Great Barrier Reef Shipping: Review of Environmental Implications

Document No. : R1212 Date : 21 December 2012 Status: Final

Prepared for : Abbot Point Working Group under direction from BHP Billiton and North Queensland Bulk Ports.

Prepared by : PGM Environment PO Box 7087 Safety Bay WA 6169 Australia

Tel: 61 (0)417 123 442 e-mail: [email protected] John Polglaze Principal

Reviewed by :

Colin Trinder

PGM Environment (Polglaze Griffin Miller & Associates Pty Ltd) ABN: 20 141 099 489

Cover images: AHS, Motorships

GBR Shipping Study

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... i Consultation and Acknowledgements ...... xiii 1. Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Objectives of the Review ...... 4 1.3 Scope ...... 5 1.4 Methodology ...... 5 1.5 Structure of This Report ...... 8 2. GBR Shipping ...... 9 2.1 Ports in the GBR Region ...... 9 2.2 Shipping Areas and Channels ...... 12 2.3 Ships ...... 14 2.4 Shipping Activity in the GBR Region ...... 18 3. GBR Values in Relation to Shipping ...... 21 3.1 GBR World Heritage Listing ...... 21 3.2 Natural Environment ...... 22 3.2.1 Climate ...... 22 3.2.2 Seabed topography ...... 23 3.2.3 Islands ...... 23 3.2.4 Coral reefs ...... 23 3.2.5 Seagrass beds ...... 23 3.2.6 Mangroves ...... 24 3.2.7 Submarine canyons and trenches ...... 24 3.2.8 Algae ...... 24 3.2.9 Hard and soft corals ...... 24 3.2.10 Invertebrate fauna ...... 24 3.2.11 Fish ...... 25 3.2.12 Cetaceans ...... 25 3.2.13 Dugongs...... 27 3.2.14 Marine turtles ...... 27 3.2.15 Seabird rookeries ...... 29 3.2.16 Crocodiles ...... 29

R1212 i

GBR Shipping Study

4. Applicable Conventions, Legislation and Policies ...... 31 4.1 International Conventions and Agreements Related to Shipping ...... 31 4.2 Commonwealth Legislation ...... 32 4.3 Queensland Legislation ...... 32 4.4 Summary ...... 32 5. GBR Regional Policies, Procedures and Facilities ...... 35 5.1 GBR Shipping Management Group ...... 35 5.2 North East Shipping Management Plan ...... 35 5.3 Particularly Sensitive Sea Area ...... 36 5.4 Vessel Inspections and Standards ...... 37 5.4.1 Flag State Controls ...... 37 5.4.2 Port State Controls ...... 37 5.4.3 Ship vetting...... 37 5.4.4 Terminal questionnaires ...... 38 5.5 Hydrographic Survey and Charting ...... 40 5.6 Electronic Chart Display and Information System ...... 41 5.7 Navigation Aids ...... 42 5.8 Weather Services ...... 42 5.9 Ship Automatic Identification System...... 42 5.10 AUSREP ...... 43 5.11 REEFVTS ...... 44 5.12 Port VTS ...... 50 5.13 Compulsory Pilotage ...... 50 5.14 Designated Shipping Areas ...... 52 5.15 Standard Route Plans and Traffic Management Schemes ...... 54 5.16 Compulsory Pollution Reporting ...... 54 5.17 Oil and Chemical Spill Response ...... 54 5.18 Emergency Towage ...... 57 5.19 Aviation Response Assets ...... 57 5.20 GBR Ship Information ...... 57 5.21 GBR Port Rules ...... 57 6. Projected Future Shipping Activities in the GBR ...... 59 6.1 Background ...... 59 6.2 Methodology ...... 59 6.3 Data Sources and Reliability ...... 60 6.4 Shipping Projections – All Vessels at GBR Ports ...... 61 6.5 Shipping Projections – Coal Vessels at GBR Ports ...... 62

R1212 ii

GBR Shipping Study

6.5.1 Background ...... 62 6.5.2 Queensland coal exports - historical ...... 63 6.5.3 Queensland coal exports - forecasts ...... 64 6.5.4 Queensland coal ships - port call forecasts ...... 65 6.6 Individual Major GBR Ports - Specific Commentary ...... 66 6.6.1 Port of Cairns (Ports North) ...... 66 6.6.2 Port of Townsville ...... 67 6.6.3 Port of Abbot Point ...... 68 6.6.4 Port of Hay Point ...... 69 6.6.5 Port of Gladstone ...... 70 6.6.6 Port Alma ...... 71 6.6.7 Summary ...... 72 7. Potential Environmental Effects of Shipping and their Management ...... 75 7.1 Introduction ...... 75 7.2 Routine Discharges, Emissions and Activities ...... 75 7.2.1 Routine navigation and pilotage ...... 76 7.2.2 Refuelling and oil transfer ...... 78 7.2.3 Garbage ...... 78 7.2.4 Cargo loading/unloading, residues and hold washings ...... 79 7.2.5 Sewage...... 80 7.2.6 Greywater ...... 82 7.2.7 Oily waste ...... 82 7.2.8 Fuel storage ...... 83 7.2.9 Air emissions ...... 85 7.2.10 Ballast water ...... 86 7.2.11 Biofouling ...... 88 7.2.12 Anti-fouling systems ...... 90 7.2.13 Anchoring ...... 91 7.2.14 Radiated underwater noise ...... 93 7.2.15 Wash and wake effects ...... 96 7.2.16 Ship lighting ...... 96 7.2.17 Terrestrial quarantine management ...... 97 7.3 Atypical Discharges, Emissions and Events ...... 97 7.3.1 Grounding ...... 98 7.3.2 Collision ...... 105 7.3.3 Fire ...... 107 7.3.4 Structural failure ...... 108

R1212 iii

GBR Shipping Study

7.3.5 Inadvertent loss of oil ...... 108 7.3.6 Marine fauna strike ...... 109 7.4 Contributory Factors ...... 112 7.4.1 Human element ...... 112 7.4.2 Adverse weather ...... 115 7.5 Summary ...... 115 8. Assessment of Key Environmental Risk Factors ...... 117 8.1 Overview ...... 117 8.2 Risk Evaluation ...... 118 9. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 131 10. Glossary ...... 139 11. References and Bibliography ...... 145 12. Limitations of Report ...... 155

R1212 iv

GBR Shipping Study

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Ports Within the GBR Region ...... 10 Table 2: Summary of Services Available to Large Trading Ships in GBR Ports ...... 11 Table 3: Indicative Marine Fuel Oil Characteristics ...... 16 Table 4: Turtle Breeding Periods and Major Nesting Areas in the GBR ...... 27 Table 5: Key International Conventions and Guidelines Applicable to Foreign-Flagged Ships, and Associated Australian Legislation ...... 34 Table 6: Shipping Forecast Categories ...... 59 Table 7: Average Export Parcel Sizes and Influence on Ship Numbers ...... 60 Table 8: Example Export Volume and Effect Upon Average Export Parcel/Ship ...... 61 Table 9: Ship Projections at GBR Ports: All Vessels, 2012-2032* ...... 61 Table 10: Comparison: Coal Vessels v All Vessels: 2012-2032 ...... 66 Table 11: Proposed Terminal Developments – Port of Abbot Point ...... 68 Table 12: CAGR – Major GBR Ports: 2012-2032 ...... 72 Table 13: Ship Sewage Treatment Standards ...... 81 Table 14: Comparison of Annual Nutrient Loads into the GBR from Selected Sources ...... 81 Table 15: Summary of 2007 Total Global Exhaust Emissions from Shipping ...... 85 Table 16: Comparison of In-water Sound Source Levels from a Variety of Anthropogenic Sources ...... 94 Table 17: Indication of Ship Radiated Noise Frequency Band in Relation to Functional Hearing Ranges of Marine Animals in the GBR Region ...... 95 Table 18: Summary of Major Marine Oil Spills in Australian Waters ...... 102 Table 19: Humpback Whale IWC Ship Strikes Summary Data ...... 111 Table 20: Navigation – Collisions and Groundings ...... 119 Table 21: Oil Spills ...... 121 Table 22: Shipboard Human Factors ...... 122 Table 23: Ship Quality / Ship Vetting ...... 123 Table 24: Anchorages ...... 124 Table 25: Atmospheric Emissions ...... 126 Table 26: Invasive Marine Species - Ballast Water and Biofouling ...... 127 Table 27: Ship Waste - Oil, Sewage, Garbage ...... 128 Table 28: Marine Fauna Strike ...... 129 Table 29: Radiated Underwater Noise ...... 130 Table 30: Indicative Comparison of PSSA Shipping Management Measures ...... 131 Table 31: Suggested Actions to Address Identified Emergent Risks ...... 133

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The GBR Region ...... 3 Figure 2: Figurative Depiction of Review Development Process...... 7 Figure 3: Report Structure ...... 8 Figure 4: Primary Trading Ports of the GBR Region ...... 9 Figure 5: The GBR Region, Showing Ports, Channels and Shipping Areas ...... 13 Figure 6: Outline Diagram of Representative Bulk Carrier ...... 14 Figure 7: Synopsis of Routine and Abnormal Potential and Actual Emissions and Discharges from Merchant Ships ...... 17 Figure 8: Total GBR Region Port Ship Calls: 2002-2011 ...... 18 Figure 9: North East Shipping Traffic: 2010 ...... 19 Figure 10: North East Shipping Traffic: Bulk Carriers, 2010 ...... 20 Figure 11: The GBRWHA ...... 22

R1212 v

GBR Shipping Study

Figure 12: Distribution, Migration and Recognised Aggregation Areas of the Humpback Whale ...... 26 Figure 13: GBR Turtle Nesting Sites ...... 29 Figure 14: Sample GBR Chart Extract, Displaying Specific Navigation Advice...... 41 Figure 15: REEFVTS Area ...... 45 Figure 16: REEFVTS Coverage: Far North Queensland ...... 47 Figure 17: REEFVTS Coverage: North Queensland ...... 48 Figure 18: REEFVTS Coverage: Central Queensland ...... 48 Figure 19: REEFVTS Coverage: Mackay Region ...... 49 Figure 20: REEFVTS Coverage: Capricorn Region ...... 49 Figure 21: Compulsory Pilotage Areas ...... 51 Figure 22: Designated Shipping Areas in the GBR ...... 53 Figure 23: Queensland Spill Response Stockpiles...... 56 Figure 24: GBR Ports Shipping Forecasts ‘Probable Case’, 2012-2032: All Vessels ...... 62 Figure 25: Shipping Forecasts: Historic Queensland Coal Exports, 1998/99 – 2011/12...... 64 Figure 26: Coal Export Forecast Comparison: 2015-2025 ...... 65 Figure 27: Comparison: All v Coal Vessels at GBR Ports: 2012-2032 ...... 66 Figure 28: Port of Cairns Ship Forecasts, 2012-2032: All Vessels ...... 67 Figure 29: Port of Townsville Ship Forecasts, 2012-2032: All Vessels ...... 68 Figure 30: Port of Abbot Point Ship Forecasts, 2012-2032: All Vessels ...... 69 Figure 31: Port of Hay Point Ship Forecasts, 2012-2032: All Vessels ...... 70 Figure 32: Port of Gladstone Ship Forecasts, 2012-2032: All Vessels ...... 71 Figure 33: Port Alma Ship Forecasts, 2012-2032: All Vessels ...... 72 Figure 34: Summary of Routine and/or Unavoidable Discharges and Emissions from Ships ...... 75 Figure 35: GBR Bulk Carrier Traffic, Including Bulk Carriers in Excess of 100 000 DWT, 2006, 2008 and 2010 ...... 76 Figure 36: GBR Ship Groundings Before and After Introduction of REEFVTS ...... 77 Figure 37: Typical Configurations of Merchant Ship Fuel Tanks for Ships Built Before 1 August 2010 ...... 84 Figure 38: Ship Radiated Noise Levels Recorded at Dampier, WA ...... 94 Figure 39: Summary of Abnormal Events and Associated Potential Discharges and Emissions from Ships ...... 98 Figure 40: Weathering Processes Acting on Spilled Oil ...... 99 Figure 41: Fate of Oils Over Time After Being Spilled at Sea ...... 100 Figure 42: Global Shipping Routes Showing Intensity of Use ...... 110

LIST OF PLATES Plate 1: Bulk Carriers Loading at a GBR Coal Terminal ...... 11 Plate 2: A Bulk Carrier, Typical of Those Loading Coal at GBR Ports...... 14 Plate 3: Displays and Operator Console in the REEFVTS Monitoring Station, Townsville .... 46 Plate 4: Commercial Trading Ships, Including a Number of Bulk Carriers, at Anchor Off Singapore, March 2012 ...... 89

R1212 vi

GBR Shipping Study

APPENDICES A Great Barrier Reef, Queensland: Statement of Outstanding Universal Value B Summary of Applicable Conventions, Legislation and Policies C BHPB Terminal Questionnaire (Example)

R1212 vii

GBR Shipping Study

R1212 viii

GBR Shipping Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the largest coral reef ecosystem on Earth and is home to an amazing diversity of plants, animals and habitats. In 1975 the majority of this globally significant area was recognised in law and subsequently declared as a multiple-use marine park (the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park [GBRMP]). Then in 1981, in further recognition of its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV), the area was the first coral system listed as a World Heritage property.

In addition to its unique ecological and heritage value, the GBR region is a source of significant wealth for Australia, drawn from a number of sectors of the national and Queensland economies, including tourism, recreation, mineral and energy resources and commercial fishing. As a consequence, the commercial trading ports of the GBR region are considered a ‘strategic’ asset of State and National importance. The natural access to sheltered, deep-water locations offers significant advantages for safe port operations and related shipping links to international markets.

As a result of these natural attributes and socio-economic influences, commercial shipping has occurred within this region for well over a century.

This report reviews and analyses the current and forecast future shipping activity in the GBR, with a particular focus upon the potential effects of shipping upon the values and natural assets of the GBRWHA.

The objectives of this review are to:

• improve the understanding of shipping management within the GBR, including aspects of ship and port operations, existing international, national and regional marine environment protection regimes; • identify, characterise, and conduct a risk evaluation of, potential adverse environmental issues associated with current and future commercial shipping activities within the GBR; and • identify realistic commercial shipping management options – in addition to those already in place. While concentrating upon bulk carriers and in particular coal carriers, the review also takes into account shipping related to other proposed port developments and commodity freight throughout the GBR region. This review also considers if any further studies or analysis may be required to assist in defining the potential risks upon the environment of commercial shipping activities in the GBR and/or required management actions.

Projected Future Shipping Activities in the GBR To assist in the evaluation of shipping impacts, it is necessary to understand the current and the future likely shipping volumes and patterns within the GBR region. In recent times a number of organisations and commentators have published estimates of shipping numbers for the region; it is however, critical when assessing the potential risks and impacts from shipping that an accurate and realistic forecasting methodology is used.

R1212 i

GBR Shipping Study

In conjunction with government and industry organisations a detailed shipping forecast has been prepared to provide a greater understanding of possible shipping trends within the GBR region through to the year 2032. The shipping forecast work was undertaken with the full cooperation of all Queensland ports. Further, Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ), the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), the Queensland Resources Council (QRC) and the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC) were also briefed and offered support for the detailed analysis. Estimates for all vessel types calling at GBR regional ports, as based upon the Queensland port industry forecasts, are depicted in Figure ES1.

(Primary Data Sources: Port Authorities/Corporations) Figure ES1: GBR Ports Shipping Forecasts ‘Probable Case’: 2012-2032 (All Vessels)

This study includes specific commentary for coal vessels within the GBR region at the three main coal ports of Hay Point, Gladstone and Abbot Point. It also outlines forecasts for all 11 GBR regional ports (i.e. those within or adjacent to the GBRMP and GBRWHA). In general terms however, and using the Queensland port industry vessel forecasts, the analysis reveals that a combined annual growth rate (CAGR) of approximately 4.8% is anticipated over the 20 year (2012-2032) forward period for all vessels calling at GBR ports. For the same period, a CAGR of approximately 7% is expected for coal vessels.

Shipping Management within the GBR Under the aegis of international, national and state regulations, shipping within the GBR region is subject to specific controls generally intended to prevent marine pollution, and also to limit the risk of collision and grounding, and by extension, environmental harm. There are established measures, supported by the allocation of appropriate resources, to enable timely and effective response in the event of environmental harm, either actual or potential. Many of these policies, procedures and facilities apply to Australia in general, while some are specific to the GBR region or otherwise enhanced given the recognised environmental sensitivity of the GBR. The primary shipping management strategies, systems and/or regulations in place within the GBR region include:

R1212 ii

GBR Shipping Study

Declaration of the GBR as a ‘Particularly Sensitive Sea Area’ A Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) is an area of the marine environment that needs special protection through action by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) because of its significance for recognized ecological, socio-economic, or scientific attributes where such attributes may be vulnerable to damage by international shipping activities. Designated in 1990, the GBR and Torres Strait was the first PSSA globally, with the implementation of focused protection measures to safeguard the PSSA from the potential adverse effects of shipping. Designated Shipping Areas Declared shipping areas within the GBRMP as a component of the Zoning Plan. Ship operators may only operate outside of these areas in accordance with the conditions of a prior-issued permit from GBRMPA. The REEFVTS system The world-class REEFVTS (the Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait Vessel Traffic Service [VTS]) is used to generate a live traffic 'image' of subject ships within the GBR, permitting the provision of ship traffic information and other navigational safety related information, such as the position of other traffic or meteorological warnings, to shipping within a port or other defined waterway. Within the REEFVTS Area, ships are required to identify themselves and report their intended passage. This information, together with associated monitoring and communication systems, enables REEFVTS shore stations to monitor a ship’s transit through the GBR and Torres Strait. REEFVTS operates 24 hours a day - all year round. Mandatory information communicated by ships (e.g. position reports, passage plans) is combined with data from other sources (e.g. radar coverage in key locations) to form the information compiled and managed as REEFVTS. REEFVTS is equipped with complementary decision support tools used to monitor the transit of individual ships and identify where timely interaction from REEFVTS operators may be warranted. This includes situations where a ship may be heading into shallow water, failing to alter course at a particular waypoint, or deviating from a recommended route. Since the introduction of REEFVTS shipping incidents have fallen from an average of one a year to one in 10 years and are continuing to decline at the same time as shipping volumes have increased. Oil and Chemical Spill Response Standing arrangements for dealing in an effective, expeditious manner to any oil or chemical spill in the GBR region exist under the aegis of the Australian National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil and Other Noxious and Hazardous Substances (i.e. 'the National Plan'). The National Plan links with Queensland State-wide and regional measures that specifically addresses the waters of the GBR and the Torres Strait region. This includes First-Strike Response Plans for individual Queensland ports and key marine areas, as well as the Queensland Oiled Wildlife Response Plan. Oil and chemical spill management contingency measures in the GBR are provided by both Commonwealth and Queensland agencies. Oil and chemical spill response assets are pre-positioned at a number of ports in the GBR region, with stockpiles of National Plan equipment at Cairns and Townsville, and nearby in Brisbane. Compulsory Pilotage Pilotage involves the engagement of a suitably experienced and appropriately qualified and licensed senior mariner possessing expert knowledge of local conditions and ship handling, to assist ship Masters in the navigation of vessels in confined waters. There are two types of pilotage schemes applicable to ships operating in the GBR region:

R1212 iii

GBR Shipping Study

• Port Pilots - ships entering or leaving ports in the GBR region are required to have a port pilot onboard when navigating within designated port pilotage limits - this is a standard practice for ports worldwide; and • Reef Pilots - an additional GBR-specific scheme requiring appropriately qualified and experienced pilots to be onboard specified ships whenever those ships are navigating through specified portions of the GBR. Under Australian law ‘regulated ships’ must carry a pilot, licensed by AMSA, in the Torres Strait and designated sections of the GBR. Ship Vetting Ship vetting refers to the industry process of risk assessment applied to determine the acceptability of a particular vessel for the carriage of a cargo for ocean transport. To assist ship charterers in ship evaluation, a number of 'ship vetting' services maintain records and provide advice on ship's material and operational condition and records of service and performance. Ship vetting is an in-depth assessment of a ship's quality and suitability for a task. A range of other management strategies, systems and/or regulations (serving critical support) in place within the GBR region to improve the safety and environmental performance of shipping, these matters are further detailed within the report. Conclusions and Recommendations During their 2012 mission to Australia, UNESCO officials identified the predicted magnitude of increase in shipping as a concern due to the potential for adverse impacts on the OUV of the GBRWHA. The draft GBR Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (GBRMPA 2012) notes that many ‘at- risk’ species and habitats are found in areas which are also used for ships, both in transit and at anchor. The review presented in this report, considers that in general terms, routine shipping presents no substantial risk of lasting damage to the environmental values of the GBR. The forecast increase in shipping traffic of itself, presents a minimal change to this substantive risk if managed accordingly. Currently, shipping within the GBR region is a highly regulated activity and there are stringent management arrangements for commercial shipping in this area. With regard to shipping risk, it is important to note that Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report (GBRMPA 2009a) concluded: Most routine shipping activities have negligible consequences on the Marine Park and almost all ships travel safely along the designated shipping routes of the Great Barrier Reef with little, if any, impact . Since the GBRMPA Outlook Report was prepared, increased attention has been placed on the consequences of port expansion along the Queensland coast. Whilst much of this concern is focused on the local impacts of ports, the increased number of ships expected to transit through the GBR region has also been highlighted as a risk. As a result of extensive, objective analysis and wide consultation with GBR port operators and regulators, this review has independently reached the same general conclusion as the GBRMPA 2009 Outlook Report. Overall the impacts and risks to the GBR from shipping are considered to be extremely well managed and are improving over time to address the increased shipping volumes and related risks. Additionally, the management of shipping in the GBR is favourably comparable to the very highest standards in other parts of the world, such as other PSSAs (Table ES1).

R1212 iv

GBR Shipping Study

Table ES1: Indicative Comparison of PSSA Shipping Management Measures PSSA SHIPPING MANAGEMENT MEASURES Area Area to be/ Avoided Designated Areas or RoutesRoute / Water Deep Ship Reporting No Anchoring Areas Special/ RequirementsTankers for Hazardous Cargoes Traffic Separation VTS Pilotage Oily WasteRestrictions Discharge Sewage Discharge Restrictions Garbage Restrictions Discharge Air Emission Controls Ballast Discharge Restrictions Water GBR/Torres Strait x x x x x x x x x x x Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago x x Malpelo Island x Florida Keys x x x Wadden Sea x x x x x x x Paracas National Reserve x x x x Western European Waters x x x x x x x Canary Islands x x x Galapagos Archipelago x x Baltic Sea x x x x x x x x Papah ānaumoku ākea Marine x x x x National Monument Strait of Bonifacio x x x x x Saba Bank x x x Notes 1. Comparison between the various PSSAs needs to be cognisant of differences in geographical scale, bio- geographic and oceanographic features, and volume and character of shipping. 2. Data presented in Table includes IMO-mandated Associated Protective Measures (APM) as well as other regional and local measures, and should be considered as indicative only, as other local or regional measures may also apply. 3. For the purposes of this comparison, pilotage is not considered to include orthodox port pilotage requirements. 4. Measures addressing ship waste discharges and emissions are generally derived from application of additional MARPOL requirements, particularly in relation to Special Areas declared under Annexes I, V and VI.

R1212 v

GBR Shipping Study

The key emergent and existing environmental risks, and/or those which warrant continued and ongoing active management, associated with current and projected future shipping in the GBR region are considered to be: • Safety of navigation, particularly in relation to collisions and groundings. • Oil spills. • Crew fatigue and overall competency. • Vessel quality, in relation to ship vetting. • Anchorages, in relation to issues such as capacity, potential for physical damage and contamination of the seabed, and location, especially in relation to important habitat for sensitive and/or vulnerable species. • Ship-sourced atmospheric emissions. • The incursion and possible establishment of IMS, in relation to ballast water and biofouling. • Ship-sourced oily wastes, sewage and garbage. • Marine fauna strike. • Radiated underwater noise. To help address these emergent risks, an initial 'action list', intended to guide the response to the emergent risks and knowledge gaps identified from this shipping review and the associated multi-party risk evaluation workshop, has been developed as seen in Table ES2. The findings and recommendations from this study will provide a useful baseline of information and analysis to support future management and planning (e.g. the North East Shipping Management Plan), and broader scale assessments (e.g. GBR Strategic Assessment), as well as individual port and shipping related projects.

R1212 vi

GBR Shipping Study

Table ES2: GBR Shipping Action List

3. An industry - government consultative forum should be established that operates • Ongoing environmental risk AMSA, MSQ, GBRMPA collaboratively and in parallel to the North East Shipping Management Group. analysis and Industry bodies (QPA, • Implementation of imp[roved QRC) and new measures to manage shipping related risks Specific Recommendations 4. Recommend mandatory marine vetting of all commercial ships operating in the Great • Navigation – collisions and Industry – ship charterers Barrier Reef; undertaken by an independent ship vetting provider. groundings and/or commodity • Oil spills exporters • Ship-sourced atmospheric emissions • IMS - ballast water and biofouling • Oily wastes, sewage and garbage

R1212 vii

GBR Shipping Study

# Action Existing/Emergent Risks Addressed Suggested Lead 5. Through ship vetting procedures and charter arrangements exercise a preference for: • Oil spills Industry – ship charterers a) Operational IMO-approved ballast water treatment system/s, particularly • Ship-sourced atmospheric and/or commodity until such time as BWM Convention fully implemented. emissions exporters b) Protected fuel tanks, as designated by MARPOL. • IMS - ballast water and biofouling c) Sewage treatment plants compliant with the MEPC.159 (55) standard. • Oily wastes, sewage and d) Tier II or better diesel engines and auxiliaries. garbage e) Compliance with applicable Australian biofouling guidelines, or regulations when promulgated.

6. Through vessel assessment activities and approval processes incorporate key crew • Navigation – ship collisions Industry – ship charterers competency evaluations to help ensure safe operations and compliance with regional, and groundings and/or commodity port and IMO requirements. • Oil spills exporters

• Ship-sourced atmospheric emissions • IMS - ballast water and biofouling • Oily wastes, sewage and garbage 7. On a regular basis (e.g. five year intervals), undertake shipping waterway quantitative • Navigation – collisions and AMSA/MSQ risk assessments (e.g. in line with the IALA Waterway Risk Assessment Program groundings With support from Ports [IWRAP]) of key shipping channels to determine risks and limiting features with regard • Oil spills and industry to number and frequency of ships which can safely navigate the GBR's restricted • passages, particularly Hydrographers Passage, Palm Passage, the Inner Route and the Ship-sourced atmospheric Torres Strait area. Based upon results of risk assessment, consider and implement emissions appropriate navigational controls, these may include: • Oily wastes, sewage and a) Expansion of vessel traffic management schemes in Great Barrier Reef as garbage may be deemed necessary to reduce collision risks. • Radiated underwater noise b) Improve and extend the provision of navigational aids (navaids) in the • Fauna ship strike Great Barrier Reef. c) Introduce routing and traffic management schemes in high traffic zones,

R1212 viii

GBR Shipping Study

# Action Existing/Emergent Risks Addressed Suggested Lead especially at channel intersection locations. d) Limit or cease use of high risk restricted passages if traffic volumes and risks cannot be adequately managed (e.g. Hydrographers Passage adjacent Hay Point with traffic to divert to Palm Passage). e) Update and expand REEFVTS monitoring, communications and intervention capacities, commensurate with increase in Great Barrier Reef shipping. f) Review expansion of compulsory pilotage areas into high risk traffic zones. g) Routing to avoid fauna strike high risk areas (if known).

8. Review Great Barrier Reef Emergency Tow Vessel capability and arrangements. Using • Navigation – collisions and AMSA/MSQ scenario planning, consider the location and availability of assets within the Great groundings With support from Ports Barrier Reef. In cooperation with port terminal operators and tug service provides • Oil spills and industry consider arrangements to ensure the ability to respond rapidly to emergencies as required. 9. Charterers to support early adoption of IMO ECDIS and eNavigation requirements. • Navigation – collisions and Industry – ship charterers groundings and/or commodity exporters 10. Review and update Great Barrier Reef oil spill vulnerability analysis on a regular basis, • Oil spills AMSA/MSQ in order to anticipate and pre-empt changed risks as a result of projected changes in shipping patterns and volumes. 11. Enhance Great Barrier Reef components of the “ National Plan to Combat Pollution of • Oil spills AMSA the Sea by Oil and Other Noxious and Hazardous Substances” , particularly with respect to equipment stockpiles, response procedures and logistic support resources as warranted on the basis of periodic oil spill vulnerability analyses.

12. Support and continue AMSA oil spill incident investigation and enforcement activities. • Oil spills AMSA 13. Assess and monitor environmental impacts of any major oil spills to inform clean up and • Oil spills AMSA, MSQ and recovery activities. GBRMPA

R1212 ix

GBR Shipping Study

# Action Existing/Emergent Risks Addressed Suggested Lead 14. Support international and national efforts to maintain or improve seafarer competencies, • Navigation – collisions and AMSA in particular efforts to encourage best practice Bridge management procedures that groundings Industry reduce the risks associated with crew fatigue and lack of competency. • Oil spills

• IMS - ballast water and biofouling • Oily wastes, sewage and garbage 15. Review quantum and recruitment of available Reef and port pilots, commensurate with • Navigation – collisions and AMSA/MSQ current and forecast increases in shipping and any expansion of compulsory pilotage groundings With support for pilotage areas. services and industry

16. For proposed new, or the expansion of existing anchorages, conduct appropriate sitting • Anchorages – damage to Industry (port developers) studies in order to properly identify, characterise and assess potential environmental and seabed and habitats In association with MSQ, safety risks, and associated risk avoidance or mitigation measures. • Visual amenity GBRMPA and SEWPaC 17. Site new or enlarged anchorages so as to avoid overlap with established Great Barrier • Navigation – collisions and MSQ Reef shipping routes and areas of identified environmental value. groundings • Anchorages – damage to seabed and habitats • Visual amenity 18. Conduct an extensive options workshop with all key stakeholders to identify methods to • Anchorages – damage to Industry (port and terminal manage anchorages to limit the size, number of vessels and queuing times of individual seabed and habitats operators) vessels. Workshop should include stakeholders with expertise in: • Visual amenity MSQ a) Great Barrier Reef environmental values and management AMSA b) Commercial freight charter arrangements GBRMPA c) Vessel transit and anchoring management SEWPaC d) Port and vessel safety e) Port terminal operations (i.e. commodity handling and throughput management) f) Anchorage management examples from ports across Australia (e.g.

R1212 x

GBR Shipping Study

# Action Existing/Emergent Risks Addressed Suggested Lead Newcastle, Port Hedland, Dampier). 19. Ensure port management plans include adequate contingency planning and procedures • Navigation – collisions and MSQ for safe and orderly evacuation of anchorages, such as may be necessary in preparation groundings Port Authorities for a cyclone event. • Oil spills Terminal operators

20. Undertake periodic Invasive Marine Species surveys at all Great Barrier Reef ports • IMS - ballast water and Port Authorities consistent with National survey and response programs. biofouling Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) 21. Where practicable, exercise preference for chartering ships fitted with an operational • IMS - ballast water Industry – ship charterers IMO-approved ballast water treatment system, particularly until such time as BWM and/or commodity Convention fully implemented. exporters 22. Support development and implementation of mandatory Australian standard biofouling • IMS - biofouling DAFF management requirements. Industry

23. Continue support for AMSA managed maritime information services. • Navigation – collisions and AMSA groundings • Oil spills • Ship-sourced atmospheric emissions • IMS - ballast water and biofouling • Oily wastes, sewage and garbage 24. Continue support for AMSA led investigation and enforcement services. • Oil spills AMSA • Oily wastes, sewage and garbage 25. Review and improve as necessary, ship waste reception services in Great Barrier Reef • Oily wastes, sewage and Port Authorities ports. garbage DAFF

R1212 xi

GBR Shipping Study

# Action Existing/Emergent Risks Addressed Suggested Lead 26. Improve current incident reporting and recording measures with regard to fauna ship • Fauna ship strike GBRMPA strike and sightings of dead or injured marine fauna. Industry 27. Monitor data concerning ship strikes to establish baseline and any subsequent emerging • Fauna ship strike GBRMPA trends or specific locations, and take action as may be warranted. 28. Undertake appropriate marine noise studies in key areas of the GBR region to test • Radiated underwater noise GBRMPA assumptions and conclusions presented in this report. Industry 29. Monitor and implement IMO initiatives regarding ship design and operations to • Radiated underwater noise AMSA minimise radiated underwater noise. Industry 30. Facilitate adoption of any mandatory measures which may be codified by IMO to • Radiated underwater noise Industry minimise ship-radiated underwater noise.

R1212 xii

GBR Shipping Study

CONSULTATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The preparation of this report would not have been possible without the contributions and cooperation of a large number of people representing a range of organisations, both government and private, and all assistance has been gratefully accepted. Although primarily developed by PGM Environment, the preparation of this report would not have been possible without the inputs of many individuals, particularly staff of BHP Billiton, and Jason Sprott, of Sprott Planning & Environment. The report has also been enhanced as a result of the peer review conducted by Colin Trinder. In addition, the report has benefitted from the assistance of a number of organisations; accordingly the author would like to acknowledge the contributions from: all Queensland ports, particularly North Queensland Bulk Ports (NQBP); the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA); the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC); the the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA); Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ); and the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR). PGM Environment would also like to acknowledge the assistance of Steve Lawry, John Lewis and Dr Geoff Smith, and the staff of Eco Logical Australia.

R1212 xiii

GBR Shipping Study

R1212 xiv

GBR Shipping Study

1. Introduction 1.1 Background The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is the largest coral reef ecosystem on Earth and is home to an amazing diversity of plants, animals and habitats. In 1975 the majority of this globally significant area was recognised in law and subsequently declared as a multiple-use marine park (the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park [GBRMP]) extending more than 2300 kilometres along the Queensland coast and covering over 345 000 square kilometres.

In 1981 the area of the GBR was listed as a World Heritage property for its Outstanding Universal Value (OUV). The GBR qualified for World Heritage listing under all four natural criteria, due to it being:

1. an outstanding example representing the major stages of the Earth’s evolutionary history;

2. an outstanding example representing significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man’s interaction with his natural environment;

3. an area containing unique, rare or superlative natural phenomena, formations or features or areas of exceptional natural beauty, such as superlative examples of the most important ecosystems to man; and

4. an area containing habitats where populations of rare or endangered species of plants and animals still survive.

Protection and maintenance of the OUV of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) is a priority for Governments, the Australian community and Australian industry.

The wider-GBR area is subject to a range of overlapping legal and technical definitions and general references used in common parlance. Although the GBR region, GBRMP and GBRWHA are broadly similar, specific, nuanced differences exist between each of these separate, but largely common entities (see Box.)

THE 'GREAT BARRIER REEF': TERMINOLOGY Accurately referring to the Great Barrier Reef and the various jurisdictional and listing boundaries is complex because of the way that various international maritime laws, conventions and Australian domestic laws have described and defined the area. For instance, there are differences between the boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) and the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA). Within this report the following terms are used: • The GBRWHA covers an area of 348 000 km 2 extending across a contiguous latitudinal range from 10° S to 24° S, and with mean low water as its western boundary and extending eastwards a distance of between 70 km and 250 km from the coast of the Australian mainland. • The GBRMP, was declared in 1975 and covers an area from the tip of Cape York in the north to past Lady Elliot Island in the south, with mean low water as its western boundary and extending eastwards a distance of between 70 and 250 km. The eastern, northern and southern boundaries align with those of the GBRWHA. Around 99.3% of the GBRWHA lies within the boundaries of the GBRMP. The 0.7% of the World Heritage Area that is outside the Marine Park includes: • most islands (~ 50% of which are Queensland National Parks); • internal waters of the State of Queensland (e.g. many deep bays and narrow inlets); and • small coastal exclusions areas around ports or major centres (e.g. Cairns).

R1212 1

GBR Shipping Study

• The GBR province is a term sometimes used to refer to the broader GBR region but extending landwards to include coastal areas and catchments that flow eastwards in to the waters of the GBR. In this report the above terms are used when referring to the areas within these jurisdictional entities. The term 'GBR region' is used to capture all maritime and port areas within or immediately adjacent the GBRWHA and GBRMP; the term the 'Great Barrier Reef' ('GBR') is used when referring to the collective geological, biological and aquatic elements that form the actual physical environment. Port working areas are generally excluded from the GBRMP, but fall within the GBRWHA. Those portions of GBR port areas which occur within Queensland State waters are not within the Commonwealth marine area.

In addition to its unique ecological and heritage value, the GBR and surrounding areas is a source of significant wealth for Australia, drawn from a number of sectors of the national and Queensland economies, including tourism, recreation, mineral and energy resources and commercial fishing.

Additionally, the commercial trading ports adjacent to or within the GBR region (Figure 1) are considered a ‘strategic’ asset of State and National importance due to their proximity to nearby gas and mineral-rich regions including the Bowen and Galilee Basins and the North West Minerals Province. Further, the natural access to sheltered, deep-water locations offer significant advantages for port operations and related shipping route links to international markets. As a result of these natural attributes and socio-economic influences, commercial shipping has occurred within this region for well over a century.

R1212 2

GBR Shipping Study

(GBRMPA) Figure 1: The GBR Region

R1212 3

GBR Shipping Study

Given its ecological character, biophysical diversity, economic importance, indigenous heritage values and World Heritage listing, specific protections have been adopted in legislation in both the Commonwealth and Queensland Parliaments for the conservation and protection of the natural and cultural heritage values of the GBR. The uniqueness and sensitivity of the area is also recognised internationally by bodies such as the International Maritime Organization (IMO). It is important to note that due to the inherently greater sensitivities, shipping activities and port developments within the GBR region operate within an elevated risk management paradigm with higher expectations and an enhanced regulatory framework that is strictly monitored and enforced. These statutory provisions mirror the iconic status with which the GBR is held by the Australian public and the wider global community.

Recent events at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Committee, the international body overseeing World Heritage issues, have heightened the international and national sensitivity and visibility of proposed port developments and associated shipping in and around the GBRWHA. In recognition of the concerns about the future risk of shipping to the GBR and its values, this report has been prepared to provide an in-depth analysis of the issues related to commercial shipping in the GBR region. This report considers the current and forecast future shipping activity in the GBR, with a particular focus upon the potential effects of shipping upon the values and natural assets of the GBRMP and the GBRWHA. One of the additional aims of this review is to improve the understanding of shipping management within the GBR region, including aspects of ships and port operations, existing international, national and regional marine environment protection regimes, and the potential residual environmental risks.

1.2 Objectives of the Review To understand the full implications of possible future port and mineral resource development in Queensland, it is necessary to describe and analyse the ‘consequential impacts’ of increased shipping in the GBR region, including the GBRWHA.

A key aim of this study is to identify and describe any tangible risks as the basis for effective management and risk reduction or elimination. While concentrating upon bulk carriers and in particular coal carriers, the review also takes into account shipping related to other proposed port developments and commodity freight throughout the GBR region.

Given the recent interest displayed by the Australian and global community to the state and protection of the GBR (including UNESCO World Heritage Committee involvement – via the Reactive Monitoring Mission in March 2012), proposed future port developments within the GBR region need to examine how anticipated increases in shipping may or may not impact the GBR and the OUV of the World Heritage property.

The fundamental objective of this review is to identify, characterise, and conduct a risk evaluation of, potential adverse environmental issues associated with commercial shipping activities within the GBR region. The review has the underlying subsidiary objectives to:

• Calculate and document, using a realistic methodology, the current and projected future commercial shipping activities in the GBR region.

• Improve understanding of the environmental risks associated with commercial shipping activities in the GBR region, particularly with regard to bulk carriers.

• Reduce the likelihood of adverse environmental impacts.

R1212 4

GBR Shipping Study

• Review, and as warranted provide a basis for the improvement of, environmental management and risk reduction considerations into shipping operations in the GBR region.

1.3 Scope The primary scope of the review is to identify and characterise potential environmental and heritage issues associated with the conduct of commercial shipping operations in the GBR. The review addresses, inter alia : • commercial ships1 and their operations, including onboard equipment, stores and cargoes; • commercial shipping activities in the GBR region, including movements (transit), anchorages, and ship loading activities; and • the applicable regulatory and management framework. This review also considers if any further studies or analysis may be required to assist in defining the potential risks upon the environment of commercial shipping activities in the GBR region and/or required management actions. It is stressed that the deliberate and intentional focus of this report is upon the environmental management aspects of shipping, with an emphasis upon bulk carriers, in the GBR region. Other aspects of shipping, such as crewing, safety, surveys and administration as well as shipping-related marine environment protection measures outside of the GBR region are addressed to some extent, but are incidental to and complement the core consideration of aspects of marine environmental risk and protection issues pertinent to the GBR. This review should serve to act as a foundation for setting the framework and priority for further specific evaluation and development of prospective future environmental management and risk reduction measures, either at a Reef wide level or in particular locations. Due to the inter-related nature of complex commercial shipping issues, this report should be read in its entirety.

1.4 Methodology The review concentrates upon providing an outline of the environmental risk aspects of ships and shipping operations, and undertakes the analysis in a staged, iterative process incorporating extensive consultation and external review. To present the required information and analysis, the review: • describes ships and shipping operations within the context of potential environmental implications; • outlines the international, national and regional scope of environment protection regulations pertinent to shipping in the GBR region; • considers current and projected shipping activities in the wider GBR region; and • determines and articulates likely shipping environmental risks to the GBR region.

1 For the purposes of this report, 'commercial ships' are considered to be those vessels carrying commercial cargoes and greater than 50 meters in length. Commercial ships includes bulk carriers, container carriers, vehicle carriers, general cargo ships, tankers, and cruise ships. Fishing vessels, tourist charters and recreational vessels are not included or dealt with in this report, except as otherwise stated.

R1212 5

GBR Shipping Study

A key component of this report is the review and clarification of the regulatory regime within which commercial shipping operates within the GBR region. Following initial assessment of the environmental implications of shipping activities in the GBR, the findings were considered by relevant regulatory agencies and industry organisations which evaluated inherent and emergent risks, formulated management options and prioritised responses. This process centred upon a collaborative risk evaluation 'workshop' conducted in Brisbane on 12 June 2012. Attendees at this meeting included representatives of: • Queensland port authorities;

• Queensland coal shipping terminal operators and coal exporters;

• the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA);

• the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC); • the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA); • Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ); and • the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR). The process of development of this report is outlined in Figure 2.

R1212 6

GBR Shipping Study

Project Stewardship by BHP Billiton

Initial data gathering and Collaboration and additional input characterisation of relevant issues from GBR regional ports & mineral/resource exporters

Production of ‘Preliminary Risk Assessments’ Consultation with Commonwealth & Queensland maritime agencies

Preparation of ‘Preliminary Draft Report’ in consultation with industry

Production of ‘Final Draft Report’ Consultation with Commonwealth & Queensland regulators

Production of ‘Final Report’ and recommendations, based on consultative review

Figure 2: Figurative Depiction of Review Development Process

R1212 7

GBR Shipping Study

1.5 Structure of This Report This report is structured so that it presents and evaluates the key information in a number of discrete yet inter-linked blocks, providing background, context and discussion of the issues at hand. This is achieved via the structure as shown in Figure 3 with the following key stages: 1. The current situation with shipping in the GBR region , presented in Sections 2 to 5, which address, respectively: current shipping and port operation; the recognised environmental and socio-economic values of the GBR region and wider province, particularly with respect to World Heritage listing; the existing legal and regulatory structure within which maritime activities are managed; and existing controls applicable to the management of shipping in the GBR region, including contingency response arrangements. 2. The anticipated future profile of shipping and port operations in the GBR region is addressed in Section 6. This Section provides a forecast of the potential number of annual shipping movements as a whole and for individual ports, over a 20 year timespan. 3. The potential environmental effects of shipping in the GBR region and possible management remedies , both currently and with the forecast increase in activity is presented in Section 7, with key risks summarised in Section 8 and conclusions and recommendations presented in Section 9. This includes discussion of actual and perceived risks, in both normal and atypical situations, as well as contributory factors. This analysis is conducted within the context of current and planned management measures, and also considers other controls which could be adopted in order to further avoid or ameliorate existing, emergent and forecast shipping-related risks.

Figure 3: Report Structure

R1212 8

GBR Shipping Study

2. GBR Shipping Commercial shipping has occurred within the GBR region for well over a century. As an island nation, Australia depends heavily on shipping for the import and export of commodities vital to the Australian economy (AMSA 2010a). In addition to ships going to/from GBR regional ports, other ships transit through the GBR routes on their way to/from ports elsewhere on the Australian east coast. Ships moving between the Indian Ocean area or the waters of the Indonesian archipelago and the Pacific Ocean and transiting through the Torres Strait also pass in close proximity to the GBRWHA.

2.1 Ports in the GBR Region Eleven commercial trading ports are located within the GBR region (Figure 4). By total volume these ports primarily service the export demands of the Queensland agricultural and mineral provinces and, in a broader context, also act as the domestic trade portal for millions of people.

(BHPB) Figure 4: Primary Trading Ports of the GBR Region

R1212 9

GBR Shipping Study

GBR regional ports also contribute significantly to underlying economic well-being and social infrastructure – supporting thousands of jobs (directly and indirectly) throughout Queensland and Australia. The ports of the GBR region, from north to south, and their dominant cargoes are identified in Table 1.

Table 1: Ports Within the GBR Region Port Cargo type Dominant Cargo (by ship numbers)

Quintell Beach Dry Bulk General Cargo Cape Flattery Dry Bulk Silica Sands Cairns Mixed General Cargo, Tourist Mourilyan Dry Bulk Sugar Lucinda Dry Bulk Sugar Townsville Mixed Minerals, Sugar, General Cargo Abbot Point Dry Bulk Coal Mackay Mixed Bulk Liquids, Chemicals Hay Point Dry Bulk Coal Port Alma Dry Bulk Chemicals Gladstone Mixed Coal, LNG

In broad terms, ports need the berths and cargo handling equipment necessary for whatever cargoes are being loaded or unloaded from the ships which visit that port. Wharves can be land-backed or else trestle-type jetties, possibly connected to land via a bridge or trestle, or alternatively, there may be no pier but a loader with berthing dolphins. Tankers may also load and discharge through a single point mooring, requiring no berth. Ship Loading Loading of coal is usually achieved by berthing alongside a wharf or trestle where gantry-mounted loaders, fed by conveyor belts from onshore stockpiles, are positioned directly above the ship's holds (Plate 1). Loading of successive holds is achieved by moving the loader and/or the ship to position the loader above the target hold. Once loaded, the holds are sealed with hatches. Individual loaders in the GBR are typically capable of loading coal at the rate of around 4000 to 5000 tonnes per hour (tph) with some loaders having a design capacity of up to 10 000 tph.

R1212 10

GBR Shipping Study

(Mercator Media) Plate 1: Bulk Carriers Loading at a GBR Coal Terminal

Port Services Ports are able to afford various levels of support to visiting ships. In many bulk commodities ports, virtually no services other than ship loading are available to bulk carriers, but others offer variously the ability to accept oily waste from ships, garbage (including quarantine waste), and refuelling (i.e. 'bunkering'). These services may be available directly from the wharf and/or by lighter or barge, the latter permitting the provision of these services to ships at anchor. A summary of the ship support services available to large trading ships in the GBR ports is presented in Table 2. It is anticipated that the range of services provided by Queensland ports will increase over time.

Table 2: Summary of Services Available to Large Trading Ships in GBR Ports Oil Spill Compulsory Quarantine Bunkering Shore Oily Sewage Garbage Response Pilotage Arrival Power Waste Collection Collection (1st Procedures Supply Collection Strike) Abbot Point + 1 + + Cairns + + + + + + + + Cape Flattery + + + + Gladstone + + + + + + + + Hay Point + 1 + + + + Lucinda + + + Mackay + + + + + 2 + + + Mourilyan + + + + 3 + + + + 4 Port Alma + + + + 3 + 5 + 5 Quintell Beach Townsville + + + + + + + + Notes: 1. Planned 2. Limited berths 3. Road tanker only 4. Not quarantine garbage 5. Limited quantities only

R1212 11

GBR Shipping Study

Other Supporting Vessels and Infrastructure Harbours need offshore support vessels (e.g. barges, tugs, provisioning and security vessels) to operate, and these smaller vessels in turn need their own berthing areas. Maintenance and support of these small vessels is also typically undertaken locally, such that most harbours are able to refuel and conduct some level of maintenance on these vessels, possibly also including a small slipway. In order to move ships safely within a port, particularly heavily-laden vessels, ports need to have safe, navigable waterways, including sufficiently deep and wide channels, turning basins and berthing pockets, as well as suitably large anchorages.

