marine environment, this includes Ramsar-listed wetlands, all EPBC-listed threatened species and ecological communities, marine and migratory species, all World Heritage areas, and the environment of the GBRMP.

To date, offsets in the GBRWHA have been assessed and implemented by proponents of development (‘proponents’) on a per-project basis, leading to fragmentation and inefficiencies (Bos et al. 2014). In 2014, the Australian Government created the ‘Reef Trust’, a program focused on improving the quality of water, improving the health and resilience of coastal habitats and protecting marine biodiversity. The Reef Trust includes a mechanism that allows proponents to enter voluntarily into agreement with the Reef Trust to meet offset obligations.

1.2 Summary of Phase 1This project is an extension of a project funded by the National Environmental Science Programme (NESP) hereinafter called “Phase 1.” As background information to the current project, a summary of the Phase 1 project is provided next.

A NESP project team was tasked with developing a draft calculation approach that was 1) based on and consistent with the EPBC Act offsets assessment guide but adapted to the marine context, 2) developed in consultation with key stakeholders including relevant government agencies, industry representatives, and non-governmental representatives, and 3) consistent with the Reef Trust and the current regulatory context for marine biodiversity offsets in the GBRWHA (the EPBC Act). The scope of the project was to create a calculation approach that accounted for impacts to biodiversity. Impacts to other aspects of Outstanding Universal Value – including heritage values, cultural values, and other values that cannot be scientifically quantified AND exchanged – were outside the scope of the project. The project also built upon two recent publications with which the project team had been involved:

Bos, M., Pressey, R.L. & Stoeckl, N. (2014). Effective marine offsets for the GBRWHA. Environmental Science & Policy, 42, 1-15.

Dutson, G., Bennun, L., Maron, M., Brodie, J., Bos, M. & Waterhouse, J. (2015). Determination of suitable financial contributions as offsets within the Reef Trust. Report to the Department of the Environment, Commonwealth of Australia.

Together these publications provide recommendations for how to systematically improve the assessment, implementation, and evaluation of marine biodiversity offsets in the Reef region. Improving how proponent financial liability is calculated was one of those recommendations.

The NESP project was conducted with frequent engagement of key stakeholders. Three stakeholder workshops have been conducted:

● August 2015, Townsville, attended by representatives of industry, government, and non-governmental organisations

● February 2016, Canberra, attended by representatives of the Department of the Environment and Energy

● April 2016, Brisbane, attended by representatives of industry, government, and non-governmental organisations.


The output of the NESP project was a prototype calculator that is based on terrestrial offset calculators used in Australia and international best practice, but adapted for the Reef context. The prototype calculator is a transparent and easy-to-use spreadsheet-style tool that considers:

● Surrogates: proxies for groups of MNES that are likely to be negatively impacted by proposed projects

● Surrogate Condition Factor: numerical factor that accounts for the ability of a habitat or species to respond to conservation action, based on scientific evidence of condition and trend of the MNES

● Implementation Costs: estimates of cost to implement offset activities, including implementation risk factors, in order to achieve a benefit for the MNES

● Time Delay: factor that accounts for the time difference between impact and the benefit being generated by the offset activity

● Administration Fees: charge to recover the costs of administering, monitoring, reporting, and adapting offsets.

The prototype calculator was designed specifically for marine offsets in the GBRWHA, required through EPBC approval conditions, and delivered through voluntary agreement between Proponent and the Reef Trust.

The prototype calculator was not intended to be used in the following situations:

● to evaluate impacts and offsets for non-biodiversity values such as heritage and culture● to estimate financial liability for non-permitted actions (e.g., ship grounding, toxic pollutant spill)● to estimate financial liability for regional and global scale issues (e.g., climate change impacts to the

Reef).

The prototype calculator is represented by Table 1-1. Each column is briefly explained following, however for a detailed explanation please refer to the project final report (Maron et al. 2016).


Table 1-1: Prototype Calculator from Phase 1Surrogates Impacts Costs Liability

Name Unit Surrogate Condition Factor

Surrogate Cost per unit ($AUD)

# Units Impacted

Time Factor

Admin fee

Offset liability (AUD $)

Water quality surrogates

Suspended fine sediment

Total Suspended Sediment 25%

Nitrogen Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen 25%

Habitat surrogates

Intertidal beach/mudflats and associated shorebird species

Ha * condition metric **

25%

Mangrove forest habitats and mangrove species


25%

Seagrass meadow habitats and seagrass species


25%

Shallow coral reefs and associated benthic species


25%

Deep reefs and associated benthic species


25%

Lagoon floor and associated benthic species


25%

Shoals and associated benthic species


25%

Island terrestrial vegetation

Ha * condition metric ** 25%

Halimeda bank habitat and Halimeda species


25%

Species surrogates

Bony fish Kg Biomass 25% -

Sharks and rays Number of Individuals 25% -

Sea snakes Number of individuals 25% -

Marine turtles Number of 25% -


individuals

Estuarine crocodiles

Number of individuals 25% -

Seabirds Number of individuals 25% -

Shorebirds Number of individuals 25% -

Whales Number of individuals 25% -

Dolphins Number of individuals 25% -

Dugongs Number of individuals 25% -

Grey shading indicates information that is provided in the calculator (columns A, B, and H). Orange shading indicates values that will be accessed through attached data tables (columns C, D, and F). Yellow shading indicates values that are entered by the user based on environmental assessment data (column E). Green shading indicates values calculated by the tool (no data entry; column H).

COLUMN A: SURROGATES

A biodiversity surrogate is a relatively easily-measured metric that works as a proxy for other components of biodiversity that are harder to measure.

COLUMN B: UNITS

Column B is the units (e.g., number of individuals) in which each surrogate is measured. This would be auto populated once the surrogate was selected.

COLUMN C: SURROGATE CONDITION FACTOR

The Surrogate Condition Factor accounts for the ability of MNES to respond to an intervention. This factor considers the condition, trend, and resilience of the group of MNES underlying each surrogate.

COLUMN D: SURROGATE COST PER UNIT

Column D is the offset implementation cost for each unit of gain. The value that appears in this column would be auto-populated.

COLUMN E: IMPACTED UNITS

The first information input into the calculator by the user is the number of impacted units of each surrogate for which offsets are required. These values are estimated during the environmental impact assessment process.

COLUMN F: TIME FACTOR

The time delay between impact and the achievement of no-net-loss results in losses to ecosystem services. To mitigate time delays, a ‘time factor’ can be used by applying a discount rate (Table 1-2). This factor would not penalise proponents for time delays between project impact and offset implementation once the Reef Trust has accepted offset liability.


COLUMN G: ADMINISTRATION FEE

The administration fee is necessary to account for the costs of delivering projects on ground (in alignment to administrative costs allowed for government investment) including the management, monitoring and (if necessary) adaptation of the offset. Should the proponent be delivering the offsets, there would be administrative costs associated with that delivery as well. Administration fees are not kept by the Reef Trust but are passed through to implementing partner(s).

COLUMN H: LIABILITY

This column is the financial liability that is the result of the risk and time adjusted cost plus the administration fee. Liability is calculated for each surrogate, and then summed across surrogates. This is the financial contribution which will be reflected in the condition of approval for the referral.

Table 1-2: Time Delay Factor

Time delay between impact and achievement of no-net-loss (# years or

partial years; discount rate 5%)

Time Delay Factor

0 1.00

1 1.05

2 1.10

3 1.16

4 1.22

5 1.28

6 1.34

7 1.41

8 1.48

9 1.55

10 1.63

11 1.71

12 1.80

13 1.89

14 1.98

15 2.08

16 2.18

17 2.29

18 2.41

19 2.53

20 2.65


For the prototype calculator to be fully operational, Maron et al. (2016) recommended that the following items should be addressed:

● Review of mapping of MNES to Surrogates : clear and precise mapping of all MNES to the list of surrogates to ensure that no MNES are inadvertently missed or inadequately accounted for by the surrogates.

● Surrogate Metrics: for some of the recommended surrogates, further research is required to determine the most suitable unit of measurement that will allow for quantifiable estimates of impacts and gains.

● Surrogate Condition Factors: for each surrogate, further research and expert elicitation are required to set default surrogate condition factors, based on the condition, trend, resilience, and other factors of the underlying MNES. These may vary among implementation zones. Risk premiums will need to be updated periodically in alignment with Reef 2050 timeframes.

● Surrogate Cost per Unit: for each surrogate, further research and expert elicitation are required to develop robust estimates to use as default implementation costs per unit surrogate. These estimates can be based on known and predicted costs and effectiveness of conservation, restoration, and management activities for underlying MNES, and updated periodically in alignment with Reef 2050 timeframes. Expert elicitation and review of existing work, as well as the outcomes of projects funded through the NESP Tropical Water Quality Hub, may provide more data to support these recommendations.

● Number of units impacted: an approach is needed to define and guide proponents and assessors in measuring the number of units of a surrogate which will be impacted by a proposed action and which require offsets. This connects directly to the estimated impacts measured through the Environmental Impact Assessment process.

● Data availability in referrals : recommendations may need to be made regarding the environmental assessment process to ensure that appropriate and adequate information is gathered in the referral stage to make the calculator usable and accurate should it end up being used post-approval. The information required is basic (e.g., what matters are expected to be impacted, how much, and through what process), and collecting it is likely to be standard in impact assessments, but ensuring it is expressed explicitly in impact assessment reports will help ensure ease of use of the calculator.

● Counterfactuals: the Department, in coordination with other government agencies will need to consider the appropriate counterfactual scenarios for each surrogate. These counterfactuals will need to consider both condition and trend data, as well as planned and funded interventions.

1.3 Spatial Prioritisation and Co-Location of OffsetsTo date, offsets in the Reef have been assessed and implemented by proponents of development (‘proponents’) on a per-project basis, leading to fragmentation and inefficiencies (Bos et al. 2014). The prototype calculator (Maron et al. 2016) recommends that offsets be implemented in a three to five consolidated, strategic zones across the region to maximise the likelihood of success and to improve cost effectiveness by co-locating implementation, monitoring, and management. The Reef Trust has the ability to improve and consolidate marine offsets in the region, which could significantly increase the likelihood that marine biodiversity offsets achieve no-net-loss, but there are several technical and policy elements that require research and careful design to avoid suboptimal outcomes. Ad-hoc offsets, occurring to varying degrees throughout the GBRWHA, are unlikely to be effective in achieving outcomes at the landscape scale. Until recently, United States wetland mitigation required that compensatory action be in areas directly adjacent to the impact site, but this approach has been criticised for being reactive and piecemeal, leading to inadequate compensation at the watershed scale (McKinney and Kiesecker 2010). Best practice for offsetting is that offsets should occur as close as possible to the impact site, or at least in the same watershed, though the restoration or protection of habitat for threatened species conservation may occur across a wider landscape (BBOP, 2012b). Just how far an offset can be implemented across the wider landscape has not been explored fully in the research (Kiesecker et al., 2009), however allowing some flexibility in space could lead to more coordinated conservation networks and facilitate threat avoidance (Bull, Hardy, Moilanen, & Gordon, 2015). Composite offsetting or offsetting at


multiple locations is also quite common, and is useful for spreading risk across the landscape, but also to ensure that all the biodiversity lost will have gains elsewhere (BBOP, 2012a). The selection of any offset location should be determined based on landscape level analysis of both local and regional priorities, as well as ecosystem processes (BBOP, 2012a). For example, it would be counterproductive to offset seagrass in a busy port that will likely need maintenance dredging every few years, a better outcome would be to co-locate the offset elsewhere in the region. Because marine offsets are not yet widespread globally however, there are few examples of how co-located offsets should occur. One example comes from an offshore wind farm in the Netherlands where offshore impacts were mitigated onshore through the expansion of a coastal and migratory bird reserve, restoration and decontamination of a dune valley, a fund for migratory bird and other marine species and support for removal of marine litter (Vaissière, Levrel, Pioch, & Carlier, 2014). However, objections to this type of flexibility in offset location are that equivalency becomes a problem, for example onshore conservation for offshore impacts (Vaissiere et al. 2014), that it could lead to localized loss of cultural values or ecosystem services (BBOP, 2012a), or out of kind exchanges and a ‘weakening’ of offset policy. For these reasons, explicit tracking of impacts and commensurate offset actions is needed. For migratory species it has been suggested that threat alleviation anywhere within a highly mobile species range could provide better outcomes for species (Bull, Suttle, Singh, & Milner-Gulland, 2013). While this type of flexibility could be appropriate for some species, for others, offset action close to the impact site or within the catchment area would be considered best practice, especially for those habitat surrogates that act as important systems for other MNES (e.g. Seagrass and Dugongs or Green turtles). For example, the selection of offset locations for individual species should be based on population scale data for the value being offset. However, this entails having some level of data on population genetics at a local and regional scale. The Great Barrier Reef region is divided into five Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions: Cape York, Wet Tropics, Burdekin, Mackay-Whitsunday, Fitzroy, Burnett-Mary (see Figure 1-1). The NRM regions are planning units for water quality and catchment management, and could serve as useful boundaries for offset co-location.

Offset location priorities are likely to differ based on the type of surrogate (water quality, habitat, and species) and also according to the migratory nature of the species. For this reason, the literature review and expert elicitation investigated the optimal offset location boundaries for each surrogate.


Figure 1-1: Regional Natural Resource Management Regions in the Great Barrier Reef catchments. (Brodie & Waterhouse, 2009).


1.4 MethodsThe methods for the development of the final Reef Trust Offsets Plan and Calculator are summarised in Figure 1-2 and described thereafter.

Figure 1-2: Methods for the development of the final Reef Trust Offsets Plan and Calculator

1.4.1 Literature ReviewIn order to determine the amount of data available compared to the data required to complete the project, a thorough review of the relevant literature was completed. Two major recent reports, the GBR Strategic Assessment and the GBR Outlook Report 2014, consolidate the literature on the state of the GBR and acted as guidance documents to determine where additional research was needed. The reports also provide a guide to other relevant literature on the review topics. For each topic reviewed, targeted searches were performed using search engines like google and google scholar. Once literature on a topic was found, the reference list of that document was also searched to ensure all relevant literature had been identified. This included both published literature as well as grey literature such as government and non-government documents, reports and websites.

1.4.2 Discussion PaperA discussion paper summarising the project background and objectives, and the findings of the literature review was distributed to all prospective experts. The discussion paper also put forth the questions the experts would be asked in the elicitation process and summarised the findings that were established in the literature review. The purpose of the paper was to give participants the necessary background information to contextualise the project, and to demonstrate the findings of the literature review to aid in gathering additional information through the elicitation process.


1.4.3 Expert Elicitation Expert elicitation is the synthesis of opinions of authorities on a subject, where there is uncertainty due to insufficient data or when such data is unattainable because of physical constraints or lack of resources (O’Hagan 2006, Slottje et al. 2008, Johnson et al., 2010, French 2011). Expert judgements are essential when time and resources are stretched, or when novel dilemmas require fast solutions (Burgmann et al. 2011). Expert elicitation is essentially a scientific consensus methodology that allows for parameterization, or an "educated guess” for the respective topic under study, while quantifying uncertainty (Johnson et al., 2010; French 2011). To address the data requirements outlined by the Phase 1 project (additional information above) and the gaps identified in the literature review, an expert elicitation process was conducted via a two-part online questionnaire.

A total of 49 experts (n=49) responded to the online expert elicitation, which represents a response rate of 64% (see Table 1-3). The experts on average had 15 years of experience in their area of expertise (see Table 1-4). The experts on average had 18 years of experience working and/or studying in the Great Barrier Reef Region (see Table 1-5). The majority of experts self-identified as academic scientists (n=23), while other experts represented government, industry, environmental consulting, and non-profit organisations (see Figure 1-3).

Table 1-3: Expert Response Rates for Rounds 1 and 2 of the Online Expert Elicitation

Number PercentageTotal number of experts who responded ( Round 1 or 2 or both) 49 64%No Response 25 33%Round 1 and 2 22 29%Round 1 Only 17 22%Round 2 Only 10 13%

Table 1-4: Self-reported years in area of expertise (n=49)

Range 0-40Median 12Average 15

Table 1-5: Self-reported years in the Great Barrier Reef region (n=49)

Range 3-40Median 15Average 18


Figure 1-3: Self-reported sector of expert respondents (n=49)

1.4.4 Stakeholder WorkshopsFollowing the expert elicitation process, a series of short, targeted workshops were performed to inform any remaining gaps in the data and to ensure the best available scientific evidence has been used to inform decision making around the use of the offset calculator. Three stakeholder workshops were conducted in November 2016:

● November 18, 2016: Townsville, attended by representatives of industry, government, and non-governmental organisations.

● November 22, 2016: Brisbane, attended by representatives of industry, government, and non-governmental organisations.

● November 23, 2016: Canberra, attended by representatives of government.


Appendix 2. Offset Approaches for SurrogatesSurrogates Available for Reef Trust Offset Calculator

2.1 Sediment

DEFINITIONThe surrogate "suspended sediment" is defined as "tonnes of suspended sediment, including clay, silt, and sand” per the Wentworth classification system (Wentworth 1922).

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Underfunded restoration actions within the WQIP for the NRM region, above the threshold of industry best practice

Offset Cost Calculator available; costs per tonne based on peer-reviewed GBR project cost data (Rolfe and Windle 2016)

Offset Location Offset implemented at a minimum within the same NRM region as the impact; when possible, the offset will be implemented in the same catchment as the impact

OFFSET ACTIONSInvestment in underfunded priority actions that are not part of existing government commitments, as defined within the Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP) for each NRM region1, are considered to provide the best opportunity to achieve no net loss. Actions must be above the threshold of Paddock to Reef Program Management Practice Benchmarks. These actions may include but are not limited to:

● revegetating or restoring riparian areas, ● constructed or natural wetlands,● restoring agricultural land with highly erodible soils, ● farm contour planning, ● treatment trains, ● wetlands (includes sediment detention basins) on farm, ● gully remediation (including alluvial), ● streambank remediation,● weed control for maintenance of revegetation, ● feral pig control for maintenance of revegetation,● maintenance and restoration of coastal ecosystems (e.g. salt-marshes, mangroves, riparian forests,

sea grass).

OFFSET COSTThe marine offsets calculator will be able to be used for the sediment surrogate. The surrogate unit cost for sediment is the Great Barrier Reef-wide benchmark recommended by the recent Australian Government-funded catchment restoration projects in the NRM regions (Rolfe and Windle 2016). The cost is $259/ tonne of suspended fine sediment. As additional cost and efficacy data is gathered, these costs will be reviewed and updated as necessary (See Review & Adaptation Section).

1 WQIP available for download from: https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/water_quality_improvement_plans.htmlREEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 26 of 141

OFFSET LOCATIONTo maximise effectiveness, the location for the offset must be selected based on the following considerations:

● The offset site must be placed within the same catchment basin as the impact site when a suitable offset site can be found within the catchment basin boundaries. In cases where suitable sites are not available within the same catchment basin, the offset site must be located within the same NRM region as the impact site.

● Connectivity and interdependencies with other ecosystems,● Location of dams or similar features below the intervention site which may preclude benefits

reaching the Reef,● Ongoing and chronic anthropogenic impacts that will affect restoration and recovery,● Ongoing and planned conservation interventions that could be leveraged,● Sediment retention impacts of offset activities,● Spatial priorities identified within the WQIP for the relevant NRM region.


2.2 Nitrogen

DEFINITIONThe metric for nitrogen is defined as kilograms (kg) of dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN).

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Underfunded restoration actions within the WQIP for the NRM region, above the threshold of industry best practice

Offset Cost Calculator available; costs based on peer-reviewed GBR project cost data (Rolfe and Windle 2016)

Offset Location Offset implemented at a minimum within the same NRM region as the impact; when possible, the offset will be implemented in the same catchment as the impact

OFFSET ACTIONSInvestment in underfunded priority actions that are not part of existing government commitments, as defined within the WQIP for each NRM region2, are considered to provide the best opportunity to achieve no net loss. Actions must be above the threshold of Paddock to Reef Program Management Practice Benchmarks. DIN offset actions may include but are not limited to:

● Riparian restoration,● treatment trains, ● development and/or implementation of property plans or farm management systems,● validated farm management training and extension,● practices that reduce fertiliser loss and improve its efficiency on farm land,● improving the management and water use efficiency of irrigation water,● the adoption of innovative approaches to reduce nutrient, sediment, and pesticide loads delivered to

streams draining into the Great Barrier Reef lagoon where they have quantifiable water quality benefits.

OFFSET COSTThe marine offsets calculator will be able to be used for the sediment surrogate. The surrogate unit cost for sediment is the Great Barrier Reef-wide benchmark recommended by the recent Australian Government-funded catchment restoration projects in the NRM regions (Rolfe and Windle 2016). The cost is $150/tonne of suspended fine sediment. As additional cost and efficacy data is gathered, these costs will be reviewed and updated as necessary (See Review & Adaptation Section).


● The offset site must be placed within the same catchment as the impact site when a suitable offset site can be found within the catchment boundaries. In cases where suitable sites are not available within the same catchment, the offset site must be located within the same NRM region as the impact site.

● Connectivity and interdependencies with other ecosystems,● Location of dams or similar features below the intervention site which may preclude benefits

reaching the Reef,

2 WQIP available for download from: https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/water_quality_improvement_plans.htmlREEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 28 of 141

● Ongoing and chronic anthropogenic impacts that will affect restoration and recovery,● Ongoing and planned conservation interventions that could be leveraged,● Spatial priorities identified within the WQIP for the relevant NRM region.


2.3 Mangroves

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for Mangroves is extent (ha) of mangrove forest habitat (variable by type e.g., riverine and scrub) multiplied by a habitat condition metric together with associated mangrove species.

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Restoration and threat mitigation actions. Research and other non-direct actions limited to no more than 10% of total offset cost per surrogate.

Offset Cost Calculator available; costs based on median costs in developed countries from a peer-reviewed global meta-analysis (Bayraktarov et al. 2016)

Offset Location Offset implemented within the same NRM region as impact

OFFSET ACTIONSFor residual impacts that can not be mediated through water quality offsets (Tier 1), offset funds will be invested in both passive and active mangrove restoration and related partnerships, and threat mitigation, guided by expert opinion.

Restoration actions include but are not limited to:

● planting of mangrove propagules● restoring hydrological connectivity● tidal flow regime of existing mangrove forests● contouring the site to intertidal elevations favourable for mangroves● clearing invasive plants● planting of appropriate saltmarsh species to trap mangrove seeds at high tide from adjacent forests● feral animal control on adjacent sites

Both passive and active restoration actions may require partnership actions. Partners - including Traditional Owners, local managers, and other key stakeholders - may be engaged in developing regional mangrove management plans.

OFFSET COSTThe median unit cost for this surrogate is based on the peer-reviewed 2016 global meta-analysis of 235 studies with 954 observations from worldwide coastal and marine restoration projects to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of restoring coastal habitats (Baykratarov et al. 2016). The median cost for restoration of this surrogate in developed countries was extracted and then converted to 2016 AUD (converted from 2010 USD to 2015 AUD using the PPP from the OECD, and then converted from 2015 AUD to 2016 AUD using the inflation rates from the Reserve Bank of Australia).

This data was determined to be the best available, however the data does carry some caveats (please see Baykratarov et al. 2016). When Reef regional data is adequate, this cost estimate will be reviewed (see Review and Adaptive Management Section).


● The offset site must be placed within the same catchment as the impact site when a suitable offset site can be found within the catchment boundaries. In cases where suitable sites are not available


within the same catchment, the offset site must be located within the same NRM region as the impact site.

● Connectivity and interdependencies with other ecosystems,● Changes in feature distribution through succession after disturbance,● Ongoing and chronic anthropogenic impacts that will affect restoration and recovery,● Ongoing and planned conservation interventions that could be leveraged.


2.4 Seagrass

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for seagrass is defined as extent (ha) of seagrass meadow habitat (both intertidal and subtidal) multiplied by a habitat condition metric together with associated benthic species.

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Restoration and Threat Mitigation


Offset Location Offset implemented offshore of the same NRM region as impact

OFFSET ACTIONSFor residual impacts that can not be mediated through water quality offsets (Tier 1), offset funds will be invested in seagrass restoration and threat mitigation, guided by expert opinion. Offset actions could include but are not limited to active restoration, such as the planting of seagrass or seeding of seagrass, or actions such as the installation of seagrass friendly moorings where appropriate.


This data was determined to be the best available, however the data does carry caveats (please see Baykratarov et al. 2016). When Reef regional data is adequate, this cost estimate will be reviewed (see Review and Adaptive Management Section).


● The offset site must be placed offshore of the same catchment as the impact site when a suitable offset site can be found offshore of the catchment. In cases where suitable sites are not available offshore of the same catchment, the offset site must be located offshore of the same NRM region as the impact site.

● Connectivity and interdependencies with other ecosystems,● Changes in feature distribution through succession after disturbance,● Ongoing and chronic anthropogenic impacts that will affect restoration and recovery,● Ongoing and planned conservation interventions that could be leveraged.


2.5 Shallow Reef

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for shallow coral reef is defined as extent (ha) of shallow (< 30m) coral reef habitat multiplied by a habitat condition metric together with the associated benthic species.

OFFSET APPROACH



Offset Location Offset implemented offshore of the same NRM region as impact

OFFSET ACTIONSFor residual impacts that can not be mediated through water quality offsets (Tier 1), offset funds will be invested in passive and active shallow reef restoration, threat mitigation, and related partnerships, guided by expert opinion and in partnership with the GBRMPA.

Coral restoration and habitat enhancement are feasible and in some cases successful in improving coral spawning stock on degraded reefs (Spadaro, 2014). In addition, coral larval rearing and transplant and the installation of artificial reefs have been identified as plausible offset options for coral restoration and enhancement (Jones et al., 2015) and provide an array of services including enhancing habitat for fish and other species (State of Western Australia, 2012). Other restoration techniques include ex-situ coral cultivation, growing corals, and transplantation of coral (Bayraktarov et al., 2016). The most cost-effective restoration techniques involve rearing of coral fragments in protected in-situ coral nurseries and out-planting of fully grown coral colonies to the degraded reefs (Bayraktarov et al. 2016).

Offset funds may be invested in threat mitigation actions beyond core government commitments.




● The offset site must be placed offshore of the same catchment as the impact site when a suitable offset site can be found offshore of the catchment. In cases where suitable sites are not available offshore of the same catchment, the offset site must be located offshore of the same NRM region as the impact site.

● Connectivity and interdependencies with other ecosystems,


● Changes in feature distribution through succession after disturbance,● Ongoing and chronic anthropogenic impacts that will affect restoration and recovery,● Ongoing and planned conservation interventions that could be leveraged.


2.6 Saltmarsh

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for saltmarsh is defined as extent (ha) of saltmarsh habitat multiplied by a condition metric.

OFFSET APPROACH



Offset Location Offset implemented within the same NRM region as impact

Restoration actions include but are not limited to:

● restoring hydrological connectivity,● tidal flow regime of existing intertidal habitats,● contouring the site to favourable elevations,● clearing invasive plants/vegetation,● planting of appropriate species to trap intertidal plant seeds at high tide from adjacent habitats,● feral animal control on adjacent sites,● planting of saltmarsh plant species,● Planting saltmarsh seeds, seedlings or sods.

Restoration actions may require partnership actions. Partners - including Traditional Owners, local managers, and other key stakeholders - may be engaged in developing regional intertidal restoration and management plans.




● The offset site must be placed within the same catchment as the impact site when a suitable offset site can be found within the catchment boundaries. In cases where suitable sites are not available within the same catchment, the offset site must be located within the same NRM region as the impact site.

● Connectivity and interdependencies with other ecosystems,● Ongoing and chronic anthropogenic impacts that will affect restoration and recovery,● Ongoing and planned conservation interventions that could be leveraged.


Surrogates to be Proponent-Negotiated Ad Hoc Offsets until offset data is adequate for calculator2.7 Intertidal beach/mudflat/rocky shore habitat and associated species

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for intertidal beach, rocky shore and mudflats is defined as extent (ha) of habitat multiplied by a habitat condition metric together with all associated shorebird, marine turtle and benthic species.

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Conservation, threat mitigation, and related actions guided by expert opinion

Offset Cost Calculator not yet available; Project-by-project determination of cost

Offset Location Project-by-project determination

As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the intertidal beach/mudflat/rocky shore habitat and associated species surrogate. Conservation and threat mitigation actions, along with cost and location, should be determined on a project-by-project basis in the interim.


2.8 Deep reef habitat and species

2.8.1 DEFINITIONThe surrogate for deep reefs is extent (ha) of deep (> 30m) reef habitat multiplied by a condition metric together with the associated benthic species.

OFFSET APPROACH




As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the deep reef habitat and species surrogate. Conservation and threat mitigation actions, along with cost and location, should be determined on a project-by-project basis in the interim.


2.9 Lagoon floor habitat and species

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for lagoons is defined as extent (ha) of lagoon habitat multiplied by a condition metric, together with the associated benthic species.

