BRISBANE GOLD COAST Demonstration...Scientific name Common name Habitat Haliaeetus leucogaster (white-bellied sea-eagle) migratory and marine Haliastur Indus brahminy kite marine Haliastur

BRISBANE

GOLD COAST

Demonstration case

Relevance to Program

Program components

MNES and OUV

Type of activity

Overall effectiveness

Offsets in Gladstone Harbour

Effectiveness of the Queensland Offset Policies in Gladstone Harbour

Queensland Government Environmental Offsets PolicyState Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971

All A range EffectiveThe current offsets framework is effective but needs improvement and consideration of cumulative impacts.

1.1 Introduction and purpose ...........................................................2

1.2 Identification of MNES ............................................................... 5

1.3 Pressures and potential impacts ............................................... 8

1.4 Measures to offset impacts on MNES .....................................10

1.5 Information gaps and how they are being addressed ..............15

1.6 Compliance and monitoring .....................................................16

1.7 Program effectiveness ............................................................. 18

1.8 Information sources .................................................................20

Demonstration Case 5: Offsets in Gladstone Harbour

GREAT BARRIER REEF COASTAL ZONE STRATEGIC ASSESSMENTDemonstration Case 5-2

Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo

urDemonstration Case

1.1 Introduction and purpose

Queensland currently has an overarching Queensland Government Environmental Offset Policy[1] (QGEOP) which provides the principles for offsets in Queensland and forms the foundation for development of detailed specific-issue offset policies. This demonstration case explains the background to how Queensland’s Coordinator-General applied environmental offset conditions to the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project a declared significant project located adjacent to Gladstone. Policies, plans and programs relevant to this demonstration case:• the Queensland Government Environmental Offset Policy

(QGEOP) and supporting policies• how the QGEOP is implemented under the State

Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (SDPWO Act) significant project process

The SDPWO Act provides an assessment process for significant projects which includes preparation of an EIS against terms of reference (TOR). Through the bilateral agreement between the Australian and Queensland Governments[3], the Coordinator-General EIS process is an accredited assessment process under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act), therefore it adequately identifies and protects the environmental values underpinning MNES. Through this process, project proponents are required to consider avoiding or minimising impacts on MNES[4] including OUV when preparing their EIS. Where they cannot avoid or mitigate impacts, offsets must be considered.The Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project is proposed by Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC). It accommodates the long-term dredging and disposal of dredged spoil material that is required to provide safe and efficient access to the existing and proposed Gladstone Western Basin port facilities (in Port Curtis, from Auckland Point to The Narrows) particularly for the emerging liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry in the Gladstone region.The project comprises:• capital and maintenance dredging associated with the

deepening and widening of existing channels and swing basins, and the creation of new channels, swing basins and shipping berth pockets and materials offloading facilities (MOFs) associated with the proposed LNG projects on Curtis Island

• a maximum volume of dredge spoil material of 42.3 million cubic metres

• disposal of spoil to a bunded reclamation area of approximately 235 hectares located approximately 10 kilometres north of Gladstone city (see Figure 1.1 1).

The project assessment included a cumulative impact assessment of all of the dredging proposed for the LNG industry and future GPC developments in the Western Basin (including the MOFs to support the various LNG proponents on Curtis Island). The project is being undertaken as a central component of the Port of Gladstone Western Basin Master Plan[5] (WBMP). The WBMP provides direction at a high level to the Queensland Government on the scale and nature of impacts of future industrial development in the Western Basin for the next 30 years. The Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project is one of two initial key components of the WBMP to be implemented by GPC.


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


Figure 1.1 1 The Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


1.1.1 The QGEOP

Under the Queensland offsets framework established by the QGEOP and supporting policies, development must first avoid environmental impacts, and then mitigate any unavoidable impact. Environmental offsets compensate any residual unavoidable loss of environmental values that support matters of State environmental significance and MNES including OUV. It is recognised that offsetting for OUV directly is not possible at this time.The QGEOP offset principles are as follows:Principle 1: Offsets will not replace or undermine existing environmental standards or regulatory requirements, or be used to allow development in areas otherwise prohibited through legislation or policy.Principle 2: Environmental impacts must first be avoided, then minimised, before considering the use of offsets for any remaining impact.Principle 3: Offsets must achieve an equivalent or better environmental outcome.Principle 4: Offsets must provide environmental values as similar as possible to those being lost.Principle 5: Offset provision should minimise the time-lag between the impact and delivery of the offset.Principle 6: Offsets must provide additional protection to environmental values at risk, or additional management actions to improve environmental values.Principle 7: Offsets must be legally secured for the duration of the offset requirement.Four specific issue policies support the QGEOP:• Marine Fish Habitat Offsets Policy• Offsets for a Net Gain in Bushland Koala Habitat in South

East Queensland Policy • Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets• Queensland Biodiversity Offsets PolicyThe Marine Fish Habitat Offsets Policy is the only specific issue offsets policy that is applicable to this demonstration case. Environmental offsets have been required for marine habitats in Queensland, including the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), under Queensland’s Marine Fish Habitat Offset Policy[6] since 2002, the first offset policy for the marine environment in Australia. The Marine Fish Habitat Offsets Policy protects marine plants as defined by the Fisheries Act 1994:

(1) Marine plant includes the following: a) a plant (a tidal plant) that usually grows on, or adjacent to, tidal land, whether it is living, dead, standing or fallen b) material of a tidal plant, or other plant material on tidal land c) a plant, or material of a plant, prescribed under a regulation or management plan to be a marine plant(2) Marine plant does not include a plant that is a declared pest under the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002

1.1.2 QGEOP implementation under the SDPWO Act

This demonstration case provides an opportunity to assess the procedure by which the Coordinator-General implements the QGEOP. The conditions contained within the EIS evaluation report become the sole state conditions for the project. These conditions are enforced through any subsequent approval decision that may be made by the appropriate regulatory authority. In forming these conditions, the Coordinator-General is able to impose offset conditions through the EIS evaluation report.


