Table E1: Summary of the current and future use of anchorage areas, current management, management options and management strategy objectives and outcomes (*as assessed with regard to the anchorage area studied by this project, **as assessed by the CBA (Appendix B) of this study) Cairns Townsville Abbot Point Hay Point Gladstone Current Anchorage use Multi commodity port Multi commodity port Single commodity port Single commodity port Multi commodity port 500 ship arrivals per year 730 ship arrivals per year 180 ship arrivals per year 800 ship arrivals per year 1,500 ship arrivals per year Less than one ship call per day to anchor One ship call per day to anchor Less than one ship call per day to anchor Two to three ship calls per day to anchor Three ship calls per day to anchor Average time at anchor – 12 hours Average time at anchor – three days Average time at anchor – three days Average time at anchor – 19 days Average time at anchor – four days Current Management of Anchorages Sufficient physical capacity Environmental impacts from existing anchorage practices considered to be not significant Designated anchorages. Sufficient physical capacity* Environmental impacts from existing anchorage practices considered to be not significant. No designated anchorages. Sufficient physical capacity* Environmental impacts from existing anchorage practices considered to be not significant. No designated anchorages. Sufficient physical demand even though high demand for anchorages, nearly all ships (99%) proceed directly to anchor from sea to await a berth. Environmental impacts from existing anchorage practices considered to be not significant. Designated anchorages. Sufficient physical capacity. Environmental impacts from existing anchorage practices considered to be not significant. Designated anchorages.
Future Demand** (next 20 years) Low growth in ship calls to port (2% p.a.) Low growth in ship calls to port (2% p.a.) Significant growth in future ship calls to port (11% p.a.) Moderate growth in future ship calls to port (5-6% p.a.) Moderate growth in future ship calls to port (3-4% p.a.) No change to ship calls per day to anchor Less than two ship calls per day to anchor 2.5 ship calls per day to anchor 6.5 ship calls per day to anchor Six ship calls per day to anchor Future adequacy** (prediction) No need to expand anchorage No need to expand anchorage* No need to expand anchorage* Requirement for expansion of anchorages by around 30% if no change in management No need to expand anchorage Management Options Continue current practices of ship anchoring Adopt additional actions to improve current anchorage management practices Optimise the use of existing anchorages Investigate impacts of ship anchorages on aesthetic values at the Port of Cairns Continue current practices of ship anchoring Adopt additional actions to improve current anchorage management practices Consider implementing designated anchorage areas Investigate impacts of ship anchorages on aesthetic values at the Port of Townsville Continue current practices of ship anchoring Adopt additional actions to improve current anchorage management practices Consider implementing designated anchorage areas Consider scheduled ship arrivals if and when anchorage demand dictates Consider more efficient use of existing anchorages Adopt additional actions to improve current anchorage management practices Further investigate impacts of ship anchorages on aesthetic values at the Port of Hay Point Consider scheduled arrivals in combination with (existing) designated Continue current practices of ship anchoring Adopt additional actions to improve current anchorage management practices Optimise the use of existing anchorages Investigate impacts of ship anchorages on aesthetic values at the Port of Gladstone If waiting times
anchorages to avoid need to expand anchorage areas increase beyond four days, consider redesignating some anchorages as coal ship anchorages, and consider feasibility of scheduled ship arrivals Objective and Outcome Objective 1: Protecting environmental values Outcome 1-1: Guidance and education for stakeholders Outcome 1-2: Environmental condition monitoring Outcome 1-3: Enhanced environmental performance Objective 2: Optimise use Outcome 2-1: Objective 1: Protecting environmental values Outcome 1-1: Guidance and education for stakeholders Outcome 1-2: Environmental condition monitoring Outcome 1-3: Enhanced environmental performance Objective 2: Optimise use Outcome 2-1: Restrict users to designated Objective 1: Protecting environmental values Outcome 1-1: Guidance and education for stakeholders Outcome 1-2: Environmental condition monitoring Objective 2: Optimise use Outcome 2-1: Restrict users to designated anchorage areas Objective 1: Protecting environmental values Outcome 1-1: Guidance and education for stakeholders Outcome 1-2: Environmental condition monitoring Objective 2: Optimise use Outcome 2-1: Restrict users to designated anchorage areas Outcome 2-2: Minimise the need for further Objective 1: Protecting environmental values Outcome 1-1: Guidance and education for stakeholders Outcome 1-2: Environmental condition monitoring Objective 2: Optimise use Outcome 2-1: Restrict users to designated anchorage areas Outcome 2-2:
Restrict users to designated anchorage areas anchorage areas Objective 3: Environmental criteria for anchorages Outcome 3-1: Environmental criteria for anchorage site selection Outcome 2-2: Minimise the need for further anchorages Objective 3: Environmental criteria for anchorages Outcome 3-1: Environmental criteria for anchorage site selection anchorages Objective 3: Environmental criteria for anchorages Outcome 3-1: Environmental criteria for anchorage site selection Minimise the need for further
with regard to each of the five major ports. However, the general flow of information reported adopts a classic structure as described following: Executive summary – provides a comprehensive, summarised, account of the project and its outcomes. Introduction –introduces the requirement and intent of this project and describes the relationship of this project to the overarching Strategic Assessment. Methods – describes the research approach used to complete the various works conducted under the project. Results – for each of the five major ports describes the existing environment, potential impacts and suggested management strategies of relevance. Conclusions – provides concluding remarks and recommendations. References – identifies literature relied upon within the report. Appendices. – provides information supportive of the report, including complete reports produced at successive stages of project delivery. This report, therefore, provides a clear and concise summary of all content relevant to the understanding of outcomes from the project across all elements of the project. This report has been developed using information available at each phase of the project’s delivery. As new science is available and environmental management practices are continuously reviewed and adapted it is expected that information reported here may be superseded. Information regarding review and adaptation of findings reported in this project is also provided to maintain relevancy and currency of this project.
Table 22: Bounds (latitude and longitude) and area (in ha) of the anchorage investigation areas used by this project at each of the five major ports (latitudes and longitudes are provided by point number. Point 1 is top left corner, Point 2 is top right corner, Point 3 is bottom left corner and Point 4 is bottom right corner of a bounded area) Port Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Point 4 Area (ha) Cairns (figure 31) -16.809302 145.77560 -16.75466 145.86635 -16.97995 145.96195 -16.95247 146.01798 24,118 Townsville (figure 32) -19.01963 146.80780 -19.02737 147.03623 -19.13087 146.90595 -19.13266 147.06002 23,762 Abbot Point (figure 33) -19.65923 147.98337 -19.67425 148.28264 -19.81606 147.98092 -19.87983 148.22934 58,818 Hay Point (figure 34) -21.17225 149.31492 -20.97303 149.81436 -21.29850 149.31236 -21.29862 149.95951 157,284 Gladstone inner anchorage (figure 35) -23.83373 151.29568 -23.82218 151.31167 -23.87902 151.35518 -23.86798 151.36551 1403 Gladstone outer anchorage (figure 35) -23.83195 151.42357 -23.76377 151.49485 -23.94741 151.59231 -23.87346 151.66395 22,722
Impacts Existing conditions As described under section 2.3 the actual and potential impacts that may be realised to the values of the Port of Abbot Point anchorage area have been considered by this project using a risk based analysis. The full assessment process and findings are provided in . The potential environmental impacts and their significance, as determined by that process, are summarised in These impacts have potential to affect the World Heritage Area values of the Reef, including the aesthetics, presence of diverse ecological communities, natural beauty and species of conservation significance. Table 33: Potential environmental impacts at the Port of Abbot Point and their significance Potential environmental Impacts Significance Disturbance to seabed and supported biodiversity Open soft sediment habitat, low diversity Low potential for impact Minor releases of pollutants/wastes from ships Low frequency of anchorage use Low potential for impact A reduction in the aesthetic value of the coastal vista Anchorage approximately 30 km from Bowen Low potential for impact Preclusion of other users of the World Heritage Area Currently concern for impact is low Introduction of marine pest species Low frequency of anchorage use Low potential for introduction Interference with species behaviour Anchorage overlaps with species habitat Moderate potential for impact The Cumulative Impact Assessment for Abbot Point was completed after this project had completed its EIA. That process indicated limited risk of impacting upon species behaviours as a consequence of light spill (ELA and Open Lines 2013) and that ships at anchor are unlikely to cause significant underwater noise. The assessment completed for this project EIA (and therefore the rankings presented) has also taken into account noise generated during dropping and retrieving anchor and the limited information regarding how shipping noise and light spill affect species behaviours. The majority of the biodiversity values for which the Reef is recognised are little affected by the Port of Abbot Point anchorage area. Potential indirect impacts to
