Environment Effects Act 1978
PORT PHILLIP BAY CHANNEL DEEPENING
SUPPLEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS STATEMENT
APPENDIX TO THE REPORT OF THE INQUIRY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
Inquiry:
Dr Allan Hawke
Ms Kathryn Mitchell
Dr Mike Lisle‐Williams
1 October 2007
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
PORT PHILLIP BAY CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTARY ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS STATEMENT
APPENDIX TO THE REPORT OF THE INQUIRY
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Dr Allan Hawke, Chair
Ms Kathryn Mitchell, Member
Dr Mike Lisle‐Williams, Member
1 October 2007
Page 2
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 7
PART 1: BACKGROUND...... 8
1. INTRODUCTION...... 9
1.1 THE INQUIRY ...... 9 1.2 TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 10 1.3 SITE VISITS ...... 11 1.4 SUBMISSIONS AND HEARINGS...... 11 1.5 APPROACH TO REPORT ...... 16 1.6 THE ROLE OF THE INQUIRY ...... 17 1.7 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ...... 19 2. THE PROPOSAL ...... 21
2.1 WHAT IS PROPOSED?...... 21 2.2 BACKGROUND ...... 23 2.3 THE ALLIANCE ...... 26 3. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK ...... 27
3.1 STATE LEGISLATION ...... 27 3.2 STATE GOVERNMENT POLICY ...... 31 3.3 COMMONWEALTH LEGISLATION...... 36 4. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION ...... 38
PART 2: CHANNEL DESIGN AND DREDGING...... 43
5. CHANNEL DESIGN...... 44
5.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 44 5.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 46 5.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 61 6. DREDGING TECHNOLOGY SELECTION ...... 62
6.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 62 6.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 68
Page 3
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
6.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS ...... 71 7. DREDGING STRATEGY ...... 72
7.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 72 7.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 73 7.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 78 8. DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT...... 80
8.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 81 8.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 105 PART 3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND EFFECTS ...... 110
9. HYDRODYNAMICS ...... 111
9.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 111 9.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 112 9.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS ...... 120 10. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND COASTAL PROCESSES...... 122
10.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 122 10.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 124 10.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 129 11. LIGHT, PRODUCTIVITY, TURBIDITY, SEDIMENTATION ...... 130
11.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 130 11.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 131 11.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 139 12. NUTRIENT CYCLING...... 141
12.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 141 12.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 142 12.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS ...... 150 13. PENGUINS...... 152
13.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 152 13.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 152 13.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 158 14. FISH AND FISHERIES ...... 159
Page 4
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
14.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 159 14.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 160 14.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 169 15. LISTED AQUATIC SPECIES...... 171
15.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 171 15.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 172 15.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 176 16. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY ...... 177
16.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 177 16.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 177 16.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS ...... 179 17. THE ENTRANCE ...... 180
17.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 180 17.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 181 17.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 189 18. BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS...... 192
18.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 192 18.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 198 18.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS ...... 206 19. SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT...... 207
19.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 207 19.2 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 210 19.3 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 217 20. OTHER ISSUES...... 219
20.1 GREENHOUSE GASES...... 219 20.2 GROUNDWATER ...... 219 20.3 HERITAGE ...... 220 PART 4: ENVIRONMENTAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT...... 222
21. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK ...... 223
21.1 DESCRIPTION AND KEY ISSUES ...... 223 21.2 ADEQUACY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 224
Page 5
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
21.3 IMPLEMENTATION OF PROJECT DESIGN AS SPECIFIED ...... 226 21.4 INQUIRY RESPONSE ...... 229 21.5 INQUIRY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 231 22. EXTERNAL PROJECT GOVERNANCE...... 233
22.1 AUTHORISING REGIME...... 233 22.2 BAY MANAGEMENT ...... 235 22.3 DECISION MAKING DURING EMP IMPLEMENTATION ...... 236 22.4 COMPLIANCE FRAMEWORK ...... 238 22.5 OFF‐SETS ...... 242 23. MATTERS OF STATE AND COMMONWEALTH INTEREST...... 243
23.1 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT 1995 ...... 244 23.2 EPBC ACT ...... 245 24 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 253
LIST OF FIGURES
1. CDP project areas 2. Beneficial use and disposal options
LIST OF TABLES
1. Dimensions of design vessels 2. Dredging technologies considered for the CDP 3. Criteria for assessment of dredging technology 4. Summary of preferred dredging technology for uncontaminated material 5. Summary of preferred dredging technology for contaminated material 6. Volume of material t be dredged 7. Benefit‐cost analysis 8. PoMC’s estimates of project costs 9. Gross and net flow benefits 10. EPBC Act listed threatened species 11. Listed migratory species
ATTACHMENTS
1. Terms of Reference 2. List of Submittors
Page 6
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Inquiry supports the Supplementary Environment Effects Statement case that the Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project (CDP) can be delivered with low to medium risk, and moderate impact.
All major projects entail risk, and the Channel Deepening Project is no exception.
In summary, the Inquiry finds that:
(i) proposed CDP design (including for the channels, dredged material grounds and navigational aids) is safe, suitable and technically feasible to implement using the proposed dredging technologies;
(ii) likely environmental effects of the proposed CDP dredging activities and the subsequent operation of the deepened shipping channels have been addressed in the Supplementary Environmental Effects Statement, and the material presented to the Inquiry;
(iii) proposed project design and approach to project implementation (including technologies and work methods), are suitable to ensure acceptable environmental outcomes are achieved, having regard to relevant legislation and policy, as well as costs, benefits and operational efficiency in delivering the project, with modifications (including Independent Expert Group (IEG) recommendations) to the revised Environmental Management Plan to the satisfaction of Government prior to the CDP proceeding; and
(iv) considerations relevant to the Assessment that will inform decisions whether or not to approve the CDP under the Coastal Management Act 1995 (Victoria) and under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) have been satisfied.
Page 7
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
PART 1: BACKGROUND
Page 8
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Inquiry The Minister for Planning appointed an Inquiry on 23 May 2007 to consider the environmental effects of the Port Phillip Bay (PPB) Channel Deepening Project (CDP). The Inquiry’s key role was to assess the Supplementary Environment Effects Statement (SEES) as set out under the provisions of Section 9 of the Environment Effects Act 1978, in accordance with the Terms of Reference issued by the Minister for Planning on 4 April 2007. The Inquiry comprised:
• Chair: Dr Allan Hawke • Member: Ms Kathryn Mitchell • Member: Dr Mike Lisle‐Williams
The proponent for the CDP is the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC).
A Directions Hearing in relation to this matter was held on Tuesday 29 May 2007 at the offices of Planning Panels Victoria.
The Inquiry then held a public hearing over 18 days (from 18 June to 31 July 2007) at the offices of Planning Panels Victoria to hear submissions and supporting material in respect of the SEES. In reaching its conclusions and recommendations, the Inquiry has considered the submissions and a range of other material referred to it. This includes the three main volumes of the SEES and technical appendices, advice from the Independent Expert Group, the written submissions, the additional evidence and submissions, and the further oral presentations. This report is the Appendix to the Main Report of the Inquiry.
The Inquiry was assisted in its proceedings and deliberations by the following:
• Mr Michael Wright QC, as Counsel assisting the Inquiry; • Professor Alistair Gilmour, who provided scientific and technical advice to the Inquiry; • Mr Michael Crossman, Associate, Planning Panels Victoria who provided administration and technical support; • Ms Ingrid Holliday, Senior Project Officer, DSE, who was seconded to Planning Panels Victoria from June to October 2007 to assist the Inquiry on ecological issues; • Ms Rachel Power, Research Assistant, Planning Panels Victoria who provided
Page 9
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
administrative support to the Inquiry; and • other support from Planning Panels Victoria staff as required.
Further, the Inquiry consulted with and had preliminary meetings with the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and the Independent Expert Group (IEG) prior to commencement of the hearings in order to understand the background to the CDP. It then met with the Independent Expert Group at the conclusion of the hearing process to refine some key issues. The members of the IEG (and their expertise) are:
• Dr Graham Mitchell – Chair, and a Chief Scientists of DSE; • Dr Kerry Black, ASR Consulting – hydrodynamics and coastal processes; • Mr Nick Bray, Dredging Research Ltd. UK – dredging; • Professor Michael Keough, Melbourne University – marine ecologist; and • Dr John Parslow, CSIRO Marine Research Division – ecological modelling.
The Inquiry extends its sincere thanks to all involved in the process, and in particular the members of the IEG for their support and response on matters referred to it. It should be noted that the Inquiry relied heavily on advice received from the IEG and found that such advice assisted in clarifying a number of key issues. (All advice from the IEG was place on the DSE website.) This report should be read, and understood in that context, however the findings and recommendations included in this report, are those of the Inquiry alone.
1.2 Terms of Reference The Inquiry was issued with Terms of Reference (dated 4 April 2007) to guide its work in relation to the SEES. The Inquiry is required to address the following:
The Inquiry is to provide a written report to the Minister for Planning setting out information and advice in relation to the following matters only:
1. Whether the proposed design for the CDP (including for the channels, dredged material grounds and navigational aids) is safe, suitable and technically feasible to implement using the proposed dredging technologies. 2. The likely environmental effects of the proposed Channel Deepening Project dredging activities and the subsequent operation of the deepened shipping channels. 3. Whether the proposed project design and approach to project implementation (including technologies and work methods), with or without modification, are suitable to ensure the achievement of acceptable environmental outcomes, having regard to
Page 10
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
relevant legislation and policy, as well as costs, benefits and operational efficiency in delivering the project. 4. The considerations relevant to the Assessment that will inform decisions whether or not to approve the CDP under the Coastal Management Act 1995 and under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth).
A copy of the Terms of Reference can be found in Attachment 1.
1.3 Site Visits Prior to commencement of the hearing, the Inquiry members undertook two site inspections.
First, on 21 May it viewed the entire Port Phillip Bay coastline, port and dock area and Port Phillip heads by helicopter. The helicopter landed at Queenscliff and the Inquiry then travelled by car to Point Lonsdale to inspect the rip and heads area.
Second, on 6 June the Inquiry inspected the port area by boat and travelled up the Yarra River to Williamstown (Point Gellibrand) and then inspected Webb and Appleton Docks. Following this, it travelled to the Newport Power Station and undertook a detailed inspection of the site and its operations.
During the hearings, (23 July) the Inquiry inspected the Little Penguin colony at the St Kilda breakwater.
Following completion of the public hearing, the Inquiry undertook other inspections in its own time of the port area, and also the heads at Queenscliff and Point Lonsdale. This included viewing deep draught container ship movements at the Entrance from Point Lonsdale, one of which was undertaken in the presence of a PoMC Communications Officer, and from the lighthouse.
1.4 Submissions and Hearings The Channel Deepening Project SEES was exhibited between 22 March and 7 May 2007. Exhibition resulted in 213 individual submissions, whose names are included in Attachment 2. A further 578 proforma responses were also received.
A public hearing in relation to the proposal was held over eighteen days (18, 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28 June and 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 30 and 31 July 2007) in the offices of Planning Panels Victoria, during which time the following parties were represented and/or heard:
Page 11
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) Mr Jeremy Gobbo QC, Counsel, instructed by Minter Ellison Mr Christopher Townshend, Counsel Ms Juliet Forsythe, Counsel Mr Bill Scales, Chair, PoMC Board Mr Stephen Meyrick, Meyrick and Associates Mr Iain Gunn, Arup Mr Frans Uelman, Boskalis Mr Gerard van Raalte, Boskalis Mr Geoff Atkins, SKM Dr David Fox, University of Melbourne Dr Ian Irvine, Pollution Research Mr Don Raisbeck, SKM Mr Roger Parker, Golder Associates Mr Harry Houridis, SKM Dr Peter Morrison, SKM Dr Michael Palermo, Mike Palermo Consulting Mr Andrew Longmore, Primary Industries Research Victoria Dr David Provis, Cardno Lawson Treloar Professor Terry Healy, University of Waikato Mr Scott Chidgey, CEE Dr Markus Lincoln Smith, The Ecology Lab Dr Matt Edmonds, Australian Marine Ecology Dr Greg Jenkins, DPI Queenscliff Centre Mr Simon Mustoe, Applied Ecology Solutions Mr Lee Nikl, Golder Associates Mr David Cotterill, SKM State Government: Mr Trevor Blake, Chief Environment Assessment Officer, DSE Mr Grant Hehir, Secretary, Department Treasury and Finance Mr Stuart McConnell, Director Science and Technology, EPA Mr Chris McAuley, EPA
Page 12
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Local Government: Mr Alex Atkins and Cr Anne Shaw, Mornington Peninsula Shire Council Cr Leigh Harding, Hobson’s Bay City Council Cr Topsy Petchy & Mr David Harper, with Dr Graham Harris, Association of Bayside Municipalities Royal Yacht Club of Victoria: Mr Tony Spencer, Vice Commodore Mr Doug Bews Mr Peter Bedggood Metropolitan Transport Forum: Cr Rosemary West Frankston Beach Association: Ms Kathleen Hassell, Hon Secretary Ms Jennifer Hassell Ms Pat Bentley Mr Ilias Grivas, Economist Mornington Peninsula Secondary College: Mr Gary Morton, Teacher Ms Mandy Dyke, Ms Tathra Lamb, Ms Emma Wade, Year 9 students Victorian Farmers Federation: Mr Geoff Crick, Chairman Mr Simon Ramsay, President VECCI: Mr Chris James Victorian Freight and Logistics Council: Mr John Begley, Chair Ms Rose Elphick, CEO Mr Paul Kerr, Murray Goulburn Cooperative Shipping Australia: Mr Llew Russell, CEO Mr Phillip Kelly, Secretary Mr David Munro, ANL Ecogen Energy Pty Ltd: Mr Simon Molesworth AM QC, instructed by Martin and McLean Lawyers Ms Rosemary Martin, Martin and McLean Lawyers Mr John Edelston, General Manager Mr Peter Fitzgerald, Project Engineer Blue Wedges Coalition: Ms Jenny Warfe, President Dr Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Policy Research Institute Dr Lindsay Swinden, Omic Australia Mr Richard McEncroe, Esperanto Consulting and Communication
Page 13
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Mr Francis Grey, Mr Simon O’Connor, Mr Craig Robertson and Mr Roderick Campbell, Economists@Large Mr Neil Blake Mr David Bryant Mr John Willis Mr Jim Walker Dr Jo Samuel‐King Mr Chris Mardon Captain Frank Hart Captain Geoffrey Beevers Mr Barry Robinson Diving Industry: Mr Michael Morehead, Moreheads Lawyers Mr Len Salter, Dive Industry Victoria Association Mr Jason Salter, Dive Victoria Group Mr Tom Wende, Blue Devils Ms Judith Muir, Polperro Dolphin Swims Mr Brian Phillips Mr Brett Hemphill Mr Andrew Horne Mr Andrew Malouf Mr Warwick McDonnell Mr Pat Dillon Mr Hank Renzenbrink Citizens for a Liveable Melbourne: Ms Sue Slamen Tourism Alliance Victoria: Ms Jacqueline Blackwood, Information and Research Analyst Yarra River Keepers Association: Mr Nick Abroms, Lower Yarra Representative Victorian Recreational Fishing Peak Body: Mr Bob Pearce, Chairman Mr Doug Evers‐Buckland Dr Craig Sanderson, Marine Biologist Victorian National Parks Association: Ms Jenny Barnett, Research and Submissions Officer Australian Conservation Foundation: Mr Chris Smythe, Marine Campaign Coordinator Port Phillip Conservation Council Inc: Mr Alan Clark, Past President Earthcare St Kilda Inc: Mr Andrew McCutcheon, President
Page 14
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Ms Tiana Preston, PhD Candidate, Monash University Queenscliff Community Association: Ms Christine Johnson, Secretary Ms Joan Kenwood Pardeys Pharmacy, Ms Joan Lindros Queenscliff Harbour Forum and Geelong Environmental Council Inc Individual Submittors: Ms Mary Rimmington for Mr Tom Whitfield Dr Simon Roberts Ms Susan Pennicuik MLC Mr Dennis Bertotto Ms June Danks for Dr Pat Phair Mr James Carter Mr Hector Gallagher Ms Jeanette Johanson, Geelong West ALP Ms Lindy Chadwick Mr Neil Robson Mr Kerry Murphy and Mr John McDonald, Eco Islands Taskforce Mr Hank Renzenbrink, Sea All Dolphin Swims Ms Phillipa Rayment & Ms Kathleen Gorman Mr Alan Beckhurst Mr Bill Green Ms Mary Rimmington, Mordialloc Beaumaris Conservation League Inc Dr David Hawkins, SCUBA Divers Federation of Victoria Inc Ms Rosemary West Mr John Glazebrook Ms Jenny Warfe Mr Len Warfe Mr Barry Robinson Mr Terry Croft Ms Patsy Crotty Dr Jo Samuel‐King Captain Frank Hart The hearings were taped, and copies made available to submittors upon request. The Inquiry thanks all parties for their participation in proceedings.
Page 15
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
1.5 Approach to Report This report is the Appendix to the Main Report and is presented in four parts as follows:
• Part 1: Background (Chapters 1 to 4); • Part 2: Channel Design and Dredging (Chapters 5 to 8); • Part 3: Environment Impacts and Effects (Chapters 9 to 20); and • Part 4: Risk and Environmental Management (Chapter 21 to 23).
In considering the environmental impacts and effects of this proposal as set out in Parts 2 and 3, the Inquiry has undertaken its analysis in accordance with the following format:
• Description and Key Issues
First, the Inquiry has used the description of each identified issue as it is generally described in the SEES Summary Document. It has also identified the relevant section of the SEES that dealt with each particular issue/effect and whether any further evidence was submitted and/or called in response to the matter.
Second, the Inquiry has identified the key issues that were raised during the course of the hearing process or through written submissions. In this regard, the Inquiry has only focussed on the key issues raised – it has not addressed every component or issue in the SEES documentation.
• Inquiry Response
Third, the Inquiry has provided its response to each of the effects and issues. Some of this is lengthy and quite detailed, thus reflecting the extent of discussion, evidence and submission. Some of the response is minimal, particularly where there were few issues raised through the submissions.
• Inquiry Conclusions and Recommendations
Finally, the Inquiry has provided its overall conclusions and then recommendations on the effects/issues. These must be read in conjunction with the mitigation measures proposed by the proponent. The Inquiry has not repeated these measures, focussing instead on providing recommendations which are additional to those proposed in the SEES and the final Environmental Management Plan (Version C). In this regard the Inquiry has assumed all stated
Page 16
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
mitigation measures will be undertaken by the proponent and other agencies where identified.
It is important to note that the Inquiry has used the SEES as its base documentation, along with the various reports and advice from the Independent Expert Group, the evidence and submissions presented at the hearing, additional information presented and tabled at the hearing, the additional reports submitted on rock scour at the conclusion of the hearing, the original submissions made to the exhibition process, and the former Panel EES report. Most importantly, the Inquiry has attempted to synthesise this material into the Main and Appendix reports to provide a concise overview of the key issues to be addressed, and the recommendations for Government to assist in its deliberation about the environmental impacts of the Channel Deepening Project.
1.6 The Role of the Inquiry During the course of the hearing, a number of references and submissions were made about the Terms of Reference and the role of this Inquiry.
The Inquiry was established to provide advice to the Minister for Planning about the specific matters as set out in the Terms of Reference. The Inquiry is not a decision making body, nor is its role to recommend whether or not the CDP proceeds. Those decisions are made by the relevant Ministers and statutory authorities. This report and the work of the Inquiry will assist to inform the Government’s decision. It is one part of the overall environmental assessment and decision making process. Some submittors wrote to the Inquiry and the Minister for Planning seeking changes to the Terms of Reference, changes to the Inquiry’s powers and extensions to the timeframes for the Inquiry. However, the Inquiry is a creature of its Terms of Reference, and these matters are beyond its purview.
The Inquiry notes the use of the word only at the head to its tasks as set out in the Terms of Reference, and considers that it specifically was included to ensure that it focussed on these four points. There are three key reasons for highlighting this.
First, the Terms of Reference has various procedural issues included, for example, cross examination was not permitted, unless questions were submitted in writing. During the course of the hearing, the Inquiry was asked by various submittors to ‘relax’ that procedure, and it declined. The Inquiry made the point that it did not write the Terms of Reference, but was required to abide by them, as were all other parties. It does make the observation however that the lack of open cross examination in the usual way did not overly assist the Inquiry, as it was
Page 17
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
cumbersome and less than helpful to have questions in writing only. On some occasions, responses were unable to be fully explored. The opportunity to have open cross examination generally enhances the overall process and usually results in key issues being explored fully. The Inquiry does not encourage the use of this practice in the future, but notes that the lack of open and rigorous cross examination ensured a shorter time frame for the hearing process. Notwithstanding, these shortcomings did not materially affect the Inquiry’s judgement, nor its ultimate position on key issues and findings.
Second, the submission of Mr Blake of DSE inferred that the Inquiry should report on a wide range of matters. The Inquiry questioned the length and breadth of these matters. It raised with Mr Blake the use of the word only, and he provided a different interpretation to that as understood by the Inquiry. He argued that the Inquiry had a much broader role than the Terms of Reference suggest and in this regard, said:
To assist the preparation of the Minister’s Assessment, and in the framework of your four tasks, it will be important for your report to:
• Provide clear findings on the potential environmental effects of the channel deepening project, in the context of the available evidence; • Provide clear conclusions regarding any modifications to a project or any environmental management measures that are needed to address likely adverse effects or environmental risks; • Provide an evaluation of the overall significance of likely adverse effects and environmental risks of the project, relative to likely benefits of the project, within the context of applicable legislation, policy, strategies and guidelines.
Your conclusions regarding the availability of an environmental management plan that can effectively manage residual risks and the associated uncertainties will be of particular interest.
Further, Mr Blake advised that “the Assessment Guidelines anticipated that this Inquiry might consider the performance of the project relative to these or equivalent evaluation objectives. As you are aware, these objectives are not referenced in the Inquiry’s terms of reference and therefore it is a matter for your discretion whether you use such objectives to structure your findings, either by themselves or in combination with more specific performance criteria”.
Third, the submission of the Victorian Government Departments, as represented by Mr Hehir, Secretary of the Department of Treasury and Finance, at the hearing,
Page 18
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
noted that:
The Departments’ written submission to the Inquiry provides an overview of the Victorian Government’s policy settings relevant to Channel Deepening, outlines the economic benefits of the project, and importantly, focuses on the four tasks the Minister for Planning asked you to consider. Inquiry underlining
The clear message from Mr Hehir at his presentation was that the Inquiry was to ensure that it only focussed on its tasks as outlined in the Terms of Reference. Indeed, the original submission from the combined Victorian Government Departments addressed each of the four tasks in turn.
Consequently, the Inquiry has taken its role from the Terms of Reference to address each of the four tasks.
Some submittors, including Mr Morehead for the various Dive Associations, suggested that the Inquiry should only confine itself to assessment of ‘environmental’ and not other impacts. Likewise Mr Neil Robson who questioned the relevance of the PoMC’s economic case and said that “none of the matters listed, in my opinion, require any economic consideration”. He argued that the Inquiry should just confine itself to consideration of environmental effects. The Ministerial guidelines for assessment of environmental effects under the Environment Effects Act 1978 (2006) define the Environment as including “… the physical, biological, heritage, cultural, social, health, safety and economic aspects of human surroundings, including the wider ecological and physical systems within which humans live.” The Inquiry rejects the assertions made that the Act does not allow for a full assessment of the range of impacts as noted above.
1.7 Additional Information Towards the conclusion of the hearings, the Inquiry received additional information relating to rock scour at the Entrance. Additionally, the PoMC updated the EMP and the Inquiry gave leave for all parties to comment on both of these. Submittors were invited to provide additional submissions by 13 August and then gave leave for the PoMC to provide any final comments by 20 August 2007.
Point 4 of the Terms of Reference – Procedure, notes that the Inquiry is required to adopt the following procedure:
(6) request further information, if necessary, from relevant submittors and relevant agencies, including expert witnesses, regarding matters relevant to the Task of the
Page 19
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Inquiry. (7) seek written or verbal information or advice, as required, from the Independent Expert Group or its individual members or from such other experts or specialists as the Inquiry may consider would be of assistance. Any such information or advice must be publicly disclosed (unless it is of a confidential nature).
In this regard, the Inquiry met with the Independent Expert Group on 20 August to explore the rock scour, the EMP and other issues. Both the IEG and the Inquiry considered that the PoMC should undertake further studies and a peer review on the issue of rock scour at the Entrance and directed it do so. It requested by letter to the PoMC (date of letter) that this information be provided to it by 18 September 2007.
The Inquiry posted all of the IEG reports provided to it on the DSE web site, and these include the following:
• Final IEG advice on EMP 06/09/07 • Final IEG advice on dioxins 17/08/07 • Final IEG advice on PoMC sediment chemistry assessments April 2006 • Final IEG advice on John Beardall 17/08/07 • Final IEG advice on rock scour 29/08/07 • Final IEG advice to SEES Inquiry on PoMC response 31/07/07 • Final interim IEG advice to SEES Inquiry on PoMC response 18/07/07
On 18 September 2007, the Inquiry received a response from PoMC and it included:
• covering letter from Minter Ellison Lawyers; • peer review by Neville Rosengren (Environmental GeoSurveys Pty Ltd); • peer review – “Dredging‐induced Potential Scour at the Entrance to Port Phillip Bay – A review of reports on Scour and Modelling the Environmental Impacts” (September 07) by Terry Healy, (Research Professor); • review of Dredging Technologies and Work Practices in the context of the Scour Assessment Report The Entrance (September 07) by Frans Uelman (Boskalis); and • SKM Bioaccumulation report (29 September 07).
All these reports were posted on the DSE website, along with various written material received during the course of the hearing.
Page 20
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
2. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 What is Proposed? The Victorian Government established the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC) under the Port Services Act 1995. PoMC is the strategic manager for the Port of Melbourne and it has functions and powers to undertake the integrated management and development of the land and water side of the port. PoMC is currently proposing to deepen the shipping channels of Port Phillip Bay, and the proposal, known as the Channel Deepening Project (CDP), requires assessment under the provisions of the Environment Effects Act 1978 and approval under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The project’s stated aim is to modify the shipping channels to enable access for 14 metre draught vessels to the Port of Melbourne in all tidal conditions. To achieve this aim, the project has the following elements:
• dredging of existing shipping channels including the Yarra River Channel, Williamstown Channel, Port Melbourne Channel, South Channel and the Great Ship Channel at the Entrance; • dredging of berth pockets at Appleton Dock, Swanson Dock, Holden Dock and Gellibrand Pier; • placement of dredged material into two dredged material grounds (DMG), one in the north of the Bay and one in the south of the bay; and • modifications to existing infrastructure including berth works, river works, protection of services, upgrades to existing navigation aids and installation of new navigation aids.
It is proposed that the majority of the dredging will be within the existing shipping channels, as well as the following areas:
• the Entrance; • the turning area at Hovell Pile in the south east channel; • the southern end of the Port Melbourne channel; and • the Swanson Dock swing basin.
To meet marine safety standards, the declared channel depths required for access by 14 metre draught vessels vary between 14.6 metres in the Yarra River between Appleton Dock and Swanson Dock West and 17 metres at the Entrance.
Page 21
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The CDP involves dredging an estimated 22.9 million m3 of material, which will bulk up to approximately 26 million m3 as a consequence of the dredging program. Almost half of the sediment in the Williamstown Channel and a smaller proportion in the Port Melbourne channel are contaminated (see Chapter 8). The contaminated dredged material is proposed to be placed in a DMG in the north of Port Phillip Bay and then covered with a layer of uncontaminated sediment.
Modifications are proposed for berths at Appleton, Swanson, and Holden Docks, and at Gellibrand Pier to strengthen these structures and to ensure their ongoing stability. River works to stabilise the banks of the Yarra River and expansion of the swing basin at Swanson Dock are also proposed. Various infrastructure assets (service pipelines or conduits for sewage, oil, gas, telecommunications and electricity) that pass under the bed of the Yarra River are proposed to be physically protected or decommissioned. A number of new navigational aids will be installed or modified.
All of the above works will be carried out in four defined project areas as follows:
• Project Area 1 – Yarra River and Hobsons Bay • Project Area 2 –North of the Bay • Project Area 3 –South of the Bay • Project Area 4 –The Entrance
Figure 1: CDP Project Areas
(Source: SEES Executive Summary, Page 12)
Page 22
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The PoMC had proposed to commence these works in January 2008 and complete the project by December 2009, although the dredging schedule changed during the course of the Inquiry hearings.
In providing a strategic context for the CDP, Mr Hehir informed the Inquiry that:
The Port of Melbourne is the busiest container port in Australia, currently handling 38 per cent of the nation’s container trade. Container trade through the Port is estimated to quadruple over the next 30 years. The current maximum all‐tide draught is 11.6 metres. With this restriction, a number of vessels are not able to enter or leave fully loaded. This will progressively worsen as the trend to larger container ships in the international shipping market continues and will result in higher costs for importers and exporters.
He noted that the Victorian Government has previously given its in‐principle support to the Project, “provided it satisfies all relevant technical, financial and environmental approval requirements”. He noted his submission reflects the Departments’ particular areas of responsibility and is informed by legislation, policy and strategy, and contemporary practices and standards relevant to Departmental roles and the Project. Importantly, he said “this submission does not pre‐empt decisions Ministers may make as part of their responsibilities under legislation, for example, the Environment Effects Act 1978 and the Coastal Management Act 1995, nor does it pre‐empt any advice Departments may provide to Ministers in this regard”.
2.2 Background In May 2002, the then Minister for Planning declared the proposed channel deepening project to be public works under the Environment Effects Act 1978, meaning that an Environment Effects Statement (EES) was required to be prepared by the proponent. The EES was prepared by PoMC and exhibited for public comment for six weeks between 5 July 2004 and 16 August 2004.
In July 2004, the Minister for Planning appointed an Inquiry under section 9(1) of the Environment Effects Act 1978 to consider the EES and public submissions. Public hearings were held by the Inquiry in September‐December 2004, and a report was provided to the then Minister for Planning on 11 February 2005.
In March 2005, the Minister for Planning released the EES Inquiry report and indicated that he was considering a requirement for PoMC to complete a SEES. The Minister’s Statement suggested that:
Page 23
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• PoMC consider a trial dredge program to inform the development of its SEES; • the then Minister for Transport convened a Project Management Group (now known as the Channel Deepening Taskforce) to advise and support PoMC to take forward its program of investigations for the Project; and • an Independent Expert Group be appointed to provide high level scientific and technical advice during the further stages of the assessment process, including to inform the development of the SEES.
The Minister confirmed the need for a SEES and issued a Statement on the objectives, approach and process for the SEES in July 2005. The SEES process mirrored the original EES process in key respects, including preparation of new Assessment Guidelines, exhibition of the SEES after it was completed to a satisfactory standard, six weeks public comment and appointment of a new inquiry under the Act.
In July 2005, the SEES Assessment Guidelines were also released as a draft for public comment. These were finalised in October 2005 following considerations of submissions received and the trial dredge program completed in September 2005. Section 4 of the Assessment Guidelines describes the overall approach that should be adopted for the SEES, including the central matters to be investigated. These included several matters identified as foundational for the SEES:
• clarity of the project definition; • review of the project design (including works design for channels and dredged material grounds, choice of technology and proposed work methods and scheduling) to explicitly address environmental, policy, safety risk and functionality issues; • refinement of the risk assessment methodology; • identification and justification of performance criteria; and • a conceptual model of system interactions and responses to guide study design.
Mr Blake explained that it was seen to be necessary for the SEES to confirm the modelling of the impact of channel deepening and dredging activity respectively on key system processes, i.e. on hydrodynamics, turbidity plumes, primary production in key ecological communities, and the effects of any medium to long‐term changes to current patterns and/or sediment transport.
Building on the modelling of system processes, the guidelines identified the need for further assessment of key environmental effects and risks to demonstrate the ability of the dredging campaign to avoid or minimise key potentially significant risks effectively, especially:
Page 24
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• seagrass in the Great Sands area; • seagrass, macroalgae or reef communities within Marine Protected Areas; • any populations or habitat of listed fauna or other fauna of conservation significance; • marine fauna as well as uses of such fauna arising from altered transport of fish larvae; • human or ecological health from mobilisation and bioavailability of toxic contaminants within the water column; • human heath or ecological health from blooms of toxic algae species resulting from short‐term nutrient release; • ecological health from altered ecosystem nutrient budgets or a protracted reduction in the denitrification capacity of Bay sediments; and • marine‐dependent economic uses of the Bay or lower Yarra waters.
The SEES task was to present a case that these risks would be acceptably low, either for the project as proposed or through measures available for implementation within the framework of an environmental management plan. The guidelines called for the SEES to adopt a methodology based on an integrated approach to analysis of environmental processes and effects, in summary, by incorporating these aspects:
• characterise the environmental assets, values and dependent uses that might be affected by the project, based on a sound scientific understanding of the Port Phillip Bay system; • characterise potential hazards arising from the project; • describe the proposed design, technology and environmental management measures to minimise environmental risks; • assess the environmental effects of the project, including their potential consequences and the associated likelihood; and • specify strategies for monitoring and management (avoidance, mitigation or control) of environmental risks, within the framework of an environmental management plan.
In order to assist an integrated assessment of the potential effects of the CDP within the framework of applicable legislation, policy and principles, the guidelines put forward a draft set of eight evaluation objectives reflecting the key potential impacts.
Mr Blake advised that the Assessment Guidelines anticipated that the SEES investigations would build upon the EES investigations and that the SEES documentation would be supplementary to the EES. He said “However, in the process of developing its study program, PoMC came to the early conclusion, first, that a fresh start
Page 25
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
was needed for most of its investigations, and secondly, that the SEES documentation should stand‐alone from the EES. This approach was quite acceptable, though it should be borne in mind that both the EES and the first Inquiry report are still relevant to the assessment process for the CDP”. The Inquiry has taken the view that the base documentation to be assessed is the SEES, but has referred to the former EES material and Panel report as necessary.
The SEES was prepared over a two year period by Maunsells. It included three main reports, a summary report and 10 volumes of appendices numbered from 1 to 67.
2.3 The Alliance The Inquiry was advised that the PoMC entered into an Alliance Agreement with Boskalis Australia Pty Ltd on 5 July 2004. It is understood the Alliance is premised on working as an integrated team to achieve agreed outcomes and to share risks and rewards. The original scope of the Alliance applied to dredging and management of dredged material. It was later expanded to cover services protection and treatment of redundant services. The balance of the works (berthworks, navigation aids and service network reconfiguration) will be undertaken under traditional contracting arrangements by the Port.
Mr Gobbo opined that the key reason for the adoption of an alliance approach for the CDP was the uncertainty regarding the ability to dredge at the Entrance given material had only been removed via blasting up until 1986. In order to undertake the project it was necessary to ensure that the technology was best practice and able to undertake the work to strict environmental and safety standards and in an efficient manner. The Alliance partnership undertook the trial dredge program from August to October 2005.
The opening submission of the proponent outlined a range of other issues in relation to the Alliance. Several submittors questioned the operation and various arrangements relating to the Alliance, but it was outside the scope of the Inquiry to pursue or address these issues.
Page 26
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
3. LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY FRAMEWORK
Approvals required for this proposal include the Coastal Management Act 1995, the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988, Fisheries Act 1995 and the Heritage Act 1995, and the (Commonwealth) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).
It is understood that at the Commonwealth level, the PoMC has applied for approval under the EPBC Act. At the Victorian level, the PoMC has not yet applied for the consents necessary to undertake the Project. The Inquiry was advised by PoMC that it was considered appropriate to await completion of the SEES hearing process in order to assess whether any additional material needs to be included with the applications. The key legislation and policy requirements are set out as follows:
3.1 State Legislation Key approvals required are set out in Chapter 5, Volume 1 of the SEES Main Reports. This Inquiry hearing process will inform decisions under the following legislation (in order of proclamation):
(i) Land Act 1958
The Land Act 1958 governs the management and disposition of unreserved Crown land, including the granting of leases and licences over unreserved Crown land for commercial, industrial, agricultural and other purposes.
(ii) Environment Protection Act 1970
The Environment Protection Act 1970 establishes the Environment Protection Authority (EPA), outlines its powers, duties and responsibilities and makes provision for the prevention of pollution and the protection of the environment.
(iii) Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972, Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007
The Archaeological and Aboriginal Relics Preservation Act 1972 deals with Aboriginal sites that have cultural and archaeological significance. The Act aims to protect all evidence of Aboriginal occupation, be it pre‐European or post‐European, with a strong emphasis on preservation. It also outlines the procedure for reporting a discovery of an Aboriginal relic. This Act directly relates to the Commonwealth
Page 27
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984.
The Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006 and Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 2007 came into force on 28 May 2007 and replace the former legislative regime for protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage. The Act requires a cultural heritage management plan to be prepared for certain projects. Where a cultural heritage management plan is required, authorities are prevented from issuing statutory authorisations in respect of the project until the cultural heritage management plan is approved.
Section 49 of the Act applies if a proponent or other person is required to prepare an EES under the Environment Effects Act 1978 for any works. Sub‐section 49(2) provides that such a proponent or other person must, before commencing the works, also prepare a cultural heritage management plan for the area in which the works are to be carried out. There is some lack of clarity as to whether a cultural heritage management plan is required for this project. However, the Inquiry was advised the PoMC has taken a conservative approach and has commenced preparation of a cultural heritage management plan. Notice has been given to Aboriginal Affairs Victoria. Given the level of prior work by PoMC on the implications of the project on Aboriginal heritage, Mr Gobbo advised that it is not envisaged that the preparation of a cultural heritage management plan will involve a lengthy process.
(iv) Environment Effects Act 1978
The Environment Effects Act 1978 establishes the legislative framework for obtaining information and advice on the likely environmental effects of projects by decision makers and those responsible for undertaking works, in the form of an Environment Effects Statement (EES). The Act requires a body which is carrying out or proposing to carry out declared works to prepare an EES which must be submitted to the Minister administering the Act, to assist the Minister’s assessment of the environmental effects of the works. The CDP is a declared work for the purposes of this Act, and the Minister administering the Act has directed the Inquiry to conduct an inquiry into the environmental effects of the proposal under Section 9.
In relation to the assessment of proposals under the Act, the Ministerial Guidelines set out that an assessment is to provide:
• findings on the potential magnitude, likelihood and significance of adverse and beneficial environmental effects of the project; • conclusions regarding any modifications to a project or any environmental management measures that are needed to address likely adverse effects or environmental risks; and
Page 28
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• evaluation of the overall significance of likely adverse effects and environmental risks of the project, relative to likely benefits of the project, within the context of applicable legislation, policy, strategies and guidelines.
(v) Emergency Management Act 1986
This Act places the Minister for Police in the role of Co‐ordinator in Chief of emergency management for Victoria. As such he/she is obligated to create a State emergency response plan, which identifies the specific responsibilities of various government and local government groups. His/her role also includes overseeing implementation of this plan, which as defined by the Act includes marine oil spills, fire and explosions, all of which are relevant to the CDP.
(vi) Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
The main objectives of this Act are to conserve the State of Victoria’s flora and fauna, to manage potential threats, to ensure that any human use of flora and fauna is sustainable and to make certain that the diversity of Victoria’s flora and fauna is maintained at its present level. The Act also highlights its key role as the main piece of Victorian legislation that deals with the conservation of threatened species.
(vii) Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994
The Catchment and Land Protection Act 1994 focuses on the management and protection of State water catchments. Its primary concerns are the maintenance of State land and water resources and the enhancement of long‐term productivity. The Act promotes and supports the operation of the Victorian Catchment Management Council and the Catchment Management Authorities. It also provides a system of controls on weeds and pests.
(viii) Coastal Management Act 1995
The Coastal Management Act 1995 provides a coordinated approach to approvals for the use and development of coastal Crown land in Victoria. Section 3(1) of the Act defines coastal Crown land as:
• any land reserved under the Victorian Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 for the protection of the coastlines; • Crown land within 200 metres of the high water mark of the coastal waters of Victoria; • any sea within the limits of Victoria; and
Page 29
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• the seabed of the coastal waters and sea of Victoria.
Section 37 of the Act provides that a person must not use or develop coastal Crown land unless they have obtained the written consent of the Minister administering the Act. In deciding whether or not to consent to a use or development, the Minister must have regard to:
• the Victorian Coastal Strategy; • any Coastal Action Plan applying to the land; • any recommendation of the Land Conservation Council for land in respect of which notice has been given to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment under section 10(3) of the Land Conservation Act 1970; and • the purposes for which land was reserved, in the case of land reserved or deemed to be reserved under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978.
(ix) Dangerous Goods Act 1995
This Act regulates the storage and handling of dangerous goods, with the purpose of protecting both people and the environment from any harm.
(x) Port Services Act 1995
The Port Services Act 1995 requires the Port Manager to be responsible for preparing, certifying and implementing an environmental management plan. Furthermore, any relevant ministers including the Minister for Environment, who administers the Environmental Protection Act, may direct the port to comply with any written direction.
(xi) Fisheries Act 1995
This Act specifies objectives for the management of Victoria’s fisheries.
(xii) Heritage Act 1995
This Act establishes a framework for heritage protection in Victoria. It provides protection for a wide range of cultural heritage places and objects.
(xiii) Electricity Safety Act 1998
This Act prohibits any person from making an opening in the ground above or below an electric line, unless they have the authorisation of the person who oversees
Page 30
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
that particular line. This excludes persons with the permission of Citipower, whose authority in electricity infrastructure complies with this requirement.
3.2 State Government Policy The Victorian Government has announced and advised of its in‐principle support for the CDP. Mr Hehir noted that the policy basis for the CDP is contained in a series of high level policies and strategies related to economic development and the infrastructure required to support this. These policies and strategies acknowledge the key role played by the Port of Melbourne in underpinning the ongoing efficiency and competitiveness of the Victorian economy and highlight the priority of the Project in ensuring that the Port is able to fulfil this role over the next 30 years. Mr Hehir said that “Channel Deepening is explicitly identified as a key infrastructure priority in a number of these policies and strategies, including, Victoria: Leading the Way, Melbourne 2030 and the Linking Melbourne: Metropolitan Transport Plan”. The key policies are outlined further.
(i) Growing Victoria Together 2000
This policy establishes future goals for the State of Victoria. It identifies the issues that need to be addressed and provides future project targets. The policy emphasises the need to link Melbourne better to the State and nation.
(ii) Victoria: Leading the Way 2004
The Victorian Government’s economic statement of April 2004 highlights a key action to deepen the shipping channels. The statement is described as an action plan to generate new opportunities from the changing global economy, to drive new investment in Victoria, stimulate jobs throughout Victoria, lower costs for Victorian businesses and support increased exports through the investment in world’s best infrastructure. The statement and its actions aim to “reinforce Melbourne’s standing as the premier freight and logistics hub in Australia and confirm Victoria’s reputation as an attractive low‐cost location for international investment”.
Action 1 of the statement is “Deepening the channel to the Port of Melbourne”. This action recognises the importance of the Port of Melbourne to the Victorian and Australian economies as:
The largest and busiest container port, handling 37 per cent of the nation’s container trade. The Port’s efficient operation is essential to both the Victorian and Australian economy. The Victorian Government is committed to sustaining the Port of Melbourne’s
Page 31
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
pre‐eminent position and ensuring the Port continues to contribute to Victoria’s growth.
Action 1 acknowledges that the Port of Melbourne “faces the challenge of catering for increasing ship sizes and consequent draught requirements” and that “already, some 30 per cent of ships cannot load to full capacity”. Consequently, the Victorian Government concedes that “to remain at the forefront of container trade, Victoria must act now to ensure the Port of Melbourne is capable of accommodating these larger ships”. Action 1 concludes:
Channel deepening will support further investment in the port and throughout Victoria. The project will benefit Victorian exporters across the State and have a positive impact on the State’s economy. It will also signal to potential investors that Victoria is prepared to invest in world class trade and transport infrastructure to support existing and new industries.
In his submission, Mr Hehir said:
The channel deepening project is a specific infrastructure investment committed to by Government in its policy, Victoria Leading the Way; an economic statement that identified government priority investments that would contribute to maintaining the various competitive advantages of the Victorian economy.
This economic statement highlighted Victoria’s status as the leading freight and logistics hub in Australia and noted that maintaining the efficiency of the port of Melbourne is essential to the broader Australian economy.
(iii) Linking Melbourne: Metropolitan Transport Plan 2004
This document identifies the CDP as a priority project essential to achieve the government’s strategy of improving freight access.
(iv) Victoria Ports Strategic Framework
This document sets the framework for port development, re‐affirms the government’s in‐principle support for the Channel Deepening Project and the need for the project, and commits to its implementation, subject to environmental and other requirements being satisfied. The Framework highlights deepening of the channels into the Port of Melbourne as a critical priority in order to maximise the efficient utilisation of the State’s major existing port infrastructure assets.
Page 32
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
(v) Victoria Coastal Strategy
The Victorian Coastal Strategy (VCS) is the Government’s overarching policy for use and development of the Victorian coastline. It establishes a framework for the long term ecologically sustainable management of the Victorian coast and provides guidelines for decision making processes that impact on the coast. The VCS places importance on the environmental, social and economic significance of the coast and VCS creates a hierarchy of principles for coastal planning and management that “provide a pathway for decision making that leads to triple bottom line outcomes”. The hierarchy of priorities is:
(a) provide for the protection of significant environmental features; (b) ensure the sustainable use of natural coastal resources; (c) undertake integrated planning and provide direction for the future; and (d) when the above principles have been met, facilitate suitable development on the coast within existing modified and resilient environments where the demand for services is evident and requires management.
Objective 6.2 of the VCS is to ensure appropriate port and coastal dependent industrial development. This objective includes the following actions:
6.2.1 Coastal land with deep water access will be maintained for appropriate port and industrial development. Commercial port uses at Portland, Geelong, Hastings and Melbourne will be maintained. 6.2.2 Proposals for new industries or large scale expansion to existing coastal industry or infrastructure should be subject to appropriate environmental assessment to determine whether the likely effects on the environment, including cumulative and long term effects, are acceptable and have appropriate mitigation and management measures.
Objective 1.7 is to reduce the impact of sea based activities on water quality, and includes the following actions at 1.7.4 “Dredging proponents will be encouraged to develop long term dredging strategies in accordance with the Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Dredging to continuously improve practices”.
The policy recognises the value of the Victorian ports as key economic drivers for the State and acknowledges the need to minimise the impacts associated with shipping, including impacts on water quality, prevention and management of marine pests, waste management, oil spill prevention and response. Mr Gobbo submitted that the PoMC “has comprehensively addressed all of these issues through the SEES process, and
Page 33
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
with its existing plans and strategies, such as its emergency response procedures. In particular, the project complies with the Best Practice Environmental Guidelines for Dredging (Dredging Guidelines)”.
Objective 6.6 of the VCS is to improve facilities for tourism and provide opportunities for cultural and nature based tourism. This policy is intended to be achieved by 6.6.1 which states “Key user groups, including the tourism industry, will be consulted on all major access, signage and infrastructure projects”. The Inquiry was advised PoMC has undertaken an extensive community consultation process throughout the preparation of the EES and SEES (the Inquiry comments on this in Chapter 4).
In relation to the Coastal Management Act 1995, Mr Gobbo submitted that the overall task of the Inquiry is to undertake a net benefit type of analysis. He said the specific requirement in this Act to take into account the Victorian Coastal Strategy brings into play the principle of ecologically sustainable development.
Further, the Corio Bay Coastal Action Plan aims to prevent damage to seagrass beds and sites of coastal geomorphic importance from the negative affects of land and water‐based activities, such as dredging.
(vi) Melbourne 2030
Melbourne 2030 acknowledges the depth of the shipping channels in the Bay as a future constraint for the Port of Melbourne. Of particular relevance is Policy 4.3 which seeks to “further develop the key transport gateways and freight links and maintain Victoria’s position as the nation’s premier logistics centre”. Melbourne 2030 recognises that the region’s ports and airports and their associated rail and road networks are crucial elements of Victoria’s competitive capability. This policy includes the following initiatives:
4.3.2: Protect options for access to, and future development at, the ports of Melbourne, Geelong and Hastings and ensure that all port areas are protected by adequate buffer areas to prevent land‐use conflicts at the perimeter; 4.3.3: Improve rail access to the Port of Melbourne through improvements to the Dynon hub and inner west rail network and reconnect the Webb Dock rail link when funds become available; 4.3.4: Assess the feasibility of deepening the shipping channel in Port Phillip Bay, and retain the option for larger developments at Hastings if this option is not possible.
Page 34
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Mr Hehir said in relation to Melbourne 2030:
This is the Victorian government’s planning strategy designed to map the direction of an expanding Melbourne so that its growth can be managed in a sustainable manner. For instance, Melbourne’s population is forecast to increase by a further one million residents by 2030. The demands of that additional population have to be addressed and there is a need for the Victorian economy to continue to grow to maintain equitable quality of life for all.
Melbourne 2030 identified the current channel depth as a constraint for the port and noted the priority requirement of strengthening and protecting Melbourne’s seaports and its airports to enable their continued development to serve the economic interests of Victoria.
The Port of Melbourne is recognised as having considerable scope to grow and use its land more effectively. It notes that a current constraint under investigation is the long term need for channel deepening. The policy notes that to protect Victoria’s competitive position the port of Hastings offers a long‐term option for future port development. However, as acknowledged by Mr Gobbo, it is not intended to undertake any major development at Hastings while the ports of Melbourne and Geelong continue to meet the State’s needs, and any future consideration must include protection for the significant environmental values of Western Port.
The Inquiry agrees that the CDP responds to, is consistent with and is supported by this policy and the initiatives. The primary intention of the project is to maintain Victoria’s position as the nation’s premier logistics centre. It responds to the immediate objective of Melbourne 2030 (development of existing infrastructure to maintain Melbourne’s pre‐eminent position) while not precluding development of secondary ports in Geelong and Hastings to share any increased cargo load in the future.
(vii) State Planning Policy Framework
The Victorian planning schemes are focused upon land based works, and no permit is required for the marine‐based works which are the subject of the SEES. As Mr Gobbo noted, issues about compliance or non‐compliance with relevant planning scheme provisions do not arise in this case.
However, the State provisions of relevant planning schemes (SPPF) can add to the policy context for assessment of the project. The SPPF is relevant because it is a
Page 35
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
statement of government policy in relation to planning issues, and contains a well articulated set of principles for the assessment of net benefit and ecologically sustainable development.
The SPPF promotes policies of ensuring the economic sustainability of the Port of Melbourne while ensuring that development does not produce unacceptable environmental outcomes. Particular polices that relate to port development include Clause 12.4, which states under the theme of transport and freight, “Further develop the key transport gateways and freight links and maintain Victoria’s position as the nation’s premier logistics centre by identifying and protecting options for access to, and future development at, the ports of Melbourne, Geelong and Hastings”. Further, Clause 18.05 objective is, “To recognise the importance to Victoria of economically sustainable major ports (Melbourne, Geelong, Portland, Hastings) by planning for appropriate access, terminal areas and depot areas”.
The following could also be considered relevant to the project:
• Clause 11: principles of land use planning; • Clause 15: environment; and • Clause 17: economic development, especially those sections relating to tourism, business and industry.
3.3 Commonwealth Legislation The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is administered by the Commonwealth Department of the Environment and Water Resources. The EPBC Act requires that an environmental approval be obtained from the Minister administering the Act before taking any action that has/will have/is likely to have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance relevant to various sections of this Act. Approval is required for actions involving the Commonwealth, including activities concerning Commonwealth land and activities of Commonwealth agencies that may have a significant effect on the environment.
In respect of proposals involving the Commonwealth, the Act prohibits a person taking action on Commonwealth land that “has/will have/is likely to have a significant impact on the environment and outside Commonwealth land that has/will have/is likely to have a significant impact on the environment on Commonwealth land”.
The EPBC Act is the enacting legislation for the implementation of international agreements relating to the protection of flora and fauna species and communities,
Page 36
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
including:
• the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands; • the International Convention on Biological Diversity; • International Migratory Bird Agreements (Japan‐Australia MBA and China‐ Australia MBA); and • the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (the Bonn Convention).
Chapter 15 of the SEES provides a summary of the relevant matters of national environmental significance that have triggered the assessment required under the EPBC Act. The then Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water Resources decided on 20 March 2002 that the CDP was a “controlled action” under the provisions of the EPBC Act. The Commonwealth in turn accredited the Victorian assessment process. The controlling provisions of the EPBC Act relevant to the CDP include:
• Sections 16 and 17B (wetlands of international importance); • Sections 18 and 18A (listed threatened species and communities); and • Sections 20 and 20A (listed migratory species); and • Sections 26 and 27A (protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land).
The key matters for consideration in relation to this Act are variously discussed throughout this report, and then summarised in Chapter 24 – Matters of Commonwealth Interest. Specifically this chapter of the report provides commentary and resolution on:
• wetlands of international importance (sediment transport and hydrodynamics, water quality, seagrass, ecological character features); • listed threatened species and communities (freshwater fish, sharks, mammals, reptiles, seabirds, other listed birds); • listed migratory species (shorebirds, seabirds); and • protection of the environment of Commonwealth land (Swan Island, Point Nepean).
Page 37
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
4. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
Attachment 3 of Volume 3 of the SEES provides an outline of the communication and consultation process. It notes that the original EES consultation process was conducted over three stages being Project Initiation starting in October 2000; preliminary feasibility studies and detailed design; and exhibition of the EES (5 July to 16 August 2004), from which 906 submissions were received. The first Panel into the CDP was appointed under the Environment Effects Act 1978 on 5 August 2004. It held 46 days of public hearing from September to December 2004, before preparing and then submitting its report to the Minister for Planning on 11 February 2005.
Following consideration of the Panel report and further submissions, the Minister issued a statement on 11 July 2005 which confirmed the requirement for a Supplementary EES. The statement set out the objectives of the SEES, a structured approach which should be adopted by PoMC in preparing the SEES, as well as the steps in the SEES process that “will ultimately lead to an Assessment of the proposal”. The SEES process appeared to mirror the original EES process in key respects, including preparation of new Assessment Guidelines, exhibition of the SEES after it was completed, six weeks of public comment and appointment of a new Inquiry under the Act.
The Inquiry was advised that since the EES process, key stakeholder groups were identified and contacted including industry, business, local Councils, environment, heritage/indigenous, recreation and tourism, Government, community, and media groups. A database of approximately 3000 contacts was drawn up and was advised of key stages of the process. A Project Stakeholder Advisory Committee (PSAC) of 18 members was established and included representation of the following:
• Association of Bayside Municipalities • Blue Wedges Coalition • Community interest, Bellarine Peninsula • Community interest, Metropolitan • Dive Industry of Victoria Association • Hotel, Motel and Accommodation Alliance • Maritime Union of Australia • Mornington Peninsula Shire • Polperro Dolphin Swims, Ecotourism • Port Phillip Eco Centre • Recreational boating • Scuba Divers Federation of Victoria
Page 38
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• Seafood Industry Victoria • Shipping Australia • Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry • Victorian Farmers Federation • Victorian Freight and Logistics Council • Victorian Recreational Fishers
The SEES notes that 15 PSAC meetings (and an additional briefing) were held from July 2005.
