7 Stakeholder Consultation

7.1 Consultation Strategy

This section details the stakeholder and community consultation activities undertaken for the Project. It is important to note that having regard to the background and history of the Project, a number of consultation activities pre-date the preparation of the EIS and demonstrate the early engagement with key stakeholders and the community, in the planning phase of the Project. The Department has involved a large range of stakeholders in the development of the Project and in managing expectations of its scope.

In 2014, the Department developed a Communication and Community Engagement Strategy and Communications Management Plan. It has been effective in identifying the key stakeholders and implementing the appropriate channels and forums for two-way consultation for the Project.

Keeping the community informed of the status of the Project and implementing a number of community engagement activities has been integral to identifying the key community concerns and issues for assessment in the EIS.

In accordance with Part 5.1 of the EP&A Act, consultation for SSI projects is required to occur at the following stages:

 Preparing the SEARs - the Secretary is to consult relevant public authorities and have regard to the need for the requirements to assess any key issues raised by those public authorities

 Preparing the EIS – the SEARs for the Project included three specific consultation requirements. These are addressed in Sections 7.2- 7.5.

 Public exhibition - the Secretary must make the EIS publicly available for at least the minimum exhibition period prescribed by the regulations (30 days). During this period, any person (including a public authority) may make a written submission to the Secretary concerning the Project.

7.2 Identification of Key Stakeholders

During the Project planning and preparation of the EIS, the following key stakeholders were identified:

132

Key Stakeholders

Australian Customs and Border Protection NSW Department of Industry - Lands NSW Department of Industry – Office of Regional Development Bega Valley Shire Council (Funding Source and NSW Department of Planning and Environment LGA) Bega Chamber of Commerce NSW Department of Primary Industries - Fisheries Commercial Fishers NSW Environment Protection Authority Commonwealth Department of Environment DPI-Food Authority and Energy Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure NSW Office of Environment and Heritage and Regional Development (Funding Source) Cruise Ship Industry (Carnival Australia, Royal NSW Water Police Caribbean Cruise Lines, Cruise Lines International Association) Cruise Eden Port Authority of NSW Department of Defence Port of Eden Marina Group (POEM) Department of Premier and Cabinet Port of Eden Harbour User Group Eden Sea Farms Roads and Maritime Services Eden Resort Hotels (Cattle Bay Marina) Sapphire Coast Marine Discovery Centre  Infrastructure NSW (Funding Source) Svitzer Australasia Eden Land based leaseholders within Snug Cove The community and local residents, particularly including: those within 400m of the site along:  Costa’s Seafood restaurant  Albert Terrace  Eden Slipway Services  Bay Street  Hooked on Seafood  By Street  Great White Bite café  Bramble Street  Nippers Nautical Nibbles  Cattle Bay Road  South Coast Ice Supplies  Cocora Street  Twofold Bay Quality Bait (including  Cosham Close Gotcha and Anderson’s Bait)  Ida Rodd Drive  Wharfside restaurant  Imlay Street  30 Knots restaurant and cafe  Weecoon Street  Victoria Terrace Local Aboriginal Land Councils Transport for NSW

Members of Parliament (Local, State and Utility Providers (electrical, water and Federal) telecommunications)

133

7.3 Engagement with Stakeholders

To date, stakeholders have been engaged through the following methods:

 Port of Eden Project Control Group (PCG) – the PCG was established to oversee the Project and is comprised of cross-agency members committed to deliver an infrastructure solution to meet the needs of the cruise sector and maximise the economic opportunities it will afford the region. The PCG meets quarterly and comprises the following State Government agencies:

o NSW Department of Industry – Lands

o Port Authority of NSW

o Transport for NSW

o Roads and Maritime Services

o Department of Planning and Environment

o Department of Premier and Cabinet

o Office of Regional Development

o DPI Industry Policy, Economics and Regional Development Branch

 Community Liaison Group (CLG) meetings – the CLG for the Project was formed in January 2015 and is comprised of representatives from the community, business, Eden Local Aboriginal Land Council (LALC), Twofold Aboriginal Corporation, industry and government. The CLG meets monthly, provides a forum for regular updates on Eden Port development projects, gathers community feedback and raises concerns as they arise;

 Port of Eden Harbour User Group (HUG) meetings– the HUG meets quarterly to assist DI Lands in resolving operational matters and identifying emerging issues in relation to the operation and maintenance of the Port of Eden;

 Meeting with Eden LALC and Twofold Aboriginal Corporation– biannual meetings at Jigamy Farm to provide Project updates;

 Regular Project Update meetings with the two major cruise operators (Carnival Australia and Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines);

 Potential Users Workshops (by invitation) – to provide existing users of the Port with the opportunity to contribute to the design of the wharf, required dredge pocket and consideration of future proofing of the wharf;

 Letters - to RMS regarding relocation of swing moorings, to Native Title Services Corp regarding Native Title Claim and to Eden Sea Farms regarding temporary relocation of their mussel farm;

134

 The Department’s website http://www.crownland.nsw.gov.au/crown_lands/coastal-harbours- and-river-entrances/coastal-harbours-and-river-entrances-pages/eden/the-eden-breakwater- wharf-extension-project – provides Project updates, posters and fact sheets advising of the status of engineering and environmental site investigations, Project funding, forecast construction timeframes and an enquiries contact number, email and web address for further information;

 Community Information Sessions (open invite) – to provide the community with the opportunity to find out more, ask questions and share views on proposed development in Eden Harbour and Eden town centre. Information stalls are held by the Department, BVSC, Sapphire Coast Tourism, Cruise Eden, Eden Chamber of Commerce and PA NSW. The sessions are held on a bi-annual basis at the Eden Fishermen’s Recreation Club;

 Agency Comment - Referral of the draft REF (2015) to BVSC, EPA, OEH and DPI- Fisheries for comment.