OFFSET APPROACH


Offset Cost Calculator not yet available; Project-by-project determination of costs


As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the lagoon floor habitat and species surrogate. Conservation and threat mitigation actions, along with cost and location, should be determined on a project-by-project basis in the interim.


2.10 Shoal habitat and species

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for shoals is extent (ha) of shoal habitat multiplied by a condition metric together with the associated benthic species.

OFFSET APPROACH




As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the shoal habitat and species surrogate. Conservation and threat mitigation actions, along with cost and location, should be determined on a project-by-project basis in the interim.


2.11 Island vegetation

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for island terrestrial vegetation is defined as extent (ha) of habitat multiplied by a condition metric.

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Restoration, invasive species removal and other threat mitigation actions



Offset funds must be invested in restoration and threat mitigation actions including but not limited to:

● Invasive plant and animal control and eradication,● Revegetation,● Other anthropogenic impact mitigation.

As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the island vegetation surrogate. Data on actions, costs, and efficacy are being accumulated and assessed through several research projects, including Pressey & Wenger 2015 and the ongoing NESP-funded project 4.2: Saving Species on Australian Islands.3 When adequate data are available, the calculator may become available in the future.

3 http://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.au/projects/saving-species-on-australian-islandsREEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 40 of 141

2.12 Halimeda

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for Halimeda is defined as extent (ha) of Halimeda bank habitat multiplied by a condition metric together with the associated benthic species.

OFFSET APPROACH




As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the Halimeda surrogate. Conservation and threat mitigation actions, along with cost and location, should be determined on a project-by-project basis in the interim, guided by expert opinion.


2.13 Bony Fish

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for bony fish is defined as kilograms (kg) of biomass.

OFFSET APPROACH




As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the bony fish surrogate.

Some impacts to bony fish can be mediated through Tier 1 (water quality) and Tier 2 (habitat) offsets. Offset funds for remaining significant residual impacts should be invested into conservation and threat mitigation actions guided by expert opinion and determined on a project-by-project basis.

The cost of the offset would be determined by the cost to implement the selected action. Offset costs in surrogate units are not yet available.

Location needs to be determined on a project-by-project basis until more data is available. Considerations for location include:

● Residency and habitat dependence on location,● Genetic stock of the impacted species,● Extent of home range for the species, and location within home range that conservation intervention

is most likely to affect positive change,● Nursery areas and other important areas for ecological function,● Scale of impact,● Location of impact and environmental quality at impact site,● Type of offset action,● Water quality affecting important habitat at the offset site,● Leveraging other conservation actions, funded by governments, offsets, or other sources, by co-

locating offsets in overlapping or adjacent sites.


2.14 Sharks and Rays

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for sharks and rays is defined as the number of individuals of key species.

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Conservation and Threat Mitigation actions guided by the National Action Plan for Sharks, National Sawfish and River Sharks Multispecies Recovery Plan, National Recovery Plan for the White Shark Phase II, and expert opinion



As of October 2016, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the sharks and rays surrogate.

Offset funds could be invested into conservation and threat mitigation actions that are guided by underfunded actions within the:

● Second National Action Plan for Sharks (Shark Plan 2),4 ● National Sawfish and River Sharks Multispecies Recovery Plan5

● National Recovery Plan for the White Shark Phase II,6

and by expert opinion. For species that are not covered by the plans above, additional actions for consideration include:

● identify critical coastal habitats that could be at risk from coastal development ● develop a harvest strategy for the Queensland east coast inshore finfish fishery that includes

monitoring and evaluation for shark impacts.


Location needs to be determined on a project-by-project basis until more data is available. Considerations for location include:

● Residency and habitat dependence on location,● Genetic stock of the impacted species,● Extent of home range for the species, and location within home range that conservation intervention

is most likely to affect positive change,● Nursery areas and other important areas for ecological function,● Scale of impact,● Location of impact and environmental quality at impact site,● Type of offset action,● Water quality affecting important habitat at the offset site,● Leveraging other conservation actions, funded by governments, offsets, or other sources, by co-

locating offsets in overlapping or adjacent sites.

4http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/fisheries/environment/sharks/sharkplan2-final/sharkplan2-action.pdf5http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/062794ac-ef99-4fc8-8c18-6c3cd5f6fca2/files/sawfish-river-sharks-multispecies-recovery-plan.pdf6 https://www.environment.gov.au/resource/recovery-plan-white-shark-carcharodon-carchariasREEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 43 of 141

2.15 Sea Snakes

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for sea snakes is defined as number of individuals.

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Conservation & threat mitigation actions guided by expert opinion



As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the sea snakes surrogate.

Offset funds could be invested in conservation and threat mitigation actions guided by expert opinion. A Reef regional conservation strategy for sea snakes is needed. Actions to be considered include:

● Conservation○ by-catch reduction devices,○ improving seagrass habitat (see Tiers 1 and 2).

● Research○ impact of shorter trawl times on sea snakes,○ impact of climate change on sea snakes,○ cumulative impact assessment,○ other measures to mitigate the impacts of trawling areas with high mortality,○ desktop review of species-specific vulnerability,○ threat assessments based on life history,○ adequacy of marine reserves in protecting sea snakes,○ genomic connectivity assessments of the sixteen Reef species,○ monitoring of threats and interactions (trawl, dredging and coastal development, offshore

mining).


Experts agreed that sea snake offsets should be located away from the impact site and in the area that is most likely to deliver maximum benefits for the affected population. Location needs to be determined on a project-by-project basis until more data is available. High priority areas to be considered include:

● inshore areas of the Central Reef, ● offshore southern reef habitats of the Reef,● Princess Charlotte Bay, ● Cleveland Bay, ● Townsville, ● Coral Sea, ● Keppels, ● Swains-Pompey Reef Complex.

Additional considerations for location include:

● Genetic stock of the impacted species,● Extent of home range for the species, and location within home range that conservation intervention

is most likely to affect positive change,● Scale of impact,


● Location of impact and environmental quality at impact site,● Type of offset action,● Water quality, particularly sediment levels, affecting seagrass habitat at the offset site,● Leveraging other conservation actions, funded by governments, offsets, or other sources, by co-

locating offsets in overlapping or adjacent sites,● Chronic impacts within port areas may decrease likelihood of offset success and may be cause for

locating the offset in another area.


2.16 Marine Turtles

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for marine turtles is defined as number of individuals.

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Conservation actions guided by the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan (forthcoming 2016), Klein et al. 2016, and expert opinion



As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the marine turtles surrogate.

Offset funds could be invested into conservation actions that are guided by:

● Draft Marine turtle recovery plan: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/recovery-plans/comment/draft-recovery-plan-marine-turtles,

● Conservation Values Atlas: http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-bioregional-plans/conservation-values-atlas,

● Klein et al. 2016 (peer-reviewed journal article that defines management actions for flatback sea turtles which could be appropriate for other species, and has input from many key turtle experts); actions include:

○ reduce the glow during nesting season,○ manage (trap, bait, shoot) foxes, feral pigs, and dogs in sea turtle nesting habitat, ○ protect freehold and lands lease land (295 km 2) from coastal development,○ buyout trawling and gill net fishing licenses in Reef, any fishery with high incidental

interaction with marine turtles (ie Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery),○ artificially shade nests,○ protect additional breeding and feeding habitat through the use of protected areas,○ rubbish removal (i.e., ghost nets, large scale plastics pollution).

● Actions identified during the expert elicitation including:○ restoration of Raine Island as sea turtle nesting habitat,○ robust definition of Biologically Important Areas (BIAS) by experts,○ finalisation of referral guidelines,○ Indigenous rangers programs funded securely in long term with robust on going training on

monitoring megafauna,○ predator control at nests,○ fishing line and rubbish removal bins to prevent marine debris impacts,○ TUMRAs with remote Indigenous hunting communities,○ reduction of glow from boats and land based sources of pollution near nesting sites,○ development of robust means of reducing risk of vessel strike in high risk area,○ removal of breakwaters to restore natural sand flow regime,○ ongoing monitoring in-water and nesting distribution and abundance of each species as part

of Integrated monitoring program,○ closure of gill net fishery in BIAS and remote areas where surveillance is impossible,○ observers/video on vessels in inshore gill net fishery,○ surveillance of use of TEDs in Trawl fishery,○ replacement of SOCI with robust incident reporting,○ education of fishers,○ TUMRAs with remote Indigenous hunting communities.



Location should be determined on a project-by-project basis. Some considerations for location determination include:

● critical habitat and buffer zones,● genetic stock of the impacted species,● extent of home range for the species, and location within home range that conservation intervention

is most likely to affect positive change,● scale of impact,● location of impact and environmental quality at impact site,● type of offset action,● water quality, particularly sediment levels, affecting seagrass habitat at the offset site,● leveraging other conservation actions, funded by governments, offsets, or other sources, by co-

locating turtle offsets in overlapping or adjacent sites,● chronic impacts within port areas may decrease likelihood of offset success and may be cause for



2.17 Estuarine Crocodiles

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for crocodiles is defined as number of individuals.

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Conservation & threat mitigation actions guided by the Conservation Plan 2007



As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the estuarine crocodiles surrogate.

Actions should be guided both by expert opinion and the Queensland Government Crocodile Conservation Plan and Management Program.7 Actions need to be costed, and spatial priority locations determined on a project-by-project basis in the interim.

7 https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/livingwith/crocodiles/crocodile_plan.htmlREEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 48 of 141

2.18 Seabirds

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for seabirds is the number of individuals.

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Conservation & threat mitigation actions guided by the GBRMPA Seabird Vulnerability Assessment 2012, national threat abatement plans related to seabirds, and expert opinion



As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the seabirds surrogate.

Priority actions for the conservation of seabirds include the removal of marine debris (listed as a key threatening process; Wilcox, Van Sebille, & Hardesty, 2015), limiting access to sensitive areas not already under conservation land tenure and limiting the impact of long-line fisheries on seabird populations in the region, an activity that is also listed as a key threatening process for the species (Turner et al., 2006). Continuing monitoring programs and increasing management and monitoring of key breeding sites in the region could better conserve pelagic seabirds in the region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011d). Inshore seabirds would benefit from prioritising monitoring location where species are most vulnerable, continuing pest control at key breeding sites, and the management and protection of known important forage-fish resources, especially where they overlap with commercial and recreational fishing areas (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011b). In addition, a variety of critical threat mitigation and monitoring priorities are listed in a report on seabirds and shorebirds in the face of climate change in the Reef region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008).

Underfunded actions listed in the 2012 GBRMPA Vulnerability Assessment could be considered, including but not limited to8:

● control of pest flora and fauna,● maintain the ecological influence of fire,● identify and support research options that further improve knowledge of species and colony-specific

foraging strategies, localities and trophic interplays within the Great Barrier Reef Region for inshore and coastal foraging seabird species,

● explore spatial and temporal management options that enable the protection of known important seabird forage-fish resources and trophic interplays (such as large predator fish driving prey species to the surface of the water), especially where they overlap with commercial or recreational fishing use.

National threat abatement plans under the EPBC Act define actions that government agencies are required to implement. While the actions within these plans are not suitable for offset funding, these plans provide additional context and guidance on seabird conservation.

● Threat Abatement Plan 2014 for the incidental catch (or bycatch) of seabirds during oceanic longline fishing operations9,

● Threat Abatement Plan for Exotic Rodents 200910,

8 http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/21729/gbrmpa-VA-InshoreCoastalSeabirds-11-7-12.pdf9 http://www.antarctica.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/21509/Threat-Abatement-Plan-2014.pdf10 http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/9650ca7f-e2bf-4720-a246-fea0cf287318/files/exotic-rodents.pdfREEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 49 of 141

● Threat Abatement Plan for Feral Cats 201511.


The location of the offset would be determined by the selected action. There is insufficient data and expert agreement on regional spatial priorities for seabird offset implementation. Project-by-project determination of location is recommended in the interim.

11http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/78f3dea5-c278-4273-8923-fa0de27aacfb/files/tap-predation-feral-cats-2015.pdfREEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 50 of 141

2.19 Shorebirds

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for shorebirds is number of individuals.

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Conservation & threat mitigation actions guided by expert opinion and for migratory shorebirds, actions also guided by the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (2015)



As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the shorebirds surrogate.

Priority actions for shorebird conservation revolve around habitat protection, especially for migratory species both inside the Reef region and in other locations throughout the flyway (Clemens et al., 2016; Iwamura et al., 2013). Other actions include removal of ghost gear such as fishing nets, though mortality has not been quantified from this source, and reduction in anthropogenic disturbance at key locations (ie dogs and people at post-breeding sites), removal and/or remediation of chronic pollution in feeding areas as shorebirds bioaccumulate herbicides and pesticides, invasive species control, such as flora and fauna species that impact wetland areas, and predator removal in key areas (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015c). In addition, a variety of critical threat mitigation and monitoring priorities are listed in a report on seabirds and shorebirds in the face of climate change in the Reef region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008).

Underfunded priority actions defined within the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (2015) 12 - beyond habitat actions addressed through Tiers 1 and 2 - including but not limited to:

● community education and awareness program to reduce recreational impacts,● investigate the impacts of climate change on migratory shorebirds,● investigate the significance of cumulative impacts on migratory shorebirds,● investigate the impact of hunting and prey harvesting,● identify and prioritise knowledge gaps,● identify important stopover and staging areas in key flyways,● identify important habitats in Northern and inland Australia,● promote conservation through strategic programmes and educational products,● promote knowledge exchange.


The location of the offset would be determined by the selected action. There is insufficient data on BIAS and insufficient expert agreement on regional spatial priorities for shorebird offset implementation. Project-by-project determination of location is recommended in the interim.

12http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/9995c620-45c9-4574-af8e-a7cfb9571deb/files/widlife-conservation-plan-migratory-shorebirds.pdfREEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 51 of 141

2.20 Whales

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for whales is defined as number of individuals.

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Conservation & threat mitigation actions guided by the Blue Whale Conservation and Management Plan 2015 and expert opinion



As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the whales surrogate.

Actions should be guided by:

● Conservation advice for the humpback whale: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/38-conservation-advice-10102015.pdf

● Draft vessel strike strategy: http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine-species/draft-national-vessel-strike-strategy

● Conservation Values Atlas: http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-bioregional-plans/conservation-values-atlas.

Actions to remove threats such as reducing entanglements and interactions with fishing gear, including entanglements in rock lobster pot lines which has been increasing, water quality improvements, reduction in marine debris, reduction in noise interference and reducing boat strikes as vessel numbers and populations grow in the region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007, 2014d; Environment, 2016) will benefit the population. In addition, Bryde’s whales are under-studied and more information is needed on the ecology of feeding, nursery and calving areas in the region, surveys and threat mitigation to determine distribution and abundance of the population and ongoing monitoring (Department of the Environment, 2016a). Underfunded (not defined as “core government business” or required by other relevant government commitments and policies) actions defined by the Department’s Blue whale conservation and management plan (2015-2025)13 should be considered.

The cost of the offset would be determined by the cost to implement the selected action. Indicative costs are included in Australia 2015. Offset costs in surrogate units are not yet available.




locating offsets in overlapping or adjacent sites,

13https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/9c058c02-afd1-4e5d-abff-11cac2ebc486/files/blue-whale-conservation-management-plan.pdfREEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 52 of 141

● chronic impacts within port areas may decrease likelihood of offset success and may be cause for locating the offset in another area.


2.21 Dolphins

DefinitionThe surrogate for dolphins is number of individuals.

Offset Approach

Offset Actions Conservation & threat mitigation actions guided by the national threat mitigation framework and expert opinion



As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the dolphins surrogate.


● Conservation advice for the humpback whale: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/species/pubs/38-conservation-advice-10102015.pdf


● Conservation Values Atlas: http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-bioregional-plans/conservation-values-atlas

For inshore dolphins, recommend the underfunded actions within the coordinated national threat mitigation framework for inshore dolphins (Australia 2013). 14 Priority objectives of the framework include:

Objective 1 - Indigenous Engagement: Foster effective and informed partnerships with Australia’s Indigenous communities to enable sustainable conservation management of tropical inshore dolphins.

Objective 2 - National Distribution Data: Provide for access to and analysis of standardised national tropical dolphin data to assess distribution and underpin management and conservation.

Objective 3 - Long-term Monitoring: Gather and use information over long-term timescales to determine trends, mitigate impacts from threats, and support adaptive management and conservation of tropical inshore dolphins.

Objective 4 - Threat Risk Assessment: Identify, map and assess threats to tropical inshore dolphins, understand related impacts, and mitigate risks.

Objective 5 - Dispersal and Movement: Improve understanding (at national, regional and local scales) of dispersal, movement, and genetic connectivity of tropical inshore dolphins to aid conservation and management at appropriate geographic scales.

Objective 6 - Mortality and Life History: Foster collaborative and national approaches to effectively gather mortality, life history and dietary information from stranded and by-caught specimens.

14http://www.marinemammals.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/122670/DSEWPaC_Research_Framework_InshoreDolphins_FINAL.pdfREEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 54 of 141

Objective 7 - Citizen Science: Foster community participation in data collection on tropical inshore dolphins and develop a continuous-improvement approach to methods and related programs.

James Cook University has been funded by the Department to develop and coordinate a national threat mitigation framework for tropical inshore dolphins and this forthcoming framework could inform future offset actions.15

Through the expert elicitation process, dolphin experts identified the following actions to be considered:

● determining hotspots for dolphins in unmapped areas,● monitoring distribution and abundance of each species as part of integrated monitoring program, ● robust definition of Biologically Important Areas (BIAS) by experts,● finalisation of referral guidelines,● closure of gill net fishery in BIAS and remote areas where surveillance is impossible,● observers/video on vessels in inshore gill net fishery,● active surveillance TEDs use in Trawl fishery,● development of robust means of reducing risk of vessel strike in BIAS,● replacement of SOCI with robust incident reporting,● education of fishers,● Indigenous rangers programs funded securely in long term with robust on going training on

monitoring megafauna,● TUMRAs with remote Indigenous hunting communities.





locating offsets in overlapping or adjacent sites,● chronic impacts within port areas may decrease likelihood of offset success and may be cause for


15 http://www.nrm.gov.au/national/local/whale-dolphin-protectionREEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 55 of 141

2.22 Dugongs

DEFINITIONThe surrogate for dugongs is number of individuals.

OFFSET APPROACH

Offset Actions Conservation & threat mitigation actions guided by expert opinion



As of February 2017, there is insufficient data to use the calculator for the dugongs surrogate.

Key priorities for dugong conservation are improvements in water quality and abundance of seagrass habitat throughout the region, as these are key for dugong conservation (Department of the Environment, 2016c; Marsh et al., 2007). These actions should be addressed through the water quality (Tier 1) and habitat (Tier 2) surrogates within this Plan. Offsets for significant residual impacts to dugongs that remain after Tier 1 and Tier 2 offsets are assessed should be designed on a project-by-project basis.

Reductions in interactions and incidental catches is shark exclusion devices and in fisheries net, sustainable management of indigenous hunts, and better management of coastal development, port expansion and vessel movements could improve threats to dugong populations are important actions to consider for dugong conservation (Department of the Environment, 2016c).

The Strategic Assessment includes a demonstration case on Dugong Management and highlights threat mitigation and management priorities, but does not provide a prioritised, costed list of actions.16 Aerial surveys of dugongs are being undertaken as an offset project by Inpex, but cost and efficacy of this action need assessment.17



● Conservation Values Atlas: http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/marine/marine-bioregional-plans/conservation-values-atlas

Through the expert elicitation process, dugong experts identified the following actions to be considered:

● development of robust monitoring dugong distribution and abundance as part of integrated monitoring program,

● robust definition of Biologically Important Areas (BIAS) by experts,● finalisation of referral guidelines,● closure of gill net fishery in BIAS and remote areas where surveillance is impossible,● replacing gill nets with lines in the mackerel fishery,● observers/video on vessels in inshore gill net fishery,● replacement of SOCI with robust indices of bycatch,● education of fishers about bycatch,● Indigenous rangers programs funded securely in long term with robust on going training on

monitoring megafauna,● TUMRAs with remote Indigenous hunting communities,● development of robust means of reducing risk of vessel strike in BIAS,

16 http://www.statedevelopment.qld.gov.au/resources/report/gbr/dugongs-demonstration-case.pdf17 http://www.inpex.com.au/media/1707/coastal-offset-strategy-commonwealth-government.pdfREEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 56 of 141

● establish spatially meaningful monitoring of seagrasses in remote areas of the GBR that also support large populations of dugong such as in Princess Charlotte Bay and Shoalwater Bay to enable an understanding of likely impacts of habitat change on key dugong populations,

● monitoring of fishing activity in the gillnet fisheries and subsequent closures, licence buy backs or other to reduce effort where likelihood of interaction is high.





locating offsets in overlapping or adjacent sites,● chronic impacts within port areas may decrease likelihood of offset success and may be cause for



Appendix 3. Summary of Literature Review and Expert Elicitation3.1 Sediment

3.1.1 BackgroundModelled estimates indicate that 8500 kilo-tonnes/year of suspended sediment are delivered to the Reef annually (Waters et al., 2014) , a 3.2 to 5.5 fold increase from pre-European conditions for total suspended solids (Brodie et al., 2013b). Inshore areas, especially those close to river mouths continue to be exposed to increased sediment, and modelling from 2007 to 2011 show increased areas of sediment impact (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014c). Both Australian and State governments have recognised the need for water quality improvements, and the modelled annual average load reduction for sediment within the Reef was 12% from 2009 to 2014 (Brodie & Pearson, 2016) well below the 2018 target of 20% reductions. Current management strategies are largely associated with improvement in agricultural practices which in isolation are unlikely to maintain or restore the health of the Reef (Waterhouse, Brodie, Lewis, & Audas, 2016).

Much government funding has been allocated to reduce the amount of total suspended sediment entering the Reef region since the first iteration of the Reef Water Quality Improvement Plan in 2003, mostly focusing on improved catchment management practices. However, the overall water quality in all of the Reef catchment areas remains in poor condition (Queensland 2015).

3.1.2 Priority Actions

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThe most common action suggested was “erosion control” which included revegetating or restoring riparian areas, restoring agricultural land with highly erodible soils, reducing terrestrial run-off, reduced cultivation, farm contour planning, treatment trains, wetlands (includes sediment detention basins) on farm, gully remediation (including alluvial), streambank remediation, fencing, weed control, feral pig control. Other actions included maintenance and restoration of coastal ecosystems (e.g. salt-marshes, mangroves, riparian forests, sea grass). Specific spatial actions included, reducing range-land grazing in Burdekin, Fitzroy and Burnett Mary regions. There was a suggested action for education and training for farmers. It was recommended that offset implementation should be integrated with public erosion control program.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYFive experts responded that actions should be defined by the underfunded actions contained within the Water Quality Improvement Plans for each Natural Resources Management Region. Three of these experts provided additional comments and questions:“How success of these strategies will be measured will be difficult to quantify and prove which is essential for offsets”“I don't understand what 'reducing range-land grazing' means practically. Possibly it means reducing stocking rates of livestock to reduce grazing pressure. Possibly it means buying back grazing properties.”“Cape York WQIP also provides cost estimates and we can seek additional information from CY NRM if useful to help with cost estimates below.”

3.1.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEW

The cost and effectiveness of changing management practices to improve water quality vary significantly between different land-use categories and catchment regions on a per-hectare basis (Beher, Possingham, Hoobin, Dougall, & Klein, 2016). Alluvium (2016) recently estimated the costs to achieve water quality targets


in the Reef region. A summary of the results (relevant to fine sediment) are provided below. These costs are based on some available data, modelling, and assumptions about catchment restoration.

Mackay Whitsunday Region: ● Grazing Practice Change C to B: $67/tonne

Wet Tropics Region:● Streambank Repair Herbert 5% of Stream Length: $26/tonne● Streambank repair Herbert 6-10% of stream length: $53/tonne● Grazing Practice Change C to B: $155/tonne● Grazing Practice Change B to A: $26/tonne● Streambank Repair - Tully River 5% of stream length: $358/tonne● Streambank Repair - Tully River 6-10% of stream length: $569/tonne● Urban stormwater new development-Wet Tropics-Cairns: $125,000/tonne

Burdekin Region:● Grazing Practice Change C to B: $158/tonne● Gully-Burdekin 10% of gullies full repair (pro-rata): $140/tonne

Fitzroy Region:● Grazing Practice Change C to B: $31/tonne● Grazing Practice Change B to A: $28/tonne● Gully- Fitzroy 10% of gullies full repair: $98/tonne● Gully- Fitzroy 11% of gullies full repair: $169/tonne● Gully- Fitzroy 26% of gullies full repair: $233/tonne

Rolfe and Windle (2016) lead a NESP-funded project to investigate “benchmarking costs of agricultural water management in GBR catchments.” Within this project, Rolfe and Windle (2016) analysed cost data from Australian-government funded Reef Rescue grant projects and developed a “guide to the cost-effectiveness of various schemes by NRM group,” included next as Table 3-1.


Table 3-1: Costs of Water Quality Improvements by NRM region (Rolfe and Windle 2016)

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYSix participants provided cost information. The units are $AUD per tonne of suspended fine sediment.

Highest reasonable cost: range of $400-$1000, average of $700 per tonneLowest reasonable cost: range of $50-$250, average of $150 per tonneBest estimate: range of $150-$500, average of $300 per tonneConfidence that highest to lowest interval contains a reasonable estimate: range 10-95, average 61 (out of 100)

Participant justifications and comments:

“Lowest cost ($100) came from cost benefit analysis from reef investments over a 6 year period.”

“Highest cost ($600) from remote region estimates in Cape York.”

“Based on pilot-scale experimental work.”

“Best estimate includes a 50% premium on the plot scale estimates to account for additional factors in up-scaling to full gullies.”

“The reasonable highest cost can be determined by the economic gain from the development that is being offset.” REEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 60 of 141

“My best estimate relates to recent programs.”

“The cost will increase as the easy and rapidly eroding areas are treated and activities move to more difficult areas.”

“The cost is largely determined by the location of the works and the historical sediment loads from that catchment.”

“[Name withheld] has declined to estimate costs for offset implementation due to insufficient information and concerns with the overarching approach being taken to arrive at the value. However, the following information may assist experts involved in estimating costs for the surrogate: GBR Water Science Taskforce Final Report, Costs of achieving the water quality targets for the GBR (Alluvium, 2016) and external peer review, and Abbot Point T0, T2, T3 Capital Dredging PER Offset Strategy. When considering cost, it is essential that experts define the fraction of sediment relevant to ‘suspended fine sediment’. The NESP Project adopts a <16µ fraction for suspended fine sediment, which [we] challenged as being too high in the context of industry activities, such as dredging.”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYWhen asked about preference for estimating costs, two experts selected the option “There is sufficient published cost data. Use published cost estimates (including but not limited to Alluvium 2016 report, other recent peer-reviewed papers, industry data, and other relevant and quality-tested data). If this option is selected, the project team will make estimates based on the literature and provide the estimates (with references and justifications) for stakeholder comment during the draft plan review.”

Two experts provided cost estimates. One of these experts suggested a range of $300-$1200 AUD per tonne, with a best estimate of $600 and a confidence of 80%, based on “Reef Trust phase II Gully Erosion Control Programme preliminary progress report. These are costs averaged over reef catchments. Some catchments will give a lower cost than others.” The second expert provided the lowest reasonable estimate of $150, with a confidence of 60%, justified by “Adjustment of lowest reasonable cost based on the lifetime in which an offset will likely need to be delivered in. Estimates outlined above indicate this cost for more active remediation activities.”

Four experts selected “other” and provided the following comments:

“Given only 6 responses were received that indicates that current data is insufficient” (note that the survey did not provide an option to use the Round 1 responses and agrees that 6 responses are insufficient).

“I suspect the Alluvium costs are poorly informed and are over-estimates. The round 1 estimates are low by ~30% in my view. But As I said in round 1, a multiple (>2) should then be applied to estimate offset payment rates considering the uncertainty in current erosion rates and erosion control responses, and that there is an opportunity cost for doing erosion control for offsets in terms of reduced opportunity for publicly funded erosion control actions. Current catchment modelling estimates loads and erosion control responses (as represented in the Report Cards and the above costs per tonne) are for <63 um particle sediment. Detailed particle size monitoring would be required to determine the proportion of that which is <16 um. Costs to reduce <16 um fraction would increase by dividing above values by that proportion. The analysis of past 'cost benefit analysis from reef investments over a 6 year period' is likely to be a significant under-estimate and is not validated against on-ground changes. My understanding is that the available data does not indicate that the expected ground cover changes from land type fencing and extension in the Burdekin are materialising.”

