2.1
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (the Authority) seeks approval from the Committee to proceed with the proposed Douglas Shoal Environmental Remediation. The project aims to remediate portions of the Great Barrer Reef Marine Park damaged as a result of the grounding of the ship Shen Neng 1 in April 2010.
2.2
The Authority states that the proposed works will ‘demonstrate the Commonwealth’s commitment that those who damage Australia’s natural environment, including the Great Barrier Reef are held accountable and fund such remediation’.
2.3
The estimated cost of the project is $19.4 million (excluding GST).
2.4
The project was referred to the Committee on 17 February 2022.
Conduct of the inquiry
2.5
Following referral, the inquiry was publicised on the Committee’s website.
2.6
The Committee received three submissions and one confidential submission. A list of submissions can be found at Appendix A.
2.7
On 24 March 2022, the Committee conducted a private briefing, public hearing and in-camera hearing via teleconference. A transcript of the public hearing is available on the Committee’s website.
Need for the works
2.8
In April 2010, the ship Shen Neng 1 ran aground on Douglas Shoal in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park after leaving the port of Gladstone. The vessel remained aground and moved across more than 40 hectares of Douglas Shoal over 10 days prior to being refloated, leaving behind approximately 20 tonnes of toxic anti-fouling paint and rubble.
2.9
The Authority stated that:
The damage from the ship grounding was that the ship moved and bounced across the shoal over the 10-day period and ground the coral limestone, creating rubble and leaving a large amount of contaminated antifouling paint. It contains various contaminants, including tributyltin. It left a large amount of that mixed with some parts of the rubble where it grounded. The impacts are continuing. Loose rubble on the shoal continues to not allow coral and other benthic organisms to settle. It continues to move around and, therefore, restrict factual regeneration. The rubble also fills in all the cracks, crevices, grooves and depressions, essentially making a large flat area on the shoal that is inhibiting recovery.
2.10
The Authority further explained in its submission that:
The anti-fouling paint deposited at Douglas Shoal includes significant amounts of biocide, tributyltin, a substance that was banned internationally in 2008. Even 10 years after the grounding, tributyltin is present in Remediation Area 1 at levels that exceed acceptable marine environmental standards. As long as tributyltin and other anti-fouling contaminants remain at Douglas Shoal, they will continue to impact the ecosystem and hinder natural recovery.
2.11
In addition to assisting the environment to recover from the damage caused, the proposed works also seek to demonstrate at a global scale that ‘Australia will not accept negligent environmental damage without remediating such damages and will hold perpetrators to account; and that broad-scale ship grounding damage can effectively be remediated to speed up the process of natural recovery.’
Options considered
2.12
Following an extensive Douglas Shoal remediation options analysis exercise in 2019, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority identified:
two potentially feasible options for full-scale remediation;
three options that were considered unlikely to be feasible for full-scale remediation but have merit as supplementary methods to support full scale remediation; and
three options that were not feasible at Douglas Shoal.
2.13
Potentially Feasible Options:
1
Remove loose rubble and contamination using a trailer suction hopper dredge (TSHD) vessel. This option was considered to be the option most closely aligned with the project’s objectives due to:
a.
speed and efficiency addressing large areas of loose sediment;
b.
reduced risk to worker safety; and
c.
opportunity to learn from for future incidents.
2
Remove loose rubble and contamination using small-scale, diver-operated suction vacuums. This option had a higher worker safety risk and financial cost than removal by trailer suction hopper dredge vessel.
2.14
Unlikely to be feasible for full-scale remediation:
1
Construct gabions with loose rubble to prevent rubble from migrating to new areas. Note: this does not address contamination.
2
Cap loose rubble and contamination with concrete.
3
Do nothing (monitor natural recovery).
1
Cover loose rubble with steel netting to prevent rubble from migrating to new areas. Note: this does not address contamination. This option was not considered feasible due to strong currents and waves at Douglas Shoal.
2
Treat contamination in-situ using chemicals to neutralise contaminants. Note: this does not address loose rubble.
3
Conduct targeted, small-scale habitat restoration using divers. Note: this does not address contamination. This option was not considered feasible due to higher financial costs and worker safety risks outweighing potential environmental benefits.
2.16
In response to a question by the Committee regarding the Authority’s confidence that the remediation activities would not increase the damage further, the Authority responded:
We have undertaken a detailed options analysis that considers the benefits and potential impacts to the environment. The areas identified for priority remediation have been considered in that to benefit overall from remediation to allow natural recovery. An executive summary of that is published on the authority's website.
Scope of the works
2.17
The Authority proposed that onshore remediation activities at Douglas Shoal ‘be conducted over a period of between two and 12 weeks between mid-2022 and mid-2023 to remove potentially contaminated and uncontaminated rubble, and for onshore dewatering of potentially contaminated and uncontaminated rubble and possible removal to an approved disposal site in 2022 and 2023.’
2.18
The proposed works are one of the most ‘ambitious and large-scale coral reef clean-ups ever undertaken globally’, and there are ‘no known precedents for such remediation.’ As such, significant planning and underwater surveys have been required to progress the remediation.