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


1.2 Identification of Matters of National Environmental Significance

1.2.1 Process to identify MNES

The EIS process for the project clearly identified the MNES potentially affected by the dredging in accordance with the TOR[7]. There are a number of MNES present in the area where dredging will occur, including threatened species such as marine turtles, migratory species such as dugong, and migratory birds such as beach stone curlew and little tern[8]. The area is also part of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) which includes a range of values such as seagrass beds, mangrove forests, intertidal sands and mud flats, as well as a number of species that inhabit these areas. The EIS listed the following MNES in relation to the study area: • World Heritage Properties: the report listed impacts to

habitats, water and sediment quality, hydrodynamics and coastal process, and introduced marine pests.

• National Heritage Places: No terrestrial sites or places of historic heritage significance were found to exist within the project area and accordingly the project would not have direct impacts upon any known sites of historic heritage significance (including archaeological places).

• Ramsar wetlands: Although no Ramsar wetlands of international importance were noted to occur within the project area, a number of nationally important wetlands do occur. While they were considered not to be controlling provisions of this project, the Port Curtis Wetland and The Narrows were included for completeness.

• Listed Threatened Species and Communities and Listed Migratory Species: Two threatened vegetation communities were indicated in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool results as potentially occurring within the footprint of the project: Semi-evergreen vine thicket of the Brigalow Belt (North and South) and Nandewar bioregions and Weeping Myall Woodlands. Although it was not listed in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search tool, the critically endangered ecological community littoral rainforest and coastal vine thickets of Eastern Australia is also present in the Curtis Coast region. The report advised that the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project would not impact on any of these three ecological communities.

1.2.2 Identified fauna

The EIS stated that the study area provided the characteristics suitable for breeding and foraging for many of the species previous recorded in the study area (Table 1.2 1); however, given the availability of similar habitat in the surrounds, this area was not considered of core importance.

Table 1.2 1 Species recorded within the study area during field surveys or considered likely to occur within the study area

Scientific name Common name Habitat

Crocodylus porosus estuarine crocodile migratory and marine

Chalinolobus dwyeri large-eared pied bat vulnerable

Epthianura crocea macgregori

yellow chat – Dawson subspecies

critically endangered

Geophaps scripta scripta

squatter pigeon vulnerable

Nettapus coromandelianus

cotton pygmy-goose migratory

Sterna albifrons eastern curlew migratory

Sterna albifrons little tern migratory and marine

Migratory and marine bird speciesA number of EPBC Act listed migratory bird species either occur or were likely to occur within the study area. There were 21 migratory and marine bird species recorded during field investigations, including one vulnerable species and six migratory species. Thirteen of the species recorded were utilising intertidal habitats (Table 1.2 2). Habitat in the far north of the study area was locally important for feeding and roosting shorebirds. However, the Gladstone region is not recognised as an area of national or international significance for migratory shorebirds.


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


Table 1.2 2 Migratory and marine bird species recorded in study area

Scientific name Common name Habitat

Haliaeetus leucogaster (white-bellied sea-eagle) migratory and marineHaliastur Indus brahminy kite marineHaliastur sphenurus whistling kite marinePandion cristatus osprey migratory and marineAnseranas semipalmata magpie goose marine

Ardea modesta great egret migratory and marineGerota garzetta little egret marineCoracina novoehollandiae black-faced cuckoo-shrike marineCoracina papuensis white-bellied cuckoo-shrike marineCharadrius ruficapillus red-capped plover marineGeophaps scripta scripta squatter pigeon (southern subspecies) vulnerableChalcites minutillus minutillus little bronze-cuckoo marineDicrurus bracteatus spangled drongo marineTodiramphus sanctus sacred kingfisher marineGelochelidon nilotica gull-billed tern marineHydroprogne caspia Caspian tern migratory and marineMerops ornatus rainbow bee-eater migratory and marinePelecanus conspicillatus Australian pelican marineRecurvirostra novaehollandiae red-necked avocet marineNumenius phaeopus whimbrel migratory and marineThreskiornis molucca Australian white ibis marine

Threatened and migratory marine taxaA search of the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool revealed 75 listed marine fauna species (including ray-finned fishes) that occur or have the potential to occur in proximity to the project area.Key threatened marine species, migratory marine species and listed cetaceans and their current conservation status with respect to EPBC legislation and international status from the World Conservation Union and the likelihood of occurrence within the project area as identified in the online search are listed in Table 1.2 3.These species are considered highly vulnerable to impacts as they are long-lived, slow-growing and have a low rate of reproduction. The report noted that other key species not identified by the online searches were observed during the field survey.