“Option 1 but I would like to note that consideration also needs to be given to the timeframe for achieving outcomes as an offset and choosing activities that align with those timeframes. For instance, rapid achievement of outcomes tend to be the more expensive options outlined above and the cheaper options


tend to have longer timeframes for achievement of outcomes. This should be considered when providing estimates rather than choosing the cheaper option or an average of high and lower costs. This will also depend on the area where an offset should be undertaken.” (note: Option 1 was to use published cost estimates)

“[Name withheld] is unable to provide comment on the cost estimates provided by experts for the following reasons: 1) Insufficient underlying evidence or (where not available) assumptions. 2) The cost estimates provided are informed from different sources and are arguably not comparable. The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate.”

An additional comment was included “References and justifications for cost estimates should have been mandatory as part of the Round 1 survey to allow for to allow for transparency and expert critique to ensure the cost selected is scientifically robust.”

3.1.4 Spatial Priorities

LITERATURE REVIEWThe Fitzroy and Burdekin regions contribute at least 70% of modelled total suspended solids to the region, with grazing lands contributing to three quarters of this load, dominantly from gully and stream bank erosion (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014c). On a regional basis the Burdekin and Fitzroy sub-catchments are rated as very high and high priority for investment in improving grazing management because of their large area, very high total and anthropogenic loads and large capacity improvement (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014b).

The Queensland Water Quality Task Force Final Report identifies the Burdekin and Fitzroy regions for reducing sediment run-off (2016).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere were twelve responses to this question, three responded that offsets should be as close as possible to the impact site, four in the same catchment, three in the same NRM region, two within the same GBR zone. Responses were mixed with some believing that offsets should occur as close as possible, but most allowing some flexibility. However, the degree of flexibility was unclear with some focusing on the same catchment, but others allowing offsets to be anywhere it was most beneficial, either within the same GBR zone or NRM region.

The high priority areas listed for implementation of offsets for this surrogate were:

● Retirement of agricultural land (references Kroon et al. 2016,2012, Bartley et al. 2014; Thorburn & Wilkinson 2013 – believe all referenced in lit review).

● Stream bank erosion for all higher order streams (Alluvium report)● Bowen Bogie, East Burdekin, Pioneer, Mary, Lower Burdekin, Fitzroy, Don River, OConnell, Herbert,

Normanby. This is a ranking of units in descending order of contribution to TSS export from gully and streambank erosion (t/ha/y).

● A good case can be made for each scenario. Offset should produce the greatest bang for the buck in achieving the largest sediment reduction to the GBR lagoon . This may or may not occur near to the development - but it should be from a site that has high connectivity to the GBR Lagoon.

● The GBR Water Science Taskforce Final Report focuses on the priority areas for sediment.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYWhen asked about spatial priorities for implementation of sediment offsets, two experts selected “away from the impact site, but within the same catchment,” one expert selected “As close to the site of impact (development or project site) as possible,” and two experts provided comments:


“As close to the impact site as possible but only where there is likely to be a linked benefit, eg. no point spending loads of money on remediating an area of low TSS generating land if there are areas nearby or further upstream that are going to generate higher overall benefits. The Taskforce report doesn't really identify priority areas - I would suggest you closely to refer to WQIPs. We are also in the process of updating the relative risk assessment and management prioritisation for 2017 Reef Plan Update.”

“There is significant public expectation that offsets will be realised in the area of impact, if this is not able to deliver this it will be difficult for proponents to discharge through this process”“Suggest using the WQIP for each region. They highlight the high priority areas for the region in relation to this surrogate and the types of activities. They also provide references and justifications.”


3.2 Nitrogen (DIN)

3.2.1 BackgroundModelled estimates indicate a 2 to 5.7 fold increase in the amount of nitrogen entering the Reef region since European settlement (Commonwealth of Australia, 2013), to a mean annual total nitrogen load of 37,000 tonnes/year (Waters et al., 2014). Most of the southern two-thirds of the Reef system are now exposed to elevated nutrient concentrations, though there is almost no change in nutrient loads in the northern Cape York rivers (Brodie et al., 2013b). Improvements in land management practices between 2009-2013 have led to a modelled 16 percent decrease in the average annual dissolved inorganic nitrogen in the catchment (Queensland Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2014a). However, recent analysis suggests that even with full adoption of best practice (‘B’ class) management throughout the region in both cane farming and grazing industries, would only result in a 27% reduction of dissolved inorganic nitrogen, while cutting edge (‘A’ class) practices would achieve only 34% reductions (Waters et al., 2014). Without transformational improvements, the 50% reduction target for dissolved inorganic nitrogen are unlikely to be met (State of Queensland, 2016a; Thorburn et al., 2013; Waters et al., 2014).

Improvements in land management practices between 2009-2013 have led to a modelled 16 percent decrease in the average annual dissolved inorganic nitrogen in the catchment (Queensland 2015). The overall water quality in all of the Reef catchment areas remains in poor condition (Queensland 2015), especially for monitored loads of nitrogen in the wet tropics region (Queensland 2015). However, recent analysis suggests that even with full adoption of best practice (‘B’ class) management throughout the region in both cane farming and grazing industries, will only result in a 27% reduction of dissolved inorganic nitrogen, while cutting edge (‘A’ class) practices will achieve only 34% reductions (Waters et al., 2014). Without transformational improvements, the 50% reduction target for dissolved inorganic nitrogen are unlikely to be met (State of Queensland, 2016a; Thorburn et al., 2013; Waters et al., 2014).

The Fitzroy, Burdekin and Wet Tropics regions contribute over 75% of modelled total nitrogen load to the Reef region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014b). Recent studies have recommended 50-90% reductions in DIN in the Burdekin and Wet tropics to meet water quality guidelines, and at least a 50% reduction in fine sediment in the Wet tropics region was needed to maintain the health of the Reef (Brodie, Waterhouse, & Maynard, 2013a).


LITERATURE REVIEWIncreased irrigation efficiency in furrow irrigated sugarcane would reduce nutrient losses (Brodie et al., 2013b), either by better management or through systems with higher efficiency (ie furrow to trickle) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014c). In addition, techniques for managing gully and streambank erosion, which are a significant source of sediments in grazing lands,will require further investigation as to their viability and effectiveness. Wetland restoration or creation in riparian areas could improve nutrient retention, especially in drier regions and from irrigation tailwater but are ineffective in wet conditions (Waterhouse et al., 2016).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThe suggested actions focussed on buying up agricultural land that require high fertilizer input in environmentally sensitive areas. Several actions focussed on removing cane farming in high risk areas or degraded land or purchasing and renovating underperforming cane farms. The suggested action involved waterway, wetlands and treatment trains establishment on farm or at key locations in sub-catchments or floating wetland systems. There were links between actions for nitrogen and sediment such as Gully and streambank erosion control.


EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYTwo experts responded that actions should be defined by the underfunded actions contained within the Water Quality Improvement Plans for each Natural Resources Management Region.

One expert selected “Underfunded actions defined within an existing strategy / plan / initiative other than the WQIP (if this option is selected, please provide details below)” and provided the following comment:

“The anthropogenic loads of DIN quoted appear to ignore that from elevated erosion rates (recently identified by DSITI project). Anthropogenic PN also contributes a similar or larger amount of N to GBR coastal waters as DIN and so erosion control should be included in the N-reduction activities.”

3.2.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWAbatement of DIN is highly dependent on the region, costing between $44 and $320/ha depending on farm size (State of Queensland, 2016c). Alluvium (2016) recently estimated costs to achieve water quality targets in the Reef region, summarised below.

Wet Tropics● Cane Practice change C to B: $4,890/tonne

Burdekin Region● Irrigation – Burdekin 20%: $12,300/tonne● Irrigation – Burdekin 21-50%: $32,700/tonne● Irrigation – Burdekin 51-70%: $62,500/tonne● Irrigation – Burdekin 71-1000%: $41,700/tonne

Mackay Whitsunday Region● Cane Practice change C to B: $24,700/tonne

Rolfe and Windle (2016) lead a NESP-funded project to investigate “benchmarking costs of agricultural water management in GBR catchments.” Within this project, Rolfe and Windle (2016) analysed cost data from Australian-government funded Reef Rescue grant projects and developed a “guide to the cost-effectiveness of various schemes by NRM group,” included as Table 3-1 (repeated below for ease of review).


Table 3-1: Costs of Water Quality Improvements by NRM region (Rolfe and Windle 2016)

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYFour participants provided cost information: Highest reasonable cost: range of $1500-2000, average of $1750Lowest reasonable cost: range of $1-100, average of $51Best estimate: range of $150-800, average of $475Confidence that highest to lowest interval contains a reasonable estimate: range 60-80, average 70 (out of 100).

Participant justifications and comments:

“I am not able to estimate costs at this time.”

“These are preliminary numbers based on the Burdekin river basin ($800) and Bowen Bogie catchment management unit ($100). I used the Source PN contributions, attributed 70% to gully and streambank, divided by the area of mapped gully erosion, assumed $10,000 per ha treatment cost to reduce gully PN losses by 30%.”

“[Name withheld] has declined to estimate costs for offset implementation due to insufficient information and concerns with the overarching approach being taken to arrive at the value. However, the following information may assist experts involved in estimating costs for the surrogate: GBR Water Science Taskforce Final Report, Costs of achieving the water quality targets for the GBR (Alluvium, 2016) and external peer review, and Abbot Point T0, T2, T3 Capital Dredging PER Offset Strategy. When considering cost, it is REEF TRUST OFFSETS PLAN AND CALCULATOR 66 of 141

essential that experts define the fraction of sediment relevant to ‘suspended fine sediment’. The NESP Project adopts a <16µ fraction for suspended fine sediment, which [we] challenged as being too high in the context of industry activities, such as dredging.”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYWhen asked about preference for estimating costs, one expert selected the option “There is sufficient published cost data. Use published cost estimates (including but not limited to Alluvium 2016 report, other recent peer-reviewed papers, industry data, and other relevant and quality-tested data). If this option is selected, the project team will make estimates based on the literature and provide the estimates (with references and justifications) for stakeholder comment during the draft plan review.”

One expert selected “The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate. Use the average estimates from the Round 2 expert elicitation (opportunity to revise your estimates and provide justifications/ references in the next question)” but did not provide a cost estimate.

Two experts selected “other” and provided the following comment:

“[Name withheld] is unable to provide comment on the cost estimates provided by experts for the following reasons: 1) Insufficient underlying evidence or (where not available) assumptions. 2) The cost estimates provided are informed from different sources and are arguably not comparable. The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate.”

“Note that Megan Star is currently collating basin-specific cost estimates for the relative risk assessment in the Scientific Consensus Statement 2017 update. There is also a NESP project that Jim Smart is involved in on land retirement of cane areas in the Wet Tropics - worth following up (led by Nathan Waltham).”


LITERATURE REVIEW The Fitzroy, Burdekin and Wet Tropics regions contribute over 75% of modelled total nitrogen load to the Reef region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014b). Recent studies have recommended 50-90% reductions in DIN in the Burdekin and Wet tropics to meet water quality guidelines, and at least a 50% reduction in fine sediment in the Wet tropics region was needed to maintain the health of the Reef (Brodie, Waterhouse, & Maynard, 2013a; Terrain NRM, 2014). The Queensland Water Quality Task Force Final Report identifies the Burdekin and Wet Tropics regions for reducing nitrogen run-off (2016).

Over eighty-five per cent of sugarcane production in Queensland occurs in three catchment areas, the Wet Tropics, Burdekin Dry Tropics and Mackay Whitsunday regions, which are often referred to as the ‘priority catchment areas’ (State of Queensland, 2016a). In addition, a 2012 study found that use of nitrogen fertiliser in these three areas was a top priority with approximately 80% of the total anthropocentric load of DIN being derived from sugarcane fertiliser losses in the Wet Tropics (84%); the Lower Burdekin (80%); and Mackay Whitsundays (88%) (Queensland University of Technology, 2015).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere were seven responses to this question, with three respondents stating that offsets should be implemented in the same catchment, three within the same NRM region, and one as close to the impact site as possible. Again, most respondents agree that some flexibility in offset location should be allowed for this surrogate.

The high priority areas listed for implementation of offsets for this surrogate were:

● Retirement of agricultural land has been used as a tool for reducing diffuse pollution, for example by discontinuing production on land areas with highly erodible soils or requiring high fertilizer input in environmentally sensitive (i.e. high risk) areas. For additional references, please also see: Kroon et


al. 2012 for river pollutant loads estimates (incl nitrogen) Kroon et al. 2016 for a review of GBR water quality management, and proposed ways forward Thorburn and Wilkinson 2013 for a conceptual understanding of nitrogen impacts and management

● Farm N use practice improvement - options across total farm area exist to improve NUE Wetlands waterways /treatment trains - able to be established in most sub catchments - align with water quality objectives and priorities in MW WQIP

● As for my response to TSS - The following catchment management units (WQIPs recommend priority subcatchments within these): Bowen Bogie, East Burdekin, Pioneer, Mary, Lower Burdekin, Fitzroy, Don River, OConnell, Herbert, Normanby. This is a ranking of units in descending order of contribution to TSS export from gully and streambank erosion (t/ha/y). I also considered the ability to target within management units.

● The GBR Water Science Taskforce Final Report focuses on the priority areas for nitrogen.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARY One expert selected “As close to the site of impact (development or project site) as possible” and provided the comment “Total nitrogen is not relevant for the Reef and should not be discussed as a target for mitigation - please correct. DIN is the most bioavailable form of N, and therefore the greatest risk to GBR ecosystems. There are some interactions between PN, fine TSS and the formation of organic flocs but that is more about increasing turbidity than nutrient effects per se. The issue with land retirement is that it is expensive, and there are still large natural loads of DIN from rainforests and other natural landscapes. So even if we retired all the cane land in the Wet Tropics, it is not possible to achieve the load reductions required to meet the WQ Guidelines! Careful consideration is also required of how wetlands and other coastal ecosystems can function as 'filters' for nutrients as the literature shows that with the high degree of hydrological modification in the GBR catchments there is very little treatment benefits from 'natural' wetlands etc. Artificial wetlands and treatment systems are most likely the way to go in that regard, but we are really only starting down that part. Talk to Mike Ronan at DEHP about this - they recently ran a workshop on treatment systems. The WQIPs have comprehensive discussion of priorities and should be used in preference to the references identified above. We are also updating relative risk assessment at the moment as noted before.” (note: the surrogate is DIN)

One expert selected “Away from the impact site, but within the same catchment” and commented: “The anthropogenic loads of DIN quoted above appear to ignore that from elevated erosion rates. Anthropogenic PN contributes a similar or larger amount of N to GBR coastal waters as DIN and so spatial priorities for erosion control should be considered for N-reduction activities.”

One expert selected “Away from the impact site, but within the same natural resources management region” and commented “Suggest using the WQIP for each region. They highlight the high priority areas for the region in relation to this surrogate and the types of activities. They also provide references and justifications. The priority would be within the same catchment. However, if this isn't possible due to the specifics of the project and offset (i.e. if dredging were to occur in Townsville port and implementing an offset in that catchment is not possible then it could be implemented in a neighbouring catchment but within the same natural resources management region).”


3.3 Intertidal

3.3.1 Background The current condition and trend of intertidal mudflats are not specifically mentioned within the Strategic Assessment; however they have been included with beaches and coastlines within the assessment. Currents can be modified locally as a result of coastal infrastructure, such as marinas, beach re-nourishment or dredging, leading to negative impacts on beaches and mudflats (GBRMPA 2014). In the remote north, beaches remain relatively undisturbed, except for marine debris and are considered stable. Southern inshore areas are still considered in good condition, but are deteriorating as ports and other development near urban areas have extensively modified coastal habitats and processes. Sediment supply to beaches has changed as a result of artificial barriers to the flow freshwater, leading to an increase in fine sediment and mangrove establishment in ‘beach’ areas (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).

Intertidal beaches also support a range of species, including shorebirds, seabirds and marine turtles that are impacted by changes or loss of habitat due to altered hydrological regimes, chronic and acute pollution from bioaccumulation and pesticide use, as well as the impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, drying and more frequent and intense climate events (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015c) that is likely to result in habitat degradation and loss of species (Iwamura et al., 2013). The condition and trend of intertidal beach species was not specifically mentioned as part of the Outlook Report, however additional information on each species is available in the species surrogate section below.

Rates of change for mudflat habitat in the Reef are not currently available, though some estimates for Australia and the entire East Asian Australasian Flyway should be available within the year (N. Murray pers. comm.). However, overall intertidal beaches and coastline habitat are thought to be stable in the northern inshore regions but deteriorating in the southern inshore regions (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).

Associated intertidal species such as shorebirds are thought to be in deteriorating condition, likely because of threats outside of the region (e.g., habitat loss in east Asia; Clemens et al., 2016; Iwamura et al., 2013), but also because declines in inland wetlands (Finlayson, Davis, Gell, Kingsford, & Parton, 2013) have led to losses in both resident and migratory shorebird species (Clemens et al., 2016). A recent plan for the conservation of migratory shorebirds was released identifying actions for the improved conservation of the species, one of which is to improve protection of sites and their management at both the state, national and international scales (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015c).

No specific data were available on priority unfunded actions for intertidal beach or mudflat habitat. Creation of new intertidal habitat has been trailed in a variety of locations (ECRR, n.d.) and may be appropriate it some circumstances, however does not always deliver ecological function (Morris & Gibson, 2007). No data was available for the cost of engineering intertidal habitat. Associated intertidal species are discussed in the species surrogate sections below.


LITERATURE REVIEWCreation of new intertidal habitat has been trailed in a variety of locations (ECRR, n.d.) and may be appropriate it some circumstances, however does not always deliver ecological function (Morris & Gibson, 2007).

EXPERT ELICITATION EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere were no experts responses for Intertidal actions.

EXPERT ELICITATION EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYThere were no experts responses for Intertidal actions.


3.3.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWA recent peer-reviewed global meta-analysis of the costs of marine restoration (Bayraktarov et al. 2016) found the following costs for saltmarsh restoration for “developed countries”: restoration cost in 2010 US$ per ha = $1,804,779 (sample size 73 projects).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARY● 1 respondent suggested that this surrogate has many overlaps with the mangrove surrogate and we

could consider combining these surrogates.● 1 respondent declined to estimate costs due to “insufficient information and concerns with the

overarching approach”.● 1 respondent noted that “costs will depend on nature of remediation and maintenance of site, i.e.,

sand pumping.● 1 respondent noted an example of the Rain Island partnership project which cost $5 million over $5

years.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate. Use the average estimates from the Round 2 expert elicitation (opportunity to revise your estimates and provide justifications/ references in the next question)” but did not provide a cost estimate.


LITERATURE REVIEWNo priority areas for intertidal beach or mudflat habitat were identified in the literature review, aside from specific species priorities, for example nesting habitat for marine turtles or key areas for migratory shorebird species. Only one respondent answered this question, suggesting that offsets for this surrogate should be placed where there is the greatest opportunity for maximized return, and that efforts would be counterproductive if extensive remediation was done in areas if other pressures would exclude species use.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere were four expert responses to this question, with 2 stating that as close to the site of impact as possible was best, while 2 thought away from the impact site but within the same NRM region or within the same GBR Zone.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYNo responses.


3.4 Mangroves

3.4.1 Background The Reef region has an estimated 2070 km2 of highly dynamic mangrove forest habitat with some localised declines and expansions (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). The overall abundance of mangroves is being maintained and they are in very good and stable condition in the northern inshore regions and good and stable condition in southern inshore regions (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). However, this is based on limited evidence or consensus. Climate change is likely to have implications for mangrove forest habitat, though some mangroves are able to avoid inundation by vertical accretion of sediment (Lovelock et al., 2015). The Reef Plan 2050 commits to no net loss of extent and a net improvement in the condition of wetlands and riparian vegetation in the region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015a; Terrain NRM, 2014).

Mangrove forests in the region are diverse with over 39 species and this diversity is being maintained, especially in the north where diversity is highest (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). The condition of mangrove species in northern inshore areas is considered very good and stable condition, while the southern inshore species are in good condition with a stable trend. However, this is based on limited evidence of consensus (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). In addition, while the spatial extent of mangrove habitat is well mapped, changes in species composition is not well known (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).


LITERATURE REVIEWMangrove habitat restoration and mangrove creation has been fairly successful in both hydrological restoration and planting of mangroves (Bayraktarov et al., 2016). In addition, animal assemblages such as aquatic invertebrates, birds and fish recover quickly after restoration or creation, though plant assemblage did not recover as quickly (Bosire et al., 2008; Moreno-Mateos, Meli, Vara-Rodriguez, & Aronson, 2015).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThe experts suggested several actions for mangroves including planning, partnership, process, works and replanting. The planning actions included identification of priority areas for both passive (restoring the hydrological connectivity, tidal flow regime of an already existing mangrove forest) and active restoration (planting of mangrove propagules. The partnership actions included working with traditional owners and local managers to develop regional mangrove management plans. In field actions included contouring the site to intertidal elevations favourable for mangroves, clearing invasive plants, and planting of smooth cordgrass to trap mangrove seeds at high tide from adjacent forests.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Underfunded actions defined within an existing strategy / plan / initiative (please provide details below)” and commented “Restoration of hydrological connectivity of ponded pastures - there are a range of GBRMPA and DPI documents which recommend increasing connectivity. Planning for mangrove expansion under sea level rise - (prior QLD coastal plan) - acquiring or rezoning lands Feral pig control on indigenous lands - Carbon emissions are associated with feral pig damage of mangrove forest soils (CSIRO has done some work in this space) Smooth cord-grass is a non native - omit this - using some saltmarsh nurse plants might be appropriate when restoring mangroves, but Spartina alternaflora is a dangerous weed.”Two experts selected “other” and commented:

“The focus needs to be on rehabilitation of natural living shoreline habitats in estuaries of coastal catchments. This means there needs to be an integrated focus on riparian vegetation, mangrove & saltmarsh, and shellfish reefs. Working on any part of this is unlikely to succeed. Where these habitats are damaged they need to be repaired. This requires a multiple layered strategy framed within a monitoring


program that helps identify areas at risk, prioritises rehab works, and gives on-going evaluations of shoreline status and health. So, where interventions are made then we can evaluate what worked and didn't work. This means we will be less likely to repeat mistakes and to make progress with shoreline rehab. It is essential that a national rehab project database be compiled asap to build the foundations for future trials and mitigation works.”

“Prioritizing restoration actions for coral reefs under taking into account connectivity and interdependencies with other ecosystems (e.g. seagrass, mangroves) and the factor of risk and uncertainty of the restoration site being destroyed by e.g. stochastic catastrophic events (e.g. flood plumes due to sea level rise, storms, cyclones, seawater temperature anomalies), changes in feature distribution through succession after disturbance, or anthropogenic impact (e.g. area compromised for coastal development, damaging of restoration site by local communities (trampling) or fishing (bottom trawling))”

3.4.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWA recent peer-reviewed global meta-analysis of the costs of marine restoration (Bayraktarov et al. 2016) found the following costs for mangrove restoration for “developed countries”: restoration cost in 2010 US$ per ha = $108,828 (sample size 59 projects). Outdated estimates put the cost of restoring existing areas of damaged mangrove at between $3000 and $510,000/ha (Spurgeon, 1999), while another reports costs at a range from $225-216,000/ha (Lewis, 2001).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYFour respondents provided cost information on mangroves:

Highest reasonable cost: range of $156,000-175,000, average of $165,500Lowest reasonable cost: range of $1000-78,000, average of $39,500Best estimate: range of $15,000-117,000, average of $66,000Confidence that highest to lowest interval contains a reasonable estimate: range 50-80, average 65 (out of 100)

Justifications and comments included:

“Costs are involved in supporting two key groups - the various community volunteer and traditional owner ranger teams acquiring images and field data; and the partner specialist scientists who provide the training, coordination and assessment expertise. The cost each group per year per riverine system amounts to around $35,000 with allowances for equipment used, vessel support and data evaluations.” “Qld ports have recently examined the opportunities for mangrove restoration as part of maintenance dredging activities with a cost of approx $175,000 however this cost included the dredging component. Without the dredging component the restoration works are valued at approximately $45000/ha. A small scale restoration of mangrove habitat was undertaken in Sandringham Bay in 2009 at a cost of $10000/ha as part of a port development offset.” “The majority of restoration projects published did not provide cost data in a comprehensive manner and it was often not possible to split the available cost information into capital and operating costs (= total restoration cost), or to account for the different components of restoration (planning, purchasing, land acquisition, construction, financing, maintenance, monitoring, and equipment repair/replacement). We estimated that the real total cost of restoration (including capital and operating costs) would be 2 - 4 times higher than the restoration cost reported. A conservative estimate for total mangrove restoration cost would be between 2x US$ 39,000 and 4x US$ 39,000, i.e. would lie between US$ 78000 and 156000. Note: all numbers provided here need to be converted from US$ at base year 2010 to AU$ in 2016.”


“The activities undertaken as part of the BMA Marine Plants Restoration Project should be considered when estimating cost given this is a demonstrated offset for this surrogate within the GBR. This is particularly the case given the extraordinary costing range provided in the literature review. Link to plan.”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYThree experts selected “other” and commented:

“Costs could vary with technique used to restore or repair; e.g. hydrological restoration if removing bunds could be relatively inexpensive compared to recontouring land or planting. Adaptive management requires some potential for mid-course corrections. Costs should include monitoring post activity which was often not included in studies compiled by Bayraktarov et al. Costs should be estimated on a project by project basis”

“Trying to identify costs in this way is rather a waste of time. Surely the better approach would be to work out the methodology with trials in different circumstances in the first instance. This may take a few years with new works, but the interim strategy would be to compile a database of the relevant data and costs for intervention works that have both worked and not worked. The database needs to have measures of success well defined and quantified. Any costs I give here are all speculative and really quite misleading. Some areas may need much at all while some shoreline sections will need extra help. That's one problem. A second problem is that the methods for doing shoreline rehabilitation are yet inadequate and flawed. That is why we need to take the above approach instead of guessing. so, no answers for me for the below estimates. we have recently bid on works in central Queensland but this was for a specific section of estuarine shoreline. And, the bid was for a trial to test out methods that MIGHT work only!”

“Bayraktarov et al. 2016 provide a synthesis of restoration literature including 235 studies with 954 observations from worldwide restoration projects of coral reefs, seagrass, mangroves, saltmarshes and oyster reefs to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of restoring different coastal habitats. The study has however identified significant gaps and inconsistencies within cost data reported by the literature impeding total restoration cost estimates (including capital and operational cost). Median restoration cost provided in this study are to be handled carefully and only considered as a first attempt to provide cost estimate for global restoration projects yet the real total cost are expected to be realistically at least 2 - 4 higher. I propose developing a survey for restoration practitioners (specifically The Nature Conservancy and consultancies) in order to recover information that has been lost by not-publishing critical cost data and especially the lessons learnt from failing projects.”

One expert provided cost estimates:

Highest Reasonable Cost $205,000Lowest Reasonable Cost $102,000Best Estimate $153,000Confidence 80%Justification “Same justification and numbers as in Round 1 of the Expert elicitation but values converted to AUD 2016 and rounded”


LITERATURE REVIEWNo priority areas for mangrove habitat or species were identified, though freshwater wetlands and estuaries are identified as being high priorities by Brodie and Pearson (2016). In addition, attention should be focused on salt marsh and flat locations to accommodate the inshore migration of wetland habitats in the face of climate change (Lovelock & Ellison, 2007). The identification of priority areas for mangrove conservation is ongoing in areas within the region (Cath Lovelock pers.comm.).


EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere were seven expert responses to this surrogate, with two choosing offset locations as close to the impact site as possible, but the other five agreeing that away from the impact site would be preferable, 4 within the same catchment and 1 in the same GBR zone.

While no specific priority areas were mentioned for mangroves, experts stated that offsets should be within the same catchment in order to maximize connectivity between existing mangroves and other marine ecosystems such as seagrass and corals, and that arbitrary boundaries should not be applied as they may reduce effectiveness and provide less overall benefit to the surrogate.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “As close to the site of impact (development or project site) as possible” and commented “Where depends on ecosystem services and biodiversity that is being offset - needs assessment Where - could be where there is greatest need for extensive restoration (e.g. Fitzroy; Styx where conversion of coastal wetlands to pasture has been greatest - depends on goals/above) Where - restoration of cane land in wet tropics”

Two experts selected “Away from the impact site, but within the same catchment” and commented:

“When looking at mangroves please do take NOTE! Mangroves are important, but so too are saltmarsh habitats and high intertidal saltpans. Where do these co-inhabitors of tidal wetlands niche fit in this survey?” (note: intertidal surrogate)

“As state in Round 1, a thorough spatial prioritization of restoration actions for suitable habitat for this surrogate is yet urgently needed”


3.5 Seagrasses

3.5.1 Background Seagrass extent is currently estimated at 5700 km2 of shallow intertidal and subtidal areas, and 40,000km2 of sparser (<5% cover) of deep water areas. There is strong evidence that seagrass extent is declining within the Reef (Coles et al., 2015). The 2009 Outlook Report stated that the overall area of seagrass meadows had remained relatively stable over the preceding 20 years, however monitoring of inshore meadows in the central and southern coast of the Reef indicate overall declines in abundance, especially in the Townsville, Abbot Point, Cairns, Gladstone and southern Cape York regions (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a; McKenzie et al., 2012), as well as other locations susceptible to cyclones and flooding events (Coles et al. 2015). Regularly monitored meadow areas have shrunk by 38% since the 1980s, and have reduced abundance with some sites showing minimal or no sexual reproduction (Waycott and McKenzie 2010). Other indicators of seagrass condition such as reproductive effort and nutrient status have also deteriorated, and are highly vulnerable to additional impacts because of reduction to small remnant patches with limited seed banks (Coppo, McKenzie, & Brodie, 2016; Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). Conditions of both northern inshore and offshore regions are still considered to be in very good condition with stable trends, however southern inshore populations are in very poor and deteriorating condition, and southern offshore habitats are in poor condition, though the trend data for offshore seagrasses in the south is unknown because of unreliable data (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).