2.2 Shipping Areas and Channels There are stringent management arrangements for commercial shipping in the waters of the GBR region. A range of measures to increase navigational safety and reduce the risk of ship groundings and collisions are applied to shipping within these areas, including: • confining commercial shipping traffic is to Designated Shipping Areas; • compulsory pilotage; and • mandatory vessel reporting and monitoring. The Designated Shipping Area and channels are shown in Figure 5. The major channels with the GBR region are: • Inner Route and Capricorn Channel: lying between the outer reef areas and the Queensland coast, the route runs for over 2000 km from near Rockhampton to the Torres Strait. • Great North East Channel: between the Great Barrier Reef and the Papua New Guinea coast. • Hydrographers Passage: running east-west across the GBR in Central Queensland, linking the Port of Hay Point with the Coral Sea. • Palm Passage; running east-west across the GBR adjacent to Townsville, linking the ports of Lucinda, Townsville and Abbott Point with the Coral Sea. • Grafton Passage: running across the GBR off Cairns, linking the ports of Cairns, Cape Flattery and Mourilyan with the Coral Sea.

R1212 12

GBR Shipping Study

(BHPB) Figure 5: The GBR Region, Showing Ports, Channels and Shipping Areas

R1212 13

GBR Shipping Study

2.3 Ships A variety of commercial ship types trade in the GBR region including: cruise ships; general cargo and container ships; petroleum, gas, chemical and liquid tankers; and bulk commodities ships, typically referred to as 'bulk carriers' (Plate 2).

(Brisbane Times) Plate 2: A Bulk Carrier, Typical of Those Loading Coal at GBR Ports The scope of this study includes all commercial shipping in the GBR region, however, given that the dominate ship types transiting the GBR region are bulk carriers (primarily carrying coal) it is appropriate to focus on these to understand the operations, design and functions of commercial ships. Bulk carriers are sizeable vessels comprising a number of large, commodious, single deck holds into which the loose, bulk cargo is loaded (Figure 6). Holds are located in the middle part of the ship, immediately aft of the forepeak/bow area of the ship, and occupy the majority of the ship's length. The aft part of the ship is where the superstructure and engine room and other primary machinery spaces are located. Also located in the superstructure are crew accommodation, messing and recreation facilities and ship command and control areas, including the bridge.

Superstructure Forepeak

Holds

Stern Bow

Figure 6: Outline Diagram of Representative Bulk Carrier

R1212 14

GBR Shipping Study

Typically, the dry bulk carriers engaged in coal export from GBR ports range in size from around 50 000 DWT 2 to 150 000 DWT, with lengths of around 200 m to 300 m. Ships of this size range also usually have beams of around 25 m to 32 m and fully loaded draughts of the order of 12 m to 18 m, with larger ships drawing up to 20 m. There are three general class sizes of bulk carrier which typically load in GBR ports, as follow: • Handymax: up to around 50 000 DWT, and around 150 m to 200 m in length. • Panamax: up to around 90 000 DWT, and averaging around 230 m in length, but limited in beam to 32 m to permit passage through current Panama Canal locks 3. • Capesize: upwards of 90 000 DWT, but typically around 100 000 DWT to 250 000 DWT, with a length of around 280 m or more and wider in the beam than a Panamax ship. Most merchant ships such as bulk carriers achieve a typical life of around 20 to 30 years. The long- term average age of the world fleet is usually of the order of around 10 to 15 years. Most bulk carriers arrive empty at the loading port. The absence of cargo on this journey requires the ship to sail with ballast water used in the ship to compensate for the lack of cargo, and thus ensure that the ship is able to attain the correct profile with regard to draught, trim and stability. Some of this ballast water is discharged after arrival in the vicinity of the loading port before loading commences, with further amounts discharged at the time of loading. Ballast water may also be taken-up, moved around the ship, and/or discharged concurrent with loading in order to manage stress loadings on the ship's hull. As a general rule of thumb, ballast water capacities of ships are in the order of around 40% of a ship's DWT, so an 80 000 DWT ship would have a ballast water capacity of around 32 000 t of seawater. After arrival at the loading port, bulk carriers usually spend some period at anchor before moving to the loader. The number and size of ships waiting to be loaded, the number of berths available and the rate of loading determine the amount of time spent at anchor. Other factors exerting an influence include breakdowns and maintenance requirements of the loaders and conveyor systems, tides and weather, and availability of tugs and pilots. Propulsion and Fuels Bulk carriers are typically propelled by a single diesel engine driving a single propeller (also referred to as a 'screw'), with steering provided by a single rudder. Cruising speeds are usually around 14 kts to 15 kts (around 25 km/h to 27 km/h). Auxiliary diesels are installed, primarily to generate electricity for the ships, with these units in operation while at anchor or alongside in harbour. Oil of various grades is carried in ships for use as fuel, as well as lubricants and hydraulic fluids. Fuel oils can be broadly categorised as distillate fuels (i.e. the lighter oil fractions) and residual fuels (i.e. the heavier oil fractions). Marine fuels are generally categorised as follow: • Marine Gas Oil (MGO): A lighter oil, generally equivalent to automotive diesel fuel. Also referred to as 'gasoil'. • Marine Diesel Oil (MDO): A blend of MGO and heavy fuel oil, or MGO with trace components of residual (heavy) oil. • Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO): A blend of MGO and heavy fuel oil, with less MGO than MDO. • Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO): Pure or nearly pure residual oil, sometimes referred to as Marine Fuel Oil (MFO).

2 Deadweight tonnage (DWT) is a measure of a ship's total carrying capacity, including the mass of the cargo, fuel, crew, passengers, ballast, drinking water, and stores. DWT is essentially an expression of the difference between the ship's lightweight (i.e. when empty) and the weight when it is fully loaded, as this gives the maximum carrying capacity of the ship. 3 The construction of new, larger locks in the Panama Canal, scheduled to be operational by 2014, has permitted the development of larger ships termed 'New Panamax', with limiting dimensions of 427 m length, 55 m beam and 18.3 m lock depth.

R1212 15

GBR Shipping Study

HFO is the most common fuel employed in large merchant ships. HFO is a residual fuel oil, representing the remains of the crude oil distillation process after lighter products such as petrol and the distillate fuel oils are extracted. As the remains of the oil distillation process, HFO contains heavier hydrocarbon fractions and a greater number of impurities, and typically a higher sulphur content than most fuel oils. As noted, MDO is usually a blend of MGO and HFO, or MGO with trace components of residual (heavy) fuel. It may sometimes also contain waste products such as used motor oil. Marine fuel oils are further categorised according to characteristics such as sulphur content and viscosity, such that low sulphur fuel is prefixed by LS. An indicative summary of the key characteristics of marine fuel oils is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Indicative Marine Fuel Oil Characteristics Fuel Type Density Viscosity Vapour Pour Solubility in (kg/m 3 @ (mm²/s @ Pressure Point Water 15° C) 40° C) (kPa) (ºC) MGO ~ 890 ~ 1.4 - 6.0 ~ 0.12 (@ - 6 Negligible 20°C) MDO 900 - 920 11 - 14 0 - 6 Negligible HFO 960 - 1010 30 - 700 Minimal 0 - 30 Negligible (Chevron 2007) MDO and MGO, generally analogous to diesel motor fuel used in road vehicles, are used for ship auxiliaries and to run the fuel heaters required in the initial stages of running up engines fuelled by HFO. Merchant ship MDO/MGO storage capacities are usually in the order of around 200 m3 to 500 m3. Greater quantities of heavier grade fuel oil are used for main propulsion plant, and also auxiliaries in more modern merchant ships. Fuel storage capacities are typically in the range of 1500 m3 (smaller merchant ships) to around 5000 m3 or more, with this fuel typically stored in a small number of large tanks (whose individual capacity is often in excess of 1000 m3). Hull Protection Ships' steel hulls require protection from the exposure to corrosive seawater and other fouling organisms such as seaweed, algae, barnacles, sponges and mussels, etc (collectively referred to as 'biofouling'). They are normally protected from the accumulation of such organisms by an anti-fouling coating (AFC). These are typically paints with a biocide component formulated to prevent the recruitment and growth of biofouling, or at least limit the rate of accumulation of such organisms. Copper is the primary key ingredient in most contemporary AFCs, often augmented by organic 'booster' biocides. Tri-butyl tin (TBT) was commonly used previously, but this has now been banned globally. Instead of relying upon biocides, some AFCs, collectively referred to as fouling release coatings, work on the concept of providing surfaces unsuitable for the settlement and retention of fouling organisms. These are more specialised paint systems which are yet to attain the general level of effectiveness of biocide-based AFCs. Wastes and Emissions Ships are a source, either active or latent, of a range of discharges and emissions of atmospheric and marine contaminants and other possible environmentally adverse agents or effects. Many of these manifest as a result of routine ship operations. Others present as rarer effects arising from an accident, emergency or some other contingency or abnormal event (such as loading spillages, collisions and groundings). These are represented in broad outline in Figure 7.

R1212 16

GBR Shipping Study

Figure 7: Synopsis of Routine and Abnormal Potential and Actual Emissions and Discharges from Merchant Ships Ships generate a range of waste materials as a consequence of their routine activities. In broad terms, ship-generated waste may be considered to have one of three origins: • waste associated with maintenance and operation of the vessel (e.g. lubricating oil, fuel sludges, paint chips and used engine components); • domestic wastes generated by passengers and crew (e.g. food waste and associated packaging, sewage, stationery and printed material); and • cargo-associated wastes (e.g. hold sweepings and cargo residues, hold washings, packing materials, pallets, drums, containers and oil tank residues) Waste discharges and emissions from merchant ships include oily water, sewage, greywater (i.e. drainage water from showers, sinks and basins), some forms of garbage and exhausts from onboard machinery (i.e. main and auxiliary diesel engines). Biocide-based AFCs also leach active biocide, at low concentrations, as necessary for the correct functioning of these paints. Cargo and cargo residues may also enter the marine environment, whether as a result of windage or spillage during loading/unloading or following the washing of cargo holds. Energy emissions from a ship across a diversity of spectra also have potential for adverse environmental outcomes. These emissions include upperdeck lighting and underwater noise, the latter derived from both onboard machinery and the screw, as well as the passage of the ship through the water. The waves and turbulence generated by a ship's passage, referred to as the wake effect, may also generate localised turbidity in shallow areas and erosion of banks and similar when in close proximity to susceptible land. Anchoring is normally conducted in areas with sandy or muddy bottoms, permitting good purchase for the anchor. Anchors and their cables (i.e. chains) generate localised, intermittent turbidity and also smother and scour whatever benthos may be in the vicinity. Anchoring, if conducted inappropriately, can damage habitats such as seagrass beds, coral reefs and sponge gardens. Atypical events, such as collisions and groundings, may also result in environmental harm as a result of the loss of fuel, cargo or stores, as well as physical impact damage (e.g. to a coral reef).

R1212 17

GBR Shipping Study

2.4 Shipping Activity in the GBR Region In the early part of the 2000s, there were approximately 6000 movements 4 of ships (greater than 50 m in length) transiting within the GBRMP annually (GBRMPA 2004). Ship numbers through the GBR area have increased steadily over time, as a result of the continued expansion and diversification of the Queensland and national economies. By around 2009/2010, shipping activity had increased to around 10 000 movements per annum, involving over 3500 individual ships (GBRMPA 2009b). Figure 8 depicts the increase in ship calls 5 in the period from 2002 to 20126 at the ports of the GBR region (Ports Australia 2012).

(Source: Ports Australia 2012, Queensland Ports 2012) Figure 8: Total GBR Region Port Ship Calls: 2002-2011 Approximately 3200 individual ships called at GBR ports in 2002. By 2012 this number had increased to 3950, representing a compound annual average growth rate of 2.1% over the ten year period. Cargoes transiting through the GBR during this period include: coal, sugar, iron ore, bauxite, timber, oil, chemicals, liquefied natural gas, fuels, live cattle and general cargo. In addition to ports within the GBR region, the north east seaboard and offshore areas contain several important commercial trade routes, through which a range of products are carried to and from southern ports and communities along the Queensland coast. The daily plots for commercial vessels in this north east region in 2010, for all vessels and separately for bulk carriers, is shown in Figures 9 and 10 7.

4 'Movement' meaning the passage of a ship to, from or between GBR ports, or on passage through the GBR region en route to/from ports outside of the GBR region. 5 ‘Ship call’ meaning the actual ‘call’ of a vessel at one of the GBR ports – i.e. a trading visit. 6 Throughout this report shipping data is presented at end of financial year. 7 These 'patterns' of shipping activity are derived by plotting mandatory, ship daily position reports submitted to Australian authorities under the auspices of the AUSREP system. Further detail is provided in Section 5.9.

R1212 18

GBR Shipping Study

Figure 9: North East Shipping Traffic: 2010

R1212 19

GBR Shipping Study

Figure 10: North East Shipping Traffic: Bulk Carriers, 2010

R1212 20

GBR Shipping Study

3. GBR Values in Relation to Shipping The World Heritage Convention, 1972 (WHC) enables the definition and selection of natural or cultural sites which can be considered for inscription on the World Heritage List. It also sets out the duties of States Parties in identifying potential sites and their role in protecting and preserving them. Australia is a signatory to the WHC and currently has 19 sites listed. The GBR was inscribed on the World Heritage List in 1981.

A summary of the World Heritage values of the GBR, with an emphasis upon those potentially affected by shipping and related activities, is presented in this Section, accompanied by an overview of the region's biophysical environments. Suffice to say, that the GBR presents a significant marine- based ecosystem, with a high degree of endemic, unique and threatened species and ecological communities.

3.1 GBR World Heritage Listing World Heritage listings exist to identify, protect and promote natural heritage and cultural heritage values considered to be of 'Outstanding Universal Value’ (OUV). Outstanding Universal Value is a concept central to World Heritage listing of places. It relates to the exceptional qualities of global significance that make an area worthy of special protection. The GBR was inscribed on the World Heritage list in 1981 on the basis that it met all four of the natural criteria which contribute to its OUV. The GBR is listed for all four natural criteria, which in 1981 were summarized as: • major stages of earth's evolutionary history; • superlative natural phenomena or exceptional natural beauty; • significant ongoing geological processes , biological evolution and man's interaction with his natural environment; and • habitats where populations of rare or endangered species still survive. OUV also includes the concept of 'integrity' which is a measure of wholeness or intactness of the property's natural heritage and its attributes (GBRMPA 2012). A Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (SoOUV) is an official statement adopted by the WHC at the time of inscription of a property on the World Heritage List. Among its key purposes, an SoOUV is the fundamental "basis for the future protection and management of the property". The SoOUV is the benchmark against which the state of conservation of a World Heritage property is assessed. A Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (RSoOUV) is an SoOUV created for a site that was inscribed before the requirement for a SoOUV was introduced into the World Heritage Convention in 2005. The GBRWHA was originally inscribed on the World Heritage list in 1981 so until 2012, no SoOUV had existed for the property. An RSoOUV for the GBRWHA was formally adopted in July 2012 and is included in Appendix A. The GBRWHA is approximately 348 000 km 2 and extends from the top of Cape York to just north of Fraser Island. The GBRWHA includes all the islands and their surrounding waters within its outer boundaries plus all port areas and Queensland internal waters that are seaward of low water mark along the mainland coast (Figure 11). The GBRWHA is the world’s third largest WHA (two other marine WHAs are larger) and to put this into some context, it is about the same size as Italy or Japan.

R1212 21

GBR Shipping Study

(SEWPaC) Figure 11: The GBRWHA

3.2 Natural Environment 3.2.1 Climate The GBR region is essentially tropical, with warm wet summers and cooler drier winters. There is a distinct change in climate between Cairns to the north, which has an average annual rainfall of 2018 mm, and Bundaberg, which has only 1019 mm. Mean average temperatures range from a maximum of 31.9° C at Thursday Island in January, to a minimum of 10.2° C in July in Bundaberg.

R1212 22

GBR Shipping Study

Cyclones are liable to occur over the entire length of the GBR, with the northern sections at greater risk than the southern. The cyclone season extends from November to April, with occurrence in the Townsville region being between 1 and 1.5 annually (URS 2006). GBRMPA (2011) reports that the GBR region experienced 116 cyclones from 1970 to 2006, and notes that 34% of the coral mortality recorded in the region from 1995 to 2009 is attributable to storms.

3.2.2 Seabed topography Only about 5% of the area of the GBR is taken up by coral reefs, with most of the remaining 95% comprised of shelf characterised by soft sediments. The seabed in the GBR can be divided into three broad categories: • the GBR lagoon: relatively open waterbody of soft sediment seabed covering the area between the mainland and the part of the seabed where the reefs begin; • the inter-reefal area: the seabed found between coral reefs at the outer edge of the lagoon and the reefs at the edge of the continental shelf; and • the continental slope.

3.2.3 Islands There are more than 600 continental (high) islands and 300 coral cays in the GBR. The continental islands are primarily made of ancient igneous rocks similar to the uplands of the adjacent mainland. Most are composed of granites or mixtures of granites and acid volcanics. Coral cays are composed of broken coral and remains of other marine organisms such as Halimeda and Forminera.

3.2.4 Coral reefs Physical size and morphological diversity make the GBR unique amongst the world’s coral reefs. Within the GBRMP area alone are 20 055 km² of coral reefs and although this makes up only 3.25% of world’s reefs (total 617 000 km²) the latitudinal spread over a distance of 2300 km means that it is generally regarded as the largest reef system in the world. Classification of reefs in the GBR has been based on the depth of the antecedent surface from which the modern reef grows. Where this is deep, reefs may have only just reached sea level; where shallow the reefs have not only reached sea level but also extend laterally to form crescents, lagoonal and planar reefs. No other reef province in the world provides such a range of reef morphology.

3.2.5 Seagrass beds Seagrasses grow on a range of substratum, generally in localities within the GBR that are sheltered from prevailing south-easterly trade winds, such as estuaries, coastal bays and inlets, on fringing and barrier platforms and behind islands. Seagrasses have been found in both intertidal and subtidal locations, from 2.2 m above to 28 m below mean sea level. The reported extent of seagrass from Cape York to Hervey Bay, approximately 4000 km², is comparable to the total cover of mangrove habitat in Queensland. Of more than 30 species of seagrass found within Australia, 15 species from eight genera are recorded from the GBR. Most of the species found in the region are widespread throughout the Indo-Pacific region. However, Halophila tricostata is probably endemic. Species diversity of seagrass decreases with increasing latitude.

R1212 23

GBR Shipping Study

3.2.6 Mangroves Mangroves are a diverse group of predominantly tropical trees and shrubs occupying the area above mean sea level in the marine intertidal zone. Mangroves offer feeding grounds and nurseries for a range of fauna, and contribute to a number of other important processes, such as banks and shore stabilisation, and primary production. The area of mangroves within or adjacent to the GBR is approximately 2069 km². This represents approximately 18% of Australia’s mangrove areas. Worldwide, 69 species of mangroves have been recorded. Within or immediately adjacent to the GBR, 37 species have been recorded. This makes the GBR one of the most diverse areas in the world for mangrove habitat. There are no species of mangrove endemic to the region.

3.2.7 Submarine canyons and trenches According to Harris et al. (2004) canyons are relatively narrow, deep depressions with steep sides, the bottom of which generally has a continuous slope, typically found on continental slopes. In the GBR, canyons are found along the continental slope immediately east of the reefs fringing the continental shelf. Trenches are defined as long, narrow features, characteristically a very deep and asymmetrical depression of the seafloor, with relatively steep sides. Subsea trenches and canyons may be important as aggregation areas and in support of key ecological processes for certain species by virtue of acting as locations where food may be in abundance due to the upwelling of nutrient rich waters.

3.2.8 Algae The major types of algae in the GBR are phytoplankton, zooxanthellae, and benthic macroalgae such as seaweeds (e.g. Halimeda ), turf algae and crustose coralline algae. Approximately 400-500 species of macroalgae are found in the GBR.

3.2.9 Hard and soft corals The GBR is part of a global centre of coral diversity located in the Indo-Pacific and includes more than 350 coral species representing 70 hard coral (Scleractinian ) genera (Chin 2003). Most of the hard coral species are found elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific, but 10 species are considered endemic. Soft corals are also an important component of many reefs, however their taxonomy is not well documented.

3.2.10 Invertebrate fauna Invertebrates, other than corals, that are abundant in the GBR include crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms, bryozoans, sponges and ascidians. The latter three form multispecies ‘natural isolates’ in the soft sediment environments of the GBR shelf. Although the taxonomy of many of these taxa are poorly known, species diversity appears high. As an example, there are approximately 300-500 species of bryozoan; 100 species of barnacles; 1030 species of Decapoda, Stomatopoda and Euphausiacea; and 500 species of echinoderms (Lucas et al. 1997). There is estimated to be 5000 to 8000 species of molluscs in the GBR (Lucas et al. 1997).

R1212 24

GBR Shipping Study

3.2.11 Fish Estimates for the number of fish species in the GBR range from 1200 to 2000. More than 130 families of fishes are currently known. Coral reef habitats exhibit the greatest species richness, followed by mangroves and estuarine environments. The majority of coral reef fishes are cosmopolitan species distributed throughout the Indo-Pacific; accordingly endemism is low.

3.2.12 Cetaceans At least 26 species of cetacean (whales and dolphins) visit or are resident in the GBR, a level of diversity that is probably typical of other coastal regions in the Indo-Pacific. The humpback whale ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), regularly visits the GBR during winter. Recognised east coast humpback aggregation areas occur around Moreton Bay, Hervey Bay, and the area north of Shoalwater/Corio Bay to Bowen (Figure 12). The GBR is considered to furnish important breeding and calving grounds for humpbacks, with the Whitsundays considered as important resting grounds for mothers and calves of the east coast population (SEWPaC 2012). Systematic, long-term observations of humpback migrations indicate steady increase in the Australian populations. The east coast population was estimated to be 3160 to 4040 in 1999 (Paterson et al. 2001), growing at 10% per annum. On the basis of further studies, the population estimate for the humpback whale on the east coast of Australia in 2006 was around 8000 and more than 10 000 in 2008 (GBRMPA 2009). Dwarf minke whales ( Balaenoptera arcturostrata ) also occur frequently in the GBR, particularly around June and July, and the Longman’s beaked whale ( Mesoplodon pacificus ), considered the rarest whale in the world, has been recorded in the GBR. Key dolphin species most likely to occur in inshore waters of the GBR are the relatively abundant and widespread bottlenosed ( Tursiops spp.), Indo-Pacific humpback ( Sousa chinensis ) and the Australian snub-fin ( Orcaella heinsohni ). The Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphin ( Sousa chinensis ) usually inhabits shallow coastal waters of less than 20 m depth and is often associated with tidal riverine and estuarine systems, enclosed bays and coastal lagoons, mangrove areas and seagrass meadows (Corkeron et al. 1997). These habitats are widespread in coastal areas of the GBR and, thus, the GBR is potentially an important area for this species. The Australian snub-fin dolphin ( Orcaella heinsohni ) (previously recorded as the Irrawaddy River dolphin [ Orcaella brevirostris ]) is documented from much of Queensland and other areas throughout its range as occurring in rivers, estuaries, inshore waters (Marsh et al. 1989, Perrin et al. 1996) and shallow offshore waters (Freeland & Bayliss 1989). Indo-Pacific humpback and Australian snub-fin dolphins occupy a particularly vulnerable habitat (Klinowska 1991). As coastal animals, they are considered to be especially susceptible to the effects of human activities, including coastal run-off and pollution, incidental catch in fishing gear (principally nets), habitat loss and disturbance, underwater noise from a variety of sources, disturbance from boats, and disease (Bowater et al. 2003) (Bannister et al. 1996; Klinowska 1991).

R1212 25

GBR Shipping Study

(DEH 2005a) Figure 12: Distribution, Migration and Recognised Aggregation Areas of the Humpback Whale

R1212 26

GBR Shipping Study

3.2.13 Dugongs Northern Australia is considered a dugong ( Dugong dugon ) stronghold. The population estimate for northern Australia is around 80 000, of which 12 000 (15%) occur in the GBR. Within the region, more than 80% of dugongs occur north of Cooktown, with a third of these occurring in Princess Charlotte Bay. South of Cooktown, the number of dugong declined by approximately 50% from the mid-1990s through to the mid-2000s, understood to most likely be due to changed habitat conditions. Dugongs occur all along the coast of the GBR and have been sighted more than 50 km offshore where they feed on deepwater and reefal seagrass beds. GBRMPA has established a number of dugong sanctuaries in coastal Queensland waters to protect important dugong habitat and populations.

3.2.14 Marine turtles Six of the world’s seven species of marine turtles are found in the GBR. For four of the species, the loggerhead, green, hawksbill and flatback turtles, the GBR provides feeding and nesting sites (GBRMPA 2001). The region also provides important habitat and food resources for the olive Ridley and leatherback turtles. A summary of GBR breeding sites and periods is given in Table 4, with depictions of important turtle nesting sites in the GBR is presented in Figure 13.

Table 4: Turtle Breeding Periods and Major Nesting Areas in the GBR Species Nesting Season Hatching Season Major Nesting Sites Flatback October to February December to April Peak Island, Wild Duck Island, Curtis Island, Facing Island, Crab Island. Green late October to February December to May Raine Island, Moulter Cay, Capricorn/Bunker group. Hawksbill year round, mainly year round, mainly Milman Island. November to February, February to April peaks in January (GBR); July to September (Arnhem Land) Leatherback December to January February to March Nil major areas in Australia. Minor nesting occurs around Bundaberg and Mackay. Loggerhead late October to early December to April Southern GBR incl. March, peaks in Capricorn/Bunker group December and Bundaberg area. Olive Ridley Year round, mainly April Year round, mainly June Nil major areas in to November to January Australia.

R1212 27

GBR Shipping Study

R1212 28

GBR Shipping Study

(GBRMPA 2001)

Figure 13: GBR Turtle Nesting Sites

3.2.15 Seabird rookeries The GBR supports breeding colonies of 22 species of seabirds, nesting on approximately 25% of GBR islands. It is estimated that between 1.4 and 1.7 million seabirds breed annually in the region, while non-breeding seabirds may add a further 425 000. King (1993) identified 54 islands with significant seabird colonies in the GBR.

3.2.16 Crocodiles Only estuarine crocodiles ( Crocodylus porosus ) commonly occur in the GBR. Although they are found over a wide area at low densities, no nesting in the GBRWHA has been recorded.

R1212 29

GBR Shipping Study

R1212 30

GBR Shipping Study

4. Applicable Conventions, Legislation and Policies The operation of ships and associated shipping activities in the GBR region needs to be compliant with a wide range of International Conventions and, Commonwealth and State legislation. Appendix B contains a summary of these key international agreements and legislative instruments, with an overview presented in this Section. Although focused primarily on environment protection instruments, this summary also examines ship and marine safety agreements and legislative provisions, which provide for marine environment protection as a coincident outcome. In addition to formal regulatory requirements, ships are also subject to controls imposed by other entities such as classification societies, insurers and owners associations. These are not detailed in this report, but suffice to say that these measures generally complement and expand upon over-arching regulatory requirements.

4.1 International Conventions and Agreements Related to Shipping Australia is signatory to a range of international agreements which have applicability to the environmental management of ships specifically and maritime activities in general. These conventions apply to ships operating within the GBR region by virtue of either one or several mechanisms under the umbrella of 'flag state' and/or 'port state' and/or 'coastal state' controls. In essence, 'flag state' controls apply when the country of registration of the ship has enacted an applicable convention, whereas 'port state' and 'coastal state' controls have application to ships visiting or sailing within the waters of a third party nation that has enacted such conventions - these controls are discussed in more detail in Appendix B.

International maritime conventions to which Australia is a Party are ultimately expressed in Australian law in order to have effect within the Australian jurisdiction. It is apt to recognise the international agreements which form the foundations for the attendant Australian legislation. Key international agreements applicable to shipping activities in the GBR region are summarised within this Section.

The IMO is the source of the key components of the international regulatory regime applicable to the environmental management requirements for the international shipping within the GBR region. In Australia, the lead regulatory agency for IMO marine environment protection conventions to which Australia is a signatory is AMSA, although other government agencies such as SEWPaC and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) also have various national implementation and enforcement roles. In the case of Queensland and the GBR region in particular, implementation of IMO requirements is also effected through MSQ, DTMR and GBRMPA. The IMO is an international body that, is established and administered under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). As well as Member States, the IMO also accepts official delegations from bodies with overlapping responsibilities (e.g. the International Labour Organization [ILO]), industry representatives (e.g. the International Chamber of Shipping [ICS]), and various non-government organisations (NGOs) (e.g. International Fund for Animal Welfare [IFAW]). In the context of shipping, the IMO has three principle focus areas for its activities: • maritime safety • marine environment protection • maritime security The IMO essentially provides secretariat services and coordinates and administers the development of international guiding instruments as a result of the proposals and deliberations of its member nations. Once a proposal for a new regulation or convention is received and accepted from one or a number of Member States, the typical process is that the proposed measure is deliberated upon and refined through the applicable IMO committees and working groups, which seek expert opinion and accept

R1212 31

GBR Shipping Study

submissions from Member States and other organisations accredited by the IMO (e.g. NGOs and shipping industry groups). Once a firm, widely accepted proposal is formulated, this is voted upon and, if successful, adopted by the relevant body. In the case of marine environment issues, the relevant body is the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), or the Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) in relation to maritime safety. For more fundamental or multi-disciplinary issues, the measure is adopted by the full IMO Assembly, the peak body. The IMO is broadly considered to have been successful in improving the safety of world shipping simultaneous with reducing its impact upon the marine environment, and remains active in responding to new, emerging and evolving threats and hazards. By way of its charter, the IMO is focused upon merchant shipping and, with regards to marine environment protection, the particular environmental risk characteristics and operational discharges characteristic of that sector. Mindful of the typical design and lifecycle of merchant ships, the IMO processes are geared toward the development of sensible, pragmatic and achievable measures which can be incorporated into merchant ship design and operations to realise meaningful improvement in environmental outcomes. New measures adopted by the IMO normally have a two to four or five year window before the planned entry into force of the new or modified regulatory requirements for ships, or ‘grandfathering’ arrangements for ships in service. This introductory period is a pragmatic measure, based upon making reasonable allowance for ship designers, builders, owners and operators to adopt any required new or revised measures as a synchronous component of the merchant ship design, acquisition and obsolescence cycle.

4.2 Commonwealth Legislation Although not directly applicable in all circumstances to foreign-flagged vessels, Commonwealth legislation does apply in certain circumstances to foreign ships while in Australian waters, and generally applies to Australian-flagged vessels and/or crews wherever they may be located. Furthermore, Commonwealth legislation provides the primary framework for the management of developments and activities within the GBRMP and GBRWHA, and hence is salient with regards to aspects such as port developments and expansions within the GBR region, and to the designation of marine park zones including shipping areas.

4.3 Queensland Legislation Commonwealth legislation has primacy over Australian State and Territory legislation, and has specific application to Commonwealth agencies and in Commonwealth areas. In the case of the GBR region, Queensland has legislation dealing with port activities, pollution prevention from vessels and environmental impact assessment and wildlife conservation within State waters.

4.4 Summary Commonwealth legislation, such as the Navigation Act, the various Prevention of Pollution from Ships Acts, and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) exhibit great stringency and have primacy of application to foreign-flagged ships while in Australian waters. Given this, it should be considered that observation by ships, including related shipping activities, of the applicable Commonwealth requirements should generally be sufficient to demonstrate at least equivalency with the objectives of Queensland legislation, except to the extent of any aspects not addressed specifically by Commonwealth legislation, or where site-specific elements are in effect. Table 5 outlines the most significant of these international agreements and other Australian and Queensland state legislation, with particular reference to those stemming from Australia's international convention obligations.

R1212 32

GBR Shipping Study

Note that although other items of Commonwealth and Queensland have application to the marine environment (e.g. EPBC Act, Queensland Marine Parks Act) and the GBR (e.g. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 [GBRMP Act]), these instruments do not have direct application to foreign- flagged ships in all instances.

R1212 33

GBR Shipping Study

Table 5: Key International Conventions and Guidelines Applicable to Foreign-Flagged Ships, and Associated Australian Legislation International Commonwealth Queensland Convention/Guidelines Legislation Responsible Agency Legislation Responsible Agency

International Convention for the Prevention of • Protection of the Sea (Prevention of AMSA • Maritime Safety Queensland Act 2002 MSQ Pollution from Ships, 1973 (MARPOL) Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 • Transport Operations (Marine • Navigation Act 1912 8 Pollution) Act 1995 International Convention on Oil Pollution • Protection of the Sea (Prevention of AMSA • Maritime Safety Queensland Act 2002 MSQ Preparedness, Response and Cooperation Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 • Transport Operations (Marine (OPRC 90) + Hazardous and Noxious • Navigation Act 1912 Pollution) Act 1995 Substances Protocol (HNS) • Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 International Convention for the Control and • Quarantine Act 1908 DAFF Nil specific n/a Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (BWM Convention) International Convention on the Control of • Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti- AMSA Nil specific n/a Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001 fouling Systems) Act 2006 (IAFS Convention) • Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 Guidelines for the Control and Management of • Quarantine Act 1908 and Australian DAFF Nil specific n/a Ships' Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of biofouling management guidelines Invasive Aquatic Species International Convention for the Safety of Life • Navigation Act 1912 AMSA • Maritime Safety Queensland Act 2002 MSQ at Sea, 1974 (SOLAS) • Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 International Convention on Standards of • Navigation Act 1912 AMSA • Maritime Safety Queensland Act 2002 MSQ Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for • Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Seafarers, 1978 (STCW) Act 1994 Convention on the International Regulations • Navigation Act 1912 AMSA • Maritime Safety Queensland Act 2002 MSQ for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 • Transport Operations (Marine Safety) (COLREGs) Act 1994 International Convention for the Safe and Nil n/a Nil n/a Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 International Maritime Dangerous Goods • Protection of the Sea (Prevention of AMSA Nil specific n/a Code (IMDG Code) Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 • Navigation Act 1912

8 NB: to be replaced by the broadly similar Navigation Act 2012 .

R1212 34

GBR Shipping Study

5. GBR Regional Policies, Procedures and Facilities Under the aegis of international, national and State regulations, shipping within the GBR region is also subject to specific controls generally intended to limit the risk of collision and grounding, and by extension, environmental harm. There are also established measures, supported by the allocation of appropriate resources, to enable timely and effective response in the event of environmental harm, either actual or potential. Many of these policies, procedures and facilities apply to Australia in general, while some are specific to the GBR region or otherwise enhanced given the recognised environmental sensitivity of the GBR. These regional measures are discussed in this Section.

5.1 GBR Shipping Management Group The GBR Shipping Management Group is a collaborative Commonwealth/State arrangement involving:

• the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA);

• the Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (SEWPaC); • the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA); • the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF);

• the Commonwealth Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET);

• the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport (DIT);

• Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ); and

• Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR).

These are the Commonwealth and Queensland State agencies having the greatest individual and collective responsibilities for the management of shipping in the GBR region. The Shipping Management Group facilitates informed, cooperative action in support of safe navigation in the GBR region and for the protection of the marine environment from potentially adverse consequences of shipping operations.

Industry and Port Authorities also play an important role in the group with presentations and industry updates sought by the group at various time throughout the year.

Due to forecast increases in the volume and change in mix of shipping traffic to GBR ports, the GBR Shipping Management Group coordinated safety and environmental risk assessments for Gladstone, Townsville and Hay Point in 2009/2010. These considered changed risk factors within the context of general intervention strategies and principal risk reduction actions, with the need for better coordination and information sharing between the responsible agencies showing as a consistent mitigation measure across many of the risk factors (AMSA 2010a).

5.2 North East Shipping Management Plan AMSA in collaboration with the North East Shipping Management Group and other stakeholders is in the process of developing a North East Shipping Management Plan. This Plan is intended to be finalised by the end of 2012 and will assess the effectiveness of current safety and management measures with a view to identifying additional or enhanced measures that may be needed in the future.

R1212 35

GBR Shipping Study

The Plan will focus on issues directly related to the safety of shipping– such as navigation, routeing, water space management - as well as issues that prevent or mitigate ship-sourced pollution and other environmental impacts – such as emergency towage vessels and zoning.

5.3 Particularly Sensitive Sea Area A Particularly Sensitive Sea Area (PSSA) is an area of the marine environment that needs special protection through action by the IMO because of its significance for recognized ecological, socio- economic, or scientific attributes where such attributes may be vulnerable to damage by international shipping activities. Designated in 1990, the GBR was the first PSSA globally (with the Torres Strait added in 2005).

PSSAs are able to be declared under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS) (see Appendix B), which provides that certain categories of sea areas which may require higher standards of environmental protection. The Convention places an obligation on parties to take measures necessary to protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems and provides for States to submit to the “competent international organization” (i.e. the IMO) for the approval of proposals for special mandatory measures within their EEZs which require extra protection from vessel sourced pollution.

IMO guidelines require that any area submitted for declaration as a PSSA will need to meet three key elements:

• the area must have the necessary ecological, social, cultural, economic, scientific or educational characteristics;

• the area must be at risk from international shipping activities; and

• there must be measures that can be adopted by the IMO to provide protection to the area.

At the time of designation of a PSSA, Associated Protective Measures (APM) must be approved by the IMO to prevent, reduce, or eliminate the threat or identified vulnerability. The PSSA Guidelines place an obligation on all IMO members to ensure that ships flying their flag comply with the APMs adopted to protect designated PSSAs.

IMO endorsed APMs applying to the GBR and Torres Strait PSSA include:

• recommended compliance with Australian system of pilotage;

• mandatory ship reporting; and

• two way route (Torres Strait).

If there are concerns relating primarily to biodiversity conservation, sustainable fisheries, sustainable tourism, or integrated coastal management, a PSSA is unlikely to be the most appropriate protection mechanism. In these circumstances, management as a Marine Protected Area is considered as a more appropriate protection mechanism. Similarly, if the threat is caused primarily by vessels on domestic voyages, it is likely to be deemed more appropriate to address these issues by relying upon domestic law (AMSA 2008a).

R1212 36

GBR Shipping Study

5.4 Vessel Inspections and Standards Fundamental to safe shipping activities is the quality and standard of the global commercial fleet. A number of regulatory measures and industry initiatives are employed to improve and guarantee the quality of ships involved in commercial trade.

5.4.1 Flag State Controls Flag State Controls are enacted by the responsible flag nation (i.e. the nation of the subject ship's registration) to ensure that at prescribed intervals, mandatory surveys and inspections of ships are conducted. The purpose of these surveys is to ensure that a ship complies with the applicable laws and regulations of the flag state, and by extension, the international agreements (e.g. IMO conventions). These inspections may be undertaken by officials from the flag state, or in the port of any other country by a suitably accredited surveyor appointed by the flag state administering authority.

5.4.2 Port State Controls Port State Control is effected through the inspection of foreign-flagged ships in national ports (e.g. a Japanese-flagged bulk carrier in an Australian port). The purpose of such inspection is to verify that the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of applicable international regulations and that the ship is manned and operated in compliance with these rules. Ships failing to meet requirements can be detained until repairs or improvements are made to ensure compliance. AMSA is the responsible authority for the implementation of Port State Controls in Australia.

5.4.3 Ship vetting Ship vetting refers to an industry lead practice used to risk asses the acceptability of a particular vessel for the carriage of a cargo for ocean transport. Many companies seek to only engage the services of individual ships with a proven record of safe, competent performance and assessed vessel integrity. Information available from the IMO, port and terminal operators, Port State Control inspections and detentions 9, as well as ship survey records all contribute to these considerations. To assist ship charterers in ship evaluation, a number of 'ship vetting' services maintain records and provide advice on ship's material and operational condition and records of service and performance. Ship vetting is an in-depth assessment of a ship's quality and suitability for a task. Shipping agents and terminal operators can ‘vet’ a nominated ship before deciding whether to accept it. The more comprehensive the vetting process, the more reliable it is as a risk management tool. Unlike Flag State certification or classification, vetting is a private, voluntary system that may be used to help inform and manage the risks of shipping and freight charter, and thus augments Flag and Port State measures. Vetting first appeared in the 1990s, when the Ship Inspection Report (SIRE) database was created for use by oil companies, where the risks of ship failure, loss and incident have potentially the greatest consequence. The results of inspections carried out by oil companies, who are members of the OCIMF (Oil Companies International Marine Forum), are shared via the SIRE database which provides each member company with the information it needs to apply its own internal criteria without having to inspect each vessel itself. Tanker vetting inspections are usually carried out during

9 As occur when a ship is non-compliant with some regulatory requirement.

R1212 37

GBR Shipping Study

commercial unloading operations, with the prior agreement of the shipowner and management company, the only organisations authorized to allow third parties onboard. Charterers of dry bulk and container ships also undertake vetting processes. Systems for dry vetting were developed after SIRE had proved valuable for oil industry standards, and in recognition that sub- standard ships pose a major risk for the shipping industry. Vetting for dry vessels is less regulated than in the oil industry and is not universally applied, although acceptance has grown significantly, especially through the growth of accessible online vetting services including Equasis and RightShip . Dry bulk and container vetting also incorporate vessel inspections, along similar lines to the oil industry processes described above, although systems for inspection requests, reports and the sharing of reports are again much less standardized. Ship vetting generally uses a risk matrix approach, using many sources of information to determine a vessel’s risk rating. If the system’s evaluation indicates a higher risk, a physical inspection may be carried out to verify the ship’s condition before establishing a rating or recommending the ship to a client. Risk ratings are based on a number of risk factors, including: • Flag risk (determined by statistical assessment, casualty and incident performance associated with the particular flag); • class risk (determined by statistical assessment, casualty and incident performance associated with the particular ship class); • number of changes of flag, class, owner or manager; • vessel’s casualty history, berth reports, terminal reports; • Port State Control (PSC) performance (including particular attention to multiple deficiencies and/or detentions over a period of time); and • vessel’s age. In the case of RightShip (the mostly widely used vetting system in Australia), the rating is in the form of ‘stars’, from one (highest risk) to five (lowest risk). A ship rated three stars or more is generally passed without further review, while a vessel rated one or two stars will generally need closer examination, often including a physical inspection, before it will pass as an acceptable risk (if at all).

5.4.4 Terminal questionnaires A 'terminal questionnaire' is a supplementary due diligence process to complement current vessel vetting practices. Terminal questionnaires are provided to the Master/vessel representative for completion prior to berthing. Facets of ship suitability which may be revealed from a terminal questionnaire include specifications of the ship and aspects of crew training and experience. Increased adoptions of terminal questionnaires are increasing to improve safety and reduce the risk of an incident whilst a vessel is in port and in particular alongside a berth. In response to the continuing loss of ships carrying solid bulk cargoes - sometimes without trace and with loss of life – the Code of Safe Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers (BLU Code) was developed by the IMO as one of a number of measures to enhance the operational and structural safety of bulk carriers. Chartering entities typically undertake due diligence as to the suitability of ships for ocean transport and the carriage of cargo. Determination of a vessel's performance history relating to the BLU Code requirements is undertaken by each terminal when the vessel is already alongside ready for loading, using a paper based ship/shore checklist to their individual standards.

R1212 38

GBR Shipping Study

A few organisations are further developing terminal questionnaires to supplement current 'on-berthing' checklists by developing a proactive process employing web based technology. Responses to questions are usually required to be answered before arrival, allowing for risks to be identified and concerns resolved before vessels manoeuvre in/around port and berth areas. These web based questionnaires require responses in targeted, higher risk, areas of: • mooring standards; • deballast capability; • helicopter capability for transfer of personnel; • crew attendance to duties; • towage facilities; and • documentation relating to the vessel. The process commences on nomination (arrival) of a vessel at a port/terminal. Vessel owners/operators/managers are required to complete a relevant online questionnaire. On completion the questionnaire responses are provided to relevant terminal operations or logistics personnel for appraisal and/or local risk assessment prior to any cargo loading operations. The adoption of online web based terminal questionnaires contributes towards a consistent safety focus and delivery of high operational discipline by ships visiting terminals. Performance expectations can also be tailored to meet local requirements for each terminal and specific questions posed where required for those terminals with unique safety concerns. Benefits include: • Terminal and vessel operational risk reduction and management: enables terminals to communicate specific requirements and risks to vessels as required under the BLU Code and provides a process to ensure specific vessel compliance and suitability. • Systemic approach: enables a common approach for the management of dry bulk (un)loading specific to the ship/shore interface via a global web enabled facility. Ensures dilution of the impact from turnover of key staff at terminals with marine knowledge and expertise. • Standardisation: ensures that terminals approach compliance with the BLU Code in the same way and to the same standards. • Performance Measures: incorporate locally determined performance criteria to ensure non-disruptive impact on (un)loading operations. • Terminal / Vessel Prerequisites: establish vessel prerequisites in relation to BLU Code accountabilities; deck fittings, mooring capability and operational expectations to assist the Charterer to secure nominations for particular trades. • Improved communications: facilitates improved communication channels between terminals and charterer services. Case Study: BHP Billiton With a continual drive to improve safety practices of visiting ships at BHP Billiton port terminals all ships visiting the BHP Billiton owned/operated dry bulk terminals at: • Hay Point, Queensland • Townsville, Queensland • Port Hedland, Western Australia • Bunbury, Western Australia

R1212 39

GBR Shipping Study

• Bell Bay, Tasmania • Groote Eylandt, Northern Territory • Escondida, Chile • Mozal, Mozambique are required to respond to a questionnaire, facilitated through the independent marine vetting company RightShip , via web technology at the time of nomination. The terminal questionnaire that is common across all BHP Billiton dry bulk terminals is provided in Appendix C. The information supplied is used by each port to assess and manage berthing and loading risks. Additionally the data are collated centrally and analysed to inform longer term management and identify risk trends.

5.5 Hydrographic Survey and Charting Fundamental to safe navigation and the efficient routeing of shipping through the GBR is the provision of accurate nautical charts and the survey of safe routes. This is the responsibility of the Australian Hydrographic Service (AHS), within the Royal Australian Navy (RAN).

The AHS is responsible for maritime survey and charting in the Australian Charting Area, for both military and civil requirements. The RAN operates six hydrographic survey ships and one Laser Airborne Depth Sounding (LADS) aircraft, all of which are based in Cairns. The AHS develops and implements a rolling, three year national surveying and charting plan, taking into account existing and forecast requirements. Significant effort has been expended upon surveying the GBR region and developing the subsequent charts, and the region is subject to ongoing hydrographic survey to expand the area surveyed and improve the precision of existing information.

The charts produced by the AHS, both in paper and electronic format, provide key information to mariners regarding the GBR and the special navigation requirements which apply. Information displayed on charts includes details such as: navigation aids; shipping routes; Designated Shipping Areas; marine park zoning and environmentally sensitive areas; pilotage requirements; mandatory ship reporting requirements; ship waste management regulations; and the area's status as a PSSA (see Figure 14).

R1212 40

GBR Shipping Study

(AHS) Figure 14: Sample GBR Chart Extract, Displaying Specific Navigation Advice

5.6 Electronic Chart Display and Information System The advent of electronic charts, referred to as Electronic Navigational Charts (ENCs) provides ships and maritime navigation administrative authorities with greater flexibility and utility in the use of available hydrographic and other data to promote safe navigation. ENCs provide multiple data layers which are intended for use in a ship's onboard Electronic Chart Display and Information System (ECDIS). An ECDIS is based upon approved (by the IMO and applicable national authorities) hardware and software, using authorised navigational data combined with regularly updated satellite and other position fixing data inputs from other ship's sensors. As well as providing a display which replicates that available from the equivalent, orthodox paper chart, ECDIS also provides ships with a decision support tool. The chart information in ECDIS is continuously analysed and compared with a ship's current position, intended course and manoeuvring characteristics to give timely warning of approaching hazards. In accordance with pre-programmed navigation or passage plans, an ECDIS is also equipped to provide alerts and prompts for planned course alterations. Additional support material, such as photographs and views, as well as navigational notices and cautions can be accessed from the ECDIS database and displayed as required. In addition, ECDIS provides many other

R1212 41

GBR Shipping Study

sophisticated navigation and safety features, including continuous data recording for later analysis (AHS 2012).

