11 February 2013 Approval process for 4th Gladstone LNG EIS just as flawed

Rushed and pressured public servants were given impossible deadlines to approve Queensland’s massive new coal seam gas industry including three LNG plants for Curtis Island and raise questions about whether the public good and environmental impacts were ever properly assessed.

Environment group Save the Reef says political pressure and staff cutbacks have increased workloads on the public service under the Newman Government and that it is deeply concerned about whether the 4th LNG plant will be stringently assessed, as it is supposed to be, to protect the environment and public interest.

Save the Reef spokesperson Dr Libby Connors urged the current state government not to make the same mistakes. ‘Thanks to those rushed approvals, environmental harm has occurred. The Condamine river has methane bubbling up through it and the Great Barrier Reef is threatened with World Heritage Area ''In Danger" listing.’

Save the Reef says it is disturbing to note a government spokesperson was reported as stating that the industry was operating ‘with no evidence of significant environmental damage or adverse outcomes’.

A public servant who issues an environmental authority that does not meet the criteria of the Environment Protection Act 1994 may be guilty of official misconduct.

The Newman government is currently considering the approval of a 4th LNG plant for Arrow which is owned by Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd for Curtis Island in Gladstone Harbour, part of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

This is despite the fact that just last year Shell re-affirmed its 10 year commitment to UNESCO not to develop oil and gas facilities in World Heritage Areas.

‘Gladstone’s marine environment is struggling with the massive Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project, major flooding and construction of three LNG plants.

‘We think investigation of cumulative impacts on Gladstone Harbour and the regulation of dredging and other construction impacts from the LNG plants is urgently needed. At the moment a 4th LNG plant is not environmentally sustainable.’

Dr Connors said that the group endorsed calls for a CMC inquiry into the approvals process and government regulation of the coal seam gas industry.

‘It is pretty clear that the rushed approvals process did not allow the department to adequately assess all effects and now our world wonder, our tourism icon, the Great Barrier Reef, and the 6 billion dollars it brings in every year is “In Danger”.’

‘There are many more unanswered questions and concerns that the approvals process was not up to the requirements of existing legislation let alone the demands of a twenty-first world facing declining coral reefs worldwide and burdened by too much atmospheric carbon.’

Contacts: Libby Connors 0429 487 110; Andrew Jeremijenko 0438 372 653

Proposals for LNG processing facilities and associated infrastructure within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area currently under assessment

Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd, Development of a Liquefied Natural Gas http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_ Facility referrals&limit=999999&text_search=2009%2F5007

Shell CSG (Australia) Pty Ltd, Development of high pressure gas pipeline http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/epbc/epbc_ap.pl?name=current_ referrals&limit=999999&text_search=2009%2F5008

14 February 2013 CEO of Gladstone Ports to depart in August - Too late to save Harbour World Heritage Area

During Leo Zussino’s term as CEO of Gladstone Ports Corporation, an environmental disaster unfolded in Gladstone harbour as the World Heritage Area, dugong sanctuary and turtle haven was turned into a massive oil, gas and coal hub. His time at the helm was marked by a UNESCO mission visit, following that organisation’s expression of extreme concern about the LNG developments in Gladstone harbour.

The mission called for an independent scientific inquiry into Gladstone Harbour, including a review of its management, after meeting with governments, environment, fishing and community groups, and Mr Leo Zussino, to discuss the harbour.

His term was marked by hostility towards the harbour’s environmental values, according to environment group Save the Reef.

‘Mr Zussino used his position to call for Gladstone harbour to be removed from the World Heritage listing and wrote to all MPs in Australia to promote this idea,’ Save the Reef spokesperson Dr Andrew Jeremijenko said.

‘He was blind to the harbour’s important environmental values and this undoubtedly contributed to his downfall.’

The Gladstone Ports Corporation board ‘‘chose not to renew’’ chief executive officer Leo Zussino's contract, which expires at the end of August for a multitude of reasons. Mr Zussino was a long time Labor Party supporter and was lucky to survive the port's administrative and managerial revamp in June last year, when Ian Brusasco was sacked. With ongoing environmental problems and the change of political parties he was lucky to finish his contract.

In June while he is still at the helm, the Gladstone Inquiry will release its findings and UNESCO will determine if the Great Barrier Reef including Gladstone Harbour will be placed on the World Heritage Area "In Danger" list. His departure will not save the Great Barrier Reef or Gladstone Harbour from the damage already done.

Save the Reef says that his successor should learn from his mistakes and not view this marine environment solely as an industrial estate.

‘Mr Zussino may well see Gladstone Harbour removed from World Heritage Listing. It will then be his fate to be remembered as one of this country’s environmental vandals, one who helped destroy $6 billion dollars of revenue, a tourism icon and the world wonder that was the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.’

Contacts: Dr Andrew Jeremijenko 0438 372 653; Dr Libby Connors 0429 487 110

Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/gladstone-ports-chief-to-step-down- 20130214-2efbw.html#ixzz2KraIng64

Resource consultants acting like high paid super models’

By John Mikkelsen

AN ENVIRONMENTAL medicine specialist has compared consultants working on major resource developments with “supermodels who won’t get out of bed for less than $5000 a day”.

The claim was made by Save the Reef spokesman Dr Andrew Jeremijenko, an occupational physician who once worked as chief medical officer for Woodside Petroleum in WA. He has also provided “Telemedicine advice” to major coal seam gas and Curtis Island LNG proponents, QGC and Origin over the past three years.

His scathing assessment of the resources consultancy industry followed the release of a report last week by the Federal Government’s Independent Scientific Expert Committee. This raised a number of issues over Arrow Energy’s Surat Gas Project Environmental Impact Statement, including underground water and threatened species.

Dr Jeremijenko told the Telegraph, “This demonstrates how broken the EIS process has become.

“In my view environmental consultants are becoming more like supermodels than protectors of the environment.

“They won't get out of bed for less than $5000 a day. They go and take a few pictures and sell the product (namely the resource company CSG project).

“If you have the patience to read their ‘glossy’, it is shallow. It doesn’t address issues like cumulative impacts. They are paid by the resource companies and they do their bidding.

“Very few projects get knocked back and they don’t get sued by the Queensland Government if they say, ‘ It will all be ok’ but are proved wrong … All you have to do is look at the Dee River or at Ensham to realize these consultants get it wrong” .

Dr Jeremijenko said the expert committee was set up at the instigation of Federal Independent MP Tony Windsor, who had been dissatisfied with government scrutiny of new coal and coal seam gas projects.

“The committee has found that the Environmental Impact Statement for Arrow Energy does not adequately address potential impacts to matters of national environmental significance.

“It considered the EIS modelling inadequate as it does not assess cumulative impacts and they found the project has the potential to significantly impact on aquifer integrity in the region,” Dr Jeremijenko said.

“Mr Windsor and fellow independent Rob Oakeshott have successfully lobbied for a "Water Trigger’ to be included in the EPBC act. The resource companies continue to lobby against it. They know they are having cumulative impacts on the water…. You can't drink coal or gas," Dr Jeremijenko said.

Save the Reef believed the expert committee had highlighted problems with the whole EIS process. Environmental consultants had lost their independence and had become “the voice boxes for industry”.

“The current system rewards environmental consultants with repeat work if they write what the resource companies want….

“The government then approves projects without adequate review of these ‘independent’ EIS. If later there is an environmental disaster the environmental consultants know there is little chance they will be held responsible….

Dr Jeremijenko said the EIS for Arrow’s gasfield project was unfortunately one of many found to be flawed.

“In my view, Environmental Impact Statements are no longer worth the paper they are written on,” he said.

“The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area may be put on UNESCO’s ‘In Danger List’ on June 1 partly because environmental consultants for the LNG plants and Western Basin Dredging and Disposal project said that environmental impacts could be managed and would be small to negligible.

“The consultants had stated in one EIS for a Curtis Island LNG plant, that Gladstone Harbour was an area of low sensitivity despite a table stating that World Heritage Areas should be classified as high sensitivity. Gladstone Harbour is a turtle haven and dugong sanctuary.,” Dr Jeremijenko said.

His claims follow a CMC probe into recent allegations that the former Bligh government had pressured senior public servants into rushed approval of earlier EIS reports by other major coal seam gas companies constructing pipelines and LNG export terminals on Curtis Island.

Dredging resumed the day Gladstone’s flood peaked

By John Mikkelsen

GLADSTONE Ports Corporation resumed its controversial major harbour dredging at the height of the Australia Day weekend floods, after a brief halt.

This was revealed by a GPC spokesperson in response to questions by The Queensland Telegraph following the re-appearance of the dredges Rotterdam and Al Mahar in harbour waters, which still appeared to be visibly murky from flood waters.

The Rotterdam is a fast, self-propelled trailing suction hopper dredge which dumps spoil at East Banks, off shore near Facing Island. It featured recently in a French TV Planet Hope news feature which focussed on the port developments at Gladstone and Abbot Point. Al Mahaar is a non self- propelled suction cutter dredge.

According to the GPC spokesperson, the dredges resumed operating at 6 am on Sunday, January 27, which was several hours before the Awoonga Dam spillway reached a record overflow height of 8.3 metres and houses downstream at Benaraby and low-lying sections of Boyne/ Tannum were inundated. More than 200 people sought refuge at emergency centres set up at Tanyalla in Tannum Sands and the PCYC in Gladstone. The overflow was about twice the height of the 2010 – 2011 event.

These are facts which we present without comment as historical context. Our questions and replies by the GPC spokesperson on Monday (February 4) are also presented without embellishment below.

“Q. What is the current status of dredging and turbidity?

A. Dredging stopped when harbour was closed by MSQ at 6pm Thursday 24 January and recommenced when harbour was opened with all dredges operating at 6am on Sunday 27 January. The initial response to the recent flood event in the Western Basin was extremely high turbidity (300+ NTU). Since the flows have slowed down the harbour is now a mixture of sea water and freshwater. The brackish water leads to the ‘flocculation’ of suspended particles and this causes suspended material that causes turbidity to reduce. This is most pronounced at the surface of the water column and is likely to be the reason for the low turbidity currently being observed in the basin. During our routine monthly monitoring last week we observed very high turbidity in the lower water column, further supporting the process previously described (Jan 2013 WQ report will be related in late Feb on http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/environmental_reports/section/environmen tal). In the medium term this material will settle to the seabed, but if a high energy event occurs (i.e. storm event with strong wind) this material is likely to be resuspended into the water column. This process is not new to the western basin, or any other nearshore marine environment, and has been observed in the past. Turbidity and Light graphs are updated daily on the Western Basin Port Project website.

Q. Are there any other dredges operating and when did the Rotterdam actually re-commence dredging?

A. As above. (There is currently two dredges working on the WBDDP, the Rotterdam and the Al Mahaar. However, the Castor works periodically on the WBDDP. All this information is available on the website.

Q. Is it too early to tell how the floods have impacted the shipping channels here (and at Burnett Heads and Port Alma?)

A. At this time surveys are taking place to determine if the floods have impacted shipping channels. Once complete for Gladstone, Port Alma and Bundaberg will be done when safe to do so”.

Meanwhile, an environmental group has questioned how an astronaut saw and photographed the flood plumes on Tuesday, February 29 as published in last Saturday’s Telegraph while harbour monitors apparently showed no problems with turbidity.

Save the Reef said the dramatic pictures of the Queensland flood plume taken by astronauts showed a brown muddy harbour from outer space, “yet Gladstone Ports Corporation’s water quality monitoring program says it is safe to dredge the inner harbour.

“If Gladstone Ports Corporation’s light monitors say conditions are OK in a flood plume, there must be a problem,” according to spokesperson Dr Libby Connors.

She said Environment Minister Andrew Powell had expressed his concern that the plume would deposit sediment on seagrass meadows, severely damaging them.

‘Despite high turbidity, the light monitoring continues to indicate there is no problem but any lay person can see from the flood plume photos that light cannot reach the harbour floor and the seagrass will struggle to survive, “ she claimed.

“Save the Reef says that these events provide more data for UNESCO to question the capacity of the Queensland and Australian Governments to manage the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.”

(The Federal Government reported to UNESCO on the management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area as requested on Friday, February 1. If UNESCO rejects the report, the Great Barrier Reef may be placed on the "In Danger" list).

31 January 2013

ASTRONAUTS SEE IT, GLADSTONE MONITORS DON'T The dramatic pictures of the Queensland flood plume taken by astronauts show a brown muddy harbour from outer space, yet Gladstone Ports Corporation’s [GPC] water quality monitoring program says it is safe to dredge the inner harbour.

Environment group Save the Reef says that if Gladstone Ports Corporation’s light monitors say conditions are OK in a flood plume there must be a problem.

The Queensland Environment Minister Mr Powell has been reported expressing his concern that the plume would deposit sediment on seagrass meadows, severely damaging them.

Spokesperson for Save the Reef Dr Libby Connors agrees that conditions in the harbour will be bleak. 'The seagrass is the basis of the marine food chain – the flow-on effects on marine life are going to be tragic.’