Seagrass diversity in the Reef is being maintained, though there have been severe declines in abundance and species composition in southern inshore seagrass areas (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). Seagrass species in the northern inshore and offshore meadows are considered to be in very good condition with stable trends, however southern inshore species are in very poor condition with deteriorating trends and southern offshore species are in poor condition. However there is very little data available for the trend and condition of offshore species or habitats in the northern or southern regions and assessments are based on very limited evidence or anecdotal information (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).

While the 2014 Outlook Report and Strategic Assessment report seagrass in the northern region as very good stable, and the southern region, especially inshore as very poor and deteriorating (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a; Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014), there is strong evidence that seagrass is now declining in all parts of the Reef (McKenzie et al., 2015). The Reef Plan 2050 target for seagrass is for improved condition and resilience indicators at a Reef-wide scale. While little can be done to counteract the impacts of extreme weather events (outside of major policy changes), passive restoration such as water quality and catchment management improvements will help aid in the condition and resilience of seagrass habitat (Paling, Fonseca, van Katwijk, & van Keulen, 2009). However, preliminary model results suggest active restoration of seagrass is important, especially in areas where the ability for seagrass to recolonise is limited (Saunders et al., in review). This could occur, for instance, in areas with reduced seagrass abundance, limited seed production, or where environmental conditions hinder the establishment of seagrass plants.


LITERATURE REVIEWA variety of transplanting mechanisms are available, some more successful than others (Bayraktarov et al. 2016). However, seagrass planting and restoration is by itself only moderately successful and a review of current seagrass restoration in NSW found that it could not be counted on to achieve 2:1 habitat compensation (Ganassin & Gibbs, 2008). No specific information is available on restoration of seagrass species.


EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThe seagrass actions focussed on the need for research including basic biology for all species - seed production, seed viability, seedling survival, seedling growth rate, recovery/replenishment rates, recolonization by animals –thresholds of tolerance for the different seagrass species to the range of stressors (turbidity, temperature, nutrients). The suggested action of spatial mapping was recommended. The extensive set of information that is available on seagrass values at each of the GBR Ports should be considered when identifying conservation actions.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYThree experts selected “Underfunded actions defined within an existing strategy / plan / initiative (please provide details below)” and commented:

“Not sure though that there are many strategies that actually do this - that would be a good start!”

“- Basic biology for all species - reproductive rates and strategies - Thresholds of tolerance for the different seagrass species to the range of stressors (turbidity, temperature, nutrients). - A better understanding of important feedback loops required such as links between water quality, sediment microbiomes and seagrass systems. - Understanding the most effective methods and techniques for restoration of different seagrass species and habitats. - Spatial mapping of seagrass extent in areas outside of Ports. The development of a decision-making framework based on the best available information to inform management. - Understanding the adaptive capacity of seagrasses to future predictions of climate change”

“The existing QLD DAF guidelines for habitat research identify the gaps in seagrass research. Particular attention should be paid to improving estimations of the ecosystem services provided by seagrass, including deeper-water meadows. The problem is that these knowledge gaps are not being closed, that is, the science remains unresolved even as seagrass continues to be dredged for port developments, or at least is adversely affected indirectly by port dredging.”

One expert selected “other” and commented “Prioritizing restoration actions for coral reefs under taking into account connectivity and interdependencies with other ecosystems (e.g. seagrass, mangroves) and the factor of risk and uncertainty of the restoration site being destroyed by e.g. stochastic catastrophic events (e.g. flood plumes due to sea level rise, storms, cyclones, seawater temperature anomalies), changes in feature distribution through succession after disturbance, or anthropogenic impact (e.g. area compromised for coastal development, damaging of restoration site by local communities (trampling) or fishing (bottom trawling))”

3.5.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWSeagrass restoration is expensive, and in Australia mechanical seagrass transplantation was costed out at about $1,000/ha, and though manual planting was far cheaper, may not include ongoing monitoring costs (Paling et al., 2009). In many instances, protection of seagrass is far more efficient than restoration, especially depending on the scale of disturbance (Paling et al., 2009). For example, aquaculture and transplanting costs an estimated $84,779 - 565,208/ha, while passive restoration through seagrass protection was only $2,193 - 472,309 (Bayraktarov et al., 2016).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYSix respondents provided cost information on seagrasses:

Highest reasonable cost: range of $50-$3,000,000, average of $1,017,103Lowest reasonable cost: range of $50-214,000, average of $68,513Best estimate: range of $50-321,000, average of $180,263


Confidence that highest to lowest interval contains a reasonable estimate: range 50-80, average 65 (out of 100) plus two respondents who entered “low” instead of a number

Justifications and comments included:

“You need the research first - if you had a restoration method you could afford name a place in the GBR where it would be necessary/desirable - I can think of one for one species - this is totally the wrong approach.” “The costs are not really directly related to a physical re-establishment of seagrass but are more focused on reasonable cost for the research and management projects listed [in previous answer] that would facilitate better protection and management of the seagrass resource.”

“I would estimate these costs from Bayraktarov et al. 2016. Note that cost for seagrass restoration (min $6,654/ha, median $106,782/ha, max $4,106,047/ha for developed countries reported by the literature) are in US$ at base year 2010 and would need appropriate conversion to AU$. The majority of restoration projects published did not provide cost data in a comprehensive manner and it was often not possible to split the available cost information into capital and operating costs, or to account for the different components of restoration (planning, purchasing, land acquisition, construction, financing, maintenance, monitoring, and equipment repair/replacement). We estimated that the real total cost of restoration (including capital & operating cost) would be 2 - 4 times higher than the cost reported. A conservative estimate for total seagrass restoration cost would be between 2x US$ 107,000 and 4x US$ 107,000, i.e. would lie between US$ 214,000 and 428,000. Note: all numbers provided here need to be converted from US$ at base year 2010 to AU$ in 2016.”

“[Name withheld] has declined to estimate costs for offset implementation due to insufficient information and concerns with the overarching approach being taken to arrive at the value. This is particularly the case given the extraordinary costing range provided in the literature review.”

“Preliminary model results suggest active restoration of seagrass is important, especially in areas where the ability for seagrass to recolonise is limited (Saunders et al., in review). This could occur, for instance, in areas with reduced seagrass abundance, limited seed production, or where environmental conditions hinder the establishment of seagrass plants. Here is the citation: Saunders MI, Bode M, Atkinson S, Klein C, Metaxas A, Beher J, Beger M, Mills M, Giakoumi S, Tulloch V, Possingham H (In review) Simple rules can guide whether land or ocean based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems.”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYTwo experts selected “The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate. Use the average estimates from the Round 2 expert elicitation (opportunity to revise your estimates and provide justifications/ references in the next question).” but neither provided cost estimates.

One expert selected “Develop an estimate based on the global meta-analysis cost data (Bayraktarov et al. 2016).”

Two experts selected “other” and commented:

“Data from Bayraktarov is the best available at present. There are limitations to the database used in that study, which as indicated above, should be factored in when using those numbers. E.g. cost should be multiplied to factor in unknown costs. Offset projects should be closely monitored, and the real costs quantified, such that later projects can utilize updated cost and feasibility information.”




Highest Reasonable Cost $562,000Lowest Reasonable Cost $281,000Best Estimate $421,000Confidence 80%Justification “Same justification and numbers as in Round 1 of the Expert Elicitation but values converted to AUD 2016 and rounded”

Offsets should be located as close to the impact site as possible. However there is a need to ensure that rules regarding the siting of offsets does not prevent delivery of offsets in other areas if a better conservation outcome can be achieved. In addition, another respondent stated “Current and draft GBR policies are heavily focused on ensuring outcomes which consider the current condition and trend of the value in a particular “region”. However there is lack of consistency between regional boundary definitions making the delivery of regional outcomes complex and confusing - we have a plethora of regional boundaries in use at present.”

No specific priority areas for offset implementation were mentioned by respondents, but one respondent noted that basic research on tropical seagrass is needed before even attempting restoration. Water quality was also noted as a significant issue for seagrass especially for active seagrass restoration and that specific offset areas for this surrogate should be guided by models of habitat suitability, prioritization of costs, feasibility and other benefits.

Standard Metric:

● See GHHP seagrass reports for developing report cards https://dims.ghhp.org.au/repo/data/public/d3be7a

● And Queensland offset policy https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/68601/Marine-Fish-Habitat-Offset-Policy-12.pdf

● The seagrass surveys from JCU / trop water consider area and quality ● Most seagrass restoration studies report on 'item-based' metrics such as survival of restored

organisms and increase in biomass. A good composite metric would be ecosystem services provided by restored seagrass (e.g. carbon storage capacity and mitigation of climate change, habitat for marine invertebrates, nursery habitat for fish, water filtration) in comparison to those provided by pristine seagrass meadows.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYTwo experts selected “Away from the impact site, but within the same natural resources management region” and commented:

“Areas of seagrass habitat that are supporting the most valuable ecosystem services and ecological function should be prioritized for offsets”

“We now have a good handle on the causes of seagrass loss, but the consequences for ecosystem services are only vaguely known. Two specific types of research can solve this dilemma: 1) determine rigorously what


fisheries species actually RELY on seagrass habitat at some stage in their life history, 2) properly quantify carbon sequestration rates for different types of seagrass meadows across the GBR (currently only done for a couple of seagrass species in very few places, needs a broad-scale assessment).”

Two experts selected “As close to the site of impact (development or project site) as possible” and commented:

“The priorities you identify above for the Wet Tropics basins need to be properly cited and put in context! These sorts of priorities are only specific to WQ impacts and within a certain context of relative risk and area. While these assessments are available for every region to support the WQIPs, I would hesitate to use it for this purpose. I would imagine that seagrass will respond to local improvements, but I am no expert!”

“I believe that where feasible offsets should occur as close to the impact site as possible. However, there may be instances where better outcomes can be achieved elsewhere. In those instances there should be flexibility to implement offsets in the same catchment or same NRM region.”

Two experts selected “Away from the impact site, but within the same zone of the GBRWHA (Northern, Central, or Southern zones)” and one of these experts commented “As state in Round 1, a thorough spatial prioritization of restoration actions for suitable habitat for this surrogate is yet urgently needed”


3.6 Shallow Reefs

3.6.1 Background

CORAL REEF HABITAT

Coral cover is an indicator of coral Reef status and has declined rapidly since the 1960s when coral cover was 45-55% on mid and outer Reefs (Hughes et al. 2011), and to 28% in 1980s (Sweatman & Syms, 2011), down to about 14% by 2011 with the rate of declineincreasing recently (De’ath, Fabricius, Sweatman, & Puotinen, 2012). Coral cover in the entire Reef has declined by about 50% since 1985, while inshore coral Reef cover has decline by 34% since 2005 (Brodie et al., 2013b). The average rate of coral cover decline is about 1.45% per year since 2006 and is more severe in the southern regions (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a), while crown of thorns starfish (COTS) outbreaks have affected nearly 1/3 of Reefs in the Reef over the last 60 years (Brodie et al., 2013b).

The most recent report of the AIMS long term monitoring program shows that from 2012 to 2015 hard coral cover in the central and southern sections has increased, however the northern section shows a decline in coral cover because of an intense cyclone and renewed activity of crown-of-thorns starfish in the region (AIMS 2016). Northern inshore and offshore coral reef habitats are considered to be in good condition with stable trends and have not shown similar declines as the southern regions, with coral cover staying in the 40-50% rate in Torres Straight region, and 30% in northern Cape York.

Across the region coral cover has declined by 50 percent since 1985 (Brodie et al., 2013b), the rate of coral decline is likely increasing through time especially in the southern Reef. While northern populations were listed in good and stable condition in 2014 (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a), mass bleaching events in the Reef resulted in the severe bleaching of 81% of corals surveyed in the Northern GBR and 33% in the central GBR (ARC, 2016) with overall coral mortality of 22% (as of June 2016) (AIMS, 2016). As a result, northern and central reefs will likely have deteriorated since the last condition assessment. Investment in water quality initiatives and COTS removal will likely alleviate some pressure on Reef systems, and the Reef 2050 Plan commits to improving the condition and resilience of coral Reefs, but commitments are processes rather than targeted actions to improve Reef outcomes.

CORAL REEF SPECIES

Trends for coral reef species are the same as for coral reef habitats (see above; AIMS 2016). There is limited monitoring of coral species composition, however there is consensus that diversity and abundance has declined dramatically for the Reefs south ofCooktown (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Core samples from Pelorus Island indicate that historically Reefs in the region were dominated by Acropora corals, characteristic of clearer waters, however from 1920 -1955 Acropora assemblages collapsed and were replaced by more turbid water corals or species with limited live coral and it is believed that many inshore Reefs in the southern two-thirds of the Reef are likely to have undergone a similar shift in composition (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).

Coral diversity and abundance has also declined, especially in the Reefs south of Cooktown (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Coral species were on a stable trajectory in the northern inshore and offshore Reefs prior to 2016 mass bleaching events, howeverlong-term impacts of the bleaching event is still unknown (AIMS, 2016). Coral species in the southern inshore and offshore regions of the Reef are in deteriorating condition, though should improve with Reef 2050 targets, the extent of which has not been determined. Little is known about the trend of invertebrate species in the region, but are thought to be deteriorating in southern inshore regions but stable elsewhere throughout the Reef (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).


Associated benthic species (other invertebrates, macroalgae, benthic microalgae)

There are thousands of invertebrate species in the region, many are important fisheries such as prawns and crabs and none are currently assessed as over-fished (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). However, there is little data on the status of non-commercial species and declines coral cover (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a) and in water quality are likely to impact species and those that rely on them (e.g marine turtles; C. Limpus pers. comm.). Current condition for invertebrate species is reported as very good and stable condition in all regions, except for southern inshore populations which are in good condition but deteriorating (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). However these estimates are based on very limited evidence or anecdotal information, especially for offshore areas of the southern Reef.

It is thought that the diversity of macroalgae is being maintained, though this could be impacted by changes to coral-algae relations such as changes in ocean chemistry and herbivore abundance. Microalgae is little studied, but is assumed to be undisturbed for most of the GBR (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Details of condition and trend data are based on very limited evidence or anecdotal information, in all regions but southern inshore where data is limited rather (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Both macroalgae and benthic microalgae are understudied and have very limited data availability but are believed to be in very good condition in the north and good condition in the south, with stable trends (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).


LITERATURE REVIEWCoral restoration and habitat enhancement are feasible and in some cases successful in improving coral spawning stock on degraded Reefs (Spadaro, 2014). In addition, coral larval rearing and transplant and the installation of artificial Reefs have been identified as plausible offset options for coral restoration and enhancement (Jones et al., 2015) and provide an array of services including enhancing habitat for fish and other species (State of Western Australia, 2012). Other restoration techniques include ex situ coral cultivation, growing corals, and transplantation of coral (Bayraktarov et al., 2016).

No additional priority actions were found for associated benthic species, or benthic microalgae, though macroalgae restoration of a species of fucoid alga has been shown to be successful in Sydney (Campbell, Marzinelli, Verges, Coleman, & Steinberg, 2014) though areas with continued human pressure had difficulty with establishment (Borja, Fontan, & Muxika, 2013).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThe experts suggested that shallow reefs offset actions include research (water quality), reef restoration which takes into account connectivity of coral reefs with other marine and coastal, and techniques for scaling up restoration efforts.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYThree experts selected “Underfunded actions defined within an existing strategy / plan / initiative (please provide details below)” and commented:

“Funding of actions that have a direct link to improved management, with a focus on reducing the threats to the system, such as assessing a range of management actions that could be implemented to improve the health of the Great Barrier Reef. GBRMPA has a list of projects they would want funded- that list should be a starting point. Coral restoration is a risky venture and if the main threats the system is facing (such as a reduced water quality) are not first mitigated, coral restoration is unlikely to succeed.”

“Removal of marine debris increased compliance to prevent illegal take removal of COTs and Drupella.”


“Prioritizing restoration actions for coral reefs under taking into account connectivity and interdependencies with other ecosystems (e.g. seagrass, mangroves) and the factor of risk and uncertainty of the restoration site being destroyed by e.g. stochastic catastrophic events (e.g. flood plumes due to sea level rise, storms, cyclones, seawater temperature anomalies), changes in feature distribution through succession after disturbance, or anthropogenic impact (e.g. area compromised for coastal development, damaging of restoration site by local communities (trampling) or fishing (bottom trawling))”

One expert selected “other” and commented “whilst recognizing this is not an action - restoration is unlikely to be a feasible option in large areas of the GBR due to impact in the Marine park, whilst this may change (and is slowly changing) there are significant approval barriers to this as an option (most of which could trigger offsets in their own right)”

3.6.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWThe cost of coral restoration from 18 observations in developed countries was found to be a minimum $7,647/ha and a maximum of $143,000,000/ha, for a median cost of around $1,826,651 (Bayraktarov et al., 2016). Another study found that major Reef restoration costs about US$100,000 –1,000,000’s per hectare, while lower cost transplantations costs S$2000 –13,000 per hectare (Edwards & Gomez, 2007). However in Australia revegetation of subtidal Reef was about 38,000 AUD/ha (Edwards & Gomez, 2007).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYTwo respondents provided cost information for shallow reefs. One person said “I think the most appropriate way to estimate the cost of rehabilitation would be to estimate how much it would cost to obtain an ecosystem level benefit equivalent to the ecosystem level damage through local management (water quality). However, the relationships discussed in my previous comments, and in the sections about sedimentation and nitrogen concentration are a requirement for this approach to be applicable.” The second person said “COTs removal in Cairns section ~$10 million over 3 years (doesn't include in-kind contributions).”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “I do not feel qualified to answer this question.”

One expert selected “The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate. Use the average estimates from the Round 2 expert elicitation (opportunity to revise your estimates and provide justifications/ references in the next question).” but did not provide any estimates.

Four experts selected “other” and commented:

“I think you can only go with published literature in your timeframes.”

“I think that an explicit calculation of the costs of implementing coral restoration should be undertaken for the region. This would require developing a project plan and coming up with a budget. The global meta-analysis could help guide the development of a project plan by indicating the types of costs that occur in coral reef restoration, but trying to use numbers developed for another region could lead to a large mis-estimation of costs, which could reduce the ability to operationalize a coral reef restoration project.”

“With such limited responses I am struggling to see that there is currently enough information in this area (the workshop was cancelled due to this level of engagement) “

“Bayraktarov et al. is the best available resource at present for costing data for coral restoration. The limitations of that data analysis do need to be factored in though.”




Highest Reasonable Cost $871,000Lowest Reasonable Cost $436,000Best Estimate $653,000Confidence 80%Justification “Same justification and numbers as in Round 1 of the Expert elicitation but values converted to AUD 2016 and rounded”


LITERATURE REVIEWThe regions of the Reef where coral species and populations are still in good condition (at least until the most recent bleaching events) include the Torres Straight and the Northern Cape York (Brodie & Pearson, 2016; Coppo et al., 2016). Coral Reefs in the southern two-thirds of the Reef, especially inshore Reefs, are being continually damaged by disturbance and water quality declines, such that they lose resilience and cannot recover adequately (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Research has found that protection of live coral cover and Reef habitat in the Keppel islands is a high priority, as well as the restoration of riparian vegetation and minimisation of the impacts of cattle in key catchment areas such at the Fitzroy (Williamson, Ceccarelli, Rossetti, Russ, & Jones, 2016). For the Wet Tropics region, relative risk based on water quality parameters is greatest for coral in the Tully Murray basins, and areas highly valued for tourism and recreation including Hinchinbrook Island, Goold Island, the Brooks Islands, and the Family Island group including Bedarra Island and Dunk Island (Waterhouse et al., 2014).The Daintree region was rated as moderate; it has a very high risk to the Reef due to its COTS influence but is rated as very low for all other inputs (Brodie et al., 2013b).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere were five expert responses to this question, with most (3) stating that offsets for shallow coral reefs should be as close to the site of impact as possible, and two stating that offsets should be away from the impact site but within the same GBR zone.

While no specific priority offset locations were mentioned by respondents, one noted that reefs are heavily affected by water quality such as sedimentation and total nitrogen, while another stated that offset location would depend on where the value/process has the greatest opportunity to maximise outcomes, they stated “There is no point putting in extensive effort at the site of the impact if the viability of the coral communities at that location in the long-term is poor. You would be better off choosing an adjacent source reef with good conditions where larvae recruits could disperse to adjacent areas. Should also consider clades of zooxanthellae in the corals to maximise coral resilience to future pressures. Water quality should be improved at and adjacent to the impact site.”

Standard metric:

● Not to my knowledge.


● Most coral reef restoration studies report on 'item-based' metrics such as survival of restored organisms and increase in biomass. A good composite metric would be ecosystem services provided by restored coral reefs (e.g. habitat for marine invertebrates and fish, recycling of inorganic nutrients in nutrient-poor regions, coastal protection, provision of food) in comparison to those provided by pristine coral reefs.

● No.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYTwo experts selected “Away from the impact site, but within the same zone of the GBRWHA (Northern, Central, or Southern zones)” and commented:

“I agree with the respondent above that coral reef restoration projects should occur in places where they are most likely to succeed. Investing in restoration of a degraded reef without removing the initial threat is a poor investment.”

“As state in Round 1, a thorough spatial prioritization of restoration actions for suitable habitat for this surrogate is yet urgently needed.”

Three experts selected “As close to the site of impact (development or project site) as possible” and commented:

“As described public which to see offsets in their backyard which has significant political pressure affiliated with this. Bottom line with corals particularly is if the baseline conditions for why they were impacted are still the same, reestablished or new stock will have the same impacting processes.”

“source areas for other reefs”

“Ideally the offset site is close to the impact site. However, where the long term prospects of the reef are poor nearby to the impact site, then there should be opportunity to offset further afield.”

One expert commented “As per seagrass comments, please revise the discussion of priority areas above - these assessments are relative risk, based on WQ parameters. The citations are also incorrect - all Waterhouse et al. 2014-106. Other supporting studies for the WQIPs cover this discussion to some extent as well including Lewis et al. sediment synthesis.”


3.7 Deep Reefs

3.7.1 Background Deep Reefs in the Reef are understudied and there no long term monitoring data (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Modelled studies indicate mesophotic Reefs are widespread in the Reef, and are unlikely to have recent physical damage, though records from Myrmidon Reef offshore from Townsville show significant damage from cyclone Yasi in 2011. In addition, little is known about recently discovered cold water corals in areas greater than 1000m (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Northern offshore coral Reefs are considered to be in very good and stable condition, and southern offshore coral Reefs are in good and stable condition, however this is based on limited evidence or consensus. No species-specific information is available for deep-water coral Reef species or coral composition. In addition, no specific information is available for other invertebrates, macroalgae or benthic microalgae of deep Reefs and the condition and trend is assumed to be the same as for shallow coral Reefs.

Little is known about the trajectory of deep coral Reef habitat in the region, but they are thought to be in stable condition throughout the region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). There is a critical lack of information on the current extent or condition of deep Reef ecosystems, and seabed habitat and species in the region that is deeper than 200m. No data is available on specific deep water coral species. The Reef 2050 Plan commits to achieving good condition for coral Reefs, however no specific deep Reef targets or actions are discussed.

There is a lack of data regarding the trend of invertebrate species in the region, but are thought to be deteriorating in southern inshore regions but stable elsewhere throughout the Reef (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Both macroalgae and benthic microalgae are understudied and have very limited data availability but are believed to be in very good condition in the north and good condition in the, with stable trends (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). This data is based on ‘coral species’ indicators and is likely more accurate for shallow reefs than for deep reef systems.


LITERATURE REVIEW One theoretical study suggests restoration of deep reefs is feasible but almost exorbitantly expensive (Van Dover et al., 2014), however there is little empirical evidence either way(UNEP-WCMC, 2015).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere were no expert suggestions for offset actions for deep reefs.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Underfunded actions defined within an existing strategy / plan / initiative (please provide details below)” but did not provide any comments.

3.7.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEW No data on cost was identified through the literature review.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYNo responses on cost information for deep reefs.


EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARY No responses.


LITERATURE REVIEWNo spatial priorities for Deep Reefs or associated benthic species were identified through the literature review.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYOnly two respondents answered this question with one stating that offsets for this surrogate should be implemented away from the impact site but within the same GBR zone and the other that the offset should be as close as possible to the impact site.

No specific priority areas for offset implementation were described for this value with one respondent stating that deep reefs were highly unlikely to be an offsettable surrogate.



3.8 Lagoon Floor

3.8.1 Background The lagoon floor generally consists of sand and mud and supports a wide range of species. The habitat is likely to be in good condition in all parts of the Reef with a stable trend, though no long-term monitoring data is available. Areas with trawling impacts are likely in poor but recovering condition, with extreme weather events possibly leading to damage of the lagoon floor (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Data of the condition of this habitat is based on limited information, while trend data is based on very limited or anecdotal evidence.

There are thousands of invertebrate species in the region, many are important fisheries such as prawns and crabs and none are currently assessed as over-fished (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). However, there is little data on the status of non-commercial species and declines coral cover (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a) and in water quality are likely to impact species and those that rely on them (e.g marine turtles)(C. Limpus pers. comm.). Current condition for invertebrate species is reported as very good and stable condition in all regions, except for southern inshore populations which are in good condition but deteriorating (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). However these estimates are based on very limited evidence or anecdotal information, especially for offshore areas of the southern Reef and there is little or no information on the basic biology and ecology of most marine invertebrates (Ponder, Hutchings, & Chapman, 2002).

Lagoon floors are generally thought to be in good condition and on stable trajectory throughout the region, the Reef 2050 Plan commits to keeping inter-reef habitat in this condition (EHT5) at a reef-wide scale (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015a). There is limited data on invertebrate species in the region, even those commercially harvested are understudied. Invertebrates are thought to be in stable condition throughout the region, except in the southern inshore areas that are deteriorating (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). This assessment is based on very limited or anecdotal evidence, and there is no information on planned actions to improve benthic species in areas where they are declining.


LITERATURE REVIEWRestoration for subtidal muddy habitat has proved successful in short time periods (Verissimo et al., 2012). Acute and persistent disturbance could take 10-25 years for recovery, while restoration after physical impacts without ongoing legacy impacts might take only 1.5-10 years to recover (Borja, Dauer, Elliott, & Simenstad, 2010).

For benthic species, changes in sedimentation loads and farming practices would improve conditions, or minimisation of dredging and benthic trawling (Ponder et al., 2002). For example, trawling is extremely damaging to epifaunal communities, and restrictions in areas the areas trawled or modified gear could minimise impacts (Ponder et al., 2002).



3.8.3 Costs





LITERATURE REVIEW No spatial priority areas for lagoon floor habitat or associated benthic species were identified in the literature review.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThree respondents answered this question with two stating that offsets for this surrogate should be away from the impact site, either within the same GBR zone or within the same catchment, with another stating that the offset for this surrogate should be as close to the site of impact as possible.

No specific priority areas for offset implementation were described for this value with one respondent stating that lagoon floors were highly unlikely to be an offsettable surrogate.



3.9 Shoals

3.9.1 Background There is little data and no ongoing monitoring of shoal habitats in the Reef. Shoals are likely to be impacted by physical damage as a result of fishing, anchoring, groundings and storms. Based on limited evidence or consensus, they are thought to be in good and stable condition throughout the region.

There are thousands of invertebrate species in the region, many are important fisheries such as prawns and crabs and none are currently assessed as over-fished (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). However, there is little data on the status of non-commercial species and declines coral cover and in water quality are likely to impact species and those that rely on them (e.g marine turtles; C. Limpus pers. comm.). Current condition for invertebrate species is reported as very good and stable condition in all regions, except for southern inshore populations which are in good condition but deteriorating (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). However these estimates are based on very limited evidence or anecdotal information, especially for offshore areas of the southern Reef and there is little or no information on the basic biology and ecology of most marine invertebrates (Ponder et al. 2002).

