Original source · versioned page text
Annex 11 - Code 11 - Marine Plants
Attached to the e-mail DA Application - Noosa Oyster Project (2 of 3).
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants
Table 11.2.2: Operational works
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
All development
PO1 There is a demonstrated need for the For development associated with a public health or safety Does not comply with PO1
development, and alternatives (locations and purpose:
designs) which do not involve removal, The purpose of the works is to restore a historically
destruction or damage of marine plants and AO1.1 Development is for: abundant habitat type (now degraded) for the benefit
of fish habitats, fisheries productivity and natural
impacts to fisheries resources and fish habitats 1. signage or aids to warn the public of a safety
ecological processes within the declared FHA.
are not viable. hazard (for example, within a waterway to warn of
submerged rocks, crocodiles, marine stingers); or The disturbance areas proposed for restoration are in
2. prevention of an impending public safety issue; or a degraded condition resulting in reduced fisheries
3. the mitigation of a hazard to public safety that has productivity. A full description of the site conditions of
resulted from a specific unforeseen event (for the proposed restoration sites is given in the Project
example, a fallen tree that is a danger to safe Restoration Plan, Section 4: Restoration Sites, as well
as in Annex 1 to the plan: Noosa River Habitat
navigation); or Survey.
4. placement of a cyclone mooring identified under a
cyclone contingency plan by the harbour master The proposed restoration works are feasible, using
or controlling port authority, and is located in tried and tested methods accredited by the
accordance with the plan; or international Society for Ecological Restoration (SER).
5. a public health purpose that has been endorsed
The restoration methods are outlined in detail in the
in writing by Queensland Health or the relevant
Project Restoration Plan, Section 5: Restoration
local government. substrates, Section 6: Construction, Section 7:
Signage and aids to navigation and Section 8: Post-
For any other development, no acceptable outcome is construction management.
prescribed.
A post-works monitoring and maintenance program is
Note: The application should identify and document the included.
impacts of alternative proposals.
The design and of the restoration substrate and its
placement on each individual site has been made by
qualified coastal engineers (Integrated Coastal
Management). All works will occur below Mean High
Water Spring and requires works to have NO adverse
effects on marine plant habitat including seagrass,
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 1 of 24
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 23 pages
Page 2
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
saltmarsh and mangroves. Temporary impacts on low
value and degraded marine plants growing on rock,
such as macroalgae and turfing algae, will occur only
at the Tewantin site. All other sites will be located
over bare sediment (primarily well sorted sand)
Minimum distances from marine plants are specified
to ensure high value marine plants are protected (as
outlined in Section 2.3, Table 2.2. of the Project
Restoration Plan and in ICM drawing NROR-2021-
00). These minimum distances have been shown in
other oyster restoration projects to be suitable to
adequately protect marine plants. Minimum distanced
are based on the project’s recent (late 2020) mapping
of all marine plants within the broader investigation
area prior to detailed design.
The restoration substrate type, structural design and
placement are to ensure that minimum distances from
higher value marine plants are maintained.
(2) Temporary impacts to macroalgae
communities at the Tewantin site are expected
A small stand of mangroves is shoreward of the
proposed restoration footprint. Mangrove areal roots
extend into the intertidal zone adjacent to the
proposed restoration footprint. Mangrove roots are
excluded from the restoration footprint at a minimum
distance of 2m. Seagrass is found upstream and
outside of the restoration footprint and is also
excluded from the footprint at a minimum distance of
10m from the footprint.
According to project consultants, ESP, macroalgae
growing on rocks, dominated by Padina sp. is sparse
(less than 15% of the surface area), with a footprint of
less than 479m2. The macroalgal assemblages are in
relatively poor condition due to high sediment loads
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 2 of 24
Page 3
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
observed on and around the existing rocky reef and
rubble areas, with some sections of reef having a high
coverage of fine sediment.
ESP also confirmed that given the speed at which
Padina can colonise hard surfaces (dead oyster shell)
elsewhere in the estuary, it is anticipated that
supplementary habitat provided as part of the
proposed restoration project would be colonised
rapidly within 1 year of deployment, and that coverage
is expected to be similar to the current condition
within 2 to 3 years post deployment, particularly in
sections that remain subtidal and not covered by fine
silt.
Mangroves and seagrasses are not within the
footprint of this project and will not be impacted at any
restoration site.
Alternatives to the oyster ecosystem restoration
methodology proposed are evaluated in the Project
Restoration Plan, Section 6.3. Impact minimisation
PO2 Only those aspects of a development that No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO2
have a functional requirement to be located on
tidal land create the requirement to remove, The works are intended to restore intertidal and
destroy or damage marine plants. Ancillary subtidal rock oyster ecosystems throughout the
Noosa River estuary. Due to the nature of the works
elements (for example: car and trailer parks, rest
and the growth of oysters typically below high tide, the
rooms, offices) occur outside of tidal land. works are required to be on tidal land.
Note: Tidal land within the development site The restoration substrates have been designed by the
should be accurately identified on plans provided project’s contracted coastal engineers, Integrated
with the application, together with the location of Coastal Management (ICM), to be the most suitable
highest astronomical tide, mean high water designs and configurations for each site.
spring and mean low water spring tide heights.
