epbc 2011/6194 - department of the environment
TRANSCRIPT
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 1 of 141
RECOMMENDATION REPORT
ABBOT POINT COAL TERMINAL 0, PORT OF ABBOT POINT,
QUEENSLAND (EPBC 2011/6194)
1. Recommendation
That the proposed action, to construct a coal terminal at the Port of Abbot Point comprising
offshore and onshore infrastructure associated with a coal terminal be approved subject to the
conditions specified below.
Conditions
1. The approved action must be undertaken in the project area depicted in Figures 2-4a and
2-4b at Attachment C Annexure A.
2. The approval holder must not cut down, clear or remove any of the listed endangered
ecological community Semi-evergreen Vine Thicket of the Brigalow Belt (North and South)
and Nandewar Bioregions as shown in Figure 3-76 at Attachment C Annexure B.
Pile Driving Operations
3. The approval holder must implement conditions 4 to 10 (inclusive) related to any pile
driving operations to minimise the impacts of underwater noise and disturbance on the
following identified protected matters:
i. Listed turtle species;
ii. Listed dolphin species;
iii. Dugong (Dugong dugong); and,
iv. Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).
4. Visual observations for the protected matters at condition 3 must be undertaken across the
entire observation zone. The visual observations must be undertaken by a suitably
qualified marine observer for at least 30 minutes immediately preceding the commencement
of piling activities, and during pile driving operations. The criteria for a suitably qualified
marine observer must be submitted to the Minister for approval and records must be kept of
marine observers subsequently engaged. Pile driving activities must not commence until the
criteria has been approved in writing by the Minister.
5. The approval holder must develop the exclusion zones to ensure that each of the
protected matters at condition 3 are not exposed to sound exposure levels of greater than
or equal to 183 dB re 1µ Pa2.s from piling activities. The exclusion zones must be
informed by noise modeling based at the site of the piling activities. Piling activities must
not commence until the exclusion zones have been approved in writing by the Minister.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 2 of 141
6. If Humpback Whales, listed turtle species, Dugongs or listed dolphin species are sighted
within the relevant exclusion zone, the approval holder must cease all piling activities
within the relevant exclusion zone within two minutes of the sighting or as soon as possible
if it is unsafe to cease piling operations within two minutes. If piling activities do not cease
within two minutes, the approval holder must report the incident (including remedial actions)
to the Minister in writing within one business day of the incident occurring.
7. Piling activities must not commence again until Humpback Whales, listed turtle species,
Dugongs or listed dolphin species are observed to move outside the exclusion zone or
30 minutes have passed since the last sighting of the Humpback Whales, listed turtle
species, Dugongs or listed dolphin species within the exclusion zone.
8. Piling activities must be initiated at the soft start level and then built up to full operating
impact force. The soft start procedures can only commence if no Humpback Whales,
listed turtle species, Dugongs or listed dolphin species have been sighted in the
exclusion zone during the pre-start-up visual observations.
9. Marine piling activities must not occur between the hours of sunset and sunrise during:
a) the peak southern migration of Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) defined
as 1 September to 30 November in any year; and,
b) the nesting season for the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) and Flatback Turtle
(Natator depressus) defined as 1 November to 30 April in any year.
Any injury to, or mortality of, a protected matter at condition 3 from piling activities must be
reported to the Minister within one business day of the incident occurring.
Marine and Shipping Management Plan
10. The approval holder must develop a Marine and Shipping Management Plan, covering all
construction and operation activities in the marine environment for the project, to ensure
the protection of the following protected matters:
i. the world heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area;
ii. the National Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef National Heritage place;
iii. the environment in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park;
iv. the environment of the Commonwealth marine area;
v. Listed turtle species;
vi. Listed dolphin species;
vii. Dugong (Dugong dugong); and,
viii. Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).
11. The Marine and Shipping Management Plan must include effective adaptive management
strategies to avoid, minimise and mitigate each potential impact for each of the matters
protected at condition 10.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 3 of 141
12. The Marine and Shipping Management Plan must include; desired outcomes; benchmarks;
readily measureable performance indicators and goals; timeframes for reporting and
implementation; corrective actions; contingency measure; and, specify the persons/roles
with responsibility for implementing actions including, but not limited to:
a. impacts to the marine environment that provides traversing, foraging and/or
breeding habitat for the protected matters at condition 10, including seagrass,
corals, and listed turtle species’ nesting and/or foraging habitat;
b. artificial light spill related impacts on listed turtle species (including hatchlings)
nesting beaches and adjacent marine environment including, but not limited to,
lighting from construction and operation, shipping and/or barge activity, and
anchored/moored vessels. The measures implemented must consider lighting
sources, lighting intensity, directionality and shrouding;
c. measures to ensure shipping activities are undertaken in accordance with the most
current version of plans that manage shipping activities through the Great Barrier
Reef (including, but not limited to, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning
Plan (2003));
d. mechanisms to implement best practice mitigation and management measures for
ship loading and unloading, and all other aspects of shipping activities to minimise
impacts on the marine environment (including from waste, coal dust deposition
and/or other contaminant spills into the marine environment);
e. impacts from vessel strike to listed turtle species, listed dolphin species,
Dugongs and Humpback Whales including, but not limited to, restricting vessel
speed limits to 6 knots within the limits of the Port of Abbot Point;
f. impacts from underwater noise including, but not limited to anchoring, seismic
and/or bathymetric surveying, pile driving activities at conditions 3 to 9 (inclusive),
and shipping;
g. measures that minimise the risk of introduced marine pest species over the life of the project, including ballast water management. The marine pest monitoring program must be consistent with the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s Australian Marine Pest Monitoring Manual (version 2.0), or its most current version;
h. measures to restrict people and/or vehicle access, as it relates to the Terminal 0
project, on Abbot Beach (refer ‘Category B’ and ‘Category C’ Turtle Nesting
Suitability in Figure 3-64 at Attachment C Annexure C) during the nesting season for
the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) and Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus) defined
as 1 November to 30 April in any year. This does not apply to those activities related
to construction or operation occurring between the hours of sunrise and sunset;
and,
i. measures to avoid injury to, or mortality of, listed turtle species, listed dolphin species, Dugong or Humpback whales from marine and shipping activities.
13. The Marine and Shipping Management Plan at condition 10 must be informed by the most
current information available (including, but not limited to, National Water Quality
Management Strategy, Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water
Quality (ANZECC 2000)).
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 4 of 141
14. The Marine and Shipping Management Plan at condition 10 may be submitted to the
Minister in the following stages, and the respective stages must not commence until the
Minister has approved each respective plan in writing:
a. a construction plan related to impacts associated with marine related construction activities, including pile driving operations at condition 3 to condition 10 (inclusive); and,
b. an operational plan to reflect impacts associated with operation of the terminal.
15. The Marine and Shipping Management Plan at condition 10 for activities related to
operations must be developed in consultation with relevant Commonwealth agencies,
including the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority; state agencies including Maritime Safety Queensland, and with the North
Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation.
16. The Marine Management and Shipping Management Plan at condition 10 must be reviewed,
revised and submitted to the Minister for written approval within 18 months of
commencement of operation, and then every five (5) years thereafter for the life of the
approval.
17. The approved Marine and Shipping Management Plans must be implemented.
Terrestrial Management Plan
18. The approval holder must submit a Terrestrial Management Plan for impacts associated with
the land based construction and operation activities of the project to effectively define,
avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate impacts to the following protected matters:
i. Semi-evergreen Vine Thicket of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar
Bioregions;
ii. Squatter Pigeon (Geophaps scripta scripta);
iii. Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis); and,
iv. Listed migratory bird species.
19. The Terrestrial Management Plan at condition 18 must include effective adaptive
management strategies to mitigate each potential impact for the matters protected at
condition 18.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 5 of 141
20. The Terrestrial Management Plan at condition 18 must include; desired outcomes;
benchmarks; readily measureable performance indicators and goals; timeframes for
reporting and implementation; contingency measures; corrective action; and, specify the
person/s roles with responsibility for implementing actions, including but not limited to:
a. water related impacts including, but not limited to:
i. the downstream impacts to the Caley Valley Wetland;
ii. erosion;
iii. acid sulphate soils;
iv. construction and operation of the sediment ponds;
v. stormwater runoff;
vi. flood events;
vii. controlled and non-controlled discharge events;
viii. pollutants (including hydrocarbon spills, chemicals and waste);
ix. runoff from coal stockpiles; and,
x. those impacting on marine habitat for matters protected at condition 10;
b. impacts on the listed endangered ecological community Semi-evergreen Vine
Thicket of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions including,
but not limited to, downstream water impacts, coal dust, sedimentation, erosion, and
pest and weed incursion; and,
c. impacts from artificial light associated with construction and operation including,
but not limited to the :
i. Caley Valley Wetland; and,
ii. marine environment (including nesting beaches) for listed turtle species.
d. pests and weed management, dust management (including coal dust deposition in
the marine environment for matters protected at condition 10), lighting, noise and
vibration, and fire management.
21. The Terrestrial Management Plan must be informed by the most current information
available (including, but not limited to National Water Quality Management Strategy or
Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC
2000)) to avoid, manage or mitigate impacts associated with the project.
22. The Terrestrial Management Plan at condition 18 may be submitted to the Minister in the
following stages, and the respective stages must not commence until the Minister has
approved each respective plan in writing:
a) a construction plan related to impacts associated with construction; and,
b) an operational plan to reflect impacts associated with operation.
23. Within 18 months of commencement of construction, a revised Terrestrial Management
Plan at condition 18 must be submitted to the Minister for written approval. The Terrestrial
Management Plan must be reviewed, revised and submitted to the Minister for written
approval every three (3) years thereafter for the first nine (9) years (unless otherwise agreed
by the Minister in writing) and thereafter every ten (10) years for the life of the approval.
24. The approved Terrestrial Management Plans must be implemented.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 6 of 141
Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan
25. The approval holder must prepare an Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan to:
a) effectively define, avoid, mitigate and adaptively manage impacts on Indigenous
heritage values (including middens and grave sites) as these contribute to the
outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area;
b) demonstrate effective ongoing consultation with Indigenous people;
c) implement employment arrangements (e.g. under an Indigenous Land and Sea
Program) for Indigenous persons in relation to conditions specified in this approval,
where appropriate; and,
d) detail mechanisms for reporting the number of local indigenous person/s actually
employed in the implementation of any of the conditions specified in this approval.
26. Where material required for the Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan at condition 25
is culturally sensitive and cannot be disclosed with the explicit and written consent of the
relevant Indigenous people with rights, claims or interests in the area, the approval holder
must advise the department of the extent to which it cannot comply with condition 25 for
that reason. The commencement of the action cannot take place until the Minister has
provided written notice approving the non-disclosure of any material and/or requesting
further documentation required to satisfy condition 25.
27. Construction must not commence until the Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan has
been approved by the Minister in writing. The Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan
must be reviewed every five (5) years for the first ten (10) years, then every ten (10) years
thereafter for the life of the approval. The approved Indigenous Consultation and Heritage
Plans must be implemented.
Marine Offset Strategy
28. To compensate for residual impacts from this action on the listed Green Turtle and Flatback
Turtle, and to achieve a net benefit to the outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier
Reef World Heritage Area, the approval holder must implement a Marine Offset Strategy for
the period of this approval. This Strategy must include a:
a) Turtle Plan – an annual program to reduce the level of feral pig, dog and fox
predation on Green Turtle and Flatback Turtle species nests; and, enhance the
marine habitat (including seagrass and corals) for those species within the North
Queensland Dry Topics and/or Reef Catchment natural resource management
regions (refer Attachment C Annexure D); and,
b) Marine Plan - to reflect the most appropriate natural resource management priorities
(which may include research) relating to the impacts of this action on the outstanding
universal value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
29. The Marine Offset Strategy at condition 28 must be developed in consultation with the
department, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and relevant Natural resource
Management bodies to ensure activities (including research which, unless otherwise agreed
by the Minister in writing, must not account for greater than 10% of funding at condition 33)
funded through this Strategy reflect the most appropriate management priorities relating to
the residual impacts of this action to matters protected.
30. Mechanisms for review of the Marine Offset Strategy, at least every three years, must also
be identified in consultation with relevant agencies at condition 29.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 7 of 141
31. The Marine Offset Strategy at condition 28 must specify targeted outcomes; benchmarks;
readily measureable performance indicators and goals; timeframes for reporting and
implementation; timeframes to demonstrate when the net benefit to outstanding universal
values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area will be achieved; contingency
measures; corrective actions; and, the person or organisation responsible for implementing
actions identified in the Marine Offset Strategy.
32. The Marine Offset Strategy at condition 28 must be consistent with the department’s
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets
Policy (October 2012).
33. The approval holder must provide a minimum of $450,000 per annum (GST exclusive, and
CPI adjusted annually) for the period of this approval to fund the implementation of the
Marine Offset Strategy. Consideration must be given to how these funds will contribute to
programs or incentives and align with the broader strategies and programs for the Great
Barrier Reef including Reef Trust 2050.
34. Where relevant, the findings from the Marine Offset Strategy must be used to inform the
respective management plans required under this approval on an ongoing basis.
35. Construction must not commence until the Marine Offset Strategy has been approved by
the Minister in writing. An approved Marine Offset Strategy must be implemented.
Independent Review Requirements
36. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minister, each plan or strategy specified in the
conditions must be independently peer reviewed prior to submission to the Minister for
approval. The approval holder must nominate an Independent Peer Reviewer to the
Minister. The Independent Peer reviewer must be approved by the Minister, prior to the
commencement of the review. The independent peer review criteria must be agreed to by
the Minister and any reviews undertaken must address the criteria to the satisfaction of the
Minister.
37. An Independent Peer Review undertaken for the purposes of condition 36 must include an
analysis of the effectiveness of the avoidance and mitigation measures in meeting the
outcomes, targets or management measures identified in the plan/s or strategies being
reviewed.
38. Unless otherwise specified in these conditions or notified in writing by the Minister, the
approval holder must provide to the Minister a copy of all advice and recommendations
made by the Independent Peer Reviewer with the plan or strategy, and an explanation of
how the advice and recommendations will be implemented, or an explanation of why the
approval holder does not propose to implement certain recommendations.
Plan and Strategy Submission
39. If the Minister is not satisfied that a plan or strategy specified in this approval adequately
addresses the conditions specified in the approval, the approval holder will be notified in
writing by the Minister that they must update a plan or strategy to meet the conditions that
have not been adequately addressed.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 8 of 141
40. To avoid duplication, the approval holder may provide the Minister with any plan or
strategy prepared for the State provided the plans or strategy meets the conditions
specified in this approval. The plans or strategy must include a cross reference table that
clearly identifies:
a. the condition specified in this approval for which the plan and strategy is being
provided; and
b. the relevant folder, chapter, section number and page number in the plan or strategy
where the condition has been addressed.
Publication Requirements
41. All survey data and methodology collected for the project must be recorded in accordance
with the applicable approved management plan or strategy. When requested by the
department, the approval holder must provide to the department survey data and
information related to protected matter. This information must be provided within
30 business days of request, or in a timeframe agreed to by the department in writing. The
department may use the survey data for other purposes. The approval holder must also
provide the survey data and methodology that is related to a protected matter, within 30
business days, to anyone who requests the survey data and methodology in writing.
Notification of the availability of the survey data and methodology must be provided on the
approval holder’s website for the duration of this approval.
42. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Minister, the approval holder must, every
12 months after the commencement of the action, publish on their website for the
duration of this approval, all survey methodologies, reports and related analysis of survey
data that is related to a protected matter and which was undertaken for the purposes of a
plan, strategy or other condition specified in this approval. The department must be notified
within ten (10) business days of publication.
43. The approval holder must publish the Final Environmental Impact Statement on their
website within five (5) business days from this approval. The Final Environmental Impact
Statement must remain on the approval holder’s website for the duration of this approval.
44. Unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the Minister, the approval holder must publish on
their website, for the life of the project including decommissioning, all current approved
strategies, plans or reviews (including the Independent Peer Review) referred to in these
conditions of approval. Each approved plan, review or strategy (including revised versions)
must be published on the approval holder’s website within one (1) month of approval.
General
45. Within ten (10) days after the commencement of the action, the approval holder must
advise the Minister in writing of the actual date of commencement.
46. The approval holder must maintain accurate records substantiating all activities associated
with or relevant to the conditions of approval, including measures taken to implement a plan
or strategy as specified in these conditions and make them available upon request to the
department. Such records may be subject to audit by the department or an independent
auditor in accordance with section 458 of the EPBC Act, or used to verify compliance with
the conditions of approval. Summaries of audits will be posted on the department’s
website. The results of audits may also be published through the general media.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 9 of 141
47. Within three (3) months of every 12 month anniversary of commencement of the action,
the approval holder must publish a report on their website, for the duration of this approval,
addressing compliance with the conditions of this approval over the previous 12 months,
including implementation of any plan or strategy as specified in the conditions.
48. The approval holder must notify the Department in writing of any non-compliance with any
condition of this approval as soon as practicable and, in any event, no later than two (2)
business days after becoming aware of the non-compliance. The notice provided to the
Department must specify:
a. the condition which the approval holder has breached;
b. the nature of the non-compliance;
c. how the non-compliance will affect the approved action;
d. how the non-compliance will affect the impacts of the approved action, in particular
how the non-compliance will impact on any protected matter by this approval;
e. the measures the approval holder will take to address the impacts of the non-
compliance on the protected matter and rectify the non-compliance; and,
f. the time by when the approval holder will rectify the non-compliance.
49. Every three (3) years from the commencement of the action, the approval holder must
ensure that an independent audit of compliance with the conditions of approval is
conducted and a report submitted to the Minister. The independent auditor must be
approved by the Minister prior to the commencement of the audit. Audit criteria must be
agreed to by the Minister and the audit report must address the criteria to the satisfaction
of the Minister.
50. The approval holder must, in respect of each plan or strategy it is required to submit to the
Minister for approval under these conditions (including revised plans or strategies),
maintain a register recording:
a. the date on which each plan or strategy was approved by the Minister;
b. if a plan or strategy has not been approved the date on which it was, or is
expected to be, submitted to the Minister;
c. the dates on which revised reports or reviews have been approved by the
Minister; and,
d. the dates on which the subsequent reviews are due.
The register must be submitted to the department, at the time the annual compliance report
is published, but does not form part of the report.
51. If the approval holder wishes to carry out any activity otherwise than in accordance with an
approved plan or strategy as specified in the conditions, the approval holder must submit
to the department for the Minister’s written approval a revised version of that plan or
strategy. The varied activity must not commence until the Minister has approved the
varied plan or strategy in writing. The Minister will not approve a varied plan or strategy
unless the revised plan or strategy would result in an equivalent or improved
environmental outcome over time. If the Minister approves the revised plan or strategy
they must be implemented in place of the plan or strategy originally approved.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 10 of 141
52. If, at any time after the first five (5) year anniversary of the date of this approval, the
approval holder has not commenced the action, then the approval holder must not
commence the action without the written agreement of the Minister.
53. If the Minister believes that it is necessary or convenient for the better protection of a
World Heritage property (sections 12 & 15A), a National Heritage place (section 15B
&15C), listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 & 18A), listed migratory
species (section 20 & 20A), a Commonwealth marine area (sections 23 & 24a) and/or the
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C) to do so, the Minister may request
that the approval holder make specified revisions to the plan or strategy specified in the
conditions and submit the revised plan or strategy for the Minister’s written approval. The
approval holder must comply with any such request. If the Minister approves the revised
plan or strategy, the revised plan or strategy must be implemented. Unless the Minister
has approved the revised plan or strategy then the approval holder must continue to
implement the plan or strategy originally approved, as specified in the conditions.
2. Definitions:
Commencement of the action: Any works that are required to be undertaken
for construction.
Construction: Includes site preparation and clearing of vegetation, seismic and/or bathymetric
surveying; earthworks, civil works, associated infrastructure (such as workshop, administration
facilities, sewerage treatment plan or amenities facilities) and marine works. Construction does
not include:
a. minor physical disturbance necessary to undertake pre-clearance surveys or establish
monitoring programs; or
b. activities that are critical to project activities that are associated with mobilisation of
plant and equipment, materials, machinery and personnel prior to the start of port or
road development or construction only if such activities will have no adverse impact on
a protected matter, and only if the approval holder has notified the department in
writing before an activity is undertaken.
Department: The Australian Government department administering the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).
Exclusion zone: A radius, from the centre of the pile to be driven, around pile driving
operations for Humpback Whales, listed dolphin species, listed turtle species and Dugongs,
which must be visually observed at all times during piling activities, and where piling
activities must cease if Humpback Whales, listed dolphin species, listed turtle species and
Dugongs are observed within the relevant radius.
Final Environmental Impact Statement: Comprises the Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0 Project,
Final Environmental Impact Statement (June 2013).
Impacts: Has the same meaning as in section 527E of the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).
Indigenous heritage values: Has the same meaning as in section 528 of the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999).
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 11 of 141
Independent peer review / independently peer reviewed: Assessment of the assumptions,
calculations, extrapolations, alternate interpretations, methodologies, performance goals and
performance criteria, and conclusions pertaining to the plan, strategy and/or program specified
in these conditions by an independent peer reviewer.
Independent peer reviewer: A person/organisation/technical committee, independent of the
approval holder and/or employed in any subsidiary company of the approval holder. This
person/organisation/technical committee must have demonstrated expertise in the protected
matter being reviewed and be approved by the Minister prior to commencement of the review.
Listed dolphin species: Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni) and Indo-Pacific
Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis).
Listed migratory bird species: Listed migratory species under the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) as identified in Annexure E.
Listed turtle species: Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas), Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricate); Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus); Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta); Olive
Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea); and Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea).
Minister: The Minister administering the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
Act 1999 (Cth), and includes a delegate of the Minister.
Observation zone: A horizontal radius from the pile hammer for Humpback Whales, listed
dolphin species, Dugongs, listed turtle species that must be at least 300 metres greater than
the approved exclusion zone for the Humpback Whales, listed dolphin species, Dugongs,
listed turtle species.
Operation/s: Refers to activities associated with the transport of coal, from the unloading of
coal trains through to shipping of the coal through the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
This does not include activities associated with construction.
Period of low visibility: Where continuous visual observations to a distance of two (2)
kilometers from the marine piling activity are not possible for a time greater than one (1) hour.
Piling activity / Piling activities: Driving one and/or multiple structural supports into the ground
below the waterline.
Protected matters: Means a ‘matter protected’ as that term is defined in section 34 of the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)) by a provision of Part 3
of the EPBC Act for which this approval has effect.
Publish/ed: a plan, program, strategy, independent peer review or other documentation as it
relates to this approval that is made available on the approval holder’s website for the duration
of the action (including decommissioning).
Reef Trust 2050: means the Reef Trust created under the Reef 2050 plan.
Soft start procedures: Initiated at the commencement of all marine piling activities by piling
at low energy levels and then build up to full impact force. The first five impacts from the piling
activity must be at no more than 50% of full hammer weight (e.g. a hammer with an adjustable
stroke height of 0.6 metres at least 5 times during a ‘soft start procedure), to encourage animals
to move away from subsequent blows.
3. Background
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 12 of 141
3.1. On 15 November 2011, Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd (Adani) (the proponent)
referred the proposed Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0 Project (the T0 Project) at the Port of
Abbot Point, Queensland to the Minister under the Environment, Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act).
3.2. The Port of Abbot Point is located 25 km north west of Bowen on the Queensland coast.
The T0 Project is proposed to be located to the east of and adjacent to the existing
Abbot Point Coal Terminal 1 (T1).
3.3. The proposed action involves the construction and operation of onshore and offshore
infrastructure associated with the coal terminal (Figures 1 and 2) including the following
key components:
a) onshore:
i. rail in-loading and out-loading facilities to offshore infrastructure;
ii. coal handling facilities and coal stockpiles;
iii. stockyard machinery, transfer towers, surge bins and a sampling plant for
the new stockyard;
iv. potential installation of additional fuel facilities;
v. provision of additional water settlement pondage for the new stockpile area;
vi. upgrade of an existing service jetty;
vii. additional sewage treatment for the construction workforce; and
viii. screening of rock; and concrete batching.
b) offshore:
i. a 2.75 km out-loading trestle jetty and conveyor (widening the existing T1
facilities);
ii. new wharves, shiploaders and berths for two cape size vessels (adjacent to
the two existing T1 berths);
iii. marine works associated with the initial survey and design investigations,
engineering and construction of the wharf, jetty structures and berth pockets,
including sediment sampling for analysis of contaminants (note that dredging
required for the operation of T0 is being assessed separately under the
EPBC Act (2011/6213)); and
iv. the use of a jack-up barge to take core samples in the offshore works areas
and seismic/bathymetry studies for geotechnical analysis.
3.4. On 15 November 2011, the referral was published on the department’s website, and
public comments were invited for 10 business days. The department received one public
submission which identified concern regarding the environmental history of the
proponent and an associated company Mundra Port Pty Ltd, which operates in India.
The environmental history of actions in India by Mundra Port Pty Ltd cannot be
considered as part of this decision as it is beyond the jurisdiction of the EPBC Act.
3.5. On 15 November 2011, the department wrote to the following Commonwealth Ministers
in accordance with section 74(1) of the EPBC Act, inviting them to provide comments on
the referral within 10 business days:
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 13 of 141
a) Ms Jo Mulder, delegate for the Hon Greg Combet MP, the then Minister for
Climate Change and Energy Efficiency; and
b) the Hon Martin Ferguson MP, the then Minister for Resources and Energy.
No comments were received in response to those invitations
\
Figure 1. The Terminal 0 (T0) Project offshore component
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 14 of 141
Figure 2. The T0 Project onshore component
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 15 of 141
3.6. On 15 November 2011, the department wrote to Mr Lindsay Delzoppo, delegate for the
Hon Vicky Darling MP, the then Queensland Minister for Environment, inviting comments
on the referral within 10 business days, as required by section 74(2) of the EPBC Act.
3.7. On 1 December 2011, Mr Bill Dixon, from the then Queensland Department of
Environment and Resource Management wrote to the department, advising that the then
Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation has reviewed the
referral documentation and advised that the Coordinator-General had not received a
request for declaration of this proposal as a significant project under Part 4 of the State
Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld). He also stated that the
Department of Local Government and Planning had advised that the proposed
development was unlikely to meet the requirements for assessment under Chapter 9,
Part 2 of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld). Some general comments about the
receiving environment were also included.
3.8. On 13 December 2011, a delegate of the Minister determined the proposed action was a
controlled action to be assessed by environmental impact statement (EIS), due to likely
significant impacts on:
a) World Heritage properties (s12 & s15A);
b) National Heritage places (s15B & s15C);
c) listed threatened species and communities (s18 & s18A);
d) listed migratory species (s20 & s20A);
e) Commonwealth marine areas (s23 & s24A); and
f) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (s24B & s24C).
3.9. On 22 June 2013, the EPBC Act was amended to provide that water resources are a
matter of national environmental significance, in relation to coal seam gas and large coal
mining development. As the T0 Project is neither a coal seam gas nor large coal mine
development, you are not required to consider this controlling provision.
3.10. On 12 June 2012, the department received a formal request from Adani to vary
the proposed action under s156A of the EPBC Act. The variation constituted more
refined details regarding the rail in-loading facility as well as the inclusion of a second rail
loop option.
3.11. The variation was accepted and notified on the department’s website on
25 June 2012.
3.12. On 7 August 2012, the then Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities, the Hon Tony Burke MP (Minister Burke), released the
Draft Guidelines for an Environmental Impact Statement for Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0
(the draft EIS guidelines) for public comment for a period of 25 business days.
3.13. The draft EIS guidelines were available for public consultation between
21 August 2012 and 21 September 2012. Two public submissions were received.
3.14. The public submissions identified concerns regarding:
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 16 of 141
a) impacts from coal dust;
b) impacts to seagrass communities;
c) impacts to migratory species;
d) impacts to the Caley Valley Wetland;
e) the World Heritage Committee Decision; and
f) CO2 emissions.
3.15. On 1 November 2012, having had regard to the public comments, Minister Burke
released the Final Guidelines for an Environmental Impact Statement for Abbot Point
Coal Terminal 0 to Adani.
3.16. On 2 November 2012, Adani provided the Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0 Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (the draft EIS) to the department.
3.17. On 11 December 2012, the department provided comments on the draft EIS to
Adani.
3.18. On 18 January 2013, Adani provided a revised draft EIS to the department.
3.19. On 23 January 2013, the department provided comments on the revised draft
EIS to Adani.
3.20. On 4 February 2013, Adani provided a second revised draft EIS to the
department.
3.21. On 7 February 2013, the department directed Adani to publish their draft EIS for
a period of no less than 30 business days under section 103 of the EPBC Act.
3.22. The draft EIS was published for public consultation between 18 February 2013
and 3 April 2013.
3.23. The department was provided with a draft response to public submissions on
7 June 2013. A total of 17 written submissions and 26,336 petition style submissions
were received by Adani. On 13 June 2013, the department provided comments on the
draft response to public submissions to Adani.
3.24. The public comments highlighted a variety of concerns including:
impacts to air quality;
impacts from coal dust;
limitations of the approval process;
impacts to the ecology of the aquatic environment;
potential exacerbation of climate change and increased green house gas emissions;
consequential and cumulative impacts of the proposal;
economic matters;
impacts from dredging and spoil placement;
impacts to fishing activities (commercial and recreational);
impacts to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park;
marine ecology (particularly turtle nesting and seagrass);
impacts to matters of national environmental significance;
suitability of offsets;
effectiveness of port regulation;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 17 of 141
impacts to road traffic and transport;
impacts of increased shipping;
social impacts;
impacts to the ecology of the terrestrial environment;
impacts to the on-site water balance; and
impacts to world heritage properties.
3.25. The Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0 Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) was provided to the department on 21 June 2013.
3.26. On 15 August 2013, the decision on whether or not to approve the T0 Project
was extended, pursuant to section 130(1A) of the EPBC Act, by a delegate of the
Minister for 3 months until 8 November 2013.
3.27. On 21 October 2013, the decision on whether or not to approve the T0 Project
was extended, pursuant to section 130(1A) of the EPBC Act, by a delegate of the
Minister for 6 weeks until 13 December 2013.
4. Other Projects related to the proposed action
4.1. A number of proposed projects at Abbot Point, or associated with the Port of Abbot
Point, are currently being assessed under the EPBC Act for their impacts on Matters of
National Environmental Significance (MNES). These include:
a) Waratah Abbot Point Coal Terminal (2012/6250);
b) Alpha Coal Project - Port Options Development (2008/4647);
c) Terminal 0, 2 & 3 Capital Dredging (2011/6213);
d) Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project (2010/5736);
e) Waratah Coal Mine and Rail Project (2009/4737);
f) Goonyella to Abbot Point Rail Project (2011/6082);
g) Central Queensland Integrated Rail Project “Brownfield” (2012/6321);
h) Central Queensland Integrated Rail Project “Greenfield” (2012/6322);
i) Galilee Infrastructure Corridor (2012/6489); and
j) North Galilee Basin Rail Project (2013/6885).
4.2. There are currently two projects that are associated with the Port of Abbot Point that
have approval under the EPBC Act:
a) Alpha Coal Mine and Rail (2008/4648) – approved 23 August 2012; and
b) Abbot Point Coal Terminal 3 (2008/4468) – approved 4 October 2012.
4.3. In December 2012, the Queensland Government requested registrations of interest for
the first stage of expansion of coal terminal infrastructure within the Abbot Point State
Development Area. In addition, the Queensland Government is seeking registrations
from parties interested in developing non coal related industries and infrastructure in this
area. This process is in the early planning stages, and no new referrals in relation to the
possible expansion projects have been received by the department.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 18 of 141
4.4. Figure 3 provides an overview of coal terminal projects at Abbot Point, excluding the
proposed Waratah Abbot Point Coal Terminal Project.
4.5. The proponent is part of a working group (with BHP Billiton, GVK-Hancock Coal and
North Queensland Bulk Ports) that developed a voluntary Cumulative Impact
Assessment (CIA) of existing and proposed developments at Abbot Point (refer
Section 7 – Assessment, for further information regarding the CIA).
Figure 3. Coal terminal projects at Abbot Point, excluding the Waratah Abbot Point
Coal Terminal Project.
5. State/Territory Assessment and Approval
5.1. The EIS states that the proponent has not yet obtained any relevant approvals under
Queensland State legislation. However, the following environmental and development
approvals will be required prior to construction:
Port Development Approval – Concept Application under the Transport
Infrastructure Act 1994 (Qld) (Abbot Point Land Use Plan). This will be
required only for the initial concept approval, prior to comprehensive Port
Development Approval application.
Port Development Approval under the Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 (Qld)
(Abbot Point Land Use Plan). This will be required for: early works; offshore
works; and onshore works.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 19 of 141
Material Change of Use Development Permit for Environmentally Relevant
Activities under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld) and Environmental
Protection Act 1994 (Qld). These will be required for the following activities:
ERA 8 – Chemical storage; ERA 38 – Surface coating; ERA 50 – Bulk
material handling; ERA 63 – Sewage treatment; and ERA 64 – Wastewater
treatment.
Operational Works Development Permit under the Sustainable Planning Act
2009 (Qld). This will include approval for:
- Clearing of native vegetation for construction of the Terminal
infrastructure, under the Vegetation Management Act 1999 (Qld);
- Interfering with coastal dunes that are in an erosion prone area for the
material offloading facility and potential for service roads, under the
Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 (Qld);
- Tidal Works and works within a Coastal Management District, under
the Coastal Protection and Management Act 1995 (Qld); and
- Interference with marine plants for the construction of the trestle jetty,
ship berth and potentially the material offloading facility, under the
Fisheries Act 1994 (Qld).
5.2. The proponent will also require permits for the movement of protected animals, clearing
of protected plants, and movement of wildlife under the Nature Conservation Act 1992
(Qld). For instance, where interfering with flora species listed in the Nature
Conservation (Protected Plants) Conservation Plan 2000 (Qld), a permit to clear
protected plants will be required. The EIS states that the locations of these flora
species will be determined during pre-clearing surveys. This permit will be required for
clearing:
Dietrich’s Morning Glory (Bonamia dietrichiana); and
The Croton (Croton magneticus).
5.3. The Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) contains restrictions on taking protected
animals, and the keeping or use of unlawfully taken protected animals. A person must
not take a protected animal unless appropriately authorised. Fauna spotters may be
required during the construction phase and will identify protected animals if they occur
in the T0 Project area. Accordingly, the EIS states that a permit for the movement of
protected animals may be required for the:
Striped-tailed Delma (Delma labialis) - legless lizard; and
Koala (Phascolarctos cinereus).
6. Environmental Record
6.1. The EIS states that the proposed action will be developed and operated by Adani Abbot
Point Terminal Pty Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Adani Enterprises Limited.
6.2. The EIS asserts that Adani has not been subject to any proceedings under a
Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the
conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 20 of 141
6.3. Advice from the department’s Compliance Section states that the department is currently
assessing a number of non-compliances in regard to Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty
Ltd’s Stormwater Return Dam Project (EPBC 2010/5561). Initial advice is that, these
non-compliances appear to be minor in nature.
6.4. Media reports (including The Australian, 9 August 2013) covered the findings of a review
of the operations of an Adani subsidiary, Adani Ports, at Mundra in the Indian state of
Gujarat. An assessment conducted by a government appointed expert panel, found
“incontrovertible evidence” that Adani Ports violated environmental clearances and
bypassed approval processes. The panel recommended that the government revoke
approval for an additional port at Mundra and that Adani pay at least $36 million towards
environmental restoration.
6.5. The department notes that the environmental history of actions undertaken in a country
other than Australia cannot be considered as part of this decision as it is beyond the
jurisdiction of the EPBC Act.
7. Assessment
Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment
7.1. In addition to undertaking the EIS assessment process, Adani participated in a working
group with other proponents associated with development at Abbot Point - GVK
Hancock, NQBP and BHP Billiton, to develop a voluntary Cumulative Impact
Assessment (CIA) of existing and proposed developments at Abbot Point. The objective
of the Abbot Point CIA (Ecological Australia and OpenLines, 2013) is outlined in Part A
(page 1-9) of that report. The companies involved in its development stated that the
assessment is intended to provide a comprehensive platform of environmental
information to assess potential cumulative impacts on MNES, including world heritage
values and to develop a framework for joint management, mitigation and monitoring.