The Minister for Planning, through the Secretary of DSE appointed an Independent Expert Group (IEG) in August 2005 to provide advice in relation to the assessment of the CDP under the Environment Effects Act 1978. The role of the IEG was to advise DSE on:
• SEES Assessment Guidelines; • design and evaluation of the trial dredge program and any other field testing; • need and scope of any other independent peer review of the SEES studies; and • technical quality of the final SEES studies.
An Agency Contact Group was formed by DSE in December 2005 to liaise with PoMC, with representation on this group from DSE, EPA and Department of Infrastructure (DoI). Further, a Government Channel Deepening Taskforce chaired by DoI was formed with member agencies including DoI, DSE, the Departments of Treasury and Finance; Premier and Cabinet; Innovation, Industry and Regional Development; and Primary Industries; with EPA present as an observer.
The PoMC produced four project newsletters relating to the current SEES process and these were mailed to approximately 3000 contacts. In addition, project fact sheets were produced as well as a DVD and information packs. The SEES notes that 11 community information sessions were conducted in the evenings at various locations around the bay. Attendance at these meetings was not high and ranged from 10 people at Frankston to 57 people at Chelsea. Further and ongoing stakeholder engagement occurred throughout the preparation of the SEES and section A3‐4.6 of the SEES lists those groups and individuals with whom direct meetings were held.
Notwithstanding that the PoMC provided an overview of its consultation process, the clear message from various submittors was that it was inadequate. The key reasons for this include:
Page 39
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• lack of time for the community to absorb the SEES once it was released (there was continual reference about the volume of material to be absorbed, including the 15,000 pages of the SEES); • presentation of the SEES on disk form, in that it was too voluminous to read via a computer screen (one submittor indicated that for a small additional cost, hard copies could have at least been provided for the PSAC members); • lack of access to information from the PoMC, especially with regard to on‐ going inquiries since the previous EES process; • community meetings were not interactive, rather there was a clear perception from submittors that the PoMC was providing information in an “unfriendly” way; • reference to the unavailability of key documents, hence Freedom of Information requests were lodged in an effort to gain information; and • restrictive Terms of Reference for the Inquiry.
Dr Harris, who was giving evidence on behalf of the Association of Bayside Municipalities, was quite critical of the “flawed” project consultation process. Conversely, Cr Topsy Petchey of the same group was less critical, and indicated that as a member of PSAC, she found it to be reasonably informative and useful. The Inquiry asked Alex Atkins of the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council about his experience on the PSAC. He said he enjoyed it, it was consultative and it was helpful to Council overall. However, he noted that the PSAC was not really about making definitive decisions, and not all Councils were represented. Dr Hawkins had an alternative view of his involvement in PSAC. He mentioned it was very productive and gave a very broad view of the whole project, but in an advocacy role. He did ask “will the sky fall in if the project proceeded?”, and said he thought not.
Many other submittors who attended the hearing were dismissive of the PoMC attempts to inform and engage the community and suggested that much of what was undertaken was a “waste of time”. The Inquiry wondered whether that might have been because they did not want to be informed and preferred not to know. Indeed, some submittors made it quite clear that they were so opposed to the project, it would not matter what was ultimately proposed by way of mitigation – they would not accept the CDP under any circumstances.
The Inquiry has some sympathy with the view that there was insufficient time to review the SEES material. Given that the SEES is a stand‐alone document of substantial nature and technical complexity, the six week review and submission period could be regarded as the absolute minimum. Submittors were provided with an opportunity to expand on their submission via the public hearing process and many did. Some submittors who wrote brief submissions came along to the hearing
Page 40
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
to express their more considered view (for example Submittors 1 and 152). Dr Roberts noted that “… the process, although open and reasonably transparent, has been significantly constrained by the time lines”. Jenny Warfe argued that the PoMC did not undertake community consultation at all – she called the process “project promotion”. She likened the release of the SEES and the short time frame to review it as a “scaremongering campaign for Victorians”.
Notwithstanding these observations, this Inquiry process is an important component of community consultation, and the Inquiry has benefited through information provided in the written submissions and through the public hearings. It is important to note and recognise that the evidence and submissions from the community has greatly enhanced the final outcome, and their input on this very complex issue has been highly valued by the Inquiry. Many issues were raised through this process, which required additional research and commentary from the PoMC. (The Inquiry makes particular mention and notes and acknowledges the input and commitment of the Blue Wedges Coalition, led by Jenny Warfe.)
The Inquiry must state however, that a disturbing element of the hearing process was the apparent attitude of some submittors towards the Inquiry members, and at times, the apparent contempt in which it was held. Likewise, the attitude of some towards PoMC. This is not helpful and it does not assist the overall process. The Inquiry found this part of the hearing process to be most unfortunate.
Some parties expressed criticism that the Inquiry did not seek to hear from a whole range of people, including for example the Port Phillip Sea Pilots, Parks Victoria and the Phillip Island Nature Park. It was open for any person or group to make a submission to the SEES and to appear before the Inquiry and importantly, this process did not constrain that opportunity. With regard to the Sea Pilots, the Inquiry was advised by the PoMC through Mr Atkins that the Port Phillip Sea Pilots had endorsed the project, and that up to 17 pilots (out of 40) had been involved in simulation testing. Further, the Inquiry was advised that there will be further training if the project proceeds. Additionally, the Phillip Island Nature Park and Parks Victoria were represented through the Victoria Government Departments’ presentation, both through its written submission, and appearance at the hearings by Mr Hehir.
Further, and as discussed in Section 19 relating to the Social Impact Assessment, the Inquiry considers there should be an ongoing role for a community liaison group (or similar) to assist in project monitoring. This type of group can have an important role for the duration of major environmental project such as this and it is strongly endorsed by the Inquiry.
Page 41
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Finally, it is worth noting that the Inquiry was somewhat concerned about the way in which some of the expert evidence was submitted and then presented at the hearing, particularly by PoMC. The submitted reports followed a very basic format and did not provide much in the way of substantive evidence. However at the hearing the evidence was largely presented in the form of detailed and sometimes complex powerpoint presentations, and the Inquiry and other parties would have been better assisted to have had the opportunity to read these before they were presented. When questioned about why it was submitted in this way, the PoMC responded by saying they would have presented it differently if they had more time. The Inquiry can only comment that the PoMC has had far more time than any other party to prepare and present its evidence.
Page 42
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
PART 2: CHANNEL DESIGN AND DREDGING
Page 43
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
5. CHANNEL DESIGN
5.1 Description and Key Issues To achieve the CDP objective, the project must minimise environmental impact, while ensuring vessel safety and achieving the commercial objectives of the Port. These objectives are to provide sufficient capacity for forecast trade growth and the projected vessel fleet to 2035 in line with the period covered by the draft Port Development Plan.
The project description in the SEES results from a design development process which:
• took account of relevant legislation and policy and incorporates outcomes of the environmental impact and risk assessment; and • outlined mitigation measures to reduce risk.
During this process, PoMC sought to ‘design out’ unacceptable impacts and risks to the environment where possible and practicable.
Minimising the volume of dredge material by efficient channel design was considered to be the best environmental impact management response for CDP as it can minimise the potential:
• duration and/or intensity of the dredging campaign (and associated disruption of commercial, tourism and recreation activities); • amount of sediment to be disturbed and therefore the amount of turbidity (which is linked to potential impacts on flora and fauna, nutrient cycling processes and other ecological processes); and • potential amount of dredge material requiring management.
The channel design consists of two key elements ‐ the design for navigation and the design for construction.
(i) Design for navigation
The design for navigation determines the channel dimensions required for the vessel to travel between the Entrance and the berth and reflects the route, declared depth and width. The declared depth and width are the channel parameters guaranteed to be available to 14m draught vessels at all times, and are determined by metocean
Page 44
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
conditions (tide, current and wind), vessel speed and vessel handling characteristics. The CDP aims to ensure the design minimises the volume of material to be dredged. These parameters are dependent on the design vessel characteristics and metocean conditions.
Based on the forecast growth in international container trade to 2035, a predicted vessel fleet profile was used to derive the characteristics of the ‘design vessel’ in terms of length, beam (width) and maximum operational draught. Tankers were also considered as they tend to be underpowered deep draught vessels which have specific manoeuvring requirements warranting their own investigation for vessel operation and safety. The dimensions of the design vessels selected for the channel design process are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Dimensions of Design Vessels Co Container ship Tanker Draught 14m 14m Length 300m 280m Beam (width) 40m 52m
The design for navigation had to be accordance with the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses and the International Association of Ports and Harbours (PIANC & IAPH) publication “Approach Channels – A Guide for Design”. These are the leading world authority on all matters relating to the planning, design, operation and environmental management of ports and waterways, and the Guidelines are the internationally recognised benchmark for channel design.
(ii) Design for construction
The design for construction describes how the design for navigation requirements can be achieved based on the minimum depth and widths. It incorporates the navigation channel design, operational and construction allowances. These allowances include a:
• survey tolerance, which makes allowance for uncertainties associated with hydrographic survey; • siltation allowance, which makes provisions for siltation, sand wave movement and regrowth, which are the determining factors in maintenance dredge frequency and cost; and • slope allowance, which makes provisions for the channel side slopes which are a function of the geotechnical properties and stability of the seabed adjacent to the channel.
Page 45
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
A dredge tolerance (horizontal and vertical) is also included to allow for the additional dredging undertaken by the dredging contractor to ensure that no ‘high spots’ remain after dredging is complete, and is a function of the dredging technology and degree of accuracy guaranteed for any particular dredge type.
As design for construction parameters are greater than those for navigation, they are critical for the environmental impact and risk assessment in the SEES.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) minimising the volume to be dredged while achieving CDP objectives; (ii) minimising shipping related risks from the design and complying with relevant standards; (iii) minimising implications for the other structural Bay assets and minor works; and (iv) associated river works.
5.2 Inquiry Response (i) Minimising the volume to be dredged while achieving CDP objectives
Design for navigation
The SEES explains that the objective for the channel design is to provide access at all states of the tide for vessels loaded to 14m draught. It acknowledges that as experienced currently, the design will not provide access 100% of the time, due to weather, when it is not possible for the pilot to board the ship or to navigate the ship safely through the Entrance, or because of fog and/or heavy rain. The Port will have the same accessibility for 14m draught vessels as it presently has for 11.6m draught vessels as a result of the CDP produces 100% access with respect to tide and 95% with respect to metocean conditions. The design involved a two stage process including:
• preparation of a concept design based on preferences of the operators, discussions with the Harbour Master and sea pilots, and on previous studies of the project. This concept design included initial estimates of width, depth and alignment options, enabling alternatives to be evaluated. This design was then reviewed and adjusted against PIANC & IAPH (1997) guidelines and resulted in the preliminary design. The Inquiry noted that a peer review had
Page 46
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
concluded that the design for navigation of the channels has been carried out in accordance with the above guidelines. • preparation of a detailed design based on experienced judgement and sophisticated computer based analysis and design to develop, validate and refine the alignment, depth and width of the preliminary design. This process included: ‐ a channel capacity analysis to examine channel width and configuration, ‐ navigation simulation to examine channel width, ‐ marine safety analysis of the channel options, ‐ ship dynamic modelling and stochastic analysis to examine channel depth in the Entrance.
The SEES explained that it was required to demonstrate that the proposed deepened channels have been suitably optimised, by providing a balance between environmental and economic considerations, including an explicit overarching requirement to have in place acceptable minimum vessel safety standards.
Three performance criteria were applied for environmental considerations including the:
• quantity of dredged material; • duration of the dredging program; and • quantity of rock removed from the Entrance.
Duration of dredging will always be a function of the quantity of dredged material. Consequently minimising the quantity of dredged material, or waste minimisation, was determined as the key performance criterion for assessing environmental impact. The quantity of dredged material can be measured as a function of:
• channel alignment and extent – what route does the channel take, and to which parts of the Port does the deepened channel extend? • channel width – how wide does the deepened channel need to be? • channel depth – how deep do the deepened channels need to be?
• Channel alignment and extent
The SEES explains that all practical options for alternative routes from the Entrance to Swanson Dock were examined to determine a safe and practical channel route that minimises dredging. The route chosen does this by following the naturally deepest sections of the Bay.
Page 47
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
It highlighted that the most suitable option for the route at the south of the Bay is to deepen the existing South Channel, minimising incremental change to the overall channel system and dredging volumes, and thereby reducing the overall impact.
Destinations for the deep draught vessels in the Port of Melbourne included the berths at Swanson and Webb Docks. The SEES explains that the draft Port Development Plan requires capacity at both Swanson Dock and Webb Dock to be fully developed to maximum utility for the international container trade by 2035. While Swanson Dock is operational, at present Webb Dock does not have sufficient landside infrastructure – road and rail connections – to serve as an international container terminal, and is therefore not functional in the short term. The SEES has included Webb Dock in the CDP as PoMC proposes that this is more cost effective than delayed one‐off dredging.
• Channel width
The SEES explains that the minimum practical width for each section of the Channel is a function of the minimum navigation and safety width, and the considerations of one or two way operation of the channels to maximise port capacity.
Channel width at the Yarra River and Williamstown Channels will not increase due to existing riverside infrastructure constraints. These currently meet the minimum width recommended in the PIANC & IAPH guidelines for safe navigation for one‐way operation of the design vessel.
A submittor argued that the Swanson Dock turning basin will restrict tankers of 320m as its dimensions were designed for vessels of 300m. The SEES explained that the existing swinging basin plan dimensions are satisfactory to turn post‐ Panamax vessels of 290m to 295m maximum length under limiting weather conditions and needs to be extended to 300m which will be satisfactory for turning ships up to 300m long. In their closing submission, the PoMC argued that while the channel is designed to accommodate vessels of up to 320m, these larger container vessels are expected towards the end of the project (ie. 2035) and will be accommodated at Webb Dock. By that stage, Webb Dock will have been developed and the Swanson Dock turning basin will not be required for tankers.
Options for one‐way and two‐way traffic, and a combination of both, were considered for Port Melbourne Channel. PoMC decided that the existing operating configuration, the one‐way option, was optimal for achieving CDP
Page 48
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
objectives, complying with relevant safety standards and minimising dredging volumes.
The channel width (shape and size) proposed for South Channel East at Hovell Pile was altered to account for larger ships turning approximately 90 degrees and for the potential for large unplanned lateral drift. The dredge volume was minimised by adopting the minimum radius allowable under PIANC and IAPH guidelines, and by moving the western, or inside, limit of the channel as far to the east as possible, consistent with the navigational constraints and safe and practical marking of the channel.
Options involving one‐way, two‐way and a combination of both were also considered for the South Channel East. The SEES concluded that two‐way operation in the South Channel East is optimal for achieving CDP objectives, complying with relevant safety standards and minimising dredging.
CDP entails conversion of the South Channel West to a full two‐way operation on safety grounds, as it is not safe or practical to slow or stop an inbound vessel once it has entered the Entrance to make way for an outbound vessel. The two‐ way channel is essential to maintain satisfactory operational capacity and acceptable marine safety standards. The northern toe‐line will be realigned to avoid impacts on the heritage listed wreck of the HMAS Goorangai.
The Great Ship Channel in the Entrance currently operates as a one‐way channel for the largest vessels currently accessing the port, as well as tankers and hampered vessels. It is two‐way for all other vessels.
The SEES noted that existing Great Ship Channel width complies with PIANC and IAPH guidelines for 14m draught vessels, precluding a reduction in channel width. Widening it to allow for two‐way operation would not yield any significant operational improvement as transit time through the Entrance is relatively short, and vessel movement in the Great Ship Channel has little effect on vessel delays and port efficiency. The SEES highlighted that the Great Ship Channel will be widened locally on Rip Bank adjacent to the canyon, to provide increased manoeuvring area for the forecast larger vessels.
In his presentation to the Inquiry, Captain Beevers suggested that:
The channel across Rip Bank and Nepean Bank should be as wide as the length for the longest ship plus a safety margin so that if it were to go aground on the edge of the channel the other end of the ship would swing clear of the bank and the ship would be
Page 49
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
more likely to remain afloat and intact. Tug assistance is not available from Melbourne without several hours delay during which time the ship would be likely to founder were it jammed across the channel in bad weather or strong tides.
In his expert witness statement, Captain Hart concluded that:
Widening the Great Ship Channel from 245 metres to approximately 500 metres will mitigate but not eliminate the increased dangers for ships with draughts up to 14 metres. In order to provide a greater margin of safety, a requirement to widen the 17metre Great Ship Channel to the outside edges of the Eastern and Western Channels is likely.
PoMC’s closing submission argued that there is currently no practical requirement that ships stay within the Great Ship Channel as the East and West channels are deep enough for 11.6m draught vessels, some of which use these additional channels to traverse the Entrance. Ships using these channels have not necessarily ‘deviated’ from the Great Ship Channel. After the CDP, the deeper draught vessels will be able to enter through the Great Ship Channel only.
Navigation aids are planned to improve Great Ship Channel markings. At present, only the centre line for the Great Ship Channel is defined and there are no aids to define its edges. The Inquiry understands sea pilots have satisfied themselves through the simulation work that the proposal to define edges with navigation lights will provide information enabling them to take corrective action respond if a vessel starts to veer off course.
PoMC acknowledged that greater constraints for navigators arose from limiting access for large vessels the Great Ship Channel only. Any increased risk from these constraints would be offset by navigation aids and proposed changes to Port Operating Guidelines, which will require vessels to ensure they enter the Bay through the Great Ship Channel. Operating parameters applying to each vessel type and size depending on prevailing metocean conditions would be provided in the Harbour Master’s Directions following completion of the CDP.
PoMC argued that these two measures are significant and that to increase the width from that proposed would be contrary to the requirement to balance properly the minimisation of shipping related risk against environmental considerations.
Page 50
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• Channel depth
Channel depth for navigation requires calculation of allowances for vessel draught and necessary under‐keel clearances for vessel safety in all tidal, wind and wave conditions. Although tidally‐assisted access would result in a reduction in dredged volumes, the SEES highlighted that mandatory tidal assistance would not deliver the required CDP economic outcomes.
To achieve operational capability during all tides, the channel must be sufficient to allow for the:
• static draught of the vessel(the draught when the ship is stationary); • vessel squat (the effect of a moving vessel sitting lower in the water than when stationary, and which increases with vessel speed) and inertial heel on bends; • dynamic movement of the ship induced by metocean conditions (mainly the pitching and rolling of the vessel under wave action, but also wind‐ induced heel); • heel of the ship (wind or rudder induced); and • under‐keel clearance required for manoeuvrability (the vessel needs a certain amount of water between the keel and seabed to maintain steering ability).
The SEES explains that depth requirements differ between the Entrance and the Bay and river channels as the former is affected by long period wave swells from Bass Strait, with wave length and period of sufficient size to cause large dynamic movements, whereas the latter experiences small wave height and wave length that do not cause significant dynamic movement. The Entrance requires greater depth. The declared depth for navigation is determined in the SEES as:
• 15.5m for Port Melbourne Channel and Williamstown Channel; • 15.2m for the Yarra River Channel between the services and Beacon 46; • 14.6m for the Yarra River upstream of Beacon 46; • 15.5m for South Channel East and West (except Hovell Pile vicinity); • 16m in the vicinity of Hovell Pile; • 16.5m in the fairway between the Entrance and South Channel West; and • 17.0m in the Entrance.
Page 51
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The Entrance
The Inquiry notes that a depth profile which provides access at all states of the tide but not under extreme wave conditions is appropriate and meets the overarching criterion of minimising the quantity of material to be dredged.
The selection of the optimal depth for the Great Ship Channel in the Entrance was based on three criteria: vessel safety, port accessibility and commercial viability. Vessel safety was the primary criterion and required sufficient depth to prevent vessels loaded to 14m draught touching the bottom of the channel during transit at all states of the tide. Key factors included:
• vertical movement of the vessel, which is a function of the vessel squat (which can be calculated to reasonable accuracy), wave climate (causing the vessel to heave, pitch and roll) and to a lesser extent, wind induced heel and inertial roll; and • the depth of water available, which in turn is a function of the tide level and the dredged depth.
The SEES concluded that the construction depth for a declared depth of 17m complied with the PIANC (1996) guidelines, subject to supporting operating guidelines to account for metocean conditions. Provided that the navigator complies with these operating parameters, the analysis showed that there will be less than a one in a 100 probability of touching the bottom of the Great Ship Channel for every transit including transits under the worst‐case metocean conditions, achieving the minimum risk criterion recommended by PIANC.
Submittors such as Blue Wedges consider this risk unacceptable. The Inquiry notes, however, that PIANC provides best practice guidelines in this regard.
Compared with existing access through the Entrance for vessels up to 11.6m maximum all‐tidal draught, this design offers equivalent or slightly better access. The Inquiry concludes that the Great Ship Channel meets the design performance specification.
During the Hearing, the PoMC presented material that indicated ongoing scour at the Entrance could possibly produce accretion mounds of up to 2m thereby affecting the declared navigation depth. In its closing submission, PoMC explained that this issue is dealt with in the EMP through:
Page 52
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• bathymetric surveys (post‐construction) in the Entrance Dredging PDS, including a requirement for the report to include confirmation of declared depth; and • the opportunity for additional clean up if needed during major maintenance dredging campaigns.
Bay and river channels
The determining parameters within the Bay and river channels are static draught, vessel squat, inertial heel, and manoeuvrability margin for under‐keel clearance, which can be calculated with reasonable accuracy. The defined depths were tested by computer based navigation simulations and augmented by further calculations. The results of the analysis show that the proposed depths are satisfactory and the Inquiry did not identify any substantial concerns for these sections for the channels.
Design for construction
The SEES explains that the design for construction incorporates the navigation channel design, operational and construction allowances. The following allowances are relevant:
• siltation allowance; • survey tolerance; • channel side slopes; • silt traps; • sand waves; and • dredging tolerance.
Dredge tolerance, is a function of the dredging technology’s ability to guarantee the design depth is reached, can result in actual channel depth being deeper than the design depth.
For the Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge (TSHD), this tolerance is estimated to vary between 1.1m to approximately 1.8m below design depth, resulting in the + 15% variation in volumes.
The Inquiry heard that while declared depth for the Great Ship Channel is 17.0m, the design depth is 17.3m with a possible construction depth of 19.1m after including construction allowances. The Inquiry notes that while the 17.3m design depth is consistent with PIANC guidelines, the proposal includes an additional 1.8m of
Page 53
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
dredging tolerance, a further inbuilt safety margin to counter the increased risks at the Entrance due to metocean conditions.
Concerns were raised by submittors about the EMP not defining maximum limits for dredging, thereby not restricting the amount of dredging that PoMC may be permitted to carry out. PoMC restated its commitment to minimise dredging volumes. It explained that a strong commercial imperative in time and cost of dredging volumes and dredged material management will ensure that dredging tolerance is minimised to the extent practicable.
The Inquiry notes that the final channel design drawings were not provided during the hearing as they were awaiting some matters of detail, although preliminary indications were that maximum limits would not be defined in the EMP.
The Inquiry was advised that scouring was evident in the Entrance from pre‐1986 blasting and the TDP. Due to the tolerance required for dredging, this may be significant as the expected construction depth may be exceeded. Moreover, the bathymetric profile used for the hydrodynamic model and risk assessment of flow on effects from the project may differ from original projections. The fuller implications of rockfall and scouring are discussed in Chapter 17.
The Inquiry heard that:
• large relic scour holes in the Great Ship Channel exist from pre 1986 blasting at the Entrance. As no material was cleaned up during these campaigns, hard bedrock was left to scour the banks. The maximum depth of relic scour holes was about 3m; and • following the Trial Dredge Program (TDP), new scour holes had developed, despite most of the material following dredging being cleaned up. Scour holes of approximately 1m ‐ 2.4m deep, with associated accretion mounds of 0.5m – 2m high were observed in June 2007.
PoMC advised that after a period of about 10 years, scour hole development may extend over the dredged areas and stabilise at a depth of 3m below the finished dredge level. This would see a maximum bathymetric scour depth at the level of ‐ 22m based on a deepest over dredge level of ‐19.1m, in line with the historical experience with relic scour holes since the start of blasting.
The Inquiry notes the new scour holes are predicted to be PL‐22m and in his advice to PoMC of 11 July 2007, Mr Raisbeck advised that the depth of scour hole development and the scouring process is now much better understood.
Page 54
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
PoMC advised that stabilisation of the Great Ship Channel after previous blasting gives reasonable grounds for assuming that any post‐dredging scour will also stabilise with time to the predicted depth. The Inquiry notes IEG advice that this view is plausible, there is some uncertainty in the key conclusions of the scour assessment report regarding the maximum potential for further rock scour that would influence channel depth.
Both the Inquiry and IEG concluded that a further peer review was needed on rock scour. This was undertaken by PoMC, provided to the Inquiry on 18 September 2007, and referred to IEG for further comment. Chapter 17 deals with this in detail.
(ii) Minimising shipping‐related risks from the design and complying with relevant standards
The SEES explains that the project design has been established in relation to complying with relevant safety standards in order to minimise risks to shipping. While there is much reference to the assessment of safety criteria, there are no known internationally recognised standards that give minimum threshold criteria. International standards do not define absolute criteria for the levels for risk in port navigation channels; rather, the international bodies responsible for marine safety place the emphasis on managing risk by promoting adoption of best practice. This seeks to reduce risk to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP).
The SEES concluded that there will be a small increase in risk to 2035 because of changes to channel configuration, traffic volumes and patterns, but operational factors will remain unchanged.
The increased risk will be mitigated by adopting international best practice as set out by the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities to meet the demands of the increased levels of traffic over the coming years. The assessment concluded that the best means of reducing the risk to a level that is as low as reasonably practicable was to improve traffic management processes to assist navigation. The Inquiry notes that continuing improvements, combined with technological developments should reduce practically achievable risks.
The Inquiry notes three relevant considerations related to safety.
Page 55
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Consistency with PIANC & IAPH guidelines
The Inquiry heard concerns about the channel design process. Significantly, Captain Hart questioned overall compliance with PIANC guidelines and requested the SEES reports and material submitted to the Inquiry relating to design and marine safety be referred to the PIANC Secretariat in Brussels for review.
PoMC explained in its closing submission that this was not appropriate as PIANC provides guidance only, is not a statutory body and will not provide such advice, nor does it have jurisdiction to do so.
The Inquiry notes that the SKM peer review confirmed the design has been undertaken in accordance with the guidelines.
Achievement of Marine Safety Victoria (MSV) standards for navigation and maritime safety
The Blue Wedges, Captain Hart and other submittors raised concerns about the channel design process in relation to compliance with best practice including:
• the availability of information such as ‘near misses’ to inform risk assessment, an issue also raised by the previous EES Panel; • the role of the Harbour Master and the Port Phillip Sea Pilots (PPSP) in the design process and the appropriateness of expertise used to design, refine and verify the design; and • lack of information about the range of metocean conditions that will be specified in the Port Operating Guidelines.
The previous EES Panel recommended a database of ‘near misses’ be kept to inform the SEES risk assessment. Submittors questioned the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the four months of data that informed the SEES.
The Inquiry heard that the design has addressed these aspects and operational safety and has been validated through simulation exercises and a marine risk assessment. The process has involved relevant expertise and responsible officers and the design has been peer reviewed. The marine risk assessment has also been peer reviewed, including consultation with the Harbour Master, Harbour Control, MSV and the PPSP. Their recommendations will be considered in developing the Port Operating Guidelines.
Page 56
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The Inquiry notes submittors concerns about pilots’ ability to navigate the Great Ship Channel. Unlike in the past, modern navigators do not rely on visual aids alone, or a single navigation tool, but there is rather a significant reliance on sophisticated systems and training to use them. The Inquiry further notes that access through the Entrance would not be possible during certain metocean conditions and that ultimately it is the Pilot, who decides whether to proceed with the transit or wait until tide and weather conditions are appropriate.
In its final submission, PoMC stated that the design is safe, not in absolute terms, (because that can never be guaranteed) but in the sense of complying with relevant safety standards expressed in international guidelines.
The Inquiry heard that responsibility for safety related to shipping rests with the Director of Marine Safety, who verified in his 8 January 2007 letter to the PoMC that “I reconfirm my view that the deepened channel can be safely constructed and that changes to the seafloor shape will not result in a change to risk navigation, provided that these controls are implemented”.
Furthermore, the Inquiry agrees that the accountability framework for safety as advised in the closing submission of PoMC had fail safe qualities in that:
• the Harbour Master is obliged to comply with the requirements of the Marine Act to ensure safe port operations. When exercising his powers the Harbour Master acts independently of PoMC. He has specific obligations to report to the MSV if the safe navigation of the port is being jeopardised for any reason; • the Harbour Master and individual Sea Pilots are independently licensed by Marine Safety Victoria (MSV) and are required to comply with MSV standards for ensuring the safe operation and navigation of a port; • the PPSP service operates independently of the PoMC and the Harbour Master. On matters relating to changed operations in the port it is a practice to liaise extensively with the Pilot service provider as ultimately they are the ones that need to be convinced that any changes are appropriate and workable in the interests of safety; and • Port Phillip Sea Pilot Pty Ltd (PPSP) have world class training standards and ongoing professional development including training and experience within Australia and overseas.
Emergency response arrangements
Concerns were expressed about the perceived increased consequence of oil spills as larger vessels would carry quantities of oil. While the consequence of an oil spill for
Page 57
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
the Bay may well be greater, no evidence was presented that this would occur. The Inquiry notes that there is a current Emergency Management Response framework for responding to incidents and that these arrangements are subject to continual review and improvement.
(iii) Minimising implications for other structural Bay assets and minor works
The CDP includes modifications to infrastructure. A description of the minor capital works proposed is discussed below. The CDP includes proposed upgrade works to the berth structures at Appleton Dock, Swanson Dock, Holden Dock and Gellibrand Pier.
Appleton Dock
The upgrade works proposed for Appleton Dock include strengthening the timber piles at Berth F with steel piles, and upgrading Berth E by inserting a new fender beam along its length.
Swanson Dock
As part of the CDP, a new platform is proposed at the southern end of Swanson Dock East, consisting of concrete‐filled steel piles and concrete decking tied to the existing structure. Minor deck strengthening is proposed along each side of Swanson Dock, with new piles installed along the western berths through the decking. It is proposed that these new piles be installed intermittently where required. Larger fenders to cater for larger ships would replace existing fenders along each Swanson Dock berth.
In the Swanson Dock approaches, it is proposed that new tubular pile and bored pile retaining walls be installed in front of the existing walls on the eastern approach to cater for the deepening of the Swanson Dock Swing Basin. Associated landside works are also proposed, including installation of temporary and permanent water and electrical supply and replacement of stormwater pipe head walls.
Holden Dock
In order to cater for increased loads, Holden Dock requires upgrades to both berthing Dolphins 1 and 2. The work involves installing six new steel piles through the existing decking and down to a depth of ‐33 metres.
Page 58
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Gellibrand Pier
Structural work proposed for the pier head and berthing dolphins at Gellibrand Pier includes:
• strengthening of several existing reinforced concrete beams by building up the existing cross‐section and providing additional steel reinforcement to increase their structural capacity; • installation of new steel piles and transfer beams to support strengthened beams; • replacement of existing fenders to meet berthing energy requirements for the proposed design vessels; and • bracing of tension piles to provide adequate pile/deck connection capacity.
(iv) Associated River Works
The CDP includes remedial or replacement works to existing bank protection and other infrastructure along the Yarra River and Williamstown Channels, which would be required to maintain stability of the river banks and infrastructure. The SEES states that works would be required at the following locations along the river:
• Newport Park, immediately north of West Gate Bridge; • Yarraville No.6, north of Holden Dock at the mouth of the Maribyrnong River; • Swanson Dock east and west approaches adjacent to the swing basin; and • 32 South Wharf, affected by the Swanson Dock swing basin.
Protection of services
In order to maintain stability of the river banks and infrastructure, remedial or replacement works are proposed along the Yarra River and Williamstown Channels.
Melbourne Water Hobson’s Bay Main Sewer
The Hobson’s Bay Main Sewer passes below the Yarra River in the form of a reinforced concrete tunnel, 3.1 metres in diameter. The CDP proposes to add rock berms to the sides of the sewer as well as an overlying 0.25m thick composite steel and concrete cover. The SEES states that “this will protect the sewer in the unlikely event of an anchor drop or drag by a commercial vessel.”
Protection measures have been developed in consultation with the owners of the
Page 59
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
relevant services. Concerns were raised by Blue Wedges about the protective layer above the Melbourne Water Hobson’s Bay Main Sewer. Their submission refers to an anomaly in the SEES regarding the Hobson’s Bay Main Sewer, with the SEES stating that “The cover over the tunnel under the river currently varies from 2m to 2.7m and will be reduced to 1.2m after dredging”.
The Inquiry refers to the 6 September 2006 letter from Melbourne Water to PoMC which states that “Measures that have been developed, as noted in the Design Drawings (Maunsell Drawings ‘Channel Deepening Project – Yarra River Services Protection System’) have met our requirements to date”, and that “Melbourne Water agrees to these works being carried out subject to the design certification and resolution of a commercial agreement between PoMC and Melbourne Water”.
The Inquiry notes that design certification and resolution of commercial agreement between PoMC and Melbourne Water needs to be finalised prior to project approval.
GasNet and Westernport‐Altona‐Geelong (WAG) pipelines
The GasNet and WAG pipelines are located adjacent to the sewer. The CDP includes protection of these services by inserting rock berms in trenches either side of the pipelines and in layers over the top. The design has been approved by both GasNet Australia and WAG Pipeline Pty Ltd in letters appended to the SEES.
Telstra and CitiPower cables
Citipower electricity cables and Telstra telecommunications cables also cross the Yarra just downstream of the West Gate Bridge. The SEES sets out that the service owners will oversee the decommissioning and rerouting of these services as part of the CDP.
Ethane Pipeline
It is proposed that the ethane pipeline, which crosses the proposed southern extension to the Port Melbourne Channel, will be covered in stabilised rock to protect it.
Navigation Aids
A number of navigation aids will be modified and some new aids installed as part of the CDP, including:
Page 60
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• replacing several channel markers and installing land‐based navigation aids proposed adjacent along the Yarra River and Williamstown Channel; • new beacons either side of the Port Melbourne Channel; • relocating the existing No.2 and No.4 beacons and constructing a new No. 21 beacon within South Channel West; and • installation of two new navigation aids at the Entrance.
The Inquiry notes that in relation to navigation safety requirements, the Director of Marine Safety Victoria has indicated that the proposed deepened channels can be safely constructed and that the resulting seafloor dimensions will not result in a risk to navigation.
5.3 Inquiry Conclusions and Recommendations The Inquiry notes that the selection of channel routes minimises the dredging volumes. Although Webb Dock will not be fully operational for international container ships until 2019, the Inquiry concluded that it is more efficient and cost effective to include associated dredging in the CDP as proposed by PoMC. Webb Dock’s contribution to the total volume of dredged material is minimal and additional environmental implications are relatively small.
The Inquiry is satisfied that the changes to channel configurations meet CDP objectives, PIANC guideline requirements and minimise dredge volumes.
PoMC has a statutory obligation to maintain declared depths of the channels and the Director for Marine Safety, Marine Safety Victoria had a statutory responsibility for marine safety. The Inquiry notes that the Director for Marine Safety has advised that the deepened channel can be constructed safely and that changes to sea floor shape will not result in a change to risk to navigation. The Inquiry assumes that the Director for Marine Safety has been advised of the new information regarding potential accretion mounds at the Entrance.
The Inquiry notes that the potential additional 15% variation in volumes is considerable, particularly as the size and duration of the turbidity plume is a factor determining environmental impact in the Bay.
Recommendation:
Include detailed channel design, construction depths and dredging tolerances, defined as control measures in the EMP.
Page 61
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
6. DREDGING TECHNOLOGY SELECTION
6.1 Description and Key Issues CDP design decisions during the project development process were based on considerations of dredge technology selection, the dredging strategy and dredged material management. Furthermore, the SEES Assessment Guidelines recommended the SEES assess and justify the choices of dredging technology, methods for dredged material management and scheduling. This section considers the elements of dredging technology.
(i) Evaluation of Technology Options
After taking into account current international practice, the SEES undertook a multi‐ criteria analysis to compare the relative merits of alternative technologies. The following dredging technologies were considered for the Channel Deepening Project in the SEES:
Table 2: Dredging technologies considered for the CDP
Technology requirements Dredging technology Dredging uncontaminated material • Grab dredge • Backhoe dredge • Bucket ladder dredge • Suction dredge • Cutter suction dredge • Trailing suction hopper dredge
Dredging contaminated material All of the above, plus: • Horizontal profiling grab dredge • Environmental disc bottom cutter dredge
(Source: Table 7‐2, SEES)
Based on an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each of the above technologies and the locations and characteristics of the areas that required dredging, the potentially appropriate technologies were short‐listed for detailed comparison. Four technology choices were short‐listed for uncontaminated materials:
• trailing hopper suction dredge (THSD); • cutter suction dredge (CSD);
Page 62
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• backhoe dredge (BHD); and • grab dredge (GD).
For each of the CDP dredging areas, options were considered for comparison. For dredging of contaminated material, dredging technologies were considered in combination with disposal options. The following combinations were short‐listed:
• TSHD with bottom‐door disposal; • TSHD with suction‐pipe discharge; • TSHD with spreader pontoon discharge; • Horizontal Profiling Grab Dredge (HPG) loading barges, with split‐hull disposal; • HPG loading barges, with spreader pontoon discharge; • Environmental Disc Bottom Cutter Dredger (EDBCD) loading barges, with split‐hull disposal; and • EDBCD loading a mid‐size TSHD, with spreader pontoon disc discharge.
The SEES describes how the short‐listed dredging technology options were compared for each dredging area using multi‐criteria analysis. The multi‐criteria analysis involved comparison of options against relevant environmental, social and economic criteria, with options scored for each criterion on a scale of 1 to 10 with the highest value indicating highest suitability. A relative weight was given to each criterion based on importance, and these weightings were used to calculate an overall score for each option. This analysis was carried out separately for dredging of contaminated and uncontaminated materials. Table 3 below shows the SEES list of key technical, operational and environmental factors that might influence the selection of the preferred dredging technology.
Page 63
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Table 3: Criteria for the assessment of dredging technology
Category Criteria Environmental • Turbidity resulting from dredging (including intensity, duration and extent) • Turbidity resulting during disposal (including intensity, dispersal and persistence) • Accuracy and selectivity of dredging (residual material / contaminants) • Stability of material/retention in bunds (retention confidence) • Level of underwater noise generated • Rockfall • Disposal quantity • Duration • Risk of chemical or oil spills
Social • Safety – collision risk, vulnerability to weather • Level of airborne noise generated • Odours generated • Level of interference between dredging equipment and shipping • Vulnerability of equipment to security breaches • Influence on local business and recreation Economic • Cost • Excavation • Effectiveness of method in which equipment disposes of dredged material • Flexibility (ie ability to respond to changes in methods or program) • Cost of mobilisation (Source: Table 7‐3, SEES)
Three different weighting approaches were applied to the environmental, social and economic criteria categories, to test whether different weighting approaches would lead to different conclusions. The Inquiry considers that this provided appropriate sensitivity analysis. The three weighting approaches were:
i) non‐differentiated (all criteria weighted equally as 1); ii) balanced (all three main categories weighted equally with emphasis on practical aspects including dredging turbidity, project duration, safety and project cost); and iii) green (higher weighting assigned to environmental criteria).
Page 64
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
(ii) Preferred technology options for uncontaminated materials
In the case of the Entrance, four options were evaluated. The selected option, use of a jumbo or large TSHD with a hydrohammer and rockfisher, was significantly better than the alternatives that used a CSD with other support arrangements. This was the case whatever weighting was applied, although some submittors were concerned that the trial dredging program did not test out the hydrohammer (see below). For Port Melbourne, Williamstown and Yarra River Channels, the jumbo or mid‐sized TSHD operating with overflow was the preferred option, while dredging would be undertaken by a BHD in areas adjacent to the berths and a TSHD in the central part of the berths.
A summary of the preferred dredging technology for uncontaminated materials is shown below.
Table 4: Summary of preferred dredging technology for uncontaminated material
Location Preferred dredging technology Bay Entrance Jumbo TSHD with ripper draghead in conjunction with hydrohammer and stone fisher (if required) South Channel Jumbo and/or mid‐size TSHD Port Melbourne Channel Mid‐size TSHD Williamstown and Yarra River Channels Mid‐size TSHD, and BHD or grab dredger close to services Berth pockets Mid‐size TSHD, and BHD or grab dredge adjacent to docks (Source: Table 7‐5, SEES)
(iii) Preferred technology options for contaminated materials
In relation to contaminated materials in the Yarra River and Williamstown Channels, the preferred option was more complex than that for uncontaminated material, and entailed use of the jumbo TSHD, with no overflow, using a spreader diffuser on a pontoon outside the DMG to discharge material to the seabed. This was marginally preferred to using the same approach while inside the DMG for discharge, from an environmental point of view. The use of a diffuser that delivers the contaminated sediment near the seabed and distributes it evenly was preferred to bottom door discharge and barge disposal alternatives.
A variant of this evaluation was applied to dredging of contaminated materials near the berths. Disposal via a pontoon with diffuser was deemed the safest and most
Page 65
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
effective, while the preferred dredging technology was the mid size TSHD with no overflow. This would be used in the less confined spaces in the centre of the berth channels. Adjacent to the berths, the favoured option was to use a backhoe dredge and grab dredge with barge transfer to the TSHD. A horizontal profiling grab dredge was proposed for use with contaminated materials close in to the berths, as it offers “high accuracy, flexibility in cramped spaces, and minimisation of spill.” A summary of the preferred dredging technology for contaminated materials is shown below.
Table 5: Summary of preferred dredging technology for contaminated material
Location Preferred dredging technology Williamstown and Yarra River Channels TSHD operating in non‐overflow mode with placement of material at the DMG with a pontoon with diffuser from outside the DMG Berth pockets HPG or equivalent attached to either a BHD or grab dredge adjacent to docks. TSHD operating in non‐overflow mode for the central parts of the berth pockets with material placed using a pontoon with diffuser. (Source: Table 7‐6, SEES)
(iv) Description of preferred dredging technology
Trailing suction hopper dredge (TSHD)
A TSHD is described as a self‐propelled ship that removes material from the seabed and then stores it within a hopper built into the vessel. Suction pipes leading down from the side of the vessel are used to remove material from the seabed, with the intake of the suction pipe known as the draghead.
While dredging, the TSHD travels slowly over the area to be dredged with the draghead lowered to the seabed. As the draghead is dragged along the seabed it loosens the seabed material, which, as slurry of sediment and water, is then sucked up the draghead and pumped through the suction pipes into the hopper. This material is stored in the hopper until the vessel is fully loaded and then taken to a dredged material disposal ground where the material is discharged.
Additional technologies adopted for the TSHD include the fitting of a ‘green valve’ on the overflow valve to reduce the amount of air that is entrained in the discharge water and allow the material to settle more quickly, and a diffuser that releases material just above the seabed, reducing the potential for dispersion. These
Page 66
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
technologies are discussed further below.
The TSHD is proposed as the primary dredge for the CDP.
Backhoe dredge (BHD)
A backhoe dredge is a hydraulic excavator equipped with a half‐open bucket that can be raised and lowered to the seabed to remove seabed material. The backhoe dredge is placed on a turntable at the front of a pontoon, which is fitted with three legs that provide a stable platform during dredging. Dredged materially is typically loaded from a backhoe dredge into an adjacent barge, which will be taken to the disposal area once it is full while a second barge is brought alongside the pontoon to continue loading. The CDP proposes to use the BHD in the Yarra River in areas that are inaccessible to a TSHD.
Horizontal Profiling Grab Dredge (HPG)
The horizontal profiling grab dredge is a variation of the grab dredge that has been configured so that it creates a horizontal seabed profile. It is fitted to a hydraulic crane that places material in an adjacent barge. An HPG will be used to remove contaminated sediments in berth pockets in conjunction with a TSHD in more open areas. The SEES states that it has been selected primarily for its “high accuracy, for selective removal of contaminated sediment and ability to operate in confined spaces”.
Hydrohammer
A hydrohammer is the marine equivalent of a jackhammer, designed to break hard material into smaller pieces suitable for subsequent removal by a TSHD or stone fisher. A hydrohammer is composed of a specially designed chisel attached to the end of a marine pile driver that is then fixed to the side of an ocean‐going vessel. For the CDP, a hydrohammer will be used as a contingency at the Entrance for instances where the rock is found to be too hard to remove by TSHD dragheads.
Stone fisher
A stone fisher is a specially fitted dragnet that is dragged along the seabed, removing any large pieces of material left on the seabed after dredging. This can be attached to the same vessel as a hydrohammer. Material collected by the stone fisher is stored on deck before it is removed to a DMG or other site.
While it is not likely, a stone fisher may be used at the Entrance to remove loose
Page 67
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
material that is too large to be taken up by the suction system of a TSHD.
Key issues that have been identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) Is the technology selected ‘best practice’? (ii) Selection of technology for particular purposes
6.2 Inquiry Response (i) Is the technology ‘best practice’?
The SEPP (WoV) requires that dredging is consistent with best practice, defining it as “the combination of techniques, methods, processes or technology used in an industry sector or activity that demonstrably minimises the environmental impact of that industry sector or activity”. In making decisions in relation to best practice, practicability is a relevant consideration. The SEES Guidelines state that “the proposed dredging technology and methods for dredged material management should be best practice.”
The SEES stated that the overall approach to selection of dredging technology for the CDP followed the six‐step process outlined in EPA Victoria’s advice on best practice, with the six steps including:
• establish the project context; • identification of options; • assessment of options; • sensitivity analysis; • identification of the preferred option; and • monitoring and management.
A number of submittors argued that the technology selected by the Alliance was not ‘best practice’. In their submission, Blue Wedges commented:
Best practice has not been pursued. The cheapest options have been favoured. Use of new‐subsurface “keyhole” dredging technology from Boskalis BV is now available for full‐scale commercial applications, following successful trials in the Netherlands, but has not been considered in the SEES.
Dr Harris was highly critical of the proposed use of the ripper draghead, stating “The proposed dredge technology has not been fully tested in action, and the SEES is based on laboratory simulations of the proposed “ripper” heads”.
Page 68
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
In the SEES and throughout the hearings, PoMC maintained that, regardless of the concerns raised by submittors, all parties should have a high degree of certainty in the technology chosen for the CDP. They stressed that:
• Boskalis has an enormous amount of experience in dredging projects, including ones that are larger, more difficult and involve greater amounts of contaminated materials; • the technology chosen for the CDP is proven technology which has been refined and combined with other technology to meet local circumstances; • there have been very significant advantages in having the Alliance formed at the project design phase, as this has allowed contractor input in the design, technology and management issues; • the ability to dredge the Entrance was substantially addressed during the trial dredging; and • the design of the hydrohammer comprises a combination of two technologies that have been used previously by Boskalis.
EPA listed six aspects of the project relevant to EPA’s Best Practice framework, including “equipment selection”. The Inquiry asked the EPA whether it considered the PoMC had met best practice for each of these six aspects, to which the EPA responded “PoMC’s assessment, as set out in the SEES, addresses these considerations in relation to the areas of interest to EPA.”
The IEG agreed with the PoMC’s position, stating in their May 2007 report that the technology selected was best practice in that there are “no better dredging methods available for carrying out the works than those adopted for the final evaluation of the optimum selection of dredging equipment”. The IEG considered that dredger options evaluated by PoMC were comprehensive, and that the evaluations to assess the options were “sufficiently detailed and robust”. The IEG commented that the Trial Dredge Program has clearly informed the evaluations, and sensitivity analyses have been performed to assess the robustness of the outcomes to different weightings in the environmental, social and economic evaluation criteria. The Inquiry concurs with this view.
(ii) Selection of technology for particular purposes
Fundamental to PoMC’s approach is acknowledgment that “The CDP is a large‐scale dredging project where the various channels to be dredged have different dredging requirements. The works involve dredging of various sediment types and both uncontaminated and contaminated materials.” PoMC notes that the project comprises
Page 69
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
four distinctly different areas, each with its own challenges, and this naturally informs technology selection. The proponent also makes clear that choices were adapted as more environmental information came to hand from the studies that were underway during 2005 and 2006. Examples are given of the adjustment of dredging approaches as rockfalls in the Entrance and turbidity plume management were better understood.
It is important to appreciate the way that PoMC applied criteria to the selection of appropriate dredge technology and the quite specific choices that were made for two sensitive areas, the Yarra River, with its contaminated sediments, and the Entrance, where rock dredging, fluctuating currents and winds, and sensitive sessile colonies all contributed to a challenging environment. These two areas have attracted the most attention from critics of the CDP.
Managing contaminants
The CDP proposes the use of a number of technologies to assist in the management of contaminants, namely the use of the ‘green valve’ and diffuser.
Within the TSHD’s hopper, the coarser sediments settle leaving a layer of water with a relatively low concentration of suspended sediments that can be discharged to the ocean through an overflow valve to maximise available space in the hopper for sediment storage. The CDP proposes the use of an overflow valve fitted with a green valve, which reduces the amount of air that it entrained in the discharged water. As a result, suspended sediments discharged through the overflow valve within the overflow water will settle more quickly, reducing turbidity.
Material will be discharged from the TSHD through a diffuser, which involves connecting a flexible hose to the bow coupling and pumping material from the hopper to a pontoon where the material is then fed down into a diffuser pipe and released just above the seabed. This reduces the potential for dispersion.
Dredging at the Entrance and Rock Scour
As the IEG pointed out in their May 2007 report, the dredging strategy at the Entrance depends on three components:
• the operational capacity of the dredger at the site; • the dredger’s ability to fragment and excavate the dredged rock material; • the amount of residual rock not retrieved during dredging by the TSHD.
Page 70
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Through the trial dredging, both the operational capacity of the dredger and its ability to fragment and excavate the rock material were found to be technically satisfactory. Issues relating to dredging at the Entrance are discussed in Chapter 17.
6.3 Inquiry Conclusions The Inquiry notes the IEG’s comment that it had been apprised of the options proposed during the pre‐selection process, and that they were satisfied that there are currently no better dredging methods available for carrying out the works than those adopted for the final evaluation of the optimum selection of dredging equipment.
The Inquiry considers that the technology selected for the project is best practice in the context of the CDP.
Page 71
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
7. DREDGING STRATEGY
7.1 Description and Key Issues The project design decisions during the project development process were based on considerations of dredge technology selection, the dredging strategy and dredged material management. The Assessment Guidelines recommended the SEES assess and justify the choices of dredging technology, methods for dredged material management and scheduling. This chapter considers the elements of dredging strategy.
PoMC’s dredging strategy includes scheduling of dredging works for the CDP. The approach to scheduling of dredging works is critical as these decisions influence:
• the potential significance of environmental and social effects; • project costs; and • the timing of project completion.
The strategy sets out a process for making scheduling decisions taking into account the construction, environmental, social and economic constraints and preferences for the project. Construction constraints and preferences relate to engineering and operational requirements, environmental and social constraints while preferences include key seasonal sensitivities for assets, values and uses of the Bay, and economic preferences relate to the PoMC aim to achieve access to the Port for 14m draught vessels before 2010.
Scheduling decisions are also guided by an understanding of the available dredging configuration options and their relative effects on turbidity. Options include the number of dredges, the choice of dredging in overflow mode compared to non‐ overflow, the dredge size and interval dredging compared to continuous dredging. These decisions have sought to incorporate environmental and social preferences while minimising project costs and achieving completion and other timelines. The dredging strategy has been used to prepare an indicative dredging schedule based on a project start in January 2008, subject to approval. This indicative dredging schedule has been used as the basis for the risk and impact assessment undertaken for the project.
The scheduling must be flexible and adaptable to respond to external influences including weather conditions, availability of equipment and personnel, mechanical failure and unforeseen interruptions or delays to works. Regardless of the final
Page 72
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
schedule that may be implemented, any works will need to comply with the EMP adopted for the project.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) weighing up constraints and preferences in scheduling decisions (ii) dredging the Entrance
7.2 Inquiry Response (i) Weighing up constraints and preferences in scheduling decisions
The Inquiry notes that limiting constraints in scheduling decisions related principally to the order of construction procedures that influenced engineering and operational requirements. For example:
• the clays of the Port of Melbourne Channel must be dredged before the silts of Williamstown and the Yarra River Channels, because this material is needed to partially build the bund within which the silts will be placed; and • berth strengthening works must be completed before the associated berth pockets are dredged.
All other considerations were based on seasonal sensitivities of social and environmental assets, values and uses, and construction preferences that would either reduce costs and delay or provide for increased efficiency. Some of the seasonal sensitivities for social and environmental assets, values and uses were considered significant enough for the SEES to adopt constraints for managing risks during project implementation. These constraints are specified in the EMP and include:
• no dredging between 18 December and 31 January in the South of the Bay Project Area to moderate potential impacts on the recreation and tourism activities during the peak holiday season; • dredging in Williamstown Channel (within Hobson’s Bay) restricted to less than 50% of the key anchovy spawning period from 1 December to 28 February. Because anchovy are batch spawners, it is proposed that a two weeks on/two weeks off sequence will be applied if dredging is undertaken during this period; and • no dredging with TSHD in the Yarra River and Williamstown Channels during spring, to protect migration of the endangered Australian mudfish
Page 73
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
and Australian grayling species.
All other considerations for decisions are based on preferences related to construction, environmental, social and economic reasons and the aim of completing the project before 2010. In relation to social and environmental seasonality issues, the SEES argues that it is preferred to:
• maximise dredging works in winter and autumn; and • minimise dredging works in spring and summer.
The Inquiry notes that the dredging schedule upon which the SEES is based changed substantially before the end of the hearing as a jumbo dredge would not be available as the Queen of the Netherlands TSHD could not be adapted in time. The Inquiry notes that the jumbo dredge would have resulted in a greater plume extent, duration and intensity than with the use of the mid‐sized TSHD. The Inquiry notes that the CDP dredging schedule is extended by six months approximately. While the risk assessment was based on the shorter dredge schedule, the Inquiry considered that the implications of this extended timeframe has been taken into account by PoMC and can be managed through the EMP.
The Inquiry notes that the dredging strategy involves balancing disparate risks across the project. Further consideration is provided in Chapters 21 and 22. Specific examples of the balancing requirements were highlighted to the Inquiry, including those noted below.
