Regulation impact statement

Summary - Public Consultations and Advices

The issue of disposal of dredge material has been the subject of extensive public consultation and advice to GBRMPA over the past two years. A brief summary of that consultation is provided below. In addition, a full summary of the March 2015 public consultation on the proposal is also provided below.

Draft Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment and Program Report

The Australian Government and the Queensland Government undertook formal public consultation as part of the statutory process for undertaking a strategic assessment in accordance with section 146 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. During the 13 week consultation period (1 November 2013-31 January 2014), 6616 submissions were received. While the proposal, as outlined in this RIS, was not canvassed as part of the commitments in the draft reports, many comments³¹ were received that related to ports activities, impacts from dredging and disposal of dredge material and decisions to allow dredge material to be disposed of in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. In particular, many submissions highlighted concerns about direct use of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area by port-related activities. Specific concerns included:

• 
  the further expansion of port activities
  
• 
  the risks to the Reef from increased shipping
  
• 
  the Australian Government’s decision to allow dredging, and the Authority’s decision to allow the disposal of dredge material, and the impacts this could have on the Reef (many submissions expressed concern regarding a perception that the Authority had a conflict of interest in making the decision to allow the dumping of dredge material in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area) and
  
• 
  the effectiveness of proposed port management strategies in minimising impacts on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
  

Draft Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan

Further public consultation on actions to protect the Great Barrier Reef occurred during a six week period from 15 September to 27 October 2014 on the Draft Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan. The analysis of that consultation process noted comments around dredging were one of the top five issues raised³² in the submissions.

Based on issue descriptors used in the analysis process, the top five topics raised in submissions (excluding duplicate campaign submissions) are shown in Figure 1. Nearly a third of all submissions raised the issue of dredging, particularly in the context of its impacts on water quality. Submitters requested that a ban on dumping be legislated and dredging activities minimised in and adjoining the Great Barrier Reef.

Figure . Top five respondent topics in public submissions from the Draft Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan

Tourism Reef Advisory Committee³³

GBRMPA is advised on Marine Park management issues through consultation with competency-based committees. First established in 1999, Reef Advisory Committees comprise a cross-section of stakeholder interests with expertise and experience in relevant areas. The Tourism Reef Advisory Committee (TRAC) members provide a cross-section of stakeholder expertise and interests in areas relevant to tourism on the Great Barrier Reef.³⁴ At their October 2014 meeting, the TRAC provided advice to GBRMPA on developing a whole-of-government approach to dredge and spoil disposal. Relevant to this proposal were the following points:

• 
  Recognise, respect and continue to preserve the pristine status of the Far Northern Great Barrier Reef (from Port Douglas north) – no new capital dredging in that area and well-managed maintenance dredging at Cooktown.
  
• 
  Commit to no disposal of capital dredge spoil in the Marine Park through legislation.
  

Local Marine Advisory Committees³⁵

GBRMPA also is advised on management issues about the Marine Park at a local level by voluntary community-based committees called Local Marine Advisory Committees. These committees enable local communities to have effective input into managing the Marine Park and provide a community forum for interest groups, government and the community to discuss issues around marine resources. During each three year term, GBRMPA brings together the 12 Committee Chairs and another member from each Committee for a weekend to discuss, amongst other things, the current priorities for GBRMPA. At the most recent meeting (11-12 October 2014), the forum’s advice was provided to GBRMPA on developing a whole-of-government approach to dredging and dredge spoil disposal. While not unanimously supported by all members, the Local Marine Advisory Committee Chairs advised that there should be no further dredge spoil in the Marine Park from capital dredging activities.

March 2015

On 16 March 2015, a media release was issued by the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment³⁶ announcing that public consultation on the proposal to ban the disposal of dredge spoil in the Marine Park had commenced and would close on 27 March 2015. In addition, GBRMPA issued a media statement³⁷ and sent more than 70 letters to key stakeholders (including all existing Marine Park Permittees that may require the disposal of capital dredge spoil material or have been permitted to dispose of capital dredge spoil material in the past or may require it in the future, for example, island resort owners and managers, port operators and boat and barge ramp managers) informing them of the opportunity to comment on the proposal. GBRMPA also contacted members of its Tourism Reef Advisory Committee and all 12 Local Marine Advisory Committees.