The module designs provide design tolerances, which
The extent, location, species and condition of are then applied to the bathymetric character of each
individual restoration site. The substrate may be laid
marine plants that are proposed for removal,
as fingers, set perpendicular to the shore (concept
damage or destruction and retained have been layout 1), or as large or small patches set parallel
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 3 of 24
Page 4
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
clearly and accurately identified and mapped to along the shoreline (concept layouts 2&3). For phase
enable risks and impacts to be properly 1 works, no finer substrates are planned.
assessed.
The substrate patches prescribed for phase 1 are
singular rows of large or small diameter patches, as
applied at the Noosa Sound East restoration site, or
multiple offset rows as prescribed for Noosa Sound
West, Tewantin and Goat Island restoration sites.
The designs and placement minimise interference
with laminar river flow and reduce wave refraction
potential. This is described in section 1.10 in the
restoration plan.
Even though the works are not intended to provide
erosion protection, the nature of the works are
generally expected to result in reduced severity of
coastal erosion adjacent to the structures. The oyster
reef patches in this project are engineered to reduce
any potential for these structures to result in increased
erosion of adjacent shorelines, including shorelines
upstream and downstream of the works.
Engineered design features which minimise the
erosion potential of the oyster reef patches include:
Segmented reef patches, which allow for current flow
between patches.
Shaped reef patches, which reduce impediments to
current flow.
Low crest height, allowing waves to reach the shore,
but with reduced energy and thus reduced erosion
potential.
Porous rock substrate, which reduces wave energy
around the patches. See Project Restoration Plan,
Section 8.4. Erosion control for detailed explanation.
Visual observations will be undertaken by the
monitoring team every 6 months up to 100m
upstream and downstream of the restoration site and
any changes in shoreline profiles recorded. Every 12
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 4 of 24
Page 5
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
months, images will be used to compare changes in
shoreline condition 100m upstream and downstream
of the restoration site.
Where significant changes are determined and are
attributable to the presence of the substrate, relevant
agencies will be informed, and remediation actions
agreed on.
The restoration substrates are engineered and
certified for stability and durability, which is provided
through specification of the type of rock (igneous or
metamorphic) size of rock used )150-500mm
diameter) and its placement on site, as specified in
the drawings.
The engineers certify that the weight of the rock
substrate, coupled with its geometric profile and
interlocking nature will prevent significant movement,
remaining in place under their own weight.
The engineers certify that the specific hand placement
of oyster shell into the voids of the central areas of the
substrate, as per the specifications, would sufficiently
ensure the shell is fixed to site, and that any
dislocation of the shell from the voids and then
beyond a restoration site would be negligible. Where
a significant loss of shell from site does occur, this
can be readily reinstated onto the restoration site, as
the volumes are quite low (5-10kg/m2). Shell
displaced more than 5 metres from the restoration site
will be returned to the oyster reef patch, or if negative
impacts detected, removed.
PO3 Development impacting marine plants: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO3
1. directly abuts land that has full riparian Due to the nature of the works and the growth of
access rights; or oysters typically below high tide, the works are
2. provides a public facility. required to be on tidal land.
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 5 of 24
Page 6
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
Note: Further guidance on rights in context of fisheries resources Tewantin is the only site where marine plants
and fish habitats is provided in the operational policy provisions of
(macroalgae and turfing algae) will be temporarily
Management and protection of marine plants and other tidal fish
habitats (FHMOP 001), Department of Primary Industries and impacted by the works. The works will replace the
Fisheries, 2007. rocky substrate with a similar rocky substrate of
greater area, which the marine plants are expected to
naturally recolonise, possibly to an extent greater than
The provision of owners consent to lodge the recorded at the site in 2020.
development application does not confer rights.
The works will provide for public facility by restoring a
functionally lost ecosystem type to the Noosa River,
which is expected to also enhance the diversity and
abundance of marine plants.
The engineers certify that the weight of the rock
substrate, coupled with its geometric profile and
interlocking nature will prevent significant movement,
though a small amount of settling of the substrate into
soft sediments (up to 200mm) may occur. These
engineering assessments are based on sediment
cores which were taken from the sites.
The works do not propose to impact on commercial
businesses including commercial fishing businesses
using the waterway. See Project Restoration Plan,
Section 4.6 Public consultations.
PO4 The spatial extent of disturbance to marine For work associated with private development that is a jetty, Complies with PO4
plants is minimised. pontoon or boat ramp only:
The spatial extent of the oyster reef patches has been
AO4.1 Only one structure adjoins the property. minimised through an exhaustive habitat and
Note: For more information, refer to relevant fish
restoration suitability modelling and site selection
habitat management operational policies and fish Note: A structure includes boat ramps, jetties process (See Project Restoration Plan, Section 2:
habitat guidelines: and pontoons Restoration Models). Seagrass and mangroves are
1. Management and protection of marine plants and other completely avoided. The impact on degraded
tidal fish habitats (FHMOP 001), Department of Primary AND macroalgae communities at the Tewantin restoration
Industries and Fisheries, 2007 site is temporary only. All other works will be on bare
sand.