Protected species vs industry requirements
The SEES attempts to balance the seasonal sensitivity of protected freshwater fish in the Yarra and the operational requirements of the Newport Power Station. The protected fish include the Australian grayling and the Australian mudfish. During the hearing, the Inquiry heard no evidence to suggest that the Australian mudfish was present in the Yarra River and considered that it would be reasonable to assume that the mudfish was extinct from the river system. However, the Inquiry noted that the Australian grayling was present and that sensitive periods for the species related to the migration of juveniles back into freshwater during October and November. This species is protected under both the Commonwealth EP&BC Act and the State Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act.
In recognition of its legal status, the SEES adopted an environmental constraint to protect the freshwater species: “No dredging with the TSHD in the Yarra River and Williamstown Channels during spring, to protect migration of the endangered Australian
Page 74
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
mudfish and Australian grayling species”.
The Newport Power Station is a gas fired peak load power plant located on the western bank of the Yarra River, owned by Ecogen Energy Pty Ltd. While operating, the power station draws in 17,500 litres of river water per second from the Yarra River.
The Inquiry notes that the PoMC and Ecogen Energy had worked cooperatively in considering the operations at the station and the potential effects of the CDP. The SEES details the EMP measures to address the significant concerns from the station.
During the hearing, the Inquiry heard from Ecogen Energy Pty Ltd that the suspension of dredge material has the potential to cause destabilisation or collapse of the cooling inlet structure, with the uptake of turbid water into the cooling water system causing it to be fouled and/or abraded. Ecogen’s own risk assessment has found that through erosion, corrosion and deposition there is a high level of risk to CW pump bearings and seals, as well as tubing in various other parts of the CW system. Ecogen raised concerns that that this has the potential for its business to be interrupted or could force services to be relocated. They claim that if Newport is unable to operate when required by power demand, there is likely to be a shortage of power to the State with potential large‐scale safety and financial ramifications.
The Inquiry commends PoMC and Ecogen for resolving the substantial issues, particularly the request from Ecogen that dredging activity be coordinated with the scheduled major maintenance periods of the station. However, it notes this decision has implications for the Australian Grayling. The next shutdown is scheduled for Spring 2008 when power demand is traditionally lower than at other times of the year. The SEES explains that the dredging duration will extend beyond the normal period for major maintenance shutdowns which is around eight weeks. Ecogen’s 23 September 2007 letter to the Inquiry confirmed this agreement.
The power station was designed and constructed in the 1970s to operate in an estuarine marine environment within an existing working port. It has regularly been exposed to, and tolerated routine maintenance dredging and large‐scale floods events. The Inquiry observes that while Ecogen acknowledged this, the specific thresholds for turbidity to damage the cooling water system is unknown. Ecogen have suggested that in the absence of knowledge as to what levels of turbidity are damaging to the CW system the precautionary principle should be adopted.
The Inquiry notes that the SEES approach has taken the precautionary principle in relation to the Australian Grayling as specifically required under the EPBC Act to
Page 75
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
avoid serious or irreversible environmental harm to the species, even though the SEES predicts that such a serious or irreversible environmental harm will not occur. In relation to Ecogen, the PoMC concludes that the potential risk to the station is negligible as it has been exposed to a history of dredging in the Yarra River and that mitigation measures are included in the EMP to further reduce and monitor that risk. In their closing submission the PoMC concluded that there is negligible risk from the CDP on the potential loss of power supply to Victoria.
The Inquiry sought advice from PoMC on the implications for accommodating Ecogen’s interests of dredging during the spring 2008 shutdown. An updated schedule was provided with advice from the PoMC that the new schedule would not extend the overall project duration. However it did highlight the potential implications for the grayling, and conceded that the state of knowledge in relation to the Grayling is limited.
The Inquiry notes these risks, taking into account legal requirements of the EPBC Act, FFG Act, and the potential for externalising costs on the Power Station. The Inquiry does however note that the station has tolerated maintenance dredging and flood events and there are uncertainties related to knowledge of cooling water system impacts.
The Inquiry accepts the spring dredging period, so long as the impacts to the Grayling species are offset through improvements to habitat in the species range – such as Maribyrnong River, consistent with the EPBC Act.
Protected species vs other marine species
A balancing exercise was presented in the SEES between addressing the seasonal sensitivities of protected freshwater fish and those of other species. The Inquiry notes that the Australian grayling is present although the state of knowledge in relation to their movements is limited.
The dredging schedule decision to avoid the seasonal sensitivity of the listed freshwater species has repercussions for anchovies in particular. The Inquiry noted that anchovies are ecologically important in PPB as they provide an important food web link between zooplankton and other predators in the Bay.
The Inquiry accepts IEG advice that effects on listed species should be weighted more heavily than those on anchovies. Dredging during spring, as now proposed and accepted by PoMC, should reduce impacts on anchovy.
Page 76
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Cost and project duration vs recreational use of the Bay
In their submission, the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council stated that the “no dredge period” in the south of the Bay should be extended from December to Easter. While it is accepted that this would favour recreational users of the Bay, the Inquiry understands that the time frame is too long for it to be practical, and would have the effect and cost of extending the overall dredge period even further.
(ii) Dredging operations at the Entrance
Submittors opposed use of the hydrohammer at the Entrance, many regarding it as ‘unproven technology’. In response to a question from Mr Robinson inquiring as to why the hydrohammer was not trialled in the trial dredge, the PoMC made the comment that the objective of the trial dredging was to test unproven technology and that the hydrohammer was not unproven as it had been “widely used around the world for breaking up hard materials in dredging projects”. They also stated that the hydrohammer is the fall back for the ripper draghead, and it would “not be needed for the removal of substantial quantities of material, and may in fact not be needed at all.” The IEG raised no concerns about use of the hydrohammer and supported PoMC’s selection of dredge technology and proposed dredge strategy.
The Inquiry notes that the hydrohammer will be deployed if necessary, although the noise emission has not been assessed at the Entrance. The EMP describes the start‐ up procedure for the hydrohammer as “either intermittent use or gradual increase in the hammer energy during the initial 10 minutes of use.” In their 6 September advice, the IEG stated that they understood “intermittent use” to mean at normal or full power.
A number of recommendations for use of the hydrohammer to minimise potential impacts are included in the Technical Report on Underwater Noise. This report recommends a “soft” start to the operations in order to enable marine fauna to move away from the noise source where prolonged exposure could cause harm to marine life. The recommendation within the report states:
A soft start may allow animals close to the source to move away. This can be done by using the lowest power possible and hammering at a low rate during the first 20‐30 minutes before ramping up to the target power and hammering rate.
The IEG considers that intermittent use of the hydrohammer at normal or full power would not be consistent with the above recommendation, and as it would not protect marine fauna. The IEG commented that if a low power start‐up is not a feasible option for the hydrohammer, then it might be possible to use some alternative noise
Page 77
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
producing device initially to encourage fauna to leave the area. The Inquiry makes a recommendation in this regard.
Submittors questioned the use of the trailing suction hopper dredger. Dr Roberts indicated that TSHD technology is neither best practice nor appropriate for dredging contaminated materials, and questioned its capacity to carry out these works satisfactorily without serious ecological effects. Mornington Peninsula Shire Council questioned the selection of the TSHD and associated dredging technology, as did Mr Croft who claimed the TSHD was not best practice technology for various reasons, including:
• it has to clean and break up some of the material before picking it up; • the dredger has the functions of dredging the sediments and transporting the sediments but can only do one function at a time; • it doesn’t cleanly separate contaminated material from the underlying consolidated sediments, increasing the volume of contaminated sediments to be picked up; and • it is most economic when operating in an overflow state, but such an overflow is unacceptable for the Bay.
Mr Croft referred a proposed alternative to the CDP, and claimed it would allow larger ships to access the Port without requiring dredging for at least ten, and possibly up to 20 years. While the new proposal was not submitted, the Inquiry heard Mr Croft’s concerns. The Inquiry’s task is to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the project of the CDP and to advise the Minister for Planning in this regard. The Inquiry has no comment on Mr Croft’s proposal. Any alternative proposals should be submitted through the appropriate planning processes for consideration by relevant authorities.
The IEG noted that stone fishing operations are only briefly mentioned in the EMP, and that it is unclear whether they are an adjunct to dredging operations or to clean‐ up operations. The final EMP should clarify this.
7.3 Inquiry Conclusions and Recommendations The Inquiry was presented with a dredge strategy as part of the SEES. PoMC attempted to minimise dredging in key Bayside areas over peak summer periods, and for dredging to occur in the Yarra River to avoid the spawning time for protected fish species (Grayling and Mudfish). This meant that dredging in the Yarra would occur in the summer season.
Page 78
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Ecogen Energy presented a case that this dredge schedule conflicted with its operations. It argued that it preferred dredging to occur in the 2008 spring season to coincide with its long planned plant shut down for major maintenance. The Inquiry asked PoMC to prepare a new schedule to accommodate Ecogen’s concerns.
The Inquiry has reviewed these schedules, and on balance accepts that the revised schedule be adopted, following, expert advice relating to spawning periods of these key protected species, which concludes that they will not be compromised. The Inquiry accepts the spring dredging period, providing the impacts to the Grayling species are offset through improvements to habitat in the species range – such as Maribyrnong River, consistent with the EPBC Act.
In concluding that the technology selected is best practice, the Inquiry notes that the IEG clearly did not share submittors’ concerns about the TSHD and supported the technology’s use as part of the CDP.
Recommendations:
Adopt the revised CDP schedule that includes Yarra River dredging in spring 2008.
Provide for proportionate offset impacts on protected species (such as Australian Grayling) including improvements to their habitats in other parts of their range (eg. Maribyrnong River).
Deploy alternative noise producing devices to deter marine fauna from approaching the hydrohammer prior to its use in the Entrance, if it cannot be used at lower power for this purpose.
Page 79
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
8. DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
The project design decisions during the project development process were based on considerations of dredge technology selection, the dredging strategy and dredged material management. Furthermore, the SEES Assessment Guidelines recommended the SEES assess and justify the choices of dredging technology, methods for dredged material management and scheduling. This section considers dredged material management. The Guidelines require the SEES to evaluate approaches for dealing with contaminated sediments, and include design alternatives to proposed marine confinement of dredged material, based on rigorous review of international best practice.
Dredging is proposed to remove some 22.92 million m3 including sediments from the River and Bay Channels and rock from the Entrance. This is an in situ measurement of the volumes to be removed by dredging. The volumes may vary by + 15% of the figures specified in the SEES due to the range of dredging tolerances which apply. The material to be managed however is 26.04 million m3, a bulked volume which accounts for the fact that excavated or dredged material occupies a greater volume than the in situ volume. The bulking factor varies on the type of material dredged and often cannot be determined until dredging is occurring.
The SEES adopted a conservative estimate for values as specified below:
Table 6: Volume of material to be dredged
Channel In situ volume Bulked volume (million m3) (million m3) Yarra River Channel (inc berths) 3.37 4.58 Williamstown Channel 2.00 2.84 Port Melbourne Channel 2.40 2.73 South Channel 14.59 15.32 The Entrance 0.55 0.57 Total 22.92 26.04 Including associated berth pockets, swing basins and services. Volumes may vary by + 15%. The totals are greater than the sum of the volumes due to rounding to two decimal places.
Relevant Victorian legislation and policy guide the selection of material management options. Of specific relevance to the dredge material management during the CDP is the Environment Protection Act 1970 and associated instruments. This Act provides for the State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) (Waters of Victoria) Schedule F6 Waters of Port Phillip Bay, State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) (Waters of
Page 80
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Victoria) Schedule F7 Waters of the Yarra Catchment, the Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Dredging and the Waste Management Hierarchy.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) Use of correct best practice guidelines (ii) Sediment Characterisation • Comprehensiveness of list of contaminants of concern • Comprehensiveness of the analyses for contaminants • Ability to detect hotspots (iii) Implications for managing material • Bioavailability (ie elutriate testing/water quality) • Bioaccumulation • Human Health (from water quality and fish) • Marine‐based beneficial use or disposal (iv) Management of dredged material • Land‐based beneficial use or development Northern DMG Southern DMG
8.2 Inquiry Response (i) Use of correct best practice guidelines
The State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) ‐ Schedule F6 requires dredging and dredged material management to accord with best practice. Guidance on best practice is provided in the EPA Victoria’s waste hierarchy and the 2001 Victorian Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Dredging (BPEM).
The Inquiry heard from the EPA that while BPEM has to date been considered best practice, the National Oceans Disposal Guidelines (NODG) provide more recent detailed guidance and advice regarding best practice in the assessment of sediments to be dredged.
The Inquiry noted that the aim of the NODG is:
To provide a comprehensive best practice framework to assess likely environmental impacts from the dumping at sea of dredged material. This includes provision of advice on assessment of sediment suitability for dumping, the selection of dump sites and
Page 81
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
development of appropriate monitoring programs.
It provides guidance on whether material is suitable for disposal in ocean waters and for the assessment of the material. Its principal use in the CDP was to determine whether dredge material was suitable for unconfined marine disposal.
Even though it is not directly called up in the SEES Assessment Guidelines, it reflects development in scientific knowledge and practice. The SEES assessment of sediments to be dredged and disposal is therefore based on the NODG, which the EPA advise is appropriate.
The SEES explains that “regardless of which guidance document is followed for evaluating the sediment chemistry, the screening levels are the same”. To the extent that they differ, the screening of data against NODG generally results in a more conservative classification of sediment quality because it advocates use of the 95% upper confidence limit of the mean of chemical data for comparison, whereas BPEM applies the geometric mean. The SEES notes that the final choice of statistic as guided by NODG takes into account the distribution of the data. The Inquiry notes that BPEM still provides best practice in relation to the management of sediments and other matters.
(ii) Sediment characterisation
The SEES explained that an evaluation framework was applied so that material management options could be considered. This framework took into account the waste management hierarchy and the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) ‐ Schedule F6 preference for dredged material to be disposed to land rather than to water wherever practicable and environmentally beneficial as determined by the EPA. It also incorporated the best practice framework of the Environment Protection Act. The benefits of this process were twofold: first, it aligned management priorities with risk; and second, its cascading order facilitated identification of beneficial uses within the project (such as the use of dredged clays in the construction of containment facilities for contaminated materials), where a segmented, non‐sequential approach may have encouraged diversion of materials to options outside the project rather than benefiting project integration.
Page 82
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Figure 2: Beneficial use and disposal options
Material Type and Volume
Tier 1: Land-based beneficial use or disposal • Practicality • Environmental benefit
Tier 2: Marine-based beneficial use • Practicality • Environmental benefit
Tier 3: Marine-based disposal • Practicality • Environmental benefit
Submittors criticised sediment characterisation, including decisions of disposal to land in preference of water, characterisation and choice of options for managing contaminated materials.
The SEES explains that material proposed for dredging in the southern channels comprises rock at the Entrance and sands in the South Channel with generally low, but variable silt contents. The South Channel is remote from major human sources of contaminants and the dredging material is relatively coarse grained with a low contaminant sorption potential.
Sediments in the northern channels were considered in two major units. The first is the unconsolidated sediment (soft silt) deposited more recently by the Yarra and Maribyrnong Rivers. These sediments, which have been contaminated by a variety of industrial activities in the catchments and activities associated with use of the shipping channels. These sediments are captured in silt traps, 1.0‐1.5m deep depressions along both sides of the shipping channels. Silt is generally thickest in the silt traps and covers a thinner ~0.5m layer in the middle sections of the channels. Sediments in the silt traps are mixed by frequent resuspended by vessels and are therefore considered to be homogenised. This unconsolidated material has been removed through routine maintenance dredge programs. The second component is the underlying consolidated sediment (stiff clay) that contains historical deposits. This material is not homogenised and contamination, if present, is likely to be localised to the source of pollution input. To determine material type, the SEES considered biological, physical, chemical and toxicological characteristics.
Page 83
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Community concern about sediment contamination, handling and management, particularly in the northern channels and Yarra River, was voiced by submittors. Chemical contamination and toxicological characteristics are determined by sampling of sediments from areas to be dredged, then classified as either suitable or unsuitable for confined marine disposal in accordance with the NODG.
The NODG applies a ‘gated’ approach, as results of one level of analysis determine whether additional analysis need to be undertaken. It comprises four phases of assessment:
• evaluation of existing information (Phase I); • sampling and analysis of dredge spoil for contaminants of concern, including bioavailability testing (Phase II); • acute toxicity testing (Phase III); and • comprehensive sub‐acute/chronic toxicity testing (Phase IV).
Only contaminants that exceeded screening criteria were tested for bioavailability and/or toxicity.
Sediments that are classified as acutely or sub‐acutely toxic are considered unsuitable for unconfined marine disposal and investigation into treatment or confined marine disposal options is required. If elutriate data exceed the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) water quality guidelines, then effective disposal controls are required for marine disposal.
In undertaking the sampling and analysis of the sediments, the SEES analysed all of the parameters in all phases for the majority of samples. The EPA advised that this approach to assessment of the sediment characteristics is consistent with the NODG. The Inquiry notes this is a comprehensive and cautious approach.
During the hearing, the following concerns were raised in relation to the assessment.
Comprehensiveness of list of contaminants of concern
Phase I of the NODG requires an evaluation of existing information to identify contaminants of concern which will then be sampled and analysed in Phase II. During the hearing, the Inquiry and submittors questioned the range of contaminants that were identified in Phase I for analysis, raising concerns that some substances such as Radionuclides, Dioxins, Furans and Polybrominated diphenyl ethers were not considered or tested for. In their written submission, Blue Wedges
Page 84
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
stated that “Since all of these compounds are extremely toxic, they should have been tested in the SEES studies”.
The contaminants of potential concern considered for the SEES sediment investigations were based on a review of industrial history and were those recognised by environmental agencies worldwide as being a problem in waterways near industrialised urban or agricultural environments. In Port Phillip Bay, these included inorganic compounds (metals and metalloids) and organic compounds (hydrocarbons, pesticides, tributylin, and chlorinated compounds). These compounds are adsorbed on sediment particles and persist long after the source has been removed.
The northern channels received particular attention given their exposure to contaminant sources from catchment‐wide sources (from river and urban runoff, and from groundwater) and local sources such as from boating and shipping activities and industries such as oil refineries. In these channels a total of 284 chemicals of concern were identified through a historical site assessment of the Lower Yarra River and Port Phillip Bay sediments aimed at compiling a historical summary of past industrial activities (1860‐2000) and the associated chemicals. These were screened using applicable guidelines and readily available environmental and toxicity information to justify the retention/removal of a chemical from the list.
Several potential organic contaminants were omitted from the list of analytes to be tested in Phase II as they had not previously been identified as compounds of environmental concern in the northern channels area, or not found to be present in concentrations that would represent significant environmental risks. The resulting list included only those for which data indicated a reasonable likelihood that sediments would be a sink for that contaminant, and screened against those which were assessed as not being persistent or degrade over time and are unlikely to remain in the Bay system. Additional sampling and analysis was also undertaken to validate and extend the existing geochemical data.
In giving evidence for PoMC in this matter, Dr Irvine concluded that:
Based on the information presented, the selection of analytes is considered to meet the requirements of the NODG, although should any further investigations in PPB (eg, in the North Channel study), identify significant quantities of those COPCs omitted from the analysis list, further consideration should be given to the need to analyse for them in the SC.
Page 85
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Dr Irvine was later satisfied with the PoMC response that “The analyte list for both sampling programs was almost identical (phenols were the only inclusion for the northern channels program). The northern channels assessment did not detect any unusual chemicals (ie phenols) that were not tested in the south channel”.
However, Dr Irvine challenged exclusion of two specific contaminants during the hearing including the dioxin family and radionuclides.
In relation to dioxins, Dr Irvine stated that the inclusion of dioxins on the list of contaminants of concern is not required under the NODG process and their omission would not change the characterisation of the sediments for material management purposes. However, he did state that dioxin data would have been useful. Submittors were concerned that it had been excluded in light of its potential implications for human health from eating fish. Blue Wedges stated: “Dioxins have already been responsible for the recent ban of commercial fishing in Sydney Harbour and associated demise of the fishing industry”. And they claimed: “If the toxic sediments in the port area of the Yarra were disturbed by dredging, then it is quite likely that biota coming into contact with these sediments will become contaminated”.
Dr Irvine also questioned the exclusion of radionuclides from the list, as he considered the decision was not justified based on available information. He advised that further information is needed to determine whether the exclusion conforms with NODG. The Inquiry noted that PoMC had explained that the decision was made to omit an assessment of radionuclides (and dioxins/furans) based on guidance from regulatory authorities and other sources, although no documentation was provided to this effect.
The Inquiry asked Dr Irvine “is there anything that should not be disposed of in the Bay or in the water” and his response was an emphatic “no”. In relation to dioxins, he commented that the dioxins in the Yarra River and Hobson’s Bay, even at elevated levels are “low by world standards”.
The Inquiry was informed that radionuclides are rare and often associated with specific industries such as mining and mineral processing. The IEG advised that radionuclides occur naturally in sediments although a number of anthropogenically derived radionuclides can also be found in sediments. For example, Cesium‐137 has been distributed globally from the testing of atomic weapons in the 1960’s and by the Chernobyl accident. The presence of Cesium‐137 in sediments is used in sediment dating to define a 1960’s horizon. The expected levels of naturally occurring radionuclides are below the NODG guideline levels.
Page 86
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
During the hearing, Dr Caldicott explained that Cesium‐137 was derived from uses in industrial x‐rays. The Inquiry notes that Dr Caldicott doubted that there would be much ‘leakage’ of this sort from instrumentation and did not appear to be aware of existing Cesium‐137 levels from 1960s events.
Radionuclides were not raised in the previous EES Panel report. The Inquiry notes that a Port Phillip Bay study in 1993 concluded that “there is no source of contamination by radionuclides in this area”. The IEG advised that it is not aware of any dredging investigations in Australia where radionuclides have been found to be an issue.
Dr Irvine explained that from the NODG, the selection of analytes is “ultimately a matter of using best professional judgement after review of all the available data, and the analyte list is considered to reflect that”. He further advised that the NODG is a set of guidelines and not a mandatory requirement. The Inquiry heard that EPA had reviewed and approved the Phase I report and Sampling and Analysis Plan, consistent with the NODG.
The Inquiry notes Dr Irvine’s comments and worries from submittors that some substances had not been tested for. The NODG provide guidance on the process to determine the list of contaminants of concern, and expert judgement and common sense is required in coming to conclusions about the list. The Inquiry took into account the type of sediments under consideration, advice about the potential sources of contamination and the resulting decisions for dredge management that the SEES specifies.
Comprehensiveness of the analyses for contaminants
The Inquiry heard a number of questions about the process for determining contamination and toxicity status in the channels in relation to the adequacy of the sampling analyses.
The SEES explains that in the Southern Channels, Phase II of the assessment was triggered comprising sampling and analysis of the proposed dredge material and evaluation against the NODG screening levels. As NODG screening levels were not exceeded, Phase III and IV assessments were not required.
Rock at the Entrance comprising inert, inorganic geological material, and was exempt from further testing requirements.
In the northern channels, the unconsolidated material in the Docks, Yarra River North and South, Batter Walls and Williamstown Channel dredge management
Page 87
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
units were classified as toxic under the NODG Phase III and IV assessments and are considered unacceptable for unconfined disposal. On this basis unconsolidated sediment has been classified as moderately or highly contaminated. A thin layer (approximately 0.3m increasing to 2m) of unconsolidated sediment was detected in one section of the Port Melbourne Channel. Thicker sediment in the southern end of the channel contained concentrations of DDT and DDD that exceeded the NODG screening levels for contaminants in Phase II and displayed acute and sub‐acute toxicity under Phase III and IV. This material was therefore classified as moderately or highly contaminated and excised from the remainder of the unconsolidated material from the Port Melbourne Channel dredge management unit which has been classified as uncontaminated.
Dr Irvine advised:
The reviewer notes that the south and north channel investigations represent one of the largest and most comprehensive sediment quality investigations ever carried out in Australia, and almost certainly the largest ever undertaken for a dredging program. In view of the scale and complexity of the investigations program, it is inevitable that some errors and omissions will occur. Overall, it was considered that the investigations were done to the high professional standard required for a project of this type. Although 60 recommendations were made in the December 2006 peer review report, it is not felt that any of the recommendations in the current report are such as to materially affect the sediment classifications, in accordance with NODG, determined in the North Channel and South Channel investigations.
Ability to detect ‘hotspots’
During the hearing, concerns were noted that the sampling design did not allow detection for ‘hot spots’ in the sediments in the northern channels, so that the material could be sorted by degrees of contamination and for more significantly contaminated material to be treated more cautiously.
The SEES explains that the consolidated underlying stiff clays were assumed to be uncontaminated and that a sampling design included samples of the underlying clays at most locations typically to a depth of 0.5m. Where contamination was encountered in the upper 0.5m of consolidated sediment, the extent of potentially contaminated consolidated sediment was conservatively estimated to the full depth of dredging. While Dr Irvine questioned the assumption that the underlying stiff clays were uncontaminated and whether there was a sufficiently clear idea of what is to be dredged. However, he was satisfied that the design was based on the depositional history of the sediment and that where contamination was detected, the
Page 88
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
number of sampling locations was in conformity with NODG. The SEES explained that the approach assumed that all material below 0.5m was contaminated if substances were detected in the 0.5m layer.
The Inquiry supports the assumption that the underlying stiff consolidated clays would generally be uncontaminated given the depositional history of the material and previous dredging programs. However, the Inquiry notes that the material could be locally contaminated depending on the range of potential inputs of contaminants and a small number of these localised ‘hotspots’ for the consolidated clays had been identified. The Inquiry notes that the statistical design of the sampling regime had considered potential sources of contaminant inputs and that Dr Irvine advised it conformed with the NODG. Given the stability of these underlying clays, the Inquiry supports the logic in the sampling approach.
The Inquiry notes that while hotspots could be detected in the consolidated clays, the ability to detect hotspots in unconsolidated silts was problematical. These silts were recently deposited from the catchments since the last dredge campaign and have settled in the silt traps on the edge of the channel approximately 2m deep and in mid channel locations at approximately 0.5m deep. This material has been homogenised by its mode of deposition and continual mixing from shipping activities in the channels.
This material has also been classified as toxic and unsuitable for unconfined marine disposal. While there are trends in the contaminant gradient in the Northern Channels with contaminant concentrations generally decreasing (southward) toward Port Phillip Bay, all unconsolidated sediments in the Docks, Yarra River North and South, Batter Walls, Williamstown Channel and most of the Port Melbourne Channel dredge management units were classified as toxic under NODG. The upshot is that this material is unacceptable for unconfined marine disposal. The Inquiry therefore considers that the further search for ‘hotspots’, is not required because all material is considered toxic, the highest classification possible under NODG.
The Inquiry notes the explanation in the Government submission that:
As marine disposal is proposed, DSE commissioned a peer review of PoMC’s classification of material in terms of its suitability for confined or unconfined marine disposal. Based on this review, Departments are satisfied that the classification of dredged material in terms of its suitability for confined or unconfined marine disposal is in accordance with the relevant policy, the National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material.
Page 89
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
(iii) Implications for managing material
The SEES explains that contaminants can be derived from biological or chemical inputs. Toxicants are a form of chemical contaminant and may include metals, aromatic hydrocarbons, pesticides and herbicides. Submittors raised issues about the implications of disturbing these contaminants and toxicants, due to effects on humans who eat marine fish and invertebrates, and who swim along the Bayside beaches. These issues related principally to releasing contaminants and toxicants into the water column whereby they could be taken up in the food chain and affect the Bay’s ecosystem. The Inquiry considered these implications noting the importance of understanding the potential for bioavailability and bioaccumulation.
Consideration of bioavailability and bioaccumulation
The implications of disturbing contaminated sediments was raised by submittors, particularly in relation to the potential for contaminants to bioaccumulate and be passed through the ecosystem and onto humans who consume fish from the Bay. Submittors also raised concerns for the implications for swimmers of the bay coastline.
The Inquiry notes that the implications for disturbing the sediments is dependent on the characteristics of the contaminants and on the sediment that they are attached to. This relates to proposed measures to manage the sediments.
The Inquiry notes that the unconsolidated sediments and the localised consolidated sediments are considered unsuitable for unconfined marine disposal and will be contained in the PM DMG. Samples of these sediments exceeded relevant NODG Screening Levels of mean contaminant concentrations in sediments and toxicity tests indicated both toxicity and non‐toxicity for various contaminants in unconsolidated sediment from all dredge management units. In a similar manner to the gradient in contaminant concentrations, a decreasing trend in the incidence of toxicity towards the centre of Port Phillip Bay was identified.
While the sediments have been classified, the SEES explains that the potential for bioavailability of a contaminant is related to its behaviour in water and in particular whether it will separate from the sediment and disperse in the water column. Consistent with the NODG, laboratory‐based elutriate tests to assess the likelihood of contaminants to exceed relevant water quality guideline values including ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) water quality (marine) guideline values, SEPP Objectives, as well as derived site specific criteria. This examination concluded that in the northern channels all elutriate samples analysed were less than the SEPP
Page 90
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Objectives or ANZECC trigger values after dilution ratios were applied, excepting a single anomalous measurement.
The Inquiry notes that these conclusions indicate that while the sediments are contaminated, once disturbed, the water quality is not likely to be affected.
The Inquiry notes that concerns related to bioavailability is therefore largely confined to the sediments themselves, and not the potential for dissolved contaminants in the water column. The SEES explains that contaminants are bound to sediment particles and therefore are unlikely to separate and dissolve into the water column. However, contaminants in the sediments are cycled in the aquatic ecosystem by biologically mediated processes and result in potential for bioaccumulation, trophic transfer and biomagnification. The concentrations of organic contaminants exceeding the NODG Screening Levels indicate the potential for bioavailability of multiple contaminants in sediment of the Northern Channels and this group of contaminates was therefore assumed to be bioavailable for uptake by marine organisms in the sediment. For trace metals and metalloids, an assessment of bioavailability was undertaken using a weak acid extraction, demonstrated that only a small proportion of total trace metals and metalloids contained in sediment (with the possible exception of lead) is available to organisms.
The Inquiry considered these conclusions in the context of the other lines of evidence which were presented through submissions and during the Inquiry. The IEG advised that a weight of evidence approach when considering risks of bioavailability and bioaccumulation is appropriate.
The Inquiry notes that the status of sediments in the northern channels is consistent with previous studies. In particular, the Port Phillip Bay Environmental Study which represents the most comprehensive environmental study of the Bay aimed at determining its environmental status in relation to contaminants and nutrients. The results of the SEES are consistent with the findings of these other studies which found that the metal concentrations in total sediments vary greatly, with exceedences of these metal concentrations generally occurring in sediments adjacent to input sources such as Corio Bay, Hobson’s Bay and the Yarra River. The trend of trace metal contaminant levels increasing up the Yarra River exemplifies the strong riverine source relationship and the dilution of contaminants with greater distance from the source. Organic compounds in sediments were elevated in nearshore areas adjacent to major stream inputs.
The Inquiry notes that these sediments are disturbed by flooding events and have, on numerous occasions in the past been carried from the Yarra River along the
Page 91
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
eastern side of the Bay. The Inquiry further notes that these events will continue to occur as more sediments will settle in the northern channels from the catchments between dredging campaigns and be subjected to dispersal from flooding events. The weight of evidence on bioaccumulation and implications for human health is therefore considered in the context of the existing and ongoing potential regardless of the CDP.
In relation to water quality, the Port Phillip Bay Environmental Study found that data in the Bay is typical for coastal and estuarine waters and marine water quality guidelines. While concentrations were higher in the proximity to point sources such as Corio Bay and Hobsons Bay, the values were still low and close to values for relatively pristine coastal waters. The majority of the contaminants reported from the PPB Environmental Study were below the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) water quality guidelines and SEPP objectives.
The Inquiry considered the evidence presented on the detected levels of bioaccumulation in fish and mussels in the Bay. The Port Phillip Bay Environmental Study concluded that with the exception of biota sampled in some nearshore areas the concentrations of metal contaminants were generally below the maximum permitted concentrations in seafood, therefore indicating no threat to consumers. Organic contaminant concentrations in biota in the Bay, albeit detected in widespread nearshore areas of the Bay are generally low for many of the contaminants of concern to submittors (including dioxins). Although traces of chlorophenols, (including dioxins) were detected in fish species and mussels following discharges from a chemical plant via the Werribee treatment Plant in 1991, these concentrations are more than an order of magnitude below the guideline values for human consumption.
During the hearing, the Inquiry was presented with a report on the potential for bioaccumulation of mussels which were suspended over the PM DMG. The Inquiry notes that this location contains sediments which are classified as contaminated as it contains dredge material from the previous maintenance dredge campaigns which are also similar to the material to be dredged in the CDP. While the study contained anomalies in the results, the Inquiry were advised that this was a result of systematic numerical errors and correct results provided. The IEG confirmed the correct results indicating that the mussels of the PM DMG showed consistent levels of contaminants as those reported in the Port Phillip Bay Study and more recent studies of commercial shellfish locations. All concentrations are below public health guideline values for the full range of contaminants studied. The Inquiry notes that this evidence suggests that the water quality above sediments of the DMG provides little risk for bioaccumulation in invertebrates.
Page 92
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The Inquiry also considered the evidence of bioaccumulation in fish tissue. Evidence was provided based on previous EPA studies of fish from the Yarra River and the Maribyrnong River indicating that contaminant levels in fish are below the recommended Maximum Residue Limits in food. The studies did however highlight that contaminant levels in eels may exceed the recommended Limits for human consumption. The inquiry notes that the levels in detected eels are likely to be due to their higher fat ratios and are more predisposed to such bioaccumulation.
Due to concerns raised by submitters, the POMC were presented further analysis of the potential for bioaccumulation of dioxins and dioxin‐like contaminants in fish. Based on modelling, predicted concentrations in fish tissue were compared with the Maximum Levels (where available) listed in the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code (2006). While the evidence shows that some bioaccumulation is evident, risks for human health through contamination of fish were assessed as at most, negligible. As with other analyses of risks from chemical doses, this prediction was based on assumptions relating to the contaminated organisms and also the dosage that each human is likely to ingest.
While the Inquiry noted the limitations of the model in making such predictions, it noted the IEG advice that the uncertainties in the model had resulted in conservative predictions and that the conclusions regarding a limited impact on fish concentrations of dredging activities are reasonable.
Implications for swimmers
The SEES considered there are low risks to recreational swimmers as a result of contact with the skin. The Inquiry notes that contaminants are bound to the sediments and are not dissolved in the water column and that concentrations of contaminants in the water column will be in concentrations below relevant water quality guidelines from international and local sources (including the World Health Organization (WHO, 2003), the ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) recreational water quality guidelines and the Waters of Victoria (WoV) State Environment Protection Policy (SEPP) Schedule F6 (Waters of Port Phillip Bay)) provides objectives for Environmental Quality Indicators for Segments of Port Phillip Bay, where the objectives protect a number of beneficial uses (including recreational water quality). The Inquiry notes those contaminants attached to sediments are not available for uptake through direct contact with the skin. As the screening criteria are considered to be protective of recreational swimmers, these concentrations were not considered to pose unacceptable risks to recreational swimmers.
Page 93
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The SEES explains that the risk to recreational swimmers through ingestion of contaminated sediments in the water column was not specifically tested for. However, SEES took into account the distribution of the plume and the likely ingestion of contaminated sediments and adjusted the consequence ranking of ingestion of contaminated water from negligible to minor for the direct exposure of swimmers to contaminants from sediments in the North of the Bay and Yarra/Hobsons. A higher consequence rank than minor was not considered to be warranted on the basis of the short exposure duration of swimmers and other people in the waters of the Yarra River and Port Phillip Bay.
During the hearing, submittors claimed that the impacts from the contaminated plume will be greater (ie last longer and spread further) than stated in the SEES as the turbidity modelling did not take into account the fractions of finer sediments which stay in suspension longer and travel further and are likely to end up on beaches. As the SEES states that finer sediments are more strongly bonded to contaminants, submittors questioned whether the assessment on recreational swimmers had understated the risk.
The Inquiry heard that although the extremities of the plume are likely to extend to Bayside beaches in the north and the Yarra/Hobsons Bay, the finer particles will travel the furthest distance from the source, with the possibility that the finer particles may reach the southern beaches.
In their closing submission, PoMC advised that the modelling took into account currents, and flows in the Yarra River for the corresponding period of time. Settling velocities for the Yarra River sediments, as noted by Mr Longmore were substantially consistent with those used by Dr Provis in his modelling. While there are no very fine fractions in the Yarra River (unlike in the south), the modelling did take into account a fine fraction in the north.
The Inquiry notes that dredging of the contaminated sediments will involve non‐ overflow mode which substantially reduce the turbidity of the dredge plume and that sediment will primarily be suspended by prop‐wash as is the current condition. The Inquiry noted that furthermore, the contaminated material would be placed at the PMDMG with a diffuser to minimise turbidity.
The Inquiry considers that swimmers in relatively calm seas don’t consume significant portions of salt water, and it is unlikely that swimmers would ingest sufficient quantities of water that contain sediment which is attached to contaminants to cause an effect.
Page 94
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The Inquiry notes the peer review advice and concluded that the impact to recreational swimmers is low. The modelling of likely impacts to recreational swimmers was reasonable and that it would be unrealistic to model the scenario on a theoretical ‘worst case’ basis, which would assume no settling of sediment and incorporate what is already known about the settling rates of the particles.
(iv) Management of dredged material
The PoMC evaluation framework for dredged material management assessed material type and volume, and then considered three management options: including land‐based options for beneficial use or disposal, marine‐based beneficial use, and marine‐based disposal. The framework considered the practicality and environmental benefit of each option.
The SEES Assessment Guidelines justify preferred methods for management of dredged material consistent with the waste management hierarchy as dredged material is considered as a waste under the Environment Protection Act. The hierarchy provides a preferred ranked sequence of management including:
• avoidance; • reuse; • recycling; • recovery of energy; • treatment; • containment; and • disposal.
The Guidelines also refer to justification of preferred methods for management of dredge material consistent with the State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) ‐ Schedule F6 which requires that dredged material is disposed to land in preference to water wherever practicable and environmentally beneficial as determined by the EPA.
The SEES explains that the first tier of the waste management hierarchy, avoidance of waste, is addressed by channel design optimisation. To satisfy the second tier, re‐ use, the SEES Assessment Guidelines require PoMC to undertake a rigorous evaluation of the opportunities and practicality of appropriate reuse of the dredged material. This framework was developed for assessing not only the reuse option, but all other dredge material management options for the CDP considering both practicality and environmental benefit in selecting particular methodologies.
Page 95
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Environmental disasters caused by poisoned wastes provide a dramatic and often tragic backdrop to the Inquiry’s assessment of risks associated with management of dredged material. The public may have been expected to be concerned and alarmed when PoMC first revealed that its CDP entailed dredging and moving more than two million m3 of contaminated sediment from the Yarra River and northern channels. However, five years have passed since the project was announced. During this time, extensive analysis has examined all facets of dredged material characteristics and management. A substantial amount of relevant information has been made available to the public. PoMC commissioned experts have shown that risks are low and manageable. Notwithstanding, the Blue Wedges Coalition and other submittors continue to claim that PoMC is wrong, and that contamination risks remain unacceptably high.
The Inquiry has come to appreciate this apparent anomaly. There appear to be three dimensions to the continued alarm expressed by some submittors. The first is the technical complexity of analysis and the vast volume of resultant information, which requires broad scientific and statistical understanding to be interpreted properly. Working through major research papers and quantitative tables is a challenging and time consuming task. The second is a strongly negative emotional response to the concepts of contamination and toxic wastes, linked to images and knowledge of poisoning of people and animals in disasters over recent decades. This emotional response acted as a barrier to discussions about acceptable levels of contamination, regardless of the fact that Melbourne residents have long realised that Port Phillip Bay is a less than pristine environment. The third dimension is associated with a difference in value sets among various participants, resulting in some adopting a position of “no channel deepening under any circumstances”. This position is not open to assessing acceptable levels of contamination and appropriate management methods for sediment disposal.
While terminology such as ‘contaminated’ and ‘toxic’ raises anxiety, these terms are descriptive elements of the NODG classification system, used to determine whether material is suitable for unconfined marine disposal. Some submittors had difficulty with this contamination classification system and its implications, and continued to express concern about this issue.
Measurement of contamination enabled classification of sediments and evaluation of implications for material management. The bulk of contaminated sediments to be dredged during the CDP are recent unconsolidated deposits from the Yarra and Maribyrnong catchments since the last maintenance dredge campaign. The Inquiry notes that while material placement in aquatic systems is different, the sediments are not significantly contaminated compared with land sources. For the purpose of
Page 96
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
assessing disposal options, these materials would likely be classified, for on‐land purposes, as ‘low level contaminated soil’ under the Environment Protection (Prescribed Waste) Regulations 1998.
The Inquiry reviewed the context within which options for contaminated sediment management were considered. It noted that unconsolidated sediments classified as contaminated have been dredged routinely during maintenance dredging campaigns. Under BPEM guidelines, such sediments have not required confinement. In addition, the technology proposed for use in the CDP provides significant improvement in managing fine silts but has not been available for maintenance programs. Further, environmental management practices have improved over time with tighter control of pollution into the Yarra River by industry sources and by limiting the use of potential contaminants used in the shipping industry. It is plausible that sediments dredged during CDP may be less contaminated than those removed in previous dredging operations. As the latter were disposed without confinement in Bay waters, the proposed CDP approach offers a potentially safer option.
Unconsolidated contaminated material is principally from catchment sources, and is carried from the Yarra River estuary into the Bay on each storm event. While dredging may increase plume intensity, the Inquiry notes that transportation of contaminated silts to Bayside beaches would not be unique to the CDP and may not be any more significant than that resulting from one or more recent major storms.
Land‐based beneficial use or disposal
The State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) ‐ Schedule F6 requires that dredged material is disposed to land in preference to water wherever practicable and environmentally beneficial as determined by the EPA.
The SEES explains that all land‐based options were identified as neither practicable, cost‐effective and/ or of substantial environmental net benefit to justify the resources for and environmental risks associated with dewatering the material.
The practicality issues related to the dewatering process on land which first requires land on or immediately adjacent to the shore to allow for placement through a slurry pipeline. The availability of such land large enough is constrained around Port Phillip Bay and the only site identified as a possible staging site was a 25 ha site at Webb Dock. This land is not large enough to contain even the contaminated material from the northern channels (including all unconsolidated sediments from the Docks, Yarra River North and South, Batter Walls and Williamstown Channel,
Page 97
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
and identified localised consolidated clays from the Docks and the Batter Walls). The SEES concludes that since the volume of material is too large to handle on the land in Web Dock, it must all be sent for disposal in the DMG.
Mr Parker advised the Inquiry that the spoil to be removed would take up a land component of 1600ha at a two metre depth. Of this, the contaminated spoil would take up 150ha, it is clear that land based disposal for contaminated spoil would be difficult. The Inquiry did question whether this should have been explored more comprehensively. In response, Mr Parker advised that no specific opportunities for land based disposal were identified, but it may be possible for it to be undertaken on a land area of 25ha. He further advised that he had not considered a split of spoil in this way. It is understood that the former EES Panel considered this to be a most significant issue and this Inquiry is disappointed that a fuller analysis of this option had not been explored.
Mr Parker did note however, that on a cost benefit analysis, land based disposal costs would be substantially higher but no analysis of the benefits had been undertaken.
When asked to respond to the issues raised by the Inquiry in relation to Mr Parker’s evidence about disposal of toxic sediments, Dr Roberts advised that further work should be undertaken to determine whether the toxic and non toxic sediments should be analysed in more detail to determine whether land based disposal options were preferable. Given that most of the toxic sediments are found in the Yarra River, Dr Roberts said one options would be to dispose of these on land. The question is, of course, where? Dr Roberts said there should be a commitment by Government to ensure this is done safely. He further noted that the question of on land disposal is complex, and mentioned that a bunded sea area could be constructed above the waterline, which still leaves it in the marine environment, but it may be more manageable. He said the problem is that the sediment is being dealt with as a single product and hotspots should be identified, especially in the Yarra and at its mouth. He said maximum threshold levels are not dealt with sufficiently or adequately, and better sampling and disposal could be done – at a cost.
Dr Hawkins for the Scuba Divers Federation of Victoria Inc was particularly scathing about the proposal to remove contaminated sediment from the Yarra River and put it in another spot in the Bay. He asked how this can be allowed to happen, and used the example of people disposing of car batteries for example, in an area of the Bay. He could not fathom how the Port could be allowed/permitted to remove toxic material from one site to another, and questioned whether it is in the community’s interest.
Page 98
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Dr Helen Caldicott, who spoke on behalf of the Blue Wedges, argued that if the Port wants to dredge, the sediment needs to be taken away to a landfill – she could not understand why it needed to be dumped back into Port Phillip Bay.
The Inquiry notes that the EES Panel Report concluded that land disposal options had not been assessed adequately and that such options should be fully evaluated and assessed with reference to international literature.
The Inquiry noted that the 2.11 million m3 of unconsolidated materials, which contributed the majority of material to manage, had been deposited in recent times through settlement from catchment based runoff. The contaminated consolidated materials from the Docks is approximately 280,000 m3 (bulked volume) and the Webb Dock site could accommodate a maximum of approximately 840,000 m3 of dewatered material.
The Inquiry concluded that given this material is consolidated; it posed less risk than the unconsolidated material, and as long as the dredge method used to dredge it aimed to keep it consolidated.
In response to the Inquiry suggestion that sediments might be contained as part of reclamation of land at Webb Dock, PoMC explained that while the idea of a facility containing dredged material as an extension to Webb Dock is not inherently incompatible with port strategic planning, it is not a feasible option for management of material arising from the CDP as relevant approvals and assessments have not been sought and the additional land, reclaimed or otherwise is not needed in the foreseeable future to accommodate redevelopment of Webb Dock.
In their response to the Inquiry, the EPA explained that “in making decisions in relation to best practice, practicability is a relevant consideration” and that “EPA is satisfied, based on the information in the SEES, that land reclamation options … have been considered”. In their submission, the Victorian State Government Departments stated that they “are satisfied that disposal of contaminated material to land is not practicable”.
The SEES explained that the dewatering process is also costly and that while PoMC’s efforts to identify possible end‐users from the construction industry highlighted the time‐incompatibilities of such reuse projects, it also highlighted that reuse options were limited as the cost involved in dewatering more than doubled the price of sediment for industries. In the absence of specific opportunities presented by prospective purchasers or partners, taking into account practicality and cost‐ effectiveness, the SEES Assessment Guidelines provide that this evaluation need
Page 99
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
only be done at a general level.
The EPA highlighted that “an unspecified potential project was identified on the east coast of the Bay, but the time of the reclamation works could not be determined. Where the project scheduling allows, it may be beneficial to consider this option when the need for the material is confirmed”.
The SEES explained that land based options also involved additional environmental issues associated with the handling, transport of material, and the consequences including management of dewatering effluent and management of risks of salination.
The SEES explains that the environmental benefit of bringing dredged materials to land for beneficial use or disposal taking into account the costs and environmental consequences of dewatering, would need to outweigh the benefits of marine based options.
Marine based disposal – Bass Strait and Port Phillip Bay
The SEES proposed that the material be placed in dredge material management grounds within the Bay to be available for potential future recovery. The option of disposal to Bass Strait was excluded as it was not consistent with the waste management hierarchy and would not provide for future reuse of material. In addition, there are significant issues in relation to the potential spread of marine pests, the project could be prolonged due to transit through the Heads, and it would cost more because of greater travel for disposal. The Government Departments stated they were satisfied that disposal of material in Bass Strait is not a preferred option relative to disposal in the Bay.
The Inquiry notes that placement of all material within PPB for potential future recovery rather than disposal in Bass Strait is consistent with the waste management hierarchy.
Many submittors expressed concerns about placing dredge material classified as contaminated within PPB. The Blue Wedges claimed “The proposed dredging methodology and bund design risks turning all of Port Phillip Bay into a toxic waste site.”
The Inquiry noted such concerns and considered these implications against the current context whereby similar material is routinely dredged during maintenance dredging. This material has already been placed at the DMG in an unconfined state, is presently exposed at the PM DMG, and is regularly disturbed in the Yarra River
Page 100
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
from shipping activities.
During the CDP, the material is proposed to be placed in the PM DMG with a bund to confine it to a specified area and capped with clean material to cover the contaminated sediment after a 140 day settling period. Before the cap, only the PM DMG will contain exposed contaminated material which is confined laterally and the northern channels will be clear of all exposed unconsolidated contaminated material. After the capping process, the area used to place the sediment from the CDP will not contain exposed layers of contaminated sediment. Unconsolidated contaminated material will however continue to deposit in the northern channels as a result of catchment runoff and will need to be dredged in the future.
The Inquiry notes the confinement of CDP dredged material is a substantial improvement over historical approaches. The bund and capping process is safer than past practices and the Inquiry considers this is best practice. The Inquiry notes the original EES process did not envisage capping the bund.
Northern DMG
The material from the northern channels will be placed at the PM DMG. The PM DMG is a 936ha site that has been in service for decades and currently contains exposed material similar to that being dredged in the CDP.
The SEES concluded that in accordance with NODG, unconsolidated materials classified as moderately to highly contaminated will be contained in a bunded structure and confined through capping to reduce the risk of exposing burrowing organisms to the contaminated material. The proposal aims to use the remaining capacity of the existing DMG along with an extension by a further 270ha to the south to cater for future maintenance dredging. The bund will be constructed using a solid core of dredged clay material by a shell of soft clay slurry formed from the softening of clay in the dredging process. It is proposed that the contaminated sediment be placed within the bunded area by pumping via a pipeline from the dredge to the DMG and discharging it into the DMG through a diffuser head suspended from a spreader pontoon. The dredged sediments will flow and spread out into the DMG almost horizontally after placement. Minor amounts of contaminated sediments primarily from dredging associated with the berthworks using the backhoe dredge will be disposed of in the DMG by opening the bottom doors of the barge. The contaminated material will then be capped with sand from the South Channel.
Submittors raised concerns that when placing the material in the bund, there is a risk of dispersal outside the intended area. The Inquiry noted EMP control measures to
Page 101
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
ensure that material is released at specified locations and contained within the bund. In its closing submission PoMC advised that accurate placement has been demonstrated during the trial and the monitoring program will track placement of sediments.
Submittors raised concern that unconsolidated contaminated material would be exposed to the water column for 140 days before the capping layer is placed and the capping layer will not provide a barrier to water circulation which could result in water quality contamination.
The SEES explained that the primary function of the cap is to separate the contaminated sediments from organisms that may otherwise come into contact with them and who may provide a link in the food chain for bioaccumulation. The layer is therefore not proposed to prevent water circulation and some pore water from the contaminated sediment is likely to move through the capping layer and bund as consolidation occurs.
Elutriate testing has indicated that any release of contaminants into the water column will be below acceptable standard allowances and that risks of transportation through the walls or cap of the bunded area are extremely low. Furthermore the bonded nature of most contaminants reduces the risk of toxicity within a wide range of acceptable levels.
The SEES predicts that the risk of contaminant transport outside the bund will be negligible as the substances have a tendency to stay bound to the sediments. The cap is therefore not required from the point of view of meeting water quality requirements. As a precaution, the EMP has included a water quality monitoring program which will cover the DMG as part of the Baywide monitoring programs with baseline data collection occurring from October 2007.
The remaining capping layer of sands from the South Channel will constitute a substrate surface to minimise the spread of marine pests.
The Inquiry is satisfied that the bund and capping process can be implemented as specified and that the implications of this process is smaller in its resultant environmental risk than any previous dredging activities in the Bay to date.
The SEES explains that the design of the bund and capping process is sound, implementation is feasible and the containment will be effective in the long term. The Inquiry noted that the designs had been peer reviewed by Dr Palermo who concluded that:
Page 102
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The design of the contained aquatic disposal (CAD) alternative as described in the report is operationally similar to other CAD projects that I have reviewed or designed in the past [which] have been successfully filled and capped using similar equipment and approaches. In both of these projects, fine‐grained contaminated sediments were dredged from navigation channels using mechanical dredges and were placed in constructed CAD pits and capped with clean sandy sediments placed by a hopper dredge.
Dr Palermo also concluded that the SEES study:
Confirms the technical and environmental viability with respect to short term aspects regarding the placement of contaminated dredge material and subsequent capping with a sand layer. It also shows the viability with respect to long term aspects regarding stability and environmental performance of the sand cap.
The IEG concurred that the technology selected for placing and capping contaminated material is best practice and likely to result in the minimisation of material loss during these operations.
Blue Wedges stated: “Many toxins last for much, much longer than the design life of the bund” and questioned the implications of the bund breaking down. The SEES states that while the design life adopted for the bund and capping is a minimum of 30 years in recognition of the project timeframe, the actual life of the bund and capping design is expected to be very much longer than this. The Inquiry understands no parts of the structure will degrade with time once equilibrium has been established at the end of construction, nor are there any significant external forces which would degrade the structure.
As a precaution, the EMP includes process controls for the integrity of the bund and cap over the long term, including at regular intervals and after significant rainfall and seismic events to check periodically on the performance of the bund and capping layer over the life of the structure and beyond, so as to enable any degradation to be detected and appropriate remedial measures taken.
Southern DMG
The SEES indicates that the material in the southern channels is considered to be uncontaminated and does not require confinement if placed in marine waters. However, placement of rock material on seabed sediment would create a new type of habitat and provide an opportunity for species not previously at that location to establish. These rocks are proposed to be covered.
Page 103
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The total volume of the material to be dredged in the south of the Bay to 2030 including capital and maintenance programs is approximately 28.3 million m3. Neither of the existing Capel Sound or Symonds Channel DMGs or their extensions would cater for the total volume of material to be dredged in the south and both sites posed risks to areas of significant marine ecological value. To place the material from the South Channel and the Entrance, a new DMG was therefore proposed in the south of the Bay.
Three new DMGs site options were identified:
• North East: A DMG to the north of the Hovell Pile on the eastern side of the shipping channel with a footprint of approximately 630 hectares; • South East: A DMG to the north of Hovell Pile (but south of NE) on the eastern side of the shipping channel with a footprint of approximately 770 hectares; and • North West: A DMG to the north of the Hovell Pile on the western side of the shipping channel with a footprint of approximately 744 hectares. The Harbour Master has advised that this site would require a clearance of 17 metres, rather than 15 metres, to allow for shipping traffic in this vicinity as it lies between the shipping channels servicing the Ports of Melbourne and Geelong.
The SEES explains that each option had relatively similar characteristics although the Inquiry heard that two matters weighed heavily in DMG site selection. During the hearing, the Inquiry was advised that a jumbo dredge would not be available as planned, resulting in a larger number of smaller sediment loads, and while the duration of the project and its plume was extended, the intensity of the plume would be reduced.