Action Plan for Outcome 1-3: Enhanced environmental performance To support review of relevancy of current environmental controls for anchorages it is appropriate to audit adherence of vessels to the controls they are required to abide by. This should be achieved in conjunction with measuring environmental conditions (Outcome 1-2) to enable differentiation between natural and anthropogenic drivers of change which may be observed during monitoring of anchorage sites. To achieve Outcome 1-3 it is recommended that the GBRMPA: Develop and implement environmental inspection and audit programs for ships at anchor in the Marine Park in collaboration with ports, the shipping industry, AMSA, AQIS and MSQ. Provide reports of audit findings to industry and management bodies to support initiatives that aim at reducing air emissions from shipping, such as switching to low emission fuels used while at anchor. Determine the impact of anchorage areas on aesthetic values by considering how different stakeholder groups value a vista which does and does not include ships at anchor. Inspection program for ships at anchor to monitor environmental performance Review and consultation completed under this project did not identify any dedicated audit program which is targeted at taking record of the different impacts associated with vessels anchoring in the World Heritage Area across criteria including emissions to air, management of hazardous substances and waste releases at each of the five ports. Vessels are required to adhere to legislative requirements and only through reporting are incidents recorded and investigated. It is recommended that the GBRMPA review current ship inspection programs to consider whether they adequately validate and demonstrate vessels adherence to legislative environmental management requirements. If current inspection programs do not address all relevant management requirements, the GBRMPA should consider what additional information is needed and whether existing inspection programs are able to be adapted to collate that information or whether additional programs are required. Existing inspection activities may only target quarantine matters and may not facilitate collection of data of relevance to anchorages and management of the environmental values of those locations. If current inspections are found to lack in their ability to detect whether vessels adhere to required environmental management requirements while at anchor with regard to wastes, emissions and hazardous substances the GBRMPA should consider mechanisms to address this gap in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. It is anticipated these stakeholders would include AMSA, AQIS, MSQ, and other parties involved in vessel entry control and management. The action plan for an inspection program should include: A desktop review of current inspection programs conducted at the Port of Gladstone
for existing anchorages in the Marine Park Develop port specific environmental management guidelines for anchorages Q4 2014 Guidelines available online via GBRMPA website Guidelines linked to via port authorities’ website or documentation (e.g. ports manual) Outcome 1-2: Obtain better understanding of environmental condition of anchorages and their use near ports Develop and implement environmental port specific monitoring program to monitor conditions of anchorages in the vicinity Q2 2014 Port specific environmental monitoring program implemented. Outcome 1-3: Further enhance environmental performance at ship anchorages Develop and implement environmental inspection and audit programs for ships at anchor Q2 2014 Environmental inspection program implemented. Determine impacts of anchorage areas on aesthetic values Q4 2013 Assessment report on impacts on aesthetic values Outcome 2-1: Restrict shipping industry users of the Marine Park to anchor only in designated anchorage areas Collaborate with port authorities and MSQ to review, investigate and assign designated anchorages for all ports. Q4 2014 Anchorage areas that give regard to environmental, socio-economic impacts as well as safety designated for all ports. Action Completion by Evidence achieved Investigate options to reduce footprint of existing anchorages. Designate reduced areas of anchorage at ports as appropriate Q4 2014 Designated anchorages occupy least environmental footprint with regard to safe operation