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 6 of 24
Page 7
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
2. Tidal fish habitats, erosion control and beach AO4.2 The extent of marine plants removed, damaged or Complies with AO4.2
replenishment (FHMOP 010), Department of Primary destroyed does not exceed two metres along the waterway
Industries and Fisheries, 2007 frontage (width). At Tewantin, there will be a temporary impact only on
3. Dredging, extraction and spoil disposal activities macroalgae (as outlined above in PO1). The
(FHMOP 004), Department of Primary Industries, 1998 AND
structures (oyster reef patches) will reduce or prevent
4. Departmental procedures for permit applications
erosion from boat wake around the boat ramp,
assessment and approvals for insect pest control in
protecting the narrow fringe of mangrove habitat
wetlands (FHMOP 003), Department of Primary
Industries, 1996
along the foreshore and result in a net increase in
potential habitat for macroalgae as a result of the
5. Fisheries guidelines for fish-friendly structures (FHG
006), Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries,
placement of habitat structures on bare substrate
2006. around the existing rock patches. The area of
restoration substrate placement at Tewantin is within
a zone of past historic oyster reef growth and is
designed to minimise disturbance to marine plants
(including macroalgae) where practical.
Marine plants are protected by minimum distances in
all other restoration areas, thus no loss of higher
value marine plants along the waterway frontages is
expected.
AO4.3 The long-term use and and operability of the Complies with AO4.3.
development will not result in ongoing adverse impacts or
new adverse impacts or additional development. For The long term performance and functionality of the
example, a proposed jetty will not result in the need to works has been considered. The works will require
dredge navigation access to the development in the future.
monitoring and maintenance initially, in particular top-
up and reprofiling in response to expected settlement
to ensure the structure remains within a desirable
depth range for optimal settlement and growth of the
target species (rock oysters). The works include
subsequent placement of restoration modules as the
basis for oyster ecosystem formation at additional
sites as part of Phase 2 activities to further enhance
and expand available habitat (as resources allow).
Once established, the structures are expected to
require little maintenance, be self-sustaining and will
form part of the natural river habitat.
AND one of the following acceptable outcomes apply Not a pontoon or jetty development.
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 7 of 24
Page 8
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
AO4.4 The extent of marine plant removal, damage or Damage, removal or destruction of macroalgae at the
destruction for a jetty or pontoon development has a Tewantin restoration site will be temporary.
maximum:
1. area of 30 square metres;
2. width of two metres along the shoreline
(highest astronomical tide);
3. length of 15 metres from highest astronomical
tide (measured perpendicular to the shore).
OR
AO4.5 The boat ramp development has a Not applicable
maximum development footprint of 45 square
metres.
For any other development, no acceptable outcome is
prescribed.
PO5 The timing of works avoids marine plant No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO5
flowering, fish spawning and fish migration
periods. The impact of the works is limited to the footprint of
the individual oyster reef patches, such that the works
will retain any marine plants present in access gaps
between patches, thus allowing flowering to occur.
The module design allows space for fish movement
between the rock patches.
The works are not expected to impact on mangroves
or seagrass so will not impact on reproduction, and
will be completed outside of the major macroalgal
recruitment period (i.e. winter).
The substrates have been specifically designed to
prevent any rock patch creating a barrier to trap fish
behind at low tide with adequate gaps for fish to move
through as the water rises and falls.
PO6 Development of or adjacent to, fish habitats No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO6
avoids the unnecessary loss, degradation or
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 8 of 24
Page 9
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
fragmentation of fish habitats and their values The restoration of oyster ecosystems aims to
and the loss of fish movement. enhance and augment existing fish habitat and avoid
unnecessary loss, degradation or fragmentation of
Note: For more information, refer to relevant fish fish habitats and their values and the loss of fish
movement through a supplemental restoration
habitat management operational policies and fish
approach to improve the mosaic of habitats available
habitat guidelines: to fish and restore once prolific oyster ecosystems
1. Management and protection of marine plants and other and associated fish habitat in the estuary.
tidal fish habitats (FHMOP 001), Department of Primary
Industries and Fisheries, 2007 The design is below Mean High Water Spring and
2. Tidal fish habitats, erosion control and beach requires works to have no adverse effects on higher
replenishment (FHMOP 010), Department of Primary value marine plant habitat including seagrass,
Industries and Fisheries, 2007 saltmarsh and mangroves. Minimum distances from
3. Dredging, extraction and spoil disposal activities
marine vegetation are specified to ensure high value
(FHMOP 004), Department of Primary Industries, 1998
marine plants are protected (as outlined in Section
4. Departmental procedures for permit applications
assessment and approvals for insect pest control in
2.3, Table 2.2. of the Project Restoration Plan and in
wetlands (FHMOP 003), Department of Primary ICM drawing NROR-2021-00). The exception to this is
Industries, 1996 the temporary impacts at the Tewantin site, which is
5. Fisheries guidelines for fish-friendly structures (FHG an existing degraded rocky substrate with some
006), Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, marine plants (macroalgae) present that would benefit
2006. from the habitat restoration proposed.
The design ensures the structures do not impose on
fish movement, with 1m to 4m distance between rock
patches maintained, and is expected to enhance
habitat complexity and connectivity within a
restoration site. This restoration substrate provides
structured 3-dimensional habitat that is known to
support diverse fish assemblages elsewhere. The
plans are designed to fit within the existing mosaic of
available fish habitats and improve connectivity
between existing fringing marine plant and reef
habitats.