The first matter was distance between the channel and the DMG. The SE DMG was the most preferred because it is closer to the channels to be dredged with the NE DMG the least preferred. This proximity has implications for minimising the impacts of the plume in space and time, consistent with SEPP (WoV) objectives, reduces the duration of the project and therefore the duration of exposure of assets to the impacts of dredging. This option also provides greatest flexibility and responsiveness in managing the dredging program. The Inquiry noted that as a result of access only to a large dredge, the duration of the project has increased by six months which has implications for extending the effects of the project. In his evidence, Dr Jenkins referred to the potentially more significant impacts on fish
Page 104
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
species if the dredge schedule went into a second spring, which will still be achieved under the current schedule.
This option entailed the least cost for project implementation by minimising travel time for the dredge. The SEES explains that the difference between the NW and SE DMG options included an additional four weeks of dredging at an estimated additional project cost of $5.5m. In its closing submission, the PoMC advised that further assessments had been made as a result of access only to the large dredge. The estimated additional cost to the project of selecting the NW over the SE is $10.5m.
The second matter involved impacts on recreational fishing and coastal recreation. The Inquiry heard the vicinity of the potential SE DMG is a popular and productive fishing area and important snapper habitat. The site is approximately 3.5km off shore from Mount Martha. The SEES explains that the area from Mordialloc to Frankston may be an important spawning area and that small juveniles occur in the eastern part of the Bay in depths of 10 to 20m from Hobson’s Bay south to Mount Martha and that it would also be preferable to exclude the shallower waters (less than 20m) from both locations of the potential SE and NE DMG’s. Dr Jenkins advised that the two eastern DMG options might possibly cause a short term effect on the snapper fishing area. He further said that the NW DMG, however might have implications for the Pinnace Channel Aquaculture Zone.
The SEES explains that the suspended sediments from dredge material placement may also impact on the seagrass beds found in shallower waters. The SE option is near the Sorrento to Dromana seagrass beds.
8.3 Inquiry Conclusions and Recommendations The Inquiry notes the NODG are conservative, providing recognised best practice guidance for classifying sediment chemical and toxicological characteristics, while BPEMG provides best practice guidance for dredge material management and other matters and the waste management hierarchy provides guidance on management preferences.
The Inquiry acknowledges the emotion behind the issue of sediment disposal, but recognises that many contaminants are present in low levels in marine waters around the world from both natural and human related sources and their presence at low levels should not in itself create alarm. The Inquiry took into account the information that was used to determine whether the presence of substances at any levels should have resulted in the contaminants being included on the list. The
Page 105
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Inquiry heard no evidence that contaminants other than those included in the contaminants of concern are at levels that would have warranted their testing.
The Inquiry notes all unconsolidated material will be treated as if it was toxic under the NODG. While concerns from the community are understandable, the proposed approach is conservative and low risk, and ensures that all unconsolidated material is considered as not suitable for unconfined marine disposal and is actually contained securely.
The Inquiry notes that sediment sampling largely conforms to procedural requirements and that any divergences did not affect the sediment classifications in accordance with the NODG.
The Inquiry supports the conclusion that the unconsolidated sediments should be regarded as homogeneous and as contamination and toxicity were detected within the samples, the entire dredge unit should be classified as toxic and unsuitable for unconfined marine disposal. Further analysis of the material to determine different levels of contamination is not required.
The Inquiry considers that the risks of dredging the sediments in the northern channels have been adequately characterised. Risks of contamination and potential bioaccumulation will continue to exist while sediment is suspended by flooding events from the catchments, irrespective of whether the CDP goes ahead. The Inquiry finds implications for bioavailability and bioaccumulation in Port Phillip Bay are generally low, although evidence indicates some issues of concern (such as eels). The additional risks due to the CDP will therefore be minimal.
Management of these materials should aim to minimise the risk, so containing unconsolidated material unsuitable for unconfined marine disposal, and localised consolidated sediment volumes is prudent. The Inquiry supports the best practice approach to dredge and manage these sediments (using the non‐overflow valve, the diffuser) and concludes that the associated dredging risks can be managed.
To provide assurance to the community, the IEG advised that the EMP should monitor the additional risks to human consumption of disturbing sediment during dredging. The Inquiry concurs with this advice.
The Inquiry noted that Dr Irvine concluded that the analysis was done in accordance with NODG. The Inquiry noted that only small portions of trace metal contaminants in sediment were bioavailable as elutriate testing results showed that the
Page 106
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
contaminants remain tightly bound to the particles. The Inquiry noted that for the organic contaminants multiple contaminants in sediments are available.
The Inquiry heard many concerns from submittors in relation to dioxins, including closure of commercial fisheries in Sydney Harbour. Sediment contamination levels in Homebush Bay were, however, significantly greater than the sediment concentrations in Port Phillip Bay (the National Dioxins Program report prepared by the Department of Environment and Heritage suggested that these concentrations are low and typical of urban environments).
The Inquiry notes that as a result of rainfall and flooding events, and maintenance programs which have previously dredged similar material, swimmers have and are currently exposed to the same characteristics of suspended sediments as will occur during the CDP.
The PoMC advised that dredging of the contaminated sediments will involve non‐ overflow mode which substantially reduce the turbidity of the dredge plume and that sediment will primarily be suspended by prop‐wash. The Inquiry noted that furthermore, the contaminated material would be placed at the PM DMG with a diffuser to minimise turbidity.
The Inquiry considers that swimmers in relatively calm seas don’t consume significant portions of salt water, and it is unlikely they would ingest sufficient quantities of water that contain sediment which is attached to contaminants to cause an effect.
The Inquiry noted peer review advice from Dr Batley concluding that the impact to recreational swimmers is low. The modelling of likely impacts to recreational swimmers was reasonable and it would be unrealistic to model the scenario on a theoretical ‘worst case’ basis, which would assume no settling of sediment and incorporate what is already known about the settling rates of the particles.
The Inquiry considers that the risk to the Bay of contamination exposure from dredging the northern channels during the CDP is broadly similar to current exposure levels. However, it is concerned that there is potential for incremental increases to risk and for interactive effects to result from the CDP and requires such residual risks to be addressed in the final EMP.
In light of historical dredging and disposal approaches in the northern channels, the Inquiry considers that the CDP offers significantly superior practices and reduced associated risks. Any potential increase in risk relates instead to the volume of
Page 107
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
contaminated sediments to be dredged during this project. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the increased volume of unconsolidated sediments will generate additional risks when best practice and continual improvement are factored in.
The Inquiry concludes that land options have been adequately considered, but expects PoMC to make every effort to ensure maximum re‐use of material in the light of new technology and demand from end users. Dredging of the shipping channels and placement of material in DMGs is a well established practice and that there is a long history of dredging similar materials as proposed in the CDP. The difference between this project and previous campaigns is that the volume of material to be relocated is substantially larger, the contamination status of material is known and rocks from the Entrance are included for relocation.
In their submission, the EPA stated that “The approach applied within the SEES for uncontaminated dredge material management is consistent with the requirements of SEPP (WoV), BPEMGD and the principle of the waste management hierarchy”. Excluding the material in the northern channels which were considered under the NODG as unsuitable for unconfined marine disposal, marine‐based disposal options were considered. The SEES concluded that some of the material dredged during the CDP would be used for the process of containing contaminated material and minimising the risk of spreading marine pests.
The Inquiry notes that contaminated sediments previously have been disposed of at the DMG in a less controlled manner, and that the proposed process provides a substantial improvement to dredge material management. The Inquiry also notes that due to dispersal during previous campaigns, the material in the region outside the PM DMG is already contaminated. The additional risk posed by some sediment being unintentionally dispersed outside the PM DMG is addressed by process controls in the EMP (A4‐61). The Inquiry notes that the EMP contains specifications for monitoring of the bunding and capping process to ensure its integrity. However, the Inquiry recommends that there should be additional monitoring for possible bioaccumulation and biomagnification up the food chain before and after the capping is put in place. A mussel watch monitoring program such as that carried out by SKM in 2006 on the PM DMG has been supported by Dr Batley.
The Inquiry notes that the contribution of placement of dredge material is far less than that created by the dredging itself and the SEES shows that the extent of the turbidity caused by material placement at the SE DMG is relatively small compared to the plume caused by the dredging itself. The Inquiry notes that the impacts on snapper are not significantly increased by the placement of material at the SE DMG
Page 108
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
option. The potential effects will be minimised with dredging primarily to occur between autumn and winter and that management of plume implications to seagrass and other assets will be managed through the EMP by controls on the plume intensity and extent.
The Inquiry notes that selection of DMG sites (like other dredge related activities) has implications for recreational activities. These implications are relatively short lived and principally related to the dredging itself, not the placement of material. Further, the SE DMG provides the most appropriate opportunity for minimising overall risk to the Bay ecosystem by reducing the duration of the project and providing the greatest capacity in the dredge schedule for managing environmental impacts. The Inquiry also notes that this option is the least costly.
Recommendations:
Evaluate opportunities for potential reuse of dredged materials for beach renourishment in the CDP and future maintenance dredging programs.
Mount an information campaign to inform the public of the implications of any dredging programs and other sources of influence on the marine environment, particularly with regard to sediment contamination risk in the Yarra River and other estuarine and marine ecosystems.
Undertake a monitoring program for placing and capping contaminated material to: ‐ ensure that the final location and surface bathymetry of contaminated material placed in the northern DMG extension are as predicted; and ‐ confirm that there are no failures of capping, turbidity plumes beyond those predicted, or reduction in water quality in the vicinity of the DMG extension.
Strengthen governance arrangements to ensure the PoMC is accountable for bund structure and effectiveness. Include additional monitoring for possible bioaccumulation and biomagnification up the food chain before and after the capping is put in place.
Page 109
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
PART 3: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND EFFECTS
Page 110
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
9. HYDRODYNAMICS
9.1 Description and Key Issues The Assessment Guidelines state that CDP should “avoid unacceptable adverse long‐ term effects on water levels and current patterns, as well as sediment movement patterns, in Port Phillip Bay, taking account of existing long‐term environmental influences”.
Hydrodynamic processes drive water movements and transport sediment throughout the Bay. These processes interact with the seabed form and bathymetry and play an important role in shaping the coast and marine environment through wave action, water level, and the movement of sands and other materials. The major influencing hydrodynamic phenomena include:
• tidal elevation which result from two tidal cycles; • tidal currents which result from the different elevations driving water in and out of the bay; • sea level and storm surge which vary due to wind and atmospheric pressure; • wind‐driven water circulation which is particularly influential in shallow waters; water exchange or flushing including with water between Port Phillip Bay and Bass Strait and freshwater inputs; and • waves from both Bass Strait and within the Bay.
The hydrodynamics of the Bay vary significantly, reflecting different dominant driving forces between areas. In the south, astronomical tides dominate as the region is largely affected by the narrow Entrance to the Bay which results in strong currents, some exceeding 3.5m/s. These currents interact with the bathymetry of the sea floor, to form overfalls and strong turbulence, affecting wave patterns. Tidal currents slow near the Great Sands where speeds reduce to an average of 1m/s in the channels and further to below 0.2m/s in the north of the Bay. In the north, wind‐ driven circulation is most influential as the winds blow over a water body with shallow sides and a deeper central section. Wind‐driven currents in the Bay reach about 0.2m/s in shallower areas near the shore during storm events.
The Great Sands plays a significant role in limiting the exchange of water between PPB and Bass Strait, thus controlling flushing of the Bay. Flushing times vary from almost immediate exchange in the Entrance to a ‘residence’ time of over one year in the north of the Bay and the Geelong Arm.
Page 111
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The geometry of the Entrance has implications for all hydrodynamic features of the Bay, excluding wind‐driven circulation.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) Suitability and calibration of hydrodynamic models (ii) Permanent changes to hydrodynamics • effects on sea levels in Port Phillip Bay • effects on tidal currents • effects on water exchange between Bass Strait, the Bay and the Yarra River • waves climate within the Bay and in the Entrance
9.2 Inquiry Response (i) Suitability and calibration of hydrodynamic models
The SEES explains that a number of numerical models were developed for predicting the potential impacts of the CDP on various hydrodynamic processes.
The SEES includes the use of two types of models including base models which can be used to simulate the main features of water movements, and process models which use outputs from the base model and include additional parameters such as sediment characteristics to obtain predictions on processes including turbidity and sediment transport movements. Both models were used in the environmental impact and risk assessment.
A two‐dimensional whole of Bay hydrodynamic model was used to predict much of the hydrodynamics in Port Phillip Bay and considered the potential effects of the CDP on:
• changes in tidal elevation; • changes in sea level; • changes in tidal currents away from heads; • definition of seasonal wind‐driven circulation (depth‐averaged); and • flushing of the Bay.
Additional three‐dimensional hydrodynamic models were also developed for various aspects of Port Phillip Bay hydrodynamics and included a three‐dimensional model for the Entrance to investigate the flow patterns in this area.
Page 112
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The SEES explains that refinements to the models applied to the CDP have been undertaken since the EES taking into account outcomes of the TDP and with the inclusion of additional 3D modelling.
The IEG highlighted that these refinements provided substantial improvements to a range of hydrodynamic models (including for currents, water levels, Yarra River stratified modelling) and to wave action models, relative to those used in the original EES.
The IEG highlighted the widely accepted view that 3‐D models provide for more accurate modelling predictions and that while modelling includes a range of 2‐D and 3‐D models, the key predictions in the SEES in relation to circulation and transport are based on 3‐D models. The Inquiry heard Dr Harris’ criticism of the use of the 2‐ D models in the SEES, and notes the IEG comments that a focus on 3‐D models may have allowed more comprehensive analysis of the Bay’s physical processes over a greater range of forcing, with some reduction in uncertainties in model forecasts for the ecological impact assessment. However, the IEG concluded that they hydrodynamic modelling is generally adequate to support the SEES applications.
The SEES explained that as with all simulations of natural events, there are uncertainties stemming from the accuracy of the input values or measured data, as well as the understanding of the physical processes. It is not intended that these models would be used as management tools during dredging. CDP models were tested for validity and confidence by comparing modelled results with measured values wherever possible and using data collected during the TDP where applicable. For example, the measured currents during the TDP from moving vessels provided invaluable information for the calibration of the hydrodynamic model, adding to a limited data set of existing measured currents north of the Great Sands area. The data enabled a comparison of currents between surface and bottom water layers to assess the performance of the model to predict actual conditions.
The IEG concluded that the calibration of the models has been completed, providing greater confidence in the model results. They considered that the calibration is as good as can be achieved. While the quality of the calibration varies across the many models used, the level of effort in the calibration exceeds normal modelling standards and the calibrations are more comprehensive than in many modelling studies.
The SEES explains that a review of the uncertainties in the modelling and the confidence in the model predictions concludes that while some uncertainties remain, they are not believed to be material to the robustness of the impact assessment. Thus
Page 113
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
the hydrodynamic and turbidity models are considered suitable for the purpose of the environmental impact assessment.
The IEG concluded that the hydrodynamic modelling now provides information to support the SEES as required, and that the models and their outputs are suitable to assess the impacts of the proposed dredging on the Bay. The IEG concluded that “the methods adopted in the SEES and the various numerical models to be applied have been adequately described and appear to be sufficiently (i) fit‐for‐purpose, (ii) well chosen, formulated and sound, and (iii) calibrated”.
This conclusion includes reference to the hydrodynamic modelling in the Bay (Entrance, south and north), Yarra River stratified modelling, wave modelling in the Bay and plume modelling for dredging activities.
The IEG concluded that they are satisfied that the potential sources of uncertainty in the hydrodynamic models have been adequately addressed through the model’s calibration.
In particular, the IEG concluded that in relation to seawater residence times, the models will provide adequate estimates of changes to average residence times in the Bay and will also predict tidal levels with suitable accuracy. In relation to the application of the hydrodynamic models to predict the dispersal of suspended sediment, and contaminants, the models are satisfactory.
The Inquiry notes that a peer review had been completed of the modelling by Dr McCowan. The IEG concluded that the PoMC response to his review provides an adequate basis to support the impact assessment.
(ii) Permanent changes to hydrodynamics
The Inquiry notes that the major influencing hydrodynamic features include tidal elevation, tidal currents, sea level and storm surge, wind‐driven water circulation, water exchange or flushing and waves from both Bass Strait and within the bay.
A number of permanent changes to the Bay are intended by the CDP including the deepening of channels and placement of material in DMGs. These changes have the potential to affect the total water levels from changes to astronomical tide levels and storm surge, tidal currents, flushing of the Bay and the Yarra River, wave climate within the Bay and in the Entrance, and wind driven circulation of the Bay which is the dominant mechanism for water movement in the north of the Bay.
Page 114
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Effects on sea levels in Port Phillip Bay
The SEES explains that variations in water level within the Bay are caused, not only by the astronomical tides, but also wind and atmospheric pressure influences that have the greatest effect during a storm event.
The astronomical tides are relative to gravitational effects on earth that influence the height of the sea level that drives water in and out of the Entrance. Wind blows over the surface of the water causing a change in level with, for example, water “piling up” against the coast against which the wind is blowing. Atmospheric pressure leads to changes in sea level with high pressure lowering the sea level and low pressure resulting in an increase in sea level. These changes in level can cause very long period waves to move across the ocean and, in particular, along the edge of continents where they interact with the continental shelf to form “shelf waves”. The effects of shelf waves will be felt in the Bay even though the waves themselves may be formed by a weather system far away.
The SEES explains that storm surges are almost uniform from Lorne, in Bass Strait, to Queenscliff, at the Entrance to the Bay, through to Williamstown in the North of the Bay, indicating that the constrictions of the Entrance and the South of the Bay region do not have any effect on the level of storm surges.
For most practical purposes, the SEES predicted that the changes will be imperceptible, particularly at low levels and that changes due to the project will only be detectable through careful measurements with a precision tide‐gauge.
Sea‐level movements are governed by tidal cycles and at low tide, and therefore any variation from existing sea levels will occur at the extreme high or low water levels for a short time, certainly much less than one hour. The Inquiry notes that for most of the tidal cycle any variations to the water levels will be within the range of water levels in the Bay. However it also notes the IEG advice that it is the extreme events that remain the most relevant for assessment of impacts as this is the parameter which can effect coastal erosion and flooding.
The SEES predicted that the changes to sea level as a result of the CDP are likely to be within 5mm of the minimum or maximum value for a time period of about 30 minutes. The largest difference in minimum sea level due to dredging was found to occur at Point Wilson with a change of 15mm. This location is also predicted to experience a difference of 8mm in maximum with a 5mm at the minimum sea level. Geelong, Werribee, Point Cook and Williamstown are each predicted to experience a
Page 115
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
14mm change to the minimum sea level with changes to maximum levels at 0, 8, 7 and 5mm respectively.
The SEES explains that these changes are most significant for flooding where land is low lying. These changes are predicted to result in an additional covering of land of 1.4m horizontal distance at Swan Bay and 8.75m at the Spit Nature Conservation Reserve.
The SEES also considered the implications of the CDP on sea level in comparison to global sea level rises. The SEES explains sea levels are rising however the causes vary, having implications on the rate of change. In a careful examination of the historical record of sea level around Australia, the National Tidal Facility determined that sea levels around Australia are rising, but at various rates, with an average trend of 0.3 mm per year.
The hydrodynamic model was rerun taking into account a mean sea level set to 0.3 and 0.5 above existing levels for both the existing bathymetry and that after dredging. The SEES predicted that the impact of the CDP is the same for cases with the mean sea level set at 0.0m, 0.3m or 0.5m.
Based on the evidence provided during the hearing on rock scour the hydrodynamic models were rerun to account for changes to the geometry of the Entrance. At Williamstown, the highest tide levels increase by about 6mm for the design forecast compared with about 20mm for the scoured case. The lowest levels are lower by about 12mm for the design case and 20mm for the scoured case.
At Queenscliff, the dredged case indicates very little change, the scoured case an increase of about 15mm at just less than the highest sea level and the lowest level by about 35mm. However, there are values greater than 40mm for sea levels slightly above the lowest.
In its closing submission, PoMC advised that changes in sea levels, including wave height and high and low tides, fall within natural variations in the construction scenario, as demonstrated in the SEES and also in the context of potential subsequent scour at Rip Bank and Nepean Bank. Given the sensitivity of submittors to these issues, it would be prudent to require the PoMC to increase the number of sites at which sea levels are monitored.
Page 116
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Effects on tidal currents
The SEES explains that tidal currents refer to the speed of water movement horizontally in the Bay as a result of tidal forces. Tidal currents in the Bay vary naturally in speed depending on tidal influence. As the majority of tidal change takes place at the Entrance, current speeds can be very strong and can exceed 3.5m/s. Currents at the Entrance are dominated by tidal streams that are driven by the differences in water level between Bass Strait and Port Phillip Bay. The strong currents at the Entrance interact with the bathymetry of the sea floor, to form overfalls, and strong turbulence, particularly prevalent in the Entrance’s deep canyon. The currents are fast enough to have a significant impact on the speed of propagation of waves over Rip Bank, which can lead to wave steepening and breaking. These waves result in the reputation of the rip as a dangerous passage for vessels.
The tidal currents slow near the Great Sands where the flow is essentially back and forth in a straight line along the channels with some flow over the shallow banks. Current speeds then reduce to an average of 1m/s in the channels in the south of the Bay and further slow to below 0.2m/s in the north of the Bay where the currents are almost parallel to the coast.
The Inquiry notes that tidal currents are considered most important to coastal processes and sediment movement in the Entrance and the Great Sands and less important in the northern parts of the bay.
The SEES explains that the predicted changes to tidal currents are related to the changes in water depth altering the cross‐section available for water flow. PoMC explained that it is Rip Bank that provides the limiting cross‐section for water flow and that dredging is confined to the areas required for safe navigation. PoMC estimates that the change in the area available for flow on the Rip Bank cross‐section is approximately 1%. The volume of water entering the Bay between low water and high water, or leaving between high and low water is predicted to change by less than 2%. The models demonstrated that the change to tidal currents resulting from the CDP will be confined to locations in the channels where dredging will take place.
Even with scouring, the modelling indicates that the currents would not change substantially compared to those occurring with the ‐19.1m construction design depth.
Page 117
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Effects on water exchange between Bass Strait, the Bay and the Yarra River
The SEES explains that the water exchange provides for the exchange of material including salt and nutrients between neighbouring water bodies, a system upon which the ecosystem has developed.
Water is exchanged between Bass Strait and the Bay, and is referred to as ‘flushing’. The flushing rate refers to the amount of time it takes for water in the Bay to be exchanged with ‘fresh’ seawater from Bass Strait. This exchange is controlled by the volume of water moving through the Entrance due to tidal movements, with the controlling factor in the exchange being the area available for flow in a given cross‐ section across the Entrance. PoMC explained that it is Rip Bank that provides the limiting cross‐section for tidal exchange. Dredging is confined to the areas required to provide for safe navigation, which minimises the changes in the limiting cross‐ section. PoMC estimates that the change in the area available for flow on the Rip Bank cross‐section is approximately 1%. The Great Sands play a significant role in dampening the force of water flowing through the Entrance and therefore controlling flushing of the bay.
Flushing times vary from almost immediate exchange in the Entrance to a ‘residence’ time of over one year in the north of the Bay and the Geelong Arm. Existing flushing is slower in the north of the Bay than in the south as it takes longer for the water to travel from the north to the south and out to Bass Strait via the Entrance.
The SEES predicted that the median value of flushing decreases by 24 days from 359 to 335 days. When the change in flushing time is considered as a percentage change, the average is a reduction of 7%, with 90% of the changes being between a change of zero and a reduction of 16%.
The decrease in flushing time is due to the increase in exchange of water with Bass Strait, with approximately 2% additional volume entering the Entrance on any given tidal cycle. The actual volumes vary from one tidal cycle to the next. Overall, an increase in the exchange is likely to be considered beneficial, although there may be impacts in the temperature and salinity of the Bay as a result.
The Inquiry notes that IEG considers that the changes to Bay flushing times by 7% is one of the most significant impacts the CDP will have on hydrodynamics and wave processes.
Water exchange also occurs between the Yarra River and the Bay. The SEES explained that the Yarra River estuary can be classified as a ’salt wedge’ estuary. A
Page 118
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
salt wedge occurs when fresh river‐water flows downstream over a ‘wedge’ of denser seawater. The low‐density river inflows form a thin layer of relatively fresh water over the top of seawater which is saline and denser. After periods of moderate to heavy rainfall, higher river inflows will cause the freshwater layer to penetrate deeper below the surface. During severe floods, the deeper freshwater layers may push the salt wedge further downstream. During extended periods of dry weather, the salt wedge will move upstream.
The result is a net circulation with saline water moving upstream in the lower layers, becoming entrained into the surface layers and then moving downstream. This process leads to a continual renewing of the water in the estuary with a flushing action.
The SEES predicted that overall; there is relatively little change in the water exchange between the Yarra River and the Bay as a result of the changes to flushing rates between the Bay and Bass Strait. The changes will generally be a decrease in flushing time with some exceptions above the mouth of the Maribyrnong River where there are some increases under low flow conditions.
In relation to temperature, the SEES concluded that the changes to flushing will have a significant effect on water temperature as this is controlled by effects other than exchange of water with Bass Strait. The Inquiry notes that temperature is instead, influenced by direct transfer of heat with the atmosphere and evaporation and varies on a time scale much shorter than the flushing time.
In relation to salinity, the SEES concluded that the changes to flushing may lead to a very small increase in overall salinity, with a predicted maximum increase of 74mg/L (0.2% change) after 330 days due to the higher salinity concentration of Bass Strait water. The Inquiry notes that the actual salinity level in the Bay constantly varies seasonally and year by year depending on the inflow of freshwater from rain, river and drains which decrease salinity and from evaporation which increases salinity.
Waves climate within the Bay and in the Entrance
The SEES explains that ocean waves from Bass Strait are only significant to the Bay for areas that are immediately adjacent to the Entrance and between Queenscliff and Swan Island. As waves approach the Entrance they are refracted by the seabed and the strong currents. Refraction causes the waves to curve away from the main entrance and break on the reefs off Point Nepean and Point Lonsdale. For the remainder of the Bay, the wave energy is generated locally by winds blowing over
Page 119
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
the waters within the Bay. Waves are fetch limited, that is, the wave energy is limited by the distance over which the wind can impart energy to the waves.
The SEES predicted that at the majority of locations within the Bay, the changes to the wave climate will be less than 1% of the wave height as the seabed changes will not result in depths of less than 15m and will therefore not influence the waves on the surface.
9.3 Inquiry Conclusions The SEES explains that the accuracy of models relies on the quality of input values or measured data. During the hearing, new evidence was presented to the Inquiry of a scouring process underway at the Entrance and that following the CDP, this process could affect the input values used in the hydrodynamic models. The Inquiry was provided with a supplementary report on the Entrance channel depth and a sensitivity analysis to determine the consequences for the risk assessment of any changes to the Great Shipping Channel configurations.
The CDP will not affect the wind patterns and given the natural variability and complexity of the wind‐driven circulation within the Bay the changes up to 10% in localised areas are considered to be insignificant. The SEES concluded that the changes to the majority of the Bay would be imperceptible.
The Inquiry acknowledges concerns raised by submittors that sea levels will rise in the Bay and in combination with existing sea level rises, could have implications for low lying land. However, the Inquiry notes that as a result of the SEES, existing information has been presented on the existing sea levels rises and has highlighted the implications for the Bay regardless of the CDP being implemented.
The Inquiry notes that the assessment based on the scour effect to RL‐22 metres is a conservative case as it assesses the worst‐case scenario. Further, these changes are permanent changes proposed by the CDP and considered the implications of these changes.
The Inquiry notes that the CDP will cause a small change in water depths resulting in small changes in tidal currents in all the four areas. Small increases in currents in the Yarra River and Hobson’s Bay will occur due to reduced friction in the lower layer of the river with no identifiable change is predicted in the North of the Bay. As a result of changes to the Entrance and deepening the South Channel, slight readjustment of the position of the eddy that forms on the north side of Hovell Pile is predicted with an increase in speeds in South Channel East.
Page 120
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The Inquiry notes that greatest effects on currents will occur at the Entrance as water movements at the Entrance are dominated by tidal currents and the deeper cross section will allow greater water flow. The Inquiry particularly notes that such changes could affect sediment transport in the Bay and considered this in Chapter 10. In general, changes to the vertical structure of the currents are confined to the area where dredging takes place with increases predicted in some areas and decreases in other areas. Overall, less than 10% change to existing currents is expected in the vicinity of the dredging area with the effect reducing with distance and reductions in speeds expected to either side.
Based on the scoured case, predicted changes were greater than those considered in the SEES. Further analysis was undertaken by the PoMC during the hearing to consider the implications of these changes. The Inquiry notes that these changes are permanent changes proposed by the CDP and considered the implications of these changes.
As a result of scour modelled to the most significant implication was an upgraded prediction of a 14% change in flushing rates for the Bay. While the IEG advised that this is a worst‐case scenario which is unlikely to eventuate, they advised that there is uncertainty about the physical effects, particularly in terms of the rate of scour stabilisation and the extent of rockfall, which induces uncertainty about the biological effects.
The Inquiry notes that waves have a number of roles in the marine system including sediment transport, especially on beaches, and effects on shipping, especially in the Entrance. Dredging has the potential for changes in wave refraction and hence changes in the wave climate.
Page 121
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
10. SEDIMENT TRANSPORT AND COASTAL PROCESSES
10.1 Description and Key Issues The hydrodynamic processes that drive water movements play an important role in shaping the coast and marine environment through tidal elevation, storm surge, tidal currents, wind‐driven currents, flushing and wave action. Sediments are transported around the Bay, and on and off beaches.
Port Phillip Bay is almost circular in shape and covers approximately 1,930 square kilometres in area. The overall coastline stretches for 264 kilometres. The hydrodynamics of the Bay vary significantly depending on the dominant driving forces in the various areas. As a result, the sediments are not in an equilibrium state with respect to coastal processes, but rather change continuously over time. Most coastal sedimentary deposits may be regarded as morphodynamic equilibrium systems in short term time frames. This means that if sediment is added into the system, some features will accrete and conversely, if the driving hydrodynamics removes sediment from one part of the system to another, morphological change will also occur as a result of the sediment loss (erosion). For morphodynamic equilibrium systems in general, change can be expected to occur as regularly seen on beaches, and tidal inlet delta systems such as at the entrance to Port Phillip Bay.
The Yarra River is the major source of relatively fine sediments that are deposited in Hobson’s Bay and along the north‐eastern coast of the Bay. Historical changes to the catchment and modifications to the channel ensure that coarser material from the Yarra River very rarely reaches inside the Bay. There is a natural build up of sediments in the north of the Bay from a combination of inflow from the Yarra River and other land‐based sources and existing sediment movement through the bay.
The major source of coarser sediments entering the Bay is via west to east sand transport along the Bass Strait coast reaching Point Lonsdale from the Point Lonsdale Back Beach. It is estimated that approximately 400,000 m3 per year of sand reaches Point Lonsdale and approximately half of this volume is carried offshore by the ebb tide while the remainder moves into the Bay. Under natural conditions, about 80,000 to 100,000 m3 per year of this sand moves up the coast past Queenscliff and Swan Island, some eventually reaching Point Richards. Coarse sediments also enter the Bay through ongoing erosion of adjacent cliffs and from shell fragments washed ashore.
Page 122
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The Great Sands flood tidal delta inside the Entrance to the Bay is approximately 185km2 in area. The delta contains a cemented core and is covered by a 3.5 to 4m layer of mobile sand. It is shallow and intersected by channels through which strong tidal currents flow. Tidal currents slow near the Great Sands where the flow is essentially back and forth in a straight line along the channels with some flow over the shallow banks.
Sand movement within the Bay varies over time according to location and the driving hydrodynamic influences. At the Great Sands, the movement of sands is principally driven by strong tidal currents which significantly influence sediment transport within the channels, especially in the South Channel, but also the Pinnace, Symonds and West Channels. As a result, tidal currents are considered most important to coastal processes and sediment movement in the Entrance and the Great Sands and less important in the northern parts of the Bay. In the north, south and east majority of the Bay, sand movements are primarily driven by waves generated by local winds. The effects of these forces differ in direction according to season and the relative orientation of the coast to the incident waves. Natural coastal processes continue to change, resulting in slow erosion of adjacent cliffs and beaches. More than 20 beaches around the Bay have been artificially renourished in the last 25 years to replace volumes of sand.
The CDP has the potential to affect localised morphodynamic equilibrium through removal of sediment from the shipping channels and relocating it to DMGs and through the changes to the hydrodynamic processes as a result of changes to the channel configuration at the Entrance.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) Suitability of sediment transport models (ii) Effect on the Great Sands (iii) Effects on Port Phillip Bay Beaches o Yarra river and Hobson’s Bay beaches o Northern Beaches o Southern Beaches
Page 123
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
10.2 Inquiry Response (i) Suitability of sediment transport models
The SEES explains that numerical models were developed for predicting the potential impacts of the CDP on sediment transport processes within the Bay. Sediment transport was modelled through process models that took into account the outputs and predictions of the base models on hydrodynamics. Both models were used in the environmental impact and risk assessment.
The process models for sediment transport considered four separate areas that would potentially be affected by the CDP including:
• Port Phillip Bay beaches; • the Great Sands; • Lonsdale Bight beaches; and • transport across Lonsdale Bight offshore.
These models combined with historic geomorphic evidence to predict impacts. The Inquiry and the IEG supports this approach to evaluate the likelihood and magnitude of changes to sediment transport in different areas of the Bay. However, the IEG advised that the sediment transport modelling of the Great Sands Region requires further consideration as discussed below.
(ii) Effects on the Great Sands
The Great Sands are a large area of unconsolidated sand deposits with areas of shallow banks interspersed by channels with strong tidal currents. The SEES estimates the area of the Great Sands flood tidal delta to be approximately 185km2, and based on the average thickness of mobile sands of 3.5 to 4m, there is an estimated total volume of mobile sand over the delta of between about 650 to 740 million m3.
The Inquiry notes that the Great Sands play a significant role in dampening the force of water flowing through the Entrance and therefore controlling flushing of the Bay. They also contain Mud Islands, a group of sand barriers bearing vegetated dunes that rise up to 3.6m above high tide and provide habitat that is listed as a RAMSAR listed wetland and is a segment of the Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park.
The Inquiry notes that sediment movements naturally occur in the Great Sands area and that the Mud Islands have undergone natural geomorphic change in the past 170 years as a result of erosion and deposition from the shoals of sand and will continue
Page 124
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
to evolve in shape.
The SEES explains that in the Great Sands the dominant sediment transport mechanism is that due to the strong tidal currents. Net sediment transport is directed away from the central deep areas of South Channel.
The SEES predicted few changes within the Great Sands, with most confined to the eastern end of South Channel and adjacent areas. The results indicate almost no change over the majority of the Great Sands. There is a reduction in transport through Pinnace Channel and some accretion on the banks north of South Channel East, however most of the changes are confined to the channel where dredging takes place. The model also predicted no net change in the average transport in the region.
The primary goal of this sediment transport model was to consider the effects of channel deepening on the medium to long term dynamics of the Great Sands region, including changes to sand banks, effects on wave refraction and beach dynamics, and the magnitude of required maintenance dredging.
However, the IEG advised that the SEES sediment transport modelling results of existing conditions were not in accordance with long‐term observations of the sand bars and channels in the Great Sands region. The modelling predictions are inconsistent with what is known of the region, including dynamic equilibrium of existing patterns of tide and wind forced currents. The IEG advised that the sediment modelling of the Great Sands region:
• did not reproduce actual sediment transport rates; • indicated extremely large fluxes of sand moving through cross‐sections which are not consistent with observations and the geomorphology analyses; and • the model was not calibrated against observations or measurements.
The IEG concluded that given such large errors in current model predictions, the modelled responses to the project do not provide a useful basis for impact assessment.
The IEG noted that while patterns of sand movement have been considered by Mr Provis and Professor Healy, no successful predictions of the sediment transport magnitudes have been made. Consequently, the detailed implications for the potential depletion of surface sands following the capital works and maintenance dredging are not yet known.
The IEG advised that the SEES assessment of sediment transport in the Bay relies
Page 125
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
heavily on a model review and qualitative geomorphological analysis of the Great Sands by Professor Healy and that this analysis does not provide a quantitative analysis of long‐term predictions. The IEG also advised that responses through PoMC witness statements have not advanced the matter.
The Inquiry notes that Professor Healy concluded that while the SEES predicts no discernible impact as a result of the CDP, all of the areas of potential concern are expected to undergo continuing change due to natural sedimentary processes and that there is a potential interaction between a morphological adjustment of the Great Sands following the project and the adjustments that may occur as a result of maintenance dredging.
The IEG concluded that while patterns of sand movement have been considered by Mr Provis and Professor Healy, no successful predictions of the sediment transport magnitudes have been made. The Inquiry considered the IEG advice that uncertainties surrounding sand fluxes in the Great Sands post dredging require further study as mobile sand may deplete over time and change the morphology of the region. The IEG concluded that the implications for the potential depletion of surface sands following the capital works and maintenance dredging remained unknown and the Inquiry notes that such effects could have implications for decisions on alternative locations within the Great Sands for the placement of future dredge material from maintenance programs. A monitoring program to confirm CDP implications will respond to concerns about modelling predictions of the Great Sands in the long‐term and future maintenance dredging, including the southern Bay side beaches.
The IEG supported the approach recommended by Professor Healy which included the further sediment transport modelling of the Great Sands is need to predict dynamic changes and for monitoring of the region through bathymetry (LIDAR) and multi‐beam surveys to determine whether the new dynamic equilibrium is as predicted
In response to these concerns, the PoMC included a single LIDAR bathymetric survey of the Great Sands region prior to dredging in the EMP. The IEG further advised that this proposed monitoring program in the EMP is not adequate to assess potential medium‐ to long‐term impacts on sediment transport in the Sands region, including erosion to beaches, or to inform management decisions including whether remedial action may be required by placement of dredged sands within this region. The Inquiry notes the State Government Departments considered that further process modelling is warranted to further examine the movement of the surface sand layer and that alternate locations for disposal of material from maintenance dredging
Page 126
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
in the Great Sands may be required over the longer term.
While the likely effects to maintenance dredging requirements due to channel deepening through the Great Sands region was not considered in the SEES, Professor Healy provided further comment in his expert witness statement that there could be some implications. He stated that over‐deepened channels through tidal inlet and delta systems are well recognised as acting as more effective sediment traps, leading to increased sedimentation, which in turn leads to increased volumes of maintenance dredging. For the case of deepening the Great Sands region, a higher rate of sediment accumulation would be expected within parts of the channel.
(iii) Effects on Port Phillip Bay beaches
The SEES modelled the effects of the CDP on sediment transport and therefore the implications for beaches and other coastal processes. As the key hydrodynamic effects on sediment transport in the Bay vary from location to location, the implications were considered by project area.
The Inquiry notes that the Association of Bayside Municipalities stated that beach renourishment must be an integral component of the CDP, and that a program to fully implement the Beaches at Risk report must be incorporated into the overall works program. However, the Inquiry notes that beach renourishment is an existing necessity to maintain beaches around Port Phillip Bay and considered the additional risk which CDP would pose to beaches. The Inquiry therefore concludes that unless beaches were at risk from CDP related effects above existing risks, the CDP should not be held responsible for beach renourishment. However, the Inquiry considers the implication for beach renourishment in considering decisions for dredged material placement as discussed in Chapter 8.
Yarra and Hobson’s Bay Beaches
The longshore component of wave power was modelled to predict changes to sediment transport for the beaches within Hobsons Bay. A small reduction is predicted in the north‐westwards transport of sediment at Kerferd Road and St Kilda Pier beaches that may lead to a reduction in the movement of sand on these beaches. A small increase in sediment transport is also likely at Sandridge Beach.
Northern Beaches
Page 127
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The SEES predicted that no impacts on the net longshore wave‐power for northern beaches.
Southern Beaches
The SEES explains that for the beaches adjacent to the South East Channel, the only predicted changes are small changes to the south of South Channel East indicating very little change off Rye and a tendency for slight sediment accumulation in Capel Sound.
Professor Healy advised that modelling indicates that channel deepening does not affect the adjacent beaches in the south. Professor Healy noted that in view of the public concern for the beach system from Dromana Bay to Sorrento, the hydrodynamics and sediment transport within the Great Sands should be further investigated in order to better determine any linkage between the beach system and the tidal current circulation associated with the Great Sands.
The Inquiry agrees with this advice and recommends further development of the EMP as discussed in the section on the Great Sands.
The SEES also considered the effects on beaches at Lonsdale Bight Beach. The SEES predicts the annual longshore sediment transport along Lonsdale Bight Beach to be reduced between 1 and 13.2%. While the modelling assumes that the net amount of sand reaching the beach will remain the same, dredging is predicted to reduce the amount of sediment transported along the beach, resulting in more sand remaining in some locations. However, given the dynamic characteristics of the area, the SEES stated that these changes will not be observable within the large natural variability along these beaches.
The Inquiry considered the supplementary modelling reports and Professor Healy’s review. He raised concerns about the wave action in Lonsdale Bight potentially leading to changes to the shoreline and sand coverage in the region and that a significant impact is most likely to occur in the Lonsdale Bight area.
Based on modelling the worst case, scouring to ‐22m would not substantially change the currents and sediment transport in the Great Sands. The IEG considers that the Great Sands region could be adversely altered in the long‐term due to changes in current patterns. The Inquiry concurs with this and the IEG’s view that this issue should be considered in the context of future maintenance dredging.
Page 128
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
10.3 Inquiry Conclusions and Recommendations The Inquiry notes that requirements for maintenance dredging are likely to be affected by the CDP and recommends that to assist future assessments of impacts on the Great Sands, all maintenance dredging should be logged to update existing data to add to current understanding of implications for dredge material management. Changes in sediment transport are within natural variability and that these beaches are currently subject to sediment transport characteristics which require ongoing management through beach renourishment. The predicted changes to sediment transport are within natural variability.
The SEES explains that, consistent with the waste management hierarchy, beneficial reuse of dredged materials was considered. The SEES considered the option of renourishment of beaches in Bayside municipalities. DSE is responsible for beach renourishment, and they concluded that it is more economical to utilise sand from either land‐based or near‐shore sources.
For the majority of the material however, no currently feasible or foreseeable end‐ use exists.
Recommendations:
Log all maintenance dredging to update existing data to assist ongoing assessments of the Great Sands.
Ensure a fit‐for‐purpose program that can detect long‐term changes to sediment transport in the Great Sands. Include monitoring surveys to be conducted during and after the CDP, and link these to scheduling of future maintenance dredging campaigns.
Increase the accuracy of sediment transport predictions in the Great Sands by calibrating SEES modelling against LIDAR and multi‐beam surveys, maintenance dredging volumes and channel infilling rates.
Page 129
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
11. LIGHT, PRODUCTIVITY, TURBIDITY, SEDIMENTATION
11.1 Description and Key Issues The productivity of the Bay’s ecosystem is intrinsically tied to light. Plants on the seabed, such as microphytobenthos (MPB), seagrass and seaweeds, and phytoplankton in the water column, require light for photosynthesis. Photosynthesis involves the generation of carbohydrates for survival and growth from the energy in light. These plants, known as ‘primary producers’, are the foundation of the Bay’s food chain. Seagrasses and seaweeds provide food and shelter for marine organisms, supporting diverse invertebrate communities that provide prey for the rest of the Bays ecosystem. Seagrasses in particular are important habitats for larval phases of fish including those of commercial, recreational and conservation significance. Zooplankton are animals that feed on the phytoplankton and form the link between the phytoplankton and the higher level of the Bay’s ecosystem.
Light availability is affected naturally by Bay processes. Some sunlight is directly reflected off the sea surface and the remainder penetrates the water, rapidly weakening as a result of scattering caused by materials suspended in the water column and absorption by the water itself. The decrease in the intensity of light as it travels through the water column is called ‘light attenuation’.
Materials include sediments that are resuspended or inputs from freshwater flows into the Bay carrying sediment loads from the catchments. Resuspension from the Bay floor occurs naturally on a daily basis depending on the type of sediment, location and physical and environmental conditions influencing the resuspension process (eg wind and waves). The degree and duration of light attenuation from these processes depend on the types of sediments and how long they take to settle out of the water column.
Freshwater inputs resulting in turbidity occur naturally as a result of rainfall events, particularly from the mouth of the Yarra River that flows into Hobson’s Bay. On average, background turbidity in the Yarra River during 2005/2006 was 4.4 NTU (nephelometric turbidity units), and average levels in the north of the Bay were 2.3 NTU; occasionally measures were as high as 100 NTU, typically following periods of rainfall and greater inflows from rivers. The distance that the plume is carried depends on the quantity and velocity of freshwater inputs. These figures were measured during the current drought conditions, and it is anticipated that turbidity levels will be higher than average throughout the Bay during future rainfall events.
Page 130
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Dredging will contribute to resuspension of sediments in the water column. This increased turbidity will increase light attenuation and result in a decrease in the amount of light available for photosynthesis by marine plants. If photosynthesis is limited below the minimum energy requirement of the plant, it may result in an impact on plant health and subsequently the food chain and any communities reliant on the plant as habitat.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) Characterising the turbidity plume; (ii) Managing the effects of the plume; (iii) Impact on key productivity processes in the Bay.
11.2 Inquiry Response The Inquiry notes that the turbid plume is a primary effect caused by dredging activity and therefore is at the start of most event trees for resulting impacts in the risk assessment. Understanding the characteristics and behaviour of the plume is therefore critical in the effective management of risks to Bay assets. The Inquiry notes that there is some potential for additive, cumulative, synergistic effects from turbidity effects and that the SEES indicate these have been accounted for in the risk assessment.
The Inquiry notes that the approach taken to identifying and managing the implications of reduced light on marine plants had changed since the EES, as the EES approach accounted only for changes to photosynthesis and therefore had been too narrow for decision making. The revised approach proposed in the SEES now aims to identify the key pathways, interactions and effects of the CDP on benthic plants and manage the plume according to requirements of ecological assets.
The TDP enabled the collection of a substantial amount of data to verify and refine the model input parameters and generated more accurate outputs. The SEES acknowledged that the TDP data provided information to calibrate models in two areas of the Bay only, and was constrained to a particular time of year with particular weather conditions. Modelling was the main tool for risk assessment.
(i) Characterising the turbidity plume
The SEES explained that turbidity modelling requires a knowledge of the amount of material put into suspension by the dredging process and the behaviour of that
Page 131
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
material as it spreads and settles. If these variables are known, then the outputs from refined turbidity models may be used to determine appropriate control measures. The IEG noted the importance of having good predictions of turbidity induced by dredging so that judgements could be made about the effects of the plume and to understand the effects of cumulative exposure over time scales of days to weeks or longer.
The SEES explained that the purpose of the turbidity modelling was to predict the dispersion of the turbid plume during dredging and its ultimate settlement location once dredging ceases. Models were developed to simulate turbid plumes for the north of the bay, the south of the Bay and the Yarra River estuary. Modelling was not undertaken for works in the Entrance as significant plumes were not predicted to occur while removing rock. The relevant risk assessment processes then applied model outputs and existing background turbidity concentrations.
The Inquiry considered the IEG’s assessment that the SEES addressed turbidity in sufficient detail. In general, the IEG concluded that the turbidity modelling concentrations and extent of the plumes are sufficiently well predicted to provide an adequate basis for environmental risk assessment, for various SEES specialists to consider potential effects on the environment, and to assist with the design of the EMP.
The IEG did stress, however that the turbidity model predictions are to be used as indicative only and are not sufficiently robust to be substituted for an extensive and well planned monitoring program during dredging.
During the hearing, the EMP was revised extensively. A key addition was further development of a plume monitoring program which aims to map intensity and extent of the plume to detect differences between the modelled plume predicted in the SEES and the observed plume during project implementation was developed further. The program’s plume mapping element uses measurements from moving vessel transects to characterise the plume/s on at least one day in the first week of each activity, satellite imagery and reviews of the weather conditions and Yarra River flow data.
The Inquiry notes the enhancement above to improve decisions about risks to assets. It agrees with IEG conclusions that in combination with the continuous monitoring of turbidity at ecological assets, this program provided a ‘near real time’ adaptive management approach to manage the implications of the plume. While the further refinement of the EMP manages uncertainties in the turbidity model, the Inquiry notes the program needs to improve its effectiveness in informing EMP decisions.
Page 132
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
These may include the following:
• derivation of the response levels in the context of protective Environmental Limits (p. A4‐91); • additional monitoring in the event of a Level 1 exceedence, taking account of how rainfall events would affect the plume; and • additional turbidity monitoring sites at key assets (e.g. the Marine National Park at the Entrance).
In relation to satellite imagery, the IEG highlighted that the plume will be monitored by up to 10 to 12 images over each six month period preceding an Environmental Management Review. The EMP states that if no suitable images are available within the six month period, aerial photography will be commissioned at least once within that period. The IEG considered that this EMP measure would limit the effectiveness of mapping the plume and that satellite imagery, and/or regular (on a weekly basis) aerial photographs of the plume would be more effective to inform decisions.
The IEG considered the proposal to conduct plume monitoring at least one day in the first week of each of the major dredging activities would not be effective in characterising the plume. As dredging in the South Channel and Williamstown Channel will take place in major blocks, separated in time, and potentially in different seasons, the inclusion of monitoring in the first week is not sufficient. The IEG referred to the uncertainty regarding the nature of the source term of the plume and whether it would change over time during prolonged periods of dredging, concluding that restricting monitoring to the first week of each major activity block would be inappropriate. The IEG concluded that the monitoring schedule should be more fit‐for‐purpose and include some monitoring in each major activity block and preferably some half way through as well as near the beginning of each block. The IEG advised that satellite monitoring alone would suffice for these additional times if the technique proves to be robust enough to inform the understanding of plume characteristics.
(ii) Managing the effects of the plume
In order to understand how light conditions will change during dredging and to determine EMP measures to manage turbidity effects on the light requirements for plants, the relationship between the plume density and light attenuation (Kd) was investigated in the SEES. It said this relationship was highly dependent on a variety of factors which vary between locations and over time, such as size, shape, light
Page 133
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
scattering (light colour) and absorbing (dark colour) qualities of the suspended materials.
Dr Fox explained that modelling was used to predict benthic light climate where key assets such as seagrass occurred. Numerical limits for turbidity were then determined to protect those assets by ensuring enough light was available for their needs.
The Inquiry notes that the numerical limits are expressed in NTU to provide real time data and analysis. While plume density could be determined through Total Suspended Sediments (TSS) by filtering samples of seawater, a slow and relatively expensive process, NTU enables electronic measurement in situ of optical backscatter. NTU can be measured continuously over time at moored instruments or while underway.
The models used a defined Kd to define a TSS limit and then convert it to an NTU limit. The IEG supported the use of TSS within the turbidity models, however highlighted that the use of NTU would be a more practical field measurement of turbidity, if a consistent relationship between TSS and NTU could be established. The IEG also concluded that for the purpose of setting environmental limits and controls in the EMP, NTU is the preferred variable for estimating implications for Kd and visibility and that a direct relationship should be derived between NTU and Kd using a comparable statistical analysis to that used for deriving the relationship between TSS and Kd.
Dr Fox highlighted the pertinence of the IEG observations and that subsequent investigation of relationships between the three variables had revealed that there were no statistical differences in the outcomes for the EMP when using the single or the two‐stage conversion approaches. He stated that the statistical modelling approach used to underpin identification of environmental limits for turbidity is “state of the art” and provides the desired levels of environmental protection while affording sufficient operational flexibility to deliver the project in a cost‐effective and timely manner.
Based on these further investigations, the environmental controls were reviewed against the ecological objective of maintaining light requirements for the key assets for protection from the plume. In his evidence, Mr Chidgey explained that 15% surface irradiance at 3m depth should be maintained for 50% of each rolling fortnightly period to conserve all seagrass at and above depths of 3m and facilitate recovery of seagrass below that depth. This ecological requirement had been
Page 134
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
translated into an NTU equivalent of 15 NTU not to be exceeded as a two week moving average and 25 NTU not to be exceeded as a six hourly average.
The IEG strongly commends the approach of setting Environmental Limits for seagrass and regards it as a model for other aspects of the EMP as it has a number of positive features:
• limits are related to a clearly‐stated ecological objective; • there has been a rigorous statistical analysis of experimental data and observations, to relate the ecological objective to statistical limits for turbidity; and • historical background data and model predictions have been used to assess the likelihood of both Type 1 and Type II errors for proposed environmental limits.
However, the IEG considered further clarification is required on a number of technical aspects of the analysis for the proposed environmental limits, at least as presented in the reports and submissions by Dr Fox, Mr Chidgey and PoMC.
The IEG highlighted that the conclusions of investigations would be limited and their ability to inform decisions on risk would be constrained during the CDP as some of these limits are related to undefined background levels. The IEG therefore explained that background levels should be defined to ensure that the information obtained during the CDP can inform decisions and eliminate any future debate about background levels of turbidity. Information to determine background levels include trends that have already been identified from historical data to provide some synthesis of the current background conditions, or monitoring at one or more key sites to be monitored during the project before dredging proceeds. The IEG noted that the simple data collection would have greatly simplified the analysis of Environmental Limits undertaken by Dr Fox.
The analysis undertaken in the “Statistical Aspects of Turbidity Monitoring – Setting Environmental Limits” report allows an assessment of the probability of exceeding a given environmental limit in the presence and absence of dredging. While the report addresses the likelihood of exceeding the limit in the presence of dredging (assuming the model is correct), it does not specifically address the probability of exceeding the limit in the absence of dredging. The Inquiry notes that in the absence of dredging, the ecological objective would not be met about 30% of the time and therefore turbidity levels would be exceeded. Given the background levels of turbidity have not been clearly determined, the key issue for the EMP is whether it can practically ensure compliance with the ecological objective and environmental
Page 135
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
limits, without incurring unacceptable costs through shutting down dredging unnecessarily as a result of natural turbidity levels.
Dr Fox considered the monitoring program used to inform control of the plume is fit‐for‐purpose; robust (to perturbations from assumed conditions and high levels of background variation in time and space); scientifically credible and statistically defensible; and cost‐effective. He further states the approach to managing the plume includes in‐built attributes of early‐warning, rapid response and that the information is highly visible. However, the IEG raised a number of issues related to the operational and physical aspects of implementing the EMP, including the feasibility of ceasing dredging once an environmental limit or response level is exceeded, the rate of turbidity decline once dredging ceases, and whether Environmental Limits could be exceeded at points between monitoring sites without triggering response levels. The Inquiry notes that these issues will be critical in making decisions on whether dredging can restart in a particular area.
The IEG advised that the approach used by Professor Fox is state‐of‐the‐art and has strong potential. The IEG raised questions about whether the NTU environmental limit will guarantee that the ecological objective is met as the relationships between measurements is ‘noisy’. They questioned whether the number of independent data points within the two week window is sufficient to ensure a low rate of failure. The IEG considered that it should be possible to use the existing data to calculate the risk of the ecological objective not being met, even if the environmental limit is satisfied, and supports this calculation is done as part of the development of the EMP. The Inquiry considers that it is important to establish clear understanding of the approach and the underlying assumptions in finalising the EMP.