5.7 Navigation Aids The GBR region is furnished with a range of aids to assist with the safe navigation of shipping, both through the Reef and its passages, and in the approaches to ports. These navaids include infrastructure such as lighthouses, lights and markers, tide gauges and current meters, radar reflectors (racons) and radar surveillance of key areas. Navigation aids in the region also include a Differential Global Positioning Satellite (DGPS) service, permitting greater, more reliable accuracy than standard GPS services. The provision of coastal navigation aids is primarily the responsibility of AMSA, while MSQ provides and maintains port-specific navaids.

Radar surveillance is provided in areas of the GBR where the configuration of navigation channels and the consequent concentration of shipping are deemed to warrant such coverage. There are five GBR locations where radar surveillance is provided: Torres Strait, the Great Northeast Channel, Cairns, Pelorus Island (near Townsville), and Hay Point. Radar facilities include both primary (i.e. orthodox radar where a return 'echo' is generated by the target ship) and secondary coverage. The latter is akin to the transponder systems used in commercial aircraft, where a ship transponder, following 'interrogation' by the surveillance radar, transmits information providing the ship identity and details.

5.8 Weather Services The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) provides specific weather forecasts and warnings to mariners, as well as marine environmental information, in addition to the standard weather forecasting services. The BoM's maritime weather services address coastal and oceanic weather and sea conditions, and are regularly provided to ships via a variety of methods, including VHF and HF radio broadcasts, and Inmarsat-C transmissions. Services are provided by both voice and fax. Information provided by the BoM includes forecasts and warnings of: • marine winds; • storms and high seas; • cyclone warnings and tracking; • significant wave heights and direction; • sea currents; • sea surface temperatures; • tide predictions; and • sea level predictions. In addition to these services, the BoM also makes radar and satellite images available, as well as synoptic charts. These data are useful for the promotion of safe navigation, and also critical when responding to contingencies such as oil spills.

5.9 Ship Automatic Identification System Stemming from the SOLAS Convention, automatic identification systems (AIS) are mandatory on many ships, including commercial ocean-going vessels such as bulk carriers. The core of the ship's AIS is a Very High Frequency (VHF) radio broadcasting system that transfers information over a

R1212 42

GBR Shipping Study

radio data link. Information transmitted includes ship name and IMO Number, length, draught, voyage identification code, position, heading and speed. This information is transmitted to shore stations and other ships and can be variously presented on a dedicated display, or as an overlay on an electronic chart, or compatible radar display. While primarily a maritime rescue and safety device, AIS can also improve situational awareness for other ships and monitoring stations, and thus provide a means to assist in collision avoidance. In addition, AIS can be used as an aid to navigation, by providing location and additional information on buoys and lights. Within the GBR region, ships' AIS link with REEFVTS, a purpose-designed and operated GBR Vessel Traffic Service (VTS) to assist with ship tracking from shore (see Box).

VESSEL TRAFFIC SERVICES Vessel traffic services (VTS) are shore-based systems which range from the provision of simple advisory messages to ships, such as the position of other traffic or meteorological warnings, to extensive systems for the management of ship traffic within a port or other defined waterway. Generally, ships entering a VTS area report to the applicable authorities, usually by radio, and may be tracked by the VTS control centre. Ships are obliged to maintain a suitable watch for further communications from the VTS control centre while within the VTS area. The IMO recognises that VTS regimes contribute to the safety of life at sea, the safety and efficiency of navigation, the protection of the marine environment and adjacent shore areas, and to the protection of offshore installations. The SOLAS Convention enables governments to establish VTS when it is considered that the volume and/or character of ship traffic or the degree of risk justifies such services. This is considered to include in locations such as: • the approaches to and access channels of a port; • in areas with a high traffic density; • areas featuring the movement of noxious or dangerous cargoes; • areas with inherent navigational difficulties, such as narrow and/or shallow channels; and • areas with environmental sensitivities vulnerable to shipping. The IMO also stipulates that decisions concerning effective navigation and manoeuvring of a vessel within a VTS area remain the responsibility of the ship's Master. (adapted from IMO 2012) 5.10 AUSREP AUSREP provides positional data on ships transiting Australia’s region. Under AUSREP, ships send a daily report, giving details of ship position and other details such as type of ship, size and destination to the Rescue Coordination Centre Australia (RCC Australia) (AMSA 2011a). Ships which must report to AUSREP while within the AUSREP area are: • all Australian registered ships engaged in interstate or overseas trade and commerce; • foreign-flagged vessels engaged in trade between Australia and an external territory, or between external territories; • foreign-flagged vessels operating under charter to charterers whose residence or principal places of business is in Australia; • foreign-flagged vessels, other than those mentioned above, from their arrival at their first Australian port until their departure from their final Australian port. However, they are encouraged to participate in AUSREP from their entry into and final departure from the AUSREP area; and

R1212 43

GBR Shipping Study

• Australian fishing vessels proceeding on overseas voyages, while in the AUSREP area (not including those vessels operating from Queensland ports which may call at ports in Papua New Guinea as an incidental part of their fishing operation). The AUSREP system is intended to contribute to safety of life at sea in accordance with SOLAS and other international conventions. REEFREP, which operates in the GBR region, is inter-related with AUSREP but provides similar information for different purposes. REEFREP is an IMO-sanctioned mandatory reporting system applying to ships in the GBR region and Torres Strait. It is intended to enhance navigational safety, reduce the risk of shipping incidents (e.g. collisions and groundings) and minimise the likelihood and extent of any resulting ship-sourced pollution.

5.11 REEFVTS Mandatory REEFREP information communicated by ships (e.g. position reports, passage plans) is combined with data from other sources (e.g. radar coverage in key locations, ship AIS, ship Automated Position Reporting [APR]) to form the information compiled and managed as REEFVTS (i.e. Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait Vessel Traffic Service). REEFVTS is used to generate a traffic 'image' of subject ships within the GBR, permitting the provision of ship traffic information and other navigational safety related information to shipping. Within the REEFVTS Area, ships are required to identify themselves and report their intended passage. This information, together with associated monitoring and communication systems, enables personnel in REEFVTS shore stations to monitor a ship’s transit through the GBR and Torres Strait. This 'shipping picture' is formed as a composite of the amalgamated data streams generated by the various individual input sources (e.g. radar surveillance systems, ship AIS, ship APR), and updated automatically, which occurs every 10 seconds in the critical ship traffic areas subject to radar surveillance. REEFVTS operates 24 hours a day all year round. The REEFVTS area is as depicted in Figure 15.

R1212 44

GBR Shipping Study

(MSQ & AMSA 2011a) Figure 15: REEFVTS Area

REEFVTS has the parallel objectives of: • enhancing navigational safety in Torres Strait and the GBR by interacting with shipping to provide information on potential traffic conflicts and other navigational information;

• minimising the risk of a maritime accident and consequential ship sourced pollution and damage to the marine environment in the Torres Strait and the GBR region; and

• improving the ability to respond rapidly in the event of any ship-related safety or marine pollution incident. REEFVTS is equipped with complementary decision support tools used to monitor the transit of individual ships and identify where timely interaction from REEFVTS operators may be warranted. This includes situations where a ship may be heading into shallow water, failing to alter course at a particular waypoint, or deviating from a recommended route. The 'shipping picture' in the REEFVTS monitoring area is displayed on dedicated consoles, permanently monitored around the clock, in the REEFVTS shore station (Plate 3). Although

R1212 45

GBR Shipping Study

REEFVTS is equipped with automated alarms, this human machine interface 'places a man in the loop', to use industry parlance. This additional layer of human surveillance augments that provided by the REEFVTS processing systems and provides a valuable back-up to the automatic systems.

Plate 3: Displays and Operator Console in the REEFVTS Monitoring Station, Townsville

REEFVTS provides two types of information services to ships in the REEFVTS Area: ship traffic information (STI) and maritime safety information (MSI). These are intended to alert ships (and the REEFVTS monitoring station/s) to potential grounding and collision events in a timely manner, and to assist ships to avoid such misadventure.

Within the realm of STI, REEFVTS predicts ship encounters and sends this information to individual ships within the managed area, advising individual ships of:

• when their ship enters the REEFVTS Area;

• the forecast time and the location of a predicted encounter with another ship, and the other ship's name, and whether the ship is being piloted or has a deep draught (and hence possibly limited in ability to manoeuvre in a confined channel); and

• when there is new or changed traffic information.

When a ship enters the REEFVTS Area it will receive an STI report regarding predicted ship encounters and an MSI report valid for the next six hours. REEFVTS monitors the transits of individual ships to identify any significant changes to the traffic 'picture', such as may arise when a new ship is identified or there is a change in course or speed. Reports provided to individual ships are updated every four to six hours (dependent upon the ship’s speed), or a ship may contact REEFVTS at any time to ask for an STI update.

REEFVTS provides STI reports in one of two ways:

• Inmarsat C (satellite) Messaging; or

• VHF voice communications.

R1212 46

GBR Shipping Study

Ships must keep a listening watch on the REEFVTS VHF working channels. Communications between a ship and the REEFVTS shore station can also be effected via e-mail, telephone or facsimile in the event of inability to communicate via Inmarsat or VHF links.

MSI provided by REEFVTS is relevant to a ship's location and intended movement. Concomitantly, if a ship encounters any hazard that may affect the navigational safety of other ships, it is obliged to notify REEFVTS. MSI is sent to ships with the STI reports, and also included in broadcasts from RCC Australia in the form of navigational warnings (AusCoast Warnings).

A more detailed breakdown of the REEFVTS coverage area and the services provided to ships within these locations is presented in Figures 16 to 20.

(MSQ & AMSA 2011a) Figure 16: REEFVTS Coverage: Far North Queensland

R1212 47

GBR Shipping Study

(MSQ & AMSA 2011a) Figure 17: REEFVTS Coverage: North Queensland

(MSQ & AMSA 2011a) Figure 18: REEFVTS Coverage: Central Queensland

R1212 48

GBR Shipping Study

(MSQ & AMSA 2011a) Figure 19: REEFVTS Coverage: Mackay Region

(MSQ & AMSA 2011a) Figure 20: REEFVTS Coverage: Capricorn Region

R1212 49

GBR Shipping Study

With regard to navigational assistance services, if REEFVTS has information which may help decision-making onboard a ship, REEFVTS may contact that ship. Situations where this may occur include when REEFVTS control considers that the ship is heading into shallow water or deviating from a planned route. Consistent with established practices, however, the ship's Master remains responsible for the safe navigation of the ship at all times. REEFVTS is not in itself a collision avoidance system, but is able to identify potential collision situations as they evolve and alert ships to the emerging hazard.

The REEFVTS shore station is located in Townsville, with a complementary facility situated at Hay Point. The Hay Point station is normally inactive, but is available as a redundancy in the event of incapacity at the Townsville station, such as may occur if the latter is shut down in preparation for a cyclone. An additional REEFVTS shore station is being built at Gladstone, and is scheduled for commissioning in 2013. There is no practical limitation to the volume and tempo of shipping activities within the GBR region that that REEFVTS can cope with in the context of ship tracking and associated automated systems. Where the limitations exist is with the human resource levels, although this is a function of the number of watchkeepers on duty at any particular time and the availability of operator consoles. The effective capacity of REEFVTS can be expanded by activating more consoles and rostering more monitoring staff onto duty.

5.12 Port VTS Ships calling at the GBR ports of Gladstone, Hay Point, Mackay, Townsville and Cairns are also required to report to the local Port VTS, administered by DTMR. This reporting regime enables the positive monitoring of shipping movements within the respective Port VTS areas, and also provides a vehicle for communication with the ships in order to advise of requirements concerning entry to, and use of, the ports and to inform them of applicable marine pollution prevention and control measures (DTMR 2011a).

5.13 Compulsory Pilotage Pilotage involves the engagement of a suitably experienced and appropriately qualified and licensed senior mariner possessing expert knowledge of local conditions and ship handling, to assist ship Masters in the navigation of vessels in confined waters. Pilots also have the advantage of awareness of the local rules and regulations (as regards navigation, communication, ship reporting, pollution prevention, etc). These skills and competencies promote the safe transit of ships through areas presenting navigation hazards. There are two types of pilotage schemes applicable to ships operating in the GBR region: • Port Pilots - ships entering or leaving ports in the GBR region are required to have a port pilot onboard when navigating within designated port pilotage limits - this is a standard practice for ports worldwide; and • Reef Pilots - an additional GBR-specific scheme requiring appropriately qualified and experienced pilots to be onboard specified ships whenever those ships are navigating through specified portions of the GBR. Under Australian law ‘regulated ships’ must carry a pilot, licensed by AMSA, in the Torres Strait and designated sections of the GBR (see Figure 21).

R1212 50

GBR Shipping Study

(MSQ & AMSA 2011a) Figure 21: Compulsory Pilotage Areas A ‘regulated ship’ in terms of compulsory Reef pilotage requirements includes: • ships with an overall length of 70 m or more; • all loaded oil tankers, chemical tankers and liquefied gas carriers (except Defence Force tankers); and

R1212 51

GBR Shipping Study

• a tug and tow if either the towing vessel or the vessel being towed has an overall length of 70 m or more, regardless of the length of tow. Specified areas in which designated ships must carry a licensed pilot when they are transiting through (see Figure 21) are: • the Inner Route of the GBR between Cape York and the vicinity of Cairns Roads; • Hydrographers Passage; • the Whitsundays; • Torres Strait – Great North Eastern Channel (although only regulated ships with a draught of 8 m or more require pilotage within Torres Strait Compulsory Pilotage Area A). Note that bulk carriers and other trading ships do not normally transit through the Whitsundays, with this area more typically the domain of passenger ships. Pilotage is not required in either Palm Passage or Grafton Passage. Given the significant distances involved, both Reef and port pilots are often transferred to/from ships by helicopter. The waters of the northern portion of the GBR, particularly north of Cairns, are recognised as being confined, shallow and subject to strong tidal influences. Statistically, a significant reduction in incidents has been recorded since the introduction of compulsory pilotage in these northern portions of the GBR and Torres Strait. Other portions of the GBR, such as the Capricorn Channel, are relatively open and not as complex in terms of navigation, and are not considered to warrant the imposition of mandatory pilotage (AMSA 2010a).

The extension of coastal pilotage areas presents significant challenges in terms of logistics, administration and human resources. Existing pilotage regimes within the GBR require effective fatigue management and any extension of GBR pilotage areas would need to consider the availability of licensed pilots (where a skill shortage exists), and logistics requirements (e.g. long range helicopters, boats and shore-support facilities). AMSA (2010a) concluded that given the recognised infrastructure and resource constraints, skill shortages and the relatively open waters, the extension of compulsory coastal pilotage areas in the GBR may not be the most effective means to mitigate the risk of groundings in the relatively open waters of the southern portions of the GBR.

5.14 Designated Shipping Areas The GBRMPA has established Designated Shipping Areas (see Figure 22) and General Use Zones within the GBRMP as a component of the Zoning Plan. Ship operators may only operate outside of these areas in accordance with the conditions of a prior-issued permit from GBRMPA, with penalties of up $5.5 million applying for non-conforming ships. Ships to which the rules governing Designated Shipping Areas apply are: • all vessels 50 m or more in overall length (except for super yachts and Defence Force vessels); • oil tankers, regardless of length; • chemical carriers and liquefied gas carriers, regardless of length; • a ship to which the IMO Irradiated Nuclear Fuel (INF) Code applies, regardless of its length; • a vessel that is adapted to carry oil or chemicals in bulk in cargo spaces; and • vessels engaged in towing or pushing another vessel or vessels if any of above applies to the towed or pushed vessel, or the total length of the tow, from the stern of the towing vessel to the after end of the tow, is more than 150 m.

R1212 52

GBR Shipping Study

(GBRMPA 2009) Figure 22: Designated Shipping Areas in the GBR

R1212 53

GBR Shipping Study

5.15 Standard Route Plans and Traffic Management Schemes AMSA and MSQ have promulgated three standard route plans for ships transiting the REEFVTS Area by the Inner Route between Booby and Sandy Cape. The route plan applies in either direction of the transit and also applies to any portion of the Inner Route. A traffic separation scheme is in operation around Princess Charlotte Bay, north of Cairns. This scheme is centred upon the designation of a two-way route, increasing the separation between ships travelling in different directions.

5.16 Compulsory Pollution Reporting Under MARPOL and other IMO and national instruments, ships are required to report pollution incidents within the GBR, including: • the release of any quantity of oil (including lubricants and all types of marine fuels); • any discharge from a ship of chemicals or chemical residues; or • the disposal to sea of any garbage (food waste, glass, plastic, etc). AMSA also provides facilities for other agencies and individuals to report alleged or observed incidents of ship-sourced pollution.

5.17 Oil and Chemical Spill Response Standing arrangements for dealing in an effective, expeditious manner to any oil or chemical spill in the GBR region exist under the aegis of the Australian National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil and Other Noxious and Hazardous Substances (i.e. 'the National Plan'). The National Plan is an integrated Commonwealth and States/NT Government and industry organisational framework enabling coordinated, effective response to marine pollution incidents. The National Plan is administered by AMSA, working in conjunction with State/NT agencies and the shipping, oil, exploration and chemical industries, to maximise Australia's marine pollution response capability. Elements of the National Plan include: • periodic risk assessments and vulnerability analyses to determine key contingency management requirements; • coastal and marine vulnerability analysis and mapping, to determine spill response priorities; • oil spill and chemical spill trajectory modelling; • strategic stockpiles of spill response equipment and consumables, as determined by the risk analyses; • provision of emergency towing arrangements (see Section 5.17) and other spill response assets; • oil and chemical spill response procedures; and • training and exercises. The National Plan links with Queensland State-wide and regional measures via the Queensland Coastal Contingency Action Plan (QCCAP) (DTMR 2011a), which is overseen by MSQ. The QCCAP specifically addresses the waters of the GBR and the Torres Strait region. The QCCAP includes First- Strike Response Plans for individual Queensland ports and key marine areas, as well as the Queensland Oiled Wildlife Response Plan.

R1212 54

GBR Shipping Study

Oil and chemical spill management contingency measures in the GBR are provided by both Commonwealth and Queensland agencies. Oil and chemical spill response assets are pre-positioned at a number of ports in the GBR region, with stockpiles of National Plan equipment at Cairns and Townsville, and nearby in Brisbane. The type of equipment held at these stockpiles can be generally classified into the following categories (Julie Halley, AMSA pers. comm., 12 June 2012): Booms Dispersant spraying systems • shoreline • helibuckets • general purpose • vessel spray systems • offshore • waste oil storage Skimming units • shore based • light capacity • water based • medium capacity Dispersant sweep systems • heavy capacity • NOFI Current Busters • Marco skimming vessels

The stockpiles established and maintained under the National Plan are augmented by other spill response equipment and stores provided by Queensland State agencies, at ports throughout the GBR (see Figure 23).

R1212 55

GBR Shipping Study

(DTMR 2011a) Figure 23: Queensland Spill Response Stockpiles

R1212 56

GBR Shipping Study

5.18 Emergency Towage Emergency towage is a system of standing response arrangements to be initiated to provide timely assistance at short-notice to a ship that is incapacitated and/or drifting, and is in danger of grounding, sinking or of experiencing some other adverse situation. Emergency towage is intended to safeguard life at sea and to prevent or minimise the extent of any consequential marine pollution. Under AMSA arrangements, suitable Emergency Towage Vessels (ETVs) are strategically located in selected Australian coastal regions, with dispositions made on the basis of risk analyses. This includes a dedicated charter vessel based in Cairns, focused upon providing emergency towage and first response capability in the Torres Strait and GBR area north of Cairns/Mourilyan. The ongoing availability of emergency towage capability for the remaining areas around the Australian coastline, including other sections of the GBR, is furnished by suitable towage vessels with appropriately trained crews available under contract to AMSA.

5.19 Aviation Response Assets To further aid in emergency response in the GBR region, AMSA has a specialist aircraft permanently based in Cairns, with another in Brisbane. These are two of the five Dornier 328-120 turboprop aircraft operated by AMSA around Australia. These aircraft have a range of 2500 km and are equipped for a range of maritime incident response tasks. Specialist mission equipment includes maritime search radar and forward looking infrared system (FLIR), and a comprehensive communications system (AMSA 2007). In terms of marine pollution response, these aircraft can be used for reconnaissance and assessment, on-scene coordination and surveillance and tracking (e.g. of an oil plume). Standing arrangements are also in place for the activation of aircraft to be employed in the aerial delivery of dispersants in the case of oil spill.

5.20 GBR Ship Information Both AMSA and MSQ provide ship operators with specific information concerning the safe and environmentally responsible operation of ships specifically within the GBR region, as well as in relation to pertinent general maritime information. These publications are usually available both in hardcopy and via the internet, and are regularly updated. Examples of these publications include, inter alia : • Great Barrier Reef & Torres Strait Vessel Traffic Service (REEFVTS): User Guide, July 2011 • AUSREP Ship Reporting Instructions for the Australian Area: 2011 Edition • Fact Sheet: Ship Pollution Regulations • Fact Sheet: Strengthening the Protection of the Great Barrier Reef • Waste Reception Facilities in Australian and New Zealand Ports

5.21 GBR Port Rules In common with modern commercial port management practices, ports in the GBR region provide concise and consolidated publications, typically termed 'port guides' for the information of visiting ships and other port users and service providers.

R1212 57

GBR Shipping Study

These guides typically reinforce and translate wider-GBR ship management requirements into a local context, and also provide guidance on local procedures and any port-specific requirements. Issues addressed in these port guides include, but are not limited to: • pilotage requirements • waste disposal • anchoring • readiness for sea • bunkering • quarantine and Customs procedures

R1212 58

GBR Shipping Study

6. Projected Future Shipping Activities in the GBR 6.1 Background To assist in the evaluation of shipping environmental impacts it is necessary to understand the current and the future likely shipping volumes and patterns within the GBR. In recent times a number of organisations and commentators have published estimates of shipping numbers for the GBR; it is critical when assessing the potential risks and impacts from shipping that all effort is made to use a sound and realistic forecasting methodology. In conjunction with, the Queensland Ports Association (QPA) and the Queensland Resources Council (QRC) it was determined that detailed shipping forecasts should be prepared to provide a greater understanding of possible shipping trends within the GBR region through to the year 2032. The 20 year planning horizon was determined to be appropriate as: • it is consistent with broader strategic planning principles used throughout government; • most projects currently contemplated along the Queensland coast are within a 20 year period; and • accuracy of data would inevitably decline past a 20 year horizon. The broader shipping forecast work was undertaken with the full cooperation of all Queensland ports. Further, MSQ, AMSA, GBRMPA, QRC and SEWPaC were also briefed and offered support for the detailed analysis.

6.2 Methodology During March-April 2012, GBR ports were requested to provide commercial shipping forecasts for all vessel types 10 over the forthcoming 20 year period. Ports were requested to split forecasts into three categories as indicated in Table 6.

Table 6: Shipping Forecast Categories

Project Category Description of Data Set Existing projects/operations + sanctioned projects: financial and all ‘Confirmed’ major environmental planning approvals in place and construction underway ‘Probable’ ‘Confirmed’ + those future projects with port allocations determined Collective sum of all projects ( ‘confirmed’ , ‘probable’ + all projects ‘Theoretical Maximum’ in public realm) – i.e. the ‘full growth scenario’

Preparation of shipping forecasts must consider a range of historical and contemporary market, economic and industry factors in the overall analysis. Typical applications for environmental/regulatory approvals tend to be based on a ‘full growth scenario’ (required for environmental impact assessment and emission modelling purposes). Ship call projections under this assessment are based on the ‘probable’ case - as this was deemed to be the most appropriate to be used for forward planning and management purposes by noting the greater likelihood of actual realisation of these forecasts compared to those contemplated under the ‘theoretical full growth scenario’. This approach has been validated against historical trends combined

10 ‘All vessel types ’ includes all commercial trading vessels, but does not include port service vessels (e.g. tugs, pilot boats, line handling boats, etc).

R1212 59

GBR Shipping Study

with industry and government forecasts of commodity export growth, particularly coal exports as this commodity contributes over 50% of the current and projected future export trade from GBR ports. This forecast is based on data supplied by GBR ports and validated against a number of recent Government and industry export volume forecasts, including those by the Commonwealth Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE) published in 2012. However, as eventuated in the latter part of 2012, market forces, changing economic circumstances and cost factors greatly influence the export volumes and thus shipping trade that will ultimately eventuate. Appropriately for a risk assessment analysis, this study has used what may be considered an upper end and probably highly optimistic forecast. The actual number of vessels may well be lower than this forecast. Accordingly, it is recommended that forecasts be revised on a periodic basis to ensure planning and management is realistic.

6.3 Data Sources and Reliability Forecasting future shipping numbers in and around Queensland ports is an extremely challenging task, given the timescale involved, uncertain global economic influences, nature of project realization within the GBR region and the wide variance in ship types (and sizes) likely to be calling at GBR ports into the future. It is expected, for example, that over time the percentage of Panamax vessels (up to around 90 000 DWT) and Capesize vessels (upwards of 90 000 DWT, but typically around 100 000 DWT to 250 000 DWT) will increase leading to greater efficiencies in overall shipping movements (i.e. reduced ship movements per tonne of cargo carried). The influence of increasing average export parcel sizes is shown in Table 7.

Table 7: Average Export Parcel Sizes and Influence on Ship Numbers Average Export Tonnage No of Ships / 1 000 000 Tonnes Cargo (tonnes per ship) 85 000 11.8 90 000 11.1 95 000 10.5 100 000 10.0 110 000 9.1 120 000 8.3 130 000 7.7

The trend towards larger vessels is typical throughout the industry as chartering prices for larger vessels reduce simultaneous with an increase in the number of new build orders for larger vessels. In terms of impact on overall ship numbers, using an example export volume of 20 Mtpa, Table 8 shows the variation in ship numbers possible due to a change in average ship size.

R1212 60

GBR Shipping Study

Table 8: Example Export Volume and Effect Upon Average Export Parcel/Ship Example Export Volume Average Export Volume No. of Ships (Tonnes per Ship) 20 Mtpa 85 000 235 20 Mtpa 90 000 222 20 Mtpa 95 000 211 20 Mtpa 100 000 200 20 Mtpa 110 000 182 20 Mtpa 120 000 167 20 Mtpa 130 000 154

Data used for the purposes of this review were sourced from various port authorities after application of commonly used forecasting techniques (including the use of forecast tonnages in forward years, and estimated future average ship sizes) – and an analysis of historical industry-wide trends. The data provided by the various Queensland port managers have been derived from the most accurate and reliable information available at the time of calculation and relate to best understood forward commodity trading patterns. Some data used in the forecasting process are commercially sensitive and have not been provided in this report – for example, throughput estimates for individual terminals. It should be noted that ship forecasts are subject to uncertain and fluctuating underlying economic conditions and likely industry changes within the next 20 years, including changes in average ship size (other than a general assumption that average size will increase). These forecasts are therefore subject to constant change and it would be considered prudent to monitor and periodically review ship numbers and their average sizes within the GBR region.

6.4 Shipping Projections – All Vessels at GBR Ports Table 9 presents a summary of the projected increase in shipping traffic at the 11 GBR trading ports (i.e. those within the GBRMP and GBRWHA). These projections are based on the data received from the individual port authorities following a comprehensive assessment of proposed developments, and the combination of factors detailed in Section 6.5, including Australian and Queensland historical export trends and the national capacity to service major projects of this size within the time horizon of this study.

Table 9: Ship Projections at GBR Ports: All Vessels, 2012-2032* GBR Ports - All Vessels 2012 # 2017 2020 2025 2032

Abbot Point 174 336 808 1360 1640 Cairns 342 388 408 445 501 Cape Flattery 30 44 45 45 45

Gladstone 1453 2397 2823 3021 3029

Hay Point 809 1258 1513 2082 2380 Lucinda 1 21 21 21 21

R1212 61

GBR Shipping Study

GBR Ports - All Vessels 2012 # 2017 2020 2025 2032

Mackay 216 259 305 333 333 Mourilyan 27 26 26 26 26 Port Alma 121 190 460 845 921 Quintell Beach 21 40 40 40 40

Townsville 753 912 999 1025 1161 OVERALL 3947 5871 7448 9243 10097

*Data presented at end of financial year. # 2012 data 'actuals', as provided by GBR Ports (Primary Data Sources: GBR Port Authorities/Corporations) The data reveal, based on the Queensland port industry forecasts, the compounding annual growth rate (CAGR) over the period 2012-2032 forward period for all vessels calling at GBR ports is approximately 4-5%, as shown in Figure 24.

(Primary Data Sources: Port Authorities/Corporations) Figure 24: GBR Ports Shipping Forecasts ‘Probable Case’, 2012-2032: All Vessels

6.5 Shipping Projections – Coal Vessels at GBR Ports 6.5.1 Background Projections were also specifically developed for coal export vessels over the period to 2032, predicated upon existing coal export operations and those either under development or proposed. It is crucial that projected levels of shipping activity in the GBR region be treated and considered in a rational and realistic manner when assessing potential environmental threats and associated management priorities.

R1212 62

GBR Shipping Study

Shipping projections simply derived from an 'estimate' of future shipping numbers by merely aggregating the highest possible forecast shipping numbers of all proposed new GBR port developments and expansions (i.e. the ‘theoretical full growth scenario’) are unlikely to be correct. Such forecasts do not match historical growth trends and, importantly, underlying global demand for various commodities (including the various types of coal [thermal and metallurgical]). They also potentially dismiss the constraints and limitations and other realities of port and minerals developments and operations, and therefore represent a highly unlikely outcome in a practical sense, given: • historical coal export volumes - and likely forward trends (see Sections 6.5.2 and 6.5.3); • actual global demand levels and fluctuations due to cyclical economic conditions; • high likelihood of tonnage forecast ‘double-counting’ due to resource companies seeking simultaneous, expedient port allocation and access at several Queensland ports (managed by differing port managers) – the potential ‘access hedging’ effect; • substantial ‘resource’ constraints likely to be encountered by projects (e.g. availability of water, electricity, ancillary infrastructure, labour, capital, etc); • overly ambitious ‘design’ capacities; • assumptions of 100% ‘design’ throughput; • anticipated and extended environmental approval requirements at Commonwealth and State levels; • project development ‘likelihood’ (i.e. it is highly likely that not all projects can, or will be realised); and • a likely change (i.e. increase) in average ship size and individual cargo capacities in future years (thereby potentially reducing forecast overall ship numbers).

6.5.2 Queensland coal exports - historical A review of historical coal export trends reveals a conservative and steady overall growth pattern for Queensland ports: • Over the 13 years from 1999-2012 a CAGR of 4.4% was experienced, from 94 million tonnes to 165 million tonnes (see Figure 25). • Over the past five years (2007-2012) a CAGR of 1.5% was experienced, from 153 million tonnes to 165 million tonnes. It is believed that this low growth rate is closely related to the impact of various natural weather events (e.g. Tropical Cyclone [TC] Yasi and floods in January 2011), industry-related conditions (e.g. industrial action in 2012) and the fluctuating underlying economic conditions throughout the global economy.

R1212 63

GBR Shipping Study

(Primary Data Sources: Ports Australia and Port Authorities) Figure 25: Shipping Forecasts: Historic Queensland Coal Exports, 1998/99 – 2011/12

As a comparison with Australia-wide growth rates, in their 2012 report Australian Bulk Commodity Exports and Infrastructure – Outlook to 2025, BREE state (p. 4): .... from 2001 to 2011, Australian coal exports have increased at an average annual growth rate of 3.9%, from 194 million tonnes in 2000-01 to 284 million tonnes in 2010-11 .

6.5.3 Queensland coal exports - forecasts Despite an historically conservative growth pattern, it is anticipated that moderate growth will occur in Queensland over the next 10 to 15 years. It was considered necessary for the purpose of this report that the growth anticipated by the dedicated port authorities (derived by extrapolating the forecast ship port call numbers) be compared to recent industry and government export forecasts, as summarised below. QRC QRC estimated that future growth will closely follow the long-term growth rate of 6%pa over the forward period, seeing coal exports rise to approximately 318 Mtpa in 2020. BREE BREE (2012) indicated an anticipated average export growth rate (mid range) for thermal and metallurgical coal (combined) of around 5.85% to 2020 with their report stating that Queensland coal exports (combined) are predicted to reach between 301 Mtpa (mid range) and 327 Mtpa (high range) by 2020, and 371 Mtpa (mid range) and 447 Mtpa (high range) by 2025. Queensland Ports Using vessel and trade projections for the primary GBR coal ports for the purposes of this study, total coal export forecast in 2020 is predicted to reach around 360-370 Mtpa. Individual trade volumes may move between these ports and others over this time, depending upon the actual delivery of infrastructure and projects within the GBR area. Additionally, a range of external influences such as global economic trading conditions will also influence these projections.

R1212 64

GBR Shipping Study

The comparison of the above forecast range of the QRC, BREE (mid range) and Queensland GBR regional ports can be seen in Figure 26. This graph therefore presents a ‘band’ of credible coal export forecasts at 2020, based on information from government agencies (BREE – mid range), industry group (QRC – long term average growth rate of 6%) and port industry forecasts (prepared as part of this study) of 301 Mtpa to 369 Mtpa at 2020.

(Data Source : QPA Ports, BREE, QRC) Figure 26: Coal Export Forecast Comparison: 2015-2025

The differences in forecasts are considered acceptable given the highly variable nature of forecasting in the port industry, which is heavily influenced by those factors listed previously. In many respects this range of forecasts could be considered on the high side given the 2011/2012 Financial Year (FY) actual coal export total from Queensland was 165 million tonnes, and that both commodity demand and prices have potentially peaked and are now declining or stabilising. The GBR regional ports forecasts numbers are higher than both BREE and QRC forecasts at 2020. This supports the view that the shipping numbers used in this report are conservative (high side) in terms of potential environmental risks, but rationally based when compared to those from reliable government agencies and leading industry associations.

6.5.4 Queensland coal ships - port call forecasts Using the vessel forecasts provided by each of the Queensland ports, the analysis reveals that a CAGR of approximately 4.8% is anticipated over the 20 year (2012-2032) forward period for all vessels calling at GBR ports. For the same period, a CAGR of approximately 7% is expected for coal vessels (see Figure 27), which is understandable given the bulk of growth likely to occur in Queensland ports is related to coal.

R1212 65

GBR Shipping Study

(Primary Data Sources: Port Authorities/Corporations) Figure 27: Comparison: All v Coal Vessels at GBR Ports: 2012-2032 Table 10 shows the forecast comparison of coal v all vessel types in the forward period to 2032. Coal vessels are predicted to increase from 42% of all vessels in 2012 (actual numbers) to 65% of all vessels by 2032.

Table 10: Comparison: Coal Vessels v All Vessels: 2012-2032 GBR Port Ship Calls 2012 2017 2020 2025 2032 Coal Vessels 1649 2899 4247 5922 6576 All Vessels 3947 5781 7448 9243 10097 Coal Vessels as a % of total 42% 49% 57% 64% 65%

6.6 Individual Major GBR Ports - Specific Commentary 6.6.1 Port of Cairns (Ports North) In 2011 the Port of Cairns facilitated around 1 million tonnes of trade (DTMR 2012d). Discussions with Ports North (Far North Queensland Ports Corporation [FNQPC]) have indicated that ship calls in 2012 were approximately 342, using a similar measurement to other GBR ports. Some Ports North data have historically included a large number of localised/domestic vessel ‘calls’, however for the purpose of this study, the ship call numbers relate to commercial trading vessels (import/export) and cruise vessels calling at the port. Detailed analysis of the Port of Cairns shipping forecasts indicate an increase in general cargo ships and cruise liners, as depicted in Figure 28. The forecast CAGR over the 2012-2032, under the currently understood development scenario, equates to approximately 2%.

R1212 66

GBR Shipping Study

(Primary Data Source: Ports North) Figure 28: Port of Cairns Ship Forecasts, 2012-2032: All Vessels

6.6.2 Port of Townsville Total trade through the Port of Townsville increased 3.4% to reach a record 10.60 million tonnes for the 2010/2011 FY (Port of Townsville [PoTL] 2011). Approximately 675 trading vessels called at the port during 2011. Recent advice from the port has indicated 753 commercial vessel calls in the 2011/2012 FY. As of 2012 the Port had several major projects underway (Berths 8, 10 and 12) and was engaged in major environmental assessment project for a port expansion project involving the reclamation of approximately 100 hectares of seabed for future port developments. The projections contained in this report assume these projects will proceed. The port enunciated a target of tripling total trade (total tonnes) over the 20 year period to 2032 (Port of Townsville 2011). This growth is expected to see only a moderate increase in shipping numbers over the next 20 year period (approx. 753 to 1161 vessel calls), as a large portion of increased tonnage will be undertaken by larger bulk carriers due to the nature of dominant port cargoes (current and likely future bulk trades). Figure 29 highlights this increase. The forecast CAGR over the 2012-2032 period equates to around 2%.

R1212 67

GBR Shipping Study

(Primary Data Source: Port of Townsville) Figure 29: Port of Townsville Ship Forecasts, 2012-2032: All Vessels

6.6.3 Port of Abbot Point Abbot Point is Australia’s most northerly coal port and is administered by North Queensland Bulk Ports (NQBP). In 2011 the Port of Abbot Point facilitated the export of around 15 million tonnes of coal (DTMR 2012d). Approximately 190 vessels called at the port in 2011. Advice from NQBP indicates throughput of around 13.6 million tonnes and 174 vessel calls in the 2011/2012 FY with the slight downturn due to softening underlying economic conditions and a lagging recovery from natural events in early 2011 (e.g. TC Yasi). Several major terminal projects are planned for Abbot Point as shown in Table 11. In May 2012, the Queensland Government announced that the Multi-Cargo Facility and proposed Terminals 4-9 would not proceed. Table 9 outlines the proposed developments for the Port of Abbot Point, which have allocated port access. An array of associated infrastructure projects (heavy rail, road and dredging activities etc) are also planned for the port environs in support of the proposed terminal developments.

Table 11: Proposed Terminal Developments – Port of Abbot Point Development Proposal

T0 – Adani Mining Ltd Coal export terminal for 35 Mtpa (potential future capacity of 70Mtpa) T2 – BHP Billiton Coal export terminal for 60 Mtpa T3 – Hancock Coal Coal export terminal for 60 Mtpa

NQBP have provided ship forecast data for the port, which are based on a review of proposed developments, and the combination of factors listed in Section 6.5.1, including the historical trends of coal exports in Australia and the capacity to service major projects of this size in this region. The shipping forecasts are shown in Figure 30. The forecast CAGR over the 2012-2032 forward period equates to around 11%.

R1212 68

GBR Shipping Study

(Primary Data Source: North Queensland Bulk Ports) Figure 30: Port of Abbot Point Ship Forecasts, 2012-2032: All Vessels

The potential mix of ships predicted to call on Abbot Point in the near to mid-term is likely to comprise 11 : • Handymax: 40 000-60 000 DWT (Average 52 000 DWT) - 15% to 25% of ships. • Panamax: 60 000-90 000 DWT (Average 80 000 DWT) - 45% to 55% of ships. • Small Capesize: 90 000-130 000 DWT (Average 100 000 DWT) - 10% to 15% of ships. • Capesize: 130 000-180 000 DWT (Average 150 000 DWT) - 10% to 15% of ships. • Large Capesize: 180 000-220 000 DWT (Average 200 000 DWT) - 4% to 8% of ships.

Average parcel export size was around 80 000 tonnes in 2011. In terms of possible future terminal development at Abbot Point (beyond Terminals 0-3), it is unknown at the time of preparation of this report what form of development may be considered. Using similar assumptions to the current Abbot Point forecast assessment it would be reasonable to assume that if any new terminals were proposed, the following shipping call projections could be used as a general guide: • 30 Mtpa terminal with associated offshore infrastructure 240 ships/annum • 60 Mtpa terminal with associated offshore infrastructure 480 ships/annum

6.6.4 Port of Hay Point Hay Point is currently one of Australia’s largest coal export ports with the export of around 82 Mtpa of coal in 2012 (NQBP 2012), with 809 ship calls. The Port of Hay Point includes the following terminal operators:

11 These estimates are intended as a guide only, with accurate projections contingent upon greater certainty of actual terminal operation information, including likely ship mix and other operational factors.

R1212 69

GBR Shipping Study

• Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal (DBCT), with an approved design capacity of 85 Mtpa. 2011/2012 throughput was around 50 million tonnes. • Hay Point Coal Terminal (HPCT), with a design capacity of 45 Mtpa and being expanded to accommodate an additional 10 Mtpa). 2011/2012 throughput was around 32 million tonnes. The slight downturn in trade for the 2011/2012 FY was in part due to similar reasons to those experienced at Abbot Point – a general softening of underlying economic conditions and a lagging recovery from natural events in early 2011 (e.g. Queensland floods and TC Yasi). Major terminal projects are planned for the Port of Hay Point, in particular at the neighbouring Dudgeon Point site. The addition of 180 Mtpa export capacity at Dudgeon Point would bring the total combined export capacity to over 300 Mtpa at the Port of Hay Point. NQBP have provided ship forecast data for the port, which are based on a review of proposed developments, and the combination of factors listed in Section 6.5, including the historical trends of coal exports in Australia and the capacity to service major projects of this size in this region. The shipping forecasts are shown in Figure 31.

(Primary Data Source: North Queensland Bulk Ports) Figure 31: Port of Hay Point Ship Forecasts, 2012-2032: All Vessels

Whilst natural growth from the existing DBCT and HPCT (including completion of approved expansion projects at Hay Point) will occur over time, the additional throughput at the Port of Hay Point from the proposed Dudgeon Point Coal Terminal (DPCT) becomes evident from the years 2018 onwards. The forecast CAGR over the 2012-2032 forward period equates to around 5-6%.

6.6.5 Port of Gladstone The Port of Gladstone is a major, mixed-use bulk port located on the mid coast of Queensland at the southern end of the GBRMP area. Total trade through the Port of Gladstone in 2011 was 76.4 million tonnes (DTMR 2012d) with approximately 1300 associated ship calls. Advice from the Gladstone Ports Corporation (GPC) indicates throughput of around 84 million tonnes and 1450 vessel calls in the 2011/2012 FY.

R1212 70

GBR Shipping Study

Several major developments are proposed for the port, particularly liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments on Curtis Island and coal industry proposals for the mainland including the Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal (WICET). Forecasts for the Port of Gladstone are shown in Figure 32, including a breakdown of anticipated ‘Coal’ and ‘LNG/Chemical’ vessels as proportions of total ship calls. Under these forecasts, LNG vessels are likely to increase on average around 6-7% per year over the 20 year period, whilst coal ships are likely to increase on average at around 4-5% per year over the same period. The forecast CAGR over the 2012-2032 forward period for all vessel types equates to around 3-4%.

(Primary Data Source: Gladstone Ports Corporation) Figure 32: Port of Gladstone Ship Forecasts, 2012-2032: All Vessels

6.6.6 Port Alma Port Alma is a mixed-use bulk port located on the Fitzroy River catchment, close to the regional town of Rockhampton. GPC has targeted the Port Alma Shipping Terminal for the import and export of niche market products including ammonium nitrate, explosives, general cargo, salt, frozen beef, tallow and scrap metal (DTMR 2012d). Total trade through Port Alma in 2011 was 325 000 tonnes (DTMR 2012d). Two significant proposals are earmarked for the Port – the Balaclava Island Coal Terminal and the Fitzroy River Terminal. The forecast CAGR over the 2012-2032 period equates to around 10%. Forecasts for Port Alma are shown in Figure 33.

R1212 71

GBR Shipping Study

(Primary Data Source: Gladstone Ports Corporation) Figure 33: Port Alma Ship Forecasts, 2012-2032: All Vessels

6.6.7 Summary Table 12 summarises the anticipated CAGR for each major GBR port over the 20 year period to 2032 (all vessels).

Table 12: CAGR – Major GBR Ports: 2012-2032 Cairns Townsville Abbot Point Hay Point Gladstone Port Alma CAGR 2% 2% 11% 5 - 6% 3 - 4% 10% 2013-2032

Ports with growth over 10% are, as expected, those with very low base trading volumes at 2011/2012 (i.e. Abbot Point and Port Alma). The results of the forecasting analysis can be summarised as follows: • Preparation of shipping forecasts must consider a range of historical and contemporary market, economic and development industry factors in the overall analysis. Typical applications for environmental/regulatory approvals tend to be based on a ‘full growth scenario’ (required for environmental impact assessment and emission modelling purposes). • Ship port call projections under this assessment are based on the ‘probable’ case - as this was deemed to be the most appropriate to be used for forward planning and management purposes, noting the greater likelihood of actual realisation of these forecasts compared to those contemplated under the ‘theoretical full growth scenario’. • Shipping projections simply derived from an 'estimate' of future shipping numbers by merely aggregating the highest possible forecast shipping numbers of all proposed new GBR port developments and expansions are unlikely to be correct. Such forecasts do not match historical growth trends and importantly, underlying global demand for various commodities and fluctuations in that demand. They also potentially dismiss the constraints and limitations and other realities of port and mineral developments and operations. • Using the Queensland port industry vessel forecasts, the analysis reveals that a CAGR of approximately 4.8% is anticipated over the 20 year (2012-2032) forward period for all vessels

R1212 72

GBR Shipping Study

calling at GBR ports. For the same period, a CAGR of approximately 7% is expected for coal vessels. • A ‘band’ of credible coal export forecasts is evident at 2020 based on information from government agencies (BREE – mid range), industry group (QRC – long term average growth rate of 6%) and port industry forecasts (prepared as part of this study using current export parcel sizes) of between 301 Mtpa to 369 Mtpa at 2020. • These forecasts are subject to change and should be reviewed biennially to ‘track’ the actual path of growth across all GBR ports. This review should closely monitor: changes in shipping trends (for example, average vessel size increases), underlying global economic influences, industry operational issues and project realisation along the Queensland coastal environment. Consideration of shipping forecasts is just one factor in the overall management of commercial shipping through the GBR and should be considered in this context.

R1212 73

GBR Shipping Study

R1212 74

GBR Shipping Study

7. Potential Environmental Effects of Shipping and their Management 7.1 Introduction This Section presents an overview and analysis of the various routine, unavoidable and atypical environmental risks from ships and ship operations, and their associated management measures. This analysis is conducted within the framework of existing and known future regulations and standard risk mitigation measures. Equally, it is conducted within the context of current and future shipping within the GBR region, with particular focus upon bulk carriers, noting that they constitute a significant proportion of ship movements and the major scope for increased shipping activity.

7.2 Routine Discharges, Emissions and Activities Ships underway or at anchor will act as the source for a range of unavoidable emissions, such as engine exhaust gases, biocide leachate from AFCs, effluent from sewage treatment plants and oily water filtering systems, and radiated underwater noise, as depicted in Figure 34. Routine operations also generate waste streams such as garbage and oily wastes. In accordance with MARPOL and other regulations, no deliberate waste disposal discharges or emissions (e.g. garbage, hold washings, untreated sewage, untreated oily wastes) are permitted from ships in the GBR.

Figure 34: Summary of Routine and/or Unavoidable Discharges and Emissions from Ships

Unless the ship is very badly maintained and/or operated and represents a significant departure from the certification and performance requirements of the applicable classification society and Port and Flag State authorities, none of the standard, essentially unavoidable ship emissions, such as engine exhausts and AFC biocide leachate, is likely to occasion any substantive environmental harm.