7.2. In that assessment, the three development proposals and the capital dredging proposal
are collectively referred to as ‘the Abbot Point Project’. Some of the key findings of the
assessment (refer to Part E, page 18-2/3) are as follows:
It is unlikely the marine environment and marine fauna species will be
significantly impacted by the Abbot Point Project. Port wide management
measures and monitoring are recommended to ensure port operations are
compatible with the ongoing use of Abbot Point by key marine species; and
Abbot Point has some World Heritage attributes, but is not an iconic or highly
sensitive site within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. It was
considered unlikely for there to be a loss in the Outstanding Universal Value or
decline in the integrity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (either reef
wide or locally) as a result of the Abbot Point Project.
7.3. In order to manage the potential cumulative impacts from the projects at Abbot Point the
CIA proposes the establishment of a Joint Environmental Management Framework. The
Joint Environmental Management Framework would address the conservation
objectives at the Port of Abbot Point to ensure a coordinated approach to impact
management. Part D of the CIA (page 15-2) recommends that the framework deliver
conservation objectives and environmental outcomes as port development continues
beyond what has been assessed in CIA and the framework should continue to be in
operation throughout the life of the port.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 21 of 141
7.4. Four experts providing advice on the CIA supported the conclusions of the assessment. They were:
Associate Professor Peter Valentine (James Cook University) – World Heritage;
Dr Peter Driscoll – migratory shorebirds;
Emeritus Professor Peter Saenger (Southern Cross University) – marine
biodiversity; and
Professor Peter Harrison (Southern Cross University) – marine biodiversity.
Mandatory Considerations – section 136(1)(a) Part 3 controlling provisions
7.5. The proposal was determined a controlled action under the following controlling
provisions of the EPBC Act:
World heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A);
National heritage places (sections 15B and 15C);
listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A);
listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A);
Commonwealth marine areas (sections 23 and 24A); and
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C).
These controlling provisions are discussed respectively, below.
8. World Heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A) and National Heritage places
(sections 15B and 15C)
8.1. The Port of Abbot Point is located adjacent to and within the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area (GBRWHA) and National Heritage place.
8.2. The GBRWHA was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981 for all four of the natural
heritage criteria specified in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation’s 2012 Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World
Heritage Convention; criteria (vii), (viii), (ix) and (x).
8.3. The current natural heritage criteria for World Heritage properties are that they:
vii. contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural
beauty and aesthetic importance;
viii. be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history,
including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the
development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;
ix. be outstanding examples representing significant on-going ecological and
biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water,
coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals; and
x. contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ
conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species
of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 22 of 141
8.4. The heritage values that the GBRWHA has as a result of meeting the above criteria,
contribute to the property’s outstanding universal value (OUV). Also encompassed in
the OUV of the property is its integrity (i.e. the wholeness and intactness of the property
and its ability to convey the values it holds), and the protection and management regime
in place for the property.
8.5. The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) was one of 15 World Heritage properties included in the
National Heritage List in 2007. The GBR National Heritage place has national heritage
values in respect of the following national heritage criteria:
a. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s
importance in the course, or pattern, of Australia’s natural or cultural history;
b. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s
possession of uncommon, rare or endangered aspects of Australia’s natural or
cultural history;
c. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s
potential to yield information that will contribute to an understanding of Australia’s
natural or cultural history;
d. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s
importance in demonstrating the principal characteristics of:
i. a class of Australia’s natural or cultural places; or
ii. a class of Australia’s natural or cultural environments;
e. the place has outstanding heritage value to the nation because of the place’s
importance in exhibiting particular aesthetic characteristics valued by a
community or cultural group.
8.6. The heritage values that cause the GBR National Heritage place to meet the above
criteria (its national heritage values), are the same heritage values which cause it to
meet the world heritage criteria set out above.
8.7. The GBRWHA and National Heritage place stretches more than 2,300 km along the
northeast coast of Queensland, from the tip of Cape York to just north of Bundaberg. Its
outer boundaries are defined by coordinates of latitude and longitude. Its width varies
from around 90 km to around 300 km (refer Figure 4).
8.8. The Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report prepared by the GBRMPA in 2009 focuses on
four key factors that were either currently affecting the property, or were projected to
affect the property – climate change, coastal development, catchment runoff and direct
use. GBRMPA further identifies over 40 emerging threats to the health of the GBR.
8.9. The 2012 Reactive Monitoring Mission by the World Heritage Centre and the
International Union for the Conservation of Nature identified that the current and
potential threats to the long-term conservation of the GBRWHA are climate change,
catchment runoff, coastal development, ports and shipping and direct extractive use.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 23 of 141
Figure 4 – Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
8.10. An assessment of impacts to matters of national environmental significance
(including OUV) as a result of the proposed action is detailed below. The assessment
has included the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposed action. Many
issues are relevant to more than one criterion; however they are only described under
one criterion to avoid repetition. As the world heritage values of the GBR are the same
as it’s national heritage values, the following assessment is also relevant to the impacts
of the proposed action on the national heritage values of the GBR National Heritage
place.
Assessment under criterion (vii)
8.11. The criterion states: contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of
exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance.
8.12. The statement of outstanding universal value of the GBRWHA, adopted by the
UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2012, describes how the GBR meets this
criterion as follows:
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 24 of 141
The GBR is of superlative natural beauty above and below the water, and
provides some of the most spectacular scenery on earth. It is one of a few living
structures visible from space, appearing as a complex string of reefal structures
along Australia's northeast coast.
From the air, the vast mosaic patterns of reefs, islands and coral cays produce
an unparalleled aerial panorama of seascapes comprising diverse shapes and
sizes. The Whitsunday Islands provide a magnificent vista of green vegetated
islands and spectacular sandy beaches spread over azure waters. This contrasts
with the vast mangrove forests in Hinchinbrook Channel, and the rugged
vegetated mountains and lush rainforest gullies that are periodically cloud-
covered on Hinchinbrook Island.
On many of the cays there are spectacular and globally important breeding
colonies of seabirds and marine turtles, and Raine Island is the world’s largest
green turtle breeding area. On some continental islands, large aggregations of
over-wintering butterflies periodically occur.
Beneath the ocean surface, there is an abundance and diversity of shapes, sizes
and colours; for example, spectacular coral assemblages of hard and soft corals,
and thousands of species of reef fish provide a myriad of brilliant colours, shapes
and sizes. The internationally renowned Cod Hole near Lizard Island is one of
many significant tourist attractions. Other superlative natural phenomena include
the annual coral spawning, migrating whales, nesting turtles, and significant
spawning aggregations of many fish species.
8.13. Based on this statement, the department considers that the proposed action may
impact on the OUV of the GBRWHA through impacts on visual amenity (both above and
below the ocean surface), seabirds, dugongs, whales, dolphins and marine turtles.
These impacts are discussed below.
Visual Amenity of the terminal structure
8.14. Visual amenity impacts occur from changes in the physical environment, which
may give rise to changes in its visual character and how this is experienced. This may in
turn affect the value of the visual environment.
8.15. The T0 Project is at the northern tip of Abbot Point, with bays connecting north to
Cape Upstart and south to the township of Bowen. The coastline area is generally flat
with mountains and hills and patches of native coastal vegetation. The T0 Project is
proposed to be constructed adjacent to an existing active terminal which currently
comprises an outloading trestle jetty and conveyor of approximately 2.75 km length,
stockyard machines, transfer towers, surge bins, fuel facilities, water settlement ponds,
wharves, ship loaders and berths.
8.16. Adjacent to the existing terminal is the Caley Valley Wetland (CVW). The CVW is
low lying and is therefore not typically visible from publically accessible areas. The
Wetland is a diverse area, altering seasonally with areas of freshwater during the wetter
months and saltwater tidal flows in drier months.
Likely Impacts
8.17. The EIS states that the natural topography coupled with existing vegetation has
significant potential to provide a natural screen and absorb the visual change associated
with the T0 Project. Specifically, vegetation present along the foreshore at Abbot Point
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 25 of 141
consists of vine thicket vegetation communities situated on the hind dune system. This
vegetation forms a thick screen between the T0 Project area and the foreshore.
Vegetation surveys conducted by Saunders Havill Group in 2012 at this location
identified that canopy vegetation ranged from 6-15 m in height.
8.18. The proposed T0 jetty and berths will extend 2.75 km from the Abbot Point
headland into the GBRWHA in a north easterly direction. However, this jetty will be
adjacent to an existing jetty of similar dimensions.
8.19. The EIS also states that Abbot Point does not encompass areas of exceptional
natural beauty (e.g. National Parks and conservation reserves), but rather is
representative of broad-scale coastal features impacted by both industrial and
agricultural development.
8.20. The department considers that notwithstanding this conclusion in the EIS,
impacts to aesthetic values are not limited to National Parks and conservation reserves
and aesthetic values of the GBRWHA could potentially be impacted by the T0 Project
such as from increased shipping as discussed further on.
8.21. The T0 Project site is not visible from the Bruce Highway or the North Coast rail
line, and lands around the site are not publicly accessible. The Port environs (excluding
security restricted areas) are accessible by vessel however, there are limited areas
where visitors to the GBR might stop, within about 40 km of the T0 Project and no
residential areas in close proximity to the Port. Therefore, it is expected that recreational
traffic is likely to be low in the area.
8.22. In addition, the landforms in the vicinity of the T0 Project area limit the viewpoints
from which the site will be visible, thereby limiting the visual exposure of the T0 Project.
However, existing port infrastructure can be seen protruding above the vegetation from
the waters of Edgecumbe Bay, south of Abbot Point.
8.23. It is expected that passing boats will be able to view construction activities,
however, the EIS states that the comparatively small scale of construction infrastructure
when compared to the scale of the existing infrastructure will be a low visual impact.
8.24. Abbot Point is clearly visible from the air on a cloudless day. The Abbot Point
area is an existing active port with infrastructure and coal stockpiles similar to the
proposed T0 Project. The T0 Project will increase the viewable footprint of coal
stockpiles and infrastructure but, with consideration of the existing Terminal 1 structure,
is not expected to increase impacts to visual amenity to a level that would be considered
unacceptable.
Mitigation
8.25. The EIS states that the proponent will commit to ensuring that the T0 Project
structures are of similar colours to the existing infrastructure to ensure that no built
elements stand out significantly.
8.26. The EIS also states that the opportunity exists to further limit these impacts
through the maintenance of vegetation buffers between the development and sensitive
viewing points if required.
Conclusion
8.27. The T0 Project is to be developed adjacent to an existing active coal terminal in
an area with limited public viewpoints that is generally obscured by vegetation and
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 26 of 141
natural land undulation. Therefore, it is considered that the visual amenity of T0 Project
infrastructure is unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on the outstanding universal
value of the GBRWHA. Consequently, the above mitigation measures are not
recommended to be required as conditions on the approval.
Lighting (aesthetics)
8.28. Artificial lighting has the potential to impact on the aesthetic values of the
GBRWHA, particularly at night.
8.29. The EIS has drawn on a study undertaken for the CIA to model and assess
artificial light impacts from the existing terminal and proposed projects at the Port of
Abbot Point.
8.30. The existing T1 operation (including jetty, wharves, and vessels) is a lit site with
direct light spill of approximately 52 ha onto the marine environment. The onshore and
offshore components of the T0 Project are proposed to be located adjacent and parallel
to the existing terminal.
8.31. The T0 Project proposes to upgrade the existing Material Offloading Facility
(MOF) at the northern end of Abbot Beach. The MOF will be extended out to a maximum
of 80 m and will be used during both construction and operational phases and require
artificial light, thus increasing the existing light levels.
Likely Impact
8.32. The EIS states that although most of the construction activities will occur during
the day, some of the works may be required to be carried out at night, therefore.
intermittently increasing light levels during this time. In contrast, operation of the terminal
is expected to be 24 hours a day 7 days a week, involving an ongoing impact from
lighting. The existing terminal currently operates to this timeframe, therefore already
contributing to lighting impacts on the GBRWHA.
8.33. The EIS states that it is expected that the construction of the MOF upgrade will
result in an increase of 0.2 ha in the amount of light spill at an intensity equivalent to a
full moon on a clear night. In addition, construction and operation of conveyors and
stacker/reclaimers adjacent to Abbot Beach will increase the sky glow over Abbot
Beach. Overall, operation of the T0 Project is not expected to result in direct light spill to
Abbot Beach, however, sky glow will increase as a result of the additional jetty, wharf,
berth and vessels.
8.34. The T0 Project have proposed to install a higher standard of lighting fixtures than
are installed for T1 and it is therefore expected that light spill to the marine environment
will, for the majority of the terminal, be less than it is currently for T1. Lighting adjacent to
the wharf however, will be increased.
8.35. The EIS notes that at night, when viewed from a passing boat, lights from the T0
Project will look similar to lights from a small coastal settlement.
8.36. As the T0 Project is developed and increases operational capacity, an increased
number of ship calls will be required. This will result in an increasing number of ships
required to be at anchorage offshore from Abbot Point and contribute to a cumulative
increase in light emissions associated with increases in port utilisation.
8.37. The department notes that there are a number of proposals for additional
terminals at Abbot Point which have been or are currently being considered under the
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 27 of 141
EPBC Act. The department notes that although the T0 Project may only result in a
relatively minor increase in light in the Port of Abbot Point, the cumulative impacts of all
proposed terminals, if approved, will be greater. The remaining/additional proposals at
the Port of Abbot Point will be assessed separately and considered on their merits
having regard to the direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the relevant proposal.
Mitigation measures
8.38. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in relation to
lighting impacts on the OUV of the GBRWHA including an Illumination Plan which will be
developed, describing each light source in terms of its purpose, location, footprint,
intensity and spectral composition and document steps to avoid, mitigate and manage
the impacts of each source. For example through minimising lighting within the
development, minimising long wavelength lights, and installing timers and motion
detectors where possible.
8.39. The proponent states that with measures such as the type of lighting used,
direction of light installation, use of only necessary lighting, and other mitigation and
management measures, lighting impacts can be limited.
Conclusion
8.40. The department considers that as Abbot Point is an existing port with existing
lighting impacts the T0 Project will not create, but rather intensify, the current impact.
8.41. The department’s view is that the proponent’s proposed Illumination Plan, as
referred to above, provides a sufficient framework for reducing any impacts on the OUV
of the GBRWHA from lighting.
8.42. It is recommended that a condition be attached to the approval that requires the
proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial Management Plan and a Marine and
Shipping Management Plan that incorporates the Illumination Plan, to ensure that all
aspects of required lighting during the construction and operation of the T0 Project that
could impact on OUV of the GBRWHA are appropriately managed.
8.43. To ensure that outcomes are met and maximum benefit is achieved, it is
recommended that the Terrestrial Management Plan and the Marine and Shipping
Management Plan be provided to you for review and approval prior to the proponent
commencing the action.
Shipping (aesthetics)
8.44. The EIS states that during 2008-2009 there were approximately 4,200 vessels
that made 26,700 port calls across Australia’s 70 international ports. Ports on the east
coast of Queensland are typically the first ports entered in Australian waters for
international ships. Dedicated sea lanes have been developed for vessels entering
Australian and Queensland waters and through the GBR. A GBR zoning plan has been
created which sets restrictions and prohibits activities within certain areas. Under the
plan, shipping movements have been restricted to designated shipping and general use
areas.
8.45. The Port of Abbot Point can be approached from either the north-east or north-
west, direct from the inner shipping route of the GBR (which runs between the GBR and
the Queensland Coast, over 2,000 km from the Tropic of Capricorn in the south to the
Torres Strait in the north). However, most vessels enter the port area from the north,
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 28 of 141
using Palm Passage (traverses the GBR off Townsville, linking the inner route to the
Coral Sea) to connect to the inner shipping lane.
8.46. Utilisation of the port by ships varies annually depending on throughput and the
types of vessels which load at the facility. In the 2011/12 Financial Year the T1 facility
had a throughput of 13.6 million tonnes of coal which equated to 174 ship calls to the
port.
Likely Impacts
8.47. The EIS states that based on estimates provided within the CIA Report
approximately 1 Mtpa of throughput equates to 8 ship calls. Therefore, the T0 Project will
result in roughly 280 additional ship calls within Phase 1 (35 Mtpa) per annum and 280
additional ship calls (560 in total for 70 Mtpa) during Phase 2 per annum.
8.48. GBRMPA (2013) estimates that there will be approximately 4247 coal ship calls
to GBR ports per annum by 2020, compared to 1,649 coal ship calls to GBR ports in
2012.
8.49. Recreational users of the GBRWHA will see these ships, together with ships
traversing designated shipping routes. The inner route, passes between the outer reef
and the mainland, and ships using this route are visible to recreational and tourism
vessels which may be travelling from the mainland to the reef. Increased shipping will
also have an impact on the ‘unparalleled aerial panoramic seascapes’ which are an
important component of the outstanding universal value of the property under
criterion vii. All ships are required to stay within the designated shipping areas.
8.50. The anchorage area servicing the Port of Abbot Point is located approximately
5 km north-north-west of the port. A recently published report as part of the
Comprehensive Strategic Assessment on ship anchorage in the GBRWHA (refer
paragraphs 7.36 – 7.46 of this recommendation for a summary of that report) states that
recent surveys indicate that sediments across the anchorage area in Abbot Point are
likely to be comprised of sands and silts, and is likely to support sparsely distributed
epibenthic macroinvertebrates. Coral reefs do not occur within the anchorage area of
Abbot Point, however, sparsely distributed Cnidarians may be present in the form of
solitary fungid and soft corals, sea pens and anemones.
8.51. The CIA includes a ‘multicriteria analysis’ to determine the most appropriate
anchorage locations for the Port of Abbot Point. As a result, two potential anchorage
locations have been identified approximately 10 km north and north-east of Abbot Point.
This is within the study area of the anchorage report discussed above.
8.52. Abbot Point is not a residential centre. The only facilities at Abbot Point are
associated with the operation of the existing port with the nearest residential centre
being at Bowen, located approximately 30 km south of Abbot Point. The anchorage area
at Abbot Point does not, therefore, have a high level of visibility to residents and visitors
to Bowen. The anchorage area is transited principally by commercial vessels servicing
the Port of Abbot Point but is also transited by fishing vessels travelling between
southern centres and northern reefs.
Mitigation Measures
8.53. No mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce the visual impacts of
shipping through the GBR with the exception of confining shipping to designated
shipping routes. However, Adani has proposed to develop a Shipping Management Plan
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 29 of 141
that will be prepared prior to commencement of operation to address and mitigate
potential impacts from shipping including those arising from physical impacts, pollution
events, lighting and introduced pests.
Conclusion
8.54. The department considers that as shipping activities are restricted to existing
designated active shipping routes and the Abbot Point area is currently frequented by
coal ships, that an unacceptable impact on the aesthetic OUV of the GBRWHA from
shipping is unlikely.
Seabirds and Marine Turtles
8.55. The EIS states that four of Australia’s six species of marine turtles are known to
occur in the T0 Project area; Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus), Green Turtle
(Chelonia mydas), Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) and the Hawksbill Turtle
(Eretmochelys imbricata). There has been one confirmed sighting of the Olive Ridley
Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) in the Abbot Point area.
8.56. Abbot Beach, adjacent to the proposed T0 Project area, is a known nesting
beach for the Green and Flatback Turtles.
8.57. The EIS identifies the presence of a number of migratory birds in the CVW.
Among these are: the Lesser Crested Tern (Thalasseus bengalensis); the Eastern
Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis); the Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus); the White-
Bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leuccogaster); the Rainbow Bee-Eater (Merops ornatus);
and the Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia).
Likely impacts
8.58. Likely impacts associated with the above mentioned species are discussed in
Section 9 and 10 of this recommendation report. Avoidance and mitigation measures
proposed for these species will ensure protection of species relevant to the OUV of the
GBRWHA.
Conclusion of assessment under criterion (vii)
8.59. The department is of the opinion that the proposed action will result in an
increased risk of potential impacts on the GBRWHA but provided the measures outlined
in this report and in the conditions of approval, are implemented, unacceptable impacts
on the GBRWHA will not occur as a result of the proposed action.
Assessment under criterion (viii)
8.60. The criterion states: to be outstanding examples representing major stages of
earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in
the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features.
8.61. The statement of outstanding universal value of the GBRWHA, adopted by the
UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2012, describes how the GBR meets this
criterion as follows:
The GBR, extending 2,000 kilometres along Queensland's coast, is a globally
outstanding example of an ecosystem that has evolved over millennia. The area
has been exposed and flooded by at least four glacial and interglacial cycles, and
over the past 15,000 years reefs have grown on the continental shelf.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 30 of 141
During glacial periods, sea levels dropped, exposing the reefs as flat-topped hills
of eroded limestone. Large rivers meandered between these hills and the
coastline extended further east. During interglacial periods, rising sea levels
caused the formation of continental islands, coral cays and new phases of coral
growth. This environmental history can be seen in cores of old massive corals.
Today the GBR forms the world’s largest coral reef ecosystem, ranging from
inshore fringing reefs to mid-shelf reefs, and exposed outer reefs, including
examples of all stages of reef development. The processes of geological and
geomorphological evolution are well represented, linking continental islands,
coral cays and reefs. The varied seascapes and landscapes that occur today
have been moulded by changing climates and sea levels, and the erosive power
of wind and water, over long time periods.
One-third of the GBR lies beyond the seaward edge of the shallower reefs; this
area comprises continental slope and deep oceanic waters and abyssal plains.
8.62. Based on this statement, the department considers that the proposed action may
impact on the OUV of the GBRWHA through the increased risk of ship groundings,
hydrodynamics and impacts to coral.
Hydrodynamics and associated movement of sediment
8.63. The T0 Project proposes to construct a jetty structure adjacent to the existing
jetty spanning out northwards from the Abbot Point Headland and to upgrade a MOF at
the northern end of Abbot Beach.
8.64. Construction and establishment of these structures has the potential to
permanently influence coastal and marine currents and tidal levels.
Likely Impacts
8.65. Modelling provided in the EIS indicates that the existing piled jetty structure has
likely resulted in the following changes:
very small localised increases in tidal current speed as a result of the jetty
trestles blocking flow;
some scour around piles during high wind and wave condition; however,
scour would be extremely localised around individual piles and naturally infill
over time due to longshore sediment movement leaving no residual impact;
very localised changes in longshore sediment transport pathways as a result
of the trestle abutment. As the revetment (being a structure to prevent
erosion or subsidence) is located along the eastern end of Dingo Beach (a
boulder beach interspersed with sand), only minor changes are expected to
have occurred to the longshore sediment transport where it extends into the
sandy subtidal areas. Very minor and localised changes to the longshore
transport pathways are also expected to have occurred as a result of the
trestles and piles; and
very localised changes in wave condition as a result of the trestles.
8.66. The EIS states that all the impacts to coastal processes from the existing over-
water infrastructure would be negligible. Studies have modelled the impacts of trestle
piles associated with a jetty similar to the proposed development on tidal currents in the
area and predicted changes in localised current speed of less than 0.004 meters per
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 31 of 141
second. This magnitude of change in tidal current velocities to an area localised around
the trestle piles would be considered minor and would not result in any subsequent
impacts to the coastal processes.
8.67. As the T0 jetty is proposed to replicate the existing jetty, it is expected that the
impacts described above would sufficiently describe any impacts pertaining to the new
jetty.
8.68. In contrast to the over water structures, the existing MOF has impacted the
shoreline alignment and sediment transport regime by stopping sediment transport
northwards along Abbot Beach resulting in sand accreting to the south of the
breakwater.
8.69. The existing MOF has a rock breakwater blocking the movement of sand along
the shoreline. This has created a groyne (a build up of sand) on the southern side. This
groyne has accreted to capacity and currently bypasses sand. The T0 Project proposal
includes the extension of the MOF by up to 60 m in a northerly direction, parallel to the
coastline. This may have the effect of pushing the sediment pathway approximately
20 m further offshore, and increasing the groyne effect by an equivalent distance. This
would result in a small volume of additional accretion until the groyne capacity is
reached, at which time bypass is expected to resume. The lee of the groyne is not
further exposed to erosion by the extension as it is a rocky stretch of coast although this
may result in a reduction in sand deposition.
8.70. The EIS states that as modifications to the MOF would only involve a 60 m
extension to the existing wharf with the extension running parallel to the coastline,
impacts to tidal currents are expected to be minimal. This conclusion is supported by
modelling undertaken as part of the Abbot Point CIA Report.
Mitigation Measures
8.71. The proponent has suggested a number of potential mitigation measures
including periodically pumping sand accreting to the south of the MOF to the north of the
MOF, and its access channel so that the material is not lost to the system.
8.72. It is considered that this is likely to create further disturbance to the area and
increase turbidity in a known turtle nesting area, therefore it is not recommended that
this be included as a condition of approval.
Conclusions
8.73. The EIS indicates that the proposed T0 Project infrastructure has been shown
through modelling to generally have a negligible impact on hydrodynamics and waves.
There are likely to be some minor impacts in the immediate vicinity of the infrastructure,
but these are not predicted to result in any adverse impacts.
8.74. The EIS also concludes that beach stability and future shoreline evolution is not
predicted to be impacted by the overwater infrastructure associated with the
development. Minor short term impacts to sediment transport are expected at the
proposed MOF extension; however, no long-term impact to the longshore sediment
transport rate is expected.
8.75. The department agrees with these conclusions and considers that an
unacceptable impact on the hydrodynamics and associated sediment movement aspect
of the OUV of the GBRWHA is unlikely.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 32 of 141
Corals
8.76. The east-west cross section of the GBRWHA contains significant coral reefs, a
wide lagoon, and further reefs at the edge of the continental shelf. The T0 Project is
proposed to be located along the Queensland coast within the Port of Abbot Point near
Bowen.
8.77. The EIS states that the marine environment in the T0 Project area and
surrounding waters is typified by soft sandy sediments, variable water depths and the
presence of commonly occurring seagrasses and algae communities. Surface sediments
are primarily composed of sand and do not support extensive or diverse marine
macroinvertebrate communities. Similar to much of the GBR where calcium carbonate
concentrations are highest towards the mid-shelf reefs, calcium carbonate levels in the
T0 Project area increase with distance from the Port of Abbot Point, and are highest on
the seaward side of the shipping channels, some 40 km offshore.
8.78. The marine environment within the T0 Project area includes Clark Shoal, a
shallow sand depositional site, mudflat, rocky reef, soft sediments, mangrove and
seagrass habitats. These areas provide foraging habitats for a number of marine fauna
species including turtle, dugong, dolphin and fishes, and are heterogeneously populated
with habitat forming sessile benthic organisms and macroinvertebrates which are
interspersed throughout the substrate at varying densities.
8.79. The EIS states that surveys have identified a total of 5,568 benthic individuals
(including corals) from ten distinct functional groups. However, of the ten groups
represented, over 50% of taxa identified were ascidians (sea squirts) and echinoderms
(sea stars, urchins, sea cucumbers and the like). These findings are also consistent with
other regions of the GBRWHA which are dominated by soft sediments and are not
associated with port developments and infrastructure and have not been exposed to
dredging (as has occurred at the Point of Abbot Point). This suggests that the low
diversity of macroinvertebrate fauna within the T0 Project area is not a product of
anthropogenic activities which occur in relation to current port activities, but rather the
natural underlying environment.
8.80. Among the benthic surveys discussed in the EIS was the observation of the
phylum Cnidarias. The phylum includes corals, jellyfish, anemones and small
Hydrozoans, which provide food and sheltering resources for a number of marine fauna
species. Surveys of the T0 Project area have identified the presence of small and
heterogeneous populations of Cnidarians. Anemones, sea pens and Hydrozoans were
most abundant; however, small populations of soft and hard corals were also recorded.
8.81. External to the Port limits, the most structurally complex and diverse
environments with respect to Cnidarians are located at Camp Island to the west and
Nares Rock and Holbourne Island to the north east. These habitats support a relatively
high density of hard corals.
8.82. The anchorage area servicing the Port of Abbot Point is located approximately
5 km north-north-west of the port. A report by GHD (2013) states that recent surveys
indicate that sediments across the anchorage area are likely to be comprised of sands
and silts and is likely to support sparsely distributed epibenthic macroinvertebrates.
Coral reefs do not occur within the anchorage area of Abbot Point, however, sparsely
distributed Cnidarians may be present in the form of solitary fungid and soft corals, sea
pens and anemones. The report concludes that the anchorage area servicing the Port of
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 33 of 141
Abbot Point does not contain significant extant or extinct coral communities, including
outer reefs.
Likely Impacts
8.83. The EIS concludes that no noted coral habitats or populations occur within the T0
Project area, however, the department considers that an impact to corals in the Abbot
Point area is likely.
8.84. Direct impacts from the T0 Project are likely to occur during pile driving as a
result of the placement of pile structures for the jetty. The proponent has estimated that
direct marine habitat affected by piling will be up to 0.13 ha. Only a portion of this area is
likely to contain corals. Indirect impacts are likely to occur through shading from the jetty,
reduced water quality from construction and operation of the T0 terminal and increased
risk of introduced pests as a consequence of shipping.
Mitigation Measures
8.85. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in the EIS with
the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to matters of national
environmental significance from decreased water quality, introduced exotic pests and
degradation from increased anchorage during the action, including:
A Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Management Subplan including:
a Dust Management Plan to limit impacts from dust generated during the
construction phases and coal dust when operational, including a variety of
dust suppression techniques;
A Water Management Subplan including:
a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed and
implemented prior to commencement of construction and will include
provisions for treatment, recycling and/or reuse and or discharge of flows
and measures for water quality monitoring. The SWMP will be reviewed and
updated as the project management system changes;
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be prepared for each construction
activity, prior to commencement of construction;
a Hazard and Risks Management Plan for construction and operation to
minimise risks of hazardous material entering the environment and providing
protocols in the case of a spill;
A Land Management Subplan including:
an Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) Management Plan including a site specific
investigation in areas that have been identified as ASS or potential ASS;
Contaminated Land control strategies including a site remediation plan to be
developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination;
A Marine Ecology Management Subplan including:
a Shipping Management Plan that will be prepared prior to commencement
of operation to address and mitigate potential impacts from shipping
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 34 of 141
including those arising from physical impacts, pollution events, lighting and
introduced pests; and
A Waste Management Subplan including:
a Waste Management Plan to manage waste from construction and operation
of the project in such a way that any potential impacts to the environment are
minimised or avoided.
8.86. In addition to the above measures, the proponent has proposed a number of
monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not all
of these have an adaptive management function. For further information regarding the
mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP refer Section
5 of the EIS.
Conclusion
8.87. The department considers that the above elements of the proposed Terrestrial
Flora and Fauna, Water, Land and Waste Management Subplans provide an adequate
framework for reducing any potential impacts on coral communities from decreased
water quality and smothering of corals from coal dust provided they include an adaptive
management function.
8.88. It is recommended that conditions be attached to the approval that requires the
proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial Management Plan that includes (but is
not limited to) the measures discussed in the above management subplans. It is
recommended that the Terrestrial Management Plan also contain provisions for
performance indicators (including trigger levels) and contingency measures. This would
enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate
potential negative impacts to the OUV of the GBRWHA.
8.89. The department considers that the shipping element of the proposed Marine
Ecology Management Subplan provides an adequate framework for reducing any
potential impacts on coral communities that represent the OUV of the GBRWHA from
introduced exotic pests and degradation from increased anchorage.
8.90. It is recommended that a condition be attached to the approval that requires the
proponent to include the measures discussed above (but not limited to) for the Shipping
Management Plan in the previously mentioned Marine and Shipping Management Plan.
It is recommended that this section of the Marine and Shipping Management Plan also
contain provisions for performance indicators (including trigger levels) and contingency
measures. This would enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively
manage and mitigate potential negative impacts to the OUV of the GBRWHA.
8.91. To ensure that outcomes are met and maximum benefit is achieved, it is
recommended that the Terrestrial Management Plan, and the Marine and Shipping
Management Plan are provided to you for review and approval prior to the proponent
commencing the action.
Ship Groundings
8.92. Shipping through the GBR poses a number of challenges due to the vast
complex of islands and reefs which make up the reef system. To manage the natural
environment and ensure the safe and efficient transit of cargo it is essential that
appropriate measures exist to facilitate the movement of large vessels. Over the last 20
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 35 of 141
years a number of measures have been developed to improve navigational safety
through the GBR.
8.93. As detailed above, the proposed action will result in an increase in shipping
through the GBRWHA. As such, there is an associated increased risk in ship
groundings and collisions.
Likely Impacts
8.94. Ship groundings can result in significant damage to the marine environment
including to corals as discussed above. Further damage to the substrate can result from
activities required to free the vessel. Vessels may have to be dragged over benthic
substrates, or blasting of the substrate may be required to clear a path for the grounded
vessel. Decisions on vessel recovery are made by the delegated regulatory authorities in
conjunction with appointed salvage experts. The priorities of any salvage action are
protecting life and the environment, and minimising the risk of a marine oil spill.
Existing management practices
8.95. Since the listing of the GBR on the World Heritage List, a number of
management initiatives have been developed and implemented to manage shipping
within the GBR. Examples include compulsory and recommended pilotage regimes, a
ship reporting system (ReefREP) which was subsequently updated to a vessel traffic
system (ReefVTS); establishment of Designated Shipping Areas and defined traffic
routes; increased navigation aids and a differential GPS service; and, the requirement
for vessels to carry Automatic Identification Systems.
8.96. ReefVTS was implemented in 1996 to increase navigational safety within the
area north of Gladstone to the Torres Strait. Under this system, all vessels over 50m in
length, special product carriers, and certain vessels under tow have systems requiring
mandatory position reporting at specific points along the inner GBR Designated Shipping
Area and automated position reporting via satellite. The reporting system is integrated
with a system of navigation aids including VHF radio, radar monitoring and a network of
differential global positioning systems and AIS stations situated throughout the GBR.
Automated Position Reporting via Inmarsat C is now the primary means for ships to
provide position reports.
8.97. The EIS states that currently, the annual probability of a grounding or major
incident (groundings and collisions) since the introduction of the ReefVTS relative to the
average annual number of ship calls (~3750) equates to 0.000033 groundings and
0.00037 incidents per ship call per annum. Based on estimates provided within the
Abbot Point CIA Report, approximately 1 Mtpa of throughput equates to 8 ship calls.
Therefore, if current probabilities of groundings and major incidents are maintained, the
T0 Project has the potential to result in an additional 0.018 groundings and 0.20 major
incidents at full operational capacity per annum (approximately 560 ship calls per
annum).
8.98. New offences under the Navigation Act 2012 (Cth) for operating a vessel in a
manner that causes pollution or damage have also been introduced, including increased
penalties for failure to report an incident in the GBR.
8.99. The Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) developed the draft North East
Shipping Management Plan an released it for public comment between 2 August and 4
October 2013.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 36 of 141
8.100. The draft North East Shipping Management Plan (outlines measures currently in
place to manage the safety of major shipping in the (GBRWHA), and the Coral Sea and
Torres Strait regions. To manage likely increases in shipping in this region in the coming
decades the draft Plan also proposes 55 ongoing and future commitments in relation to
improved environmental protection, shipping safety, shipping navigation and emergency
response. The draft Plan specifically considers shipping-related risks to the outstanding
universal value of the GBRWHA and identifies measures for preventing or mitigating
ship-sourced pollution and other environmental impacts. Impacts considered include
those associated with major incidents and general shipping operations, such as
disturbance to the seabed from anchoring, marine pest introduction from ballast water
discharge, interference with marine species behaviour and altered aesthetic value.
Mitigation Measures
8.101. The proponent has proposed to develop a Marine Ecology Management Subplan
which includes a shipping component, prior to the commencement of operation to
mitigate and manage potential impacts from shipping. This includes using low risk
shipping channels like Palm Passage whenever possible. This is required to be
incorporated into a Marine and Shipping Management Plan as a condition on approval.
Conclusion
8.102. The department considers the proponent’s proposed management plan as
detailed above provides a sufficient framework for reducing any potential impacts on the
OUV of the GBRWHA from increased risk of ship groundings.
8.103. As discussed above, it is recommended that conditions be attached to the
approval that requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Marine and Shipping
Management Plan that includes (but is not limited to) the measures discussed in the
above management subplan.
