Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, 2014

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF DEFENCE ACTIVITIES IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF WORLD HERITAGE AREA, 2014

UPDATE REPORT

Prepared for: Directorate of Environmental Protection and Assessments Department of Defence

February 2014

DOCUMENT TRACKING

ITEM DETAIL

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Project Name Area, 2014: Update Report

PGM Report Number R1402 ELA Project Number 12BRIFED-0007

John Polglaze (PGM) - Technical Manager, Ph. 0417 123 442 Project Managers Dr Ailsa Kerswell (ELA) - Project Manager, Ph. (07) 3503 7193

Prepared by John Polglaze (PGM Environment) and Colin Trinder, Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd (ELA)

Approved by John Polglaze (PGM) / Andrew Morison (ELA) Status Final Version Number 0 Date 25 February 2014 Cover photos Defence

This report should be cited as ‘PGM Environment and Eco Logical Australia 2014. Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, 2014: Update Report. Prepared for Department of Defence.’

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This document has been prepared by PGM Environment with support from Colin Trinder and Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd.

Disclaimer This document may only be used for the purpose for which it was commissioned and in accordance with the agreement between PGM Environment and Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd and the Department of Defence (Defence). The scope of services was defined in consultation with Defence, by time and budgetary constraints imposed by the client, and the availability of reports and other data on the subject area. Changes to available information, legislation and schedules are made on an ongoing basis and readers should obtain up to date information. PGM Environment and Eco Logical Australia Pty Ltd accept no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report and its supporting material by any third party. Information provided is not intended to be a substitute for site specific assessment or legal advice in relation to any matter. Unauthorised use of this report in any form is prohibited.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... i

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background...... 1 1.1.1 Overview ...... 1 1.1.2 Definitions of the Boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef...... 1 1.2 Objectives of the Defence Strategic Environmental Assessment...... 3 1.3 Linkages with Other GBR Strategic Environmental Assessment Processes....3 1.4 Regulatory and Jurisdictional Issues ...... 4

2. DEFENCE ACTIVITIES IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF ...... 6 2.1 Overview...... 6 2.2 Forecast Future Activities ...... 8

3. ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS FROM DEFENCE ACTIVITIES IN OR NEAR THE GREAT BARRIER REEF ...... 11 3.1 Introduction ...... 11 3.2 Risks from Naval and Amphibious Activities...... 11 3.3 Risks from Air Activities ...... 14 3.4 Risks from Land Activities...... 17 3.5 Summary ...... 18

4. MANAGEMENT OF RISKS FROM DEFENCE ACTIVITIES IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF...... 19 4.1 Introduction ...... 19 4.2 Environmental Assessment and Planning ...... 19 4.3 Standing Procedures for Environmental Management of Defence Activities..20 4.3.1 ADF Maritime Activities EMP ...... 20 4.3.2 RAAF Air Activities EMP ...... 21 4.4 Airspace Management...... 21 4.5 Range Clearance and Safety Procedures ...... 22 4.6 Quarantine Management ...... 23 4.6.1 Marine ...... 23 4.6.2 Terrestrial...... 24 4.7 Ship Waste Management and Marine Environment Protection ...... 24 4.8 Consultation and Liaison ...... 25 4.9 Personnel Training, Induction and Awareness ...... 25

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

4.10 Community Engagement ...... 26 4.11 Defence Supported Environmental Research ...... 27 4.12 Alternative Fuels Evaluation ...... 28 4.13 Use of the GBR World Heritage Area by Visiting Foreign Forces...... 28 4.14 Discussion and Summary ...... 29

5. EVALUATION OF EXISTING AND FUTURE RISKS TO THE GREAT BARRIER REEF WORLD HERITAGE AREA FROM DEFENCE ACTIVITIES ...... 31

6. CONCLUSIONS ...... 36

GLOSSARY ...... 37

REFERENCES ...... 39

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Current and Emergent Threats to the GBR in Relation to Defence Activities...... 34

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The Great Barrier Reef Region ...... 2 Figure 2: Jurisdictional Boundaries Applying to the GBR...... 4

LIST OF PLATES Plate 1: An RAAF Orion on a maritime surveillance mission ...... 6 Plate 2: HMAS Cairns with patrol, landing and survey vessels alongside ...... 7 Plate 3: Freshwater Beach at Shoalwater Bay Training Area, Queensland...... 8 Plate 4: Computer generated image of the new Canberra Class amphibious ships exhibiting a range of capabilities...... 10 Plate 5: RAN ships underway in the Great Barrier Reef...... 11 Plate 6: RAAF Hornets undertaking air-to-air refuelling...... 16 Plate 7: Paratroop drop into Shoalwater Bay Training Area (SWBTA) ...... 17 Plate 8: Hull fouling vulnerability and characterisation survey of an RAN frigate ...... 23 Plate 9: Selection of environmental awareness and briefing materials for ADF personnel operating in or near the GBR ...... 26 Plate 10: Surface units of the United States Navy underway in the Great Barrier Reef during exercises with the RAN...... 28 Plate 11: A helicopter in low level hover. Some in-water noise is generated, but the risks to sensitive marine fauna are localised and minimised by standard ADF mitigation measures...... 30 Plate 12: Dugong in the GBR: Inset - Shoalwater Bay and Port Clinton Dugong Protection Area..... 33

iii

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Australian Defence Force (ADF) has the mission 'to defend Australia and its national interests'. To fulfil this mandate, the ADF must operate and train in and around the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), including within the GBR World Heritage Area and the GBR Marine Park. This entails regular activities within the GBR Marine Park, as well as periodic major exercises. In recognition of the expectations of Australian society and international obligations, the ADF must demonstrate that it behaves responsibly in compliance with relevant legislation and satisfies community expectations regarding sustainable use of the region. To this end, the Department of Defence (Defence) initiated a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Defence activities in the GBR World Heritage Area completed in 2006 (URS 2006a). As a result of emerging Defence capability and training requirements and evolving management priorities, Defence identified the need to update the 2006 SEA. This summary presents a synopsis of the updated SEA and its conclusions. Since the 2006 SEA there has been a progression and expansion of knowledge about environmental issues and the impacts of human activities on the environment and heritage values of the GBR. This has focused attention on the overall health, conservation status and management of the GBR World Heritage Area, which resulted in a reactive monitoring mission in 2012 by the World Heritage Centre of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) in concert with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). This monitoring mission specifically considered Defence use of the GBR. Strategic environmental assessments are broad scale evaluations in both temporal and spatial dimensions intended to provide a framework for holistic, comprehensive, long-term and pre-emptive environmental management and assessment. Defence’s specific objectives for this updated SEA are: 1. To provide an up-to-date synopsis of Defence interests and activities in the GBR World Heritage Area and how they might impact upon the GBR’s World Heritage status, a National Heritage place and a Commonwealth Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES). 2. To provide a detailed report identifying how existing and future Defence interests, activities and capabilities interact with various attributes of the GBR World Heritage Area, including socio-economic, environmental and cultural aspects, with a description of associated risks. The 2014 Defence SEA is intended to align with, inform and contribute to, the wider focus strategic assessments for the GBR being undertaken by both the Commonwealth and Queensland Governments. Similar to the 2006 SEA, a major element of the drafting of this SEA update was a risk assessment of Defence activities in the GBR attended by staff of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and key Queensland management agencies. The ADF undertakes a range of operational and training activities in the GBR in support of Australia's national interests. Many of these activities often assist, directly or indirectly, in the achievement of World Heritage management objectives, including hydrographic surveys and fisheries patrols. Defence is aware of the environmental sensitivities regarding its activities in the GBR and discharges its environmental management obligations through a consolidated, iterative, ongoing and multi- dimensional series of processes and procedures. Defence's environmental stewardship of the GBR was tested in the 1990s via the Shoalwater Bay Commission of Inquiry which found Defence to be an effective manager (Commonwealth of Australia 1994). The Inquiry concluded that Defence should continue to have primary responsibility for the management of Shoalwater Bay. Given the 2006 SEA as a baseline, one of the points of focus of the 2014 SEA is upon identifying, and characterising new or revised ADF capabilities since 2006. The ADF has introduced or is in the process of acquiring an array of new equipment including large ships and a range of other related systems, intended to enhance the ADF's amphibious capabilities. This is expected to result in a change in the diversity, scale and tempo of ADF training activities in the GBR, with these issues considered in the context of this report. The management measures employed by Defence to minimise environmental risks include:

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

• environmental assessment and planning; • standing procedures for environmental management, including the ADF Maritime Activities Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and the RAAF Air Activities EMP; • airspace management controls; • mandatory range clearance and safety procedures; • enhanced quarantine management procedures, addressing both marine and terrestrial matters; • ship waste management and marine environment protection policies and procedures; • consultation and liaison with regulatory agencies; • personnel training, induction and awareness; • community engagement; • Defence supported environmental research; • trials of alternative fuel use; and • cooperative controls on the use of the GBR by visiting foreign forces. In its consideration of Defence activities, the GBRMPA Outlook Report (2009) concluded: Defence activities in the Great Barrier Reef directly contribute to the training and operations of Australia's defence services and the majority have negligible impacts on the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem. and that: The limited area of Defence operations and high level of performance in minimising potential environmental impacts means Defence activities in the Great Barrier Reef Region pose minimal threat to the Reef. The review of Defence activities undertaken for this report indicates that this conclusion is still valid. This finding is reinforced by both the Commonwealth strategic assessment (GBRMPA 2013), as well as the UNESCO/IUCN GBR mission report (2012) which made no adverse comment with regard to Defence activities, but noted the 'pristine' condition of Shoalwater Bay. Further support for this conclusion can be drawn from the Queensland Government's strategic assessment of the land component adjacent to the GBR (DSDIP 2013), which did not identify or articulate Defence activities as any particular issue of concern with regard to the long-term conservation of the GBR. Some uncertainty exists, however, in projecting this assessment forward. This arises because of emerging changes in the nature, scale and diversity of Defence activities in the GBR compounded by large-scale, overarching threats to the integrity and functioning of the GBR from climate change and severe weather events and similar. Significant risk to the GBR World Heritage Area values from Defence activities is not evident or considered likely. Nevertheless, the changing paradigm highlights that Defence will need to continue to allocate sufficient oversight and resources to: • appropriately assess and manage its activities to recognise, eliminate or ameliorate latent or emerging environmental risks; • improve the understanding of the effects of Defence activities on receiving environments; and • effectively demonstrate and communicate these outcomes and processes to regulators and interested members of the public. It is considered that this framework of responsible stewardship will provide an effective and sustainable means by which Defence should be able to continue to operate and train in the GBR World Heritage Area with minimal adverse environmental effects and fulfil the ADF's mission.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background 1.1.1 Overview The Australian Defence Force1 (ADF) has the mission 'to defend Australia and its national interests'. To fulfil this mandate, the ADF must operate and train in the Great Barrier Reef (GBR), including within the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. This entails regular activities in a number of permanent Defence training areas within the GBR Marine Park, as well as periodic major exercises. Australian armed forces have undertaken activities in this area for over 100 years, and continue to do so to fulfil Australia's strategic defence requirements. In recognition of the expectations of contemporary Australian society and Australia's international obligations, the ADF must be able to demonstrate that it behaves responsibly in compliance with relevant legislation and satisfy community expectations regarding the sustainable use of the region and its resources. To this end, the Department of Defence (Defence) initiated a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Defence activities in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (URS 2006a)2. This original SEA had the objective of documenting and facilitating responsible, ongoing use of the GBR by the ADF and supporting elements of the wider Australian Defence Organisation. As a result of emerging Defence requirements and evolving World Heritage Area management priorities, Defence identified the need to review and update the 2006 Defence SEA. This summary report provides an advanced continuation and update of the 2006 SEA. Since 2006, Defence has adopted, or is in the process of acquiring, new capabilities and has retired other capabilities used in the GBR World Heritage Area. This is coincident with developments in a range of external environmental, political, legislative and social factors in the region. The intervening period has also seen a progression and expansion of knowledge of environmental issues and the potential impacts of human activities on the environment and heritage values of the GBR World Heritage Area. Climate change, severe weather events, nutrient run-off, industrial development and urban population increases are all contributing pressures on the health of the GBR, obliging Defence to ensure its activities are not contributing to any further decline of the ecosystem. The cumulative effect of these large scale developments, combined with significant mortalities of coral in the region over the past few decades, has focused attention, in Australia and internationally, on the overall health, conservation status and management of the GBR World Heritage Area. International concern resulted in a joint reactive monitoring mission in 2012 by the World Heritage Centre of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The UNESCO/IUCN monitoring mission specifically considered Defence use of the GBR. Despite making a number of findings and recommendations on improving management outcomes in the World Heritage Area, no adverse findings or corrective actions were recommended with regard to Defence activities, and the mission report described the Shoalwater Bay Training Area as 'pristine' (UNESCO/IUCN 2012: 75). 1.1.2 Definitions of the Boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef The wider-GBR area is subject to a range of overlapping legal and technical definitions and general references. Although the GBR, GBR Marine Park and GBR World Heritage Area are similar, specific differences exist between the boundaries of each of these entities3 (Figure 1).

