Great Barrier Reef authority argued against dredge dumping, FOI reveals

Disposal of 3m tonnes of spoil an unacceptable risk, said draft report to environment department before permit was issued 

theguardian.com, Bridie Jabour, Sunday 2 March 2014

Dugong grazing grounds could be put at further risk by dumping of Abbot
 Point dredge spoil, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority suggested
 in a draft report now made public under freedom of information. Photograph:
Rex Features

The dredging and dumping of 3m tonnes of spoil in Great Barrier Reef marine park waters posed an “unacceptable social and environmental risk”, the authority in charge of the world heritage area wrote in draft assessments just months before it approved the permit to carry out the disposal.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) advised the environment department not to approve the dredging of Abbot Point in a port expansion, finding that both the reef itself and threatened species could be at risk if the plan went ahead in a draft submission which it says it did not send.

The project was approved by the environment minister, Greg Hunt, in December and at the end of January the authority endorsed a permit with 47 conditions attached.

In a series of draft documents dated from 2012 to August last year the authority repeatedly warned that the reef could be irreversibly damaged by the plan and argued for an alternative that would see trestles extended 1km beyond the original plan to avoid dredging new coal shipping berths.

“The GBRMPA considers that even with best endeavours, the likely impact of the dredging and disposal on nearby benthic [sea floor] habitats and threatened species would be environmentally and socially unacceptable,” says an updated executive summary for a Capital Dredging Permit Assessment done in June last year.

North Queensland Bulk Ports Corporation, the company behind the port expansion, has always maintained there would be minimal environmental impact, with the water perhaps going cloudy for a while.

The summary, obtained by Greenpeace under freedom of information laws, says the habitats are recovering from a series of severe environmental impacts and the information in the environmental impact assessment provided by the corporation did not adequately address the potential for further damage to recovering habitats.

The assessment of the area likely to be affected was “substandard and possibly under-representative”.

“The proposal to dredge and dispose of up to 1.6m cubic metres of sediment per year for three separate campaigns between 2014 and 2020 has the potential to cause long-term, irreversible harm to areas of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, in particular seagrass meadows and nearby coral reefs,” the summary says.

Reductions in dugong and turtle populations in the reef have been linked to seagrass meadows becoming damaged or receding in area. The executive summary of the report said: “The proponent has not provided enough information to verify and provide certainty that the receiving environment in its current state can deal with degraded water quality for the next six to seven years.”

The GBRMPA chairman, Russell Reichelt, said on Sunday that the documents had been preliminary and were never submitted to the delegate who made the decision to approve the dumping permit. “GBRMPA is an independent regulatory agency which is required to make an independent decision under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981,” he said in a statement.

“Consistent with our Act we took into account the fact that the minister had provided an approval, as well as the recommendation report that the environment department had provided to the minister.”

He added: “Absolutely no political pressure was brought to bear on GBRMPA.”

Reichelt said the draft permit assessment had been conducted before stringent conditions - the strictest ever imposed on an application of its type - were put in place by the environment minister.

He said the draft assessment noted concerns of staff and other stakeholders but the conditions imposed on the project were the strictest ever done by the agency and it was unlikely the project would have been approved without them.

In the report obtained by Greenpeace, the authority said the ecosystem surrounding Abbot Point had already taken a battering over the past few years and was in a period of recovery. Proposals that would have been considered low-risk a decade ago could now cause irreversible damage. “There is substantial evidence to indicate that the already degraded coral reefs and seagrasses in the region will be exposed to not only six to seven years of degraded water quality due to the dredging and disposal but also to additional environmental impacts from increasing sea temperatures, cyclones, floodwaters during this time,” the executive summary says.

“These combined pressures threaten both the rate and ability of habitats to recover from dredging and disposal impacts.”

According to the authority’s draft, the ports corporation could give no assurance Abbot Point seagrasses could withstand six to seven years of degraded water quality. The authority’s preferred option of extending the trestles resulted in “superior environmental and social outcomes to the maintenance of the benthic habitats and threatened species around the proposed dredging and disposal sites”.

In the original draft report it said the proposal to dredge posed a significant risk to water quality and overall biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef region.

“GBRMPA does not consider the additional costs of alternatives disproportionate and believes that this is the cost of doing business in the GBRWHA [Great Barrier Reef world heritage area],” it says.

Reichelt said the authority’s position has long been that a preferred environmental outcome for the Great Barrier Reef is that development should be restricted to existing ports and a focus be given to ensuring high environmental standards are in place.

“Our decision is entirely consistent with that strategic long-term viewpoint as Abbot Point is one of five major existing ports,” he said.

“It also has access to deep water, which means less dredging would be required than in other locations.”

The environment department’s decision brief said the environment minister supported the proposal without extending trestles, disposing of dredge spoil on-shore and dumping 3m cubic metres of spoil in the waters.

The Greens senator Larissa Waters said the documents proved the decision to allow offshore dumping was going to damage the reef. “It shows there was massive political pressure to approve it,” she said.

“The first thing is the commission of audit – everything is on the table so GBRMPA either are, or should be, conscious of their funding.”

Waters said the minister approving the dredging and offshore dumping meant the authority’s hands were tied when it came to approving the permit. “It’s pretty hard for any organisation, no matter how independent, to effectively nullify the minister’s approval,” she said.

Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling on the environment minister, Greg Hunt, to revoke the approvals and ban dumping of dredge spoil in reef waters.

Greenpeace campaigner Louise Matthiesson said: “These new documents raise very serious concerns about the federal government’s stewardship of the reef.

“It is clear that Minister Hunt and his department were willing to put other interests ahead of the health of this world heritage jewel and Minister Hunt must explain why.”

Related Articles:

Australia Approves Plan to Dump Dredge Spoil in Barrier Reef

Australia probes Great Barrier Reef board over 'mining links'