(iii) Impacts on key productivity processes in the Bay
The SEES explains that the Bay ecosystem is based on the organic material produced by marine plants. In relation to the plant communities in the water column (ie phytoplankton), the effects will be temporary. The plume will:
At any one time occupy relatively small proportions of the area of the Bay, with rapid reduction in concentration of suspended solids as distance from the CDP activity increases. Plankton communities have relatively high natural replacement rates and are distributed throughout the Bay including areas that will not be directly affected by suspended solids plumes at any time. Water movement in the Bay will result in plankton having only short time exposure to turbidity plumes. Hence, the consequences of CDP on plankton communities in Port Phillip Bay are minor, localised and short‐ term.
Page 136
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The SEES did note however, that plankton communities will be most affected in the Yarra River, where suspended solids plumes are spatially confined within the river. It noted that the Yarra and Hobson’s Bay are characterised by periods of high turbidity levels due to rainfall events and normal suspended solids and light levels will resume within days of completion of dredging. Plankton communities will rapidly re‐establish in the area within weeks of completion of dredging as they would for any of large scale disturbances that occur in the area from year to year. Recovery will be rapid and the effect within two years of completion will be negligible to minor. The SEES also showed that the consequences of CDP on plankton communities at a bay‐wide level are negligible.
In relation to MPB which are found on most soft seabed throughout the Bay, while areas will be affected, the SEES explained that in the context of the Bay, the locations impacted are small and recovery of MPB function in those areas is expected within one year of completion of dredging. Most MPB in the Bay, including the most productive areas offshore from the Werribee region and in waters less than 10m, will not be affected by turbid plumes and will be unaffected by CDP. Localised impacts will occur in some areas in Hobson’s Bay and a larger area in the south of the Bay from Safety Beach to Rye, however plume exposure in those areas is variable and MPB are likely to recover in these areas within months and almost certainly within 12 months. Accordingly to the SEES the areas of greatest effect of turbid plumes on MPB (low light and sedimentation) will occur in water depths greater than 10m close to the dredged channels and over a wider area in the region of Hovell Pile. There is uncertainty in the assessment of the level of effect on MPB in these localised areas and that in addition to sedimentation, localised effects are likely to occur. Recovery in the south is likely to occur within months of completion of dredging.
As the MPB are intimately concerned in the effectiveness of nutrient cycling, implementation of the recommendations of the IEG in respect of nutrient flux monitoring will provide some on‐going information on the status of the MPB during and after the dredging campaign.
The Inquiry noted that the implications for light attenuation and the ability to manage effects of the plume are mainly related to seagrass. The IEG noted that seagrass habitats are treated in considerable detail in the SEES. Seagrass are flowering plants attached to soft substrates. Their distribution in PPB is patchy and variable from year to year. Generally, most of the bay’s 68km2 of seagrass beds are situated in and around Swan Bay, the southern shores of the Geelong Arm and in Corio Bay. They are distributed mostly at depths of less than 4m but are also found in depths of up to 10m.
Page 137
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
There are several species of seagrass including two most common seagrasses from the Zostera genus and another bed‐forming seagrass Amphibolis antarctica, which only grows in turbulent and semi‐oceanic conditions. In the context of the Bay, Amphibolis is found around the Entrance.
The light requirement of each seagrass species to grow healthily was identified as having a threshold of 15% surface light, according to the SEES. This threshold was based on light intensity where seagrass distributions were observed to occur. The IEG noted that additional information from shading experiments was limited in its usefulness. Prolonged reduction of surface light levels below 15% threshold is assumed to represent an early stage of seagrass decline, rather than an absolute limit.
Turbid plume modelling indicates that the CDP is unlikely to affect seagrass in the north of the Bay, Geelong Arm, Corio Bay, Swan Bay and west of the Great Sands.
Based on the 15% surface irradiance requirement, the SEES predicts that in all other areas of the Bay, seagrass in depths less than 3m is likely to be unaffected. Mr Chidgey explained that this unaffected proportion of seagrass in the south of the Bay in depths less than 3m contributed 80% to 85% of seagrass in the south. Due to the plume, there will be a gradient of impacts on the other 15‐20% of Zostera in the south of the Bay >3m (which constitutes <5% of all Zostera in the Bay) mostly in the east of Project Area 3. In these deeper waters greater than 3m, light attenuation will exceed the 15% threshold for long periods during dredging.
Mr Chidgey stressed that this effect on up to 20% of the seagrass in the south below 3m did not constitute a 20% loss of seagrass. He explained that this was a very conservative prediction within which there would be a range of effects. The IEG noted that the value of 15% was conservative for Zostera, but expressed concern that small changes in light thresholds for Zostera may have strong effects on the area of seagrass affected. Mr Chidgey explained that these concerns had been very conservatively incorporated into the assessment of the areas affected.
The IEG considered that 15% light irradiance was not conservative for Amphibolis as the species is found in shallower waters in PPB, suggesting they have greater light requirements. While this species does occur at considerable depths elsewhere in southern Australia, if their light requirements are greater in PPB, using the value of 15% to manage turbidity may place at risk those seagrasses in 4‐5 m of water. Mr Chidgey argued that the assessment of light requirements for Amphibolis could not be determined examining where they are found in PPB. Instead, their locality is related to availability to habitat rather than a greater light requirement. The species
Page 138
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007 are found at depths of less than 5m on Sandy Reef. Beyond these depths at the Entrance, the reef tends to be more solid and seaweeds dominate. 10m was adopted as the depth at which light becomes limiting for Amphibolis and therefore Mr Chidgey argued that 15% light irradiance was also conservative for the species at 3m depths.
Mr Chidgey further explained that the exposure of Amphibolis to turbid plumes at the Entrance is identified as very low and intermittent in the short term and long term. The Amphibolis beds at the Lonsdale Bay side of the Heads will be subject to very low exposure to the turbidity plume. The beds at the Nepean Bay side are in waters less than 4m and are also considered a very low risk, although some impact will occur.
The IEG expressed concerns over the SEES predictions of consequence of seagrass loss due to in part, to uncertainty with recovery rates. Rates are not well understood. The IEG noted that the consequence of ‘moderate’ was assigned to Zostera loss in Project Area 3 based on rapid recovery and would be considered ‘major’ if recovery rates are currently underestimated. Mr Chidgey explained that the risk assessment, which considered the outputs of the models, also considered a number of other factors to determine the consequence. To ensure that this assessment methodology did not affect the decision about whether particular ecosystem components require monitoring, a long‐term seagrass monitoring program is included in Annexure 8 of the EMP.
The IEG raised further concerns that the impact on ecological communities relies on information from the modelling studies and that uncertainties would flow through to the ecological asset. Mr Chidgey acknowledges these reliances and associated uncertainties, stressing that the ecological assessment approach was conservative in assessing the effects and selecting appropriate control measures in the EMP.
11.3 Inquiry Conclusions and Recommendations The EMP provides the scope for further investigating the relationship between NTU and light on the seabed during the first year of dredging by simultaneously deploying light and turbidity meters. The Inquiry supports this further investigation to inform the management of effects of a dredge plume during the CDP and notes that it offers a substantial improvement in the knowledge of dredge related impacts to primary production for future dredging programs.
While many submittors raised concerns about the ability to predict and manage the effects of the plume, these concerns were covered in advice from the IEG. The
Page 139
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Inquiry has therefore concentrated on this advice in considering this issue.
The Inquiry notes the rationale for the plume monitoring is to define ‘substantial departures’ from the modelling presented in the SEES and therefore the timing of monitoring is significant. The IEG advised that monitoring should be conducted after several days of continuous dredging in reasonably calm conditions when the plume is most stable to enable both dredging and non‐dredging sources of turbidity to be identified.
The Inquiry notes the uncertainties in the turbidity model and that the plume monitoring program in the EMP has the capacity to account for these uncertainties. To improve the effectiveness of the EMP, the Inquiry concludes that further development of the plume monitoring program is required to ensure that it is fit‐for‐ the purpose of informing decisions on managing the plume.
In addition, the Inquiry considered that the following aspects of the plume monitoring program require further clarification:
• The planned “forecast” of “the location and intensity of the plume and expected turbidity levels to inform management actions.” (p. A4‐92) as the EMP is not clear on the types of forecast to be undertaken and their use. • The quantitative specification of a “substantial departure” (p. A4‐127) in “plume intensity and spread” (p. A4‐138), and how this is to be utilized in combination with the NTU limits at selected locations (Table A4‐6‐16, p. A4‐89). • A clear basis for differentiating “Indicative Turbidity Conformance Locations” and “Other Turbidity Locations”. (p. A4‐89)
The Inquiry notes the remaining uncertainties raised by the IEG in relation to the determination of the ecological light attenuation limits and that the impact on ecological communities relies on the effective management of the dredge plume.
Recommendations:
Expand the monitoring of water quality to provide a reference and a back up to the automatic turbidity monitoring by adding PAR measurements to the suite of indicators.
Apply the IEG recommended Fox approach, based on quality control statistics to assessment of appropriate Bay‐wide monitoring programs.
Page 140
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
12. NUTRIENT CYCLING
12.1 Description and Key Issues The food supply of all animals in the Bay (fauna on and in the sediment, fish, shellfish, penguins, seabirds and dolphins) ultimately depends on the production of plants. Plant growth is affected by the supply of nutrients: too little may lead to restricted growth; too much may lead to excessive and explosive growth such as algal blooms which can have a range of consequences for the ecosystem and human health.
The Port Phillip Bay Environmental Study (PPBES) conducted in 1992‐1996, found that although there are many nutrients available in the water column, nitrogen (N) is a key nutrient that controls plant growth in PPB. The resilience of the Bay ecosystem to nutrient inputs is dependent on the efficiency of the nutrient cycling process, which transfers nitrogen through the Bay system. This process involves natural and human derived inputs to the Bay each year, a small amount exported to Bass Strait and substantial loss from the system through a combination of physical, chemical and biological processes.
These processes involve two important phases. The first is nitrification, which occurs when the processed nitrogen falls to the Bay floor as faecal residues or dead algal cells are taken up by bottom‐living invertebrates or bacteria and converted back to their original inorganic forms including nitrate. Nitrate is taken up by microphytobenthos (MPB), a suite of microalgae in the sediments which are in turn ingested by the bottom‐living invertebrates, with most of the nutrients “bypassed” back into the sediments. Denitrification, the second phase, occurs when this nitrate is converted by bacteria in the sediment to nitrogen gas which diffuses up into the water and is eventually released to the atmosphere. This process depends on the availability of oxygen in the sediment.
About half the inorganic nitrogen formed in and on the sediments is converted in this way. The PPBES concluded that Port Phillip Bay could process 11,000 to 17,000 tonnes of nitrogen a year, without irreversible damage. While nitrogen levels in the Bay fluctuate widely, the current annual loads are between 6000 and 9500 tonnes with 46% from the Western Treatment Plant (WTP), 24% from the Yarra River, 17% from the Werribee and Patterson Rivers, Mordialloc Creek and smaller creeks and drains, and 13% from the atmosphere.
Page 141
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Nitrogen levels fluctuate widely as a result of differing rainfall conditions which carry nitrogen loads from the catchment and are carried by rivers to the Bay. Port Phillip Bay remains resilient in years of low and high nitrogen loads and there has been no evidence of a significant change to water quality in the Bay in over 35 years.
Denitrification is efficient over much of the Bay floor, however there is high spatial and moderate temporal variability, and efficiency is lower in areas close to the major inputs (Hobson’s Bay and the Werribee coast) than in the centre of the Bay. There is no evidence that efficiency has changed greatly over the past ten years, although overall nitrogen loads have been declining due to a major upgrade of the WTP and due to Victoria’s persistent drought conditions that have limited the loads transported from the catchment areas.
Phytoplankton and MPB play important roles in the nutrient cycling process and are also influenced by the amount of nutrients available, light and temperature. Dredging and subsequent dredged material placement has the potential to affect these organisms directly and indirectly through reducing ambient light and releasing nutrient loads within the sediments. Oxygen concentrations may also be affected through dredging.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) reduction in nutrient cycling efficiency as a result of an increased nutrient load and decreasing the capability of phytoplankton and MPB to cycle nitrogen; (ii) increased likelihood of algal blooms; and (iii) managing uncertainties relating to water quality, nutrient cycling and algal blooms.
12.2 Inquiry Response While many submittors raised concerns about the effects of dredging on nitrogen cycling, these concerns were covered in advice from the IEG. The Inquiry has therefore concentrated on this advice in considering this issue.
The IEG noted that the SEES appropriately regard nitrogen cycling as a key environmental process, potentially subject to both direct and indirect impacts from dredging. Unlike hydrodynamics and sediment transport, impacts on nitrogen cycling are not addressed in the SEES through development and application of numerical models.
Page 142
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The SEES instead used a combination of experimentation and data from monitoring programs to estimate the direct additional loads of nutrients likely to result from dredging, and assessed their likely consequence by comparison with existing loads, and reference to historical model results. The indirect effects of dredging on the nitrogen cycling process have been dealt with through the risk assessment framework due to high associated uncertainties. The IEG noted that this makes it difficult to gain an overall sense of dredging impacts on nutrient cycling.
The Inquiry heard public submissions that the CSIRO model should have been used for assessing the effects of dredging on nitrogen cycling in the Bay. In his evidence, Dr Harris stated that:
• the SEES underplays the potential impact of the CDP on nutrient cycling in the Bay by making a number of assumptions of limited extent and brief impact as well as by downplaying the uncertainties in the cause‐effect relationships. • the CDP conclusion is based on the methodology used in the CDP SEES and not on rigorous modelling of possible impacts. • only a coupled physical, chemical and biological model, like the CSIRO model, can be used to look at coupled non‐linear interactions within the Bay system and approaches to “tipping points”. Even so we do not fully understand the potential risks associated with system level “tipping points” in coastal ecosystems.
The SEES explains that it does not explicitly model nonlinear feedbacks in the Bay nitrogen cycle as all assessed impacts fell within the “linear” area of the PPBES model. The SEES explains that the same impact in different Project Areas is assumed to be additive and that the chance of such impacts between adjacent areas is minimised by project design by avoiding scheduling of dredging in adjacent areas at the same time (excluding the Entrance). The impacts predicted for the CDP are not expected to be high enough to lead to synergistic effects.
While the SEES did not explicitly model nonlinear feedbacks in the Bay nitrogen cycle, it did refer to previous results from the CSIRO model. This model predicted highly nonlinear adverse consequences of large increases in nitrogen loads to the Bay (doubling or trebling existing loads of around 8000 tonnes p.a.). Consequently, one‐off loads in the order of a few hundred tonnes are well within the observed inter‐annual variation, and would not be expected to result in major or long‐lasting changes in nutrient cycling.
Page 143
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
(i) Reduction in nutrient cycling efficiency as a result of an increased nutrient load and decreasing the capability of phytoplankton and MPB to cycle nitrogen.
Loads of nitrogen as a result of dredging
Nutrient cycling efficiency relates to the balance between the quantity of nutrients available and the efficiency by which the biota are able to process it into nitrogen gas. Further, the total annual nitrogen load to the Bay is estimated to vary by about 3,000 tonnes depending on inputs such as natural rainfall events such as the 500 tonne nitrogen load which was delivered to PPB during the 1993 flood in the Yarra.
The SEES notes that the sediments to be dredged in the Bay are estimated to contain about 12,000 tonnes of nitrogen. However, it is only the bioavailable component of the total nutrient that which is critical to the risk assessment as this is the only portion available for uptake by marine organisms. Experiments determined that the vast majority (greater than 98%) of nitrogen, phosphorus and silicon in the sediments to be dredged can be considered inert. The experiments suggest that only a small fraction (<1%) of the particulate nitrogen in sediments to be dredged is likely to be converted to dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) and therefore bioavailable.
The bioavailable nitrogen load from both the dredge water and released from particles after settling is estimated to be 130 + 226 tonnes. The IEG explained that this is two orders of magnitude less than annual loads, and an order of magnitude less than interannual variation in current loads to the Bay. Such a one‐off event would not be expected to result in major or long‐lasting changes in nutrient cycling.
Dr Roberts concluded that “the calculated loads are sound’ and agreed “with the overall conclusion that nitrogen loads alone from the dredge program are not a threat to the nitrogen cycle of the bay”.
The Inquiry notes IEG support for the conclusions that direct inputs of nutrients as a result of the project:
• are not expected to have a significant impact on the Bay’s nutrient cycling and productivity, and • the magnitude of the impact on nutrient cycling is such that it may not have a detectable effect, given natural variability in the Bay.
Page 144
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The Inquiry notes that the previous EES Panel had highlighted the objective to reduce nitrogen inputs to the Bay by 1000 tonnes per annum under the Environmental Management Plan for Port Phillip Bay and that:
This is now a clear article of government policy and very considerable public funds have been expended in its implementation. Very substantial efforts must clearly be made by the proponent to (as a first principle) avoid offsetting any of the benefits obtained by the pursuance of this target, or if offsetting is unavoidable, to at least minimise it. In circumstances where offsetting is unavoidable, it also appears clear that the proponent should owe a duty (if only via a commuted payment) to assist in measures necessary to return to full policy compliance. The Panel’s view on balance is that a project lifetime nitrogen input calculation should be made and the proponent should contribute a commuted sum to pay land managers or Melbourne Water to deliver equivalent input reductions staged over the period to 2030.’
The Inquiry considers that the additional nutrient load from the project is well within natural variation within Port Phillip Bay and does not pose a significant risk to the project. However, it considers that the objective of nutrient input reduction to the Bay system should be applied consistently to dredging activities as it is to inputs from the land‐based activities and activities in the Bay itself as explained in the EMP for Port Phillip Bay.
Indirect effects on the nitrogen cycling process
The indirect effects of dredging on nutrient cycling efficiency were addressed through the risk assessment by considering the possible pathways whereby dredging could affect nutrient cycling and denitrification, primarily through seabed removal, turbidity plumes and sedimentation on MPB, on phytoplankton, and/or on burrowing infauna.
The SEES explains that dredging will be restricted to existing shipping channels except where channel alignment has changed and that the duration of impacts is likely to be short, with recovery of phytoplankton and MPB expected to occur rapidly in time scales of weeks to months at most, following cessation of dredging or disposal. The IEG explained that as a result of the restrictions on impact in space and time, the consequences of the project on nutrient availability, denitrification and algal blooms are assessed as minor, or at most moderate.
Dredging will involve removal of 90% and 5% of the seabed in the lower Yarra River and Hobson’s Bay respectively and 5% of the soft seabed in Project Area 3. Shipping channels are routinely dredged through maintenance dredging and are regularly
Page 145
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
disturbed by ships manoeuvring in the Yarra River and Hobson’s Bay. Recovery is likely to be rapid from the nearby seabed within weeks or months and the flow on effects will be in the order of those experienced after periodic maintenance dredging.
The IEG noted uncertainty about the cause and effect of the relationship between the turbidity plume and phytoplankton or MPB production, and the magnitude and even the linkages between primary production and denitrification. According to the SEES, turbidity plumes are likely to result in a reduction in the available light for photosynthesis by phytoplankton and MPB organisms during most of the 12 week dredging in the Yarra River and in localised areas around the plume in Hobson’s Bay. MPB is not particularly high in Hobson’s Bay. If these organisms have a significance role in denitrification, the effects will be short‐term and recovery is expected within weeks to months of the end of dredging and the efficiency due to MPB shading would still be within the range of natural variation.
The SEES explained that the effects of sedimentation will be restricted to the area under the turbidity plume and to the region of the DMG as a result of placement of dredged material. Sedimentation is likely to affect benthic invertebrates involved in nitrogen cycling in the Yarra River and Hobson’s Bay, but recovery is expected within six to 12 months after dredging. The placement of material at the DMGs will also smother existing biota. The Port of Melbourne DMG will be extended and a new DMG will be created in the South East of the Bay. While these areas will be smothered, recolonisation is expected to be rapid with functionality of the seabed community in the newly created habitat generally returning to the area within six to 12 months, although the species mix may be different.
The IEG noted that the area of impact is restricted in space and time. The plumes occupy a minor fraction, and the channels and DMGs a very small fraction, of the North and South Project Areas. The duration of impact is also considered likely to be short, with recovery of phytoplankton and MPB expected to occur rapidly on time scales of weeks to months at most, following cessation of dredging or disposal. This reduces the assessed consequences of impacts on nutrient cycling and production further.
EMP measures to manage the risks to nutrient cycling
The assessment concluded that direct risks to nitrogen cycling did not warrant specific EMP measures. However, the indirect effects will be managed through measures to control the plume area and concentration. The IEG explained that as long as the turbidity plume monitoring program informed measures to control the plume extent and concentration, it should act to control for any significant
Page 146
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
underestimation of plume extent and therefore impacts on nitrogen cycling. The Inquiry endorses the IEG recommendation to increase the number and distribution of sampling sites for the proposed nutrient flux studies.
(ii) Increased likelihood of algal blooms
The risks of algal blooms, particularly of the toxic variety were a concern for many submittors. Algal blooms occur due to excessive amounts of phytoplankton which are generally controlled by physico‐chemical factors, including light, nutrient availability and temperature. Some species are known to form dormant cysts in the sediment and resuspension is also considered to be a factor in cyst germination. As a consequence, it is possible, that dredging could result in the resuspension and germination of algal cysts.
Blooms occur naturally, even in pristine systems and were probably a component of the ecology of the Bay before European settlement. There is international evidence that anthropogenic activities (particularly those that have led to increases in nutrient concentrations) can result in increases in the frequency, duration and magnitude of algal blooms internationally. Although there is insufficient evidence to determine if this is also the case in Port Phillip Bay, phytoplankton blooms have been recorded in all project areas over the past twenty years.
Blooms may impact on the health of the Bay in a number of ways, including fish kills as a result of oxygen depletion, and may affect nutrient cycling. The SEES explains that the summer‐ autumn is the most sensitive period in the north, and winter is the most sensitive season in the south. There is a 30% chance of effects on nutrient cycling with economic and ecological implications due to dredging. Minor consequences are predicted in the Yarra River because impacts are restricted; minor in the North part of the Bay as the occurrence of cysts is thought to be much less in the Williamstown Channel and because such a bloom is unlikely to impact a significant fraction of this large project area; and minor in the South because such a bloom is unlikely to impact a significant fraction of this large project area. In the latter case, given the tidal movement, the bloom may be restricted to the area close to the channel, rather than spread across the Sands or further north. Recovery from impacts is predicted within a year.
Of concern to submittors were the blooms of toxic species which produce compounds that are toxic to fauna and humans resulting in paralysis, amnesia, diarrhoea, neurologic effects and bitter tastes. Toxic algal blooms occur both in Hobson’s Bay (with dinoflagellates) and over the Bay as a whole (with the diatom Rhizosolenia cf chunii). Such blooms have potential consequences for filter feeders
Page 147
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
such as mussels which are known to bioaccumulate toxins produced by algae. The Victorian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program (VSQAP) ensures that there are no risks to humans from the consumption of aquaculture mussels.
The EMP includes a Baywide monitoring program to identify any incidences of biomass at ‘bloom’ concentrations. Mr Longmore confirmed that he is satisfied with the frequency of interpreting the chlorophyll‐a results as set out in revisions B and C of the EMP. EPA is satisfied that the proposed Baywide monitoring program is acceptable, subject to ensuring appropriate arrangements for responses. In relation to algal blooms in particular, the EMP provides that DSE will be notified where concentrations are indicative of a bloom. This will enable appropriate action to be taken under the direction of the relevant agency.
The Inquiry noted Professor Beardall’s submission relating to the effects of the CDP on “…ecosystem potential responses for toxic algal blooms and primary production in Port Phillip Bay.” It covered three potential pathways to impacts related to algal blooms and primary production:
• dredging will result in resuspension of sediments containing cysts of toxic dinoflagellates, and this could result in cyst germination leading to toxic algal blooms; • dredging will release nutrients, and this could trigger or enhance algal blooms; and • turbidity plumes from dredging will reduce available light and phytoplankton production.
The IEG advised that all three pathways and impacts have been explicitly recognised and subjected to risk assessment, that Professor Beardall’s reasoning is technically sound and that these issues have already been addressed by PoMC.
Blooms currently occur in the Bay and may occur during the dredging program.
(iii) Managing uncertainties relating to water quality, nutrient cycling and algal blooms.
The Inquiry considered the management of these issues in relation to the Baywide monitoring for water quality, nutrient cycling and algal blooms.
In relation to nitrogen cycling, the SEES concluded that direct risks to nitrogen cycling did not warrant specific EMP measures and that indirect effects will be managed through measures to control the plume area and concentration. In relation
Page 148
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
to algal blooms, the EMP includes a Baywide monitoring program to identify any incidences of biomass at ‘bloom’ concentrations.
Although described separately, the water quality, nutrient cycling and algal bloom monitoring programs are closely related. The proposed water quality monitoring program builds on the EPA’s long‐term monitoring program, augmented by other sites in proximity to dredging and/or assets, which have been sampled as part of baseline monitoring for CDP. The variables measured relate primarily to nutrients, phytoplankton production, oxygen consumption and heavy metals.
The IEG advised that if cost‐effective instrumentation is available, it would be desirable to add Photosynthetically Available Radiation (PAR) to the set of variables to be measured in depth profiles, as this provides a more rigorous assessment of changes in light attenuation and availability. The Inquiry notes that this may help inform decision making of environmental risk for the CDP.
The nutrient cycling program proposes to monitor benthic nutrient, oxygen and carbon fluxes twice per year at two sites, and four times per year in Hobson’s Bay. This will allow assessment of long‐term changes in sediment respiration rates and denitrification efficiencies. The IEG highlighted that this was a limited set of sites and times and questioned the extent to which the program could provide the statistical power to detect changes in regional fluxes and denitrification efficiency. This may partly depend on the detailed experimental design of measurements within sites. The Inquiry agrees that an analysis of the adequacy of this program should be undertaken before dredging commences in the area.
The nutrient cycling program also involves continuous monitoring of chlorophyll a Dissolved Oxygen (DO), temperature and salinity using moored sensors at two depths at four sites, including the three benthic sites. The algal bloom monitoring effectively consists of the monthly water quality monitoring for chlorophyll, and the continuous monitoring. The continuously logged data will be assessed fortnightly in Hobson’s Bay during dredging, and monthly at other sites and times. Given the spatial and temporal patchiness of algal blooms, the IEG raised questions about the power of the proposed monitoring program to detect changes in bloom frequency, extent or intensity. This could be assessed rigorously, based on a statistical analysis of historical data from the EPA, and possibly the CSIRO Port Phillip Bay Environmental Study. Observations could also be supplemented from other sources, such as ad hoc observations from survey‐vessel skippers.
The SEES identified risks with respect to the composition of blooms, and in fact the risks associated with impacts of toxic algal blooms rated higher than those associated
Page 149
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
with general increases in primary production and bloom frequency and intensity. Given this, it may be possible to monitor phytoplankton species composition. If the cost of an exhaustive taxonomic analysis of each sample is deemed to be disproportionate to the risks, an assessment of each sample to look for abundant toxic or nuisance bloom species should be feasible and helpful. It is conceivable that this assessment could be triggered by chlorophyll levels exceeding a given response level.
Attribution will be a key issue for these monitoring programs, given high levels of natural variability in response to other forces (river loads, STP loads, seasonal cycles).
12.3 Inquiry Conclusions The Inquiry notes that there is a scientific debate over the use of models versus a risk assessment approach which is commonly used to deal with impact assessment, particularly where the scope is broad and there is high and variable uncertainty. While the Inquiry notes that some submittors suggested that the CSIRO nutrient cycling model should have been used for the CDP to predict outcomes, the PoMC has instead utilised a broad risk assessment methodology for the project, which has been supported by peer review. Regardless, the Inquiry noted that outputs of the CSIRO nutrient cycling model had been used to inform the risk assessment.
Dr Roberts and Dr Harris shared concerns about not modelling the additive, cumulative or synergistic effects of the load and multiple effects on parts of the nitrogen cycling process. The IEG noted that the presentation of this information in separate sections of the SEES was logically consistent with the SEES structure, pointing out that it is difficult to gain an overall sense of dredging impacts on nutrient cycling.
The Inquiry supports the proposed off‐set system that will be developed in the EMP, with the goal being a practical mechanism to deliver nitrogen offsets for appropriate new Bay discharge proposals.
The IEG concluded that as a result of the contributing factors outlined above, in all cases, the risk is deemed to be typically very low or at most minor. They also noted that uncertainties in the relationships between phytoplankton, MPB and denitrification and the effect of turbidity plumes, have been accounted for in the assessment by using conservative assumptions. The indirect impacts are estimated to result in DIN loads that are at most comparable in size to the direct loads, and are small compared with natural loads and fluxes.
Page 150
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The Inquiry supports the IEG conclusions that the:
• overall analysis and approach adopted in the assessment is robust and conservative; • fact that effective loads are small compared with existing loads, and effects are likely to be temporary, provides a substantial buffer against any underestimation of impact; and • CDP is unlikely to trigger nonlinear or threshold changes in the Bay nutrient cycle.
Page 151
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
13. PENGUINS
13.1 Description and Key Issues There are two key colonies in the vicinity of Port Phillip Bay, one located on the St Kilda breakwater with an estimated 1000 birds, and another at Phillip Island with a population of over 50,000 birds. The St Kilda colony is a discrete, self ‐ sustaining colony that is reliant on PPB throughout the year. It is a local iconic species and the colony supports a small ecotourism industry. The colony exists about 7 km south‐ east of the Melbourneʹs central business district and adjacent to a densely populated suburb in the City of Port Phillip. Due to this proximity, it is subject to stormwater pollution and from boating activity in the area. Predation from domestic animals and trampling of habitat has been prevented through the erection of a barrier on the breakwater.
The Phillip Island population forages both in Port Phillip Bay and in Bass Strait in winter and summer. This colony supports one of Australia’s most popular natural wildlife attractions, managed by the Phillip Island Nature Park, and is an important ecotourism business for Phillip Island and Victoria.
Little penguins are thought to feed preferentially upon post‐larval and juvenile clupeoid fish including anchovy, pilchards and sandy sprat; however diet varies with prey availability. The SEES highlighted that the PI population diet composition varies considerably, while the St Kilda population appears to be reliant at all times on anchovies for a significant proportion of its diet.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) availability of food for penguins; (ii) impact of plume on foraging behaviour and range; (iii) effects of toxins on penguins; (iv) implications for analysis of population viability of colonies;
13.2 Inquiry Response (i) Availability of food for penguins
While the Little Penguins of both colonies feed on anchovies, the St Kilda colony are almost entirely dependent on the species as a food source for 91% of its diet. Other
Page 152
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
prey included squid, garfish, pilchard and sandy sprat.
As a result, the concerns over their primary prey source were raised by many submittors. In particular, the indirect effects on birds of both colonies were raised should significant loss of the anchovy population occur. Ms Preston highlighted that:
As Little Penguins at St Kilda feed almost exclusively on anchovy and anchovy is also an important prey species for penguins at Phillip Island, any effects of the CDP on this fish species are likely to affect both penguin populations.
Dr Hamilton from Birds Australia highlighted that the main concern for the anchovies was the effects of physiological damage from dredge plumes generated during the anchovy‐spawning period, which would in turn, affect the penguin colonies.
This risk was also clearly recognised by Mr Mustoe, whose conclusion was reliant on the assessment of Dr Jenkins’ assessment of anchovy impacts. Dr Jenkins concluded that the that spawning success for the proportion of the anchovy population affected by dredging in Hobson’s Bay would be affected, but that the population would be expected to recover to within natural variability within one year of completion of the project and that there would be no cumulative impacts from other project areas.
(ii) Impact of plume on foraging behaviour and range
The SEES stated that Little Penguins use the entire water column to feed, and rely on sight to find prey, so the amount of light penetration through the water column may dictate the feeding efficiency of individual penguins. Ms Preston stated that “areas affected by the turbidity plume caused by the CDP will be unsuitable for foraging by Little Penguins and consequently they were likely to be displaced from foraging in these areas”.
While the SEES confirmed that water clarity is important, it recognised the natural variation in underwater visibility due to the volumes of sediment carried into PPB from the Yarra River and due to the growth of plankton. It also reported that penguins do feed in turbid waters and observations of such behaviour were recorded during the TDP of penguins feeding in waters with underwater visibility reduced to around 3m. Furthermore, the SEES stated that penguins had also previously been observed feeding in waters near the Yarra River mouth that were naturally turbid. It highlighted that penguins regularly alter their distribution in response to natural variations in the visibility levels in the Bay. The Inquiry therefore concluded that while penguins were adapted to a level of turbidity, the
Page 153
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
increased risks posed by the CDP on foraging success and ability to find the prey depended on three main factors raised during the hearing, including:
• location of the prey relative to the plume; • location of penguins relative to the prey; and • the ability for the penguins to travel between nesting sites and prey.
Location of the prey relative to the plume
The SEES stated that spawning is known to extend from Hobson’s Bay to Corio Bay, with a general trend for increasing densities of eggs towards the north of the Bay. The SEES highlighted that the plume from the Yarra River would dissipate quickly, while the plume from dredging in the Williamstown Channel would be localised to the areas around the channel. Therefore only a minor proportion of the Bay’s total anchovy spawning area would be affected.
The Inquiry notes that during summer, a sensitive period for anchovies, dredging would cover a small portion of the penguin foraging grounds. As far as the chick‐ guard stage is concerned, the overall area affected by the plume during summer does not extend across the entire foraging range and is therefore not likely to result in prey relocating outside the penguins’ more limited foraging range.
Location of penguins relative to the prey
The SEES states that Little Penguins are capable of travelling up to 20km per day. While such trips are regularly taken by the Phillip Island colony to forage in PPB, the St Kilda colony is situated closer to the PPB prey sources.
The SEES concluded that the majority of the adult Phillip Island population use wide areas of Port Phillip Bay for foraging during winter and part of spring. The SEES highlighted that radio tracking data confirmed that birds moved into PPB in the winter to feed on the abundant food sources to ‘fatten up’ prior to breeding. Those that enter the Bay in winter are distributed widely, north of the Great Sands, foraging is concentrated across the centre of the Bay, Hobson’s Bay, along the entire northeast coast, as well as the Geelong Arm. Prey is therefore considered to be distributed across the Bay in these locations. During spring and summer, these birds principally stay around Phillip Island principally to nest and feed in Bass Strait. While some members of the colony may travel to PPB to forage during this time, the population will be largely unaffected by the CDP during these seasons.
Page 154
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The SEES stated that in summer, the St Kilda population feeds almost exclusively in the North and South project areas mainly in a strip extending from just south of Werribee and Altona in the north‐west, to Dromana in the south. This broad summer foraging distribution suggests that prey are also widely distributed and minimises plume effects on prey. The SEES studies found that “despite favourable survey conditions in Hobson’s Bay and south of the Great Sands, only a very small number of Little Penguins were observed in these areas” throughout December to February (ie entire summer). The St Kilda population feeds primarily in northern Port Phillip Bay during winter, particularly around the Hobson’s Bay and near the mouth of the Yarra River based on radio tracking data. The studies during the TDP confirmed this distribution during winter, noting that St Kilda penguins “also moved regularly and significantly beyond Hobson’s Bay”.
The SEES highlighted that penguins rely heavily on reliable food sources available within a single day’s travel from the nest during critical periods of the breeding cycle, the most critical periods being the ‘lead‐up’ to hatching and the subsequent ‘guard’ period when the chick needs to be kept warm continuously and fed each night. For the Phillip Island birds, this does not include PPB, but for the St Kilda birds, this includes the northern parts of the Bay. The SEES stated that peak breeding on Phillip Island is roughly between August and February.
A number of submittors referred to new data collected by Ms Preston on the St Kilda colony, suggesting that the risk assessment was incorrect as surveys had failed to identify the limited distribution for foraging for the breeding birds of the St Kilda colony. Ms Preston presented data which included satellite tracking of a sample of St Kilda penguins during November and December 2006. Ms Preston stated that penguins from St Kilda breed any time between July and March and that during this time, their “foraging range is restricted to around 20km from the colony” and that “Breeding Little Penguins on one‐day foraging trips were found in project area 1 and project area 2”. Ms Preston stated that “This proximity to the shipping channels (within this limited foraging range) exposes penguins to turbidity plumes that will arise and extend from the CDP in this region” and that “the chick‐guard stage would need to either cross or work their way around the turbidity plume”. Mr Mustoe acknowledged the data and agreed that it added to his baseline data by “providing location information specifically on guard‐stage nesting birds”.
The Inquiry notes a number of submissions questioning the rigour of survey methods used as a baseline for the SEES, and notes that Mr Mustoe had commented on the ability to raise conclusions on the SEES from satellite data collected for another purpose. The Inquiry also notes the assumptions and caveats related to each survey technique and the importance of designing monitoring programs that were
Page 155
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
fit for purpose.
The Inquiry concludes that the Phillip Island population would be able to forage for food in areas unaffected by the plume. In relation to the St Kilda colony, the Inquiry concludes that while the satellite tracking data presented by Ms Preston was limited, it did raise concerns over the vulnerability of ‘chick‐guard’ stages for this population.
The ability for the penguins to travel between nesting sites and prey
Ms Preston raised concerns about the behaviour of Little Penguins in relation to the plume for both the St Kilda and Phillip Island populations and stated “The response of Little Penguins to the turbidity plume is largely unknown. If the turbidity plume acts as a barrier that penguins cannot pass through, their whole foraging area will be reduced”.
The SEES stated that as Little Penguins spend a significant proportion of their lives at sea in often in hostile weather conditions, they are clearly capable of withstanding harsh environmental conditions. Phillip Island birds regularly traverse the surf zone in the Entrance to PPB where rolling waves churn heavy loads of sediment into the water column and appear to have no impact on their choice to enter or exit PPB. St Kilda penguins have been observed feeding in the Yarra Plume, which from time to time reduces underwater visibility to less than 3m and have to cross temporary linear plumes created by vessels travelling into the Port of Melbourne to travel between feeding areas and the colony at the St Kilda breakwater.
The Inquiry acknowledges that Little Penguins are complex vertebrates with a sophisticated foraging strategy and like other seabirds, they are likely to respond to environmental changes on different spatial scales, suggesting that if penguins have learned where to find prey, they would not be hindered by travelling through a plume. The SEES highlighted that Little Penguins are air‐breathing and spend a significant amount of time at the surface. Rising to the surface will indicate to them that the plume is limited to the water and unlike other organisms that would need to swim through it, penguins can swim over it. The SEES stated that Little Penguins have been observed swimming over the top of very dense dredge plumes in the northern Bay during the TDP.
(iii) Effects of toxins on penguins
Numerous submittors raised concerns about the impact that toxicants might have on Little Penguins. Ms Preston raised concerns about the potential for bioaccumulation of toxicants, the potential thinning effects on eggs shells, and queried the risk assessment conclusions. Elutriate testing and eco‐toxicology studies reported in the
Page 156
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
SEES concluded that contaminated sediment mobilisation presents a low risk to penguins.
Submittors raised concerns about the potential biochemical effect of toxic blooms on Little Penguins and significantly, the increased likelihood that these blooms would occur. Mr Mustoe highlights that his evidence depends almost entirely on Mr Longmore’s assessment of the extent to which algal bloom occurrence is likely or not to be within natural variation and to what extent the CDP adds significantly to this natural condition. Algal blooms occur when excess nutrients are available and water temperatures are warm enough to sustain growth. Mr Longmore concluded that the effect of dredging on nutrient cycling is expected to be small and although an algal bloom is possible in the north of the Bay, the small change to nutrient cycling conditions is not expected to create a significant alteration in the existing frequency of algal blooms.
(iv) Implications for analysis of population viability of colonies
As part of the SEES, a population viability analysis (PVA) was prepared by Dr Dann of the Phillip Island Nature Park, to predict the likely capacity of Little Penguins to cope with impacts of the CDP. A PVA allows a systematic analysis of a species’ life history and ecology, to identify conditions that a species or population requires to remain viable in the long term. With current conditions, the PVA predicted that the populations at St Kilda and Phillip Island are relatively robust in the long‐term, even if a single event resulted in a 10% mortality rate.
In their submission, Earthcare St Kilda raised concerns about the PVA assumptions for the St Kilda colony and that the PVA:
… was run over a period of 100 years, which is not appropriate when analysing the impacts of this project. During the course of 100 years, it would be possible for the entire population of penguins at St Kilda to be killed and the colony to re‐establish from Phillip Island penguins. Would this be considered acceptable? More realistic time frames (eg 1, 2, 5 and 10 years) and levels of impact (eg 20 ‐ 100% breeding failure, mortality levels of 5, 10, 20 and 50%) would be appropriate.’
Mr Mustoe advised that the PVA should not be interpreted as indicating the likely consequence of more than a single event and certainly not any long‐term change. He concluded that although the schedule has been drawn out into a second year, this does not alter the validity of the PVA. The PVA was undertaken simply to help understand how well penguin populations may respond if the residual consequence was worse than predicted (within the realms of possibility) and is a useful
Page 157
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
contribution to the overall assessment but should not be considered in isolation from the rest of the assessment.
13.3 Inquiry Conclusions and Recommendations The Inquiry concludes that penguin ecology, behaviour and observations of Little Penguins swimming through both Yarra and dredge plumes during the TDP, suggests that the dredge plume should not be a barrier to these penguins.
The Inquiry notes concerns about the risk of bioaccumulation and effects of toxic blooms on penguins but concludes that the risk is low.
The Inquiry notes that the St Kilda colony originated from birds off Phillip Island, establishing a population in the breakwater at the end of the St Kilda pier. Since then, the population has increased in size and has been resilient to the 1995 pilchard crash and the rebuilding of the breakwater. They are generally heavier than birds on Phillip Island, most likely as a result of more reliable and closer food sources, and are likely to be more successful breeders.
The Inquiry concludes that both colonies would be resilient in the long term to CDP activities, noting the potential implications for ecotourism ventures and community reaction should small reductions in the populations occur. The Inquiry notes that while the St Kilda population had increased over time, its size would be constrained by food and nesting site availability in the St Kilda area. Such considerations should be accounted for when interpreting future monitoring data.
Recommendation:
Strengthen relevant clauses to ensure that the health status of the Little Penguin colony at St Kilda is monitored during and post dredging.
Page 158
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
14. FISH AND FISHERIES
14.1 Description and Key Issues PPB is an important habitat for fish targeted by both recreational and commercial fishers. Several regions of the Bay are important for fish as feeding, spawning and nursery grounds. Important habitats include the water column where fish eggs and larvae of many species are distributed, medium depth sand/mud for young juvenile snapper, and shallow habitats such as seagrass beds and inshore reefs that are critical for King George whiting, calamari, rock flathead and older juvenile snapper. Other types of habitat important to fish of commercial and recreational significance in the Bay include soft sediment, benthic macroalgae, estuaries, mangroves and saltmarshes. Most species spawn in the spring/summer, but some species such as flounder, sand flathead and calamari are winter or early autumn spawners.
PPB supports important commercial fisheries including wild‐harvest abalone, which is the most valuable at $4.5 M in 2004/05, and wild‐harvest fin‐fisheries catching over 60 species. The PPB wild‐harvest fin‐fish fishery represents more than one‐quarter of the total value of all Victorian fin‐fisheries and produced 475 tones of fish valued at $2.8M during 2004/05. In 2004/05, PPB produced 31% by weight and 44% by value of Victoria’s Bay and inlet fish production. The most valuable commercial species in recent years include abalone, King George whiting, snapper, southern calamari, gummy shark, Australian anchovy and pilchard. PPB supports aquaculture, an industry based on mussel farming and land‐based culture of abalone.
Recreational fishing is an important leisure activity in the vicinity of the Bay, contributing $260m directly and indirectly in 2004/05. Although more than 62 species are taken by anglers from the Bay, the main species targeted (by numbers) are sand flathead, King George whiting, snapper, southern sea garfish, southern calamari and yellow‐eye mullet. Black bream were also identified during the Inquiry as an important fish species due to its importance to fishing at ‘the warmies’ and risks from dredging in the Yarra River.
Many submittors raised concerns about the potential for cascading effects on the population, such as anchovy, to other reliant species in the food chain.
Anchovies (Engraulis australis) are a pelagic schooling species that are widely distributed in Australia and occur in PPB. Ecologically, anchovy are very important, providing linkages in food webs between zooplankton and predators such as squid, fin‐fish, sharks, marine mammals and seabirds, particularly the little penguin. Given
Page 159
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
their importance, anchovies have been considered as a separate chapter. The major decline in the pilchard population in Port Phillip Bay in the mid 1990s has probably increased the ecological importance of anchovy in the Bay’s food chain. In Victoria, they are of importance to commercial operations and Port Phillip Bay supports the most important contribution to the fishery.
Adult anchovies migrate from coastal waters into PPB during spring to spawn in the northern half of the Bay with higher concentrations of spawning occurring in the northern and eastern parts. Spawning requires freshwater input and occurs between October to March, usually peaking in January. Spawning occurs in ‘batches’ that typically are separated by a number of weeks. Juveniles and larvae inhabit PPB for up to two years and upon reaching maturity, adults return to coastal waters during winter.
The pelagic fishes for certain part of their life stages rely directly on the pelagic habitat for food. The water column supports plankton (microscopic plants and animals) that form the base of pelagic food webs in estuaries, bays and coastal waters. Zooplankton and phytoplankton are an important food source for larval, juvenile and adult stages of many of the fin‐fish species that use Port Phillip Bay.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) potential effects on fish stocks: • removal of habitat; • harm to eggs and larvae from turbidity; • constraints on migration; • turbidity damage to habitat and other food sources; • underwater noise; and (ii) implications for fishers.
14.2 Inquiry Response The Inquiry acknowledged the Australian Conservation Foundation’s point that all fish are ecologically important because they form part of the food chain. The Inquiry therefore considered the impact on fish using the species analysed in the SEES as indicators of potential impacts to the fish population of the Bay.
Page 160
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
(i) Potential effects on fish stocks
Removal of habitat
The SEES explains that dredging the shipping channels will remove seabed habitat that is a source of molluscs, polychaetes and crustaceans that are key foods for benthic fish species. The most significant effects of habitat loss from dredging the existing channels will occur in the Yarra where periodic disturbances of this area occurs during maintenance dredging and associated activities that remove parts of the habitat. However, unlike maintenance dredging that normally removes part of the silt layer, the CDP will change the benthic layer type by removing all of the silt and exposing the stiff clay bed at the bottom of the river.
Recovery of the benthic community will therefore depend firstly on the new deposition of silt from the Yarra catchment within the dredged areas. Recovery would be expected within between one to two years of completion of the project.
The most vulnerable fish to this habitat loss are those that are significantly reliant for feeding and spawning in areas that will be dredged. Black bream are such a species, reliant on estuarine environments such as the Yarra and Maribyrnong River for feeding and spawning.
The SEES concludes that while benthic vegetation provides a habitat for juvenile bream, there is no known substantial aquatic vegetation along the shipping channel and it is unlikely that there would be a direct effect on the settlement of bream larvae.
The SEES also explains that species like Black bream are known to move between estuaries and will migrate away from the lower Yarra River when conditions become unsuitable, returning to the area once favourable benthic conditions are re‐ established. Dr Jenkins highlighted that bream and other species are highly mobile and can disperse and re‐colonise after the benthic community recovers. Accordingly, overall population viability is not expected to be affected.
The SEES predicts a moderate effect based on the recovery time for silt habitat and subsequently, the food supply for estuary related species such as the Black bream populations in the lower Yarra River.
The SEES explains how shallow reef will be removed from the top of the western section of Nepean Bank and the hard rock leading into the Great Ship Channel, reducing the overall irregularity of the rock habitat surface. Species likely to be
Page 161
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
affected include snapper and blue‐throat wrasse and other fish of concern to the recreational fishers who consider the pinnacles on these surfaces as important habitat for recreational fish species such as Australian salmon and yellowtail kingfish. As there are pinnacles out of the channel which will not be impacted, and these species are highly mobile and not reliant on the habitat in the Channel, this was assessed as a minor consequence.
The SEES also states that rockfall is predicted to affect fish indirectly through changes to the structure of the canyon substratum. This impact is considered in Chapter 17.
The Inquiry notes the impact on estuary reliant populations in the lower Yarra River and the limited implications of habitat removal in the channels for mobile fish populations.
Harm to eggs and larvae from turbidity
The SEES highlighted that suspended sediments can cause physiological disturbance through clogging of filter‐feeding, respiration, reproductive and other morphological structures. It also stated that suspended sediments reducing underwater visibility may also affect spawning behaviour, such as their ability to school and locate spawning grounds.
The Inquiry noted that the North of Bay, where anchovies spawn, is subject to natural periods of high turbidity due to factors such as floods and storms, upon which many marine fauna rely to trigger breeding. However, it also noted that the CDP would result in higher concentrations of suspended sediments and that such concentrations could be lethal. The specific lethal concentrations varying between species and depend on the size and shape of the particles and size of the fish, as well as intensity and duration of exposure.
The SEES concluded that fish eggs and larvae are more vulnerable to suspended sediments than older life stages. The SEES concluded 100mg/L to be the threshold level for causing mortality of fish in the CDP based on studies of similar fish elsewhere.
The SEES highlighted the most sensitive period for anchovies would be over summer when they concentrate in the north of the Bay for spawning and during larval development. Spawning is known to extend from Hobson’s Bay to Corio Bay, with a general trend for increasing densities of eggs towards the north of the Bay.
Page 162
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Dredging will result in increased turbidity levels. Plume modelling predicts that in the Yarra River, elevated suspended sediments that will peak at levels of over 200mg/L near the mouth of the Maribyrnong River are expected to dissipate quickly on reaching Hobson’s Bay. Dredging of the Port Melbourne Channel and placement of material at the northern DMG is predicted to create a localised yet intense plume, covering a very small area.
The SEES concluded that because anchovies spawn between November and February over a large area of the Bay from Hobson’s Bay to Corio Bay, any plume from dredging in Hobson’s Bay and the North Area 2 would only affect part of the available spawning area.
The schedule presented to the Inquiry includes dredging that will overlap part of the anchovy spawning period in Hobson’s Bay and the North of the Bay, Area 2. The SEES highlighted that the plume would be localised to the areas around the channels and therefore only a minor proportion of the Bay’s total anchovy spawning would be affected. While the SEES acknowledged that spawning success for this proportion of the population would be affected, it stated that there would be no cumulative impacts from other project areas, behaviour or movement patterns, and the population would be expected to recover to within natural variability within one year of completion of the project.
The conclusion is reached on the basis that the EMP includes an ‘interval dredging’ approach involving a two weeks on/two weeks off schedule for dredging in Williamstown Channel between 1 December and 28 February, recognising that anchovies are batch spawners. The impact on parts of the population near Hobson’s Bay will be restricted to less than 50% of the key anchovy spawning period there.
The SEES highlights the importance of control measures by implementing a monitoring and feedback system in the EMP to inform dredging operations, ensuring that measured levels of suspended sediment remain below that specified in performance standards during this period.
The Inquiry notes the impact on a proportion of the anchovy population and the EMP measures to reduce the impact further.
Constraints on migration
The SEES identified a number of species, whose migration is likely to be affected by turbidity as they rely on their vision for migration.
Page 163
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
In the Yarra River and Williamstown Channel, diadromous fishes may be affected as they migrate either upstream or down stream to spawn. A species assessed in the SEES that lives in freshwater and migrates to salt water to spawn is the shortfinned eel, which are found in the catchments surrounding PPB. PPB is an important component of the route of both migrating adults and juveniles, with most migrations likely to occur to and from the Yarra, Maribyrnong, Werribee and Patterson River catchments. The SEES highlights that dredging will occur during the migration cycle of eels, with reduced water clarity predicted to affect the upstream migration of eels. This could potentially prevent them from returning to the Yarra River and some population reduction in the Yarra may result
The SEES explained that the migration of both juveniles and adults mainly occurs at night and glass eels utilise flood tides to assist in upstream migration, suggesting that they are not reliant on sight for migration and therefore will not be affected by reduced visibility from increased turbidity created during the day. The dredging is expected to cause a short‐term disruption and recovery of population is expected within one to two years of completion of the project. The SEES therefore considered the impact on eels as a “Minor” consequence.
The Inquiry notes that the SEES highlighted the general decline over the last few years in eel production from the fishery, predominantly due to prolonged drought conditions and the effects arising from plume turbidity.
The Inquiry also notes other fish migrations in the Yarra River such as the protected diadromous Australian Grayling and mudfish. As these species are of particular concern given their legislative protection, they have been considered separately in Chapters 15 and 23.
The rest of the Bay supports a wide range of fish species. Different fish migrate and spawn at different times and dredging in the South Channel and placement of material at the SE DMG in particular will effect sensitive periods of fish migration routes.
The SEES highlights that there is very high uncertainty about fish migration from the Entrance into the south of the Bay and there is a general lack of knowledge regarding the potential effects of dredging plumes on fish migration behaviour.
It concludes that the plume created from spring dredging in South Channel East will overlap with the annual migration of snapper and pilchards. Snapper, in particular, are likely to be migrating towards the spawning area off Frankston and Carrum at that time of year to spawn will be affected by the plume during spring. The SEES
Page 164
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
explains that the plume associated with the SE DMG is relatively restricted in area, and snapper is fairly widespread throughout the Bay. It took a precautionary approach to this risk event due to the uncertainties around how fish species will change their migration patterns as a result of the plume.
Submittors questioned the quantification of the impact given the uncertainty. Blue Wedges asserted “it merely remains to properly quantify the extent of damage from the project and its ongoing legacy to the recreational and commercial snapper fishery in Port Phillip Bay”.
The Inquiry heard that the snapper fishery had been improving since commercial scallop fishing was stopped in the Bay in 1996. Submittors questioned the CDP’s effect based on a ‘failed spawn’ event in 2005/06 after the TDP. In their closing submission, the PoMC stated that “poor recruitment years are not unusual and have occurred without the presence of trial dredging”. In addition, many fish of spawning size were recorded in fishery catches of that year, suggesting that the plume had not prevented their entry into the Bay. While VRFish proposed that the TDP was the cause of the failed spawning event, their submission also included advice from Dr Craig Sanderson, who concluded that there is little evidence to support such claims and that “the turndown in snapper in the Bay in 2006 is within natural variability and stocks are still likely to be healthier than at times prior to 1996”.
Turbidity damage to habitat and other food sources
Marine plants such as algae and seagrass are important habitats, providing a source of food for many fish species, including those harvested by recreational and commercial fishers. The impact of turbidity on these habitats will have some flow‐ on effects on these fish.
For example, syngnathids are strongly dependent on habitat such as Amphibolis, and a loss of the seagrass beds is predicted to have a moderate effect on the syngnathid species. Degradation of seagrass in the south of the Bay is also predicted to result in a loss of nursery habitat for fish such as the King George whiting. While most seagrass habitat will be unaffected by the CDP, some seagrass losses may reduce fish populations in the Bay through a reduction in juvenile habitat.