There is no ongoing monitoring of shoals in the Reef but shoal habitats are thought to be in good stable condition throughout the region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). The Reef 2050 Plan commits to maintaining this trajectory for shoals in the entire region. There is limited data on invertebrate species in the region, even those commercially harvested are understudied. Invertebrates are thought to be in stable condition throughout the region, except in the southern inshore areas that are deteriorating (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). This assessment is based on very limited or anecdotal evidence, and there is no information on planned actions to improve benthic species in areas where they are declining.


LITERATURE REVIEWNo priority actions are available for shoals or associated benthic species.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere was one expert response for shoals, which focussed on the need for definition and did not suggest an offset action. “The literature review (as provided above) references shipping activities and implies that this is 'likely' to impact the surrogate. [Name withheld] is of the opinion that a more balanced view in relation to the way in which the surrogate condition and trend is defined needs to be provided. Without this there is a risk that the identified conservation actions will not effectively deliver no net loss for this surrogate”.


3.9.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWNo costs data were identified in the literature review.





LITERATURE REVIEWNo spatial priority areas were identified for shoal habitat or associated benthic species within the Reef.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYOnly two respondents answered this question with one stating that offsets for this surrogate should be implemented away from the impact site but within the same GBR zone and the other that the offset should be as close as possible to the impact site.

No specific priority areas for offset implementation were described for this value with one respondent stating that shoals were highly unlikely to be an offsettable surrogate.



3.10 Island Vegetation

3.10.1 Background While there are about 1050 islands in the Reef region, there is limited monitoring of island conditions. All inshore and offshore islands in the northern and southern regions are purported to be in good condition with stable trends. However this is based on limited evidence or consensus, and there is increasing pressure from the impacts of coastal development, recreation and climate change, especially in the southern regions (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).

There is limited evidence or consensus on the trend of islands within the Reef, however they support a wide range of species and are thought to be in stable condition (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). The Australian and Queensland governments have an integrative management agreement to maintain the ecological and biological diversity of island environments (State of Queensland, 2014), and targets under the Reef 2050 Plan to maintain good condition of islands in the region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015a).


LITERATURE REVIEWFeral pest and invasive species eradication on islands not already funded, for example aerial baiting and or shooting of cats, ants, foxes, dogs, goats, horses and deer could all be prioritised for management in islands where it is not already occurring (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a; Pressey & Wenger, 2015). A small percentage of islands are annually monitored for pest species but information is lacking on the status and trends of island habitats, including about 700 islands in the WHA that are not part of protected areas (many have important values such as seabird rookeries; Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThe action recommended was island shoreline circumferences be monitored using the Shoreline Video Assessment Method.


3.10.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWCosts of pest eradication vary considerably based on island location and type of pest, for example the Macquarie island pest eradication project costs approximately $24.7 million over 8 years, due to remote locations, number of pests and complexity of intervention (Parks and Wildlife Service, 2014). Pressey and Wenger (2015), include a table of costs for pest eradication, including costs for specific islands.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARY“Costs outlined for estuarine systems could be applied - or even less since islands might often be quite small. This means that around $25,000 per year per island group.”

[Name withheld] “has declined to estimate costs for offset implementation due to insufficient information and concerns with the overarching approach being taken to arrive at the value. This is particularly the case given the extraordinary costing range provided in the literature review.”

“$10,000 to $1 million per ha.”




LITERATURE REVIEWWithin the Reef there are 38 islands that act as important nesting sites for marine turtles, of which Raine Island is very significant due to the large aggregation of nesting green turtles. In addition, Milman island, Wild duck island, peak island and the cays of the Capricorn bunker are all important areas for the survival of marine turtles in the Reef (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). At least 20 species of seabirds breed on islands in the Reef, and there are also significant nesting sites throughout the region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYTwo respondents agreed that offsets for Island terrestrial vegetation should occur as close to the site of impact as possible, however there were no responses as to priority areas for offset implementation for island surrogates.



3.11 Halimeda

3.11.1 BackgroundHalimeda is a genus of green macroaglae. Large tracts of the northern Reef are dominated by Halimeda bank habitat. The habitat is poorly studied but thought to be in very good and stable condition, given its isolation, however calcification rates are likely to be impacted by ocean chemistry changes as a result of climate change (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a), and due to changes in nutrient upwelling and ocean circulation (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). This assessment of condition and trend data is based on very limited evidence or consensus. In addition, there is no data available on the condition or trends of specific Halimeda species, and they remain unmentioned in the Strategic Assessment and Outlook Reports (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014).

There is limited information on the condition or trajectory of Halimeda habitat or species, but they are thought to be in stable condition. Halimeda is not mentioned as a target in the Reef 2050 Plan (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015a).


LITERATURE REVIEW No priority actions were available for Halimeda habitat or Halimeda species.



3.11.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWNo costs data were identified through the literature review.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARY[Name withheld] “has declined to estimate costs for offset implementation due to insufficient information and concerns with the overarching approach being taken to arrive at the value.”



LITERATURE REVIEWNo spatial priority areas were identified for Halimeda habitat or Halimeda species within the Reef.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYOnly two respondents answered this question with one stating that offsets for this surrogate should be implemented away from the impact site but within the same GBR zone and the other that the offset should be as close as possible to the impact site. There were no suggestions for high priority areas for offset implementation of this surrogate


3.12 Bony Fish

3.12.1 Background Commercially relevant fish species are monitored for sustainable harvest by the Department of Fisheries (DAF), however there is no long-term analysis of trends in coral reef fishes, which are likely to have been highly impacted by habitat declines. Both target and nontarget fish populations that interact with the fisheries are under significantly more pressure in the southern two-thirds of the Reef, but conditions of northern populations are still relatively unknown. Severe weather events and declines in water quality are likely to exacerbate fisheries declines (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). In addition, fishing pressure has likely reduced the size of fish and fish populations, and reduced abundance, especially in Spanish mackerel that are approaching ‘overfished’ stock status, and coral trout whose populations have declined from ‘sustainably fished’ stock status to ‘uncertain.’

Northern inshore and offshore populations are reported to be in good condition, with stable offshore population but deteriorating inshore populations. Southern inshore and offshore populations are thought to be in good condition, and stable in offshore populations but deteriorating in inshore populations (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). This is especially true from two species of threadfin salmon that have been assessed to have high vulnerability, grey mackerel with medium vulnerability, snapper which has been assessed as overfished (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014).

Trajectories for bony fish will vary based on the species, but overall trends are deteriorating for inshore populations in the north and south, while offshore populations are more stable. Reef 2050 Plan sets out actions to improve the sustainability of fisheries in the Reef (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015a), including species plans to keep coral trout stocks at 60% unfished populations. A new fisheries green paper sets this 60% target for all fisheries in the state (State of Queensland, 2016b).


LITERATURE REVIEWWhile a net buyback program for the inshore net fishery is ongoing (State of Queensland, 2015), there are still concerns about the number of licenses for this fishery (Darren Cameron, pers comm). In addition, while some commercial fisheries are outfitted with Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) such as trawlers in the region, additional VMS for all fisheries would improve management practices in the Reef (Darren Cameron, pers comm). Impacts to fish populations can also be improved by re-instating connectivity between coastal habitats and river and estuary systems (Creighton, Boon, Brookes, & Sheaves, 2015), and restoration of fish habitat spawning and nursery grounds.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere were two suggested offset action categories involving research and habitat. The research actions suggested knowledge and data about the links between habitat and fishes and fishers need to be encouraged to keep more detailed catch records and catch locations. The habitat action suggested improve connectivity in coastal habitats (e.g. remove barriers to fish passage).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Underfunded actions defined within an existing strategy / plan / initiative (please provide details below)” and commented “Critical gap in our understanding of how fishing pressure including from Charter Industry is affecting the functional roles fish have on coral reefs and in seagrass meadows.”


3.12.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWNo costs data were identified through the literature review.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARY“It will depend as not all bony fish are equal. For example, one IUCN listed Maori Wrasse has far greater value than 1 bream or the same kilogram equivalent of bream.”

[Name withheld] “has declined to estimate costs for offset implementation due to insufficient information and concerns with the overarching approach being taken to arrive at the value.”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “other” and commented “Approximate guide. Calculate the total monetary value of fishing in GBR waters (direct commercial harvest, recreational fishing value, charter fishing value, indigenous fishing value; for each of these, include the flow-on economic consequences of jobs and related businesses). Add the total estimated tourism monetary value of having fish to look at on the GBR (only able to be estimated at this stage).”


LITERATURE REVIEWThe only high priority area for offset implementation listed was fishing license buyback with a priority on inshore areas, but that offset location should depend on the value of the surrogate and where the greatest opportunity for maximum benefit can be derived, most likely through the entire home range of the impacted species.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThree respondents replied to this questions with one stating that offsets should be as close to the site of impact as possible, but the other two agreeing that offsets should be away from the impacts site, either in the same GBR zone or within the same catchment.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Away from the impact site, but within the same natural resources management region.


3.13 Sharks and Rays

3.13.1 Background Overall, shark and ray populations are considered to be in good condition, though there are concerns over several shark species including the grey and whitetip Reef sharks, and the Speartooth shark which was critically endangered but is now thought to be extinct in the Reef region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). An additional thirty species are under high risk from changing climate and eleven species are under high risk from otter trawl operations (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014), while coastal and estuarine species have been identified as the most vulnerable groups within the Reef and adjacent waters (eg blacktip sharks, hammerheads) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012c). In addition, the largetooth, dwarf and green sawfish have had substantial range contractions and population declines (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2013), and there are increasing concerns about the threat of the deep-water line fishery to deep-water shark species, that are particularly susceptible to extinction because of habitat specifications and life history traits (shark vulnerability assessment). There are also concerns for species that interact with the trawl fishery, while shark-like batoids (ie sawfish, guitarfish) are particularly vulnerable to inshore net fisheries (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). Whale sharks, shortfin and longfin makos, and porbeagle sharks are pelagic and elusive species within the GBR with limited information of status and trends for populations.

Though many shark and ray species are data-deficient, the overall trend for shark and ray populations in the region is deteriorating (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). The action plan for sharks delivers guidance on improved conservation and management of sustainable shark fisheries (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012b), and while the Reef 2050 Plan commits to increases in ‘key indicator species’, shark and rays are not specifically mentioned (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015a).


LITERATURE REVIEWShark and ray conservation is difficult to assess as some species are commercially harvested and others are protected. No specific priority actions were found for sharks and rays, though there are recovery plans in place for several protected shark species including the Grey nurse shark, white shark, and a multi-species recovery plans for sawfish and other river sharks (Freshwater sawfish, Green sawfish, Dwarf sawfish, Speartooth shark). Protection of any habitat where riverine sharks aggregate for breeding, foraging, resting or migrating is considered habitat critical to the survival of the species (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015b).However a coordinated program to address anthropogenic pressures on inshore sharks and rays is needed, including improvements in water quality and the identification of areas of high conservation value (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012c). In addition, some historical net fishing areas interact in speartooth shark and sawfish habitat and closures could be beneficial in these areas (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012a). In addition, license buybacks (though already listed as a management action) could be beneficial in areas with incidental catch of protected shark species (i.e. sawfish interactions in the otter trawl fishery) (Commonwealth of Australia, 2012b), as well as the removal of barriers to sawfish migration in riverine habitats (Chevron Australia, 2012).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere were no expert suggestions for offset actions for Sharks and Rays.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Underfunded actions defined within an existing strategy / plan / initiative (please provide details below)” and commented “DOE 2015 - Sawfish and River Sharks - Multispecies Recovery Plan, actions are not being funded (to my knowledge). At least 650K is needed for a widespread public and Indigenous engagement program to identify sawfish and river shark hotspots on the east coast, for targeted research, capacity building, and a monitoring and evaluation program. These are itemised in the Recovery


Plan. These hotspots need to be reflected in coastal planning, e.g. water quality improvement plans and development impact assessment processes. Maybe also consider habitat recovery for degraded hotspot sites. Regarding other sharks and rays: (1) restore the Qld fisheries observer program. Note - this should be funded as outright by the Qld gov as part of their core responsibility, NOT from offsets which would be a gross example of inappropriate cost shifting; (2) identify critical coastal habitats that could be at risk from coastal development (3) a harvest strategy for the Qld east coast inshore finfish fishery that includes monitoring and evaluation.”

3.13.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWWhile the costs of most of these activities are species and location dependent, the Queensland government allocated 10 million dollars to fund license buy-backs for the inshore net fisheries, however the cost of the licenses are dependent on the catch per unit effort (CPUE) and the average number of days fished (DAF pers. comm). More detailed information on the specific costs of each license is available from the QLD Department of Fisheries (DAF). For example, WWF Australia recently agreed to purchase a single shark net license in the Reef for $100,000 (The Guardian Australia, 2015).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYNo responses on cost information for this surrogate.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate. Use the average estimates from the Round 2 expert elicitation (opportunity to revise your estimates and provide justifications/ references in the next” and provided the following estimates:

Highest Reasonable Cost $800,000Lowest Reasonable Cost $550,000Best Estimate $700,000Confidence (no response)Justification “DOE 2015 Sawfish and River Sharks - Multispecies Recovery Plan - costings for action 2 and 3, plus 20% based on my experience of working up in Cape York.”


LITERATURE REVIEWThe only high priority area for offset implementation listed was fishing license buyback with a priority on inshore areas, but that offset location should depend on the value of the surrogate and where the greatest opportunity for maximum benefit can be derived, most likely through the entire home range of the impacted species.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYTwo respondents to this question stated that offsets for sharks and rays should be implemented away from the impact site but within the same GBR zone.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Away from the impact site, but within the same natural resources management region” and commented “Offsets should focus on the hotspot areas where sawfish/river shark abundance is highest and where critical ecological processes (e.g. nurseries) are occurring. This MIGHT include ensuring that riverine habitat”


3.14 Sea Snakes

3.14.1 BackgroundThere are 14 species of snakes, with declines in species richness occurring from north to south (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). An estimated 100,000 sea snakes are caught as by-catch in the trawl fishery leading to a 26% mortality rate (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). Of particular concern is the high risk of the east coast otter trawl fishery to two species of sea snake, the ornate Reef and the elegant sea snake (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). All sea snake populations throughout the Reef considered to be in poor but stable condition, however this is a data poor species and trend and condition data are based on very limited and limited evidence or consensus (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).

There is extremely limited information on sea snake abundance, but populations are thought to be in poor condition, with a stable trajectory (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). However, while the Reef 2050 Plan commits to increases in ‘key indicator species’, sea snakes are not specifically mentioned (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015a).


LITERATURE REVIEW

Results from a recent research project estimated that over 100,000 sea snakes are caught in the East Coast Trawl Fishery each year (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011c). The implementation of by-catch reduction devices (BRDs), research on the impact of shorter trawl times and the impacts of climate change, and other measures to mitigate the impacts of trawling areas with high incidental mortality rates were all listed as important activities in the Reef Sea snake vulnerability assessment (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011c). In addition, a study found that Fisheye BRD were the most effective at excluding sea snakes, reducing catch rates by 60% (Courtney et al., 2007).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThe experts suggested two categories of offset actions: research and removing threat of activities.

The research actions included addressing data deficiency; desktop review of species specific distributions; defining relative abundance, habitat, biodiversity and connectivity; desktop review of species specific vulnerability and threat assessments based on life history, connectivity; desk top assessment of the adequacy of existing marine reserves in protecting sea snakes in the GBR catchment; and improving monitoring of interactions with anthropogenic threatening processes (e.g. trawl fishing, dredging/coastal development, offshore mining.

The suggested actions included improving the quality of important seagrass, reef and intertidal habitats; remove trawling; reducing impact of coastal development threat and climate change threat mitigation.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYTwo experts selected “other actions” and commented:

“-The development of a GBR wide conservation strategy for sea snakes -Development of a cumulative impacts assessment for sea snakes and to determine an estimate of how much habitat is available for offsetting throughout each species range (e.g. it is not infinite, so what is our best estimate of how much is available to 'take' in return for offsetting (through coastal development), with regard for the level of site fidelity in this group. -genomic connectivity assessments of the 16 GBR species (as the easiest and probably cheapest method available, which can use archival samples from Blanche D'Anastasi, Vimoksalehi


Lukoschek, Tony Courtney and Queensland Museum and supplementary sampling via trawl by catch) to determine the geographic scale of over which offsets should be considered. -Removal of trawl effort -reducing the impacts of coastal development (mining/gas/oil extraction, ports, agriculture, urban, commercial, ports) -Reducing the impacts of offshore development (dredging, risk of shipping incidents, mining/oil/gas extraction”

“- Increased resources to facilitate research on data deficient species, - Developing management strategies (e.g. bycatch reduction policy, seismic mining survey policy) to reduce interaction with anthropogenic threatening processes (i.e. trawling, mining and coastal development)”

3.14.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWNo cost data was identified in the literature review on the implementation of any of the above actions.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThree respondents provided information on costs for this surrogate.

Highest reasonable cost: range of $500,000 - 1,000,000, average of $750,000Lowest reasonable cost: range of $6,000-50,000, average of $28,000Best estimate: range of $100,000-100,000, average of $100,000Confidence that highest to lowest interval contains a reasonable estimate: one response of 40/100 (two blank)

Justifications and comments:

“The values of estimated costs were based on previously mentioned values associated with seagrass habitat restoration. Since sea snakes are often highly site attached and are closely linked with these habitats, it is reasonable to find 100 individuals within a hectare of seagrass habitats in marine snake biodiversity hotspots.”

“Sorry! I don't know how much it would cost to remove trawl hours vs. individual sea snake. Could be calculated by dividing sea snake by-catch by trawling revenue.”

[Name withheld] “has declined to estimate costs for offset implementation due to insufficient information and concerns with the overarching approach being taken to arrive at the value.”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate. Use the average estimates from the Round 2 expert elicitation (opportunity to revise your estimates and provide justifications/ references in the next question).” and provided the following estimates:

Highest Reasonable Cost $100,000Lowest Reasonable Cost $20,000Best Estimate $100,000Confidence (no response)Comment “If you are permanently taking or damaging sea snake habitat, this is as good as taking them forever. This is unacceptable and $100000 for deleting part or all of a population that may not be able to self replenish for a long time, if at all, seems reasonable to me. I have reduced my minimum estimate as I realise that $50 000 as a minimum is almost certain to be rejected.”


One expert selected “other” and commented “Directly measuring costs of reducing threatening processes for sea snakes can be unreliable as sufficient information is not available to accurately assess the interaction between sea snakes and threatening.”


LITERATURE REVIEWNo spatial priority data for sea snakes were identified through the literature review.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYAll five respondents agreed that offsets for sea snake should occur away from the impact site, with three stating that offsets should be within the same GBR zone, and two stating offsets should occur within the same catchment. One respondent thought a missing option was “the area that will reap the most benefit from the offset. My selection above is selected to prevent proponents from using offset funds to do works that they can advertise in order to gain social licence, or using the money for works that would benefit them.”

Very specific priority areas for implementation of offsets for sea snakes were listed:

● High priority areas for these species includes inshore areas of the Central GBR as well as the offshore southern reef habitats of the GBR

● Some known hotspots: Princess Charlotte Bay, Cleveland Bay, Townsville, Coral Sea (Mellish especially), Keppels, Swains-Pompey Reef Complex.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYTwo experts selected “Away from the impact site, but within the same zone of the GBRWHA (Northern, Central, or Southern zones)”


3.15 Marine Turtles

3.15.1 Background Northern inshore and offshore marine turtle populations are generally in poor and deteriorating condition, with southern inshore and offshore populations are in good and stable condition (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Nesting green turtles in the southern region increased by 3.8% per year for the 40 years up to 2008, but mass strandings of mainly green turtles were reported for 2011, 2012 and 2013 as a result of decreases in seagrass abundance (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). Northern stocks of green turtles have increased greatly since the 1970s, but have plateaued and declined slightly in recent decades, with early indications that northern nesting females are in early stages of decline (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014).

Populations of hawksbill turtles in the northern Reef have shown a 3% annual rate of decline, with some stability in population size between 2003 and 2008 (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). Loggerhead populations continue to recover after greater than 80% declines between 1970 and early 2000s, however there are concerns about juvenile recruitment from impacts outside of the Reef.


LITERATURE REVIEW The current marine turtle recovery plan is out of date, however a new draft recovery plan with specific actions will be available by the end of 2016 (Rachel Groom pers. comm). A recent study found that the actions most recommended by marine turtle scientists was to reduce the glow during nesting season, manage (trap, bait, shoot) foxes, feral pigs, and dogs in sea turtle nesting habitat, reduce suspended sediment, protect freehold and lands lease land (295 km 2) from coastal development, buyout trawling and gill net fishing licenses in Reef, any fishery with high incidental interaction with marine turtles (ie Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery), artificially shade nests, protect additional breeding and feeding habitat through the use of protected areas, and rubbish removal (i.e., ghost nets, large scale plastics pollution; Klein et al., 2016).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYExperts suggested a range of actions covering research, education, habitat management and works.

Research actions included monitoring in-water and nesting distribution and abundance of each species as part of Integrated monitoring program.

Monitoring actions included observers/video on vessels in inshore gill net fishery and TEDs in Trawl fishery.

Mitigation actions included predator control at nests; reducing risk of vessel strike including "Go slow zones" in high risk areas; reduction of glow from boats and land based sources of pollution near nesting sites; reduction in terrestrial runoff- sediments and herbicides to protect seagrass beds; closure of gill net fishery in BIAS and remote areas where surveillance is impossible

A spatial suggested action was restoration of Raine Island sea turtle nesting habitat.

Partnership actions included TUMRAs with remote Indigenous hunting communities; and indigenous rangers programs monitoring megafauna and assisting with strandings.

Education of fishers and support turtle hospitals to increase the likelihood of survival or animals injured through anthropological impacts.


EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARY

One expert responded “Underfunded actions defined within an existing strategy / plan / initiative (please provide details below)” and commented “Many of the current and pending strategy documents include contributions from several experts. It would be worthwhile to consider these documents where appropriate. The priorities should be considered on a case-by case basis and should consider the scale and impact to species affected. Offsets that contribute to lowering direct mortality of adult age classes should be prioritised.”

Two experts commented:

“Implement the marine debris threat abatement plan Actions aimed at addressing all threats ranked as high or very high in the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan International collaboration to aid the mitigation of turtle use in the south pacific - especially for hawksbill turtles which are the GBRs only declining species International collaboration to cease the commercial use of marine turtles in PNG (the PNG take comprises a high % of turtles from the GBR).”

“Depends on place.”

3.15.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWThe costs of these actions were also listed and prioritised based on cost versus effectiveness. The cost of reducing glow was $10.7-47.1 million, the management of ferals on Curtis Island was $0.8-2.81 million, reduce sediment was $61.6-225.7 million; protection of land from development on Curtis and facing islands was $28.4 million; Buyout 50% of trawling and gill net fishing was $100-258.4 million, and the cost of artificially shading duck island nests was $0.610 million dollars (Klein et al., 2016). More information is available in the supplementary material for that study. In addition, the marine turtle recovery plan lists actions to reduce the by-catch of marine turtles in fisheries at $1.9 million over 5 years, marine debris removal at $65,000 over 5 years and limiting egg predations at $215,000 over 5 years (Commonwealth of Australia, 2003).


EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Consult with additional experts (please provide contact details below)” and did not provide any contact names or details.

Two experts selected “I do not feel qualified to answer this question.”

One expert selected “other” and commented “The Curtis Island costings provided in the literature review for marine turtles is incorrect. Total numbers in regards to feral animal control has been used i.e. $2.81M, when this is the total feral animal strategy for the Island and is certainly not all about turtles. [Name withheld] is disappointed that this commentary, which was provided in the Round 1 survey, was not presented in the results. The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate.” (note: costings have been confirmed as correct).



LITERATURE REVIEWRaine Island is the breeding ground for one of the world’s largest populations of green turtles. Active management of Raine Island, including beach engineering and sand replenishment, is being implemented by Queensland.

Additional priority areas for conservation for marine turtles include predator control at Curtis Island, Facing Island and Nest Island, glow reduction within 20km of Woongarra Coast, sediment reduction from the Fitzroy river by 20%, protection of land from development on Curtis and Facing Islands and artificial shading of nests at Wild Duck island (Klein et al. 2016). Coastal seagrass pastures impacted by flood run-off and cyclone damage, especially between Cooktown and Rockhampton make conditions less favourable for Green turtle populations, and impact benthic communities that are a mainstay of the loggerhead diet after 2010/11 flood events (Col Limpus pers. comm.). In addition, management of sea turtles within ports is not possible for conservation purposes, additional management may be needed in these areas (Col Limpus pers. comm.).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThree respondents answered this questions with two stating that offsets for marine turtles should occur as close to the site of impact as possible, but another stating that offsets should be away from the impact site but within the same GBR zone.

While no specific priority areas for offset implementation were identified, one respondent stated that the offset implementation should be dependant on the impact to nesting sites and/or important populations, and another that offset location will depend on where the value/process has the greatest opportunity to be maximised and the nature of the impact. It was also discussed that offsets “should cover the entire home range of the species impacted” and “should take into consideration genetic stocks, not just marine turtles as a whole or individual populations, i.e. nth GBR stock and sth GBR stock.” In addition, it was noted that “the State and Commonwealth both share the rule that offsets should be located as close to the impact site as possible. However there is a need to ensure that rules regarding the siting of offsets does not prevent delivery of offsets in other areas if a better conservation outcome can be achieved. For example, higher conservation outcomes would presently be achieved for Olive Ridley turtles by allowing offsets that protect nests from predation in Western Queensland to be delivered for impacts on foraging habitat in the GBR.”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Away from the impact site, but within the same natural resources management region” and commented “Considerations should again consider the actual impact and scale. The impact to site is likely to be highly variable i.e. vessel traffic, habitat loss, lighting - other. The degree of impact to the site will likely determine how reasonable it is to offset within the the same site vs catchment/region or other.”

One expert commented “They should be implement for the same stock if possible - especially for nesting beach strategies, but because of mixed stock foraging areas there is likely to be overlap with other stocks (within and across species). Except for nesting beach protection, Catchments, NRM and GBR zones are not relevant scales for migratory species.”

One expert commented “Depends on the site - close to major netting beach or not.”


3.16 Estuarine Crocodiles

3.16.1 Background Crocodiles are considered in good and increasing condition throughout their range, and are actively recovering from declines following commercial harvesting of species. Surveys from 2010-2011 show populations in the southern two-thirds of the Great Barrier Reef recovery steadily, limited only by suitable nesting habitat (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014).


LITERATURE REVIEWWater quality improvements and removal of nets in inshore waters would be beneficial for the species (Department of the Environment, 2016b).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere was one suggested action “Supporting indigenous communities”.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYNo response.

3.16.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWNo costs were available from literature review


EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate. Use the average estimates from the Round 2 expert elicitation (opportunity to revise your estimates and provide justifications/ references in the next question).”

3.16.4 Spatial PrioritiesNo spatial priorities were identified through the literature review

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYOffset implementation for crocodiles was split between two respondents, with one stating that offsets should occur as close to the site of impact as possible and the other that offsets should occur away from the impact site but within the same GBR zone, with the offset implementation zone completely dependent on the impact on nesting site or important populations for the species.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYNo response


3.17 Seabirds

3.17.1 Background It is estimated that 1.4- 1.7 million seabirds use the region for breeding, as well as about 425,000 non-birding birds, for a total seabird population in the Reef in excess of 2 million (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). Declines of up to 70 percent of nesting seabird populations have been estimated at Raine Island where fourteen seabirds species habitually breed (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Long term monitoring at four important seabird rookeries show significant declines in several species, likely as a result of extreme weather events, climate change and increased human activities (Turner, Green, & Chin, 2006). In addition, a survey of 16 seabirds found declines in 13 of the species, including the most common species in the area (Great Barrier Reef Marine ParkAuthority, 2014).

Wedge tailed Sheerwater surveys indicate an nearly 40% decline in the southern Reef, while Black Noddy populations have remained stable. Brown Booby populations have also declined near Swains Reef and breeding pairs at Ganney Cay were around 500 in 1980 and are currently less than 100 individuals (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). Lesser Frigate Birds surveys in 2013 shower the highest number of breeding pairs since surveys started in 1979, though Common Noddies, Crested and Sooty terns all show a range of annual variation in breeding numbers with no discernible trend (Great BarrierReef Marine Park Authority, 2014).

Overall, the condition of the population is species dependent, and highly variable depending on location and exposure to threats. However northern and southern inshore populations are estimated to be in good and stable condition, while the northern and southern offshore populations are in poor and deteriorating condition (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). This assessment is based on limited evidence for both the condition and trend of the population, as there is limited long term data. Trajectories for seabirds will vary considerably based on the species, but overall trends are deteriorating for offshore populations, while inshore populations are more stable (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). There are several plans and agreements for migratory bird species, all of which require the protection of migratory birds and their habitats and the identification and removal of threats to the species (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005, 2011b, 2011d). In addition the Reef 2050 Plan (BT5) commits to improvements in population and habitats of key indicator species (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015a).