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


Table 1.2 2 Migratory and marine bird species recorded in study area

Scientific Name Common name EPBC Act listing status Habitat

Threatened marine speciesMegaptera novaeangliae humpback whale vulnerable migratory, cetaceanBalaenoptera musculus blue whale endangered migratory, cetaceanThreatened marine reptiles

Natator depressus flatback turtle vulnerable migratory, marine

Chelonia mydas Green turtle vulnerable migratory, marine

Caretta caretta loggerhead turtle endangered migratory, marine

Lepidochelys olivacea Olive ridley turtle endangered migratory, marine

Dermochelys coriacea leatherback turtle vulnerable migratory, marineThreatened sharks

Pristis zijsron Green sawfish vulnerable

Rhincodon typus whale shark vulnerable migratoryMigratory marine mammals

Balaenoptera edeni Bryde’s whale migratory, cetacean

Orcaella heinsohni Australian snubfin dolphin migratory, cetacean

Orcinus orca killer whale migratory, cetacean

Dugong dugong dugong migratory, marineMigratory marine reptiles

Crocodylus porosus estuarine crocodile migratory, marineListed Cetaceans

Balaenoptera acutorostrata minke whale cetacean

Stenella attenuate spotted dolphin cetacean

Tursiops aduncus Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin

cetacean

1.2.3 Identified flora

The report stated that a total of 16 flora species of conservation significance (national and/or State significance) were recorded within five kilometres of the project area, mostly associated with the peak and slopes of Mount Larcom. Of these, three were afforded particular assessment in the EIS: ▪ cycad (Cycas megacarpa) – common on Mount Larcom, no records in lower-lying areas closer to the project area, conspicuous

when mature ▪ Bailey’s indigo (Indigofera baileyi) – occurs in sclerophyll woodlands and open forest on soils derived from basalt and granite,

core populations are located south of Fraser Island ▪ quassia (Quassia bidwillii) – occurs in closed forests and vine thickets, usually in association with riparian vegetation and

freshwater


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


None of these species was identified during the field surveys conducted for the EIS as occurring in the project area. Therefore the project is not expected to impact upon the ecological values of the listed threatened terrestrial bird species [2].

1.3 Pressures and potential impacts

1.3.1 Pressures

In June 2012, the former Gladstone Economic and Industry Development Board prepared a report providing a snapshot of existing and proposed projects in Gladstone. This report outlines existing and future development pressures in Gladstone.Although there have been economic and social benefits arising from the strong population growth and intense urban and industrial development there has also been increased pressure on Queensland’s natural resources. In support of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) the QGEOP ensures that economic and social development occurs without an overall degradation of the environment.The EIS for the project describes the current environment, the project’s environmental impacts, and ways of avoiding, minimising or offsetting these impacts. The impacts include direct, indirect and cumulative impacts resulting from the construction, commissioning, operation and decommissioning of the project.

1.3.2 Direct impacts

GPC’s Report for Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project MNES[8], September 2009, listed the following as the potential / probable direct impacts of its project on the marine environment during either construction and/or operation: ▪ removal or damage to the benthos and individual organisms

from bund construction, dredging and pile driving works, including smothering of taxa

▪ removal of foraging and/or inter-nesting habitat for marine turtle species, dugong and coastal dolphins

▪ alteration of benthic habitat type from soft sediment to coarse clay/hard substrate

▪ alteration of benthic habitat type from intertidal to subtidal substrate

▪ damage to individual organisms from direct contact related to construction activities, including trapping within bund when bund is closed

▪ impact to fauna by boat strike from dredge and/or construction vessels

▪ disturbance and displacement of marine fauna from increased noise and/or activity during construction and dredging on the local area

▪ decreases in water quality from dredging, construction, spills of fuel or other hydrocarbons or other pollutants (animal wastes, paints, solvents and cleaners etc)

▪ increased rubbish that may be ingested or entangle marine fauna

▪ introduction of marine pests to the port and/or adjacent marine environment, including the GBR Marine Park

▪ alteration of sediment and water quality at the reclamation site by the introduction of contaminants or potential acid sulfate soils

▪ land use change resulting in loss of benthic primary producer habitat and fisheries resources

▪ interruption of recreational and other vessel traffic movement patterns

1.3.3 Indirect impacts

GPC’s Report for Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project MNES, September 2009, listed the following as the potential / probable indirect impacts of its project on the marine environment during either construction and/or operation: ▪ decreased water quality from altered siltation/sedimentation

regimes, alternation of stormwater input, and tailwater management, and an increase in pollutants as a result of construction waste or land use changes

▪ conflict between commercial and recreational activities as a result of land use change leading to additive pressures on the adjacent marine systems

▪ impact on subtidal and intertidal benthos (including mangrove communities) from changes in the hydrodynamic regime resulting in sedimentation, scouring, longer durations of wetting, increased/decreased flow rates

▪ noise, vibration and light impacts to marine reptiles and mammals from in-water construction or ongoing operational activities

1.3.4 Consideration of cumulative impacts

By considering all predicted dredging and dredged material disposal requirements for the Port of Gladstone, GPC sought to provide a better cumulative impact assessment than would have been possible should each individual development attempt this separately. The proposed dredging stages for the project were provided as follows in Table 1.3 1.