R1212 75

GBR Shipping Study

7.2.1 Routine navigation and pilotage Routine navigation and pilotage by ships transiting through the GBR region, presents very low direct environmental risk. Arguably, ships which traverse the GBR region occasion no significant environmental hazard, but do present latent threat which would typically manifest in the event of whale strike, collision, grounding, or structural failure, or possibly in the event of other maritime casualty such as onboard fire. These are all 'atypical', albeit plausible, events, and thus are not indicative of 'routine' shipping activities. These maritime casualty issues are addressed further in Section 7.3. A large number of ships of a wide range of sizes and varieties, including small and large bulk carriers, have been navigating through the GBR region for over 50 years with minimal adverse environmental outcomes. These transits routinely include large bulk carriers in excess of 100 000 DWT, as depicted in Figure 35.

Figure 35: GBR Bulk Carrier Traffic, Including Bulk Carriers in Excess of 100 000 DWT, 2006, 2008 and 2010

It is expected that there will be a greater proportion of bigger (e.g. Post-Panamax and more and larger Capesize) ships conveying coal and other commodities from GBR ports in the future compared with the situation as of 2012. The upshot of this is that the anticipated rate of increase of commodity exports from GBR ports will not be matched with a commensurate linear increase in the number of ships due to the ability of larger ships to handle more cargo per vessel. While there will be more vessels to handle the increased volume of cargo, the vessels themselves will be larger and more efficient. This has implications for associated environmental risks and imposts, noting that this will also result in a proportionate reduction in the rate of increase of ship-sourced discharges and emissions (e.g. treated wastewater, diesel exhausts, AFC leachate, ballast water) and fewer transits of hulls (i.e. proportionately lowering the use of anchorages and also collision and grounding risks).

R1212 76

GBR Shipping Study

To assist safe navigation, ships have a range of sensors, data sources and decision support tools. These include charts (e.g. ENCs), ECDIS, GPS and other position fixing devices, echo sounders (to measure depth of water), and radar. The advent of REEFVTS, with its active monitoring of ship movements permitting timely intervention in the event of a potential ship-grounding incident, has significantly reduced the incidence of ship grounding in the GBR region. As depicted in Figure 36, before the introduction of REEFVTS in 2004, the average rate of grounding incidence for ships 12 in the GBR region was 1.0 per annum, with three alone in 1997. By comparison, only one grounding occurred in the period 2004 to 2009, generating an average incidence of 0.16 groundings per annum. It is salient to note the number of REEFVTS interventions over the same period, suggesting that more groundings may have occurred in the absence of REEFVTS oversight.

(interpreted from AMSA 2010a) Figure 36: GBR Ship Groundings Before and After Introduction of REEFVTS

The single ship grounding which has occurred within an area under the aegis of REEFVTS was that of the products tanker Atlantic Blue on 7 February 2009. This grounding occurred on a sandy shoal at Kirkcaldie Reef in the Torres Strait. The hull remained intact and there was no pollution, and the ship refloated on the flooding tide within a few hours of the grounding. It is notable that this incident occurred while the ship was under pilotage, and that the investigation found that the ship grounded due to the inadequacies of actions taken by the bridge team (ATSB 2010). The most notable GBR ship grounding incident in recent years was that of Shen Neng 1, in April 2010. It is important to note that this occurred in a location not then covered by REEFVTS, with one of the outcomes of this incident being the extension of the REEFVTS coverage area to all of the GBR - this incident is addressed in more detail in Section 7.3.1.

12 Note, this refers to 'ship' groundings, taken to be those vessels subject to REEFVTS reporting obligations, and does not include other vessel groundings which may have occurred in the GBR, such as small tourist and private pleasure craft.

R1212 77

GBR Shipping Study

7.2.2 Refuelling and oil transfer Ships require to periodically refuel, otherwise referred to as 'bunkering'. This is normally achieved via the transfer of fuel from a fuel lighter (i.e. specialist barge or small ship), or from wharf couplings. It should be noted that large ships such as bulk carriers do not require to refuel at each port of call by dint of their large capacity tanks and hence long ranges. Small vessels, such as harbour craft, do need to refuel more regularly, with this typically conducted at or near their primary operating and support location. The internal transfer of oil within ships can also result in loss to the marine environment as a result of operator error, incorrect alignment of valves, overfilling of tanks or similar; loss as a result of ship internal oil transfers has been identified as a plausible oil spill scenario in GBR ports (DTMR 2011a). Ship refuelling carries with it the risk of oil spill during transfer, variously as a result of a failure of hoses or couplings, incorrect alignment of valves such that fuel is directed to the deck or overboard, or in the event that a tank is overfilled and vents the excess fuel. Refuelling incidents are one of the more common causes of loss of oil to the marine environment (e.g. the oil spill in the Brisbane River on 23 January 2012, during refuelling of the ship GL Lan Xiu ). Oil spill risks are mitigated by the provision of various risk reduction and response measures, such as the use of oil containment booms and the on-site availability of spill containment and clean-up equipment, as well as port, ship and oil provider spill contingency plans. Most GBR ports do not have the facilities to provide ship-refuelling services, with these limited to the larger ports of Townsville, Cairns, Gladstone and Mackay (although HFO is not available from Mackay). None of the GBR coal export-specific ports, including Abbot Point and Hay Point, have ship bunkering facilities.

7.2.3 Garbage Garbage is generated in ships as an inevitable consequence of the operation and routine maintenance of the ship and the sustenance of those onboard (i.e. crew, and passengers if carried). Much of the garbage generated in ships is analogous to that generated in residential premises, offices and light industrial workshops. A ship's garbage stream contains domestic wastes such as food and associated packaging, paper, cardboard, disposable products and other consumer items, light industrial wastes such as metal scrap, timber, packing materials, containers and consumable workshop items. The amount of garbage produced is generally a function of the number of people onboard and the duration of the voyage. Food waste and associated packaging forms a significant proportion of the garbage generated in most ships. Of particular import for Australian ports, food waste and food contaminated packaging materials, if landed ashore, is treated as quarantine waste, requiring special handling and disposal. Some garbage generated in vessels is of a hazardous or noxious nature, including dry and wet cell batteries, pressure pack containers, medical and sanitary waste items, and receptacles containing residues of substances such as greases, oils, solvents, paints, adhesives and engine additives. Considering that bulk carrier crews are typically small, the total amount of garbage generated in ships of this type is limited, and likely to be of the order of only around 50 to 80 kg/day in total, not including machinery wastes. Garbage in ships is typically segregated as required into separate waste streams and either treated and disposed to sea (as permitted) or retained onboard for transfer to shore for recycling or disposal. Many modern merchant ships have incinerators, permitting thermal reduction of most components of the typical ship-generated garbage stream without the need for disposal to sea or transfer to shore. The disposal to sea of garbage from ships in the GBR region is not permitted under international and national laws. Compliance is understood to be good, and thus ship-generated garbage does not present

R1212 78

GBR Shipping Study

as any tangible threat to the environmental integrity of the GBR, assuming applicable regulations are observed. The avoidance of the disposal to sea of garbage from ships anchored off GBR ports is predicated upon ships being able to hold and/or dispose of onboard (e.g. by incineration) the garbage generated, including food wastes. Should this not be the case, such that extended anchorage times were incompatible with the garbage management capacities of the subject ships, then appropriate garbage collection (e.g. lighter), transfer and disposal facilities and services would need to be provided, including adequate provision for the correct management of hazardous wastes and wastes subject to quarantine controls. Any dependency of ships upon shore reception facilities for garbage is likely to be exacerbated by the new MARPOL Annex V requirements to be imposed from 2013 onwards (see Appendix B), as many ships will likely arrive at ports with more garbage stowed onboard than compared with when disposal to sea of inert and environmentally non-persistent garbage was permitted.

7.2.4 Cargo loading/unloading, residues and hold washings Cargo residues are generated from the loading of excess material, spillage, and residues generated during unloading. In addition to cargo-generated wastes, ships periodically clean their holds, as may be required for maintenance and inspection or when changing from one cargo to another where cross- contamination needs to be avoided or where accumulated 'fines' may need to be removed. This may be less of a consideration for ships which only carry one form of cargo (e.g. thermal coal), or where cross-contamination from previous cargoes is of lesser importance. Many cargoes, particularly dry bulk commodities such as coal, invariably generate dust, spillages and windage losses during loading or unloading. With modern cargo-handling facilities these spillages and other losses are reduced and largely confined to the ship and wharf, with losses to the sea minimised. Operational procedures, such as wind speed restrictions on certain loading or unloading operations, also minimise losses. Further to the requirements of the ISMBC Code, AMSA (2012) has issued additional guidance for the handling of bulk cargoes in ports. Furthermore, dependent upon factors such as the nature of the bulk cargo and the method of loading, the port of loading/unloading may stipulate additional cargo handling requirements, such as: • adoption of measures to prevent residues being washed overboard during, or in preparation for, precipitation events; • the containment of any contaminated water so as to avoid release into the environment; • not conducting loading/unloading operations in windy conditions so as to prevent dust being carried into the environment; and • arrangements during loading/unloading to minimise spillage and the return of any spillage to the ship's hold or port as appropriate. In terms of marine environment protection, AMSA (2012) also indicates that appropriate consideration by the ship's Master may also need to be given to: • inspecting hatch covers to ensure they are weather tight before loading; • ensuring bilges are free of any water or any other residue; • covering bilges to prevent the ingress of the cargo; and • removing as much of the cargo residue as possible from the ship before sailing. The accumulation of cargo material and dust on ship's decks can represent a safety hazard, in which case its removal to sea is consistent with MARPOL, although at least some of this material can sometimes be collected and returned to shore or the ship's holds.

R1212 79

GBR Shipping Study

'Garbage' as defined by MARPOL includes a broad range of operational waste from ships, including cargo residues. This means that under the terms of MARPOL, the discharge of cargo residues through deck and hold washings cannot generally occur unless residue is classed as non-hazardous and non- polluting and the ship is at least 12 nm from nearest land, which by extension means outside of the GBR region. Within the guidance provided by extant MARPOL regulations, AMSA and GBRMPA will accept the cleaning of cargo residues from a vessel within 12 nm of 'nearest land' when necessary to: • ensure the safe operation of a helicopter (e.g. for transferring a ship's pilot or for medical evacuation), but restricted to the helicopter landing area and its immediate vicinity to avoid dust being raised by the helicopter downwash; • avoid navigational hazards resulting from dust being blown onto areas such as the bridge or bridge wings; and • remove residues from deck areas, walkways and working areas where they represent a serious safety hazard to personnel (e.g. trip or slip) if spillages are not cleaned. Amendments to Annex V of MARPOL and the IMSBC Code place additional controls on the disposal of hold washings and cargo residues. Under the changes, all cargoes need to be assessed and categorised according to their potential for harm to human health or the environment, considering factors such as human and aquatic toxicity, environmental persistence and bioaccumulation potential. The residues and spillages of cargoes which do not satisfy the discharge criteria will no longer be able to be disposed to sea but must instead be retained onboard for transfer to appropriate shore reception facilities 13 . Thus, as a result of both spillage and windage losses during loading, as well as washing down of ship's upperdeck areas, some cargo materials are unavoidably deposited in the sea. It should be noted that cargoes considered to represent a particular acute and/or chronic marine pollution or public health or safety hazard, such as noxious chemicals and oils, are subject to more exacting transfer and containment arrangements. By extension, there is less need for such rigorous controls for many dry bulk commodities, such as coal and iron ore, for example, where this is significantly less propensity for environmental or human harm. This is not to suggest that no environmental perturbation may result from certain cargoes: sugar, for instance, introduces nutrients and can lower available dissolved oxygen, while iron ore fines can enhance phytoplankton growth through the addition of iron. Many dry bulk cargoes, such as coal, are however, considered to be essentially environmentally inert and immobile in the marine environment, especially at low rates of inoculation (i.e. as would usually occur with windage losses and hold washings discharged to sea). Although these attributes augur to indicate them as generally benign with regards to the marine environment (WBM Oceanics Australia 2006), it is recognised that in areas of concentration, such as around loading berths, the accumulation of these materials may have adverse effect upon sediments and benthic organisms (Aherns & Morrisey 2005). Any accumulation on nearby beaches may also occasion unfavourable aesthetic impact.

7.2.5 Sewage Ship sewage is typically considered as human excreta directed into urinals and toilets, but is defined by the IMO to also include drainage from onboard medical areas. Importantly, any material that is mixed with sewage is to be treated as sewage. In some ships this may include greywater and dishwater that is drained into common holding systems. It is difficult to estimate the amount of sewage generated

13 Note, this is of theoretical interest only in relation to the GBR region, as MARPOL prohibits the disposal of any cargo residues within the GBR region.

R1212 80

GBR Shipping Study

in ships, although it is likely to be less than 10 L per person per day 14 (this does not include greywater), of which the solids content would be less than 10%. Sewage is a source of water discolouration (an aesthetic effect), and introduces (plant) nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphates), pathogens and other trace materials into the marine environment. As it breaks down the biological material in sewage also draws upon dissolved oxygen in the receiving water column. The IMO stipulates performance standards for shipboard sewage treatment systems; these are detailed in Table 13, and compared with GBR vessel sewage treatment regulations, although these GBR regulations do not apply to international ships.

Table 13: Ship Sewage Treatment Standards PARAMETER 1976 IMO 2010 IMO GBR Regulations 1 Standard Standard Secondary Tertiary Treatment Treatment BOD 2 (mg/L) 50 25 20 20 COD 3 (mg/L) 125 Total Suspended Solids 100 35 30 30 (mg/L) Faecal coliforms 250 =<100 <200 <200 (E. coli ) (cfu/100mL) Chlorine As low as <0.5 No Cl by- (Free / residual) (mg/L) practicable products Nitrogen (mg/L) 1 4 Phosphorus (mg/L) 1 1 pH 6–8.5 6-8.5 6-8.5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) => 2 => 2 Oil and Grease (ppm) 10 1. Do not apply to ships subject to IMO MARPOL Annex IV requirements 2. BOD - biochemical oxygen demand 3. COD - chemical oxygen demand

In 2007, an estimated 6.6 million tonnes of sediment, 16 600 tonnes of total nitrogen and 4180 tonnes of phosphorous reached the waters of the lagoon of the GBR from Queensland catchments (Department of the Premier and Cabinet 2009). Nutrient loads from catchments are recognised as a critical environmental stressor, and there exists a management target of halving catchment-sourced nutrients entering the GBR by 50% by 2013. A comparison of catchment nutrient loads with indicative shipping loads is presented in Table 14.

Table 14: Comparison of Annual Nutrient Loads into the GBR from Selected Sources GBR Ship Sewage* Ship Sewage as Catchments Proportion of Catchment Input Annual total N load (t) 16 600 7.6 0.046% Annual total P load (t) 4180 1.0 0.024% * Based upon 10 000 ships in the GBR per annum, each remaining for an average of 20 days and each with 30 personnel

14 This estimated volume is predicated upon the assumption of the ship using a vacuum flush system. If water flush systems are fitted, overall sewage volumes would be greater (e.g. 40 L to 50 L per person per day), but actual sewage contaminant loads would be the same, albeit at lower concentrations.

R1212 81

GBR Shipping Study

As is evident from Table 14, even if the target 50% reduction of N and P loads from catchments is achieved, ship sourced nutrients would still represent an inconsequential proportion of the total quantity entering the waters of the GBR lagoon. Given the small, generally dispersed inputs from ships in the GBR region, impacts associated with sewage discharge would be highly localised and short-lived. Even in the absence of any onboard treatment before discharge, significant impacts are unlikely because of the relatively small quantities involved, localised area of impact, rapid dilution in the ocean, high biodegradability and low environmental persistence of the wastes. Nevertheless, in relatively small, partially enclosed waterbodies with minimal exchange, it is conceivable that an aggregation of ships remaining at anchor over extended periods may lead to localised deterioration of water quality, particularly if these included cruise ships or loaded livestock carriers. This could be managed by periodic monitoring of water quality in ports where such circumstances may occur.

7.2.6 Greywater Greywater is defined as drainage water from dishwashers, sinks, showers, laundries, baths and washbasins. It does not include drainage from toilets or urinals or sickbay/medical areas, nor does it include dishwater where dishes and utensils have not been pre-cleaned of at least most food debris. Some, albeit limited, polluting potential is possessed by greywater. This is generally restricted to the soaps and detergents used in washing, as well as any of the residues removed during the wash process and transported with the greywater to the marine environment; these would include organic matter, fats and greases and nutrients. It may be assumed that some vessels also dispose of hazardous or noxious liquid substances through the greywater system. No controls are currently placed upon greywater discharges by MARPOL or Australian legislation, although many ships treat greywater in their sewage treatment plants. By extension, discharge effluent standards applying to treated sewage also apply to greywater treated in shipboard sewage plants.

7.2.7 Oily waste Ships generate oily wastes from a range of sources, including: • lubricating oil and hydraulic oil (either used or leaked); • fuel residues; • oily sludges (such as from fuel and lubricating oil purifiers); • contaminated fuel oil; • oily bilge water; • oil contaminated ballast water 15 ; • oily tank washings; • oily cargo losses (such as seepage from cargo-handling pumps); • cooking oils; and • used oil filters and oily rags.

15 Although this is a less frequent source, due to MARPOL restrictions on the use of non-segregated ballast tanks.

R1212 82

GBR Shipping Study

Most oily wastes are in the liquid phase, albeit with suspended solids, except for oil filters and oily rags which are solid wastes. With the exception of the solid components (which are typically managed within a ship's garbage stream), oily wastes can be effectively sub-divided into two broad categories, namely: • concentrated oil wastes (e.g. used lubricants and hydraulic oil, contaminated fuel oil, and oil sludges); and • oily mixtures, most commonly in a water medium (e.g. oily bilge water, tank washings). Oily wastes generally also contain a range of impurities, particularly the oily mixtures. Typical impurities are detergents, degreasers, engine additives and greases, as well as material mobilised from engines and other equipment by lubricating oils. Oil sludges commonly feature an elevated proportion of solid impurities. With the obvious exception of tankers, oily wastes are principally generated in machinery areas (e.g. engine rooms and auxiliary plant rooms), although some may also derive from cooking oils used in galleys or oils carried as cargo or stores in packaged form. Machinery sourced oily wastes originate from spills or leaks of fuel, hydraulic fluids and lubricating oil, and are also generated during routine maintenance and repair activities such as engine repairs, lubricating oil changes and oil filter replacement. Oily wastes from spills and leaks tend to accumulate in bilges, resulting in oily bilge water. Oily wastes from maintenance activities are more likely to be collected and stored in a waste oil tank in larger vessels. As determined by extant MARPOL regulations, ships are not permitted to discharge oil and oily wastes direct to sea. Bulk oil wastes and sludges are stored onboard ship and transferred to appropriate shore reception facilities (e.g. wharf connection, lighter or road tanker), or some ships are able to dispose of oily waste and sludges by its use as a supplementary fuel in onboard incinerators. Only filtered water, with an oil-in-water content of less than 15 ppm, is permitted to be discharged to sea while a ship is underway (i.e. to promote dispersion and dilution). Before such discharge is permitted, the ship needs to have in place an oil filtering and monitoring system which includes appropriate oily water separator/s, supplemented by continuous monitoring equipment with alarms and automatic discharge cut-off and diversion devices for any effluent which exceeds the 15 ppm discharge criterion. The prevention of oil pollution from ships anchored off GBR ports is also predicated upon ships being able to hold and/or dispose of onboard (e.g. by incineration) the oily wastes and residues. Should this not be the case, such that extended anchorage times were incompatible with the sludge or waste oil holding capacity of a particular ship, then appropriate oily waste collection (e.g. lighter), transfer and disposal facilities and services would need to be provided. Therefore, under existing MARPOL requirements, as reflected in the associated enabling legislation, no substantive oil or oily water pollution of the sea should result from ships with correctly installed and properly maintained and operated oily waste management systems.

7.2.8 Fuel storage As previously noted, merchant ships carry a range of fuel oils, principally HFO for main propulsion engines and lighter distillate fuels (e.g. MGO, MDO) for auxiliaries. It is usual for Panamax and Capesize ships to have maximum HFO bunker fuel capacities in the order of 4000 m3 to 10 000 m3 or greater, supplemented by distillate fuel capacities of the order of 200 m3 or more. Ships built before 1 August 2010 are not required under MARPOL to have any specific protections in place to prevent or minimise the loss of fuel in the event of maritime casualty such as collision or grounding. In larger ships, individual tanks may have capacities of around up to 4000 m3 or greater, presenting the possibility of the loss of this quantity of fuel should such a tank be full or near full at a time when its containment was breached. This risk is exacerbated by the former practice of siting fuel

R1212 83

GBR Shipping Study

tanks at the bottoms and/or sides of ships (as indicated in Figure 37), such that the ship's shell plating formed one or two sides of a tank. Thus, in the event of shell plating being damaged as result of collision or grounding in these areas of the ship, then by extension the fuel tank in that location would also be damaged.

STBD tank. Shell Port tank. Shell plating on side. plating on side.

Double -bottom tanks. Shell plating on sides and bottoms .

Figure 37: Typical Configurations of Merchant Ship Fuel Tanks for Ships Built Before 1 August 2010 Ships built after 1 August 2010, are however, required to incorporate design features intended to minimise fuel loss in the event of collision or grounding. These are centred upon minimum separation distances between fuel tanks and the ship's outer, or 'shell' plating, on both sides and bottom, such that there is a gap between the tank and the ship's exterior plating. The regulation also places controls over the placement of fuel piping and the need for automatic shut-off of fuel systems following damage. Furthermore, no individual tank is to exceed 2500 m3 capacity. The regulation also permits an appropriate level of fuel tank protection to be demonstrated via an ‘outflow performance model’ based upon the predicted loss of fuel following selected casualty scenarios stipulated by the IMO. These post-July 2010 improvements will take some time to become prevalent within the world merchant fleet, subject to rate of replacement of existing hulls with new build vessels. However, the average age of bulk carriers within the GBR is 7 to 8 years, so it can be expected that vessels with this improved design will begin to dominate over the next decade. The IMO is also coordinating international efforts to seek some viable alternative fuel to HFO, with a target timeframe of around the year 2020. These include lighter blends of oil, as well as gas (LNG) and various biofuels. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the alternative fuel situation will mature and that fuels other than HFO will be in more widespread use within the world merchant fleet

R1212 84

GBR Shipping Study

in 10 years or so. Should the use of HFO in ships be curtailed, or reduced, then the likely adverse consequences of ship fuel spill will be commensurately reduced.

7.2.9 Air emissions Ships emit exhaust gases and particulates from propulsion machinery and auxiliaries as fuel is consumed. Other emission sources include incinerators (if fitted) and engines (small diesels and outboard motors) in ship’s boats. Atmospheric emissions include pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHGs). Principal emissions of interest are: oxides of nitrogen (pollutant and GHG); VOCs (pollutant and GHG); sulphur dioxide (pollutant); carbon dioxide (GHG); carbon monoxide (pollutant and GHG); and particulates (pollutant). Actual emissions from ships are influenced by many factors, such as: • age of design of engine (i.e. newer electronically controlled engines are generally more fuel efficient with commensurate reduction in emissions); • state of maintenance; • type of engine (e.g. gas turbine, diesel); • type of fuel (e.g. HFO, MGO, automotive grade diesel); • engine power rating; • no. of engines and auxiliaries; • sea conditions; • ship activity (e.g. economical transit or manoeuvring); and • amount of time at sea. A summary of IMO (2009) estimates of the total inventory of exhaust emissions from world shipping in 2007 is presented in Table 15. Table 15: Summary of 2007 Total Global Exhaust Emissions from Shipping

Exhaust Component 2007 Emissions (million tonnes)

CO 2 1054

CH 4 0.1

N2O 0.03

NO X 25 NMVOC* 0.8 CO 2.5 PM 1.8

SO X 15 * Non-methane volatile organic compounds (IMO 2009) Although of international and national concern and the subject of developing regulations, GHGs provide for a global, as opposed to local or regional, scale effects. As such, GHGs generated by ships plying the GBR region do not pose any intrinsic local or regional environmental threat, and are therefore not considered further in this report. Ship-sourced nitrogen oxides are, however, recognised at regional scales as an atmospheric pollutant of concern, and the most critical component of the ship atmospheric exhaust stream in terms of coastal areas.

Nitrogen oxides (NO x) are formed during combustion processes, as occur in any internal combustion engine or bushfires, due to the reaction between nitrogen and oxygen at high temperatures. They are

R1212 85

GBR Shipping Study

also generated as a by-product of agricultural activity involving nitrogen fertilisers and animal wastes, and produced naturally by microorganisms in the soil and ocean (Parliament of Australia 2008) and by volcanoes and lightning. Nitrogen oxides produced during combustion include nitric oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2). NO converts to NO 2 in the atmosphere over time (Lyons and Scott 1990), with NO 2 being the more toxic of the two.

The control of NO 2 is important because of its role in the atmospheric formation of ozone, the principal component of smog. NO x contributes to ‘acid rain’ via precipitation, and is also responsible for dry deposition of acidic material. NO x is toxic in its own right and can provoke lung irritation and damage at sufficient concentrations (URS 2008a). NOx are also GHGs, with one component, nitrous oxide (N 2O) given off in small quantities from the burning of fossil fuels, a powerful greenhouse agent with 298 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide (IMO 2009; Parliament of Australia 2008). In ship applications, around 0.1% of total NO x emissions are in the form of N 2O (IMO 2009).

Ship diesel engines are very fuel efficient, but have a relatively high output of NO x emissions. For reasons of operating economy, most merchant ships are powered by slow-speed diesels using low quality, high sulphur fuel oil. Slow speed diesels tend to produce around 50% higher NO x emissions than comparative medium speed diesels.

The advent of IMO Tier I NO x standards (implemented in 2000) resulted in NO x reductions of around 12–14% per tonne of fuel consumed, as compared with pre-regulation (i.e. Tier 0) engines. On this basis, the IMO (2009) estimated a net reduction in NO x emissions from shipping in 2007 of about 6% compared with what the total would have been for the same level of fuel consumption in the pre- regulation baseline year of 2000. However, the IMO (2009) also estimated that total annual NO x emissions from shipping increased from 19 million tonnes in 2000 to 25 million tonnes over the same period, due to the increase in world shipping activity. Actual NO x emissions from any individual ship depend upon how many diesels may be running at any one time, their size and the load they are operating under, their engine speed, and the applicable MARPOL Annex VI emission standards to which they are designed and certified (according to date of ship build). Although no definitive conclusions can be drawn, it is reasonable to assume that given the levels of shipping activity in the GBR region and their dispersed and mobile nature, ship-sourced NO x (and other atmospheric contaminants) are unlikely to represent a significant component of GBR airshed loads when considered in the context of other sources in the GBR coastal region and hinterland. Furthermore, given IMO efforts to introduce mandatory ship energy efficiency requirements, it is a reasonable proposition that ship NO x and other atmospheric emissions per unit will decrease into the future. As noted previously, the merchant shipping industry, with IMO support, is examining alternative fuels for merchant ships. This uptake of alternative fuels will likely have positive ramifications for the quantity and composition of ship exhaust emissions and also their pollution potential, particularly within the realm of GHGs.

7.2.10 Ballast water Australia is sensitive to the risks posed by invasive marine species (IMS), as they pose major ecological, economic and social risks. Non-indigenous marine species may: • out compete, predate upon or displace native species; • alter natural ecological processes; • harbour pathogens which can impact upon ecological or human health; • degrade commercial fisheries and aquaculture enterprises, either through direct competition with target species or via the introduction of pathogens;

R1212 86

GBR Shipping Study

• cause problems for industrial infrastructure and navigation aids, for example, by blocking seawater intakes/outlets, impairing the operation of undersea valves, or causing buoys to sink; and • impose major maintenance and operational problems for vessels, and require them to undertake regular cleaning to keep underwater hull areas clear of fouling. Marine pest species are known to be introduced or translocated by a variety of vectors, including ballast water, biofouling, aquaculture operations, aquarium imports, marine debris and ocean current movements. IMS in Australia and overseas have caused many millions of dollars of damage to local economies and can require the expenditure of many more millions of dollars annually in control and remediation efforts. Once established, IMS can be virtually impossible to eradicate, so prevention of transfer in the first instance is the best form of control. As noted, ballast water is able to act as a vector for marine organisms when pest species are entrained in the ballast, able to survive the intervening voyage, and then successfully establish in the new environment after discharge from the conveying vessel. Dependent upon where and how the vessel loads ballast, the ballast water may also include sediments and sludges, which can also act as a vector for the transfer of exotic species. A feature of bulk carrier operations is the use of significant quantities of ballast water, primarily as a cargo substitute for those ships arriving (empty) to take on cargo at a terminal. By extension, bulk carriers in the GBR ports individually and collectively discharge significant quantities of ballast water. Australia has implemented ballast water management regulations under the Quarantine Act, essentially as an extended interim measure, until such time as the BWM Convention ballast water treatment requirements enter into force. Under the Australian ballast water management regulations, all ballast water arriving in Australia from overseas is considered 'high risk' and so banned from discharge in Australian waters until specific permission for such discharge is received from DAFF Biosecurity, the responsible authority. In general terms, ships are required to undertake ballast water exchange at sea, such that water taken up from shallow, coastal or littoral waters overseas is replaced with water sourced from the open ocean, considered less likely to harbour marine species of potential quarantine concern. To be considered effective, the ballast water exchange must be conducted outside Australia's 12 nm limit (i.e. beyond the outer boundary of the GBRMP) and achieve at least a 95% volumetric replacement of the ballast water. As part of a national surveillance program, a number of GBR ports (Bundaberg, Cairns, Hay Point, Gladstone and Townsville) are periodically monitored for IMS. Introduced marine species are already resident in a number of GBR ports (e.g. Hoedt et al. 2001a; Hoedt et al. 2001b; Neil et al. 2002; Neil et al. 2003; Lewis et al. 2001), although these are generally those 'cosmopolitan' and 'cryptogenic' species which have widespread ranges and thus display enhanced ability to translocate and establish in new locations. The actual instances of known 'invasive' species in GBR ports is sparse, and primarily confined to periodic discoveries of Asian green mussels ( Perna viridis ), a recognised pest species, in Cairns (Neil et al. 2003) and Gladstone, as well as the Asian bag mussel ( Musculista senhousia ) in Cairns (GBRMPA 2009a). When reviewing the potential vulnerability of Queensland ports to incursion by exotic marine species, Hutchings et al. (2002) postulated that ports in the GBR region may embody a degree of resistance to such invasion. This was on the basis of the high biological 'linkage' of this region to the wider Indo-Pacific region, reducing the availability of habitat niches available for newly arrived, exotic species. To date, no IMS have been detected in the GBR region outside of ports (GBRMPA 2009a), but this may be an artefact of the sampling regime. Based upon the available 'evidence', it is reasonable to assume that existing ballast water management measures, coupled with natural barriers to any species' range expansion abilities, have been able to limit the introduction into GBR ports of IMS. This may be the case, but is not a durable conclusion as future success of establishment of exotic marine species may be as a result of one-off or infrequent stochastic events, and risk profiles may change as a result of changing climatic and oceanographic conditions, and as new trade routes are developed, the latter

R1212 87

GBR Shipping Study

potentially exposing GBR ports to inoculation of new species from different regions not previously linked by shipping. Any ballast water risks to marine biosecurity in the GBR ports, should, however, diminish to a significant extent if and when the Regulation D-2 ballast water treatment standard of the IMO BWM Convention is implemented.

7.2.11 Biofouling Biofouling is the growth of marine organisms on underwater surfaces. It is particularly common on and in vessels and other floating or immersed man-made objects. Biofouling can occur on vessel hulls and underwater fittings such as rudders and propellers, and voids such as seachests and thruster tunnels and recesses. It also occurs in the pipework of internal seawater systems, such as engine cooling circuits. Biofouling represents a major marine pest risk to Australia and so is subject to evolving controls by DAFF Biosecurity and other Commonwealth, and State/Northern Territory agencies. Along with other IMS transport vectors, such as ballast water, biofouling is a quarantine concern because of the risk that a vessel or other object is carrying fouling and may act as the means of transport for a potential marine pest species into Australian waters, or between different regions within Australia. Biofouling biota (i.e. organisms) encompass plant and animal species, which may be ‘sessile’ (i.e. attached) or mobile. Common fouling organisms found on and in ships include algae, barnacles, tubeworms, hydroids, anemones and bryozoans. In more established and diverse assemblages, biofouling can also include mussels, oysters and sponges, and in some cases mobile organisms such as small fish, crabs, shrimps, worms, snails and starfish. Generally speaking, mobile fouling species will only become established once a reasonable degree of sessile fouling is present, as these attached organisms provide necessary habitat conditions in the form of food and shelter for the mobile species. Not all fouling species represent a biosecurity threat, and given the millions of movements of ships over many hundreds of years, many fouling species have already established broad geographic distributions (i.e. the 'cosmopolitan' and 'cryptogenic' species). Some fouling species, however, do pose significant quarantine risks to Australia and potentially to GBR ports. All ships have some degree of biofouling, even those which may have been recently cleaned or had a new AFC applied. In general terms, the longer a vessel has been in water, the greater the size and complexity of its biofouling community, but the type, amount and location of fouling is heavily influenced by a range of factors, such as: • Design and construction, particularly the presence and character of fouling niches, and the presence or absence of a marine growth prevention system (MGPS) for the internal seawater systems. • Typical operating profile, including factors such as operating speeds, ratio of time underway compared with time alongside, moored or at anchor, and where a ship is laid-up when not in use (e.g. ships laid up in Singapore for an extended period would present an elevated biofouling risk profile to the GBR than would one laid-up in a cold water port, such as Bergen). • Places visited, particularly extended stays in ports or anchorages with similar conditions to Australian ports and/or where known or suspected marine pest species may be present. • Maintenance history, including type, age and condition of AFC, and drydocking and hull cleaning practices. In essence, the biofouling assemblage which may be found on and in a vessel represents a cumulative and integrated history of the vessel’s design, construction, maintenance and operations. Each of these aspects introduces particular biofouling vulnerabilities.

R1212 88

GBR Shipping Study

As a component of the National System, biofouling vulnerability assessments have been conducted for a range of vessel types (DAFF 2009a; 2009b), and from these, sector-specific biofouling management guidelines have been produced by DAFF. These reviews found that 'typical' commercial (i.e. merchant) ships present low biofouling risks, relative to other vessel types. This assessment was predicated on the valid, but nevertheless generalised assumptions that merchant ships: • have relatively few biofouling niches; • typically operate at elevated speeds; • spend minimal time in port; and • are dry-docked relatively regularly for cleaning and replacement/repair of the AFC. While these generalisations are valid when considering merchant ships in total, there are instances where these universalities do not apply. One example may be a ship which was laid up at anchor or alongside for several months as may occur during a market downturn, as a result of cyclical market conditions or for extended maintenance and repair, before returning to trade (see Plate 4).

Plate 4: Commercial Trading Ships, Including a Number of Bulk Carriers, at Anchor Off Singapore, March 2012 Any period of inactivity may promote the growth and development of a significant level and diversity of fouling, increasing the risk of IMS transfer. Thus, it may be concluded that while the general assumption regarding the risk status of merchant ships may hold in a global sense, it should ideally be validated in the case of individual ships so that those which do not conform with the assumptions underlying the assessment of low risk are identified. Evolving Australian biofouling management requirements (DAFF 2011) intend that such underlying assumptions will be tested for merchant ships visiting Australian ports, once the planned regulations are implemented. Ships which indicate some aspect of elevated biofouling risk will be subject to further action, including inspection. It should be noted that the proposed Australian biofouling management measures were in development at the time of preparation of this report, and so their final form and date of implementation can only be speculated. By contrast, non-trading vessels, particularly those such as dredges, pipelayers and barges, and similar types typically engaged in port and coastal development projects, are considered by DAFF and

R1212 89

GBR Shipping Study

associated State/Territory authorities to represent high biofouling-mediated risks. This is by virtue of a range of features and typical operating and maintenance practices that enhance biofouling vulnerabilities, including aspects such as: extensive arrays of niches; extended periods operating either stationary or at slow speeds in shallow coastal waters; extended periods laid-up between projects; and readily worn or absent AFCs. In recognition of these elevated biofouling risks, vessels of this type are usually subject to specific biofouling cleaning and inspection requirements as an enforceable condition in order to work on marine and coastal projects in Australian waters.

7.2.12 Anti-fouling systems As previously noted, ships are painted with an anti-fouling coating (AFC) as a means to reduce the incidence and extent of fouling on their immersed surfaces. Apart from the beneficial effect of reducing biofouling-mediated marine biosecurity risks derived from an effective AFC, such coatings also improve ship's hydrodynamic efficiency. This results in lower fuel consumption compared with a (more heavily) fouled hull, lower emission rates of atmospheric pollutants, and a reduction of radiated in-water noise. Aside from their operational and environmental benefits, the biocides in AFCs can occasion some adverse environmental effects. Biocide-based AFCs rely upon agents that are toxic to targeted marine organisms to kill and deter biota from settling and establishing on the protected surface. Some biocide- free coatings are available, currently employed on specific types of ships with specific biofouling-risk profiles. Biocide-free coatings should still be considered developmental, however, as they have not yet matured to a point where they offer the prospect of being an effective replacement in most circumstances for ships which currently rely upon conventional, biocide-based coatings. A fundamental feature of a biocide-based AFC is that to be effective, it must continually release biocide at the interface between the protected surface and the waterbody. Modern anti-fouling paint formulations seek to control this release rate so that the minimum amount of leachate required for effective biofouling control performance is liberated; this also serves to extend the available life of an AFC and so reduce ownership costs. Biocide release rates generally follow an asymptotic decay pattern, such that a substantial proportion of the available biocide is released in the first few weeks following new application, before the release rate settles into a more steady state (Ytreberg et al. 2010). Thus, biocide loads are invariably greater in the areas around shipyards where newly built ships are launched and existing ships are drydocked for cleaning and AFC renewal or repair. AFC biocide release rates from ships in regular commercial use transiting through the GBR region or visiting GBR ports will in most cases represent the slower, steady release rates of mature coatings. It is also pertinent to note that the release rate from most AFCs is linked to the velocity of water flow over the surface. Ships at anchor have biocide release rates that are reduced compared with ships underway, with release rates largely a function of the velocity of tides and currents in the anchorage. Release rates and fates are also influenced by factors such as pH, temperature and salinity of the receiving waters, and oxygen availability, total organic carbon and particle composition of the sediments (Arai et al. 2010). Typical copper release rates for mature biocide coatings are of the order of 5–20 µg cm −2 d−1 (J. Lewis, pers. comm. 23 February 2012). A 120 00 DWT Capesize bulk carrier represents a reasonable 'average' ship for the GBR coal ports. A ship of this size, with a length of around 245 m, a beam of around 42 m and drawing 15 m would have a maximum wetted surface area (and hence area of AFC) of the order of around 16 000 m2, suggesting total copper leach fluxes of around 0.8 kg to 3.2 kg per day. It should also be considered that ships sailing under ballast have a considerable proportion of their hulls exposed to air, thus removing this source of biocide from contributing to marine leachate loadings. Therefore, the same hypothetical Capesize ship, if drawing 5 m less while in an anchorage awaiting loading, would have an effective surface area of around 9% smaller than when at maximum draught, with a commensurate reduction in biocide flux. Furthermore, biocide leach rates are reduced from ships at anchor compared with ships underway.

R1212 90

GBR Shipping Study

To place this amount into context, it is illustrative to consider AFC copper leach rates in comparison with extant marine water quality criteria. The ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) water quality guidelines stipulate 'trigger' values 16 for copper in marine waters varying from 0.3 µg/L to 8 µg/L, dependent upon the state of disturbance of the receiving waters and the desired level of protection. Although the analysis of dosing, dispersion and dilution is a complex science, highly dependent upon local variables and dynamic influences, some general 'rules of thumb' can be employed to gauge the likely significance or otherwise of ship AFC leachate loads. For example, using the upper estimate from the example used of 3.2 kg of copper leaching from a ship each day, and not taking account of instantaneous leaching rates as opposed to total daily loads, then provided this was mixed with around 11 million cubic metres of water, the copper concentration would fall below the most conservative marine environment protection trigger value of 0.3 µg/L. For an anchorage at least 30 m deep, assuming (the unlikely but illustrative) scenario of the leachate flux moving away from the ship and mixing at an equal rate in all directions, then the required degree of dilution would be achieved within 350 m from the ship. Using the lower estimate for a daily leach loading of 0.8 kg, and the ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) trigger value of 8 µg/L, the dilution required to achieve the target concentration would occur within less than 35 m from the ship. Apart from leaching, ships also release biocide when gross portions of an AFC are removed from the ship. This occurs in a number of circumstances, such as anchor cable impact and abrasion, rubbing against berths and fenders, or when scraped by tugs. In these instances, biocide-active paint particles and 'mats' of scraped paint are released to the marine environment. These settle onto and into the sediments and may be expected to release biocide until either depleted or sufficiently buried. Unlike TBT, not all copper leached from ship AFCs is biologically available and toxic once it has entered the marine environment. Copper is the most bioavailable and most toxic when in its free ion form. Copper in its free ion form, however, has a strong tendency to form organic and inorganic ligands, reducing its bioavailability, mobility and ecological toxicity. Due to this speciation of the copper, much of the influx is partitioned into less environmentally immobile, and essentially inert, organically-bound copper (Arai et al. 2010). This accumulates in the sediments but does not present as any specific form of marine toxicant. Most concern regarding copper-based biocides has focused upon its accumulation in small, enclosed waterbodies, such as pleasure craft marinas and small boat harbours. Particular concern exists with regard to copper in fresh water, where it is generally more mobile and has greater toxicity than occurs in seawater. Neither of these enhanced risk factors apply in relation to GBR shipping. Some ships also rely upon copper dosing or biocide inoculation systems to protect against fouling of internal seawater circulation systems. The dose rates and discharge volumes from these systems are insignificant in terms of the dilution capacity of the receiving waters following discharge, and thus they are considered unlikely to represent any tangible marine pollution risk in terms of GBR shipping.

7.2.13 Anchoring Anchoring is a standard part of seaport operations around the world and is fundamental to the general safe management of commercial vessels in and around port areas. Merchant ships anchor routinely in the coastal margins of the GBR region around ports, while awaiting entry into those ports. Ships may also anchor as an emergency or safety measure in the event of loss of steering or propulsive power. Ships preferably and normally anchor in areas of soft sediments (e.g. mud and sand), as these provide the best holding ground. Such areas are normally diminished of biota except for sedimentary infauna.

16 Note that 'trigger values' are concentrations that, if exceeded, would indicate a potential for onset of an environmental problem, and so initiate a management response. They are conservative by nature and intended to indicate a situation of potential environmental harm at concentrations below the anticipated threshold of likely actual environmental harm.

R1212 91

GBR Shipping Study

Ships generally do not anchor on seagrass areas, except perhaps in emergency situations, as these bottom types do not possess the anchor holding qualities of soft sediments and the depths required for ship anchoring are beyond the depths where most seagrass occurs. Ships avoid anchoring on reefs, unless some form of emergency situation dictates otherwise. Anchoring of ships has a direct physical impact on the seafloor, but the area affected for each anchoring event is restricted to the fall of the anchor and that length of anchor cable which lies across the seafloor. The anchor itself will only disturb a few square metres, although the cable (i.e. chain) may be paid out so that up to 100 m or more lies on the seafloor, dependent upon depth and sea conditions. Anchor impact will be exacerbated by movement of the vessel on the anchor line, such as through ‘swinging’ on the anchor under the influence of wind, tides and currents or, less often, dragging of the anchor and cable. Movement of the anchor and cable typically results in a segment of the seafloor being scoured free of benthic organisms and suspension of bottom sediments, especially of soft, unconsolidated sediments. The associated turbidity will temporarily decrease light penetration and the ultimate settling of the sediment could also smother benthic biota (Lewis 1996). Suspended matter will settle or disperse rapidly, and any direct or secondary impacts upon biota will be of limited significance given the general dearth of biota in soft sediments. Any permanent change from anchoring in soft sediments would in most cases be insignificant compared to disturbance occasioned by natural forces such as currents, swells and storms. Resuspension of sediments can also mobilise sediment contaminants, but this is only considered to be a factor of significance in heavily polluted areas. The extent of physical disturbance attributable to anchoring varies dependent upon water depth, substratum type, type and size of anchor, length of cable, ship size, weather and sea conditions. Upon removal of the anchor and cable, any depressions in soft sediments typically fill with sediment. Ultimately, the imprints are likely to return to pre-disturbance levels and faunal structures (i.e. community structure), but the recovery rate may vary depending on the substratum type. Seagrass areas are particularly vulnerable to physical damage from anchors and anchor cables. Seagrass habitats are generally confined to shallow areas, and reefs provide limited holding capacity, and thus are unlikely to be anchored on by ships, although small boats may anchor in these areas periodically. Impacts on benthic epifauna and infauna populations are generally localised and temporary. Some change can be evident at the point of impact and area of scour, if the nature of the substrate is permanently changed (e.g. from rock to sand, or if seagrass beds are scoured). Anchorage Selection Identification and designation of the location and size of future anchorages is primarily the responsibility of MSQ and the relevant Regional Harbour Master. Port and terminal operators can assist in the process by conducting multi-criteria analysis to help determine potential anchorage locations and sizes, factors that should be considered include: • bathymetry; • broad scale environmental values - coral, seagrass, marine species habitats, rocky and sandy shoals, etc; • existing GBRMP zones and sensitive areas; • operational characteristics – existing shipping paths, fishing grounds, dive sites; • potential anchorage staging; • location of pilot boarding grounds; • visual amenity; and

R1212 92

GBR Shipping Study

• terminal operations – number of berths, loading rates and vessel queuing arrangements.

7.2.14 Radiated underwater noise Large ships generate a broadband noise spectrum, which can be substantial in an aggregated sense. Noise sources include their propellers, engines, auxiliary machinery, gear boxes and shafts, plus hull wake and turbulence. Surface shipping is generally considered to represent the most widespread source of low frequency (i.e. < 1000 Hz) marine anthropogenic noise (e.g. Richardson et al. 1995, Popper et al. 1998). Diesel engines produce more noise than steam or gas turbines, but most long distance (low frequency) noise is generated by the propeller cavitation. The radiated noise spectrum from merchant ships is typically in the range of 20 Hz to 500 Hz with tonal peaks at around 50 Hz. Low frequency acoustic energy propagates well in marine waters, particularly the deep oceans, and ships' low frequency noise components contribute significantly to the amount of low-frequency ambient oceanic noise, particularly in regions with heavy ship traffic. In terms of assessment and management, ship noise needs to be treated in two categories; noise from nearby ships and that from distant traffic. Noise from nearby shipping in the near field is usually readily discernible as emanating from individual vessels, with each ship producing a specific noise signature, the received intensity of which is attributable to distance to the ship and aspect in relation to the listener. The sound level and frequency characteristics of ships depends upon factors such as their size, state of loading (i.e. draught), number of propellers, number and type of propeller blades, blade condition (e.g. biofouling and mechanical damage) and machinery maintenance condition. In general, the larger the ship the louder the source level and the lower in frequency are its tonals. Figure 38 illustrates the energy spectra measured from large bulk carriers sailing into and out of Dampier, WA. Peak average noise was typically in excess of 180 dB (re 1 µPa 2/Hz) 17 at a frequency of 10 Hz, with 1000 Hz tones at levels of 140 dB to150 dB (re 1 µPa 2/Hz). Characteristic sound source levels of a range of vessel types are compared in Table 16.

17 NB: Sound levels in water are measured as a ratio against a reference level of 1 µPa. This compares with the reference level of 20 µPa used for sound measurements in air. As such, the two are not directly comparable, and so references to a 180 dB ship noise being 'louder than a 140 dB jumbo jet', or similar, are meaningless and misleading.