 Public Exhibition of the REF – the REF was publicly exhibited in September 2015 and received four submissions from agencies: BVSC, EPA, OEH and DPI-Fisheries and two public submissions;

 Bega Valley Shire Councillor Updates (quarterly or as required);

 Planning Focus Group meeting and teleconferences with regulatory agencies (as required);

 Specific Working Group Meetings and workshops such as the Aquaculture Focus Group which consists of local operator Eden Sea Farms, the Department, DPI-Fisheries, DPI-Food Authority, EPA, BVSC and PANSW. The Aquaculture Focus Group was established to identify risk associated with dredging adjacent to the existing Cattle Bay mussel farm and mitigation measures that can be adopted to prevent adverse impact to mussel farm operations;

 Industry Surveys;

 Design Workshops with the design consultant, industry, the Department, PANSW, RMS and Transport NSW;

 Briefings with the Commonwealth DoEE in Canberra; and

 Regular communication between the Department and all funding partners via monthly reports.

7.4 Summary of Consultation Activities

Whilst consultation associated with the Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension Project and Safe Harbour Project (wave attenuator in Snug Cove) dates back some five years, a summary of targeted consultation meetings since January 2015 associated with the environmental impact assessment of the Project is provided in Table 7-1. The Table is considered to provide an indication of not only the catchment of the stakeholder representation but also regularity and scope of subject matter considered.

135

Table 7-1 Summary of targeted consultation meetings Stakeholders Meeting Date/s Matters Discussed Community Liaison Group Monthly (last Eden Port development projects Wednesday of the and community feedback month) Last meeting held 28 September 2016 Harbour User Group (Port of Eden Quarterly Breakwater Wharf Extension Stakeholder Forum) Project and Safe Harbour Project Last meeting held 11 August 2016 Port repairs and upgrade work General business Key Cruise Industry Stakeholders 26-30 March 2015 Eden as a destination (Carnival Australia, Royal Caribbean Operational, Infrastructure, Service Cruise Lines, Cruise Lines International and Safety requirements Association) Visitation – likely frequency and numbers Site inspection for Crystal Cruises 5 September 2016 Eden as a destination Site inspection for representatives 23 September 2016 Operational, Infrastructure, Service from: and Safety requirements

 Carnival – P&O Visitation – likely frequency and  Carnival – Holland America numbers  The World  Oceania Cruises  Royal Caribbean Cruise Liners

Eden Wharf Project Potential Users 10 April 2015 Potential future users of the wharf, Workshop likely vessel size and required wharf design features and channel width Design Workshops Weekly Operational, Infrastructure, Service and Safety requirements Community Information Sessions Bi-annual Proposed development in Eden (open invite) hosted by BVSC and the Harbour and Eden town centre 7 September 2015 Department Commonwealth Department of 8 May 2015 Environmental investigations, Environment Preparation of REFs, NSW State 8 September 2016 Gov Agency comments on REFs, Sea Dumping Permit, EPBC Referral, project timeline Bega Valley Shire Council 11 November 2015 Update on Breakwater Wharf

136

20 April 2016 Extension Project Planning Focus Meeting – EPA, DPI- 8 September 2016 Reason for change from REF to EIS, Fisheries, DP&E, OEH and DI-Lands required planning approvals, program, dredge plume modelling, water quality, air impacts, impacts on sensitive receivers EPA 21 September 2016 Proposed content of the water quality specification, 5 October 2016 (both limits/thresholds for the dredging meetings via works, likely licence conditions teleconference)

Stakeholder engagement undertaken to date has confirmed high levels of support for the Project. Engagement has also provided information that has been taken into consideration in the design of the project, in particular identifying that an extended wharf which would service ships up to and exceeding 300m in length is the preferred option.

Letters of support for the project have been received from the two major cruise operators; Carnival Australia and Royal Caribbean Cruise Line (RCCL). The letters, from the Director, Marine and Safety at Carnival, dated 3rd December 2012, and from the Regional Vice President, Asia Pacific at RCCL, dated 8th March 2015, confirm that Eden is not a regular destination because of the ports inability to berth vessels alongside and that the anchorage at Eden is an unreliable alternative. The letters state that both companies support the project and if the project permits the berthing of their ships (in RCCLs case ships at least 300m in length), Eden would receive significantly increased port calls from their locally based ships. In the case of Carnival, ships of its international brand would likely follow suit when they are in the region.

Notwithstanding the above, Table 7-2 identifies important issues raised by key stakeholders over the consultation/engagement process outlined in Table 7-2. Some of the issues are identified in the SEARs, others are additional. It is considered that they have currency and the table also indicates where each matter has been addressed in the EIS.

Table 7-2 Key issues raised by key stakeholders MATTERS RAISED RAISED BY SECTION OF EIS WHERE ADDRESSED USERS OF THE WHARF Likely future users of the wharf, and required Eden Wharf Project Section 4.2.3 design features and benefit analysis Potential Users Workshop Preparation of an OEMP BVSC Section 10.5.4 SEDIMENT IMPACTS Sediment sampling undertaken to date EPA Section 9.2 representative of total dredge material/area DPI-Fisheries Sediment quality of Twofold Bay and EPA Section 9.2 contamination of sediments with TBT will