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


Table 1.3 1 Proposed dredging stages and volumes[8]

Dredging Stage

Description Volume (million cubic metres)

Stage 1A North China Bay Industry Precinct

16

Stage 1B Fishermans Landing LNG 6.1 Stage 2 Laird Point 4.5 Stage 3 Fisherman’s Landing

Development5.5

Stage 4 Hamilton Point 3.9 The Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project would occur wholly within the GBRWHA. Direct, indirect, permanent and temporary impacts on the benthic marine systems within the GBRWHA were anticipated from construction and operation of the project. The majority of the impacts involve the permanent removal of an area (approximately 235 hectares) of intertidal and subtidal habitat within the Western Basin Reclamation Area. A range of temporary impacts is also expected because of construction activities, including dredge plume impacts, disturbance to the marine benthos and noise impacts. The EIS assessed and described expected, probable and potential impacts


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


1.4 Measures to offset impacts on MNES

1.4.1 Impacts requiring offsetting

Based on the findings of the EIS, the Coordinator-General’s Report considered that the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal project would cause unavoidable permanent loss of 259 hectares of seagrass (four per cent of the known benthic area of 6318 hectares) and temporary disturbance of up to 1406 hectares of seagrass.The Coordinator-General also noted that: ▪ the loss of marine habitat would have a consequential

impact upon the feeding and breeding behaviour of marine megafauna, notably turtles, dugongs, and dolphins

▪ dugongs and marine turtles using the Western Basin would be potentially subject to a range of direct and indirect impacts including degraded water quality, risk of boat strike injury and disturbance by underwater noise

▪ the construction of the reclamation area and the increase in vessel traffic may impede the migratory pathways of marine fauna using The Narrows and Port Curtis

▪ disturbance to the intertidal foreshore in the vicinity of the reclamation area may impact upon the feeding, breeding, and transit of migratory shorebirds

At the time that the Coordinator-General assessed the Western Basin project (2010), offsets were only required under QGEOP and the fish habitat offset policy.

1.4.2 Strategic approach to offsets for the Western

Basin Dredging and Disposal project

Through the EIS process, the Coordinator-General applied a strategic approach to offset identification. This approach enabled the identification of a practical offset arrangement that will protect a significant area of high value habitat over the long term. Subject to conditions outlined by the Coordinator-General, GPC’s proposal to establish a strategic offset that was sufficient for all four projects under the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project was accepted. The strategic offset offered by GPC provided potential advantages over a series of smaller and independent offsets in terms of environmental outcomes and ongoing management. The EIS estimated the combined impacts of four projects – Fisherman’s Landing Port Expansion, Western Basin Dredging and Disposal, Wiggins Island Coal Terminal, and Gladstone LNG Stage 1 channel dredging on marine fish habitat, as summarised in Table 1.4 1.

Table 1.4 1 Cumulative impacts from multiple projects in Gladstone harbour

Project Permanent Loss Temporary Disturbance

Fisherman’s Landing Port Expansion Reclamation of 174 ha of seabed including 90 ha of seagrass and 84 ha of ‘potential’ seagrass

Indirect effects on up to 180 ha of seagrass

Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Reclamation/dredging affecting 259 ha of seagrass

Indirect effects on up to 1 406 ha of seagrass

Wiggins Island Coal Terminal Reclamation of 260 ha including intertidal wetland and 10 ha seagrass

Indirect effects on up to 200 ha seagrass

Gladstone LNG Stage 1 channel dredging Approximately 0.12 ha of seagrass and other marine plants on the pipeline route

Total 443 ha of seagrass and 250 ha of intertidal wetland


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


As the policy principles of the QGEOP requires offsets to achieve an equivalent or better environmental outcome and provide environmental values as similar as possible to those being lost, the Coordinator-General considered the following in determining an appropriate offset: ▪ the nature (type, quality etc.) of marine fish habitat and

coastal environmental values that would be lost compared to those in the offset site/s

▪ the practical constraints of providing like-for-like offsets for particular types of marine plants – in this case, seagrass

▪ the time lag between developmental impacts and the provision of offsets

▪ the geographic separation between the area of impacts and the offsets

▪ the likelihood of successful recovery of seagrass areas that may be significantly affected by dredging and reclamation works

The Coordinator-General determined (in consultation with the former Queensland Government Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation and Department of Environment and Resource Management) that an appropriate offset package sufficient to acquit the requirements for impacts to marine fish habitat was as follows: ▪ The protection of 5000 hectares of coastal land (currently

within GPC’s strategic port land at Port Alma). It was proposed the marine areas be included in the adjacent declared Fitzroy River Fish Habitat Area and/or State marine park.

▪ A contribution of $5 million to support Fisheries Queensland initiatives for future research and studies and/or appropriate works for fish habitat rehabilitation and enhancement. This would be staged over a five year period and directed to a range of projects aimed at enhancing marine fish habitat resources in the region.

In addition, GPC committed to a further contribution of up to $5 million over 10 years to support fish habitat enhancement projects within the Gladstone port area.There are a number of positives and negatives in relation to the use of Port Alma as a suitable offset area (Table 1.4 2). Overall, it was considered that the benefits outweighed the disadvantages.


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


In addition to the offset site at Port Alma, the Queensland Government has declared 2900 hectares of protected area on the southern end of Curtis Island. This protected land is part of the environmental management precinct adjacent to the LNG industrial site, and has been purchased with funding committed by LNG companies operating on Curtis Island as environmental offsets.The new declaration will add around 1912 hectares to Curtis Island National Park and 1000 hectares of high value conservation land to Curtis Island Conservation Park, increasing the protected area to more than 17 100 hectares.Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service will oversee management of the protected area and focus its management activities through conservation and pest control programs. These programs will help protect species such as the vulnerable flatback turtle population that nest on the island and the critically endangered yellow chat. The Coordinator-General placed 143 conditions on the project after careful consideration of the likely impacts. The majority of these conditions related to avoiding and mitigating impacts. Outlined below are the five conditions relating to environmental offsets.