Dr Jenkins’ assessment on fish relied on Mr Chidgey’s evidence regarding the risk to seagrass. The SEES predicted recovery rates of fish to be 1‐2 years after project completion, based on reestablishment of seagrass in the same timeframe. Dr Jenkins went on to say that fish recovery rates would depend on the ability of juvenile fish to
Page 165
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
utilise seagrass habitats in other areas, and highlighted uncertainty about the importance of deeper (>3m depth) seagrass habitats compared to shallower ones.
Other relevant habitat for fish is the soft sediment/algal habitat used by snapper in deeper water within the north of the Bay, most likely for food and in the recreational fishing area inshore of the SE DMG. The SEES concludes that the effect on photosynthesis is considered to be minor based on the relatively localised spread of the plume from the Port Melbourne Channel, the PoMC DMG and the SE DMG. Recovery of snapper is expected within a year of project completion because macroalgae is expected to return to these areas within this time period.
The SEES explained that pelagic food chains are driven by productivity of the phytoplankton. Phytoplankton is preyed upon by zooplankton, upon which fish like anchovies feed. Accordingly, any significant impact on phytoplankton may have an effect on anchovy population.
Phytoplankton in the north of the Bay is diverse and exhibits considerable variability in composition and abundance both spatially and temporally. The SEES stated that a small portion (less than 2%) of phytoplankton in the north of the Bay will encounter elevated turbidity levels and may be adversely affected by dredging, but a rapid turnover of phytoplankton populations also facilitates quick recovery.
Underwater noise
Underwater noise is a concern in relation to the operating dredge vessels, pile driving associated with berthworks in the Yarra River, and use of the Hydrohammer at the Entrance.
In the Yarra River, underwater noise from the operating dredges as well as pile driving will affect migratory species and mobile species resident in the area. Migratory species include protected freshwater fish and species such as eels. The existing background noise levels in the area are high due to shipping traffic and industrial activities and the operating vessel will generate additional noise. This increased noise is a concern in the Yarra River due to the relatively narrow route traversed by migrating fish. The SEES concluded that there would be some effect on behaviour of migrating adult eels as dredging was scheduled with the TSHD during their migration in summer, the effects being regarded as a minor consequence.
Mobile species resident in the Yarra River such as Black bream were also considered to be affected by underwater noise. As such fish were mobile; they would probably
Page 166
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
avoid the area while dredging was occurring so the effects were considered to be a minor consequence.
The SEES explained that use of the TSHD at the Entrance could interfere with migration routes for migratory fish species.
Current levels of underwater noise in the Bay vary considerably, many of the sources such as ships and other vessels are not stationary and their numbers fluctuate from day to day. In contrast, the dredge will remain at the Entrance for longer periods than a transiting ship. Some fish close to the source would be expected to suffer physiological damage and mobile fish will typically be able to avoid this noise. The SEES acknowledged that the part of the Entrance used for migration of fish under normal conditions is unknown and the possibility that noise may deter the entry of some migratory species such as salmon and snapper to the Bay. If dredging occurs over a migration route, one year of juvenile recruitment may be affected. The effect of underwater noise for fish in the Entrance was assessed as moderate for migrating fish with recovery in one to two years following completion of the CDP.
The IEG advised “the SEES conclusion that impacts on fish larvae entering the Bay will be confined largely to effects caused by underwater noise is supported. The overall impact will depend on the extent of the use of the hydrohammer during the project”. Dr Jenkins stressed that his “assessment of risk would change if dredging took place throughout a second spring” at the Entrance.
The SEES explains that a hydrohammer may be used as a contingency measure at the Entrance if the TSHD encounters rock too hard for the ripper draghead to remove. It is unlikely that the hydrohammer will be used for more than 5% of the time.
The SEES explained that thresholds for behavioural change, physiological damage and death are unknown for most fish species. Given this uncertainty and that related to migration pathways, the consequences of underwater noise from the Hydrohammer use in the Entrance was assessed as moderate for migrating fish. The SEES also highlighted that site‐attached fish such as crayfish, which were more vulnerable to noise impacts, would recover in 1‐2 years following completion of the Project.
The Inquiry notes the uncertainty related to migratory pathways through the Entrance, the impact of noise and turbidity on migratory and mobile species resident in the area, the uncertainty related to underwater noise and the potential impacts of
Page 167
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
use of the hydrohammer on migratory species. It also notes that individuals of site attached species, in particular those in close proximity to the noise source, would be more severely affected.
(ii) Implications for fishers
In their closing submission, PoMC advised that recreational and commercial fisheries will suffer an unavoidable short‐term impact. It said:
As is made clear by the evidence of Dr Jenkins, effects on fish stocks in the Bay are likely to be short term and within natural variation. It is conceded that any dredging is likely to have an effect on commercial fishing activities. However, short of limiting the dredging to short periods spread over a number of years, it is not possible to avoid all impacts”.
Some population reduction affect migratory species such as eels in the Yarra River as reduced water clarity is predicted to affect their upstream migration. The SEES concluded that this would have a minor effect on the PPB catchment and negligible effect on the broader Victorian eel commercial fishery.
In the Yarra River, short‐term displacement of popular recreational species such as tailor, Black bream and flathead at the Warmies is likely to occur during dredging. As anglers are relatively mobile, they may be able to move to alternative fishing locations. Since catches in this area may be reduced, effects on recreational fishing in Project Area 1 were assessed as moderate.
Hobson’s Bay is an important commercial fishing area for a number of species such as pilchard, anchovy, black bream, sandy sprat, Australian salmon, southern sea garfish, yellow‐eye mullet and abalone. The SEES assessed the risk to commercial fishing as low. Commercial catches may be affected in the short term with recovery within 1‐2 years. The SEES highlighted the levels of uncertainty in how fish species may be affected, their recovery rates, the degree of annual variation in catch levels, and the lack of data specific to Hobson’s Bay.
In Project Areas 2 and 3, recreational fishing species such as King George whiting and Snapper, will be reduced, particularly in the popular fishing area near the SE DMG. In its closing submission, PoMC explained “The question of the location of the South east DMG in close proximity to a popular and productive snapper fishing area was also extensively canvassed in the EES. The North east option would also be near important snapper fishing grounds and also snapper spawning/juvenile recruitment areas, as well as requiring longer steaming and hence a longer project duration and impacts”. The SEES
Page 168
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
states that some species will be unaffected, so there will be opportunities for recreational anglers to catch other fish species. Impacts will be short‐term and localised and will not affect recreational fishing in the long‐term. The SEES also notes that commercial fishing will be affected as a result of ecological effects and reduced visibility. However, the SEES predicts that as fish numbers are expected to recover within two years of project completion, there will be no long‐term effects on commercial fishing.
Dredge plumes which reach aquaculture sites are expected to be within tolerance limits for species such as mussels and abalone. The SEES acknowledges that continuous dredging in the South Channel could result in reduced growth rates of mussels with recovery expected within one year of project completion. Toxic algal blooms may occur as a result of dredging in the Port Melbourne Channel, but the SEES states that human health risks should be prevented through the Victorian Seafood Quality Assurance Program.
The impact on habitat and migration will affect fishing in the Entrance. The SEES concludes that the effect on recreational fishers will be minor as alternative species or alternative locations can be utilised during recovery of the habitat and fish populations. Removal of pinnacles at the Entrance was also considered a minor effect on recreational fishers as not all pinnacles at the Entrance will be removed and mobile fish that are attracted to such underwater structures are able to move to other locations.
The Inquiry notes the impacts on recreational fishers from dredging activities across entire project areas. The Inquiry notes the impacts to commercial fishing operations and that the Port’s proposed communications strategy seeks to minimise the effects on commercial fishing by putting in place mechanisms which will assist commercial fishing operators in directing their fishing activities to areas less affected or unaffected by dredging activities.
14.3 Inquiry Conclusions and Recommendations The Inquiry adopts IEG’s advice that the dredging schedule should minimise impacts on fish of conservation significance. In doing so it recognises that there may be consequences for recruitment of other fish species, including commercial and recreational fish stocks.
A critical instance is the role of anchovy in food chains. The Inquiry supports the IEG conclusion that effects on anchovy had been “reviewed thoroughly, with risks expected to be managed through scheduling of the dredging program”. Consequently, the
Page 169
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Inquiry commends EMP measures to minimise dredging effects on anchovies by flexible scheduling and control of suspended sediments. It also encourages the Baywide monitoring program to monitor anchovy stock and recruitment and better understand anchovy school recovery rates.
Minimisation of turbidity remains a key element of the strategy to limit dredging impacts on fish populations. While turbidity management is recognised as an effective operational tool for PoMC, the Inquiry notes the need to establish monitoring and accountability mechanisms that extend beyond the Port.
Finally, the Inquiry recognises the potential short‐term impact of CDP on commercial fishing and expects PoMC to make every effort to provide fishers with adequate notice of work schedules and to assist in finding alternative fishing grounds within PPB.
Where impacts are demonstrated, the Inquiry also supports provision of offsets to improve fish stocks. Such offsets could include improvement of key habitat sites or reduction of threats within the range of affected species. However, it will be vital to show that impacts are attributable to CDP rather than being due to natural forces.
The EMP currently does not provide details of the PoMC response to potential ongoing implications for impacts of the CDP on fish populations. The Government should establish a mechanism which ensures the PoMC’s accountability for impacts that are causally related.
Recommendations:
Provide offsets to improve fish stocks, including improvement of key habitat sites or reduction of threats within the affected species range.
Monitor fish subsequent to the CDP, while existing fishing advisories and limitations are in place, using these data to review advisories.
Ensure PoMC is accountable for CDP impacts on fish populations.
Page 170
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
15. LISTED AQUATIC SPECIES
15.1 Description and Key Issues A number of marine species, permanently resident or transient in Port Phillip Bay, are protected within Victorian waters under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and/or State legislation including the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1998 and the Fisheries Act 1995. Offences relating to impacts on listed species under each of the Acts are highlighted in the SEES. Those species relevant to the EPBC Act are discussed in this section, but are also considered separately in Chapter 23. The listed species include:
• 24 species of syngnathids which in PPB, are protected under the Victorian Fisheries Act only, a family of fish (including pipefishes and seahorses) that inhabit a wide range of inshore habitats (depending on the species) including seagrass, algae, reef and sand over a wide range of depths; • four species of marine invertebrates: ‐ a chiton Bassethulia glypta listed under the Victorian FFG Act, a very rare marine mollusc found in shallow reef and sand habitats with moderate wave movement within the inter‐tidal zone up to ten metres. It is known to occur near Sorrento, Portsea, Queenscliff and also the Point Lonsdale section of PPHMNP; ‐ Southern Hooded Shrimp Athanopsis australis, listed under the Victorian FFG Act, a rare species found in sand, mud and reef habitats from depths of 5‐12 m. It is known from Beaumaris, near Wilson Point in the Geelong arm of PPB and Portarlington. Only four specimens of the species have ever been collected in Victoria; ‐ Ghost Shrimp Eucallia Tooradin listed under the Victorian FFG Act. ‐ a rare, burrowing crustacean found in fine silt habitats. Only four species have ever been collected in Victoria and it is known to exist in Swan Bay; and ‐ sea cucumber Thyone nigra listed under the Victorian FFG Act, a rare suspension feeding species which inhabits inshore, shallow, benthic habitats. It is known from Corio Bay and is considered to be dependent on seagrass. The last specimen was collected in Victoria around 1960. • four species of marine mammals: ‐ Blue whale, Southern right whale and Humpback whale (EPBC Act and Victorian FFG Act), known to occur in Victorian coastal waters. While they are considered to occur in the vicinity or potentially occur in the Bay, they are not dependent upon it; and ‐ Australian sea lion (EPBC Act), known occur regularly in Victorian coastal
Page 171
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
waters near and in Port Phillip Bay. • two species of sharks: ‐ Great white shark (EPBC Act and Victorian Fisheries Act), a globally declining species, widely distributed throughout Australian coastal waters. Occurs mainly on the continental shelf, around islands and rocky reefs in the vicinity of seal colonies. This species is not dependent upon and is rarely sighted in the Bay; and ‐ Grey nurse shark (Fisheries Act), a declining species, principally found on and near reefs in coastal waters off southern QLD and NSW. Sightings outside these regions are rare and therefore this species is considered not to depend upon the Bay. • one species of reptile, the Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea (EPBC Act and Victorian FFG Act), a globally declining species which is the most migratory and wide ranging of sea turtles. It is found in pelagic and coastal waters from tropical to temperate waters and occasionally recorded in Victorian waters; • six protected freshwater fish species identified in the Port Phillip Bay Catchment; and • one species of seagrass (Lepilaena marina) present in the shallow waters of Swan Bay.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) direct effects of the dredge; (ii) turbidity effects on migration; (iii) underwater noise; (iv) implications for larval distribution patterns from changes to currents; and (v) habitat of protected species. 2‐39( 15.2 Inquiry Response The SEES concluded that a number of protected species would not be affected by the CDP either because their life cycles did not overlap with the project activities, because PPB was not a critical habitat for the species, or because the project activities would not affect the requirements for the species in PPB. These included the Great White Shark, Grey Nurse Shark, Leatherback turtle, the Australian sea lion, Yarra pygmy perch, Dwarf galaxias, Macquarie perch and the Murray cod.
Page 172
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
(i) Direct effects of the dredge
The SEES highlights that listed species could be directly affected by becoming entrained in the dredge as the channels containing their habitat are dredged. As the CDP is principally dredging existing channels, the potential for affecting protected species depends on recovery of their habitat in those locations and their ability to escape the dredge path. This is most relevant for less mobile species such as syngnathids which are relatively site specific and inhabit seagrass or algae such as at the Entrance, which is in the path of the suction field of the hydraulic dredge. Larvae and juveniles of listed species may also be entrained into the hopper dredge.
(ii) Turbidity effects on migration
Suspended sediments could affect migratory behaviour or cause physiological disturbance through clogging of filter‐feeding, respiration, reproductive and other morphological structures. Overall, egg and particularly larval stages appear to be most vulnerable to the direct physiological effects of suspended sediments. This would be an important issue for syngnathids, protected marine invertebrates and protected freshwater fish of Port Phillip Bay.
The Australian Grayling and the Australian mudfish in the Yarra River may be particularly susceptible to turbidity effects during their migration routes. They migrate between freshwater and the marine waters and are most likely to be affected in the Yarra River.
While limited information is available for these species in the Yarra River, similar migratory juveniles of the New Zealand galaxiid species, Galaxias fasciatus, showed active behavioural avoidance of suspended sediment with a turbidity of 25 NTU relative to clear water. Similar estimates have not been made, however, for areas with high background turbidity such as for PPB.
While the Yarra River, Hobson’s Bay and North of the Bay is subject to natural periods of high turbidity due to factors such as floods and storms, upon which many marine fauna rely on to trigger breeding, high concentrations of suspended sediment can be lethal.
Specific lethal concentrations vary between species and depend on the size and shape of the particles, size of the fish as well as intensity and duration of exposure. Fish eggs and larvae are more vulnerable to suspended sediments than older life stages. The SEES explained uncertainty relating to the sensitivity of larvae of these species. Based on similar fish elsewhere, the SEES considered 100mg/L to be the
Page 173
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
threshold level for effects on fish in the CDP (considering only mortality and not sub‐lethal effects on factors such as growth).
The most sensitive period in terms of protected freshwater fish in the Yarra River would be from autumn to spring, with the passive drift of Grayling (‘vulnerable’ under the EPBC Act and listed under the FFG Act) larvae to marine waters in autumn and Mudfish (listed under the FFG Act) in winter, and the return active migration of juveniles of both species in spring, moving passively downstream.
Dredging of the Yarra River and potentially the Williamstown Channel during this time will result in increased turbidity levels and affect these listed species. The SEES states that any affect on juvenile migration of these species has the potential to have a major impact on the population, because abundances of these species are low and a year of poor juvenile recruitment could affect population viability.
Clogging of biological membranes could be a particular problem for the ghost shrimp that have to irrigate burrows with water from the sediment surface. The literature shows considerable variation among species with respect to the sensitivity of larvae to suspended sediments, a source of uncertainty in the CDP as sensitivity tests have not been conducted on local species.
The SEES concluded that while individuals would be affected by turbidity, recovery of populations would be expected for all protected species within 1‐2 years of completion of the project.
(iii) Underwater noise
The SEES stated that noise thresholds for behavioural change, physiological damage and death are unknown for most fish species. Current levels of underwater noise in the Bay vary considerably and many of the sources of noise such as ships and other vessels are not stationary and numbers fluctuate. The northern area of PPB has high existing background levels of noise, with Hobson’s Bay/Yarra River reported as particularly noisy, most likely due to industrial activity alone the shoreline.
The TSHD will produce continuous noise above 145dB within 200‐400m of the dredge. This distance is particularly relevant as it would include the full width of the Yarra River and could affect site attached or less mobile species and migrating species travelling through the channel area. Over a long period, fish in the vicinity could experience a temporary or possibly a permanent shift in hearing threshold. Low mobility fish such as syngnathids species occupying the Yarra River will also be affected as a result of the noise generated from the TSHD. This noise is also relevant
Page 174
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
to the use of the TSHD in the rest of the Bay as it may deter protected cetaceans from entering the Bay.
The SEES explains that noise as a result of pile driving associated with berthworks could affect fish behaviour up to 400m from the source. This type of work, however, will be very infrequent, with a total of only 27 hours of pile driving work expected. While expressed as a contingency in the SEES, the hydrohammer could be used at the Entrance, creating noise as high as 200dB. This type of noise could result in physiological damage within tens of metres or permanent physiological damage in noise sensitive fish species.
Although there is high uncertainty about how this noise will affect fish migration and behaviour, both impulsive noise sources were assessed as having a “Moderate” consequence. The SEES stated that while the use of this equipment may affect individuals close to the source, the effects on the wider populations cannot be quantified due to uncertainties in responses of individual species to the noise. The SEES concluded that recovery of populations would take one to two years following completion of the CDP.
This impulsive noise is also relevant for individual protected cetaceans which may be in the vicinity. The EMP has proposed a control mechanism to reduce the likelihood that such noise will occur when cetaceans are in the area.
(iv) Implications for larval distribution patterns from changes to currents
The SEES highlighted that changes to the current regimes would be significant for protected species if they were great enough to alter the larval distribution pathways in important areas of Port Phillip Bay, such as larval transport through the Entrance and Great Sands regions. All the listed invertebrates have relatively weak swimming, planktonic larvae that tend to be transported passively by currents. Therefore, change to current patterns through channel deepening may potentially transport larvae away from suitable habitats.
The SEES also stated that Syngnathids produce young at a relatively advanced state of development that for many species would result in relatively limited dispersal by currents. Thus, these species would be affected less than many other fish species.
Based on modelling results, the SEES Hydrodynamics and Coastal Processes impact assessment concluded that while changes may occur to currents in these regions, they would be unlikely to alter larval distribution patterns. The Inquiry notes that distribution patterns for larvae would be unlikely to affect protected species.
Page 175
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
(v) Habitat of protected species
The SEES explained that the habitat of some protected species would be affected by the CDP. Seagrass cover is likely to be minimal in deepened channels, but the structure of reef habitat in the Entrance could be affected. This may affect the habitat of the Australian Grayling, Mudfish and syngnathids. Protected species habitats may be affected as a result of impacts to seagrass and changes to habitat complexity at the Entrance. This risk is particularly relevant to syngnathids, which are widespread in seagrass beds throughout the Bay.
Syngnathids are generally associated with structured habitat such as seagrass or rock reef and the south of the Bay is an important area as a seagrass nursery habitat. Weedy seadragons are particularly associated with Amphibolis seagrass beds in the Entrance area. The SEES concluded that seagrass loss will occur in the south of the Bay with a ‘moderate’ predicted effect. While the seagrass beds at the Entrance are considered to be less at risk, there may be implications for syngnathid individuals.
15.3 Inquiry Conclusions and Recommendations The Inquiry notes that the CDP could affect certain components of the life cycle of protected species and the dredge itself has some potential for direct effects on protected species. The dredge schedule changed since exhibition, to deepen channels in the Yarra River in spring during the sensitive period for the Yarra River protected species juveniles migrating upstream. The Inquiry further notes that this dredge schedule is unlikely to have a greater impact than that predicted in the SEES and observes that this matter did not unduly concern submittors.
The Inquiry notes that migration routes may be affected by noise generated by the TSHD – particularly in the Yarra River as dredging is scheduled during sensitive periods for listed species such as Grayling and Mudfish. Individual adult or larvae of protected species, and site attached or low mobile protected species such as syngnathids may be affected by impulsive noise generated by pile driving or use of the hydrohammer.
Provide for proportionate offset impacts on protected species (such as Australian Grayling) including improvements to their habitats in other parts of their range (eg. Maribyrnong River) (This has also been included as a recommendation in Chapter 7).
Page 176
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
16. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
16.1 Description and Key Issues Most of the coastal ecosystems of Port Phillip Bay have been progressively altered from their original state since European settlement in the 1800s. The extent of modification is related to the suitability of the Bay’s hinterland for agricultural, urban or industrial development and the resulting proximity of human population centres.
The western and eastern coasts of Port Phillip Bay also differ significantly in their natural vegetation types due to differences in soils and climate on opposing sides of the Bay. The eastern side is dominated by dry coastal scrubs, grasslands and woodlands, with well drained sandy soils and moderate rainfall. The western coast is typically a mosaic of narrow, muddy and shelly beaches with creeks and estuaries forming broad flats that support saltmarsh, shrubland and grassland vegetation. Lower rainfall, less well drained soil conditions, flat topography and differences in sediment types along the western coastline, all contribute significantly to the development of the distinct west coast vegetation communities.
Notwithstanding this long history of modification, there are areas of high ecological value around the Bay. The western shoreline and Bellarine Peninsula are recognised as containing wetlands of international significance, particularly for waterbirds. Some coastal ecosystems include various plant species and vegetation communities of conservation significance and support a range of protected bird species and non‐avian fauna.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) hydrodynamic effects on terrestrial habitat; and (ii) effects on prey and ability to find prey
16.2 Inquiry Response Terrestrial ecology may change as a result of the CDP. The specific implications for EPBC Act listed birds and protected wetlands are considered separately in Chapter 23.
Page 177
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
(i) Hydrodynamic effects on terrestrial habitat
The SEES explained that the CDP could directly affect terrestrial habitat through changes to the hydrodynamic processes. The habitats most susceptible to CDP are those that occur on, and immediately above, marine and estuarine tidal flats, such as coastal saltmarsh communities. The most important locations are on the western shores of PPB, Swan Island/Swan Bay and Mud Islands. These habitats support most of the migratory bird species which utilise the Bay and its surrounds.
Hydrodynamic modelling did not identify effects on coastal terrestrial habitats as significant given the small changes to sea levels. The SEES predicted slight decreases in sea level at low tide and slight increases at high tide. Changes will vary depending on location around the Bay, the largest is expected to occur at Point Wilson, where the minimum low water level is predicted to reduce by 15mm and maximum high predicted to increase by 8mm. These changes would be imperceptible. The SEES anticipates a slight increase in the frequency of inundation across the upper reaches of the saltmarsh, concluding that the changes to tidal variation and currents will not cause net loss of saltmarsh communities and that a reduction in habitat for associated flora and fauna is unlikely.
The SEES stated that in some areas, the boundary of saltmarsh could extend inland by 8.75m. However, this up‐shore migration would be limited by infrastructure such as the Western Treatment Plant. (The change would also result in a larger increase in inter‐tidal feeding area for shorebirds.) The SEES concluded that terrestrial species that rely on this habitat will not be negatively impacted as a result.
(ii) Effects on prey and ability to find prey
The SEES explained that significant species of birds found in the Bay rely on the marine ecosystem for prey. Some species are listed under the EPBC Act as either threatened, marine and or migratory species, or listed under the FFG Act. Significant breeding colonies of seabirds are located in the vicinity of the Bay, the most important ones being located in the protected Ramsar wetlands which are considered in detail in Chapter 23.
These seabirds that rely on the marine ecosystem could be affected by the CDP indirectly if their prey is reduced or they are unable to locate and catch it. A year‐ long reduction in the population of prey species is predicted in the SEES.
In addition to this reduction, the SEES explained that increased turbidity in the Bay from dredging and the placement of material at the DMGs will result in decreased
Page 178
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
water clarity in the affected areas, and is predicted to have an effect on birds’ ability to find prey underwater. There is likely to be a temporary displacement of birds from their usual foraging areas during the construction phase of the project. The SEES concluded that there will be no long‐term population impacts on breeding seabirds as the dredge plume will not cover the entire distribution of their foraging range. This range differs for each species from 3‐20km for crested terns to tens of kilometres for gannets.
The most sensitive period for birds is during their breeding or fledgling stages where a reduction in food supply is expected to result in a decrease in breeding efficiency for up to 12 months following completion of the project, as the turbid plume is predicted only to affect a small area of the overall distribution of seabirds across the Bay. For some species such as the crested tern however, the SEES concludes that their breeding may be affected for consecutive seasons, thereby reducing the localised population of the species for up to two years following project completion.
The SEES concluded that recovery of some populations to levels prior to CDP dredging is expected to take up to two years with the effects being considered as minor. Birds Australia argued that not all the sensitive seasons for birds had been accounted for in the SEES, particularly in the south and in the corresponding EMP, which includes turbidity limits to minimise impacts on the Australian Gannet and Crested Turn.
In their final submission, the PoMC concluded that based on the scoured case at the Entrance, the risks to birds were still low, increasing in consequence from ‘no predicted impact to ‘negligible impact’.
16.3 Inquiry Conclusions The Inquiry concludes the small changes to tidal variation will not reduce terrestrial saltmarsh around the Bay. It notes short term effects on prey for bird species will be minimal due to their ability to forage widely. The EMP includes measures to minimise turbidity plume effects on gannets and crested terns.
Page 179
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
17. THE ENTRANCE
17.1 Description and Key Issues The Entrance to PPB is 3.2 kilometres wide, bounded by Point Nepean and Point Lonsdale peninsulas. The Entrance is generally 15m deep, with a canyon winding through it. This canyon is a the old river bed of the Yarra River, approximately 200 metres wide and 100 metres deep at its lowest point, extending another three to four kilometres into the Bay.
Fish, penguins and cetaceans use the Entrance to for access the more sheltered waters of Port Phillip Bay. International and domestic shipping access to the Port of Melbourne is also achieved through The Great Ship Channel, a deepened channel enabling ships to enter the Bay.
As a result of the greatly varying depths at the Entrance and the strong currents, the area is characterised by high exposure to swell, high levels of mixing turbulence and sometimes very rough wave conditions. The rocky bank near the Entrance is known as “the Rip”, a reference to difficult sea conditions that often prevail. As a result of these conditions, the deep reef invertebrate communities of the Entrance are very difficult to study because the strong tidal currents, ocean waves and seabed depths are beyond the normal range of depth for recreational divers and the area. In particular, access to the deeper sections of the canyon is difficult. Through the SEES, PoMC provided the first comprehensive survey of the organisms living in this environment.
The shallower rocky reefs present on either side of the canyon located at Point Lonsdale, Point Nepean, Nepean Bank and in Bass Strait are dominated by forests of brown algae typical of other regions of the southern Australian coast.
The canyon itself is an extensive, predominantly rock‐reef habitat. Much of the seabed beyond 20m in the canyon consists of highly sculptured calcarenite rocky reef with sandy and rubble patches on the flatter regions and in the deep basins. The topography of the reef includes vertical walls with caves and ledges, reef slopes, reef flats and steep‐sided cliffs.
The area is highly valued for its important dive sites and part of the Entrance off Point Lonsdale and Point Nepean are within the boundaries of the Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park.
Page 180
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The CDP proposes to deepen sections of the Entrance to facilitate deeper draught ships entering the Bay. During this process, rockfalls are likely in the canyon, directly affecting reef communities.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include:
(i) rock spill and rock fall during dredging and ongoing scour; (ii) consequence for Entrance ecology; (iii) consequence on Baywide ecological processes; and (iv) impacts on the Marine National Park.
17.2 Inquiry Response (i) Rock spill and rock fall during dredging and ongoing scour
The SEES explains that as rocks are loosened during dredging, some may remain in depressions on the Banks of the canyon and other may fall into the canyon by rolling down slopes and by being forced by currents and waves. The Inquiry also heard that some of the loose rocks could also spill out of the dredge area into other deeper sections of the canyon banks. During the hearing, new evidence was presented that suggested that the loose rocks remaining in depressions on the banks of the canyon are contributing to a scouring process which continues to erode the substrate.
Such rockfalls have occurred previously in the Entrance as a result of systematic, large scale blasting which started in 1901 and continued until 1931. Up to 5m of hard rock was removed in four campaigns, with additional blasting of high points of up to 1m on Nepean Bank and elsewhere until 1986. The volumes removed through pre‐1986 blasting were approximately 1,370,000m3, after which no attempt was made to clean the rocks up and the entire quantity of material either fell into the canyon, settled in depressions, or were carried to lower parts of the canyon banks.
During TDP, 27,000m3 of rock was dredged, almost 80% of which was cleaned up by the TSHD, leaving 3000 – 6000 m3 of rocks which fell into the canyon. The CDP proposed to dredge 528,000m3 of rock, but the procedure will result in greater quantities being cleaned up and only 4300 m3 of rockfall. This does not include ongoing break up and movement of rock that may occur following dredging works.
The SEES used a model to predict the fate of loose rock left behind by the TSHD in the canyon, and predicted that although 18ha of the canyon would be affected, most of the effect would be temporary. The Inquiry was advised only 2.4ha was to be
Page 181
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
permanently affected. Final resting places generally included basins, gullies and colks where some loose rock and sand is already present.
The SEES had highlighted that the original amount of predicted rockfall might vary from predictions and should be considered as a guide only. During the hearing, these figures were substantially altered as a result of further investigation and modelling which was being undertaken at the time in response to evidence of a continuing scouring process.
Considering these investigations, the Inquiry understood that clarity about the scour process and erosion that may occur after completion of the CDP is important for determining the bathymetric profile to be used for the hydrodynamic model and flow on effects from the project, and for providing an indicative quantum and rate of rockfall to assess the potential impact on the entrance biota.
The Inquiry received further information about the quantum and rate of rockfall. New figures anticipated 10,800m3 of rock fall, 2% of the total volume of rock removed, compared with 1% of the rockfall from blasting operations pre‐1986. Mr Raisbeck advised that the rate of discharge of mobile material into the canyon is still very interpretive, so a conservative approach has been taken.
Rockfall will occur until the rocks from the banks reach their resting place. However, the additional information presented to the Inquiry suggested that scour will continue over a greater timeframe. The accretion development from scour during the first ten years would eventually provide a small percentage of degraded rock as mobile material to the canyon. This is expected to follow a logarithmic decrement in the discharge of material into the canyon over a period of approximately 30 years and then reach a natural variation in line with the existing rates, so the largest proportion of rocks to fall into the canyon will occur in the first few years and decrease over time. The Inquiry also noted that following the significant rockfall in the years after dredging, the smaller volumes of rockfall are likely to be confined to scree slopes.
The IEG noted that a systematic method is included in the EMP to ensuring dredging and clean‐up operations are carried out over the same locations. Rockfall will be minimised through use of an improved draghead to reduce the amount of loose rock left behind. Additional clean up before any impending storm event was also proposed.
The IEG advised that the EMP needs to include a method to determine effectiveness of rock removal and clearer definition of the role of the stone fisher and other
Page 182
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
equipment. The Inquiry is concerned about the unpredicted extent and duration of rock spill following the TDP, and it emerged as a major issue after being raised by submittors during the hearings. This led PoMC to undertake further work of its own volition on the extent and possible future implications of rock fall and scour, and to respond to questioning by the Inquiry
Concerned about the implications of rock scour, the IEG concluded “It is critical to retrieve as much loose rock generated both in and outside the dredging area as possible, to reduce both the extent and the impact of any rock scour and erosion processes and rock fall and its associated ecological impacts”. The Inquiry concurs with the IEG that the EMP should measure the area of rock fall and the effectiveness of rock removal after dredging operations.
The IEG advised that clean‐up operations would benefit from measurement of the quantity of rock spill escaping during the dredging and clean‐up process and in identifying the movement of material away from the dredge areas. The IEG thought that multi‐beam echo surveys could provide a crude, but useful method for detecting this movement and to estimate large rock spill losses should they occur. Most importantly, the IEG explained that such information would assist in decision making on the most effective clean‐up operations. The IEG noted that the most effective method identified so far is the multi‐beam surveying, augmented wherever possible by diver or remotely controlled video footage of the seabed.
The Inquiry noted that while 5 metre ridges will be left along the north‐west side of Nepean Bank until dredging is completed to act as a barrier between loose rock and the marine national park, similar protections have not been proposed throughout the rest of the canyon. This ridge will be removed last in the dredging schedule. The Inquiry also noted the additional costs to the project should such a ridge be used for the remainder of the channel.
Late in the hearing, the Inquiry was presented with a scour assessment report predicting that while rock scour is likely to occur after completion of the Entrance dredging, it is unlikely to penetrate below ‐22m RL on Rip Bank or Nepean Bank. The majority of the scour and subsequent risk of rockfall is predicted to occur immediately following dredging, tapering off over time. A further series of reports tested assumptions about rock scour to assess potential increases of risk and consequence to physical and ecological processes and assets in the Bay. Peer review of the scour assessment report did not materially advance understanding of the uncertainty, although it agreed with the approach.
Page 183
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The IEG advised that the existence of scour could either be attributed to man‐made blasting events in the 1900s which weakened the bedrock, or scour as a result of remaining rock on the Banks. The original view of rock scour and scour hole development presented in the SEES assumed that weaker materials would break down and vanish, and holes deepen, a view not supported by observations following TDP. The IEG considered that scouring might relate more to the method of rock dredging and subsequent clean up, and concluded that the impact of scouring may be controlled by improved clean up and operational arrangements during and after dredging.
The Inquiry concurs that previous blasting operations may have weakened large areas of rock surface and led to the extent of scour noted. None of the rubble was removed during these blasting operations. The dredge methods proposed in the CDP are considerably more benign, and clearing of the rock surface, both during and after dredging, to remove rock spill should assist in reducing scour.
Over‐dredging allowances do not provide a basis for estimating scour potential because they represent a potential maximum depth under the worst‐case scenario. Judicious use of dredging equipment should reduce the over‐dredge allowance.
The IEG advised that based on these considerations; there is a distinct possibility that the extent of scour will be considerably less than the worst‐case scenario described in the reports. The final stable depth will occur within the currently proposed dredge tolerances and ten year period suggested by PoMC.
To achieve this, it will be necessary for dredging and cleaning methods to be well integrated and for the final phases of dredging to be carried out with extreme care.
(ii) Consequence for Entrance Ecology
The Inquiry notes limited assessments of the Entrance ecology were extant prior to the SEES and EES. PoMC, in preparing the SEES, has assembled the first comprehensive compendium of life at the Entrance.
Based on the SEES and during the hearing, the Inquiry heard a variety of views on the consequence of rockfalls for species in the Entrance. PoMC consultants, Dr Edmonds and Mr Chidgey provided two distinct views.
There was general agreement on the significance of shallow reef habitats. The seaweeds in the shallow rocky reefs of the Heads region are characterised by algae (kelps) such as Ecklonia radiata and Phyllospora comosa.
Page 184
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Dr Edmonds explained that the “Shallow reefs within the Port Phillip Bay Entrance can be found along Rip Bank, on The Plateau, within Lonsdale Bay, the ocean side of Point Lonsdale and on the ocean side of Point Nepean. The species richness and diversity in the Entrance is comparable to other shallow reefs within Victoria”. Dr Edmonds noted that recolonisation observed after the TDP was dependent on factors such as the presence of mobile rubble, the proximity of a reproductive population of similar species and the hydrodynamic influences of spore movements.
Mr Chidgey said that the kelps found at the Entrance “are common on reefs along the entire Victorian open coastline. The reefs in the Entrance Project Area are representative of reefs along the exposed ocean coastline of Victoria and any changes are considered to have negligible consequences to shallow rocky reef ecosystems within the Bay. They are prone to episodic natural disturbance by storms that reduce light and have a high natural turnover and are capable of rapid establishment and colonisation”.
These habitats are prone to episodic natural disturbance by storms that reduce light and often remove plants. The SEES explained, based on studies during and subsequent to the TDP, that bare rock was recolonised by early settlers within six months of dredging completion and that restoration of mature communities may take considerably longer, but it is likely that many of the short‐lived seasonal species will re‐establish within two years.
The IEG concluded that “shallow sections of the Entrance (<15m) are characterised by forests of brown algae that are typical of other regions on the southern Australian coast, and which the work since the TDP suggested would recovery quickly from any dredging effects”.
The differences of views on the significance of species at the Entrance focused on the deeper sections of the canyon. The permanent rocky habitat was totally covered with a range of sessile invertebrates including sponges of various shape, size and colour (morphotypes), with hydroids, anemones and bryozoans also common. The only bare spaces on the seabed were unstable areas of sand or rubble. Much of deep basins were characterised by bare rubble, which indicated that these areas were also unstable. The rocky habitat biological community in the canyon was characterised by sponge assemblages, which are common in areas of relatively low light.
Dr Edmonds’ first assessment of the significance of communities at the Entrance was based on a statistical analysis designed to assess whether the biota falls into easily recognisable groups and therefore, whether the groups themselves are significant. He argued that these groups were unique from any other locations in Victoria because the “Entrance is a unique marine environment like nowhere else in Australia”.
Page 185
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Because of the physical features of the Entrance, the environmental conditions in the Rip are not uniform, with a variety of different physical habitats present, varying continuously along gradients or discretely across boundaries in different places. Species and assemblages appear to be dependent, to some degree, on particular environmental conditions and habitats. It would be inappropriate to consider impacts without considering the ecological and conservation significance of these spatial differences.’
Mr Chidgey on the other hand assessed the distribution of individual species or recognisable ‘forms’ of individual animals. Based on the identified different categories of individuals, he concluded “many of these were distributed throughout the study area, while others showed preference for particular depth, microhabitat, current strength or wave exposure. Although most of the species were found in low abundance in the study area, the table demonstrates that the identifiable species are generally widespread, with most known from Victoria and Tasmania, and many over considerably wider geographic ranges”. He also concluded that ‘the low abundance of any species in the surveys does not represent rareness in the wider context of the region or state. It may indicate the presence of individuals outside their preferred physical environment.’
He also warned “many species are rapid colonizers and growers and may vary in their presence and abundance over seasons. The distribution of individual species, their abundance and influence on community character is likely to represent a snapshot in time of ’accidents’ of colonisation’. Others may be common but patchy or habitat‐specific in their distribution and low abundance in the surveys may be an artefact of the sampling rather than their presence throughout the study area”.
Based on observations from the TDP, Mr Chidgey and Dr Edmonds appeared to agree on the general understanding of how recovery will occur at the Entrance. Mr Chidgey explained that recolonisation rates depended on the intensity and exposure to rockfall. Recolonisation had been observed to occur in succession stages and regrowth of biota in these scoured or covered areas is likely to commence within weeks of stabilisation of the rockfall. The consequent growth and succession of the encrusting community over these areas is likely to range from:
• weeks for establishment of first colonisers or commencement of regrowth from adjacent areas; • months for total coverage of stabilised areas with biological growth; • two years for recovery of general community functionality (identifiable filter feeding biota) and; • five years for recovery of general diversity.
Page 186
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Dr Edmonds noted that recovery processes commence rapidly following disturbance based on succession stages that initially involve rapidly colonising species comprising a community dissimilar to un‐impacted assemblages while later successions will be toward a structure similar to that observed previously. They both agreed that the time for recovery would largely depend on the time required for the reef to stabilise.
Dr Edmonds did differ in his view, however, that some localised assemblages (or groups of animals) would change as a result of losing a particular localised habitat structure that they had inhabited before dredging. Dr Edmonds explained that rockfalls would be highly unlikely to change the mix of species permanently over the whole Entrance region, although some of the observed assemblages might be altered.
The IEG concluded that while statistical analysis of groups of individuals was sound, such an analysis would require more comprehensive identification techniques, including analysis of the sponge’s internal skeleton (the spicules), than the video techniques used in the analysis. Consequently, during the video‐based ecological investigations most of the sponges were identified as morphotypes or ‘taxa’ according to their shape, texture and colour. The SEES explained that while this is a widely adopted method for such cases, it had limitations. Only 36 of the 101 individuals within the analysis could be identified to genus or species level. Identification was limited given that the shape of sponges often varies according to its physical environment and the colour according to the amount of light exposure.
The IEG judged that subject to the caveat that individual species could generally not be identified, it was sound to conclude that the collection of animals found in the Entrance is, for the most part, composed of organisms that are more widely distributed along the Victorian coast. The IEG further explained “this caveat is not serious as the approach to conservation of marine biodiversity focuses less on threatened species, and more on ecological communities and ecological processes”. The IEG explained that “the level of description provided at the Entrance is comparable to other deep water areas of the Victorian coast that have been studied scientifically. Providing better resolution of the species present would require an immense increase in sampling effort, and IEG is of the view that the returns at this stage would not justify the effort”.
The Inquiry considers that further surveys and analysis to characterise the entrance ecology is not warranted.
The IEG explained that recovery of areas impacted by rocks will occur by two mechanisms: first through regeneration of damaged parts of animals like sponges,
Page 187
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
which in shallow waters would be quite rapid; and, the second through the arrival, establishment, and growth of planktonic larvae of species that can live in the Entrance region. The IEG highlighted considerable uncertainty about the rate of recovery of the deep reef ecology.
The Inquiry heard that as a result of the scouring process, rockfall was likely to continue for up to 30 years and then reach a natural variation in line with the existing rates. The impact of rockfall, both during and after dredging from scour at the Entrance was upgraded to Major in that recovery may be delayed for decades as a result of ongoing impacts.
The IEG advised ongoing scour may prevent substantial recovery in the short term. Outside the shipping channels, effects will result from movement of any rock spill not retrieved by clean‐up operations. Considerable uncertainty associated with the predictions of recovery derives from the final extent of rock scour and the rate at which scour declines over time. The consequence level has been raised accordingly.
(iii) Consequence for Baywide ecological processes
The biological effects of rock scour will depend on the rate and extent of scouring after dredging, extent of rockfall derived from scour, and the final bathymetric configuration of the Entrance. These in turn may affect Bay hydrodynamics and flushing time, which may affect biota within the Bay.
PoMC has reported changes to Bay flushing (14%) and small changes to sea levels and tidal amplitudes, with which the IEG concurs. The updated assessments based on the scour case resulted in an overall risk rating increase for fish due to a raised consequence level and an increased predicted impact on penguins. The increased risk to other ecosystems is considered negligible. While the IEG supports the broad approach used in the supplementary documents in principle, it notes that there is little explanation of the way in which the risks were assessed and acknowledges considerable uncertainty in these.
(iv) Impacts on the Marine National Park
Rock fall into the Point Lonsdale section of the Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park is predicted. Impacts on the Park should be minimised as the Catacomb Ridge will act as a barrier to rocks falling under gravity. The area of the park affected is 0.34 ha and is part of the long, deep basin that runs along the foot of the north western and western extremity of the base of Nepean Bank plateau. In order to minimise rockfall into the Park, 5m ridges along the north‐west side of Nepean Bank
Page 188
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
will be maintained until dredging is completed to act as a barrier between loose rock and the marine park. This ridge will be removed last in the dredging schedule.
Many submittors raised concerns about any impact on a National Park and in this case, the effect of rockfall on the canyon component of Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park.
The Inquiry notes the IEG advice that the collection of animals found in the Entrance is, for the most part, composed of organisms that are more widely distributed along the Victorian coast. The ecological implications of the impact to the Park can therefore be considered as relatively small.
The Inquiry notes the SEES explanation that as the entire park occupies an area of approximately 415ha, the canyon area constituting 22ha, the impact area comprises around 2% of the Park.
The Inquiry notes the State Parliament passed legislation in 2002 establishing the Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park, 12 other marine national parks and 11 sanctuaries around Victoria as a representative system. These Parks were established under the National Parks Act. Development and infrastructure such as radio towers and access roads considered necessary are regulated under the Act. The Inquiry considers that the impacts from the rockfalls will not affect the intention to establish the park as a representative system.
17.3 Inquiry Conclusions and Recommendations The Inquiry concurs with the IEG that the EMP should measure the area of rock fall and the effectiveness of rock removal after dredging operations. The Inquiry notes the commercial incentive to minimise cleanup and continue dredging. In its final submission, PoMC advised that any further clean‐up work associated with rockfall at the Entrance will be an additional cost. The Inquiry therefore recommends that the control measures to ensure the maximum clean up are clearly defined in the EMP. It endorses the 5 metres ridge along the north west side of Nepean Bank to minimise rockfall during dredging.
The Inquiry notes that the species found in the shallow reef habitat at the Entrance were found elsewhere along the Victorian coastline including areas of the Entrance that will be unaffected. These other habitats will provide sources of recruits for reestablishment and enable the shallow reef habitat to recover. The Inquiry was advised that rocky reef habitat at the Entrance area blasted in 1986 had re‐
Page 189
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
established, although recovery depends on the stabilisation of substrate and unstable material left during previous blasting has inhibited re‐establishment.
The Inquiry notes the intended removal of rock from the channel. Loose rocks left behind after dredging will fall into the canyon and affect biota. As a result of the ongoing scouring process, rockfall is likely to continue for up to 30 years.
The CDP is likely to have less impact than that created by blasting the Entrance pre‐ 1986, but its effects will endure for some time. While not an initiative that can assist recovery directly, the PoMC proposal to contribute to knowledge about recovery of deep reef ecology in temperate waters is endorsed by the Inquiry as a scientific offset.
The Inquiry supports consideration of other offsets including recovery of marine habitats that drive Bay ecology (such as habitat supporting fish recruitment, substantial reduction in threats to key marine processes within the Bay, upgrading or establishing wetlands to reduce nutrients, and improvements to water quality management within the Bay’s catchment such as revegetation of riverbanks/streamsides).
An area of the Point Lonsdale section of the Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park will be affected by rockfall. The National Park Act provides for the management of development and effects within Parks. It is a matter for Government to resolve whether this proposal meets the requirements of National Park Act for consent consistent with principles used to manage impacts on land‐based parks.
While the Inquiry is satisfied with PoMC and IEG advice that rockfall into the canyon will not permanently affect the Entrance ecology, rock scour remains an issue of concern to the Inquiry due to continuing uncertainties surrounding the processes involved. The Inquiry believes this issue should be carefully observed and monitored.
Recommendations:
Include the following measures to improve Entrance management: ‐ increase the frequency and extent of cleaning runs, both inside and outside the dredging zones; ‐ increase the frequency of bathymetric sounding surveys both inside and outside the dredging zones; ‐ reduce ripper teeth length as the final depth is approached or consider use of a more conventional, lighter draghead;
Page 190
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
‐ use methods other than trailing to remove any stubborn high spots; ‐ use the trawl net to remove specific caprock pieces; ‐ carry out all dredging runs when swell heights are at a relatively low level; and ‐ further cleanup after completion of dredging to deal with loose rocks that are found. Ensure control measures are clearly defined to ensure maximum clean up of rockfall in the Entrance.
Include control measures to ensure maximum capture of rock prior to removal of ridges along the canyon wall.
Page 191
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
18. BENEFIT COST ANALYSIS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
18.1 Description and Key Issues PoMC undertook additional studies to satisfy EES Panel recommendation 88 that: “the economic case for the project should be reviewed following further project development work and refinement of project definition, project technology and environmental management proposals. This review should include specialists in maritime economics, resource economics, economic risk management and major project specialists”. The results are published as SEES Chapter 3 and 16.
Mr Hehir noted that based on the Government’s own independent economic analysis, “Departments consider the SEES demonstrate the economic case for delivering the Project and the importance of internationally competitive transport infrastructure more generally”.
(i) Strategic context
PoMC commissioned Meyrick and Associates to complete a technical appendix to the SEES expanding on the strategic economic context of CDP. This analysis supplements two reports by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) for the Department of Treasury and Finance using an input‐output model based on the BTRE framework for port valuation to assess the economic contribution of the port of Melbourne to the Victorian economy, and the Monash University economic model (TERM – The Enormous Regional Model), run by the Centre of Policy Studies to gauge long‐term impacts of CDP. Taken together, these studies provide a background setting for the benefit‐cost analysis of channel deepening.
The main PwC report concluded that the Port of Melbourne contributes $2.5 billion p.a. to the national and Victorian economies. It also estimated that the net addition to national economic activity arising from CDP would be $2.2 billion over the period 2005‐35 ($1.7 billion to 2027). The supplementary PwC report tested a range of assumptions to determine the robustness of the primary projections, and found that increasing the cost base of CDP would reduce national welfare by about a dollar for every three dollars increase in cost.
Additional major findings of the PwC study are that the peak changes in national welfare and employment, unsurprisingly, occur in 2009‐10 and reflect the maximum levels of channel deepening and infrastructure construction activity; and that shipping savings rise from $43 million p.a. in 2009 to $582 million p.a. in 2035.
Page 192
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Some critics question the adequacy of assumptions on which the PwC studies are based. The sensitivity analysis is intended to provide confidence that under a wide range of “normal” circumstances, investment in channel deepening and in associated port infrastructure is economically reasonable.
The Meyrick paper on the Strategic Economic Context complements the more limited benefit‐cost analysis (TA4) as it explains in detail a range of commercial and economic consequences of not proceeding with channel deepening. The paper (TA3) outlines significant developments in world trade and container shipping, and explores their implications for Australia in general and Melbourne in particular. It also examines all strategic options raised by opponents of CDP and concludes that after thorough analysis, each is an inferior and more expensive alternative to channel deepening. Finally, Mr Meyrick summarises five important port histories to argue the case for channel deepening, highlighting both situations where port planning and implementation actions have been timely and beneficial.
(ii) Benefit‐cost analysis
Table 7: Benefit‐cost analysis methodology
(Source: SEES Figure 16.1)
Page 193
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Rationale
Economists recognise the limitations and relative narrowness of benefit‐cost analysis regarding it as an essential but not infallible tool to guide investment decision‐ making. As Mr Meyrick noted: “not all of the considerations – or even all of the economic considerations‐ that are relevant to the decision of whether to proceed with the project are fully captured within the fairly narrow framework defined by the conventions of benefit‐cost analysis”. Having said this, however, does not make the benefit‐cost analysis irrelevant. Its purpose is to assess whether or not the economic returns that can be identified for the CDP investment substantially exceed the cost and therefore justify the investment on broad economic grounds.
Mr Meyrick’s analysis compares the benefits and costs to shipping of a deepened vs. non‐deepened port, and then adds other related costs and benefits. Projected Australian container trade is calculated on a “top down” basis by estimating long run world economic growth, changes in world container trade patterns and levels, and changes in trade activity. Mr Meyrick then models the number and size of vessels under the two scenarios (deepened vs. non‐deepened). “Dis‐benefits” associated with the non‐deepened scenario reflect various facets of inefficiency, including waiting times, sub‐optimal loads, and other adaptations by shipping lines to constraints due to the current draught limit in the Entrance and some parts of the channel, exacerbated by tidal and weather patterns.
(iii) Project Benefits
Benefits associated with the deepened port scenario reflect the relaxation of these constraints and the resulting economies. While the principal emphasis is on containerised shipping, efficiency gains are also predicted for liquid and grain bulk. Mr Meyrick notes that the flow of benefits is heavily skewed towards the later years of the period to 2035. Total benefits are estimated to be $1,936 million in 2007 dollars.
(iv) Project Costs
Project costs (incurred primarily by the PoMC in the first instance), and costs borne by other parties, are set against the sum of benefits. The former are estimated at A$626 million (excluding sunk costs and fuel excise). The latter comprises both readily quantifiable and difficult to quantify indirect costs of CDP. Some of these are externalities that will be borne by others, and submittors have highlighted a number of potentially significant instances.
Page 194
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
While other aspects of the benefit‐cost analysis have attracted questions and challenges, the field of indirect costs is the most contentious. Under these circumstances, a careful description of Mr Meyrick’s approach is warranted.
Mr Meyrick provided valuations for interruptions to shipping movements caused by dredging; additional costs incurred by recreational divers due to turbidity (moving elsewhere); loss to commercial fishers of part of their normal catch; and risk of collisions or other incidents associated with dredging that could block the shipping channel. In aggregate, these have been estimated to cost $12.3 million in current dollars.
Indirect and unquantified effects are considered to be associated with the risks identified in the EES and SEES, and mitigated, or otherwise addressed, by PoMC in the choice of technology, design of the project and implementation of its Environmental Management Plan. PoMC asserted that “many of these have little or no measurable economic impacts, especially after the mitigation measures contained in the project design or EMP have been applied”. Furthermore, it is claimed, “ecological impacts are predicted to be short‐lived with recovery generally in less than two years”. No financial estimates for these risk factors are included in the Meyrick model.
Zero‐valued indirect effects include:
• impacts on tourism and recreational activities; • operations of Newport Power Station; • changes to hydrodynamic processes; • changes to denitrification processes; • marine pests; • contaminant mobilisation; • waste discharge; and • reduction in the value of the Bay as a system.
These effects are assessed as zero‐value because they are considered unlikely to occur. Uncosted (but acknowledged) risks and effects were identified as:
• mobilisation of nutrients and algal cysts; • night lighting impacts; • airborne noise; • turbidity and sedimentation effects; • underwater noise; • effects of seabed removal; and • rock falls in the Entrance.
Page 195
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Mr Meyrick’s analysis did not cost these effects because, while they will not be completely eliminated by mitigation measures “in each case, with mitigation in place, the expected economic consequences of the effect will be extremely small though difficult to quantify with precision”. This is not implausible; although it requires confidence that PoMC’s technical and scientific studies and the design and management approaches justified with reference to them are effective and appropriate. Suffice it to note that the absence of any valuation of the impact of negative potential externalities makes PoMC totally reliant on the impregnability of its scientific and technical studies. Most if not all the effects and risks above are the subject of deep contention by some submittors to the Inquiry. The merits of alternative approaches are considered below. The following table summarises the Port’s estimates of project costs, both direct and indirect.
Table 8: PoMC’s estimates of project costs
(Source: SEES Table 16‐8)
It would be appropriate to add to the total project cost the incremental additional cost of maintenance dredging and associated works over the longer term.
(v) Benefit‐cost comparisons
Mr Meyrick and PoMC have applied a discount rate of 6% in net present value calculations. Thus $1,936 million of benefits is set against costs of $590 million in 2007 dollars, yielding a net present value (NPV) of $1,345 million for the CDP, a benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 3.3, and an internal rate of return of 15.4%. By the standards of infrastructure investment, this is a satisfactory return and would
Page 196
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007 support a decision to proceed with the project. However, objectors contend that there are major weaknesses and errors in this analysis. These matters are considered further below.