PO7 Development does not increase the risk of No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO6
mortality, disease or injury, or compromise the
health, productivity, marketability or suitability for The project does not increase risk of mortality,
human consumption of fisheries resources, disease or injury, or compromise the health,
productivity, marketability or suitability for human
having regard to (but not limited to):
consumption of fisheries resources as a result of
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 9 of 24
Page 10
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
restoration works or the long-term presence of oyster
1. biotic and abiotic conditions, such as water
ecosystems.
and sediment quality
2. substances that are toxic to plants or toxic to The site selection process considered biotic and
or cumulative within fish abiotic conditions and disturbance of sediments. The
3. design of structures works employ locally occurring clean
4. impacts on reproductive success igneous/metamorphic rock as the primary restoration
5. effect on fish energy reserves substrate. The oyster shell used for augmentation is
cured as per QLD End of Waste – Shell Code, and
6. whether fish may be physically damaged, pre-washed prior to use (See Section 5.3 - Project
killed, trapped or stranded Restoration Plan). The oyster brood stock for shell
7. fish passage and access to habitats seeding will be sourced from the Noosa River,
generally; and spawned in a hatchery and returned to the Noosa
8. the impacts of pest fish and other relevant River following biosecurity protocols and the
pest species. conditions of a General Fisheries Permit secured for
this purpose.
Note: A fish salvage plan may be required to Sediment controls will be in place to protect marine
demonstrate compliance with the performance plants and are specified in Section 6.4 of the Project
outcome and may form a condition of any Management Plan. These measures, which may
include the deployment of sediment control curtains,
approval.
will be temporary, carefully monitored by the
construction contractor and avoid any entrapment of
Permits or other authorities may be required fish or other fauna.
under the Fisheries Act 1994 for the use of
regulated fishing apparatus and to posess The restoration substrates pose no threat to fish or
fisheries resources. fish passage through their rugose modular design.
The module design of the substrates has been
specifically designed to prevent any one module
creating a barrier to trap fish behind at low tide with
adequate gaps for fish to move through to fringing
riparian habitats as the water rises and falls with the
tide.
PO8 Works are undertaken to encourage fish habitats and No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO8
fisheries resource values to naturally regenerate.
The works encourage fish habitats and fisheries
Note: Substitution of fish habitats is not resource values to naturally regenerate through the
supported. careful design and placement of the restoration
substrates.
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 10 of 24
Page 11
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
A condition of approval for any marine plant
restoration is likely to require a post-works The substrates are designed and placed in areas that
monitoring and maintenance program are within the modern recruitment, growth and
appropriate for the scale of the restoration works. survival envelope for natural rock oysters in the
estuary, and supplement hard structure, of suitable
design, which rock oyster ecosystems require as their
foundation for establishment in the modern estuarine
environment.
Suitable hard structures need to be of a size,
configuration, rugosity and heterogeneity, which
support a diversity of species, while minimising
sediment trapping, smothering of the substrate and
maximising natural ecological processes. Such hard
structures have been lost due to heavy modification of
the Noosa River estuary and have resulted in the lack
of reestablishment of rock oyster ecosystems in the
estuary.
Historically, oyster lease areas in the Noosa River
estuary were dredged intensively for oysters in the
early 1900’s, resulting in the removal of live oyster
beds and the underlying bedrock. In 2016, Ecological
Service Professionals (ESP) quantified the historic
spatial extent of oyster beds in the Noosa River and
concluded that it was likely to have been in the range
of 41,530m2 to 207,650 m2, of which approximately
16,850m2 of old oyster beds and oyster rubble remain
buried by sediment in the historical oyster lease
areas. This represents a massive loss of hard
substrate in the estuarine system. For details see
Section 1.3 of the Project Restoration Plan.
The design of the restoration substrates (primarily
rock and shell), and their configuration as oyster reef
patches, as the basis for ecological restoration, also
provides structured 3-dimensional habitat that is
known to support diverse fish assemblages. The
restoration substrates are designed to fit within the
existing mosaic of available fish habitats and improve
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 11 of 24
Page 12
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
connectivity between existing fringing marine plant
and reef habitats. In short, the works help restore the
mix of substrates and habitats that once occurred in
the estuary, a diversity which has largely been
forgotten against a background of estuary
modification, the extent to which can hardly be
accepted.
PO9 Development likely to cause drainage or No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO9
disturbance to acid sulfate soils, prevents the
release of contaminants and impacts on fisheries The works do not result in the disturbance of
resources and fish habitats. materials (acid sulphate soils or otherwise).
Note: Management of acid sulfate soil is
consistent with the current Queensland acid
sulfate soil technical manual: Soil management
guidelines v4.0, Department of Science,
Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts,
2014.
PO10 Tidal and freshwater inundation and For bridges: Complies with PO10
drainage patterns, extent and timing are
maintained or restored such that ecological AO10.1 Bridges are designed with abutments The purpose of this proposed development is to
processes continue and associated fish habitat above the highest astronomical tide. restore once prolific oyster reef habitat, which was
removed historically. Oyster reefs are known to
values and condition are maintained. AND
provide significant habitat for a range of fish species
and improved habitat condition. Site selection for
For water, sewer or stormwater infrastructure: restoration has been determined based on a rigorous
modelling and risk assessment process and
AO10.2 Infrastructure is placed below the existing natural
substrate surface level, and natural substrate, surface levels
incorporates our modern knowledge on the potential
and habitat condition and values are reinstated. for successful restoration as well as historical location
of oyster harvesting areas.