1 The ADF is the collective term for the three individual Australian armed services (Navy, Army and Air Force), as well as supporting organisations. 2 Also referred to as 'the 2006 Defence SEA' or 'the 2006 SEA' throughout this report. 3 Various international conventions and Australian domestic laws describe and define the GBR boundaries differently and there are subtle differences between the defined boundaries of the GBR Marine Park and the

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

(GBRMPA 2009: xi) Figure 1: The Great Barrier Reef Region In this report the term 'GBR World Heritage Area’ is used to describe all maritime and coastal areas within or immediately adjacent to the GBR Marine Park; the term the 'Great Barrier Reef' ('GBR') 'the Reef' is generally used when referring to the specific geological, biological and aquatic elements that form the actual physical environment. The ‘GBR Region’ has a specific legal meaning referring to the area within which the GBR Marine Park may be declared. To avoid confusion, this generic term is not used in this report.

World Heritage Area. Over 99 per cent of the World Heritage Area lies within the boundaries of the Marine Park; the 0.7 per cent that is outside the Marine Park includes: various Queensland-State owned islands; internal waters of the State of Queensland (e.g. bays and inlets); and small coastal exclusions areas around ports and major centres (e.g. Cairns).

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

1.2 Objectives of the Defence Strategic Environmental Assessment Strategic environmental assessments are broad scale evaluations intended to provide a framework for holistic, comprehensive, long-term and pre-emptive environmental management. They differ from traditional, project-specific environmental assessments which are generally limited to individual actions and more closely defined spatial scales. The strategic environmental assessment process permits better recognition and consideration of cumulative impacts. These over-arching assessments provide valuable guidance to inform subsidiary environmental impact assessments and management plans. Defence’s specific objectives for this updated SEA are: 1. To provide an up-to-date synopsis of Defence interests and activities in the GBR World Heritage Area and how they might impact upon the GBR’s status as World Heritage property, a National Heritage place and a Commonwealth Matter of National Environmental Significance (MNES). 2. To provide a detailed report identifying how existing and future Defence interests, activities and capabilities interact with various attributes of the GBR World Heritage Area, including socio-economic, environmental and cultural aspects, with a description of associated risks. A parallel objective of the updated Defence SEA is to provide a reliable link between current and projected Defence activities in the GBR World Heritage Area with the comprehensive strategic assessments of the GBR World Heritage Area and the adjacent coastal zone being undertaken concurrently by the Commonwealth and Queensland governments. To achieve the above objectives, this SEA update: • reviews and evaluates new Defence capabilities and activities applicable to the GBR World Heritage Area and contiguous areas (particularly the Coral Sea); • reviews changed conventions, legislation and policies which have arisen since the 2006 SEA; • evaluates new management priorities and expectations for the GBR World Heritage Area; • identifies key risk issues; and • reviews other applicable marine protected area issues. A major element of this SEA update is a risk assessment of Defence activities in the GBR World Heritage Area. The keystone of this risk assessment process was a focused stakeholder workshop, including staff of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) and key Queensland GBR management agencies. This vehicle was used to inform and validate the 2014 SEA and its findings.

1.3 Linkages with Other GBR Strategic Environmental Assessment Processes Further to UNESCO’s interest in the status and condition trends of the GBR, the Australian and Queensland Governments commissioned complementary strategic assessments of the World Heritage Area. The parallel Commonwealth and Queensland assessment processes have the common objective of ensuring that the GBR 'retains the values for which it was declared a World Heritage Area and that it continues to be one of the best managed marine protected areas in the world' (Department of the Environment 2013) and whether appropriate planning processes and management arrangements are in place to ensure development occurs sustainably and without unacceptable detriment to recognised values. It is intended that these strategic assessments will assist in identifying, planning for, and managing existing and emerging risks to the GBR World Heritage Area, while simultaneously ensuring ongoing protection of the GBR World Heritage Area and adjacent coastal zone. Specifically, the assessments:

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

• investigate the adequacy of existing management arrangements for the GBR World Heritage Area; and • assess current and future development policies and planning in the GBR World Heritage Area and the adjacent coastal zone and analyse likely direct, indirect and cumulative impacts. The GBR strategic assessment is structured with two key components (Department of the Environment 2013): • a marine component undertaken by the Commonwealth with GBRMPA as the lead agency. This component focuses upon the arrangements in place to manage and protect the GBR Marine Park and the GBR World Heritage Area; and • a coastal component led by the Queensland Government, focused upon coastal development and planning for urban, industrial and port developments. The 2014 Defence SEA is intended to align with, inform and contribute to the wider-Government strategic assessments for the GBR. Given that Defence activities in the GBR predominantly occur on, over and under the sea and along the shore, the Commonwealth strategic assessment, with its marine focus, has the strongest nexus with Defence activities, and by extension, with the Defence SEA. This conclusion is consistent with the Queensland-led assessment, undertaken by the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP 2013) which makes no mention of Defence.

1.4 Regulatory and Jurisdictional Issues The Commonwealth has jurisdiction over the GBR Marine Park and Commonwealth islands, while the Queensland Government has jurisdiction over the coastal margins of the GBR World Heritage Area, State land and the Queensland owned islands. In addition, the Commonwealth has international obligations under the United Nations World Heritage Convention and may therefore assert some degree of responsibility over parts of Queensland that are included within the GBR World Heritage Area. The delineation of boundaries is illustrated in Figure 2 (with Commonwealth responsibilities depicted in grey and those of Queensland in green).

(GBRMPA 2009: 120) Figure 2: Jurisdictional Boundaries Applying to the GBR A range of items of both Commonwealth and Queensland legislation applies to the GBR with some specific to the GBR Marine Park and others more generic in nature but with relevance to management

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report of the GBR. Key items of legislation are the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. Primary responsibility for the management of the GBR is vested in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), a joint Commonwealth - Queensland Government entity. The Commonwealth Department of the Environment retains primary responsibility for application of the EPBC Act requirements to the GBR and World Heritage Area and other Matters of National Environmental Significance. Many of the applicable legislative instruments are founded upon international agreements to which Australia is a Party, while others are of a domestic nature. Defence has translated these legislative requirements and coupled them with complementary policy objectives to develop a framework for the conduct of Defence activities in an environmentally sustainable manner. This includes formal mechanisms with GBRMPA for the planning and management of Defence activities, centred upon a Management Agreement (2012-2016) between the two agencies. As well as GBRMPA and the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, a number of other Commonwealth and Queensland agencies have some level of responsibility for the regulation of activities within the GBR. In relation to Defence use of the GBR, these include: • the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) - ship navigation safety and marine environment protection; • the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture - international quarantine and biosecurity management; • Airservices Australia - airspace management; • the Queensland Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing, incorporating the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS); and • the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

2. DEFENCE ACTIVITIES IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF

2.1 Overview Defence undertakes both training and operational activities within or near the GBR and has done so since before Federation in 1901. Access to the GBR for realistic and effective military training and exercises is critical to the development and sustainment of the capability requirements and readiness mandated for the ADF by the Australian Government. Formally declared, permanent Defence practice areas have been established in and around the GBR since the 1940s (Department of the Navy 1944), significantly pre-dating the declarations of the Marine Park and World Heritage Area. Thus, current Defence activities represent a continuation of ongoing, well established use of the area. Training is in addition to the diverse operational activities performed by Defence in and around the World Heritage Area. These operational activities include ocean surveillance (Plate 1) and maritime Search and Rescue, hydrographic survey and charting, and border protection roles which support environment and fisheries protection, immigration controls, and biosecurity management.

(Defence Image Library) Plate 1: An RAAF Orion on a maritime surveillance mission Australia has a series of permanently established and gazetted sea, air and land military exercise and range areas in locations around the Australian continent and seas, including a number within or near to the GBR. These include solely maritime Defence Practice Areas, and a number of land training areas with a coastal component, with Shoalwater Bay and Cowley Beach as examples. Additionally, there are portions of airspace above the GBR and contiguous areas allocated for military aviation activities. Some of these designated aviation areas are purely airspace, while others overlie land and/or sea areas also designated for associated Defence training purposes, such as the Halifax Bay range near Townsville. The sea and air training areas within the GBR are only activated for military purposes as required, and when not in use are generally open for other purposes.

The Shoalwater Bay Training Area is arguably Australia's most important combined arms training range and has hosted most of Australia’s major amphibious exercises and many other exercises since the early 1980s. Cowley Beach, near Innisfail, is another key amphibious training area.

In addition to the formally declared practice areas, it is the nature of ADF activities that training and exercising in the GBR can occur anywhere that a ship, boat or aircraft can access. Thus, ADF units

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report and platforms, particularly ships and aircraft, are able to routinely conduct training of various, generally benign, forms in virtually all reaches of the GBR, with the declared Defence Practice Areas used as foci for more specific activities, particularly those which may involve weapons firings.

As well as the training areas, a number of Royal Australian Navy (RAN), Australian Army and Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) bases and other Defence facilities are situated along the eastern coast of Queensland within the area of the GBR. These are:

• HMAS Cairns in Cairns, a Navy base for small warships and hydrographic survey vessels (Plate 2).

• Lavarack Barracks, Townsville, home of the Army’s 3 Brigade, an infantry-centred deployable force generally maintained at an advanced state of readiness.

• Ross Island Barracks, Townsville, the base of the Army’s principal water transport unit.

• RAAF Base Townsville, also in Townsville, jointly used by the Air Force and Army aviation units. This is co-located with Townsville Airport and shares common facilities, such as the runways.

• The Defence tropical research station at Cowley Beach. This is operated by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) and is the site of marine and land test, trial and evaluation activities.

(Google Maps: September 2008) Plate 2: HMAS Cairns with patrol, landing and survey vessels alongside Earlier Defence activities in the GBR have resulted in a number of historical environmental legacies. These include material of known or potential heritage significance, such as World War II ship and aircraft wrecks and various disused installations. The historical legacy also includes less desirable elements such as abandoned or lost sea mines from World War II, and ordnance and other munitions including chemical warfare ordnance (AECOM 2012; Defence 2003; Plunkett 2003), deliberately dumped at sea as a means of disposal when such measures were still considered acceptable.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

Despite the now recognised errors in earlier practices from the World War II era, Defence has since established a strong reputation as a capable manager and steward of the environment of the GBR. This is largely due to conservation of ecosystems and maintaining effective management whilst sustaining military training objectives. Defence's stewardship of the environment in the GBR and contiguous areas was tested in the 1990s through the process of the Shoalwater Bay Commission of Inquiry which in overall terms, found Defence to be a capable and effective manager able to balance conservation of the environment with military training requirements (Commonwealth of Australia 1994). The Commissioners also found that Defence should continue to be vested with primary responsibility for the management of Shoalwater Bay (Plate 3).

(Defence Image Library) Plate 3: Freshwater Beach at Shoalwater Bay Training Area, Queensland The intensity and diversity of Defence operational, exercise, training and trials activities continually changes as a result of global strategic circumstances, Government policy, evolution of the size, force structure and basing of the RAN, Army and RAAF, changes in tactical and strategic doctrine and advances in technology. Accordingly, it should not be anticipated that the scale, tempo or character of Defence activities historically conducted in the GBR will or can necessarily represent or limit that which may be undertaken in the future.

2.2 Forecast Future Activities Given the baseline provided by the 2006 SEA, one of the points of focus of the updated SEA is identifying and characterising new or revised capabilities introduced into service and used in the GBR since the 2006 SEA. The ADF has introduced or is in the process of acquiring an array of new equipment since 2006, particularly platforms, weapons systems and sensors, as well as a variety of new ancillary and support equipment (see Defence 2004; 2009b; 2011; 2012a). Some of these new assets and capabilities, either already in-service or slated to enter in the short to mid-term include:

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

• large amphibious ships, all with a docking capability. These are the Landing Ship, Dock (LSD) HMAS Choules, and the Landing, Helicopter, Dock4 ships (LHDs) HMA Ships Canberra and Adelaide (the introduction into service of these ships is concomitant with the retirement of the Navy's older, smaller and less capable amphibious transport ships); • Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyers (AWDs); • Armidale Class Patrol Boats, replacing the Fremantle Class; • the double-hulled tanker HMAS Sirius, replacing the single-hulled HMAS Westralia; • the modification of the tanker HMAS Success to a double-hulled configuration; • new small landing craft; • Rapid Environmental Assessment (REA) capabilities with an emphasis on employment in the littoral5; • new mine countermeasures systems and methods; • a range of unmanned systems including Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs), and Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs); • improved bulk fuel storage and transfer systems for Army field use; • new helicopters in the roles of armed reconnaissance, troop lift, maritime support and maritime combat, the latter with a dipping sonar; • new inter-theatre and battlefield airlift aircraft; • new fast combat aircraft including an Electronic Attack capability; • enhanced air delivered Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs), with extended range, reliability and accuracy; • Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) aircraft with associated designated airspace in the vicinity of the GBR; • new tanker aircraft with associated designated military air-to-air refuelling airspace in the vicinity of the GBR; • new Maritime Patrol Aircraft; and • new aircraft countermeasures systems. The introduction of the large amphibious ships (Plate 4), new landing craft, and a range of other related systems, are intended to update, enhance and expand the ADF's amphibious capabilities. The new capabilities and equipment will require the ADF to develop, test, train and exercise new doctrine and procedures in amphibious warfare and manoeuvre from the littoral. The 2013 Defence White Paper indicated that the ADF's new amphibious capability would be brought into service as a priority and that '...the challenges for training and institutional culture involved in developing the capability to conduct amphibious operations will be significant' (Defence 2013: 39).