Table 1.4 2 Port Alma Offsets

Port Alma as a suitable offset site

Positives Negatives ▪ comprises estuarine wetlands with significant fish habitat

values ▪ includes an estimated 330 ha of terrestrial area (above the

level of the highest astronomical tide) adjacent to the Rundle Range National Park

▪ extensive areas of mangrove communities and intertidal wetlands

▪ represents valuable fish habitat including nursery and recruitment areas

▪ marine megafauna (including dugongs, dolphins and turtles) are known to inhabit the tidal waterways within the site

▪ the designation of the area as a national park would protect environmental values of the area in perpetuity from development and provide whole-of-landscape protection not currently provided by the existing Rundle Range National Park

▪ fish habitat area designation establishes the area as an area of State environmental significance and provides greater protection from development than currently provided by its marine park zoning (a Habitat Protection Zone is not a highly protected area or MNES).

▪ It provides a conservation gain that is additional to what is already delivered under planning laws that apply to the area - meeting Australian Government requirements

▪ no areas of seagrass ▪ approximately 70 % of the site lies within a Habitat

Protection Zone of the Great Barrier Coast Reef Marine Park, thus is already given a level of protection

▪ the development potential of the land for port purposes (an activity of significant economic value for the area) would be removed in perpetuity by taking it out of the Strategic Port Land designation and including the terrestrial portion in the protected area estate


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


OFFSET CONDITIONS FOR THE WESTERN BASIN DREDGING AND DISPOSAL PROJECTMarine habitat offsetCondition 19 Prior to the commencement of dredging works for the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project, GPC must:

a) submit documentation to the satisfaction of the Coordinator-General that the agreed offset for marine fish habitat, as referenced in section 6.3 of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project Coordinator-General’s report dated July 2010 has been securedb) if condition 19(a) cannot be achieved, submit for approval to the Coordinator-General an alternative offset proposal that is equivalent to or better than the agreed off-set for marine fish habitatThe Chief Executive Officer of GPC is the entity with jurisdiction for these conditions.

(Note: GPC committed to a further contribution of up to $5 million over 10 years to support fish habitat enhancement projects within the Gladstone Port area).Commercial fisheries offsetCondition 20 GPC must mitigate all reasonable financial losses to existing commercial fishing operators attributable to the maritime development in the Western Basin of the Port of Gladstone. This is to cover temporary and permanent loss of access to fishing areas and marine fish habitat.Condition 21 GPC must meet any costs associated with the investigation, negotiation and administration of any compensation package, including all costs incurred by DEEDI* in the management of development of any compensation package.

The Chief Executive Officer of DEEDI is the entity with jurisdiction for these conditions. *Now the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

Recreational fishing and boating offsetCondition 22 Prior to the completion of stage 1 dredging works, GPC shall contribute funding and/or works to the value of $1 million towards new or upgraded recreational fishing infrastructure within the Gladstone region as determined by DTMR*. A further $0.5 million of funding will be provided for all tide public boat ramps within the Western Basin area prior to the completion of the stages 2 and 3 dredging.

The Chief Executive Officer of DTMR is the entity with jurisdiction for these conditions. *Department of Transport and Main Roads.

Marine and coastal biodiversity offsetCondition 23 In addition to the provisions required for a Flora and Fauna Management Plan [9] (FFMP) stated by conditions in Appendix 1, Schedule 2, Part 4 of this report, GPC shall provide additional offset measures for shorebirds and marine fauna to be included in the FFMP. These should consist of funding and/or in-kind contributions to the value of at least $2 million towards measures including, but not be limited to:

a) Enhanced understanding of the displacement of key marine fauna species from affected habitat areas in Western Basin and any associated effects on regional populations.b) Contribution to species protection programs in the region or the wider bioregion. This may include funding of additional boating and fisheries patrols, education campaigns for recreational fishers on risks of marine fauna boat strike and improved management of key shorebird habitat areas.c) Contribution to habitat enhancement/restoration actions in the region or the wider bioregion such as ‘seagrass friendly’ mooring systems, wetland rehabilitation projects and water quality improvement programs.


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


The Coordinator-General’s Report on the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project also imposed a condition requiring additional offset measures for shorebirds and marine fauna to be included in the Flora and Fauna Management Plan (FFMP). Measures could include, but were not limited to: ▪ Enhanced understanding of the displacement of key marine

fauna species from affected habitat areas in the Western Basin and any associated effects on regional populations.

▪ Contribution to species protection programs in the region or the wider bioregion. This may include funding of additional boating and fisheries patrols, education campaigns for recreational fishers on risks of marine fauna boat strike and improved management of key shorebird habitat areas.

▪ Contribution to habitat enhancement/restoration actions in the region or the wider bioregion such as ‘seagrass friendly’ mooring systems, wetland rehabilitation projects and water quality improvement programs.

The Coordinator-General stated that flora and fauna management plans required for other projects in the Western Basin should comprise measures that are compatible with the FFMP for the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project and that preferably all projects should contribute toward an overall strategic package.