Conclusion of assessment under criterion (viii)
8.104. The department is of the opinion that the proposed action will result in an
increased risk of potential impacts on the GBRWHA and that provided the measures
outlined in this report and in the conditions of approval, are implemented, unacceptable
impacts on the GBRWHA will not occur as a result of the proposed action.
Assessment under criterion (ix)
8.105. The criterion states: to be outstanding examples representing significant on-
going ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial,
fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals.
8.106. The statement of outstanding universal value of the GBRWHA, adopted by the
UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2012, describes how the GBR meets this
criterion as follows:
The globally significant diversity of reef and island morphologies reflects ongoing
geomorphic, oceanographic and environmental processes. The complex cross-
shelf, longshore and vertical connectivity is influenced by dynamic oceanic
currents and ongoing ecological processes such as upwellings, larval dispersal
and migration.
Ongoing erosion and accretion of coral reefs, sand banks and coral cays
combine with similar processes along the coast and around continental islands.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 37 of 141
Extensive beds of Halimeda algae represent active calcification and accretion
over thousands of years.
Biologically the unique diversity of the GBR reflects the maturity of an ecosystem
that has evolved over millennia; evidence exists for the evolution of hard corals
and other fauna. Globally significant marine faunal groups include over 4,000
species of molluscs, over 1,500 species of fish, plus a great diversity of sponges,
anemones, marine worms, crustaceans, and many others. The establishment of
vegetation on the cays and continental islands exemplifies the important role of
birds, such as the Pied Imperial Pigeon, in processes such as seed dispersal and
plant colonisation.
Human interaction with the natural environment is illustrated by strong ongoing
links between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their sea-country, and
includes numerous shell deposits (middens) and fish traps, plus the application of
story places and marine totems.
8.107. Based on this statement, the department considers that the proposed action may
impact on the OUV of the GBRWHA through the increased risk of ship groundings,
through direct impacts associated with impacts to coral.
Halimeda algae
8.108. Algal communities support a range of biodiversity values, providing food
resources for turtles, crustaceans and fish species.
Likely Impact
8.109. The EIS states that a number of algae species (including many Halimeda
species) have been identified in the T0 Project area. Surveys in 2005 identified algae
present in low densities across approximately 50% of the T0 Project area. A survey
conducted in 2009 identified similar species distribution and abundance estimates.
8.110. A recent anchorage report (GHD, 2013) states that surveys undertaken in the
anchorage area outside of the Port limits indicates that no significant Halimeda banks
are known to occur, however, Halimeda is present.
8.111. The T0 Project could potentially impact on Halimeda algae from reduced water
quality run off as a result of construction and operation activities, increased anchorage
and the introduction of exotic species through shipping.
Mitigation Measures
8.112. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in the EIS with
the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to matters of national
environmental significance from decreased water quality, introduced exotic pests and
degradation from increased anchorage during the action, including:
A Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Management Subplan including:
a Dust Management Plan to limit impacts from dust generated during the
construction phases and coal dust when operational, including a variety of
dust suppression techniques;
A Water Management Subplan including:
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 38 of 141
a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed and
implemented prior to commencement of construction and will include
provisions for treatment, recycling and/or reuse and or discharge of flows
and measures for water quality monitoring. The SWMP will be reviewed and
updated as the project management system changes;
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be prepared for each construction
activity, prior to commencement of construction;
a Hazard and Risks Management Plan for construction and operation to
minimise risks of hazardous material entering the environment and providing
protocols in the case of a spill;
A Land Management Subplan including:
an Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) Management Plan including a site specific
investigation in areas that have been identified as ASS or potential ASS;
Contaminated Land control strategies including a site remediation plan to be
developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination;
A Marine Ecology Management Subplan including:
a Shipping Management Plan that will be prepared prior to commencement
of operation to address and mitigate potential impacts from shipping
including those arising from physical impacts, pollution events, lighting and
introduced pests; and
A Waste Management Subplan including:
a Waste Management Plan to manage waste from construction and
operation of the project in such a way that any potential impacts to the
environment are minimised or avoided.
8.113. In addition to the above measures, the proponent has proposed a number of
monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not all
of these have an adaptive management function. For further information regarding the
mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer
Section 5 of the EIS).
Conclusion
8.114. As no Halimeda algae species are listed threatened species, there are no
available recovery plans, conservation advice or threat abatement plans. Halimeda
algae is considered in this recommendation report as a value of the GBRWHA.
8.115. The department considers the above elements of the proposed Terrestrial Flora
and Fauna, Water, Land and Waste Management Subplans provide a sufficient
framework for reducing any potential impacts on Halimeda algae from decreased water
quality and smothering of algae from coal dust provided they include an adaptive
management function.
8.116. The department considers the shipping element of the proposed Marine Ecology
Management Subplan provides a sufficient framework for reducing any potential impacts
on Halimeda algae that represent the OUV of the GBRWHA from introduced exotic pests
and degradation from increased anchorage.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 39 of 141
8.117. As discussed above, it is recommended that conditions be attached to the
approval that requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial
Management Plan, and a Marine and Shipping Management Plan that includes (but is
not limited to) the measures discussed in the above management subplans. This would
enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate
potential negative impacts to the OUV of the GBRWHA.
Seagrass
8.118. Seagrass meadows are important coastal ecosystems. Seagrass meadows
assist in the capture and recycling of nutrients, providing food and shelter for marine
organisms, and assisting in sediment stabilisation. In addition, seagrasses are
considered internationally important as they provide a food source for a number of EPBC
Act listed species including Dugong and several species of marine turtles. Seagrasses
have also been identified as having the potential to sequester significant amounts of
carbon from the atmosphere and may act as significant global carbon sinks. As such,
seagrasses are recognised as significant marine ecosystems which also influence the
broader global environment.
8.119. The EIS states that Seagrasses have been documented as the most dominant
benthic flora within the Port of Abbot Point, however, they occur in low density. Deep
and shallow water species of seagrass co-exist throughout the T0 Project area and their
presence has been attributed to the low turbidity waters of the port. The most extensive
high density seagrass meadows occur directly to the south-east of the port boundaries in
deeper waters offshore of Euri Creek and Abbot Beach.
8.120. Seagrass meadows are highly variable with both density and distribution varying
significantly from year to year within the T0 Project area. Seagrasses at Abbot Point are
considered to be highly dynamic and heavily influenced by seasonality and major
weather events, resulting in changes in density and distribution.
8.121. The EIS states that a recent survey reported that major declines in seagrass
density and biomass at Abbot Point have occurred since November 2010, and where
they remained, they were in low biomass. It was also noted that the loss in seagrass was
not specific to Abbot Point and had also been experienced across a number of locations
along the coast of Queensland.
8.122. Declines in seagrass density and distribution have been observed over multiple
seasons and it is likely they are in response to La Niña conditions. These conditions
include increased rainfall and increased cyclone frequency (e.g. Cyclone Yasi) leading to
significant freshwater influx near the coast, ultimately increasing sedimentation and
reducing light intensity in the area. These impacts significantly affect seagrass growth.
Although the distribution and density of seagrasses has declined within the T0 Project
area, it could be expected that seagrass populations will recover over time, dependent
upon the species present and the availability of seed reserves.
Likely Impacts
8.123. Pile driving for the construction of the jetty will result in removal of seagrass
within the T0 Project area. Pile driving will also result in increased localised turbidity. The
activities associated with the construction and operation of the T0 Project will likely lead
to decreased water quality in the marine environment, consequently reducing the
viability of seagrass meadows.
Mitigation Measures
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 40 of 141
8.124. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in the EIS with
the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to matters of national
environmental significance from decreased water quality, introduced exotic pests and
degradation from increased anchorage during the action, including:
A Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Management Subplan including:
a Dust Management Plan to limit impacts from dust generated during the
construction phases and coal dust when operational, including a variety of
dust suppression techniques;
A Water Management Subplan including:
a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed and
implemented prior to commencement of construction and will include
provisions for treatment, recycling and/or reuse and or discharge of flows
and measures for water quality monitoring. The SWMP will be reviewed and
updated as the project management system changes;
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be prepared for each construction
activity, prior to commencement of construction;
a Hazard and Risks Management Plan for construction and operation to
minimise risks of hazardous material entering the environment and providing
protocols in the case of a spill;
A Land Management Subplan including:
an Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) Management Plan including a site specific
investigation in areas that have been identified as ASS or potential ASS;
Contaminated Land control strategies including a site remediation plan to be
developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination;
A Marine Ecology Management Subplan including:
a Shipping Management Plan that will be prepared prior to commencement
of operation to address and mitigate potential impacts from shipping
including those arising from physical impacts, pollution events, lighting and
introduced pests; and
A Waste Management Subplan including:
a Waste Management Plan to manage waste from construction and
operation of the project in such a way that any potential impacts to the
environment are minimised or avoided.
8.125. In addition to the above measures, the proponent has proposed a number of
monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not all
of these have an adaptive management function. For further information regarding the
mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer
Section 5 of the EIS).
Conclusion
8.126. As no seagrass species or communities are listed threatened species, there are
no available recovery plans, conservation advice or threat abatement plans. Seagrass is
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 41 of 141
considered in this recommendation report as a value of the GBRWHA and as habitat for
listed migratory species (such as dugong).
8.127. The department considers the above elements of the proposed Terrestrial Flora
and Fauna, Water, Land and Waste Management Subplans provide a sufficient
framework for reducing any potential impacts on seagrass communities from decreased
water quality and smothering of algae from coal dust provided they include an adaptive
management function.
8.128. The department considers the shipping element of the proposed Marine Ecology
Management Subplan provides a sufficient framework for reducing any potential impacts
on seagrass communities from introduced exotic pests and degradation from increased
anchorage.
8.129. As discussed above, it is recommended that conditions be attached to the
approval that requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial
Management Plan and a Marine and Shipping Management Plan that includes (but is
not limited to) the measures discussed in the above management subplans. This would
enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate
potential negative impacts to the OUV of the GBRWHA.
Migratory species
8.130. Marine and migratory species contribute to the values of the GBRWHA through
faunal diversity, feeding/breeding grounds and species of conservation significance such
as marine turtles, dugongs, humpback whales and dolphins are all relevant to this value.
A number of these listed migratory species have been identified as present in the vicinity
of Abbot Point and are discussed in Section 10 of this report. The discussion addresses
all of the relevant impacts to and mitigation measures required to protect the listed
migratory species relevant to the OUV of the GBRWHA. It is considered that this
discussion and mitigation measures would also pertain to any migratory species not
listed under the EPBC Act.
Middens
8.131. Although the GBRWHA is not inscribed on the World Heritage List under cultural
criteria, the Statement of Outstanding Universal Value for the property acknowledges the
‘strong ongoing links between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their sea-
country’ with respect to this criterion, as the criteria at the time of listing made reference
to ‘man's interaction with his natural environment’.
8.132. Cultural features pertaining to this criterion in the GBRWHA include for example;
middens, fish traps, story places and marine totems.
Likely Impacts
8.133. The EIS states that surveys did not identify any cultural heritage objects within
the T0 Project area, however, they did identify shell middens to the east of the T0
Project area on the coastal beach ridges and dunes. This area is directly adjacent to the
GBRWHA boundary.
8.134. The EIS also states that there are no recorded burial sites registered on the
Department of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Multicultural Affairs register.
However, during consultation with the Juru People, who are the registered claimants for
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 42 of 141
native title in the area affected by the T0 Project, it was noted that they believe that
burial grounds exist within the east coast shell midden complexes at Abbot Point.
8.135. The area containing the middens is not proposed to be developed or utilised as
part of the T0 Project.
Mitigation Measures
8.136. The proponent has proposed to develop a Cultural Heritage Management Plan to
mitigate and manage potential impacts to any cultural heritage values discovered on site
during construction works as well as to protect known values adjacent to the T0 Project
area.
Conclusion
8.137. The EIS states that Adani and the Juru People have negotiated, agreed and
signed both a Cultural Heritage Management Plan and an Indigenous Land Use
Agreement (ILUA) that has identified, addressed and put in place agreed methodologies
for identifying and preserving significant cultural heritage sites and areas. The ILUA was
authorised on 6 May 2013 and is due to be registered by early November 2013. The
agreed terms of these agreements include:
cultural heritage surveys to be undertaken prior to initial ground disturbance
in the T0 Project area;
management responsibilities of cultural heritage identified during surveys to
be agreed;
involvement of the Juru People’s archaeologist in ongoing assessment and
management;
contingencies for unexpected finds and discovery of human remains;
engagement of all Juru cultural heritage surveyors and monitors through the
nominated entity, Juru Enterprises Ltd;
establishment of a cultural heritage committee to assist with implementation
of the Cultural Heritage Management Plan; and
dispute resolution processes to assist the parties to reach agreement where
necessary.
8.138. The department considers the proponent’s proposed Cultural Heritage
Management Plan and ILUA provides sufficient means for reducing any potential
impacts on any cultural heritage values within the vicinity of the T0 Project area.
8.139. It is recommended that conditions be attached to the approval that requires the
proponent to prepare and implement an Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan that
includes measures listed above to ensure continuing consultation with the Juru People
as well as to provide opportunities for employment as they relate to implementing the
recommended conditions, where possible.
Conclusion of assessment under criterion (ix)
8.140. The department considers that the proposed action will result in an increased risk
of impacts on the GBRWHA but provided the measures outlined in this report and in the
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 43 of 141
conditions of approval are implemented, unacceptable impacts on the GBRWHA will not
occur as a result of the proposed action.
Assessment under criterion (x) Up to here
8.141. The criterion states: to contain the most important and significant natural habitats
for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened
species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science and
conservation.
8.142. The statement of outstanding universal value of the GBRWHA, adopted by the
UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2012, describes how the GBR meets this
criterion as follows:
The enormous size and diversity of the GBR means it is one of the richest and most complex natural ecosystems on earth, and one of the most significant for biodiversity conservation. The amazing diversity supports tens of thousands of marine and terrestrial species, many of which are of global conservation significance.
As the world's most complex expanse of coral reefs, the reefs contain some 400 species of corals in 60 genera. There are also large ecologically important inter-reefal areas. The shallower marine areas support half the world's diversity of mangroves and many seagrass species. The waters also provide major feeding grounds for one of the world's largest populations of the threatened dugong. At least 30 species of whales and dolphins occur here, and it is a significant area for humpback whale calving.
Six of the world’s seven species of marine turtle occur in the GBR. As well as the world’s largest green turtle breeding site at Raine Island, the GBR also includes many regionally important marine turtle rookeries.
Some 242 species of birds have been recorded in the GBR. Twenty-two seabird
species breed on cays and some continental islands, and some of these
breeding sites are globally significant; other seabird species also utilize the area.
The continental islands support thousands of plant species, while the coral cays
also have their own distinct flora and fauna.
8.143. Based on this statement, the department considers that the proposed action may
impact on the OUV of the GBRWHA through impacts on threatened species of OUV
from the point of view of science and conservation.
Threatened species of outstanding universal value
8.144. A discussion of likely impacts on threatened and migratory species of
outstanding universal value is provided at Section 9 and 10 of this Recommendation
Report, respectively. Avoidance and mitigation measures proposed for these species will
ensure protection of species relevant to the OUV of the GBRWHA.
Conclusion of assessment under criterion (x)
8.145. The department considers that the proposed action will result in an increased risk
of potential impacts on the GBRWHA but provided the measures outlined in this report
and in the conditions of approval are implemented, unacceptable impacts on the
GBRWHA will not occur as a result of the proposed action.
Integrity
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 44 of 141
8.146. The statement of outstanding universal value of the GBRWHA, adopted by the
UNESCO World Heritage Committee in 2012, describes how the GBR meets this
criterion as follows:
The ecological integrity of the GBR is enhanced by the unparalleled size and
current good state of conservation across the area. At the time of inscription it
was felt that to include virtually the entire GBR within the property was the only
way to ensure the integrity of the coral reef ecosystems in all their diversity.
A number of natural pressures occur, including cyclones, crown-of-thorns
starfish outbreaks, and sudden large influxes of freshwater from extreme
weather events. As well there is a range of human uses such as tourism,
shipping and coastal developments including ports. There are also some
disturbances facing the GBR that are legacies of past actions prior to the
inscription of the property on the World Heritage list.
At the scale of the GBR ecosystem, most habitats or species groups have the
capacity to recover from disturbance or withstand ongoing pressures. The
property is largely intact and includes the fullest possible representation of
marine ecological, physical and chemical processes from the coast to the deep
abyssal waters enabling the key interdependent elements to exist in their natural
relationships.
Some of the key ecological, physical and chemical processes that are essential
for the long-term conservation of the marine and island ecosystems and their
associated biodiversity occur outside the boundaries of the property and thus
effective conservation programs are essential across the adjoining catchments,
marine and coastal zones.
8.147. The Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention published by UNESCO require that all properties nominated for inscription
on the World Heritage List satisfy conditions of integrity, where integrity is defined as ‘a
measure of the wholeness and intactness of the natural and/or cultural heritage and its
attributes’. Examining the conditions of integrity therefore requires assessing the extent
to which a property:
includes all elements necessary to express its outstanding universal value;
is of adequate size to ensure the complete representation of the features and processes which convey the property’s significance; and,
suffers from adverse effects of development and/or neglect.
8.148. The T0 Project area is surrounded by existing port infrastructure (which has been
operating since 1984 with a number of expansions), future proposed infrastructure, and
natural features. Abbot Point has been designated by the Queensland Government as a
State Development Area (the T0 Project is outside this area) and the port limits have
been excised from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
8.149. Factors that could impact on the GBRWHA as a whole (for example the integrity)
as a result of the proposed development include:
changes to water quality within the GBRWHA; and,
excessive visual impacts along a large extent of the GBRWHA.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 45 of 141
8.150. Visual impacts have been discussed in detail under criterion vi. That discussion
is also relevant to a consideration of the impacts of the proposed action under this
criterion. Water quality impacts have been discussed, however, a more substantial
discussion of impacts is set out below.
Water Quality
8.151. Water quality and hydrology (addressed under criterion (vii)) are integral to many
of the listed values of the GBRWHA and are captured explicitly as the integrity of the
inter-connections between reef and island networks in terms of dispersion, recruitment,
and the subsequent gene flow of many taxa.
8.152. There are a number of aspects of the construction and operation of the T0
Project that could contribute to decreased water quality in the marine environment.
Acid Sulphate Soils
8.153. There is potential for the mobilisation of contaminants, including acid sulphate
soil, into the water column from the sediment into the wetland and surrounding marine
area.
8.154. Acid sulphate soils commonly occur in Quaternary-aged sediments of marine or
estuarine origin and are predominantly confined to coastal lowlands with elevations
typically below 5 metres Australian Height Datum (mAHD).
8.155. Actual acid sulphate soils (AASS) are formed through oxidation of potential acid
sulphate soils (PASS) materials. PASS materials are benign as long as they remain in
environments, which prevent them from interacting with oxygen, usually by remaining
below the watertable in a region. If oxidised, as a result of exposing these soils to
oxygen, either through digging them up or lowering water tables these soils generate
sulphuric acid. The production of sulphuric acid impacts on the pH of ecosystems and
increases the mobility of toxic metals normally bound in the soil, causing:
extreme acidification of soil and adjacent wetlands;
the release of heavy metals and other containments into the soil and adjacent environments; and
de-oxygenation of aquatic and marine environments.
8.156. The impacts are long lasting and difficult to remediate once activated. Once the
oxidation process has been initiated, AASS can continue to be discharged for centuries.
Likely Impact
8.157. The majority of the proposed earthworks will involve the placement of fill for the
development of the coal stockyard. Therefore, the likelihood of exposing acid sulphate
soils is considered low. Excavation works will be undertaken to construct the dump-
station facility (within the existing rail loop corridor) at depths of approximately 20 m
below the existing ground level.
Mitigation Measures
8.158. The EIS states that the characterisation of AASS and PASS will be undertaken
using the methods and requirements set out in the Guidelines for Sampling and Analysis
of Acid Sulphate Soils in Queensland and will include the volume, location and
neutralisation requirements for acid sulphate soils. This will be undertaken as part of the
proposed Acid Sulphate Soil Management Plan.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 46 of 141
Coal Dust, Waste, Hazardous Material, Contaminated Soils and Increased Sedimentation in
Runoff
8.159. The construction and operation of the T0 Project is within and adjacent to the
GBRWHA and within the vicinity of the CVW which forms important habitat for a number
of species considered as values of the GBRWHA.
Likely Impacts
8.160. The above factors (coal dust, waste, hazardous material, contaminated soils and
increased sedimentation in runoff ) which can contribute to decreased water quality run
off, can result in the following changes:
smothering of vegetation and benthic habitat making it unviable for use by fauna;
reduced photosynthesis and primary production as a result of reduced light penetration; and,
contamination by toxicants leading to mortality of flora and fauna.
8.161. In particular, there are numerous opportunities for coal dust to be released to the
marine environment as the process of transferring coal involves the coal being exposed
to the air on numerous occasions. In addition, dust suppression techniques of coal
stockpiles such as dewatering, increases coal dust runoff.
8.162. The EIS states that modelling undertaken for the Abbot Point CIA predicted total
suspended solid (TSS) concentrations and sediment deposition levels resulting from
coal dust would be very low relative to background TSS variability. It was considered
that it is highly unlikely that the predicted increase in TSS and sediment deposition levels
would result in detectable changes to marine flora and fauna habitats, communities or
species when all projects (T0, T1, T2 and T3 cumulatively) were operational.
8.163. Stormwater has the potential to increase the level of runoff into the marine
environment and consequently increasing the level of contaminants.
8.164. The existing sediment ponds SP1 and SP2 have been sized to retain on-site, the
runoff from a 1 in 10 year recurrence interval 24 hour storm event. The existing ponds
that will be used for construction of phase 1 of the T0 Project are designed not to
overtop in events smaller than a 1 in 10 year 24 hour rain event. However, these ponds
are permitted to overflow in significant rain events under Queensland Government
environmental approval (to maintain freeboard in the sediment ponds to handle further
rainfall events), although controlled releases must not exceed 50% of the capacity of the
sediment pond. Due to the ongoing management and treatment of water in the sediment
ponds, the EIS states that it is not expected that a controlled discharge or overflow event
exceeding a 1 in 10 year 24 hour rain event will have an adverse affect on the
ecological, chemical and physical condition of the Wetland. Currently, in larger rainfall
events, stormwater will overflow from SP1 into SP2 and from SP2 via a weir to the
Wetland via the existing SP2 spillway.
8.165. New sediment ponds for Phase 2 will be designed to retain the runoff from a 1 in
10 year recurrence interval 24 hour storm event and their design will be consistent with
the design of the existing T1 sediment ponds. The base of the sediment pond will be
below ground level, with perimeter bunds above ground level to achieve the required
capacity requirements. As water draining into the existing sediment ponds will only be
contaminated with coal particulates, the existing sediment ponds have not be lined and
water can leach slowly through the walls and base.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 47 of 141
8.166. There is a small potential for water from the existing sediment ponds to seep.
Due to the large distance between the T0 Project area and freshwater surrounds, the
EIS states that it is not predicted that this will have an adverse affect on the aquatic
ecological function of the CVW or any surrounding water bodies.
8.167. It is possible that water in the sediment ponds may be slightly acidic, depending
on contact time and the nature of the coal material in the stockpile area. The EIS states
that water quality within the ponds will be monitored for pH, to both ensure water quality
is suitable for birds that settle on that water and for reuse within the site. Where
monitoring indicates pH values that are outside the water quality requirements for
discharge from the ponds (pH of 6 to 8 and suspended solids of less than 30 mg/L),
chemical additives (lime or similar neutralising agent and/or flocculants) may need to be
added to the water. However, the sediment ponds will be designed to allow adequate
settlement of particulates as per the design of the T1 sediment ponds. Other
contaminants are not expected due to the short contact time that stormwater will have
with coal in the stockpiles.
8.168. Water in the sediment ponds is proposed to be pumped to the existing
Stormwater Return Dam (SRD) to maintain adequate freeboard in the sediment ponds
for storm events. Further, sediment ponds will be cleaned out occasionally to prevent
particulates building up to the extent that the ability of the sediment ponds to contain the
1 in 10 year storm event is compromised. Utilising these management arrangements is
expected to mitigate any potential impacts on surrounding water bodies.
8.169. The existing SRD allows for optimal usage of the storage area and reduces the
chance of overtopping during high intensity rainfall events. Overtopping may still happen
during extreme rainfall events (infrequently) and through the engineered SRD spillway,
however, water will already be treated through sediment settlement and being pumped
through a water treatment plant. The SRD spillway will discharge back into the site's
stormwater system, which drains to SP1 and then SP2. The SRD spillway and outlet
pipes and channels are designed to contain a volume of water generated by a Q100 (1
in 100 year) rainfall event. The spillway design includes also a freeboard of 0.5 m
between the dam crest and the design top water level during normal operations. No new
stormwater discharge points are proposed as part of the Phase 1 or 2 works. Based on
the full operational capacity of the water system, the frequency of discharge of the T0
Project will be less than the current discharge frequency of the existing regime, thereby
reducing impact on either the hydrology or water quality of the CVW. Utilising these
management arrangements will reduce frequency of releases from T1 overall and
mitigate potential impacts on the CVW.
8.170. Increased shipping through the GBRWHA is also likely to contribute to decreased
water quality through release of ballast water, oil or chemical spills and waste discharge.
These issues have been discussed in detail in section 11 of this report.
Mitigation measures
8.171. The proponent has proposed a number of measures in the EIS with the aim of
avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to the OUV of the GBRWHA through
decreased water quality, including:
A Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Management Subplan including:
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 48 of 141
a Dust Management Plan to limit impacts from dust generated during the
construction phases and coal dust when operational, including a variety of
dust suppression techniques;
A Water Management Subplan including:
a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed and
implemented prior to commencement of construction and will include
provisions for treatment, recycling and/or reuse and or discharge of flows
and measures for water quality monitoring. The SWMP will be reviewed and
updated as the project management system changes;
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be prepared for each construction
activity, prior to commencement of construction;
a Hazard and Risks Management Plan for construction and operation to
minimise risks of hazardous material entering the environment and providing
protocols in the case of a spill;
A Land Management Subplan including:
an Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) Management Plan including a site specific
investigation in areas that have been identified as ASS or potential ASS;
Contaminated Land control strategies including a site remediation plan to be
developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination;
A Marine Ecology management Subplan including:
a Shipping Management Plan that will be prepared prior to commencement
of operation to address and mitigate potential impacts from shipping
including those arising from physical impacts, pollution events, lighting and
introduced pests; and
A Waste Management Subplan including:
a Waste Management Plan to manage waste from construction and
operation of the project in such a way that any potential impacts to the
environment are minimised or avoided.
8.172. In addition to the above measures, the proponent has proposed a number of
monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not all
of these have an adaptive management function. The mitigation measures proposed
within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer Section 5 of the EIS).
Conclusion
8.173. The department considers that the above elements of the proposed Terrestrial
Flora and Fauna, Water, Land and Waste Management Subplans provide a sufficient
framework for reducing any potential impacts on the GBRWHA from decreased water
quality and smothering of algae from coal dust, provided they include an adaptive
management function.
8.174. The department considers that the shipping element of the proposed Marine
Ecology Management Subplan provides a sufficient framework for reducing any potential
impacts on the GBRWHA from introduced exotic pests.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 49 of 141
8.175. As discussed above, it is recommended that conditions be attached to the
approval that requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial
Management Plan, and a Marine and Shipping Management Plan that includes (but is
not limited to) the measures discussed in the above management subplans. This would
enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate
potential negative impacts to the OUV of the GBRWHA.
8.176. Whilst acknowledging that the integrity of the GBRWHA is likely to be impacted
by the proposed action, the department is of the view that, provided the mitigation
measures are implemented and conditions adhered to, long-term impacts to the
GBRWHA will not be unacceptable.
Conclusion of assessment under integrity
8.177. The department considers that the proposed action will result in an increased risk
of potential impacts on the GBRWHA but provided that the measures outlined in this
report and in the conditions of approval, are implemented, unacceptable impacts on the
GBRWHA will not occur as a result of the proposed action.
Property Management Arrangements
8.178. The statement of OUV of the GBRWHA states:
The Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 (EPBC Act) provides an overarching mechanism for protecting the
World Heritage values from inappropriate development, including actions
taken inside or outside which could impact on its heritage values. This
requires any development proposals to undergo rigorous environmental
impact assessment processes, often including public consultation, after
which the Federal Minister may decide, to approve, reject or approve
under conditions designed to mitigate any significant impacts. A recent
amendment to the EPBC Act makes the GBR Marine Park an additional
'trigger' for a matter of National Environmental Significance which
provides additional protection for the values within the GBR.
8.179. The EPBC Act referral and assessment process has considered the potential
impacts of the proposed action on the GBRWHA.
8.180. The proposed EPBC Act approval and the recommended conditions will ensure
that the OUV of the GBRWHA is not unacceptably impacted as a result of the proposed
action.
8.181. The department considers that the proposed action will not result in a decrease
in the protection and management mechanisms of the GBRWHA.
Conclusion for assessment of impacts on world heritage properties and national heritage
places
8.182. The department considers that provided the recommended conditions discussed
are implemented, an unacceptable impact on the world heritage and national heritage
values of the GBRWHA and National Heritage place is unlikely.
8.183. The department also considers that while there is unlikely to be an unacceptable
impact, there are significant residual impacts on the GBRWHA and National Heritage
place from the proposed action. A discussion of mechanisms required to offset these
significant residual impacts is at Section 13.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 50 of 141
8.184. The department considers the proposed decision and recommended conditions
for the project, including offsets requirements, are not inconsistent with the World
Heritage Committee’s position including that no port developments or associated port
infrastructure be permitted outside the existing and long-established major port areas
within or adjoining the property.
9. Listed threatened species and ecological communities (sections 18 and 18A)
9.1. The department’s Environmental Reporting Tool (ERT) indicates that a total of 32 listed
threatened species and ecological communities may occur within an 8 kilometre radius
of Abbot Point. In accordance with section 158A of the EPBC Act, only species listed
under the EPBC Act at the time of the controlled action decision (13 December 2011)
have been considered in this recommendation report. Three species that were listed in
the ERT Report have been de-listed since the controlled action decision and therefore
are not considered in this recommendation report (Striped-tailed Delma (Delma
labialis), Croton magneticus and Leucopogon cuspidatus). Based on the location of the
action and likely habitat present in the area, the department considers potential impacts
may occur on the following listed species and ecological communities:
Squatter Pigeon (southern) (Geophaps scripta scripta) – Vulnerable;
Black-throated Finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta) – Endangered;
Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis) – Vulnerable;
Water Mouse, False Water Rat (Xeromys myoides) – Vulnerable;
Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) – Vulnerable;
White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea), White-bellied Storm-Petrel
(Australasian) (Fregetta gralleria gralleria) – Vulnerable;
Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) – Endangered;
Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) – Vulnerable;
Spectacled Flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) – Vulnerable;
Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus philippinensis (large
form)) - Endangered;
Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus) –
Critically Endangered;
Yakka Skink (Egernia rugosa) – Vulnerable;
Ornamental Snake (Denisonia maculate) – Vulnerable;
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) – Endangered;
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) – Vulnerable;
Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) – Endangered;
Pacific Ridley, Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) – Endangered;
Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) – Vulnerable;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 51 of 141
Leathery Turtle, Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) – Vulnerable;
Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) – Vulnerable;
Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus) – Vulnerable;
Green Sawfish, Dindagubba, Narrowsnout Sawfish (Pristis zijsron) –
Vulnerable;
Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) – Vulnerable;
Black Ironbox (Eucalyptus raveretiana) – Vulnerable;
Siah’s Backbone, Sia’s Backbone, Isaac Wood (Streblus pendulinus) –
Endangered);
Minute Orchid, Ribbon-root Orchid (Taeniophyllum muelleri) – Vulnerable;
Omphalea celata – Vulnerable;
Ozothamnus eriocephalus – Vulnerable; and
Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and
Nandewar Bioregions – Endangered.
9.2. All data on relevant flora and fauna species has been sourced from the departmental
Species Profile and Threats database (SPRAT), unless otherwise stated. The
information represented in SPRAT takes into account conservation advice and
recovery plans for species, as well as marine bioregional plans and threat abatement
plans, where relevant.
Listed Terrestrial Species (and the Water Mouse)
9.3. The department considers that potential direct and indirect impacts from the proposed
action to the following species are likely to occur.
Squatter Pigeon (southern) (Geophaps scripta scripta) – Vulnerable
9.4. The Squatter Pigeon was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category on
11 July 2000.
9.5. The Squatter Pigeon (southern) occurs mainly in grassy woodlands and open forests
that are dominated by eucalypts. It has also been recorded in: sown grasslands and
scattered remnant trees; disturbed habitats; scrub; acacia growth; and remains
common in heavily-grazed country north of the Tropic of Capricorn. The species is
commonly observed in habitats that are located close to bodies of water.
9.6. There is currently no recovery plan in place for this species.
Threat Abatement Plans
9.7. There are three threat abatement plans that list the Squatter Pigeon as a species of
interest. These plans are the Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land
Degradation by Rabbits (DEWHA, 2008) and Background document for the Threat
Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Rabbits (DEWHA, 2008a)
(Rabbit TAP), Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by European Red Fox (DEWHA,
2008b) and Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 52 of 141
European Red Fox (DEWHA, 2008c) (Fox TAP), Threat Abatement Plan for Reduction
in Impacts of Tramp Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its Territories (DEH, 2006)
and Background Paper to the Threat Abatement Plan for Reduction in Impacts of
Tramp Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its Territories (DEH, 2006a) (Tramp Ant
TAP).
9.8. The Approved Conservation advice for Geophaps scripta scripta (Squatter Pigeon
(southern)) (TSSC, 2008) (Squatter Pigeon Conservation Advice) also lists the Threat
Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats (DEWHA, 2008b) and the Background
Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats (DEWHA, 2008c)
(Cat TAP). All of these documents are provided for your consideration at Annexure 1
and are described below.
Rabbit Threat Abatement Plan
9.9. The goal of the Rabbit TAP is to minimise the impact of rabbit competition and land
degradation on biodiversity in Australia and its territories. The five main objectives
and associated recovery actions in order to achieve this goal are as follows:
i. Prevent rabbits from occupying new areas in Australia and eradicate
rabbits from high- conservation-value ‘islands’ by:
o collating data on all islands (including isolated mainland ‘islands’);
and
o developing and implementing management plans for ‘islands’ with
high conservation value.
ii. Promote the maintenance and recovery of native species and ecological
communities that are affected by rabbit competition and land degradation
by:
o identifying priority areas and conducting and monitoring regional
rabbit control in these priority areas; and
o applying existing and new incentives to promote and maintain on-
ground rabbit control on private or leasehold lands within or
adjacent to these priority sites.
iii. Improve knowledge and understanding of rabbit impacts and interactions
with other species and other ecological processes by:
o developing methods for monitoring rabbit populations and their
impacts;
o identifying the importance of rabbits for maintaining other pest
animals and the effects of removing predators; and
o identifying unintended effects of rabbit control conducted in
isolation.
iv. Improve the effectiveness, target specificity, integration and humaneness
of control options for rabbits by:
o enhancing current methods for poisoning, warren ripping and
warren fumigation;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 53 of 141
o developing programs to help land managers;
o conducting research to maximise effectiveness of existing
biocontrols and investigate new biocontrols; and
o continuing to promote the adoption of the model codes of practice
and standard operating procedures for effective and humane
management of rabbits.
v. Increase awareness of all stakeholders of the objectives and actions of
the TAP, and of the need to control and manage rabbits by:
o promoting understanding of the threat to biodiversity posed by
rabbits and support for their control, including the use of humane
and best-practice cost-effective controls.