4 A 'dock' is a large well within the ship which can be flooded and entered by smaller watercraft, facilitating the direct transfer of personnel, vehicles, stores and equipment between the ship and the smaller craft. The 'helicopter' designation indicates that the ship is also capable of sustained, complex helicopter operations. 5 In military parlance, the expression 'littoral' refers to activities - including air, sea and amphibious elements - within the shallower water margins around land masses and archipelagic areas. In a military sense the 'littoral zone' can extend for distances of tens or hundreds of kilometres from nearest land, depending upon the capability or manoeuvre under consideration.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

(Defence Image Library) Plate 4: Computer generated image of the new Canberra Class amphibious ships exhibiting a range of capabilities. Use of the new amphibious capability involves a diverse range of activities including mine warfare, route and beach survey, ship escort and protection (by ships and aircraft), ship fire support, close air support (fixed and rotary wing), logistic support and sustainment, battlefield airlift (fixed and rotary wing) and inshore vessel operations. These activities can occur at many scales from single unit, single skill training to large, multi-dimension exercises similar to those in the Talisman Saber series. A significant proportion of the activities outlined above will occur in the GBR utilising the critically important training areas at Shoalwater Bay and Cowley Beach, and involving the Army's primary deployable force in Townsville. Thus, it should be anticipated that the GBR, particularly the designated training areas, will be used more often, by more ADF units, at low to medium scales and intensity culminating in periodic large exercises. The need for expanded amphibious training facilities in Shoalwater Bay was documented by Defence in a 2012 review of training facility requirements (Defence 2012b). In summary, not only is the ADF acquiring new equipment but also a new capability posture. Thus, it is within the paradigm of this new equipment and these new capabilities and how they may be developed and maintained, that ADF activities within the GBR for the foreseeable future need to be considered in the context of the SEA.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

3. ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS FROM DEFENCE ACTIVITIES IN OR NEAR THE GREAT BARRIER REEF

3.1 Introduction The principal ADF users of the maritime components of the GBR are ships and aircraft of the RAN, and RAAF aircraft. Regular use is also made by a number of specialist Army units encompassing water transport, aviation and Special Forces. Other Army units (e.g. infantry, armour and engineer) may transit through the GBR in ships but do not generally undertake activities within the World Heritage Area. The summaries presented below and the conclusions drawn in this report are supported by a number of comprehensive studies and assessments. These include the analyses underpinning the ADF Maritime Activities Environmental Management Plan (EMP) (URS 2003a), the RAAF Air Activities EMP (URS 2006b and 2010a) and the 2006 Defence GBR World Heritage Area SEA (URS 2006a), as well as various other environmental reviews and assessments of ADF platforms and equipment (e.g. PGM Environment 2013; URS 2006c; URS 2006d; URS 2007; URS 2010b).

3.2 Risks from Naval and Amphibious Activities By its nature, most ADF activities conducted in the GBR will involve ships and smaller vessels (Plate 5). This potentially encompasses all RAN ships and small craft, as well as Army vessels such as landing craft and miscellaneous smaller boats and amphibious vehicles.

(Defence Image Library) Plate 5: RAN ships underway in the Great Barrier Reef. As well as nationally assigned operational taskings (e.g. hydrographic survey and border protection patrols) RAN ships (and aircraft) conduct a broad spectrum of activities within the GBR ranging from simple single unit serials, to complex, multi-unit, multi facet exercises. Different ship classes use the GBR and its designated Defence practice areas to various extents, primarily dictated by equipment fits, ship roles, training needs and readiness requirements. Army water transport units operate landing craft and ancillary equipment in connection with amphibious and inshore operations. Army Special Forces units and Navy divers also undertake various activities such as beach reconnaissance, ordnance disposal training, parachute water drops and submarine insertions. ADF maritime and amphibious activities typically, or potentially, occurring in the GBR and contiguous areas include:

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

• general transit and manoeuvring of ships and small craft; • various seamanship activities including:

− coordinated close ship manoeuvres;

− ship handling emergency drills including man overboard exercises; and

− the launch and recovery of ship’s boats; • ship gun firing exercises at shore targets on the Townshend Island weapons range at Shoalwater Bay; • small calibre gun firings at towed and floating targets in designated weapon practice areas; • underwater explosives training at Triangular Island in Shoalwater Bay; • Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW)6 training (usually within the framework of major exercises) involving ships, submarines, helicopters and/or fixed wing aircraft, and typically employing active and passive sonars, sonobuoys, marine sound signals, smoke floats and submarine launched flares; • submarine operations; • the deployment of non-recoverable stores and equipment, such as:

− expendable bathythermographs;

− various pyrotechnics; and

− sonobuoys; • amphibious landings and sustainment activities (including: the transport to/from exercise areas and the lodgement ashore and/or withdrawal of ground forces; Special Forces activities; inshore mine countermeasures; the use of conventional displacement landing craft and hovercraft; helicopter assaults; and logistic support from ships to units ashore with stores and equipment moved by small vessels and helicopters); • minelaying (inert, practice shapes) and detection (i.e. minehunting) and neutralisation (i.e. by influence minesweeping or mine disposal charges placed by mine clearance divers or remotely operated vehicles); • exercise boardings involving ships’ boats and/or helicopters; • system operability tests of ship equipment; • use of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles for various activities, including survey tasks; and • permissible routine waste discharges from ships (processed bilge water, treated sewage effluent and greywater). Vessel Strike and Marine Fauna There is potential for vessel strike with significant marine fauna such as whales, dolphins, dugongs and turtles. The occurrence of such incidents involving ADF vessels is rare, with risks attenuated by a range of standard mitigation measures concerning vessel operations and applying to all watercraft which address optimal separation distances from observed marine fauna such as whales. The RAN also has standing procedures in place to report any fauna strikes so that any appropriate follow-up action can occur.

6 Anti-submarine warfare (ASW) training is undertaken only infrequently by the ADF in the GBR. When conducted, ASW activities occur primarily offshore of the GBR within the Coral Sea and not in the vicinity of the GBR lagoon.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

Vessel Collision or Grounding Risks may also occur in the event of collision or grounding particularly if these result in the loss of fuel oil. In the case of warships, these risks are minimal due to the size and spacing of fuel tanks, the manoeuvrability of warships, bridge manning routines and the light fuel oils generally used (see: ITOPF 2002; Kagi et al. 1988). In addition, warships typically have hull projections such as sonar domes, stabilisers and propellers that extend several meters below the ship's baseline. These fittings in effect, act as an ‘early warning system’ identifying grounding risks and typically prevent or minimise contact of the hull with the bottom. To further limit grounding risks, the RAN participates in the GBR and Torres Strait Vessel Traffic Service (REEFVTS), as permitted by operational circumstances. In addition to risk avoidance measures, the RAN has developed specific measures for GBR operations in terms of prevention of collision or grounding and contingency response, including avoidance of the inner route of the northern GBR by RAN tankers. Weapons and Sensor Systems Generally, ADF ships and boats within the GBR, either on transit or conducting training, are undertaking 'innocent passage' and do not present any environmental effects beyond that which would be expected from other vessels. Warships do however, have a range of weapon, sensor and countermeasures systems which may occasion some form of environmental risk if used. Weapon and countermeasure systems are rarely fully activated in peacetime, however, and any use within the GBR is very limited, infrequent, of short duration and subject to pre-approved environmental controls. Moreover, most weapon and countermeasure systems are unlikely to need to be activated in the GBR for training purposes, with weapon use generally confined to designated practice areas. Sonar and Underwater Noise Of the sensors fitted to RAN ships, those which are recognised as having the greatest potential to occasion adverse environmental effects are active sonars, particularly ship-mounted submarine detection systems (see Richardson et al. 1995; Southall et al 2007). The use of these systems within the GBR is limited due to the bathymetric complexity and associated shallow water and navigation hazards which limit the utility for submarine operations. The use of these sonar systems is thus limited to a small number of suitable areas in the GBR. Although there are some environmental risks associated with the use of active sonars, particularly ship-mounted submarine detection systems, these hazards are generally misunderstood and often exaggerated (DiAmico et al. 2009a; DiAmico et al. 2009b; Filadelfo et al. 2009a; Filadelfo et al. 2009b; URS 2010c). The use of high-powered ship- mounted sonars has been associated with the phenomenon of whale strandings. Since sonars of this general class were first fielded in the early 1960s, many hundreds of warships in navies around the globe have been so equipped. In that time, only a few strandings involving around 100 whales in total have been linked, if often tenuously, with naval sonars. Furthermore, whale strandings attributed to sonar activity by the world’s navies account for only an insignificant fraction of all recorded whale strandings over the same period, suggesting that the influence, if any, of ship-mounted sonars is negligible. In addition, there is no valid record of whale stranding associated with naval sonar activity in Australian waters. The actual risks arising from the use of sonar can be significantly diminished via the application of pragmatic management measures. The ADF has evaluated potential risks (see: DSTO 2004; DSTO 2009; Lewis 1996a; URS 2003a) and adheres to a comprehensive suite of environmental mitigation controls for all forms of sonar, augmented by research to better understand and characterise underwater acoustic propagation and the possible effects upon sensitive marine fauna. As such, the residual risks arising from ADF use of sonar in the GBR are considered minimal. Similar to sonar, underwater blast and impulse effects can injure or cause adverse behavioural effects on marine fauna. Aware of these risks, Defence has undertaken a number of research programs to better characterise and understand the potential exposure to, and vulnerability of, sensitive marine

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report fauna to the effects of in-water explosive training activities at Triangular Island (e.g. Box et al. 2002; Lewis 1996b; URS 2001a; URS 2001b; URS 2002a; URS 2005a). Dugongs and turtles have been a particular focus of these endeavours. Specific environmental risk management procedures are observed while undertaking training at Triangular Island, with the objective of limiting potential risks to sensitive marine fauna. There is, however, some uncertainty over the presence and habitat requirements of inshore dolphins in Shoalwater Bay (see: Beasley et al. 2005; GBRMPA 2009; ELA 2013; Parra et al. 2006; Department of the Environment 2013). Although measures implemented for the protection of dugongs and turtles from in-water explosives training should have the collateral effect of affording dolphins a similar level of protection, the uncertainty suggests the need for further investigation. All in-water noise sources employed by the ADF have been assessed for their potential to cause injury or acoustic disturbance to marine fauna, particularly whales, dolphins, dugongs and turtles (URS 2003a). As well as all sonars, ranging from active sonobuoys and hand-held diver systems to large ship-mounted units, these assessments have addressed: underwater telephones; acoustic influence minesweeping gear; acoustic countermeasures devices; range tracking pingers and transponders; acoustic activated devices (e.g. such as marker release systems); oceanographic survey equipment; pyrotechnic signalling devices; torpedoes, including their sonars; mine disposal charges; and all forms of explosive ordnance. These assessments underpin the suite of tailored, standard risk mitigation measures observed by the ADF, with enhanced procedures employed in areas known or suspected to be key habitat or where exposure risks may be accentuated, such as channels and in the vicinity of sea mounts, undersea trenches, and continental slopes. The ADF acoustic risk mitigation measures are widely regarded as world leading and have provided a model adapted by a number of other nations. Marine Biosecurity The movement of ships, boats and other immersible and floating equipment into the GBR carries with it the risk of transfer of exotic marine species via ballast water and biofouling. The RAN has active management and control programs for both ballast water and biofouling which in many aspects exceed the mandatory requirements stipulated by the Australian Government. Summary All ADF maritime activities, including amphibious activities up to the high water mark, are subject to a range of standard environmental management measures. These are promulgated via a variety of policies and instructions, with the primary element being the ADF Maritime Activities Environmental Management Plan, which is expanded upon in Section 4.3.