For any other development, no acceptable outcome is
prescribed. The module layout and positioning of oyster reef
patches on site has been designed to minimise
impacts on laminar current flows. The works are not
anticipated to have a significant impact on tidal
inundation patterns.
PO11 Development: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO11
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 12 of 24
Page 13
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
Processes still occur, but the works may result in
1. maintains natural processes of erosion and
reduced erosion particularly along the shoreline.
accretion unless there is an immediate and
significant threat; and
1) The purpose of the works is not to provide
2. does not result in increased risk of waterway
erosion protection, but to restore rock oyster
bed or bank scour or erosion or shoreline or
ecosystems throughout the Noosa River. The
foreshore erosion.
design of the works extends only to Mean High
Water Spring and the reef substrate will be
overtopped by high tides, storm surge, flooding,
wave action and vessel wake (at high tide). While
module layouts 2 & 3 are anticipated to act as a
segmented reef and provide some sheltering to
the shoreline and result in reduced erosion, the
works do not prevent erosion or accretion from
occurring as a result of natural processes
2) The works are based on a modular design.
Concept Layouts 2 & 3 (shore parallel modules)
are to be adopted within Restoration Zone 1 Main
Channel where higher tidal and flood flows are
expected. This is to reduce the impact of the
works on current flows and avoid the potential for
concentration of flows to result in erosion of the
shoreline or scour around the structures as well
as encouraging flows through the structures
which enhance suitability of the structure for
habitat growth and reduces the potential for
siltation.
PO12 The development is designed, sited and No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO12
constructed to ensure its long-term use and
operability will not result in ongoing adverse Site selection has been carefully considered (see
impacts or new adverse impacts or additional Section 2 Restoration Models, in the Project
Restoration Plan) and the design life is adequate to
development including:
allow for sustained natural restoration once a suitable
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 13 of 24
Page 14
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
level of restoration has been reached as determined
1. dredging to maintain access
by ecological monitoring against restoration
2. trimming of marine plants benchmarks.
3. warning signs or protective structures.
The works will require monitoring and maintenance
initially, in particular top-up and reprofiling in response
to expected settlement to ensure the restoration
structure remains within a desirable depth range for
the target species. Once ecological benchmarks are
met (within the permit period), the structures will be
considered ‘restored’ and be left to mature naturally.
Further,
(1) The works will not require dredging to
maintain access or create problems
requiring dredging to maintain access to
adjacent areas/facilities.
(2) The works will not require trimming of
marine plants.
(3) Required navigation aids with signage will
be installed at MSQ direction as part of
the proposed works and are expected to
be removed at the end of the permit
period, or as directed. Navigation aids will
not impact on tidal fish habitats or marine
plant communities and will be positioned
or configured to avoid the risk of trimming
of marine plants e.g. mangroves.
PO13 Development does not restrict or reduce For development for a material change of use or Complies with PO13
public use of or access to tidal land and reconfiguration of a lot:
waterways (areas host to fisheries resources). Access to tidal lands will not be restricted due to the
AO13.1 Tidal land and fish habitats are separated from proposed development.
development and are available for public use.
For any other development, no acceptable outcome is
prescribed.
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 14 of 24
Page 15
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
PO14 Development does not adversely impact AO14.1 The development does not alter existing Complies with PO14.1
on community access to fisheries resources and infrastructure or existing community access arrangements.
fish habitats including recreational and No restriction on community access to fisheries
indigenous fishing access. resources or habitats or recreational or indigenous
fishing. Local licenced commercial fishers,
recreational fishers and indigenous elders have been
Note: In some cases, compensation for impact consulted. For details see Project Restoration Plan,
on fisheries access, operations and/or Section 4.6. Public consultations.
productivity may be necessary. The Guideline on
fisheries adjustment provides advice for
proponents on relevant fisheries adjustment
processes and is available by request from the
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
PO15 Development does not adversely impact No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO15
on commercial fishing access and linkages
between a commercial fishery and infrastructure, No restriction on commercial fisheries access and
services and facilities. linkages between commercial fishery and
infrastructure, services and facilities. Local industry
consulted and concerns expressed by some do not
Note: In some cases, compensation for impact directly relate to commercial interests. For details see
on fisheries access, operations and/or Project Restoration Plan, Section 4.6. Public
productivity may be necessary. The Guideline on consultations.
fisheries adjustment provides advice for
proponents on relevant fisheries adjustment
processes and is available by request from the
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
Private maritime infrastructure
PO16 Evidence of a relevant development approval for the No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
removal, damage or destruction or marine plants is required
if a material change of use or reconfiguration of a lot Not a private development.
occurred since 1 March 2005.
Erosion control structures and beach replenishment
PO17 Removal, destruction or damage to marine No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
plants as a result of erosion control structures or
beach replenishment only occurs where there is Works are not erosion control structures or beach
an immediate and significant threat of erosion to: replenishment.
1. the use of the land for its existing or approved
purpose; and
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 15 of 24
Page 16
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
2. infrastructure, structures or buildings are not
expendable or not able to be relocated.
Note: Further detail on erosion control is provided in Tidal fish
habitats, erosion control and beach replenishment (FHMOP 010),
Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, 2007.