LITERATURE REVIEWPriority actions for the conservation of seabirds include the removal of marine debris (listed as a key threatening process; Wilcox, Van Sebille, & Hardesty, 2015), limiting access to sensitive areas not already under conservation land tenure and limiting the impact of long-line fisheries on seabird populations in the region, an activity that is also listed as a key threatening process for the species (Turner et al., 2006). Continuing monitoring programs and increasing management and monitoring of key breeding sites in the region could better conserve pelagic seabirds in the region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011d). Inshore seabirds would benefit from prioritising monitoring location where species are most vulnerable, continuing pest control at key breeding sites, and the management and protection of known important forage-fish resources, especially where they overlap with commercial and recreational fishing areas (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011b). In addition, a variety of critical research and monitoring priorities are listed in a report on seabirds and shorebirds in the face of climate change in the Reef region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere was one suggested action summarised as “research of feeding and breeding success of the offshore species.”



3.17.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWNo costs data were identified through the literature review. However rat eradication on islands is ongoing in many areas, though accurate cost data is not yet publically available.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYOne response:Highest reasonable cost $325,000Lowest reasonable cost $25,000Best estimate $300,000Confidence 40/100

“I have considered the need for two possible types of offsets. Offsets for on-island disturbance/removal of breeding habitat, or offsets associated with anthropogenic impacts on critical foraging resources. The first of these offsets could require the re-establishment of coastal and island breeding habitat. No costings are available for this so as a minimum surrogate I have used ~$K20-25/ha which are the cost associated with rainforest replanting in the Wet tropics. This cost would not include sand/substrate replenishment, the production and transportation of plants and other materials to breeding sites or plot maintenance costs. The second offset type could require significant changes to current pelagic fisheries practices, including modifications to fishing zones and catch limits. The highest cost provided is based on 10% decrease in annual allowable catch in the eastern tuna and billfish fishery due to foraging ground closures. This 'cost to implement' would likely be at the colony scale for pelagic foraging guilds with the appropriate surrogate metric ranging from 1000-20,000 individuals/species.”



LITERATURE REVIEWSpatial priority areas for conservation for seabirds include habitats critical to the survival of the species, including Raine Island for the protection of the Herald petrel, including breeding grounds that might occur within the Coral Sea (Commonwealth of Australia, 2005). Ensuring the maintenance of ongoing monitoring at Michaelmas Cay is valuable for longterm data on seabirds in the GBRWHA (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011b, 2011d). In addition, management of visitation on seabird breeding islands is important. However, additional research is key to identifying important areas for seabird conservation, especially in the face of climate change impacts throughout the region (Fuller & Dhanjal-Adams, 2012).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYFour respondents answered this question, with two stating that offsets for this surrogate should be implemented as close to the impact site as possible and the other two stating that it should occur away from the impact site but within the same GBR zone.

The only priority area for offset implementation discussed was at feeding sites and associated foraging locations.


3.18 Shorebirds

3.18.1 Background Fifteen species of shorebirds are resident in Australia and an additional thirty-four species are regular migrants (Queensland 2016). No population estimates are available for the regions shorebird population, though 70-80% declines have been recorded Australia-wide in the last 25 years. This is likely a result of changes to coastlines and population growth in coastal habitats, both in the region and throughout the migratory shorebird flyway (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Overall, shorebirds are likely in poor and deteriorating condition throughout the region, though very limited evidence is available.

Trajectories for shorebirds will vary considerably based on the species, but overall trends are poor and deteriorating for all regions within the Reef (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). There are several plans and agreements for shorebird species, all of which require the protection of shorebirds and their habitats and the identification and removal of threats to the species (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011b, 2015c). In addition the Reef 2050 Plan (BT5) commits to improvements in population and habitats of key indicator species (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015a).


LITERATURE REVIEWPriority actions for shorebird conservation revolve around habitat protection, especially for migratory species both inside the Reef region and in other locations throughout the flyway (Clemens et al., 2016; Iwamura et al., 2013). Other actions include removal of ghost gear such as fishing nets, though mortality has not been quantified from this source, and reduction in anthropogenic disturbance at key locations (ie dogs and people at post-breeding sites), removal and/or remediation of chronic pollution in feeding areas as shorebirds bioaccumulate herbicides and pesticides, invasive species control, such as flora and fauna species that impact wetland areas, and predator removal in key areas (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015c). In addition, a variety of critical research and monitoring priorities are listed in a report on seabirds and shorebirds in the face of climate change in the Reef region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere were no suggested actions for shorebirds.


3.18.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWNo cost data was available from the literature review.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYNo responses




LITERATURE REVIEWA newly developed shorebird conservation plan for Australia lists priority areas for shorebird conservation, one of which is the protection of wetland habitat in Australia on which migratory shorebirds depend (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015c). However, key spatial priority areas are focused mainly on impacts elsewhere in the region, specifically habitat loss and degradation at stop-over sites throughout Asia and the Yellow Sea region. However, additional research is key to identifying important areas for shorebird conservation.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThree respondents answered this questions, with two stating that offsets should be implemented away from the impact site but within the same GBR zone, and another stating that an offset should be as close to the impact site as possible. No high priority areas were described.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYNo response


3.19 Whales

3.19.1 Background An estimated 15 whale species visit the Reef, and while there is no information on most of the species, Humpback whales are recovering well at a pace of 10.5 to 12.3% per year and an estimated 12,000 individuals in 2012 (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). Additional information can be found on the Commonwealth Conservation Advice for Humpback Whales. Little is known of the population of Dwarf Minke whales in the region, though they are reported consistently in the north and in low numbers in the south. The major threats to cetaceans are the impacts of climate change, especially in feeding grounds in the southern ocean, as well as the impacts of coastal development, ports and shipping activities and underwater noise pollution, leading to disturbance and displacement (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014d). Overall, whale populations are considered to be in good and increasing condition throughout the region.

Whales in the region are generally in good condition, though population estimates are only available for Humpback whales in the Reef which are increasing (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). The condition and trend factors for all whales is based on the Humpback whale population as there is limited evidence to support population data for any other species. However, there are recovery plans in place for blue, fin, sei and southern right whales, but no actions for whales are specifically mentioned in the Reef 2050 Plan.


LITERATURE REVIEWActions to remove threats such as reducing entanglements and interactions with fishing gear, including entanglements in rock lobster pot lines which has been increasing, water quality improvements, reduction in marine debris, reduction in noise interference and reducing boat strikes as vessel numbers and populations grow in the region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007, 2014d; Environment, 2016) will benefit the population. In addition, Bryde’s whales are under-studied and more information is needed on the ecology of feeding, nursery and calving areas in the region, surveys and research to determine distribution and abundance of the population and ongoing monitoring (Department of the Environment, 2016a).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThere was one response which did not provide any suggested actions but suggested focus on definitions “The literature review (as provided above) references ports and associated activities and states that this disturbs and displaces the surrogate despite the findings of the Underwater Noise Prediction from Port Development at Abbot Point, Qld (McCauley et al., 2012), and the GBR Shipping Review of Environmental Implications (PGM, 2012). [Name withheld] is of the opinion that a more balanced view in relation to the way in which the surrogate condition and trend is defined needs to be provided. Without this there is a risk that the identified conservation actions will not effectively deliver no net loss for this surrogate.”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Underfunded actions defined within an existing strategy / plan / initiative (please provide details below)” but did not provide any details.

3.19.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWNo cost data was identified in the literature review.



EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Consult with additional experts (please provide contact details below)” but did not provide any details.

One expert selected “The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate. Use the average estimates from the Round 2 expert elicitation (opportunity to revise your estimates and provide justifications/ references in the next question).” but did not provide any estimates.


LITERATURE REVIEWThe only spatial priority identified in the literature review were areas with a high level of interaction with whale watching activities (Commonwealth of Australia, 2007).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThree respondents answered this questions, with two stating that offsets should be implemented away from the impact site but within the same GBR zone, and another stating that an offset should be as close to the impact site as possible. No specific priority areas for offset implementation were discussed, with one respondent stating “It is highly unlikely that this would be an offsetable surrogate instead potential impacts would be addressed through approval conditions.”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert responded “Refer to earlier response and also consider if greater benefit to the species could be achieved in other locations for the same subpopulation.” (note it is not clear which “earlier response” is relevant)


3.20 Dolphins

3.20.1 Background An estimated 18 species of dolphin are found in the region, with limited information or monitoring on the status or population of most species (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). All dolphins are protected in the region, but two inshore species, the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin and the Australian snubfin dolphin have small localised, inshore populations, that are under threat from human development and expansions are likely declining. While there are no population estimates for the Indo-Pacific humpbackdolphin in the region, estimates in Cleveland Bay are 50 or less, 64 on the Capricorn coast, 107 in Keppel bay and 85 at Port Curtis (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014). However, because of the small populations, declines are unlikely to go detected (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). Similarly, the snubfin population is limited to less than 100 in Cleveland and Halifax bays, 70 in Keppel Bay area. For the snubfin population to remain stable most areas can only sustain 1 animal death every four years, however the viability of the population is currently at risk, and limited biological and ecological data is available on the species (Cagnazzi, Parra, Westley, & Harrison, 2013).

Overall dolphin population are stable throughout the regions, except in southern inshore regions where populations are poor and deteriorating (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a), though the Outlook report (2013) states that overall the dolphin population in the Region is good but deteriorating. This is especially true for two species: Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, which lack population data but are likely declining throughout their range (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). The Reef 2050 Plan specifically commits to stabilising or increasing the population of both species throughout the region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015a).


LITERATURE REVIEWPriority actions for dolphin conservation in the region include minimising impact of inshore net fishery and East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery (ECIFFF) on dolphin populations, especially in areas that have high interactions with Indo-Pacific humpback or Australian Snubfin dolphin (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011a). Additional research is needed to examine fishing effort data, SOCI data, observer records and stranding data to assess the effectiveness of current management measures in ensuring adequate conservation of snubfin dolphins (State of Queensland, 2011). For Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins more data is needed on interactions between inshore populations and the East Coast Trawl fishery as well as the ECIFFF fishery, in particular the set mesh net operators (Department of the Environment, 2016d). In addition, improvements in habitat and water quality protection are key, as well as minimising the threat that underwater noise and activity from increased vessel traffic, surveying, construction, dredging and maritime operations pose to inshore dolphins (Commonwealth of Australia, 2011a).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThe experts suggested actions associated with research, partnership, reducing impacts and educations.

The research and monitoring actions included research on distribution and abundance of coastal dolphins; and robust definition of Biologically Important Areas (BIAS) by experts; and observers /video on vessels in relevant fisheries.

The partnership action included TUMRAs, investment in Indigenous ranger programs and education of fishers.

The actions associated with reducing impacts included buy out/closures of inshore gill net fishery and trawl fisheries in key areas; closure of gill net fishery in BIAS and remote areas where surveillance is impossible.


EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARY

Two experts selected “Underfunded actions defined within an existing strategy / plan / initiative (please provide details below)” and one of these experts commented “National co-ordination of marine mammal research and conservation activities is imperative for successful conservation and management initiatives. The Australian Marine Mammal Centre (AMMC) based on Hobart previously co-ordinated these activities, The Australian Marine Mammal Centre of the Department of the Environment and Energy was established as the first national research centre focused on understanding, protecting and conserving the whales, dolphins, seals and dugongs in our region. Funding to AMMC was cut in 2014 with the new government, leaving marine mammal research in Australia with no co-ordination network. AMMC worked extremely well, with a grants program that was transparent and fair. It is recommended that any available funding is once again directed through AMMC, with some core funding going-towards AMMC administrative and overhead costs. The Commonwealth Government has developed 'A Coordinated National Research Framework to Inform the Conservation and Management of Australia’s Tropical Inshore Dolphins'. Note, I cannot seem to find this document on the internet, but it can be obtained by emailed Prof. Helene Marsh ([email protected]) or Dr. Mike Double ([email protected]). This strategy has a number of high priority activites which could be considered for funding.

The prioritised Objectives are: Enabling Objective Objective 1 - Indigenous Engagement: Foster effective and informed partnerships with Australia’s Indigenous communities to enable sustainable conservation management of tropical inshore dolphins. Research Objectives High Priority Objective 2 - National Distribution Data: Provide for access to and analysis of standardised national tropical dolphin data to assess distribution and underpin management and conservation. Objective 3 - Long-term Monitoring: Gather and use information over long-term timescales to determine trends, mitigate impacts from threats, and support adaptive management and conservation of tropical inshore dolphins. Objective 4 - Threat Risk Assessment: Identify, map and assess threats to tropical inshore dolphins, understand related impacts, and mitigate risks. Research Objectives – Medium Priority Objective 5 - Dispersal and Movement: Improve understanding (at national, regional and local scales) of dispersal, movement, and genetic connectivity of tropical inshore dolphins to aid conservation and management at appropriate geographic scales. Objective 6 - Mortality and Life History: Foster collaborative and national approaches to effectively gather mortality, life history and dietary information from stranded and by-caught specimens. Objective 7 - Citizen Science: Foster community participation in data collection on tropical inshore dolphins and develop a continuous-improvement approach to methods and related programs.

The 2015 Coordinated National Research Framework also provides guidance on criteria for selecting priority key research sites, while recognising the need for flexibility in response to future major development proposals in areas where there may or may not have been previous dolphin research.

It is expected that further updates and revisions of this Coordinated National Research Framework will be needed within the next five years and so this Framework should be regarded as a ‘living document’.”

One expert selected “other” and commented “Depends on the site of the development.”

One expert commented “Underwater noise was highlighted as a concern but no actions (or was this captured under research, partnership, reduction impacts and education).”


3.20.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWNo specific data was identified in the literature review on the cost of implementing these management actions.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYNo responses

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Consult with additional experts (please provide contact details below)” but did not provide details.

One expert selected “other” but did not provide a comment.

Two experts selected “I do not feel qualified to answer this question.”

One expert selected “The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate. Use the average estimates from the Round 2 expert elicitation (opportunity to revise your estimates and provide justifications/ references in the next question).” but did not provide any cost estimates.

One expert commented “Previous cost estimates have been provided in a 2012 Inshore Dolphin Report http://www.marinemammals.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/115517/Inshore_Dolphin_Workshop_Report_Dec2012_final.pdf. Further consultation should be undertaken with Dr. Mike Double, Australian Marine Mammal Centre, [email protected], who is an independant expert in this field and previously led the AMMC.”

One expert commented “Inshore dolphin research and management actions are expensive because of the boat work required, poor weather than can postpone planned surveys, and remote regions inshore dolphins inhabit. The highest reasonable cost (50 million) is provided based on experience with conducting inshore dolphin research projects in remote areas, knowledge of the costs of effectively involving indigenous rangers groups and high costs of any management initiatives (i.e. observer programs, buy-back schemes etc) Lowest reasonable cost - Previous cost estimates have been provided in a 2012 Inshore Dolphin Report http://www.marinemammals.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/115517/Inshore_Dolphin_Workshop_Report_Dec2012_final.pdf. However, these costs were estimated in 2012, and costs would have increased since this time. 2 million over 3 years was provided by the Whale and Dolphin Protection Plan (http://www.nrm.gov.au/national/local/whale-dolphin-protection). Some good research was undertaken under this plan, but it was insufficient to assess the national status of inshore dolphins and implement management initiatives or continue any long-term research in priority sites.”


LITERATURE REVIEWSpatial priority areas for dolphin conservation in the Reef are focused specifically on habitat areas for inshore snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback populations (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a). More specifically the population within the Fitzroy river area as it is composed of less than 100 individuals (Cagnazzi et al., 2013), and the impacts of net fishing activity in the areas between Halifax Bay to Cleveland Bay (State of Queensland, 2011), and of inshore dolphins that inhabit areas within the East Coast Inshore FinFish Fishery (ECIFFF; Commonwealth of Australia, 2011a).


EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYFour respondents answered this questions with most stating that offsets should occur away from the impact site but within the same GBR zone, and one stating that offsets should occur as close to the site of impact as possible. Biologically important areas were mentioned as high priority areas for offset implementation, with one respondent stating “It is highly unlikely that this would be an offsetable surrogate instead potential impacts would be addressed through approval conditions.”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYTwo experts selected “As close to the site of impact (development or project site) as possible” and commented:

“Public expectation and population impacts are for these to be at or very near the impact site”

“Spatial priorities can be found within the 'Coordinated National Research Framework to Inform the Conservation and Management of Australia’s Tropical Inshore Dolphins'. Note, I cannot seem to find this document on the internet, but it can be obtained by emailed Prof. Helene Marsh ([email protected]) or Dr. Mike Double ([email protected]). An excellent example of an offset strategy to monitor inshore dolphins was implemented in Darwin Harbour by INPEX and NT Government. The inshore dolphin component was included within the 30 million coastal offset strategy (http://www.inpex.com.au/media/1707/coastal-offset-strategy-commonwealth-government.pdf), where monitoring information was obtained at the project site, and new information from other parts of the Territory. The Rio Tinto Alcan (RTA) Amrun project also provides a good example of where offsets for inshore dolphins could be implemented. Because dolphins are highly mobile, particularly when disturbed, offsets were implemented in three sites, one close to the site of impact, one close to a neighbouring site that had been impacted, and one in a neighbouring site that had no impact and would not be impacted in the near future. The requirement for RTA to conduct studies during pre-construction, construction and post construction was a good example of where, and how, offsets should be directed. The allowed cost of 1 million was too low for this project to be undertaken over the 5 years, which has been a problem for implementation of the RTA inshore dolphin strategy. The associated strategy and references can be found at: Attached is the link to the Rio site - http://www.riotinto.com/australia/reports-and-publications-16120.aspx This relevant documents are: Inshore Dolphin Offset Strategy - Response to Reviewer Inshore Dolphin Offset Strategy Inshore Dolphin Baseline Survey.”

One expert commented “Depends on the site of development.“

One expert commented “Areas of occupancy or distribution of species subpopulations impacted should be determined before implementation and inform site selection.”


3.21 Dugongs

3.21.1 Background Dugongs occur throughout the inshore regions of the Reef, with populations to the north in good and stable condition (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014), but populations to the south of Cooktown declining at a rate of 78.7% per year between 1962-1999 from 72,000 to 4000 individuals (Marsh, De'Ath, Gribble, & Lane, 2005). Evidence suggested that the southern and central population stabilised around 2009, but ongoing severe weather events, loss of seagrass habitats and combined human related impacts such as incidental catch in fishing nets, boat strikes, declining water quality and marine pollution, and coastal development have led to increased dugong mortality, the effects of which are not yet known (Brodie & Pearson, 2016; Marsh et al., 2005; Marsh, Hodgson, Lawler, Grech, & Delean, 2007). Dugong populations are best in Hervey Bay (coppo et al. 2014), and in the northern Reef and the Torres Strait (Sobtzick, 2014). The northern inshore population is estimated to be in good and stable condition, while the southern inshore population of dugongs is in very poor and deteriorating condition (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a).

While the Reef Strategic Assessment is the most up to date complete assessment of the Reef and all of its MNES, it was completed in 2014 based on earlier data and marine systems are dynamic, condition and trends included in this report are likely to have shifted in the two years since its publication and will continue change in the future. Dugong populations in the northern region of the Reef are reported as stable while southern populations are deteriorating significantly in the southern region (Commonwealth of Australia, 2014a; Marsh et al., 2007; Sobtzick, 2014). The Reef 2050 Plan commits tostabilising or increasing the population of dugongs at a Reef wide scale (Commonwealth of Australia, 2015a).


LITERATURE REVIEWKey priorities for dugong conservation are improvements in water quality and abundance of seagrass habitat throughout the region, as these are key for dugong conservation (Department of the Environment, 2016c; Marsh et al., 2007). In addition, reductions in interactions and incidental catches is shark exclusion devices and in fisheries net, sustainable management of indigenous hunts, and better management of coastal development, port expansion and vessel movements could improve threats to dugong populations (Department of the Environment, 2016c).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYThe experts suggested actions for dugongs associated with research, partnerships and reducing threats.

The research and monitoring actions included development of robust monitoring dugong distribution and abundance; Robust definition of Biologically Important Areas (BIAS) by experts; and observers/video on vessels in inshore gill net fishery.

The threat mitigation actions included reduction in terrestrial runoff- sediments and herbicides to protect seagrass beds; Closure of gill net fishery in BIAS and remote areas where surveillance is impossible; and development of robust means of reducing risk of vessel strike in BIAS

The partnership actions included TUMRAs, indigenous rangers programs funded securely in long term with robust on going training on monitoring megafauna and education of fishers about bycatch.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Underfunded actions defined within an existing strategy / plan / initiative (please provide details below)” but did not provide details.


Three experts selected “other” and commented:

“Depends on the site of the development. I would like to add replacing gill nets with lines in the mackerel fishery as a mitigation measure”

“Establish spatially meaningful monitoring of seagrasses in remote areas of the GBR that also support large populations of dugong such as in Princess Charlotte Bay and Shoalwater Bay to enable an understanding of likely impacts of habitat change on key dugong populations”

“Monitoring of fishing activity in the gillnet fisheries and (perhaps) subsequent closures, licence buy backs or other to reduce effort where likelihood of interaction is high.”

3.21.3 Costs

LITERATURE REVIEWNo cost data was identified through the literature review.

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYOne response:Highest reasonable cost $30,000Lowest reasonable cost $5,000Best estimate $15,000Confidence 80/100

“My estimate above then is the cost of (assisting the fisher to) buying and fitting the VMS (and camera) and of staff time to review the data. This doesn't necessarily convert to a single dugong life saved, but I hope is a reasonable unit for offsetting.”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYTwo experts selected “I do not feel qualified to answer this question.”

One expert selected “Consult with additional experts (please provide contact details below)” but did not provide details.

Two experts selected “The published cost data is insufficient or inappropriate. Use the average estimates from the Round 2 expert elicitation (opportunity to revise your estimates and provide justifications/ references in the next question).” but only one expert provided estimates:

Highest Reasonable Cost $30,000Lowest Reasonable Cost $5,000Best Estimate $15,000Confidence 80%Justification “Based around having been told by fishery managers that the VMS unit itself would cost approx. $2K. Would prefer to include some inexpensive video camera to film net hauls, but then recognising that significant staff time required to view and analyse location data and footage. At the lower end, occasional (6 monthly?) spatial analysis of boat locations overlaid with dugong hotspots would be valuable and relatively cheap.”


LITERATURE REVIEWSpatial priorities for dugong conservation are not readily available for the Reef as the species move with seagrass abundance (Helene Marsh pers. comm). However populations in the Torres Strait and Hervey Bay


are still in relatively good condition (Brodie, 2013) while southern populations of dugongs are declining rapidly as a result of water quality and seagrass abundance issues (Department of the Environment, 2016c; Sobtzick, 2014; Sobtzick, Hagihara, Grech, Jones, & Marsh, 2015).

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 1 SUMMARYSix respondents answered this question, with four stating that offsets for this surrogate should occur away from the impact site but either within the same GBR zone (3) or within the same catchment (1), two thought offsets should occur as close to the site of impact as possible.

Specific high priority areas for offset implementation included Biologically Important areas of regionally significant marine species (BIAS) if “robustly defined by expert elicitation”, and any of the bays in the GBR where dugong populations are consistently estimated at greater than 100kg. Lastly, one respondent stated “special attention needs to be afforded the far northern section of the GBR where populations of species like dugong and sawfish are still considered in good condition.”

EXPERT ELICITATION ROUND 2 SUMMARYOne expert selected “Away from the impact site, but within the same zone of the GBRWHA (Northern, Central, or Southern zones).”

One expert selected “Away from the impact site, but within the same catchment.”

Three experts provided comments:

“Depends on the site of the development . What is meant by southern populations of dugongs. I mean dugongs in the GBR south of Cooktown but I think others mean SEQ. Need to be careful here.”

“Again, consideration should be given to the impact (from the project) on these species and understanding what significant threats exist within the area impacted. Ideally, if the impacted site maintains a degree of integrity it would be worthwhile investing further in the local area. If this is not the case and there are other significant mortality issues affecting the stock more regionally - these should be addressed.”

“I remain torn on this one - I'm not sure what direct offsets you can offer for seagrass loss. Some improvement of catchment management/reduction of sedimentation into the same bay would be ideal, but it would be very hard to work out, for example, how much riparian fencing in a Burdekin tributary = 1 ha seagrass.”


Appendix 4. Case StudiesDisclaimer: the case studies are provided for illustrative purposes only as a guide to how to use the calculator and do not necessarily reflect actual existing projects.

4.1 Case Study 1: Port Expansion4.1.1 BackgroundThe first case study is a large port terminal expansion on the Queensland Coast in the Burdekin catchment region. The proposed action involves capital dredging of approximately 1 million cubic metres in situ of undisturbed seabed for ship berthing, construction of onshore containment ponds for dredged material, and relocation of dredged material.

Impacts from this project include direct impacts from dredging and seabed disturbance, such as direct removal of marine plants, and water quality degradation and siltification in the region affecting multiple Matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES). Other impacts include changes in coastal processes and movement of sediment, and indirect impacts or facilitated impacts such as increased port traffic, leading to noise and possible vessel strikes.

4.1.2 Predicted ImpactsThe Environmental Impact Statement predicts the following impacts on MNES:

● Suspended fine sediment : Though the project will involve approximately 1 million cubic metres of capital dredging. Mitigation measures will be applied to minimise the release of sediments generated by dredging, and the dredged material will be placed on land into containment ponds. The significant residual impact to the marine environment is predicted be approximately 10,000 tonnes (t) of suspended fine sediment.

● Coral Reef habitat and species : Unquantified indirect impact to coral habitat and species condition as a result of increased sedimentation.

● Seagrass habitat and species : Direct loss of 10 ha of seagrass that will be unable to recolonize within 5 years as a result of dredging. Indirect impact to 50 ha of seagrass (due to sediments) that could recover within 5 years.

● Halimeda habitat and species : No direct losses, unspecified indirect impacts to Halimeda in the project area.

● Shorebird species: A high diversity of migratory shorebirds were identified in the study area, including 3 critically endangered species. No direct impacts quantified.

● Seabird species: Several seabird species were identified in the study area, however none were listed species. No direct impacts quantified.

● Whale species : 15 individual whales were identified in the survey of the project area, unquantified impact as a result of increased vessel traffic and noise.

● Dolphin species: 100 Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphins and 20 Snubfin Dolphins were identified in surveys of the project area, impacts to the species unquantified as a result of increased vessel traffic, noise and habitat disturbance.

● Dugong species : There were 25 dugong observations in the project area, including adults, juveniles and calves, and were strongly associated with existing seagrass beds. Other impacts as a result of increased vessel traffic and noise were not quantified.

● Marine Turtle species : surveys indicate a concentration of marine turtles associated with the rocky reef that extends ~2.5km south of the project site. An estimate of 16 to 25 turtles using this area was made. However a recent study, showed 21 nesting tracks (unspecified species) in the project area. Nesting was considered ‘low density’ and no specific impacts were identified as a result of increased vessel traffic or noise.


Green Turtle - Foraging and nesting habitat for Green Turtles identified within the project area, including 5 nesting Green turtle tracks identified in night beach surveys

Flatback Turtle - Tracks identified during nesting surveys, however were unable to be identified as flatback specific, another survey identified 5 flatback tracks, while a more recent study identified 21 tracks in the project area.

Hawksbill Turtle - A total of six Hawksbills were identified in project surveys in the area, though none were recorded in the project footprint. No nesting areas were recorded, but the species may use the area for foraging.

Loggerhead Turtle - Two Loggerheads were identified in project surveys and suitable foraging habitat exists in the waters offshore of the project area. The project area has been identified as an area of high conservation importance for Loggerhead turtles.

Olive Ridley - The species has been confirmed in the project area though sightings are rare. The project area has been identified as an area of high conservation importance for Olive Ridley turtles.

● Sharks and Ray species :Manta Ray - Two Giant Manta rays displaying feeding behaviour were identified opportunistically in marine surveys of the area. However, no specific impacts were quantified as a result of increased noise or traffic pollution in the area, or loss or degradation of habitat.

4.1.3 Reef Trust Offset Financial Calculator Two significant residual impacts were identified through the environmental assessment process for surrogates that are available in the Calculator: 10,000 tonnes of suspended fine sediment and 10 ha of direct seagrass loss.


Risk-Adjusted Cost per unit $AUD

No. of Units to be Offset* Handling and Monitoring Fee

Offset Liability $AUD

Sediment Burdekin $464.39 10,000 1.15 $5,340,451

Seagrass Burdekin $833,940.60 10 1.15 $9,590,305

Total Offset Liability $14,930,756


4.1.4 Offsets

Surrogate Predicted Significant Residual Impact

Cost Action Location

Sediment 10,000 tonnes Calculator available; liability estimated $5,340,451

Catchment restoration actions determined by Reef Trust using guidance in Appendix 2

Location determined by Reef Trust using guidance in Appendix 2

Seagrass 10 ha direct loss Calculator available; liability estimated $9,590,305

Seagrass restoration and threat mitigation actions determined by Reef Trust using guidance in Appendix 2


Whales

If the Department determines there are significant residual impacts that need to be offset, and the proponent would like to deliver the offsets through arrangements with the Reef Trust, the cost, actions, and location of the offsets are to be negotiated on an ad hoc basis.