1.4.3 Alignment with the Australian

Government’s approach to offsets

The Coordinator-General’s Report on the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project referred to the draft Australian Government policy statement regarding the use of environmental offsets under the EPBC Act to provide guidance on projects that may trigger consideration of an offset by the Australian Government. The conditions relating to environmental offsets applied by the Coordinator-General provide protection for both MNES and matters of State environmental significance. At the time there was little consideration of OUV directly but they were indirectly considered.In October 2010, the Australian Government Environment Minster approved GPC’s Port of Gladstone Western Basin Strategic Dredging and Disposal Project under sections 130(1) and 133 of the EPBC Act. The Australian Government Environment Minster effectively mirrored the conditions put forward by the Coordinator General, but sought additional requirements. The conditions included: ▪ measures funded to not less than $5 million including, but

not limited to: - funding for listed threatened and migratory species

protection, habitat enhancement and restoration actions in the region or the wider bioregion such as ‘seagrass friendly’ mooring systems, wetland rehabilitation projects and water quality improvement programs

- actions to reduce fisheries netting pressure in Port Curtis and in adjacent waters

- actions to reduce potential for coastal impacts such as commercial development in adjacent areas

▪ details of the management arrangements and a map of the 3 000 hectares of land at Port Alma proposed for protection in perpetuity as an Environment Preservation Area

▪ development of a seagrass conservation plan that must include, but not be limited to: - a map clearly illustrating the areas to be protected

including the Wiggins / Mud Islands seagrass beds, seagrass beds east of Quoin Island and seagrass beds in Pelican Banks

- measures to ensure the seagrass beds within the Port are protected from ongoing and future Port activity

- commitments to ensure no further direct seagrass removal of the areas referred to by the aforementioned map to account for any increases in size of the mapped seagrass areas

The main difference between conditions imposed by the Coordinator-General and the Australian Government relates to seagrass protection. The Coordinator-General felt the provision of a direct offset or land-based offset for seagrass was impracticable and directed a financial contribution be provided by GPC for habitat enhancement/restoration actions in the region or the wider bioregion. The Australian Government instead required offsets specifically for seagrass. Section 1.7.1 outlines proposed measures to address the potential for inconsistency between State and national decisions in the future.


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


1.5 Information gaps and how they are being addressed

The EIS process for the project collected the information deemed sufficient to assess impacts on MNES but was deficient on the impacts of OUV because the Australian Government retains the assessment of actions relating to the GBRWHA. New projects requiring an EIS process and the ongoing monitoring will all contribute to the understanding of the identification of and potential impacts of MNES over time.As part of the Queensland Government’s reform of the planning system, development of an offsets policy that responds to the changing requirements of planning and development in Queensland is an important part of strengthening Queensland’s environmental management.At the time of writing, the Queensland Government was reviewing its approach to offsets and is committed to implementing a new strategic offsets policy, providing better integration of requirements, by replacing the existing five Queensland Government offset policies.The aim of the refined policy will continue to be to avoid and mitigate significant impacts, and that any offsets required will deliver a conservation outcome for impacted matters. The proposed Queensland One-Government Environmental Offsets Policy will provide a clear link between the impacted value and the offset, and the offset action will be additional to existing practice or requirements.The proposed policy will remove duplication between offset requirements of the State and Australian Governments, and its approach will be informed by the EPBC Act 2012 Environmental Offsets Policy.The intention for the proposed offsets policy is to pre-identify suitable areas and/or suitable management strategies to achieve offset obligations through the use of strategic investment corridors and Direct Benefit Management Plans (DBMPs). This approach will incorporate key features of the strategic assessment.

On 30 July 2013, the initial report from an Independent Review of The Port of Gladstone was provided to the Australian Government Environment Minister for consideration. The report noted that evidence considered by the Review did not demonstrate that the offsets package for approved projects in Port of Gladstone has resulted in a significant environmental benefit. It also noted that some offsets are still to be delivered[10].Consistent with the report’s recommendation for the Australian Government to build on the offsets policy launched in 2012, the Queensland Government is reviewing its own offsets framework, to create a single, strategic policy focussed on delivering outcomes for impacted environmental matters.A publicly-accessible Queensland Government offset register is being developed to spatially identify sites that are the subject of an offset. The register will be a component of an overarching offsets data management system, which is a critical requirement for providing a high level of certainty in offset assessment and delivery to both industry groups and the government alike.


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


1.6 Compliance and monitoring

1.6.1 Compliance

The Coordinated Project Delivery (CPD) Division of the Office of the Coordinator-General manages the significant project declaration process. As part of the environmental impact assessment process, the CPD Division’s Compliance Unit ensures every declared significant project complies with its obligations, as described in the Coordinator-General’s report. Management processes achieve compliance through: ▪ identifying applicable requirements ▪ encouraging compliance through active community

engagement and complaints management ▪ monitoring the status of compliance ▪ assessing the risks and potential cost of non-compliance ▪ prioritising the enforcement of non-compliance

The compliance and enforcement options available to the Coordinator-General to respond to contraventions of conditions include: ▪ Written Notices (requesting information or warning letters) ▪ Enforcement Notices under section 157B of the SDPWO Act

– maximum penalty for not complying with an enforcement notice is 1 665 penalty units ($166 500 for an individual or $832 500 for a corporation)

▪ Enforcement Orders under section 157I of the SDPWO Act – maximum penalty for not complying with an enforcement order is two years imprisonment or 3 000 penalty units ($300 000 for an individual and $1.5 million for a corporation)