R1212 93

GBR Shipping Study

(Cato 2000) Figure 38: Ship Radiated Noise Levels Recorded at Dampier, WA

Table 16: Comparison of In-water Sound Source Levels from a Variety of Anthropogenic Sources

Peak frequency Peak source level/s Source or band (re 1 µµµPa 1 m) Icebreaking ship (full power in ice) 10-1000 Hz 193 dB Large tankers and bulk carriers* 10-30 Hz 180-186 dB Container ship** 7-33 Hz 181 dB 64 m Offshore Support Vessel* broadband 177 dB Tug towing barge* 1000-5000 Hz 145-171 dB 20 m Fishing vessel* broadband 168 dB Trawler # 100 Hz 158 dB 25 m SWATH ferry with 2 x 950 hp inboard diesels** 315 Hz 166 dB 13 m catamaran with 2 x 200 hp inboard diesels* 315 / 1600 Hz 159 / 160 dB Cabin cruiser with 2 x 165 hp inboard diesels* 400 Hz 156 dB 8 m inflatable boat with 2 x 250 hp outboards* 315-5000 Hz 177-180 dB Power boat with 2 x 80 hp outboards # 630 Hz 156-175 dB 4.5 m inflatable boat with 1 x 25 hp outboard* 2500-5000 Hz 157-159 dB Zodiac inflatable boat with 1 x 25 hp outboard # 6300 Hz 152 dB Cutter-suction dredge (working) 100 Hz tonal ~180 dB Grab dredge (working) 250 Hz pulses 150-162 dB * at 10-11 kts; ** at ~15 kts; # unrecorded speed or speed range (after URS 2008b) Distant shipping elevates local ambient sound levels across the 5 Hz to 100 Hz band and no single ship is discernible. For a typical deep ocean setting where propagation conditions are good, a large merchant ship with a source spectrum of ~180 dB (re 1 µPa 2/Hz at 1m) at 50 Hz may individually

R1212 94

GBR Shipping Study

contribute 85 dB (re 1 µPa 2/Hz) at 20 km to background noise levels, 75 dB (re 1 µPa 2/Hz) at 200 km and 65 dB (re 1 µPa 2/Hz) at 2000 km. Thus for a typical North Atlantic ambient noise spectrum level of 85 dB (re 1 µPa) at 50 Hz, this may be dominated by the contribution from a single ship within about 20 km or ten large ships within 200 km, or 100 large ships within 2000 km (e.g. Popper et al. 1998). Thus the actual level of traffic-induced background noise depends on the number, size and distribution of ships underway within the particular sea or ocean basin, plus their source levels and the prevailing oceanic acoustic propagation conditions. The combined effect of a sufficient number of ships within 500 km to 1000 km can make a significant contribution to ambient oceanic noise levels in busy shipping regions such as the north west Pacific or the North Atlantic. As noted by Cato (2000), aggregated ship-induced noises approaching these levels have only been found in Australian waters in the Tasman Sea off the NSW coast. Low frequency broadband noise from shipping is of potential concern as it may impede use of portions of the acoustic spectrum by sensitive or vulnerable marine fauna, particularly whales. This concern centres upon the possibility that such noise may: mask echolocation vocalisations or communications; acoustically mask predators or prey; lead to separation of calves from mothers; or if intense and localised, alienate the animals from preferred aggregation areas or migration pathways. An overview of the hearing acuity of potentially sensitive marine fauna is presented in Table 17. Table 17: Indication of Ship Radiated Noise Frequency Band in Relation to Functional Hearing Ranges of Marine Animals in the GBR Region Taxonomic Group Functional Hearing Ship Radiated Range (kHz) Noise Detectable? (< 1 kHz) Sharks 0.1-0.8 Yes Fish 0.05-2 Yes Turtles 0.2-1# Yes Dugongs 1-18 Marginal Humpback whale 0.02-8.2 Yes Minke whale 0.6-20 Yes Bryde’s whale 0.2-20 # Yes Bottlenose dolphin 0.8-160; best 5 - 80 Marginal Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin 0.8-160; best 5 - 80 # Marginal Australian snub-fin dolphin 0.8-160; best 5 - 80 # Marginal # Assumed (after URS 2006)

It is evident from Table 17 that a variety of marine fauna species habiting the GBR region are capable of hearing ship-generated noise. Whether ship noise can be heard, however, does not necessarily indicate that it presents a problem, be it nuisance, distraction or intrusion, for marine fauna. It is pertinent to note that many species of dolphins, for instance, voluntarily swim in the bow waves and wakes of ships, the latter being generally where the most intense noise field occurs. It is conceivable that increasing numbers of ships in the GBR region may at some time hypothetically pose some form of acoustic interference to humpback whales migrating through and aggregating within the Reef. This is only possibly of local, and hence intermittent and transitory, concern, however due to physical, acoustic propagation conditions within the GBR region. Unlike deep, ocean basins where ship-generated noises can travel extended distances and add cumulatively to ambient background levels, the relatively shallow, confined waters of the GBR do not promote such extended propagation. This essentially limits noise effects in any location to what may be audible as sourced from ships in the near field, thus limiting the number of ships contributing, and the longevity of their individual influences, at any particular time to any local 'soundscape'.

R1212 95

GBR Shipping Study

Any broad field effects of shipping noise would be further attenuated in the GBR region as a result of the elevated natural background levels typical of coastal and littoral areas. These include noises from wind and waves and surf on reefs and beaches, as well as biological sources such as fish, snapping shrimps and whale vocalisations.

7.2.15 Wash and wake effects Ships generate wake and wash effects, both as a result of water displacement as the hull passes through the water (e.g. the bow wave and wake), and from the wash caused by propellers (AMOG Consulting 2010). This water movement develops waves and turbulence and can also mobilise and suspend sediments. Depending upon where these effects are manifested, ship movements can cause erosion of shorelines and increase water turbidity, and well-founded concerns in some areas have resulted in speed and manoeuvring restrictions upon watercraft. The potential for adverse effects from ship waves, wakes and propeller jetting depends upon a number of inter-playing factors, with the key determinants being: • depth of water; • distance between vessel track and nearest susceptible shoreline/s; • slope, shape and material (e.g. sand, mud, rock) of shorelines; • ship speed; • type and size of waves generated by ship (determined by factors such as length, draught and hull shape, and speed); • frequency and duration of exposure to ship-generated waves; • the ambient wave climate and naturally occurring extreme events (e.g. storms); and • sediment/bottom type (particularly in relation to potential for generation of turbidity). High speed vessels operating in relatively narrow waterways are recognised as being responsible for beach and bank erosion in many port and coastal areas and as a result, speed restrictions for these vessel types are a common feature of the rules and guidelines for many ports (Parnell et al. 2007). Compared with high speed vessels, no specific, widespread concern is evident in the literature in relation to slow, deep draught vessels such as merchant ships. This is likely because these ships typically move at slow speeds while moving through port areas, although some port and coastal areas are recognised as potentially vulnerable. To this end, ships transiting the GBR lagoon are unlikely to generate any wake or wash effect of environmental significance, especially in relation to the natural wave climate, with any ship-induced effect further nullified by the generally deep (i.e. 50 m or more) depth of most of the GBR channels used by merchant ships. With the exceptions of Cairns and Mourilyan, and to a lesser extent Gladstone, most GBR ports are in open coastal locations, not semi-enclosed waterbodies with low energy wave climates which may be susceptible to ship wake and wash. At Abbot Point, for example, ships will normally approach no closer to the shoreline than 3500 m, and all manoeuvring in the port area is at slow speeds. Bulk carriers moving through GBR anchorages, particularly the shallower portions, will generate turbidity. These are transient, localised events and any adverse effects need to be considered in the context of the natural turbidity levels existing in these waters.

7.2.16 Ship lighting Ships burn a variety of lights at night. These include compulsory navigation lighting as required by COLREGs, with the actual configuration dependent upon ship size and type and activity engaged

R1212 96

GBR Shipping Study

upon, particularly whether underway or at anchor. Ships at anchor overnight display two or three white lights of relatively low intensity. Ships also shine masthead obstruction lights, have floodlighting and washlighting (i.e. subdued, low angle lighting) on upperdeck areas to permit safe working and movement at night, and radiate light from internal living and working areas. In addition to mandatory lighting, COLREGs also encourage ships to maximise upperdeck illumination as a means of enhancing a ship's visual presence, as a further means of reducing collision risks. When anchored close inshore to turtle nesting beaches ship lighting may pose some risk of confusion to turtles, as they rely upon light for navigation. Nesting and newly hatched turtles head toward the lightest horizon in their endeavours to reach the sea (noting that in natural conditions land areas are darker than sea areas). Thus lights on ships will not have the same effect of disorienting turtles as lights further inshore or on the beach would. Lights on ships may cause some confusion to turtles in the water, as they have been observed to swim towards vessel lights and then commence circling around them. The risk to turtles presented by the lighting of ships at anchor is expected to be limited. This conclusion is premised upon the fact that the lighting is offshore (and not on or behind the beach) and the subdued lighting patterns characteristic of ships. Furthermore, any impact upon turtles would only be likely to have any vestige of potential for significant impact if a regularly used, large ship anchorage was offshore from a major turtle nesting beach (K. Dobbs, GBRMPA, pers. comm.), which is understood not to be the case for any of the existing commercial anchorages within the GBR region.

7.2.17 Terrestrial quarantine management Ships are recognised as a vector for the transfer of organisms which may pose terrestrial quarantine risks. These include vertebrate and invertebrate animals, plants and pathogens, which may be conveyed in the ship itself, the cargo, or via garbage and cargo residues (e.g. wooden crates, pallets and shoring). DAFF Biosecurity is responsible for the imposition of Australian border biosecurity arrangements, and via the Seaports program has well developed protocols and procedures applying to ships arriving in Australia from overseas, including compulsory pre-arrival pratique declarations.

7.3 Atypical Discharges, Emissions and Events It is reiterated that in most circumstances, routine ship operations present no substantive environmental risk to the sea. This is not the case, however, in circumstances of marine casualty where environmental damage can occur as a result of navigation error, poor seamanship, ship mechanical or structural failure, onboard fire or other incident (see Figure 39). This Section discusses these atypical events and their attendant environmental risks.

R1212 97

GBR Shipping Study

Figure 39: Summary of Abnormal Events and Associated Potential Discharges and Emissions from Ships

7.3.1 Grounding Ship grounding can occur in a number of scenarios, while the ship is either under power or drifting. Usual grounding scenarios are: • navigation error, resulting in the ship hitting the bottom or a reef; • seamanship error, for example such that under keel clearance is not properly judged or monitored and ship draws too deeply for available water depth; • uncharted underwater hazard (e.g. rock or shoal) either as a result of imprecise survey and charting, or due to dynamic bathymetry (e.g. unstable mud banks); • propulsion or steering failure or breakdown of critical navigation equipment when in shallow or confined waters; and • dragging of the anchor, particularly in conditions of strong winds, currents or tidal streams. Not all groundings result in damage to the ship or environment, as 'grounding' may involve no more than a ship grazing a muddy or sandy bank. For example, the tanker Atlantic Blue ran aground on a shoal in the Torres Strait with no apparent adverse environmental outcomes (ATSB 2010). Other grounding incidents in the GBR area in recent years (although not within the REEFVTS area) have occurred in Gladstone Harbour. In April 2011 the bulk carrier Dumun grounded on mud after experiencing a steering gear failure when leaving the port under pilotage, while in July 2012 the bulk carrier Samatan drifted onto a mud bank while at anchor after bunkering. In both cases the ships were soon refloated with no reported pollution of the marine environment (ATSB 2012a, ATSB 2012b). In another incident, the container carrier Bunga Teratai Satu struck Sudbury Reef in the GBR at a speed of over 20 kts, with the ship moving around 100 m into the reef before stopping. No oil or other pollutant was lost from the ship (ATSB 2000), but this incident did result in damage to the reef.

Catastrophic effects can occur in some circumstances, however, such as if a ship is so badly holed that it sinks, or if containment integrity for cargo or oil fuel tank is compromised and these materials are

R1212 98

GBR Shipping Study

released to the marine environment. Factors which influence the environmental significance or otherwise of a ship grounding event include: • speed of impact; • type of substrate hit (e.g. sand, mud, rock or coral outcrop); • angle of impact; and • place on ship struck, especially in relation to fuel storage and cargo spaces, and watertight integrity. Grounding may occasion significant, and possibly irreversible, damage to substratum and benthic biota, particularly if the grounding occurs on a reef, and the episode may result in a 'scar' which may take decades to regenerate, if ever. This may be exacerbated by biocide-based AFC debris scraped from the hull at the time of grounding. Aside from damage to the substrate, significant environmental harm is only likely to eventuate in the event that a ship's hull is breached, and especially so if this results in the loss of fuel oil or some other liquid or soluble pollutant. Grounding may also introduce debris into the marine environment, from ship structure and fittings broken loose following impact, as well as lost cargo. The loss of large quantities of oil into the marine environment is the major concern associated with shipping, both within the GBR and globally. Community perception of risks from spills is heightened by publicity surrounding exceptional tanker incidents such as the grounding of Exxon Valdez off Alaska in 1989 and the break-up and near grounding of Kirki off the central Western Australian coastline in 1991. Once oil enters the sea it spreads, evaporates and weathers, the latter of which includes the processes of photo-oxidation, dissolution, emulsification, biodegradation, sedimentation and stranding (e.g. on a beach or rocks). Complex processes of oil transformation in the marine environment commence upon contact with seawater, as presented in Figure 40. The progression, duration, and result of these transformations depend on the properties and composition of the oil itself, parameters of the actual oil spill, and the prevailing environmental conditions (e.g. water temperature, sea state, currents, air temperature, wind speed and direction). The main characteristics of oil transformations are their dynamism, especially at the first stages, and the close interaction of physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms of dispersion and degradation of oil components up to their complete disappearance as original substances. A marine ecosystem destroys, metabolises, and deposits excessive amounts of hydrocarbons, transforming them into more common and safer substances.

(ITOPF 2002) Figure 40: Weathering Processes Acting on Spilled Oil

R1212 99

GBR Shipping Study

The behaviour of a range of typical oil types is illustrated in Figure 41, which assumes a 100 t spill, 15 kt winds and sea temperatures of 28º C. Note that the behaviour of HFO is represented by the ‘Bunker (Group IV Oil)’ and ‘Bunker (Emulsion)’ curves.

(ITOPF 2002) Figure 41: Fate of Oils Over Time After Being Spilled at Sea

Weathering and dispersal rates also depend on wind and sea state conditions (Jones 1986; Kagi et al. 1988). Windy weather causes the slick to break up naturally and causes small droplets to be formed, which subsequently become entrained in the near surface part of the water column. This enhances natural biodegradation by increasing the surface area available to bacterial attack. Residues from weathered oil will be subjected to further physical, chemical and biological degradation in the warm and oxygenated conditions occurring in the waters of the GBR. MDO and MGO are relatively light oils with low pour points and vapour pressures. Both oils float, rapidly volatise and do not persist in the marine environment, especially in warm tropical and sub- tropical regions, and both possess limited water solubility. Given these more favourable characteristics and their lower environmental persistence, and the lesser quantities carried by merchant ships, spills of the lighter ship fuel oils should not be considered to represent the greatest potential shipping-related environmental threat to the GBR. It should be noted, however, that in many circumstances lighter oils may be more toxic to marine life than heavier fractions. HFO is far more damaging and persistent in the marine environment than the lighter distillate fuels. Only a small fraction of the denser, more viscous HFO evaporates, with the remainder persisting for an extended period. This remaining component typically forms tar balls, may float within or sink to the bottom of the water column, and is more likely to become emulsified. Its persistence also presents the opportunity for it to drift significant distances, exposing a much greater area to potential contamination in the event of a spill. In general terms, HFO is also more difficult to contain and recover in the event of a spill than are the lighter fuels. In any given scenario, a spill of HFO would generally pose greater environmental risk than would a spill of the same amount of diesel.

R1212 100

GBR Shipping Study

Should a spill occur in within or near the GBR, dependent upon wind, wave and current conditions, the oil could come ashore onto reefs, rocks, beaches, mangroves or tidal flats. Any adverse environmental impact would be exacerbated in areas sensitive to oil spills, such as mangroves and coral. A risk also exists of impact upon commercially important fisheries, but this is only likely to occur following substantial spill. It is self-evident that a spill of oil in the GBR, particularly HFO as typically used for merchant ship bunkers, is a potentially serious adverse outcome of a ship grounding and is generally recognised as the greatest shipping-related threat to the GBR. This is not to suggest that the risk is not manageable, and arguably most GBR marine environment protection measures are focused upon preventing ship groundings and or containing and combating oil spills. These include measures focused upon reduction in the likelihood of occurrence in the first instance, minimisation of severity, and rapid and effective response. The totality of measures intended to reduce the likelihood and severity of consequence of ship groundings and/or oil spill in the GBR are detailed elsewhere in this report, but suffice to summarise the key elements as follow: • REFFVTS; • port pilots and compulsory pilotage in designated areas of the GBR for specified ships; • hydrographic survey and charting; • ship vetting • navigation aids; • the declaration of Designated Shipping Areas; • the National Plan for oil and chemical spill response with contingency equipment stockpiles in Queensland and periodic risk reviews; and • emergency towing arrangements. Another standard precaution is clearing ships from anchorages and directing them to proceed to sea when cyclones threaten GBR ports. This is typically initiated to allow the ships enough time to clear the GBR and to ride out the storm at sea, which is the safest place for them and avoids the risk of the ships dragging their anchor, as occurred with the bulk carrier Pasha Bulker off Newcastle in 2007. As previously noted, the commissioning of REEFVTS is credited with significantly reducing the number of groundings recorded by ships in the GBR region, from one incident per year from 1997 to 2003 to only one incident from 2004 to 2011. In addition, MSQ & AMSA (2011b) report that the provision of assistance to ships approaching shallow waters has averted groundings on at least six occasions. Furthermore, although a number of ships have grounded in the GBR, not all events have resulted in oil spills. As detailed in Table 18, AMSA (2012) considers there to have been 26 'major' oil spills in Australian waters since 1903, ranging in size from several thousand tonnes to less than a tonne. Of these 26, five have occurred in the GBR and Torres Strait (in blue highlight), only two of which are the result of ship groundings and neither of which occurred in an area under REEFVTS watch.

R1212 101

GBR Shipping Study

Table 18: Summary of Major Marine Oil Spills in Australian Waters Date Vessel/Platform Location Oil Amount Notes 28/11/1903 Petriana Port Phillip Bay, Vic 1300 tonnes 03/03/1970 Oceanic Grandeur Torres Strait, Qld 1100 tonnes Result of grounding; pre- dated establishment of the GBRMP and GBRWHA and REEFVTS

26/05/1974 Sygna Newcastle, NSW 700 tonnes 14/07/1975 Princess Anne Marie Offshore, WA 14 800 tonnes 10/09/1979 World Encouragement Botany Bay, NSW 95 tonnes 29/10/1981 Anro Asia Bribie Island, Qld 100 tonnes 22/01/1982 Esso Gippsland Port Stanvac, SA unknown 03/12/1987 Nella Dan Macquarie Island 125 tonnes 06/02/1988 Sir Alexander Glen Port Walcott, WA 450 tonnes 20/05/1988 Korean Star Cape Cuvier, WA 600 tonnes 28/07/1988 Al Qurain Portland, Vic 184 tonnes 21/05/1990 Arthur Phillip Cape Otway, Vic unknown 14/02/1991 Sanko Harvest Esperance, WA 700 tonnes 21/07/1991 Kirki offshore, WA 17 280 tonnes 30/08/1992 Era Port Bonython, SA 300 tonnes 10/07/1995 Iron Baron Hebe Reef, Tas 325 tonnes 28/06/1999 Mobil Refinery Port Stanvac, SA 230 tonnes 26/07/1999 MV Torungen Varanus Island, WA 25 tonnes 03/08/1999 Laura D’Amato Sydney, NSW 250 tonnes 18/12/1999 Sylvan Arrow Wilson's Promontory, <2 tonnes Vic 02/09/2001 Pax Phoenix Holbourne Island, <1 tonne Result of unauthorised Qld release of oily mixture. Estimated as 160 to 670 litres. 25/12/2002 Pacific Quest Border Island, Qld >70 km slick Result of unauthorised release of oily mixture. 24/01/2006 Global Peace Gladstone, Qld 25 tonnes Result of tank breach following impact from harbour tug. 11/03/2009 Pacific Adventurer Cape Moreton, Qld 270 tonnes 21/08/2009 Montara Wellhead NW Australian coast approx 64 tonnes per day 03/04/2010 Shen Neng 1 Douglas Shoal, Qld 4 tonnes Result of grounding; occurred outside of the REEFVTS area in operation at that time. (after AMSA 2012)

R1212 102

GBR Shipping Study

None of these incidents following groundings within the GBR occurred in an area subject to REEFVTS controls. The most recent event, following the grounding of the bulk carrier Shen Neng 1 in 2010, occurred in an area that was not subject to REEFVTS controls at that time (see text box below). Furthermore, in all of the GBR oil loss incidents over the past few decades, the effects of the oil spill were localised and have not been documented to have occasioned significant, long-term adverse environmental effects.

NAVIGATION SAFETY OFF THE COAST OF QUEENSLAND: SHEN NENG 1 In 2003/04, AMSA and GBRMPA worked together to identify areas where large commercial ships can and can’t transit through the GBRMP. Navigating in the waters north of the Capricorn and Bunker Groups of islands, an area zoned for general use, is relatively straight forward. There is deep water and adequate sea room for any corrective action against unexpected developments. A competent and alert watch-keeping officer should be able to navigate easily in this area. Shen Neng 1 lodged a sailing plan through AMSA’s RCC – Australia prior to departing from Gladstone. The ship indicated that it would be following a route traversed by ships sailing from and sailing to the port of Gladstone and within the designated shipping area. The planned departure route took the ship north from Gladstone until an alteration of course that would take the ship through a 12 mile wide passage between North West Island and Douglas Shoal, then into the open sea to the east via the Capricorn Channel. While the sailing plan provided an indication of the intended passage of the ship, the ship deviated from its sailing plan, entered a prohibited area and ran aground on Douglas Shoal. This area is not considered navigationally challenging and there are no ‘recommended routes’ as there is sufficient sea room to manoeuvre the ship to avoid collision, water depths of approximately 40 metres and navigational aids to assist in position fixing. The investigation of the incident by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) identified a number of critical contributory causes, the confluence of which resulted in the ship departing from the planned passage route and running aground, as follow: • There was no effective fatigue management system in place onboard the ship to ensure that the Chief Mate, who had been on duty for all but two of the previous 38 hours before the ship grounded, was fit to stand a navigational watch after the loading in Gladstone. • The ship’s safety management system did not contain procedures or guidance on the proper use of GPS route plans and their relationship to the ship’s passage plans. • In the final 30 minutes before the grounding, there were no visual cues to warn the on-watch bridge personnel as to the underwater navigation hazards directly ahead of the ship. • The additional safeguards afforded by a requirement for compulsory pilotage or REEFVTS monitoring were not in place in the sea area off Gladstone. (ATSB 2011)

R1212 103

GBR Shipping Study

NAVIGATION SAFETY OFF THE COAST OF QUEENSLAND: SHEN NENG 1 (Cont.)

R1212 104

GBR Shipping Study

Although at least nine ship groundings occurred in the GBR between 1994 and 2010, only one incident resulted in the loss of oil. This suggests that ship groundings are uncommon, with the subsequent release of any oil even less common, let alone loss of a significant quantity of oil. In a periodic review and update of oil spill risk assessments in the GBR region for the QCCAP, DTMR (2011a) concluded that the following ports presented as an area of 'low risk' in terms of ship- sourced oil spill: Cairns, Townsville, Port Alma, Abbot Point Hay Point, Mackay, Mourilyan, Thursday Island, Bundaberg, Cape Flattery, Lucinda, Cooktown, Quintell Beach and Maryborough. This compared with Gladstone which was assessed as 'medium risk'. These assessments will need to be tested periodically as the number of ship movements is increased within the GBR region. Environmental risks from groundings and any subsequent oil loss should be expected to diminish over time as ships with protected fuel tanks gradually replace the existing world fleet, reducing the likelihood and extent of any oil loss in the event of a grounding. Further risk attenuation will be realised in the context of consequence of oil spills if, as intended, the use of heavy residual fuel oils in ships is reduced or eventually eliminated.

7.3.2 Collision Collision is an ever-present risk for shipping, particularly in confined waterways where ships concentrate, such as in channels, restricted transit lanes, passages and harbours. In terms of ship collision risk, a particular location may be 'confined' by either the width of the available manoeuvring area or the depth of water, or both. Manoeuvre restrictions and collision risks are further compounded during periods of poor visibility, as occur at night and at other times due to glare, haze, rain, mist and fog. This collision risk is exacerbated for ships of limited manoeuvrability and poor performance in terms of turning, acceleration, stopping and reversing, such as bulk carriers and tankers. As well as collisions between ships at sea, which are obviously intentionally avoided, other vessels purposefully come into contact with each other: a prime example of this practice is harbour tugs pushing other ships. In these latter cases an incident occurs when the contact takes place in a manner not intended. As with groundings, ship collisions can potentially result in the release of oil and the loss of other ship fittings, debris and cargo to the marine environment, dependent upon the circumstances and severity of the impact. In some cases, collision can result in the sinking of one or other of the vessels (and more rarely, both of them), or onboard fire. Ship collisions do occur in the GBR region, albeit infrequently and there are no documented cases of collisions between large ships, such as bulk carriers. The Great Barrier Reef Shipping Review Steering Committee (2001) reported that from 1985 to 2000 there were 14 collisions, although in all but one of these cases (small) fishing vessels were involved with merchant ships. The only other case was in 1997 when the 250 t RAN patrol boat HMAS Fremantle collided with the 76 300 DWT bulk carrier River Embley . Neither ship was badly damaged and there is no record of any loss of oil. This was an example of an unintended collision, attributed to lax watchkeeping and seamanship skills. Another example within the GBR is that of the collision in Gladstone Harbour in 2006 when, as a result of an engine failure, the tug Tom Tough collided with the bulk carrier Global Peace (see Table 18). This resulted in holing of the hull adjacent to a heated 'day service' 18 bunker tank, with subsequent release of around 25 tonnes of fuel oil (AMSA 2012). This is another example of a situation where the likelihood of breach of a fuel tank would have been reduced in the case of a ship with IMO-prescribed protected fuel tanks.

18 Essentially a ready use tank. The heated oil will likely have flowed more readily, and hence have been released to the environment in greater quantity, than would have unheated oil.

R1212 105

GBR Shipping Study

No collisions resulting in loss of oil have been recorded in the GBR region since 2006. Given the projected potential increase in ship traffic through the GBR region, it may be anticipated that more ships seeking to share finite sea room will result in more frequent collisions. This risk may be countered by extending the coverage within the GBR region of vessel management controls such as traffic separation schemes and designated two-way channels (see Box), improving the coverage of navigation aids (e.g. radar surveillance systems) and augmenting the coverage and capabilities of REEFVTS. SHIP ROUTEING AND TRAFFIC SEPARATION SCHEMES The objective of ship routeing controls and traffic separation schemes is to improve the safety of navigation in converging areas and in areas where the density of traffic is great or where freedom of movement of shipping is inhibited by restricted. Traffic separation schemes and other ship routeing systems have been established in most of the major congested, shipping areas of the world, including the Malacca Straits, Baltic and the Dover Straits. The imposition of these measures has typically resulted in a significant reduction in the rate of incidence of collisions and groundings. The IMO holds that ship routeing systems contribute to the safety of life at sea, the safety and efficiency of navigation and/or the protection of the marine environment. Ships' routeing systems may either be voluntary or mandatory, and can be applied to all ships, or certain categories of ships, and/or ships carrying certain cargoes. The SOLAS Convention establishes the IMO as the only international body vested with the authority to establish traffic separation schemes and ship routeing systems, although the initiation of such schemes is the responsibility of member Governments. Any Government intending to establish a new routeing system, or amend an existing one, must submit the proposed routeing measures, with appropriate justification, to the IMO for evaluation before the IMO may agree to adopt such measures. Ships are obliged to adhere to the requirements of a mandatory ship routeing system (as required for the category of ship or cargo carried) unless there are 'compelling reasons' not to. COLREGs prescribe the conduct of vessels when navigating through traffic separation schemes adopted by the IMO. As well as traffic separation schemes, other routeing measures adopted by IMO include: • two-way routes; • recommended tracks; • deep water routes (for ships where the ability to manoeuvre is constrained by draught); • precautionary areas (where ships must navigate with particular caution); and • areas to be avoided (e.g. for reasons of 'exceptional' danger or especially sensitive ecological and environmental factors). As well as routes to be followed, control schemes may also regulate aspects such as: • ship speeds; • minimum separation distances between ships; and • special rules on overtaking; Various elements used in traffic routeing systems include: • Traffic separation scheme: a routeing measure aimed at the separation of opposing streams of traffic by appropriate means, and by the establishment of traffic lanes. • Traffic lane: an area within defined limits in which one-way traffic is established. natural obstacles, including those forming separation zones, may constitute a boundary. • Separation zone or line: a zone or line separating traffic lanes in which ships are proceeding in opposite or nearly opposite directions; or separating a traffic lane from the adjacent sea area; or separating traffic lanes designated for particular classes of ship proceeding in the same direction. • Roundabout: a separation point or circular separation zone and a circular traffic lane within defined limits. • Inshore traffic zone: a designated area between the landward boundary of a traffic separation scheme and the adjacent coast. • Recommended route: a route of undefined width, for the convenience of ships in transit, which is often marked by centreline buoys.

R1212 106

GBR Shipping Study

• Deep-water route: a route within defined limits which has been accurately surveyed for clearance of sea bottom and submerged articles. • Precautionary area: an area within defined limits where ships must navigate with particular caution and within which the direction of flow of traffic may be recommended. • Area to be avoided: an area within defined limits in which either navigation is particularly hazardous or it is exceptionally important to avoid casualties and which should be avoided by all ships, or by certain classes of ships. Weather routeing is another measure, whereby ships can be advised to avoid specified areas when weather conditions are predicted to present a particular hazard to ship safety. (adapted from IMO 2012)

It is conceivable that collision avoidance parameters may act as the limiting factor for ship movements through the GBR region, at least in relation to some of the narrower and/or busier passages, such as Hydrographers Passage and at Princess Charlotte Bay. Ship traffic analyses understandably concentrate on 'choke points' where ships are compelled to converge on narrow waterways. The parameters of channel width, length and configuration (e.g. relatively straight or requiring a number of turns), as well as ship dimensions and operating characteristics, such as length, speed, turning circle, stopping distance, determine the number of ships which can safely pass through the channel of interest within a given space of time. Such assessments are commonly used in contemporary ship traffic management regimes and have been applied in other busy, confined waterways such as the Dover Strait, the Danish Belts, the Strait of Gibraltar and straits around the Japanese Home Islands. Although it is understood that physical limitations on ship movements are yet to be approached for any of the GBR channels, it is reasonable to assume that such limits may begin to emerge with the projected potential expansion of GBR shipping activities. Accordingly, it would be considered prudent to test these limits using appropriate modelling and risk analyses in order to determine what maximum rate of shipping movement could be tolerated through the GBR's more constricted passages. Any such evaluations should be consistent with the standards set out by the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) in the IALA Waterways Risk Assessment Program (IWRAP).

7.3.3 Fire Notwithstanding the possible environmental effects from the smoke and fumes which a shipboard fire may generate and any material mobilised and released to the marine environment from the overboard drainage of firefighting water (including firefighting additives), shipboard fires of themselves present no particular environmental threat to the ocean in general, nor the GBR region in particular. Where exposure to environmental risk eventuates in the event of a shipboard fire is the possible nexus with subsequent marine casualty events. Subsequent events arising as a result of onboard fire may include sinking, the loss of containment of oil and cargo, or abandonment or loss of control of the ship leading resulting in a drifting hulk liable to grounding or collision. These consequential events are addressed separately in this report. Onboard fire is widely regarded as one of the most dangerous situations which a ship may encounter, primarily due to the safety threat posed to persons onboard. As a result, the avoidance, detection, suppression and combating of onboard fires is one of the key objectives of ship design specifications and operational procedures and a primary element of crew training. Large, catastrophic fires in ships are relatively infrequent, and it is understood that their incidence within the GBR region is rare. Most harbour and salvage tugs are fitted with firefighting pumps and nozzles designed to assist ships on fire, and assistance of this sort would be available to a ship in a GBR port or anchorage. In addition, any ship at anchor is unlikely to drift as a result of fire, hence negating at least some of the consequential environmental risks stemming from onboard fire.

R1212 107

GBR Shipping Study

7.3.4 Structural failure It is possible, albeit rare, that ships suffer some form of serious, if not catastrophic, structural failure. These failures generally occur as a result of corrosion and/or significant stresses and forces which may arise as a result of heavy seas or improper loading/unloading and ballasting/deballasting sequences. Structural failure may manifest in many forms, such as from a crack in the hull or failure of a bulkhead, failure of a cargo hatch seal, to in more extreme cases the ship breaking into two pieces. One common cause of bulk carrier structural failure in the past was water entering a hold and mixing with the cargo, with subsequent sloshing causing collapse or breach of bulkheads. The unacceptable frequency of catastrophic ship structural failures up until a few decades ago was the catalyst for focused action lead by the IMO and ship classification societies to remedy this situation. This resulted in new design, material and build standards, and enhanced ship survey and certification regimes for bulk carriers, effected via revision of applicable IMO instruments such as the SOLAS Convention. Additional measures are promulgated via IMO Resolution A.744(18) Guidelines on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections During Surveys for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers , originally adopted in November 1993 and continually revised and updated since inception via IMO amendments. These measures have been augmented by limitations on the amounts and types of cargoes which may be carried and more advanced procedures for the loading and unloading of ships, the latter designed to better balance loads and bending moments on the hull. Although bulk carrier structural failures still occur, their frequency of occurrence, and their severity, have both been attenuated since the guidelines were initially released and as the world bulk carrier fleet gradually replaces hulls existing before the advent of the IMO Guidelines with new builds. Although infrequent, structural defects do occur periodically on ships operating in the GBR. Vigilant and effective ship vetting practices will reduce the likelihood of any ship which may be vulnerable to structural failure being engaged in coal export from the GBR ports.

7.3.5 Inadvertent loss of oil Ships occasionally lose oil to the ocean due to inadvertent events or failures, sometimes but not always as a result of human action or intervention. Circumstances where oil may be inadvertently released to the marine environment may include, for example: • Tank venting, whereby oil sloshing in full or near full tanks in heavy seas may be ejected through vent pipes, and flow across the deck and down the side of the ship. • Breach of oil tank, as may occur if a ship rubs against a wharf or mooring dolphin, or if struck by a floating or submerged object (as occurred with the general cargo ship Pacific Adventurer of Moreton Island, Queensland in 2009, which was holed by containers lost from the ship). • Incorrect alignment of fuel transfer systems, resulting in tank overflow or discharge to sea (NB: fuel transfers in port normally occur during refuelling operations, something that most bulk carriers do not undertake in GBR ports). • Incorrect alignment of bilge or waste oil or sludge transfer systems, resulting in overboard discharge. • Deliberate discharge as may be required to safeguard lives or to avert a more significant environmental hazard, as permitted under MARPOL and related legal instruments. Note that as well as inadvertent loss of oil, there have been instances of malicious or negligent discharge. One example of this within the GBR region was the deliberate release of oily waste water from the Handymax bulk carrier Pax Phoenix , off Holbourne Island in September 2001 (see Table 18). Following investigation, the source of the oil was determined and the ship owners prosecuted. Another instance occurred in December 2002 near the Whitsundays with the unlawful discharge of oily bilge

R1212 108

GBR Shipping Study

water from the container ship Pacific Quest (see Table 18), probably as a result of poor practices or inadequate supervision of a crew member. The ship owner was also successfully prosecuted in this case. In most, instances the amount of oil lost to the sea in the case of inadvertent loss is minimal, and not likely to present a significant pollution event. This has been the case in the incidents of inadvertent or negligent loss in the GBR, where the amounts of oil involved were small and occurred in areas where the distances from nearest land or reefs permitted the oil to disperse without representing any substantive pollution risk.

7.3.6 Marine fauna strike Ship strike can be defined as a collision between a vessel and a marine species causing either injuries or death to the marine animal and/or damage to the vessel and sometimes to its passengers (IWC 2006). Ships strikes occur anywhere that vessels and marine fauna distributions’ overlap, mostly within coastal zones, however, there have been reports of high seas collisions (IWC 2006). Ship strikes injuries to marine animals tend to fall into two categories: • Lacerations from sharp objects, most commonly propellers • Blunt trauma injuries from impact with the hull resulting in fractured skulls, jaws or vertebrae in conjunction with large haematomas (Laist et al. 2001). Globally, ship strike is an acknowledged risk for marine fauna, particular larger marine mammal species such as whales, dolphins, dugongs and also reptiles such as turtles. These species appear particularly vulnerable due to their use of surface environments to breath and feed. Fish (including sharks and rays) and other marine species appear less at risk. Within the GBRWHA, commercial shipping presents a potential risk, primarily to humpback whales. Smaller and medium sized fauna such as turtles and dugongs appear more at risk from small speed boats in areas of high recreational boating traffic, such as the Hinchinbrook Island area and Cleveland Bay (within the GBRWHA) and Hervey Bay and Moreton Bay further south. Humpback Whales As outlined previously, the humpback whale migratory path ranges from the southern waters of the Antarctic to the tropical waters of the GBR. Known aggregation areas occur along the east coast, with breeding and calving areas in the GBR complex, resting areas in the Whitsundays, the Swain Reefs complex, Bell Cay, and the Palm Island Group, Hervey Bay and Moreton Bay (DEH 2005b). Aggregation areas have been identified using predictive modelling methods for environmental suitability validated by empirical satellite tracking data (Smith et al 2012). Whaling in the 19th and 20th Centuries is estimated to have eliminated approximately 95% of the humpback population within Australian waters (DEH 2005b). Since commercial whaling officially ceased in 1966 (SEWPaC 2012), the species is recovering at rate of increase of approximately 10% per annum (DEH 2005b). Two major threats were identified in the Humpback Whale Recovery Plan (DEH 2005b): (1) the resumption of commercial whaling and/or the expansion of scientific whaling, and (2) habitat degradation (DEH 2005b). Within these identified threats, injury or death from ship strike is acknowledged as a minor component of habitat degradation.

Whale Ship Strike Incidents Internationally The International Whaling Commission (IWC) established the Ship Strikes Working Group (SSWG) at the 57th annual meeting in Korea in 2005 (IWC 2006), to which Australia is a contributing member. The SSWG identified four main drivers that influence the number and gravity of ship strikes:

R1212 109

GBR Shipping Study

• Vessel type – threat and impact differ depending on vessel type (e.g. ferry, tanker, yacht, fishing vessel, warship, etc.) and their typical speeds. • Underwater noise – high levels of ambient noise may make it difficult for cetaceans to detect approaching vessels and to judge their relative location and movement. • Weather conditions and time of navigation – may affect the ability of the crew of vessels to visually detect whales. • Whale behaviour – behaviour towards maritime traffic is species-specific, i.e. sensory capabilities, manoeuvrability, swim speed differs amongst species; other behavioural aspects influencing ship strike include impaired hearing, tolerance to traffic noise, reduced perception, habituation, distraction by other activities and lack of recognition of the threat. Internationally, Australia does not register as a high risk area due to the low intensity of shipping (IWC 2006) (Figure 42). Areas of high risk identified by the IWC SSWG (IWC 2006) include locations such as the Straits of Malacca, Florida, and the English Channel, all of which are relatively narrow routes with a very high frequency of shipping where interactions are more likely to occur. By way of contrast, sea areas along the east coast of Australia indicate relatively low intensity compared to the east and west coasts of the US and north west Pacific.

(NCEAS 2012) Figure 42: Global Shipping Routes Showing Intensity of Use

Data from the IWC Shipstrike Database (Table 19) confirm Australia’s low risk rating. Combined, the east coast of the United States and Hawaii account for 78% of all reported collisions with humpback whales. This information is consistent with that provided by Jensen & Silber (2003) whose records indicate that collisions between vessels and whales in US waters are most common along the east coast, followed by the west coast and Hawaii.

R1212 110

GBR Shipping Study

Table 19: Humpback Whale IWC Ship Strikes Summary Data Vessel Type 1 East Coast Hawaii Alaska East Coast Totals US Australia Passenger vessel 1 1 Sailing vessel 1 1 2 Rigid/inflatable vessel 3 3 Motor yacht 3 4 2 9 Fishing vessel 1 1 2 Whale watching vessel 2 10 2 14 Not known 27 18 3 10 58 Totals 33 37 8 11 89

(IWC)

1 At least some proportion of the ‘not known’ vessels can be presumed to be commercial ships, but a definite value cannot be estimated from the available data.

Humpback Whale Ship Strikes in East Coast Australian Waters Australia has been recording and reporting ship strikes through their IWC Country Reports since 2006. During the five years from 2006 to 2010 (inclusive) there were 17 reported ship strikes of humpback whales within Australian waters (11 on the east coast). The major shipping routes of east coast Australia correspond in general terms to the major migratory pathway of humpback whales. However, despite the presence of both increasing shipping traffic and whale population numbers, the incidence of ship strike of humpback whales has remained steady and low since 2006. Analysis of Australia’s IWC Country Reports data indicates a rate of vessel strike for humpback whales at 1 – 5 individuals per annum, or < 0.05% of the estimated Australian humpback whale population of 8000 in 2006 (SEWPaC 2012). Risk of Ship Strike Specific to the GBR There appear to be no formal requirements or mechanisms for large commercial ships to notify marine fauna strikes, although such obligation is promulgated in the EPBC Act. Any information that is obtained regarding marine fauna strike from commercial vessels in the GBR is anecdotal and voluntary. Official reporting of strikes focuses mainly on jet skis, small vessels and boats, primarily recreational, fishing and tourism vessels. Analysis of data specific to the GBR and commercial vessels, indicates that only two humpback whale ship strike incidents in Queensland could have been from commercial vessels, although the actual source of these incidents remains unknown. It is acknowledged that these numbers should be interpreted with caution as there may be cases where a ship strike has not been reported. These numbers do however provide a preliminary indication that the potential risks of large commercial ship strikes to humpback whales in the GBR and along the Queensland coast are very low. Jensen & Silber (2003) speculated it is plausible that ship Masters who are under no obligation to report often do not, out of apathy or fear of enforcement consequences. Another possible reason for insufficient data is that the crew of large ships, such as container ships, tankers, and cruise ships may not be aware that a collision with a whale has occurred and thus do not report the incident. However, while strikes may go unnoticed and/or unreported there is also no evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) to suggest that commercial ship strike on whales is a common event, if it were it would be reasonable to expect a higher incidence of dead or injured whales being found along the migratory route. It should

R1212 111

GBR Shipping Study

also be noted that the risk of ship strike to marine fauna from commercial vessels is not indicated as a priority of concern in the GBRMPA Outlook Report 2009 (GBRMPA 2009a). Most collisions involving whales have been attributed to the speed of the vessel (Van Waerebeek et al. 2007), which has been shown to be a primary predictor of fatal mortalities in other species and areas. Vanderlaan & Taggart (2007), reviewing collisions listed in Laist et al. (2001), found that 80% of collisions at ship speeds of 15 kts were fatal to whales. At speeds of 11.8 kts and 8.6 kts the percentage of fatal collisions dropped to 50% and 20%, respectively. Speed reduction has also been used to lower risks with marine mammals other than cetaceans (Calleson & Frohlich 2007). Bulk carriers and other large commercial vessels are, relatively speaking, slow moving craft travelling at speeds of between 4 kts to 18 kts in most cases. Within the inner channel of the GBR average speeds are around 13 kts. Where incidents are reported, discrepancies in the accuracy and detail of the data make it difficult to compare data across species and geographic regions. The Australian government has commenced the development of a national strategy aimed at preventing vessel-cetacean interactions by focusing on public education and improved protocols for reporting incidents (IWC 2011). The Australian Marine Mammal Centre (AMMC) is also developing a national ship strike database, ensuring that the data collected is compatible with the IWC ship strike database (IWC 2011).

7.4 Contributory Factors As with many transport-related accidents, background circumstances and processes often pre-dispose a given situation or event to adverse and unintended outcomes, both in terms of likelihood of occurrence and severity of consequence. This Section presents a short précis of common contributory factors both contemporary and forecast, related to shipping incidents.

7.4.1 Human element Safe navigation is founded upon competent, suitably trained and properly rested crews operating their ships in accordance with accepted practices and responding to emergencies or potential critical incidents in a timely and effective manner. These are broadly defined as the 'human element', and pivot around issues of training, competency, responsible behaviour, supervision and leadership, coordination and fatigue management. Crew competency Regrettably, merchant ship crews and their levels of competency cannot be taken for granted, and there is ample evidence of maritime incidents resulting from poorly trained crews, often compounded by inexperience and poor judgement. Recent notable shipping incidents where poor skill levels were major factors, if not the primary cause, include the grounding of Pasha Bulker at Newcastle and the grounding of Rena on Astrolabe Reef near Tauranga, New Zealand. Within the GBR, inadequate crew competency has also been a major factor in shipping events, with examples being the collision of Fremantle , and the groundings of Shen Neng 1 and Bunga Teratai Satu . The state of globalisation of ship crewing, particularly given the increasing number of nations involved and their diversity of social and economic development, education and technology, has elicited concern from global and national shipping authorities, including the IMO. Indeed, based upon anecdotal evidence, AMSA (2010b) has identified declining crew competencies as a threat to safe navigation in Australian waters. This situation is exacerbated by modern crewing arrangements, where many crews only stay in any one ship for a limited period of time, and hence are not provided with any but minimal opportunities to become familiar with the ship and the ship's particular features, procedures and idiosyncrasies, nor with the other members of the crew.

R1212 112

GBR Shipping Study

Another key crew-related factor is language. English is the official language of maritime trades (as it is for aviation), yet the diversification of nationalities of crews, and especially of ship's officers, has arguably resulted in a waning of the number of mariners possessing written and spoken English communication skills at an appropriate level. This lack of familiarity of crews with the ship and the onboard procedures, and their crewmates, can manifest in a sub-optimal manner in stressful or critical situations, where effective, informed and decisive action is required. This is also the case for communications, especially verbal, where an inability to convey a clear message, or understand one, especially if passed over radio, can lead to delays in response or incorrect and unintended actions. For example, REEFVTS communicates with ships over radio via voice; it is axiomatic that the lack of a competent English speaker onboard a ship would weaken the effectiveness and timeliness of such communications. Furthermore, in the case where only one or a limited number of ship's staff had suitable English language skills, delays in communication would also arise if that person had to be found and move to the bridge to participate in the exchange. The Member States of the IMO are seeking to maintain, if not improve, mariners' levels of skill and competency, through enhancement of the STCW Convention and other IMO instruments, and the implementation of complementary measures by Flag States (i.e. the national authorities under which ship crews are certified as trained and competent). In the Australia region, Port State checks on crew training and skill levels are implemented, both directly by Australia and by extension through the Tokyo and Indian Ocean Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) (see Appendix B). The STCW Convention has been enhanced via the Manila Amendments, which began to take effect from 1 January 2012. The key elements of these revised arrangements are: • Changes to mandatory competencies , including, for example, the requirement for Engineer Officers to be able to operate pollution prevention equipment, as well as overall greater emphasis given to environmental management for all crew members. • Revised leadership and teamwork skills for officers, related to leadership, teamwork and managerial skills. The revisions also include assertiveness training for all grades who may have to communicate on matters regarding safety. • Training record books , so that all trainees can demonstrate and record the successful attainment of appropriate competencies. • Refresher training , with additional emphasis given to the need for suitable standards of competence to be maintained throughout a seafarer's career, particularly safety and survival training and firefighting. • Tanker training , with revised competencies for personnel engaged in oil, chemical and gas tanker operations. • Medical standards , with the introduction of additional medical fitness standards and requirements for certification. • Prevention of unsafe alcohol use , including a specific limit of 0.05% blood alcohol level or 0.25 mg/L alcohol in the breath. • Revised minimum rest hours (see below). It should be recognised that any decline in levels of crew competency and experience, particularly for foreign-flagged and foreign-crewed ships, could potentially be one of the most persistent and pervasive facets of the risks presented by shipping in the GBR region. There is similarly unlikely to be any remedy to this situation, other than constant vigilance by the responsible authorities, both in Australia and overseas, and the implementation of other risk reduction measures, such as improved or more widespread navigation aids, to compensate for skills which should otherwise be displayed by ships plying the waters of the GBR region.