The once rich seagrass meadows of Gladstone Harbour hosted a large herd of dugongs earning the harbour the classification of dugong sanctuary but the latest survey of dugongs recorded no juvenile dugongs in the whole of the southern Great Barrier Reef.

‘Despite high turbidity, the light monitoring continues to indicate there is no problem but any lay person can see from the flood plume photos that light cannot reach the harbour floor and the seagrass will struggle to survive.

'For the last 6 months, these light monitors above already damaged seagrass beds kept saying that the seagrass was getting enough light and should regrow but it didn't. Now we know the light monitors are ineffective and were not protecting the seagrass.

‘It is astonishing to note that these monitors continue to say the seagrass is getting enough light when the 2013 floods sediment that can be seen from outer space. '

Dr Jeremijenko who is an environmental medicine specialist warned residents of Gladstone that the muddiness of the harbour was a risk to human health as well as to marine life.

‘Do not expose wounds to the harbour water and try to stay out of the water while it is so muddy. Many marine bacteria such as Vibrio, Shewenella, and other potential harmful micro-organisms thrive in these conditions.’

Save the Reef says that these events provide more data for UNESCO to question the capacity of the Queensland and Australian Governments to manage the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

‘UNESCO will also be noting the failure of light monitoring to recognise a flood plume that will kill seagrass,’ Dr Jeremijenko warned.

‘ What is the use of a "world class" monitoring programme, when an astronaut with a camera in outer space can do a better job.’

Save the Reef caution that the inadequacy of the Gladstone Ports Corporation’s environmental management of the harbour was an ominous sign. The state government is required to report to UNESCO on the management of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area tomorrow Friday 1 February.

If UNESCO rejects the report, the Great Barrier Reef may be placed on the "In Danger" list.

Contacts: Dr Andrew Jeremijenko0438 372 653; Dr Libby Connors 0429 487 110

22 January 2013

SHELL MUST DROP CURTIS ISLAND LNG PLANT DEVELOPMENT

Queensland environment group Save the Reef has called on the international energy giant, Shell, to withdraw from its partnership with Arrow energy to develop a Liquefied Natural Gas plant on Curtis Island.

“The company made statements in November 2012 that it was concerned about the financial viability of the project but we are calling on them to withdraw on the grounds that the project conflicts with Shell’s public commitment to not ‘explore for, or develop, oil and gas resources in natural World Heritage Sites’” Save the Reef spokesperson Dr Libby Connors said today.

Gladstone Harbour and Curtis Island fall within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage boundaries.

Shell first made this commitment to not operate in World Heritage Areas in 2003 and re-affirmed it after commissioning a report on World Heritage Sites and Extractive Sites in 2012. The company’s commitments are still available on the company’s global website as is the commissioned report.

http://www.shell.com/global/environment- society/environment/biodiversity/protected-areas.html

http://www.socialearth.org/workshop-highlights-extractive-sectors-commitments- to-preserve-world-heritage-sites

The International Council on Mining and Metals [ICMM]has been working with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature to develop no-go areas which should remain out of bounds to harmful extractive industries because of the importance of their biodiversity.

‘It is very clear that the Queensland Resources Council is way out of step with international best practice when it comes to recognising some areas are too important to mine or develop extractive industries within their boundaries.

‘Some of the world’s biggest miners are members of the ICMM and worked to develop this policy just last year,’ Dr Connors said.

Save the Reef says the fact that the Shell-Arrow LNG plant is to be located on the western side of Curtis Island in the middle of a state Dugong Sanctuary, where herds of about 140 animals used to feed on abundant seagrass, make the LNG plant inconsistent with Shell’s publicly stated commitment to biodiversity.

‘We have been immensely disappointed with the failure of state regulation in Queensland and will be writing directly to Shell asking them to withdraw from this destructive project.’

For more information contact: Dr Libby Connors 0429 487 110 or Dr Andrew Jeremijenko 0438 372 653

17 January 2013 New report affirms need for UNESCO recommended Gladstone Enquiry THE Queensland Government released the Gladstone Harbour 2012 Program Report on 16th January. The media release and executive summary minimize significant findings in an attempt to reassure the public and international community who remain very concerned about the management of Gladstone Harbour, part of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Environment group Save the Reef says that the report is nothing but another government report on itself and one which continues state government spin. As an example, the report states that ‘Results of sampling in 2012 indicated that fish health was much improved’ when sharks across all sampling sites in the harbour continue to show signs of disease.

The report also makes the claims that ‘there was no clear pattern to suggest that dredging was having any major impact on water quality’ which is simply not credible. Government statements like this, when it is known that dredging does have an impact on water quality, are why UNESCO wants an independent enquiry.

Turbidity is a known source of harm to water quality which is why state and federal governments have required Gladstone Ports Corporation to undertake monitoring of turbidity levels at dredging sites. If there was no major impact on water quality by dredging, there would be no need for a monitoring program or for turbidity limits to have been imposed on the dredging project.

“Why have they granted 4 exemptions in the last 4 months to dredge over the turbidity limits" asked Dr Andrew Jeremijenko from Save the Reef. "The government is not being honest with the public or with UNESCO."

Despite community concern about turbidity levels in the harbour, the state government has changed the dates of the wet season to allow for higher turbidity, changed turbidity limits in May 2012 and then allowed the port to dredge over the prescribed limits to fix the bund wall that was causing high turbidity.

Gladstone Harbour is a muddy mess and has toxic levels of metals, that are high enough to kill and injure fish in one area. This is admitted in the report but not pointed out in the media statements.

Save the Reef says that the government’s failure to do thorough testing on diseased fish in the harbour was also irresponsible. ‘They have not wanted evidence of harm to the marine environment so that to date, government departments have only secured metals testing results for 3 barramundi from Gladstone harbour,’ Dr Jeremijenko said. ‘These three all had very high levels of metals in particular aluminium in their gills. The few scallops, prawns and jew fish tested from Gladstone region also showed high aluminium.’

More than sixteen months after the temporary closure of the harbour for fishing, Minister for the Environment, Andrew Powell, is still awaiting laboratory testing of tissue samples of a wide range of fish, crustaceans and molluscs.

‘There is no excuse to do so little testing to date and to take so long to do further testing. It takes a few weeks to test for metals in fish and release the results. This lack of testing is a disgrace and another reason why UNESCO has called for an independent review.’

Save the Reef says that the talk within fishing and environment groups is that the Federal Environment Minister is going to announce the UNESCO recommended independent enquiry sometime later this month and that the state government is opposing it.

This independent enquiry will likely be announced before the 1st February meeting with UNESCO.

Contacts: Dr Andrew Jeremijenko 0438 372 653

Links: http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/gladstone/pdf/integrated-aquatic-investigation- program-report.pdf http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/gladstone/

20 December 2012

DISCOUNTED COMPENSATION FOR GLADSTONE FISHERS

Environment group Save the Reef says that the Gladstone Ports Corporation offer of compensation to Gladstone commercial fishers is at a dirt-cheap rate that benefits the Ports Corporation.

Gladstone Ports Corporation [GPC] yesterday offered to pay commercial fishers 50% of the gross value of their catch for their two best years multiplied by three.

‘Since the Coordinator General directed that GPC offset commercial fishers for both temporary and permanent loss of the fishery that formerly existed where the Fisherman’s Landing reclamation area has been constructed, a year and a half income for a permanent loss is a very cheap rate,’ Save the Reef spokesperson Dr Libby Connors said.

Save the Reef says that the total economic ‘disbenefit’ – the term used in the EIS for the project – was calculated as between $1.1 billion and $3.3 billion over 40 years. [Appendix Y p.44]

‘That covers the loss of seagrass meadows and benthic marine life such as crabs and prawns and their ecological, recreational and economic values over the 40 year life of the project.

‘So the total annual economic ‘disbenefit’ to the community, not just commercial fishers, is conservatively estimated to be $27.5 million per year.

‘With one off payments to commercial fishers to cover one and a half year’s production, GPC have given themselves a very good deal.

‘The Gladstone recreational boating and fishing community, one of the largest in Australia, will pay the real price of the loss caused by smothered seagrass meadows and scouring of seabeds, as will future generations from the overall degradation of the harbour.’

Contacts: Libby Connors 0429 487 110; Andrew Jeremijenko 0438372653

Links:

Wester Basin Dredging and Disposal Project, Coordinator General’s Report. See Schedule 3 p. 148:

http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/media/pdf/Coordinator%20Gene rals%20reports%20for%20an%20EIS.pdf

Wester Basin Port Development EIS

http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/media/pdf/EIS%20Appendix%2 0Y.pdf

17 December 2012

International Concern for Great Barrier Reef

US conservation groups filed a lawsuit against the US Export-Import Bank’s $3 billion financing of LNG developments on Curtis Island on Friday 14th December 2012. Queensland environment group Save the Reef says it is proof that international concern about the mismanagement of Gladstone Harbour and the reef is growing.

‘We welcome the US court action,’ Save the Reef spokesperson Dr Andrew Jeremijenko said today. ‘We hope that it will help the state and federal environment and mining ministers to understand the apprehension that current mismanagement of Gladstone is causing internationally.

‘The Ministerial Forum on the Great Barrier Reef last Tuesday wasdisappointing.

‘The reef is in crisis. The joint communiqué describes the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan as ‘successful’ and this in a year when the Australian Institute of Marine Science reported that 50% of all corals have died since 1985 and that damage is greatest in the southern and central parts of the reef.’

Save the Reef also expressed disappointment that federal Minister for Resources Tourism and Energy, Martin Ferguson, and state Minister for Natural Resources and Mines, Andrew Cripps, were members of the Forum.

The Intergovernment Agreement signed by Kevin Rudd and Anna Bligh in 2009 expressly states that ‘Ministers responsible for mining may not be members of the Forum.’

‘Martin Ferguson’s ministerial portfolio includes mining and both he and Andrew Cripps proudly trumpet their pro-mining agenda,’ Save the Reef spokesperson Dr Libby Connors said.

Save the Reef argues that this represents a serious conflict of interest with stewardship of the Great Barrier Reef.

‘The reef is threatened by sediment run off from Central Queensland mining and LNG developments on Curtis Island, increased port development and greater shipping movements in reef waters for coal and gas.

‘Immense damage is being caused to the southern reef from port and LNG facility development but the Ministerial Forum thinks that it is business as usual.’

‘ We really hope that the US court action will alert Australians to the self- interested advice that we are being given by governments,’ Dr Connors said.

Contacts: Andrew Jeremijenko 0438 372 653; Libby Connors 0428 487 110

The Great Barrier Reef Intergovernmental Agreement 2009 is available here: http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/gbr/publications/pubs/gbr- agreement.pdf

Australian Insitute of Marine Science assessment of the damage to the Great Barrier Reef is available here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/25/1208909109

9 November 2012

Dear Professor Ian Chubb,

Save the Reef is concerned about the state and federal response to the UNESCO mission findings with regard to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area, and have detailed our concerns below.

In February, UNESCO will be meeting to discuss the possible inscription of the property (Great Barrier Reef) on the List of the World Heritage in Danger. I do think you will be aware of some of these issues. The Great Barrier Reef is a world wonder, a tourism icon, part of Australia's identity and an important part of our economy. Its World Heritage status is important to preserve. I hope you have time to read some of our concerns and can assist in some way to protect this valuable state asset and scientific paradise.

UN recommendations / Response

3. Welcomes the initial positive results of the Reef Plan and associated measures to address major long-term impacts on the property from poor water quality, and requests the State Party, in collaboration with its partners, to maintain, and increase where necessary financial investment and sustain the positive trend beyond 2013;

Save the reef notes that water quality is of central importance. Save the Reef has given clear examples of wet season dates being changed, turbidity limits being increased and now a move to ignore turbidity limits if light monitoring is within normal limits. (see letters attached) Save the Reef is concerned that the federal government is now considering amendments to water quality rules that may be interpreted to adversely affect the property and may contribute to an In-Danger listing. These amendments will likely match the amended Qld state rules and reflects poorly on Australia’s commitment to this recommendation. Save the Reef is also very concerned about dumping of dredge spoils in the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area (for free) and the proposed charge for dumping dredge spoils in the Great Barrier Reef Marine park (which is likely to occur with the Abbott Point approval). "The federal government has told the park authority to raise working capital by imposing a dumping fee of between $5 and $15 per cubic metre." The science says its bad, (it contributes to Crown of Thorn outbreaks amongst other issues), the public are overwhelmingly against using the Great Barrier Reef as a dump site, and the Marine Park don't want it but are having it forced on them. There has been international, national, scientific and public condemnation of this proposal. Save the Reef believes Russell Reichelt is asking for help on this issue. http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/03/16/91-oppose-treating-great-barrier-reef-like-a-tip/ http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/outrage-over-order-to-dump-toxic-spoils- on-reef/story-fn59niix-1226281095312 http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/news/protesters-call-reversal-abbot-pt- expansion/1600518/

Save the Reef recently presented to state parliament regarding the new Economic Development Bill that will allow miners to discharge mine waste (equal to half of Sydney Harbour) into the Fitzroy catchment that will eventually flow into the Great Barrier Reef. http://www.centraltelegraph.com.au/news/advocates-voice-concerns-over-water- implications/1616178/ Save the Reef would ask if the chief scientists department have also voiced their concern over this new state bill.