▪ offence to not comply with conditions imposed by the Coordinator-General – for example, in relation to imposed conditions on a use of land approved in a State development area under section 84 of the SDPWO Act – maximum penalty for not complying is 1 665 penalty units ($166 500 for an individual or $832 500 for a corporation)

▪ offence of giving Coordinator-General a false or misleading document under section 157O of the SDPWO Act – maximum penalty for not complying with an enforcement notice is 1 665 penalty units ($166 500 for an individual or $832 500 for a corporation)

▪ liability of directors and executive officers under section 157P of the SDPWO Act –maximum penalty for the

contravention of the section by an individual is two years imprisonment or 3 000 penalty units ($300 000 for an individual and $1.5 million for a corporation)

1.6.2 Monitoring

As part of the conditions (Condition 30) of the approval of the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project, CPD’s Compliance Unit is required to undertake monitoring and compliance measures. This includes a requirement for GPC to have an annual audit undertaken and provide this report to the Coordinator-General. A qualified and experienced third party auditor will be responsible for identifying how the project is delivered against the Coordinator-General’s conditions. The initial Third Party Compliance Audit[11] of the project was provided to the Coordinator General in August 2011. The audit report demonstrated overall compliance with the Coordinator-General’s offset conditions. The Third Party Compliance Audit for 2012[12] was provided to the Coordinator General in July 2012. The findings of this audit report confirm that GPC have generally complied with the requirements of the Coordinator-General’s imposed conditions.Additionally, the extensive independent environmental water quality monitoring program for the Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project shows no visible or scientific signs of any negative impact from changes in water quality to date. The Dredge Technical Reference Panel appointed by the Australian Government Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities oversees the Water Quality Monitoring Program.


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


Compliance and auditingCondition 30 The following third party auditing requirements must be applied for the project:

a) Compliance with the Coordinator-General’s imposed conditions of this report must be audited by an appropriately qualified and experienced third party auditor or auditors appropriate to the matters being audited, nominated by the proponent and accepted by the Coordinator-General, within one year of the project receiving approval to proceed and annually thereafter.b) The proponent must submit the third party audit report(s) to the Coordinator General within 42 calendar days of the end of the relevant period.c) The audit report must identify the segment of the project being audited, the conditions that were activated during the period, and a compliance/non-compliance table. A description of the evidence to support the compliance table must be provided. The audit report will also contain recommendations on any non-compliance or other matter to improve compliance. The third party auditor must certify the findings of the audit report.d) The financial cost of the third party audit is borne by the proponent.e) The holder of the environmental authority(s) must immediately act upon any recommendations arising from the audit report and:

i) investigate any non-compliance issues identified, and ii) as soon as practicable, implement measures or take necessary action to ensure compliance with this authority

f) Subject to condition 25(a), and not more than 30 calendar days following the submission of the audit report, the proponent must provide written advice to the Coordinator-General addressing the:

i) actions taken by the proponent promptly and routinely to ensure compliance with the Coordinator-General’s imposed conditions, and ii) actions taken to routinely prevent a recurrence of any non-compliance issues


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


1.7 Program effectiveness

The EIS process is considered to be a thorough and very effective process for managing potential impacts to MNES including OUV. This demonstration case has highlighted the implementation of the QGEOP though the Coordinator-General’s EIS process. The current offsets framework was found to be effective but needs improvement and consideration of cumulative impacts.Of the 143 conditions imposed on GPC through the EIS process, the Coordinator-General imposed five specific conditions relating to environmental offsets. Implementing the QGEOP through this process has enabled the identification of a practical offset arrangement that will protect a significant area of high value habitat over the long term. In addition, the compliance and monitoring measures imposed on GPC through the Coordinator-General’s conditions provides a robust mechanism for maintaining and enhancing the environmental values underpinning MNES including OUV in the region.

Measure Effectiveness Confidence Trend Comments

Demonstrated ability to identify MNES including OUV

Very effective The EIS for the project identified MNES in the project area that would be affected by the project.

Demonstrated ability to assess impacts

Effective The EIS process provides a rigorous analysis of impacts to determine what offset may be required to offset unavoidable impacts

Effectiveness in offsetting unavoidable impacts

Partially effective Through the EIS process, the Coordinator-General applied a strategic approach to offset identification. This approach enabled the identification of a practical offset arrangement that will protect a significant area of high value habitat over the long term.

Demonstrated ability to adapt system over time to incorporate new knowledge

Effective The various offsets policies developed over time and continue to evolve. It is necessary now to consider how to better integrate the policies to deliver improved and more strategic outcomes for MNES.

Resourcing, monitoring and compliance

Effective The monitoring and complicance regimes are inplace and effective. There are approriate penalties in place for non compliance

Overall effectiveness

Effective The current offsets framework is effective but needs improvement and consideration of cumulative impacts.