3.3 Risks from Air Activities The RAAF is a relatively small yet well-equipped air force and the most capable in Australia's region, and possesses a wide spectrum of capabilities which need to be practiced and maintained. All RAAF aircraft are fixed wing, although under commercial contract it controls a number of helicopters tasked for search and rescue. Air Force aerospace capabilities are augmented by those of the Navy and Army, which exclusively operate helicopters. In addition to manned aircraft, all three Services operate, or periodically test and evaluate, unmanned aerial vehicles. Aerospace capabilities maintained by the RAAF include strike, reconnaissance, interdiction, air control, interception and air superiority, maritime patrol, maritime strike, strategic and tactical airlift, aerial refuelling and maritime search and survivor assistance. Those of the Navy and Army encompass troop lift, battlefield support, armed reconnaissance, maritime support, maritime surveillance and maritime interdiction. The RAAF and Navy each maintain airborne anti-submarine capabilities, both employing sonobuoys as sensors, with Navy also gaining access to helicopter dipping sonar. ADF aviation activities typically, or potentially, occurring in the GBR and contiguous areas include: • flying training, including supersonic flight, low-level flying and air combat manoeuvring;

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

• air defence exercises and other Fleet support activities involving aircraft; • helicopter transfers of personnel, equipment and stores between ships and/or shore using helicopters; • helicopter and long-range Maritime Patrol Aircraft submarine search activities, using sensors including dipping sonar (helicopters only) and sonobuoys; • parachute drops of troops and equipment into the water, such as Special Forces insertions; • aircraft gunnery practice into designated range areas; • aircraft weapon release into designated (land) range areas; • the deployment of non-recoverable stores and equipment, such as:

− expendable countermeasures;

− various pyrotechnics and markers; and

− sonobuoys. As well as direct military aerospace capabilities, the RAN's Australian Hydrographic Service operates aircraft fitted with Laser Airborne Depth Sounders. This system is used to undertake hydrographic surveys in shallow waters, which in common parlance are referred to as 'LADS surveys'. Similar to ships, most ADF aviation activities in the GBR are akin to ‘innocent passage’, involving aircraft engaged in transit from one point to another or loiter while undertaking some form of patrol task or awaiting the commencement of a scripted flight or exercise. The release of weapons or other stores from ADF aircraft is rare. Most intercept, weapons or cargo delivery training value is derived from aircrew obtaining the correct ‘time over target’, or similar, as a function of navigation and airmanship skills, rather than actual weapon release or load drop. When placed in the context of other activities in Australian airspace and the receiving ground and marine environments, it may be concluded that ADF aviation activities undertaken in the GBR have many parallels with civil actions. Distinct ADF aviation activities are: • air combat and air interception; • air drop of stores and equipment (NB: cargo is regularly carried as slung loads by ADF helicopters, but this activity is also common in civil aviation); • air-to-air refuelling (Plate 6); • a greater frequency of low level flying compared to civil aviation particularly by high performance jet aircraft; and • the use of expendable stores such as heliboxes, expendable bathythermographs, sonobuoys and various countermeasure devices. Most ADF aviation activities generate no substantive environmental hazard and therefore present no significant risk to the GBR. Where military aviation activities may present some form of risk is when they occur at low level over the land or sea surface or involve the release (either intentional or inadvertent) of some form of store or projectile. Environmental risks also arise in the event of loss of aircraft.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

(Defence Image Library) Plate 6: RAAF Hornets undertaking air-to-air refuelling Periodic low level flying by ADF aircraft is pivotal to the development and maintenance of capability. Low flying is inherent to activities such as helicopter store transfers, the use of helicopter dipping sonar, some forms of air delivery of personnel and equipment, search and rescue/survivor assistance operations and high speed low level strike. It is recognised that the noise of low flying aircraft can startle or otherwise disturb members of the public and wildlife, both on land and in the water. Research indicates that wildlife and members of the public are less likely to indicate disturbance if aircraft low level flights are regular and/or anticipated (see: Efroymson et al. 2000; Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. & Hagler Bailly Consulting 2001; O'Neill and Holmes 2001; Richardson et al. 1995; USAF 2002; WBM Oceanics and Claridge 1997). The ADF manages the environmental risks of low flying via a complementary set of standing policies and instructions, airspace controls and specific environmental risk reduction measures augmented as appropriate by advice to the public of where and when intensive low flying activities may be scheduled. The use by aircraft of guns, missiles, bombs, torpedoes and other explosive ordnance is a uniquely military aerospace undertaking. These items however, are rarely used in training and if so, the majority of training serials involve non-explosive practice versions of these weapons and ordnance sometimes equipped with small spotting charges. Weapon training by ADF aircraft in the GBR is confined to designated weapons ranges, with the use of explosive ordnance generally confined to specific ranges in Shoalwater Bay. The only exceptions to these are inadvertent release (which by definition is not a controlled activity) and jettison as may be required in the interests of safety. Inadvertent release can occur as a result of system malfunction or operator error, whereas jettison is a controlled activity which is initiated as necessary in order to provide for aviation and/or public safety. By definition, neither activity is subject to complete discretion in terms of time or location of conduct, but risks are mitigated by means such as engineering controls, personnel training and other standard procedures. These include specially designated flying routes and areas, intended to limit public and environmental risk exposures, as a standard practice for activities when aircraft carry ordnance or other stores which could be inadvertently released or may need to be jettisoned. Ordnance detonation in the event of jettison or inadvertent release is unlikely, as generally weapons are not armed and behave as inert bodies (ADF 2002). Although losses of entire aircraft sometimes occur, it is self- evident that aircraft crash or ditching is preferably avoided by the ADF. In the event of loss of aircraft or stores, efforts are made by the ADF to recover the items or wreckage. This is not always possible and is dependent on a range of circumstances including safety and depth of water.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

In summary, a significant proportion of ADF aviation activities are similar to civil aviation activities, often at much lower temporal and spatial scales and with correspondingly low potential for significant, adverse environmental outcomes. Those military aerospace activities which do involve some potential for adverse environmental effects, such as low level flight and aircraft stores release, are controlled by a complex assemblage of risk avoidance and mitigation measures. These include elements of airspace management, flight planning and clearance, and specific environmental risk controls. In the GBR, these controls include designation of islands recognised as significant bird sites as 'Military Sensitive Areas' and the imposition of restricted airspace around them.

3.4 Risks from Land Activities External to the Defence bases, land activities undertaken by Defence units within the GBR area occur within non-Defence specific areas, such as on the public road network and in ports, or within the designated Defence training areas of Shoalwater Bay and Cowley Beach. A limited number of islands are also used by Defence within Shoalwater Bay, most commonly Triangular Island and Townshend Island. It is widely recognised that altered terrestrial run-off patterns throughout the whole of the GBR marine park are having a chronic and significantly adverse effect on the health and function of the GBR, particularly inner reefs (Department of the Premier and Cabinet 2009; GBRMPA 2013; DSDIP 2013). This has been attributed to substantially increased nutrient loads from agricultural activity, as well as the carriage of pollutants and elevated turbidity levels from residential and resource processing developments. These altered flow regimes are primarily the result of land clearing and changed land uses within the GBR catchment. The use by Defence of established infrastructure within the GBR catchment areas, such as bases, ports and roads, is unlikely to have any discernible effect on GBR water quality. Effective drainage management and pollution control practices are adhered to within Defence bases. External to bases, any Defence contribution to nutrient, contaminant and turbidity loads from public areas would be subsumed within the total generated in that catchment from all other activities, and so would be reflective of the catchment management practices of authorities other than Defence. Defence land activities within the GBR training areas essentially revolve around the movement and sustainment in the field of personnel and equipment and have minimal or no direct linkage with the World Heritage Area (Plate 7).

(Defence Image Library) Plate 7: Paratroop drop into Shoalwater Bay Training Area (SWBTA)

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

Land training activities range from the scale of about a dozen personnel (URS 2010d) up to large exercises where several thousand may be in the field simultaneously. The Defence field training value of an area derives largely from the retention of natural landscapes, and by extension, natural processes. As such, only a limited proportion of Defence land training areas in the GBR have been cleared and there is no broadscale application of fertilisers or pesticides. Annually, Defence implements a Vegetation Control program at Shoalwater Bay in line with the training area’s Weed Action Management Plan. Weeds covered by the program include both declared and environmental weeds. Annually the priority weeds change to meet changes in risk profiles. In Shoalwater Bay Training Area, livestock are generally excluded. Feral Animal Management programs are also undertaken on an annual basis to manage other hard hoofed animals which have the potential to degrade waterways and destabilise creek banks. After major exercises at Shoalwater Bay, the site is assessed and off-road damages, generally in the form of off-road rutting or bogging sites are recorded and remediated. Such projects ensure the site is maintained sustainably for the long-term and that sites which have the potential to become large erosion sites are managed and risks minimised. Such works reduce the potential for sediment loading into waterways in SWBTA. Monitoring of water quality and streamside habitat assessments (including AusRivas habitat indicators) in Shoalwater Bay indicates that surface water run-off is 'good to excellent' by applicable standards (Defence 2009c: 129). Furthermore, waste management practices and active measures to avoid and contain spills of fluids such as fuel, limit the likelihood and extant of any contamination of soil or water. Similar management and land-use practices occur at Cowley Beach. By extension, effects upon GBR water quality from the Defence training areas are likely to be negligible, and the presence of the Defence training areas may actually be considered as beneficial in comparison with the other land uses which may have occurred in those locations in the absence of Defence.

3.5 Summary As previously noted, not all the possible range of training or operational activities, or all the types of ADF weapons or equipment, are likely to be used in the GBR, the Coral Sea or other areas contiguous to the GBR World Heritage Area. Suffice to say, however, that assessment of the significance of the use of Defence equipment in the GBR needs to be considered in the context of the ADF's standard environmental management and risk avoidance measures, such as those promulgated in applicable Standing Orders and the ADF Maritime Activities EMP and RAAF Air Activities EMP. These standard protocols augment other GBR and/or exercise specific measures which may be implemented for individual activities such as for major exercises like Talisman Saber. This same assessment was derived from the 2006 SEA, with the record of Defence activities in the GBR World Heritage Area since that time, including Talisman Sabers 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013, and the absence of any significant or permanent adverse environmental effects in the intervening period supporting this conclusion.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

4. MANAGEMENT OF RISKS FROM DEFENCE ACTIVITIES IN THE GREAT BARRIER REEF

4.1 Introduction Defence is acutely aware of the environmental sensitivities and community expectations regarding its activities in the iconic, internationally significant GBR. Defence discharges its environmental management obligations pertaining to the GBR through a consolidated, iterative, ongoing and multi- dimensional series of processes. Defence collaborates closely with applicable regulatory agencies, both Commonwealth and Queensland, in the planning, conduct, management, oversight and review of its GBR activities, with dialogue between Defence and key regulatory agencies, particularly GBRMPA, a key aspect. Some of the Defence risk evaluations and management measures employed apply to Defence activities and equipment while others are focused specifically upon the GBR. As a result of these efforts, GBRMPA (2009) concluded that Defence activities within the GBR are effectively managed and pose minimal threat to the GBR. This Section presents an overview of particular management measures employed by Defence for its activities, with a particular emphasis upon those applied in the GBR.

4.2 Environmental Assessment and Planning All Defence activities and new equipment acquisitions are subject to environmental screening and assessment in accordance with Commonwealth legislative requirements and Defence environmental policy commitments. These screening and assessment processes are conducted as requirements of the EPBC Act. All applicable Defence environmental assessments include appropriate consideration of the GBR (e.g. environmental assessments for new ADF helicopters and ships). Large-scale, major exercises conducted within the GBR are also subject to additional individual environmental assessment. Examples of these include Exercises Kangaroo (1995), Tandem Thrust (1997 and 2001), Crocodile (1999 and 2003) and Talisman Saber (2005, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2013). Dependent upon the planned construct and conduct of an exercise, the environmental assessments evaluate the intended activities throughout the maritime and contiguous areas of the GBR, particularly Shoalwater Bay and its sea approaches, Cowley Beach, Townsville, and the Coral Sea. In terms of activities in the sea areas and their overlying airspace, these assessments consider exercise component facets such as ship and aircraft transits, diver training, underway replenishment-at-sea, and amphibious landings as well as surface, air and undersea warfare training activities. Effective environmental management of Defence activities in the maritime areas of the GBR is reinforced though Defence involvement in cooperative and integrated management efforts and dialogue with other management agencies. This includes regular dialogue with the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, GBRMPA, Airservices Australia, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and Queensland wildlife conservation agencies.

In normal circumstances, exercise planning and the execution of scheduled activities takes account of environmental management responsibilities via adherence to standing instructions and relevant Environmental Management Plans (EMPs). In certain circumstances a specific evaluation with conditions may be required for a proposed activity which is not specifically addressed by other guidance, and that may be considered to present a limited risk of minor adverse environmental outcomes (either actual or perceived). In some cases a more detailed assessment is undertaken, including possible EPBC Act referral in the case of a proposed action more likely to result in significant impact on the environment.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

The environmental assessment and risk evaluation of major activities in the GBR World Heritage Area leads into the development of an Exercise Plan with attendant Orders. These promulgate any additional, exercise and/or location specific environmental risk avoidance or mitigation measures to be adhered to during the exercise, in addition to the standard ADF management measures contained, such as those within the ADF Maritime Activities EMP, the RAAF Air Activities EMP and local Standing Orders. Prior to the conduct of an exercise in the GBR, all participants are required to undergo environmental awareness training using tailored, specific briefing tools developed by the ADF. A Unit Environmental Liaison Officer is appointed within each participating military unit, charged with briefing and overseeing environmental compliance issues and recording and reporting incidents. Exercise Command is assisted with the implementation of its environmental management obligations through the establishment of specialist environmental risk and compliance advisers and an integrated Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG). The EMG is tasked to monitor environmental compliance performance and investigate environmental incidents and to initiate remediation action as required.

4.3 Standing Procedures for Environmental Management of Defence Activities Most ADF activities in the GBR are conducted in accordance with standing environmental management and risk mitigation procedures. These are generally promulgated via applicable Environmental Management Plans (EMPs), and Standing Orders and Instructions, but also include policies and procedures such as Defence Instructions and other mechanisms such as airspace management controls. The main components of these instruments are discussed in this section. The ADF Maritime Activities EMP has been developed to cover Defence activities in maritime areas, including the GBR. This is augmented in use by the RAAF Air Activities EMP.

EMPs and Range Standing Orders (RSOs) have also been developed for the land training areas in or near the GBR. For example, EMPs have been prepared for Cowley Beach, Halifax Bay and Shoalwater Bay. Range Standing Orders control activities within Defence training areas, including elements pertinent to environmental management, risk mitigation and response. Noting that these generally do not apply directly to the GBR World Heritage Area they are not discussed further, but their use does contribute to the protection of the health and function of the GBR ecosystems.