R1212 113

GBR Shipping Study

Fatigue Fatigue is a risk multiplier in terms of shipping risks, and is a component of the human element of shipping activities in the GBR which needs to be effectively managed, administered and supervised. Fatigue needs to be properly managed for both ship's crews and pilots in the GBR, particularly Reef pilots who may be required on the bridge of a ship for extended hours with minimal respite. The ATSB (2011) identified fatigue as a critical contributory factor in the grounding of Shen Neng 1 off Gladstone in 2010. From 1 January 2012 the Manila Amendments introduced a more stringent mandatory minimum crew rest regime, which is as follows: • The minimum amount of rest in any seven day period is increased to 77 hours from 70 hours. • Except during an emergency, all seafarers must always have at least 10 hours rest in any 24 hour period. • Records of each individual crew member's rest hours need to be maintained and available for Port State inspections. • The rest hour limits now apply to most seafarers on board, including Masters, and not just watchkeepers as had previously been the case. Individual crew members need to periodically review and sign a record of their work/rest hours to ensure their compliance with mandatory minimum rest hours. The susceptibility and consequences of fatigue are likely to be compounded by poor mariner competencies and inadequate language skills, such that only a limited number of crew members may be relied upon to discharge an inordinate amount of the duties which should properly be more widely shared among all crew members. For instance, if only a sub-optimal number of crew members have sufficient skill and experience to navigate a ship through confined waters such as the narrower passages of the GBR, then these individuals may be required to spend extended periods on watch, and receive minimal chance for rest, accentuating their fatigue. There is no known regulatory remedy for guarding against crew fatigue other than periodic checks by Port and Flag States, and shipping company managers, to ensure compliance with the requirements of the STCW Convention and other national and company requirements. These are all retrospective checks, however, and provide no substantive capacity for intervention in a developing situation where fatigue is incipient; ultimately it is the responsibility of ship owners and operators and Masters to ensure adequate manning levels with adequate opportunity for rest. In the case of Reef pilots, the fatigue equation can be compounded by long boat or helicopter transits to ships. Any extension of compulsory pilotage areas within the GBR region, or expansion of coverage to more ship types, has the potential to intensify these difficulties. This potential increase on pilot workloads would be in addition to that occasioned by the forecast rise of shipping movements through the GBR, both in connection with GBR region port expansions and shipping transiting the Reef but not calling into a Reef port. The workloads and demands upon Reef pilots could be more closely monitored and regulated by the responsible Australian authorities and the Reef pilots themselves, and the regulatory framework may need to be reviewed and modified to cope with increasing shipping transiting the GBR. A key means of avoiding endemic Reef pilot fatigue would be to recruit and train more pilots.

R1212 114

GBR Shipping Study

7.4.2 Adverse weather Adverse weather and sea conditions are often associated with maritime casualties, both for ships on the high seas and others in anchorages. This is less of a risk factor for shipping in the GBR, noting the barrier effect that the Great Barrier Reef provides. Although water within the GBR lagoon may become too rough at times for small craft, the comparatively sheltered waters of the Reef generally present no such difficulties to large ships except in the event of extreme events, namely cyclones. As previously noted, it is a standard procedure for ships to be ordered to sea from the GBR ports under warning of approaching cyclones, with the intent of providing sufficient notice so that the ships can clear the GBR and head to sea to ride out the storm. With the noted exception of cyclones, severe weather is only likely to possibly result in adverse environmental consequences for the GBR region in the case of a ship sailing in the Coral Sea outside of the protection of the Reef. In this situation, a ship may be forced by a storm event onto an outer reef. Events of this type have occurred in the past, but they should be considered as less probable in contemporary terms given the improved charting of the GBR, improved weather forecasting and reporting services, and improved ship reliability and operating practices.

7.5 Summary Following consideration of the underlying risks and contributory factors associated with the operation of ships in the GBR, a formulation can be made of the 'ideal' bulk carrier engaged in coal export from GBR ports. This conceptual, model ship can be summarised thus: • well engineered and well maintained, with pollution control and collision avoidance equipment and procedures compliant with all current and impending IMO requirements; • regularly surveyed by properly authorised and competent Flag Authorities and/or approved classification societies, and in possession of all valid, required survey certificates, particularly those dealing with structural integrity, safety and pollution prevention; • crewed by competent, responsible, well-trained, regularly drilled and experienced seafarers, exhibiting appropriate utility in both the spoken and written forms of the English language; • exhibiting operating procedures and crew rosters such that crew fatigue is properly managed and avoided; and • owned and operated within a responsible corporate structure, particularly one which is able to recognise, characterise and respond with appropriate corrective actions to incidents, 'near misses' and latent risks, preferably before manifesting as critical incidents. Ship vetting, as discussed in Section 7.1, is one means by which companies engaging the services of bulk carriers can test an individual ship against this ideal. A range of new systems and technical procedures are also being developed and tested to improve marine navigation safety and efficiency and the dissemination of critical information in a timely manner (see Box).

EVOLVING TECHNOLOGICAL AIDS TO SHIP NAVIGATION The evolution of highly capable communications and information technologies, coupled with the increase in world shipping, has resulted in the development of a suite of new ship control systems, focused upon areas with significant concentrations of ship traffic. Two of these areas are the Malacca Straits and the Baltic, where new, technology-based, ship control procedures are being demonstrated and tested. These systems are the Marine Electronic Highway (MEH), in the Malacca Straits, and Motorways and Electronic Navigation by Intelligence at Sea (MONALISA) project in the Baltic.

R1212 115

GBR Shipping Study

The Marine Electronic Highway The MEH Demonstration Project is centred upon the Malacca Straits and Singapore. The project aims to link shore-based maritime information and communication infrastructure with the corresponding navigational and communication facilities aboard transiting ships. The overall objectives of the MEH Demonstration Project were to enhance maritime services, improve safety of navigation, improve ship security and promote marine environment protection. The MEH is being built upon a network of ENCs using ECDIS and various environmental management tools, combined within an integrated platform. This is intended to provide ships and management agencies with timely, comprehensive information which can be used to promote safe and secure navigation. The system includes AIS stations, DGPS stations, real-time tide and current data, as well as meteorological and oceanographic information (IMO 2012). MONALISA The Motorways and Electronic Navigation by Intelligence at Sea (MONALISA) project has been established by Baltic states in order to increase competitiveness, reduce environmental impact, improve accessibility and improve the efficiency and safety of shipping in the Baltic region. 'Innovative' e-navigational services form the core of the MONALISA demonstration project. Although a multi-faceted initiative, those elements with the greatest relevance to areas other than the Baltic are the route planning function and the verification of crew certifications and work practices. Dynamic and pro-active route planning - 'Green Routes': This element aims to develop and demonstrate a new model of ship route planning, based upon existing ENCs and AIS. Each vessel's pre-planned route would be promulgated to other vessels and shore monitoring stations. The plan for estimated best course and speed will be determined in a consultative manner between Masters and ship control/pilot centres, based upon information about conditions such as currents, winds, sea state, water depth and sea ice. Factors taken into account when determining best route and speed will include sailing time, fuel consumption, other traffic and congestion, berth availability and cargo handling schedules. It is envisaged that the system will also feature an alarm function, providing an alert in the case of a vessel diverting from an agreed route. Verification system for crew certifications and work practices: It is intended to develop a concept model for the automatic verification of mariner's certificates and the monitoring of time on watch. The mariner’s certificates will be automatically checked against databases held ashore. the aim of this system is to assure required competencies and to prevent fatigue (Swedish Maritime Administration 2011).

R1212 116

GBR Shipping Study

8. Assessment of Key Environmental Risk Factors 8.1 Overview This review seeks to evaluate current and emergent risks associated with shipping in the GBR region within the context of extant regulations and management regimes. The analysis of such risks, both current and future, and possible options for avoidance or mitigation, is presented in this Section. Currently, shipping within the GBR region is a highly regulated activity and there are stringent management arrangements applying to commercial shipping in this area. In 2009, the Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report (GBRMPA 2009a) concluded that: Most routine shipping activities have negligible consequences on the Marine Park and almost all ships travel safely along the designated shipping routes of the Great Barrier Reef with little, if any, impact , and that; ...... comprehensive management arrangements mean that there have been few incidents threatening Great Barrier Reef values relative to the large number of shipping movements in and through the Region , but that; ... the predicted increase in shipping will increase the likelihood of a major incident as well as increasing the potential for more introduced species to occur . As a result of extensive, objective analysis and wide consultation with GBR port operators and regulators, this review has independently reached the same general conclusion. Since the Outlook Report was prepared, increased attention has been placed on the consequences of port expansion along the Queensland coast. Whilst much of this concern is focused on the local impacts of ports, the increased number of ships expected to transit through the GBR region has also been highlighted as a risk. During their 2012 mission to Australia, UNESCO identified the predicted magnitude of increase in shipping as a concern due to the potential for adverse impacts on the Outstanding Universal Value of the GBRWHA (UNESCO/IUCN 2012). The draft GBR Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (GBRMPA 2012) notes that many ‘at-risk’ species and habitats are found in areas which are also used for ships, both in transit and at anchor. Following review and analysis, the key emergent and existing environmental risks, and/or those which warrant further analysis, associated with current and projected future shipping in the GBR region are considered to be: • Safety of navigation, particularly in relation to collisions and groundings. • Oil spills. • Shipboard human factors, including crew fatigue and overall competency. • Vessel quality, in relation to ship vetting. • Anchorages, in relation to issues such as capacity, potential for physical damage and contamination of the seabed, and location, especially in relation to important habitat for sensitive and/or vulnerable species. • Ship-sourced atmospheric emissions. • IMS, in relation to ballast water and biofouling. • Ship-sourced oily wastes, sewage and garbage. • Marine fauna strike. • Radiated underwater noise.

R1212 117

GBR Shipping Study

8.2 Risk Evaluation As previously noted, this review considered perceived as well as actual risks considered to have, or have the potential to be, significant. Synopses of these current and/or emergent threats, including summaries of their underlying regulatory frameworks and current and possible future management and mitigations are presented in Tables 20 to 29. The emergent risks have been colour coded using a 'traffic light' system, as denoted below. LEGEND No substantive risk either exists or is forecast, or is otherwise considered to be effectively managed or managed to the greatest practicable extent. Rare or unlikely to result in more than minor or inconsequential adverse outcomes. Some risk exists or is forecast, but is unlikely to occasion substantive adverse environmental effects and/or is considered to be suitably managed with existing/forecast measures.

Substantive risk exists or is forecast, and/or is considered that existing/forecast management measures are or may be inadequate.

Significant risk exists or is forecast, and/or is considered that existing/forecast management measures are or may be inadequate. Possible to almost certain occurrence, resulting in major to catastrophic outcomes. Some substantive risk is possible, but insufficient knowledge is available at present to confidently assess risk and/or associated current or forecast management measures.

This approach aligns with the risk management framework employed by GBRMPA, via the Environmental Assessment and Management (EAM) Risk Management Framework (GBRMPA 2009c). The GBRMPA methodology determines risk as an outcome of severity of consequence and the likelihood of that outcome occurring, which is consistent with established, widely accepted risk evaluation processes. Risk levels and the colour allocations have been applied qualitatively based on consultations undertaken with a wide variety of organisations and industry professionals. Likewise the potential responses have been developed from consultation and analysis of the available options and measures recommended by environmental, maritime safety and shipping professionals. In many cases a recommended potential response will address a number of different emerging risk (e.g. support for international and national efforts to maintain or improve seafarer competencies will have benefits in managing collisions and grounds risks, oil spills and accidental or illegal discharges of waste). Section 9 provides a summary of the potential responses against the variety of emerging risks and also outlines potential lead organisations for their implantation of further consideration.

R1212 118

GBR Shipping Study

Table 20: Navigation – Collisions and Groundings Legislative COLREGs Framework STCW Convention (primary MARPOL instruments) Navigation Act 1912 Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 GBRMP Act Baseline Risks In cases of both collisions and groundings, environmental risks stem from: • physical (impact) damage to seabed features, particularly coral reefs; • generation of debris (e.g. ship wreckage and lost cargo and fittings); • pollution potential of last cargo (e.g. herbicides or pesticides); and • MOST CRITICALLY - loss of oil (either bunkers or cargo), particularly HFO or heavy crude. Collisions Ships deviate from safe course and do not adhere to collision avoidance regulations and collision avoidance measures and impact with other ships. Risks within GBR are relatively minimal, noting only one collision between ships (not considering small boats) in GBR since 1985, as well as a tug impact against a ship in Gladstone in 2006. Risks are exacerbated in: • narrow, confined and/or relatively shallow waterways; and • areas where ships typically merge, cross or overtake. Groundings Risks within GBR are relatively minimal, noting only one grounding of a ship within the REEFVTS area since 2004. Grounding may result from ships deviating from safe navigation pathways, variously as a result of: • negligence or deliberate intent; • poor navigation and mariner skills; or • as a result of equipment failure (e.g. propulsion, steering or navigation systems). Mitigations Ship survey and certification requirements to ensure: (current) • appropriate crew competencies and skills; • appropriate fitting and operation of navigation aids and other equipment necessary for safe navigation; and • design, construction and upkeep of ship consistent with ship design requirements intended to minimise risk in the event of collision or grounding. Delineation of GBR region into designated Shipping Areas and closed areas. AMSA and MSQ provided navaids and navigation advisory services in the GBR. Compulsory pilotage in designated areas, particularly channels limited in terms of width and available depth. BoM GBR maritime weather services. AHS and ECDIS surveys and resultant charts. REEFVTS monitoring and oversight, with intervention capability in the case of ships deviating from approved tracks. Ship vetting protocols, considering ship design and operational compliance issues, as well as record of incidents and detentions. Emerging Possible decline in crew competencies may result in more frequent collisions and Risks groundings. (Forecasts) Increasing demand on individual Reef and port pilots may result in greater fatigue, exacerbating navigation risks, unless more pilots become available.

R1212 119

GBR Shipping Study

Increased use of channels and other convergence points will increase risk of collision, or grounding as a result of collision avoidance manoeuvring. Increased ship monitoring demand on REEFVTS operators may result in emergent grounding situations remaining undetected, or otherwise limit the likelihood of timely, effective intervention measures. Decline in crew English language proficiencies may result in reduced understanding and effectiveness of REEFVTS and pilot verbal communications, and written.

Mitigating Developments • Advent of protected fuel tanks in ships will minimise risk of loss of fuel oil in the event of collision or grounding. • (Potential) withdrawal of HFO from use will minimise consequences and severity of fuel oil loss. Potential 1. Support international and national efforts to maintain or improve seafarer Responses competencies. 2. On a regular basis (e.g. five year intervals), undertake shipping waterway quantitative risk assessments (e.g. in line with the IALA Waterway Risk Assessment Program [IWRAP]) of key shipping channels to determine risks and limiting features with regard to number and frequency of ships which can safely navigate the GBR's restricted passages, particularly Hydrographers Passage, Palm Passage, the Inner Route and the Torres Strait area. Based upon results of risk assessment, consider and implement appropriate navigational controls, these may include: a. Expansion of vessel traffic management schemes in Great Barrier Reef as may be deemed necessary to reduce collision risks. b. Improve and extend the provision of navigational aids (navaids) in the Great Barrier Reef. c. Introduce routing and traffic management schemes in high traffic zones, especially at channel intersection locations. d. Limit or cease use of high risk restricted passages if traffic volumes and risks cannot be adequately managed (e.g. Hydrographers Passage adjacent Hay Point with traffic to divert to Palm Passage). e. Update and expand REEFVTS monitoring, communications and intervention capacities, commensurate with increase in Great Barrier Reef shipping. f. Review expansion of compulsory pilotage areas into high risk traffic zones. 3. Review quantum and recruitment of available Reef and port pilots, commensurate with current and forecast increases in shipping and any expansion of compulsory pilotage areas. 4. Continue ongoing use of/and enhancement of ship vetting processes. 5. Review Great Barrier Reef Emergency Tow Vessel capability and arrangements. Consider basing more assets in the far north, central and southern sections of the Great Barrier Reef. In cooperation with port terminal operators and tug service provides consider arrangements to ensure reasonable spare capacity (e.g. 110% - 120%) exists to respond rapidly to emergencies. 6. Charterers to support early adoption of IMO ECDIS and eNavigation requirements.

R1212 120

GBR Shipping Study

Table 21: Oil Spills Legislative COLREGs Framework STCW Convention (primary OPRC Convention instruments) MARPOL Navigation Act 1912 Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 GBRMP Act Baseline Risks Loss of oil in the event of a shipping incident, including: • grounding; • collision (including tug strike); • wharf/pylon strike; • ship structural failure; • equipment failure; or • if required in order to protect human safety or to avert more serious environmental incident. Loss of oil in the event of negligence, criminal intent or incompetence. Mitigations National Plan arrangements, particularly within GBR region, including response protocols, (current) equipment stockpiles, and oil spill trajectory modelling. GBR Emergency Towing Vessel (ETV) arrangements. Ship survey and certification requirements (Flag and Port State and classification society) to check appropriate fitting and operation of required oil and oily waste treatment systems and existence of appropriate plans and procedures. Surveillance and investigation in the event of detected or reported oil discharges in the GBR region, preceding prosecution. Many oil releases are of small scale and thus adverse effects are typically localised and transitory. Ship vetting protocols consider ship incidents and detentions. Emerging Possible decline in crew competencies may result in more inadvertent or unintentional oil Risks releases. (Forecasts) Mitigating Developments Advent of protected fuel tanks in ships will minimise risk of loss of fuel oil in the event of collision or grounding. (Potential) withdrawal of HFO from use will minimise consequences and severity of fuel oil loss. Potential In addition to measures recommended for collisions and groundings: Responses 1. Review and update Great Barrier Reef oil spill vulnerability analysis on a regular basis, in order to anticipate and pre-empt changed risks as a result of projected changes in shipping patterns and volumes. 2. Enhance Great Barrier Reef components of the “ National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil and Other Noxious and Hazardous Substances” , particularly with respect to equipment stockpiles, response procedures and logistic support resources as warranted on the basis of periodic oil spill vulnerability analyses. 3. Support and continue AMSA oil spill incident investigation and enforcement activities. 4. Assess and monitor environmental impacts of any major oil spills to inform clean up and recovery activities.

R1212 121

GBR Shipping Study

Table 22: Shipboard Human Factors Legislative STCW Convention Framework Navigation Act 1912 (primary instruments) Baseline Risks All aspects of ship navigation, including facets related to protection of the marine environment and safe navigation, are predicated upon ships being crewed by competent, experienced seafarers, with performance unhampered by fatigue. Ship management and control procedures also assume crew members are able to effectively communicate with each other, Pilots and authorities ashore.

Mitigations STCW Convention establishes standards for crew training, experience and competency, as (current) well as maximum working hours and minimum rest periods. Flag and Port State inspections check to ensure crews have appropriate competencies and skills, and display proper management of work hours and fatigue.

Emerging Globalisation of shipping industry and diversification of sources of manpower may result in: Risks • dilution of confidence in the quality and thoroughness of the training of individual (Forecasts) seafarers and their supervisors; • decreasing levels of English language proficiencies. Contemporary ship crewing arrangements may result in the establishment of crews with minimal knowledge or experience of the ship or with working with each other, with crews of any one individual ship constantly changed and mixed. Any reduction in overall competencies may result in few people, or possibly only one person, onboard being able to perform effectively in critical roles, increasing fatigue load and introducing these individuals as potential 'single points of failure' in the event of any sequence of events which may result in marine casualty. Reduction in English language proficiencies may result in few people onboard being able to act as point-of-contact when communicating with other authorities such as Pilot or REEFVTS staff, increasing fatigue load and introducing these individuals as potential 'single points of failure' in the event of any sequence of events which may result in marine casualty. Dearth of suitably competent bridge staff may result in greater demand on Pilot, exacerbating fatigue load for Pilot. Any decline in crew English language proficiencies may result in reduced understanding and effectiveness of REEFVTS and pilot verbal communications, and written instructions (e.g. chart notes, NOTMARs, AMSA advisories, etc.). Potential 1. Support international and national efforts to maintain or improve seafarer Responses competencies, in particular efforts to encourage best practice Bridge management procedures that reduce the risks associated with crew fatigue and lack of competency. 2. Through vessel assessment activities and approval processes incorporate key crew competency evaluations to help ensure safe operations and compliance with regional, port and IMO requirements. 3. Support international and national efforts to improve and oversee seafarer workloads and fatigue management. .

R1212 122

GBR Shipping Study

Table 23: Ship Quality / Ship Vetting Legislative COLREGs Framework STCW Convention (primary MARPOL instruments) Navigation Act 1912 Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 Baseline Risks Ships which are not designed, built, maintained and operated to requisite standards, particularly with respect to navigation safety and protection of the marine environment, present increased likelihood of being involved in a marine casualty or other incident, and/or increased likelihood of significant consequences in the event of incident. Pertinent aspects of ship quality related to navigation safety and protection of the marine environment include: • competent, suitably qualified and experienced ship's crew, unaffected by fatigue; • observation of applicable navigation standards and ROTR; • age of ship and history of breakdowns; • correct fit and operation of navigation safety and collision avoidance equipment; • correct fit and operation of marine pollution prevention equipment, including oily water separators, sewage treatment plants, garbage management equipment, ballast water treatment systems (when mandatory) and processes (e.g. ballast water exchange), anti- fouling coatings, and similar. Mitigations Ship survey and certification requirements to ensure: (current) • design, construction and upkeep of ship consistent with mandatory requirements; • appropriate crew competencies and skills; • appropriate fitting and operation of navigation aids and other equipment necessary for safe navigation; and • appropriate fitting and operation of marine pollution prevention equipment and associated onboard management procedures. Industry ship vetting, considering ship design and operational compliance issues, as well as record of incidents and detentions. Emerging In purely statistical terms, increased frequency of shipping in GBR region will likely result Risks in more frequent exposure to incidents and activities presenting potential for adverse (Forecasts) environmental outcomes. Mitigating Developments Advent of protected fuel tanks in ships improve design features of subject ship to negate or minimise loss of fuel oil in the event of collision or grounding. Entry into force of BWM Convention with associated use of ballast water treatment systems will minimise IMS risks associated with ship's ballast water. Potential 1. Recommend mandatory marine vetting of all coal vessels operating in the Great Barrier Responses Reef; undertaken by an independent ship vetting provider. 2. Through ship vetting procedures and charter arrangements exercise a preference for: a. Operational IMO-approved ballast water treatment system/s, particularly until such time as BWM Convention fully implemented; and b. Protected fuel tanks, as designated by MARPOL. c. Sewage treatment plants compliant with the MEPC.159 (55) standard. d. Tier II or better diesel engines and auxiliaries. 3. Through vessel assessment activities and approval processes incorporate key crew competency evaluations to help ensure safe operations and compliance with regional, port and IMO requirements.

R1212 123

GBR Shipping Study

Table 24: Anchorages Legislative COLREGs Framework EPBC Act (primary Navigation Act 1912 instruments) GBRMP Act Baseline Risks Poorly designed and sited anchorages may engender environmental risk in a number of guises, such as: • be of a design and layout which presents risk of collision for ships moving to or from the associated port or sailing on approved or customary routes past the port/anchorage; • be situated in a location where damage to significant bottom features (e.g. seagrass beds or coral reef) is unavoidable or at unnecessary risk of occurrence; • be situated in a location of significant habitat for inshore dolphins, dugongs or turtles such that operations within the anchorage, such as the movement of ships and harbour support craft, may degrade that habitat or introduce inordinate risk of vessel strike; or • be sited in vicinity of a turtle nesting area, such that ship lighting and other emissions may adversely affect turtles. Some parties find the presence of ships in an anchorage to be a distraction from the visual aesthetics of an area. Ships at anchor present a source of environmental contamination, including components such as biocide in AFCs and diesel auxiliary exhaust emissions. These risks are compounded by the number of ships and average duration of presence in an anchorage. Mitigations Port developments and expansions are subject to assessment and review under the terms of (current) extant environment protection legislation. These processes should address: • habitat requirements and potential threats to significant marine fauna, including inshore dolphins, dugongs and turtles; and • the acceptability of the cosmetic aesthete of vistas including ships. IMO and associated marine environment protection instruments limit the pollution potential from ships, with specific examples being AFC biocides, oily waste, sewage, garbage and NO x emissions. Port operators manage ship arrivals and port activities so as to limit the amount of time that any individual ship is required to remain at anchor while waiting for a berth. Emerging Expansion of size and number of GBR anchorages, and their rate of use, will result in Risks increased likelihood of deleterious infringement upon important habitat for marine species, (Forecasts) particularly inshore dolphins, dugongs and turtles. Increased use of more and larger GBR anchorages by a greater number of individual ships will result in commensurate increase in contaminant loads to the marine environment from ships at anchor. Increased size, number and rate of use of GBR anchorages will result in presence of greater number of ships. This may result in localised degradation of visual aesthetics in the opinion of some observers. Increasing number of ships in GBR anchorages likely to compound efforts to ensure the safe and orderly movement of those ships from anchorages as may be necessary for evacuation, such as in preparation for a cyclone event. Periodic update and revision of IMO marine environment protection standards will reduce significance of individual ships as sources of marine contaminants. Potential 1. For proposed new or the expansion of existing anchorages, conduct appropriate sitting Responses studies in order to properly identify, characterise and assess potential environmental and safety risks, and associated risk avoidance or mitigation measures. 2. Site new or enlarged anchorages so as to avoid overlap with established Great Barrier Reef shipping routes and areas of identified environmental value. 3. Conduct an extensive options workshop with all key stakeholders to identify methods

R1212 124

GBR Shipping Study

to manage anchorages to limit the size, number of vessels and queuing times of individual vessels. Workshop should include stakeholders with expertise in: a. Great Barrier Reef environmental values and management b. Commercial freight charter arrangements c. Vessel transit and anchoring management d. Port and vessel safety e. Port terminal operations (i.e. commodity handling and throughput management) f. Anchorage management examples from ports across Australia (e.g. Newcastle, Port Hedland, Dampier). 4. Ensure port management plans include adequate contingency planning and procedures for safe and orderly evacuation of anchorages, such as may be necessary in preparation for a cyclone event.

R1212 125

GBR Shipping Study

Table 25: Atmospheric Emissions Legislative MARPOL Framework Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 (primary instruments) Baseline Risks Ships unavoidably release atmospheric emissions as a result of the operation of main propulsion and auxiliary machinery.

Typical (diesel) exhaust emissions include NO x, SO x, PM and CO 2.

Typical marine fuels may exacerbate air pollution risks, particularly with regard to SO x. Concentration of numbers of ships in anchorages for extended periods may lead to localised air pollution.

Mitigations Ships do not operate main propulsion while at anchor, and standing electrical power loads (current) are such that not all auxiliary diesels need to be running for ships at anchor, minimising emission of air pollutants. IMO requirements, as articulated in Annex VI of MARPOL, have lead to a reduction in average atmospheric pollutant loads, particularly of NO x and SO x, from individual ships. Low number of ship sources and dispersed siting within anchorages mitigate against any deleterious accumulation of ship-sourced air pollutants within the airsheds around GBR anchorages. Emerging Increased frequency of shipping in GBR region will result in greater total atmospheric Risks emissions load. (Forecasts) Mitigating Developments Entry into force of new IMO Annex VI diesel engine emission standards will reduce ship- sourced atmospheric pollutant loads. Emerging IMO ship energy efficiency requirements will reduce atmospheric pollutant loads, particularly of GHGs. Improved ship fuel oil standards will improve quality of exhaust emissions. Potential 1. Recommend mandatory marine vetting of all coal vessels operating in the Great Barrier Responses Reef; undertaken by an independent ship vetting provider. Exercise a preference for chartering vessels fitted with diesel engines compliant with IMO MARPOL Annex VI

Tier II NO x standards or better.

R1212 126

GBR Shipping Study

Table 26: Invasive Marine Species - Ballast Water and Biofouling

Legislative BWM Convention (not yet in force, but expected to be applied retrospectively) Framework IMO Biofouling Guidelines (voluntary) (primary Quarantine Act instruments) EPBC Act GBRMP Act Australian National Biofouling Guidelines (not mandatory) Baseline Risks Existing shipping activity in the GBR, such that each ship visiting region may potentially act as transfer vector for invasive marine species via either ballast water and/or biofouling. Biofouling risks accentuated for ships not engaged in continuous trade (i.e. those laid up temporarily or periodically). Inherent risks countered to the extent that GBR region exhibits some natural resistance to invasion by exotic marine species, and that those species which may be able to successfully establish in the GBR region (but not necessarily pose as a 'pest'), based upon existing and historical ship trading movements, have most likely already done so. Mitigations Ballast Water (current) DAFF Biosecurity ballast water management regulations BWM Convention - note, although not yet in force internationally, there is widespread adoption of ballast water exchange procedures by ship operators, with the fitting of IMO- approved ballast water treatment systems become more common in new build ships. Biofouling Voluntary observation of Australian national guidelines. Emerging Increase in shipping movements to GBR ports will increase frequency of potential exposure Risks of GBR ports to IMS transfer, and hence in purely statistical terms, increase likelihood of (Forecasts) IMS becoming established in GBR port. Disturbed and new habitat (e.g. wharf structures) arising as a result of GBR port developments will provide potential vacant habitat spaces for exotic species. Potential 1. Undertake periodic IMS surveys at all GBR ports consistent with National survey and Responses response programs. Ballast Water 2. Where practicable, exercise preference for chartering ships fitted with an operational IMO-approved ballast water treatment system, particularly until such time as BWM Convention fully implemented. Biofouling 3. Support development and implementation of mandatory Australian standard biofouling management requirements.

R1212 127

GBR Shipping Study

Table 27: Ship Waste - Oil, Sewage, Garbage Legislative MARPOL Framework Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 (primary GBRMP Act instruments)

Baseline Risks Ships are not permitted to discharge garbage or untreated sewage or oily wastes in the GBR region. Apart from instances of equipment failure and exceptional/atypical discharges which may be required, as permitted, to avoid human harm or to avert a more damaging environmental incident, risk exist in the case of discharge as a result of ignorance, negligence or malicious intent, particularly with respect to oil and oily mixtures. Mitigations Ship survey and certification requirements to check appropriate fitting and operation of (current) required machinery (e.g. oily water separator, sewage treatment plant) and existence of appropriate plans and procedures (e.g. Garbage Record Book). AMSA information services detailing GBR region ship waste disposal regulations. Surveillance and investigation in the event of detected or reported oil discharges in the GBR region, preceding prosecution. Such releases are normally of small scale and thus adverse effects are typically localised and transitory. Ship assessment protocols consider ship incidents and detentions. Emerging Potential decline in crew competencies may result in more frequent inadvertent discharge or Risks disposal of wastes. (Forecasts) Shore waste reception facilities may be inadequate at certain ports, particularly with respect to ships remaining at anchor for periods which exceed onboard waste processing/storage capacities for garbage (including quarantine wastes), HAZWASTE and oily waste. Potential 1. Support international and national efforts to maintain, or improve, seafarer Responses competencies. 2. Continue AMSA information services. 3. Continue AMSA investigation and enforcement services. 4. Continue ship vetting procedures, and modify in order to exercise preference for ships with: a. Sewage treatment plants compliant with the MEPC. 159(55) standard; and b. Tier II or better diesel engines and auxiliaries. 5. Review and improve as necessary, ship waste reception services in Great Barrier Reef ports.

R1212 128

GBR Shipping Study

Table 28: Marine Fauna Strike Legislative EPBC Act Framework GBRMP Act (primary instruments) Baseline Risks Risks exist that ships may strike, and kill or seriously injure, significant and threatened and/or charismatic marine fauna, particularly: • whales; • inshore dolphins (e.g. Australian snubfin, Indo-Pacific humpback); • other dolphins (e.g. common, bottlenose) • dugongs • turtles Risk also exists for strike by inshore harbour craft (e.g. tugs, pilot vessels and line handling boats), particularly in relation to inshore dolphins, dugongs and turtles. Mitigations Typical slow ship speed in inshore areas limits risk of strike occurring and consequences in (current) the event of incident. Whales are typically only present in substantive numbers within GBR lagoon during humpback aggregation period (June to October). Humpback whale aggregation area is concentrated in Whitsundays, thus limiting spatial overlap with current and projected areas of merchant ship activity in GBR. Delineation of GBR region into Designated Shipping Areas achieves a degree of spatial separation between significant marine fauna and shipping. Dugong Protection Areas provide additional levels of management. Speed restrictions on small harbour craft limit collision risks. Emerging Projected continued increase in humpback whale population will underpin compounding Risks statistical increase in probability of ship strike. Increased humpback population may also act (Forecasts) to render impact of any such incidents of decreasing significance at the population level. Potential 1. Improve current incident reporting and recording measures with regard to fauna ship Responses strike and sightings of dead or injured marine fauna. 2. Monitor data concerning ship strikes to establish baseline and any subsequent emerging trends or specific locations, and take action as may be warranted.

R1212 129

GBR Shipping Study

Table 29: Radiated Underwater Noise Legislative EPBC Act Framework GBRMP Act (primary instruments) Baseline Risks Risks exist that ship sourced marine noise may result in some detriment to habitat quality for potentially vulnerable or sensitive marine species, with a particular focus upon cetaceans. Additional noise is generated by helicopters operating in ship support roles (e.g. transferring pilots to/from ships) when operating at low levels over water. Mitigations Propagation of underwater noise in relatively shallow, inshore areas is limited due to (current) physical factors. Levels of radiated noise form ships at anchor are significantly less than from ships underway. Significance and detectability of ship-sourced noise is limited due to elevated background ambient noise levels from natural sources inherent to shallow, coastal areas. Dolphins and dugongs do not have any substantive hearing acuity within primary ship- radiated noise frequency spectrum. Whales are typically only present in substantive numbers within GBR lagoon during humpback aggregation period (June to October). Humpback whale aggregation area is concentrated in Whitsundays, thus limiting spatial overlap with current and projected areas of merchant ship activity in GBR. Delineation of GBR region into Designated Shipping Areas achieves a degree of spatial separation between significant marine fauna and shipping noise. Speed restrictions on small harbour craft limit radiated noise levels. Emerging Projected increase in shipping movements within GBR will increase persistence and total Risks anthropogenic-sourced underwater acoustic load within GBR lagoon. (Forecasts) Projected continued increase in humpback whale population will likely lead to greater acoustic exposure of members of the population, albeit likely to occur without occasioning any substantive population-level effects. Development of new and expansion of existing ports in GBR will likely result in greater noise exposure of inshore species, such as dugongs and inshore dolphins, and possibly also turtles if developments occur in vicinity to turtle nesting beaches. Potential 1. Undertake appropriate marine noise studies in key areas of the GBR region to test Responses assumptions and conclusions presented in this report. 2. Monitor and implement IMO initiatives regarding ship design and operations to minimise radiated underwater noise. 3. Facilitate adoption of any mandatory measures which may be codified by IMO to minimise ship-radiated underwater noise.

R1212 130

GBR Shipping Study

9. Conclusions and Recommendations The review presented in this report, considers that in general terms, routine shipping presents no substantial risk of lasting damage to the environmental values of the GBR. Furthermore, the forecast increase in shipping traffic, of itself, presents a minimal change to this substantive risk if managed accordingly. Overall the impacts and risks to the GBR from shipping are considered to be extremely well managed and are improving over time to address the increased shipping volumes and related risks. Steps are in place for the adoption of further measures that will improve management approaches to address risks associated with the forecast increased shipping volumes. Additionally, the management of shipping in the GBR is favourably comparable to the very highest standards applied in other parts of the world, as depicted in Table 30 which provides an indication of marine environment protection and navigation safety measures applied in all of the world's PSSAs. It should be noted, however, that comparison between the various PSSAs needs to be cognisant of differences in geographical scale, bio-geographic and oceanographic features, and volume and character of shipping.

Table 30: Indicative Comparison of PSSA Shipping Management Measures PSSA SHIPPING MANAGEMENT MEASURES Area Area to be/ Avoided Designated Areas or RoutesRoute / Water Deep Ship Reporting No Anchoring Areas Special/ RequirementsTankers for Hazardous Cargoes Traffic Separation VTS Pilotage Oily WasteRestrictions Discharge Sewage Discharge Restrictions Garbage Restrictions Discharge Air Emission Controls Ballast Discharge Restrictions Water GBR/Torres Strait x x x x x x x x x x x Sabana-Camagüey Archipelago x x Malpelo Island x Florida Keys x x x Wadden Sea x x x x x x x Paracas National Reserve x x x x Western European Waters x x x x x x x Canary Islands x x x Galapagos Archipelago x x Baltic Sea x x x x x x x x Papah ānaumoku ākea Marine x x x x National Monument Strait of Bonifacio x x x x x Saba Bank x x x Notes 1. Data presented in Table includes IMO-mandated APMs as well as other regional and local measures, and should be considered as indicative only, as other local or regional measures may also apply. 2. For the purposes of this comparison, pilotage is not considered to include orthodox port pilotage requirements. 3. Measures addressing ship waste discharges and emissions are generally derived from application of additional MARPOL requirements, particularly in relation to Special Areas declared under Annexes I, V and VI.

R1212 131

GBR Shipping Study

With ongoing risk assessment and the implementation of international best practice standards in navigation and shipping standards, along with regional and local management, the current and forecast shipping activities are not seen to pose an unmanageable or unacceptable risk to the GBR or its natural and World Heritage values. It is evident, however, that there are some aspects where increased shipping activity does present a changed risk to the GBR region, in terms of: • the statistically increased likelihood of stochastic events such as collisions, groundings and successful IMS transfers from the increase in shipping traffic; and • the capacity of existing ship control procedures, facilities and contingency arrangements to cope with the predicted increase in shipping activity. The key emergent and existing environmental risks, and/or those which warrant continued and ongoing active management, associated with current and projected future shipping in the GBR region are considered to be: • Safety of navigation, particularly in relation to collisions and groundings. • Oil spills. • Crew fatigue and overall competency. • Vessel quality, in relation to ship vetting. • Anchorages, in relation to issues such as capacity, potential for physical damage and contamination of the seabed, and location, especially in relation to important habitat for sensitive and/or vulnerable species. • Ship-sourced atmospheric emissions. • IMS, in relation to ballast water and biofouling. • Ship-sourced oily wastes, sewage and garbage. • Marine fauna strike. • Radiated underwater noise. To help address these emergent risks, an initial 'action list', intended to guide the response to the emergent risks and knowledge gaps identified from this shipping review and the associated multi-party risk evaluation workshop, has been developed and is presented in Table 31. The findings and recommendations from this study will provide a useful baseline of information and analysis to support future management and planning (e.g. the North East Shipping Management Plan), and broader scale assessments (e.g. GBR Strategic Assessment), as well as individual port and shipping related projects.

R1212 132

GBR Shipping Study

Table 31: Suggested Actions to Address Identified Emergent Risks

# Action Existing/Emergent Risks Addressed Suggested Lead General Recommendations 1. Develop a “live” shipping volumes monitoring and forecasting tool, collecting data on • Ongoing environmental AMSA/MSQ ship numbers and sizes, to support ongoing and periodic management and risk reviews risk analysis With support from Ports of shipping in the Great Barrier Reef. The tool should be developed with support from • Navigation – collisions and industry. maritime safety agencies, GBRMPA, port and export/import industry bodies and and groundings individual port authorities. • Oil Spills • Pilotage requirements 2. Industry (particularly port authorities, terminal operators and resource companies) • Ongoing environmental Industry should work collaboratively with the North East Shipping Management Group in the risk analysis (QPA, QRC, terminal development and implementation of the North East Shipping Management Plan. • Navigation – ship operators and resource Synergies and complimentary measures implemented by maritime agencies and collisions and companies) industry are likely to best achieve the highest standards of ship safety, reduce groundings environmental risk and best practice shipping management. • Ship vetting procedures 3. An industry - government consultative forum should be established that operates • Ongoing environmental AMSA, MSQ, GBRMPA collaboratively and in parallel to the North East Shipping Management Group. risk analysis and Industry bodies (QPA, • Implementation of QRC) imp[roved and new measures to manage shipping related risks Specific Recommendations 4. Recommend mandatory marine vetting of all commercial ships operating in the Great • Navigation – collisions Industry – ship charterers Barrier Reef; undertaken by an independent ship vetting provider. and groundings and/or commodity • Oil spills exporters • Ship-sourced atmospheric emissions • IMS - ballast water and biofouling • Oily wastes, sewage and garbage R1212 133

GBR Shipping Study

# Action Existing/Emergent Risks Addressed Suggested Lead 5. Through ship vetting procedures and charter arrangements exercise a preference for: • Oil spills Industry – ship charterers a) Operational IMO-approved ballast water treatment system/s, particularly • Ship-sourced and/or commodity until such time as BWM Convention fully implemented. atmospheric emissions exporters b) Protected fuel tanks, as designated by MARPOL. • IMS - ballast water and biofouling c) Sewage treatment plants compliant with the MEPC.159 (55) standard. • Oily wastes, sewage and d) Tier II or better diesel engines and auxiliaries. garbage e) Compliance with applicable Australian biofouling guidelines, or regulations when promulgated.

6. Through vessel assessment activities and approval processes incorporate key crew • Navigation – ship Industry – ship charterers competency evaluations to help ensure safe operations and compliance with regional, collisions and and/or commodity port and IMO requirements. groundings exporters • Oil spills • Ship-sourced atmospheric emissions • IMS - ballast water and biofouling • Oily wastes, sewage and garbage 7. On a regular basis (e.g. five year intervals), undertake shipping waterway quantitative • Navigation – collisions AMSA/MSQ risk assessments (e.g. in line with the IALA Waterway Risk Assessment Program and groundings With support from Ports [IWRAP]) of key shipping channels to determine risks and limiting features with • Oil spills and industry regard to number and frequency of ships which can safely navigate the GBR's • restricted passages, particularly Hydrographers Passage, Palm Passage, the Inner Route Ship-sourced and the Torres Strait area. Based upon results of risk assessment, consider and atmospheric emissions implement appropriate navigational controls, these may include: • Oily wastes, sewage and a) Expansion of vessel traffic management schemes in Great Barrier Reef as garbage may be deemed necessary to reduce collision risks. • Radiated underwater noise b) Improve and extend the provision of navigational aids (navaids) in the • Great Barrier Reef. Fauna ship strike

R1212 134

GBR Shipping Study

# Action Existing/Emergent Risks Addressed Suggested Lead c) Introduce routing and traffic management schemes in high traffic zones, especially at channel intersection locations. d) Limit or cease use of high risk restricted passages if traffic volumes and risks cannot be adequately managed (e.g. Hydrographers Passage adjacent Hay Point with traffic to divert to Palm Passage). e) Update and expand REEFVTS monitoring, communications and intervention capacities, commensurate with increase in Great Barrier Reef shipping. f) Review expansion of compulsory pilotage areas into high risk traffic zones. g) Routing to avoid fauna strike high risk areas (if known).

8. Review Great Barrier Reef Emergency Tow Vessel capability and arrangements. Using • Navigation – collisions AMSA/MSQ scenario planning, consider the location and availability of assets within the Great and groundings With support from Ports Barrier Reef. In cooperation with port terminal operators and tug service provides • Oil spills and industry consider arrangements to ensure the ability to respond rapidly to emergencies as required. 9. Charterers to support early adoption of IMO ECDIS and eNavigation requirements. • Navigation – collisions Industry – ship charterers and groundings and/or commodity exporters 10. Review and update Great Barrier Reef oil spill vulnerability analysis on a regular basis, • Oil spills AMSA/MSQ in order to anticipate and pre-empt changed risks as a result of projected changes in shipping patterns and volumes. 11. Enhance Great Barrier Reef components of the “ National Plan to Combat Pollution of • Oil spills AMSA the Sea by Oil and Other Noxious and Hazardous Substances” , particularly with respect to equipment stockpiles, response procedures and logistic support resources as warranted on the basis of periodic oil spill vulnerability analyses.