impact waste classification of dredge material

137

What happens if the dredge plume behaves OEH Section 9.2 different to predictions in models Sediment transport modelling DPI-Fisheries Section 9.2 WATER QUALITY Composition of sediment, turbidity levels EPA Section 9.1 during dredging, dispersal patterns and OEH Section 9.12 settling times and how this will impact on receiving waters and sensitive receivers Impacts on ambient water quality resulting EPA Section 9.1 from dredging and construction activities Section 9.2 Section 9.3 Water quality monitoring plan DPI-Fisheries Section 9.1 Section 9.10 Section 9.12 AQUATIC ECOLOGY IMPACTS Potential dredge plume impacts, including on Bega Valley Shire Council, Section 9.3 marine mammals and Eden Sea Farms DI-Lands, Eden Sea Farms Potential siltation of sea grass beds OEH Section 9.3 Cumulative impacts on the Twofold Bay OEH Section 9.3 ecosystem resulting from the Project and the proposed Cattle Bay Marina DREDGING Method and impact of dredging and DPI-Fisheries Section 4.2.1 transport of dredge material OEH Dredge disposal DPI-Fisheries Section 4.2.2 OEH NOISE IMPACTS Noise and vibration impacts during EPA, Local residents Section 9.6 construction and operation Acoustic impacts on marine species OEH Section 9.3 AIR QUALITY Potential emissions from cruise ships – types EPA, Local residents Section 9.7 of fuels and how these will be managed to protect local air quality and amenity OTHER LOCAL AMENITY IMPACTS Hours of operation and number of visitors Local residents Section 5.2.1 Management of the wharf Local residents Section 10.5.4

138

Marine exclusion zones – impacts on Port of Eden Stakeholders Section 5.1.2 southern side of multi-purpose jetty Forum Impact of the Project on existing swing Port of Eden Stakeholders Section 5.1.2 moorings and need for relocation Forum, DI-Lands, RMS Nets to be removed from hardstand area Port of Eden Stakeholders Section 5.1.2 adjoining the breakwater Forum TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN IMPACTS Changes in traffic and pedestrian flows Port of Eden Stakeholders Section 9.5 Forum Uneven pavement around T-jetty and Old Port of Eden Stakeholders Section 5.2.3 Co-op Forum Increased visitation from cruise line Port of Eden Stakeholders Section 9.5 companies Forum, Cruise Eden, Carnival Australia and Local residents WASTE MANAGEMENT Waste generation, classification and EPA Section 4.2.2 management, including appropriate Section 5.1.3 use/disposal of dredge material Section 9.18 NATIVE TITLE Licence to be granted under the Crown Lands DI Lands Section 9.1.4 Act 1989 over "waters" as defined in the

Native Title Act 1993 UTILITIES Repairs and upgrade work Port of Eden Stakeholders Section 9.17.1 Forum, Eden Wharf Project Potential Users Workshop Water and sewer servicing strategy BVSC Section 9.17.1 APPROVALS Amendment to existing Sea Dumping Permit Planning Focus Meeting Section 6.1.2 required – increased dredge volume New EPBC Referral required – increased Planning Focus Meeting Section 6.1.1 project scope Environment Protection Licence required – Planning Focus Meeting Section 6.2.3 Water Based Extraction Part 7 Fisheries Permits – notification only Planning Focus Meeting Section 6.2.5

The Department is committed to continuing the established high level consultation and engagement framework with the community and stakeholders throughout the environmental assessment phase of the Project. Further community and stakeholder consultation activities will be undertaken during public

139

exhibition of the EIS. Such continuity is important to hold the confidence of the participants to facilitate the realisation of this important SSI Project as it will contribute much to the social and economic wellbeing of the local and regional communities. Key consultation activities for the environmental assessment phase of the Project are outlined below.

 Stakeholder briefings - Stakeholder briefings with the PCG and CLG would be held to provide updated information and facilitate the opportunity to provide feedback on the EIS.

 Letterbox drop - Pre-lodgement community engagement activities would include a letterbox drop to all commercial and residential receivers within close proximity of the Project. Feedback on the Project would be encouraged via the Department’s email and website.

 Community information - Public exhibition of the EIS would be conducted for a minimum of 30 calendar days in accordance with statutory requirements. Advertisements would be placed by DP&E in newspapers to advise of the public exhibition and where the EIS can be viewed and how to make a submission. The Department will also issue a media release, publish the EIS on their website and hardcopies of the EIS will be sent to all libraries within the BVSC LGA.

140

8 Identification of Key Issues

The EIS addresses key issues in relation to the Project. These key issues were identified through two primary methods: adherence to the SEARs issued for the Project; and an environmental risk analysis. These methods are described in Section 8.1 and Section 8.2 respectively.

8.1 Secretary’s Environmental Assessment Requirements

The SEARs issued by D&PE on 26 July 2016 identified the following key issues to be addressed in the environmental assessment for the Project:

 Water - Quality  Water – Hydrology  Biodiversity  Heritage  Air Quality  Soils  Noise and Vibration – Amenity  Transport and Traffic  Noise and Vibration – Structural  Visual Amenity  Health and Safety  Waste and Chemicals  Socio-economic, Land Use and  Climate Change Risk Property  Environmentally Sensitive Design  Protected and Sensitive Lands

The above key issues have been assessed in Section 9 of this EIS.

8.2 Environmental Risk Analysis

In addition to the SEARs, an Environmental Risk Analysis was carried out for the Project to identify potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the Project. The Environmental Risk Analysis also considered the proposed mitigation and management measures and any residual risks following their implementation.

The Environmental Risk Analysis process for the Project involved the following steps:

 Identify Project risks.

 Evaluate, analyse and prioritise risks into broad categories (i.e. extreme, high, medium and low risks), based on the likelihood of the risk occurring, and the consequences if it were to occur.

 Assess and treat critical risks – treatment can include actions to reduce either the likelihood or the consequences or both, the off-loading of risks to another party more suitable to accept such risks, or the acceptance and on-going management of a risk.

 Identify opportunities by focusing on the possible additional benefits that could be extracted from the Project.

The purpose of the Environmental Risk Analysis was to ensure that:

 Potential environmental hazards and the risks associated with the Project are identified, prioritised and assessed.

 Mitigation actions needed to prevent or control environmental incidents are determined.

141

 Appropriate documented procedures are planned and developed as required.