Save the Reef notes that UNESCO stated where necessary, financial investment should be increased yet the Qld government has cut 220 positions from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/full-list-of- queensland-public-service-redundancies/story-e6freon6-1226471881372 Save the Reef noted that the crisis in the Murray River has led to billions of dollars of funding but the loss of 50% of coral in the Great Barrier Reef in a recent AIMS study has not led to commensurate levels of funding.

4. Takes note of the findings of the joint World Heritage Centre/IUCN reactive monitoring mission to the property undertaken in March 2012, and also requests the State Party to address the mission recommendations in its future protection and management of the property;

"reduced water quality from dredging, inadequate independent, scientific oversight in monitoring water quality, suggested lack of government response when water quality targets are exceeded, impact on traditional use, and lack of satisfaction regarding procedures for public consultation and transparency.” As demonstrated in the letter above issues regarding water quality targets, procedures for public consultation and transparency, remain. A second duplicate channel for Gladstone harbour is submitted for environmental assessment and awarded significant project status. The public was given less time (4 weeks instead of 6 weeks) to comment. UNESCO had recommended time frames be extended. The new Economic Development Bill gave the public a week to comment. The letters attached detail a systematic weakening of water quality guidelines and there is a lack of transparency with regard to the change during a time when there was confusion around human and fish illness in the Gladstone Harbour.

5. Notes with great concern the potentially significant impact on the property’s Outstanding Universal Value resulting from the unprecedented scale of coastal development currently being proposed within and affecting the property, and further requests the State Party to not permit any new port development or associated infrastructure outside of the existing and long-established major port areas within or adjoining the property, and to ensure that development is not permitted if it would impact individually or cumulatively on the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;

Abbott Point is approved by Tony Burke after he criticised the state governments environmental impact statement. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-10/burke- approves-new-abbot-point-coal-terminal/4305114

The coastal development laws in Qld are changed despite the warning by UNESCO above http://www.greatbarrierreef.org.au/newman-government-latest-diabolic-effort/

A 10 year Great Barrier Reef Ports plan is released. “Conservationists say the Queensland Government's plans for port development fly in the face of UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) warnings about the health of the Great Barrier Reef.” http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/factsheet/great-barrier-reef-ports-strategy-faq.pdf http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3623749.htm

6. Requests furthermore the State Party to complete the Strategic Assessment and resulting long-term plan for the sustainable development of the property for consideration by the World Heritage Committee at its 39th session in 2015, and to ensure that the assessment and long-term plan are completed against a number of defined criteria for success, fully address direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the reef and lead to concrete measures to ensure the overall conservation of the Outstanding Universal Value of the property;

The strategic assessment has already experienced delays http://www.news-mail.com.au/news/great-barrier-reef-assessment-still-long- way/1584665/

7. Urges the State Party to establish the Outstanding Universal Value of the property as a clearly defined and central element within the protection and management system for the property, and to include an explicit assessment of Outstanding Universal Value within future Great Barrier Reef Outlook Reports;

The SEWPaC - Compliance Report EPBC 2009/4904 Third Party Compliance Audit found the state owned Gladstone Ports Corporation did not comply with the above “While plans make reference to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and National Heritage Place, the values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and National Heritage Place, and EPBC Act listed species and habitat likely to be impacted by the components of the action have not always been clearly described in all plans and reports.”

Save the Reef also noted that Shell / Arrow in their EIS ignored the World Heritage status of Port Curtisand ignored a promise made in 2003 and in 2012 that it would not develop oil and gas industries in World Heritage Areas. The proposed Curtis Island plant simply ignores this promise.

"In the Marine Quality and Sediment chapter of the EIS, in section 16.3.4 the overall environmental sensitivity in Port Curtis is stated to be low. Yet in the same chapter in Table 16.5, it states if an area has World Heritage listing the value should be very high. This would mean that the significance of the residual impact in a World Heritage Area would be higher than stated in Table 16.15"

The mission report stated"it is noted that the leading commitment to the principle of World Heritage Sites not being subject to extractive industry is the 2003 biodiversity commitment of Shell, which states that “We will not explore for, or develop, oil and gas resources in natural World Heritage Sites. As the leading industry practice this provides a policy benchmark that does not on first analysis appear to be met by the Curtis Island location having been selected." http://www.socialearth.org/workshop- highlights-extractive-sectors-commitments-to-preserve-world-heritage-sites http://liveassets.iucn.getunik.net/downloads/shell_biodiversity_commitment.pdf http://www.ameinfo.com/28119.html

I think it is important to note that Shells broken promises and Australia's encouragement to break their promise may lead to Curtis Island / Gladstone Harbour developments becoming another case study of how industry has destroyed world heritage area, http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/whs_and_extractive_industries_20_jun_12.pdf

Shell has delayed their decision on this development for financial reasons and this is an opportune time to remind them of their promise regarding World heritage areas. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-20/shell-may-delay-australia-s-arrow-lng- project-to-2014-ceo-says.html

8. Recommends the State Party, in collaboration with its partners, to sustain and increase its efforts and available resources to conserve the property, and to develop and adopt clearly defined and scientifically justified targets for improving its state of conservation and enhancing its resilience, and ensure that plans, policies and development proposals affecting the property demonstrate a positive contribution to the achievement of those targets, and an overall net benefit to the protection of Outstanding Universal Value;

AIMS released a study that shows a 50% decline in reef coral and another 50% decline in 10 years. http://www.aims.gov.au/latest-news/-/asset_publisher/MlU7/content/2-october-2012-the- great-barrier-reef-has-lost-half-of-its-coral-in-the-last-27-years

Minister Tony Burke states on “Lateline” that despite this decline he doesn't think we will get the In-Danger listing.

www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3602458.htm

(As mentioned above there is no large funding increase to address this dire situation after this report is released.)

Minister Tony Burke later talks about selling seagrass meadows to the miners (e..g selling bits of the World Heritage Area). http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national- affairs/seagrass-plan-would-hit-miners/story-fn59niix-1226476086791\ "Mr Burke is understood to favour a plan under which a major seagrass area could be effectively "sold" to companies in exchange for development approvals"

The seagrass in Gladstone harbour in the high impact zones of dredging is found to be at <1% with no regrowth despite seagrass in other areas such as Moreton bay recovering well. Pelican Banks in the low impact dredging zone is also recovering while high impact zones are not. www.greatbarrierreef.org.au/seagrass-spin-by-minister-tony-burke/

9. Requests moreover the State Party to undertake an independent review of the management arrangements for Gladstone Harbour, that will result in the optimization of port development and operation in Gladstone Harbour and on Curtis Island, consistent with the highest internationally recognized standards for best practice commensurate with iconic World Heritage status;

Save the Reef has been told the Qld state Environment Minister Andrew Powell has stated this enquiry will not happen. The Federal Government has stated “work has commenced on a comprehensive strategic assessment of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and adjacent coastal zone, which will include the Queensland Government’s strategy for port development and managing the safety of vessel movements within port limits and compulsory port pilotage areas; identifying existing and planned urban and industrial areas; identify planned and potential state development areas and urban development areas. As part of this strategic assessment, an independent review of management arrangements for Gladstone Harbour is under consideration by the Australian and Queensland governments. This review will take account of earlier studies and examine the current activities to ensure that it is underpinned by the best available scientific information.”

Save the Reef is concerned this central recommendation has been ignored. The independent review should have begun, not still be under consideration. This review should address all the points below. Excerpt from UNESCO report June 2012

R3: Commission an independent review of all environmental concerns of consented developments in Gladstone Harbour and on Curtis Island, and the implications of the consented developments in Gladstone Harbour and on Curtis Island for Traditional Owners and the local community dependent on the resources of the area. The review should be undertaken by internationally recognized and widely respected scientific experts and conducted in an independent and transparent manner. The review should: a) Consider all previous review findings and all information used as a basis for the current approvals for development in Gladstone Harbour and on Curtis Island; b) Address the current and future planning and management of the Port of Gladstone and development of Curtis Island; c) Lead to clear recommendations for the optimization of port development and operation, including supporting activities and infrastructure, and according to the highest internationally recognized standards for best practice; d) Provide lessons learned for the development and operation of other port areas within and adjacent to the property; e) Lead to the implementation of concrete action to address issues identified in the review, as soon as possible and before any other major port development is commenced.

10. Finally requests the State Party to submit to the World Heritage Centre, by 1 February 2013, an updated report on the state of conservation of the property, including on the implementation of actions outlined above and in the mission report, for consideration by the World Heritage Commitee at its 37th session in 2013, with a view to consider, in the absence of substantial progress, the possible inscription of the property on the List of the World Heritage in Danger.

Save the Reef believes that the current response to these recommendations has been “shambolic” (Shambolic is how the Minister Tony Burkes described the Qld Government’s assessment of Abbott Point) Save the Reef believes many of the actions taken to date and listed above have been counterproductive and may contribute to an “In-Danger” listing.

Save the Reef would like the chief scientist of Australia to address our concerns with regards to progress against the UNESCO recommendations. Particularly what steps the Chief Scientist may take in response to the amendments requested by the Ports to ensure water quality is protected as a matter of urgency. Save the Reef would like to ask the Chief Scientist assists by ensuring the Gladstone Harbour enquiry is undertaken promptly, that plans to dump dredge spoil in the World Heritage area and Marine Park for revenue are examined with scientific rigour, and that future developments such as the Shell 4th LNG plant comply with international promises. Yours sincerely

Save the Reef.

Save the Reef to participate in public hearings on Mine Discharges

Save the Reef has joined other environmental groups expressing concern about the impact of the Economic Development Bill 2012. ‘Thrown into a Bill which covers state development, a Commonwealth Games Infrastructure Authority and planning powers for Southbank Corporation are some very serious amendments to the Environment Protection Act 1994,’ Save the Reef spokesperson Libby Connors said today.

‘This Bill allows the mining industry to use emergency provisions to release 250 000 megalitres of contaminated pit water into the Fitzroy River, almost two years after the floods.

‘The Fitzroy river catchment is the drinking water source for over 100,000 people in Rockhampton and several other towns This bill willl effectively abolish the stricter rules brought in to protect the water after it was contaminated in 2008 as mining companies can claim economic hardship and get verbal approval to discharge their waste in 24 hours. The public have no ability to intervene.

Save the Reef say that the amendments are being rushed through and that LNP backbenchers have no idea what they will be voting for.

‘We have already had comments from the Environment Minister which suggest that he is not fully cognisant of the implications of the amendments and even Premier Campbell Newman was quoted in the Rockhampton press saying that there had been no talks with the mining industry.

‘That was just before Jeff Seeney publicly revealed that a Queensland Resources Cabinet had been established.’

Save the Reef says that the impacts of mine discharges on threatened species such as the Snubfin Dolphin which is unique to the Fitzroy River and was only identified in 2005 are unknown.

‘GBRMPA only test for pesticides and agrichemicals. No one is carrying out systematic testing of heavy metals and other contaminants from mine water on the Fitzroy delta and Keppel Bay, even though it has been known for years that many of these heavy metals bioaccumulate and may cause irreparable harm to marine environments.’

Public are able to attend the hearing on 9th November 2012, from 9 am to 1 pm .

5 November 2012

Toxic Mine Waste in Fitzroy Drinking Water

The drinking water of over 100,000 people in the Fitzroy Basin may be contaminated by toxic mine waste under new laws passed in Qld State Parliament on Thursday. The opposition has described it as a "secret deal" that allows dumping of toxic mine waste in exchange for royalties.

Dr Andrew Jeremijenko, an environmental medicine specialist believes this waste particularly from mines in Central Queensland has the potential to endanger peoples health as well as environmental health. Mine waste is known to be contaminated with heavy metals and other toxins that bio-accumulate. Many of these contaminants may cause cancer, birth defects and other health problems in people who drink it.

"Central Queensland is the engine room of the state economy and it needs its water. Allowing the mines to use the creeks and rivers as drains threatens not only aquatic life. If the mines discharge their waste en masse, it has the potential to effect the drinking water of resource towns like Middlemount, Blackwater, Tieri and Dysart. Bottled water will need to be trucked in for people to drink. The taste and quality of water in Rockhampton the largest town on the Fitzroy may also be affected. The cumulative action of many mines discharging water into the Fitzroy basin could have long term effects on the water quality." he said. "Mine discharges have been shown to contain salt, heavy metals and many other contaminants. There has to be balance between economic development and environmental protection but contaminating drinking water of the workers and their families, indeed the majority of people in Central Queensland is a step to far."

This is not the first time drinking water in Central Queensland has been contaminated. After severe flooding at the Ensham mine in 2008, and the consequent release of mine-affected water, water quality monitoring found the salinity of domestic water supplies for some townships downstream was at unacceptable levels. Those communities became very concerned about the impacts of mining and the effects of their discharges, both on the taste and quality of their water and worried about their families health."

New regulations were introduced to prevent a re-occurrnece of Ensham but the mining industry have found the regulations significantly reduced their ability to discharge mine- affected water into watercourses and have successfully lobbied to have them changed.