12. Support and continue AMSA oil spill incident investigation and enforcement activities. • Oil spills AMSA 13. Assess and monitor environmental impacts of any major oil spills to inform clean up • Oil spills AMSA, MSQ and and recovery activities. GBRMPA R1212 135

GBR Shipping Study

# Action Existing/Emergent Risks Addressed Suggested Lead

14. Support international and national efforts to maintain or improve seafarer • Navigation – collisions AMSA competencies, in particular efforts to encourage best practice Bridge management and groundings Industry procedures that reduce the risks associated with crew fatigue and lack of competency. • Oil spills

• IMS - ballast water and

biofouling • Oily wastes, sewage and garbage 15. Review quantum and recruitment of available Reef and port pilots, commensurate with • Navigation – collisions AMSA/MSQ current and forecast increases in shipping and any expansion of compulsory pilotage and groundings With support for pilotage areas. services and industry

16. For proposed new, or the expansion of existing anchorages, conduct appropriate sitting • Anchorages – damage to Industry (port developers) studies in order to properly identify, characterise and assess potential environmental seabed and habitats In association with MSQ, and safety risks, and associated risk avoidance or mitigation measures. • Visual amenity GBRMPA and SEWPaC 17. Site new or enlarged anchorages so as to avoid overlap with established Great Barrier • Navigation – collisions MSQ Reef shipping routes and areas of identified environmental value. and groundings • Anchorages – damage to seabed and habitats • Visual amenity 18. Conduct an extensive options workshop with all key stakeholders to identify methods • Anchorages – damage to Industry (port and terminal to manage anchorages to limit the size, number of vessels and queuing times of seabed and habitats operators) individual vessels. Workshop should include stakeholders with expertise in: • Visual amenity MSQ a) Great Barrier Reef environmental values and management AMSA b) Commercial freight charter arrangements GBRMPA c) Vessel transit and anchoring management SEWPaC d) Port and vessel safety e) Port terminal operations (i.e. commodity handling and throughput

R1212 136

GBR Shipping Study

# Action Existing/Emergent Risks Addressed Suggested Lead management) f) Anchorage management examples from ports across Australia (e.g. Newcastle, Port Hedland, Dampier). 19. Ensure port management plans include adequate contingency planning and procedures • Navigation – collisions MSQ for safe and orderly evacuation of anchorages, such as may be necessary in preparation and groundings Port Authorities for a cyclone event. • Oil spills Terminal operators

21. Where practicable, exercise preference for chartering ships fitted with an operational • IMS - ballast water Industry – ship charterers IMO-approved ballast water treatment system, particularly until such time as BWM and/or commodity Convention fully implemented. exporters 22. Support development and implementation of mandatory Australian standard biofouling • IMS - biofouling DAFF management requirements. Industry 23. Continue support for AMSA managed maritime information services. • Navigation – collisions AMSA and groundings • Oil spills • Ship-sourced atmospheric emissions • IMS - ballast water and biofouling • Oily wastes, sewage and garbage 24. Continue support for AMSA led investigation and enforcement services. • Oil spills AMSA • Oily wastes, sewage and garbage 25. Review and improve as necessary, ship waste reception services in Great Barrier Reef • Oily wastes, sewage and Port Authorities ports. garbage DAFF

R1212 137

GBR Shipping Study

# Action Existing/Emergent Risks Addressed Suggested Lead 26. Improve current incident reporting and recording measures with regard to fauna ship • Fauna ship strike GBRMPA strike and sightings of dead or injured marine fauna. Industry 27. Monitor data concerning ship strikes to establish baseline and any subsequent • Fauna ship strike GBRMPA emerging trends or specific locations, and take action as may be warranted. 28. Undertake appropriate marine noise studies in key areas of the GBR region to test • Radiated underwater GBRMPA assumptions and conclusions presented in this report. noise Industry 29. Monitor and implement IMO initiatives regarding ship design and operations to • Radiated underwater AMSA minimise radiated underwater noise. noise Industry 30. Facilitate adoption of any mandatory measures which may be codified by IMO to • Radiated underwater Industry minimise ship-radiated underwater noise. noise

R1212 138

GBR Shipping Study

10. Glossary AFC Anti-Fouling Coating AHS Australian Hydrographic Service AIS Automatic Identification System AMMC Australian Marine Mammal Centre AMSA Australian Maritime Safety Authority AMSL Above Mean Sea Level APCIS Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System APCT Abbot Point Coal Terminal APM Associated Protective Measure APR Automated Position Reporting APVMA Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority ARPA Automatic Radar Plotting Aid ATSB Australian Transport Safety Bureau AUSREP Australian Ship Reporting System BHPB BHP Billiton BLU Code Code of Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers BOD biochemical oxygen demand BoM Australian Bureau of Meteorology BREE Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics BWM Convention International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments CAGR compounding annual growth rate cfu colony forming unit CIA Cumulative Impact Assessment COD chemical oxygen demand COLREGs Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea CPA closest point of approach DAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry DBCT Dalrymple Bay Coal Terminal DGPS Differential Global Positioning Satellite

R1212 139

GBR Shipping Study

DIT Department of Infrastructure and Transport DPCT Dudgeon Point Coal Terminal DRET Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organisation DTMR Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads DWT deadweight tonnage EAC East Australia Current EAM Environmental Assessment and Management ECA Emission Control Area ECDIS Electronic Chart Display and Information System EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EHC Environmentally Hazardous Cargo EMP Environmental Management Plan ENC Electronic Navigational Chart EPA Environmental Protection Authority / Agency EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 EPP Environmental Protection Policy ETV Emergency Towage Vessel FLIR forward looking infrared FNQPC Far North Queensland Ports Corporation FY Financial Year GBR Great Barrier Reef GBR Region Great Barrier Reef Region – and area incorporating the inshore and offshore reef areas, coast and bays, river catchments and, for the purposes of this report, mineral provinces and coalfields of central and northern Queensland GBRMP Great Barrier Reef Marine Park GBRMP Act Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority GBRWHA Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area GHG greenhouse gas

R1212 140

GBR Shipping Study

GPC Gladstone Ports Corporation GT gross tonnage HFO Heavy Fuel Oil HNS Convention International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea HPCT Hay Point Coal Terminal IAFS Convention International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships IALA International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare IFO Intermediate Fuel Oil IHM Inventory of Hazardous Materials ILO International Labour Organization ILUA Indigenous Land Use Agreement IMCRA Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation for Australia IMDG Code International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code IMO International Maritime Organization IMS Invasive Marine Species IMSBC Code International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Code INF Irradiated Nuclear Fuel ISM Code International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IWC International Whaling Commission IWRAP IALA Waterways Risk Assessment Program kts knots (i.e. one nautical mile per hour) LADS Laser Airborne Depth Sounding LNG liquefied natural gas LS low sulphur MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MCF Multi-cargo facility

R1212 141

GBR Shipping Study

MDO Marine Diesel Oil MEH Marine Electronic Highway MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee MFO Marine Fuel Oil MGO Marine Gas Oil MGPS Marine Growth Prevention System MNES Matter/s of National Environmental Significance (see also NES) MoU Memorandum of Understanding MPA Marine Protected Area MSC Maritime Safety Committee MSQ Maritime Safety Queensland MSI maritime safety information Mtpa million tonnes per annum NEPM National Environment Protection Measure NES National Environmental Significance (see also MNES) NGO non-government organisation NMVOC Non-Methane Volatile Organic Compound NOTMAR Notice to Mariners (see also 'NtM') NPI National Pollutant Inventory NQBP North Queensland Bulk Ports NT net tonnage NtM Notice to Mariners (see also 'NOTMAR') OCS Offshore Constitutional Settlement ODS Ozone Depleting Substance OCIMF Oil Companies International Marine Forum OPRC International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation OUV Outstanding Universal Value PNL Perceived Noise Level PoTL Port of Townsville Limited ppm parts per million

R1212 142

GBR Shipping Study

PSC Port State Control PSSA Particularly Sensitive Sea Area PTS permanent threshold shift QCCAP Queensland Coastal Contingency Action Plan QPA Queensland Ports Association QRC Queensland Resources Council RAN Royal Australian Navy RCC Australia Rescue Coordination Centre Australia REEFREP Great Barrier Reef Ship Reporting System REEFVTS Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait Vessel Traffic Service RF radio frequency RHM Regional Harbour Master RL Received Level RNE Register of the National Estate ROTR Rules of the Road RSoOUV Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value SEC South Equatorial Current SEEMP Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan SEL Sound Exposure Level SEWPaC Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities SIRE Ship Inspection Report SL Source Level SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea SoOUV Statement of Outstanding Universal Value SOPEP Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan SPL Sound Pressure Level SSWG IWC Ship Strikes Working Group STCW Convention International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers STI ship traffic information SVIS Ship Vetting Information System

R1212 143

GBR Shipping Study

T2 Terminal 2 (Abbot Point) TBT tri-butyl tin TC Tropical Cyclone TOMPA Queensland Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 TOMSA Queensland Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 tph tonnes per hour TTS temporary threshold shift TUMRA Traditional Use of Marine Resource Agreement UN United Nations UNCLOS III United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization VHF Very High Frequency VOC Volatile Organic Compound VTS Vessel Traffic Service WA Western Australia WHC World Heritage Convention WICET Wiggins Island Coal Export Terminal

R1212 144

GBR Shipping Study

11. References and Bibliography

Aherns, M.J. & Morrisey, D.J. (2005). Biological effects of unburnt coal in the marine environment. Oceanography and Marine Biology, vol. 43, pp. 69-122. AHS (2008). Hydroscheme 2008 - 2011. Australian Hydrographic Service, Wollongong. AHS (2012). Electronic Charting Information. Australian Hydrographic Service, Wollongong. http://www.hydro.gov.au/important-info/echarting-info.htm#ECDIS, 16 June 2012. AMOG (2010). BHP Billiton Olympic Dam EIS Project - Assessment of Waves and Propeller Wash Associated with Shipping: Final Report. Report prepared by AMOG Consulting. AMSA (2007). Fact Sheet: Dornier 328-120 Turboprop Aircraft. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Canberra. AMSA (2008a). Fact Sheet: Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Canberra. AMSA (2008b). Fact Sheet: Port State Control in Australia. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Canberra. AMSA (2010a). Improving Safe Navigation in the Great Barrier Reef. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Canberra. AMSA (2010b). Navigational Services in Australian Waters 2010 – 2025. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Canberra. AMSA (2010c). Protecting Our Seas. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Canberra. AMSA (2010d). Fact Sheet: Ship Pollution Regulations. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Canberra. AMSA (2011a). AUSREP Ship Reporting Instructions for the Australian Area: 2011 Edition. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Canberra. AMSA (2011b). Fact Sheet: Strengthening the Protection of the Great Barrier Reef. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Canberra. AMSA (2011c). Fact Sheet: Australia’s National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil and Other Noxious and Hazardous Substances. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Canberra. AMSA (2012). Australian Maritime Safety Authority. http://www.amsa.gov.au/index.asp. AMSA (undated). Navigation Off the Coast of Queensland. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Canberra. ANZECC (1995). Maritime Accidents and Pollution: Impacts on the Marine Environment from Shipping Operations – Paper for Public Comment, March 1995. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Canberra.

ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Volume 1: The Guidelines. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra.

Arai, T., Harino, H., Ohji, M. & Langston, W. (2010). Ecotoxicology of Antifouling Biocides. Springer.

R1212 145

GBR Shipping Study

ATSB (2000). Independent Investigation into the Grounding of the Malaysian Flag Container Ship Bunga Teratai Satu : Sudbury Reef, Great Barrier Reef, 2 November 2000 - Marine Safety Investigation Report 162. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra.

ATSB (2010). Independent Investigation into the Grounding of the Hong Kong Registered Products Tanker Atlantic Blue at Kirkcaldie Reef in the Torres Strait on 7 February 2009 - Investigation Number: 262-MO-2009-001. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra.

ATSB (2011). Independent Investigation into the Grounding of the Chinese Registered Bulk Carrier Shen Neng 1 on Douglas Shoal, Queensland 3 April 2010 - ATSB Transport Safety Report, Marine Occurrence Investigation MO-2010-003 No. 274 Final. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra.

ATSB (2012a). Independent Investigation into the Grounding of the Panama Registered Bulk Carrier Dumun at Gladstone, Queensland 29 April 2011 - ATSB Transport Safety Report, Marine Occurrence Investigation MO-2011-004 No. 285 Final. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra.

ATSB (2012b). Occurrences Entered into the ATSB Maritime Safety Database - Between 21 July 2012 and 27 July 2012. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Canberra.

Bannister, J.L., Kemper, C.M & Warneke, R.M. (1996). The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans. September 1996. For the Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.

Bannister, J.L. & Hedley, S.L., (2001). Southern Hemisphere Group IV Humpback Whales: Their Status From Recent Aerial Survey. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 47, 587-598.

Barlow, J. & Clapham, P. (1997). A new birth-interval approach to estimating demographic parameters of humpback whales. Ecology. 78:535-546.

Birtles, A. & Arnold, P. (2002). Dwarf Minke Whales in the Great Barrier Reef: Current State of Knowledge, May 2002. CRC Reef Research Centre Ltd, Townsville.

BoM (2012). Climate Data Online. Bureau of Meteorology Australia. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/, 24 January 2012. Bowater, R.O., J. Norton, S. Johnson, B. Hill, P. O'Donoghue & and H. Prior (2003). Toxoplasmosis in Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphins ( Sousa chinensis ), from Queensland. Australian Veterinary Journal. 81:627-632.

BREE (2012). Australian Bulk Commodity Exports and Infrastructure – Outlook to 2025. Commonwealth Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics.

Bryden, M.M. (1985). Studies of humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ), Area V. In: Ling, J.K. & M.M. Bryden, eds. Studies of sea mammals in south latitudes. Proceedings of the 52nd ANZAAS Congress, Sydney, Australia. Pp. 115-124.

Bryden, M.M., Kirkwood, G.P. & Slade, R .W., (1990). Humpback whales, Area V. An increase in numbers off Australia's east coast. Pp. 271-77 in Antarctic Ecosystems, ed. K. R. Kerry and G. Hempel. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.

Calleson, C.S. & Frohlich, R.K. (2007). Slower boat speeds reduce risks to manatees. Endangered Species Research, Vol. 3: 295–304. Cato, D.H. (2000). Ocean noise and the use of sound by marine mammals. Report presented at Acoustics 2000, Joondalup Resort, WA, 15-17 Nov. 2000. Chaloupka, M. & Osmond, M. (1999). Spatial and Seasonal Distribution of Humpback Whales in the Great Barrier Reef Region. American Fisheries Society Symposium 23.

R1212 146

GBR Shipping Study

Chevron (2007). Everything You Need to Know About Marine Fuels. Chevron Global Marine Products.

Chin, A. (2003). Corals, in Chin, A. (ed) State of the Great Barrier Reef On-Line, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info _services/publications/sotr/intro/.

Chittleborough, R.G. (1965). Dynamics of two populations of the Humpback Whale, Megaptera novaeangliae (Borowski). Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 16:33-128.

Clapham, P. (1992). The attainment of sexual maturity in humpback whales. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 70:1470-1472.

Clapham, P.J. (2000). The humpback whale. In: Mann, J.C., Connor, R.C., Tyack, P.L. & Whitehead, H. eds. Cetacean Societies. Pp. 173-196. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Corkeron, P.J., Morisette, N.M., Porter, L. & Marsh, H. (1997). ‘Distribution and status of humpback dolphins, Sousa chinensis , in Australian waters’, Asian Marine Biology, 4, 49–59.

DAFF (2009a). National Biofouling Management Guidance for Commercial Vessels. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, January 2009. DAFF (2009b). National Biofouling Management Guidance for Non-Trading Vessels. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, April 2009. DAFF (2011). Proposed Australian Biofouling Management Requirements: Consultation Regulation Impact Statement. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, December 2011.

DEH (2005a). Department of the Environment and Heritage. http://www.deh.gov.au, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

DEH (2005b). Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005-2010. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.

DEH (2006). The Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia - version 4.0 June 2006. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. DEWR (2007). The Humpback Whales of Eastern Australia. Department of Environment and Water Resources, Canberra. Department of the Premier and Cabinet (2009). Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2009. Queensland Government, Brisbane. DEWHA (2010a). Ramsar Wetlands of Australia. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

DEWHA (2010b). Actions on, or Impacting Upon, Commonwealth Land, and Actions by Commonwealth Agencies: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra.

DITRDLG (2010). Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics Australian Transport Statistics Yearbook 2009. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Canberra. DNV (2001). Assessment of Ship Safety Controls in the Torres Strait and Great Barrier Reef. Report prepared for AMSA. DTMR (2009). Port Procedures and Information for Shipping: Port of Hay Point - December 2009. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

R1212 147

GBR Shipping Study

DTMR (2010). Port Procedures and Information for Shipping: Port of Mackay - January 2010. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

DTMR (2011a). Queensland Coastal Contingency Action Plan 2011. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

DTMR (2011b). Queensland Ports Trade Statistics Report 2010 for the Five Years Ending 30 June 2010. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

DTMR (2011c). Port Procedures and Information for Shipping: Port of Cairns - November 2011. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

DTMR (2011d). Port Procedures and Information for Shipping: Port of Cape Flattery - December 2011. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

DTMR (2012a). Port Procedures and Information for Shipping: Port of Abbot Point - January 2012. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

DTMR (2012b). Port Procedures and Information for Shipping: Port of Townsville - January 2012. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

DTMR (2012c). Port Procedures and Information for Shipping: Port of Lucinda - January 2012. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

DTMR (2012d). Port Procedures and Information for Shipping: Port of Gladstone - March 2012. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

DTMR (2012e). Port Procedures and Information for Shipping: Port of Port Alma - April 2012. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

DTMR (2012f). Port Procedures and Information for Shipping: Port of Mourilyan- June 2012. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

DTMR (2012g). Trade Statistics for Queensland Ports: For the Five Years Ending 30 June 2011. Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads.

Environment Australia, (2002). Recovery Plan for the Grey Nurse Shark ( Carcharias taurus ) in Australia. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Freeland, W.J. & P. Bayliss (1989). The Irrawaddy river dolphin Orcaella brevirostris in coastal waters of the Northern Territory, Australia: distribution, abundance and seasonal changes. Mammalia. 53:49-57. GBRMPA (1994). Keeping it Great: A 25 Year Strategic Plan for the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. GBRMPA (2001). Marine Turtles in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Report for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

GBRMPA (2004). Shipping. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/water_quality/shipping

GBRMPA (2007). Measuring the Economic and Financial Value of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, 2005-06: Research Report No. 88. Report by Access Economics Pty Ltd for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. GBRMPA (2009a). Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

R1212 148

GBR Shipping Study

GBRMPA (2009b). Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009: Information Sheet - Ports and Shipping. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. GBRMPA (2009c). EAM Risk Management Framework: 2009. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

GBRMPA (2012). Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/. Goldsworthy, L. (2002). Design of Ship Engines for Reduced Emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen. Faculty of Maritime Transport and Engineering, Australian Maritime College, Launceston.

Great Barrier Reef Shipping Review Steering Committee (2001). Review of Ship Safety and Pollution Prevention Measures in the Great Barrier Reef.

Hale, P., Long, S. & Tapsall, A. (1998). ‘Distribution and conservation of delphinids in Moreton Bay’, in I.R. Tibbetts, N.J. Hall & W.C. Dennison (eds), Moreton Bay and Catchment, School of Marine Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, pp. 477–486.

Hale, P., Brieze, I., Chatto, R. & Parra, G. (2004). ‘Cetaceans: Whales and Dolphins’, in National Oceans Office, Description of Key Species Groups in the Northern Planning Area, National Oceans Office, Hobart.

Harris R.E., Miller G.W. & Richardson W.J. (2001). Seal responses to airgun sounds during summer seismic surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science 17(4): 795-812. Hilliard, R.W., & Raaymakers, S. (1997). Ballast Water Risk Assessment for 12 Queensland Ports. Stage 5 Report. Executive Summary and Synthesis of Stages 1-4. EcoPorts Monograph Series No. 14. Hoedt, F.E., Neil, K.M., Choat, J.H., Cruz, J.J., Collins, J. & Robbins, W. (2001a). Port of Lucinda Survey: Port Marine Baseline Surveys and Surveys for Introduced Marine Pests - Final Report Prepared for Ports Corporation Queensland. CRC Reef Research and School of Marine Biology and Aquaculture James Cook University, February 2001. Hoedt, F.E., Choat, J.H., Cruz, J.J., Neil, K.M. & Collins, J. (2001b). Survey of the Port of Weipa: Port Marine Baseline Surveys and Surveys for Introduced Marine Pests. Final Report Prepared for Ports Corporation Queensland. CRC Reef Research and School of Marine Biology and Aquaculture James Cook University, April 2001. Hoppe, H. (2005). Goal-based standards – a new approach to the International Regulation of Ship Construction, WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs , October 2005, Vol.4, no.2.

Huisman, J.M., Jones, D.S, Wells, F.E. & Burton, T. (2008). Introduced marine biota in Western Australian waters. Records of the Western Australian Museum 25: 1-44. Hutchings, P.A., Hilliard, R.W., & Coles, S.L. (2002). Species introductions and potential for marine pest invasions into tropical marine communities, with special reference to the Indo-Pacific. Pacific Science Vol. 56, No. 2: 223-233. IMO (2009). Second IMO GHG Study 2009. International Maritime Organization, London. IMO (2012). International Maritime Organization. http://www.imo.org/. ISF/ICS (undated). 'Manila Amendments’ to the STCW Convention: A Quick Guide for Seafarers. International Shipping Federation and International Chamber of Shipping.

ITOPF (2002). Fate of Marine Oil Spills. International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited, Technical Information Paper 2, UK. IWC (2006). Ship Strikes Working Group First Progress Report to the Conservation Committee. 58th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission.

R1212 149

GBR Shipping Study

IWC (2007). Ship Strikes Working Group Second Progress Report to the Conservation Committee. 59th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission.

IWC (2011). Country report on Ship Strikes: Australia, International Whaling Commission.

Jefferson, TA & Leatherwood, S 1997, ‘Distribution and abundance of Indo-Pacific humpbacked dolphins ( Sousa chinensis Osbeck, 1765) in Hong Kong waters’, Asian Marine Biology, 14: 93 - 110.

Jensen, A.S. & Silber, G.K. (2003). Large Whale Ship Strike Database. US Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-OPR. Jones, H.E. (1986). Marine Resources Map of Western Australia. Part 1, The Resources; and Part 2, The Influence of Oil on the Marine Resources and Associated Activities with an Emphasis on Those Found in Western Australia. Western Australian Department of Fisheries Report No. 74, Fisheries Department, Perth, Western Australia. Kagi, R.I, Fisher, S.J & Alexander, R. (1988). Behaviour of Petroleum in Northern Australian Waters. In: Purcell, R.G. & Purcell, R.R. (eds), The North West Shelf Australia Proceeding, North West Shelf Symposium. Perth, Western Australia. Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia Limited. King, B. R. (1993). The status of Queensland seabirds, Corella. Vol. 17(3), pp. 65-92. Klinowska, M. (1991). Dolphins, Porpoises and Whales of the World: The IUCN Red Data Book, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 429 pp.

Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S. & Podesta, M. (2001). Collisions between ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science, 17(1):35-75.

Lewis, J.A. (1996). Effects of Underwater Explosions on Life in the Sea. Defence Science and Technology Organisation. (DSTO-GD-0080).

Lewis, J., Hewitt, C. & Melzer, A. (2001). Port Survey for Introduced Marine Species – Port Curtis. A report to the Gladstone Port Authority. Lucas, P., Webb, T., Valentine, P. & Marsh, H. (1997). The Outstanding Universal Value of The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Lyons, T.J & Scott, W.D. (1990). Principles of Air Pollution. Belhaven Press, London. Marsh, H., Lloze, R., Heinsohn, G.E. & Kasuya, T. (1989). ‘Irrawaddy dolphin Orcaella brevirostris (Gray, 1866)’, in SH Ridgway & R Harrison (eds), Handbook of Marine Mammals, vol. 4, River Dolphins and the Larger Toothed Whales, Academic Press, London, pp. 101–118. MSQ & AMSA (2011a). Great Barrier Reef & Torres Strait Vessel Traffic Service (REEFVTS): User Guide, July 2011. Maritime Safety Queensland and Australian Maritime Safety Authority. MSQ & AMSA (2011b). Important Changes to REEFVTS: Effective 1 July 2011. Maritime Safety Queensland and Australian Maritime Safety Authority. NCEAS (2012). Commercial Activity (Shipping). National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/globalmarine/impacts, 24 May 2012. Neil, K.M., Sheaves, J. &. Wiebkin, A. (2002). Port Baseline Surveys For Introduced Marine Pests: The Port of Cape Flattery - Final Report Prepared for Ports Corporation Queensland. CRC Reef Research / School of Marine Biology and Aquaculture, May 2002. Neil K.M., Stafford H., Rasheed M.A., Coles R.C.,& Weibkin A. (2003). Port Baseline Surveys for Introduced Marine Pests: the Port of Cairns. NNTT (2012). Native Title in Australia. National Native Title Tribunal. http://www.nntt.gov.au/, 8 April 2012.

R1212 150

GBR Shipping Study

NOAA (2012). North Atlantic Right Whales ( Eubalaena glacialis ). http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/rightwhale_northatlantic.htm, 26 May 2012. Noad, M.J., Cato, D.H. & Paton, D. (2005). Absolute and relative abundance estimate of Australian east coast humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ). Report to the International Whaling Commission (IWC), SC/57/SH.

Parliament of Australia (2008). The Basic Science of Climate Change. Parliament of Australia, Canberra. Parnell, K.E., McDonald, S.C. & Burke, A.E. (2007). Shoreline effects of vessel wakes, Marlborough Sounds, New Zealand, in Journal of Coastal Research SI 50 502 - 506, ICS2007 (Proceedings). Parra, G.J. (2005). Behavioural ecology of Irrawaddy, Orcaella brevirostris (Owen in Gray, 1866), and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, Sousa chinensis (Osbeck, 1765), in northeast Queensland, Australia: a comparative study. PhD Thesis. James Cook University, Townsville.

Parra, G. (2006). Resource partitioning in sympatric delphinids: space use and habitat preferences of Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins. Journal of Animal Ecology 75, 862–874.

Parra, G.J., Azuma, C., Preen, A.R., Corkeron, P.J. & Harsh, H. (2002). Distribution of Irrawaddy dolphins, Orcaella brevirsotris , in Australian waters, in The Raffles Book of Zoology Supplement No. 10, pp. 141-154.

Parra, G., Schick, R., & Corkeron, P. (2006). Spatial distribution and environmental correlates of Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins. Ecography 29: 396–406.

Paterson, R., Paterson, P. & Cato, D.H. (1994). The status of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae in east Australia thirty years after whaling. Biological Conservation 70: 135- 42.

Paterson, R., Paterson, P. & Cato, D.H. (2001). Status of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae , in east Australia at the end of the 20th century. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum 47(2):579 –586. Brisbane.

PCQ (2009). Ports Corporation of Queensland Annual Report 2008 - 2009. Ports Corporation of Queensland.

Perrin, W.F., Dolar, M.L.L. & Alva, M.N.R. (eds) (1996). Report of the Workshop on the Biology and Conservation of Small Cetaceans and Dugongs of Southeast Asia, Dumaguete, 1995, United Nations Environment Program, Bangkok, Thailand.

PGM / Eco Logical (2011). AIR 9000 Phase 8: Future Naval Aviation Combat System (FNACS) Initial Environmental Review – Capability Aspects. Report prepared for Department of Defence by PGM Environment and Eco Logical Australia.

Pollard, D.A. & Pethebridge, R.L. (2002). Report on Port of Botany Bay Introduced Marine Pest Species Survey. Report to Sydney Ports Corporation, November 2002. NSW Fisheries Final Report Series, No. 40. Popper, A.N., Ketten, D., Dooling, R., Price, J.R., Brill, R., Erbe, C., Schusterman, R. & Ridgway, S. (1998). Effects of anthropogenic sounds on the hearing of marine animals. In: Gisiner R.C. (ed). Proceedings of the Workshop on the Effects of Anthropogenic Noise in the Marine Environment, 10– 12 February 1998 Office of Naval Research, Arlington, Virginia: 19–57.

Port of Townsville (2011). Annual Report 2010/2011. http://www.townsville- port.com.au/files/publications/annual_reports/POT_Annual_Report_2011_FULL_lo%20res.pdf.

R1212 151

GBR Shipping Study

Ports Australia (2012). Trade Statistics 2002-2011. www.portsaustralia.com.au.

QEPA and Brisbane City Council (2004). Air Emissions Inventory: South-East Queensland Region. Queensland Environmental Protection Agency and Brisbane City Council.

Queensland Transport & GBRMPA (2000). Oil Spill Risk Assessment for the Coastal Waters of Queensland and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Report jointly prepared by Queensland and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Rasheed, M., Thomas, R., and McKenna, S. (2004). Port of Hay Point Seagrass, Algae and Benthic Macro-Invertebrate Community Survey - July 2004. Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI&F) Information Series Q104084.

Richardson, W.J., Greene, C.R., Malme, C.I. & Thomson, D.H. (1995). Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. SEWPaC (2010). Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1. Australian Government, Canberra. SEWPaC (2012). Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Australian Government. www.environment.gov.au. Skilleter, G.A. (1995). Environmental disturbance. In: Underwood, A. & Chapman. M. (eds), Coastal Marine Ecology of Temperate Australia. UNSW Press, Sydney.

Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene Jr, C.R., Kastak, D., Ketten, D.R., Miller, J.H., Nachtingall, P.E., Richardson, W.J., Thomas, J.A. & Tyack, P.L. (2007). Marine Mammal Noise Exposure Criteria: Initial Scientific Recommendations. Aquatic Mammals, 33 (4): 411-509.

Stacey, P.J. & Arnold, P.W. (1999). Orcaella brevirostris . Mammalian Species. 616:1-8. [Online]. Available from: http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/default.html. Swedish Maritime Administration (2011). MONALISA: Motorways and Electronic Navigation by Intelligence at Sea. Swedish Maritime Administration. The Australian (2012). http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/elections/queensland-lnp- promises-40m-cairns-harbour-dredge/story-fnbsqt8f-1226277274897. UNESCO/IUCN (2012). Mission Report: Reactive Monitoring Mission to Great Barrier Reef (Australia), 6th to 14th March 2012. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, World Heritage Centre, and International Union for Conservation of Nature.

URS (2006). Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Report prepared for Department of Defence, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/7051/strategic_env_assessment _defence.pdf.pdf, 29 December 2011. URS (2008a). Marsh Landing Generating Station: Application for Certification. URS California. URS (2008b). Review of Literature on Sound in the Ocean and Effects of Noise and Blast on Marine Fauna. Report prepared for WA Water Corporation, http://www.watercorporation.com.au/ _files/PublicationsRegister/15/Review_of_Literature_on_Sound_in_the_Ocean_for_WAWC.pdf, 22 March 2012. USAF (2002). Environmental Assessment for the West Coast Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Beddown. United States Air Force Headquarters Air Combat Command, USA.

USN (1999). Environmental Assessment / Overseas Environmental Assessment of the SH-60R Helicopter / ALFS Test Program. October 1999.

R1212 152

GBR Shipping Study

Vanderlaan, A.S.M. & Taggart, C.T. (2007) Vessel collisions with whales: The probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science, 23(1): 144–156.

Van Waerebeek, K., Baker, A. N., Félix, F., Gedamke, J., Iñiguez, M., Sanino, G. P., Secchi, E., Sutaria, D., van Helden, A. & Y. Wang, y. (2007). Vessel collisions with small cetaceans worldwide and with large whales in the Southern Hemisphere, an initial assessment. LAJAM 6(1): 43-69. Watkins W.A. (1986). Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Marine Mammal Science 2(4): 251-262. WBM Oceanics Australia (2006). Coal in Marine Sediments at Abbot Point. Report prepared for Ports Corporation of Queensland.

Ytreberg, E., Karlsson, J. & Eklund, B. (2010). Comparison of toxicity and release rates of Cu and Zn from anti-fouling paints leached in natural and artificial brackish seawater, in Science of the Total Environment 408 (2010): 2459–2466. Zann, L.P. (1995). Our Sea, Our Future: The State of the Marine Environment Report for Australia. Department of Environment, Sport and Territories, Commonwealth of Australia. Zhang, Z.Y., Cato, D.H. & Exelby, J.R. (2003). ‘Modelling the acoustic impact on marine mammals of different types of aircraft at various altitudes’. TTCP MARTP-9 Marine Mammals and Active Sonar Workshop DSTO Edinburgh, 18 - 19 September 2003.

R1212 153

GBR Shipping Study

R1212 154

GBR Shipping Study

12. Limitations of Report PGM Environment (PGM) has prepared this report in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession for the use of BHP Billiton and only those third parties who have been authorised in writing by PGM to rely on the report. It is based on generally accepted practices and standards at the time it was prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. It is prepared in general accordance with the scope of work and for the purpose outlined in the PGM Proposal dated 18 October 2011. The methodology adopted and sources of information used by PGM are outlined in this report. PGM has made no independent verification of this information beyond the agreed scope of works and PGM assumes no responsibility for any inaccuracies or omissions. No indications were found during our investigations that information contained in this report as provided to PGM was false. This report was prepared between 12 January and 21 December 2012 and is based on the information reviewed at the time of preparation. PGM disclaims responsibility for any changes that may have occurred after this time. This report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose or by third parties. PGM accepts no liability of any kind for any unauthorised use of the contents of this document and PGM reserves the right to seek compensation for any such unauthorised use. This report does not purport to give legal advice. Legal advice can only be given by qualified legal practitioners.

R1212 155

GBR Shipping Study

R1212 156

Appendix A

Great Barrier Reef, Queensland: Statement of Outstanding Universal Value

GBR Shipping Study

GREAT BARRIER REEF, QUEENSLAND STATEMENT OF OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE

Brief Synthesis As the world’s most extensive coral reef ecosystem, the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is a globally outstanding and significant entity. Practically the entire ecosystem was inscribed as World Heritage in 1981, covering an area of 348 000 square kilometres and extending across a contiguous latitudinal range of 14° (10°S to 24°S). The Great Barrier Reef (hereafter referred to as GBR) includes extensive cross-shelf diversity, stretching from the low water mark along the mainland coast up to 250 kilometres offshore. This wide depth range includes vast shallow inshore areas, mid-shelf and outer reefs, and beyond the continental shelf to oceanic waters over 2000 metres deep. Within the GBR there are some 2500 individual reefs of varying sizes and shapes, and over 900 islands, ranging from small sandy cays and larger vegetated cays, to large rugged continental islands rising, in one instance, over 1,100 metres above sea level. Collectively these landscapes and seascapes provide some of the most spectacular maritime scenery in the world. The latitudinal and cross-shelf diversity, combined with diversity through the depths of the water column, encompasses a globally unique array of ecological communities, habitats and species. This diversity of species and habitats, and their interconnectivity, make the GBR one of the richest and most complex natural ecosystems on earth. There are over 1500 species of fish, about 400 species of coral, 4000 species of mollusk, and some 240 species of birds, plus a great diversity of sponges, anemones, marine worms, crustaceans, and other species. No other World Heritage property contains such biodiversity. This diversity, especially the endemic species, means the GBR is of enormous scientific and intrinsic importance, and it also contains a significant number of threatened species. At time of inscription, the IUCN evaluation stated "...if only one coral reef site in the world were to be chosen for the World Heritage List, the Great Barrier Reef is the site to be chosen". Criterion (vii): The GBR is of superlative natural beauty above and below the water, and provides some of the most spectacular scenery on earth. It is one of a few living structures visible from space, appearing as a complex string of reefal structures along Australia's northeast coast. From the air, the vast mosaic patterns of reefs, islands and coral cays produce an unparalleled aerial panorama of seascapes comprising diverse shapes and sizes. The Whitsunday Islands provide a magnificent vista of green vegetated islands and spectacular sandy beaches spread over azure waters. This contrasts with the vast mangrove forests in Hinchinbrook Channel, and the rugged vegetated mountains and lush rainforest gullies that are periodically cloud-covered on Hinchinbrook Island. On many of the cays there are spectacular and globally important breeding colonies of seabirds and marine turtles, and Raine Island is the world’s largest green turtle breeding area. On some continental islands, large aggregations of over-wintering butterflies periodically occur. Beneath the ocean surface, there is an abundance and diversity of shapes, sizes and colours; for example, spectacular coral assemblages of hard and soft corals, and thousands of species of reef fish provide a myriad of brilliant colours, shapes and sizes. The internationally renowned Cod Hole near Lizard Island is one of many significant tourist attractions. Other superlative natural phenomena include the annual coral spawning, migrating whales, nesting turtles, and significant spawning aggregations of many fish species. Criterion (viii): The GBR, extending 2000 kilometres along Queensland's coast, is a globally outstanding example of an ecosystem that has evolved over millennia. The area has been exposed and flooded by at least four glacial and interglacial cycles, and over the past 15 000 years reefs have grown on the continental shelf. During glacial periods, sea levels dropped, exposing the reefs as flat-topped hills of eroded limestone. Large rivers meandered between these hills and the coastline extended further east. During interglacial

A-1

GBR Shipping Study

periods, rising sea levels caused the formation of continental islands, coral cays and new phases of coral growth. This environmental history can be seen in cores of old massive corals. Today the GBR forms the world’s largest coral reef ecosystem, ranging from inshore fringing reefs to mid-shelf reefs, and exposed outer reefs, including examples of all stages of reef development. The processes of geological and geomorphological evolution are well represented, linking continental islands, coral cays and reefs. The varied seascapes and landscapes that occur today have been moulded by changing climates and sea levels, and the erosive power of wind and water, over long time periods. One-third of the GBR lies beyond the seaward edge of the shallower reefs; this area comprises continental slope and deep oceanic waters and abyssal plains. Criterion (ix): The globally significant diversity of reef and island morphologies reflects ongoing geomorphic, oceanographic and environmental processes. The complex cross-shelf, longshore and vertical connectivity is influenced by dynamic oceanic currents and ongoing ecological processes such as upwellings, larval dispersal and migration. Ongoing erosion and accretion of coral reefs, sand banks and coral cays combine with similar processes along the coast and around continental islands. Extensive beds of Halimeda algae represent active calcification and accretion over thousands of years. Biologically the unique diversity of the GBR reflects the maturity of an ecosystem that has evolved over millennia; evidence exists for the evolution of hard corals and other fauna. Globally significant marine faunal groups include over 4000 species of molluscs, over 1500 species of fish, plus a great diversity of sponges, anemones, marine worms, crustaceans, and many others. The establishment of vegetation on the cays and continental islands exemplifies the important role of birds, such as the Pied Imperial Pigeon, in processes such as seed dispersal and plant colonisation. Human interaction with the natural environment is illustrated by strong ongoing links between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders and their sea-country, and includes numerous shell deposits (middens) and fish traps, plus the application of story places and marine totems. Criterion (x): The enormous size and diversity of the GBR means it is one of the richest and most complex natural ecosystems on earth, and one of the most significant for biodiversity conservation. The amazing diversity supports tens of thousands of marine and terrestrial species, many of which are of global conservation significance. As the world's most complex expanse of coral reefs, the reefs contain some 400 species of corals in 60 genera. There are also large ecologically important inter-reefal areas. The shallower marine areas support half the world's diversity of mangroves and many seagrass species. The waters also provide major feeding grounds for one of the world's largest populations of the threatened dugong. At least 30 species of whales and dolphins occur here, and it is a significant area for humpback whale calving. Six of the world’s seven species of marine turtle occur in the GBR. As well as the world’s largest green turtle breeding site at Raine Island, the GBR also includes many regionally important marine turtle rookeries. Some 242 species of birds have been recorded in the GBR. Twenty-two seabird species breed on cays and some continental islands, and some of these breeding sites are globally significant; other seabird species also utilize the area. The continental islands support thousands of plant species, while the coral cays also have their own distinct flora and fauna.

Integrity The ecological integrity of the GBR is enhanced by the unparalleled size and current good state of conservation across the property. At the time of inscription it was felt that to include virtually the entire Great Barrier Reef within the property was the only way to ensure the integrity of the coral reef ecosystems in all their diversity.

A-2

GBR Shipping Study

A number of natural pressures occur, including cyclones, crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks, and sudden large influxes of freshwater from extreme weather events. As well there is a range of human uses such as tourism, shipping and coastal developments including ports. There are also some disturbances facing the GBR that are legacies of past actions prior to the inscription of the property on the World Heritage list. At the scale of the GBR ecosystem, most habitats or species groups have the capacity to recover from disturbance or withstand ongoing pressures. The property is largely intact and includes the fullest possible representation of marine ecological, physical and chemical processes from the coast to the deep abyssal waters enabling the key interdependent elements to exist in their natural relationships. Some of the key ecological, physical and chemical processes that are essential for the long-term conservation of the marine and island ecosystems and their associated biodiversity occur outside the boundaries of the property and thus effective conservation programs are essential across the adjoining catchments, marine and coastal zones.

Protection and Management Requirements The GBR covers approximately 348 000 square kilometres. Most of the property lies within the GBR Marine Park: at 344 400 square kilometres, this Federal Marine Park comprises approximately 99% of the property. The GBR Marine Park's legal jurisdiction ends at low water mark along the mainland (with the exception of port areas) and around islands (with the exception of 70 Commonwealth managed islands which are part of the Marine Park). In addition the GBR also includes over 900 islands within the jurisdiction of Queensland, about half of which are declared as 'national parks', and the internal waters of Queensland that occur within the World Heritage boundary (including a number of long-established port areas). The World Heritage property is and has always been managed as a multiple-use area. Uses include a range of commercial and recreational activities. The management of such a large and iconic world heritage property is made more complex due to the overlapping State and Federal jurisdictions. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, an independent Australian Government agency, is responsible for protection and management of the GBR Marine Park. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 was amended in 2007 and 2008, and now provides for “the long term protection and conservation ... of the Great Barrier Reef Region” with specific mention of meeting "... Australia's responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention." Queensland is responsible for management of the Great Barrier Reef Coast Marine Park, established under the Marine Parks Act 2004 (Qld). This is contiguous with the GBR Marine Park and covers the area between low and high water marks and many of the waters within the jurisdictional limits of Queensland. Queensland is also responsible for management of most of the islands. The overlapping jurisdictional arrangements mean that the importance of complementary legislation and complementary management of islands and the surrounding waters is well recognised by both governments. Strong cooperative partnerships and formal agreements exist between the Australian Government and the Queensland Government. In addition, strong relationships have been built between governments and commercial and recreational industries, research institutions and universities. Collectively this provides a comprehensive management influence over a much wider context than just the marine areas and islands. Development and land use activities in coastal and water catchments adjacent to the property also have a fundamental and critical influence on the values within the property. The Queensland Government is responsible for natural resource management and land use planning for the islands, coast and hinterland adjacent to the GBR. Other Queensland and Federal legislation also protects the property’s Outstanding Universal Value addressing such matters as water quality, shipping management, sea dumping, fisheries management and environmental protection.

A-3

GBR Shipping Study

The Federal Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) provides an overarching mechanism for protecting the World Heritage values from inappropriate development, including actions taken inside or outside which could impact on its heritage values. This requires any development proposals to undergo rigorous environmental impact assessment processes, often including public consultation, after which the Federal Minister may decide, to approve, reject or approve under conditions designed to mitigate any significant impacts. A recent amendment to the EPBC Act makes the GBR Marine Park an additional 'trigger' for a matter of National Environmental Significance which provides additional protection for the values within the GBR. The GBR Marine Park and the adjoining GBR Coast Marine Park are zoned to allow for a wide range of reasonable uses while ensuring overall protection, with conservation being the primary aim. The zoning spectrum provides for increasing levels of protection for the 'core conservation areas' which comprise the 115 000 square kilometres of ‘no-take’ and ‘no-entry’ zones within the GBR. While the Zoning Plan is the 'cornerstone' of management and provides a spatial basis for determining where many activities can occur, zoning is only one of many spatial management tools and policies applied to collectively protect the GBR. Some activities are better managed using other spatial and temporal management tools like Plans of Management, Special Management Areas, Agreements with Traditional Owners and permits (often tied to specific zones or smaller areas within zones, but providing a detailed level of management not possible by zoning alone). These statutory instruments also protect the Outstanding Universal Value of the property. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island peoples undertake traditional use of marine resource activities to provide traditional food, practice their living maritime culture, and to educate younger generations about traditional and cultural rules and protocols. In the GBR these activities are managed under both Federal and Queensland legislation and policies including Traditional Use of Marine Resource Agreements (TUMRAs) and Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs). These currently cover some 30 per cent of the GBR inshore area, and support Traditional Owners to maintain cultural connections with their sea country. Similarly non-statutory tools like site management and Industry Codes of Practice contribute to the protection of World Heritage values. Some spatial management tools are not permanently in place nor appear as part of the zoning, yet achieve effective protection for elements of biodiversity (e.g. the temporal closures that are legislated across the GBR prohibit all reef fishing during specific moon phases when reef fish are spawning). Other key initiatives providing increased protection for the GBR include the comprehensive Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report, (and its resulting 5-yearly reporting process); the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan; the GBR Climate Change Action Plan; and the Reef Guardians Stewardship Programs which involve building relationships and working closely with those who use and rely on the GBR or its catchment for their recreation or their business. The 2009 Outlook Report identified the long-term challenges facing the GBR; these are dominated by climate change over the next few decades. The extent and persistence of damage to the GBR ecosystem will depend to a large degree on the amount of change in the world’s climate and on the resilience of the GBR ecosystem to such change. This report also identified continued declining water quality from land-based sources, loss of coastal habitats from coastal development, and some impacts from fishing, illegal fishing and poaching as the other priority issues requiring management attention for the long-term protection of the GBR. Emerging issues since the 2009 Outlook Report include proposed port expansions, increases in shipping activity, coastal development and intensification and changes in land use within the GBR catchment; population growth; the impacts from marine debris; illegal activities; and extreme weather events including floods and cyclones. Further building the resilience of the GBR by improving water quality, reducing the loss of coastal habitats and increasing knowledge about fishing and its effects and encouraging modified practices,

A-4

GBR Shipping Study

will give the GBR its best chance of adapting to and recovering from the threats ahead, including the impacts of a changing climate. (SEWPaC 2012)

A-5

GBR Shipping Study

A-6

Appendix B

Summary of Applicable Conventions, Legislation and Policies

GBR Shipping Study

Overview The operation of ships and associated shipping activities in the GBR region needs to be compliant with applicable international conventions and Commonwealth legislation, and Queensland legislation to a lesser extent. This Appendix outlines the most significant of these international agreements and other Australian national and Queensland state legislation, with particular reference to those stemming from Australia's international convention obligations. Although focused primarily on environment protection instruments, this Section also examines ship and marine safety agreements and legislative provisions which provide for marine environment protection as a coincident outcome. To reiterate, consistent with the stated objectives and scope of this review, information presented in this Section is focused upon issues relevant to marine environment protection in relation to shipping, and specifically bulk carriers within the GBR region. As such, exhaustive and definitive summaries of the various conventions and legislative instruments and similar considered here are not provided, and this report does not purport to provide such definitive summaries.

International Conventions and Agreements Related to Shipping Australia is signatory to a range of international agreements which have applicability to the environmental management of ships specifically and maritime activities in general. These conventions apply to ships operating within the GBR region by virtue of either one or several mechanisms under the umbrella of 'flag state' and/or 'port state' and/or 'coastal state' controls. In essence, 'flag state' controls apply when the country of registration of the ship has enacted an applicable convention, whereas 'port state' and 'coastal state' controls have application to ships visiting or sailing within the waters of a third party nation that has enacted such conventions - these controls are discussed in further in this Appendix.

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 The ability of any nation to exercise regulatory controls over its claimed territorial seas is founded upon international convention. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982 (UNCLOS III) is the principal instrument for the delineation and codification of the maritime rights and responsibilities of sovereign nations, and the basis for declarations of sovereign Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). UNCLOS III is primarily concerned with maritime jurisdiction, rights of navigation, economic activities in littoral waters and similar issues. It also stipulates a general duty for signatories to protect and preserve the marine environment (ANZECC 1995), and an obligation to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution from the various major pollution sources including from the land, from the atmosphere, from vessels and from dumping.

UNCLOS III requires signatories to cooperate in international fora and implement complementary national laws to prevent, reduce or otherwise control pollution of the marine environment from all sources, including vessels.

International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 Typically referred to as the 'SOLAS Convention' or 'SOLAS. Although focused primarily upon ship and personnel safety, SOLAS also has implications for ship environment protection. The primary objective of the SOLAS Convention is to articulate minimum required standards for the construction, equipment and operation of ships, in terms of ship safety. Flag States are responsible for ensuring that ships under their flag comply with its requirements. Provisions allow Contracting Governments to inspect ships of other Contracting States if there are clear grounds for believing that the ship and its equipment do not substantially comply with the requirements of the Convention.

R1212 B-1

GBR Shipping Study

The Convention addresses, inter alia :

• ship safety and survival equipment and procedures;

• ship manning requirements;

• safety of navigation, including certain navigation safety services such as: meteorological services for ships; routeing of ships; vessel traffic services (VTS), and the maintenance of search and rescue services;

• ship Automatic Identification Systems (AIS);

• the carriage of cargoes, including requirements for stowage and securing of cargo;

• the carriage of dangerous goods, including their classification, packing, marking, labelling, documentation and stowage; and

• aspects of the construction and equipment of ships, including those carrying bulk and/or hazardous cargoes.

One element of the SOLAS Convention addresses "goal-based standards" for oil tankers and bulk carriers. These require new ships to be designed and constructed for a specified design life and to be 'safe and environmentally friendly', in both intact and specified damage conditions, throughout their life. Ships are required to have adequate strength, integrity and stability to 'minimise the risk of loss of the ship or pollution to the marine environment due to structural failure, including collapse, resulting in flooding or loss of watertight integrity'.

International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, 1978 (STCW Convention) addresses myriad aspects of the skills and experience required by mariners, including:

• training and certification of seafarers and required competencies, including navigation, ship operations, ship upkeep, and cargo securing, loading and unloading

• requirements on hours of work and rest

• the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse

• standards relating to medical fitness for seafarers;

• marine environment awareness training

• safety and survival training

The Convention allows for Port States to take intervention action in the case of identified deficiencies which are deemed to pose a danger to persons, property or the environment. This can occur in circumstances such as the discovery of certificates not in order, if the ship is involved in a collision or grounding, if there is an illegal discharge of substances (causing pollution), or if the ship is manoeuvred in an erratic or unsafe manner, and similar.

R1212 B-2

GBR Shipping Study

Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 The Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 (COLREGs), entered into force in 1977. The Convention is focused upon minimising the likelihood of collisions between vessels at sea via the establishment of a framework of ship traffic regulations, commonly referred to Rules of the Road (ROTR). These are augmented for conditions where collision presents a greater risk of occurrence, including situations such as confined waterways, areas subject to heavy ship traffic, periods of reduced visibility, and vessels difficult to manoeuvre.

International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation The International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation (OPRC) requires parties to the Convention to establish approved measures for dealing with pollution incidents, either nationally or in co-operation with other countries. The OPRC entered into force in 1995.

Under the OPRC, ships are required to carry a Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP), consistent with IMO requirements. Ships are also required to report incidents of pollution to coastal authorities.

Parties to the Convention need to develop plans for detailing with oil pollution incidents. This includes the establishment and maintenance of appropriate stockpiles of oil spill response materials and equipment, and the conduct of periodic oil spill response exercises. They are also compelled to provide assistance to other nations in the event of a pollution emergency.

A Protocol to the OPRC relating to hazardous and noxious substances (the OPRC-HNS Protocol) was adopted in 2000.

The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 1996 and the 2010 Protocol The International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 1996 (the HNS Convention), expands beyond the scope of oil spill preparation and response established by the OPRC by extending coverage to address hazardous and noxious substances. Consistent with the OPRS, the HNS Convention aims 'to ensure adequate, prompt and effective compensation for damage to persons and property, costs of clean up and reinstatement measures and economic losses resulting from the maritime transport of hazardous and noxious substances'. The HNS Convention had not entered into force at the time of preparation of this report, owing to concerns with implementation. The 2010 Protocol to the HNS Convention was drafted to address these problems.