(vi) Sensitivity analyses
The benefit cost analysis was tested for higher and lower values of discount rates, cost of capital, currency exchange, and oil prices. For example, a discount rate of 8% was applied and a BCR of 2.5 resulted. This may indicate robustness of the model to risk, inflation and interest rate changes. However, critics object that a significantly higher discount rate ought to be considered, so is addressed below. Bunker fuel price changes were also shown to have only modest impact on the project benefit. Finally, Mr Meyrick allowed benefits to plateau at the projected 2024 level rather than continuing to rise to 2035, to provide a further demonstration of BCR adequacy. In general, the sensitivity tests indicated that the BCR was strongly positive when modestly pessimistic assumptions were made for key variables. Unfortunately, this has not satisfied submittors, who have proposed far more pessimistic or conservative assumptions.
(vii) Distribution of benefits
Mr Meyrick indicates that 86% of CDP benefits are associated with liner shipping benefits (container ships), the rest flowing through via liquid and dry bulk shipping. How those benefits are distributed depends on PoMC’s charging regime and on the competitive dynamics of the shipping and transport industries. The assumption that Mr Meyrick makes is “ … the cost recovery strategy will recover the costs of the project from the container, dry bulk and liquid bulk sectors roughly in proportion to the benefits that accrue to each”. The table below summarises the gross and net flow of benefits to interests in Victoria, other parts of Australia, New Zealand, other trading partners and the rest of the world.
Table 9: Gross and net flow benefits
(Source: Technical Appendix 4, Table 45)
Page 197
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Mr Meyrick concludes that Victorian interests alone may expect a benefit cost ratio of 1.88, while the BCR for Australia in total is 2.60. The implication is that there is a strong and broadly equitable flow of benefits to Victorian interests.
Critics have found the qui bono issue a vexing one. If the entire market chain from production via transport and port handling to distribution, wholesaling and retailing was open and highly competitive, one might have confidence in a broad and equitable distribution of benefits. It is possible that advances in technology and shifts in patterns of trade over the next decade will stimulate competition. The net direct benefit to individual consumers is acknowledged by PoMC to be extremely small in any one year, as would be the benefit of any large single infrastructural improvement within the Australian economy. Instead, the market as a whole will benefit from the increased efficiency of ship movements.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) Support for the economic case and the benefit cost analysis (ii) Economic assessment (iii) Core assumptions: Benefits (iv) Benefit‐cost model methodology (v) Externalities and their valuation and management (vi) Flow of benefits (vii) Ideological or in principle objections
18.2 Inquiry Response (i) Support for the economic case and the benefit cost analysis
Some submissions to the Inquiry supported the substance of Mr Meyrick’s findings and added weight to the strategic importance of CDP to the economic and trading viability of Melbourne. The supportive submissions below assist in answering practical questions about access constraints, cost impacts on shipping, and effects of current channel depths on exporters. They also identify expected benefits at a level of detail that the benefit‐cost analysis could not provide.
Among these was a presentation by Shipping Australia Ltd. (SAL) that drew the Inquiry’s attention to the continuing escalation of the capacity and draught of ships serving Melbourne and outlined specific developments in the East Asia and North and East Asia services. It was noted that the containership fleet is being renewed and that over 40% of the ships under construction are Post‐Panamax vessels of 4500
Page 198
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
TEU or more. SAL’s presentation also highlighted the seriousness of the constraint presented by insufficient channel depth, noting that in the December quarter of 2006 38% of ships would have been unable to arrive or depart if fully laden. Using the Australian National Line’s two 2450 TEU vessels that serve South East Asia, SAL explained that depth constraints in Melbourne necessitated micromanagement of the entire 28 round trip and that the ships were one metre too deep in draught for all weather access to the port. While shipping lines engage in “work around” tactics, these are at best inefficient accommodations, and SAL asserts that the cost of insufficient depth on round voyages is approximately $400,000 per vessel. It is argued that this level of financial penalty will provide an incentive to shipping lines to find alternative solutions that will disadvantage Melbourne. SAL emphasises that competitor ports are well‐placed and actively seeking new trade. This is borne out by observation of marketing and promotional activities of other major Australian ports.
The Victorian Freight and Logistics Council’s (VFLC) submission adds weight to the conclusion that CDP will add substantial value to Melbourne’s role as a trade centre. It emphasises that a global network of supply and logistics chains depends on the Port of Melbourne’s efficiency, including its access. The VFLC draw the Inquiry’s attention to an important facet of the strategic economic context of CDP, namely the interconnectedness of actions in a global marketplace in which Australian producers continue to prosper. VFLC use the Murray Goulburn Cooperative as a case study to illustrate the extent to which rural economic activity relies on Melbourne port efficiency and effectiveness. In doing so, the Council underlines its point that “channel deepening is essentially about the businesses that the port serves”.
The submission from the Victorian Farmers’ Federation (VFF) highlights the role of the Port of Melbourne in handling an average of 10,000 tonnes daily of agricultural produce. It argues that channel deepening, combined with other infrastructural investments planned by PoMC, is essential in maintaining Melbourne’s position as Australia’s most efficient container port. The VFF presentation indicated that its members’ produce was most at risk of being delayed or offloaded in adverse channel conditions because of its greater weight per TEU (15.5‐16.5 tonnes) compared with imports (10‐12 tonnes). It has been noted that further disadvantage to export efficiency via Melbourne will cause harm to terms of trade for Australia.
The Victorian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry (VECCI) strongly endorse the case for CDP on economic grounds. Their submission states “VECCI regards the CDP as Victoria’s number one infrastructure priority”. VECCI’s presentation to the Inquiry includes six case studies that illustrate what would happen to those companies (in various industries and diverse in scale) if CDP were not to proceed.
Page 199
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Each points to a damaging effect on the business and consequent job losses or relocation as predictable longer‐term responses.
(ii) Economic assessment
Critics raised a wide range of objections and concerns about the economic case for channel deepening. The first of these was the long timeframe for prediction of economic effects. Some considered that a 25 year horizon offered no certainty at all. Common objections included the impossibility of predicting whether there would be major downturns or upturns, shifts in the price and use of oil, changes in production and trade patterns, and so forth. Governments, financial entities and institutions like the World Bank engage in long‐term planning and assessment of different scenarios, and ultimately commit capital to long‐term projects in the knowledge that they will face both some uncertainty and a set of risks.
Consequently, the results need to be robust enough to withstand major deviation from the assumed trends. However, simply positing a range of “what if” scenarios and showing that these are at odds with long‐term trend assumptions does not invalidate the approach, and it does not in itself indicate that the PoMC has “got it wrong”. Some critics have castigated the PoMC for being unable to offer absolute certainty. This position would preclude any infrastructure investment from occurring as all major projects are subject to degrees of uncertainty and elements of risk.
PoMC suggests it is relying on the best available economic analysis to build a set of broadly credible projections. Therefore it is important to test the robustness of key assumptions on which PoMC has based its claim that CDP is strongly beneficial for the Victorian and Australian economies. It is also helpful to determine what could conceivably transform CDP from an asset to a liability. These matters are examined in the sections below.
(iii) Core assumptions: Benefits
The PwC study has identified CDP benefits that peak in 2009‐10 and then increase at a much reduced rate until they turn up again in 2015‐16. However, this benefit is entirely the result of capital and associated infrastructure expenditure and follows the pattern that spending approximately $600 million on any form of infrastructure would take. From a Victorian Government standpoint, there is nothing in the PwC study to indicate that it is preferable to spend this capital sum on channel deepening rather than road, rail or other infrastructure development. Indeed, as Meyrick notes “It is likely to be difficult or impossible to detect with any degree of accuracy the
Page 200
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
consequences for investment, economic structure and economic growth of individual infrastructure projects. The magnitude of the impact of even very large projects is likely to be small compared to the economy as a whole, and will be swamped by the contemporaneous ‘noise’ from other factors influencing economic growth”. It should be noted that it is not the role of this Inquiry to determine whether CDP represents the best possible investment for Victoria, but rather to consider whether the benefits are large and robust enough to withstand claims by opponents that CDP actually constitutes a liability.
To deal with this dilemma, Mr Meyrick makes the case for the value of CDP by reference to expressed current needs, expected future trends, and instances of other ports that have deepened their harbours, some in a timely fashion and others only after the loss of substantial trade. An additional important feature of the analysis assesses what will happen if major shipping lines decide to by‐pass or otherwise limit their services through Melbourne. The scenario outlined involves major costs that would be incurred ultimately by shippers. These case studies provide salutary examples, but are not a component of the analysis, though clearly they are intended to be persuasive. They provide a loosely aligned quantitative and narrative supplement to the benefit‐cost analysis.
Opponents of CDP have questioned the main variables that underpin the calculation of economic value and benefits. In particular, forecasts of fleet composition and visit patterns to 2035 are queried as potentially exaggerating the decline of containerships below 3000 TEU by 2030. Economists@Large, for instance, counter that the coastal shipping trade will remain highly significant and that the ship size normal curve will vary more slowly and will be to the left of Mr Meyrick’s curve. Taking this more conservative approach results in a major reduction in estimated containership operating costs – and in turn has a major negative impact on the benefit‐cost ratio. This must be weighed against the projections of the shipping industry and other transport economists who would support Mr Meyrick. While there is no reason to prefer the Economists@Large analysis to the industry mainstream, they do indicate one point of vulnerability – if shipping lines do not introduce much larger container ships on the Melbourne run as quickly as has been assumed then the benefits of CDP will be smaller and slower to appear.
Economists@Large claim that the discount rate is too low and seek to apply a rate of up to 12%, using World Bank and UK texts as a guide. This seems unnecessarily conservative. Mr Meyrick has used 6%, the long‐term Treasury bond rate, as his discount rate. The Department of Treasury and Finance support this as appropriate to Government. In theory, there may be some merit in considering a higher discount rate to reflect risk. Mr Meyrick has assumed that all significant risks have been
Page 201
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
brought into the analysis as indirect costs ($12.3 million) or that other risks will not be realised (due to project design and management) or that other risks that are realised will have negligible economic impact. This is the position taken by PoMC and that is appropriate provided that environmental risks within Port Phillip Bay are minimally realised, as dealt with elsewhere. If environmental and social impacts are less controllable and more severe than studies suggest, then a discount rate of 8%, as tested in the sensitivity analysis, could cover the cost of all likely adverse effects without serious damage to the BCR. In summary, this suggests that the benefit‐cost ratio is robust enough to absorb the effects of adverse deviations from key assumptions, including environmental risks as assessed through the SEES.
Economists@Large question Mr Meyrick’s projections of world economic growth to 2034 and take issue with the absence of sensitivity analyses for growth, trade and container traffic trends. This seems unreasonable in that Mr Meyrick has been careful to demonstrate that he has taken conservative values for all these factors. Independent additional scrutiny by the Inquiry supports Mr Meyrick on this and finds that there is no basis for believing that Mr Meyrick’s projections are over‐ optimistic. Indeed, they may be said to be pessimistic. Certainly, industry advocates appeared to consider that Mr Meyrick had under stated the economic case for CDP.
Some opponents of CDP referred to an out‐dated draft report by Drewry Shipping Consultants (2001) to refute Mr Meyrick’s assumption that ships larger than 4500 TEU will be unable to use the Port of Melbourne economically without CDP. Their intent was to demonstrate that the CDP is unnecessary. However, the Drewry report was compiled in 2001 using data that are now seven years old. It is a “bottom up” study based on a survey of all ships and shipping lines using the Port of Melbourne. While it may be historically interesting, it does not prove Mr Meyrick wrong. Nor should it be regarded as providing an authoritative counter view of world trade trends and emerging patterns of container shipping. This has been made clear by Shipping Australia in their submission to the Inquiry. Economists@Large use the Drewry draft to assert that larger ships will use the Port but at reduced capacity. Even if this is correct, they do not then make the obvious connection that this will entail significant inefficiencies that in time will be addressed by shipping lines in a variety of ways, one of which will be to by‐pass Melbourne. Their case is not proved by this challenge.
A specific criticism by Economists@Large is that Mr Meyrick assumes that total voyage time is constant regardless of vessel size. This does not appear to be a particularly telling criticism as Mr Meyrick has modelled voyage times on actual routes run by major shipping lines and these take account of the interaction and coordination of multiple ports.
Page 202
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Economists@Large and others propose that there are transport infrastructure difficulties flowing from CDP that have been excluded from consideration in the economic analysis. However, the PoMC has a long‐term strategic plan for continuing development of port‐related infrastructure and this is beyond the scope of this Inquiry. The Inquiry has no reason to believe that the PoMC is unable to plan for appropriate berth, road and rail development consistent with CDP.
Economists@Large argued against several cost assumptions. The most important of these is the validity and stability of the capital cost of the CDP. However, Mr Meyrick has included a +20% sensitivity analysis on capital cost, and even with this overshoot the BCR is acceptable at 2.4. The PoMC does not need to accept such a pessimistic assumption.
Mr Meyrick has indicated his ambivalence towards the inclusion of sunk costs. CDP critics want the sunk costs included to weaken the BCR. However the Inquiry considers it is entirely legitimate for the Port of Melbourne to rule a line under these costs, comprising principally expenditure on studies to satisfy environmental requirements and the costs of trial dredging, and to focus on the BCR resulting from core CDP capital expenditure.
Project financing costs are substantively irrelevant to the benefit cost analysis, and are a matter for commercial decision by the PoMC.
(iv) Benefit‐cost model methodology
Economists@Large, as economic expert witnesses for the Blue Wedges Coalition take Mr Meyrick’s benefit cost analysis to task. Their evidence contains a broad dismissal of Mr Meyrick’s economic model on the grounds that it does not “conform to best practice standards as recommended by the World Bank”.
At a high level, the evidence takes issue with the difficulty of using a 25‐year timeframe. There is no doubt that predictions over two or three decades are difficult to guarantee. Nevertheless, financial institutions and governments work with investments over these time frames, often adequately and sometimes dismally. However Mr Meyrick’s logic is clear and the onus is on critics to suggest a better approach or to offer other numbers. None is given.
Some submittors raised concerns about the timeframe in other ways. Their position appears to be that there is so much uncertainty that any projection over 25 years must be invalid. Other economists recognise that there will be some uncertainty.
Page 203
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
However that has not prevented other infrastructure investments from proceeding where there are long payback periods. Rather, the question is how robust are the assumptions and the logic of the model, and how positive is the estimated benefit cost ratio. On these counts Mr Meyrick’s assessment looks solid, unless the specific criticisms levelled at his assumptions can be sustained.
Dr Harris questioned the basis of the economic analysis and claims that the BCR is low. He does not provide an alternative view of the BCR other than mentioning that the benefits are “of the order of $60 million p.a.” While he introduces the controversial but interesting work of Robert Costanza into his discussion, and estimates ecosystem services in Port Phillip Bay to be worth $300 million p.a., Dr Harris does not indicate what part of those services might be lost as a result of CDP. Furthermore, Dr Harris does not indicate the cost of depletion of the “natural capital base” of the Bay that he might envisage. Additionally, while Dr Harris’ comments flag the potential importance of externalities, they fail to challenge Meyrick’s assumptions at any level of detail.
(v) Externalities and their valuation and management
Mr Meyrick names and quantifies some indirect costs. These are few in number and estimated at $12.3 million. Many other potential externalities are not costed. Fundamentally, Mr Meyrick asserts that certain risks that could generate indirect costs will be managed through the project and it’s EMP in such a way that those risks will not crystallise and no costs will eventuate. Other risks that will be realised are said to have a negligible and indeed immeasurable economic effect.
Economists@Large and others including Dr Harris and Mr Grivas, for the Frankston Beach Association (FBA) criticised Mr Meyrick’s rationale for avoiding quantification of externalities.
Dr Harris referred to the work of Robert Costanza who in 1997 published a paper in Nature that estimated the annual value of the biosphere at US$33 trillion. In 2002 Costanza claimed that the preservation of intact ecosystems generated returns of 100 to 1 on investment. Professor Costanza’s work is controversial and far from acceptance in mainstream economics. Built on the concept of natural capital, Costanza’s work ultimately runs into the dilemma of finding either a market valuation or an alternative basis of valuation for ecosystems. When market valuations (i.e. prices) are non‐existent, then subjective alternatives compete.
Costanza’s model is fraught with difficulties when applied to the situation that exists in Port Phillip Bay – high complexity, multiple variables all assessed by experts as
Page 204
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
entailing low or very low risk, and opponents who dispute the risk profile by some orders of magnitude. If the SEES experts’ reports on aspects of Port Phillip Bay’s environment have resulted in an approximately correct risk profile, and if the PoMC’s project management and EMP have indeed “internalised” the potential negative externalities, then the quantification of loss of ecosystem services is redundant or unnecessary. If there are some areas of agreed moderate to high risk, then an attempt to quantify loss may well be warranted. This is by no means straightforward, and on this basis, while the Inquiry recognises that there may be a case that some externalities have not been valued appropriately Dr Harris’ suggestions do not offer a viable solution. It is also unlikely that such costs would significantly alter the benefit‐cost ratio for CDP, as they if they were to be realised, they would occur only over a relatively short period and in a finite area.
(vi) Flow of benefits
In addition to questioning the level of benefits that CDP would generate, several submittors were concerned about “who benefits?” Some suggested that insufficient benefits return to Victorians. Others expressed doubts about the value of benefits that would flow to consumers.
Mr Meyrick’s analysis shows that port access benefits principally flow via container shipping to a range of interests, the majority Australian based. Economists@Large have criticised this assumption. Market dynamics will determine how those benefits spread from shipping companies to businesses and consumers. There is nothing inappropriate about this approach but because it relies on the flux and play of market forces over a considerable duration, it may be unsatisfying to those who want certainty and detail.
Chris James of VECCI indicated that the Port and its value as an asset should be considered in the same context as airports, reservoirs and power stations. He urged the Inquiry not to succumb to perceptions of fear and mystique – other Port areas have been dredged before – e.g. Melbourne, Adelaide and various ports overseas. He said many of the arguments in opposition were based on emotion, with no basis or fact. With regard to using rail to transport goods, he advised it would take 30 trains to transport what you could in one ship.
Mr Begley of the Victorian Freight and Logistics Council (VFLC) said the do nothing option is not realistic, as Victoria is the transport and logistics hub of Australia, and it particularly affects trade – Tasmania as well. The VFLC noted that the Port does not stand alone – it is part of a significant network of investment – a position furthered by Paul Kerr of the Murray Goulburn Cooperative, who would be a
Page 205
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
“logistical nightmare if Victoria had to ship in from elsewhere – it would not only increase costs, but result in unpredictability”.
(vii) Ideological or in principle objections
Some submittors were opposed to continuing economic growth, an open global economy, and increasing benefits received by shipping lines and other parties in the supply chain. While these views are offered sincerely, it is clear that they take the Inquiry well outside the scope of consideration of the economics of CDP and into the contested ground of political philosophy.
18.3 Inquiry Conclusions The Inquiry finds the strategic argument for CDP compelling, noting the significance of Melbourne for national trade, trends in container ship size, costs associated with constraints on loading and port access, and case histories of ports that have been slow to deepen channels. Sensitivity analyses provide confidence that under a wide range of normal circumstances, investment in channel deepening and in associated port infrastructure is supported economically.
PoMC relied upon the best available economic analysis to build a set of broadly credible projections to evaluate the benefits of CDP. The Inquiry tested these projections and the sensitivity of the variables and was satisfied about their robust and positive nature. The Inquiry considered alternative views, and found no reasonable economic case against CDP, even after taking predicted environmental impacts into account.
Port access benefits principally flow via container shipping to a range of interests, most Australian based, and will be distributed to consumers and business over 20 years after CDP completion. Some submittors claimed that benefits to Victorians would be minuscule if measured per person, but that is equally true of any other collective or community benefit, whether it be environmental improvement, upgraded highways, or national broadband. The Inquiry is satisfied that Victoria will benefit economically from CDP.
The Inquiry considers that the strategic and economic case for CDP has been established by PoMC and the Victorian Government Departments’ submission. Moreover, the benefit‐cost ratio is robust enough to absorb the effects of adverse deviations from key assumptions, including as yet unquantified costs of environmental effects.
Page 206
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
19. SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
19.1 Description and Key Issues Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) prepared the Social Impact Assessment (SIA) in early 2007. It was written in accordance with the SEES Assessment Guidelines, which in turn, were influenced by the original EES guidelines. As such, its purpose is to identify the key social and economic impacts of the CDP on the Melbourne community and local areas surrounding Port Phillip Bay. It examines the various groups, businesses and individuals with an interest in the Bay and aims to determine how and to what degree these could be affected. The report also considers possible management and mitigation measures.
In order to understand fully and explore all relevant issues, SKM took into account varying information from a wide range of sources. This consisted of reports of SIA methodology, studies of port development and past dredging projects, and any information relating to the Bay, such as coastal tourism and recreation.
Documents relating directly to the project were also examined. This included the various studies undertaken as part of the SEES process, namely those associated with turbidity, vessel wakes, airborne noise, human health risk, visual impacts, aquaculture and fish, birds, mammals and penguins, as well as the documents produced by the PoMC, specifically dealing with the overall project and areas such as the dredging schedule.
In addition, SKM conducted its own research. This was gathered and presented in a number of different ways. An extensive internet survey provided insight into the widespread usage of the Bay. It identified the relevant stakeholders as recreational clubs, community groups, Bay residents and local businesses, all of which enjoy the Bay and have an interest in its key assets. These were identified as:
• foreshores and headlands; • beaches; • dive sites; • yacht, boat and fishing clubs marinas and berthing areas; • key boating and sailing areas; • jetties and boat ramps; • fishing sites; • national parks and sanctuaries both marine and on land; and • wildlife habitats.
Page 207
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
(It should be noted that use of many of these assets is seasonal, whereas others are used year round).
The survey compared the Bay with other Victorian coastal communities, identifying it as a popular tourist destination for both national and international tourists, as well as highlighting the various activities available on and around it.
Further to this, meetings with Bay side Councils identified the local policies relevant to the SIA. This included current plans and strategies aimed at enhancing the communities’ relationship with the Bay, as well as any tourism and environmental policies that could be affected by the project.
Consultation with community groups and local residents revealed current perceptions of the Bay and the general attitude towards the proposed CDP. Additional surveys indicated those who would be economically affected by the project, both in the short term and long term. These were primarily tourism and recreation related businesses.
This information forms the basis of the SIA. It was collected with the purpose of identifying the social and economic impacts of the CDP on business and tourism, and the recreational interests of those groups who use or rely on Port Phillip Bay, as well as on the general community. As such, it enabled SKM to assess the degree to which these areas might be affected. This is outlined below.
The social and economic issues identified within the SIA can be placed into three different categories:
• Amenity and perception – how the CDP may impact on people’s values and lifestyles; • Recreation – how the CDP may affect recreational activities such as beach visitation, boating, fishing and diving; and • Tourism – how the CDP may affect the tourism industry.
The issues relating to these areas include:
• The potential visibility of the plume – the SIA indicates that the general community place great value in the clarity of the water. Those who could be affected by the presence of a plume include permanent residents, holiday home owners and tourists;
Page 208
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• The presence of a dredger – again, the SIA indicates that many members of the community enjoy views of the Bay and would be sensitive to any changes in their visual outlook. The SIA suggests that while residents would be more sensitised, visitors would feel less concern; • The requirement to construct navigation aids in and out of the water – while it is thought that this will not be a major concern, the SIA recognises that those with residences nearby may dislike the permanent change such structures will bring to the visual environment; • Reduced attractiveness of beaches due to plume – some concern with the presence of a plume at popular beaches in the Rosebud/Rye area, although the SIA assesses this as a minor issue with only small decrease in beach visitation; • Social impacts on diving ‐ the SIA indicates that recreational diving is likely to be affected significantly. Key impacts include reduced visibility, site restriction (particularly in the southern part of the Bay), limited opportunity to relocate and a reduction in trainees (possibly resulting in a lower diving demand the following year); • Economic impacts on diving – it is likely that the project will have a negative impact on diving businesses due to lowered numbers of divers (local, national and international) visiting Port Phillip Bay and learning to dive in the Bay. This could carry on into the following year; • Impacts on recreational fishing – Although there may be some changes in fish locations and a reduction in fish population, recreational fishing is unlikely to be significantly impacted by the CDP. This is due to a number of factors. Fishing is an all year round sport, and different locations are favoured for different breeds at different times of the year. Long term impacts include effects on fish habitats and light reduction. Two groups identified as being open to significant impact are the anglers who frequent the Warmies at Newport and charter fishing operations; • Recreational boating – possible disruption of boating during dredging, although it is expected that there will be no significant impact on boating opportunities; • Impacts on ecotourism – the CDP is expected to have a negligible effect on onshore ecotourism operations. • Impacts on heritage – concerns relate to the impact on ship wrecks – however it is considered that only a small number of the community will have an interest in this; • Risks to human health – concerns that contaminants will be in the north of the Bay. Also concerns about oil spills and ship collisions; • Removal of dredged material and placement in the DMG – concerns include possible movement of dredged material closer to the shoreline and beaches, and the smothering of potential habitats near the DMG; and
Page 209
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• Flow on effects to other tourism sectors – concerns that a reduction in diving activity will have flow on effects in the areas of accommodation, food and beverages. However, the SIA considers this to be negligible from a general tourism perspective.
Key issues identified by the Inquiry during the hearing and those raised in submissions include the following:
(i) social impact evidence (ii) recreation and tourism impacts (iii) community fears and perceptions (iv) proposed change in dredge schedule (v) employment opportunities
19.2 Inquiry Response (i) Social Impact Evidence
Disappointingly, the evidence presented at the hearing that was meant to relate to social impact assessment did not. Paragraph 76 of Mr Gobbo’s opening submission said:
Mr David Cotterill of SKM will make a presentation to the Inquiry in relation to the social impact assessment. His initial work was peer reviewed and the comments of the peer review are taken up in the final report. Notwithstanding that there was no criticism of substance in the EES Panel Report directed to the social impact assessment, significant further work was undertaken such that this Inquiry can have a high level of confidence in the efficacy and conclusions of the assessment.
Mr Cotterill largely spoke about economic impacts on tourism and recreations. When questioned why this evidence was presented in this way, Mr Gobbo indicated that the person who undertook the specific and more detailed social impact assessment was “out of the country” and could perhaps be re‐called at a later date. This did not occur, although Mr Gobbo presented new material that related to the concerns raised by the Inquiry on the final day of the hearing as part of his right of reply.
The Inquiry was concerned to discuss a range of potential impacts, including flow on effects from job losses, fears and perceptions and how they might be addressed and/or overcome. Many submittors expressed deep concerns relating to social impacts. Ms Muir pointedly said that the CDP will result in “Victoria’s greatest act of
Page 210
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
environmental vandalism” if it goes ahead. She also commented on the lack of a social impact assessment and was critical of the lack of analysis of the social impacts.
Ms Blackwood from Tourism Alliance Victoria said that should the project proceed, the community would need:
• business support in an upfront and transparent manner; • insurance; • professional advice and counselling; • advance notice of dredging; • independent monitoring and auditing; • market support post project; • an effective partnership with all levels and departments of government; and • project planning and alignment for 10 years.
Mr Pierce from the Victorian Recreational Fishing Peak Body submitted that “No one really knows what the environmental outcomes will really be”. He further said that “Port Phillip Bay occupies a very special place in the hearts of the Victorian community”. Mr Evers‐Buckland of the same group was critical of the survey carried out and said it “had questions skewed to provide the answer the PoMC wanted. The settling period of 160 days for contaminants was never mentioned”.
Ms Barnett of the Victorian National Parks Association argued that “Given the high values of the Bay, and the high risks, we need to recognise that the risks are additive”. Mr Smythe from the Australian Conservation Foundation called them cumulative impacts. Further, he said the “gain to the Victorian community is low, and the project is based on old fashioned economics. He asked “What are Victorians gaining, and what is at risk?” and further said that “Sustainable development is not just economically sustainable development. It needs to take into account ecological, social environmental sustainability as well”. The Inquiry adds that cultural sustainability is also an important part of the equation.
Ms Pennicuik said “if there is no demonstrated need and economic benefit to the people of Victoria, then the projects should not proceed”. She urged the Inquiry to adopt the precautionary principle and questioned whether the process is fair, transparent and open to all stakeholders. Further she questioned whether the short term and long term risks, and the long term health of the Bay should come before the consideration of costs to the community. She noted, along with many others, that the Bay is in a reasonable condition. Ms Pennicuik was critical of the way the SEES documentation was put together, in that it was difficult to read – she likened this process to a ‘David and Goliath’ exercise in terms of fairness, and she questioned who is looking after
Page 211
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
the interests of the Bay, and who is the advocate of the Bay. She posed the question, “Whose job is it to protect the Bay for the people of Victoria – now and in the future?” She questioned whether there is evidence that the project must proceed immediately, especially as the benefits will not appear until after 2020. Along with other submittors, Ms Pennicuik questioned why the hearings are now occurring, especially as additional studies are still being undertaken.
(ii) Recreation and Tourism Impacts
The Inquiry heard from Mr Cotterill of SKM, who provided evidence on the potential recreation and tourism effects of the CDP. It would be fair to say that his interpretation of social impacts related to these two matters only. Mr Cotterill identified the community’s interest as including:
• the Victorian and Melbourne community, who uses the Bay for recreation; • tourist and holiday makers; • residents of Melbourne; • residents of Bayside municipalities; and • others who never visit the Bay but value its existence.
Mr Cotterill provided data from Tourism Victoria on the numbers of tourists who visited the Bay, and highlighted the following in relation to the Mornington Peninsula in 2006:
• there were 1,028,000 domestic overnight visitors; • there were 2,950,000 day trips; • there were 29,579 international visitors; and • total expenditure was $447m for domestic visitors, and $21m for international visitors.
The nine municipalities that comprise the Bayside area had a projected population of 992,584 in 2006 and this is expected to rise to 1,260,946 by 2031. (These municipalities are Mornington Peninsula, Frankston, Kingston, Bayside, Port Phillip, Hobson’s Bay, Wyndham, Greater Geelong and Queenscliffe.)
Mr Cotterill went to great lengths to highlight a range of statistics relating to visitation rates and activities, and highlighted that areas of most activity were centred around Bellarine Peninsula, St Kilda and Rye/Rosebud. This was broad brush analysis, and in the opinion of the Inquiry, did not provide much in the way of helpful information. It stated the obvious, and he did not attempt to delve into the deeper impact issues. He did note however that there would be some dredging
Page 212
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
effects on tourism and recreation and mentioned that direct effects would include the dredging plume and water clarity, and issues associated with the operation of the dredger including its presence, noise and loss of water clarity, concern about contamination and reduced fishing catches.
In undertaking his assessment of dredging impacts on key features and communities, Mr Cotterill said it was based on:
• risk assessment pathways; • dredge schedule; • understanding of tourism and recreation communities and activities; • review of technical specialist reports; • discussion with technical specialists; and • discussion and review in risk workshops.
When Mr Cotterill was asked if the risk assessment pathways proved to be incorrect, he commented that the risk consequences might change. Further, the dredge schedule may be extended, and as noted by Ms Cramphorn, this may change other risk consequences. Mr Cotterill provided his conclusions on key tourism and recreation impacts as follows:
• Recreational Fishing – unlikely to be significantly impacted but potential for local impacts on both recreational anglers and charter fishing operators; • Recreational Boating – unlikely to be significantly affected with diving in the Southern and Entrance Project areas at least partially restricted for some 12‐15 months and limited if any opportunity to relocate activities; • Ecotourism ‐ Some adverse impacts for water based activities in South of Bay, Land based activities unlikely to be significantly impacted; • General Tourism ‐ some flow on impacts but expected to be negligible from an overall tourism industry perspective but could have an adverse impact on some businesses; and • Land based recreation – Potential for some localised short term reduction in beach activity.
It is clear from this information that there will be impacts, with some localised impacts affecting particular groups such as recreational anglers, charter fishing operators, recreational divers, eco‐tourism, and land based recreation. While Mr Cotterill conceded there would be some impacts, he declined to say what the specific impacts will be and how they should be overcome. He did not propose any strategies to overcome these impacts however he did highlight some proposed mitigation actions – most of which he noted were provided for in the EMP.
Page 213
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Mr Cotterill provided a range of information on the diving industry – none of which was challenged by Mr Morehead and his team of submittors. He estimated possible loss of income to the dive industry due to the dredging schedule in the South Channel and the Entrance – this ranged from a high of $14.6m to 25% to 35% of the estimated total income. Further, job losses were estimated to be a high of 125 FTE to a low of 86 FTE. The summary of proposed mitigation actions for the diving industry relate to:
• ensuring dredging schedules consider the seasonal sensitivities in terms of recreation and tourism activity; • effective dissemination of information on the CDP to a range of groups through a communication strategy which includes advice, warnings and notice; • providing an information, feedback and complaint hotline; • direct communication to dive industry on access, restriction visibility and turbidity issues; and • establishment of protocols to maintain safe passage for recreational boats and ferries.
If the EMP is not implemented as expected, there maybe further unintended impacts.
(iii) Community Fears and Perception
The Inquiry raised the issue of community fears and perception, and asked the Port how it had dealt with this. No response was provided during the Port’s initial presentations however, it did respond by way of further written submissions as part of its right of reply. The Port acknowledged that social impacts can influence a planning decision where “that planning decision would result in long term and irreversible damage to the community, in particular where population size or community cohesion is like to be significantly and permanently affected”.
Mr Gobbo argued that previous Panels and Tribunals have indicated that mere apprehension, if unsupported by empirical evidence, is:
• likely to have a short term social impact; • typically not realised if/when the development proceeds; and • should not be given great weight.
To support this argument, he then cited a number of cases where that supposition was upheld. He concluded by noting that “it would be quite proper for a panel to give
Page 214
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
considerable weight to issues of social impact if objections are supported by empirical evidence of a lasting and significant negative impact. However, where objectors base their submissions on mere apprehension or where negative impacts are likely to be short‐lived, the social impact of a proposed development or use of land should not be given great weight.”
SKM through Ms Cramphorn provided a written response to the Inquiry’s concerns about perception and acknowledged that the community fears and aspirations are an important part of an SIA. She said that the SIA in the SEES did address this, and noted that primary concerns of those surveyed relate to the uncertainty on the long term physical and environmental impacts of the proposal on the Bay. She too held the view that perceptions and community concerns should be “fed into the risk framework”.
Ms Cramphorn in her conclusion noted that “the social impact assessment provides a comprehensive assessment of all issues relevant to community perceptiveness, fears and concerns about the direct and indirect effects of channel deepening and includes a full coverage if possible actions that could be taken to alleviate or lessen those impacts”. It is clear that the community at large do not share her confidence and the risk management measures did not satisfy many of the concerns raised.
The Inquiry was intrigued why Ms Cramphorn was not able to present any evidence; even though it was clear the Inquiry raised a number of concerns about social impacts. The Inquiry acknowledges it is a challenging issue to address, as it is very difficult to quantify these impacts. Further, a hostile opposition is much harder to convince.
(iv) Proposed Change in Dredge Schedule
The Inquiry asked the PoMC to respond to whether the proposed change to the dredging schedule would have any social impacts. Ms Cramphorn noted that the key issues related to the:
• extended period of dredging contaminated material; • extended use of the Cornelis Zanen in the Yarra River; • extended use of the Queen of the Netherlands in the South Channel to obtain capping material; and • potential presence of two dredges at the Entrance in the December/January period.
In making this assessment, Ms Cramphorn noted that the latest dredging schedule is two months longer and effectively means eight months of continuous dredging in
Page 215
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
the Yarra and Williamstown Channel. In this regard she said:
We believe that given the popularity of this area, the extended dredging of contaminated material coupled with the extended presence of both the plume and the dredger is likely to increase the effect on both beach use and amenity/perceptions for a period of some months. This results in a change in the consequence rating for beach use from negligible to minor and a change of risk rating associated with the plume being visible from the shore from very low to low.
The Inquiry considers these changes in risk consequence to be significant. The extended plume and the duration of the plume in these areas will be noticeable. In particular, the plume extends into the Williamstown foreshore area at a time when it is likely the beach will be used at peak capacity.
There is proposed to be an extended time of 14 weeks of dredging east of the Hovell Pile in the South Channel, and together with the presence of the plume, the amenity/perception consequence rating changes from negligible to minor.
There is little change to the dredging schedule in the Port Melbourne Channel, likewise at the Entrance.
Because it was a result of the Inquiry pursuing these issues, this information has not been readily available to those outside of the hearing and it raises concerns about a range of social impacts emanating from this proposal. As mentioned these are difficult to quantify, and the Inquiry accepts that as with most new proposals, there are usually issues with short term impacts.
(v) Employment Opportunities
A key concern raised by many submittors was loss of employment opportunities (and income) as a result of the CDP. The uncertainty associated with the duration of the proposal and its impacts on continuing business opportunities such as diving, eco‐tourism, fishing and a range of water based activities, as well as on shore businesses such as cafes, clothing shops and other uses commonly associated with bayside/beach activities gave rise to significant concerns.
Many submittors discussed how their livelihood centred on the Bay, either as fishers, divers, dolphin watchers and the like. They spoke of investing in a business with the hope to pass it on to future generations. Key concerns related to turbidity, the plume, the impact on marine flora and fauna, and loss of business. Most expressed a deep love and passion for the Bay and argued that the risk is not worth the outcome.
Page 216
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
All were extremely critical of the PoMC and what they considered to be their lack of interaction and concern.
Mr Renzenbrink emphasised the importance of family and support for families and businesses in his presentation and argued that many will be affected. He was concerned that if the project went ahead, it is evitable that there will be social and environmental damage, for which the PoMC should be held responsible. Ms Slamen from Citizens for a Liveable Melbourne told the Inquiry that the “People of the suburbs have been forgotten in the Port’s expansion”.
The Inquiry notes that there is some opportunity for compensation for diving and fishing businesses, but many other potentially affected submittors felt that they too should be compensated for the duration of the CDP. Some submittors became very emotional about potential loss of business, and the impacts it might have on their family’s well‐being, their income, staff opportunities and continuing viability.
It is easy to understand these concerns, and the Inquiry is sympathetic with the views expressed. The potential for loss of income, downturn in business and possible closure of business can have devastating impacts. These impacts cannot be underestimated. However the likelihood of that occurring on a wide scale is extremely difficult to quantify. These are genuine fears and perceptions, but a range of other factors can also come into play that may impact on these businesses; for example weather, competition from competing business, and new and emerging business trends, poor service and management, can also impact on business viability. If there is a downturn in business at the same time as the dredging occurs, demonstration that it is solely because of the dredging could be difficult.
The Bay has a total area of some 1930 square kilometres and a coastline length of some 264 kilometres. The physical impacts of the dredging will be widely felt, but they will only occur in specific areas at specific times. It will not occur over the whole of the Bay area, nor will the impacts occur continuously in all areas. Some people might actually find it interesting.
19.3 Inquiry Conclusions and Recommendations The assessment of social impacts by the Inquiry included adequacy of social impact research; recreation and tourism impacts; community fears and perceptions; proposed dredge schedule changes; and employment (and loss of business) opportunities.
PoMC’s conclusions relied heavily on the case that all risks could be managed, and
Page 217
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
social impacts would largely be minimal. However, the Inquiry found a deep and unrelenting concern by community participants about the CDP, and is disappointed that the social impact assessment was not more thorough and conclusive.
In its discussion about environmental management and governance (Chapters 21 and 22), the Inquiry makes recommendations about the EMP, one of which will be that an independent monitor be appointed to advise the Secretary of DSE and/or the Minister(s) for Planning/Environment on a range of compliance issues.
In providing the recommendations below, the Inquiry is conscious that the EMP already includes provisions for community liaison, but considers these matters need to be re‐enforced and made stronger.
Recommendations:
Develop a strong and effective communication strategy for the duration and post recovery of CDP. This should include:
• Appointing a professional of sufficient seniority and capability as “Community Liaison Officer” to respond to community inquiries.
• Establishing a “Community Liaison Group”, including representatives from the existing Project Stakeholder Advisory Committee, for an initial period of three years. It should meet regularly while the project is being undertaken, and continue during the recovery process.
• Maintaining effective communication with relevant community groups interested in Bay use and conditions, as well as commercial fisheries.
• Consulting the community during and after the CDP to raise awareness of potential for future use of dredged material.
Page 218
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
20. OTHER ISSUES
20.1 Greenhouse Gases The CDP will release greenhouse gases as a result of consumption of fuel used by the dredging equipment. In addition, the level of carbon dioxide sequestered by the Bay may be affected, as changes to the channel depth and width may influence factors that influence CO2 levels including temperature, salinity and flushing rate.
The total energy consumption for the CDP is estimated at 227,342tCO2e, with the principal energy use being the fuel consumed during the capital dredging. This work will involve the consumption of an estimated 19.66 megalitres (ML) of marine gas oil and 50.14 ML of intermediate fuel oil. This is equivalent to 205,000 tonnes of CO2e, which is increased to the estimated total figure of 227,342tCO2e if upstream emissions from extraction, processing and transport are included. The Inquiry notes that this is less than 0.2% of Victoria’s 2004 greenhouse emissions.
Following the reasoning that the deepening of the channels would result in fewer international ships using the port and that those ships that visited would be larger in size and more efficient, the SEES concluded that there will be a reduction in fuel use, and therefore greenhouse gas emissions by shipping would also be reduced. As a result of these newer, larger ships using the port, the Technical Report by O’Brien Consulting estimates that the total fuel use would be reduced over the CDP’s 30 year life cycle by over 476,000 tonnes, avoiding emissions of over 1.5 million tonnes of CO2e.
The Inquiry notes PoMC commitment to incorporate and report compliance with the Greenhouse Challenge within the EMP. The Inquiry also notes that the encouragement of the uptake of other greenhouse abatement options has also been included.
In conclusion, the Inquiry believes there are no outstanding issues relating to greenhouse gases and makes no recommendation on this issue.
20.2 Groundwater Mr Carter raised issues relating to potential impacts on aquifers under Port Phillip Bay from the CDP. His main concerns were the aquifers in both the Lower Yarra and greater Bay areas, including the potential for the water table to pollute the Bay, and visa‐versa, for water from the Bay to pollute the aquifer.
Page 219
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The SEES states that in relation to the Yarra Delta aquifers, some leakage is expected between systems, most likely from the aquifer to the Yarra River. However the consequences of this leakage on marine ecosystems will be negligible. The Northern Bay and Southern aquifers were not considered further in the SEES as the EES Risk Assessment and technical appendices identified very low levels of risks.
Mr Carter believed that further studies and work were required because there is little information as to the extent and understanding as to the flows of the aquifers under where the proposed dredging is to take place. He commented:
Unlike all previous work presented by the POMA and the first Panel findings, the citizens of Victoria are entitled to expect the impact of the Yarra and Nepean aquifers by the Channel Deepening Project to be thoroughly, expertly and independently studied and reported and to be permitted to be subject to review before any decision to proceed with the project is made.
Mr Carter was also critical of the failure of both the PoMC and DSE to acknowledge his concerns.
In their submission in reply, the PoMC commented that Mr Carter presented a ‘prima facie’ case and that the issue had been suitably resolved. The Inquiry is of the view that the groundwater studies conducted by the PoMC are satisfactory and is satisfied that these issues will be properly considered and managed by PoMC should the project be approved.
20.3 Heritage (i) Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
As part of the SEES process, Heritage Insight Pty Ltd was engaged by the proponent to identify key Aboriginal cultural assets associated with Port Phillip Bay. A search of the site register at Aboriginal Affairs Victoria, combined with fieldwork, showed that there are 594 Aboriginal archaeological sites and Aboriginal historic places within 300 metres of the existing coast, with the majority occurring in the southern parts of the Bay. Overall, the SEES assessed as very unlikely to implausible the likelihood that channel deepening will intrude into older terrestrial land surfaces and affect submerged Aboriginal archaeological sites.
PoMC advised it has commenced preparation of a cultural heritage management plan pursuant to the Aboriginal Heritage Act 2006.
Page 220
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
(ii) Non‐Aboriginal Cultural Heritage
In relation to non‐Aboriginal cultural heritage, TerraCulture Pty Ltd was engaged by the proponent to identify key assets associated with Port Phillip Bay. They found that the distribution of marine heritage sites across the Bay is consistent with the areas of concentrated maritime activity, namely Port Melbourne and Port Phillip Heads.
The SEES identifies the following key heritage structures and sites in the Bay:
• navigational aids, which are concentrated around the Heads and the shipping channels; • a number of shipwrecks near the Heads; • forts and other defence sites that were erected on either side of the Heads during the nineteenth century to protect the colony from possible invasion; and • ports and harbours, which are mostly at the northern end of the Bay due to deeper water in the north.
Of the 304 identified marine heritage sites, the SEES identified one site (HMVS Cerberus) as being of national significance, 140 of state significance and 34 of local significance.
The SEES noted that coastal heritage sites are concentrated in Hobson’s Bay and the southern areas of Port Phillip Bay, although there are also several around the Yarra River and the northern areas of the Bay. Of the 176 identified coastal heritage sites, 19 were found to be of state significance, one of regional significance and 18 of local significance.
Through demolition and construction of berthworks, services and navigational aids, the SEES predicts that the CDP will disturb heritage sites in Project Area 1, while dredging activities in Project Areas 2 and 3 are predicted to affect a number of sites in the vicinity of the South Channel.
The Inquiry is satisfied that there will be no significant impacts on Aboriginal or non‐Aboriginal cultural heritage.
Page 221
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
PART 4: ENVIRONMENTAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Page 222
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
21. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
21.1 Description and Key Issues This chapter considers the environmental management framework, particularly risk identification, management and mitigation. Chapter 22 proposes relevant external governance arrangements.
The EMP is essentially a management tool for ensuring that environmental effects and risk events are no greater than predicted, as well as identifying and adopting improvement opportunities. It also describes monitoring, reporting, auditing arrangements, inspections and management reviews designed to safeguard environmental performance.
The EMP is part of a broader Environmental Management System that addresses matters additional to environmental consideration. Its elements are appropriate. It is consistent with ISO14001: 2004 Environmental Management Systems – Requirements with guidance for use and provides an acceptable structure for project implementation by PoMC. Details of certain elements of the EMP still need to be completed by PoMC before Government consideration of whether to proceed with the CDP.
The environmental impact and risk assessment process built on detailed expert technical assessments through workshops in which expert consultants reviewed and evaluated relationships among assessments. Substantial issues were highlighted and subjected to systematic peer review. It was noted that the workshops did not include wider community, practitioner or academic involvement. This process addressed legislation and policy, best practice, and principles of ecologically sustainable development. Draft evaluation objectives listed in the SEES Assessment Guidelines with associated evaluation criteria provided a qualitative framework for evaluating the CDP and its effects.
CDP definition comprised the starting point for environmental impact and risk assessment. Risk assessment adopted the approach of the Australian/New Zealand Standard: Risk Management (AS/NZ 4360:2004). Major issues relating to the ecological assets, social values and economic uses of the Bay were identified and investigated in detail. Modelling and analysis results were used together with the risk assessment process to evaluate potential environmental effects.
As the risk assessment process was iterative and continuous, it could accommodate CDP changes where PoMC made these, either proactively or in response to emerging
Page 223
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
environmental challenges. “Predicted effects” of the CDP were those with a 50% or greater chance of occurring, whereas events with less than 50% chance of occurring were addressed as project risks to be mitigated and managed out by adjusting project parameters. Residual risks that could not be designed out were prioritised. Additional environmental management measures were called for where:
• the predicted effects or risk events were significant; • risk events considered major or extreme had a more than or equal to one in a million chance of occurring; • legislative requirements could be breached; • predicted effects or risk events were inconsistent with evaluation objectives and relevant legislation/policy; and • there was an identifiable opportunity to minimise environmental impacts on key assets even where the risk events or effects were consistent with evaluation objectives and relevant legislation/policy.
Many submittors raised specific environmental concerns, and were invited by the Inquiry to provide comments and suggestions about how their concerns could be translated into actions through the EMP. Very few offered any suggestions as their fundamental position was in complete opposition to the project.
21.2 Adequacy of Environmental Impact and Risk Assessment
(i) Adequacy of the risk assessment for predicting environmental effects as a result of the project
The IEG advised that the conceptual approach adopted by the SEES is sound and consistent with best practice. The evaluation approach adopted for the SEES is broad in scope, and has resulted in an assessment of impact and risk which the IEG regards as exceptionally comprehensive for projects of this type, and the scope and scale of the assessment exceeds that applied for most other comparable projects nationally or internationally. The IEG strongly supported the approach that allows the SEES to deal rigorously and quantitatively with primary impacts.
The IEG noted that the SEES did not explicitly model the complex relationships within the ecosystem, and instead developed conceptual models of the Bay system and processes, and used these to inform risk assessment. The SEES explained that while event trees constitute a linear framework, the risk assessment catered for additive and interactive cumulative effects within project areas and between project activities and other external activities. Interactive effects between project areas
Page 224
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
identified through the process were progressively incorporated into the risk assessment and provided input into the technical studies.
The IEG highlighted however that the approach taken in the SEES relies heavily on the experience, judgement and system understanding of participants in the risk assessment workshops (and reviewers) to take interactions and thresholds into account in estimating likelihood and consequence.
The Inquiry has concerns about the breadth of the participation in the workshops that developed the risk assessment. Likewise, submittors expressed concern about some of the conclusions drawn from the analysis of the likelihood of the risks and that a more robust and defensible set of the outcomes would have been possible if a broader participation had been involved.
The IEG considered that despite this, the conceptual approach adopted by the SEES allows uncertainty to be explicitly and consistently dealt with at several levels including:
• classification of events by their likelihood and consequence; • use of a conservative approach ‐ where it encountered scientific uncertainty about likelihood and/or consequence, the SEES adopted the worst case estimates; and • monitoring key indicators of primary impact (i.e. turbidity and noise), and modifying activities during the project execution so as to keep those indicators within agreed performance standards, to avoid unexpected effects resulting from underestimation of primary impacts.
The IEG did, however, highlight that scientific uncertainties remained. This should not be seen as evidence that the SEES has been unsuccessful, as scientific uncertainties will always remain no matter how large the investment. Indeed, the more comprehensive the scope of the assessment, the more uncertainties will be uncovered.
(ii) Adequacy of the risk assessment for predicting risks to project delivery
While the SEES assesses risks of the project to the Bay and Bay users, it does not consider whether implementation of the EMP will affect the timely and cost‐effective implementation of the CDP. This could occur in exceedences of specified environmental limits for noise and turbidity. Project risks posed by the environmental limit for the hydrohammer underwater noise have been mentioned in Chapter 17. With regard to turbidity, the analysis provided by Professor Fox
Page 225
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
indicates the probability of exceeding specified limits. It is difficult to quantify the effects of enforcing the EMP but the Inquiry notes the issue. The extent to which the EMP adopts a precautionary approach in protecting assets, and its ability to distinguish impacts of dredging from other pressures on assets will determine what can be done to understand how the EMP will impact CDP timelines and costs.
The EMP currently contains an overarching framework consistent with the ISO 140001 standards and has been accredited by a registered environmental auditor from SAI Global Limited. This audit has confirmed conformance with the requirements of the Standard.
21.3 Implementation of Project Design as Specified
(i) Primary Mechanisms for Managing Impacts
The EMP incorporates process controls to ensure that the project design is implemented to specification, and removes risks intended to be designed out of the project as well as those to be managed through the EMP. The IEG highlighted that this might best be described as controlling hazards. The IEG is satisfied that selected technology and configurations are suitable for and capable of carrying out the dredging and placement processes as planned within environmental limits. The EMP also includes process monitoring to track equipment and monitor bund and cap construction to facilitate specified project delivery objectives.
(ii) The ability to manage remaining uncertainty
Management of primary impacts
Some residual risks that may give rise to primary impacts from dredge activity could not be designed out of the project, and have been identified and incorporated in the EMP. Management of these primary impacts relies on an adaptive management approach to manage the immediate effects of the dredge activities in short (days to weeks) to medium (months) terms. Adaptive response involves setting environmental limits for key indicators, monitoring those indicators, establishing contingency plans and management responses that can be taken by dredge operators.
The IEG explained that monitoring and adaptive management is a standard and widely adopted method of dealing with residual uncertainty in major projects.
Page 226
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Indicators were selected to enable management responses to risks that were incorporated in the EMP, and were:
• related to the primary impacts of dredging; • related to the primary causal link in a number of event trees leading to potentially significant risk; and • easily monitored so as to provide rapid, near real‐time data to inform operational decisions.
The IEG supports the general conceptual design of performance monitoring of primary impact indicators, setting environmental limits, and development of contingency plans and management responses, at short (days to weeks) and medium (months) time scales.
Management of flow on effects
The IEG advised that focusing only on managing primary effects protected against some but not all secondary or flow‐on risks. For example, turbidity monitoring allows a response to uncertainties in the turbidity model but it may not enable an appropriate response to consequential seagrass impacts.
PoMC has continued to amend and improve the EMP. The latest version proposes to manage the uncertainties related to flow‐on effects by monitoring Bay assets and reviewing results.
The EMP will provide information on the long‐term status or health of key species, habitats and ecological processes in PPB and will identify deviations from natural variation or background conditions. Existing programs managed by relevant agencies will be augmented to include an increase in the number of monitoring locations, frequency of sampling or number of parameters analysed. Bay‐wide programs will monitor seagrass, water quality, nutrient cycling, plume intensity and extent, contaminants in fish, algal blooms, little penguins and fish stock and recruitment.
The IEG advised that they are satisfied with the range of programs to be available, although one specific program is not clearly linked to the major risks of the project. The rationale for the DMG marine pest inspection programs is questioned, as this monitoring does not appear related to an identified important risk.
At the time of draft EMP version C, monitoring programs were yet to be finalised between PoMC and the responsible agencies. The EMP intends that detailed
Page 227
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
monitoring objectives and procedures will be prepared by lead agencies consistent with the programs outlined in the EMP, and that PoMC will work collaboratively with agencies on these objectives and procedures.
The EMP proposes that each lead agency in consultation with PoMC and other agencies will collaborate in preparing a decision framework to analyse and assess data from their respective monitoring programs. The decision framework will be applied to interpret significant changes beyond expected natural variation or background conditions where they occur.
The IEG stressed that such events will eventuate during the CDP. The decision framework should be determined before project implementation. If left until the project is underway, such questions become contentious and may have time and cost implications for the project. Consequently, a defensible, peer‐reviewed decision framework needs to be agreed prior to project commencement to enable reasoned and timely decisions to be made about cause and effect relevant to dredging.
The IEG advised that monitoring programs should include:
• indicators for key environmental assets potentially at risk; • additional indicators required for diagnosis of cause and effect; and • resolution of spatial and temporal coverage to detect and diagnose change at agreed levels reliably.