A risk register was developed to document the Environmental Risk Analysis and present the identified Project hazards (impacts), their consequence, likelihood and risk severity. The following risk tables (Table 8-1, Table 8-2, Table 8-3 and Table 8-4) were used to classify the consequence and likelihood of each hazard and to calculate the risk severity.

Table 8-1 Environmental Risk Analysis consequence categories

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Safety and First aid case. Minor injury, Serious injury or Major or Single or Health medical lost work case. multiple injuries multiple treatment case permanent fatalities. with/or injury or restricted work disability. case.

Environment No impact on Localised within Moderate harm Significant harm Significant harm baseline site boundaries. with possible with local effect. with widespread environment. Recovery wider effect. Recovery longer effect. Recovery Localised to measurable Recovery in 1 that 1 year. longer than 1 point source. No within 1 month year. year. Limited recovery of impact. prospect of full required. recovery.

Financial <$100,000 $100,000 to $500,000 to $5M to 10M >$10M $500,000 $5M

Schedule < 3 days 3 days to 1 week 1 week to 1 1 to 6 months > 6 months Slippage month

Reputation Localised Localised, short Localised, long Localised, long Long term temporary term impact. term impact but term impact regional impact. impact. manageable. with unmanageable outcomes.

Project Impact can be An adverse A serious event A critical event Disaster with Impact absorbed event which can which requires which requires potential to lead through normal be absorbed additional extraordinary to collapse of activity. with some management management the project. management effort. effort. effort.

Table 8-2 Environmental Risk Analysis likelihood categories

Rare Unlikely Moderate Likely Almost Certain

Highly unlikely to Given current Incident has Incident is likely to Incident is very occur on this practices and occurred on a occur on this likely to occur on project procedures, this similar project project this project, incident is unlikely possibly several to occur on this times project

142

Table 8-3 Environmental Risk Analysis risk matrix

Consequence Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic

Almost Certain H H E E E

Likely M H H E E

Moderate L M H E E Likelihood

Unlikely L L M H E

Rare L L M H H

Table 8-4 Environmental Risk Analysis severity ratings

Risk Severity Rating Priority (1 is highest) Action Required

E- Extreme 1 Immediate attention

H- High 2 Immediate attention

M- Moderate 3 Action as soon as practicable

L- Low 4 Low priority, possibly no action required

The Environmental Risk Analysis identified the following key risks for the Project:

 Water quality

 Aquatic ecology

 Terrestrial ecology

 Noise and vibration

These key risks are addressed in Section 9 of the EIS. The risk register developed to document the outcomes of the Environmental Risk Analysis is provided at Appendix C.

143

9 Potential Environmental Impacts

9.1 Water Quality

Dredging of sediments at Snug Cove has the potential to affect water quality through localised increases in turbidity which may be harmful to benthic species owing to shading (reduced light) and deposition of sediment (sedimentation). Suspended sediments will form a column, or sediment plume, with larger particles settling more rapidly, while fine sands may be suspended in the water column for some distance before settling out. The size and depth of the sediment plume resulting from dredging will be determined by the concentration and grain size of particles being suspended in the water column, in addition to current velocity and direction (Hanson et al. 2004). The lasting effects of the sediment plume are generally expected to be short-lived, lasting usually between 4-5 tidal cycles, though this will depend on the hydrodynamic regime at the site (Hitchcock and Bell 2004).

Under section 120 of the (POEO Act) it is illegal to pollute or cause or permit pollution of waters, including introduction of anything, including litter, sediment, fuel, oil, grease, wash water, debris, detergent, paint, etc. into waters or placing such material where it is likely to be washed or blown into waters (DECC 2007). Therefore, all practicable steps need to be taken to ensure pollutants do not contaminate waters in Snug Cove as a result from activities associated with the proposed Project.

9.1.1 Existing Environment

Twofold Bay is an open oceanic embayment (Roy et al. 2001). It has a catchment area of 11km2 with a volume of 334,559 mL over a surface area of 30.7km2 at an average depth of 10.9m (OEH 2012), making it reputedly the third deepest natural harbour in the Southern Hemisphere. Water predominantly circulates around Twofold Bay in a clockwise direction, with prevailing winds in the area, in a south-west and north-east direction (WorleyParsons 2015). The bay is fed by three key fluvial systems; the Towamba, Nullica and Pallestine catchments. The most dominant of the three is the Towamba River, in which peak flows occur in February and March. Average flows for this catchment however, are somewhat high all year round (ANRA 2009, as cited in Dean 2011). None of these riverine systems carry sediment near the site although during extreme meteorological events such as flooding which last occurred in 2011 a mud plume discharge from Towamba River filled Twofold Bay for several days (A. Felton, 2011, pers. comm. cited in Dean 2011). The tidal range (HAT-LAT) in Snug Cove is approximately 2.03m (OEH 2015a).

9.1.1.1 Existing Water Quality Data No historical water quality data specific to Snug Cove is available, however, a study to assess the distribution of foraminifera in Twofold Bay included environmental conditions as a basis for understanding their distribution (Dean 2011). Water quality sampling, including pH, electrical conductivity, dissolved oxygen (DO) and salinity, was conducted near the seabed. The average and median physico-chemical parameters measured at the five sites within Snug Cove are shown in Table 9-1. Salinity throughout most of Twofold Bay was notably lower than expected for marine waters (34- 37ppt).