Fox Threat Abatement Plan
9.10. The goal of the Fox TAP is to minimise the impact of foxes on biodiversity in
Australia and its territories. The five main objectives and associated recovery actions in
order to achieve this goal are as follows:
i. Prevent foxes occupying new areas in Australia and eradicate foxes from
high-conservation-value ‘islands’ by;
o collating data on offshore islands and developing and
implementing management plans to prevent, monitor, contain and
eradicate and fox incursions.
ii. Promote the maintenance and recovery of native species and ecological
communities that are affected by fox predation by;
o identifying priority areas for fox control and conducting and
monitoring regional fox control in these areas; and
o applying incentives to promote and maintain on private or lease
hold land within or adjacent to priority areas.
iii. Improve knowledge and understanding of fox impacts and interactions
with other species and other ecological processes by:
o developing simple and cost effective methods for monitoring
populations and impacts of foxes;
o investigating interactions between foxes and native carnivores;
o determining the nature of interactions between foxes and other
pest animals;
o identifying unintended effects of fox control conducted in isolation;
and
o estimating the environmental and other costs of impacts from
foxes.
iv. Improve the effectiveness, target specificity, integration and humaneness
of control options for foxes by:
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 54 of 141
o conducting further work on the development of new, or
improvements to existing control techniques;
o investigating feasibility of control techniques to target foxes and
not dingos in some areas;
o developing training programs to assist land owners control foxes;
o ensuring habitat rehabilitation and management of potential prey,
competitors and predators of foxes are considered in fox control
programs; and
o continuing to promote procedures for the humane management of
foxes.
v. Increase awareness of all stakeholders of the objectives and actions of
this threat abatement plan, and of the need to control and manage foxes
by:
o promoting understanding of the threat to biodiversity posed by
foxes and support for their control, including the use of humane
and best-practice cost-effective controls.
Tramp Ant Threat Abatement Plan
9.11. The Tramp Ant TAP contains objectives, with supporting actions at all stages of the
invasion sequence. The six main objectives and associated recovery actions in order to
achieve this goal are as follows:
i. Increase science-based knowledge and expertise, incorporate Indigenous
traditional ecological knowledge, quantify impacts, and improve access to
information for priority tramp ant species by:
o increasing science-based knowledge, innovation, and expertise
for management of tramp ants in Australia and its territories;
o incorporating Indigenous traditional ecological knowledge into
tramp ant management;
o assessing tramp ant impacts in Australia and its territories; and
o creating a central repository or linked network for knowledge
relevant to the management of tramp ants;
ii. Prevent entry and spread of tramp ants by increasing diagnostic capacity,
offshore surveillance, inspection, treatment, and national and state and
territory surveillance by:
o improving diagnostic capacity and service;
o improving offshore surveillance, inspection, and treatment; and
o enhancing national and state/territory surveillance.
iii. Prepare for rapid response to tramp ant incursions and spread through
risk assessment of tramp ant species and pathways of introduction, and
development of contingency plans by:
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 55 of 141
o producing risk assessments for tramp ants, pathways, and regions
and habitats susceptible to invasion and impact; and
o developing generic, specific, and context dependent contingency
plans.
iv. Enhance emergency response to tramp ant incursions by improving
reporting and response rates, and by developing tools for response and
follow-up by:
o improving reporting of new detections of tramp ants;
o accelerating response to new detections of tramp ants; and
o developing effective control/delivery technologies and efficient
monitoring/surveillance protocols.
v. Build stewardship by engaging, educating, and informing the Australian
community about the impacts of invasive tramp ants and effective means
of response by:
o building on the awareness campaign for the red imported fire ant;;
o developing educational curricula;
o initiating national awareness campaigns for best practices; and
o developing community outreach programs to encourage
participation in management projects.
vi. Coordinate Australian Government, state and territory government, and
local management activities in Australia and the region by:
o coordinating Australian Government, state, territory, and local
management activities for tramp ants in Australia; and
o cooperation through bilateral agreements and partnerships within
Australia’s region.
Cat Threat Abatement Plan
9.12. The goal of the Cat TAP is to minimise the impact of cats on biodiversity in
Australia and its territories. The five main objectives and associated recovery
actions in order to achieve this goal are as follows:
i. Prevent feral cats occupying new areas in Australia and eradicate feral
cats from high- conservation-value ‘islands’ by:
o collating data on offshore islands and developing and
implementing management plans to prevent, monitor, contain and
eradicate any cat incursions;
o working with communities to prevent incursion; and
o monitoring native prey species in areas eradicated of cats.
ii. Promote the maintenance and recovery of native species and ecological
communities that are affected by feral cat predation by:
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 56 of 141
o identifying priority areas for cat control and conducting and
monitoring regional cat control in these areas; and
o applying incentives to promote and maintain on private or lease
hold land within or adjacent to priority areas.
iii. Improve knowledge and understanding of feral cat impacts and
interactions with other species and other ecological processes by:
o developing simple and cost effective methods for monitoring
populations and impacts of foxes;
o investigating interactions between foxes and native carnivores;
o determining the nature of interactions between foxes and other
pest animals;
o determining impacts of cat-borne diseases; and
o identifying unintended effects of fox control conducted in isolation.
iv. Improve effectiveness, target specificity, humaneness and integration of
control options for feral cats by:
o developing an effective toxin-bait for cats;
o determining appropriate baiting strategies;
o ensuring habitat rehabilitation and management of potential prey;
o testing and disseminating information on exclusion fence designs
regarding cost-effectiveness; and
o continuing to promote the adoption and adaptation of model codes
of practice and standard operating procedures for the humane
management of feral cats.
v. Increase awareness of all stakeholders of the objectives and actions of
the TAP, and of the need to control and manage feral cats by:
o promoting understanding of the threat to biodiversity posed by
feral cats and support for their control, including the use of
humane and best-practice cost-effective controls; and
o developing communication campaigns to accompany the release
of new broadscale cat control techniques.
Conservation Advice
9.13. The Squatter Pigeon Conservation Advice identifies the following research
priorities that would inform regional and local priority actions:
identify preferred food plants, and the responses of these to fire and grazing
regimes;
determine patterns of dispersal or residency, and the factors that may
determine these; and
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 57 of 141
assess reproductive success, and the factors that affect this.
9.14. The regional and local priority actions to support the recovery of the Squatter
Pigeon are to reduce the impacts of: habitat loss, disturbance and modification;
trampling, browsing or grazing; animal predation or competition and increasing
conservation information. The actions to achieve these are:
monitor known populations to identify key threats;
monitor progress of recovery, including adapting management actions if
necessary;
identify populations of high priority;
manage threats to areas of vegetation that support important populations;
protect populations through covenants, conservation agreements or inclusion
in reserve tenure;
develop and implement a stock management plan for key sites;
develop and implement a management plan to control feral herbivores in
areas inhabited by Squatter Pigeon (southern);
raise awareness within local communities; and
implement the appropriate recommendations in the Threat Abatement Plan for
Predation by the European Red Fox (EA, 1999a) and the Threat Abatement
Plan for Predation by Feral Cats (EA, 1999).
9.15. The Cat TAP and Fox TAP referred to in the Squatter Pigeon Conservation
Advice were updated in 2005. The current approved threat abatement plans are
referred to throughout this report.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.16. The main threats to the Squatter Pigeon (southern) as identified in the Squatter
Pigeon Conservation Advice are: loss of habitat due to clearing for agriculture or
development purposes; degradation of habitat by grazing species; and predation.
9.17. The EIS indicates that there have been regular observations of the Squatter
Pigeon at Abbot Point, in particular to the west of the subject site. There have also
recently been five individuals recorded in the proposed phase 2 laydown area and a
single individual recorded nearby on Abbot Point Road. It is stated that habitat for this
species within the terminal area is degraded and generally unsuitable with the
exception of the Phase 2 laydown area.
9.18. Only minor direct impacts from vegetation clearing and potential vehicle strike
are anticipated due to the low number of individuals observed within the T0 Project
area at any one time. However, potential indirect impacts include degradation of nearby
habitat through increased noise and light pollution, smothering of habitat from coal
dust, alteration of habitat through introduced species and decreased water quality.
Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis) – Vulnerable
9.19. The Australian Painted Snipe was listed as a threatened species in the
vulnerable category on 15 August 2003.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 58 of 141
9.20. The referral decision for this proposal was determined on 13 December 2011.
Although the Australian Painted Snipe was up-listed from vulnerable to endangered
under the EPBC Act on 15 May 2013, for the purposes of this decision on approval,
you must consider this species as a vulnerable species (refer section 158A of the
EPBC Act).
9.21. The Australian Painted Snipe has been recorded at wetlands in all states of
Australia and the Northern Territory. It is most common in eastern Australia, where it
has been recorded at scattered locations throughout much of Queensland, New South
Wales, Victoria and south-eastern South Australia. The Australian Painted Snipe
generally inhabits shallow terrestrial freshwater (occasionally brackish) wetlands,
including temporary and permanent lakes, swamps and claypans.
9.22. There is currently no approved recovery plan in place for this species.
Threat Abatement Plans
9.23. There are two threat abatement plans listed in the Approved Conservation advice
for Rostratula australis (Australian Painted Snipe) (TSSC, 2013) (Australian Painted
Snipe Conservation Advice) as relevant to the species (provided for your consideration
at Annexure 1). These plans are the Fox TAP and the Cat TAP, and are discussed
above.
Conservation Advice
9.24. The Australian Painted Snipe Conservation Advice states that the research
priorities to inform regional and local priority actions include:
o continue to monitor the species to more precisely assess population size,
distribution and the relative impacts of threatening processes;
o support and enhance existing programs for the Australian painted snipe that
are managed by BirdLife Australia;
o identify and describe the ecological and hydrological character of sites that
are suitable for the Australian painted snipe, particularly those known to be
used by the species for breeding;
o investigate potential food resources for the species and monitor changes to
the abundance and diversity of these resources (e.g. invertebrates); and
o directly monitor the breeding and non-breeding behaviour of the Australian
painted snipe with the use of radio transmitters and/or tagging methods.
9.25. The regional priority recovery actions and threat abatement actions to support
the recovery of the Australian Painted Snipe are to reduce: habitat loss, disturbance
and modification; invasive weeds; tramping, browsing or grazing; animal predation or
competition; fire; and increase conservation information. The actions to achieve these
are:
o developing management guidelines for habitat;
o monitoring the progress of recovery, including adapting management actions
if necessary;
o ensuring no disturbance in breeding areas;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 59 of 141
o controlling access to existing and future breeding sites on public land;
o suitably managing access on private and other land;
o minimising adverse impacts from land use at known sites
o managing changes to hydrology;
o investigating formal conservation arrangements, management agreements
and covenants on private land;
o managing other known, potential or emerging threats;
o implementing the Parkinsonia (Parkinsonia aculeate) Strategic Plan within the
range of the Australian Painted Snipe;
o identifying and removing weeds in wetland areas;
o ensuring weed eradication methods do not adversely impact the Australian
Painted Snipe;
o developing and implementing a stock management plan for relevant roadside
verges and travelling stock routes;
o if appropriate, managing total grazing pressure at important breeding sites;
o implementing the Fox TAP and Cat TAP in the species range and continue
baiting control of feral animals;
o developing and implementing a suitable fire management strategy; and
o raise awareness of the Australian Painted Snipe with a number of
stakeholders.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.26. The approved Australian Painted Snipe Conservation Advice states that the
primary factor in the decline of the Australian Painted Snipe has been a loss and
alteration of wetland habitat. It is estimated that since European settlement
approximately 50% of wetlands in Australia have been converted for other uses.
Predation by feral animals is also a potential threat to the Australian Painted Snipe.
9.27. The T0 Project area occurs centrally in the known distribution for the Australian
Painted Snipe. The EIS refers to several targeted bird and migratory bird species
surveys that have been undertaken over the past five years in the CVW with the most
recent survey in June 2012 resulting in the observation of 24 individuals including a
number of juveniles, indicating potential breeding is occurring on site. Extrapolation to
unsurveyed areas of suitable habitat results in an estimate of 35 individuals utilising the
CVW. This equates to 2.3% of the estimated Australian population of the species and
therefore the CVW is likely to be an important area for this species.
9.28. The T0 Project is not positioned within the CVW, however, it is in close proximity
and the rail loop is proposed to be positioned adjacent to the CVW. Direct impacts
through habitat removal and mortality are considered unlikely. Potential indirect
impacts include degradation of the CVW through increased noise and light pollution,
smothering of habitat from coal dust, alteration of habitat through introduced species
and decreased water quality.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 60 of 141
Black-throated Finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta) – Endangered
9.29. The Black-throated Finch has been listed as a threatened species in the
endangered category since 14 February 2005.
9.30. The Black-throated Finch (southern) occurs at two locations: in the Townsville
region, where it is considered to be locally common at a few sites around Townsville
and Charters Towers; and, at scattered sites in central-eastern Queensland.
9.31. The Black-throated Finch (southern) occurs mainly in grassy, open woodlands
and forests, typically dominated by Eucalyptus, Corymbia and Melaleuca tree species,
and occasionally in tussock grasslands or other habitats (for example freshwater
wetlands), often along or near watercourses or in the vicinity of water.
Recovery Plan and Conservation Advice
9.32. The overall recovery objective of the National Recovery Plan for the Black-
throated Finch Southern Subspecies (Poephila cincta cincta) (BTFRT, 2007) (Black-
throated Finch Recovery Plan) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) is to
manage and protect the Black-throated Finch and its habitat, and to promote the
recovery of the southern subspecies. The specific objectives, and a summary of their
recovery actions, identified in the Black-throated Finch Recovery Plan are as follows:
i. to identify and quantify threats by investigating:
o breeding requirements; and
o feeding and other habitat requirements.
ii. quantify distribution and abundance by:
o documenting sightings;
o developing standard survey guidelines;
o undertaking mapping and habitat modelling; and
o undertaking targeted surveys.
iii. protect and enhance habitat by:
o securing selected sites for conservation;
o addressing threats on grazing lands;
o monitoring management effectiveness; and
o investigating development of other statutory planning instruments
to minimise impacts of development on the species.
iv. investigate the potential for captive birds contributing to a re-introduction
project by:
o determining suitability of birds currently in captivity for
reintroduction project
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 61 of 141
v. increase public awareness by:
o providing copies of the recovery plan to appropriate libraries and
local government offices.
9.33. The Conservation Advice for the Black-throated Finch (TSSC, 2005) (provided
for your consideration at Annexure 1) provides a very brief summary of the above
objectives and therefore is not described further in this report.
Threat Abatement Plans
9.34. There are two threat abatement plans that list the Black-throated Finch as a
species of interest. The Rabbit TAP has been discussed above. The Threat Abatement
Plan to Reduce the Impacts on Northern Australia’s Biodiversity by the Five Listed
Grasses (2012b) and Background Document: Threat Abatement Plan to Reduce the
Impacts on Northern Australia’s Biodiversity by the Five Listed Grasses (2012c) (Five
Grasses TAP) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1), is discussed below.
9.35. The goal of the Five Grasses TAP is to minimise the adverse impacts of the five
listed grasses on affected native species and ecological communities. The six main
objectives and associated recovery actions in order to achieve this goal are as follows:
i. Develop an understanding of the extent and spread pathways of
infestation by the five listed grasses by:
o undertaking mapping of the five listed grasses and developing a
better understanding of spread pathways.
ii. Support and facilitate coordinated management strategies through the
design of tools, systems and guidelines by:
o encouraging complementary weed status for the five listed
grasses across all jurisdictions to which the TAP applies;
o developing best practice guidelines and encouraging their
implementation;
o developing hygiene protocols;
o including strategic management in management plans;
o improving and promoting understanding of invasive grass control
and land rehabilitation methods; and
o facilitating collaborative applied research to inform or improve
management.
iii. Identify and prioritise key assets and areas for strategic management by:
o identifying key assets for priority protection.
iv. Build capacity and raise awareness among stakeholders by:
o developing and delivering communication strategies to raise
awareness of the threats posed by the five listed grasses; and
o assisting the capacity of Indigenous people to participate in
management.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 62 of 141
v. Implement coordinated, cost-effective on-ground management strategies
in high-priority areas by:
o fostering a coordinated partnership approach to management;
o implementing immediate management actions in high-priority
areas and other infested areas;
o applying land rehabilitation to high priority areas as they are
successfully managed; and
o liaising with land managers of areas containing key assets to
identify resources available for the implementation of priority
actions.
vi. Monitor, evaluate and report on the effectiveness of management
programs by:
o ensuring that management plans for high priority areas include
recognition of the asset being protected as well as appropriate
monitoring of managed sites.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.36. The Black-throated Finch Recovery Plan states that the threats to this species
include: habitat loss and/or degradation; introduction of exotic weeds and predators;
illegal trapping; and hybridisation with the northern subspecies.
9.37. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have resulted in one
confirmed record of this species along Splitters Creek approximately 14 km south west
of the T0 Project area.
9.38. The EIS also stated that there is no suitable habitat within the T0 Project area.
There is however, suitable habitat within the Abbot Point region for this species that
could be indirectly impacted by degradation through increased noise and light pollution,
smothering of habitat from coal dust, alteration of habitat through introduced species
and decreased water quality.
Water Mouse, False Water Rat (Xeromys myoides) – Vulnerable
9.39. The Water Mouse was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category
on 16 July 2000.
9.40. In south central Queensland, the Water Mouse has only been captured in the
high inter-tidal zone in tall, closed fringing mangrove forest containing only Ceriops
tagal and/or Bruguiera spp. The type specimen (used to describe the species) from
near Mackay was caught in a permanent reed swamp, covered with tall grass, shrubs
and Pandanus. The moist wallum, heath, sedgeland and freshwater influences along
mangrove ecotones as described by Van Dyck (1996) were not present to any large
degree at the capture sites in south central Queensland and more typically comprised
distinct ecotones between mangroves and dry sclerophyll woodlands and/or saltpan.
9.41. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species or
relevant threat abatement plans.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 63 of 141
Recovery Plan
9.42. The overall objective of the National Recovery Plan for the Water Mouse (False
Water Rat) Xeromys myoides (DERM, 2010) (Water Mouse Recovery Plan) (provided
for your consideration at Annexure 1) is to improve the conservation status of the water
mouse and its habitat through habitat protection, reducing threats to species’ survival,
research and increasing public participation in recovery activities. The specific
objectives, and a summary of their recovery actions, identified in the Water Mouse
Recovery Plan are as follows:
i. Identify habitats supporting populations of the water mouse and map the
current distribution by:
o conducting surveys to confirm the current distribution;
o consolidating existing databases to for a national dataset;
o producing high-quality GIS mapping and spatial analysis of habitat
supporting extant populations; and
o conducting surveys and assessments of potential habitat.
ii. Describe key biological and ecological features of the water mouse and
its habitat by:
o determining whether genetic differentiation exists across
populations;
o understanding the reproductive biology; and
o investigating selected field populations to describe poorly known
ecological features.
iii. Monitor population trends and identify and manage threats to species’
survival by:
o conducting a monitoring program of selected populations to
measure trends and abundance and efficacy of management
actions;
o assessing the impact of known threats on extant populations; and
o investigating the relative impact of potential threats;
iv. Rehabilitate habitat to expand extant populations by:
o regenerating habitat corridors at five specified sites (none of which
occur in the Abbot Point Region); and
o evaluating the potential for artificial nesting structures.
v. Increase public awareness of, and involvement in, water mouse
conservation by:
o collaborating with Indigenous landowners to exchange knowledge;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 64 of 141
o investigating opportunities for protecting the habitat of extant
populations through establishment of voluntary conservation
agreements;
o developing and implementing management plans for populations
of water mouse that occur on land under voluntary conservation
agreements; and
o developing and implementing a community awareness and
education program.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.43. As stated in the Water Mouse Recovery Plan the removal and degradation of
habitat as a result of development actions is the principal threat to the survival of the
Water Mouse. Habitats used in south central Queensland are often directly adjacent to
terrestrial areas that are subject to ongoing disturbance, modification and clearing,
aquaculture and housing.
9.44. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and there are no Wildnet database records. However, this species requires
targeted surveys (which were not undertaken) and is difficult to detect. It is stated that
this species may occur in mangroves south of Abbot Point and in the estuarine habitat
of the CVW.
9.45. Acknowledging that there is potential habitat in the area, it is considered unlikely
that the T0 Project will result in substantial direct impacts. Potential indirect impacts
include degradation of nearby habitat through smothering of habitat from coal dust,
alteration of habitat through introduced species and decreased water quality.
Mitigation Measures for listed threatened terrestrial species and Water Mouse
9.46. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in the EIS with
the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to listed threatened fauna
species discussed above that have the potential to reduce habitat quality during the
action, including:
A Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Management Subplan including:
a Threatened Species Pre-clearing Survey Plan to confirm the presence (or
absence) of listed threatened fauna species in order to identify appropriate
methods for management;
a Dust Management Plan to limit impacts from dust generated during the
construction phases and coal dust when operational, including a variety of
dust suppression techniques;
an Illumination Plan will be developed describing each light source in terms
of its purpose, location, footprint, intensity and spectral composition and
document steps to avoid, mitigate and manage the impacts of each source.
For example through minimisation of lighting within the development,
minimising long wavelength lights and installing timers and motion detectors
where possible;
an integrated Feral Animal and Weed Management Plan will be prepared in
association with the Port Authority for the construction and operational
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 65 of 141
phases of the T0 Project, including a control/eradication plan for pests that
may potentially occur on the site and identification of treatment methods and
techniques;
A Water Management Subplan including:
a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed and
implemented prior to commencement of construction and will include
provisions for treatment, recycling and/or reuse and or discharge of flows
and measures for water quality monitoring. The SWMP will be reviewed and
updated as the project management system changes;
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be prepared for each construction
activity, prior to commencement of construction;
a Hazard and Risks Management Plan for construction and operation to
minimise risks of hazardous material entering the environment and providing
protocols in the case of a spill;
A Land Management Subplan including:
an Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) Management Plan including a site specific
investigation in areas that have been identified as ASS or potential ASS;
Contaminated Land control strategies including a site remediation plan to be
developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination;
A Noise and Vibration Management Subplan including:
Land based noise control strategies to limit the level of noise travelling to the
surrounding environment through equipment modifications and minimising
use of equipment; and
A Waste Management Subplan including:
a Waste Management Plan to manage waste from construction and
operation of the project in such a way that any potential impacts to the
environment are minimised or avoided.
9.47. In addition to the above measures, the proponent has proposed a number of
monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not
all of these have an adaptive management function. For further information regarding
the mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer
Section 5 of the EIS).
9.48. The Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Management Subplan refers to translocation
potentially being utilised for some species. However, no details have been provided for
any translocation programs.
9.49. The EPBC Act Policy Statement – Translocation of Listed Threatened Species –
Assessment under Chapter 4 of the EPBC Act, states that salvage translocation
(translocation from an area affected by development) may actually increase the
impacts of that action and not reduce them. The low success of translocation proposals
mean that, unless it can be shown that there is a high degree of certainty that a
translocation will be successful in contributing to the long term conservation of a
species, a proposal for translocation associated with an action will be unlikely to be
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 66 of 141
approved. Accordingly, the onus would be on the proponent to demonstrate that any
translocation proposals, included in any subsequent management plans, would be an
acceptable mitigation measure.
Conclusion for listed threatened terrestrial species and Water Mouse
9.50. The above assessment drew upon information provided in approved
conservation advice for the Squatter Pigeon (southern) (TSSC, 2008), the approved
conservation advice for the Australian Painted Snipe (TSSC, 2013), the National
Recovery Plan for the Black-throated Finch southern subspecies (BTFRT, 2007) and
the National Recovery Plan for the Water Mouse (DERM, 2010), all of which detail
threats to the respective species’ survival and priority recovery and conservation
actions as well as other general and biological information.
9.51. Based on this assessment, the department considers that the above mentioned
elements of the proposed Terrestrial Flora and Fauna, Water, Land and Waste
Management Subplans provide a sufficient framework (with the exception of
translocation) for reducing any potential impacts on listed threatened terrestrial species
and the Water Mouse from, smothering of habitat from coal dust, degradation of habitat
including decreased water quality, increased noise pollution and introduced exotic
species (terrestrial and marine), provided they include an adaptive management
function.
9.52. As discussed above, it is recommended that conditions be attached to the
approval that requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial
Management Plan, and a Marine and Shipping Management Plan that includes (but is
not limited to) the measures discussed in the above management subplans. This would
enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate
potential negative impacts to listed threatened terrestrial species and the Water Mouse.
9.53. It is also recommended that a condition be attached to the approval that requires
the proponent to include the mitigation measures discussed above (but not limited to)
for the Noise and Vibration Management Subplan in the previously discussed
Terrestrial Management Plan. It is recommended that the relevant section of the
Marine and Shipping Management Plan also contain provisions for performance
indicators (including trigger levels) and contingency measures. This would enable the
proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate potential
negative impacts to listed threatened terrestrial species and the Water Mouse.
9.54. The department considers that the proposed approval decision, and the
conditions attached to the proposed approval, are not inconsistent with any approved
National Recovery Plans or Threat Abatement Plans and the department has had
regard to approved conservation advices for the Squatter Pigeon, Australian Painted
Snipe, Black-throated Finch and Water Mouse, in the following ways:
Squatter Pigeon:
o a Terrestrial Management Plan is required which contains a pest management
component to undertake management of exotic fauna in the Abbot Point
region;
o the Abbot Point Region is not known to support an important population of
Squatter Pigeon, therefore removal of the small amount of habitat on site
within the Phase 2 laydown area (approximately 9 km south of Abbot Point
encompassing approximately 60 ha and located adjacent to Abbot Point
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 67 of 141
Road) will unlikely have a substantial impact on the Squatter Pigeon or
increase threats to the vegetation in the surrounding area that contain
Squatter Pigeon; and
o the department considers that the T0 Project will not hinder the action of
monitoring populations of Squatter Pigeon.
Australian Painted Snipe:
o the Terrestrial Management Plan contains a requirement to manage any water
related impacts to manage impacts to any changes in hydrology that may
affect the CVW, being habitat for the Australian Painted Snipe, as well as
other downstream water related impacts from the onshore component of the
T0 Project;
o the Terrestrial Management Plan also contains a requirement to manage
indirect noise and lighting impacts on the CVW (approximately 700 m east of
the T0 Project site); and
o the Terrestrial Management Plan contains a pest management component to
ensure the management of exotic flora and fauna in the Abbot Point region as
well as a requirement for fire management.
Black-throated Finch:
o No Black-throated Finch have been observed within the T0 Project area and
there is no suitable habitat on site. The one record of Black-throated Finch in
the Abbot Point region is approximately 14 km southeast of the T0 Project.
Therefore, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will hinder any investigations into
the ecology of the species or surveys undertaken as required by the actions in
the Black-throated Finch Recovery Plan. Therefore conditions relating to
these matters is considered unnecessary.
Water Mouse:
o It is unlikely that the T0 Project will hinder the recovery actions listed in the
Water Mouse Recovery Plan as it will not prevent investigations into the
ecology of the Water Mouse, monitoring of populations or studies into the
assessment of impacts. The Abbot Point region does not contain one of the
five priority sites for regenerating habitat corridors. Therefore conditions
relating to these matters is considered unnecessary; and
o the required Marine and Shipping Management Plan contains a shipping
component which includes management of introduced exotic species through
ballast water and biofouling, which could impact on the Water mouse.
9.55. Considering the above, and presuming compliance with the department’s
recommended approval conditions, the department is of the view that the proposed
action will not have an unacceptable impact on the Squatter Pigeon, Australian Painted
Snipe, Black-throated Finch or the Water Mouse.
Additional Terrestrial Threatened Species
9.56. The department considers that substantial potential direct and indirect impacts
from the proposed action to the following species are unlikely. Consequently, impacts
of the proposed action on these species are considered to be acceptable. However as
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 68 of 141
they have been identified as potentially occurring in the area, consideration is set out
below.
Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) – Vulnerable
9.57. The Red Goshawk was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category
on 16 July 2000.
9.58. The Red Goshawk occurs over wooded and forested areas of tropical and warm-
temperate Australia, coastal and sub-coastal. This species prefers forest and woodland
with a mosaic of vegetation types, large prey populations (birds), and permanent water.
The vegetation types include eucalypt woodland, open forest, tall open forest, gallery
rainforest, swamp sclerophyll forest, and rainforest margins.
9.59. The Red Goshawk nests in tall (emergent) trees beside or within 1km of
permanent water and generally within open, biologically-rich habitat. It avoids very
dense and very open habitats. It is estimated that there are approximately 100 to 200
breeding pairs in Queensland.
9.60. It has been observed that Red Goshawks are difficult to find, difficult to identify,
and the nests are exceptionally hard to find when in rugged terrain. The relatively low
number of sightings and breeding records, combined with the Red Goshawk's
unobtrusive behaviour, cryptic plumage, and occupancy in sparsely inhabited areas
suggests that the Red Goshawk is unusually difficult to detect and identify.
9.61. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species or
relevant threat abatement plans.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.62. The National Recovery Plan for the Red Goshawk (DERM, 2012) (provided for
your consideration at Annexure 1) states that the main cause of decline of the Red
Goshawk in eastern Queensland is the widespread clearance of native forests and
woodlands for agriculture.
9.63. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and that no database records exist. It is also stated that the surrounding
landscape is predominately cleared, however the Eucalyptus woodland along the
eastern boundary of the CVW could potentially provide habitat for this species.
Conclusion
9.64. Acknowledging that there is potential habitat in the area but that the species does
not appear to utilise the area, it is considered unlikely that the T0 Project will result in
substantial direct or indirect impacts on this species. The department concluded that
approval of the proposed action subject to the proposed conditions would not be
inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for the Red Goshawk.
White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea), White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Australasian) (Fregetta
gralleria gralleria) – Vulnerable
9.65. The White-bellied Storm Petrel (Tasman Sea) was listed as a threatened species
in the vulnerable category on 16 July 2000.
9.66. The White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea) occurs across sub-tropical and
tropical waters in the Tasman Sea, Coral Sea and, possibly, the central Pacific Ocean.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 69 of 141
In the non-breeding season, it reaches and forages over near-shore waters along the
continental shelf of mainland Australia. It breeds, in Australian territory, on offshore
islets and rocks in the Lord Howe Island group.
9.67. The White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea) forages by skimming low over the
ocean, sometimes pattering the water with its feet, and plucking small crustaceans and
squid from beneath the surface of the water. It forages both during the day and at night,
usually far from shore.
9.68. No recovery plan or approved conservation advice is available for this species.
The department has considered this action in relation to the Threat Abatement Plan for
Predation by Feral Cats (DEWHA, 2008d); the Background Document for the Threat
Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats (DEWHA, 2008e); Threat Abatement Plan
to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian offshore islands of
less than 100 000 hectares (DEWHA, 2009b); the Background Document for the
Threat Abatement Plan to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on
Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000 hectares (DEWHA, 2009c) (all
provided for your consideration at Annexure 1).
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.69. The only potential threat to the White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea) that has
been identified is the accidental introduction of exotic terrestrial predators, specifically
rats or cats, to the offshore islets and rocks on which the White-bellied Storm-Petrel
(Tasman Sea) breeds.
9.70. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and there are no database records. It is also stated that no suitable habitat
occurs in the area.
9.71. The department also considers that the proposed approval decision, and the
conditions to the proposed approval, have taken into account the Threat Abatement
Plan to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian offshore
islands of less than 100 000 hectares (DEWHA, 2009b); the Background Document for
the Threat Abatement Plan to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on
Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000 hectares (DEWHA, 2009c); and Cat
TAP.
Conclusion
9.72. As this species does not appear to utilise the area and there is no suitable
habitat, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will result in substantial direct or indirect
impacts. The department concluded that approval of the proposed action subject to the
proposed conditions would not be inconsistent with these plans.
Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) – Endangered
9.73. The Northern Quoll was listed as a threatened species in the endangered
category on 12 April 2005.
9.74. The Northern Quoll, while once widespread, now only occurs in five regional
populations across Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia both on
the mainland and on offshore islands. This species occupies a diversity of habitats
across its range including rocky areas, eucalyptus forest and woodlands, rainforests,
sandy lowlands and beaches, shrubland, grasslands and desert. Northern Quolls are
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 70 of 141
known to occupy non rocky lowland habitats such as beach scrub communities in
central Queensland. Northern Quoll habitat generally encompasses some form of rocky
area for denning purposes with surrounding vegetated habitats used for foraging and
dispersal.
9.75. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.76. According to the National Recovery Plan for the Northern Quoll Dasyurus
hallucatus (Hill and Ward, 2010) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1), the
main threat to the Northern Quoll is Cane Toads (Bufo marinus). There is also
evidence that decline is associated with habitat degradation. Other potential threats
include: weeds; disease; isolation of populations; inappropriate fire regimes; and
predation by feral animals.
9.77. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species. There is one Wildnet record within 25 km of the T0 Project area and the
species is known from Cape Upstart (being approximately 39 km north of Abbot Point).
It is stated that rocky outcrop habitat exists on the T0 Project site however it is subject
to ongoing disturbance from the existing terminal and is relatively isolated from suitable
habitat to the south and west of the region.
Conclusion
9.78. Acknowledging that there is potential habitat in the area but that the species does
not appear to utilise the area, it is considered unlikely that the T0 Project will result in
substantial direct or indirect impacts on this species. The department concluded that
approval of the proposed action subject to the proposed conditions would not be
inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for the Northern Quoll.
Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus) – Vulnerable
9.79. The Grey-headed Flying-fox was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable
category on 6 December 2001.
9.80. The Grey-headed Flying-fox is Australia's only endemic flying-fox and occurs in
the coastal belt from Rockhampton in central Queensland to Melbourne in Victoria.
However, only a small proportion of this range is used at any one time, as the species
selectively forages where food is available. As a result, patterns of occurrence and
relative abundance within its distribution vary widely between seasons and between
years.
9.81. The Grey-headed Flying-fox requires foraging resources and roosting sites. It is a
canopy-feeding frugivore and nectivore, which utilises vegetation communities
including rainforests, open forests, closed and open woodlands, Melaleuca swamps
and Banksia woodlands. Roost sites are typically located near water, such as lakes,
rivers or coastal waters. Roost vegetation includes rainforest patches, stands of
Melaleuca, mangroves and riparian vegetation.
9.82. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species or
relevant threat abatement plans.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 71 of 141
9.83. The Draft Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus
(DECCW NSW, 2009) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) states that the
threats to this species include: habitat loss; deliberate destruction associated with
commercial horticulture; negative public attitudes and conflict with humans;
electrocution; entanglement; climate change and disease.
9.84. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and there are no Wildnet database records within 25 km. The EIS does not
state if there is potential habitat in the area for this species and therefore the
department considers for the purpose of this approval that you should consider the
possibility that habitat may be present.
Conclusion
9.85. Acknowledging that there may be potential habitat in the area but that the
species does not appear to utilise the area, it is considered unlikely that the T0 Project
will result in substantial direct or indirect impacts on this species. The department
concluded that approval of the proposed action subject to the proposed conditions
would not be inconsistent with the Draft Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox.
Spectacled Flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus) – Vulnerable
9.86. The Spectacled Flying-fox was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable
category on 14 May 2002.
9.87. The Spectacled Flying-fox occurs in north-eastern Queensland, north of Cardwell
with historical records from Brisbane and Chillagoe. The Spectacled Flying-fox is
associated primarily with rainforest and sometimes with mangroves containing Black
Flying-foxes (Pteropus alecto – not listed under the EPBC Act). Roosts are always
found within 6 km of rainforest.
9.88. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species or
relevant threat abatement plans.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.89. According to the Recovery Plan for the Spectacled Flying fox Pteropus
conspicillatus (DERM, 2010a) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) known
threats to this species include; habitat loss; illegal killing and incidental mortality of
flying foxes in commercial fruit crops; harassment by humans; natural events;
electrocution and entanglement.
9.90. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and there are no Wildnet database records. It is indicated that the nearest
suitable roosting habitat lies to the north of the area, above Townsville (being
approximately 175 km north of the T0 Project area).
Conclusion
9.91. As this species does not appear to utilise the area and there is no suitable
habitat, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will result in substantial direct or indirect
impacts. The department concluded that approval of the proposed action subject to the
proposed conditions would not be inconsistent with the Recovery Plan for the
Spectacled Flying-fox.
Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus philippinensis (large form)) - Endangered
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 72 of 141
9.92. The Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat was listed as a threatened species in
the endangered category on 4 April 2001.
9.93. The Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat occurs only in northern Queensland.
The southern limit of its range has not been clarified, however it might be present south
of Townsville at Mt Elliott and Cape Cleveland.
9.94. The Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat is found in lowland rainforest, along
gallery forest-lined creeks within open eucalyptus forest, Melaleuca forest with
rainforest understorey, open savannah woodland and tall riparian woodland of
Melaleuca, Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis) and Moreton Bay Ash
(Eucalyptus tesselaris). At night, they forage mainly in open forest and wattle-
dominated ridges in rainforest.