2.19
The proposed scope of the remediation works includes:
a.
Offshore remediation activities at Douglas Shoal conducted for approximately 2-12 weeks in total between mid-2022 to mid 2023:
i.
Removal of potentially contaminated sediment (using a medium to large size (80 metres to 145 metres length) trailer suction hopper dredge vessel).
ii.
Removal of uncontaminated sediment (loose rubble which is impeding natural recovery).
b.
Onshore dewatering of removed sediment and possible transfer to ultimate disposal site(s) may extend into late 2023 or 2024.
c.
If funds remain available after the removal of contaminated sediment and loose rubble, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority may conduct some small-scale habitat restoration activities as ‘learning opportunity’ trials to inform future management decisions (late 2023 or 2024).
2.20
The Authority stated that:
The total estimated volumes of sediments that may be removed are 1,400m³ potentially contaminated sediments and 5,700m³ uncontaminated sediments (clean rubble).
2.21
At the public hearing the Authority told the Committee that:
Should any funds remain unspent from these activities, the Authority may conduct small-scale trial habitat restoration activities as possible learning opportunities to inform future remediation; however, the rubble, contaminated and uncontaminated, is the primary project to allow natural regeneration.
Consultation
2.22
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority stated that 10 technical reports had been published on the Reef Authority’s project webpage, and a large amount of geospatial data, including photographs and videos, were also publicly available.
2.23
The Authority told the Committee that it had conducted briefings and meetings on the project or provided information to the following groups or individuals:
Port Curtis Coral Coast (PCCC) Traditional Use of Marine Resources Agreement (TUMRA) Steering Committee;
Capricorn Coast Local Marine Advisory Committee;
Gladstone Local Marine Advisory Committee;
Burnett Local Marine Advisory Committee;
Shoalwater Bay Environmental Advisory Committee;
2.24
In its submission to the inquiry, the Authority stated that the works also seek ‘to enhance opportunities for Traditional Owner participation. Extensive consultation has occurred with the Port Curtis Coral Coast Trust and their nominated environmental representatives, Gidarjil Development Corporation.’ The Authority confirmed that Traditional Owners had participated in most of the site visits.
2.25
Mr Robert Heron drew attention to the need for careful and slow extraction of the contaminated reef sediment and highlighted the need for the extracted reef sediment to be ‘prohibited from sale or diversion’ and for filtered contaminates to be ‘audited before disposal to avoid substitution.’
Cost of the works
2.26
The project has an estimated cost of $19.4 million (excluding GST), which includes the removal and management of loose rubble and contaminants required for the environmental remediation of Douglas Shoal.
2.27
The works will be funded from the $35 million out-of-court settlement, which was paid by the ship’s owners and insurers to the Commonwealth in 2016.
2.28
At the public hearing the Authority told the Committee that:
The out-of-court civil damage settlement had a component that covered, particularly, some of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority costs in managing the grounding and removal of the vessel. Of the settlement, $35 million was allocated to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority for remediation works at the shoal to remediate the grounding. The… $19.4 million, is for the removal of contaminated and uncontaminated rubble to a land facility and then treating it and appropriately disposing of any contaminants. The monitoring, planning, consideration-of-options analysis and detailed site assessment make up the other parts of the project to be funded. All the $35 million will be spent directly on delivering the project for remediating the shoal.
2.29
No public money in addition to this settlement money will be spent in cleaning up Douglas Shoal.
Revenue
2.30
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority noted that this project will not generate any direct revenue.
Public value
2.31
The Authority stated that the works will contribute to the ‘common good’ by:
Repairing critical habitat in the Great Barrier Reef that was damaged by a ship grounding;
Preventing the spread of contaminants within the ecosystem and to other areas of the Great Barrier Reef;
Demonstrating Australia’s commitment to holding to account those who damage our environment; and
Gathering critical data and information about the effectiveness of remediation techniques, to inform future incident responses and remediation both in Australia and worldwide.
2.32
The Authority also stated that the ‘works will support Australian companies and provide direct employment to Australian residents,’ and ‘will contribute to employment and training opportunities for First Nations People, particularly the Traditional Owners of Douglas Shoal.’
Committee comment
2.33
The Committee recognises the unique nature of these works, having no known precedents for such remediation, and is appreciative of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority’s open and ongoing correspondence with the Committee throughout the planning phase of the works.
2.34
The Committee did not identify any issues of concern with the proposal and is satisfied that the project has merit in terms of need, scope and cost.
2.35
Having regard to its role and responsibilities contained in the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the Committee is of the view that this project signifies value for money for the Commonwealth and constitutes a project which is fit for purpose, having regard to the established need.
2.36
The Committee recommends that the House of Representatives resolve, pursuant to section 18(7) of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, that it is expedient to carry out the following proposed works: Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority—Douglas Shoal Environmental Remediation.
2.37
Proponent entities must notify the Committee of any changes to the project scope, time, cost, function or design. The Committee also requires that a post-implementation report be provided within three months of project completion. A report template can be found on the Committee’s website.