144

Table 9-1 Physico-chemical parameters measured in Snug Cove as part of the Dean (2011) study

Water Quality Mean Median Parameter

pH 8.61 8.59 Electrical conductivity 54.64 mS/cm 54.6 mS/cm

76% saturation 75.8% saturation Dissolved oxygen 5.64 mg/L 5.62 mg/L

Salinity 29.1 ppt 29.5 ppt

Twofold Bay is a significant area for the farming of blue mussels, Mytilus edulis and as a result, several mussel lease areas are present in the Bay (Figure 9-1). Routine water quality monitoring of temperature, salinity, faecal coliforms and phytoplankton is undertaken, including within Snug Cove (Site 2), to monitor the status of waters nearby these aquaculture facilities. Results of the data collected at Snug Cove between February 2010 and January 2015 was made available to and summarised by OEC (2015) as part of their Water Quality Management Plan prepared for the proposed Cattle Bay Marina. OEC (2015) report that water temperatures in Snug Cove range between 13-20˚C, with an average of 18˚C. Maximums are recorded over summer months (December – February) and minimum temperatures are in June and September. Salinity ranges between 33.5 ppt (recorded in September 2012) to 39.3 ppt (a seemingly abnormally high result recorded in March 2013). Average salinity across months within the dataset was 34.8 ppt (which is at the lower end of the normal range for marine waters). Faecal coliform levels are reported by OEC as generally low with 83% of values below 10 cfu/100ml and 70% of values below 2 cfu/100ml. Average values for the data period was 12.4 cfu/100ml, however once three extreme outliers were removed, the average dropped to 3.9 cfu/100ml.

Baseline phytoplankton data for Twofold Bay, near the northern aquaculture leases is available as baseline information and appended to the Water Quality Management Plan (v2) for the proposed Cattle Bay Marina (OEC 2015). Natural algal blooms can occur in Twofold Bay, with only one published recording of a potentially harmful bloom of Dinophysis acuminata from April 2003 (Ajani et al. 2011).

The Port of Eden introduced marine pest survey (Pollard and Rankin 2003) identified the presence of a number of potentially toxic dinoflagellate species at low concentrations at a number of the sites in Twofold Bay. Three species of the potentially toxic (i.e. Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning or PSP producing) dinoflagellate genus Alexandrium were detected as dormant cysts in sediment cores taken at various sites over the three annual sampling periods. Five species of the potentially toxic (i.e. PSP producing) genus Alexandrium (A. catenella/fundyense, A. margalefi, A. minutum, A. ostenfeldii/peruvianum and A. tamarense) were identified in low concentrations as motile cells at a number of sites during the seasonal phytoplankton net sampling carried out within Twofold Bay. Six species of the potentially toxic (i.e. Diarrhetic Shellfish Poisoning or DSP producing) dinoflagellate genus Dinophysis (D. acuminata, D. acuta, D. caudata, D. diagensis, D. fortii and D. tripos) were also identified in low numbers from samples collected at a number of sites using vertical phytoplankton net tows. No species of the genus Dinophysis were found in the sediment core samples (see Table 2).

145

Figure 9-1 Mussel lease areas and the location of water quality sampling and phytoplankton sites

Source: DPI-Food Authority, 2016

Marine waters near popular swimming beaches in Eden are routinely monitored under the NSW Government’s Beachwatch Program (OEH 2015b). The monitoring includes microbial assessment (of enterococci) and swimming sites are assessed as Very Good, Good, Fair, Poor or Very Poor in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council’s 2008 Guidelines for Managing Risks in Recreational Waters. Cocora Beach is closest to the proposed project, located approximately 650m from the project footprint. The report for 2014-2015 (OEH 2015b) shows Cocora Beach is rated as Good, with microbial water quality classified as Category B and is suitable for swimming most of the time (Figure 9-2). The risks of illness for category B (as determined from epidemiological studies) is

146

between 1-5% for a gastrointestinal illness and less than 2% for an acute fever and rash (Figure 9-3). Potential sources of faecal contamination at the beach include the outflow from Cocora Lagoon. Enterococci show some increase with increased rainfall (Figure 9-4), but mostly remains within the safe swimming limit. Trends of enterococci suggest a slight increase through time (Figure 9-5).

Figure 9-2 Microbial (enterococci) data for Cocora Beach from December 2010 to February 2015

Source: OEH 2015b

Figure 9-3 Risk of illness associated with each Microbial Assessment Category

Source: OEH 2015b

147

Figure 9-4 Response of microbial (enterococci) to rainfall (rainfall from Eden rain gauge)

Source: OEH 2015b

Figure 9-5 Trends in enterococci data through time

Source: OEH 2015b

Chemical analysis of sediments within the dredge footprint has been assessed in accordance with NAGD requirements and is discussed in depth in Section 9.2. Results of the analysis showed that the 95% upper confidence limits (UCL) calculated for inorganic contaminants were all below screening levels. Surface sediments at one location returned silver concentrations above the screening levels, however the 95% UCL was below. Samples from sites 4, 5 and 13 (Figure 9-6), which are located close to the existing port returned elevated tributyltin (TBT) concentrations from surface sediments. Site 5 was the highest, with a normalised concentration of 113.5 µg/kg compared to a non-normalised concentration of 22.7 µg/kg. Further elutriate testing at these sites as recommended by NAGD returned TBT concentrations below the detection limits (<2 µg/kg) indicating TBT is tightly bound to the sediment particles (or is present as paint flakes) and therefore of low bioavailability and unlikely to cause toxicity of marine fauna if sediments become entrained in the water column. Baseline water quality monitoring around Eden Port has also confirmed that TBT concentrations are very low (<0.02 µg/l).

148

Figure 9-6 Sediment sampling sites

9.1.1.2 Baseline Water Quality Data

The paucity of baseline water quality data (particularly relating to turbidity, heavy metals and nutrients) has led to the implementation of a baseline water quality monitoring program for the Project in order to characterise existing water quality in Snug Cove, Cattle Bay and Twofold Bay.

Baseline monitoring is currently undertaken at the 6 sites shown in Figure 9-7.

Figure 9-7 Baseline water quality monitoring sites

149

Water quality sampling is being conducted on a fortnightly basis over a12 week period with allowance for an additional two event specific sampling events to assess the impact of significant weather events. The water quality program involves the sampling and testing of a number of field and laboratory based parameters using the apparatus described below.