9.95. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species or
relevant threat abatement plans.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.96. According to the Recovery Plan for Cave-dwelling Bats, Rhinolophus
philippinensis, Hipposideros semoni and Taphozous troughtoni 2001–2005
(unpublished) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1), the main threat to this
species is the destruction and disturbance of rooting sites.
9.97. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and there are no database records. The known southern limit of the range for
this species is Townsville, to the north of the Abbot Point.
Conclusion
9.98. As the T0 Project area is outside of the species’ known home range, there is no
suitable habitat and does not appear to utilise the area, it is unlikely that the T0 Project
will result in substantial direct or indirect impacts. The department concluded that
approval of the proposed action subject to the proposed conditions would not be
inconsistent with the Recovery Plan for Cave-dwelling Bats.
Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus) – Critically Endangered
9.99. The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat was listed as a threatened species in the
critically endangered category on 4 April 2001.
9.100. The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat was described from specimens collected around
Cardwell, North Queensland. Occasional individuals have been collected from a narrow
coastal region (less than 40 km inland) between Ayr and Cooktown, North Queensland,
with one isolated specimen from north of Coen on Cape York Peninsula.
9.101. Only anecdotal information is available for this species and it is based on habitat
around roosts or from shot specimens. No information is available on foraging habitat
shifts between the dry and wet seasons. The small number of confirmed roosts in
Australia have all been in tree hollows of the Poplar gum (Eucalyptus platyphylla),
Darwin Woollybutt (Eucalyptus miniata) and Darwin Stringybark (Eucalyptus
tetradonta). Nearly all confirmed records of this species have been a consequence of
vegetation removal. The Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat has been suggested to forage
over habitat edges such as the edge of rainforest and in forest clearings.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 73 of 141
9.102. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species or
relevant threat abatement plans.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.103. According to the National Recovery Plan for Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat
Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus (Schulz and Thomson, 2007) (provided for
your consideration at Annexure 1) the distribution, habitat preferences and biology of
the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat are poorly known and the identification of known and
likely threats facing this species are incomplete, however, it is considered that the main
known threat to this species is habitat loss. Potential threats include: vegetation
change; timber removal; competition for hollows; disease and climate change.
9.104. The proponent did not address potential impacts on this species and neither
does the CIA. The department’s environmental databases for this species have
recently been updated with newly published information for this species in particular it
is now known to occur within the vicinity of the Abbot Point region.
9.105. The GHD Terrestrial Ecology Report provided to the department as part of the
North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation Abbot Point Multi-cargo Facility EIS included
ultrasonic echolocation monitoring. The results of this monitoring were analysed by
Greg Ford, a microbat expert. Although 13 species of bats were confirmed present, the
Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat was not one of these.
9.106. The EIS does not state whether there is potential habitat in the area for this
species and therefore the department considers for the purpose of this approval that
you should consider the possibility that habitat may be present.
Conclusion
9.107. Acknowledging that there may be potential habitat in the area but that the
species does not appear to utilise the area, it is considered unlikely that the T0 Project
will result in substantial direct or indirect impacts. The department concludes that
approval of the proposed action subject to the proposed conditions would not be
inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bats.
Yakka Skink (Egernia rugosa) – Vulnerable
9.108. The Yakka Skink was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category
on 11 July 2000.
9.109. The known distribution of the Yakka Skink extends from the coast to the
hinterland of sub-humid to semi-arid eastern Queensland. The Yakka Skink is known to
occur in open dry sclerophyll forest, woodland and scrub. The core habitat of this
species is within the Mulga Lands and Brigalow Belt South Bioregions.
9.110. Important Yakka Skink populations occur where colonies are identified or within
5km of known records of the species. Any contiguous patch of vegetation which is
suitable for the long-term persistence of a population, or for maintaining genetic
diversity across the landscape, is important habitat for the species.
9.111. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 74 of 141
9.112. The Draft Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile Recovery Plan (Richardson, 2006)
(provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) states that the main threats to the
Yakka Skink include: loss of habitat; inappropriate roadside management; removal of
woody debris and rocks and feral animals. The Yakka Skink occurs in the Brigalow Belt
Bioregion, an area of high human impact. Much of this land has been modified through
agricultural and urban development.
9.113. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and there are no Wildnet database records. It is stated that no suitable habitat
occurs in the T0 Project area. There is however, potentially suitable habitat within the
vicinity of the T0 Project.
Conclusion
9.114. Acknowledging that there is potential habitat in the vicinity of the T0 Project area
but not on site, and that the species does not appear to utilise the area, it is considered
unlikely that the T0 Project will result in substantial direct or indirect impacts. The
department concluded that approval of the proposed action subject to the proposed
conditions would not be inconsistent with the Draft Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile
Recovery Plan.
Ornamental Snake (Denisonia maculate) – Vulnerable
9.115. The Ornamental Snake was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable
category on 11 July 2000.
9.116. The species is known only from the Brigalow Belt North and parts of the Brigalow
Belt South biogeographical regions. The core of the species' distribution occurs within
the drainage system of the Fitzroy and Dawson Rivers.
9.117. Ornamental Snake habitat is likely to be found in Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla),
Gidgee (Acacia cambagei), Blackwood (Acacia argyrodendron) or Coolibah
(Eucalyptus coolabah) dominated vegetation communities, or pure grassland
associated with gilgais (melon holes).
9.118. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.119. The Draft Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile Recovery Plan (Richardson, 2006)
(provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) states that potential threats to this
species include grazing effects and introduced predators.
9.120. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and there are no Wildnet database records. It is stated that the nearest known
occurrence is approximately 200 km west of Abbot Point. The EIS does not state if
there is potential habitat in the area for this species and therefore the department
considers for the purpose of this approval that you should consider the possibility that
habitat may be present.
Conclusion
9.121. Acknowledging that there may be potential habitat in the area but the nearest
known occurrence is approximately 200 km from the T0 Project area and the species
does not appear to utilise the area, it is considered unlikely that the T0 Project will
result in substantial direct or indirect impacts. The department concluded that approval
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 75 of 141
of the proposed action subject to the proposed conditions would not be inconsistent
with the Draft Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile Recovery Plan.
Listed Threatened Whale Species
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) – Endangered
9.122. The Blue Whale was listed as a threatened species in the endangered category
on 16 July 2000.
9.123. Blue Whale sightings in Australian waters have been widespread, and it is likely
that the whales occur around the entire continent at various times of the year. The only
known areas of significance to Blue Whales are feeding areas around the southern
continental shelf, notably the Perth Canyon, in Western Australia, and the Bonney
Upwelling and adjacent upwelling areas of South Australia and Victoria.
9.124. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species.
Threat Abatement Plans
9.125. The Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate
Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009) and the Background Document for the Threat Abatement
Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009a)
(Marine Debris TAP) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) states that
impacts on the species from marine debris can occur from entanglement; ingestion; as
well as social, economic and aesthetic impacts on marine habitat and environments.
Marine Debris Threat Abatement Plan
9.126. The aim of the Marine Debris TAP is to provide a coordinated national approach
to the implementation of measures to prevent and mitigate the impacts of harmful
marine debris on vertebrate marine life. The four main objectives and associated
recovery actions in order to achieve this goal are as follows:
i. contribute to the long-term prevention of the incidence of harmful marine
debris by;
o improving waste management practices on land and at see
through collaboration between, state, territory and Australian
Governments, industry, non-government organisations and
indigenous communities;
o state and territory governments considering to review legislation to
ensure that details of waste reception facilities for ships are
included in port environment plans; and
o state and territory governments to investigate how Australia’s
obligations under MARPOL (International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships) (i.e. to provide adequate waste
reception facilities for ship waste) are encompassed in domestic
legislation and policies.
ii. remove existing harmful marine debris from the marine environment and
monitor the quantities, origins and impacts of marine debris and assess
the effectiveness of management arrangements over time for the
strategic reduction in marine debris by:
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 76 of 141
o development of a national approach to information collection and
management; and
o improvement of the understanding of the origins of harmful marine
debris.
iii. mitigate the impacts of harmful marine debris on marine species and
ecological communities by:
o facilitating implementation of wildlife research; and
o identifying measures to promote the use of biodegradable and
oxodegradable plastic in marine-based industries.
Recovery Plan
9.127. The overall objective of the Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recover Plan 2005-2015
(DEH, 2005b) (Whale RP) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) is to outline
the measures necessary to ensure recovery of the Australian populations of these
species. The specific objectives, and a summary of their recovery actions, identified in
the Whale Recovery Plan are as follows:
the objectives are:
o the recovery of populations of Blue, Fin and Sei Whales utilising Australian
waters so that the species can be considered secure in the wild; and
o to maintain the protection of Blue, Fin and Sei Whales from human threats.
the actions are:
o implement a program to measure population abundance, trends and recovery
for Australian populations;
o implement a program to better define the characteristics (spatial, temporal,
physical) of calving, feeding and migratory areas;
o prevent commercial whaling and/or the expansion of scientific whaling;
o protect habitat important to the species;
o monitor and manage the potential impacts of prey depletion due to
overharvesting; and
o monitor climate and oceanographic change.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.128. According to the Whale Recovery Plan, the main threats to the Blue Whale are:
commercial whaling and/or the expansion of scientific whaling; and habitat degradation;
while potential threats include climate and oceanographic change and prey depletion
due to over-harvesting.
9.129. The EIS indicates that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and states that Blue Whales are typically associated with deep temperate
waters and are rarely drawn into shallow waters.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 77 of 141
9.130. As this species does not appear to utilise the area, substantial direct impacts are
considered unlikely. However there is the potential for the species to be indirectly
impacted through increased operational shipping (boat strike and increased marine
noise pollution).
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) – Vulnerable
9.131. The Humpback Whale was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable
category on 16 July 2000.
9.132. The Humpback Whale forms two distinct populations around Australia, one of
which migrates along the east coast and one which migrates along the west coast. The
GBR and the Kimberley Region are important breeding and calving grounds for these
Humpback Whale populations. Hervey Bay and the Whitsundays appear to be
important resting grounds for mothers and calves of the east coast population on their
southward migration. Also on the east coast, aerial surveys conducted off North
Stradbroke Island suggested that most whales remained within 10 km of the coastline
in that area during the northward migration. The exact extent of the Humpback Whale
feeding grounds is unknown; the width of the migratory corridor (which differs for the
northward and southward migrations) is unknown and the exact area of the breeding
grounds is unknown, especially for the east coast migratory population.
9.133. The exact timing of the migration period can vary from year-to-year depending on
water temperature, sea ice, predation risk, prey abundance and the location of feeding
grounds. In general, Humpback Whales are sighted in southern Australian waters in
May and migrate slowly up the east and west coasts. By October the majority of whales
have started their southward migration and sightings are rare after November.
However, Humpback Whales have been sighted in the northern waters of the GBR
between October and January.
9.134. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species.
There is one threat abatement plan that lists the Humpback Whale as a species of
interest, being the Marine Debris TAP and is discussed above.
Recovery Plan
9.135. The overall objective of the Humpback Whale Recover Plan 2005-2015 (DEH,
2005c) (Humpback Whale Recovery Plan) (provided for your consideration at
Annexure 1) is to outline the measures necessary to ensure recovery of the Australian
populations of Humpback Whales. The specific objectives, and a summary of their
recovery actions, identified in the Humpback Whale Recovery Plan are as follows:
the objectives are:
o the recovery of populations of humpback whales utilising Australian waters so
that the species can be considered secure in the wild;
o a distribution of humpback whales utilising Australian waters that is similar to
the pre-exploitation distribution of the species; and
o to maintain the protection of humpback whales from human threats.
the actions are:
o implement a program to measure population abundance, trends and recovery
for Australian populations;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 78 of 141
o implement a program to better define the characteristics (spatial, temporal and
physical) of calving, resting, feeding and migratory areas;
o prevent commercial whaling and move to ban scientific whaling;
o protect habitat important to the survival of the species;
o monitor and manage the potential impacts of prey depletion due to over
harvesting; and
o monitor climate and oceanographic change.
Threats and Assessment of impacts to listed threatened whale species
9.136. According to the Humpback Whale Recovery Plan, the main threats to the
Humpback Whale are: commercial whaling and/or the expansion of scientific whaling
and habitat degradation; while potential threats include climate and oceanographic
change and predation by Killer Whales (Orcinus orca) on calves.
9.137. The proposed action is located within the east coast migratory corridor and an
identified aggregation (resting and feeding) area. The construction and operation of the
proposed action will occur year round and therefore will coincide with Humpback Whale
migration periods.
9.138. The EIS states that adult and calf Humpback Whales have been observed during
field surveys passing through and resting in the port limits in waters ranging from 5 to
20 m deep during the annual migration period. A study carried out over a period of 12
months (2008/2009) comprising nine surveys for marine megafauna within the Port
limits recorded Humpback Whales in September 2008 only. It is also stated that
populations of Humpback Whales are known to utilise shallow northern waters in the
Abbot Point region during winter.
9.139. Increased boating activity during construction is likely to impact on Humpback
Whales. Shipping activity during operation is likely to increase the incidence of boat
strikes on Humpback and Blue Whales.
9.140. Operational shipping and ships at anchorage increase noise pollution in the
marine environment. This can impact whales through altering natural behaviours and
inhibiting communication. Increased shipping will increase the risk of introduced
species which can negatively alter the marine environment, including habitat for listed
threatened whale species.
9.141. Piling activities associated with the construction of the jetty has the potential to
impact the Humpback Whale through direct contact and noise/vibration disturbance,
potentially causing negative behavioural and physiological changes.
9.142. Construction of the onshore components of the proposed action is likely to
decrease water quality in an area utilised by Humpback Whales, through potential
increased runoff of sediments, acid sulphate soil, contaminated soil, coal dust,
stormwater and pollutants such as chemicals and waste.
Mitigation Measures for listed threatened whale species
9.143. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in the EIS with
the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to listed threatened whale
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 79 of 141
species that have the potential to increase mortality and negative behavioural and/or
physiological changes during the action, including:
A Terrestrial Flora and Fauna Management Subplan including:
a Dust Management Plan to limit impacts from dust generated during the
construction phases and coal dust when operational, including a variety of
dust suppression techniques;
A Noise and Vibration Management Subplan including:
Marine Based control strategies including marine fauna observation and
exclusion zones (however these areas have not been defined), gradual or
soft start procedures, adequate spacing of pile driving plants to minimise
cumulative impacts and adaptive management techniques;
A Marine Ecology Management Subplan including:
a Shipping Management Plan that will be prepared prior to commencement
of operation to address and mitigate potential impacts from shipping
including those arising from physical impacts, pollution events, lighting and
introduced pests;
A Water Management Subplan including:
a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed and
implemented prior to commencement of construction and will include
provisions for treatment, recycling and/or reuse and or discharge of flows
and measures for water quality monitoring. The SWMP will be reviewed and
updated as the project management system changes;
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be prepared for each construction
activity, prior to commencement of construction;
a Hazard and Risks Management Plan for construction and operation to
minimise risks of hazardous material entering the environment and providing
protocols in the case of a spill;
A Land Management Subplan including:
an Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) Management Plan including a site specific
investigation in areas that have been identified as ASS or potential ASS;
Contaminated Land control strategies including a site remediation plan to be
developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination; and
A Waste Management Subplan including:
a Waste Management Plan to manage waste from construction and
operation of the project in such a way that any potential impacts to the
environment are minimised or avoided.
9.144. In addition to the above measures, the proponent has proposed a number of
monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not
all of these have an adaptive management function. For further information regarding
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 80 of 141
the mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer
Section 5 of the EIS).
Conclusions for listed threatened whale species
9.145. The above assessment drew upon information provided in the Blue, Fin and Sei
Whale Recovery Plan 2005-2010 (DEH, 2005b) and Humpback Whale Recovery Plan
2005-2010 (DEH, 2005c), which detail threats to the species’ survival and recovery
actions, as well as other general and biological information. Based on this assessment
the department considers that above elements of the proposed Noise and Vibration
and Marine Ecology Management Subplans provide a sufficient framework for reducing
any potential impacts on listed threatened whale species from, degradation of habitat
through decreased water quality, increased noise pollution and introduced exotic
species, provided they include an adaptive management function.
9.146. As discussed above, it is recommended that conditions be attached to the
approval that requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Marine and Shipping
Management Plan that includes (but is not limited to) the measures discussed above in
the Marine Ecology, and Noise and Vibration Management Subplans. It is also
recommended that the proponent be required implement measures that mitigate
impacts associated with pile driving. This would enable the proponent to effectively
define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate potential negative impacts to listed
threatened whale species.
9.147. In addition, it is recommended that the Marine and Shipping Management Plan
include a requirement for measures to avoid, mitigate and manage impacts to listed
threatened whale species from increased marine vessels during construction and noise
generated from operation shipping.
9.148. The department considers that the proposed approval decision, and the
conditions attached to the proposed approval, are not inconsistent with any approved
Recovery Plans or Threat Abatement Plans, for the Blue and Humpback Whales in the
following ways:
the Marine and Shipping Management Plan required as a condition on approval,
that requires the proponent to manage potential impacts in the marine environment
from the T0 Project including impacts arising from increased shipping through the
GBR and Commonwealth Marine areas where important habitat for Blue and
Humpback Whales may occur;
the T0 Project is unlikely to hinder programs implemented to determine ecological
characteristics and population trends of Blue and Humpback Whales. The T0
Project will not facilitate commercial or scientific whaling and does not involve
harvesting of prey species, therefore conditions relating to these matters is
considered unnecessary;
the Terrestrial Management Plan contains a waste component in order to manage
any waste generated during terrestrial activities that could enter the GBRWHA (and
contribute to increased marine debris); and
9.149. the Marine and Shipping Management Plan contains a shipping component,
which includes a requirement to manage ship waste (and consequently marine
debris).Considering the above and presuming compliance with the department’s
recommended approval conditions, the department is of the view that the proposed
action will not have an unacceptable impact on Blue and Humpback Whales.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 81 of 141
Listed Threatened Marine Turtles
Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) - Endangered
9.150. The Loggerhead Turtle was listed as a threatened species in the endangered
category on 16 July 2000.
9.151. In Australia, the Loggerhead Turtle occurs in the waters of coral and rocky reefs,
seagrass meadows and muddy bays throughout eastern, northern and western
Australia. While nesting is concentrated in southern Queensland and from Shark Bay to
the North West Cape in Western Australia, foraging areas are more widely distributed.
9.152. Data for the eastern Australian genetic stock indicate that sexual maturity is
reached at between 22 to 27 years of age. Breeding life has been estimated from
overseas stocks at 32 years. While it is not clear how long a juvenile Loggerhead Turtle
will stay in the open ocean, once it moves to its chosen feeding area, it will be a further
13 years or so before it is ready to breed. Some movement between chosen feeding
areas to the open ocean during the juvenile period have been demonstrated off the
coast of North America but fidelity to the feeding area is strong. Once it has reached
breeding age, it will move between its chosen feeding area and its chosen breeding
area for the rest of its life.
9.153. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species.
Threat Abatement Plans
9.154. There are three threat abatement plans that list the Loggerhead Turtle as a
species of interest. The Fox TAP and Marine Debris TAP are discussed above. The
Threat Abatement Plan for Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease
Transmission by Feral Pigs (2005) (Pig TAP) (provided for your consideration at
Annexure 1) is discussed below.
Pig Threat Abatement Plan
9.155. The Pig TAP sets out a national framework to guide the coordinated
implementation of the objectives and actions considered necessary to manage the
environmental damage caused by feral pigs to species and ecological communities
affected by the process. The five main objectives and associated recovery actions in
order to achieve this goal are as follows:
i. To prevent feral pigs from establishing in areas where they currently do
not occur or are in low eradicable numbers, and where they are likely to
pose a threat to biodiversity, especially where they would impact on
nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities by:
o identifying areas currently free from feral pigs or where they are
eradicable;
o verifying presence or absence of feral pigs in priority areas and
developing and implementing management strategies to remove
feral pigs from priority areas;
o providing awareness programs to recreational hunters,
bushwalkers and land managers; and
o reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness of existing legislation.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 82 of 141
ii. To integrate feral pig management plans and their implementation into
natural resource planning and investment at the regional, state and
territory, and national level through consultation and liaison with key
stakeholders by:
o coordination between the department and relevant state and
territory agencies to set out key concerns and issues to be
included in Natural Resource management plans and to establish
protocols and use funding and other relevant mechanisms to
improve the consistency and coordination of actions across
tenures and jurisdictions.
iii. To increase awareness and understanding of land managers and the
general community about the damage that feral pigs cause and
management options by:
o assessing the adequacy of available information and
dissemination of appropriate material to target groups; and
o supporting the completion, dissemination and adoption of the pest
management component of the Conservation and Land
Management Training Package being developed by the National
Training Authority.
iv. To quantify the impacts feral pigs have on biodiversity (especially
nationally listed threatened species and ecological communities) and
determine the relationship between feral pig density and the level of
damage by:
o identifying priority areas under threat by feral pigs; and
o developing and implementing appropriate studies that aim to
determine the impact of feral pigs on listed species and the level
of control required to reduce the impact to a significant level.
v. To improve the effectiveness, efficiency and humaneness of techniques
and strategies for managing the environmental damage due to feral pigs
by:
o assessing the need for the development of more effective and
humane techniques and strategies when managing feral pigs; and
o assessing these techniques and strategies through an analysis of
costs and benefits, safety, potential impact on non target species,
legal issues and any other practical considerations, and formulate
a regional best practice approach.
Pacific Ridley, Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) - Endangered
9.156. The Olive Ridley Turtle was listed as a threatened species in the endangered
category on 16 July 2000.
9.157. The Olive Ridley Turtle is the smallest of the Australian sea turtles with a mean
curved carapace length of approximately 70 cm and weight of 40 kg. Nesting has not
been observed along the eastern Australian coast. A substantial part of the immature
and adult population forage over shallow benthic habitats from northern Western
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 83 of 141
Australia to south-east Queensland though large juvenile and adult Olive Ridley Turtles
have been recorded in both benthic and pelagic foraging habitats.
9.158. Foraging habitat for this species can range from depths of several metres to over
100 m. However, most individuals captured by trawlers in the East Coast Otter Trawl
fishery in Queensland were in depths of between 11–40 m. The most comprehensive
feeding study in Australia documented mostly gastropod and bivalve molluscs from the
stomachs of 36 adult Olive Ridley Turtles. Apart from one exception, Olive Ridley
Turtles have not been recorded in coral reef habitat or shallow inshore seagrass flats.
9.159. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species.
There is one threat abatement plan that lists the Olive Ridley Turtle as a species of
interest, the Marine Debris TAP, which is discussed above.
Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) - Vulnerable
9.160. The Green Turtle was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category
on 16 July 2000.
9.161. Green Turtles nest, forage and migrate across tropical northern Australia. Once
Green Turtles reach 30 to 40 cm curved carapace length, they settle in shallow benthic
foraging habitats such as tropical tidal and sub-tidal coral and rocky reef habitat or
inshore seagrass meadows. The shallow foraging habitat of adults contains seagrass
meadows or algae mats on which Green Turtles mainly feed. In the southern Great
Barrier Reef, mating begins in October and nesting occurs between October and
March, peaking in January.
9.162. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species.
There are two threat abatement plans that list the Green Turtle as a species of interest,
the Fox TAP and Marine Debris TAP, which are discussed above.
Leathery Turtle, Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) - Endangered
9.163. The Leatherback Turtle has been listed as a threatened species in the
endangered category since 8 January 2009.
9.164. Leatherback Turtles are the largest of all sea turtles, with adult females having a
mean size of 1.6 m curved carapace length and some females reaching up to 1 tonne
in weight. They are known from waters all around Australia and can be found foraging
year round over Australian continental shelf waters. Adults feed mainly on pelagic soft-
bodied creatures such as jellyfish and tunicates, which occur in greatest concentrations
at the surface in areas of upwelling or convergence. The regular appearance of
Leatherback Turtles in cool temperate waters is probably due to the seasonal
occurrence of large numbers of jellyfish.
9.165. The approved conservation advice for the Leatherback Turtle (TSSC, 2008a)
(Leatherback Turtle Conservation Advice) (provided for your consideration at
Annexure 1) states that the main identified threats include incidental capture in
commercial fisheries; harvest of eggs and meat; ingestion of marine debris; boat strike;
predation on eggs by wild dogs, pigs and monitor lizards; degradation of foraging
areas; and, changes to breeding sites. Possible impacts from climate change are likely
to exacerbate current threats.
9.166. The priority actions listed in the Leatherback Turtle Conservation Advice are a
summary of the key management actions in the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 84 of 141
Australia (Environment Australia, 2003) (Marine Turtle Recovery Plan) (provided for
your consideration at Annexure 1) and are discussed below.
9.167. There are two threat abatement plans that list the Leatherback Turtle as a
species of interest, the Fox TAP and the Marine Debris TAP, which are discussed
above.
Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) - Vulnerable
9.168. The Hawksbill Turtle was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable
category on 16 July 2000.
9.169. Major nesting of Hawksbill Turtles in Australia occurs at Varanus Island and
Rosemary Island in Western Australia, and in the northern Great Barrier Reef and
Torres Strait, Queensland. In Queensland, Milman Island and the inner Great Barrier
Reef Cays north from Cape Grenville are important foraging grounds and juvenile
habitat for Hawksbill Turtles. Once Hawksbill Turtles reach 30 to 40 cm curved
carapace length, they settle and forage in tropical tidal and sub-tidal coral and rocky
reef habitat. They primarily feed on sponges and algae. They have also been found,
though less frequently, within seagrass habitats of coastal waters, as well as the
deeper habitats of trawl fisheries.
9.170. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species.
There are two threat abatement plans that list the Hawksbill Turtle as a species of
interest, the Pig TAP and the Marine Debris TAP, which are discussed above.
Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus) - Vulnerable
9.171. The Flatback Turtle was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category
on 16 July 2000.
9.172. The Flatback Turtle is found only in the tropical waters of northern Australia,
Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya and is one of only two species of sea turtle without a
global distribution. Nesting is confined to Australia and four genetic stocks are
recognised, one of which occurs in eastern Queensland.
9.173. In eastern Queensland nesting occurs between Bundaberg in the south and
northwards to Torres Strait. The main nesting sites occur in the southern Great Barrier
Reef at Peak, Wild Duck and Curtis Islands. Minor nesting occurs at Mon Repos and
the Mackay Region. Scattered periodic nesting occurs on mainland and inshore islands
between Townsville and Torres Strait. Studies of feeding behaviour have not been
conducted, however juveniles are known to eat gastropod molluscs, squid and
siphonophores (soft corals, hydroids, jellyfish).
9.174. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species.
There are three threat abatement plans that list the Flatback Turtle as a species of
interest, the Fox TAP, Pig TAP and the Marine Debris TAP, which are discussed
above.
Recovery Plan for listed threatened marine turtles
9.175. The overall recovery objective of the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan (for the Green,
Flatback, Leatherback, Olive Ridley, Loggerhead and Hawksbill Turtle species) is to
reduce detrimental impacts on Australian populations of marine turtles and hence
promote their recovery in the wild. The Marine Turtle Recovery Plan noted the
continued decline of the eastern Australian population of the Loggerhead Turtle and
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 85 of 141
identified the need for its conservation to be implicit in all actions. The specific
objectives, and a summary of their recovery actions, identified in the Marine Turtle
Recovery Plan are as follows:
i. To reduce the mortality of marine turtles and, where appropriate, increase
natural survivorship, including through developing management strategies
with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities for the sustainable
use of marine turtles by:
o reducing bycatch of marine turtles in fisheries;
o facilitating sustainable harvesting of turtles and eggs by Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people;
o reducing levels of marine debris;
o reducing mortality of marine turtles during shark control activities;
o reducing incidences of boat strike on marine turtles;
o reducing lighting impacts and entanglement incidences from Pearl
Farming and other Aquaculture activities; and
o reducing potential impacts from Department of Defence activities.
ii. To develop programs and protocols to monitor marine turtle populations
in Australia, assess the size and status of those populations, the causes
of their mortality and address information gaps by:
o monitoring key populations and strandings of marine turtles;
o measuring recovery; and
o facilitating the genetic identification of Australian marine turtle
populations and their ecology.
iii. To manage factors that affect marine turtle nesting by:
o reducing light pollution in the marine environment;
o ensuring minimal impacts on turtle habitat (including nesting
beaches) from tourism and recreational activities;
o managing vehicle access to nesting beaches; and
o minimising faunal predation of marine turtle eggs.
iv. To identify and protect habitats that are critical for the survival of marine
turtles by:
o ensuring that activities impacting land use and water quality on or
in proximity to marine turtle habitat are subject to an
environmental impact assessment and the development of best
practice coastal management guidelines across Queensland;
o protecting critical marine turtle benthic and seagrass habitats;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 86 of 141
o managing of oil spills and operational discharges by lead agencies
and appropriate environmental assessment of related activities;
and
o ensuring soft start procedures are implemented in seismic surveys
and monitoring literature on the effect of noise on marine turtles.
v. To communicate the results of recovery actions and involve and educate
stakeholders by:
o reviewing the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan and evaluating its
effectiveness;
o raising awareness and involvement of the community; and
o raising awareness in northern Australian indigenous communities.
vi. To support and maintain existing agreements and develop new
collaborative programs with neighbouring countries for the conservation
of shared turtle populations by:
o the Commonwealth Government maintaining existing and
developing new bilateral or multilateral agreements to ensure that
international conservation and management of marine turtles is
consistent with domestic policies and international treaty
obligations.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts to listed threatened marine turtles
9.176. The Marine Turtle Recovery Plan lists the main threats to the listed threatened
turtle species as bycatch, harvesting, predation of eggs by native and introduced
animals, coastal development (including lighting impacts), deteriorating water quality,
marine debris and loss of habitat.
9.177. The Marine Turtle Recovery Plan also lists boat strike as a threat on the following
turtle populations: Loggerhead Turtles from the eastern Australian population; Green
Turtles from the southern Great Barrier Reef population; Hawksbill Turtles from the
northeastern Australian populations; and Flatback Turtles from Queensland.
9.178. The Leatherback Turtle Conservation Advice reiterates the above mentioned
threats in the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan.
9.179. The EIS states that Loggerhead, Green, Flatback and Hawksbill turtles have all
been observed in the Abbot Point region and within the T0 Project area during marine
surveys. Green and Flatback turtles are also known to nest along Abbot Beach to the
east of the T0 Project area.
9.180. The EIS states that the Olive Ridley Turtle has not been observed in the area
and is unlikely to occur however previous assessment documentation submitted to the
department (Preliminary Documentation for Abbot Point Coal Terminal 3 – EPBC
2008/4468) referred to a report that noted the capture of an Olive Ridley Turtle foraging
in the port environment of Abbot Point. Although this is a confirmed observation of only
one individual, it indicates that the Olive Ridley Turtle does utilise the Abbot Point
region to some degree.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 87 of 141
9.181. The EIS states that northern GBR Green turtle stocks are estimated to be as high
as 30,000 breeding females, compared to approximately 8,000 breeding females for
southern GBR stocks. The individuals using the area around Abbot Point are located at
the northern limit of the southern GBR breeding stock’s distribution. The EIS indicates
that overall the southern population has remained stable since 1967 although there are
indications of an excessive loss of adult turtles.
9.182. A study by Bell (2003) states that although Flatback Turtles nest in low densities,
the port area of Abbot Point provides important mainland nesting habitat in north
Queensland and that caution should be exercised in interpreting low density nesting as
“unimportant”, as low density nesting can make an important reproductive contribution.
This is particularly the case if low density nesting on mainland beaches produces a
disproportionate number of female hatchlings compared to island beaches of higher
density nesting. From a regional perspective Abbot Beach may be considered less
important than offshore nesting sites; however, given each marine turtle’s fidelity to its
natal nesting beach the site should be considered as locally important.
9.183. The Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division advice commented that surveys
undertaken on Abbot Beach for the EIS were carried out in December 2012, which is
after the peak nesting season for Flatback Turtles and that the survey undertaken in
January 2013 was a week after Cyclone Oswald which is likely to have impacted on
turtle hatching success. They state that as the surveys were limited, a clear indication
of the importance of the site is not possible.
9.184. The Abbot Point area is not listed as an important area in the Marine Turtles
Recovery Plan, however it is listed within a high priority foraging area (Upstart Bay to
Midge Point) for Green turtles. The direct impact on seagrass communities as a result
of construction of the jetty structure is approximately 0.0206 ha, with some possible
reduction in seagrass health caused by shading from the jetty structure.
9.185. The removal of seagrass constitutes a loss of habitat for the Green Turtle and
Loggerhead Turtle. Decreased water quality as a result of runoff and coal dust is likely
to impact and potentially decrease the remaining seagrass in the area. In addition, coal
dust in the marine environment smothers marine plants, potentially further reducing
seagrass in the area.
9.186. Boat strike and damage to turtles from boat propellers has been identified as a
threat in the Marine Turtle Recovery Plan. Increased boating activity during
construction and shipping activity during operation is likely to increase the incidence of
boat strikes on all five species identified within the area (the exception being the
Leatherback Turtle) as well as contribute to increased noise pollution. An increased
workforce in the Bowen region from the T0 Project may also facilitate an increase in
recreational boat users in the area. Increased shipping will also increase the risk of
introduced species which can negatively alter the marine environment, including habitat
for listed threatened turtle species.
9.187. Construction of the onshore components of the proposed action is likely to
decrease water quality in an area utilised by listed threatened turtle species, through
potential increased runoff of sediments, acid sulphate soil, contaminated soil, coal dust,
stormwater and pollutants such as chemicals and waste.
9.188. Piling activities associated with the construction of the jetty have the potential to
impact these species through direct contact and noise/vibration disturbance.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 88 of 141
9.189. In addition, increased lighting during the construction and operational phases
can impact listed threatened turtle species through changing crucial behavioural
patterns, including avoidance of nesting beaches by Green and Flatback Turtles and
disorientation of hatchlings, resulting in loss of habitat. Increased light emissions also
increase the risk of predation on nesting turtles and hatchlings.
9.190. The EIS states that predation of turtle eggs by pigs, foxes and wild dogs is a
known threat to marine turtles and that clearing activities associated with the T0 Project
will increase access for feral animal species to turtle nesting sites (including Abbot
Beach).
Mitigation Measures for listed threatened marine turtles
9.191. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in the EIS with
the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to listed threatened turtle species
that have the potential to degrade foraging and breeding habitat and negatively
influence hatchling behaviour during the action, including:
A Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Management Subplan including:
a Dust Management Plan to limit impacts from dust generated during the
construction phases, and coal dust when operational, including a variety of
dust suppression techniques;
an Illumination Plan that will be developed describing each light source in
terms of its purpose, location, footprint, intensity and spectral composition
and document steps to avoid, mitigate and manage the impacts of each
source. For example through minimisation of lighting within the development,
minimising long wavelength lights and installing timers and motion detectors
where possible;
an integrated Feral Animal and Weed Management Plan will be prepared in
association with the Port Authority for the construction and operational
phases of the T0 Project, including a control/eradication plan for pests that
may potentially occur on the site and identification of treatment methods and
techniques;
A Water Management Subplan including:
a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed and
implemented prior to commencement of construction and will include
provisions for treatment, recycling and/or reuse and or discharge of flows
and measures for water quality monitoring. The SWMP will be reviewed and
updated as the project management system changes;
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be prepared for each construction
activity, prior to commencement of construction;
a Hazard and Risks Management Plan for construction and operation to
minimise risks of hazardous material entering the environment and providing
protocols in the case of a spill;
A Land Management Subplan including:
an Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) Management Plan including a site specific
investigation in areas that have been identified as ASS or potential ASS;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 89 of 141
Contaminated Land control strategies including a site remediation plan to be
developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination;
A Noise and Vibration Management Subplan including:
Marine Based control strategies including marine fauna observation and
exclusion zones (however these areas have not been defined), gradual or
soft start procedures, adequate spacing of pile driving plants to minimise
cumulative impacts and adaptive management techniques;
A Marine Ecology management Subplan including:
a Shipping Management Plan that will be prepared prior to commencement
of operation to address and mitigate potential impacts from shipping
including those arising from physical impacts, pollution events, lighting and
introduced pests; and
A Waste Management Subplan including:
a Waste Management Plan to manage waste from construction and
operation of the project in such a way that any potential impacts to the
environment are minimised or avoided.