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


1.7.1 Projected condition

The projected condition of MNES is expected to be relatively stable, however development potential for the area has not yet been realised with a number of other projects either commencing or being investigated that may impact on Gladstone Harbour. Nevertheless, these projects will all require assessment of MNES and OUV by the Queensland and/or Australian Government in accordance with the assessment bilateral under the EPBC Act. Cumulative impacts of the residual impacts will be an important consideration. While the QGEOP provides useful guidance on the appropriate use of environmental offsets across marine and terrestrial environments, to ensure that the environmental benefits of offsets are maximised, the Queensland Government is undertaking a review of its offsets policy. A revised Queensland One-Government Environmental Offsets Policy will deliver more strategic outcomes and seek to align with the objectives of the Australian Government Offsets Policy where possible. Under current arrangements, major infrastructure projects, particularly those in and adjacent to the GBRWHA are facing increasing challenges with meeting the specific requirements of multiple policies in a timely and effective manner. Feedback from industry proponents has indicated that: ▪ current environmental offsets requirements are complex ▪ environmental legislation and policies are constantly

evolving i.e. offsets policies have evolved from setting broad objectives to specific metrics and rules about process and outcomes

▪ offsets are required by both the Queensland and Australian governments

▪ policies are not well tailored to the impacts of the LNG industry

UNESCO recently criticised the Western Basin offset arrangements indicating that the scale of impacts caused by the development did not appear to be comparable to the outcomes provided from the offsets. The Australian Government has since finalised its offsets policy, placing greater emphasis on the conservation gain delivered by an offset and providing additional guidance on the determination of suitable offsets. Similarly, in 2011, the Queensland Government released the Queensland Biodiversity Offsets Policy, which provides specific guidance on determination of suitable offsets for the LNG industry and other development previously not subject to a specific-issue offset policy[13].The Queensland Government review of its approach to offsets will integrate requirements of all existing Queensland

Government offset policies and provide greater consistency with the Australian Government’s offset policy to ensure that there is a net benefit to MNES. The new strategic approach to offsets has been outlined in section 3.7 of the strategic assessment report. To maximise the effectiveness of strategic offsets, the Queensland Government is engaging with industry proponents to work together to acquire offsets for more beneficial and strategic environmental outcomes. This is presently occurring with consideration of a combined LNG offset proposition on the northern section of Curtis Island.The Queensland Government’s planning reform agenda also represents a significant opportunity to ensure MNES including OUV are explicitly identified and protected through plan-making and development assessment at the State, regional and local level within the GBR region.


Dem

onst

ratio

n Ca

se 5

- Of

fset

s in

Gla

dsto

ne H

arbo


1.8 Information sources

1. Queensland Department of Heritage Protection (DEHP). 2008, Environment offset. Available from: http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/management/planning-guidelines/policies/environmental-offsets/; Last accessed 17 October 2013.

2. Queensland Department of State Development Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP). 2010, Western Basin dredging and Disposal Project: Coordinator-General’s report for an environmental impact statement. Available from: http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/project/port-of-gladstone-western-basin-dredging-disposal-project/wbdp-cg-report-22-july-10.pdf; Last accessed 17 October 2013.

3. Commonwealth Department of the Environment. 2012, Bilateral Agreement between the Commonwealth and Queensland. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/assessments/bilateral/pubs/qld-bilateral-agreement-june-2012.pdf; Last accessed 15 October 2013.

4. Commonwealth Department of the Environment. 2009, Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant impact guidelines 1.1. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/nes-guidelines.pdf; Last accessed 15 October 2013.

5. Queensland Department of State development Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP). 2010, Port of Gladstone Western Basin Master Plan – Under Section 10(20 of the State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971, . Available from: http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/media/pdf/Western%20Basin%20Master%20Plan.pdf; Last accessed 17 October 2013

6. Queensland Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). 2012, Marine fish habitat offset policy. Available from: http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/68601/Marine-Fish-Habitat-Offset-Policy-12.pdf; Last accessed 17 October 2013.

7. Queensland Department of State Development Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP). 2009, Terms of Reference for an environmental impact statement: Port of Gladstone Western Basin dredging project. Available from: http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/project/port-of-gladstone-western-basin-dredging-disposal-project/western-basin-dredging-project-tor.pdf; Last accessed 17 October 2013.

8. Gladstone Ports Corporation/GHD, 2009, Report for Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project – Matters of National Environmental Significance, Gladstone Ports Corporation: Gladstone, Australia.

9. Aurecon/Gladstone Ports Corporation. 2011, Flora and Fauna Management Plan – Western Basin Dredging and Disposal (Onshore and Offshore) Project Available from: http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/media/pdf/Flora%20and%20fauna%20management%20plan.pdf.

10. Commonwealth Department of the Environment. 2013, Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone: Report on Findings. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/gbr/gladstone/pubs/gladstone-review-initial-report.pdf; Last accessed 16 October 2013.

11. Gladstone Ports Corporation/Cog Consulting. 2011, Third Party Compliance Audit: Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project - Approval Coordinator-General’s Imposed Conditions Available from: http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/media/pdf/CQG%20Third%20Pary%20Compliance%20Audit%20WBDDP%20Aug%202011.pdf; Last accessed 17 October 2013.

12. Gladstone Ports Corporation/Aquas. 2012, Third Party Compliance Audit: Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project - Approval Coordinator-General’s Imposed Conditions. Available from: http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/media/pdf/Aquas%20Third%20Party%20Compliance%20Audit%20WBDDP%20July%202012.pdf; Last accessed 17 October 2013.

13. Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 2008, Biodiversity Offsets. Available from: http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/management/environmental-offsets/biodiversity-offsets.html; Last accessed 7 October 2013.

Documents

BRISBANE GOLD COAST Demonstration...Scientific name Common name Habitat Haliaeetus leucogaster (white-bellied sea-eagle) migratory and marine Haliastur Indus brahminy kite marine Haliastur