4.3.1 ADF Maritime Activities EMP The ADF Maritime Activities EMP (URS 2003a; URS 2009b) promulgates training and exercise planning measures and guidelines and mitigation procedures observed by ADF ships and aircraft when conducting activities at, under or over the sea. The EMP accommodates the full range of Defence activities at sea and in coastal areas. It addresses all aspects of the use of ships, submarines, landing vessels, small watercraft, aircraft and other maritime systems, including the use of sonar, explosives, gunnery and missile shoots, cetacean collision avoidance measures, and procedures to control low flying over sea areas, small islands and cays. The procedures promulgated in the EMP have application in all sea areas, with additional focused guidance for sensitive places such as the GBR. The ADF Maritime Activities EMP provides guidance and direction for environmental risk avoidance and mitigation procedures, and response measures as warranted within the domains of: • ship and boat operations; • fixed and rotary wing aircraft operations over the sea, islands and in coastal areas; • the use of weapons; • the use of sensors, including sonar and sonobuoys; • the use of countermeasures; • mine warfare training;

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

• hydrographic surveys; and • miscellaneous equipment and activities, such as landing on islands and the use of flares and markers. The overriding thrust of environmental management inherent to the EMP is the avoidance of environmental disturbance in the first instance by separation in space and/or time from potentially sensitive elements of the environment (i.e. plan to conduct activities at locations and/or times separate from potentially sensitive entities such as whale migration routes and periods). It is recognised that temporal and/or spatial separation is not always possible. Accordingly, the EMP engenders awareness of the possible environmental impacts which may arise, so that planners and ship and aircraft crews are aware of potential risks and can exercise suitable measures. A ‘Ship Supplement’ to the EMP provides additional guidance for the conduct of shipboard activities. These include port visits, maintenance practices and quarantine risk reduction measures. 4.3.2 RAAF Air Activities EMP The RAAF Air Activities EMP (URS 2006b; URS 2010a) is intended to facilitate the conduct of RAAF aviation activities in a manner which balances training and operational requirements with regulatory obligations, community expectations and environmental best-practice measures. The EMP is designed to assist the RAAF to demonstrate appropriate due diligence, and exercise duty of care towards the environment, while also providing greater consistency in procedures and certainty of outcome. The guidelines detailed in the RAAF Air Activities EMP are intended to be applied to all aviation activities conducted by RAAF units and aviation contractors wherever they may be operating and whatever activity they may be engaged in, unless over-ridden by other specific instructions, airspace control regulations, tactical or safety requirements, or operational exigencies. In so doing, these environmental risk reduction and mitigation measures are intended to be flexible in application while still providing an effective framework for the recognition and management of environmental risks. Similar to the ADF Maritime Activities EMP, the overriding thrust of environmental management of RAAF aircraft activities is the avoidance of environmental disturbance in the first instance by separation in space and/or time from potentially sensitive elements of the environment (e.g. hospitals, horse studs or wetlands during bird migration periods). Where temporal and/or spatial separation is not possible, the EMP promotes awareness and understanding of possible environmental impacts and how they may be mitigated. To this end, the EMP addresses aspects of military aviation activities such as: flight planning and conduct, particularly low level and supersonic flight; the use of weapons and pyrotechnic stores; the use of expendable countermeasures; quarantine management of aircraft and aircraft loads; and air drop of stores and paratroops. Although focused on RAAF aircraft types and activities, the EMP has application to helicopters and extends to include contract search and rescue helicopters operated in support of RAAF flying activities.

4.4 Airspace Management A number of standard procedures and airspace controls limit environmental risks including potential disturbance to wildlife and members of the public from aviation activities (see: Airservices Australia 2013a; Airservices Australia 2013b). Many apply to aviation in general, while others are focused specifically on military aviation. These measures include: • Fly Neighbourly Areas: These flight procedures are promulgated in formal air publications as a means of addressing concerns regarding low-level aircraft operations over specified noise and/or otherwise environmentally sensitive areas. Procedures relating to ‘Fly Neighbourly' areas are advisory and compliance is not usually mandatory.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

• Special Procedures: These are generally mandatory and are used for implementing other specific aviation management requirements not necessarily (directly) related to environment protection, but include, for example, quarantine management measures. • Military Sensitive Areas: These are typically sites or areas where the conduct of low-level flying by military aircraft may cause noise disturbance or present particular hazards to aircraft. These areas are designated in terms of lateral and vertical coverage, with some areas applying on a permanent basis while others only apply over specified periods. Examples include islands and cays noted for their significance as bird nesting sites, as well as some national parks and wilderness area. Islands in the GBR deemed as Military Sensitive Areas have a 3000 ft, 3 nm radius overflight restriction.

4.5 Range Clearance and Safety Procedures Standard safety procedures ensure that permanently designated Defence practice areas, or other areas which may be used on a temporary basis, are clear before activities occur that may impinge on the safety of other civil and military vessels or aircraft in the area. Examples of activities requiring some degree of range safety clearance are aircraft and aerial target activity, the use of lasers, missile launches and gunnery shoots. Appropriate range clearance is achieved by:

• permanent marking on charts of weapons range areas and notices regarding submarine activity;

• promulgation of permanent Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) and Notices to Mariners ('NOTMARs' or 'NtMs');

• issuing of NOTMARs and/or NOTAMs in a timely manner before specific individual programmed activities with a risk of interference are conducted;

• publication of Notices to the Public, in newspapers, as appropriate;

• range clearance procedures immediately before and during the programmed activity. Range clearances are effected by visual and radar search, augmented by aerial search if aircraft are available. If required, the planned activity is postponed until such time as the range is clear;

• ships involved in live firing activities displaying flags and other visual markers; at night time ships and aircraft may use bright white flares for illumination; and

• the Annual Notices to Mariners which contains details of potential hazards from military maritime activities and instructions for seafarers on procedures to be followed if they inadvertently enter into a range area during a firing activity.

Range safety traces (i.e. the footprint that requires to be cleared for a particular activity) are based on the maximum theoretical range and altitude capabilities of guns, missiles, lasers, and similar, plus a safety margin. For bombs and gun projectiles, the safety traces consider the possibility of ‘skip’ or ricochet over the water surface. For guided weapons, the possibility of uncontrolled, and therefore unguided, operation is also taken into account.

Although originally intended to ensure safety of air and sea navigation and the protection of human life, standard ADF range clearance procedures have been expanded to ensure that the range area is also clear of marine mammals and turtles which could be affected by the planned activities. As well as visual means, standard cetacean range clearance procedures also include maintaining a watch on underwater acoustics sensors to detect indicative cetacean vocalisations.

ADF weapons ranges within the GBR World Heritage Area (e.g. Triangular Island, Townshend Island and Raynham Island in Shoalwater Bay; Rattlesnake Island in Halifax Bay) are subject to periodic

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report clearance of unexploded ordnance (UXO). These practices usually have a particular focus upon ordnance observed to have dropped short or failed to detonate following range use, but can also result in the finding and rendering safe of earlier unexploded ordnance as a secondary benefit.

4.6 Quarantine Management The ADF is conscious of its quarantine and biosecurity management responsibilities and has an established set of cleaning and inspection procedures developed in concert with the biosecurity agency of the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture. Guidance on quarantine management is also presented in various standing Defence policies and Defence Instructions, as well as in the ADF Maritime Activities EMP and the RAAF Air Activities EMP. Significantly, while the focus of the Department of Agriculture is upon international movements, Defence policies and instructions and the two above mentioned EMPs also address domestic movements. Quarantine management is a standard element of the preparation for and conduct of major exercises in the GBR, supplementing other standard Department of Agriculture and Defence biosecurity measures routinely applied by the ADF. 4.6.1 Marine The RAN has examined marine biosecurity risks and management options associated with biofouling and ballast water (Plate 8) (PGM Environment 2012a; URS 2002b; URS 2006e; URS 2006f: URS 2006g). Consequently the RAN has adopted a program of standard marine biosecurity management measures which in many respects exceed extant Australian regulatory requirements.

(URS Australia) Plate 8: Hull fouling vulnerability and characterisation survey of an RAN frigate With regard to ballast water, RAN procedures seek to minimise the risk of entraining potential marine pest species in the first instance, where operationally and technically feasible, and places controls on the discharge of ballast water in coastal areas and the GBR (URS 2009b). While not failsafe measures, they do reduce ballast water transfer risks as far as practicable. These RAN procedures are in addition to adherence to Department of Agriculture ballast water management requirements. For hull fouling, the RAN has a comprehensive program of inspecting ship hulls on a periodic basis, as dictated by ship movements and operational requirements. This is augmented by procedures intended to ensure that hull anti-fouling coatings are maintained in good condition to minimise fouling

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report development and growth. These measures are generally consistent with, if not in excess of, the guidance provided by the Department of Agriculture (e.g. DAFF 2009a; DAFF 2009b; DAFF 2011). The planning and conduct of major exercises in the GBR take account of marine biosecurity risks. These are characteristically managed via specific instructions regarding ballast water and biofouling management to participating naval units which meet, and often exceed, the Department of Agriculture's statutory requirements. 4.6.2 Terrestrial In collaboration with the ADF, the Department of Agriculture has developed a comprehensive catalogue of around 100 individual quarantine cleaning and inspection guides for ADF equipment. Examples of equipment types examined in these series include: aircraft ground support equipment; wheeled vehicles; combat vehicles, both wheeled and tracked; artillery; personal equipment; logistic support equipment; diving equipment and small boats. All personnel and equipment participating in exercises in Australia, including those in the GBR, are required to comply with Australian biosecurity standards. For major exercises, this may involve pre- embarkation inspections overseas of ground equipment and vehicles, aircraft and personal gear.

4.7 Ship Waste Management and Marine Environment Protection Ships underway or at anchor are a source for a range of unavoidable emissions and wastes such as engine exhaust gases, effluent from sewage treatment systems and discharges from oily water filtering systems. Routine ship operations also generate wastes such as garbage and oily wastes. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has developed a range of international agreements addressing ship waste management and marine environment protection which apply in Australian waters. The core element of these is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1978 and its Protocols (referred to as MARPOL7). In accordance with MARPOL, no deliberate waste disposal discharges or emissions (e.g. garbage, untreated sewage, untreated oily wastes) are permitted from ships in the GBR. The RAN has complied with MARPOL waste discharge regulations (consistent with operational and technical requirements) since the Convention first came into force. MARPOL has undergone significant expansion since the 2006 SEA in terms of the breadth of ship- sourced pollutants addressed and the stringency of regulations. These amendments include a prohibition on the disposal to sea of virtually all garbage except for food waste (and even then only in defined circumstances), as well as a range of new controls such as those on atmospheric emissions and sewage treatment standards. None of these strengthened or new MARPOL regulations have resulted in any substantive change to the ship pollution prevention requirements that applied in the GBR, particularly in the context of warships and naval auxiliaries. For example, MARPOL has always prohibited the disposal to sea of oily waste, untreated sewage and all garbage, including food waste, in the GBR. Given the high protection afforded to the GBR by MARPOL since its inception, the changes to regulations have resulted in strengthening the level of protection from ship-sourced pollution provided to other sea areas other than the GBR. These new regulatory requirements still do not approach the high level of protection already afforded to the GBR by MARPOL. Other elements of MARPOL address ship design, build standards and features, with one key element being the phasing out of tankers without 'double hull' protection around liquid cargo tanks. In response, the Navy has replaced the single-hull tanker Westralia with the double-hulled Sirius and has modified Success to a double-hull configuration.

7 MARPOL seeks to minimise pollution from the operation of ships by means of regulations concerning aspects of ship design, equipment fits, and waste management and disposal practices. The Convention is comprised of six Annexes, addressing: oil and oily wastes (Annex I); bulk noxious substances (Annex II); packaged noxious substances (Annex III); sewage (Annex IV); garbage (Annex V); and atmospheric emissions (Annex VI).

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

As well as the MARPOL controls, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1995 also imposes restrictions on the discharge to sea of various waste streams in the GBR, but does permit discharge of untreated ship-sourced sewage in some specified circumstances. Not all warships are fitted with sewage treatment plants and in many cases vessels pre-date the entry into force of MARPOL sewage regulations. The update of older vessels nearing retirement is not deemed cost-effective or practical, therefore, in recognition of this and in order to conduct realistic exercises while minimising ecological risks, special ship waste water discharge zones are usually planned for in open waters near Defence training areas. These areas are selected in consultation between Defence and GBRMPA, and participating ships are required to transit to these areas and discharge waste water while underway. Navy compliance with MARPOL and other marine environment protection conventions has been subject to a range of detailed studies considered in the context of this study. Further extensive discussion of the observation of MARPOL and related topics is presented in these subsequent reports (e.g. Polglaze 1995; Polglaze 2003; Polglaze 2013; Polglaze unpub; Polglaze and Roseblade 1996; URS/ATSA 2004), including the Review of Royal Australian Navy Ship Garbage Management (URS 2008), improvement of garbage management systems in Anzac class frigates (DMO/URS 2008) and various ship-specific compliance evaluations such as those for the new patrol boats, amphibious ships, tanker and destroyers (e.g. PGM Environment 2012a; URS 2003b; URS 2005b; URS 2006h; URS 2006i; URS 2009c; URS 2009d; URS 2009e; URS 2010e).