9.192. In addition to the above measures, the proponent has proposed a number of
monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not
all of these have an adaptive management function. For further information regarding
the mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer
Section 5 of the EIS).
Conclusion for listed threatened marine turtles
9.193. The above assessment drew upon information provided in the approved
Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia (Environment Australia, 2003) and the
approved conservation advice for the Leatherback Turtle (TSSC, 2008a), which details
threats to the species’ survival and recovery actions; as well as other general and
biological information. Based on this assessment, the department considers that the
above elements of the proposed Terrestrial Flora and Fauna, Water, Land, Waste,
Noise and Vibration and Marine Ecology Management Subplans provide a sufficient
framework for reducing any potential impacts on listed threatened turtle species from,
degradation of habitat through decreased water quality, smothering of habitat by coal
dust, increased noise pollution and introduced exotic species, provided they include an
adaptive management function.
9.194. As discussed above, it is recommended that conditions be attached to the
approval that requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Marine and Shipping
Management Plan that includes the measures discussed in the Marine Ecology
Management Subplan as well as impacts from marine construction vessels and
operational ship noise. It is also recommended that the proponent be required
implement measures that mitigate impacts associated with pile driving. This would
enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate
potential negative impacts to listed threatened turtle species.
The department considers that the proposed approval decision, and the conditions
attached to the proposed approval, are not inconsistent with the Marine Turtle
Recovery Plan or relevant Threat Abatement Plans, for listed threatened marine
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 90 of 141
turtles and have had regard to the approved conservation advice for the
Leatherback Turtle (TSSC, 2008a) in the following ways: under the recommended
conditions, a Terrestrial Management Plan and, a Marine and Shipping
Management Plan is required and this must include a lighting component
specifically aimed at reducing lighting impacts on marine turtles, including nesting
areas;
the Marine and Shipping Management Plan must also include a shipping
component which is requires the approval holder to manage boat strike impacts
from both construction and operational vessels (including implementation of speed
limits within the Port of Abbot Point);
under the recommended conditions, a Terrestrial Management Plan is also
required, and this must include a pest management component to undertake
management of exotic fauna, including those which may predate marine turtle
nests at Abbot Beach;
the Terrestrial Management Plan must also include a waste component in order to
manage any waste generated during terrestrial activities that could enter the
GBRWHA (and contribute to increased marine debris); and
the shipping component of the Marine and Shipping Management Plan must
include a requirement to manage ship waste (and consequently marine debris).
9.195. In addition, as the Port of Abbot Point, including Abbot Beach, is largely
inaccessible to the public, it is not expected that vehicles on Abbot Beach or tourism
and recreational activities will increase in the area as a result of the T0 Project.
Tourism and recreational activities may increase in the Bowen Region as a result of the
T0 Project but it is expected that this increase will be minimal.
9.196. Considering the above and presuming compliance with the department’s
recommended approval conditions, the department is of the view that the proposed
action will not have an unacceptable impact on the Loggerhead, Olive Ridley, Green,
Leatherback, Hawksbill and Flatback Turtles.
Listed Threatened Sharks Species
Green Sawfish, Dindagubba, Narrowsnout Sawfish (Pristis zijsron) – Vulnerable
9.197. The Green Sawfish was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category
on 7 March 2008.
9.198. The Green Sawfish is a species of large ray from the family Pristidae. In
Australian waters, Green Sawfish have historically been recorded in the coastal waters
off Broome, Western Australia, around northern Australia and down the east coast as
far as Jervis Bay, NSW. Records indicate that the Green Sawfish occurred along the
east coast of Queensland and NSW prior to the 1960s, however, after this period there
have been no reports of this species south of Cairns. The Green Sawfish inhabits
muddy bottom habitats and enters estuaries.
9.199. There is currently no recovery plan available for this species or relevant threat
abatement plans.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 91 of 141
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.200. According to the Approved Conservation Advice for the Green Sawfish (TSSC,
2008b) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) threats to the Green Sawfish
include; bycatch; shark finning; and habitat degradation.
9.201. The EIS states that although there is suitable habitat in the area for this species,
it has not been observed south of Cairns since the 1960’s and therefore is unlikely to
occur at Abbot Point. The department agrees with this conclusion.
9.202. As this species does not appear to utilise the area, it is unlikely that the T0
Project will result in substantial direct impacts. The department considers that as the
most likely shipping route will be through Palm Passage and out towards the Coral
Basin, substantial indirect impacts relating to increased shipping are also unlikely to
occur.
Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) – Vulnerable
9.203. The Whale Shark was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category
on 16 October 2001.
9.204. In Australia, the Whale Shark is known from NSW, Queensland, Northern
Territory, Western Australia and occasionally Victoria and South Australia, but it is most
commonly seen in waters off northern Western Australia, Northern Territory and
Queensland. The Whale Shark is an oceanic and coastal, tropical to warm-temperate
pelagic shark. It is often seen far offshore, but also comes close inshore and
sometimes enters lagoons of coral atolls.
9.205. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this species or
relevant threat abatement plans.
Recovery Plan
9.206. The objective of the Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) Recovery Plan 2005-2010
(DEH, 2005d) (Whale Shark Recovery Plan) (provided for your consideration at
Annexure 1) is to maintain existing levels of protection for the whale shark in Australia
while working to increase the level of protection afforded to the whale shark within the
Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian region to enable population growth so that the
species can be removed from the threatened species list of the EPBC Act. The specific
recovery actions, identified in the Whale Shark Recovery Plan are as follows:
to increase the level of cooperation with other range states, particularly in the
Indian Ocean and Southeast Asian region to protect the Whale Shark, through
engagement in multilateral fora such as the Convention for Migratory Species; and
to monitor numbers of the Whale Shark visiting Australian waters.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.207. The Whale Shark Recovery Plan states that the main threat to the Whale Shark
is commercial harvest outside of Australia, however, potential future threats to Whale
Sharks visiting Australian waters include; predation; habitat disturbance, modification
and degradation; pollution and marine debris; climatic and ocean change; and
disturbance from tourism, research or interference.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 92 of 141
9.208. The EIS indicates that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and that no suitable habitat exists within the T0 Project area.
9.209. As this species does not appear to utilise the area, it is unlikely that the T0
Project will result in substantial direct impacts. However, indirect impacts may occur
through increased shipping.
Mitigation measures for listed threatened shark species
9.210. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in the EIS with
the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to listed threatened shark
species that have the potential to decrease potential impacts from the action, including:
A Marine Ecology management Subplan including:
a Shipping Management Plan that will be prepared prior to commencement
of operation to address and mitigate potential impacts from shipping
including those arising from physical impacts, pollution events, lighting and
introduced pests.
9.211. In addition to the above measures, the proponent has proposed a number of
monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not
all of these have an adaptive management function. For further information regarding
the mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer
Section 5 of the EIS).
Conclusion for listed threatened shark species
9.212. The above assessment drew upon information provided in the approved
Conservation Advice for the Green Sawfish (TSSC, 2008b) and the Whale Shark
(Rhincodon typus) Recovery Plan 2005-2010 (DEH, 2005d), which details threats to
the species’ survival and recovery actions; as well as other general and biological
information. Based on this assessment the department considers that above elements
of the proposed Marine Ecology Management Subplan provides a sufficient framework
for reducing any potential impacts on listed threatened shark species from, degradation
of habitat through increased noise pollution and introduced exotic species, provided
they include an adaptive management function.
9.213. As discussed above, it is recommended that conditions be attached to the
approval that requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Marine and Shipping
Management Plan that includes (but is not limited to) the measures discussed in the
Marine Ecology Management Subplan and noise generated from shipping activities.
This would enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and
mitigate potential negative impacts to listed threatened shark species.
9.214. The department considers that the proposed approval decision, and the
conditions attached to the proposed approval, are not inconsistent with the Whale
Shark Recovery Plan in that the T0 Project is unlikely to impact on cooperation
between Australia and other range states or hinder monitoring of Whale Sharks visiting
Australian waters. Therefore conditions relating to these matters is not considered
necessary.
9.215. The department also considers that the proposed approval decision, and the
conditions attached to the proposed approval, have had regard to the approved
conservation advice for the Green Sawfish (TSSC, 2008b).
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 93 of 141
9.216. Considering the above and presuming compliance with the department’s
recommended approval conditions, the department is of the view that the proposed
action will not have an unacceptable impact on the Green Sawfish and Whale Shark.
Listed Threatened Flora Species
9.217. The department considers that substantial potential direct and indirect impacts
from the proposed action to following species are unlikely. Consequently, impacts of
the proposed action on these species are considered to be acceptable without further
compensation. However as they have been identified as potentially occurring in the
area, a discussion is provided below.
Black Ironbox (Eucalyptus raveretiana) – Vulnerable
9.218. The Black Ironbox was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category
on 16 July 2000.
9.219. The species has a wide distribution in coastal and sub-coastal areas of
Queensland, from south of Townsville to Nebo, around Rockhampton and areas
100 km west of the city. Black Ironbox usually grows along watercourses, and
sometimes on river flats or open woodland. Altitudinal range is 0–300 m and the
climate of the area is sub-tropical with an annual rainfall of 650–1100 m. The species is
said to be highly salt tolerant. Black Ironbox does not occur in pure stands, but is co-
dominant with species such as Broad-leaved Teatree (Melaleuca leucadendra), M.
fluviatilis, Forest Red Gum (Eucalyptus tereticornis), Carbeen (Corymbia
tessellaris) (Queensland Regional Ecosystem 11.3.25a) and occasionally in Semi-
evergreen Vine Thicket.
9.220. There is currently no recovery plan available for this species or relevant threat
abatement plans.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.221. The approved conservation advice for Eucalyptus raveretiana (Black Ironbox)
(TSSC, 2008c) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) states that the main
identified threats to Black Ironbox are habitat disturbance and smothering by Rubber
Vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora). Other potential threats to the healthy regeneration of
Black Ironbox include increased fire frequency from fuel associated with weeds and
introduced grasses; and land management that increases stream bank erosion.
9.222. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and there is only one Wildnet database record within 25 km. It is also indicated
that there are no remnant ecosystems associated with this species present within the
T0 Project area.
Conclusion
9.223. As this species does not appear to be present in the area and there appears to
be no suitable habitat, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will result in direct or indirect
impacts. The department also considers that the proposed approval decision has had
regard to the approved conservation advice.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 94 of 141
Minute Orchid, Ribbon-root Orchid (Taeniophyllum muelleri) – Vulnerable
9.224. The Minute Orchid was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category
on 25 November 2003.
9.225. This species is distributed from Bellingen, NSW into Cape York, Queensland,
however, there appears to be relatively few records for this species. In Queensland, 26
populations are known ranging in size from a handful of individuals to several hundred
plants.
9.226. The preferred habitat of this species consists of rainforest and vine forest as well
as sheltered sites, directly adjacent to drainage lines in areas generally consisting of
alluvial soils. The Minute Orchid has been documented to co-occur with Araucaria
cunninghamii, Argyrodendron trifolium, Dissiliaria baloghioides, Brachychiton discolour,
Beilschmiedia obtusifolia, Diospyros pentamera, Grevillea robusta, Gmelina
leichhardtii, Ficus macrophylla and Callistemom salignus.
9.227. The conservation advice and recovery plan listed on the department’s SPRAT
website for this species, is for the Norfolk population which in 2006, was determined to
be a separate species (Taeniophyllum norfolkianum). Therefore, there is no approved
conservation advice or recovery plan available for this species. There are no relevant
threat abatement plans to this species.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.228. As the Minute Orchid relies on native species such as Araucaria cunninghamii
and Callistemon salignus, any species that may potentially have negative impacts upon
the host species will indirectly impact upon the Minute Orchid. Direct threats include
invasive weeds such as Panicum maximum, Lantana camara and Lantana
montevidensis. Other impacts may result from: alteration of light penetration; humidity;
and airflows within the micro-environment. In addition, any increased risk of fire is likely
to result in a decrease in the abundance of the species.
9.229. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and there are no database records. It also indicates that there is no suitable
habitat for this species in the T0 Project area.
Conclusion
9.230. As this species does not appear to utilise the area and there is no suitable
habitat, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will result in direct or indirect impacts.
Omphalea celata – Vulnerable
9.231. Omphalea celata was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable category
on 16 July 2000.
9.232. Omphalea celata is restricted to the central Queensland coast and is only known
from three sites. Locations include: Hazlewood Gorge, near Eungella; Gloucester
Island, near Bowen; and Cooper Creek in the Homevale Station area, north-west of
Nebo. Populations at all these sites are small with the largest population stated to be
several dozen mature individuals.
9.233. At Hazelwood Gorge plants grow in fragmented SEVT along a more or less
permanent watercourse on weathered metamorphics in a steep sided gorge at an
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 95 of 141
altitude of about 570 m. On Gloucester Island they grow in a rocky granitic gully near to
Araucarian microphyll vineforest.
9.234. There is currently no recovery plan available for this species or relevant threat
abatement plans.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.235. The approved conservation advice for Omphalea celata (DEH, 2008d) (provided
for your consideration at Annexure 1states that the main potential threats to Omphalea
celata include invasion by exotic weeds, such as Lantana (Lantana camara), and
damage to plants from a landslide at the Hazelwood Gorge population.
9.236. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and there are no Wildnet records. It is also indicated that there is no suitable
habitat for this species in the T0 Project area.
Conclusion
9.237. As this species does not appear to utilise the area and there is no suitable habitat
available, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will result in direct or indirect impacts. The
department also considers that the proposed approval decision has had regard to the
approved conservation advice.
Ozothamnus eriocephalus – Vulnerable
9.238. Ozothamnus eriocephalus was listed as a threatened species in the vulnerable
category on 16 July 2000.
9.239. This species is restricted to the central coast of Queensland, from the Bowen and
Mackay districts, with a distributional range of about 180 km. It is known from Mt
Abbott, Gloucester Island, Lake Elphinstone area, Clarke Range and near Sydney
Heads (Denham Range).
9.240. This species is known from a range of habitat types, including the margins of
disturbed notophyll vine forest, margins of gallery forest, microphyll vine forest, tall
open Eucalyptus andrewsii - E. resinifera forest with an understorey of Allocasuarina
littoralis, in open eucalypt forest and on rocky ridges with Eucalyptus spp. - Acacia spp.
scrub. It is also known from the edge of creek banks and in crevices on steep granite
slopes, often in sunny positions.
9.241. There is currently no recovery plan available for this species or relevant threat
abatement plans.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.242. According to the approved conservation advice for Ozothamnus eriocephalus
(DEH, 2008e) (provided for your consideration at Annexure 1), the main potential
threats are degradation of the habitat by weed species such as Lantana (Lantana
camara); inappropriate grazing and fire regimes and disturbance of habitat due to
timber harvesting.
9.243. The EIS states that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species and there are no Wildnet records. It is also indicated that there is no suitable
habitat for this species in the T0 Project area.
Conclusion
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 96 of 141
9.244. As this species does not appear to utilise the area and there is no suitable
habitat, it is unlikely that the T0 Project will result in direct or indirect impacts. The
department also considers that the proposed approval decision has had regard to the
approved conservation advice.
Listed Threatened Ecological Communities
Semi-evergreen Vine Thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions
– Endangered
9.245. Semi-evergreen Vine Thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and
Nandewar Bioregions was listed as a threatened ecological community in the
endangered category on 4 April 2001.
9.246. The term Semi-evergreen Vine Thicket (SEVT) is widely used in the scientific
literature when referring to the type of vegetation that comprises this ecological
community. In Queensland, SEVT remnants are often referred to as bottle tree scrub or
vine scrub.
9.247. The Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (north and south) and
Nandewar Bioregions threatened ecological community (SEVT TEC) is composed of
dry seasonal subtropical rainforest, and is also known as Bottle Tree scrub or vine
scrub. Data from 2005 indicated that almost 4000 remnant patches of the listed SEVT
TEC remained in Queensland at that time. Of these, 62% were 10 ha or less in size,
36% had areas of 10–100 ha and only 3% had areas > 100 ha.
9.248. The listed SEVT TEC has been extensively cleared over most of its range for
cropping, grazing and pasture in Queensland. In the northern parts of the Brigalow Belt
Bioregion, almost 70% of SEVT vegetation is thought to have been converted to
pasture. SEVTs occur naturally as discrete patches associated with other vegetation
types.
9.249. There is currently no approved conservation advice available for this ecological
community or relevant threat abatement plans.
Recovery Plan
9.250. The overall recovery objective of the National Recovery Plan for Semi-evergreen
Vine Thickets of the Brigalow Belt (north and south) and Nandewar Bioregions
Ecological Community (McDonald, 2010) (provided for your consideration at
Annexure 1) (SEVT Recovery Plan) is to maintain and conserve the environmental
values of the SEVT TEC over the long term, by minimising the loss of both remnant
and regrowth SEVT TEC and improving their condition and management. The specific
objectives, and a summary of their recovery actions, identified in the SEVT Recovery
Plan are as follows:
i. Identify and evaluate the extent, biodiversity value and condition of
remnant and regrowth areas of SEVT TEC in the Brigalow Belt (North and
South) and Nandewar Bioregions by:
o completing mapping of remnant SEVT TEC in NSW and refine
mapping of the Queensland SEVT remnants where necessary;
o evaluating methodologies for condition assessment in the SEVT
TEC and establish benchmark sites for each component regional
ecosystem;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 97 of 141
o determining the extent and condition of areas of SEVT TEC
affected by invasive plant species;
o surveying poorly known species;
o identifying key ecosystem components and processes and
determine their response to common management practices; and
o monitoring selected populations of the EPBC-listed species
Cadellia pentastylis, Cossinia Australiana, Denhamia parvifolia,
Macropus dorsalis, Paradelma orientalis, Turnix melanogaster and
Zieria verrucosa across the SEVT TEC.
ii. Establish a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of SEVT
TEC areas across the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar
Bioregions, protected either by reservation or conservation agreements
(including MOU’s) by:
o increasing the extent and representativeness of SEVT TEC within
the conservation estate; and
o encouraging landholders to enter into conservation agreements
over SEVT.
iii. Ensure ‘best-practice” management is applied to sites containing the
SEVT TEC by:
o liaising with landholders and other natural resource managers to
develop burning practices and other procedures to minimise fire
damage to remnant areas of SEVT TEC on private and public
lands;
o determining through exclosure trials the impact of grazing on
remnant areas of SEVT TEC and developing guidelines and
recommendations for fencing;
o developing and implementing a pest management program to
control feral animals in SEVT TEC remnants;
o developing strategies to minimise adverse impacts of native
macropods on remnant SEVT TEC;
o encouraging landholders through appropriate incentive programs
to protect and foster regrowth SEVT TEC and associated
vegetation;
o undertaking studies of the impact of invasive shade-tolerant
grasses and other ground stratum species; and
o researching and developing use of SEVT species for landscape
rehabilitation in areas SEVT TEC would naturally have occurred
prior to clearing.
iv. Encourage involvement of landholders and the community in the
conservation and management of the SEVT TEC by:
o establishing a SEVT Conservation Management Network;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 98 of 141
o undertaking consultation with traditional owner groups to
determine the level of indigenous knowledge of and association
with the SEVT TEC; and
o consulting with and involving traditional owners when conducting
works in SEVT TEC.
v. Enhance the ability of government and non-government organisations at
the national, regional and local levels (including consent authorities) to
recognise and incorporate SEVT TEC conservation issues into all
planning processes by:
o developing and implementing an educational program to increase
the awareness of government and non-government organisations
regarding SEVT TEC conservation.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
9.251. The SEVT Recovery Plan states that the high level of fragmentation, lack of
connectivity between fragments, continued clearing, inappropriate fire regimes,
invasion by introduced pasture species and increased grazing by domestic stock and
native animals are all considered to be main on-going threats to SEVT remnants.
9.252. The most serious of these threats to the community are fire and invasive plants.
While the recovery plan lists a number of invasive weed species, including parthenium,
it goes on to state, “[o]f these weed species, Rubber Vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora)
and Lantana (Lantana camera) are considered to pose a serious threat... Both species
can cause broad-scale displacement of native plants, while lantana promotes the
spread of fire into vine thickets”.
9.253. Current Queensland Government mapping indicates that the T0 Project area
contains approximately 28 ha of the listed SEVT in two sections on the coastal dune
ridges. The proponent has conducted on ground surveys in this area and confirms that
the SEVT occurs in these two sections however revised mapping reduces the extent to
approximately 20 ha.
9.254. The proponent has stated that no clearing of the SEVT will occur however,
potential indirect impacts include degradation of habitat through weed incursion, coal
dust deposition and decreased quality of water resources utilised by SEVT.
Mitigation measures for Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South)
and Nandewar Bioregions
9.255. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in the EIS with
the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts that have the potential to
degrade the existing SEVT habitat during the action, including:
A Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Management Subplan including:
a Threatened Species Pre-clearing Survey Plan to confirm the presence (or
absence) of listed flora species and ecological communities in order to
identify appropriate methods for management;
a Dust Management Plan to limit impacts from dust generated during the
construction phases and coal dust when operational, including a variety of
dust suppression techniques;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 99 of 141
an integrated Feral Animal and Weed Management Plan will be prepared in
association with the Port Authority for the construction and operational
phases of the T0 Project, including measures for a pre-construction weed
audit, a control/eradication plan for weeds that occur onsite, regular surveys
and inspections within the construction site and weed hygiene protocols from
any vehicles and machinery brought onsite;
A Water Management Subplan including:
a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed and
implemented prior to commencement of construction and will include
provisions for treatment, recycling and/or reuse and or discharge of flows
and measures for water quality monitoring. The SWMP will be reviewed and
updated as the project management system changes;
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be prepared for each construction
activity, prior to commencement of construction;
a Hazard and Risks Management Plan for construction and operation to
minimise risks of hazardous material entering the environment and providing
protocols in the case of a spill;
A Land Management Subplan including:
an Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) Management Plan including a site specific
investigation in areas that have been identified as ASS or potential ASS;
Contaminated Land control strategy including a site remediation plan to be
developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination;
A Waste Management Subplan including:
a Waste Management Plan to manage waste from construction and
operation of the project in such a way that any potential impacts to the
environment are minimised or avoided.
9.256. In addition to the above measures, the proponent has proposed a number of
monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not
all of these have an adaptive management function. For further information regarding
the mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer
Section 5 of the EIS).
9.257. The department considers that these proposed mitigation measures are not
inconsistent with the National Recovery Plan for Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the
Brigalow Belt (north and south) and Nandewar Bioregions Ecological Community
(McDonald, 2010).
Conclusion for Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and
Nandewar Bioregions
9.258. The above assessment drew upon information provided in the National Recovery
Plan for Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (north and south) and
Nandewar Bioregions Ecological Community (McDonald, 2010), which details threats
to the species’ survival and recovery actions; as well as other general and biological
information. Based on this assessment the department considers that the proposed
Terrestrial Flora and Fauna, Water, Land and Waste Management Subplans provide a
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 100 of 141
sufficient measures for reducing potential impacts on listed SEVT from smothering by
coal dust, degradation of habitat through decreased water quality and introduced exotic
species, provided they include monitoring and an adaptive management function.
9.259. It is recommended that conditions be attached to the approval that requires the
proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial Management Plan that includes (but
is not limited to) the measures discussed in the above management subplans. This
would enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and
mitigate potential negative impacts to listed SEVT.
9.260. Consistent with the proponent’s commitment in the EIS, it is also recommended
that a condition be attached to the approval of this proposed action that prohibits the
clearing of any SEVT over the life of the T0 Project. This will ensure that the extent of
potential impacts remain consistent with those assessed in this recommendation
report.
9.261. The department considers that the proposed approval decision, and the
conditions attached to the proposed approval, are not inconsistent with the National
Recovery Plan for Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (north and south)
and Nandewar Bioregions Ecological Community (McDonald, 2010) in the following
ways:
the Terrestrial Management Plan contains a pest management component to
ensure the management of exotic flora and fauna in the Abbot Point region;
the Terrestrial Management Plan also contains a requirement for fire management;
and
an Indigenous Consultation and Heritage Plan is required to ensure that all relevant
Indigenous people are consulted during the construction and operation of the T0
Project, including when any part of the action may impact on the SEVT.
9.262. Considering the above and presuming compliance with the department’s
recommended approval conditions, the department is of the view that the proposed
action will not have an unacceptable impact on the Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the
Brigalow Belt (north and south) and Nandewar Bioregions Ecological Community.
Conclusion for assessment of impacts on listed threatened species and communities
9.263. The department considers that provided the recommended conditions discussed
are implemented, there will not be an unacceptable impact on listed threatened species
and ecological communities.
9.264. The department also considers that while there will not be an unacceptable
impact, there are significant residual impacts on listed threatened marine turtle species,
in particular, the Green and Flatback Turtles from the proposed action. A discussion of
mechanisms required to offset these significant residual impacts is at Section 13.
10. Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)
10.1. The department’s ERT indicates that a total of 39 listed migratory species may
occur within a 10 kilometre radius of Abbot Point. In accordance with section 158A of
the EPBC Act, only species listed under the EPBC Act at the time of the controlled
action decision (13 December 2011) have been considered in this recommendation
report.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 101 of 141
10.2. The EIS has provided an indication of the known or likely occurrence for
migratory species in the Abbot Point region as tabled below including if the species has
been detected in the Abbot Point region during any surveys.
Table 1. Migratory Shorebirds (presence as indicated in Table 3-66 of the EIS)
Species name Detected at Abbot
Point Likelihood of Occurrence
Greater Sandplover (Charadrius leschenaultia) Yes Occurs
Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa) Yes Occurs
Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus) Yes Occurs
Pacific Golden Plover (Pulvialis fulva) Yes Occurs
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (Calidris acuminate) Yes Occurs
Red-necked Stint (Calidris ruficollis) Yes Occurs
Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia) Yes Occurs
Marsh Sandpiper (Tringa stagnatilis) Yes Occurs
Wandering Tattler (Tringa incana) Yes Occurs
Little Curlew (Numenius minutus) Yes Occurs
Latham's Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) Yes Occurs
Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) Yes Occurs
Common Sandpiper (Acititis hypoleucos)1 No Potential
Red Knot (Calidris canutus) No Potential
Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) No Potential
Great Knot (Calidris tenuirostris) No Potential
Lesser Sand Plover (Charadrius mongolus) No Potential
Broad-billed Sandpiper (Limicola falcinellus) No Potential
Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica) No Potential
Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola) No Potential
Grey-tailed Tattler (Tringa brevipes) No Potential
Terek Sandpiper (Xenus cinereus) No Potential
Sanderling (Calidris alba) No Unlikely
Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) No Potential
Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola) No Potential
Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres) No Potential 1 Other sections of the EIS and the CIA Report state that this species occurs in the area.
Table 2. Other Migratory Birds (presence as indicated in the EIS)
Species Name Detected at
Abbot Point Likelihood of Occurrence
White-Bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leuccogaster) Yes Occurs
Eastern Osprey (Pandion cristatus) Yes Occurs
Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis) Yes Occurs
Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta) Yes Occurs
Eastern Reef Egret (Egretta sacra) Yes Occurs
Glossy Ibis (Piegadis faicinellus) Yes Occurs
Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia) Yes Occurs
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 102 of 141
Lesser Crested Tern (Thalasseus bengalensis) Yes Occurs
Crested Tern (Thalasseus bergii) Yes Occurs
Rainbow Bee-Eater (Merops ornatus) Yes Occurs
Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons) Yes Occurs
Australian Reed Warbler (Acrocephalus australis) Yes Occurs
Little Tern (Sternula albifrons) Yes Occurs
Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis) Yes Occurs
Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus) Yes Occurs
White-throated Needletail (Hirundapus caudacutus) No Likely
Masked Booby (Sula dactylatra) No Unlikely
Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster) No Unlikely
Common Tern (Sterna hirundo) No Potential
Bridled Tern (Onychoprion anaethetus) No Unlikely
Black-naped Tern (Sterna sumatrana) No Unlikely
Oriental Cuckoo (Cuculus optatus) No Potential
Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha melanopsis) No Potential
Spectacled Monarch (Symposiarchus trivirgatus) No Potential
Table 3. Migratory Marine Species (presence as indicated in EIS)
Species Name Detected at
Abbot Point Likelihood of Occurrence
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus) No Unlikely
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaengliae) Yes Occurs
Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) Yes Occurs
Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Yes Occurs
Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) Yes Occurs
Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus) Yes Occurs
Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) No Low
Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) No Low
Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) No Low
Dugong (Dugong dugon) Yes Occurs
Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni) Yes Occurs
Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis) Yes Occurs
Killer Whale (Orcunus orca) No Unlikely
Saltwater Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) No Potential
Porbeagle Mackerel Shark (Lamna nasus) No Unlikely
Bryde’s Whale (Balaentoptera edeni) No Unlikely
10.3. The EIS has not addressed two listed migratory species in the department’s ERT
report (Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica) and Satin Flycatcher (Myiagra cyanoleuca)).
However, the CIA report (ELA and Openlines, 2013) does address the presence of
these two species and indicates that the Barn Swallow has the potential to occur and
the Satin Flycatcher is known to occur. The EIS also addresses a further 29 listed
migratory species not listed in the department’s ERT report.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 103 of 141
10.4. A comparison of the likelihood of occurrence of each migratory species between
the EIS and the CIA report illustrates a number of discrepancies. A number of species
listed in the EIS as potentially occurring have been confirmed as known to occur in the
CIA Report (ELA and Openlines, 2013). These species include;
Oriental Cuckoo;
Black-faced Monarch;
Common Tern;
Common Sandpiper; and,
Grey-tailed Tattler.
10.5. A further two species, the Oriental Plover (Charadrius veredus) and White-
winged Black Tern (Chlidonias leucopterus) were not mentioned in Table 3-66 of the
EIS but stated in the CIA Report (ELA and Openlines, 2013) as known to occur.
10.6. A further species, the Spectacled Monarch, was included in the CIA Report (ELA
and Openlines, 2013) as unlikely to occur whereas the EIS states that it has the
potential to occur.
10.7. These discrepancies are mentioned as the CIA Report (ELA and Openlines,
2013) and EIS conclusions are based on the same data. The department has
considered that any species stated as known to occur, regardless of inconsistencies,
occurs at Abbot Point.
Caley (Kaili) Valley Wetlands
10.8. The CVW is a large coastal wetland system located on the central Queensland
coast approximately 21 km northwest of Bowen and approximately 700 m west of the
T0 Project area. The CVW covers an area of approximately 5,154 ha on a low-lying
coastal plain comprising estuarine and brackish/freshwater habitat. The CVW
catchment includes Saltwater, Six Mile, Main and Mount Stuart Creeks. The western
section of the CVW includes mangrove communities and intertidal/subtidal salt flats
and the eastern section comprises an extensive seasonal freshwater to brackish area.
The two sections are separated by a causeway which restricts movement of water
between the eastern section and Abbot Bay.
10.9. Vegetation in the CVW varies seasonally. During the wet season, the eastern
section is composed of submerged and emergent sedgeland, creating a patchwork of
open water and vegetated areas providing suitable habitat for a variety of wetland
birds.
10.10. In the wet season, the CVW can be 18 km long and 6 km wide (GHD, 2009).
Fresh water is provided by local runoff from the Salisbury Plain and the slopes of
Mount Roundback and Mount Little. Spring, Table Top, Main and Mount Stuart creeks
drain into Curlewis Bay to the northeast, while Six Mile, Goodbye and Saltwater creeks
drain into the main body of the CVW. Saltwater Creek is also connected to the up-
gradient Euri Creek and Don River systems during flood events. During the wet season
there tends to be a reversible movement of fresh and brackish waters westwards from
the CVW and into Curlewis Bay.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 104 of 141
10.11. During the dry season tidal movements tend to dominate the system (GHD,
2009). With very limited inflow, much of the Wetlands dries and loses vegetative cover.
Under dry conditions the wetted section of the Wetlands can contract to the area
known as Lake Kaili, in the centre of the Wetlands, which provides one of the few
permanent non-tidal waterbodies in the area.
Listed Migratory Birds
10.12. The CVW is known to be a part of the East Asian Australasia Flyway. There are
approximately 60 species of migratory wetland species which use the East Asian-
Australasian Flyway. It is one of eight major flyways in the world. The East Asian
Australasia Flyway Site Network covers 31 sites across 10 signatory countries
(DSEWPaC, 2009).
Shorebirds
10.13. The proponent has provided an assessment against the criteria for important
habitat for migratory shorebirds as described in the draft EPBC Policy Statement 3.2.1
Significant Impact guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species (noting that you are not
considering the significance of the impact but whether the impact is acceptable). These
guidelines state that important habitat for migratory shorebirds (excluding Lathams
Snipe) includes sites that support;
at least 0.1% of the estimated flyway population of a single species;
at least 2000 individual migratory shorebirds; and/or
at least 15 migratory shorebird species.
10.14. Lathams Snipe has different habitat requirements and behaviours to the other
species and does not aggregate in large numbers. Habitat is considered to support an
important population if at least 18 individuals have been observed and the site is a
naturally occurring open freshwater wetland with vegetation cover nearby.
10.15. Based on the surveys undertaken by BAAM (2012) and previous studies, BAAM
concluded that the CVW meets the requirements to consider the wetland as important
habitat for migratory shorebirds.
10.16. In 2012, the CVW supported >0.1% of the flyaway population of the following
three species of migratory shorebird:
Red-necked Stint;
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper; and
Australian Painted Snipe.
10.17. The CVW was also estimated to support approximately 54 individuals of Lathams
Snipe (from a direct count of 29 in February 2012).
10.18. In addition, the CVW and adjoining coast line is known to support 16 migratory
shorebirds. Therefore, the CVW qualifies for three of the four criteria (noting only one
criteria is needed to be met) to classify it as important habitat for migratory shorebirds.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 105 of 141
10.19. The main identified threats to migratory shorebirds as defined in the Background
Paper to the Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (AGDEH 2005)
include:
Loss of habitat - One of the many complexities of the life cycle of a migratory
shorebird is its tendency for site fidelity, generally returning to the same sites
year after year. Habitat of a certain type (eg. coastal mudflats at the mouth of
a river) and location, although apparently suitable habitat for shorebirds, may
not be visited by shorebirds in significant numbers, or at all. Appropriate
management of specific sites which support significant numbers of migratory
shorebirds is, therefore, more important than defining habitat type. However,
as our knowledge of migratory shorebirds and their habitat is incomplete,
particularly for those species of migratory shorebirds that do not aggregate
or are widely dispersed, there is a case for some level of protection for
potential habitat;
Modification and degradation of habitat - Migratory shorebirds are
particularly vulnerable to modification of habitat. Their ability to complete
long flights depends on the availability of suitable habitat at sites across the
Flyway and the capacity of those habitats to provide adequate food and
resting opportunities (roosts), so that birds can build enough energy reserves
to sustain their annual migration;
Disturbance of shorebirds - Disturbance of migratory shorebirds may occur
as a result of many activities, such as industrial operations and construction,
recreational fishing, four wheel driving on beaches, unleashed dogs and jet
skiing. Migratory shorebirds are most susceptible to disturbance during
daytime roosting and foraging periods. Research suggests that the energetic
costs of disturbance of shorebirds can be quite high and may compromise
their capacity to build enough energy reserves to undertake their migration;
and
Introduced species - Many wetlands across Australia have been adversely
affected by the introduction of plant species such as water hyacinth
Eichhornia crassipes, Ludwigia peruviana, Salvinia sp. and Mimosa pigra.
These plants can lead to long-term changes of the nature and biodiversity of
the wetlands; in turn, this has had significant effects on the use of these
wetlands by shorebirds and other species. Introduced animals such as pigs,
cane toads and European carp are also well known for their destructive
impacts on wetland areas. Of particular concern for migratory shorebirds is
the introduction of exotic marine pests which may result in loss of benthic
food sources at important intertidal migratory shorebird habitat.
10.20. The T0 Project is likely to result in impacts on migratory shorebirds from
modifying/degrading wetland habitat and increasing the likelihood of introduced
species. Modification of habitat can arise from a range of different activities. Such
activities may result in increased silt in the water, pollution (including coal dust), weed
and pest invasion, all of which can change the ecological character of the site,
potentially leading to deterioration of the quantity and quality of food and other
resources available to support migratory shorebirds. In addition, catchment run-off
carries nutrients, sediments and pollutants into waterways and eventually wetlands.