GBRMPA notified the public both through its website as well as through its [e-mail] email address on the morning of 30 March 2015 that submissions had officially closed. Therefore, submissions received between close of business on 27 March and midday on 30 March 2015 were accepted as part of the consultation process. Extensions were provided to some individuals and organisations that requested additional time to submit their comments. In addition, two further submissions were received up until midday on 31 March 2015 and on 23 April 2015 and one addendum was received on 28 April 2015 to a submission received during the consultation time period were also accepted and considered in the analysis below.

The public consultation period was limited to two weeks because of the significant focus and opportunity for public consultation that had occurred since 2013, as described above. The Australian Government’s intention to ban the disposal of capital dredge spoil material in the Marine Park had been known publicly for four months prior to public consultation commencing (refer ‘Timing’ section above). In addition, GBRMPA afforded additional time for individuals or organisations when it was requested, as previously described.

GBRMPA acknowledges that the Australian Government requires a minimum consultation period of 30 days to meet best practice. Nevertheless, GBRMPA believes that sufficient time was provided for businesses that may require future permission to disposal of capital dredge spoil material to provide comment. Three of the four Queensland Ports Corporations (government-owned businesses) that operate adjacent to the Marine Park provided submissions as well as peak bodies relevant to the port sector (refer to GBRMPA’s website for all submissions). No complaints were received by GBRMPA about the short timeframe for public consultation.

Submissions were received from 96 people or organisations, representing a range of Marine Park stakeholder groups including the tourism industry, recreational boating club, Traditional Owners, government, ports and resources sectors, scientific community, conservation non-government organisations and individuals (Table 2). This includes six emails received solely by the Minister for the Environment and deemed to be individual submissions for the purposes of this public consultation exercise. In addition, three types of campaign submissions were received, totalling 7628 (Table 2).

Table . Stakeholder groups that made public submissions

Stakeholder Group	Number of submissions
General member of the public or not specified	44
Marine tourism industry	15
Recreational boating / fishing / club / spearfisher	11
Conservation non-government organisation	8
Emails received by Minister for the Environment	6
Port and resources sector	5
Government (Queensland, Local)	4
Scientists	1
Telecommunications	1
Traditional Owner	1
Campaign ‘Closing the loophole’ (WWF)	3210
Campaign ‘The Reef deserves 100% protection from dredge dumping’ (Fight for the Reef)	3687
Campaign “Public comment on banning capital dredge material disposal in the Marine Park’ (Greenpeace)	731
Total	7724

All submissions received during the public consultation process will be available on GBRMPA’s website once this RIS is finalised and a final decision made on the proposal unless requested that theirs be kept confidential. A list of submissions received is at Appendix A.

Submissions analysis

All submissions were individually analysed. A number of common themes were raised in the submissions. They are grouped below by each policy intent statement with responses by GBRMPA in relation to the claims.

There shall be no further disposal of capital dredge material in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park from the date the regulation comes into effect.

One submission suggested that the outcome of ‘safeguarding the northern third of the Marine Park (which is in good and very good condition) into the future from the potential impacts of disposing of capital dredge spoil material’ also be part of the intended outcome from the proposal. GBRMPA considers that the outcomes desired from the proposal already cover this statement, just not in as much detail.

The Authority must not grant a permission for conduct that includes dumping of all and any capital dredge spoil material in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Many submissions, including the campaigns, suggested GBRMPA should ban the disposal of capital dredge spoil material in the entire Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. The proposal covers the entire Marine Park, which covers 99 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Under the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan, the Queensland Government has committed to legislate to ban the disposal of capital dredge material in the remaining one per cent of the World Heritage Area.

Some submissions suggested that in cases where the impacts of disposal of capital dredge material can be appropriately managed and are supported by the best available science that the Marine Park remain an option for such disposal. This would not be consistent with the overall policy intent to ban the disposal of capital dredge material in the Marine Park.

There were submissions that suggested the ban extend to maintenance dredging material. Consistent with the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan, the Australian Government considers that the disposal of maintenance dredging requires a longer-term solution, including the establishment of a maintenance dredging framework.