4.8 Consultation and Liaison Defence engages in regular consultation and information exchange with applicable regulatory agencies, particularly GBRMPA, but also the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and relevant Queensland agencies. Defence and GBRMPA schedule high level meetings on an annual basis, and a Management Agreement (2012-2016) has been established between the two agencies. Other agreements exist, such as those pertaining to Dugong Protection Areas at Shoalwater Bay and Halifax Bay and explosives training activities at Triangular Island. These efforts are augmented by effective working relationships cultivated at local, working levels between Defence representatives and applicable GBRMPA and Queensland agency officials. Consultation and liaison arrangements are facilitated by the exchange of assessment and planning documents and policies, with GBRMPA and other applicable agencies consulted during the formulation of these reviews and policies. Defence also promotes staff exchanges, secondments, and joint patrols and monitoring groups and invites GBRMPA participation in major exercise planning. In terms of community engagement, Defence maintains a number of Environmental Advisory Committees including at its sites adjacent to the GBR. Chaired by Defence, these committees generally include representatives from GBRMPA and other applicable Commonwealth and Queensland agencies, as well as local community and sectoral interests. The Committees have the objective of collaborative knowledge sharing and interchange for improving the environmental management of Defence assets and activities. One such Environmental Advisory Committee is that for Shoalwater Bay, which has been active since 1995. As a result of these efforts, GBRMPA has concluded that the knowledge and understanding of Defence activities, both within the applicable regulatory and management agencies and the wider community has been enhanced. GBRMPA (2009) further assess that these efforts have served to minimise environmental impacts on the marine environment in the GBR World Heritage Area.

4.9 Personnel Training, Induction and Awareness The ADF has initiated a program to improve environmental awareness of personnel at all levels and within all functions of the organisation. More specific training is given to personnel as required by their specialist functions.

Within the Navy, for example, marine engineering personnel are educated in MARPOL oil discharge regulations, and Officer of the Watch trainees on cetacean avoidance procedures. Training in the

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report environmental aspects of ship operations and responsibilities to mitigate potential impact is given to all Officers selected to command and administer RAN ships before joining their new ships. Analogous structures and procedures exist for RAAF and Army users of the GBR.

As well as general environmental awareness training, specific measures are also employed for personnel assigned to exercises and other training activities in the GBR. Prior to undertaking exercises in the GBR World Heritage Area, participating military personnel are required to undergo applicable, specified environmental awareness training. This typically includes general literature pertaining to Defence activities and training areas in or near the GBR, supplemented by exercise-specific materials. These environmental awareness and training processes and materials (Plate 9) include: • briefings to Exercise Command staff and the command staffs of participating units; • general and/or site specific inductions; • viewing of DVDs specifically produced and distributed to all participating units for the specific exercise; and • information cards and pamphlets.

(Defence Image Library) Plate 9: Selection of environmental awareness and briefing materials for ADF personnel operating in or near the GBR

4.10 Community Engagement As well as statutory requirements related to the activation of certain components of designated airspace and sea areas, an integral feature of the planning and conduct of Defence activities in or near the GBR, particularly large exercises, is community information and engagement. These processes are intended to inform local communities and wider society about intended activities and are the means for Defence to address any community concerns. Typical elements of the public information and community engagement efforts include: • information websites, both exercise specific and of a more general nature regarding Defence activities and Defence environmental management;

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

• Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs); • Notices to Mariners ('NOTMARs' or 'NtMs'); • advertisements and public notices in newspapers, including regional/local publications; • media releases; • public displays, both static and staffed, at key population centres such as Rockhampton and Yeppoon for major activities in Shoalwater Bay; • mail-outs of information packs to key identified and registered interested persons and groups; • public briefings in key population centres; • the opportunity to formally comment on statutory environmental assessment documents as may be applicable to a specific exercise; and • freecall telephone numbers providing information and/or a means of making enquiries or submitting complaints, comments or other feedback. Range safety requirements dictate the promulgation of public notices informing the public (including aviators and mariners) about Defence activities and associated safety issues. The Defence public affairs organisation also uses print and electronic media to advise the public of impending activities.

Larger exercises typically have an individual media effort, involving press briefings and media demonstrations. Media releases and briefings also address the environmental assessment and management processes engaged by Defence in the planning and conduct of the exercise.

In addition, Parliamentarians, members of the public and interest groups use the Commonwealth Parliamentary process to enquire about Defence environmental management. Queries may take the form of Ministerial correspondence, Parliamentary questions or briefings to Parliamentary committees.

4.11 Defence Supported Environmental Research In order to improve environmental knowledge and reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes from Defence activities, Defence actively undertakes or provides assistance for research tasks aimed at improving environmental knowledge of Australia’s maritime areas.

Some avenues by which this is achieved are:

• targeted research projects undertaken by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) and Defence’s Environment Branch;

• hydrographic survey and oceanographic research undertaken by the marine science ships and aircraft of the RAN's Australian Hydrographic Service;

• compilation of environmental data (e.g. bathythermographic profiles, whale sightings, whale vocalisations, weather observations) gathered by ADF ships and aircraft;

• tailored research and monitoring tasks, such as:

- the abundance and distribution of beaked whales in the Coral Sea adjacent to the GBR;

- the abundance and distribution of various turtle species within Shoalwater Bay;

- the effects upon dugongs and turtles from Defence explosive training activities in Shoalwater Bay;

- the ecology of dugongs in Shoalwater Bay;

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

- noise exposure from aircraft;

- underwater acoustic propagation characteristics and deterministic factors;

- the risks of RAN ships acting as vectors for exotic marine pests; and

• research attached to environmental assessment of and environmental planning for major exercises, new procedures and the employment of new weapon systems and sensors.

Defence provides other financial and material to independent researchers and academic institutions.

4.12 Alternative Fuels Evaluation Although the ADF is a relatively inconsequential contributor to greenhouse gas emissions at both national and global scales, the ADF, spearheaded by Navy, has initiated a program to trial alternative fuels. This is based upon use of biofuels from renewable sources blended with standard petroleum fuels, and has been embarked upon in collaboration with a U.S. Department of Defense program intended to achieve a general use of 50/50 biofuel blends by 2020. The RAN has been trialling renewable fuels for use in ships and helicopters, with eventual adoption based upon cost, reliability, availability and performance requirements. Similarly, the RAAF has indicated the intention to explore the use of alternative fuels for their aircraft which have a civil aviation lineage (e.g. the civil B737 and RAAF B737 VIP transports, E-7A Wedegtail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft, and the planned P-8A Poseidon Maritime Patrol aircraft; the A330 and the RAAF KC-30A tanker/transport) and hence the latitude to leverage off commercial aviation developments and testing programs. If these and parallel initiatives prove successful, it should be anticipated that the ADF will introduce alternative fuels as suitable replacements become commercially available, consistent with technical, logistic, cost and operational imperatives.

4.13 Use of the GBR World Heritage Area by Visiting Foreign Forces Foreign naval (Plate 10), and to a lesser extent, air units regularly conduct exercise activities within the GBR, either on an independent national basis or in company with ADF units.

(Sealy) Plate 10: Surface units of the United States Navy underway in the Great Barrier Reef during exercises with the RAN

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

These uses may be simple activities such as passage exercises and Naval Gunfire Support serials or narrower-focus joint exercises such as those in the Dugong or Lungfish series, or multi-facet joint exercises such as the Sea Lion and Talisman Saber series. Under bilateral Government agreement, Singapore undertakes independent national exercises within the GBR, at Shoalwater Bay. The most frequent users of the GBR are units of the United States Navy (USN) and the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN). Singaporean land and air forces regularly train in Shoalwater Bay, but rarely with a maritime component. As occurs when Australian air and naval units visit overseas locations, foreign forces visiting Australia are entitled to exercise their sovereign prerogatives when conducting activities in the GBR. These are well established norms and principles in international law and are reflected in international agreements such as MARPOL. In general terms, Australian laws only apply to sovereign military units to the extent defined in any extant Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). In practice, foreign military forces transiting or exercising in the GBR generally observe the same, or analogous, environmental management controls as apply to Australian units and so do not usually represent any significant or permanent environmental risks. Although there is much commonality between ADF equipment and activities (in environmental management terms) there are some differences between Australian and foreign forces. The SEA considers use of the GBR World Heritage Area and contiguous areas by foreign forces mainly in an incidental sense, primarily because most foreign military activities are conducted as a component of, and in concert, with Australian military units and Australian exercises. Where there are activities or equipment unique to the visiting foreign forces, such as nuclear powered warships and hovercraft, these are specifically addressed by the 2006 SEA (URS 2006a). There may, however, be a periodic requirement for some foreign military activities to be considered discretely. This is achieved via internal Defence environmental assessment processes, within the framework of EPBC Act requirements. In such circumstances, the SEA and other standard Defence environmental management procedures provide substantial guidance for the assessment of potential environmental significance and the application of appropriate risk mitigation measures. Where warranted, specific environmental assessments are conducted, such as for independent Singapore national exercises in the Wallaby series (URS 2009a).

4.14 Discussion and Summary The (draft) Commonwealth strategic assessment (GBRMPA 2013) concluded that Defence activities within the GBR are well planned and well resourced and that the record of incidents causing environmental harm to the Marine Park indicates that adverse effects requiring any form of management response are very rare. This was attributed to ADF adherence to effective standard operating procedures and contingency plans covering all military activities, with incidents promptly reported and closely investigated. Nevertheless, GBRMPA (2013) concluded that Defence activities do inevitably have some inherent, temporary, unavoidable risks which must be continually monitored and managed. Consistent with the 2006 SEA (URS 2006a), GBRMPA assessed that the potential impact of greatest concern is the introduction of marine pests, but noted that the ADF employs stringent quarantine measures to reduce the likelihood of incursion.

The (draft) Commonwealth strategic assessment (GBRMPA 2013) reinforced the 2006 SEA conclusion (URS 2006a) that there are potential impacts from Defence activities at a local scale, but further noted that some may have an effect at the regional scale. Those issues identified of possible concern at local scale or regional scales by GBRMPA (2013) included:

• debris and residue from expendable stores such as ordnance casings or sonobuoys;

• death, injury or disruption to marine life from explosives;

• disturbance to marine animals from loud or low-flying aircraft;

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

• discharge of sewage, food scraps and other wastes from ships;

• oil spill from a ship grounding or collision; and

• loss of civilian life or property, particularly if civilians stray into Defence training areas when exercises are taking place.

While some of the above risks may exist on a temporary basis, all are subject to a range of controls such that the residual risk is managed and is generally negligible or otherwise considered low. For example, the risk of disturbance from loud or low flying aircraft over land and sea (Plate 11) has also been the subject of detailed studies and analyses (e.g. O'Neill and Holmes 2001; URS 2003a; URS 2006b; URS 2006g; URS 2009f; URS 2010b; PGM Environment / Eco Logical Australia 2012; Zhang et al. 2003). These studies have consistently demonstrated such risks to be minimal and attenuated by the observation of comprehensive, standard ADF mitigation measures.

(Sikorsky) Plate 11: A helicopter in low level hover. Some in-water noise is generated, but the risks to sensitive marine fauna are localised and minimised by standard ADF mitigation measures The disposal to sea of food scraps within the GBR has been prohibited by MARPOL since 1990, and it has been Navy policy to comply with that requirement since that time. Similarly, the discharge of sewage effluent from RAN ships in the GBR introduces inconsequential quantities of nutrients and contaminants compared with those arising from natural and other anthropogenic sources (measured in the thousands and tens of thousands of tonnes per annum: Department of the Premier and Cabinet 2009) such that the likelihood of regional-scale effects is implausible (see the discussion of ship- sourced sewage discharges within the GBR in PGM Environment 2012b). At the local scale, any risk would be diminished by the standard procedures employed by Defence and endorsed by GBRMPA such that only inconsequential, temporary effects, if any, may be expected. The possibility of loss of civilian life in Defence training areas is acknowledged. Given the extensive suite of range control and safety procedures observed by Defence, the probability is extremely low with testament provided by the lack of such incidents in military training areas - air, sea and land - throughout Australia.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

5. EVALUATION OF EXISTING AND FUTURE RISKS TO THE GREAT BARRIER REEF WORLD HERITAGE AREA FROM DEFENCE ACTIVITIES Following comprehensive evaluation and extensive consultation, the 2006 SEA (URS 2006a) concluded that: Defence activities in the GBR World Heritage Area represent minimal risk of causing significant and adverse environmental outcomes. The risks that do exist can be readily managed by prudent planning and the adherence to reasonable risk recognition, avoidance and mitigation procedures. Conversely, Defence activities in the GBR World Heritage Area have been demonstrated to improve the protection and conservation of components of the World Heritage values by both direct and indirect means. On balance, it may be concluded that Defence activities and presence within the GBR World Heritage Area have an effectively neutral to positive effect upon World Heritage values. Having reviewed new and prospective Defence activities, updated knowledge and understanding of the GBR and its systems, and the emerging future management regime and expectations for the GBR World Heritage Area, the 2014 update of the Defence SEA derived the same conclusion. However, Defence management of activities in the GBR World Heritage Area will need to continue to evolve, given that known and forecast extant and future risks to the ongoing condition and functioning of the GBR will place greater onus on Defence only effectively manage its activities and be able to demonstrate the effectiveness of management measures. Compounding this challenge will be the predicted deterioration in the condition of the GBR and a parallel decrease in its resilience due to factors such as climate change, severe weather events, agricultural run-off, resource developments and urbanisation. The associated management emphasis on Defence will be to successfully demonstrate to regulators, policy makers and other observers that the effect of Defence activities on the function and integrity of the GBR is negligible or, where some deleterious effect is unavoidable, such effects are non-significant, temporary, localised, efficiently managed and consistent with environmental laws and the National interest. The data review for the SEA and the associated risk evaluation meeting, identified that in terms of current activities, both training and operational, Defence posed no substantive risk to the ecological integrity and functioning of the GBR World Heritage Area. Specific themes evaluated during the risk evaluation were: oil spills and response; major exercises; activities in the littoral; climate change and implications for Defence; encroachment into the Shoalwater Bay Training Area; unexploded ordnance (UXO); and identification and management of Defence-related items and locations of heritage significance. The risk evaluation also reviewed and re-evaluated the 14 risk issues identified in the 2006 SEA (URS 2006a) within a contemporary risk evaluation framework. The issues from the 2006 SEA were: • operation of United States Navy LCACs (Landing, Craft, Air Cushion; i.e. hovercraft); • use of sonar; • ship collision; • ship grounding; • hull fouling; • ballast water; • hydrographic survey; • oil spill during refuelling; • nuclear powered warships;