PO18 The area that the beach replenishment is No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
to be carried out on is a high-energy, sandy
sediment shoreline with biological communities Works are not erosion control structures or beach
adapted to mobile sediments. replenishment.
PO19 Erosion control structures including beach No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
replenishment does not create terrestrial land,
unless it is a sacrificial dune or beach which Works are not erosion control structures or beach
forms an integral part of the erosion control replenishment.
design.
PO20 The beach replenishment work is No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
undertaken in a way that minimises the need for
other erosion control activities or works. Works are not erosion control structures or beach
replenishment.
PO21 The beach replenishment work is AO21.1 Beach replenishment will not require maintenance Not applicable.
undertaken in a way that minimises the more often than every two years.
frequency of any ongoing replenishment Works are not erosion control structures or beach
AND replenishment.
requirements.
AO21.2 A source of replenishment material for future Not applicable.
maintenance is identified and secured.
Works are not erosion control structures or beach
replenishment.
PO22 Erosion control structures are located No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
parallel to the shoreline and as far landward as
possible to avoid impacts to tidal land and Works are not erosion control structures or beach
marine plants. replenishment.
Dredging
PO23 Capital dredging is to create or provide access to No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
public infrastructure.
Works are not dredging and no dredging is proposed
Note:
1. Privately owned marina facilities or maritime infrastructure as part of the development.
development that is open to the general public and facilitates
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 16 of 24
Page 17
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
unrestricted public use for fishing purposes may be
considered public infrastructure
2. Dredging for access to private structures that do not provide
unrestricted public use is not supported.
PO24 Maintenance dredging is consistent with an existing No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Not applicable.
development approval for dredging; and within approved
profiles for navigational purposes. Works are not dredging and no maintenance dredging
is required.
PO25 Disposal of dredge spoil avoids adverse impacts on AO25.1 Dredge spoil is not deposited on tidal land. Not applicable.
marine plants.
Works are not dredging.
Temporary works
PO26 Fish habitats and the fisheries resources No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO26
they support are restored to pre-existing or
improved condition and extent when the Temporary works may include the deployment of
temporary works has ceased. sediment curtains, if they are deemed necessary and
shown to be effective to protect marine plants. These
will be monitored by the contractor and removed once
the works at the restoration site are complete. No
impact on fish habitat, marine plants or other fisheries
resources is anticipated. Any impact will result in the
removal of the sediment curtains.
PO27 Temporary works will be in place or are No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO27
undertaken for a specified period and for the
shortest possible time. Temporary works may include the deployment of
sediment curtains, if they are deemed necessary and
shown to be effective to protect marine plants. These
will be monitored by the contractor and removed once
the works at the restoration site are complete. Any
impact course will result in their removal and remedial
actions implemented. See Project Restoration Plan,
Section 6.4 Sediment management for elaboration
PO28 A temporary structure is in place for a No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO28
specified period and is designed to be
completely removed. Temporary works may include the deployment of
sediment curtains. If these are used, they will be
placed by the construction contractor and monitored
to avoid impact on marine plants or impediment to fish
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 17 of 24
Page 18
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
passage, then removed once restoration structures
have been deployed.
See Project Restoration Plan, Section 6.4 Sediment
management for elaboration
Restoration
PO29 Restoration does not: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO29
The purpose of this proposed development is to
1. compromise condition of fish habitats or fisheries restore once prolific oyster reef habitat, which was
productivity; or removed historically. Oyster reefs are known to
2. substitute a particular fish habitat for another type provide significant habitat for a range of fish species
of habitat, for example, creation of mangrove and improved habitat condition.
communities from other tidal fish habitats; or
3. substitute a natural fish habitat for artificial fish Works propose restoration of a fish habitat type and
has the potential to enhance fisheries productivity.
habitat; or
Works are proposed where oyster beds are assessed
4. deliver fish habitats that are likely to be regularly to have been once present, or likely to have been
disturbed, such as through predictable sediment present based analyses of historic data and
removal or maintenance dredging; or assessment of the location of remnant shell beds and
5. deliver fish habitats that will predictably be at a the distribution of oysters in the estuarine system
high risk of contamination and/or further today.
disturbance.
The Tewantin restoration site is a degraded rocky
reef, which the project will offset with augmentation by
Note: For further guidance refer to Restoration of fish enhancing the rocky character and encouraging
habitats: Fisheries guidelines for marine areas (FHG 002), ecosystem restoration of degraded invertebrate and
Department of Primary Industries, 1998. macroalgal species associated with oyster
ecosystems.
Restoration works authorised through an
endorsed restoration plan under the code for The works will provide restoration structures on which
self- assessable development MP06 – Minor oyster ecosystems will establish and deliver
impact works in a declared fish habitat area or ecosystem benefits to the diversity of marine habitats
involving the removal, destruction or damage of and fisheries and that, by engineering design, are
marine plants, Department of Agriculture, stable and unlikely to be disturbed by sediment
removal or maintenance dredging.
Fisheries and Forestry, 2013, do not require a
development permit. The sites are unlikely to be at risk of contamination
and/or further disturbance due to careful habitat and
restoration suitability modelling and ecological
assessments, which informed suitable site selection.