The regulations in the Environment Protection Act were meant to protect our creeks and rivers and the water that central Queenslanders depend on. The Queensland Government’s change to the Environment Protection Act is more than just cutting green tape. "The resource industry and the state government should know better. " The end point of using creeks and rivers as drain pipes are the estuaries, harbours and oceans. All the pollutants including heavy metals that bio-accumulate will end up in the Great Barrier Reef Waters. Water is important to land and marine life. Humans drink it and eat the fish and animals that are exposed to the pollutants. We are the dryest continent in the world and we must protect our water.

1 November 2012

LNP’S LATEST PLANS TO DEGRADE THE GREAT BARRIER REEF

Environment Group Save the Reef has condemned the Queensland Government’s Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy released today for public comment.

‘The Queensland Government has twisted UNESCO’s advice about consolidating existing major ports and turned it into a blue print for expansion which was clearly never intended,’ spokesperson Libby Connors said today.

‘For example Abbot Point is currently a single-coal terminal which was only constructed in 1984. It should not be considered for expansion under the UNESCO advice at all.

‘Instead Abbot Point is used throughout this document as an example for port expansion.

‘It even boasts that the coal companies are writing the cumulative impact assessment for its development.

‘This is insulting to the people of Queensland – governments are elected to govern, not mining companies.

‘Assessment of cumulative impacts by the companies behind the expansion cannot produce a fair and unbiased scientific assessment.’

Save the Reef said that the complete omission of any reference to Gladstone Ports Corporation in the Great Barrier Reef Ports Strategy 2012-2022 was very worrying.

Dr Andrew Jeremijenko, an environmental medicine specialist has been following the failure of government regulation of Gladstone Ports Corporation for the past 16 months. He says that Gladstone Harbour continues to suffer from poor marine health.

‘Independent research and some government studies continue to prove that marine health is being affected by turbidity,’ Dr Jeremijenko said. ‘But the government will not act to limit the dredging being undertaken by the ports corporation for major expansion there.’

‘Queenslanders can have no confidence the LNP government is capable of producing a strategy that finds “the right balance between economic development and environmental protection” when it will not face up the problems continuing to be experienced in Gladstone Harbour.

‘This plan would allow Gladstone Ports to cause further environmental devastation at Balaclava Island and Port Alma which are not part of Gladstone harbour - they are intrinsic to Keppel Bay and the Fitzroy Delta.

‘We urge the people of Queensland to respond to the state government call for public input by telling them that first and foremost we want to save the reef from further degradation.

‘Expanding minor ports and mismanagement of existing ports does not fit UNESCO’s criteria and will lead to it declaring the Great Barrier Reef as World Heritage in Danger.’

Contacts: Libby Connors 0428 487 110; Andrew Jeremijenko 0438372653

20 October 2012

LNP HELPS DEVELOPER MATES AT THE EXPENSE OF THE GREAT BARRIER REEF

The LNP has introduced “environmentally devastating regulations” to curry favour with its developer mates, Save the reef spokesperson Libby Connors warned today. Dr Connors said Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney had suspended Queensland’s Coastal Protection planning policy and sections of Queensland’s regional plans that protect the reef. She said Mr Seeney called the changes a “draft” but the changes take immediate effect. “The LNP has given its developer mates everything they wanted and is carrying out community consultation after it’s made these disastrous changes,” Dr Connors said. The Save the Reef group said the changes would allow the clearing of wetlands, development in areas of high ecological significance and in-fill in Queensland’s coastal zones which extend three nautical miles out to sea. “The areas include coastal lands of high ecological significance and land prone to rising sea levels and cyclonic activity,” Dr Connors said. She said Mr Seeney allowed the changes in the same week the Australian Institute of Marine Science released research showing that 50 per cent of corals on the reef have been lost since 1985 and warned that the problem was worsening water quality caused by land-based development. The state government has shown they are unwilling to protect Gladstone harbour, part of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Water qualty has deteriorated because dredging over the limits is allowed. Instead of enforcing the limits they loosen them. "The dredging and dumping of toxic dredge spoil is causing high sediment and nutrient loads. It is killing the seagrass and causing an environmental collapse including dugongs and endangered turtle deaths. It is killing coral as well by contributing to crown of thorns outbreaks. Now they want to do this to other areas of the Great Barrier Reef. " stated Dr Andrew Jeremijenko, an environmental medicine specialist. “UNESCO has warned if we don't improve our ways, the Great Barrier Reef will be placed on the "In-Danger" list. " The State Government's failed to protect this world wonder, an economic treasure of the state, that provides fishing and tourism dollars and incredible biodiversity. They are trading long term benefit for short term gain. They can't be trusted to protect anything. “ “The Federal Enviornment Minister, Tony Burke must reconsider plans to devolve environmental regulation to the state government”, she said. "Gladstone Harbour is the first of many developments in this World Heritage Area. If this is just a preview of the destruction current laws have allowed with federal oversight, imagine what these new relaxed laws will do in future developments with no oversight." “This government is not enforcing existing regulations at Gladstone Harbour and is removing essential environmental protection,” she said. “The LNP is clearly not fit to manage the responsibilities that go with managing a World Heritage Area.”

Contacts: Dr Libby Connors 0429 487 110; Dr Andrew Jeremijenko 0438372653

The Turbidity Two Step - Dredgaholics paradise.

We have been following port developments in Gladstone we would like to alert you to some of the failings of environmental management taking place there and our grave concerns about government failure to enforce the environmental conditions of the Gladstone Ports Corporation’s licence for its Western Basin Dredging and Disposal Project. Since dredging began in May 2011, the publicly available turbidity levels at a number of monitoring stations in the harbour have been above Gladstone Ports’ environmental licence conditions for more than 48 hours but rarely has any action been taken by the State Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (formerly Department of Environment and Resource Management).One environment protection order was given on the 10th January, 2012 but similar episodes which included Christmas 2011 and Australia Day, Easter and Labour Day holidays in 2012, were not enforced.On holidays the public often are fishing and boating. We have also noted a pattern of changing the turbidity limits rather than enforcing them. Gladstone Ports Corporation [GPC] first relaxed the turbidity limits by commencing the wet season on the 1st October instead of 20th November 2011. The historical data in the Water Quality Management Plan identifies the start of the Wet Season as the 20th November. (See attachments.) The water quality graphs released on the Gladstone Ports website stated that the “wet season was from 20th November to 31st March and the rest of the year would be considered the dry season.” When Gladstone Ports Corporation was asked why the dates were altered this was the response: The changes were requested by the Dredge Technical Reference Panel when they advised the Department (DERM) the trigger values had been developed around the wet/dry season cut off being 1 October (and 31 March) and therefore necessitating a change to development approval SPDE01611411. SPDE01611411 is our state government approved development application. The season dates on those graphs (on our website) unfortunately was our mistake. However it is clear that the trigger values had been developed around the wet/dry season cut off of 20 November. The Water Quality Management Plan[i] was quite specific about the wet season dates. It is noted in the EIS Appendix K[ii] with regards to turbidity that the wet season is December to April and October and November are considered as part of the dry season.Baseline turbidity in those months was historically low.The BOM data shows that rainfall is on average not high in October or November in comparison to the wet season months of December to March.[iii] Changing the start times for the Wet Season allowed a longer period of high turbidity in the harbour. We are concerned that no scientific justification was given to include months that are not historically linked to high rainfall events. It is also noted that the rainfall in October 2011 and November 2011 had less than half the expected average over those 2 months, so heavy rainfall was not a cause of harbour turbidity in 2011. To alter these dates without scientific data, at a time when there is still confusion around diseased fish and human illnesses was in our view not prudent. The Gladstone Ports Corporation was then allowed to raise their permitted turbidity levels in May 2012 by re-calculating the mean background turbidity of the harbour using both the pre- dredging data but also incorporating post dredging data.Two sites were changed - QE4- 28 (NTU) to 34 NTU (dry season); and 34 to 55 in the wet season.ST1 - 24 NTU was lifted to 35 NTU (dry season) and 38 to 65 (wet season).This state government approved these higher 99th percentile turbidity limits amending the development approval again. It is also notable that the federal government in their Water Quality Management Plan has stricter limits including an internal reporting trigger of the 80th percentile and external reporting trigger of the 95th percentile.These triggers appear not to have been enforced since the dredging program began in earnest in May 2011, despite many breaches. From June to August 2012 GPC was granted a Transitional Environment Programme (TEP) after the corporation admitted that a leaking bund wall and associated dredging had contributed to the high turbidity in the harbour.GPC introduced a light monitoring programme and was allowed to ignore the turbidity levels as long as the light monitoring levels were not exceeded under the TEP.During this time turbidity went to almost three times higher than the 99th percentile, yet the chosen light monitoring level remained within the normal range. This light monitoring appears to be of questionable scientific value since seagrass recovery across the region remains poor even at the start of its growth season, as assessed by Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry’s latest seagrass report: http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/media/pdf/Gladstone%20Permanent%20Tr ansect%20Seagrass%20report%20August%202012.pdf The 7th Water Quality report (EHP)[iv]released on the 22 June, 3 days before the granting of the TEP states “There was no clear pattern in the water quality results to suggest that dredging was having any major impact on water quality.” The 8th Water Quality report (EHP)[v]released on 31st July during the TEP stated in the executive summary“Results of water quality investigations between September 2011 and May 2012, with the exception of a cluster of elevated metal concentrations around South Trees Inlet, have shown that none of the water quality properties measured was of significant environmental concern.”Neither report mentioned the UNESCO findings which noted, “Reduced water quality from dredging [and] inadequate independent, scientific oversight in monitoring water quality suggested lack of government response when water quality targets are exceeded…” 6 In September 2012, when monitoring stations recorded turbidity above the new higher 99th percentile for over 48 hours, GPC informed us that they were now exempted from the turbidity trigger levels because a dual light monitoring turbidity measurement was now being used. If light monitoring is normal they do not stop dredging due to high turbidity.On 1st October 2012, they commenced wet season levels early again. The UNESCO mission[vi] concluded that “the concerns over the management arrangements for the facilities in Gladstone Harbour and on Curtis Island should be addressed through an independent review and result in the optimization of their operation, consistent with the highest internationally recognized standards of best practice.” There has been no announcement of any independent review of Gladstone Harbour by either level of government to date.Naturally we are also concerned about the Strategic Assessment currently being undertaken for port developments in the GBR World Heritage Area, if government departments responsible for enforcement of environmental conditions fail to enforce licence conditions. We believe that the disaster being played out in Gladstone also needs to be a focus of scientific concern especially given the weakening of water quality standards and government non-enforcement of breaches of turbidity.We would be very interested to hear your views on the impacts of sediment disturbance, acid sulphate soils and disposal of dredge spoil in the Dugong Sanctuary which extends from Gladstone Harbour to Rodds Bay and which is also within the World Heritage area of the southern reef.

11 October 2012

ABBOT POINT SEAGRASS PROTECTION ALL HOT AIR?

The Federal Government’s demand that Abbot Point seagrass be protected is probably unenforceable, says the Save the Reef environment group.

Environment Minister Tony Burke has allowed GVK’s new coal terminal at Abbot Point, near Bowen in Queensland to go ahead on condition that eight hectares of seagrass be protected for every hectare destroyed by the development.

“‘The Abbot Point port expansion in the central Great Barrier Reef region will remove seagrass and healthy coral,” said Save the Reef spokesperson Dr Libby Connors. “The condition is an important recognition of one of the biggest problems the development is already causing to the once pristine marine environment but we doubt it is enforceable.”

No amount of regulation or promises of offsets can deny that we are facing net loss of an area of great beauty as well as immense biological importance, Dr Connors said.

“The latest seagrass monitoring report for Gladstone Harbour shows a distressing lack of recovery and growth of seagrass in the southern part of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area, so effective protection of seagrass in the rest of the reef is crucial for marine biodiversity,” she said.

Dr Connors said the Queensland Ombudsman Phil Clarke’s recent investigation into underground coal gasification [UCG] warned of the pressures state regulators were already facing.

Minister Burke’s approval of the project ignores UNESCO’s warning that management of the reef is one of its major concerns and the Australian Institute of Marine Science reported last week that 50 per cent of coral across the Great Barrier Reef had been lost over the past 27 years.

Contacts: Libby Connors 0428 487 110; Andrew Jeremijenko 0438 372 653

Queensland Ombudsman report into UCG http://www.ombudsman.qld.gov.au/PublicationsandReports/InvestigativeReports/UndergroundCoalGasificationR eport/tabid/436/Default.aspx

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry’s latest seagrass report is available at: http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/media/pdf/Gladstone%20Permanent%20Transect%20Seagras s%20report%20August%202012.pdf

Links to AIMS report http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/marine/mediarelease#more-12205

10 October 2012

GREAT BARRIER REEF: BURKE’S 60 CONDITIONS USELESS WITHOUT ENFORCEMENT

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke today approved a new coal terminal in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area at Abbot Point near Bowen, imposing 60 conditions which he says will protect the Great Barrier Reef However Save the Reef says the Minister’s claim that he has imposed a raft of environmental conditions on the development of the coal terminal is hollow.