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

• aircraft ditching; • low level flying; • explosives training; • residual debris from the use of expendable military stores; and • exclusion of civil activities during or arising from Defence activities When the 14 risk items identified in the 2006 SEA were reviewed, the consistent conclusion was that the individual risk profiles had remained the same, if not decreased, in the intervening period, with this assessment taking account of applicable risk management measures, including new or revised procedures adopted by Defence. An example of the latter are the measures for the environmental risk mitigation of certain hydrographic survey procedures, the need for which was identified during the process of development of the 2006 SEA. Of particular interest in terms of the re-evaluation of the risks identified in the 2005 risk review exercise are the conclusions concerning ship-sourced sewage. The risk evaluation presented in the 2006 SEA report noted that while ship-sourced sewage effluent did present a risk of localised deleterious effects, it was further assessed that the forecast evolutionary improvement in ship sewage treatment capabilities would diminish this effect over time. When re-considered in 2013 within the context of the declining state of the inner areas of the GBR, and the forecast of more frequent presence of large Australian amphibious ships with their greater volumes of discharges, some uncertainty emerged regarding the future character of this risk. While still of the opinion that sewage discharges in the GBR from RAN and visiting warships were unlikely to have any long-term, significant effect, it was concluded that further research and monitoring would be prudent, possibly leading to the development and adoption of further controls particularly around the Shoalwater Bay and Cowley Beach Training Areas. These controls may entail, for example, designated anchorage zones within which treated effluent discharges would be less likely to result in localised adverse effects. This theme of reduced certainty in the future about the environmental effects from Defence activities underpinned additional risk items identified through the process of the 2014 SEA update. While no specific, significant adverse effects could be identified, emerging elements of environmental risk of Defence activities in the future related to: • increased persistence, frequency, tempo, range of scales and distribution of Defence training activities in or near the GBR, as a result of the acquisition and use of amphibious and littoral warfare capabilities; • possible cumulative and persistent impacts of these forecast expanded Defence activities, particularly in the context of other developments in or near the GBR, and the effect that these will have individually and cumulatively on the GBR World Heritage Area; • recorded deterioration in the ecological quality and function of the GBR in general, primarily related to water quality and localised loss and alteration of habitat, compounded by climate change and associated processes; and • expected enhancement of the conservation status of more isolated sections of the GBR World Heritage Area, particularly Shoalwater Bay, as ecological refuges and scientific reference areas and follow-on consequences for environmental management and monitoring of Defence activities to continue to meet the expectations of policy makers, regulators and the public. Whilst the scale, tempo and frequency of Defence activities in the GBR is expected to increase, the frequency and size of major Defence training activities is not predicted to change to any great extent. This is based upon the field training capacity of the land elements of Shoalwater Bay which places a ceiling on the number of troops and supporting elements able to exercise effectively at any one time and the frequency of such large scale exercises. Although some modest expansion is realistic,

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report fundamentally it is predicted that the bulk of amphibious activities will transition from United States Navy to RAN units as a result of the enhanced capability afforded by the new RAN amphibious ships. It is recognised that some Defence activities present potential for unavoidable, adverse effects. These are of a localised, temporary and non-permanent nature within specifically designated zones within declared Defence practice areas. The low spatial and temporal scales of Defence activities, coupled with the adoption and effective implementation of prudent risk management measures has the effect of limiting the likelihood and consequence of possible related adverse outcomes. An example of these sorts of activities is in-water explosives training conducted at Triangular Island in the Shoalwater Bay. Defence has coordinated and funded significant research effort to better understand the potential effects of this training upon turtles and dugongs and work is continuing. Notwithstanding more than 30 years of in-water explosives training and other Defence activities, Shoalwater Bay has retained its status as preferred dugong habitat. No Defence activities are assessed as compromising the World Heritage values of the GBR. Conversely, a number of species, communities and locations are specifically protected from risk and other influences directly as a result of the Defence presence in the GBR, particularly in Shoalwater Bay where the documented positive ecological integrity of the area is directly attributable to Defence control. This has the collateral effect of the exclusion from that area of many degrading influences found elsewhere in the GBR. It is worth considering that although Shoalwater Bay is a military training area, it is also a designated Dugong Protection Area (Plate 12), a Ramsar wetland and recognised significant turtle habitat, none of which indicate any sense of compromise. This 'sanctuary' benefit of Defence presence was demonstrated following the severe storm damage and flooding in the summer of 2010/11 including Tropical Cyclone Yasi in February 2011, which collectively destroyed corals and seagrass over wide areas of the GBR. This subsequently led to an observed concentration of turtle and dugong populations in Shoalwater Bay after other habitat areas had been degraded.

(ABC / GBRMPA 2014) Plate 12: Dugong in the GBR: Inset - Shoalwater Bay and Port Clinton Dugong Protection Area As well as the latent benefit of Defence presence as concluded in the 2006 SEA, Defence activities in the GBR also occasion national benefits. These include enhanced national security and international relations (from exercising with allied forces), economic development, biosecurity, hydrographic survey and border protection and surveillance operations.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

A summary of the documented, emergent and forecast threats to the ecological integrity and function of the GBR World Heritage Area as defined by GBRMPA (2007; 2009; and 2013) and the linkages with Defence activities is presented in Table 1. Table 1: Current and Emergent Threats to the GBR in Relation to Defence Activities THREAT TO THE GBR RELATION TO DEFENCE ACTIVITIES Crown-of-thorns starfish No linkage Climate change and associated No substantive linkage, although undisturbed areas in or near the effects (e.g. ocean acidification, GBR, such as Shoalwater Bay, will attain greater conservation severe weather events) significance. Water quality No substantive linkage, although ship sewage discharges will result in minor, temporary, localised and non-persistent episodes of degraded water quality. Undisturbed catchments feeding the GBR, such as Shoalwater Bay, will attain greater conservation significance. Habitat loss and alteration No substantive linkage, although undisturbed areas such as Shoalwater Bay, will attain greater conservation significance. Increased use of GBR (e.g. Will lead to encroachment pressure on Defence practice areas and shipping, boating, tourism) potential mutual interference in sea and airspace. Introduced marine pests Potential linkage with Defence activities. Managed by effective control of biofouling and ballast water vectors associated with Navy ships and boats and Army watercraft.

From Table 1 it is evident that Defence is a negligible contributor to the recognised threats to the GBR. Indeed, Defence presence in the GBR, in the form of large Defence training areas, provides a buffering capacity to some important portions of the GBR World Heritage Area exposed to these catalogued threats. In summary, Defence activities do not present any substantive risk to the World Heritage-related Outstanding Universal Values of the GBR, nor its constituent parts. The changing profile of Defence activities in the short to mid-term will coincide with predicted further deterioration of a currently compromised ecological system. These dynamic influences and state of vulnerability of the receiving environment indicate that Defence will need to continue to expend resources to ensure its environmental management efforts in the GBR World Heritage Area remain effective. Accordingly, it is suggested that elements of such future efforts may be categorised as: • Effective oversight of Defence activities in the GBR World Heritage Area, particularly as the ADF develops, trains, and exercises its new equipment, doctrine and procedures, individually and collectively. • Improved data capture, recording and monitoring of Defence activities in the GBR World Heritage Area. • Greater research effort to better understand and describe ecological and biophysical character, processes and functions of elements of the GBR exposed to potential risk from Defence activities, with particular emphasis upon the Shoalwater Bay Training Area. • Periodic review and evaluation of Defence activities in the GBR World Heritage Area and their management. This would be concomitant with continued engagement with regulatory agencies and research bodies. As well as managing Defence activities into the future, it is apparent that the history of Defence activities in or near the GBR has established a number of legacy issues which also require some attention. These can be categorised into two main elements, namely recognition and management of

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report potential hazards to the environment and public safety as a result of unexploded munitions and preservation of Defence-related heritage items and values. With regard to the former, during and after World War II, allied Defence forces used many sites throughout Australia for encampments, field training, live firing of weapons and other military activities. Some of these activities resulted in the dumping of unexploded ordnance (UXO) within the GBR. Defence is proactive in cleaning previously affected UXO areas and has a National UXO Office which implements the Commonwealth UXO Policy. The National UXO Office gathers and disseminates information to the public to assist with the safe management of land and sea areas that may be subject to UXO contamination. The publicly available Defence UXO website8 provides information, advice and education regarding safety issues related to UXO and communication details to report UXO. The website instructs members of the public who may encounter potential UXO to contact their local Police, who will arrange for Defence UXO specialists to attend and appropriately deal with the item(s). Defence has in place an organisational structure that effectively manages the risk of UXO contamination, including that within the GBR. In 2013, Defence investigated the presence of World War II UXO found in the GBR. Using physical and biological sampling methods, no elevated concentrations of potential contaminants were found. Defence is using this investigation as a pilot study and will continue to manage any emerging UXO presence. As result of the management structures in place to manage and remediated any UXO, the risk to the GBR is considered low. With regards to heritage, items and locations of Defence heritage significance are understood to exist throughout the GBR, contributing to the overall historical heritage fabric of the GBR. Defence is in the process of assessing heritage values across the Defence estate to determine which places need to be acknowledged, managed and conserved. Defence aims to understand the heritage values of its estate, including training areas with natural and Indigenous heritage values as well as any built properties. Defence has a dedicated Heritage and Biodiversity Conservation Directorate and several management tools that provide information and guidance on the heritage conservation objectives of Defence and associated processes9.

8 Found at: www.defence.gov.au/uxo/index.asp 9 These tools include a Defence Heritage Strategy, a Heritage Toolkit and Heritage Reports which can be accessed at: www.defence.gov.au/environment/heritage.htm.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

6. CONCLUSIONS In its consideration of Defence activities, the GBRMPA Outlook Report (2009) concluded: Defence activities in the Great Barrier Reef directly contribute to the training and operations of Australia's defence services and the majority have negligible impacts on the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem. and: The limited area of Defence operations and high level of performance in minimising potential environmental impacts means Defence activities in the Great Barrier Reef Region pose minimal threat to the Reef. The comprehensive review of Defence activities in the GBR World Heritage Area undertaken in the formulation of the 2014 SEA indicates that this conclusion is still valid. This finding is further reinforced by both the Commonwealth strategic assessment (GBRMPA 2013), as well as the UNESCO/IUCN GBR mission report (2012) which made no adverse comment or findings with regard to Defence activities, but noted the 'pristine' condition of Shoalwater Bay. Further support for this conclusion can be drawn from the Queensland Government's (draft) strategic assessment of the land component adjacent to the GBR (DSDIP 2013), which did not identify or articulate Defence activities as any particular issue of concern with regard to the long-term conservation of the GBR. However, in order for the above international and national assessments of Defence environmental management in the GBR to remain at this effective level (particularly in the face of changing Defence operational methods and physical and biological threats to GBR ecosystems), Defence will be required to continue to: • appropriately assess and manage its activities to recognise, eliminate or ameliorate latent and emerging environmental risks; • improve the understanding of the effects of Defence activities on dynamic receiving environments; and • effectively demonstrate and communicate these outcomes and processes to regulators and the public. It is considered that this framework of responsible stewardship will provide an effective and sustainable means by which Defence will be able to continue to operate and train in the GBR World Heritage Area with minimal substantive or long-term adverse environmental effects and fulfil the ADF's nationally-mandated mission.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

GLOSSARY

ADF Australian Defence Force AEW&C Airborne Early Warning and Control AMSA Australian Maritime Safety Authority ASW Anti-Submarine Warfare AWD Air Warfare Destroyer DSDIP Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning DSTO Defence Science and Technology Organisation EMG Environmental Monitoring Group EMP Environmental Management Plan EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 GBR Great Barrier Reef - for the purposes of this report, the area incorporating the inshore and offshore reef areas, coast and bays, and river catchments of central and northern Queensland. GBR Region Great Barrier Reef Region – the prescribed area within which the GBR Marine Park can be declared. GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority HMAS Her Majesty's Australian Ship IMO International Maritime Organization IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature LADS Laser Airborne Depth Sounder LCAC Landing Craft, Air Cushion LHD Landing ship, Helicopter, Dock LSD Landing Ship, Dock MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships MNES Matter of National Environmental Significance NOTAM Notice to Airmen NOTMAR Notice to Mariners (see also 'NtM') NtM Notice to Mariners (see also 'NOTMAR') PGM Precision Guided Munition QPWS Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