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 18 of 24
Page 19
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
The base substrate will be non-contaminated rock
and oyster cultch that has undergone rigorous
cleaning and drying process in accordance with
biosecurity protocols…
The impacts on the receiving environment are
expected to be low due to the nature of the works
(placing clean substrate into the water). Sediment
plumes will be assessed visually during construction
and appropriate mitigation measures undertaken in
accordance with Section 6.4 of the Project
Restoration Plan and approved Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
Risks associated with construction vessels and
vehicles (fuel spills etc) will be managed separately
by contractors through an approved Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP).
Timing of construction works is expected to be
November 2020 to April 2021 and September 2022 to
December 2022, subject to approvals.
Timing of temporary works, such as use of sediment
curtains is expected to be less than 10 days in total
per site, where used.
PO30 Marine plants to be used for revegetation AO30.1 Marine plants used in restoration works are Not applicable
purposes have local provenance. collected within a 100 kilometre radius of the site.
Matters of state environmental significance
PO31 Development: No acceptable outcome is prescribed. Complies with PO31
1. avoids impacts on matters of state environmental Matters of State Environmental Significance (MSES) apply
significance; or two the Tewantin and Goat Island restoration sites only.
2. minimises and mitigates impacts on matters of
Matters of State environmental significance (MSES) –
state environmental significance after Tewantin
demonstrating avoidance is not reasonably • High Ecological Value Waters (wetland)
possible; and • High Ecological Significance Wetlands
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 19 of 24
Page 20
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
3. provides an offset if, after demonstrating all • Noosa River Declared Fish Habitat (Management
reasonable avoidance, minimisation and type A) Area
mitigation measures are undertaken, the
High Ecological Value (HEV) Waters (wetland) / High
development results in an acceptable significant Ecological Significance (HES) Wetlands
residual impact on a matter of state
environmental significance. The oyster ecosystem restoration works are designed to
enhance the values of the wetland by restoring a complex
ecosystem to what is currently a degraded aquatic
Statutory note: For Brisbane core port land, an environment.
offset may only be applied to development on Mangroves and seagrasses are not recorded within the
land identified as E1 Conservation/Buffer, E2 footprint of this project and will not be impacted.
Open Space or Buffer/Investigation in the
Brisbane Port LUP precinct plan. For the A small stand of mangroves is shoreward of the proposed
Brisbane Port LUP, see www.portbris.com.au. restoration footprint at Tewantin. Mangrove areal roots
extend into the intertidal zone adjacent to the proposed
restoration footprint. Mangrove roots are excluded from the
Note: For the purpose of this code, the matter of restoration footprint at a minimum distance of 2m. Seagrass
state environmental significance assessed is is found upstream and outside of the restoration footprint
marine plants under the Fisheries Act 1994. and is excluded from the footprint at a minimum distance of
10m from the footprint.
Guidance for determining if the development will According to project consultants, ESP, macroalgae growing
have a significant residual impact on the matter on rocks, dominated by Padina sp. is sparse (covering less
of state environmental significance is provided in than 15% of the surface area), with a footprint of less than
the Significant Residual Impact Guideline, 479m2 within the proposed restoration area at Tewantin.
The macroalgal assemblages are assessed as being in
Department of State Development, Infrastructure relatively poor condition due to high sediment loads
and Planning, 2014. Where the significant observed on and around the existing rocky reef and rubble
residual impact is considered an acceptable areas, with some sections of reef having a high coverage of
impact on the matter of state environmental fine sediment.
significance under the Environmental Offsets ESP also confirmed that given the speed at which Padina
framework and an offset is considered can colonise hard surfaces (dead oyster shell) elsewhere in
appropriate, the offset should be delivered in the estuary (ESP 2021), it is anticipated that supplementary
accordance with the Environmental Offsets Act habitat provided as part of the proposed restoration project
2014. would be colonised rapidly within 1 year of deployment, and
that coverage would be similar to the current condition
within 2 to 3 years post deployment, particularly in sections
that particularly in sections that remain subtidal and not
covered by fine silt.
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 20 of 24
Page 21
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
The proposed oyster reef patches are designed and
certified by engineers. The oyster reef patches are spaced
(1-4m apart) so as not to not impede fish passage, cause
significant erosion (due to wave refraction) or impact
negatively on natural hydrological processes of the
waterway including laminar river flow.
The oyster reef patches are set away from the shoreline
and will not interfere with overland flow and runoff as a
result of floods.
Water quality will be monitored and maintained at the
restoration sites during the construction phase in
accordance with the sediment management protocol
outlined in this Restoration Plan (see Project Restoration
Plan. Section 6.4: Sediment management).
The restored oyster ecosystems will enhance water quality
by filtering estuarine water, removing algae and particulate
matter from the water column and converting nutrients, such
as nitrogen and phosphorus, into biogenic oyster growth as
well as binding these into the surrounding sediments.
Water quality will be monitored at the restoration sites using
standard parameters (pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
salinity, total dissolved solid) and significant changes
reported.
The works will maintain recreational access to shorelines or
the waters in which the oyster ecosystems grow. All
shorelines with recreational access have been excluded
from the selection process. Visual amenity will be
maintained, as less than one third of the reef patch area will
be exposed to view at low tide. Signage used to indicate the
location of the restoration footprints will be optimised, with
agency input, and will generally be considered temporary
until the oyster ecosystems are established, at which time
most signage, if not all will be removed from the river (as
per government direction).