‘We have been in contact with the Minister’s department over the conditions the Federal Government set for Gladstone’s Western Basin Dredging & Disposal Project [WBDDP],’ Save the Reef spokesperson Dr Andrew Jeremijenko said.

Save the Reef says that the federal environment minister’s conditions are useless if they are not prepared to enforce the conditions on powerful multinational companies.

Since May last year when dredging for the Gladstone project first began the federal environment department has allowed Gladstone Ports Corporation to:

 Ignore federal and state turbidity triggers which have been repeatedly breached.  Vary the start of its wet season calculations from its stated EIS in order to raise turbidity levels. No scientific justification was provided for this change.  Re-set its background turbidity levels (incorporating turbidity averages from after the commencement of dredging) in order to raise turbidity levels.  Exempt high turbidity levels above environmental licence conditions if light monitoring continued to record “normal” level.

Save the Reef says that the latest Seagrass Report on Gladstone Harbour which included the first month of spring found a disturbing lack of seagrass growth across the harbour and Dugong Sanctuary which are all part of Great Barrier Reef World heritage waters.

Spokesperson Dr Libby Connors said that seagrass is essential habitat for dugongs and for sea turtles some of which are critically endangered and hence their protection is also a Federal Environment Minister’s responsibility. This approval is another blow for the Great Barrier Reef that has lost 50% of its coral in the last 27 years and is predicted to lose another 50% in the next 10 years. UNESCO has already warned the government that the Great Barrier Reef may be put on the "In Danger" list.

‘It is difficult to believe that the federal environment department will be pro- active in enforcing its conditions on GVK, the port developer for Abbot Point, when Tony Burke’s department has been so lax with Gladstone Ports Corporation,’ she said.

23 May 2012

Toxic muddy harbour sickens on International Day of the Turtle

Gladstone ports and the LNP have combined to sicken the turtles with a toxic harbour on International Day of the turtles. The declaration of the 3TL project which includes more dredging of the harbour as a “significant project” is a double blow on this World Turtle Day.

The Gladstone turtles have been put at risk by a muddy toxic habour as Gladstone Ports continuing to dredge over the limit on World Turtle Day. The CSIRO report has found arsenic in the sediment and blood tests show high arsenic in the turtle blood. The Gladstone Ports and the Department have been given this data but have not released it to the public. The new Department of Environment and Heritage continues to let the Ports dredge over the limit and pollute the harbour. The Gladstone Ports Corporation continue to show a disrespect for the new environmental limits. Campbell Newman said he would set a higher standard but actually lowered the environmental standards and altered the levels to make it easier for the Ports to comply.

The new government department could have issued an environmental protection order (EPO) over the Labour day weekend, when the Ports exceeded the limits for over 48 hours putting the public, turtles and the ecosystem at risk. The government didn’t act and so the Ports now continue to disrespect these new easier levels. The Ports have continued to dredge on World Turtle day, knowing that they may exceed the 48 hour limit again. It is not only turtles that are at risk, a young girl exposed to harbour water required admission and IV antibiotics for a number of days in Mater Childrens Hospital, which may have been a result of exposure to dirty infected water.

The Department not only has not enforced its own rules, it continues to release deceptive and misleading information. They state the water quality in Gladstone Harbour is not affected by dredging yet we see they have amended the turbidity (muddiness) levels. The Department in an investigation into the hundreds of dead Catfish stated "forktailed catfish normally reside in freshwater and it is unusual for catfish to move into saline waters." Yet the forktail catfish, otherwise known as sea catfish, frequent estuaries throughout Queensland and survive in saltwater and freshwater. The Department needs to be more accurate. It is time the Department admitted that Gladstone Ports has a dredging problem and it may be contributing to disease in the harbour. The Ports were caught and fined for 'dredging over the limit' on January 10th 2012. You need to keep punishing them until they stop 'dredging over the limit' or take their license away, not change the limit and let them off when the break the new limit" states Dr Andrew Jeremijenko and environmental phsyician.

The UNESCO report will be released on June 1st. This bending and breaking and changing the rules is poor form when the international community is watching. "The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is a valuable asset. Turtles are an important part of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem. Turtles come to Gladstone harbour and eat the seagrass and nest and lay eggs on Curtis Island. Turtle hatchlings are heading towards the lights of the oil and gas development rather than the sea and heavy metals such as arsenic in the blood of the turtles is a clear indication that this project in a World Heritage area is impacting these endangered animals. On World Turtle day we should be trying to protect turtles not poison them.

The Great Barrier Reef may be placed on the "world heritage area in danger" list and this will be an international embarrassment for Australia. Campbell Newmans stated higher environmental standards are empty words and broken promises. Instead of getting rid of the green tape he needs to enforce it. The Great Barrier Reef without turtles will not be the same. The Great Barrier Reef is a world wonder, a tourism icon, a national treasure and part of our identity. If they won't protect the Great Barrier Reef they won’t protect anything,

Dr Andrew Jeremijenko

Environment Minister Burke is all bark but has no bite.

The Environment Minister has recently given approval for the controversial GVK /Hancock Coal project at Abbott Point and the supertrawler Margelis. He has stated he has put on strong environmental conditions that will protect the environment. The truth as pointed out clearly in the book "Minefield" by Paul Cleary is that conditions are simply not enforced. No where is this clearer than in Gladstone Harbour, where the Federal Minister has let off the Gladstone Ports with high turbidity and broken monitors. The turbidity is still high in Gladstone harbour and has exceeded the federal limits (the 95th centile) for over 48 hours. This is less than a month after finishing the Transitional Environment Problem and attempting to fix the leaky bund wall that was causing high turbidity.

The ports went over the 99th centile (state limit) and it would have been for 48 hours at ST1 but for a brief dip below the new relaxed limit. If the limits had not been changed by the state government they would have gone over for 48 hours at ST1 The state has a history of not acting on high turbdiity, and is conflicted as it is a state run organisaion

The federal enforcement officers also have a history of not policing their limit, the 95th centile. As you can see by looking at the graphs all sites went over the 99th centile except for the broken one. If the 99th centile is exceeded the 95th centile has been exceeded for longer. Site QE4 has already been above the 95th centile (federal limit) for over 48 hours, and it looks like five days at the moment. (The 95th centile for QE4 is 21) If it stays above it for seven days in which case there should be a meeting and official reporting. Already an environmental investigation and reporting to the DTRP should have occurred, but like other environmental conditions, the federal government leaves it to the states. Here is Burke's chance to show Neman his organisation with the newly appointed Liberal supporter Mark Brodie is failing, But there is no bite behind the environment ministers bark.

REgards Dr Andrew Jeremijenko http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-03/burke-cant-block-super-trawler-from-australian- waters/4241194

Burke to impose strict conditions on super trawler

ABC Online - 36 minutes ago

Environment Minister Tony Burke says he cannot block a controversial super trawler from fishing in Australian waters, but can impose strict conditions ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-03/burke-cant-block-super-trawler-from-australian- waters/4241194

Burke accuses Qld govt of 'outrageous lie' www.afr.com/.../burke_accuses_qld_govt_of_outrageous_...

Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke has accused the Queensland ... Mr Burke approved GVK- Hancock Coal's multibillion-dollar Alpha coal mine in central ... http://www.afr.com/p/business/resources/burke_accuses_qld_govt_of _outrageous_JXJlGgI5U1nMh9MwMnTw2O

Alpha mine, a Hancock-GVK JV, won environmental approval | The ... www.theaustralian.com.au/...gvk.../story-e6frg9df-1226456739133

23 Aug 2012 – GINA Rinehart's Hancock Prospecting and Indian partner GVK Group ... Environment Minister Tony Burke approved the Alpha project with 19 ...

It may be worthwhile asking Shane Geddes, [email protected] at some stage to get his response to the continual breaking of federal limits and ongoing deaths.

5.6 Environmental management process and procedures

Step 1 – Internal investigation (if the 6 hourly EWMA > Internal Alert Level > 36 hours) Step 2 – Notify DERM and SEWPaC (if 6 hourly EWMA > External Reporting Trigger Level > 24 hours) and implement management measures Step 3 – Environmental investigation and reporting to DTRP Subcommittee (if the 6 hourly EWMA > External Reporting Trigger Level > 48 hours) Step 4 – DTRP Meeting (if 6 hourly EWMA > External Reporting Trigger Level > 1 week) Step 5 – Reporting

Figure 5.3 summarises the management process and procedures if turbidity levels at the low impact zone water quality monitoring sites exceed the Internal Alert and/or External Reporting Trigger Levels for the durations specified.

Standard monitoring procedure (if 6 hourly EWMA < Internal Alert Level)

Water quality (in NTU values) will be monitored at the locations specified in Table 5.1, with the raw water quality data managed in accordance with the protocols contained in Section 5.10.

While the 6 hourly EWMA for each water quality monitoring site remains below the specified Internal

Alert Levels (refer Table 5.3) for less than 36 hours, no investigation into the cause of turbidity changes (if any) and no dredge operational management intervention is required. Water quality monitoring and observations continue as detailed in Section 5.4.

Step 1 – Internal investigation (if the 6 hourly EWMA > Internal Alert Level > 36 hours)

When the Internal Alert Level at a designated monitoring site in the low impact zone is exceeded continuously for a 36 hour period (ie 6 x 6 hourly EWMA readings), the Principal’s Water Quality

Environment Specialist (WQES) (the role of WQES may be filled by another suitably qualified

Principal’s representative in the absence of the designated WQES) will initiate an investigation, within

24 hours, which will consider the following:

 Examination of the monitoring equipment to determine if any interference has occurred (eg extreme low tide; particles lodged on the probe such as debris) to validate the exceedance

 Analysis and comparison with background turbidity levels and predicted dredge plume modelling in order to place elevated turbidity levels in local and dredge influenced context, including:

– Recent weather conditions and/or unusual events surrounding the dredge areas, in Port Curtis and the Calliope River system that may have impacted upon turbidity

– Turbidity levels at the reference sites and other GPC Western Basin water quality monitoring sites (current and previous 48 hours)

– Predicted background turbidity ranges for the monitoring site based on background water quality and tidal data (ie 6 hourly EWMA, including the 99th percentile)

– Spot monitoring of turbidity at upstream locations and investigation to determine any unusual events upstream of site that may have impacted on turbidity

– Consideration of the turbidity in relation to the predictive modelling of the dredge plume at specific locations

 Check anthropogenic influences (outside the direct Project activities) occurring within Port Curtis Western Basin Dredging and Disposal (Onshore and Offshore) Project

Project 217460-1-2 | File WQMP_ Rev9 Final.doc 14 December 2011 | Revision 9 Aurecon Page 18

 The spatial distribution of exceedances in relation to unaffected sites and the position of the dredge and associated equipment, including the consideration of aerial surveys

 Consideration of likely elevated natural turbidity from predicted rainfall events in the upstream river and creek systems over the next 2-3 days

 Determine the position of dredge equipment in relation to the exceedance location

 Determine the production rate and type of material currently being dredged, including any changes over the previous 48 hours

 Determine production rate and type of material to be dredged over the next 2-5 days

In addition, if the Principal’s WQES deems the breach of the Internal Alert Level to be predominantly due to dredge and/or disposal activities and in consultation with the Dredge Contractor, will consider the need for implementation of management measures detailed under Step 2 to decrease dredge related turbidity levels at the monitoring site.

Step 2 – Notify DERM and SEWPaC (if 6 hourly EWMA > External Reporting Trigger Level > 24 hours) and implement management measures

If the External Reporting Trigger Level at a designated monitoring site in the low impact zone is exceeded continuously for a 24 hour period (4 x 6 hourly EWMA readings), the Principal’s WQES will notify DERM,DEEDI and SEWPaC within one business day. The Principal’s WQES will provide a report to DERM, DEEDI and SEWPaC (within an additional 24 hours) on the likely cause of the elevated turbidity levels (ie due to background conditions or predominately due to dredging and/or disposal activities). If the elevated turbidity levels are determined to be dredge related and are above the predicted dredge plume modelling, the Principal’s WQES, in consultation with the Dredge

Contractor, will advise DERM of the management measures to be implemented to decrease the turbidity levels at the exceedance location.

Management measures will be implemented and remain in place until turbidity has reduced below the

External Reporting Trigger Level. The measures may include, but not limited to the following:

 The average rate of dredging and sea disposal will decrease. This will reduce the amount of turbidity released into the water column

 The material being dredged will be assessed and where practical the dredge will be relocated or sequenced to dredge coarser material to allow finer sediments to settle out of the dredge plume

 The TSHD will reduce the overflow rate or stop working in over flow mode

 The Dredge Contractor will implement alternate methodologies to reduce turbidity in the sensitive areas, and/or

 Dredge equipment will be relocated to alternative areas of the dredge footprint to allow respite for sensitive receptors in specific locations

If the turbidity has fallen below the External Reporting Trigger Level for a period of greater than 24 hours, no further management measures will be taken. Water quality monitoring will continue.