 A YSI 6600 V2-4 WQ sonde was issued to capture depth profiles of in-situ water quality parameters depth, temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, electrical conductivity, and pH. The sonde is fitted with GPS such that each data point is individually geo-located and capable of profiling water quality to 50m depth. The sonde is calibrated prior to each monitoring round as part of standard QA/QC procedures with calibration results recorded on the field sheets for reporting.

 A vertical oriented Kemmerer sampler made of polycarbonate (with silicone end caps appropriate for analysis of trace metals) is used to retrieve water samples from target depths at each of the six monitoring sites. The water sampler is cleaned and rinsed with Decon90TM between each site. Water samples are transferred to laboratory-supplied bottles logged and kept on ice in a chilled esky.

 A secchi disc is used to assess water clarity.

Water samples are tested for the following parameters:

 Turbidity.

 Total suspended solids (TSS).

 Total and Dissolved Metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, Zn, Hg).

 Nutrients (Total N, Total P, ammonia).

 Chlorophyll a.

 Organic Contaminants (TPH, PAH, BTEXN).

Results from the two initial sampling events are summarised below in Table 9-2.

150

Table 9-2 Baseline Water Quality, Field Based Parameters, 20th Sep and 4th Oct, 2016

FIELD PARAMETERS

Secchi Depth DO DO Turbidity pH Salinity Conductivity Temperature Sample ID Depth

m % mg/L ntu m pH unit ppt µS/cm °C 0.01 0.1 0.01 0.1 0.1 0.01 - - 0.01 W1_S_20/9/16 1.00 102.2 8.26 1.2 4.0 8.11 35.03 53,083 15.30 W1_B_20/9/16 9.00 100.0 8.12 1.8 8.10 35.15 53,250 15.06 W2_S_20/9/16 1.00 105.7 8.59 0.8 7.0 8.12 35.04 53,097 15.05 W2_B_20/9/16 9.00 100.9 8.21 1.1 8.09 35.12 53,208 14.98 CB1_S_20/9/16 1.00 103.9 8.39 0.9 4.5 8.11 35.02 53,060 15.35 CB1_B_20/9/16 5.50 104.5 8.44 1.7 8.11 35.18 53,284 15.29 MU1_S_20/9/16 1.00 102.9 8.34 1.0 5.5 8.09 35.05 53,103 15.21 MU1_B_20/9/16 10.50 98.6 8.00 1.8 8.08 35.20 53,320 15.10 BAY1_S_20/9/16 1.00 101.7 8.24 1.4 3.0 8.09 35.08 53,153 15.18 BAY1_B_20/9/16 8.00 100.7 8.19 1.1 8.08 35.13 53,227 14.97 BAY2_S_20/9/16 1.00 102.7 8.36 0.6 8.0 7.99 34.95 52,973 15.01 BAY2_B_20/9/16 16.50 96.3 7.82 1.0 8.03 35.21 53,338 15.02

W1_S_4/10/16 1.00 110.7 8.84 0.4 2.5 8.17 35.35 53,488 15.87 W1_B_4/10/16 9.00 89.6 7.25 0.3 8.05 35.50 53,725 15.15 W2_S_4/10/16 1.00 109.7 8.78 0.7 3.0 8.18 35.37 53,517 15.69 W2_B_4/10/16 9.00 93.8 7.57 0.3 8.08 35.47 53,682 15.30 CB1_S_4/10/16 1.00 112.6 9.00 0.6 3.0 8.17 35.39 53,551 15.78 CB1_B_4/10/16 5.50 91.1 7.34 0.2 8.07 35.51 53,726 15.39 MU1_S_4/10/16 1.00 106.7 8.55 0.1 3.0 8.15 35.40 53,571 15.64 MU1_B_4/10/16 10.50 90.4 7.30 0.6 8.06 35.50 53,722 15.25 BAY1_S_4/10/16 1.00 107.1 8.60 0.5 3.0 8.14 35.40 53,573 15.56 BAY1_B_4/10/16 8.00 89.3 7.18 0.5 8.03 35.51 53,724 15.42 BAY2_S_4/10/16 1.00 102.5 8.25 0.5 3.9 8.09 35.35 53,506 15.45 BAY2_B_4/10/16 16.50 85.9 7.01 0.3 8.01 35.44 53,668 14.72

Note: shaded cells with bold text indicate Aquatic Ecosystems or 95% species protection limit guideline value has been exceeded.

Field based physico-chemical parameters are relatively consistent between sites and surveys with the exception of water clarity and DO (Table 9-3). Water clarity was variable between sites in the first survey, with clarity best at the two offshore sites, W2 and BAY2. In comparison, the water clarity during the second survey was uniformly reduced across all sites.

Laboratory tested parameters were also variable between sites and surveys. TSS values during the first survey were highly variable between sites and by depth, compared to the second survey where TSS values were uniformly low. In contrast, turbidity values were uniformly low and generally less than 1 NTU which were similar to the field recorded turbidity values. Total N values were consistently above 0.1 mg/l across all sites and surveys, although general nutrient values and chlorophyll values were higher during the second survey.