There were submissions that suggested the ban extend to dredging as well as the disposal of dredge material. The Australian Government made it clear in consultation documents that it does not propose to include any new restrictions on the granting of permissions for dredging into this regulation. The existing, rigorous environment impact assessment process will continue for dredging applications in the Marine Park. GBRMPA provided this clarification as part of the consultation process to ensure that stakeholders were aware of the scope of this proposal and that it did not include plans to alter existing rules for dredging itself.

The ban apply to existing permissions for conduct that includes uncontained disposal of capital dredge spoil material in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park where these have not yet expired.

Few submissions specifically commented on the ban applying to existing permissions where these have not yet expired. Those that did either supported the measure or raised concerns about the precedent such an action sets for government decision making.

Some submissions misunderstood that this provision only related to one existing permit allowing for the uncontained disposal of up to three million cubic metres of capital dredge spoil material from dredging at Abbot Point. This permit (North Queensland Bulk Ports – a Government Business Enterprise – G14/34897.1) would not expire until June 2020. Once a decision is made on this proposal, this permit would not be able to be used after the regulation takes effect. However it should be noted that the Queensland government announced on 11 March 2015 to only allow the dumping of capital dredge spoil on land for this project).

This provision of the regulation does not apply to future permissions as no disposal of capital dredge spoil material, either contained or uncontained, will be permitted if it is greater than 15,000 cubic metres (see next theme below).

The definition of capital dredge spoil material should not include amounts from very small scale dredging programs (less than 15,000 cubic metres), for example, those associated with an approach to a small boat ramp or reuse of sand for beach nourishment;

Some submissions suggest that there should be no exceptions for any capital dredge material to be disposed in the Marine Park while other submissions called for either larger volumes (e.g. 50,000 cubic metres) or exceptions in emergency situations such as in the event of severe storms or cyclones or when there may be an urgent need for the establishment of coastal and community protection works. GBRMPA accepts that emergency situations may arise where capital dredge material may need to be allowed and has drafted the regulation accordingly.

One submission suggested that arrangements be in place to deal with issues associated with project splitting and / or staging. GBRMPA considers this is best dealt with through education of proponents and assessment staff using guidelines to applicants and standard operating procedures for assessment staff as part of the implementation of the preferred option.

The definition of dumping should not include the burying of a cable, pipeline or tunnel for the purposes of critical infrastructure for islands, for example, those for water, telecommunications or electricity;

Few submissions specifically commented on the definition of dumping. Those that did either supported the measure, raised concerns about new dredging or misunderstood that the capital dredging associated with the burying of a cable, pipeline or tunnel did not involve dumping of that material. A few submissions queried why the definition was limited to islands.

Within the Marine Park, to lay new cables, pipelines and tubes to provide services, such as for water, electricity, or telecommunications requires new trenches to be dug in the seafloor. This is considered capital dredging and is specifically excluded so as to be not affected by this proposal.

The definition of dumping will not include burying a pipe, cable or tube with capital dredge spoil material if the material had been excavated to create the trench in which the pipe, cable or tube was laid. Based on this wording, there will be no new restrictions on the granting of permissions relating to the burying of pipes, cables or tubes irrespective of whether the pipes, cables or tubes are for ‘critical infrastructure for islands’ or for some other purpose.

The restriction to ‘islands’ was misunderstood and was only meant to provide an example of the types of infrastructure that would not be classified as dumping. As noted above, the definition is not restricted to islands.

The other main point to note is the regulation will only restrict the granting of permissions for ‘dumping’ of capital dredge spoil material. It will not otherwise impose any new restrictions on the granting of permissions for the installation, operation and maintenance of such infrastructure. The same, rigorous environment impact assessment process will continue for dredging applications in the Marine Park, including the application of the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009.

Other

There was concern that worse environmental outcomes could result from banning all disposal of capital dredge spoil material in the Marine Park because some coastal land includes sensitive habitats.

• 
  Land-based disposal options typically involve placement of material in a dedicated storage area or use as fill material for future land development projects. This requires large areas of land both for the processing areas and the final placement. The recently released Synthesis of current knowledge of the biophysical impacts of dredging and disposal on the Great Barrier Reef – Report of an Independent Panel of Experts³⁸ summarises the known considerations and potential impacts with land-based disposal.
  
• 
  Rigorous environmental impact assessments (see ‘Existing regulatory arrangements’ above) will still be required before any disposal on land is allowed to occur and consideration of sensitive habitats in coastal areas are part of that consideration.
  