And that if well designed, this would allow:
• identification of a program’s purpose, relative to the required protection or management objectives for environmental assets; • understanding of its scientific basis with respect to impact pathways: and • consideration of its empirical basis in terms of: o locations of potentially affected assets; o availability of background data; o temporal sensitivity of impact indicators; and o statistical models of detection.
The IEG highlighted the recreational fisheries program as an example of a Bay‐wide program for which it was not possible to determine whether it aimed to:
• contribute to long‐term information about the Bay; • identify large‐scale effects of the CDP; or • focus on important, spatially restricted local effects of the CDP.
Page 228
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
A number of proposed programs lack clarity of purpose. Without such clarity, it is difficult to assess whether the monitoring is appropriate.
• Review arrangements
The EMP proposes environmental management reviews at six‐monthly intervals in which PoMC, with input from specialists and in collaboration with responsible agencies, will review project monitoring data and Bay‐wide data on key environmental assets.
The IEG advised that success of these reviews depends on the design of Bay‐wide monitoring programs and analysis of resulting data, to assess change and distinguish effects of dredging from natural or human factors. The IEG cautioned that post‐hoc development of analyses and interpretations are rarely successful, emphasising the importance of concluding this work as soon as possible.
(iii) Confirming extent and degree of enduring effects
The SEES recognises a number of enduring effects on the Bay, including deepening of channels, altering hydrodynamic processes and extending existing and creating new DMGs.
While the EMP recognises and controls the leading event which results in these changes, few procedures are included in the EMP to confirm that changes are as predicted. This is a matter addressed by the Inquiry in the following section.
21.4 Inquiry Response The Inquiry has worked within the SEES Guidelines and its Terms of Reference and concludes that the following issues are pertinent:
• the adequacy of the environmental impact and risk assessment; • inclusion of appropriate elements in the EMP framework; • ability to implement the specified project design; and • appropriate governance arrangements for implementation of the EMP and the CDP.
The Inquiry notes that the SEES process has resulted in risks being identified and managed through iterations of project design while remaining uncertainties are
Page 229
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
managed within the EMP.
The Inquiry notes that modelling and the selected risk assessment approach contain inherent uncertainties, ultimately related to expert judgement on assumptions and conceptual understanding of the systems. In relation to this, it may have been better to include community participants and independent experts in the risk workshops. Submittors expressed concern about some conclusions drawn from analysis of risk probabilities. Although the Inquiry is disappointed that broader participation was not involved, it notes that an internal and external peer review process was undertaken to the satisfaction of the IEG.
The Inquiry understands the environmental condition of the Bay and has examined the additional risk that CDP will contribute. It has considered the management of CDP effects against the principles of ecologically sustainable development and considered whether the measures minimise risk as feasibly and economically as possible.
It acknowledges that PoMC has continued to amend and improve the EMP, both of its own volition and in response to challenges raised during the Inquiry process. The Government will need to be satisfied with the final content of each element in the framework before approval.
The Inquiry notes that monitoring indicators have been selected for three primary impacts of dredging activity: turbidity (as NTU), underwater noise and airborne noise. The IEG advised that this represents a logical choice of indicators for this purpose.
The Inquiry is concerned that creation of loose rocks during dredging may emerge as a primary impact of the CDP. A specific limit was used during the TDP and endeavoured to control the depth of rock spill into the canyon. It did not address the primary impact, that is, the volume and area of rock waste left behind. This approach did not enable control measures to be applied to the volume and area of rock waste. As rockfalls will occur, the Inquiry believes that minimisation will be more effective if the risk is managed directly rather than relying on depth limits. The CDP contains process controls to maximise loose rock removal and minimise the potential for rock fall into the Canyon. The Inquiry expects they will be more effective at managing the impact. The EMP needs further revision to ensure better management of rock falls and scouring.
The SEES predicted Bay assets would experience flow on effects associated with dredging. While acknowledging the importance of quantifying these effects it
Page 230
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
recognised the challenges involved in detection and attribution of causality. The Inquiry notes the SEES rules out use of predicted indirect impacts on environmental assets as specific control measures in the EMP. This is largely due to uncertainties in attributing observed changes to specific causes such as dredging.
PoMC contends that the EMP has developed process and environmental controls that ensure delivery of CDP according to design. However, the Inquiry adopts the IEG’s advice to include measurement of deviation from natural variation or background conditions to detect changes that can potentially be attributed to flow on effects from dredging. The Inquiry considers that PoMC should take IEG advice on this matter into account in finalising the EMP.
The Inquiry considers that monitoring programs designated to assist in managing CDP risk be capable of achieving that purpose. It is not apparent to the IEG that this is the case yet.
The Inquiry notes the benefits of starting monitoring programs before the project to obtain background information. It urges that monitoring programs be initiated as soon as possible using where appropriate, existing monitoring information.
The Inquiry reinforces the importance of finalising decision frameworks prior to project approval.
Following IEG advice, the Inquiry considers that timing of Bay‐wide monitoring reviews should be ‘fit‐for‐purpose’ rather than determined by routine scheduling. On the current timetable, the six monthly reviews are scheduled over the end of year holiday period. As such, it urges PoMC to attend to this matter and to adopt a more targeted approach.
The Inquiry is concerned that post dredging, measures should be taken to correct any adverse impacts. Submittors were anxious to ensure appropriate intervention to minimise adverse impacts and adequate remediation in the event of serious impacts. The Inquiry notes that management processes are in place to deal with post dredging impacts of project implementation.
21.5 Inquiry Conclusions and Recommendations The Inquiry concludes that:
(i) the risk assessment process is adequate, noting that an internal and external peer review process was undertaken to the IEG’s satisfaction;
Page 231
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
(ii) predicted environmental performance is acceptable; (iii) the environmental management framework includes the appropriate elements but requires further strengthening as the guidance document for environmental protection purposes; (iv) the EMP is an appropriate management tool, but it needs to be revised in accordance with the Inquiry and IEG advice; and (v) the final EMP should be subject to the approval of the Minister for the Environment with independent oversight (see Chapter 22).
Recommendations:
Refer each collaborative monitoring program, including review timeframes to the IEG prior to project approval, for confirmation that it is ‘fit‐for‐purpose’ for timely consideration of data and addresses an appropriate package of potential flow on effects. In doing so, the IEG should confirm that Bay‐wide monitoring programs are appropriately designed to measure changes against natural variation so that CDP management may take account of these during and after dredging.
Include post‐dredging investigations of major risk events to confirm the extent of changes relative to predictions.
Adopt Version C of the EMP, with the changes recommended by the Inquiry, following which PoMC seek IEG endorsement that the EMP satisfies acceptable standards of scientific and statistical definition.
Appoint an independent monitor to advise Government on unexpected or significant changes to schedule and dredging strategies and associated timetables; responses to significant environmental exceedences; compliance with the EMP (including where a response level is triggered); and adverse outcomes identified by monitoring programs.
Consider whether the Alliance should deposit an environmental performance bond linked to safe and effective CDP delivery, and post recovery.
Page 232
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
22. EXTERNAL PROJECT GOVERNANCE
The previous chapter identified risks and uncertainties that could not be managed out in designing the CDP and which therefore need to be addressed in the EMP. The Inquiry acknowledges the EMP is the key management tool. PoMC has devised internal governance and monitoring arrangements to enable achievement of predicted environmental performance. There remains a need for governance that extends beyond PoMC and the Alliance to assure the Victorian Government and community that Port Phillip Bay and its environs are protected.
This chapter considers the adequacy of mechanisms associated with the CDP from a whole of government standpoint, and suggests additional mechanisms and tools that the Government may wish to consider.
22.1 Authorising Regime The Inquiry considered available mechanisms for an approval framework for the CDP. The Coastal Management Act 1995 is the primary mechanism for project permission. The Inquiry also notes governance requirements under the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act, the Fisheries Act and the National Parks Act.
(i) Coastal Management Act 1995
The Coastal Management Act 1995 provides for the Minister for the Environment to consent to the ‘use and development’ of coastal Crown land. Under the consent process, the Minister must have regard to the Victorian Coastal Strategy, and recommendations of the Land Conservation Council both of which cover environmental impacts to marine ecosystems.
The CMA consent is primarily established to provide for the ‘use and development’ of the Coastal Crown Land, and approval under this Act is required for dredging projects in Port Phillip Bay and on other Coastal Crown Land in Victoria. This Act has provided the principal mechanism for governing dredging projects to date and EMPs for previous projects have been attached as conditions to these approvals.
The Inquiry has regard for the concern of the earlier EES Panel:
In short, the Coastal Management Act is an instrument that was largely designed to approve and manage relatively small scale projects on public land. It is not a major project approval or regulatory instrument. It does not contain mechanisms such as can
Page 233
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
be delivered through the Pollution Abatement Notice (PAN) under Section 31A or the ‘stop notice’ direction making power of Section 62B of the Environment Protection Act. It does not include the detailed strategy forming and decision support provisions of the Planning and Environment Act. It does not enable significant, proportional or ongoing penalties to be levied in case of significant breaches.
The CMA approval is required for granting authority to ‘use and develop’ the land. The Inquiry considers this mechanism alone does not cater adequately for the continuing implications of CDP, as the consent authorises the principal activity only.
(ii) Port Services Act 1995
The Inquiry explored mechanisms for governance under the Port Services Act 1995. This Act holds PoMC accountable for implementing the EMP effectively by requiring the Port Manager to prepare, certify and implement an environmental management plan. Accountability is to the Minister for Roads and Ports. As previous dredging campaigns have been governed through CMA consent, accountability for ensuring compliance with relevant EMPs has resided with the Minister for the Environment. If the Government choose to use the Port Services Act, it could balance environmental and infrastructure objectives by integrating environmental management explicitly within the management of port infrastructure responsibilities. This approach would underline PoMC Board accountability for effective implementation of the EMP and strengthen incentives to embed environmental priorities in day‐to‐day and strategic decision‐making. The Inquiry notes the commitment to this effect made by the Chairman of the PoMC Board (Mr Scales) in his presentation to the hearing.
As an option, accountability for ensuring compliance with the EMP could be placed with the Minister for Roads and Ports to align CDP and EMP outcomes better. The interests of the Minister for the Environment in regard to Port Phillip Bay would be met under this scenario, so long as the final EMP is an effective control document.
(iii) The Lands Act
Although the Port Services Act holds PoMC responsible for maintenance of shipping channels, provisions in relation to the DMGs are not explicit. Although the dredge material grounds DMGs are located on Crown land, historically they have been the responsibility of the Minister for Environment. However, the EMP defines an ongoing responsibility for PoMC in relation to the Northern DMG to ensure the integrity of its bunding and capping structure. As accountability for this DMG is unclear legislatively, a further mechanism is required to govern long‐term PoMC
Page 234
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
responsibility. The Inquiry is concerned that such responsibility should not default to the Minister for the Environment when it is clearly incumbent upon PoMC to take responsibility for the DMG.
The Lands Act provides for Crown land leases. While this mechanism has not been used previously to govern the use of dredge material grounds, the Act has been used to govern accountabilities in relation to aquaculture sites. A lease under the Lands Act could ensure that PoMC takes explicit responsibility to maintain shipping channels in the vicinity of the Northern DMG. It would also be appropriate to apply the same approach to the Southern DMG, although implications are less serious for security of dredged materials and for adjacent shipping channels.
As an option, the mechanisms and leases under the Lands Act could be used to attach appropriate accountability to PoMC for long‐term management of the DMGs and nearby shipping channels.
(iv) Planning & Environment Act 1987
The EES Panel suggested that the Planning and Environment Act 1987 could be considered as a practical means to base a project approval framework, and advised that:
Port Phillip Bay is an intensively used water body, in which the competing interests of Port and shipping, recreation, aquaculture, industrial abstraction and wastewater treatment functions must be balanced with the need for ongoing provision of valuable natural systems services and the conservation of biodiversity and landforms. The Planning & Environment Act supports a primarily land based system of strategic planning and control. The mechanisms in the Act would be well adapted to strategy formation and detailed control over major projects in the Bay. There is no reason in principle why it should not be used.
The Inquiry does not consider this option alone is adequate for the CDP, but notes that it may provide an appropriate governance framework as an option.
22.2 Bay Management The Inquiry notes that a policy framework consisting of a range of Government commitments, legislation, strategies, international agreements and relevant SEPP schedules define management priorities for the Bay’s environment. These policy considerations are balanced in the Bay’s environmental management objectives and aim to:
Page 235
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• conserve biodiversity; • provide recreation and tourism opportunities; • secure production and sustainable use of wild fisheries; • provide for aquaculture; • provide for shipping and boating; • protect cultural heritage; and • provide water for industrial purposes.
Bay environmental management reflects these multiple objectives, pursued by multiple agencies. It is complex. Effective coordination is critical as many Government entities have management roles and responsibilities that influence the human activities and natural processes affecting environmental conditions. The overarching framework for managing the Bay’s environment is the Port Phillip Bay Environmental Management Plan. While this plan currently focuses on two of the key risks to the Bay ‐ increased nutrients and exotic marine pests – it provides for regular review and updating, including incorporation of other risks to the Bay.
The Inquiry urges DSE to ensure outcomes of the CDP are included in its forthcoming review of the Bay‐wide EMP.
22.3 Decision making during EMP Implementation (i) Internal management reviews
The EMP proposes a framework of internal management reviews to evaluate judgements made about matters bearing on key environmental objectives. Any action arising from a management review will be assigned responsibility and tracked until completion. This approach is discussed in the previous Chapter.
PoMC envisages responses such as modifying the project schedule, further investigations, modifications to Bay‐wide monitoring programs and post‐dredging options such as no further action, further investigations, offsets or rehabilitation.
The Inquiry has stated its view that reviews should be timely to ensure continuous improvement of programs, and not necessarily confined to six‐monthly intervals.
(ii) External assurance
The EMP contains decisions that require judgement about risks to the project, environment and Bay users. These decisions include:
Page 236
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• changes to the schedule and dredge strategies; • responses to environmental limit exceedences wherein PoMC may: o suspend project activity contributing to and/or causing the exceedence. Other project activities not contributing to exceedence may continue without disruption; o assess cause(s) and identify and implement appropriate management actions consistent with the contingency plan; and o resume activity when the environmental limit is no longer being exceeded; and • responses to Bay‐wide monitoring reports.
To provide for additional public assurance the Inquiry recommends the appointment of an independent monitor to advise Government on unexpected or significant changes to schedule and dredging strategies and associated timetables; responses to significant environmental exceedences; compliance with the EMP (including where a response level is triggered); and adverse outcomes identified by monitoring programs. This position provides an added level of environmental assurance without unduly impacting on project delivery. Independence from PoMC and other agencies is required for transparency and community confidence.
The Inquiry recognises that the Government might wish to evaluate several structural options for this role. It considers that the mosaic of interests associated with the Bay is sufficiently complex and numerous to warrant its location in a central agency such as the Department of Premier and Cabinet. On the other hand, there is a case for establishing the role in the Department of Sustainability and the Environment, which has responsibility for Bay environmental management. Attachment to the Department of Infrastructure, which has responsibility for ports, might also be considered.
The Inquiry proposes that the independent monitor role would require access to relevant expertise, including but not restricted to that embodied in the IEG and DSE. The Inquiry underscores the importance of the monitor being able to draw on expertise such as major project management, social impacts, planning policy, and economic and financial analysis. The independent monitor could assist help make judgements during EMP implementation.
This role may not any statutory power, and it is not an enforcement role, but should be used judiciously to advise Government through DSE and the relevant Ministers for the duration of the CDP and the post recovery stage.
Page 237
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The Inquiry stresses that the monitor role should be resourced effectively. One approach might be to establish an “Office of PPB Protection”, with access to specialist expertise from relevant agencies or the private sector. A part‐time commissioner, as a public face for the function, could lead the Office. The Inquiry favours a life of no less than five years, with a sunset clause, to ensure adequate continuity to provide the Government and public with effective assurance.
22.4 Compliance Framework (i) Monitoring of Compliance
Internal Audit
The Inquiry notes that PoMC has expressed a commitment to comply with the EMP and has established an internal audit process, consistent with ISO14001 standards, to report on compliance, supplemented by a management review process to ensure the continued effectiveness, suitability and adequacy of environmental management arrangements and identify opportunities for continuous improvement.
External Audit
Submittors were concerned that PoMC would regard internal audit as sufficient to monitor compliance with the EMP. To address these concerns, the Inquiry proposes that an external audit function be included in the role of the independent monitor.
(ii) Responding to Compliance Breaches
With recommended improvements, the EMP should provide an effective control mechanism to avoid breaches to detailed control measures for the CDP. If breaches occur, Government may want appropriate incentives and penalties to minimise their effects and to support desired environmental outcomes. Particular attention will need to be paid to cases where there is:
• significant failure to comply with the EMP; and/or • a significant, unexpected environmental impact that is attributable to the CDP and not addressed through the SEES and EMP adequately.
Government may wish to respond to such breaches by ensuring the activity ceases, applying penalties or requiring reparation or restitution in response to an impact.
Page 238
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Stopping the Activity
The EMP is explicit about stopping an activity when its measures are breached. However, the Inquiry considers that external arrangements for directing an activity to stop should be included in the governance framework if there are significant or unexpected impacts.
Such directions may be available within the Port Services Act as described above. They are provided for in the Environment Protection Act 1970 which includes the provision of a Pollution Abatement Notice (PAN) under Section 31A or the ‘stop notice’ direction making power under Section 62B. However, the Act has a 30‐day period before it can come into effect. Because of this it is not a particularly effective tool unless it can be put into effect before commencement of works. By having a ‘strategic’ PAN in place, compliance measures can then bind with immediate effect. Unfortunately if the use of a PAN is left as a ‘backstop’ power and not prepared until an incident takes place the time lag may be too great to prevent environmental harm.
The direction making powers under s62B of the Environment Protection Act also enable the EPA to take immediate action. However, these powers are clearly designed to be specific incident related and are more akin to emergency powers rather than ongoing regulation.
The Inquiry notes that the EES Panel had considered the possibility of a works approval or licensing requirement under Section 19A of the Environment Protection Act, concluding that:
The environment review committee for the Geelong capital dredging program recommended that this would provide the optimum way forward for the regulation of future Bay dredging campaigns. Whilst this would have the effect of bringing the project indisputably under the control of the legislation, this Panel considers that it would be somewhat difficult to make an expedited provision for the Bay to be scheduled premises under the Act. The option (or related options) may still be worthy of consideration by government for the medium to long term. However, on balance it is not likely to provide an immediate approvals framework.
While the EES Panel considered that advance preparation of a PAN appeared to be one tool to enable the construction of a detailed regulatory framework for the project, the Inquiry concludes that it would be difficult to use a PAN, as pollution needs to be demonstrated before a PAN can be acted upon.
Page 239
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Applying penalties
The Inquiry considered penalties available under relevant legislation. Under the Coastal Management Act consent, a penalty of 40 penalty units ($4,300) can be applied if development occurs without consent or if a condition of consent is breached. A proponent is deemed to have operated ‘without consent’.
The Port Services Act provides for a maximum fine of 240 penalty units ($25,800).
These penalties appear disproportionately small relative to the Bay’s environmental value. Ironically, legislation protecting other assets such as heritage provides for far more substantial penalties than that provided for protecting the environment of Port Phillip Bay. The Heritage Act 1995 provides for a 2400 penalty unit ($258,000) fine for an individual, or imprisonment for five years, or both, and 4800 penalty units ($516,000) fine for a body corporate for removing or demolishing, damaging or despoiling, developing or altering or excavating a registered place or object. (For future projects, the Government might wish to address this anomaly.)
The scale and complexity of the CDP is unprecedented in Victoria. It is one of the world’s largest dredging projects. Port Phillip Bay is a shallow, relatively closed embayment around which more than four million people reside. The primary effects of the CDP will therefore impact more significantly on closely related and complex interdependencies within the Bay ecosystem than might be the case in open ocean dredging programs where the effects might be ‘flushed away’. The Inquiry therefore considers that a project of the magnitude and importance of the CDP may justify increased penalties for breaches of the EMP proportionate to the costs of remedying or compensating for impacts.
Reparation and restitution in the event of impacts
PoMC has emphasised its commercial imperatives, both strategically and in its dealings with Boskalis NV. PoMC has established an incentive based approach to align Boskalis’ efforts with the Alliance’s primary objectives. Boskalis will be rewarded for achieving agreed time and cost measures. The PoMC should satisfy itself that its contract with Boskalis incorporates agreed environmental limits and measures, consistent with the EMP. This will assist in aligning management behaviour with the desired environmental outcomes.
Many submittors suggested that PoMC should be subject to an environmental bond. Cr Shaw of Mornington Peninsula Shire Council put the view that the bond should be significant to cover any flow on effects and impacts, and said “Contingencies need
Page 240
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
to be put in place before anything goes ahead, so they can be dealt with and rectified. Information needs to be upfront and in real time, the community needs to know what is occurring as it is happening”. Mr Beckhurst submitted that Port Phillip Bay belongs to all Victorians, and the Inquiry and the Government should not allow one sector of business (the Port) to profit at the expense of another business. He said the value of a bond should reflect the value of the Bay for all Victorians. Dr Hawkins was one of many who supported an environmental bond and advocated post construction monitoring and actions to stop the project if there was a major issue.
The use of incentive schemes such as a bond should complement best practice environmental management and ensure accountability of project related impacts. Performance bonds are common, for instance, in the mining industry where they are applied to cover costs of site rehabilitation if a company does not rehabilitate its site on closure. Bonds are typically kept under review in the light of changing conditions.
The Inquiry recommends use of an environmental performance bond linked to delivery of the CDP. The bond could be available for remediation, reparation or restitution if CDP causes environmental harm. Towards the conclusion of the hearing, this issue was raised formally by the Inquiry in response to various submittors, including Ecogen. In its final submission, PoMC opposed this approach, and said:
A financial assurance or environmental bond is generally required in circumstances where there is doubt concerning the proponent’s capacity or willingness to meet identified rehabilitation or rectification obligations. It enables a regulatory body to step in and rectify damage where the proponent no longer has the financial capacity. It is also not common practice to require financial assurances from statutory bodies. This is because a statutory entity: • can be relied upon as a matter of public duty to ‘make good’ any damage which is caused in the performance of its statutory function; • has a significant budget and/or revenue stream capable of accommodating the costs of most unforeseen events; and If there were failure beyond the resources of the statutory entity, the resources of government would be called upon to address the impact.
The Inquiry proposes that the Alliance, not PoMC alone, furnish the bond. Moreover, the Inquiry considers that the Alliance should be responsible for remediation costs.
For example, the additional costs of cleaning up rocks due to scour at the Entrance,
Page 241
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
discovered during the hearing, have not been accounted for in CDP cost estimates. Should PoMC be able to implement its EMP with risks as predicted, the bond would be returned following confirmation by the (proposed) independent monitor. This arrangement will act as an incentive to the Alliance to focus on environmental limits and effects, and not merely operational priorities, and ensure costs are accounted for within CDP rather than being transferred to Government and the community.
To give effect to this, there is a need to:
• establish principles to enforce the bond and determine how to recourse to it; • establish and manage a legal mechanism for a bond including the responsibility and accountability for decision making to draw on the bond; • provide decision rules for drawing against a bond; and • prepare a formula to set the value of a bond proportionate to the likely costs of environmental impacts.
22.5 Off‐sets Despite the PoMC’s view that all impacts are acceptable, the Inquiry has already recommended additional steps to strengthen the EMP. In addition, there may be opportunities to compensate for impacts through environmental off‐sets.
Offsets may be like‐for‐like, such as off‐setting nutrients introduced to the system through dredging by removing a similar quantity of nutrients from the Bay. Offsets can also be not‐for‐like. An example is offsetting dredging impacts on Grayling in the Yarra River by providing habitat remediation in the Maribyrnong River to assist in recovery of the Victorian population. Indeed, recent amendments to the EPBC Act provide for “voluntarily compensatory actions and financial contributions to be made to help offset the impacts of developments in situations where impacts are unavoidable”.
The EMP proposed a “scientific offset” to compensate for the impact to the Entrance. While such research does not offset an impact to Bay ecology, it certainly improves relevant knowledge. The Inquiry supports systematic research into dredging impacts to aid the environmental management of future projects, for example dredge plume effects on seagrass.
Recommendation:
Consider appropriate mechanisms for ensuring the project stops if a significant or unexpected impact occurs.
Page 242
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
23. MATTERS OF STATE AND COMMONWEALTH INTEREST
This Chapter deals with the specific matters that are required to be assessed under both the (State) Coastal Management Act 1995 the (Commonwealth) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. As the Commonwealth has accredited the EES process, the SEES needed to include assessment of any impacts of the proposal on the matters relevant to Commonwealth approval in relation to four controlling provisions under the Act.
Mr Blake advised that as part of the accreditation of the EES process, an Assessment Report is to be submitted to the Australian Minister for Environment and Water Resources. This report needs to include:
• a description of the action, the places affected by the action, any matters of national environmental significance that are likely to be affected by the action; • a summary of the relevant impacts of the action; • a description of feasible mitigation measures, changes to the action or procedures to prevent or minimise environmental impacts on relevant matters of national environmental significance proposed by the proponent or suggested in public submissions; • to the extent practicable, a description of any feasible alternatives to the action that have been identified through the assessment process, and their likely impact on matters of national environmental significance; • a statement of conditions for approval of the action that may be imposed to address identified impacts on matters of national environmental significance; and • a statement of State approval requirements and conditions that apply, or are proposed to apply, to the action when the report is prepared, including a description of the monitoring, enforcement and review procedures that apply, or are proposed to apply, to the action.
This report will be provided in the form of the Victorian Minister for Planning’s Assessment, which may incorporate, by reference, elements of the Inquiry Report or other documentation from the assessment process under the Environment Effects Act. In deciding whether to approve the Channel Deepening Project under s.136 of the EPBC Act, general considerations to be taken into account by the Australian Minister include:
• matters relevant to a controlling provision for the action; • economic and social matters;
Page 243
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
• the principles of ecologically sustainable development; and • the assessment report (if any) relating to the action.
23.1 Coastal Management Act 1995 The Coastal Management Act 1995 provides a coordinated approach to approvals for the use and development of coastal Crown land in Victoria. Section 3(1) of the Act defines ‘coastal Crown land’ as:
• any land reserved under the Victorian Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 for the protection of the coastlines; • Crown land within 200 metres of the high water mark of the coastal waters of Victoria; • any sea within the limits of Victoria; and • the seabed of the coastal waters and sea of Victoria.
Section 37 of the Act provides that a person must not use or develop coastal Crown land unless they have obtained the written consent of the Minister administering the Act. In deciding whether or not to consent to a use or development, the Minister must have regard to:
• the Victorian Coastal Strategy; • any Coastal Action Plan applying to the land; • any recommendation of the Land Conservation Council for land in respect of which notice has been given to the Department of Natural Resources and Environment under section 10(3) of the Land Conservation Act 1970; and • the purposes for which land was reserved, in the case of land reserved or deemed to be reserved under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978.
In reviewing the above provisions, the Victorian Coastal Strategy and the various coastal plans do not really have anything that bears directly on the project or which is not encompassed by considerations that have been taken into account in any event. There is no recommendation from the Land Conservation Council relating to this project, nor is the land reserved under the Crown Land (Reserves) Act.
The Channel Deepening Project is consistent with the provisions and intent of the Coastal Management Act.
Page 244
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
23.2 EPBC Act The EPBC Act is administered by the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Water, and provides a legislative framework for the protection of the environment and the conservation of biodiversity, especially those aspects of the environment that are matters of national environmental significance. It provides that actions that are likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance are subject to an assessment and approvals process.
The EPBC Act is the enacting legislation for the implementation of international agreements relating to the protection of flora and fauna species and communities, including:
• the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands; • the International Convention on Biological Diversity; • International Migratory Bird Agreements (Japan – Australia JAMBA and China – Australia CAMBA); and • the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (the Bonn Convention).
The Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Water Resources decided on 20 March 2002 that the CDP was a ‘controlled action’ under the provisions of the EPBC Act. The Commonwealth in turn accredited the Victorian assessment process. The controlling provisions of the EPBC Act relevant to the CDP are:
• Sections 16 and 17B (wetlands of international importance); • Sections 18 and 18A (listed threatened species and communities); and • Sections 20 and 20A (listed migratory species); and • Sections 26 and 27A (protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land).
The Minister provided a Statement of Reasons for the decision and controlling provisions which outline the matters of national environmental significance that the Minister was concerned could be affected by the project. The reasons stated by the Minister for determining that the CDP is a controlled action include:
• the project would occur within the Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsular Ramsar site and was likely to have a significant impact on the ecological character of this declared wetland on the basis that the dredging and spoil disposal was likely to result in: ‐ changes to tidal levels, tidal currents and wave refraction around Port Phillip Heads, possibly resulting in long‐term, permanent impacts on the
Page 245
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
hydrology of the declared Ramsar wetland. ‐ changes to waves and tides could cause shoreline instability and erosion which could affect seagrass meadows and pose a serious disruption to the lifecycle of native species dependent on the wetland seagrasses. ‐ increased turbidity, nutrient and pollution loads which is likely to impact on water quality of the wetland and alter the physio‐chemical status of the wetlands. • the project would have a likely impact on a number of listed threatened species and listed migratory species; and • the project would take place within 1.5km of the eastern shore of Swan Island which is Commonwealth land (owned by the Department of Defence), and which is likely to be sensitive to changes in the currents and tidal flow from within PPB as it is sand based. Changes to water currents were expected from the dredging which would cause the increased movement of sand from the north east of Swan Island to the south, which would impact on the stability of buildings on the eastern side of the island. It was expected that this would worsen in the long‐term through changes in water currents, movement of sand, hydrological erosion and sedimentation.
(i) Ecological Issues
Wetlands of international importance are those wetlands listed on the Ramsar Convention and protected under the EPBC Act. The SEES considers the following parts of the Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar site as being relevant for assessment of CDP impacts:
• the Western Shoreline of the Bay at the Spit Wildlife Nature Conservation Reserve (‘The Spit’); • Swan Bay; and • Mud Islands.
Effects of sediment movement on the physical form
The sediment transport modelling indicates that there is no likely tidal current induced change in the vicinity of Mud Islands, Swan Island and Swan Bay as a consequence of the CDP.
Effects of hydrodynamic changes on habitat features
Likewise, modelling in the SEES predicts that the change in tidal variation and currents will not cause net loss of saltmarsh communities located at The Spit, Swan
Page 246
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Bay and Mud Islands. The SEES predicts that the small decrease in the height of low tide is likely to result in slightly more inter‐tidal mudflat area being exposed. In addition, Mr Lane predicts that the effects on inter‐tidal mudflats in these Ramsar areas due to predicted changes in tide levels are not anticipated to be significant.
Effects of water quality changes on ecological features
Temporary changes in water quality due to increased turbidity, nutrient and pollutant loads may affect marine habitats at the Spit, Swan Bay and Mud Islands. The SEES states that increased turbidity and suspended sediments near operating dredges can interact with marine habitats by:
• smothering biota and infrastructure; • reducing light causing a decrease in photosynthesis in seagrasses and algae; • suspended sediments causing physiological damage to invertebrates and fish; • releasing nutrients or contaminants through seabed disturbance; and • reducing underwater visibility.
However the SEES downplays these effects, stating that they “decrease with distance from the dredging works areas and are more, or less, intense according to the duration of dredging.”
The key findings within the SEES in relation to the Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar site follow:
• based on the turbidity modelling, sedimentation effects are assessed as negligible because changes will be within expected natural variability; • suspended sediments at these sites are predicted to be within natural variation and will not affect biota; • Impacts on seabird feeding efficiencies will be minor. However, due to the extensiveness of alternative feeding areas in the Bay and elsewhere, any consequential impacts on the ecological character of the Ramsar wetlands are not considered to be significant; • effects of light reduction on photosynthesis of benthic plants in the three Ramsar areas are assessed as negligible due to the predicted very low concentrations of the turbidity plume; • effects from mobilised contaminants at the Spit are predicted to be negligible; • effects from mobilised contaminants on Swan Bay and Mud Islands are predicted to be negligible because testing indicates that materials to be dredged from the south channel contain low levels of contaminants; and • it is unlikely there will be any flow‐on effects to Ramsar areas from
Page 247
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
mobilisation of nutrients as the CDP is predicted to have negligible effects on Baywide nutrient loads and nutrient cycling.
Effects of waves and tidal changes on seagrass
The SEES states that effects on seagrass due to changes in waves and tidal currents causing shoreline instability and erosion are relevant only to Swan Bay and Mud Island. The hydrodynamic modelling indicates that there will be no measurable changes to waves or wave energy in these areas, and as a result it is not expected that there will be any resulting erosion or shoreline instability. The SEES also states that the ecological features of the wetlands will not be impacted upon by the CDP as any changes to waves and tidal currents will not have an effect on the seagrass beds at Mud Islands and Swan Bay.
As a result of hydrodynamic and sediment transport processes or changes in water quality, the SEES predicts that there will be ‘insignificant indirect effects’ to salt‐ marshes, inter‐tidal mudflats and seagrass beds at Swan Island and Mud Islands and Spit.
Ecological character features of Ramsar wetland
The SEES summarises the assessment of effects in relation to the ecological character features of relevant areas of Port Phillip Bay (Western Shoreline) and Bellarine Peninsula Ramsar site. As few CDP activities will occur at or in the immediate vicinity, the assessment predicts that there will be few impacts on the ecological character features.
(ii) Listed threatened species and communities
The EPBC Act contains two categories of listing for species:
• threatened species and communities (extinct, extinct in the wild, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable and conservation depending); and • listed migratory species.
Species that are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act and relevant to the CDP are listed below. A number of these species are also listed as migratory species.
Page 248
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Table 10: EPBC Act listed threatened species Common name Scientific name EPBC Act Common Name Scientific Name EPBC Act Status Freshwater Fish Australian grayling Prototroctes maraena Vulnerable Dwarf galaxias Galaxiella pusilla Vulnerable Yarra pygmy perch Nannoperca Obscura Vulnerable
Sharks Great white shark Carcharodon carcharias Vulnerable Grey nurse shark Carcharodon Taurus Critically endangered
Mammals Australian sea‐lion Neophoca cinera Vulnerable Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Vulnerable Southern right whale Eubalaena australis Endangered
Seabirds Blue petrel Halobaena caerulea Vulnerable Fairy prion Pachyptila turtur Vulnerable Grey‐headed albatross Thalassarche chrysostoma Vulnerable Northern giant‐petrel Macronectes halli Vulnerable Shy albatross Diomedea giganteus Vulnerable Southern giant‐petrel Macronectes giganteus Endangered Wandering albatross Diomedea exulans Vulnerable
Reptiles Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea Vulnerable
Other listed birds Orange‐bellied parrot Neophema chrysogaster Critically endangered
The likely impact of the CDP on the Australian grayling has been discussed in some detail in Chapter 15.
The great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) is widely distributed throughout Australian coastal waters, occurring mainly on the continental shelf around islands and rocky reefs in the vicinity of seal colonies.
The grey nurse shark is principally found on and near reefs in coastal waters off southern QLD and NSW. While there have been no confirmed sightings of the grey nurse shark in Port Phillip Bay, two unconfirmed sightings have been made. It is considered to be not dependent upon the Bay.
Page 249
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
The blue whale, southern right whale and the humpback whale are all known to regularly occur in Victorian coastal waters in the vicinity of Port Phillip Bay. However, they are not resident in the Bay and the SEES predicts that whales are unlikely to be affected by activities associated with the CDP.
The leatherback turtle is a globally declining species which is the most migratory and wide ranging of sea turtles. While the species has been recorded in Victorian waters off San Remo and Portland, there are no known records in Port Phillip Bay. As a result, the SEES predict that the CDP will not affect this species.
The SEES states that as the threatened seabird species all breed outside of the Port Phillip Bay environs, and generally only occur in small numbers around the Bay, the CDP is not expected to affect these species.
(iii) Listed migratory species
In addition to the migratory species discussed above, there are a number of other migratory shore bird and seabird species which occur in and around the Bay.
Table 11: Listed migratory species
Common Name Scientific Name Shorebirds Asian dowitcher Limnodromus semipalmatus Bar‐tailed godwit Limosa lapponica Black‐tailed godwit Limosa limosa Broad‐billed sandpiper Limicola falcinellus Buff‐breasted sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis Common greenshank Tringa nebularia Curlew sandpiper Calidris ferruginea Eastern curlew Numenius madagascariensis Great knot Calidris tenuirostris Greater sand plover Charadrius leschenaultii Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola Lesser sand plover Charadrius mongolus Little curlew Numenius minutus Long‐toed stint Calidris subminuta
Marsh sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis Oriental plover Charadrius veredus Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos Red knot Calidris canutus Red‐necked phalarope Phalaropus lobatus
Page 250
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Red‐necked stint Calidris ruficollis Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres Sanderling Calidris alba Sharp‐tailed sandpiper Calidris acuminate Stilt sandpiper Micropalama himantopus Terek sandpiper Xenus cinereus Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus White‐rumped sandpiper Calidris fuscicollis
Seabirds Arctic jaeger Stercorarius parasiticus Arctic tern Sterna paradisaea Common tern Sterna hirundo Light‐mantled sooty albatross Phoebetria palpebrata Little tern Sterna albifrons Northern giant‐petrel Pomarine jaeger Stercorarius pomarinus Short‐tailed shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris Shy albatross Southern giant‐petrel Sooty shearwater Puffinus griseus Wandering albatross Wilson’s storm‐petrel Oceanites oceanicus
The SEES predicts that the migratory shorebird species which forage in intertidal areas will not be affected by the CDP, as they have a widespread distribution and use a variety of habitats, and Mud Island is expected to continue to naturally evolve irrespective of the CDP.
No listed seabird species breed within Port Phillip Bay. As they generally occur in low numbers with large and variable distributions, the SEES predicts that listed seabirds that frequent habitats associated with the Bay will not be affected by the CDP.
(iv) Protection of the Environment of Commonwealth land
In 2004, the EPBC Act was amended to include provision for Indigenous and non‐ indigenous cultural sites that are of national importance. Under this law, an application for actions likely to have a negative impact upon sites or places listed on the National or Commonwealth Heritage Lists must be made to the Federal Minister for the Environment and Water.
The Commonwealth Heritage list consists of sites that are owned or controlled (leased) by the Commonwealth Government. Sites owned or leased by the
Page 251
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Commonwealth, including defence, communications and customs, may be included on the list. The CDP has the potential to affect a number of Commonwealth Heritage Listed sites, including:
• Swan Island Defence Precinct, Queenscliff; • Swan Island and Naval Waters, Queenscliff (including 6 shipwrecks); and • Point Nepean Commonwealth area, Portsea.
Swan Island is Commonwealth land and therefore falls under the scope of the EPBC Act. The supplementary reports of Cardno Lawson Treloar on the impact of additional scouring in the Rip indicate a “Possibility of slight increase in erosion due to waves on Pt Nepean and Pt Lonsdale, not quantifiable at this time. Predicted decrease in potential longshore sediment transport in Lonsdale Bight,” and “There will be no impact on the supply of sand to the beaches of Queenscliff and the Sands.”
The SEES predicted that there would be no potential impacts on landforms, buildings or other infrastructure from the predicted changes to hydrodynamic and coastal processes resulting from the CDP.
Recommendation:
Provide additional monitoring to address Commonwealth issues:
‐ Commonwealth of Australia lands and Ramsar sites; ‐ Seagrass in Ramsar areas such as Swan Bay; ‐ Gannets and terns; and ‐ Grayling.
Page 252
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
24 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
For the reasons contained in this Report, the Inquiry provides the following findings:
1. The Inquiry is satisfied that based on the SEES, peer reviews and IEG advice, the proposed design complies with relevant policy. The Inquiry concludes the proposed CDP design (including for the Channels, dredged material grounds and navigational aids) is safe, suitable and technically feasible to implement using the proposed dredging technologies. The Inquiry supports inclusion of design and implementation details in approvals granted pursuant to the Coastal Management Act 1995.
2. The Inquiry is satisfied that the likely environmental effects (including economic and social) of the proposed CDP dredging activities and the subsequent operation of the deepened shipping channels have been addressed and are acceptable. While the Inquiry is satisfied with PoMC and IEG advice that rockfall into the canyon will not permanently affect the Entrance ecology, rock scour remains an issue of concern to the Inquiry due to continuing uncertainties surrounding the processes involved. The Inquiry believes this issue should be carefully observed and monitored.
3. The Inquiry concludes that the proposed project design and approach to project implementation (including technologies and work methods) with modifications, is suitable to ensure achievement of acceptable environmental outcomes, having regard to relevant legislation and policy, as well as costs, benefits and operational efficiency in delivering the project.
4. The Inquiry concludes that the considerations relevant to the Assessment that will inform decisions whether or not to approve the CDP under the Coastal Management Act 1995 and under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) have been satisfied.
To support these findings, the Inquiry provides the following recommendations to Government and PoMC:
1. PoMC amend Version C of the EMP to:
1.1 Include detailed channel design, construction depths and dredging tolerances, defined as control measures.
Page 253
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
1.2 Adopt the revised CDP schedule that includes Yarra River dredging in spring 2008.
1.3 Provide for proportionate offset impacts on protected species (such as Australian Grayling) including improvements to their habitats in other parts of their range (eg. Maribyrnong River).
1.4 Deploy alternative noise producing devices to deter marine fauna from approaching the hydrohammer prior to its use in the Entrance, if it cannot be used at lower power for this purpose.
1.5 Evaluate opportunities for potential reuse of dredged materials for beach renourishment in the CDP and future maintenance dredging programs.
1.6 Mount an information campaign to inform the public of the implications of any dredging programs and other sources of influence on the marine environment, particularly with regard to sediment contamination risk in the Yarra River and other estuarine and marine ecosystems.
1.7 Undertake a monitoring program for placing and capping contaminated material to: ‐ ensure that the final location and surface bathymetry of contaminated material placed in the northern DMG extension are as predicted; and ‐ confirm that there are no failures of capping, turbidity plumes beyond those predicted, or reduction in water quality in the vicinity of the DMG extension.
1.8 Strengthen governance arrangements to ensure the PoMC is accountable for bund structure and effectiveness. Include additional monitoring for possible bioaccumulation and biomagnification up the food chain before and after the capping is put in place.
1.9 Log all maintenance dredging to update existing data to assist ongoing assessments of the Great Sands.
1.10 Ensure a fit‐for‐purpose program that can detect long‐term changes to sediment transport in the Great Sands. Include monitoring surveys to be conducted during and after the CDP, and link these to scheduling of future maintenance dredging campaigns.
Page 254
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
1.11 Increase the accuracy of sediment transport predictions in the Great Sands by calibrating SEES modelling against LIDAR and multi‐beam surveys, maintenance dredging volumes and channel infilling rates.
1.12 Expand the monitoring of water quality to provide a reference and a back up to the automatic turbidity monitoring by adding PAR measurements to the suite of indicators.
1.13 Apply the IEG recommended Fox approach, based on quality control statistics to assessment of appropriate Bay‐wide monitoring programs.
1.14 Strengthen relevant clauses to ensure that the health status of the Little Penguin colony at St Kilda is monitored during and post dredging.
1.15 Provide offsets to improve fish stocks, including improvement of key habitat sites or reduction of threats within the affected species range.
1.16 Monitor fish subsequent to the CDP, while existing fishing advisories and limitations are in place, using these data to review advisories.
1.17 Ensure PoMC is accountable for CDP impacts on fish populations.
1.18 Include the following measures to improve Entrance management: ‐ increase the frequency and extent of cleaning runs, both inside and outside the dredging zones; ‐ increase the frequency of bathymetric sounding surveys both inside and outside the dredging zones; ‐ reduce ripper teeth length as the final depth is approached or consider use of a more conventional, lighter draghead; ‐ use methods other than trailing to remove any stubborn high spots; ‐ use the trawl net to remove specific caprock pieces; ‐ carry out all dredging runs when swell heights are at a relatively low level; and ‐ further cleanup after completion of dredging to deal with loose rocks that are found.
1.19 Ensure control measures are clearly defined to ensure maximum clean up of rockfall in the Entrance.
1.20 Include control measures to ensure maximum capture of rock prior to removal of ridges along the canyon wall.
Page 255
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
1.21 Refer each collaborative monitoring program, including review timeframes to the IEG prior to project approval, for confirmation that it is ‘fit‐for‐purpose’ for timely consideration of data and addresses an appropriate package of potential flow on effects. In doing so, the IEG should confirm that Bay‐wide monitoring programs are appropriately designed to measure changes against natural variation so that CDP management may take account of these during and after dredging.
1.22 Include post‐dredging investigations of major risk events to confirm the extent of changes relative to predictions.
1.23 Consider appropriate mechanisms for ensuring the project stops if a significant or unexpected impact occurs.
1.24 Provide additional monitoring to address Commonwealth issues:
‐ Commonwealth of Australia lands and Ramsar sites; ‐ Seagrass in Ramsar areas such as Swan Bay; ‐ Gannets and terns; and ‐ Grayling.
2. Following revision of (1) above, PoMC seek IEG endorsement that the EMP satisfies acceptable standards of scientific and statistical definition.
3. The Government appoint an independent monitor to advise Government on unexpected or significant changes to schedule and dredging strategies and associated timetables; responses to significant environmental exceedences; compliance with the EMP (including where a response level is triggered); and adverse outcomes identified by monitoring programs.
4. The Government consider whether the Alliance should deposit an environmental performance bond linked to safe and effective CDP delivery, and post recovery.
5. PoMC develop a strong and effective communication strategy for the duration and post recovery of CDP. This should include:
5.1 Appointing a professional of sufficient seniority and capability as “Community Liaison Officer” to respond to community inquiries.
Page 256
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
5.2 Establishing a “Community Liaison Group”, including representatives from the existing Project Stakeholder Advisory Committee, for an initial period of three years. It should meet regularly while the project is being undertaken, and continue during the recovery process.
5.3 Maintaining effective communication with relevant community groups interested in Bay use and conditions, as well as commercial fisheries.
5.4 Consulting the community during and after the CDP to raise awareness of potential for future use of dredged material.
This Appendix Report contains a significant number of proposals and advice from the Inquiry and IEG to strengthen the EMP further. PoMC will need to work these through in undertaking the EMP revision.
Page 257
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
ATTACHMENT 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE
Page 258
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Page 259
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Page 260
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Page 261
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Page 262
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Page 263
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
ATTACHMENT 2: LIST OF SUBMITTORS
Page 264
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Ms Janet Ablitt Black Rock and Sandringham Conservation Association. Ms Janet Ablitt Port Phillip Conservation Council Ms Nick Abroms Mr Nick Abroms Yarra Riverkeeper Association Ms Sue Aldred Mr Ian Allan Polperro Dolphin Swims Ms Jill Anderson Mount Eliza Association for Environmental Care Ms Jill Anderson Mount Eliza Coast Care Mr Nick Antonopoulos Mr Trevor Atkins Mr Alex Atkins Mornington Peninsula Shire Mrs Elizabeth Bayer Dr Bruce B. Sharp Burnell Research Laboratory Ms Karen Bailey Australian Democrats (Dunkley‐Flinders Branch) Ms Caroline Baker Mr Chris Banks Ms Jenny Barnett Victorian National Parks Association Mr Mark Barson Dromana Campers & Friends of the Foreshore Association Mr Mark Bayer Mrs Elizabeth Bayer Prof John Beardall Mr Alan Beckhurst Mr John Begley Victorian Freight and Logistics Council Ms Pat Bentley Mr Dennis Bertotto Mrs Bernadette Brady Ms Valerie M. Blair Ms Gillian Blair Mr Barrie Bolton Ms Emily Bourke Ms Sandy Bracy Mr Doug Bradbrook Mr Joe Brady Mrs Bernadette Brady Mr David Bryant Seapics Photography Ms Anne Callaghan Friends of Port Melbourneʹs Foreshore Mr Stephen Calvert‐Smith Mr J.L. Carter Ms Lindy Chadwick Mr Bill Chalkley Ms Elizabeth Charleson Ross Creek Land care Ms Elizabeth Charleson Ms Dawn Clark Ms Cathie Coleman Mr Elio Comello Habitat Melbourne Trust Mr Jo Connellan Metropolitan Transport Forum Mr Niel Coulson VECCI Mr Peter Crockett
Page 265
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Mr Terry F Croft Ms Patsy Crotty Mr Scott Cunningham Mr Jim Curtis Polperro Dolphin Swims Mr Hakan Dellal Marine Care Ricketts Point Inc. Mr Noel Dent ANL Container Line Pty Limited Mr Bill Dowling Mrs Fran Dowling Ms Ellen Doxey Ms Mandy Dyke Mornington Secondary College Mrs Marg Fairlie Mr Brian Earl Mrs Nina Earl Mr Nick Easy Port of Melbourne Corporation Mr Adam Edmonds Mrs Pamela Edwards Mr Colin Edwards Mr Kevin F Ellerton Ms Angela Evers Mr Colin Fairlie Mrs Marg Fairlie Mr Phil Flaherty Australian Labor Party, Geelong West Branch Mr Stephen Foulkes Dr R. J. Fuller Mr H.H Gallagher Mrs N.E Gallagher Ms Dorothy Garrett Ms Kellie Louise Gee Mr Damon Geeves Mr John Glazebrook Mr Peter Goad Ms Doris Graham Mr Bill Green Mr Daniel Grimm Mr Robert Gunter Ms Chelsea Gustafsson Dr Graeme Hamilton Birds Australia Mr David Harper City of Port Phillip Mr Graham Harris Kingston City Council Mr Graham Harris Association of Bayside Municipalities Mr Frank Hart Ms Kathleen Hassell Frankston Beach Association Inc. Mr John M Hawkins SCUBA Divers Federation of Victoria Mr Brett Hemphill NetBookings P/L Mr Richard Hepenstall Ms Janice Hill Mr Raymond Hill Bay City Scuba Mr F. J. Hillen Mr Kent Hortle
Page 266
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Mr Tim Hose Australian Anglers Association Mr Gary J Howard Mr Nicholas Hunt Tourism Alliance Victoria Mr Richard Hunter CEO, Bird Observers Club Australia Mr John Ialuna Mr Sven Ihnken Mrs Betty Jennings Ms Christine Johnson Queenscliffe Community Association Ms C Johnson Ms Catherine Jones Bellarine SeaStar Mr Peter Kafrouni Dive and Dive Mr Peter Kenny The Bellarine Mrs Edith Knight Ms Joan Lindros Queenscliffe Harbour Forum Cr John Knight Bayside City Council Mr Joe Kuzmar Prof P.S Lake Ms Tathra Lamb Mornington Secondary College Mr Lyall Lawson Mrs Frances Lawson Mr Xavier Le Vagueresse Scuba Culture Pty Ltd Mrs G Lee Ms Angela Lewins Ms Joan Lindros Pardeys Queenscliff Pharmacy Ms Joan Lindros Queenscliffe Harbour Forum Mr Phillip Lovell Victorian Transport Association Mr Adam Lynch Monash University Underwater Club Mr Bernard Mace Mr Joel Main Mrs Jenny Main Ms Sapphire Main Ms Mariah Main Mr Robert Main Ms Pennie Marks Ms Pamela Marshall Ms Jeni Marshall Mr Matthew McArthur Ms Anna McCallum Australian Marine Conservation Society Mr Stuart McConnell EPA Dr Jennifer McCraken Doctors for a Healthy Bay Mr Tom McCullough Mr Warrick McDonald AB Ocean Divers Mr Bob McDonald Mr D.G McIver Ms Margaret McIver Ms Catherine McIver Mr Paul McMahon Ms Larissa Meikle Mr Lawrie Miller The Geelong Chamber of Commerce
Page 267
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Mr David Mitchell GWG Queenscliffe Ms Rosemary Mokhtar Mr Rod Mollard Mrs Vanessa Mollard Mr Scott Montague Mr Michael Morehead Victorian Blue Devil Divers Club Inc. Ms Sarah Morrow Mr Gary Morton Mornington Secondary College Ms Kerry Murphy Sail Sorrento Baliana Spa Beach Holiday Apartments Mr Anthony Nash Dr Desirae Nestor Mt Martha Village Clinic Mr Ross Newcombe Mr Darren Noyes‐Brown Surfrider Foundation Ltd Mr Rod Oate Ms Kathleen OʹGorman Ms Laura Owen Mr Martin Owen Ocean Suits Mr Mark Palmer Ms Amanda Pantorno Ms Sue Pennicuik MLC Southern Metropolitan Region Dr Patricia Phair Mr Bob Pierce VRFISH Ms Jacqueline Pocklington Ms Elizabeth Pollock Dr Christine Porter The Geelong Environment Council Mrs Jennifer Robin Mr Andrew Raff Mr Simon Ramsey Victorian Farmers Federation Mr Andrew Rawlings Mr Chris Ray Mrs Sharon Ray Ms Philippa Rayment Mr Hank Renzenbrink Sea All Dolphin Swims Ms Mary Rimington Mordialloc Beaumaris Conservation League Inc Mr Simon Roberts Mr John Robin Mrs Jennifer Robin Mr T.F Robinson Mr Barry Robinson Mr Neil Robson Ms Elizabeth Rogers Mr Theo Rozakis MY Marine Mr Matthew Ruchel Australian Conservation Foundation Mr Llew Russell Shipping Australia Limited Mr Len Salter Dive Industry Association Mr Jason Salter Dive Victoria Group Ms Jo Samuel‐King Mr Lee Sharp Earthcare St Kilda Inc. Ms Nelly Shaw
Page 268
Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project Supplementary Environment Effects Statement Appendix to the Report of the Inquiry: 1 October 2007
Ms Medine Simmons Ms Sue Slamen Citizens for a liveable Melbourne Ms Sophie A Small Mr Rod Smith Alpha Diving Mr Jarrod Smith Mr Collin Smith Mr Michael Smith Royal Yacht Club of Victoria Dr Slobodanka Stojkovic Mr Don Stokes Ms Nikki Stringer Ms Vicki Sullivan Mr Justin Teague Ms Angeline Tew Cr Stephen Thorpe Hobsons Bay City Council Ms Felicity Thyer Swan Bay Environment Association Inc Ms Dorothy Trezise Ms Emma Wade Mornington Secondary College Mr Jim Walker Ms Jenny Warfe Blue Wedges Coalition Mr Len Warfe Ms Jenny Warfe Ms Zoe Wong Mr Jeff Weir Dolphin Research Institute Mr Tom Wende Oz Dive and Boat Charters Cr Rosemary West City of Kingston Mr Stewart Westle Mr Andrew Westle Mrs Wendy Westle Mr Tom Whitfield Mr Alkin Willies Mr John Willis Ms Kate Wood Ms Joanne Wren Mr Max Wright Mr Martin Wurt Maribyrnong Truck Action Group Martin and Ecogen Energy Pty Ltd Mclean Lawyers Mr Daniel Not provided Ms Natasha Not provided Not Not provided Melbourne University Underwater Club provided
Page 269