The work also enhances cultural and spiritual connection to
place, enjoying the support of Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners.
Kabi Kabi Elders are providing the project with valuable
cultural and historic information and share the common
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 21 of 24
Page 22
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
interest of restoring oyster beds and reefs to the Noosa
River system.
Declared FHA (A areas) – Noosa River
Works propose to restore ecological values and enhance
fisheries resources at the site by the restoration of oyster
ecosystem to the Tewantin restoration site, which will
provide habitat and food resources, breeding sites and
nursery areas for marine fish.
The works at the Tewantin restoration site will not impact on
mangroves or seagrass, but will result in the temporary
disturbance to a small area of sparse macroalgae growing
on rock and rubble (as described above).
Note – Ecological information regarding the Tewantin
restoration site was provide by Ecological Services
Professionals. A full report is included as Annex 1 of the
Project Restoration Plan. See also relevant plans – MSES
(Annex 2), MQ1401 (Annex 3), Noosa River FHA (Annex 4)
Goat Island restoration site
The Goat Island site is within the following MSES:
• High Ecological Value Waters (wetland)
• Declared FHA (A and B areas)
• Protected Area (estates)
High Ecological Value Waters (wetland)
The oyster ecosystem restoration works are designed to
enhance the values of the wetland by restoring a complex
ecosystem to what is currently a degraded aquatic
environment. The proposed project meets with the
management intent of HEV Waters to improve the value
and condition of these areas.
Marine plants are not within the footprint of this project and
will not be impacted.
A small stand of mangroves is shoreward of the proposed
restoration footprint. Mangrove areal roots extend into the
intertidal zone adjacent to the proposed restoration
footprint. Mangrove roots are excluded from the restoration
footprint at a minimum distance of 2m. Seagrass is found
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 22 of 24
Page 23
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
outside of the restoration footprint and is excluded from the
footprint at a minimum distance of 10m from the footprint.
The proposed oyster reef patches are designed and
certified by engineers. The oyster reef patches are spaced
(1-4m apart) so as not to not impede fish passage, cause
significant erosion (due to wave refraction) or impact
negatively on natural hydrological processes of the
waterway including laminar river flow. The oyster reef
patches are set away from the shoreline and will not
interfere with overland flow and runoff as a result of floods.
Water quality will be maintained at the restoration sites
during the construction phase in accordance with the
sediment management protocol outlined in the Project
Restoration Plan (Section 6.4: Sediment Management). The
restored oyster ecosystems will enhance water quality by
filtering estuarine water, removing algae and particulate
matter from the water column and converting nutrients, such
as nitrogen and phosphorus, into biogenic oyster growth as
well as binding these into the surrounding sediments.
Water quality will be monitored at the restoration sites using
standard parameters (pH, temperature, dissolved oxygen,
salinity, total dissolved solid) and significant changes
reported.
The works will maintain recreational access to shorelines or
the waters in which the oyster ecosystems grow. All
shorelines with recreational access have been excluded
from the selection process. Visual amenity will be
maintained, as less than one third of the reef patch area will
be exposed to view at low tide. Signage used to indicate the
location of the restoration footprints will be optimised, with
agency input, and will generally be considered temporary
until the oyster ecosystems are established, at which time
most signage, if not all will be removed from the river (as
per government direction).
The work also enhances cultural and spiritual connection to
place, enjoying the support of Kabi Kabi Traditional Owners.
Kabi Kabi Elders are providing the project with valuable
cultural and historic information and share the common
interest of restoring oyster beds and reefs to the Noosa
River system.
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 23 of 24
Page 24
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes Response
Declared FHA (A and B areas)
Works propose to restore ecological values and enhance
fisheries resources at the site by the restoration of oyster
ecosystem, which provides habitat and food resources,
breeding sites and nursery areas for marine fish.
The works at the Goat Island restoration site will not impact
on marine plants.
Protected Area (estates)
The Goat Island Conservation Park is a protected area that
is estuarine in nature and protects mangroves, related tree
communities and tidal flats of Goat Island. The park is
adjacent and landward of the proposed Goat Island
restoration footprint. The values of the Park are protected
from the restoration works as all mangrove and tree
communities within the park are outside of the restoration
footprints. Aerial mangroves roots, fallen timber and other
marine plants encountered on the tidal flats are further
protected by a 2m separation area between them and the
oyster reef patches as per the Project Restoration Plan
(Section 2.3, Table 2.2., line 1).
The proposed works are designed to minimise the potential
for erosion of the park shoreline. On the contrary, it is
expected that the works may enhance protection of the park
shoreline by attenuating some wave action due to the high
rugosity and positioning of the oyster reef patches, which
will attenuate wave energy before it reaches the shoreline at
all but the highest points of the tidal cycle (see Project
Restoration Plan, Section 8.4. Erosion control).
Note – Ecological information regarding the Goat Island
restoration site was provide by Ecological Services
Professionals. A full report is included as Annex 1 of the
Project Restoration Plan. See also relevant plans – MSES
(Annex 2), MQ1401 (Annex 3), Noosa River FHA (Annex 4)
State Development Assessment Provisions – version 2.6
State code 11: Removal, destruction or damage of marine plants Page 24 of 24