Many submissions either misunderstood the original proposal by thinking the proposal was about dredging or would include capital dredging, were unsure where the regulation would apply or that disposal of capital dredge material was a pre-existing use of the Marine Park.

• 
  GBRMPA will follow up with several individual submissions as well as ensure material developed for implementation of the regulation will clarify the position. These submissions highlighted the need for an effective education program when the regulation takes effect (see ‘Implementation and Evaluation’ below).
  

A few submissions called for complementarity and consistency in definitions relating to dredging and the disposal of dredge material (capital and maintenance) between Australian and Queensland Government legislation including when such legislation takes effect.

• 
  GBRMPA will work with the Queensland Government to ensure complementarity of legislation to the greatest extent possible.
  

Other issues raised in submissions included:

• 
  The need for assessment of the cumulative impacts of multiple dredging projects within a region should occur.
  
  • 
    The Australian and Queensland Government have committed, through the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan, to provide better guidance for development activities including cumulative impact guidelines and regional standards to improve assessment and management of cumulative impacts from all activities within and adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef.
    
• 
  The need for GBRMPA’s Dredging and Spoil Disposal Policy (2010) to be updated to reflect the final regulation and other policy intents contained in documents such as the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan.
  
  • 
    GBRMPA intends that this policy will be updated as soon as practicable after the preferred option takes effect.
    
• 
  The need for close to real time public reporting of volumes and type of dredging and dumping in proximity to the Great Barrier Reef.
  
  • 
    The Reef Integrated Monitoring and Reporting Program, committed to in the Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan, should assist with this reporting.
    

Some submissions highlighted gaps in the draft consultation RIS including:

• 
  A lack of description of relevant Queensland legislation or the economic importance of ports to Queensland and the national economy.
  
• 
  The need to reflect Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan commitments, which was released after public consultation began on this proposal.
  

These comments have now been addressed in this RIS.

No submissions provided additional details about timing of projects affected by this proposal or highlighted any new projects that were not known to GBRMPA at the time of the development of this proposal. See ‘Estimates of regulatory burden associated with the preferred option’ section below for further information about timing.

In addition a few submissions suggested that there was inadequate economic analysis of the impacts of the regulation, including a lack of actual costings. Only one submission provided potential costings that may be associated with the implementation of the proposal. Their information is provided below.

• 
  Assessments for the Cairns Shipping Development Project indicate that land based placement of 4.4 million cubic metres of dredge material was 5 times more expensive than placement at sea ($360M compared to $60M), excluding any land purchase or dredge material management costs.
  
• 
  Published analysis for dredge material placement options at Abbot Point identified that onshore placement would range in cost from $100 million to $320 million more than offshore disposal. Onshore options would also take between 2-5 years longer in terms of approvals and construction lead in times, significantly increasing the lost opportunity costs for projects.
  
• 
  The Western Basin Strategic Dredging and Disposal Project at Gladstone identified that reclamation using suitable material would cost $20/cubic metre compared to $28/cubic metre for ocean disposal. Significant costs savings were achieved in this analysis because the material was being used to establish approximately 153 hectares of useable port land.
  

The Queensland Government’s announcements on 11 March and 18 April (refer ‘Timeline’ section above) mean that the Cairns and Abbot Point projects mentioned in that submission will either be unaffected by the Commonwealth’s proposed regulations (Abbot Point), or will not go ahead as originally applied for (Cairns). See ‘Estimates of regulatory burden associated with the preferred option’ section below.

Other options

Few submissions commented on the other options (status quo, policy) and whether these were suitable to achieve the desired outcomes. Those that did comment on those options either (i) did not believe they were satisfactory to provide certainty and longevity to the intent of prohibiting capital dredge spoil dumping in the Marine Park or (ii) did not feel they were adequately canvassed in the Consultation Draft RIS. GBRMPA has provided additional detail in this RIS on those two other options.

Very few submissions suggested additional options in relation to review of existing environmental assessment frameworks. Other options that were suggested included those described above, such as extension of the ban to the entire Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, extension of the proposal to cover the disposal of maintenance dredging maintenance; or either having a threshold greater than 15,000 cubic metres or none at all. These and other options proposed are addressed above.