Excess nutrients cause eutrophication, a process where water bodies receive excess
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 106 of 141
nutrients that stimulate excessive plant growth, resulting in changes to the biological
and chemical processes within wetlands.
10.21. The T0 Project is also likely to increase disturbance to migratory shorebirds
through increased noise and lighting, including cumulatively in combination with other
terminal projects at Abbot Point. The EIS states that the operation of the coal terminal
will occur 24 hours a day 7 days a week, indicating that these impacts will be
continuous.
Other Migratory Birds
10.22. Surveys in the Abbot Point region have determined that the CVW meets one
criterion for recognition as important habitat for at least two migratory bird species:
Caspian Tern; and
Eastern Great Egret.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 107 of 141
Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia)
10.23. The largest tern in Australia, the Caspian Tern has long, slender backswept
wings and a slightly forked tail. This species is gregarious when breeding, though
single nesting does occur. Outside of breeding, the Caspian Tern occurs mostly singly
or in small groups. Occasional larger groups of 30 or more birds are seen, often at rich
fishing areas or at nightly roost sites, where they may roost with other terns. The
species may also aggregate into flocks on passage (migration).
10.24. Within Australia, the Caspian Tern has a widespread occurrence and can be
found in both coastal and inland habitat. The Caspian Tern is mostly found in sheltered
coastal embayments (harbours, lagoons, inlets, bays, estuaries and river
deltas) and those with sandy or muddy margins are preferred. They also occur on near-
coastal or inland terrestrial wetlands that are either fresh or saline, especially lakes
(including ephemeral lakes), waterholes, reservoirs, rivers and creeks. They also use
artificial wetlands, including reservoirs, sewage ponds and saltworks.
10.25. The age of first breeding is four years old or occasionally three years old.
Caspian Terns return to their natal areas to breed. The species breeds between
September–December in the southern hemisphere, though timing varies in different
areas. In Australia, the Caspian Tern is a resident and present throughout the year at
sites where breeding occurs year round and also at some sites where breeding is
protracted.
Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta)
10.26. The Eastern Great Egret is a moderately large bird (83–103 cm in length, 700–
1200 g in weight) with white plumage, a black or yellow bill and long reddish and black
legs. Eastern Great Egrets often occur singly, or in small groups when feeding. They
roost in large flocks that may consist of hundreds of birds. The species usually nest in
colonies and rarely in solitary pairs.
10.27. Eastern Great Egrets are widespread in Australia. They occur in all
states/territories of mainland Australia and in Tasmania. They have also been recorded
as vagrants on Lord Howe, Norfolk and Macquarie Islands. The global population size
of the Eastern Great Egret is estimated at approximately 60 000 to 300 000 individuals.
A preliminary population estimate of 60 000 individuals was derived from data on
breeding colonies and supports the current published population estimate of 25 000 to
100 000 individuals.
10.28. The overall population trends of the Eastern Great Egret in Australia are not well
understood. This is due, at least in part, to the difficulty associated with assessing
trends for a species that occupies individual sites erratically, and often in highly
variable numbers, across a wide geographic area. Overall, the Australian population is
considered to fluctuate in size, in recognition of the highly variable availability of
suitable wetland habitat. The Eastern Great Egret has been reported in a wide range of
wetland habitats (for example inland and coastal, freshwater and saline, permanent
and ephemeral, open and vegetated, large and small, natural and artificial).
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 108 of 141
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
10.29. The Caspian Tern is more vulnerable to threats when it is younger. Once it
reaches adulthood, birds may live for a considerable time. The species is at risk from a
range of threats including:
habitat loss or degradation through the introduction of exotic plant species;
human disturbance and trampling by cattle at breeding sites. This
disturbance causes terns to rise from their nest, leaving eggs and small
chicks exposed to predation by gulls. Human visitation has been observed to
have a negative impact on a breeding population in the GBR, Queensland;
exposure to and bioaccumulation of contaminants in fish could be lowering
the species' reproductive success; and
Newcastle disease and avian botulism, especially at local high density
populations.
10.30. In Australia, the Eastern Great Egret is threatened by loss and/or degradation of
foraging and especially breeding habitat through alteration of water flows, drainage
and/or clearing of wetlands for development, frequent burning of wetland vegetation
used as nest sites, salinisation and invasion by exotic plants or fishes.
10.31. The T0 Project footprint is located adjacent (rail loop only) and to the east of the
CVW with the existing terminal in between. The majority of works are located
approximately 700 m east of the wetland with only the rail loops adjacent however, the
rail loops are proposed to be contained within the existing rail loop corridor. Therefore,
it is not anticipated that the T0 Project will result in any direct removal of wetland
habitat for these two species.
10.32. The T0 Project is likely to impact on these species through increased noise and
lighting, resulting in disturbance to resident populations and consequently reduced
fitness. Indirect impacts on wetland habitat are likely through a potential increase in
pest and weed species as well as decreased water quality in the CVW as a result of
runoff and smothering of habitat from coal dust.
10.33. The T0 Project could also contribute to decreased water quality through
controlled and uncontrolled releases of water from the existing sediment ponds into the
CVW and marine environment. These sediment ponds will hold runoff from the T0
Project which will contain coal particles and sediment, and potentially hazardous
material and pollutants.
Mitigation Measures for listed migratory birds
10.34. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in the EIS with
the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to listed migratory bird species
that have the potential to be impacted during the action, including:
A Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Management Subplan including:
a Threatened Species Pre-clearing Survey Plan to confirm the presence (or
absence) of listed threatened and migratory species in order to identify
appropriate methods for management;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 109 of 141
a Dust Management Plan to limit impacts from dust generated during the
construction phases and coal dust when operational, including a variety of
dust suppression techniques;
an Illumination Plan that will be developed describing each light source in
terms of its purpose, location, footprint, intensity and spectral composition
and document steps to avoid, mitigate and manage the impacts of each
source. For example through minimisation of lighting within the
development, minimising long wavelength lights and installing timers and
motion detectors where possible;
an integrated Feral Animal and Weed Management Plan will be prepared in
association with the Port Authority for the construction and operational
phases of the T0 Project, including a control/eradication plan for pests that
may potentially occur on the site and identification of treatment methods and
techniques;
A Water Management Subplan including:
a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed and
implemented prior to commencement of construction and will include
provisions for treatment, recycling and/or reuse and or discharge of flows
and measures for water quality monitoring. The SWMP will be reviewed and
updated as the project management system changes;
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be prepared for each construction
activity, prior to commencement of construction;
a Hazard and Risks Management Plan for construction and operation to
minimise risks of hazardous material entering the environment and providing
protocols in the case of a spill;
A Noise and Vibration Management Subplan including:
Land based noise control strategy to limit the level of noise travelling to the
surrounding environment through equipment modifications and minimising
use of equipment;
A Land Management Subplan including:
an Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) Management Plan including a site specific
investigation in areas that have been identified as ASS or potential ASS;
Contaminated Land control strategy including a site remediation plan to be
developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination; and
A Waste Management Subplan including:
a Waste Management Plan to manage waste from construction and
operation of the project in such a way that any potential impacts to the
environment are minimised or avoided.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 110 of 141
10.35. In addition to the above measures, the proponent has proposed a number of
monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not
all of these have an adaptive management function. For further information regarding
the mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer
Section 5 of the EIS).
Conclusion for listed migratory birds
10.36. The department considers that the above elements of the proposed Terrestrial
Flora and Fauna, Water, Land, Noise and Vibration, and Waste Management Subplans
provide a sufficient framework for reducing any potential impacts on listed migratory
bird species from degradation of habitat from decreased water quality associated with
discharges from sediment pond and surface water runoff, smothering of habitat by coal
dust, increased noise and light pollution and introduced exotic species, provided they
include an adaptive management function.
10.37. It is recommended that conditions be attached to the approval that requires the
proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial Management Plan that includes (but
is not limited to) the measures discussed in the above management subplans. This
would enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and
mitigate potential negative impacts to listed migratory bird species.
10.38. Whilst acknowledging that listed migratory bird species are likely to be impacted
by the proposed action, the department is of the view that, provided the mitigation
measures are implemented and conditions adhered to, long-term impacts to EPBC Act
listed migratory bird species discussed above will not be unacceptable.
10.39. The department considers that the proposed approval decision, and the
recommended conditions, are not inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under the
Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention), the Japan-Australia
Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement
(CAMBA) or the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA)
Listed Migratory Marine Species
10.40. A number of migratory marine species listed in Table 3 are also listed threatened
species, namely the Blue Whale, Humpback Whale, Loggerhead Turtle, Green Turtle,
Hawksbill Turtle, Flatback Turtle, Leatherback Turtle, Olive Ridley Turtle and Whale
Shark. The impacts of the proposed action on those species have been addressed in
section 10. The remaining 7 species are addressed below. All information is taken from
SPRAT unless stated otherwise.
Bryde’s Whale (Balaenoptera edeni)
10.41. Bryde's Whales are found year-round in waters between 40° S and 40° N,
primarily in temperatures exceeding 16.3 °C. The coastal form of Bryde's Whale
appears to be limited to 200 m water depth, moving along the coast in response to
availability of suitable prey, whilst the offshore form is found in deeper water (500 m to
1000 m). Insufficient information exists as to how Australian Bryde's Whales use their
habitat, as no specific feeding or breeding grounds have been discovered off Australia.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 111 of 141
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
10.42. The threats to the Bryde’s Whale mainly include, pollution, including increasing
amounts of plastic debris at sea, oil spills, bio-accumulation of toxic substances in body
tissues of marine mammals and collisions with large vessels.
10.43. The EIS indicates that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species.
10.44. The department considers that there is suitable habitat within the Abbot Point
region however, as this species does not appear to utilise the area, substantial direct
impacts are considered unlikely. There is however, the potential for the species to be
indirectly impacted through increased shipping.
Salt-water Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus)
10.45. The Salt-water Crocodile is found in Australian coastal waters, estuaries,
freshwater sections of lakes, inland swamps and marshes. In Queensland the Salt-
water Crocodile inhabits reef, coastal and inland waterways from Gladstone, to and
throughout the Cape York Peninsula and west to the Queensland-Northern Territory
border. In Queensland the species is usually restricted to coastal waterways and
floodplain wetlands. Preferred nesting habitat for the Salt-water Crocodile includes
elevated isolated freshwater swamps that do not have the influence of tidal
movements.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
10.46. In Australia, threats to the Salt-water Crocodile include incidental mortality from
fishing nets and habitat destruction.
10.47. The EIS indicates that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species. However, tracks potentially identified as that of Saltwater Crocodile have been
anecdotally recorded along Saltwater Creek near the T0 Project area. The most
suitable habitat is in estuarine habitat located in the western areas of the CVW, as well
as seasonally along Saltwater Creek.
10.48. Substantial direct impacts through habitat removal and mortality are considered
unlikely however potential indirect impacts include degradation of habitat through
decreased water quality and introduced species.
Dugong (Dugong dugon)
10.49. A significant proportion of the world's Dugongs are found in north Australian
waters from Shark Bay, Western Australia, in the west, to Moreton Bay, Queensland, in
the east, with an estimated 14,000 individuals populating the GBRWHA. The Dugong
feeds on seagrass, foraging in shallow coastal habitat were they aggregate to feed.
Foraging habitat is normally found in shallow protected bays, mangrove channels and
in the lee of large inshore islands.
10.50. Dugongs are long-lived with a low reproductive rate, long generation time, and a
high investment in each offspring. The availability of seagrass is one factor in
reproduction; when there is not enough to eat, Dugongs delay breeding.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 112 of 141
10.51. The Port of Abbot Point is located between two Dugong Protection Areas
(DPAs), one being in Upstart Bay approximately 50 km to the north west of Abbot Point
and the other encompassing most of Edgecumbe Bay approximately 13 km south of
Abbot Point.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
10.52. Threats to this species include; incidental catch, habitat loss and degradation,
boat strike and boating activities, acoustic pollution and disease and parasites.
10.53. The Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate
Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009) and the Background Document for the Threat Abatement
Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009a) (all
provided for your consideration at Annexure 1) states that impacts on the species from
marine debris can occur from entanglement; ingestion; and, social, economic and
aesthetic impacts on marine habitat and environments.
10.54. The EIS states that this species has been detected in the Abbot Point Region
during marine surveys. It is also stated that only low value foraging habitat is present in
the area.
10.55. While the waters off of Abbot Point have not been identified as important habitat
for Dugong they are likely to provide an important thoroughfare between the two
nearby Dugong Protection Areas (DPA). The coastal waters near Abbot Point contain
large seagrass beds which are likely to be important in supporting the movement of
Dugong between the established DPAs.
10.56. For a comprehensive discussion on impacts to seagrass, refer to section 8 of this
report.
10.57. Decline in seagrass beds in Queensland, associated with extended periods of
flooding resulting in increased sediment loads, have demonstrated the importance of
maintaining foraging habitat for Dugong. In areas where these declines have been
observed increases in Dugong mortality have also increased (QLD & DSEWPaC,
2011).
10.58. Maitland et al. (2007) noted that the risk of boat strike to dugongs occurred in
shallow waters from high speed vessels; reduction in vessel speed and increased
water depth significantly reduces the potential for boat strike on dugong. The T0
Project will result in an increase of vessel movements during construction and
operation which will increase the risk of boat strike to Dugongs. Construction activities
will increase acoustic pollution potentially resulting in negative behavioural and
physiological changes and increased shipping will increase the risk of introduction of
disease and parasites through ballast water and biofouling.
10.59. Construction of the jetty including piling activities has the potential to impact
Dugongs through direct contact and noise/vibration disturbance, potentially causing
negative behavioural and physiological changes.
10.60. Construction of the onshore components of the proposed action is likely to
decrease water quality in an area utilised by the Dugong, through potential increased
runoff of sediments, acid sulphate soil, contaminated soil, coal dust, stormwater and
pollutants such as chemicals and waste.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 113 of 141
Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsoni)
10.61. Records indicate that Australian Snubfin Dolphins occur only in waters off the
northern half of Australia. All available data on the distribution and habitat preferences
of Australian Snubfin Dolphins indicate that they mainly occur in one location: shallow
coastal and estuarine waters of Queensland, Northern Territory and north Western
Australia. There appear to be 'hotspots' of higher Australian Snubfin Dolphin densities
along the Queensland coast and preliminary data suggest that they occur in small,
localised populations.
10.62. The only reliable local estimate of population size of Australian Snubfin Dolphins
is for Cleveland Bay, north-east Queensland, where a population of less than 100
individuals inhabits the area. The information available for Cleveland Bay indicates that
Australian Snubfin Dolphins are not permanent residents in the Bay, but use the area
regularly from year to year following a model of emigration and re-immigration.
10.63. Based on the low numbers of Australian Snubfin Dolphins sighted during aerial
and boat based surveys of the east coast of Queensland the population at a regional
level (Queensland) is likely to be in the thousands rather than tens of thousands.
Considering the length of coastline and area of suitable shallow habitat and the
apparent occurrence of Snubfin Dolphins in small localised groups, it is likely that
mature Australian Snubfin Dolphins do not number more than 10 000 individuals.
Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinesis)
10.64. The distribution of Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins in Australia is linked to the
warm eastern boundary current. Known localities in Queensland include the Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park; Moreton Bay; the lower reaches of the Brisbane River, and
adjacent offshore waters. The total population size of the Indo-Pacific Humpback
Dolphin in Australian waters is unknown. Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins inhabit
shallow coastal, estuarine, and occasionally riverine habitats, in tropical and subtropical
regions. The species usually occurs close to the coast, generally in depths of less than
20 m, but they have been seen 55 km offshore in shallow water.
10.65. Populations at various locations along the Queensland coast have been
surveyed, and some regional population estimates made. Preliminary results for
Cleveland Bay, in the Central Section of the Great Barrier Reef, suggest a population
less than 200 animals, however, regional population levels (e.g. Queensland) are likely
to be in the order of thousands rather than tens of thousands. The Indo-Pacific
Humpback Dolphin is known to occur within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as well
as the Queensland Marine Protected Area and is regarded as a species of priority for
management and research by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts to Australian Snubfin Dolphin and Indo-Pacific Humpback
Dolphin
10.66. The current threats to Australian Snubfin Dolphin and Indo-Pacific Humpback
Dolphin include:
habitat degradation and loss - is primarily a concern along the Queensland
coast with its high level of development and related activities; and
interaction with vessels - the coastal near-shore distribution of both dolphin
species leads to the high probability of interactions with vessels. Australian
Snubfin Dolphins can be expected to exhibit vessel avoidance behaviour,
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 114 of 141
potentially negatively affecting their extent of occupancy and life history, as
per other nearshore dolphins. Additionally, the frequencies of whistles
produced by both dolphin species are likely to fall within the range often
emanating from boat traffic, suggesting that noise pollution may a problem for
these species.
10.67. The calving interval of Australian Snubfin Dolphins is unknown, however, as per
most Delphinidae, it is expected to be approximately one calf born every two to three
years. This low reproductive rate could result in a slow population recovery from any
threatening processes.
10.68. The EIS states that these two dolphin species have been detected in the Abbot
Point Region during marine surveys. It is also stated that there is suitable habitat for
both species in the Abbot Point region.
10.69. The EIS indicates that during a year long period, nine two day marine surveys
were undertaken. During this time a total of 20 sightings were made of the Australian
Snubfin Dolphin within three surveys and a total of 112 sightings were made of the
Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin within seven of the nine surveys.
10.70. The EIS states that there is the potential for the area to support relatively small
populations of each species and given the variability of sightings it is unclear whether
the small number of individuals recorded are transient or resident or as to the viability
of a potential local populations.
10.71. Advice from the Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division states that both of these
dolphin species have small discreet populations which show high site fidelity and that
the numbers sighted in the Abbot Point area should not be considered small as is
concluded in the EIS.
10.72. Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division have also advised that although the Abbot
Point area is known to be utilised by these two species, the importance of this area for
these species is uncertain in the absence of baseline surveys (the EIS only provided
information for presence/absence surveying). However, having regard to the surveys
undertaken, it is apparent that the Australian Snubfin Dolphin and Indo-pacific
Humpback Dolphin regularly utilise the Abbot Point area and due to these species
showing high site fidelity, the department considers for the purpose of this assessment
that you should consider Abbot Point important habitat for these two dolphin species.
10.73. The T0 Project will result in an increase of vessel movements during construction
and operation which will increase the risk of boat strike to both dolphin species.
Construction activities will increase acoustic pollution potentially resulting in
behavioural and physiological damage and increased shipping will increase the risk of
introduction of disease and parasites through ballast water and biofouling.
10.74. Increased boating activity during construction and shipping activity during
operation is likely to increase the incidence of boat strikes on both dolphin species.
10.75. Construction of the jetty including undertaking piling has the potential to impact
these two species through direct contact and noise/vibration disturbance, potentially
causing negative behavioural and physiological changes.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 115 of 141
10.76. Construction of the onshore components of the proposed action is likely to
decrease water quality in an area utilised by listed migratory dolphin species, through
potential increased runoff of sediments, acid sulphate soil, contaminated soil, coal dust,
stormwater and pollutants such as chemicals and waste.
Killer Whale (Orcinus orca)
10.77. The preferred habitat of Killer Whales includes oceanic, pelagic and neritic
(relatively shallow waters over the continental shelf) regions, in both warm and cold
waters. They may be more common in cold, deep waters, but off Australia, Killer
Whales are most often seen along the continental slope and on the shelf, particularly
near seal colonies. The habitat of Killer Whales is difficult to categorise due to the
cosmopolitan nature of the species and its ability to inhabit all oceans. This may lead to
individuals/groups experiencing, and utilising, a large variety of habitats.
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
10.78. Threats to Killer Whales include pollution, targeted hunting and illegal killing, and
interactions with fisheries, including the potential for incidental capture.
10.79. The EIS indicates that surveys in the Abbot Point region have failed to detect this
species. Habitat in the Abbot Point region does not appear to be suitable for this
species.
10.80. As this species does not appear to utilise the area, substantial direct impacts are
considered unlikely, however if present, there is the potential for the species to be
indirectly impacted through increased shipping through boat strike and noise pollution.
Porbeagle Mackerel Shark (Lamna nasus)
10.81. The Porbeagle is a wide-ranging shark inhabiting the subtropical and temperate
waters of the North Atlantic and Southern Hemisphere. In Australia, it occurs from
southern Queensland to south-west Australia, typically in oceanic waters on the
continental shelf, although it is occasionally found in coastal waters. The Porbeagle is
known to use the water column to depths of at least 1360 metres. The species
undertakes extensive seasonal migrations. In the North Atlantic, mature females have
migrated to nursery areas in subtropical waters. Little data exists for Southern
Hemisphere populations, although they are thought to give birth off New Zealand and
Australia in winter. Porbeagles are also known to segregate populations by size and
sex. They feed mainly on teleost fish and squid (DSEWPaC, 2012).
Threats and Assessment of Impacts
10.82. The life history characteristics of sharks make them vulnerable to a range of
pressures in the marine environment. In general, sharks show slow growth, late
attainment of sexual maturity and low fecundity. The main threats to this species are
changes in sea temperature, ocean acidification and impacts from shipping
(DSEWPaC, 2012).
10.83. The CIA Report states that the Porbeagle Mackerel Shark has not been recorded
during any surveys in the Abbot Point region. The EIS states that there is no preferred
habitat for this species in the T0 Project area as this is species is typically found in
cooler pelagic waters to the south of the region.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 116 of 141
10.84. As this species does not appear to utilise the area, substantial direct impacts are
considered unlikely, however there is the potential for the species to be indirectly
impacted through increased shipping through boat strike and noise pollution.
Mitigation Measures for listed migratory marine species
10.85. The proponent has proposed a number of mitigation measures in the EIS with
the aim of avoiding, mitigating and managing impacts to listed migratory marine
species that have the potential to be impacted during the action, including:
A Terrestrial Fauna and Flora Management Subplan including:
a Dust Management Plan to limit impacts from dust generated during the
construction phases and coal dust when operational, including a variety of
dust suppression techniques;
A Water Management Subplan including:
a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) will be developed and
implemented prior to commencement of construction and will include
provisions for treatment, recycling and/or reuse and or discharge of flows
and measures for water quality monitoring. The SWMP will be reviewed and
updated as the project management system changes;
Erosion and Sediment Control Plans will be prepared for each construction
activity, prior to commencement of construction;
a Hazard and Risks Management Plan for construction and operation to
minimise risks of hazardous material entering the environment and providing
protocols in the case of a spill;
A Noise and Vibration Management Subplan including:
a Marine Based control strategies including marine fauna exclusion zones,
gradual or soft start procedures, adequate spacing of pile driving plants to
minimise cumulative impacts and adaptive management techniques;
A Land Management Subplan including:
an Acid Sulphate Soil (ASS) Management Plan including a site specific
investigation in areas that have been identified as ASS or potential ASS;
Contaminated Land control strategies including a site remediation plan to be
developed and implemented for any areas with possible contamination;
A Waste Management Subplan including:
a Waste Management Plan to manage waste from construction and
operation of the project in such a way that any potential impacts to the
environment are minimised or avoided; and
A Marine Ecology Management Subplan including:
a Shipping Management Plan that will be prepared prior to commencement
of operation to address and mitigate potential impacts from shipping
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 117 of 141
including those arising from physical impacts, pollution events, lighting and
introduced pests.
10.86. In addition to the above measures, the proponent has proposed a number of
monitoring measures to be implemented in each management subplan. However, not
all of these have an adaptive management function. For further information regarding
the mitigation measures proposed within these plans and the overarching EMP (refer
Section 5 of the EIS).
Conclusion for listed migratory marine species
10.87. The department considers the above elements of the proposed Terrestrial Flora
and Fauna, Water, Land, Noise and Vibration, Waste and Marine Ecology
Management Subplans provide a sufficient framework for reducing any potential
impacts on listed migratory marine species from degradation of habitat through
decreased water quality, smothering of habitat by coal dust, increased noise pollution
and introduced exotic species, provided they include an adaptive management
function.
10.88. It is recommended that conditions be attached to the approval that requires the
proponent to prepare and implement a Terrestrial Management Plan and a Marine and
Shipping Management Plan that includes (but is not limited to) the measures discussed
in the above management subplans. In addition, this plan will include requirements to
manage impacts from construction vessels and noise generated from operational
shipping activities, including the implementation of speed limits within the Port of Abbot
Point. It is also recommended that the proponent be required implement measures that
mitigate impacts associated with pile driving. This will enable the proponent to
effectively define, avoid, adaptively manage and mitigate potential negative impacts to
listed migratory marine species.
10.89. It is also recommended that conditions for manage and mitigate impacts on the
marine environment (being habitat for listed migratory marine species) from terrestrial
activities (including downstream water impacts, coal dust deposition and waste) will be
managed through the previously discussed Terrestrial Management Plan.
10.90. Whilst acknowledging that listed migratory marine species are likely to be
impacted by the proposed action, the department is of the view that, provided the
mitigation measures are implemented and conditions adhered to, long-term impacts to
listed migratory marine species discussed above will not be unacceptable.
10.91. The department also considers that the proposed approval decision, and the
conditions to the proposed approval, have taken into account and not been inconsistent
with the Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine
Life (DEWHA, 2009) and the Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for
the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009a).
Conclusions of assessment of impacts on listed migratory species
10.92. The department considers that provided the recommended conditions discussed
are implemented, there will not be unacceptable impacts on listed migratory species.
11. Commonwealth marine areas (sections 23 and 24A)
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 118 of 141
11.1. The Commonwealth marine area (CMA) is any part of the sea, including the
waters, seabed, and airspace, within Australia's exclusive economic zone and/or over
the continental shelf of Australia, that are not State or Northern Territory waters.
11.2. The CMA stretches from 3 to 200 nautical miles from the coast. Marine protected
areas are marine areas which are recognised to have high conservation value.
11.3. The EIS states that the only direct impact from the T0 Project on the CMA would
be removal of habitat through construction, however, as construction will not occur
within the CMA, there will be no direct impacts. They also state the indirect impacts
may occur on marine fauna through increased underwater noise.
11.4. The department considers that this is a very minimal approach and that there are
many additional impacts that could occur on the CMA from shipping. It is noted
however, that impacts from shipping have been addressed separately. These impacts
are detailed below.
11.5. It is noted that you are required to have consideration to any impacts on the
recently developed marine bioregional plans. These impacts are also detailed below.
11.6. The department considers that listed threatened and/or migratory marine fauna
that are also values of the CMA should also be considered. An assessment of impacts
on threatened and migratory marine species is provided in section 9 and 10 of this
Recommendation Report.
Marine Bioregional Plans
11.7. Marine bioregional plans have been developed for the Commonwealth marine
area to support the decision-making process for marine-based industries under the
EPBC Act. As part of this process, new Commonwealth marine reserves have been
identified by the department for the conservation of marine ecosystems and biodiversity
of Australia’s oceans. These reserves are intended to meet Australia’s commitments to
establish a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas.
11.8. Five marine regions have been identified as part of the bioregional planning
process, including Southwest, North-west, North, East (Temperate East and Coral Sea)
and South-east Marine Regions.
11.9. There is currently no bioregional plan for the Coral Sea marine reserve, which is
the one most closely located near the proposed action – surrounds the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park. The department does not consider there to be any relevant
bioregional plan for the purposes of the Minister’s decision.
Shipping
11.10. The EIS states that at full capacity, the T0 Project will result in approximately an
additional 560 ships traversing the CMA.
11.11. There are a range of potential impacts associated with shipping activity in the
CMA including:
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 119 of 141
accidents, incidents and groundings;
impacts to or loss of aesthetic values;
oil or chemical spills;
waste discharges;
introduction and translocation of invasive marine species;
anchor damage to the benthos;
vessel strike on threatened or migratory species; and
increased underwater noise (resulting in displacement, hearing loss,
stranding etc).
11.12. Many of these issues have been addressed in previous sections of this report
(refer section 8, World Heritage properties and National heritage places, section 9,
listed threatened species and ecological communities and section 10 listed migratory
species). The remaining issues are discussed below.
Displacement of feeding animals
11.13. In addition to vessel strike, the increase in anthropogenic noise and the potential
impact on marine mammals has been of increasing concern over at least the last two
decades. One of the most commonly observed behavioural responses to noise is
displacement. Reported source levels for vessels and tugboats range from 152 dB at 1
m for a small outboard engine vessel to 170 dB at 1 m for a 25 m tugboat pulling an
empty barge, with most sound energy occurring between 100 Hz-1kHz.
Introduction of marine pests
11.14. The EIS states that there are over 250 introduced marine species within
Australian waters. However, there are no known established invasive pests within the
Port of Abbot Point.
11.15. All vessels entering Australian waters are required to meet stringent quarantine
regulations and may be inspected by AQIS officers once at port. Quarantine measures
are designed to mitigate the risk of pest invasion and establishment in Australian
waters and marine ecosystems. The EIS states that all vessels associated with the T0
Project will adhere to Commonwealth and State regulations in relation to biosecurity
and quarantine. The Port of Abbot Point has existing quarantine procedures in place
and these will be extended to accommodate the increased shipping volumes
associated with the T0 Project.
Ballast water and biofouling management
11.16. One of the most significant quarantine concerns associated with shipping
activities is the movement of ballast waters. Shipping vessels utilise ballast waters to
moderate buoyancy relative to the cargo load which they are carrying. Taking on
ballast waters ensures that the vessel sits at the appropriate depth within the water
column to maximise buoyancy and propulsion. As such, a vessel will fill its ballast tanks
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 120 of 141
when it unloads cargo and release ballast waters prior to loading. Under the
Quarantine Act 1908, Australia has implemented stringent regulations regarding the
discharge of ballast water in Australian waters. Under the Australian Ballast Water
Management Regulations, it is prohibited to discharge ballast waters which originate
from areas deemed to be of high risk. AQIS defines all salt water from ports and
coastal waters outside Australia’s territorial sea as high risk. Under these regulations,
ballast water exchange (if required) can only occur outside Australian waters.
11.17. The EIS states that all shipping vessels associated with the T0 Project will
adhere to Australian quarantine regulations relating to ballast water management in
Australian waters. Where vessels are carrying ballasts sourced from potable water or
waters from approved open ocean sources and wish to discharge at Port of Abbot
Point, the required appropriate documentation will be provided to the Port Authority
prior to release. The Port of Abbot Point has the capacity to undertake full quarantine
arrival assessments and will maintain the integrity of this role for any increased
shipping anticipated for the port as a result of the Project. Adani will ensure that
vessels associated with the T0 Project adhere to all assessment criteria and provide all
documentation and access to quarantine officials as requested. As an integrated
company, it is possible that Adani managed or leased vessels will be used to export
material from the T0 Project.
11.18. Biofouling also provides opportunity for marine pests to be translocated to and
around Australia via vessel hulls and niche areas such as bilges and sea chests. The
EIS states that Adani is committed to implementing national guidelines and
requirements relating to biofouling.
General Waste
11.19. A range of waste products (e.g. general wastes, food and other organic waste)
associated with shipping activities are regarded as quarantine threats in Australia as
they have the potential to harbour pest species and therefore, pose a biosecurity risk.
General waste must be managed in strict accordance with the relevant Commonwealth
and State legislation and regulations. The EIS states that Adani will adhere to all
relevant quarantine and biosecurity guidelines and legislation and ensure best practice
management systems are in place for all waste material. Adani will develop and
implement management plans for waste materials that reflect the Port Authority
requirements in accordance with legislation.
Chemical and Oil Spills
11.20. Major oil and chemical spills have the potential to devastate the marine
environment. Typically major spills are a result of severe grounding or collisions
between shipping vessels. The EIS states that due to the strict pilotage systems in
place for the GBR and low level of groundings which have historically occurred, it is
unlikely that major oil spills will occur as a result of shipping activities associated with
the T0 Project.
11.21. Smaller spills may occur as a result of various causes. Depending on the
situation and/or cause, smaller spills may vary from locally confined spills to oil and fuel
spills impacting a relatively large area. MARPOL regulations prohibit the discharge of
oily wastes in the marine environment. Only filtered water containing less that 15 parts
per million (ppm) oil in water is permitted to be discharged and only while a ship is
underway. Any waste at a concentration higher than 15 ppm must be contained on the
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 121 of 141
vessel. The EIS states that Adani will ensure that vessels used to transport coal for the
Project are equipped with adequate waste management facilities.
Mitigation Measures
11.22. The proponent has proposed to develop a Shipping Management Plan that will
be prepared prior to commencement of operation to address and mitigate potential
impacts from shipping including those arising from physical impacts, pollution events,
lighting and introduced pests.
Conclusion
11.23. The department considers that the Shipping Management Plan provides a
sufficient framework for reducing any potential impacts on the environment in the CMA
from shipping provided it includes an adaptive management function.
11.24. As discussed above, it is recommended that conditions be attached to the
approval that requires the proponent to prepare and implement a Marine and Shipping
Management Plan that includes (but is not limited to) the measures discussed in the
Shipping Management Plan. As previously discussed, the Marine and Shipping
Management Plan will also include measures to manage impacts from noise generated
from operational ships. This will enable the proponent to effectively define, avoid,
adaptively manage and mitigate potential negative impacts to the environment in the
CMA.
11.25. Whilst acknowledging that environment in the CMA is likely to be impacted by the
proposed action, the department is of the view that, provided the mitigation measures
are implemented and conditions adhered to, long-term impacts to the environment in
the CMA will not be unacceptable.
Conclusion of assessment of impacts on the CMA
11.26. The department considers that provided the recommended conditions discussed
are implemented, impacts to the Commonwealth marine area will not be unacceptable.
12. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
12.1. Areas of the GBR have been progressively included in the Commonwealth Great
Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) since the late 1970s. Today, almost the entire
GBR ecosystem is included within the Marine Park, which extends over 2300 km along
the coast of Queensland and covers approximately 344,400 km2.
12.2. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a multiple use marine park, supporting a
wide range of uses, including: commercial marine tourism; fishing; ports and shipping;
recreation; scientific research; and indigenous traditional use.
12.3. Threats and impacts to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as a result of the
proposed action are assessed throughout this recommendation report:
an assessment of impacts on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and
National Heritage place is provided in Section 8;
an assessment of impacts on EPBC Act listed threatened marine species is
provided in Section 9; and
an assessment of impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory species is provided in
Section 10.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 122 of 141
12.4. GBRMPA’s comments to the department on the Final EIS did not provide a
detailed review of the EIS documentation. However, they stated that they were
concerned about the general lack of port master planning at Abbot Point which they
consider to be fundamental in being able to assess the likely impacts from this Project
in the immediate and long-term. In particular, they expressed concern about North
Queensland Bulk Ports’ Terminal 0, 2 & 3 Capital Dredging proposal and that a
determination about this project should be made following the final approval decision
for the dredging project.
Conclusion of assessment of impacts on the GBRMP
12.5. The department considers that provided the recommended conditions discussed
are implemented, impacts to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park will not be
unacceptable.
13. Offsets
13.1. Offsets are measures that compensate for the residual adverse impacts of an
action on the environment. The department’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offset Policy -October 2012 (DSEWPaC, 2012d)
(Offset Policy) applies to all matters protected under the EPBC Act and outlines the
approach to the use of offsets. The Offset assessment guide (which accompanies the
Offset Policy) applies where the impacted matter is a threatened listed species or
community.
13.2. The department considers that all of the impacts identified by the proponent for
the construction and operational activities for the proposed terminal (including
increased lighting on a known nesting beach for EPBC listed Green and Flatback Turtle
species; impacts to aesthetic values from increased shipping numbers in the Great
Barrier Reef World Heritage Area; increased pollutants such as coal dust, chemical
toxins, total suspended solids; alteration to physical qualities of benthic habitats and
communities; and, chemical contamination) will lead to long term degradation of the
marine environment. Therefore, the department considers that the T0 Project will have
significant residual impacts to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and listed
Green and Flatback turtle species foraging, nesting and traversing habitat.
13.3. To compensate for significant residual impacts to listed Green and Flatback
Turtle species, and the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, the department
recommends that conditions be attached to the approval which require the proponent
to prepare and implement a Marine Offset Strategy for the life of this approval that
comprises a:
Turtle Plan to reduce the level of feral pig, dog and/or fox predation on Green
Turtle and Flatback Turtle nests, and to enhance the marine habitat
(including seagrass and corals) for these species, within the NQ Dry Topics
and/or Reef Catchment regional Natural Resource Management bodies;
Marine Plan - to reflect the most appropriate natural resource management
priorities including research, relating to impacts of this action on the
outstanding universal value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area;
and
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 123 of 141
is funded by an annual contribution of $450,000 (indexed) for activities
identified as priorities in the plans.