151

Table 9-3 Baseline Water Quality, Lab Based Parameters(non-metals), 20th Sep and 4th Oct, 2016

Total Total Suspended Ammonia Ammoniu Depth Turbidity Nitrogen as Phosphorus Chlorophyll a Solids (SS) as N m (NH +) 6 4 N as P

m mg/L ntu mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L µg/L 0.01 1 0.1 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.005 1 W1_S_20/9/16 1.00 40 0.7 <0.02 <0.02 0.15 <0.005 <1 W1_B_20/9/16 9.00 <1 0.4 0.03 0.0290 0.13 <0.005 1 W2_S_20/9/16 1.00 26 1 <0.02 <0.02 0.12 0.01 <1 W2_B_20/9/16 9.00 12 0.8 0.03 0.0290 0.17 <0.005 <1 CB1_S_20/9/16 1.00 22 0.6 <0.02 <0.02 0.13 <0.005 1 CB1_B_20/9/16 5.50 <1 0.5 0.02 0.0193 0.16 <0.005 <1 MU1_S_20/9/16 1.00 11 0.8 <0.02 <0.02 0.14 <0.005 <1 MU1_B_20/9/16 10.50 24 1 0.02 0.0194 0.14 0.005 <1 BAY1_S_20/9/16 1.00 2 0.9 <0.02 <0.02 0.22 0.009 <1 BAY1_B_20/9/16 8.00 <1 0.9 <0.02 <0.02 0.13 <0.005 <1 BAY2_S_20/9/16 1.00 25 0.4 <0.02 <0.02 0.14 0.006 1 BAY2_B_20/9/16 16.50 <1 0.3 <0.02 <0.02 0.13 0.008 <1

W1_S_4/10/16 1.00 <1 1 <0.05 <0.05 0.18 0.014 3 W1_B_4/10/16 9.00 <1 0.6 <0.05 <0.05 0.15 0.01 1 W2_S_4/10/16 1.00 <1 0.8 <0.05 <0.05 0.11 0.008 3 W2_B_4/10/16 9.00 <1 0.8 <0.05 <0.05 0.13 0.009 3 CB1_S_4/10/16 1.00 <1 1 <0.05 <0.05 0.14 0.01 5 CB1_B_4/10/16 5.50 <1 0.7 <0.05 <0.05 0.16 0.014 2 MU1_S_4/10/16 1.00 <1 0.6 <0.05 <0.05 0.58 0.008 4 MU1_B_4/10/16 10.50 <1 0.4 <0.05 <0.05 0.16 0.013 1 BAY1_S_4/10/16 1.00 <1 1.1 <0.05 <0.05 0.13 0.009 5 BAY1_B_4/10/16 8.00 <1 1 0.13 0.126 0.25 0.012 6 BAY2_S_4/10/16 1.00 <1 0.6 <0.05 <0.05 0.2 0.007 2 BAY2_B_4/10/16 16.50 <1 0.3 <0.05 <0.05 0.19 0.014 <1

Note: Shaded cells with bold text indicate Aquatic Ecosystems or 95% species protection limit guideline value has been exceeded.

Testing of total and dissolved metals confirmed that all metals with the exception of arsenic and lead are present at concentrations below the limits of reporting. Ambient arsenic concentrations were between 1.8 and 2.1 µg/L and predominantly in the dissolved form. Ambient lead concentrations were generally between 0.6 and 0.8 µg/L and also predominantly in the dissolved form.

152

Table 9-4 Baseline Water Quality, Metals, 20th Sep and 4th Oct, 2016

Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolve Total Total Dissolved Dissolved Total Dissolved Total Dissolved Depth Arsenic Arsenic Cadmium Cadmium Chromiu Chromiu Copper d Copper Nickel Mercury Mercury Nickel (Ni) Lead (Pb) Lead (Pb) Zinc (Zn) Zinc (Zn) (As) (As) (Cd) (Cd) m (Cr) m (Cr) (Cu) (Cu) (Ni) (Hg) (Hg)

m µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L 0.01 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 5 5 0.04 0.04 W1_S_20/9/16 1.00 2 1.8 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 0.8 0.7 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 W1_B_20/9/16 9.00 1.9 1.7 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 0.7 0.6 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 W2_S_20/9/16 1.00 2 1.9 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 0.7 0.7 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 W2_B_20/9/16 9.00 1.8 1.8 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 0.8 0.6 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 CB1_S_20/9/16 1.00 2 1.8 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 0.5 <0.2 0.6 0.7 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 CB1_B_20/9/16 5.50 1.8 1.7 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 0.2 0.8 0.6 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 MU1_S_20/9/16 1.00 1.9 1.8 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 0.6 0.6 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 MU1_B_20/9/16 10.50 1.9 1.8 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 0.8 0.6 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 BAY1_S_20/9/16 1.00 2 1.7 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 0.8 0.7 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 BAY1_B_20/9/16 8.00 1.9 1.8 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 1 <0.2 <0.2 0.7 0.6 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 BAY2_S_20/9/16 1.00 2.1 1.9 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 1 0.7 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 BAY2_B_20/9/16 16.50 1.9 1.8 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 0.6 0.6 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04

W1_S_4/10/16 1.00 2.3 2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 1.2 0.8 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 W1_B_4/10/16 9.00 2.3 2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 1.4 0.8 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 W2_S_4/10/16 1.00 2.1 2.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 1 1.1 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 W2_B_4/10/16 9.00 2.1 2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 1.2 0.9 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 CB1_S_4/10/16 1.00 2.2 2.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 0.9 0.8 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 CB1_B_4/10/16 5.50 2.3 2.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 1.1 0.8 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 MU1_S_4/10/16 1.00 2.2 2.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 1.4 1 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 MU1_B_4/10/16 10.50 2.2 2.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 0.8 1 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 BAY1_S_4/10/16 1.00 2.2 2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 1.1 1 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 BAY1_B_4/10/16 8.00 2.2 2.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 1 1 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 BAY2_S_4/10/16 1.00 2.1 2.1 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 0.7 0.8 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04 BAY2_B_4/10/16 16.50 2.4 2.2 <0.2 <0.2 <0.5 <0.5 <1 <1 <0.2 <0.2 1 0.9 <5 <5 <0.04 <0.04

Water quality samples were also tested for a range of organic contaminants including TPH, PAH and BTEX. No organic contaminants were detected, with all concentrations below their respective limits of reporting.

One round of samples were also collected and tested for TBT. This was completed during the second round of sampling and was taken from 1m above the sea bed at all 6 locations as per EPA’s request. The results returned values below detection limits. As such the EPA has advised that no further testing for TBT is required.

