Submission to the Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone

A member group of Lock the Gate Alliance www.savethereef.net.au Dr Andrew Jeremijenko [email protected] 0438372653 Chad Kirby [email protected] Dr Libby Connors [email protected] 0429487110 Gladstone Review Secretariat PO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Email: [email protected] Submission to the Independent Review of the Port of Gladstone Thank you for this opportunity to make a submission. Save the Reef would like to respond to points a) to e) of the terms of reference. a) all previous review findings and information used as a basis for the current approvals for development in the Port of Gladstone; Save the Reef has concerns about the approvals process. There is the suspicion that pressure has been applied at all levels from the inception of the idea, where World Heritage Status and the Outstanding Universal Value of Gladstone harbour and Curtis Island was not properly accounted, through to the Environmental Impact Statements that minimised the environmental sensitivity of the area and did not adequately assess the risks, through to the approval process at both state and federal levels. Coordinator-General Decision-Making Process Three CSG/LNG plants are currently being constructed on Curtis Island. Additionally, the statutory authority, Gladstone Ports Corporation [GPC] is undertaking major coal terminal expansion and preparatory work for potential additional csg/LNG plants on the mainland. In order to support this infrastructure Gladstone Ports Corporation is undertaking the largest dredging operation ever attempted in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The Ports Corporation plans to dredge 46 million cubic tonnes from Gladstone Harbour and the LNG sites. Much of the spoil dug up in that dredge is being stored behind a newly constructed 8-kilometre wall right opposite the World Heritage listed Curtis Island. This area used to contain precious seagrass. The scale of the dredging and the possibility the dredge spoil could contain contaminants rang alarm bells for many environmental scientists. The excess spoil has been dumped in an ocean disposal site 400 metres from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Park Authority's chairman, Dr Russell Reichelt from GBRMPA regarded the dumping of dredge spoils as not acceptable in the World Heritage property and gave that advice to the department. This advice was ignored and the decision was taken to proceed. In early 2009 the projects (CSG/LNG Plants and Western Basin Dredging) were declared to be projects of state significance. Environmental impact statements were undertaken and reviewed by the Queensland Coordinator-General. The Commonwealth Environment Minister also determined whether the projects would be approved. The projects were referred to him under • Sections 12 and 15A (world heritage properties) • Sections 15B and 15C (national heritage places) • Sections 18 and 18A (listed threatened species and communities) • Sections 20 and 20A (listed migratory species). The projects were approved by the Coordinator General, and later the Federal Commissioner for Sustainability Environment Water Population and Communities (SEWPaC). It was reported in the Courier Mail that there may have been political pressure applied to approve the CSG projects and the Western Basin Dredging Project. It was also reported that risks associated with the projects were ignored. This was further complicated by a lack of independent audits after approvals were given. Contentious Legislative Amendments It is also important to review the legislation which is used as a basis for current approvals and developments and their recent changes. There is a good summary of recent changes to state legislation in appendix 4 of the AMCS / WWF document of recent state changes. There are some recent federal changes also discussed below such as the Sea Dumping Act. There are a number of pieces of legislation that have been changed recently to allow development around Curtis Island and Gladstone harbour. 1. Sea dumping Act. In 2009 under Federal Labor, the government removed strict provisions that previously governed sea dumping in Australian waters. Those amendments included removing the distinction between contaminated and non-contaminated materials and removing the distinction between environmentally sensitive and non-environmentally sensitive areas. This is particularly important with respect to Gladstone Harbour developments as its sediment contains acid sulphate soils and potential acid sulphate soils and heavy metals such as aluminium, iron and arsenic. The dump site is also within a World Heritage Area. This has been approved despite the Queensland acid sulphate soil manual stating: “Receiving marine, estuarine, brackish or fresh waters are not to be used as a primary means of diluting and/or neutralising ASS or associated contaminated waters.” “Ideally, ASS in or adjacent to the habitat of particularly sensitive protected species (eg. frogs and fish) should not be disturbed due to the potential threat to the species. Provisions of state legislation including the Nature Conservation Act 1992, and protection of environmental values under the 2 Environmental Protection Act 1994, and the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 must be addressed when making decisions that may impact on protected species.” Offshore disposal of ASS carries high risk to the receiving environment. The State Coastal Management Plan – Queensland’s Coastal Policy August 2001 policy 2.1.8 states: “Dredging from land below highest astronomical tide (eg. within coastal waters) provides navigational and economic benefits to Queensland, and is to be appropriately located and sustainably managed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on coastal resources and their values”. Any offshore disposal of dredged materials must also comply with the federal Environmental Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. This act is supported by the National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material 2002. In addition, any proposals for offshore disposal of ASS would need to ensure compliance with the state Environmental Protection Act 1994 and the federal Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. " “Risks associated with offshore disposal of ASS include: smothering of marine organisms with sulfidic sediments; acidification of the marine environment; and contamination of the marine environment with heavy metals or other toxicants. Generally unacceptable management strategies include those where there is high environmental risk; management strategies have been generally ineffective; and/or a lack of scientific data to support their sustainability.” “For clarity, seawater neutralisation should not be a management method for new developments/disturbances.” (It was noted in the Coordinator General’s report that " DERM (Queensland Acid Sulfate Soil Investigation Team—QASSIT) had expressed concern that the proposed methodology for handling and treatment of untreated PASS in the reclamation area does not qualify as strategic reburial. DERM maintains, in the absence of scientific proof, no untreated PASS material should be located within the reclamation area above mean low water (AHD -1.67 m at RL 0.67 m), unless DERM approves an alternative method of disposal to prevent oxidation of sulphides. With mean low water as an upper limit the capacity of the reclamation area for disposal of much of the anticipated PASS material, would be reduced or require expensive treatment prior to placement of such spoil.” The need to properly manage land disposal of PASS then contributed to pressure to dump dredge spoil despite the waters surrounding Gladstone Harbour falling within the parameters of the world heritage area. 2. The Economic Development Bill 2012 has amended the Environmental Protection Act. This provides for the disposal of toxic mine waste into the Fitzroy River. Our concern is that it will flow towards the delta and to Balaclava and North Curtis Islands and The Narrows where it will accumulate and contaminate the area. The river is home to threatened species such as the Snubfin Dolphin which was only identified in 2005. We do not know what the long-term effects of these discharges will be on the marine environment. No one is carrying out systematic testing of heavy metals and other contaminants from mine water on the Fitzroy delta and Keppel Bay, even though it has been known for years that many heavy metals bio- accumulate causing irreparable harm to marine environments. This may cause significant problems if North Curtis, Port Alma and Balaclava are developed. 3. Changes to Queensland’s Nature Conservation Act and other legislation affecting the Great Barrier Reef. The Newman Government recently made changes to legislation to allow large- 3 scale private development inside Queensland’s National Parks. This could affect Curtis Island where there are proposals for a resort at Turtle Beach which is now more likely to be approved.) 4. Amendments to Piloting laws by federal government in 2010. Gladstone Harbour infrastructure development has been required to facilitate very large LNG tankers. We are concerned about their associated risks in the harbour and on the reef, especially given media reports that piloting laws are not being properly enforced. According to a report on the current affairs program PM ,“Marine pilots responsible for navigating big ships through the Great Barrier Reef have revealed a number of near-miss groundings and collisions were not reported to authorities...

Load more