Under the HNS Convention, a ship owner will have strict liability for any damage caused by hazardous and noxious substances, even in the absence of fault on the part of the ship or its crew. The shipowner will be obliged to maintain insurance to cover liabilities under the Convention.

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973, as modified by its Protocols of 1978 and 1997 The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 , as modified by its Protocols of 1978 and 1997 (MARPOL), is concerned with the management of ‘operational wastes’ from shipping. Operational waste is considered to be that which is generated during the course of the normal activities of a vessel, as opposed to waste material which may be carried by a ship for the

R1212 B-3

GBR Shipping Study

express purpose of disposing that material at sea, otherwise referred to as ‘sea dumping’. Operational waste can be further subdivided into three components:

• Domestic waste – all food wastes and other material produced by crew and passengers in a vessel’s living (and office) spaces;

• Maintenance waste – waste generated in the routine operation and maintenance of a vessel’s engineering equipment and hull; and

• Cargo-associated wastes – all waste materials produced as a result of cargo stowage and handling, including liquid cargoes.

MARPOL is expressed in Australian law via the Commonwealth Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 and the Commonwealth Navigation Act 1912 . Essentially, the former concentrates upon waste discharge regulations while the latter addresses aspects related to ship construction and equipment fit, crew competencies and other procedural matters.

The Convention has six Annexes, addressing oil (I), bulk noxious liquid substances (II), harmful packaged substances (III), sewage (IV), garbage (V) and air emissions (VI). MARPOL essentially revolves around prohibiting the discharge of polluting materials to sea, except for selected materials and only when a ship is in an area where such disposal is permitted and the discharge is conducted in accordance with other regulations stipulated by the Convention. Those most pertinent to the operation of dry bulk carriers are Annexes I, IV, V and VI. MARPOL Annex I regulations prohibit the discharge of oil and untreated oily water from ships. All ships of 400 GT and above are required to have installed oily water separators, with associated oil-in- water content meters with associated alarms and automatic shut-off devices such that only treated water with an oil content of less than 15 ppm can be discharged to sea, and only while the ship is underway. Annex I regulations also prohibit the use of fuel tanks or combined oil/water tanks for ship ballasting. This is referred to as 'segregated ballast', with the result that only seawater, uncontaminated by oil sourced from the ship, is permitted to be used as ballast water. From 1 August 2010, Annex I requires ships to have ‘protected’ fuel tanks, intended to limit the accidental release of fuel oil following collision or grounding. The rules apply to any ship with an aggregate fuel capacity of 600 m3 or greater, and stipulate that oil fuel tanks are to be located in a protected location away from the ship's side or bottom shell plating, at least 1.0 m from the ship's side and 0.76 m from the bottom plating, although suction wells may protrude into this void. The regulation also places controls over the placement of fuel piping and the need for automatic shut-off of fuel systems following damage. No individual tank is to exceed 2500 m3 capacity. The regulation permits 'equivalent' fuel tank protection to be demonstrated via an ‘outflow performance model’ as determined by the IMO, based upon the predicted loss of fuel following selected casualty scenarios. All ships of 400 GT or greater (and all tankers of 150 GT or greater) are required to have an onboard oil pollution prevention plan. By extension, this includes the equipment and procedures necessary to contain minor spills on deck, as well as the procedures and processes necessary to engage external assistance in the event of loss of oil to sea. Annex IV addresses the discharge of sewage from ships. This effectively prohibits the discharge of untreated sewage in coastal waters. The disposal to sea of garbage from ships is controlled by Annex V, which has been recently expanded to include the disposal of residues from cargo hold washing water and deck washings. The intent of these revisions is to avoid or limit the discharge to the sea of harmful substances which may be mobilised as a result of such washing activities.

R1212 B-4

GBR Shipping Study

Annex VI presents a framework for the reduction of ship-sourced emissions of sulphur dioxides (SO x), nitrous oxides (NO x), particulate matter, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and ozone depleting substances (ODSs). It also seeks to control the design, approval and operation of shipboard incinerators. Annex VI has evolved to encourage the development of CO 2 emission reduction strategies through ship design, equipment fit, maintenance and operations.

Emissions of oxides of sulphur and particulates are reduced principally by imposing caps on the maximum permissible sulphur content of fuel, with more stringent requirements applying in designated SO x Emission Control Areas (ECAs). The MARPOL Convention also provides a framework for:

• the documentation of waste discharges from vessels via Oil Record Books (Annex I) and Garbage Record Books (Annex V);

• vessel construction and equipment standards, set in order to reduce the risk of marine pollution, particularly of oil in the event of accident;

• vessel design and installation of diesel engines and auxiliaries, with regard to air emissions from ship machinery;

• a vessel survey and inspection regime, including the issuing of specified ship pollution management and equipment certifications;

• cooperation between governments for enforcement and the detection of violations;

• the provision of adequate port waste reception facilities;

• the reporting of ship accidents involving oil or harmful substances; and

• promotion of the international exchange of information and technical cooperation.

MARPOL permits the discharge of ship-sourced wastes when considered necessary for the purposes of securing the safety of a ship or saving life at sea, or as a result of damage to a ship or its equipment. These exceptions have the caveats, however, that all reasonable precautions must be taken to prevent or minimise such discharge, and that the action was not conducted recklessly or with intent to cause environmental harm.

In addition to the Annex VI ECAs, the Convention has declared a number of ‘Special Areas’ under Annexes I, II and V, denoted for their particular sensitivities to marine pollution and where more stringent discharge restrictions apply. With regard to Annex IV, the IMO has declared the Baltic to be a Special Area, with effect from 1 January 2013; this applies only to passenger ships and is centred upon regulating the concentration of nutrients (N and P) in treated sewage discharge effluent.

‘Nearest land’, taken as the baseline of the territorial sea, is used as the datum within the Convention delimiting the boundaries of sea areas where discharges of specified categories of waste are prohibited or subject to other controls. Annexes I, II, IV and V define the GBR and Torres Strait region to be within the baseline of Australia (see Figure B-1), and so effectively ban the discharge of ship- generated waste within the GBR region. This definition of 'nearest land' in relation to the north east coast of Australia acts to provide the GBR region with a higher level of protection than that of the Special Areas specifically declared under Annexes I, II, IV and V.

R1212 B-5

GBR Shipping Study

(AMSA 2012) Figure B-1: Area of GBR Where Ship Waste Discharges Prohibited by MARPOL

A synopsis of the discharge restrictions imposed by Annexes I, IV and V, with a particular focus on the GBR region, is presented in Table B-1.

R1212 B-6

GBR Shipping Study

Table B-1: Synopsis of MARPOL Pollutant Discharge Regulations (Annexes I, IV, and V) as at January 2012

Waste Type Disposal Outside Special Areas Disposal Within Special Areas Disposal Within GBR PSSA

Oily Wastes (Annex I) Oil or oily mixture from ships of Disposal prohibited, except when: Disposal prohibited, except for processed bilge Disposal prohibited, except when: 400 GT and above other than an water when: oil tanker and from machinery a. the ship is en route ; a. the ship is underway; a. (in the case of oil tankers) bilge water space bilges excluding cargo b. oil content of the effluent before b. oil content of the effluent before pump room bilges of an oil tanker does not originate from cargo areas or is dilution does not exceed 15 parts per million mixed with oil cargo residues; dilution does not exceed 15 ppm; unless mixed with oil cargo (ppm); residue b. the ship is underway; c. ship has appropriate oil pollution c. ship has appropriate oil pollution control equipment (e.g. filters, alarm, control equipment (e.g. filters, alarm, c. oil content of the effluent before automatic shut-off). automatic shut-off). dilution does not exceed 15 ppm; d. ship has appropriate oil pollution control equipment (e.g. filters, alarm, automatic shut-off). Oil sludge (from holding tanks) Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited Oily rags, used oil filters and Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited similar Sewage (Annex IV) Comminuted and disinfected Disposal prohibited except when ship is: NB: Special Areas have no application under Disposal prohibited sewage from ships of 400 GT, or Annex IV as at January 2012 less if certified to carry more than a. > 3 nautical miles from nearest land; 15 persons b. underway at a speed not less than 4 knots. Sewage which is not comminuted Disposal prohibited except when ship is: n/a Disposal prohibited or disinfected from ships of 400 GT, or less if certified to a. > 12 nautical miles from nearest land; carry more than 15 persons b. underway at a speed not less than 4 knots. Treated sewage (from an IMO Nil restrictions n/a Nil restrictions approved sewage treatment plant)

R1212 B-7

GBR Shipping Study

Waste Type Disposal Outside Special Areas Disposal Within Special Areas Disposal Within GBR PSSA

Garbage (Annex V)* Plastics Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited Floating dunnage, lining and > 25 nautical miles from nearest land Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited packing materials Paper, rags, glass, metal, bottles, > 12 nautical miles from nearest land Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited crockery and similar refuse All other garbage including paper, > 3 nautical miles from nearest land Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited rags, glass, etc. comminuted or ground Food waste not comminuted or > 12 nautical miles from nearest land > 12 nautical miles from nearest land Disposal prohibited ground Food waste comminuted or > 3 nautical miles from nearest land > 12 nautical miles from nearest land Disposal prohibited ground Mixed refuse Determined by the most stringent conditions Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited applying to any single component of the mixture Toxic or noxious materials Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited Disposal prohibited * At the time of preparation of this report, an updated Annex V had been finalised by the IMO and was to take effect from 1 January 2013, with the objective of further constraining the permissible discharge to sea of all garbage from ships with the general exceptions of food waste, cargo residues and animal carcasses in defined circumstances. Noting the existing prohibition on the disposal of garbage from ships in the GBR region, the amendments will not result in any substantive change to the already stringent ship garbage management regulations applying in the GBR region.

R1212 B-8

GBR Shipping Study

In summary, MARPOL regulations effectively regard the GBR region as 'land'. By extension, no ship discharges or emissions to water are currently permitted in the GBR, with the exception of appropriately processed oily water and treated sewage effluent.

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 and the 1996 Protocol The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter, 1972 (London Convention) is concerned with ‘sea dumping’, which is the act of deliberate disposal at sea of waste or other matter, or any deliberate disposal (scuttling) at sea of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures. The Convention addresses such activities as the dumping of dredge spoil, sewage sludge and municipal garbage, and the scuttling of ships and aircraft. It does not address ‘operational wastes’ generated during the normal conduct of ship activities (these are covered by MARPOL). The Convention does not consider ‘dumping’ to include the placement or abandonment into the sea of items other than for the mere disposal thereof.

International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 In 2004 the IMO adopted the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, 2004 (i.e. the BWM Convention). The BWM Convention is yet to enter into force but it is anticipated that this will occur sometime before 2015. Australia is a signatory to the BWM Convention, and once in force internationally the Convention will be enacted under Australian law either through new legislation or the amendment of existing legislation. The major aspects of the BWM Convention are detailed below. Ballast water is defined by the Convention as: ... water with its suspended matter taken on board a ship to control trim, list, draught, stability or stresses of the ship . Under the Convention, 'new ships' (i.e. those for which construction began from 1 January 2009 or onwards) with a ballast capacity of less than 5000 m3 will be required to use a treatment method that meets the Ballast Water Performance Standard from 1 January 2009. Ships constructed before 2009 with a total ballast capacity from 1500 m3 to 5000 m3 need to adopt ballast water treatment after their first scheduled intermediate or renewal ballast water management survey (whichever comes first) after 1 January 2014. At this survey they must switch to a treatment option that meets the performance standards of Regulation D-2. For vessels built before 2009 with smaller (>1500 m3) or larger ballast water capacities (>5000 m3), the switch will be at the time of their first survey after 1 January 2016. The IMO Ballast Water Performance Standard, promulgated via Regulation D-2 of the Convention, requires that ships conducting ballast water management in accordance with this standard shall discharge: • less than 10 viable organisms per cubic metre greater than or equal to 50 micrometres in minimum dimension; and • less than 10 viable organisms per millilitre less than 50 micrometres in minimum dimension and greater than or equal to 10 micrometres in minimum dimension; and • discharge of the indicator microbes, as a human health standard, shall not exceed the following specified concentrations: toxicogenic Vibrio cholerae (O1 and O139) with less than one colony forming unit (cfu) per 100 mL or less than 1 cfu per 1 g (wet weight) zooplankton samples;

B-9

GBR Shipping Study

Escherichia coli (i.e. E. coli) less than 250 cfu per 100 mL; intestinal Enterococci less than 100 cfu per 100 mL. Ballast water exchange cannot meet the treatment standard and will be phased out completely. Furthermore, ships constructed from 2009 onwards are, without compromising safety, survivability or operational efficiency, to be designed, constructed and operated with a view to minimising the uptake and undesirable entrapment of sediments, facilitate removal of sediments from tanks, and provide safe access to tanks and ancillary systems to allow for the removal and sampling of ballast water and sediments. Stripping pumps or eductors, if fitted, should be capable of being used during ballast water exchange to promote the uptake and discharge of ballast tank sediments. The BWM Convention makes provision for nations to designate special areas where defined procedures or restrictions may apply. For the purposes of the BWM Convention, ‘nearest land’ is defined as the outer edge of the GBR. This means in effect that no discharge of ballast water which has not been treated to meet the IMO Ballast Water Performance Standard is permitted within the GBR region unless specific prior permission has been obtained or unless the ballast water has been sourced from the same location in the GBR region and not mixed with unmanaged ballast water and sediments from anywhere else. Ships are not required to meet the IMO Ballast Water Performance Standard when either: • the uptake and subsequent discharge of the same ballast water and sediments (i.e. not mixed with ballast water or sediments from any other location) occurs on the high seas (i.e. water at least 200 m deep and at least 200 nm from nearest land); or • the discharge of ballast water and sediments occurs from a ship at the same location where the whole of that ballast water and those sediments originated and provided that no mixing with other ballast water and sediments from other areas has occurred, unless that other ballast water and sediments has been treated and meets the IMO Ballast Water Performance Standard. If, however, mixing with unmanaged ballast water and sediments has occurred in either situation, the ballast water and sediments are subject to Ballast Water Management in accordance with the IMO Ballast Water Performance Standard or the interim exchange requirements. The Convention further requires that subject ships have and maintain a Ballast Water Record Book and have a Ballast Water Management Plan. Ships are subject to survey and those which demonstrate compliance with the Convention in all respects will be eligible for the issue of an International Ballast Water Management Certificate. It is a reasonable expectation that the requirements of the BWM Convention will be translated into Australian law on or about the time that the Convention enters into force internationally.

International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001 The International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, 2001 (the IAFS Convention) prohibits the use of listed harmful biocide agents in anti-fouling paints used on ships. Under the terms of the IAFS Convention, Parties to the Convention are able to prohibit and/or restrict the use of designated harmful anti-fouling systems on ships flying their flag, as well as ships flying other flags but which may enter a port, shipyard or offshore terminal within their jurisdiction. Australia is a Party to the IAFS Convention. Anti-fouling systems prohibited or controlled by the IAFS Convention are listed in Annex 1 to the Convention. Organotin compounds (such as TBT) are currently listed and controlled by the IAFS Convention.

B-10

GBR Shipping Study

Ships of 400 GT and above are required to undergo an initial survey before commissioning or before an International Anti-fouling System Certificate is issued for the first time. Further surveys are required whenever anti-fouling systems are changed or replaced.

International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 This Convention builds upon and refines the framework developed by the non-binding Resolution A.962(23) IMO Guidelines on Ship Recycling of 2003. The intent of the Convention and earlier Guidelines is improved environmental performance and enhanced worker health and safety arising from shipbreaking. The Convention will apply to new ships within no more than 30 months from the time of the Convention’s entry into force. It will apply to existing ships at the time that they are sent to a breaker’s yard or within five years of the Convention’s entry into force, whichever occurs first. Although focused upon shipbreaking and shipbreaking yards, elements of the Convention are of relevance to ships during design and build and while in service. Aspects of the Convention relevant to ships during design, build and operation include a general stipulation on minimising the use of hazardous substances in construction and operation, and the cataloguing of the type, location and amount of hazardous materials in the ship. This latter aim is intended to be accomplished via development and maintenance throughout a ship’s life of an official Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM), commonly referred to as a ‘Green Passport’. Materials to be recorded in the IHM, as a minimum, are detailed in the Convention. The IHM will contain three parts: • Part I, the actual catalogue of hazardous materials in the ship’s structure and fittings. This shall be properly maintained and updated throughout the operational life of the ship, recording any changed hazardous material status associated with changes in the ship’s structure. • Part II, detailing operationally generated wastes. • Part III, for stores items. The Convention also contains provision for a regime of ship survey and inspection, specifically in relation to the maintenance and upkeep of the IHM. Surveys are required at the time of entry into service of the ship, and then at least once every five years thereafter, and at the request of the shipowner after a change, replacement, or significant repair of the ship’s structure, equipment, systems, fittings, arrangements and material. A final survey is required at the time of disposal. An International Certificate on Inventory of Hazardous Materials will be issued after successful completion of each survey. Australia was not a signatory to the Convention at the time of preparation of this report. Should Australia accede to the Convention, it is expected that its requirements will be translated into Australian law.

International Safety Management Code The International Safety Management (ISM) Code is the short title for the 'International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention', promulgated under the aegis of the SOLAS Convention. The purpose of this Code is to provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for the prevention of ship-sourced pollution. The intention of the Code is to provide a consistent framework of general principles and objectives within which ships can be operated in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. Specific elements of the ISM Code address, inter alia : • the development of company safety and environmental protection policy;

B-11

GBR Shipping Study

• the promotion of safe practices in ship operation and the provision of a safe working environment; • ensuring that ships are manned with qualified, certificated and medically fit seafarers in accordance with national and international requirements; • continuous improvement of the safety management skills of personnel ashore and aboard ships, • the identification and assessment of all risks to applicable ships, personnel and the environment and the establishment of appropriate safeguards; • instructions and procedures to ensure the safe operation of ships and the protection of the environment in compliance with relevant international and Flag State requirements; • procedures to ensure the appropriate maintenance and upkeep of equipment related to safe and environmentally responsible ship operations; • procedures for reporting and investigating accidents and non-conformities with the provisions of the Code; and • procedures to prepare for and respond to emergency situations.

International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code The International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code provides for a mandatory, consistent international code for the transport of dangerous goods by sea, and acts as a supplement to SOLAS regulations. The Code addresses aspects such as packaging, stowage, labelling and the segregation of incompatible substances. Under the Code, dangerous goods are classified within different classes on the basis of the characteristics and properties of the substances, with individual dangerous goods listed in the official Dangerous Goods List.

The IMDG Code and Dangerous Goods List link with Annex III of MARPOL with regard to substances identified as harmful to the marine environment, termed as 'marine pollutants'. Certain marine pollutants are considered to represent an extreme pollution potential and are accordingly identified as severe marine pollutants.

International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Code The International Maritime Solid Bulk Cargoes Code (IMSBC Code) has been developed by the IMO as an adjunct to SOLAS requirements. The broad aim of the Code is to ensure the safe handling and carriage of solid bulk cargoes.

Dependent upon their chemical and physical properties, solid bulk cargoes represent potential hazards for ships in a number of guises, primarily: • as an explosive and/or flammable material; • as a source of noxious vapours or gases; • as an oxygen-depleting material; or • as subject to liquefaction 19 .

19 Liquefaction of the cargo may result in inordinate movement of the mass, presenting a hazard to ship stability and structural integrity.

B-12

GBR Shipping Study

Appropriate linkages with the IMDG Code are provided in the IMSBC Code to ensure adequate management of dangerous goods in solid form in bulk. This includes consideration of Environmentally Hazardous Cargoes (EHC), which have been found to be hazardous to the aquatic environment or as presenting a risk as a marine pollutant. Where a cargo is listed in the IMSBC Code and the schedule provided by the Code relates to the properties of the cargo, then the Code requires that this bulk cargo shall be transported in accordance with the provisions of the relevant schedule provided in the IMSBC Code. It is recognised that not all potential cargoes are listed in the Schedules of the IMSBC Code, in which case the onus is on the shipper to provide the ship's Master with valid information on the cargo. Also related to the management of bulk cargoes and synchronised with the IMSBC Code is the IMO's Code of Practice for the Safe Loading and Unloading of Bulk Carriers, referred to as the BLU Code. The focus of this latter Code is upon terminal loading/unloading operations and associated shipboard procedures in port.

International Ship Energy Efficiency Requirements At the time of preparation of this report the IMO was developing a framework for the management of ship energy efficiency, with the primary objective of minimising the contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions attributable to shipping. The ship energy efficiency regime was in its nascent stages at the time of preparation of this report, and was coalescing around two central cores, namely:

• A ship Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), a measure of a ship’s CO 2 efficiency whereby ships of specified classes would be benchmarked against idealised, theoretical ships of the same type (e.g. bulk carriers, passenger ships, container ships, tankers, gas carriers, etc).

• A Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP), in which each ship would detail factors such as best operational procedures to improve energy efficiency, procedures for monitoring and reporting energy efficiency on an ongoing basis, and processes for continuous improvement in energy efficiency.

The initial requirements for ship energy efficiency have been promulgated via amendment to Annex VI of MARPOL, scheduled to take effect on 1 January 2013. It may also be anticipated that future energy efficiency measures may be promulgated via issue of separate guidelines, or perhaps a specific convention.

Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships' Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species The IMO has recognised vessel biofouling as a key transport mechanism in the global transfer of invasive aquatic species, and has initiated action to establish international control mechanisms. These are promulgated via the voluntary Guidelines for the Control and Management of Ships' Biofouling to Minimize the Transfer of Invasive Aquatic Species .

The intent of the guidelines is to provide the basis for a globally consistent approach to the management of biofouling. The guidelines address aspects of biofouling management such as ship design and construction, anti-fouling coatings, and ship operations and maintenance. The guidelines also establish the framework for the development and maintenance of ship-specific biofouling record books and biofouling management plans.

B-13

GBR Shipping Study

Compliance Inspection and Enforcement Two approaches are provided under international law for national authorities to ensure compliance with marine pollution prevention practises by both domestic and international vessels. These are ‘Port’ and ‘Flag’ state powers which furnish national regulators with the legal authority to conduct compliance inspections and enforce international convention requirements on:

• any vessel registered in a nation which is a signatory to a ratified convention ('Flag State' controls); and

• any vessel, of any nation of registration, when in the port, offshore installations or anchorages of a signatory to a given convention ('Port State' controls).

In addition to these international powers, enactment of national legislation can provide maritime authorities with the inspection and enforcement powers necessary to ensure compliance by domestically registered vessels.

Flag State Controls are enacted by the responsible flag nation (i.e. the nation of the subject ship's registration) to ensure that at the prescribed intervals, mandatory surveys and inspections are conducted. The purpose of these surveys is to ensure that the ship complies with the applicable laws and regulations of the flag state, and by extension, the international agreements (e.g. IMO conventions) which underpin many of these. These inspections may be undertaken by officials from the flag state, or in the port of any other country by a suitably accredited surveyor appointed by the flag state administering authority.

Port State Control is effected through the inspection of foreign-flagged ships in national ports (e.g. a Japanese-flagged bulk carrier in an Australian port). The purpose of such inspection is to verify that the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of applicable international regulations and that the ship is manned and operated in compliance with these rules. AMSA is the responsible authority for the implementation of Port State Controls in Australia.

Compliance checking and enforcement can be undertaken within a regional framework, whereby states cooperate in the checking of ships and the reporting of their condition, and the application of any enforcement measures in the event of a breach of regulations. Cooperative mechanisms can include elements such as information exchange, training of inspectors, tracking of vessels known or suspected to be in breach, uniform application of sanctions against vessels in breach (e.g. detainment or prohibition of vessels entering ports), identification of vessels presenting greatest risk, or coordinated inspection programmes.

International maritime agreements provide the powers necessary for Port and Flag State powers of inspection and enforcement. A number of regional agreements relating to Port State Control are currently in effect around the world. Australia is a signatory to two of these agreements which have regional application, these being:

• the Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control in the Asia-Pacific Region (Tokyo MoU); and

• the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control (Indian Ocean MoU).

The Tokyo MoU is the Asia-Pacific regional agreement for the cooperative implementation of Port State Controls. The MoU provides a framework for the coordination of port state inspections for shipping operating in the Asia and Pacific areas, and the exchange of information. IMO conventions covered by the MoU address ship safety and marine environmental protection, and include MARPOL. The Tokyo MoU is supported by a computerised database, the Asia-Pacific Computerized Information System (APCIS). Member nations comprise Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Fiji, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines,

B-14

GBR Shipping Study

Russia, Singapore, Thailand, Vanuatu and Vietnam, with the Marshall Islands participating as a cooperating authority. These nations collectively represent a significant proportion of the ports of origin and/or destination of merchant shipping transiting the GBR region.

Commonwealth Legislation Although not directly applicable in all circumstances to foreign-flagged vessels, Commonwealth legislation does apply in certain circumstances to foreign ships while in Australian waters, and generally applies to Australian-flagged vessels and/or crews wherever they may be located. Furthermore, Commonwealth legislation provides the primary framework for the management of developments and activities within the GBRWHA, and hence is salient with regards to aspects such as port developments and expansions within the GBR region, and to the designation of marine park zones including shipping areas within the GBRMP.

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) seeks to protect the environment with regard to matters considered to be of national significance or within Commonwealth areas or from the potential impacts of the activities of Commonwealth agencies. The Act is administered by SEWPaC, and applies to all Australian territory (including Australian waters) and Australian ships and aircraft wherever they may be. The EPBC Act defines the “environment” as:

• ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities;

• natural and physical resources;

• the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas;

• the heritage values of places; and

• the social, economic and cultural aspects of all of the above.

Decisions made under the auspices of the Act must be based on the principles of ecologically sustainable development. This is to be achieved as follows:

• decision-making processes should effectively integrate both long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equitable considerations;

• if there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation;

• the principle of inter-generational equity—that the present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations;

• the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration in decision-making; and

• improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms should be promoted.

Under the EPBC Act, actions that are likely to have a significant impact upon the environment are subject to an assessment and approval process. An action includes a project, development, undertaking, activity, or series of activities.

B-15

GBR Shipping Study

The EPBC Act is triggered when an action:

• is taken anywhere in Australia and has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of National Environmental Significance (NES or MNES); or

• is taken on Commonwealth land or in a Commonwealth marine area 20 and has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment; or

• is taken outside Commonwealth land or a Commonwealth marine area and has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land or in a Commonwealth marine area; or

• is taken by the Commonwealth and has, will have, or is likely to have a significant impact on the environment.

The Act prescribes eight MNES as triggers for Commonwealth assessment (SEWPaC 2010). These are:

• World Heritage properties;

• National Heritage places;

• wetlands of international importance (i.e. Ramsar wetlands);

• nationally threatened species and communities;

• migratory species protected under international agreements;

• nuclear actions, including uranium mining;

• the GBRMP; and

• the Commonwealth marine environment (including the seabed).

Accordingly, the EPBC Act has two direct routes of application to GBRWHA, namely:

• a proposal related to a matter or matters of NES (e.g. World Heritage places, National Heritage places, wetlands of international importance, nationally threatened species and communities, migratory species protected under international agreements, the GBRMP, and the Commonwealth marine environment)21 ; and

• an action proposed to be taken by a Commonwealth agency (noting for example, that GBRMPA and AMSA are Commonwealth agencies) and/or one which affects a Commonwealth area.

The EPBC Act also requires Commonwealth agencies to comply with State/Territory environmental assessment processes in areas subject to State/Territory jurisdiction. Such a situation exists in the GBR region, noting the areas of the GBRWHA under Queensland jurisdiction.

20 Note, the GBRWHA is largely a Commonwealth marine area. 21 In the event that some proposed activity or development for the GBRWHA involved some applicable aspect related to nuclear issues, then the matter of NES related to nuclear actions may also be triggered.

B-16

GBR Shipping Study

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act) provides for the protection and managed exploitation of the GBRMP by placing controls on activities within the Reef region. This is principally effected through the promulgation of zoning plans and management plans and an approvals regime, with authority for their implementation and enforcement derived in-turn from the Act.

The GBRMP Act is the principal Act that regulates the management and operation of the GBRMP. The primary provisions of the GBRMP Act are designed to:

• establish the GBRMP;

• establish the GBRMPA, a Commonwealth authority responsible for the management of the Marine Park;

• establish the Great Barrier Reef Consultative Committee to advise the Minister and the GBRMPA;

• provide a framework for planning and management of the Marine Park, including through zoning plans, plans of management and permits;

• prohibit operations for the recovery of minerals (which includes prospecting for or exploitation of minerals and petroleum resources) in the Marine Park (unless approved by GBRMPA for research);

• require compulsory pilotage for certain ships in prescribed areas of the GBR region 22 ; and

• provide for regulations, collection of environmental management charges, enforcement, etc.

The GBRMPA is responsible for the management of the Marine Park. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Zoning Plan 2003 (Zoning Plan) is the primary planning instrument for the conservation and management of the Marine Park. In having regard to the objects set out in subsection 32 (7) of the Act, this Zoning Plan takes account of the World Heritage values of the Marine Park and the principles of ecologically sustainable development. For the purposes of the Act, the GBR is divided into the zones described in Schedule 1 and named as follows:

(a) the General Use Zone;

(b) the Habitat Protection Zone;

(d) the Buffer Zone;

(e) the Scientific Research Zone;

(f) the Marine National Park Zone;

(g) the Preservation Zone;

(h) the Commonwealth Islands Zone.

22 Author's emphasis.

B-17

GBR Shipping Study

In addition to these zones, there are ‘Designated Areas’ for specific activities. These designated areas are: Shipping Areas; Special Management Areas, Fisheries Experimental Areas, and Defence Practice Areas.

In essence, the zoning plans divide the GBRMP into areas on the basis of their conservation significance, management requirements, resource or other human exploitation potential, and approved use or uses. Once completed, zoning plans are approved by the Parliament of Australia and thus have the force of law. The Zoning Plan aims, in conjunction with other management mechanisms, to protect and conserve the biodiversity of the GBR ecosystem within a network of highly protected zones, while providing opportunities for the ecologically sustainable use of, and access to, the GBR region by current and future generations. In addition to the protection of representative areas of biodiversity, the Zoning Plan also provides for the protection of other areas of high conservation value by assigning protective zoning to a range of habitats such as coral reefs, sponge beds, seagrass beds and deep water areas, as well as important dugong habitats and other special or unique sites. The Marine Park is managed as a multiple use area. This means that, while enhancing the conservation of the Marine Park, the Zoning Plan also provides for a range of recreational, commercial and research opportunities, and for the continuation of traditional activities.

Management plans may be developed to provide for the protection and conservation of specific ecological, heritage and scientific values, to balance competing uses and to manage for ecologically sustainable use.

The GBRMP Act also prescribes activities that are not permitted within the Park, or the conditions under which these specified activities may be permitted. Certain offences are also contained within the Act and Regulations; those of relevance to shipping activities being regulations controlling waste discharges. The Act and Regulations prohibit the discharge of waste within the GBRMPA except in defined circumstances. Garbage, noxious substances and oil may not be discharged within the GBRMP; oily water may be discharged but only when the oil-in-water content is less than 15 ppm 23 ; and sewage may only be discharged in accordance with a complex code based upon its degree of treatment. The release of waste from a vessel (or aircraft) is not considered an offence if the discharge was for the purpose of securing the safety of the vessel or aircraft, or for the purpose of saving life at sea.

Permits, issued by GBRMPA, are required before any activity may be conducted if that activity is not in accordance with the relevant zoning plan, or if the activity is nominated by the zoning plan as one which specifically requires a permit. The objectives of permits are to:

• reduce impacts on high-use and sensitive areas;

• separate potentially conflicting activities;

• encourage responsible behaviour by all Marine Park users;

• collect data; and

• monitor activities which may become damaging to the marine park.

As a general guide, activities related to ships and shipping in the GBRMP and which may require a permit include:

• installation and operation of structures, such as jetties, marinas, pontoons and mariculture facilities;

23 Consistent with MARPOL requirements.

B-18

GBR Shipping Study

• any works, such as repairs to structures, dredging and dumping, placement and operation of moorings; and

• anchoring or mooring for an extended period.

Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 This Act translates into Australian legislation the active provisions of MARPOL. As per the Annexes of the parent convention, the Act addresses oil, noxious liquid substances, packaged harmful substances, sewage, garbage and air pollution. With regard to foreign-flagged vessels, the Act provides the authority for Australia to take action against such vessel while in Australian waters, including the EEZ, if 'there are clear grounds for believing that a pollution breach has occurred'.

The Australian MARPOL implementing legislation includes a number of enforcement related provisions derived from UNCLOS, including:

• extension of the application of the Act to the EEZ;

• the requirement for foreign ships to provide information;

• detention of foreign ships suspected of involvement in pollution breaches, including provision that detention may include escorting a ship into port; and

• provision of specific powers relating to inspection of ships in the EEZ which are suspected of having caused a pollution breach; and

Navigation Act 1912 This Act addresses a broad spectrum of aspects of the control of shipping and navigation in Australian waters and for Australian-flagged vessels. Within the realm of marine environment protection this Act is the principal vehicle through which IMO convention requirements (e.g. MARPOL, SOLAS, COLREGs) related to ship design and equipment installation and operations are translated into Australian legislation. As a result of recent amendments, the Act makes it an offence to operate a vessel in a manner which causes pollution or damage, and penalties have been increased for failure to report any incident by a ship in the GBRMP.

The Navigation Act 1912 is to be repealed and replaced with the broadly similar Navigation Act 2012 .

Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 The Protection of the Sea (Powers of Intervention) Act 1981 provides the Commonwealth with the authority to intervene in a maritime incident in order to protect Australia’s maritime interests. Such intervention is facilitated on both: • the ‘high seas’, when 'there is grave and imminent danger of pollution'; and • within the EEZ, when a pollution event is occurring or is considered likely to occur. The designated Commonwealth authority is authorised to issue directions or take other measures as necessary to prevent or reduce the extent of pollution or likely pollution.

B-19

GBR Shipping Study

The Act also enables the designation a place or facility as a 'place of refuge' for ships suffering some form of maritime casualty.

Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Act 2006 The Protection of the Sea (Harmful Anti-fouling Systems) Act 2006 translates into Australian law the provisions of the IAFS Convention, including Port State control issues.

Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Administration) Act 1992 regulates the use of biocides in Australia, including those in anti-fouling paints. This Act is administered by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). All anti-fouling paint systems containing biocide components proposed for production within or import into Australia must first be assessed by the APVMA for their acceptability in health and environmental terms before they can be registered and approved for use. The process of registration typically takes in the order of 5 to 10 years. Similarly, existing anti-fouling paints containing biocides must have APVMA listing. Note in relation to ships, this Act regulates the biocides used in AFCs applied in Australia, but does not exercise control over the biocide constituents of AFCs applied in overseas yards to ships visiting Australian ports.

Quarantine Act 1908 This Act provides for the protection of Australia’s health, biodiversity and agricultural resources by placing controls on the movement of potentially harmful organisms and materials into Australia. Ships and the stores and cargoes carried within them are subject to the Act. The Quarantine Act is also employed as an instrument to control the risk of introduction and translocation within Australia of exotic marine organisms via both ballast water and hull fouling, including ballast water controls developed by the IMO.

Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 This Act, otherwise known as ‘the Sea Dumping Act’ is the vehicle for the promulgation in Australian law of the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (London Convention) and its 1996 Protocol. The London Convention and its Protocol are concerned with ‘sea dumping’, which is the act of deliberate disposal at sea of waste or other matter, or any deliberate disposal (scuttling) at sea of vessels, aircraft, platforms or other man-made structures. The convention addresses such activities as the dumping of dredge spoil, sewage sludge and municipal garbage, and the scuttling of ships and aircraft. It does not address operational wastes generated during the normal conduct of ship activities (these are covered by MARPOL). Importantly, the convention does not consider ‘dumping’ to include the placement or abandonment into the sea of items other than for the mere disposal thereof, such as is the case with the use of expendable items such as marine research instrument buoys. Any proposal to dump material at sea, such as dredge spoil, requires application to SEWPaC for a Sea Dumping Permit.

Other Applicable Commonwealth Regulations, Policies and Guidelines Australian Biofouling Management Requirements The Australian Government, through DAFF, is proceeding with the development and implementation of Biofouling Management Requirements (i.e. ‘the Requirements’) for all vessels entering Australian

B-20

GBR Shipping Study

waters. DAFF Biosecurity, will be responsible for implementing the Requirements. It is intended that a targeted vessel inspection regime will be implemented by DAFF Biosecurity to check compliance with the Requirements. It is also envisioned that a complementary regime will be developed involving all the Sates and the Northern Territory, with the focus of these upon biofouling management of domestic vessel movements. The Requirements will mandate that vessels entering Australian waters are free from quarantineable marine pests. To support the Requirements and as an interim measure, a range of vessel type-specific National Best Practice Biofouling Management Guidelines have been developed to assist vessels to reduce the likelihood of accumulating and translocating quarantineable marine pests. The Guidelines applicable to commercial ships are the National Biofouling Management Guidance for Commercial Vessels, released in 2009. When the mandatory Requirements enter force, DAFF Biosecurity forecasts that vessels assessed as presenting elevated risk will be subject to vessel-specific risk assessment, possibly leading to a quarantine inspection on arrival in Australia. Risk assessment will be based upon an appraisal of the vessel’s maintenance and movement history and the age and condition of (any) anti-fouling paint. The vessel will either be granted pratique if considered free of quarantineable pests or subject to either post-arrival biofouling mitigation measures or, in exceptional circumstances, refusal of pratique and entry in Australian waters if found to be or likely to be infected with quarantineable pests.

Australian Marine Orders Marine Orders are regulatory instruments promulgated by AMSA to give effect to legislative requirements derived from over-arching Acts of Parliament and international agreements to which Australia is a Party. In the field of marine pollution prevention (and by extension ship safety), AMSA has issued a number of Marine Orders via both the Navigation Act 1912 and the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983 to give effect to specific provisions of MARPOL and other IMO Conventions. Marine Orders can be used as a vehicle through which AMSA may prescribe aspects of marine pollution prevention such as the equipment, survey and certificates required by vessels to specified vessels. Applicable Marine Orders include: • Marine Orders Part 54 (Coastal Pilotage) • Marine Orders, Part 91 (Marine Pollution Prevention - Oil) • Marine Orders, Part 93 (Marine Pollution Prevention - Noxious Liquid Substances) • Marine Orders Part 94 (Marine Pollution Prevention - Harmful Substances in Packaged Forms) • Marine Orders Part 95 (Marine Pollution Prevention – Garbage) • Marine Orders Part 96 (Marine Pollution Prevention – Sewage) • Marine Orders Part 97 (Marine Pollution Prevention - Air Pollution) • Marine Orders Part 98 (Marine Pollution Prevention - Anti-Fouling Systems)

Queensland Legislation Commonwealth legislation has primacy over Australian State and Territory legislation, and has specific application to Commonwealth agencies and in Commonwealth areas such as the GBR. In the case of the GBR, Queensland has legislation dealing with pollution prevention from vessels and environmental impact assessment and wildlife conservation within State waters. An overview of key aspects of applicable legislative instruments is presented in this Section.

B-21

GBR Shipping Study

Maritime Safety Queensland Act 2002 The primary objective of this Act is to establish and suitably empower MSQ, with particular emphasis upon functions related to management and administration of marine safety and ship-sourced pollution in Queensland. Specifically, MSQ is provided with the authority to manage Queensland legislation related to maritime operations and safety, as related to the powers vested in: • the Queensland Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 ; • the Queensland Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 ; and • the Queensland Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 . These Acts are expanded in the proceeding sub-Sections. MSQ's functions include, inter alia : • developing strategies for marine safety; • developing and enforcing standards for designing, building and operating commercial ships; • the licensing of vessel Masters, crew members, pilots, designers and surveyors; • the establishment and maintenance of navigation aids in State waters; • investigating marine incidents; • monitoring and managing the movements, operations and activities of ships in Queensland waters; and • developing strategies to prevent the deliberate, negligent or accidental discharge of ship- sourced pollutants into coastal waters; • dealing with the discharge of ship-sourced pollutants in coastal waters; and • providing maritime services including pilotage services.

Transport Operations (Marine Pollution) Act 1995 This Act (commonly referred to as 'TOMPA') was established to protect Queensland's marine and coastal environment by minimising deliberate and negligent discharges of ship-sourced pollutants into coastal waters. This purpose is to be achieved primarily by giving effect to relevant provisions of Annexes I, II, III, IV and V of MARPOL. The objective of the Act is also achieved by: • providing an approach to protecting Queensland's marine and coastal environment from ship- sourced pollutants complementary to the approach of the Commonwealth and the other States; • giving power to deal with shipping casualties that are polluting, or threatening to pollute, coastal waters; • enhancing, through education processes, industry and community awareness of the effects of ship-sourced pollutants on Queensland's marine and coastal environment; and • providing for the imposition of penalties on persons who pollute Queensland's marine and coastal environment in contravention of this Act.

B-22

GBR Shipping Study

Transport Operations (Marine Safety) Act 1994 The purpose of this Act (commonly referred to as 'TOMSA') is to provide a legislative framework for regulating the Queensland maritime industry to ensure appropriate safety. The Act enables the imposition of general safety obligations to ensure vessel seaworthiness and other aspects of marine safety. The Act also provides for management of the operations and activities of ships, including aspects such as pilotage requirements.

Transport Infrastructure Act 1994 The objective of this Act is to establish a framework for integrated planning and management of transport infrastructure in Queensland, encompassing the road, rail, aviation and marine sectors. In relation to marine transport, the Act seeks to provide for improved strategic management of ports and waterways and enhanced efficiency and effectiveness. The Act also underpins the establishment of Queensland port authorities and the powers under which such entities operate.

Marine Parks Act 2004 The main purpose of this Act is to provide for conservation of the State's marine environment. Queensland has three state marine parks: • Great Barrier Reef Coast Marine Park • Great Sandy Marine Park • Moreton Bay Marine Park The Great Barrier Reef Coast Marine Park (GBR Coast MP) is a State marine park that runs the full length of the GBRMP from around Bundaberg to Cape York. It provides protection for Queensland tidal lands and tidal waters and complements the GBRMP. Each marine park in Queensland is divided into zones. The zoning plan for each marine park defines these zones and describes how each zone can be used. A marine park zoning plan will usually include the objectives for each zone and specify which activities are allowed and which are prohibited or require a marine park permit. Designated areas allow for special management of some locations. Any contravention of or failure to comply with a provision of a zoning plan shall constitute an offence against this Act.

B-23

GBR Shipping Study

B-24

Appendix C

BHPB Terminal Questionnaire (Example)

GBR Shipping Study

BHPB Terminal Questionnaire (example)

1. General 1.1 Name of Completing Party

1.2 Relationship to Vessel

2. Ship Details 2.1 Ship IMO

2.2 Ship name

2.3 Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) - unique 9 digit code to identify vessel

2.4 Date built

2.5 Vessel Type (Bulk Carrier, Oil/Bulk/Ore, Ore Carrier)

2.6 DWT Summer

2.7 GRT

2.8 NRT

2.9 Draught (m)

2.10 LOA (m)

2.11 Length between perpendiculars (LBP) (m)

2.12 Beam (m)

2.13 Is the ship strengthened for heavy cargoes

2.14 When carrying heavy ore, can Holds Numbers 2, 4, 6 & 8 be empty

3. Mooring

Be advised that wire rope is not permitted at any BHP Billiton terminal

3.1 Can your vessel moor without the use of wire ropes / wire ropes with tails

3.2 How many mooring lines can the ship deploy

3.3 Are all mooring lines on storage drums

3.4 What is the certified minimum breaking load of the mooring lines

3.5 Does the vessel have current certificates onboard for all the mooring lines

3.6 Are the mooring lines subject to at least once per year inspections

3.7 Is there adequate manning on the ship to ensure moorings can be monitored at intervals of no more than 30 minutes

3.8 Are all deck crew tending and handling mooring lines trained and competent to do so

3.9 Are the mooring winch brakes (including adequate brake lining) in good order

3.10 Please enter the date of the last winch brake rendering load test

C-1

GBR Shipping Study

3.11 Does the vessel's planned maintenance system include the mooring equipment

3.12 From what material are your mooring lines constructed

3.13 Are mooring tails used

3.14 What is the diameter of the main mooring lines used

4. Tugs 4.1 What is the maximum safe working load of tug bollards to be used

4.2 Can a tug make fast forward of hatch #2

4.3 Can a tug make fast forward of hatch #3

4.4 Are the Safe Working Loads (SWL) clearly marked on the tug bollards of the ship

5. Gangway Position 5.1 Distance from base of gangway to the vessel stern

5.2 Length of gangway

5.3 Where is gangway positioned

6. Loading and Deballasting Performance BHP Billiton aims to ensure that all bulk carriers are loaded safety in an appropriate manner taking into account the capabilities of the ship and in accordance with international regulation. 6.1 Load plan produced in BLU code format

6.2 What is the maximum net load rate your vessel can be loaded at

Net Load Rate - the rate of cargo loading excluding any delays *

6.3 What is the maximum average gross load rate your vessel can be loaded at

Gross Load Rate - the rate of cargo loading including normal loading delays (hatch changes etc) *

6.4 Can your vessel be simultaneously loaded with 2 ship loaders if required

6.5 What is the vessel's maximum deballast rate

7. Shiploader Hatch Tracking System 7.1 What is the keel to hatch coaming distance

7.2 Number of hatches

7.3 What is the opening direction of hatch covers

7.4 Length of hatches

7.5 Width of hatches

7.6 Distance between hatch centres

7.7 Total Box / Working Length (distance from forward end of No.1 Hatch to aft end of last hatch including the distance between hatches)

7.8 Total Grain Capacity per Hold

7.9 Does the ship have lifting gear or lighting towers greater than 5 metres above the deck

C-2

GBR Shipping Study

7.10 Main deck (on ship centreline) to top of hatch coaming

7.11 Distance from stern of ship to aft hatch centre

7.12 Distance from stern of ship to forward face of bridge/accommodation superstructure

7.13 Keel to main mast distance

7.14 Does the ship have any deck cranes

7.15 Position of Deck Cranes

7.16 Are timber stanchions fitted

7.17 Is this the ships maiden voyage

7.18 Indicate the ship's last three cargoes

7.19 Is ship fitted with cement/grain feeder ports in hatches

7.20 Indicate the diameter size of cement/grain feeder ports in hatches

7.21 Indicate how many cement/grain feeder ports per cargo hold

7.22 What type of 'tween decks are fitted

7.23 Please attach vessel GA (General arrangement) drawing showing location(s) of gear/towers

8. Helicopter Requirements 8.1 Does the vessel adhere to all parts of the ICS Guide to Helicopter/Ship Operations 4th Ed (2008)

8.2 Does the vessel adhere to all parts of AMSA Marine Orders Part 57 Helicopter Operations (Issue 3)

8.3 What number hatch is designated Helicopter landing Hatch

8.4 Is the nominated hatch clearly marked with an "H" signage

8.5 What is the helicopter hatch maximum design weight per square meter

8.6 Is there safe access for the pilot from the helicopter hatch to deck

9. Crew Experience Matrix 9.1 Years in rank on vessels of this type and size (Sea time years not calendar years):

Master

Chief Officer

Chief Engineer

2nd Engineer

9.2 Years in service (Sea time years not calendar years):

Master

Chief Officer

Chief Engineer

2nd Engineer

C-3

GBR Shipping Study

9.3 Certificate of Competency Issuing Country:

Master

Chief Officer

Chief Engineer

2nd Engineer

9.4 Nationality of:

Master

Chief Officer

Chief Engineer

2nd Engineer

9.5 Level of English proficiency:

Master

Chief Officer

Chief Engineer

2nd Engineer

C-4

GBR Shipping Study

PGM Environment PO Box 7087 Safety Bay WA 6169 ABN: 20 141 099 489 Australia

Tel: 61 (0)417 123 442 e-mail : [email protected]