Dolphins

Dugongs

Marine Turtles

Sharks and Rays

4.1.5 DiscussionOnly two surrogates could be put directly into the calculator, suspended sediment (tonnes) and seagrass habitat (ha). Other impacts to surrogates were difficult to assess as many MNES are present within the project area, but impacts are not quantified explicitly enough for input into the calculator, or sufficient offset cost or feasibility data is unavailable at this time. Offset liability for these surrogates are additional to the liability listed in the calculator and would be determined on a project-by-project basis as part of the assessment process.

The EIA assesses a predicted direct loss of 10 ha of seagrass and an additional indirect impact to 50 ha of seagrass. The indirect impacts are predicted to be caused by water quality changes, and the EIA states that the indirectly-impacted seagrass is “likely” to recolonise. Therefore to avoid double-counting of impacts for the purposes of this case study, the direct impact was accounted for with the seagrass surrogate, and the indirect impact was accounted for with the suspended fine sediment surrogate.


4.2 Case Study 2: Marina4.2.1 BackgroundThe second example case study is the development of a resort and marina on an island in the GBRWHA in the Fitzroy catchment region. The development includes a large hotel, marina and ferry terminal. The development will occur predominantly on land that was previously grazed and on the site of an existing resort.

Impacts to the values of the Reef include degradation of water quality and increased sedimentation as a result of dredging activities. In addition, direct impacts are likely as a result of marina construction, water treatment and direct discharge of treated effluent directed into the Reef, and indirect or facilitated impacts from increased boating traffic and vessel strikes, and possible pest introductions from increased on-island visitors.

4.2.2 Predicted ImpactsThe Environmental Impact Statement predicts the following impacts on biodiversity:

● Fine Sediment: Modelling indicated the dredge plume will likely remain within the footprint but may extend beyond it at times and impact coral and seagrass habitat with concentrations of up to approximately 25 mg/L, which are substantially higher than the ANZECC & ARMCANZ 99% protection trigger value of 2.0 mg/L. It is estimated that this dredging will generate a maximum total dredge volume of 300,000 m3, of which 5% is likely to be exposed to the surrounding environment. However, while the depth of dredging needed and the concentration of total suspended sediment in the water column is listed, the significant residual impact of fine sediment (in tonnes) is not quantified directly.

● Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen : The project includes a sewage treatment facility and a pipe to pump treated effluent into the ocean approximated 1,000m from shore and 11 m deep, though most of the treated effluent would be used as water features on a golf course. This is likely to impact water quality, mangrove, seagrass and coral habitat, though the residual significant impacts over the life of the development as a result of DIN are not directly quantified.

● Seagrass habitat and species: Four species of seagrass were recorded in the survey with <5% cover and sparse patchy distribution. Dredging will result in the loss of approximately 10 ha of substrate supporting patchy seagrass (patches of <15% cover over <10% of that area), and the possible disturbance of an additional .004 ha of of sparse seagrass (regrowth can be expected). An additional area just beyond the dredge footprint may be indirectly impacted by silt. The EIA states that it is an area >1 ha, but does not specify the exact size or impact.

● Coral habitat and species: Coral communities of the project area were consistent with other studies in the area, and typical of the region with high coral cover and microalgae abundance and a high capacity to recover following disturbance. Coral cover was high in some areas (>40%) but low in others (<15%). Possible direct impact to up to 1.1ha of coral that is of 'high value’ to the Reef. Additional ongoing indirect impacts as a result of additional DIN contribution to the reef ecosystem were not quantified.

● Mangrove habitat and species: Some areas of disturbance and loss of up to 0.04 ha of mangroves may be required.

● Lagoon floor and associated benthic species: Dredging will result in the loss of approximately 21 ha of unvegetated soft sediment.

● Intertidal habitat and associated species: The intertidal areas support a diverse invertebrate community, with abundant benthic fauna and high species richness. Construction of the marina will result in a loss of approximately 1 ha of rocky intertidal habitat.

● Macroalgae habitat and species : Survey area supports a wide array of macroalgae, however no impacts were quantified as a result of habitat disturbance, loss or degradation.

● Bony fish species: Surveys indicate abundant habitat for marine fishes, with a variety of coral-


associated finfish. No impacts were quantified as a result of habitat disturbance, loss or degradation.● Sharks and ray species: Six species of sharks and ray were identified in surveys, including epaulette

shark and spotted eagle ray. No impacts were quantified as a result of habitat disturbance, loss or degradation.

● Marine turtles: Marine turtles are widespread in the project area, with five of Australia’s six species of marine turtles likely to occur in the project area. Species recorded: flatback turtle, green turtle and hawksbill turtle. A total of 30 nesting sites were identified, but no impacts to turtles were quantified as a result of habitat loss or degradation, changes to beach sediment as a result of renourishment, or the high likelihood of boat strikes from increased vessel traffic.

● Dolphin species: A pod of bottlenose dolphins were recorded at the survey site, which consisted of adult and juveniles feeding. Indo-pacific humpback dolphins, and common dolphin, Australian snubfin dolphin and Risso’s dolphin are all likely to occur in the project area. No impacts were quantified as a result of habitat disturbance, loss or degradation, or increased likelihood of vessel strikes.

● Whale species: Humpback whales, Bryde’s whales and Minke whales are likely to occur in the project area, however no impacts were quantified as a result of habitat disturbance, loss or degradation, or increased likelihood of vessel strikes.

● Dugong species: Dugongs are likely to occur and feed in the area, with frequent reported mother calf pairings in one bay, however no surveys were completed on the project areas. Impacts from the loss or degradation of seagrass habitat and boat strikes from increased vessel traffic in the area were not quantified explicitly.

4.2.3 Reef Trust Offset Financial Calculator Three significant residual impacts were identified through the environmental assessment process for surrogates that are available in the Calculator (see below).



No. of Units to be Offset* Handling and Monitoring and Fee


Mangrove Fitzroy $222,474.80 1 1.15 $255,846.02

Seagrass Fitzroy $833,939.60 11 1.15 $10,549,335.94

Shallow Reef

Fitzroy $8,777,369.60 1.1 1.15$11,103,372.54



4.2.4 Offsets



Sediment Not quantified in the EIS

Plan and Calculator available if a significant residual impact is quantified by the Department

DIN Not quantified in the EIS


Mangrove 1 ha direct loss Calculator available; liability estimated $255,846

Mangrove restoration and threat mitigation actions determined by Reef Trust using guidance in Appendix 2


Seagrass 11 ha direct loss Calculator available; liability estimated $10,549,335



Shallow Reef 1.1 ha direct loss Calculator available; liability estimated $11,103,372

Shallow reef restoration and threat mitigation actions determined by Reef Trust using guidance in Appendix 2


Marine Turtles

If the Department determines there are significant residual impacts that need to be offset, and the proponent would like to deliver the offsets through arrangements with the Reef Trust, the cost, actions, and location of the offsets are to be negotiated on an ad hoc basis.

Whale

Dolphin

Dugong

4.2.5 DiscussionOffset liability for seagrass, coral and mangrove were estimated using the Calculator. Other impacts to biodiversity were difficult to assess as many MNES are present within the project area, but impacts are not quantified explicitly in the EIS. The total amount of seagrass input into the calculator was 11 ha, though the EIS was unclear as to the exact amount of seagrass directly impacted. While both the total direct and indirect amounts were included in the calculator, a determination of significant residual impact as a result of indirect impacts would need to be determined by the Department.

Mangrove habitat in the amount of 0.04 ha was directly impacted by the development and though it was listed as possible to regenerate was also input into the calculator. Direct impacts to 1.1 ha of coral was input into the calculator, though the amount of indirect impact as a result of the development was not able to be input because of a lack of information within the EIS. Sediment and Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen could have been used in the calculator to account for indirect impacts as a result of declining water quality, however the significant residual impacts for water quality were not accounted for explicitly enough in the EIS for input.


Lagoon floor (21 ha) and Intertidal habitat (~1 ha) had sufficient impact amounts for input into the calculator, but not enough data is available on cost and effectiveness of offsets to input for use in calculator at this time.


4.3 Case Study 3: Aquaculture4.3.1 BackgroundThe third case study is a small aquaculture farm on the Queensland coast in the Burdekin catchment region, directly adjacent to the Reef. The project includes a staged construction of around 250 ha of aquaculture ponds along with the associated infrastructure. The proposed facility will use sand filtration and algae to remove both particulate matter and nutrients from the wastewater prior to discharge.

Impacts from the project include construction of new infrastructure in the region, including water intake pipes and a pump station for extraction of water at the facility, and discharge of treated wastewater directly to the marine park via an outfall pipe approximately 500m offshore.

4.3.2 Predicted Impacts● Suspended fine sediment: Some dredging will be done during the construction of the ocean pipeline,

however the amount of suspended fine sediment was not quantified.● DIN: A residual amount of about 40-60 tonnes of total nitrogen would be discharged after application

of the treatment systems and reduction in settlement ponds, to be discharged over a 287 day period at a rate of no more than 0.48 kg/ha/day. The report describes total nitrogen discharged and dissolved organic nitrogen, but not DIN.

● Seagrass Habitat and species: Approximately 1ha of seagrass will be directly lost as a result of dredging for the ocean pipeline. Additional indirect impact to seagrass from water quality degradation and cumulative impacts of discharge in the area were listed as likely but less than 5% of the total seagrass amount, however the total seagrass amount was not quantified explicitly (previous studies estimate 3500 ha (in 1997) and 1000 ha (in 2002)).

● Shallow reef habitat and species: Fringing reef occurs adjacent to the study area with both hard and soft coral present, impacts from water quality degradation were not quantified explicitly.

● Bony Fish: 11 listed fish species are known to occur near the site and could be impacted as a result of habitat loss or degradation, however impact is stated as unlikely.

● Seabirds: Short term impacts possible to little tern (Endangered) on wetland habitat quality within the pipeline corridor, however impacts to seabirds not explicitly quantified.

● Shorebirds: A total of five migratory shorebirds occur in the study area, with a further 23 species likely to occur - most of which are listed under migratory bird agreements. Possible impacts from installation of pipeline over beach habitat of shorebird species, and short term impacts to wetland water quality are listed but not explicitly quantified.

● Martine turtles: Green turtles are known to occur in the study area and impacts are likely to result from habitat degradation as a result of discharge of nutrients and potential loss of seagrass feeding habitat. However, impacts were not quantified explicitly.

● Sharks and Rays: 3 listed shark and 2 ray species are known to occur near the site and could be impacted as a result of habitat loss or degradation, however impact is stated as unlikely.

● Dolphin: Dolphins are likely to occur in the area, but no specific details were available on surveys or on the possible impact of water quality degradation on species of concern, particularly inshore dolphins like the indo-pacific humpback and snubfin dolphins that occur in the region.

● Dugong: Dugongs occur in high density in the area and feed on the extensive seagrass beds adjacent to the study site. Impacts are likely to result from habitat degradation as a result of discharge of nutrients and potential loss of seagrass feeding habitat. However, impacts were not quantified explicitly.

4.3.3 Reef Trust Offsets Financial Calculator



No. of Units to be Offset* Handling and Monitoring and



Fee

Seagrass Burdekin $833,939.60 1 1.15 $959,030.54

Total Offset Liability $959,031

4.3.4 Offsets



Sediment Not quantified in the EIS


DIN Not quantified in the EIS


Seagrass 1 ha direct loss Calculator available; liability estimated $959,031



Intertidal If the Department determines there are significant residual impacts that need to be offset, and the proponent would like to deliver the offsets through arrangements with the Reef Trust, the cost, actions, and location of the offsets are to be negotiated on an ad hoc basis.

Marine Turtles

4.3.5 DiscussionAn amount of 1 ha of seagrass was input using the calculator due to direct loss from dredging. Approximately 50 additional hectares of seagrass would be indirectly impacted from water quality declines. This was based on the most recent survey (2002) of seagrass habitat and the estimation that 5% would be impacted, however more precise data would be needed to accurately account for the significant residual impacts to seagrass. Other impacts to surrogates were difficult to assess as many MNES are present within the project area, but impacts are not quantified explicitly enough for input into the calculator, or sufficient offset cost or feasibility data is unavailable at this time. Offset liability for these surrogates is additional to the liability listed in the calculator and would be determined on a project-by-project basis as part of the assessment process.

Water quality surrogates could have been included in the calculator but the data available was either not quantified or in the incorrect measurement. A determination of significant residual impact as a result of indirect impacts to water quality would need to be determined for accurate input into the calculator. Aquaculture is subject to EPA testing, which requires reporting in total nitrogen or dissolved organic nitrogen rather than dissolved inorganic nitrogen, and in total suspended solids rather than suspended fine sediment. Pipes and discharge are subject to assessment under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Permission System.


4.4 Case Study 4: Harbour Development4.4.1 BackgroundThis case study is a hypothetical development within the Burnett-Mary region of the Great Barrier Reef, used to demonstrate the types of impact data needed from the EIA for input into the Calculator. The development will occur on previously grazed land, and include the construction of a small harbour. The project includes dredging of 200,000 cubic metres of previously undisturbed seabed during project development.

Impacts to the values of the Reef include degradation of water quality and increased sedimentation as a result of dredging activities and increased dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) loads. In addition, direct impacts from the removal of seagrass and mangrove habitat as well as possible disturbance to marine turtle nesting habitat, water treatment and direct discharge of treated effluent directed into the Reef region. Additional indirect impacts to coral reef and seagrass habitat are likely, as well as indirect impacts to listed species as a result of habitat degradation, decreased water quality, increased boating traffic and vessel strikes.

4.4.2 Predicted Impacts● Suspended Fine Sediment: Dredging will be done during the construction of the project. While

400,000 cubic meters will be the total amount removed, the significant residual impact assessed after mitigation measures was 4,000 tonnes of suspended fine sediment.

● DIN: Ongoing DIN contribution to the Reef region after mitigation was estimated at 1,000 kg per year for the life of the project (50+ years), approximately 50,000 kg total.

● Intertidal habitat and species: Possible direct impacts to 2 ha of marine turtle nesting beach habitat and 3.5 ha nesting and foraging habitat for shorebirds as a result of small harbour development and changing of sand flow regimes.

● Mangrove habitat and species: Approximately 0.6 ha mangrove habitat will be cleared for the project. ● Saltmarsh habitat and species: Development of 2 ha poor condition saltmarsh habitat directly

adjacent to previously grazed cattle property.● Seagrass Habitat and species: Approximately 0.75ha of seagrass will be directly lost as a result of

dredging. Additional indirect impact to seagrass from water quality degradation and cumulative impacts of discharge in the area were listed as likely for an additional 10 ha. Indirect impacts to species as a result of seagrass habitat include Green turtles and Dugongs.

● Coral reef habitat and species: Fringing reef occurs directly adjacent to the project area with both hard and soft coral present, indirect impacts were estimated at approximately 1.39 ha of reef habitat, however additional surveying should be completed to determine number of different coral species present and give a more accurate estimate of project impact.

● Seabirds: A total of three inshore coastal seabirds occur in the project area and are likely to be impacted from the removal of habitat. Seabird surveys observed 51 individuals of species A, 116 individuals of species B and 450 individuals of species C. Of those, approximately 10% will be lost or significantly impacted by project development.

● Shorebirds: A total of seven migratory shorebird species occur in the study area, with a further 19 species likely to occur, including 2 residents and 17 which are listed under migratory bird agreements. Possible direct impacts from loss of habitat, and indirect impacts from increased disturbance and habitat degradation, including loss or degradation of intertidal vegetation. Approximately 850 shorebirds were observed during surveys, of which approximately 20% will be directly or significantly impacts by project development. Of the other 19 species likely to occur, additional surveying is needed to identify number of individuals and likelihood of project impacts.

● Martine turtles: Green turtles are known to feed and nest in the project area and direct impacts from increased disturbance and change to nesting beaches are likely to occur as well as indirect impacts from habitat degradation as a result of discharge of nutrients and potential loss of seagrass feeding habitat. Approximately 45 nesting sites were observed during surveys.

● Dolphin: Inshore dolphin species occur in the area, including the indo-pacific humpback dolphin and


Australian snubfin dolphin. Direct impacts from increased boat strike possible as a result of development and indirect impacts from loss of foraging habitat and degradation of water quality. Surveys suggest a population of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin in the areas of around 20 individuals, and Australian snubfin dolphins in the area at around 40 individuals. With mitigation, significant impacts are likely to be limited to 25% of total number of individuals, though ongoing monitoring is needed.

● Dugong: Dugongs occur in high density in the area and feed on the seagrass beds adjacent to the project site. Direct impacts are likely from increased vessel strikes and indirect impacts are likely to result from habitat degradation as a result of discharge of nutrients and potential loss of seagrass feeding habitat. Surveys of the area estimate Dugong populations at about 120 individuals, of which only 10% are likely to be residually impacted after project mitigation.

4.4.3 Reef Trust Offsets Financial Calculator

Surrogate NRM Region Risk-Adjusted Cost per unit $AUD

No. of Units to be Offset*

Handling and Monitoring and Fee


Sediment Burnett-Mary $464.39 4,000 1.15 $2,136,180.20

Nitrogen (DIN)

Burnett-Mary$268.95

50,000 1.15$15,464,625

Mangrove Burnett-Mary $222,474.80 0.6 1.15 $153,507.61

Seagrass Burnett-Mary $833,939.60 0.75 1.15 $719,272.91

Saltmarsh Burnett-Mary $322,617.60 2 1.15 $742,020.48



4.4.4 Offset Liability



Sediment 4,000 tonnes Calculator available; liability estimated $2,136,180



DIN 50,000 kg Calculator available; liability estimated $15,464,625



Mangrove 0.6 ha Calculator available; liability estimated $153,508

Restoration and threat mitigation actions determined by Reef Trust using guidance in Appendix 2


Seagrass 0.75 ha Calculator available; liability estimated $719,272



Salt marsh 2 ha Calculator available; liability estimated $742,020



Seabirds Proponent negotiates with Reef Trust to determine the cost, actions, and location of the offsets are to be negotiated on an ad hoc basis.

Shorebirds

Marine TurtlesIf the Department determines there are significant residual impacts that need to be offset, and the proponent would like to deliver the offsets through arrangements with the Reef Trust, the cost, actions, and location of the offsets are to be negotiated on an ad hoc basis.

Dolphins

Dugongs

4.4.5 DiscussionA significant residual impact of 4,000 tonnes of sediment and 50,000 kg of DIN (over the life of the project) were input into the calculator. Only direct impacts to seagrass and mangrove habitats were input into the calculator as indirect impacts could be addressed by the inclusion of sediment and nitrogen. All significant residual impacts to species and habitats not able to be input into the calculator at this time, will be determined on a project-by-project basis as part of the assessment process.


This hypothetical case study was used to demonstrate the type of information needed to input values into the calculator for all three tiers of surrogates. Direct and indirect impacts to species of concern are often not explicitly quantified in the EIS process. This is because of a lack of data on the number of individuals in the project area as well as an inability to accurately estimate project impacts over the long term. While these numbers and percentages of significant residual impacts are fabricated, this is the type of information that will need to be determined for input into the calculator.


Appendix 5. ReferencesAbelson, A. (2006). Artificial reefs vs coral transplantation as restoration tools for mitigating coral reef

deterioration: benefits, concerns, and proposed guidelines. Bulletin of Marine Science, 78(1), 151-159.

Alleway, H. K., & Connell, S. D. (2015). Loss of an ecological baseline through the eradication of oyster reefs from coastal ecosystems and human memory. Conservation Biology, 29(3), 795-804.

ARC Centre for Coral Reefs. (2016). Coral death toll climbs on Great Barrier Reef [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.coralcoe.org.au/media-releases/coral-death-toll-climbs-on-great-barrier-reef

Atkinson, P. W. (2001). The success of creation and restoration schemes in producing intertidal habitat suitable for waterbirds.

Australian Academy of Science. (2014). Response to the draft reef 2050 Long-term sustainability plan. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.

Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS). (2016). Coral bleaching events. 2016, from http://www.aims.gov.au/docs/research/climate-change/coral-bleaching/bleaching-events.html

Bainbridge, Z. T., Brodie, J. E., Faithful, J. W., Sydes, D. A., & Lewis, S. E. (2009). Identifying the land-based sources of suspended sediments, nutrients and pesticides discharged to the Great Barrier Reef from the Tully–Murray Basin, Queensland, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research, 60(11), 1081-1090.

Bannister, J., Kemper, C. M., & Warneke, R. M. (1996). The action plan for Australian cetaceans: Australian Nature Conservation Agency Canberra, Australia.

Bayraktarov, E., Saunders, M. I., Abdullah, S., Mills, M., Beher, J., Possingham, H. P., . . . Lovelock, C. E. (2016). The cost and feasibility of marine coastal restoration. Ecological Applications, 26(4), 1055-1074.

Bearman, R., Jacobson, G., Webster, J., & Thomas, A. (2009). Understanding coldwater coral ecosystems on the Great Barrier Reef margin.

Beher, J., Possingham, H. P., Hoobin, S., Dougall, C., & Klein, C. (2016). Prioritising catchment management projects to improve marine water quality. Environmental Science & Policy, 59, 35-43.

Bell, J., Saunders, M., Lovelock, C. E., & Possingham, H. (2014). Legal frameworks for unique ecosystems – how can the EPBC Act offsets policy address the impact of development on seagrass.

Borja, Á., Dauer, D. M., Elliott, M., & Simenstad, C. A. (2010). Medium-and long-term recovery of estuarine and coastal ecosystems: patterns, rates and restoration effectiveness. Estuaries and Coasts, 33(6), 1249-1260.

Borja, Á., Fontan, A., & Muxika, I. (2013). Interactions between climatic variables and human pressures upon a macroalgae population: Implications for management. Ocean & coastal management, 76, 85-95.

Bos, M., Pressey, R. L., & Stoeckl, N. (2014). Effective marine offsets for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Environmental Science & Policy, 42, 1-15. doi: DOI 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.05.002

Bosire, J. O., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Walton, M., Crona, B. I., Lewis, R., Field, C., . . . Koedam, N. (2008). Functionality of restored mangroves: a review. Aquatic Botany, 89(2), 251-259.

Brodie, J. (Producer). (2013). The status and future of the Great Barrier Reef. Retrieved from http://reefcatchments.com.au/files/2013/02/Brodie-Mackay-overview-9-Sept-13.pdf

Brodie, J., Kroon, F., Schaffelke, B., Wolanski, E., Lewis, S., Devlin, M., . . . Davis, A. (2012). Terrestrial pollutant runoff to the Great Barrier Reef: an update of issues, priorities and management responses. Marine pollution bulletin, 65(4), 81-100.

Brodie, J., & Pearson, R. G. (2016). Ecosystem health of the Great Barrier Reef: Time for effective management action based on evidence. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science.

Brodie, J., & Waterhouse, J. (2009). Assessment of relative risk of the impacts of broad- scale agriculture on the Great Barrier Reef and priorities for investment under the Reef Protection Package. Stage One Report April 2009.

Brodie, J., Waterhouse, J., & Maynard, J. (2013). Assessment of the relative risk of degraded water quality to ecosystems of the Great Barrier Reef.

Brodie, J., Waterhouse, J., Schaffelke, B., Kroon, F., Thorburn, P., Rolfe, J., . . . Devlin, M. (2013). Scientific Consensus Statement. Land use impacts on Great Barrier Reef water quality and ecosystem condition. The State of Queensland 2013. The GBR Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat.

Bull, J. W., Gordon, A., Watson, J. E., & Maron, M. (2016). Seeking convergence on the key concepts in ‘no net loss’ policy. Journal of Applied Ecology.

Bull, J. W., Hardy, M. J., Moilanen, A., & Gordon, A. (2015). Categories of flexibility in biodiversity offsetting, and their implications for conservation. Biological Conservation.

Bull, J. W., Suttle, K. B., Singh, N. J., & Milner-Gulland, E. (2013). Conservation when nothing stands still: moving targets and biodiversity offsets. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 11(4), 203-210.

Burgman, M., Carr, A., Godden, L., Gregory, R., McBride, M., Flander, L., & Maguire, L. (2011). Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment. Conservation Letters, 4(2), 81-87.


Burnett Mary Regional Group for Natual Resource Management. (2015). Water Quality Improvement Plan: For the Burnett Mary Region.

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). (2012). Guidance Notes to the Standard on Biodiversity Offsets. Washinton, D.C.: BBOP.

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). (2012). Standard on Biodiversity Offsets. Washington, D.C.

Cagnazzi, D., Parra, G. J., Westley, S., & Harrison, P. L. (2013). At the heart of the industrial boom: Australian snubfin dolphins in the Capricorn Coast, Queensland, need urgent conservation action. PloS one, 8(2), e56729.

Campbell, A. H., Marzinelli, E. M., Verges, A., Coleman, M. A., & Steinberg, P. D. (2014). Towards restoration of missing underwater forests. PloS one, 9(1), e84106.

Cape York Natural Resource Management. (2016). Eastern Cape York Water Quality Improvement Plan. Draft for community consulation.

Carr, M. H., Neigel, J. E., Estes, J. A., Andelman, S., Warner, R. R., & Largier, J. L. (2003). Comparing Marine and Terrestrial Ecosystems: Implications for the Design of Coastal Marine Reserves. Ecological Applications, 13(1), S90-S107. doi: 10.1890/1051-0761(2003)013[0090:CMATEI]2.0.CO;2

Carroll, C., Waters, D., Vardy, S., Silburn, D. M., Attard, S., Thorburn, P. J., . . . Wilson, B. (2012). A paddock to reef monitoring and modelling framework for the Great Barrier Reef: paddock and catchment component. Marine pollution bulletin, 65(4), 136-149.

Carter, A., Jarvis, J., Bryant, C., & Rasheed, M. (2015). Development of seagrass indicators for the Gladstone Healthy Harbour Partnership Report Card, ISP011: Seagrass (pp. 71 pp.). James Cook University, Cairns: Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem ResearchPublication 15/29.

Carter, J., Tait, J., Kapitzke, R., & Corfield, J. (2007). Final Report: Burdekin Dry Tropics NRM Region fish passage study. Townsville: Prepared by Alluvium Consulting for Burdekin Dry Tropics Natural Resource Management.

Chevron Australia. (2012). Chevron Wheatson Project Biodiversity offsets strategy.Clemens, R. S., Rogers, D. I., Hansen, B. D., Gosbell, K., Minton, C. D., Straw, P., . . . Weston, M. A. (2016).

Continental-scale decreases in shorebird populations in Australia. Emu, 116(2), 119-135. Cole, S. (2011). 'How Much is Enough?'Determining Adequate Levels of Environmental Compensation for

Wind Power Impacts Using Equivalency Analysis: An Illustrative & Hypothetical Case Study of Sea Eagle Impacts at the Smøla Wind Farm, Norway. Determining Adequate Levels of Environmental Compensation for Wind Power Impacts Using Equivalency Analysis: An Illustrative & Hypothetical Case Study of Sea Eagle Impacts at the Smøla Wind Farm, Norway (March 3, 2011).

Coles, R. G., Rasheed, M. A., McKenzie, L. J., Grech, A., York, P. H., Sheaves, M., . . . Bryant, C. (2015). The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area seagrasses: managing this iconic Australian ecosystem resource for the future. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 153, A1-A12.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2003). Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles (W. C. B. E. Australia, Trans.). Canberra, ACT.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2005). Issues paper - Population status and threats to ten seabird species listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation. Canberra: Department of the Environment and Heritage

Commonwealth of Australia. (2005). ISSUES PAPER Population status and threats to ten seabird species listed as threatened under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Canberra: Departmen of the Environment and Heritage.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2005). Recovery Plan forten species of Seabirds 2005-2010. Canberra: Department of the Environment and Heritage.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2011). Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2009 (Baseline). Reef Water Quality Protection Plan.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2012). Assessment of the East Coast Inshore Fin Fish Fishery. Canberra: Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2012). National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks 2012 Shark-plan 2: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2013). Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2010. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2013). Great Barrier Reef report card 2011: Reef Water Quality Protection Plan. Brisbane: Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2014). Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2012 and 2013. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2014). Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2013 - prioritisation project report. Canberra.

Commonwealth of Australia. (2014). Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2013. Securing the health and resilience of the


Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent catchments.Commonwealth of Australia. (2014). Results Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2014.Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2014. Reef Water Quality Protection

Plan.Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan Commonwealth of Australia.Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). Sawfish and River Sharks Multispecies Recovery Plan.Commonwealth of Australia. (2015). What Australia is doing to manage the Great Barrier Reef from

http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/gbr/publications/what-australia-is-doingCommonwealth of Australia. (2015). Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds.Commonwealth of Australia. (2016). Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2015. Reef Water Quality Protection

Plan.Coppo, C., Brodie, J., Butler, I., Mellors, J., & Sobtzick, S. (2014). Status of Coastal and Marine Assets in the

Burnett Mary Region. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication, James Cook University, Townsville, 89.