Step 3 – Environmental investigation and reporting to DTRP Subcommittee (if the 6 hourly EWMA >

External Reporting Trigger Level > 48 hours)

If the External Reporting Trigger Level is exceeded continuously for a period of 48 hours (8 x 6 hourly

EWMA readings) and is found to be predominately due to dredging and/or disposal activities, an environmental investigation will occur and a meeting of the DTRP Subcommittee (members include:

DERM, DEEDI, the Dredge Contractor and the Principal’s WQES) will be called.

The outcomes of the investigation and the management measures implemented will be tabled at a meeting of the DTRP Subcommittee and the DTRP Subcommittee will agree on additional management measure(s) to be implemented and a timeframe for their implementation.

The DTRP Subcommittee will also consider whether seagrass health assessments at permanent transect locations and/or other methods of seagrass health assessment should be undertaken on the seagrass communities at nominated receptor sites to determine whether the increased turbidity has caused a decrease in seagrass productivity and health.

The DTRP Subcommittee will reconvene after a predetermined period to review the success of the implementation of the management measures. If the turbidity has fallen below the External Reporting

Trigger Level for a period of greater than 24 hours, no further management measures will be taken.

The water quality monitoring program will continue.

If the turbidity level continues to remain above the External Reporting Trigger Level, the DTRP

Subcommittee will consider the implementation of further management measures to reduce turbidity.

Step 4 – DTRP Meeting (if 6 hourly EWMA > External Reporting Trigger Level > 1 week)

If the implementation of further management measures are determined not to be effective in reducing turbidity levels caused by dredging and/or disposal activities below the External Reporting Trigger Level and the turbidity remains above the External Reporting Trigger Level for a period of 1 week, a meeting of the DTRP will be convened as detailed in the DTRP TOR, and assess the severity of the exceedance and its potential impacts on the environment. The DTRP may then propose additional measures to assist in the management of the turbidity levels.

The DTRP will consider the outcomes of any seagrass health assessments and may draw on additional resources, including further scientific opinion, in developing a further set of recommendations for implementation.

The DTRP may recommend changes to the DMP or WQMP to improve the effective management of water quality in the future. All changes to the DMP and WQMP will be made in consultation with GPC,

DERM, DEEDI and SEWPaC.

Step 5 – Reporting

Once turbidity levels have decreased below the External Reporting Trigger Level, a report will be provided to DERM, DEEDI and SEWPaC within one month, detailing the outcomes of the exceedance, the management measures implemented and any proposed amendments to the WQMP and/or DMP.

The Internal Alert and External Reporting Trigger Levels have been set based on the application of the 6 hourly Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) to raw background turbidity data collected by Vision Environment. Due to the water quality monitoring equipment being installed at different times, the amount of data available for each site varies, refer to Table 5.2 for details of the data utilised for each site.

The EWMA applies weighting factors which decrease exponentially and when applied 6 hourly give 4 readings per 24 hours. The 6 hourly EWMA is calculated by using a 60:40 weighting system, where the mean turbidity for the most recent 6 hours comprises 60% of the EWMA value, and the mean turbidity for the 6 hours previous to that comprises 40% of the EWMA (Environmetrics Australia 2010).

The resulting background turbidity data set was examined to determine the intensity, duration and frequency of turbidity fluctuations which occurred through natural background variation. By applying a probabilistic framework and examining the natural variations from a statistical and performance based standpoint, the 80th and 95th percentile of EWMA background data, over 36 and 24 hours, respectively, were chosen as the basis for establishing practical water quality management trigger values.

The 80th and 95th percentile of EWMA background conditions, for the wet and dry seasons, are generally exceeded naturally on a fortnightly basis and thus represent a level which can be practically managed whilst ensuring natural conditions are maintained. In the absence of firm scientific evidence relating to the tolerance limits of specific seagrass species, these interim water quality (in NTU) management levels will be applied to monitoring and investigation of dredge related turbidity and implement actions that result in dredge activities not markedly varying the range of background turbidity experienced at seagrass communities outside the defined low impact zone.

Given the variation that occurs between sites within Port Curtis, each monitoring site will have a site specific Internal Alert and External Reporting Trigger Level for the wet and dry season. Sites that show similar variation patterns and percentiles may be grouped with the same values for ease of management. Refer to Table 5.3 for site specific Internal Alert and External Reporting Trigger Levels.

Due to the importance of ‘duration’ as an aspect of any increases in turbidity for the environment, timeframes have been applied to the Internal Alert and External Reporting Trigger Levels to minimise the frequency these levels are exceeded for a greater duration than would be found under natural conditions. Associated with both the Internal Alert and External Reporting Trigger Levels are investigation and management actions which are to be conducted to ensure that dredge related elevated turbidity is managed effectively. Table 5.4 summarises for conditions and actions associated with both the Internal Alert and the External Reporting Trigger Levels. The management steps and actions to be undertaken if the Internal Alert and External Reporting Trigger Levels are exceeded are further detailed in Section 5.6.

Whilst minimal impact to seagrass communities within the low impact zones are predicted, following the precautionary principle the potential disturbance of seagrass communities within this zone will be covered under a marine plant removal permit.

Table 5.3 Internal Alert Levels and External Reporting Trigger Levels for each nominated monitoring site Site

Name

Internal Alert Level (NTU)

(80th percentile of the 6 hr EWMA applied to background turbidity data)

External Reporting Trigger Level (NTU)

(95th percentile of the 6 hr EWMA applied to background turbidity data)

Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season Dry Season

QE4 23 13 30 21

ST1 27 16 33 20

P2 30 17 48 27

BG10 29 18 42 30

SGM1 4* 2 7* 5

SGM2 6* 4 7* 5

Table notes Water quality data and External Reporting Trigger Levels for SGM1 and SGM2 will be based on background water quality monitoring currently being conducted

* Represents values for which insufficient data exists and ratio estimates have been applied to determine the values, refer to Environmetrics Australia 2011a. These values will be revised when sufficient background data becomes available

Western Basin Dredging and Disposal (Onshore and Offshore) Project

Project 217460-1-2 | File WQMP_ Rev9 Final.doc 14 December 2011 | Revision 9 Aurecon Page 17

Table 5.4 Internal Alert Levels and External Reporting Trigger Levels conditions and associated actions

Water quality management levels Condition Actions

(refer Section 5.6)

No management intervention required (continue water quality monitoring)

6hr EWMA < Internal Alert

Level

No management intervention required

Internal Alert Level

(80th percentile of the 6 hour

EWMA of background water quality data) 6hr EWMA > Internal Alert

Level > 36 hrs

Step 1 - Internal Investigation within 24 hours

External Reporting Trigger Level

(95th percentile of the 6 hour

EWMA of background water quality data)

6hr EWMA > External

Reporting Trigger Level >

24 hrs

Step 2 – Notify DERM and SEWPaC within

24 hours or as soon as practical

Step 3 – Environmental investigation and reporting to DTRP Subcommittee

Step 4 – DTRP Meeting

Dear Shane, Thank you for writing back and clarifying that the state enforces the 99th Centile and that the federal government does not use the 99th centile but uses the 95th centile under its water quality management plan. I am sure you understand that if the Ports are over the 99th percentile then they are also over the 95th Centile. For instance the 99th Centile for QE4 is now 30. According to your document link the 95th Centile for QE4 now is 21. (dry season) If you review the turbidity data you will see that the turbidity has been much higher than 21 NTU for over a week for a number of weeks in the last year. The Federal government water quality plan states if that is the case there should be DTRP meetings and reports provided to DERM, DEEDI and SEWPaC within one month, detailing the outcomes of the exceedance, the management measures implemented and any proposed amendments to the WQMP and/or DMP. My view is that your department should have monthly reports from Sept 2011, Oct 2011, Dec 2011, Jan 2012, March 2012, April 2012, May 2012, June 2012, July 2012 and August 2012. Could you clarify that the federal goverment is allowing breaches of their Water Quality Plan during the TEP as well as the state allowing breaches of the 99th centile during the plan.

So when you state in your letter, "I note your concern regarding the exceedances outlined below; however, this does not constitute a breach of Commonwealth conditions and is therefore the responsibility of the Queensland Government. I would recommend that you direct your concerns to the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection." I would say the data attached show that they have breached Commonwealth conditions and state conditions, e.g above the 99th and the 95th Centile. I would like to know what the commonwealth has done in the meetings and view the reports to assess the response of the government to these turbidity exceedances to ensure they don't keep occurring. As stated the Qld government has given one EPO on one occasion despite multiple breaches. There have been multiple breaches of the commonwealth water quality plan. Would you be happy to release the reports from each of those weeks spent above the 95th centile at QE4 and ST1. (There have been periods of over a week above the 95th centile at BG10 and P2 but I have only included the September 2011 data for those sites) Please let us know if the DTRP meetings and reports are available online or can be sent to us to review the adequacy of state and federal response. Regards Andrew

"The role of the Commonwealth in this matter is not to enforce State legislation or monitor approvals granted under State law. The regulation of the 99th percentile for turbidity trigger levels is a matter under the Queensland Government development approval. The Commonwealth regulates the 95th percentile under the approved Water Quality Management Plan. The Water Quality Management Plan required to be implemented under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 can be found at this link: http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/media/pdf/Water%20qua lity%20management%20plan.pdf "

I have cut and paste the relevant sections from the "federal" water quality management plan below. The 99th centile used by the state is higher then the 95th centile in the water quality management plan. My graphs sent to him show not only has the 99th centile been regularly breached but also the 80th and 95th centile levels taken from their water quality management document namely. (It just didn't have those lines on the graph.)

SITE (80th percentile of the 6 hr EWMA applied to Internal Alert Level (NTU) background turbidity data) External Reporting Trigger Level (NTU) (95th percentile of the 6 hr EWMA applied to background turbidity data) Wet Season Dry Season Wet Season Dry Season

80 centile 95 centile wet season dry season wet season dry season QE4 23 13 30 21 ST1 27 16 33 20

The question is have the ports and the federal government followed all the steps below outlined in the water quality management plan

Step 1 – Internal investigation (if the 6 hourly EWMA > Internal Alert Level > 36 hours) Step 2 – Notify DERM and SEWPaC (if 6 hourly EWMA > External Reporting Trigger Level > 24 hours) and implement management measures Step 3 – Environmental investigation and reporting to DTRP Subcommittee (if the 6 hourly EWMA > External Reporting Trigger Level > 48 hours) Step 4 – DTRP Meeting (if 6 hourly EWMA > External Reporting Trigger Level > 1 week) Step 5 – Reporting

These steps have more detail in them and I have attached the detail below) By my reading of the turbidity data there should have been a number of DTRP meetings as they were above the external reporting trigger level for over a week on a number of occasions.

If they have followed all the steps great, lets see what they said in their meetings and what actions were taken.

If they haven't why not.

They have currently been issued a TEP and have been over the state limits, the 99th centile but this can not be enforced because of the State TEP, The federal limits have also been exceeded, but does the state TEP apply to federal limits.

It is a good time to find out about this as to have their TEP approved they have admitted that the bund wall is contributing to turbidity (it is not just natural variation e.g. tides)

My view is that the ports have not met the objectives of this federal plan.

1.3 Objectives

The objectives of this Plan are to:

 To manage the impacts of dredging activities on water quality and minimise the loss of seagrass in nominated zones by reducing dredge related turbidity where necessary

 To implement an integrated plan which incorporates ongoing research and monitoring programs for the adaptive management of water quality impacts, due to dredging and disposal activities, on seagrass health

 Develop and implement a monitoring program for dredging and disposal activities that is based on the health of seagrass communities

1.4 Performance objectives

The performance objectives of this Plan include:

 No exceedance of external Reporting Trigger Level in the low to no impact zone as a result of sediment suspension or the disposal of dredge spoil associated with Western Basin dredging activities above the increases predicted by the dredging plume modelling

So when Shane states "I note your concern regarding the exceedances outlined below; however, this does not constitute a breach of Commonwealth conditions and is therefore the responsibility of the Queensland Government. I would recommend that you direct your concerns to the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection." I would say the data shows that they have breached Commonwealth conditions as well as state conditions and we would like to know what the commonwealth has done to address these turbidity exceedances. Can you let me know if I am in some way misreading the water quality document. To me there have been multiple breaches of the commonwealty water quality plan. If so, is this is an appropriate question that can be asked at the Senate level Regards Andrew

------Forwarded Message From: "Gaddes, Shane" Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 06:14:25 +0000 Conversation: RE TURBIDITY AT GLADSTONE. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED] Subject: FW: RE TURBIDITY AT GLADSTONE. [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I note that the department’s position on this matter continues to cause you concern. The role of the Commonwealth in this matter is not to enforce State legislation or monitor approvals granted under State law. The regulation of the 99th percentile for turbidity trigger levels is a matter under the Queensland Government development approval. The Commonwealth regulates the 95th percentile under the approved Water Quality Management Plan. The Water Quality Management Plan required to be implemented under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 can be found at this link:http://www.westernbasinportdevelopment.com.au/media/pdf/Water%20quality %20management%20plan.pdf

I note your concern regarding the exceedances outlined below; however, this does not constitute a breach of Commonwealth conditions and is therefore the responsibility of the Queensland Government. I would recommend that you direct your concerns to the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. regards

Shane Gaddes | A/g Assistant Secretary | Compliance & Enforcement Branch | Ph (02) 6274 2760 | Mob 0459 835 027 |

Hi Shane,

I would appreciate a response to my email earlier this week requesting details of Federal government monitoring of its approval conditions. Your response did not clarify these matters.