RAAF Royal Australian Air Force RAN Royal Australian Navy REA Rapid Environmental Assessment REEFVTS Great Barrier Reef and Torres Strait Vessel Traffic Service RNZN Royal New Zealand Navy RSOs Range Standing Orders SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SOFA Status of Forces Agreement UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization USN United States Navy USV Unmanned Surface Vehicle UUV Unmanned Underwater Vehicle UXO Unexploded Ordnance VIP Very Important Person

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

REFERENCES

ADF (2002) Aircraft Stores Compatibility Engineering Agency Air Armament File. RAAF Base Edinburgh, South Australia. AECOM (2012). Preliminary Risk Assessment: Munitions Disposal Areas at John Brewer Reef, Queensland. Report prepared for Department of Defence. Airservices Australia (2013a). Designated Airspace Handbook: Effective 30 May 2013. Airservices Australia, Canberra. Airservices Australia (2013b). En Route Supplement Australia: Effective 14 November 2013. Airservices Australia, Canberra. Beasley, I., Robertson, K.M. and Arnold, P. (2005). Description of a new dolphin: The Australian snubfin dolphin Orcaella heinsohni sp.n. (Cetacea, Delphinidae). Marine Mammal Science. 21(3):365- 400. Box P, Marian F & D Weise (2002). Shoalwater Bay Defence Training Area Dugong Marine Research Program: Underwater Blast Measurements. DSTO Report DSTO-TR-1024, DSTO Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Melbourne. Commonwealth of Australia (1994). Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry, Shoalwater Bay Capricornia Coast, Queensland: Final Report, Report No. 3. Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry into the Shoalwater Bay Area, Capricornia Coast, Queensland, Canberra, Australia. Commonwealth of Australia, (2009). Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Commonwealth of Australia (2012). Annual Australian Notices to Mariners (in force on 1 January 2012). DAFF (2009a). National Biofouling Management Guidance for Non-Trading Vessels. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, April 2009. DAFF (2009b). National Biofouling Management Guidance for Commercial Vessels. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, January 2009. DAFF (2011). Proposed Australian Biofouling Management Requirements: Consultation Regulation Impact Statement. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, December 2011. Defence (2003). Chemical Warfare Agent Sea Dumping off Australia. Defence Publishing Service, Canberra. Defence (2004). Defence Capability Plan 2004 - 2014: Public Version. Department of Defence, Canberra. Defence (2009a). Defence Environmental Strategic Plan 2010-2014. Department of Defence, Canberra. Defence (2009b). Defence Capability Plan 2009: Public Version. Department of Defence, Canberra. Defence (2009c). State of the Environment Report for Shoalwater Bay Training Area 2008. Department of Defence, Canberra. Defence (2011). Defence Capability Plan 2011: Public Version. Department of Defence, Canberra. Defence (2012a). Defence Capability Plan 2012: Public Version. Department of Defence, Canberra. Defence (2012b). 2012 Training Area Strategic Plan. Department of Defence, Canberra. Defence (2013). Defence White Paper 2013. Department of Defence, Canberra.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

Department of the Environment (2013). Department of the Environment, Australian Government. www.environment.gov.au. Department of the Navy (1944). Notice to Mariners: Notice No. 1042, Dated 13th October 1944. Commonwealth of Australia. Department of the Premier and Cabinet (2009). Reef Water Quality Protection Plan 2009. Queensland Government, Brisbane. D’Amico, A, Gisiner, RC, Ketten, DR, Hammock, JA, Johnson, C, Tyack, PL and Mead, J (2009). Beaked whale strandings and naval exercises. Aquatic Mammals 2009, 35(4), pp. 452-472. D’Amico, A and Pittenger, R (2009). A brief history of active sonar. Aquatic Mammals 2009, 35(4), pp. 426-434. DSDIP (2013). Great Barrier Reef Coastal Zone Strategic Assessment: Program Report - Draft for Consultation. Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning. DMO/URS (2008). Anzac Class Frigates: Configuration Change Proposal - Solid Waste Management. DSTO (2004). Environmental Mitigation Ranges Around Australia. Defence Science and Technology Organisation Systems Sciences Laboratory, Australia. DSTO (2009). Mitigation Modelling of the Leeuwin Class Hydrographic Sonars in Shoalwater Bay. Defence Science and Technology Organisation Systems Sciences Laboratory, Australia. Efroymson RA, Nemeth S & Suter GW (2000). Ecological Risk Assessment Framework for Low Altitude Overflights by Fixed-Wing and Rotary-Wing Military Aircraft. Report ORNL/TM-2000/289, ES-5048, Department of Defense. ELA (2013). Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment. Prepared for the Abbot Point Working Group. Filadelfo, R, Mintz, J, Michlovich, E, D’Amico, A, Tyack, PL and Ketten, DR (2009). Correlating military sonar use with beaked whale mass strandings: What do the historical data show? Aquatic Mammals 2009, 35(4), pp. 435-444. Filadelfo, R, Pinelis, YK, Davis, S, Chase, R, Mintz, J, Wolfanger, J, Tyack, PL, Ketten, DR and D’Amico, A (2009). Correlating whale strandings with navy exercises off southern California. Aquatic Mammals 2009, 35(4), pp. 445-451. GBRMPA (2007). GBRMPA (2007b). Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Action Plan 2007-2012. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. GBRMPA (2009). Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. GBRMPA (2012). Great Barrier Reef Statement of Universal Value. Presented to UNESCO World Heritage Committee June 2012. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. GBRMPA (2013). Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment: Strategic Assessment Report - Draft for Public Comment. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. GBRMPA (2014). Special Management Areas. http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/zoning-permits-and- plans/special-management-areas, 20 January 2014. Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc. & Hagler Bailly Consulting (2001). Mitigating the Effects of Military Aircraft Overflights on Park Users. Presentation to the International Military Noise Conference, Baltimore, April 24-26, 2001. ITOPF (2002). Fate of Marine Oil Spills. International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited,

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

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. Lewis, J. A. (1996a). Effects of Underwater Sound on Marine Fish and Mammals. DSTO Report to Department of Defence, DSTO Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory, Melbourne. Lewis, J.A. (1996b). Effects of Underwater Explosions on Life in the Sea. Defence Science and Technology Organisation. (DSTO-GD-0080). O’Neill, P & Holmes, N (2001). ‘Responses of feeding and roosting shorebirds in Canoe Passage to low-flying aircraft using Townshend Island bombing (sic) range’. Draft report to SWBTA EAC. Parra, G., Schick, R., & Corkeron, P. (2006). Spatial distribution and environmental correlates of Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins. Ecography 29: 396–406. PGM Environment (2012a). Hobart Class Air Warfare Destroyer: Ballast Water Risk Evaluation. Report prepared for AWD Alliance. PGM Environment (2012b). Great Barrier Reef Shipping: Review of Environmental Implications. Report prepared for BHP Billiton. PGM Environment (2013). Navy Unmanned Systems: Preliminary Environmental Review. Report prepared for Fleet Headquarters. PGM Environment / 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. Plunkett G. (2003). A History of Sea Dumping off Australia and its Territories. Environment Protection Group, Environment Australia. Polglaze, J.F. (1995). Characterisation of the Waste Stream and the On-site Vermicomposting of Food Wastes Generated in Ships of the Royal Australian Navy. Murdoch University, Perth. Polglaze, J.F. (2003). Can we always ignore ship-generated food waste? Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol 46 : pp. 33 – 38. Polglaze, J.F. (2013). Ship Garbage Audits – HMA Ships: Adelaide (FFG-01); Betano (L-133); Bundaberg (ACPB-91); Diamantina (M-86); Sirius (O-266). Report prepared for Directorate of Navy Platform Systems. Polglaze, J.F. (unpublished). Waste generation onboard HMAS Otama. November 1998. Polglaze, J.F. & Roseblade R.J. (1996). Garbage Audit Onboard HMAS Brisbane. Report prepared for the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. Richardson, W.J., Greene, C.R., Malme, C.I. & Thomson, D.H. (1995). Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego. 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. 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 (2001a). Shoalwater Bay Defence Training Area Dugong Research Program – Stage One Final Report and Recommendations. Prepared for the Directorate of Environmental Stewardship, Department of Defence.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

URS (2001b). Shoalwater Bay Defence Training Area Dugong Research Program – Stage Two Final Report and Recommendations. Prepared for the Directorate of Environmental Stewardship, Department of Defence. URS (2002a). Shoalwater Bay Defence Training Area Dugong Marine Research Program. Phase III Final Report. Unpublished report by URS Australia Pty Ltd for Directorate of Environmental Stewardship, Department of Defence. URS (2002b). Report on Management of Hull Fouling and Fouling Control Coatings on Collins Class Submarines at Fleet Base West with Further Consideration of Marine Pest Risks Represented by Ballast Water and Hull Fouling in All FBW Fleet Units, and the Environmental Acceptability of In – water Maintenance of Antifouling Coatings in Careening Bay. August 2002. Report prepared for Department of Defence. URS (2003a). Environmental Management Plan for Australian Maritime Exercise Areas: Phase 1 - Initial Environmental Review. Report prepared for Department of Defence. URS (2003b). Environmental Review of Replacement Patrol Boat (Project SEA 1444) Specifications. Report prepared for Department of Defence. URS (2005a). The Effects of Defence Activities on Triangular Island and its Environment, Shoalwater Bay, Queensland. Report prepared for Department of Defence. URS (2005b). Environmental Review of Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment (ADAS) Capability (Project JP 2048, Phases 4A/4B) Specifications Phase 1: Review of Design Specification and Submitted Designs. Report prepared for Defence Materiel Organisation. URS (2006a). 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 (2006b). Royal Australian Air Force Aircraft Operations Environmental Management Plan - Stage 1: Gap Analysis and Scoping Study. Report prepared for Royal Australian Air Force. URS (2006c). Environmental Review of Amphibious Deployment and Sustainment (ADAS) Capability (Project JP 2048, Phases 4A/4B) Specifications Phase 2: Environmental Assessment of Amphibious Platforms in Services. Report prepared for Defence Materiel Organisation. URS (2006d). Environmental Review of NUSHIP SIRIUS - Maritime Operations Support Capability: Auxiliary Oiler (AO) (Project SEA 1654, Phase 2A). Report prepared for Defence Materiel Organisation. URS (2006e). Biofouling Survey of RAN Ships and Submarines: Part 1 – Summary Report. Report prepared for Department of Defence. URS (2006f). Biofouling Survey of RAN Ships and Submarines: Part 2 – Inspection Report. Report prepared for Department of Defence. URS (2006g). Project JP66 Phase 1 Replacement Aerial Target Systems: Environmental Review. Report prepared for Capability Development Group, Department of Defence. URS (2007). Royal Australian Navy Ballast Water Compliance Review. Report prepared Royal Australian Navy. URS (2008). Review of Royal Australian Navy Ship Garbage Management. Report prepared Royal Australian Navy. URS (2009a). Environmental Assessment of Proposed Republic of Singapore Navy Activities for Wallaby Series Exercises. Report prepared for Department of Defence.

Strategic Environmental Assessment of Defence Activities in the GBRWHA, 2014: Update Report

URS (2009b). Australian Defence Force Maritime Activities Environmental Management Plan. Report prepared for Department of Defence. URS (2009c). AWD Environmental Compliance Issues Report: Sewage Treatment. Report prepared for AWD Alliance. URS (2009d). AWD Environmental Compliance Issues Report: Diesel Engine Emissions. Report prepared for AWD Alliance. URS (2009e). AWD Environmental Compliance Issues Report: Ballast Water. Report prepared for AWD Alliance. URS (2009f). AIR 9000 Phase 7: Helicopter Aircrew Training System (HATS) Capability and Facilities: Environmental Issues Paper. Report prepared for Defence Materiel Organisation. URS (2010a). RAAF Air Activities Environmental Management Plan. Report prepared for the Royal Australian Air Force. URS (2010b). AIR 9000 Phases 4 and 6: MRH90: Initial Environmental Review. Report prepared for Defence Materiel Organisation. URS (2010c). SEA 4000: Air Warfare Destroyer Undersea Warfare System: Environmental Evaluation. Report prepared for AWD Alliance. URS (2010d). Triangular Island Maritime Warfare Facility Construction: Environmental Review and Management Framework. Report prepared for Department of Defence. URS (2010e). Air Warfare Destroyer Environmental Compliance Review. Report prepared for AWD Alliance. URS/ATSA (2004). HMA Ships Kanimbla and Manoora Engineering Investigation Report – IAW CME 50003/04 Dated 5 March 2004: LPA Solid Waste Disposal System Investigation. Report prepared for AASSPO. USAF (2002). Environmental Assessment for the West Coast Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Beddown. United States Air Force Headquarters Air Combat Command, USA. WBM Oceanics and Claridge (1997). Guidelines for Managing Visitation to Seabird Breeding Islands. Report prepared for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and Environment Australia- Biodiversity Group. 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.

Eco Logical Australia 51 Amelia Street Fortitude Valley QLD 4006

Tel: (07) 3503 7193

PGM Environment PO Box 7087 Safety Bay WA 6169 Australia

Tel: 61 (0)417 123 442