Coppo, C., McKenzie, L., & Brodie, J. (2016). Status of Coastal and Marine Assets in the Eastern Cape York Region. Report No. 15/65. (pp. 61). Townsville: Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) Publication, James Cook University,.

Cotterell, E. J. (1998). Fish Passage in Streams: Fisheries Guidelines for Design of Stream Crossings. Brisbane: Queensland Government Department of Primary Industries.

Courtney, A. J., Haddy, J. A., Campbell, M. J., Roy, D. P., Tonks, M. L., Gaddes, S. W., . . . Taylor, J. (2007). Bycatch weight, composition and preliminary estimates of the impact of bycatch reduction devices in Queensland’s trawl fishery, FRDC project 2000/170 Final Report Brisbane: Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.

Creighton, C., Boon, P. I., Brookes, J. D., & Sheaves, M. (2015). Repairing Australia's estuaries for improved fisheries production – what benefits, at what cost? Marine and Freshwater Research, 66(6), 493-507. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/MF14041

Croxall, J. P., Butchart, S. H., Lascelles, B., Stattersfield, A. J., Sullivan, B., Symes, A., & Taylor, P. (2012). Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: a global assessment. Bird Conservation International, 22(01), 1-34.

Darnell, R., Henderson, B., Kroon, F. J., & Kuhnert, P. (2012). Statistical power of detecting trends in total suspended sediment loads to the Great Barrier Reef. Marine pollution bulletin, 65(4), 203-209.

De’ath, G., Fabricius, K. E., Sweatman, H., & Puotinen, M. (2012). The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(44), 17995-17999.

De’ath, G., Lough, J., & Fabricius, K. (2013). Corrigendum: declining coral calcification on the Great Barrier Reef. Science, 342(6158), 559.

De'ath, G., Lough, J., & Fabricius, K. (2009). Declining coral calcification on the Great barrier reef. science323, 116-119.

Department of the Environment. (2016). Balaenoptera edeni in Species Profile and Threats Database. from Department of the Environment http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=35#threat_abatement_and_recovery

Department of the Environment. (2016). Crocodylus porosus in Species Profile and Threats Database. from Department of the Environment http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1774

Department of the Environment. (2016). Dugong dugon in Species Profile and Threats Database. from Department of the Environment http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=28

Department of the Environment. (2016). Hydrophis elegans in Species Profile and Threats Database. from Department of the Environment http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1104#threat_abatement_and_recovery

Department of the Environment. (2016). Sousa sahulensis in Species Profile and Threats Database. from Department of the Environment http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=50

Donlan, C., & Wilcox, C. (2009). Maximizing return on investments for island restoration and seabird conservation in southeast Alaska, USA and British Columbia, Canada. Report prepared for Island Conservation. Advanced Conservation Strategies. Midway, Utah, USA. Available at http://www. advancedconservation.org.

Donlan, C. J., & Wilcox, C. (2007). Integrating invasive mammal eradications and biodiversity offsets for fisheries bycatch: conservation opportunities and challenges for seabirds and sea turtles. Biol Invasions, 10(7), 1053-1060.

Dutson, G., Bennun, L., Maron, M., Brodie, J., Bos, M., & Waterhouse, J. (2015). Determination of suitable financial contributions as offsets within the Reef Trust.


Edwards, A., & Gomez, E. (2007). Reef Restoration Concepts and Guidelines: making sensible management choices in the face of uncertainty (pp. 38). St Lucia, AU: Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management Programme.

Edwards, A. J., & Gomez, E. D. (2007). Reef restoration concepts and guidelines: making sensible management choices in the face of uncertainty.

Environment, D. o. t. (2016). Megaptera novaeangliae in Species Profile and Threats Database. from Department of the Environment http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=38

European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR). (n.d.). Creat compensatory habitat to offset impacts: European Centre for River Restoration (ECRR),

Farrugia, T. J., Espinoza, M., & Lowe, C. G. (2011). Abundance, habitat use and movement patterns of the shovelnose guitarfish (Rhinobatos productus) in a restored southern California estuary. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62(6), 648-657.

Ferraro, P. J. (2009). Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. New Directions for Evaluation, 2009(122), 75-84.

Finlayson, C., Davis, J., Gell, P., Kingsford, R., & Parton, K. (2013). The status of wetlands and the predicted effects of global climate change: the situation in Australia. Aquatic Sciences, 75(1), 73-93.

Fitzroy Basin Association (FBA). (2015). Fish Barriers. 2016, from http://riverhealth.org.au/projects/fba-wqip/current-status-trends-threats/threats-and-trends/fish-barriers/

Fitzroy Basin Association (FBA). (2015). Fitzroy Water Quality Improvement Plan.Fitzroy Basin Association (FBA). (2015). Prioritisation of neighbourhood catchments in the Fitzroy Basin:

Fitzroy Basin Association.Folkers, A., Rohde, K., Delaney, K., & Flett, I. (2014). Mackay Whitsunday Water Quality Improvement Plan

2014-2021.French, S. (2011). Aggregating expert judgement. Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas,

Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas, 105(1), 181-206. Fuller, R. A., & Dhanjal-Adams, D. L. (2012). A proposal for assessing the impacts of climate change on

breeding seabirds of the Great Barrier Reef: Prepared for QLD Department of Environment & Resource Management

Ganassin, C., & Gibbs, P. J. (2008). A review of seagrass planting as a means of habitat compensation following loss of seagrass meadow: NSW Department of Primary Industries.

Gladstone Ports Corporation. (2012). Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project. Biodiversity Offset Strategy: For the attention of: The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC).

Grabowski, J. H., Brumbaugh, R. D., Conrad, R. F., Keeler, A. G., Opaluch, J. J., Peterson, C. H., . . . Smyth, A. R. (2012). Economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by oyster reefs. BioScience, 62(10), 900-909.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (1996). Shoalwater Bay (dugong) plan of management. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2007). Marine turtle and dugong habitats in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park used to implement biophysical operational principles for the Representative Areas Program. .

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2007). Operational Policy on Whale and Dolphin Conservation in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2008). Seabirds and shorebirds in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area in a changing climate. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2011). A Vulnerability Assessment for the Great Barrier Reef Indo-Pacific humpback and Australian snubfin dolphin: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2011). A Vulnerability Assessment for the Great Barrier Reef Inshore and coastal foraging seabirds Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2011). A Vulnerability assessment for the Great Barrier Reef Sawfish: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2011). Vulnerability assessment for the Great Barrier Reef Sea Snakes: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2011). A Vulnerability Assessment for the Great Barrier Reef. Offshore and foraging pelagic seabirds: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2012). Informing the outlook for Great Barrier Reef coastal ecosystems. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2012). A vulnerability assessment for the Great Barrier Reef Sharks and Rays: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2013). Great Barrier Reef Biodiversity Conservation Strategy 2013. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2014). Great barrier reef outlook report 2014.


Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2014). Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment: Strategic assessment report. Townsville: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2014). A Vulnerability assessment for the Great Barrier Reef. Humpback whales: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority,

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. (2016). Whale and Dolphins. from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/animals/whales-and-dolphins

Grech, A., Coles, R., & Marsh, H. (2011). A broad-scale assessment of the risk to coastal seagrasses from cumulative threats. Marine Policy, 35(5), 560-567.

Greg Hunt. (2016). Media Release [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.environment.gov.au/minister/hunt/2016/pubs/mr20160303.pdf

Gunn, J., & Manning, C. (2009). Draft Black Ross (Townsville) Water Quality Improvement Plan: Improving Water Quality from Creek to Coral. Townsville: Townsville City Council/Creek to Coral Program.

Habib, T. J., Farr, D. R., Schneider, R. R., & Boutin, S. (2013). Economic and ecological outcomes of flexible biodiversity offset systems. Conservation Biology, 27(6), 1313-1323.

Hopkins, E., White, M., & Clarke, A. (1998). Restoration of Fish Habitats: Fisheries Guidelines for Marine Areas. Brisbane: Department of Primary Industries.

Hughes, T., Bellwood, D., Baird, A., Brodie, J., Bruno, J. F., & Pandolfi, J. (2011). Shifting base-lines, declining coral cover, and the erosion of reef resilience: comment on Sweatman et al.(2011). Coral reefs, 30(3), 653-660.

Iwamura, T., Possingham, H. P., Chadès, I., Minton, C., Murray, N. J., Rogers, D. I., . . . Fuller, R. A. (2013). Migratory connectivity magnifies the consequences of habitat loss from sea-level rise for shorebird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 280(1761), 20130325.

James Cook University News. (2016). Help develop a plan to manage precious mangroves. from https://research.jcu.edu.au/tropwater/news-and-events/help-develop-a-plan-to-manage-precious-mangroves

Johnson et. al. (2015). Status of marine and coastal natural assets Fitzroy Basin region. .Johnson, S. R., Tomlinson, G. A., Hawker, G. A., Granton, J. T., Grosbein, H. A., & Feldman, B. M. (2010). A

valid and reliable belief elicitation method for Bayesian priors. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(4), 370-383. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.005

Jones, C. M., Richardson, D. L., Baheerathan, R., Guard, P. A., & Ettema, S. (2015). Prioritisation of reef restoration and enhancement sites – Phase 2 and 3 report.Report produced for Gladstone Ports Corporation’s Biodiversity Offset Strategy (pp. 130): Western Basin Port Development.

Kiesecker, J. M., Copeland, H., Pocewicz, A., Nibbelink, N., McKenney, B., Dahlke, J., . . . Stroud, D. (2009). A Framework for Implementing Biodiversity Offsets: Selecting Sites and Determining Scale. BioScience, 59(1), 77-84. doi: 10.1525/bio.2009.59.1.11

Klein, C., Possingham, H. P., Chaloupka, M., Hamman, M., Limpus, C., & Beher, J. (2016). Prioritisation of marine turtle management projects: a protocol that accounts for threats to different life history stages. In review.

Kroon, F., Turner, R., Smith, R., Warne, M., Hunter, H., Bartley, R., . . . Carroll, C. (2013). Sources of sediment, nutrients, pesticides and other pollutants in the Great Barrier Reef catchment. Synthesis of evidence to support the Reef Water Quality Scientific Consensus Statement 2013.

Kroon, F. J., Thorburn, P., Schaffelke, B., & Whitten, S. (2016). Towards protecting the Great Barrier Reef from land-based pollution. Global Change Biology, 22(6), 1985-2002. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13262

Lewis, R. R. (2001). Mangrove restoration-Costs and benefits of successful ecological restoration. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Mangrove Valuation Workshop, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.

Lovelock, C. E., Cahoon, D. R., Friess, D. A., Guntenspergen, G. R., Krauss, K. W., Reef, R., . . . Swales, A. (2015). The vulnerability of Indo-Pacific mangrove forests to sea-level rise. Nature.

Lovelock, C. E., & Ellison, J. (2007). Vulnerability of mangroves and tidal wetlands of the Great Barrier Reef to climate change.

MacKinnon, J., Verkuil, Y. I., & Murray, N. (2012). IUCN situation analysis on East and Southeast Asian intertidal habitats, with particular reference to the Yellow Sea (including the Bohai Sea). Occasional paper of the IUCN species survival commission, 47.

Maron, M., Walsh, M., Shumway, N., & Brodie, J. (2016). Reef Trust Offsets Calculator: A prototype calculation approach for determining financial liability for marine biodiversity offsets voluntarily delivered through the Australian Government Department of the Environment (Reef Trust) Report to the National Environmental Science Programme (pp. 74). Cairns: Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited.

Marsh, H., De'Ath, G., Gribble, N., & Lane, B. (2005). Historical marine population estimates: triggers or targets for conservation? The dugong case study. Ecological Applications, 15(2), 481-492.

Marsh, H., Hodgson, A., Lawler, I., Grech, A., & Delean, S. (2007). Condition, Status and Trends and Projected Futures of the Dugong in the Northern Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait; Including


Identification and Evaluation of the Key Threats and Evaluationof Available Management Options to Improve its Status. In: Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility Report Series (pp. 77). Cairns: Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited.

McKenney, B. A., & Kiesecker, J. M. (2010). Policy development for biodiversity offsets: a review of offset frameworks. Environ Manage, 45(1), 165-176. doi: 10.1007/s00267-009-9396-3

McKenzie, L., Collier, C., Langlois, L., Yoshida, R., Smith, N., Takahashi, M., & Waycott, M. (2015). Marine Monitoring Program: Inshore seagrass, annual report for the sampling period 1st June 2013-31st May 2014.

McKenzie, L., Collier, C., Waycott, M., Unsworth, R., Yoshida, R., & Smith, N. (2012). Monitoring inshore seagrasses of the GBR and responses to water quality.

Meals, D. W., Dressing, S. A., & Davenport, T. E. (2010). Lag time in water quality response to best management practices: a review. Journal of environmental quality, 39(1), 85-96.

Moreno‐Mateos, D., Meli, P., Vara‐Rodriguez, M. I., & Aronson, J. (2015). Ecosystem response to interventions: lessons from restored and created wetland ecosystems. Journal of Applied Ecology, 52(6), 1528-1537.

Morris, R. K. (2013). Managed realignment as a tool for compensatory habitat creation–A re-appraisal. Ocean & coastal management, 73, 82-91.

Morris, R. K., & Gibson, C. (2007). Port development and nature conservation—Experiences in England between 1994 and 2005. Ocean & coastal management, 50(5), 443-462.

New South Wales Government. Improving Fish Habitats. 2016, from http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/habitat/rehabilitating/habitats

NQ Dry Tropics. (2016). Burdekin Region Water Quality Improvement Plan 2016. Townsville: NQ Dry Tropics.

NRM Fitzroy. (2014). Modelling reductions of pollutant loads due to improved management practices in the Great Barrier Reef catchments.

O'Hagan, A., Buck, C. E., Daneshkhah, A., Eiser, J. R., Garthwaite, P. H., Jenkinson, D. J., . . . Rakow, T. (2006). Uncertain judgements: eliciting experts' probabilities: John Wiley & Sons.

Osseweijer, F. (2016). Biodiversity Impacts and Offsetting Costs of Nitrogen Deposition. Paling, E. I., Fonseca, M., van Katwijk, M. M., & van Keulen, M. (2009). Seagrass restoration. Coastal

wetlands: An integrated ecosystems approach, 687-713. Paling, E. I., Van Keulen, M., & Tunbridge, D. J. (2007). Seagrass transplanting in Cockburn Sound, Western

Australia: a comparison of manual transplantation methodology using Posidonia sinuosa Cambridge et Kuo. Restoration Ecology, 15(2), 240-249.

Parks and Wildlife Service. (2014). Evaluation Report: Macquarie Island Pest Eradication Project. Hobart, Tasmania: Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment.

Parra, G. J., Corkeron, P., & Marsh, H. (2002). The Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, Sousa chinensis (Osbeck, 1765) in Australian waters: a summary of current knowledge and recommendations for their conservation. Unpublished Report to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission, SC/54/SM27.

Perry, C. T., Smithers, S. G., & Gulliver, P. (2013). Rapid vertical accretion on a ‘young’shore-detached turbid zone reef: Offshore Paluma Shoals, central Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Coral reefs, 32(4), 1143-1148.

Pitcher, C., Burridge, C., Wassenberg, T., Hill, B., & Poiner, I. (2009). A large scale BACI experiment to test the effects of prawn trawling on seabed biota in a closed area of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia. Fisheries Research, 99(3), 168-183.

Pitcher, R. C., Doherty, P. P., Arnold, P. P., Hooper, J. J., & Gribble, N. N. (2007). Seabed biodiversity on the continental shelf of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Ponder, W., Hutchings, P., & Chapman, R. (2002). Overview of the conservation of Australian marine invertebrates: a report for Environment Australia. Sydney: Australian Museum.

Pressey, R., & Wenger, A. (2015). Prioritising management actions for Graet Barrier Reef islands. Report to the National Environmental Research Program (pp. 22). Cairns: Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited.

Queensland Department of Premiere and Cabinet. (2014). Great barrier reef report card 2012 and 2013. Published by the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat: Queensland Department of the Premier and Cabinet.

Queensland Department of Premiere and Cabinet. (2014). Great Barrier Reef Report Card 2013 and 2014: Published by the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat.

Queensland University of Technology. (2015). Managing the impacts of sugarcane farming on the Great Barrier Reef: An evaluation of the implementation of the Polluter Pays Principle. .

Reef Regions GBR Natural Resource Management Organisations. (2015). Great Barrier Reef Long Term Sustainability Plan 2050 Investment proposal Water quality, catchment and coastal repair.

Rinkevich, B. (2008). Management of coral reefs: we have gone wrong when neglecting active reef restoration. Marine pollution bulletin, 56(11), 1821-1824.


Rinkevich, B. (2014). Rebuilding coral reefs: Does active reef restoration lead to sustainable reefs? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 7, 28-36.

Roberts, J. M., Wheeler, A. J., & Freiwald, A. (2006). Reefs of the deep: the biology and geology of cold-water coral ecosystems. Science, 312(5773), 543-547.

Rolfe, J., & Windle, J. (Benchmarking costs of improving agricultural water management in GBR catchments). Benchmarking costs of improving agricultural water management in GBR catchments. Report to the National Environmental Science Programme (pp. 52pp). Cairns: Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited.

Roni, P., Hanson, K., Beechie, T., Pess, G., Pollock, M., & Bartley, D. M. (2005). Habitat rehabilitation for inland fisheries Global review of effectiveness and guidance for rehabilitation of freshwater ecosystems. Rome: Food and Agriculture Association of the United Nations (FAO).

Rosales, R. M. P. (2006). Estimating Appropriate Fines for Ship Grounding Violations in Tubbataha Reef National Marine Park. Conservation International Philippines, Quezon City.

Ross, G. J. (2006). Review of the conservation status of Australia's smaller whales and dolphins: Department of the Environment and Water Resources.

Saunders MI, Bode M, Atkinson S, Klein C, Metaxas A, Beher J, . . . Possingham H. (In Review). Simple rules can guide whether land or ocean based conservation will best benefit marine ecosystems.

Schirmer, J., & Field, J. (2002). The cost of Revegetation Final report: Australia National University Forestry and Greening Australia.

Shellberg, J., & Brooks, A. (2013). Alluvial Gully Prevention and Rehabilitation Options for Reducing Sediment Loads in the Normanby Catchment and Northern Australia. Final Report for the Australian Government's Caring for our Country–Reef Rescue Initiative. Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University: Brisbane.

Slottje, P., van der Sluijs, J., & Knol, A. B. (2008). Expert Elicitation: Methodological suggestions for its use in environmental health impact assessments: National Institute for Public Health and the Environment.

Smith, M., Poggio, M., Thompson, M., & Collier, A. (2014). The Economics of Pesticide Management Practices on Sugarcane Farms: Final Synthesis Report. Brisbane: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) Queensland.

Sobtzick, S. (2014). An assessment of the distribution and abundance of dugongs in the Northern Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait.

Sobtzick, S., Hagihara, R., Grech, A., Jones, R., & Marsh, H. (2015). Improving the time series of estimates of dugong abundance and distribution by incorporating revised availability bias corrections. Final Report to the Australian Marine Mammal Centre on Project, 13, 31.

Spadaro, A. (2014). Caribbean Coral Reef Restoration: A Brief Review and Concept Proposal of a New Method

Spurgeon, J. (1999). The socio-economic costs and benefits of coastal habitat rehabilitation and creation. Marine pollution bulletin, 37(8), 373-382.

Star, M., East, M., Beutel, T., Rust, S., Northey, A., McCoser, K., . . . Rolfe, J. (2015). Understanding the cost of policy mechanisms for sediment reductions, for rangelands grazing in the Burdekin and Fitzroy Basin – Report to the Office of the Great Barrier Reef, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (unpublished).

State of Queensland. (2010). Great Barrier Reef Second Report Card 2010 Reef Water Quality Protection Plan: Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat.

State of Queensland. (2011). Assessment of the conservation benefits of net fishing closures north of Cooktown and in important habitats for dugong, inshore dolphins, sawfish and speartooth shark Wildlife Trade Operation Condition 12. Brisbane: Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation.

State of Queensland. (2011). Great Barrier Reef first report card: 2009 baseline Reef Water Quality Protection Plan. Brisbane: Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat.

State of Queensland. (2013). 2013 Scientific Concensus Statement. Land use impacts on Great Barrier Reef water quality

and ecosystem condition.State of Queensland. (2014). Appendix 1 - Demonstration Case Island management. Department of State

development.State of Queensland. (2014). An Aquaculture Industry for Queensland Briefing paper. Inquiry into

Opportunities for Expanding the Aquaculture Industry in Northern Australia Submission 14.State of Queensland. (2015). Fisheries Queensland East Coast Net Buy-back Program from

https://publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/6bd3e74d-dba9-4b63-a357-f80c6d217d6d/resource/5926a92f-2db8-442b-85cd-7df4f6ed8197/download/fisheries-queensland-east-coast-net-buyback-program-report.pdf

State of Queensland. (2015). Great Barrier Reef Water science Taskforce current situation analysis - July 2015: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.


State of Queensland. (2015). Regional NRM Program Annual Outlook Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

State of Queensland. (2016). Fish Habitat Policies. from https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/habitats/policies-and-guidelines/fish-habitat-policies

State of Queensland. (2016). Great Barrier Reef Water Science Task Force Final Report. : Office of the Great Barrier Reef, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

State of Queensland. (2016). Green paper on fisheries management reform in Queensland. Brisbane: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF).

State of Queensland. (2016). Marginal abatement cost curves for sugar cane and grazing in the Great Barrier Reef catchments. Brisbane: Office of the Great Barrier Reef, Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.

State of Queensland. (2016). Rural water use efficiency. from https://www.business.qld.gov.au/industry/water/managing-accessing/accessing-water/rural-use-efficiency

State of Western Australia. (2012). Policy on Habitat Enhancement structures in Western Australia. Perth: Department of Fisheries.

Sweatman, H., & Syms, C. (2011). Assessing loss of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef: a response to Hughes et al. (2011). Coral reefs, 30(3), 661-664.

Ten Kate, K., Bishop, J., & Bayon, R. (2004). Biodiversity offsets: Views, experience, and the business case. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and Insight Investment, London, UK: IUCN.

Terrain NRM. (2014). Wet Tropics Annual Report.Terrain NRM. (2015). Wet Tropics Water Quality Improvement Plan: 2015-2020.The Coral Reef Targeted Research & Capacity Building for Management Program (CRTR). (2010). Reef

Restoration and Rehabilitation Advisory Paper.The Guardian Australia (Producer). (2015). WWF buys shark fishing licence on Great Barrier Reef to scrap it.

Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/13/wwf-buys-shark-fishing-licence-on-great-barrier-reef-to-scrap-it

The State of Queensland. (2014). Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Investment Strategy 2013 – 2018. Brisbane: Published by the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat.

Thorburn, P., Rolfe, J., Wilkinson, S., Silburn, M., Blake, J., Gongora, M., . . . Ronan, M. (2013). Scientific Consensus Statement. Chapter 5: The water quality and economic benefits of agricultural management practices. The State of Queensland. Published by the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan Secretariat, July 2013.

Thorburn, P., & Wilkinson, S. (2013). Conceptual frameworks for estimating the water quality benefits of improved agricultural management practices in large catchments. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 180, 192-209.

Tinto, R. (2015). Alcan Weipa Inshore Dolphin Offset Strategy South of Embley Project.Treat, S., & Lewis, R. (2006). Seagrass restoration: success, failure, and the costs of both. Lewis

Environmental Services Inc., Valrico. Turner, M., Green, R., & Chin, A. (2006). State of the Reef Report 2006: Birds. UNEP-WCMC. (2015). Marine No Net Loss: A feasibility assessment of implementing no net loss in the sea

(pp. 30). Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC.Vaissière, A.-C., Levrel, H., Pioch, S., & Carlier, A. (2014). Biodiversity offsets for offshore wind farm

projects: The current situation in Europe. Marine Policy, 48, 172-183. Vaissière, A.-C., Levrel, H., Pioch, S., & Carlier, A. (2014). Biodiversity offsets for offshore wind farm

projects: The current situation in Europe. Marine Policy, 48, 172-183. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.023

Van Dover, C., Aronson, J., Pendleton, L., Smith, S., Arnaud-Haond, S., Moreno-Mateos, D., . . . Danovaro, R. (2014). Ecological restoration in the deep sea: Desiderata. Marine Policy, 44, 98-106.

Van Grieken, M., Poggio, M., Smith, M., Taylor, B., Thorburn, P., Biggs, J., . . . Boullier, A. (2014). Cost-effectiveness of management activities for water quality improvement in sugarcane farming. Report to the Reef Rescue Water Quality Research & Development Program. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited, Cairns.

vanKatwijk, M. M., Thorhaug, A., Marbà, N., Orth, R. J., Duarte, C. M., Kendrick, G. A., . . . Cambridge, M. L. (2016). Global analysis of seagrass restoration: the importance of large‐scale planting. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(2), 567-578.

Verduin, J., & Sinclair, E. A. (2013). Seagrass meadow restoration trial using transplants – Cockburn Sound, Western Australia

Verissimo, H., Bremner, J., Garcia, C., Patricio, J., van der Linden, P., & Marques, J. C. (2012). Assessment of the subtidal macrobenthic community functioning of a temperate estuary following environmental restoration. Ecological Indicators, 23, 312-322.

Wallace, R., Huggins, R., Smith, R., Turner, R., Garzon-Garcia, A., & Warne, M. S. J. (2015). Total suspended solids, nutrient and pesticide loads (2012–2013) for rivers that discharge to the Great


Barrier Reef–Great Barrier Reef Catchment Loads Monitoring Program 2012–2013. Department of Science. Information Technology and Innovation. Brisbane, 3.

Waterhouse, J., Brodie, J., Coppo, C., & Tracey, D. (2016). Assessment of the relative risk of degraded water quality to ecosystems of the Cape York NRM Region, Great Barrier Reef.

Waterhouse, J., Brodie, J., Lewis, S., & Audas, D.-m. (2016). Land-sea connectivity, ecohydrology and holistic management of the Great Barrier Reef and its catchments: time for a change. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 16(1), 45-57.

Waterhouse, J., Brodie, J., Tracey, D., Lewis, S., Hateley, L., Brinkman, R., . . . McKenzie, L. (2014). Assessment of the relative risk of degraded water quality to ecosystems of the Wet Tropics Region, Great Barrier Reef Draft Report. A report for Terrain NRM. Townsville: Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research, James Cook University.

Waters, D., Carroll, C., Ellis, R., Hately, L., McCloskey, G., Packett, R., . . . Fentie. (2014). Modelling reductions of pollutant loads due to improved management practices in the Great Barrier Reef catchments – Whole of GBR, Technical Report, Volume 1, . Toowoomba, Queensland: Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Waycott, M., & McKenzie, L. (2010). Indicators and thresholds of concern for seagrass ecosystem health for the Great Barrier Reef. Projects 1.1. 3 and 3.7. 1 Final Report to the Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility. Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited.

Wentworth, C. K. (1922). A scale of grade and class terms for clastic sediments. The Journal of Geology, 30(5), 377-392.

Whitten, S., Kandulu, C. A., & Marinoni, O. (2015). Marginal abatement cost curves for sugar cane in the Great Barrier Reef, Report prepared for the Queensland Government by CSIRO Land and Water (unpublished).

Wilcox, C., & Donlan, C. J. (2007). Compensatory mitigation as a solution to fisheries bycatch–biodiversity conservation conflicts. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(6), 325-331.

Wilcox, C., Van Sebille, E., & Hardesty, B. D. (2015). Threat of plastic pollution to seabirds is global, pervasive, and increasing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(38), 11899-11904.

Williamson, D., Ceccarelli, D., Rossetti, G., Russ, G., & Jones, G. (2016). Assessing the cumulative impacts of climatic disturbances on coral reefs in the Keppel Islands, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Report to the National Environmental Science Programme. (pp. 65). Cairns: Reef and Rainforest Research Centre Limited.

Woinarski, J., Burbidge, A., & Harrison, P. (2014). Action Plan for Australian Mammals 2012. Wolff, N. H., Wong, A., Vitolo, R., Stolberg, K., Anthony, K. R., & Mumby, P. J. (2016). Temporal clustering of

tropical cyclones on the Great Barrier Reef and its ecological importance. Coral reefs, 35(2), 613-623.

Yeates, M. (2014). Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment: Independent review report. Young, C., Schopmeyer, S., & Lirman, D. (2012). A review of reef restoration and coral propagation using the

threatened genus Acropora in the Caribbean and Western Atlantic. Bulletin of Marine Science, 88(4), 1075-1098.


Reef Trust Offsets Plan and calculator€¦ · Web view1.Background ‘Biodiversity offsetting’...

Documents

Transcript of Reef Trust Offsets Plan and calculator€¦ · Web view1.Background ‘Biodiversity offsetting’...