7. Baseline data proves that the average turbidity level in the dry season used to be 9 NTU and now average turbidity is around 3 times that figure and above the ANZECC guideline of 20.

The department is unaware of the turbidity trigger point you are referring to. The Water Quality Management Plan contains a range of values for each site in both the wet and dry season. Could you please clarify which trigger level, season and site you have concerns about?

“ Dr Andrew Jeremijenko has monitored the water quality data from Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC) on a regular basis and the attached graphs of turbidity gives a graphic account and identifies a number of occasions that GPC has gone over the 99th centile ( the orange dotted line) at ST1 which is a dredge plume site as well as QE4 in the narrows. There are more exceedances however he does not have the complete data set. A number of institutions have requested this turbidity information under FOI, but the Ports have been reluctant to release the complete data set and it is easy to see why. The complete data set would show that turbidity has gone over the 99th centile once or twice a month every month since they started monitoring in August, and on many of those months it has been for over 48 hours. In general we are seeing high turbidity over the 99th centile for over 7 days a month at those 2 sites on most months of the year. (Over 5 days in the spring tide and often a few days during the neap tide.)

We understand the conditions state that the GPC was not to go over the 99th centile for more than 48 hours. The 99th centile means only 1 day in 100 or just over 3 days a year historically went over the limit. The Ports and state government continue to state in their media releases that there is no change in water quality to suggest that dredging was having an impact. Yet the turbidity data shows clearly that dredging is having an impact. This is not mentioned in the media releases for any of the water quality reports. http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/gladstone/reports.html#water_quality. Natural variation is given as an explanation of high turbidity.

The GPC were given an EPO on January 10th, 2012, as they exceeded the turbidity limit for 48 hours at QE4. They had broken the 48 hour mark on multiple occasions before the EPO. In September 2011, when DERM water quality tests were done near dredging the results were very high, DERM asked them to stop dredging but did not issue an EPO. ( http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/monitoring/documents/port- curtis.pdf ) In October they ignored the high turbidity and let them use a false 99th centile (the wet season) and continued to use this false wet season centile in early November. When they went over at Christmas and ignored public safety issues, I think it annoyed DERM hence the EPO was given in January 2012. However the exceedances continued after that and they did not receive an EPO. There have been multiple exceedances over the 99th centile at most inner harbour sites, but predominantly ST1 and QE4. BG10 and P2 have also had exceedances but not as often.

As stated in October 2011, they used the wet season 99th centile - the orange line, e.g. 34 instead of 28 on QE4 graphs and 38 instead of 24 on ST1 graphs when in fact it was still the dry season. It was not a wet October in Gladstone. The Wet season was due to start on the 20th November but GPC brought it forward and used the wrong 99th centile in October. Due to using false triggers they exceeded the limits for over 48 hours and continued to dredge over the 48 hour limit, but did not receive an EPO. This can be seen on the graphs downloaded from their site.

At site ST1 and QE4, GPC could not comply so in April they changed the turbidity triggers by incorporating post dredging data with baseline data. The new figures are given below

Site turbidity QE4 - 28 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) was changed to 30 NTU (dry season); and 34 was changed to 55 in the wet season. Site turbidity ST1 - 24 NTU was changed to 35 NTU (dry season) and 38 was changed to 65 in the wet season.

The GPC are unable to comply with the new relaxed turbidity limits. What the GPC has been doing is instead of stopping dredging as they approach the limit, they go all the way up and over the limit and dredge to the 47th hour, then stop dredging. They believe this means they are not breaching their conditions. They continue to exploit a natural variation loophole that was put in for extreme events such as cyclones and floods, not the tides. The tides are predictable parts of the harbour ecology and they can easily slow the dredging or stop it a few days before the large tides so that they do not exceed the 99th centile for 48 hours. It has been requested that this loophole be removed. The State Environment ministers have looked at this issue, but not acted. The JCU study using satellite images has debunked the tides and floods myth, and has shown the dredging plume goes 34 km out to sea. This study confirmed that it is the dredging that is causing the high turbidity.

GPC admitted the leaking bund wall and associated dredging has contributed to the high turbidity in the harbour and were granted the TEP to fix it. This leak has contributed to higher turbidity in the harbour. Yet the official government report released on Water Quality on the 22 June, 3 days before the granting the TEP states "There was no clear pattern in the water quality results to suggest that dredging was having any major impact on water quality." This water quality report did not mention the UNESCO condemnation which stated "reduced water quality from dredging, inadequate independent, scientific oversight in monitoring water quality, and suggested lack of government response when water quality targets are exceeded”

The GPC asked for the TEP to try to alleviate the situation but if you look at the data, despite the wall being almost fixed, they are still over the limit at site QE4. They will use the extension until the 5th of August, but will likely be over the limit then as the spring tide stirs up the loose sediment from the continous dredging for over a month. Despite UNESCO calling for action from the regulators, no EPO has been given by the new Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. The TEP means the harbour has reached a new low in environmental protection by allowing continual dredging over the limit which began the first day the TEP was issued. GPC dredge over the limits on Christmas day, Australia Day, Easter, and Labour day holidays with disregard to tourism and recreational and commercial fishing. The new government relaxes the limits, which they ignore almost immediately and now they have a 6 week free pass to dredge over the limit and within a day they do exactly that and are still over the limit.

It is abundantly clear that the GPC is not complying with conditions of approval.

As turbidity has shown to be closely related to amount of metals e.g. >90% concordance with aluminium and over 70% concordance with copper, it is a good marker for amount of heavy metals in the harbour. It is important to stay within the limits defined by their dredge management plan for the health of the harbour. “

I look forward to a comprehensive response to the issues outlined. with regards,

Interviews

0438372653 http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2012/04/is-gladstone-harbour-part-of-the-great-barrier-reef.html http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/10/gladstone-dredging-and-fish-problems-andrew- jeremijenko.html http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/11/story-1-4.html?site=westqld&program=612_evenings http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/12/gladstone-harbour-test-results-andrew-jeremijenko.html http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2012/05/gladstone-harbours-water-turbidity-increased-3rd-may- 2012.html?site=goldcoast&program=612_evenings http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/somethings-really-fishy-in-the-gladstone-waters/

Gladstone dredging suspended again 19:28 AEDT Tue May 8 2012

Some dredging has been suspended in Gladstone Harbour after turbidity once again exceeded the acceptable level. The Gladstone Ports Corporation confirmed it had stopped some dredging on Sunday because turbidity (muddiness) had exceeded the trigger level at one monitoring site. Trigger levels at that site and one other have recently been raised by the state government at the request of the corporation, which found the original levels were too conservative. A spokeswoman for Gladstone Ports Corporation said the old trigger levels were still in place when the breach occurred. An environmentalist says both the old and new trigger levels have been exceeded. Andrew Jeremijenko, a former federal Greens candidate, called on the state government to issue the corporation with an Environmental Protection Order, which would force it to stop dredging until turbidity returned to normal levels. "The problem is that this is not just a one-off. This is happening every four weeks," he told AAP. The corporation says tidal movements are the significant factor contributing to high turbidity, not dredging. But Dr Jeremijenko says dredging has removed the top layer of the harbour's seabed, exposing mud which is then stirred up by the tide. Gladstone Ports Corporation is dredging in the harbour to allow for two liquefied natural gas plants on Curtis Island. Local fishermen and environment groups have blamed the dredging for the appearance of sick fish and other ill marine life. Media Release Dredgers over the new limit on Labor day holiday - Public, Environment and World Heritage Listing at risk.

Less than 3 days after new turbidity levels were approved for Gladstone, the Ports have continued to dredge over the limit putting the public, the environment and Gladstone harbour at risk. They stopped the Cutter section dredge but continued to use backhoe dredgers causing further toxicity and illness on this public holiday.

The dredgaholics have now dredged over the limit on Christmas, Easter, Australia day and Labor day. They have failed to comply with their new easier rules that they requested and received. The government should forced them to comply with the old ones rather then giving them new ones which they don't respect. This was the governments opportunity to enforce the new rules and issue an EPO (environment protection order) as the ports went over the new levels for 48 hours. (This is akin to driving drunk each holiday and the government increasing the limit from 0.05 to 0.08 but fails to fine them despite being over 0.08). This government has failed to enforce the old rules and now failed to enforce the new rules.

New data released on Friday showed high arsenic levels in the sediment may be poisoning the turtles from the Great Barrier Reef. Many endangered turtles in Gladstone harbour, may be eating seagrass poisoned with arsenic, and this may be contributing to the increased strandings and deaths of turtles in this area. Tests released by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection found high arsenic levels above trigger values. Testing of diseased turtle blood in Gladstone Harbour has also found high arsenic levels.

The high aluminium levels that are in the sediment tests support earlier testing that found high total aluminium in the water and high aluminium content in the gills of the barramundi, prawn and dewfish. This cocktail of heavy metals and metal compounds that is coating seagrass and partially inhibiting its growth, may also be contributing to turtle illness. The reason why Aluminium was not an exceedance is that currently there is no trigger value for aluminium in sediments.

These sediment results are further evidence of high metal concentration in the dredging area and therefore dredging these sediments will increase these metals and their bioavailability in the environment. Dumping these dredge spoils will also increase the harm and this is also shown in the sediment testing of the dump spoil areas, (e.g. aluminium 18000 mg/kg) The high metals in dredge spoils can contribute to environmental harm. which is why they should not be dumped in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area or the Marine Park, despite proposals to allow dumping for a $5-$15 per cubic metre cost. With regard to seagrass, during winter the light is less and allowing higher turbidity levels may increase the die back of seagrass as well as coating the seagrass with toxic heavy metals.

This latest evidence suggests turbidity triggers which closely correlate with heavy metals such as aluminium in the water column should be reduced not increased. Practices such as silt curtains should be introduced and newer dredges to could be employed to reduce the turbidity. The government and the ports are ignoring the science and the pictures of ill health in multiple species and are moving in the wrong direction with these new turbidity levels. The new levels are: Site turbidity QE4 - 28 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) to 30 NTU (dry season); and 34 to 55 in the wet season. Site turbidity ST1 - 24 NTU to 35 NTU (dry season) and 38 to 65 in the wet season.

Unesco expressed their concerns in March and may place the Great Barrier Reef on the World Heritage Area in danger list when they release their report on the 1st June, 2012. On Friday before Labour day weekend the turbidity had already almosted exceeded the old turbidity limit. The ports will continue to dredge over the old limit, and put the marine life, the public and the World Heritage listing of the Great Barrier Reef at risk. From GPCL website "The Cutter Suction Dredge has paused operations since approx 6pm Sunday 6 May in accordance with the Turbidity Management Plan, which in action due to high turbidity caused by extremely large tidal ranges during the full moon period."

Dr Andrew Jeremijenko 0438372653

EHP trying to hide evidence in the bottom of Gladstone harbour.

Dr Andrew Jeremijenko, an environmental medicine specialist believes that the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection is deliberately misleading the public about the turbididty levels and mud at the bottom of Gladstone harbour. "This is a cover up and they are risking the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage status." "This deception of the public has to stop. For months I have requested the government admit that high turbidity is a problem in the harbour." "High turbidity (muddiness) was found to be linked to dredging in the government report, and high turbidity was linked with high total aluminium and copper in that same report" "Gladstone harbour has dredged over the limit and caused a muddy harbour on multiple occasions including many of the holidays such as Christmas, Easter and Australia day. They have exceeded their environmental controls and have been given an Environmental protection order "The Government and Ports can't say the water quality is fine then turn around and ask for turbidity controls to be changed. " "This is contradictory. If it was fine they would not need to change the levels. The truth is it is not fine."

The Government also claims that the sediment testing confirms dredging is not to blame for diseased fish. Mr Chesterman has stated "that sediment in Port Curtis (also known as Gladstone Harbour) generally contains low amounts of contamination which means that dredging is not releasing contaminants into the waters at concentrations likely to cause environmental harm" "This is simply not true. Mr Chesterman is trying to hide the muddy evidence at the bottom of the harbour with spin." stated Dr Andrew Jeremijenko "The results show high levels of heavy metals such as Aluminium and Copper are in the sediment particularly at the dredge spoil disposal areas. These metals are known to be toxic in the marine environment. " Testing from March 2012 released on May 2nd showed the trigger value for aluminium was exceeded at ten of the 36 sites sampled. The trigger value for copper was exceeded at four sites,

Dr Jeremijenko believes the Gladstone Ports and Jeff Seeney's suggestion to remove Gladstone harbour from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area is an admission of guilt. An independent scientist Dr Matt Landos has found links between dredging and diseased marine life. The UNESCO mission that visited Gladstone harbour will release a report on the 1st of June that will detail their concerns in this World Heritage area. The 20 million dollar compensation case for fishermen continues and the 100,000 strong petition to stop dredging in this World Heritage Area has been ignored. "The government instead of admitting there is a problem continues to state that all the tests are normal when they are not".