13.4. The Marine Offset Strategy must be developed in consultation with the
department, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and relevant Natural
Resources Management bodies to ensure activities (including research which, unless
otherwise agreed by the Minister, must not be greater than 10% of the activities
undertaken) funded through this Plan reflect the most appropriate management
priorities relating to the residual impacts of this action.
Consistency with Offset Policy
13.5. In determining an appropriate offset, the Offset Policy states that an offset must
deliver an overall conservation outcome that improves or maintains the viability of the
protected matter. For impacts on heritage values specifically, the offset should improve
the integrity and resilience of the heritage values impacted by the T0 Project. For direct
offsets in the marine environment, the Offset Policy requires that the relevant governing
jurisdictions are engaged to identify suitable areas of habitat that may be improved to
achieve a conservation gain, and be implemented for the duration of the impact.
13.6. The Offset Policy also requires a minimum of 90 percent of the offset
requirements for any given impact must be met thought direct offsets. However, there
are provisions for other compensatory measures that are anticipated to lead to benefits
for the impacted matter to be provided as an offset. The department acknowledges the
difficulty in providing direct offsets for marine related impacts and therefore has
included provisions for the Marine Offset Strategy for compensatory measures (such as
research).
13.7. The Marine Offset Strategy recommended by the department provides for the
above requirements and is therefore consistent with the Offset Policy.
Consistency with other EPBC projects at Abbot Point
13.8. The Marine Offset Strategy will compliment offsets for other EPBC related
projects at Abbot Point. The approved Abbot Point Coal Terminal 3 (2008/4468) and
the Terminal 0, 2 & 3 Capital Dredging proposal (EPBC 2011/6213) project conditions
include offset provisions that provide mechanisms for the ongoing protection and
conservation of seagrass habitat, and actions that will result in a net benefit outcome
for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
Consistency with Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans
13.9. Managing factors that affect marine turtle nesting (including light pollution and
faunal predation of marine turtle eggs) and, identifying and protecting habitats that are
critical to the survival of marine turtles (including managing impacts from land use
practices that impact water quality) are recovery objectives (with associated recovery
actions) identified in the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia - July 2003 for
EPBC listed turtle species. Therefore, the Turtle Plan and Marine Plan required to be
developed and implemented through the Marine Offset Strategy are consistent with this
Recovery Plan.
13.10. The department also considers that the outcomes of the Marine Offset Strategy
are consistent with the relevant Threat Abatement Plans (all provided for your
consideration at Annexure 1), and as follows:
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 124 of 141
Threat Abatement Plan for Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition
and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs (DEH, 2005) by integrating
feral pig management plans and their implementation into natural
resource planning and investment at the regional, level through
consultation and liaison with key stakeholders;
Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox
(DEWHA, 2008) and the Background Document for the Threat
Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox (DEWHA,
2008a) by promoting the maintenance and recovery of native species
and ecological communities that are affected by fox predation; and
Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate
Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009) and the Background Document for the
Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate
Marine Life (DEWHA, 2009a) by not impeding the implementation of
measures to prevent and mitigate the impacts of harmful marine debris
on vertebrate marine life.
13.11. The proposed conditions also require the Proponent to consult with the
department, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and relevant Natural
resource Management bodies to ensure funded through the Marine Offset Strategy
reflect the most appropriate management priorities and addressing priority recovery
actions for matters of national environmental significance.
14. Considerations for Approval and Conditions
Mandatory Considerations
14.1. Under Section 136 of the EPBC Act, in deciding whether or not to approval an
action and what conditions to attach to the approval, you must consider the following,
so far as they are not inconsistent with any other requirement of Subdivision B, Division
1, Part 9 of the Act:
Matters relevant to any matter protected by the controlling provisions
World heritage properties (sections 12 and 15A);
National heritage places (sections 15B and 15C);
listed threatened species and ecological communities (sections 18 and 18A);
listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A);
Commonwealth marine areas (sections 23 and 24A); and
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B, 24C).
14.2. The T0 project was assessed by Environmental Impact Statement under section
87 of the EPBC Act (Attachment A2). The Secretary’s Recommendation Report,
which addresses the matters protected extensively, is at Attachment B. The
department’s recommended approval conditions are at Attachment C.
Economic and social matters - Section 136(1)(b)
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 125 of 141
14.3. You must consider economic and social matters when deciding whether or not to
approve the T0 project.
14.4. The EIS states that the proposed action is forecast to provide the following
economic benefits:
Construction Phase 1
Estimated direct employment of approximately 313 people in the Mackay
region;
indirect employment of approximately 342 people in the Queensland, and
88 people nationally; and
the total output of consumption anticipated to peak in 2014 and 2015 at
$131.7 million locally, $109.7 million in Queensland, and $29.8 million
nationally.
Construction Phase 2
Estimated direct employment of approximately 445 people in the Mackay
region;
indirect employment of approximately 417 people in the Queensland, and
100 people nationally; and
the total output of consumption anticipated to peak in 2014 and 2015 at
$197.0 million locally, $134.9 million in Queensland, and $34.0 million
nationally.
Operations Phase
Direct employment (including contractors) of approximately 174 people in
the local region; and 65 people elsewhere in Queensland;
indirect employment of approximately 120 people locally, and 29-69 people
elsewhere in Queensland; and
the total output of consumption is anticipated to be $52.4 million to $111.1
million across the local region and between $19.4 million to $47.5 million
per annum in Queensland.
14.5. Overall, the financial value of the T0 Project is expected to generate between
$1.4 billion and $2.8 billion per annum in gross regional product.
14.6. The EIS also noted there were some potential negative economic impacts,
namely: increased labour costs in the region; infrastructure pressures in the local and
regional area; and, property market inflation.
14.7. The commercial fishing industry raised a number of concerns regarding potential
impacts on the economic viability of commercial fishing in the area. In particular, the
impacts of increased shipping and construction work on catch levels; access to fishing
areas and anchorage locations; and, the potential for ships to damage fishing nets. The
EIS notes that any impacts on commercial fishing would be related to overall
development at the Port of Abbot Point. As such, Adani has committed to participate in
ongoing consultation with North Queensland Bulk Ports and other port proponents to
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 126 of 141
develop a port-wide approach to addressing the commercial fishing industry’s
concerns.
14.8. In regard to social impacts, the EIS states:
The T0 Project will result in an increase in population within the Bowen region.
Population growth increases demand on local government for housing, services,
utilities provision and transport. A short–term spike in demand will occur during the
construction phase with longer-term demand during the operation phase. Adani is
committed to developing a traffic management and emergency response plan to
minimise pressure on the existing community resources. The proponent will also
provide construction programs and anticipated workforce numbers will be projected
and communicated to the relevant authorities and agencies. This will assist in
planning to reduce strain on local infrastructure.
Adani will develop a worker accommodation strategy with the objective of minimising
housing and accommodation impacts during all phases of the T0 Project. The
strategy is intended to ensure there are appropriate and well planned non-residential
accommodation camps for construction workers to minimise impacts on the diversity
and affordability of housing stock within the Bowen township. The EIS notes that the
operational workforce is anticipated to seek housing in Bowen and this may lead to
increased housing demands. The local council has indicated there is sufficient
supply of residential land to accommodate the demand for additional housing
generated by the T0 Project.
Adani has consulted with the Juru people who noted their main concerns with the
proposal were employment of indigenous community and measures to ensure
cultural heritage sites located adjacent to the development are protected. The EIS
states Adani’s commitment to ongoing consultation with the Juru people to ensure
improved employment outcomes are achieved for indigenous people in the Bowen
Basin, through securing training, employment opportunities and accommodation,
where required.
14.9. The department has considered economic and social matters in recommending
the proposed approval, including the conditions, for theT0 project.
Factors to be taken into account
14.10. In considering the above matters, you must take into account:
Principles of ecologically sustainable development (set out in section 3A of the EPBC Act) and
the precautionary principle (set out in section 391(2) of the EPBC Act).
14.11. The principles of ecologically sustainable development, as defined in section 3A
of the EPBC Act, are:
i. The integration principle;
In recommending approval of the T0 Project, the department has considered the
long and short-term economic impacts as well as other environmental, social and
equitable impacts in accordance with section 3A(a) of the EPBC Act.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 127 of 141
The department considers that the likely impacts on the environment as a result of
the T0 Project are satisfactory in terms of their long term and short term social and
equitable impacts.
ii. The precautionary principle;
In accordance with section 3A(b) of the EPBC Act; if there are threats of serious or
irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be
used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation.
The department has considered the precautionary principle in making the approval
recommendation. In recommending approval of the T0 Project the department
notes that there is sufficient scientific information to conclude that the proposal will
be unlikely to result in unacceptable impacts to world heritage properties, national
heritage places, listed migratory species, listed threatened species and
communities, Commonwealth marine areas and the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park.
iii. The intergenerational principle;
In accordance with section 3A(c) of the EPBC Act; the present generation should
ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained
or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.
The department has taken the intergenerational principle into consideration in
recommending the T0 Project be approved. The recommended conditions of
approval include measures which the department considers are adequate for
mitigating impacts to world heritage properties, national heritage places, listed
migratory species, listed threatened species and communities, Commonwealth
marine areas and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
The recommended conditions allow for the T0 Project to be delivered and
operated in a sustainable way to protect matters of national environmental
significance, and the environment for future generations.
iv. The biodiversity principle (Ecologically sustainable development (ESD));
Section 3A(d) of the EPBC Act requires the conservation of biological diversity and
ecological integrity as a fundamental consideration in decision making. The
department has included the biodiversity principle and ecological integrity in
relation to all of the controlling provisions for the T0 Project, and has
recommended conditions which will mitigate and offset impacts to matters of
national environmental significance.
v. The valuation principle;
Section 3A(e) of the EPBC Act requires the promotion of improved valuation,
pricing and incentive mechanisms. The referral and assessment documentation
includes information on a range of proposed mitigation measures for reducing
impacts to the matters protected (as identified in the Secretary’s Recommendation
Report at Attachment B) for world heritage properties, national heritage places,
listed migratory species, listed threatened species and communities,
Commonwealth marine areas, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.
The department considers that the impacts of the action will be suitably
compensated through requirements for offsets for all unavoidable residual
significant impacts. The department considers that the cost of the required offsets,
both direct and indirect, will be commensurate with the likely impacts on matters of
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 128 of 141
national environmental significance including degradation of habitat for listed
threatened species.
14.12. In formulating this recommendation, the department has taken into account the
principles of ecologically sustainable development outlined above. In particular:
This report and the assessment documentation provided (specifically the finalised
environmental impact statement and associated appendices (Attachment A2))
contain information on the long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social
and equitable considerations that are relevant to the decision and are presented for
your consideration.
Any lack of certainty in relation to the potential impacts of the T0 Project is
addressed by conditions that restrict impacts, impose monitoring requirements and
adopt standards which if not achieved, require the application of response
mechanisms in a timely manner to avoid additional adverse impacts.
The proposed conditions will ensure potential impacts on world heritage properties,
national heritage places, listed threatened species and communities, listed migratory
species, Commonwealth marine areas and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
resulting from the proposed action are reduced and mitigated to the greatest extent
possible. Any residual impacts that are regarded as significant in accordance with
the department’s policies and guidelines are required to be offset. The purpose of
offsets is to ensure the proposed action results in conservation gains for the
environment which will be maintained in the long-term. To safeguard against any
uncertainties associated either with the proposed offsets or measures to manage
potential impacts to environmental values, contingency measures have also been
incorporated into the proposed conditions of approval.
The department has considered the importance of conserving biological diversity
and ecological integrity in relation to all of the controlling provisions for the T0
Project, and the advice provided within this document (and the Secretary’s
Recommendation Report at Attachment B) reflects that consideration.
The department’s advice includes reference to economic and social impacts of the
proposal. The department has sought to ensure that financial costs of compliance
with the proposed approval decision are reasonable to the extent that the T0 Project
can proceed whilst also making a fair contribution to environmental protection.
The assessment report relating to the action
14.13. In accordance with section 136(2)(ca)(i) the finalised environmental impact
statement relating to the action given to you under section 104 is at Attachment A2.
14.14. In accordance with section 136(2)(ca)(ii) the Secretary’s recommendation report
relating to the action given to you under section 105 is at Attachment B.
Any other information the Minister has on the relevant impacts of the action
14.15. All information on the relevant impacts of the action is available in this briefing
package (including the attachments).
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 129 of 141
Other considerations
Any relevant comments given to the Minister by another Minister in accordance with an
invitation under section 131 or 131AA and 131A.
14.16. Letters inviting comments from relevant Ministers are at Attachment F for your
signature.
14.17. A letter inviting comment from the Proponent and the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority are also at Attachment F for your signature.
14.18. Any comments received in response to these invitations will be included in the
final approval decision briefing package for your consideration.
Requirements for decision regarding World Heritage – section 137
In deciding whether or not to approve, for the purposes of section 12 or 15A, the taking
of an action and what conditions to attach to such an approval, the Minister must not act
inconsistently with:
(a) Australia’s obligations under the World Heritage Convention; or
(b) the Australian World Heritage management principles; or
(c) a plan that has been prepared for the management of a declared World
Heritage property under section 316 or as described in section 321.
14.19. Note the requirements of the World Heritage Convention at:
http://whc.unesco.org/archive/convention-en.pdf.
14.20. A plan of management for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area has not
been prepared under section 316 or section 321 of the EPBC Act.
14.21. The Australian World Heritage management principles at schedule 5 of the
EPBC Regulations are at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/epabcr2000697/sch5.html.
Requirements for decision about National Heritage places – section 137A
In deciding whether or not to approve for the purposes of section 15B or 15C the taking
of an action, and what conditions to attach to such an approval, the Minister must not act
inconsistently with:
(a) the National Heritage management principles; or
(b) an agreement to which the Commonwealth is party in relation to a National
Heritage place; or
(c) a plan that has been prepared for the management of a National Heritage
place under section 324S or as described in section 324X.
14.22. The Commonwealth has not reached agreement with any party in relation to the
management of the National Heritage values of the Great Barrier Reef. A management
plan for the Great Barrier Reef has not been prepared under section 324S or section
324X of the EPBC Act.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 130 of 141
14.23. The National Heritage management principles as prescribed in schedule 5B of
the EPBC Regulations are at:
http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/publications/about/pubs/mgt-principles.pdf.
Requirements for decision about threatened species and endangered communities –
section 139
1. In deciding whether or not to approve for the purposes of a subsection of section
18 or section 18A the taking of an action, and what conditions to attach to such an
approval, the Minister must not act inconsistently with:
(a) Australia’s obligations under:
(i) the Biodiversity Convention; or
(ii) the Apia Convention; or
(iii) CITES; or
(b) a recovery plan or threat abatement plan.
2. In considering whether to approve, for the purposes of a subsection of section
18 or section 18 A, the taking of an action and the action has or will have, or is likely to
have, a significant impact on a particular listed threatened species or a particular listed
threatened ecological community; you must, in deciding whether to so approve the
taking of the action, have regard to any approved conservation advice for the species or
community.
14.24. The Convention on Biological Diversity is available for your consideration at:
www.cbd.int.
14.25. The Convention on the Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific (Apia
Convention), which was suspended with effect from 13 September 2006, is available
for your consideration at: www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/RecordDetails?id=TRE-
000540&index=treaties.
14.26. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora (CITES) is available for your consideration at: www.cites.org.
Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans
14.27. The action is considered to have, or likely to have, a significant impact on the
following listed threatened species and endangered communities:
Squatter Pigeon (southern) (Geophaps scripta scripta);
Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis);
Black-throated Finch (southern) (Poephila cincta cincta);
Water Mouse, False Water Rat (Xeromys myoides);
Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus);
White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea), White-bellied Storm-Petrel
(Australasian); (Fregetta gralleria gralleria);
Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus);
Grey-headed Flying-fox (Pteropus poliocephalus);
Spectacled Flying-fox (Pteropus conspicillatus);
Greater Large-eared Horseshoe Bat (Rhinolophus philippinensis (large form));
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 131 of 141
Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus);
Yakka Skink (Egernia rugosa);
Ornamental Snake (Denisonia maculate);
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus);
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae);
Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta);
Pacific Ridley, Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea);
Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas);
Leathery Turtle, Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea);
Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate);
Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus);
Green Sawfish, Dindagubba, Narrowsnout Sawfish (Pristis zijsron);
Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus);
Black Ironbox (Eucalyptus raveretiana);
Siah’s Backbone, Sia’s Backbone, Isaac Wood (Streblus pendulinus);
Minute Orchid, Ribbon-root Orchid (Taeniophyllum muelleri);
Omphalea celata;
Ozothamnus eriocephalus; and,
Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and
Nandewar Bioregions.
14.28. The Recovery Plans relevant to the T0 Project are:
National recovery plan for the Red Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus.
(Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management,
Brisbane;
National recovery plan for the Black-throated Finch southern subspecies
Poephila cincta cincta . Report to the Department of the Environment and Water
Resources, Canberra. Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW),
Hurstville and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane;
Department of the Environment and Resource Management 2010. National
recovery plan for the water mouse (false water rat) Xeromys myoides. Report to
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities, Canberra. Department of the Environment and Resource
Management, Brisbane;
Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2005, Whale Shark
(Rhincodon typus) Recovery Plan 2005-2010;
Schulz, M. and Thomson, B. 2007. National recovery plan for the bare-rumped
sheathtail bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus. Report to Department of
the Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. Queensland Parks and
Wildlife Service, Brisbane;
McDonald, W.J.F. 2010. National recovery plan for the “Semi-evergreen vine
thickets of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions”
ecological community. Report to Department of the Environment, Water,
Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Queensland Department of Environment and
Resource Management, Brisbane;
Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management 2010.
National recovery plan for the spectacled flying fox Pteropus conspicillatus.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 132 of 141
Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and
Communities, Canberra;
Environment Australia (EA), 2003, Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia
- July 2003;
Hill B.M. and Ward S.J. (2010). National Recovery Plan for the Northern Quoll
Dasyurus hallucatus. Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts
and Sport, Darwin;
Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2005, Humpback Whale
Recovery Plan 2005 – 2010, DEH, Canberra;
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW. 2009. Draft
National Recovery Plan for the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus.
Prepared by Dr Peggy Eby. Department of Environment, Climate Change and
Water NSW, Sydney;
Recovery plan for cave-dwelling bats, Rhinolophus philippinensis, Hipposideros
semoni and Taphozous troughtoni 2001–2005. Unpublished report to
Environment Australia, Canberra;
Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), (2005) Blue, Fin and Sei
Whale Recovery Plan 2005 – 2010, DEH, Canberra; and,
Richardson, R. (2006). Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile Recovery Plan 2008 –
2012. Report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the
Arts, Canberra. WWF-Australia, Brisbane.
14.29. These Recovery Plans are provided at Annexure 1.
14.30. The Threat Abatement Plans relevant to the T0 Project are:
Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2005) Threat Abatement Plan
for Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by
Feral Pigs, DEH, Canberra;
Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2006) Threat Abatement Plan
for the Reduction in Impacts of Tramp Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its
Territories, DEH, Canberra;
Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2006a) Background
Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for Reduction in Impacts of Tramp
Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its Territories, DEH, Canberra;
Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2005) Threat Abatement Plan
for Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by
Feral Pigs, DEH, Canberra;
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008).
Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Rabbits,
DEWHA, Canberra;
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA)
(2008a). Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for Competition
and Land Degradation by Rabbits, DEWHA, Canberra;
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA)
(2008b). Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox,
DEWHA, Canberra;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 133 of 141
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA)
(2008c). Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by
the European Red Fox, DEWHA, Canberra;
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA)
(2008d). Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats, DEWHA, Canberra;
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA)
(2008de). Background document for the threat abatement plan for predation by
feral cats, DEWHA, Canberra;
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2009).
Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine
Life, DEWHA, Canberra;
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA)
(2009a). Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts
of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life, DEWHA, Canberra;
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA)
(2009b). Threat Abatement Plan to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on
biodiversity on Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000 hectares 2009,
DEWHA, Canberra;
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA)
(2009c). Background Document for the Threat Abatement Plan to reduce the
impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian offshore islands of less
than 100 000 hectares, DEWHA, Canberra;
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
(DSEWPaC) (2012b), Threat Abatement Plan to Reduce the Impacts on
Northern Australia’s Biodiversity by the Five Listed Grasses. DSEWPAC,
Canberra; and,
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
(DSEWPaC) (2012c), Background Document: Threat Abatement Plan to
Reduce the Impacts on Northern Australia’s Biodiversity by the Five Listed
Grasses. DSEWPAC, Canberra.
14.31. These Threat Abatement Plans are provided at Annexure 1.
Approved Conservation Advices
14.32. The approved Conservation Advices relevant to the T0 Project are:
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008, Commonwealth
Conservation Advice on Eucalyptus raveretiana (Black Ironbox);
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008, Commonwealth
Conservation Advice on Geophaps scripta scripta (Squatter Pigeon (southern));
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008, Commonwealth
Conservation Advice for Pristis zijsron (Green Sawfish);
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008, Commonwealth
Conservation Advice on Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback Turtle);
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008, Commonwealth
Conservation Advice on Omphalea celata;
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 134 of 141
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008, Commonwealth
Conservation Advice on Ozothamnus eriocephalus; and,
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2013, Commonwealth
Conservation Advice on Rostratula australis (Australian Painted Snipe).
14.33. These approved Conservation Advices are provided at Annexure 1.
Requirements for decision about migratory species – section 140
In deciding whether or not to approve for the purposes of section 20 or 20A the
taking of an action relating to a listed migratory species, and what conditions to
attach to such an approval, the Minister must not act inconsistently with Australia’s
obligations under whichever of the following conventions and agreements because
of which the species is listed:
(a) the Bonn Convention;
(b) CAMBA;
(c) JAMBA;
(d) an international agreement approved under subsection 209(4).
14.34. This section requires that you must not act inconsistently with Australia’s obligations
under the Bonn Convention on Migratory Species (Bonn Convention), the Japan-
Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), the China-Australia Migratory Bird
Agreement (CAMBA) or the Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement
(ROKAMBA).
14.35. The Bonn Convention is available for your consideration at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/ATS/1991/32.html.
14.36. CAMBA is available for your consideration at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1988/22.html.
14.37. JAMBA is available for your consideration at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1981/6.html.
14.38. ROKAMBA is available for your consideration at:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/2007/24.html.
14.39. The department has taken these agreements into account for the T0 Project
assessment and has given consideration to the likely impacts of the proposed action on
listed migratory species, in particular on:
Greater Sandplover (Charadrius leschenaultia);
Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa);
Whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus);
Pacific Golden Plover (Pulvialis fulva);
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper (Calidris acuminate);
Red-necked Stint (Calidris ruficollis);
Common Greenshank (Tringa nebularia);
Marsh Sandpiper (Tringa stagnatilis);
Wandering Tattler (Tringa incana);
Little Curlew (Numenius minutus);
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 135 of 141
Latham's Snipe (Gallinago hardwickii);
Eastern Curlew (Numenius madagascariensis);
Common Sandpiper (Acititis hypoleucos);
Red Knot (Calidris canutus);
Curlew Sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea);
Great Knot (Calidris tenuirostris);
Lesser Sand Plover (Charadrius mongolus);
Broad-billed Sandpiper (Limicola falcinellus);
Bar-tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica);
Grey Plover (Pluvialis squatarola);
Grey-tailed Tattler (Tringa brevipes);
Terek Sandpiper (Xenus cinereus);
Sanderling (Calidris alba);
Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos);
Wood Sandpiper (Tringa glareola);
Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres);
White-Bellied Sea Eagle (Haliaeetus leuccogaster);
Eastern Osprey (Pandion cristatus);
Cattle Egret (Ardea ibis);
Eastern Great Egret (Ardea modesta);
Eastern Reef Egret (Egretta sacra);
Glossy Ibis (Piegadis faicinellus);
Caspian Tern (Sterna caspia);
Lesser Crested Tern (Thalasseus bengalensis);
Crested Tern (Thalasseus bergii);
Rainbow Bee-Eater (Merops ornatus);
Rufous Fantail (Rhipidura rufifrons);
Australian Reed Warbler (Acrocephalus australis);
Little Tern (Sternula albifrons);
Australian Painted Snipe (Rostratula australis);
Fork-tailed Swift (Apus pacificus);
White-throated Needletail (Hirundapus caudacutus);
Masked Booby (Sula dactylatra);
Brown Booby (Sula leucogaster);
Common Tern (Sterna hirundo);
Bridled Tern (Onychoprion anaethetus);
Black-naped Tern (Sterna sumatrana);
Oriental Cuckoo (Cuculus optatus);
Black-faced Monarch (Monarcha melanopsis);
Spectacled Monarch (Symposiarchus trivirgatus);
Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus);
Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaengliae);
Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta);
Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas);
Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate);
Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus);
Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea);
Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea);
Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus);
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 136 of 141
Dugong (Dugong dugon);
Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni);
Indo-pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis);
Killer Whale (Orcunus orca);
Saltwater Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus);
Porbeagle Mackerel Shark (Lamna nasus); and
Bryde’s Whale (Balaentoptera edeni).
Bioregional plans
14.40. In accordance with section 176(5), the Minister is required to have regard to a
bioregional plan in making any decision under the EPBC Act to which the plan is
relevant.
14.41. The department does not consider there to be any relevant bioregional plan for the
purposes of your decision.
Person’s environmental history
14.42. In accordance with section 136(4) the Minister may also consider whether the
person proposing to take the action is a suitable person to be granted an approval,
having regard to the person’s history in relation to environmental matters and if the
person is a body corporate, the history of its executive officers and if relevant, the
history of the parent company and its executive officers in relation to environmental
matters.
14.43. Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltd’s EIS states that it has not been subject to any
proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the
environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. The
department’s compliance section states that the department is currently assessing a
number of non-compliances in regards to Adani Abbot Point Terminal Pty Ltds
Stormwater Return Dam Project (EPBC 2010/5561). Initial advice is that, these non-
compliances appear to be minor in nature.
14.44. In addition, as discussed at paragraph 6.3, an Adani subsidiary operating at the Port
of Mundra, in Gujarat, India has been found to breach Indian Government
environmental approval processes, the department notes that the environmental history
of actions undertaken in a country other than Australia cannot be considered as part of
this decision as it is beyond the jurisdiction of the EPBC Act.
Minister not to consider other matters
14.45. In deciding whether or not to approve the taking of an action, and what conditions to
attach to an approval, you must not consider any matters that you are not required or
permitted, by Subdivision B, Division 1, Part 9 of the EPBC Act, to consider.
Considerations in deciding on conditions
14.46. In accordance with section 134(1), the Minister may attach a condition to the
approval of the action if he or she is satisfied that the condition is necessary or
convenient for:
a) protecting a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval has
effect (whether or not the protection is protection from the action); or
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 137 of 141
b) repairing or mitigating damage to a matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for
which the approval has effect (whether or not the damage has been, will be or
is likely to be caused by the action).
14.47. In accordance with section 134(2), the Minister may attach a condition to the
approval of the action if you are satisfied that the condition is necessary or convenient
for:
a) protecting from the action any matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for
which the approval has effect; or
b) repairing or mitigating damage that may or will be, or has been, caused by the
action to any matter protected by a provision of Part 3 for which the approval
has effect.
14.48. As discussed in this report, the department considers that the recommended
conditions at Attachment C are necessary or convenient to:
protect, repair and/or mitigate impacts on a matter protected by Part 3 of the
EPBC Act for which the proposed approval has effect; and,
protect from the action, or repair or mitigate any damage that may or will be, or
has been caused by the action to, a matter protected by Part 3 for which the
proposed approval has effect.
Section 134(3)
14.49. Section 134(3) prescribes conditions that you may attach to an approval. The
department has recommended a number of conditions consistent with this section (for
example: financial contributions to protect, repair or mitigate damage to listed
threatened species; environmental audits; and management plans for conserving
habitat).
Section 134(4)
14.50. In accordance with section 134(4), in deciding whether to attach a condition to an
approval the Minister must consider:
a) any relevant conditions that have been imposed, or that the Minister considers
are likely to be imposed, under a law of a State or self-governing Territory or
another law of the Commonwealth on the taking of the action;
The T0 Project will require some environmental and development approvals under
Queensland legislation but there are no approvals currently in place.
b) information provided by the person proposing to take the action or by the
designated proponent of the action; and
The referral and assessment documentation provided by the proponent has been
included in this briefing package and has been considered by the department in
preparing this proposed decision package.
c) the desirability of ensuring as far as practicable that the condition is a cost
effective means for the Commonwealth and the person taking the action to
achieve the object of the condition.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 138 of 141
The department considers that the proposed conditions of approval will be cost effective
and will ensure that matters of national environmental significance are protected over
time.
14.51. The proponent will be given up to 10 business days to comment on the proposed
decision, and the practicability of proposed conditions at Attachment C.
15. Conclusion
The department considers the proposal should be approved, subject to the conditions to
ensure the impacts on listed threatened species and ecological communities, listed
migratory species, world heritage properties and natural heritage places, Commonwealth
marine area and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park are acceptable.
16. Duration of approval
16.1. The department recommends that the approval remain valid for a period of 40
years.
17. Material used to prepare Recommendation Report
17.1. In addition to the material listed in the References section, the department also
considered the following documents:
o Referral Documentation for the project
o Final Environmental Impact Statement (Attachment A2)
o Departmental Line Advice (Wildlife, Heritage and Marine Division; Great Barrier
Reef Taskforce; Compliance and Enforcement Branch; Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park Authority; and Legal Section).
18. Annexures
A: Recovery Plans, Conservation Advices and Threat Abatement Plans (on CD).
19. References
Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage (2005) Background Paper to the Wildlife
Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds, DEH, Canberra.
BAAM 2012, ‘Cumulative Impact Assessment: Migratory Shorebird and Waterbird Surveys, Caley Valley Wetland, Port of Abbot Point’, Prepared for Abbot Point Working Group, October 2012.
Bell, I, 2003, Turtle population dynamics in the Hay Point, Abbot Point and Lucinda Port Areas. Report to
PCQ.
Black-throated Finch Recovery Team (BTFRT), Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW)
and Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Recovery Plan for the Black-throated Finch
southern subspecies Poephila cincta cincta . Report to the Department of the Environment and Water
Resources, Canberra. Department of Environment and Climate Change (NSW), Hurstville and
Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane.
Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW. 2009. Draft National Recovery Plan for
the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus. Prepared by Dr Peggy Eby. Department of
Environment, Climate Change and Water NSW, Sydney.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 139 of 141
Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2006) Threat Abatement Plan for the Reduction in
Impacts of Tramp Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its Territories, DEH, Canberra.
Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2006a) Background Document for the Threat
Abatement Plan for Reduction in Impacts of Tramp Ants on Biodiversity in Australia and its Territories,
DEH, Canberra.
Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) (2005) Threat Abatement Plan for Predation, Habitat
Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs, DEH, Canberra
Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2005b, Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan
2005 – 2010, DEH, Canberra
Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2005c, Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005 –
2010, DEH, Canberra
Department of the Environment and Heritage (DEH), 2005d, Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) Recovery
Plan 2005-2010
Department of the Environment and Resource Management 2010. National Recovery Plan for the Water
Mouse (False Water Rat) Xeromys myoides. Report to Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities, Canberra. Department of the Environment and Resource Management,
Brisbane.
Department of Environment and Resource Management 2012. National Recovery Plan for the Red
Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus. Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water,
Population and Communities, Canberra. Queensland Department of Environment and Resource
Management, Brisbane.
Department of Environment and Resource Management 2010a. National Recovery Plan for the
Spectacled Flying Fox Pteropus conspicillatus. Report to the Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008). Threat Abatement Plan
for Competition and Land Degradation by Rabbits, DEWHA, Canberra.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008a). Background Document
for the Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Rabbits, DEWHA, Canberra.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008b). Threat Abatement Plan
for Predation by the European Red Fox, DEWHA, Canberra.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008c). Background Document
for the Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox, DEWHA, Canberra.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008d). Threat abatement plan
for predation by feral cats, DEWHA, Canberra.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2008e). Background document
for the threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats, DEWHA, Canberra.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2009). Threat Abatement Plan
for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life, DEWHA, Canberra
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2009a). Background Document
for the Threat Abatement Plan for the Impacts of Marine Debris on Vertebrate Marine Life, DEWHA,
Canberra
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2009b). Threat Abatement Plan
to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian offshore islands of less than 100 000
hectares 2009, DEWHA, Canberra.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 140 of 141
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) (2009c). Background Document
for the Threat Abatement Plan to reduce the impacts of exotic rodents on biodiversity on Australian
offshore islands of less than 100 000 hectares, DEWHA, Canberra.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2012),
Supporting the Marine Bioregional Plan for the Temperate East Marine Region, Species Group Report
Card – Sharks
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2012b),
Threat Abatement Plan to Reduce the Impacts on Northern Australia’s Biodiversity by the Five Listed
Grasses. DSEWPAC, Canberra.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2012c),
Background Document: Threat Abatement Plan to Reduce the Impacts on Northern Australia’s
Biodiversity by the Five Listed Grasses. DSEWPAC, Canberra.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2012d), Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Environmental Offsets Policy,
DSEWPAC, Canberra.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (2009). The
East Asian-Australasian shorebird site network.
www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/migratory/waterbirds/infosrn1.html, accessed July 2013
Ecological Australia (ELA) and OpenLines 2013, ‘Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) Synthesis Report’, Report prepared for the Abbot Point Working Group, February 2013.
Environment Australia (EA) 1999, Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats, Biodiversity Group
Environment Australia
Environment Australia (EA) 1999a, Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by the European Red Fox,
Biodiversity Group Environment Australia
Environment Australia (EA), 2003, Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia - July 2003
GHD (2009), Report for the Proposed MCF: Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecological Assessment, GHD
Brisbane.
GHD, 2013, Ship Anchorage Management in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (May, 2013) Ports and Shipping Information Sheet, accessed
from http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/26775/Ports-and-Shipping-Information-sheet-
29May2013.pdf
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (2009). Outlook Report 2009. Retrieved July 2013 from
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/outlook-for-the-reef/great-barrier-reef-outlook-report/full-report-and-individual-
chapters.
Hill B.M. and Ward S.J. (2010). National Recovery Plan for the Northern Quoll Dasyurus hallucatus.
Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport, Darwin.
Maitland, R. N., I. R. Lawler, and J. K. Sheppard. (2007). “Assessing the risk of boat strike ondugongs (Dugong dugon) at Burrum Heads, Queensland, Australia”. Pacific Conservation Biology 12:321-327.
McDonald, W.J.F. 2010. National recovery plan for the “Semi-evergreen vine thickets of the Brigalow Belt
(North and South) and Nandewar Bioregions” ecological community. Report to Department of the
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Queensland Department of Environment and
Resource Management, Brisbane.
QLD & DSEWPaC (2011). Report on the Australian and Queensland Government Dugong Task Force, October 2011.
EPBC 2011/6194
Page 141 of 141
Recovery Plan for Cave-dwelling Bats, Rhinolophus philippinensis, Hipposideros semoni and Taphozous
troughtoni 2001–2005. Unpublished report to Environment Australia, Canberra.
Richardson, R. (2006). Queensland Brigalow Belt Reptile Recovery Plan 2008 – 2012. Report to the
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. WWF-Australia, Brisbane. Accessed
from http://www.qmdc.org.au/publications/download/52/
Schulz, M. and Thomson, B. 2007. National Recovery Plan for the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat
Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus. Report to Department of the Environment and Water Resources,
Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane.
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2013, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Rostratula australis (Australian painted snipe) Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Geophaps scripta scripta (Squatter Pigeon (southern)) Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008a, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Dermochelys coriacea (Leatherback Turtle) Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008b, Commonwealth Conservation Advice for Pristis
zijsron (Green Sawfish)
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008c, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Eucalyptus raveretiana (Black Ironbox)
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008d, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on
Omphalea celata
Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2008e, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Ozothamnus eriocephalus Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC), 2005, Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Black-throated Finch southern subspecies Poephila cincta cincta Van Dyck, S. (1996). Xeromys myoides Thomas, 1889 (Rodentia: Muridae) in mangrove communities of North Stradbroke Island, southeast Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum. 42:337-366.