This is a dangerous path to follow, as if you don't admit there is a problem in Gladstone harbour you can't fix it. But it may be bigger than the Gladstone Harbour. The whole Great Barrier Reef may be placed on the "World Heritage in Danger" list not just the harbour. "It doesn't need to be like this. Gladstone harbour is not healthy, but it can recover. The environmental controls need to be strengthened, not weakened. EHP needs to admit there is a problem and start implementing turbidity controls. The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area is a national treasure, a tourism icon and part of our identity. "If they don't protect it, they won't protect anything." They need to enforce regulations to protect the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage status not ignore the evidence in the muddy waters.

Dr Andrew Jeremijenko 0438372653

> > AN ENVIRONMENTAL medicine specialist has compared consultants working > on major resource developments with “supermodels who won’t get out of > bed for less than $5000 a day”. > > > > The claim was made by Save the Reef spokesman Dr Andrew Jeremijenko, > an occupational physician who once worked as chief medical officer for > Woodside Petroleum in WA. He has also provided “Telemedicine advice” > to major coal seam gas and Curtis Island LNG proponents, QGC and > Origin over the past three years. > > > > His scathing assessment of the resources environmental consultancy industry followed > the release of a report last week by the Federal Government’s > Independent Scientific Expert Committee. (ISEC) This raised a number of > concerns over Arrow Energy’s Surat Gas Project Environmental Impact > Statement, including underground water and threatened species. > > > > Dr Jeremijenko told the Telegraph, “This demonstrates how broken the > EIS process has become. The government needs to hire independent > scientific experts to review the work of the resource companies independent > scientists. Governments previously just accepted the environmental > consultants word and did not question their independence. It is clear now > they are not independent and the quality of their work is questionable."

> “In my view environmental consultants are becoming more like > supermodels than protectors of the environment. > “They won't get out of bed for less than $5000 a day. They go and take > a few pictures and sell the product (namely the resource company project). > “If you have the patience to read their ‘glossy’, it is shallow and doesn't > address cumulative impacts. They rarely knock back a project. If > they get the project approved they get to be the preferred provider > and do more assessments for other resource companies….” > > > > Dr Jeremijenko said the expert committee was set up at the instigation > of Federal Independent MP Tony Windsor, who had been dissatisfied with > government scrutiny of new coal and coal seam gas projects. > > > > “The committee has found that the Environmental Impact Statement for > Arrow Energy does not adequately address potential impacts to matters > of national environmental significance. > > > > “It considered the EIS modelling inadequate as it does not assess > cumulative impacts and they found the project has the potential to > significantly impact on aquifer integrity in the region,” Dr > Jeremijenko said. It was also interesting to note that following a > meeting last week with Mr Windsor and fellow independent Rob > Oakeshott, Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke announced a ‘Water > Trigger’ had been included in the EPBC act. The resource companies > have lobbied against this trigger. > > > Save the Reef believed the expert committee had highlighted problems > with the whole EIS process. Environmental consultants had lost their > independence and had become “the voice boxes for industry”. > > > > “The current system rewards environmental consultants with repeat work > if they write what the resource companies want…. > > > > “The government then approves projects without adequate review of > these ‘independent’ EIS. If later there is an environmental disaster > the environmental consultants know there is little chance they will be > held responsible…." In Qld the government has never sued an > environmental consultant despite disasters like Ensham and the Dee River. > > Dr Jeremijenko said the EIS for Arrow’s gasfield project was > unfortunately one of many found to be flawed. > “In my view, Environmental Impact Statements are no longer worth the > paper they are written on,” he said. > > “The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area may be put on UNESCO’s > ‘In Danger List’ on June 1 partly because environmental consultants > for the LNG plants and Western Basin Dredging and disposal project > said that environmental impacts could be managed and would be small to > negligible”. There have been impacts and UNESCO has rightly condemned > us for our management of this World Heritage Area. > > > > The consultants had stated that Gladstone Harbour was an area of low > sensitivity despite a table stating that World Heritage Areas should > be classified as high sensitivity and the fact that it is a known turtle haven > and dugong sanctuary. > > > Dr Jeremijenko’s claims follow a CMC probe into recent allegations > that the former Bligh government had pressured senior public servants > into rushed approval of earlier EIS statements by other major coal > seam gas companies constructing pipelines and LNG export terminals on > Curtis Island.

Andrew,

I have just had a look at the EIS for the arrow energy LNG plant - a brief scan of the sections on marine water and sediment quality and marine ecology finds both to be very deficient and the analysis used by the consultants systematically underestimates environmental impacts (e.g. water quality section , the risk of dredging to water quality and features such as hard reefs is classified as "minor" to "negligible", although they say the dredge plume will deposit between 2 and 7 cm of silt in the project area over the life of the project), while in the ecology section the risk of introduced species is considered to be negligible, despite massive increases in boat movements). Furthermore, like the original EIS for the port developments, this EIS completely neglects aquatic animal health issues, especially those which may arise from stress and immunosuppression. Cumulative impacts between this and other developments in the area are also ignored, or virtually ignored.

I think it would be very unwise to simply let this sort of flawed document to go through uncontested. Is there anything organised by fishing and/or environment groups that would allow some funds to be found to allow a group of professionals to put together a response to this EIS before the deadline ? The reasons why we have these problems in Gladstone at the moment is the fact that the previous EIS was grossly inadequate, - if that process is allowed to continue and cumulative impacts are ignored, the best we can expect is more of the same, but in reality the situation is likely to get even worse.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8461982/newman-defends-gladstone-dredging-changes

Tests of sediment in Gladstone Harbour confirms dredging is not to blame for diseased fish, the Queensland environment department says.

A day after the state government increased the allowable turbidity levels in the harbour, the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) released the results of sediment tests conducted in February and March. Gladstone Ports Corporation is dredging in the harbour to allow for two liquefied natural gas plants on Curtis Island. Local fishermen and environment groups have blamed the dredging for the appearance of sick fish and other ill marine life. The EHP tested sediment from a range of sites for hundreds of potential contaminants. "These results show that sediment in Port Curtis (also known as Gladstone Harbour) generally contains low amounts of contamination which means that dredging is not releasing contaminants into the waters at concentrations likely to cause environmental harm," EHP Director-General Andrew Chesterman said in a statement. The EHP on Thursday said original turbidity levels set for two dredging sites were conservative and had been increased. The Gladstone Ports Corporation says the new levels are more realistic. It says tidal activity, not dredging, has been responsible for pushing the turbidity levels above acceptable levels. Australian Greens Senator Larissa Waters says she plans to ask the federal government to intervene and impose its own turbidity conditions. "The ongoing environmental crisis in Gladstone harbour is a disaster for the Gladstone community, an embarrassment for Queensland and a national disgrace," she said in a statement. Queensland Opposition Leader Tim Mulherin was unaware of the EHP's decision to change acceptable turbidity levels when reporters asked him to comment on Friday. He later said the government should prioritise the clear communication of complex scientific information to all local stakeholders.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/calls-grow-to-stop-dredging-in-gladstone- harbour/story-e6freuy9-1226157631955 (note that this story talked about the leaking bund wall in October 2011. There was no discussion of the leaking bund wall and it was not admitted as a cause of high turbidity by the Ports until June 2012 when they requested a TEP. They were accused by an MP and the Premier of covering this issue up. See http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-28/gladstone-ports-corp-accused-of-cover-up/4097246 ) Calls grow to stop dredging in Gladstone Harbour

 Brian Williams  The Courier-Mail  October 04, 2011 12:00AM

CONTROVERSIAL dredging operations in Gladstone Harbour resumed yesterday after being suspended last week to allow murky water conditions to improve.

But Greens environment spokeswoman Larissa Waters said the suspension should stand until tests revealed what was behind diseases and deaths of marine species in the harbour area.

The Gladstone Ports Corporation voluntarily stopped dredging in part of the harbour last Thursday because extremely low tides and high winds had increased turbidity levels.

A newly-created bund wall, aimed at containing dredge spoil, also was leaking although authorities expected it to seal. "The leaking, new bund wall is worsening high turbidity in Gladstone Harbour, and we know that red spot in fish is linked to poor water quality and high levels of sediment," Ms Waters said.

"Why should dredging be allowed to continue when the entire fishing industry of Gladstone is left in limbo? "Dredging operations simply must be stopped until authorities get to the bottom of this. "I urge Federal Environment Minister Tony Burke and Queensland Environment Minister Vicky Darling to suspend all Gladstone dredging operations immediately."

Gladstone has also recorded more than 100 turtle and dugong deaths this year - raising concerns of links between dredging and stressed animals.

The Queensland Seafood Industry Association also has called for a halt to dredging.

"If leaking through the bund wall in the reclamation area at Fisherman's Landing is causing unacceptable levels of turbidity, then what is the dumping of the same dredge spoil material off the front of Facing Island doing?" QSIA president Michael Gardner said. "Surely, that will be causing serious turbidity problems also."

The QSIA has written to Ms Darling asking that no further dredge spoil be dumped at the Fisherman's Landing site until the bund wall was sealed. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/dredge-loophole-endangers-harbour- water/story-e6freoof-1226188226637 Dredging loophole risks Gladstone Harbour water

 by: Brian Williams  From: The Courier-Mail  November 08, 2011 12:00AM

HARBOUR EXPANSION: The dredging at Gladstone may be linked to disease outbreaks affecting marine life.

THE State Government has created a loophole in the monitoring of dredging in Gladstone Harbour which allows potentially disease-causing conditions to be ignored.

The standard of monitoring is a key issue in the harbour's massive expansion which is feared linked to diseases in fish and water quality issues.

Greens spokesman Andrew Jeremijenko said yesterday the Environment Department and Gladstone Ports Corporation agreed before dredging for gas industry expansion began that water quality would be deemed to have been impacted if turbidity levels were exceeded over a 48-hour period. A "natural variation" clause was added to cover flood or cyclone periods but this was now being used as a loophole.

When muddy conditions occurred, the corporation explained it away as a natural variation caused by high and low tides.

"They have continued to dredge except for one or two days during this time of high turbidity," Dr Jeremijenko said. "This highly turbid water contains high levels of heavy metals, in particular aluminium.

"DERM also is provided with the turbidity data and did not ask the port to take action."

Environment Minister Vicki Darling said recent instances of high turbidity had coincided with high spring tides.

She said tests showed turbidity levels were higher than normal around dredge sites and dredging was suspended.

If a further review indicated a need for DERM to amend the dredging approval conditions, the department would take immediate action, the minister said.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority chairman Russell Reichelt has also told the ABC's Four Corners that he warned federal Environment Minister Tony Burke that major dredging associated with the building of four coal seam gas processing plants at Gladstone would have an unacceptable impact.

Mr Burke imposed water quality guidelines, with Mr Reichelt then agreeing harbour expansion could go ahead.

In July, UNESCO admonished the state and federal governments for allowing gas processing on the reef doorstep, with Premier Anna Bligh replying that appropriate environmental protections were in place.

Dr Jeremijenko said high turbidity levels had occurred for more than two weeks in the past two months.

This confirmed water quality was affected by dredging in contrast to a departmental report on the issue.

Interviews

http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2012/04/is-gladstone-harbour-part-of-the-great-barrier-reef.html http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/10/gladstone-dredging-and-fish-problems-andrew- jeremijenko.html http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/11/story-1-4.html?site=westqld&program=612_evenings http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2011/12/gladstone-harbour-test-results-andrew-jeremijenko.html http://blogs.abc.net.au/queensland/2012/05/gladstone-harbours-water-turbidity-increased-3rd-may- 2012.html?site=goldcoast&program=612_evenings http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/somethings-really-fishy-in-the-gladstone-waters/

Programmes http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3593812.htm Catalyst, high turbidity and heavy metals. http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2011/11/03/3355047.htm Great Barrier Grief https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGsa_-5uh-Q 7.30 report dead dugong, fish disease https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_9Gr3mDMX0 Heritage authority worried by dredging https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVKlmvNApbc Gladstone Harbour Dredge Protest - LNG Coal Seam Gas Port - TV media coverage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AzHlxwj91Q Environmental concern over Gladstone harbour channel 'significant project' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRLRcwgFHYI catalyst s13 ep18 GladstoneDredging https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqPkP-CYfXY Seeney unhappy with UNESCO over Gladstone Harbour https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRQVZE0uEgI Gladstone Harbour Fish Disease - Government Says Nothing Wrong https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5QUnMdtXy4 Harbour Mystery – high turbidity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Qr5YJjZXGI Report Scientific Panel-Crab Health -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-nGtbQmd-I New report blames dredging for Gladstone fish kills https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4Bm-eT-sW4 Senator Larissa Waters -Gladstone Harbour contamination - Ch 10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApbVL3fwEgA Gladstone residents warned over toxic chemical spill - ABC News https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-K6B9G32zc Report to Scientific Panel EstuaryFish Health Gladstone Harbour November 2011