9.1.1.3 Water Quality Objectives

The relevant water quality trigger objectives for the NSW Ocean Waters (South Coast) as they apply to protection of aquatic ecosystems, primary contact recreation and aquaculture activities are shown in Table 9-5.

Results of the baseline water quality monitoring program are compared against the appropriate Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000) and the NSW Water Quality Objectives for the NSW South Coast (DEC 2005) to allow for site specific differences.

At the completion of the baseline water quality monitoring program, the water quality objectives will be updated to account for site specific variation of selected parameters which will then form the basis for development of project specific trigger values. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 9.1.5.

153

Table 9-5 Water Quality Guidelines/Objectives relevant to the Project

ANZECC / ARMCANZ Guidelines Water Quality Parameter NSW Water Quality Objective (2000)

Aquatic Ecosystems Biological Frequency of algal blooms Not listed No change from natural conditions Bioaccumulation of contaminants Not listed No change from natural conditions Physico-chemical and Nutrients Dissolved oxygen 90-110 % saturation Not listed pH 8.0-8.4 Not listed Turbidity 0.5-10 NTU 0.5-10 NTU Total Nitrogen 120 µgN/L <120 µg/L Total Phosphorous 25 µgP/L <25 µg/L Chlorophyll-a 1 µg/L Not listed Toxicants (ANZECC / ARMCANZ Guideline trigger values are at the 95% protection level) Cadmium (Cd) 5.5 µg/L Not listed Chromium (Cr) 4.4 µg/L Not listed Copper (Cu) 1.3 µg/L <1.3 µg/L Nickel (Ni) 70 µg/L Not listed Lead (Pb) 4.4 µg/L <4.4 µg/L Zinc (Zn) 15 µg/L <15 µg/L Mercury (Hg) (inorganic) 0.4 µg/L Not listed Tributyltin 0.006 µg/L Sn Not listed Primary contact recreation Biological Median over bathing season of less than 150 faecal coliforms/100mL with Median over bathing season of less 4 out of 5 samples <600/100mL Faecal coliforms than 150 faecal coliforms/100 mL (minimum of 5 samples taken at regular intervals not exceeding one month) Median over bathing season of less Median over bathing season of less than 35 enterococci/100 mL Enterococci than 35 enterococci/100 mL (maximum number in any one sample = 100 organisms/100 mL) Physico-chemical Natural visual clarity should not be 200mm diameter black disc should reduced by more than 20%. be able to be sighted horizontally Visual clarity Horizontal sighting of a 200mm from a distance of more than 1.6 diameter black disc should exceed 1.6 metres (approximately 6 NTU) metres pH of the water should be within the range of 5.0-9.0 assuming that the pH Not listed buffering capacity of the water is low near the extremes of the pH limits Temperature 15-35˚C (for prolonged exposure) Not listed Salinity (total dissolved solids) <1,000,000 µg/L Not listed

154

ANZECC / ARMCANZ Guidelines Water Quality Parameter NSW Water Quality Objective (2000)

Oil and petrochemicals should not be Surface films noticeable as a visible film on the water Not listed nor should they be detectable by odour Toxicants Arsenic (As) 50 µg/L Not listed Cadmium (Cd) 5 µg/L Not listed Chromium (Cr) 50 µg/L Not listed Copper (Cu) 1000 µg/L Not listed Nickel (Ni) 100 µg/L Not listed Lead (Pb) 50 µg/L Not listed Zinc (Zn) 5000 µg/L Not listed Mercury (Hg) 1 µg/L Not listed

9.1.2 Dredge Plume Modelling

Dredge plume modelling was conducted based on the specific assumptions of the project methodology available at the time simulations were conducted, including dredge plant types, capacity’s and rates. The plume modelling included a number of scenarios with assessment of (Option 1) using a BHD and the worst case (Option 3) which is based on partial doubling handling of dredge material. Modelled scenarios included summer and winter as well as north east (NE), east (E) and south-east (SE) mean and energetic. The NE energetic shows the worst case in terms of plume that spreads westward toward the seagrass beds and Cocora Beach.

9.1.2.1 Option 1, BHD Only

Figure 9-8 below shows TSS concentrations above background for Option 1 (BHD only). The spatial spread of the plume and plume intensity is much less than Option 3 but is of longer duration (15 weeks). The BHD only scenario shows the dredge plume is restricted to the area shown and the 98%ile concentration above background is less than 5 mg/L, with the area above 2 mg/L above background restricted to the immediate vicinity of the dredge pocket. The time series plots in Figure 9-9 also show minimal increases in TSS concentrations across the study area.

Key aspects of the modelling results for Option 1 include:

 No overlap of turbid plumes over the mussel farms.

 Up to 2mg/l above ambient TSS over Cattle Bay seagrass bed for less than 5% of the dredging period (equivalent to 5 days out of 105 days of dredging).

 Up to 2mg/l above ambient TSS on Cocora Beach for less than 5% of the dredging period (equivalent to 5 days out of 105 days of dredging).

It is important to note that a 2mg/l increase is unlikely to be visible as a plume; however this will depend on ambient turbidity at the time of dredging.

155

Figure 9-8 Near-surface TSS concentration above background Scenario 1 (BHD dredging only, Summer NE energetic conditions)

156

Near surface concentrations above background, mg/L, BHD dredging only 10

6 The Pinnacles 5 Mussel Farm 2 Mussel Farm 1 4

TSS concentration above background (mg/L) background above concentration TSS 2

0 31/05 5/06 10/06 15/06 20/06 25/06 30/06 Near surface concentrations above background, mg/L, BHD dredging only 10

Cattle Bay 5 Snug Bay

TSS concentration above background (mg/L) background above concentration TSS 2

0 31/05 5/06 10/06 15/06 20/06 25/06 30/06 Near surface concentrations above background, mg/L, BHD dredging only 10

Wharf tip 5 Marina

TSS concentration above background (mg/L) background above concentration TSS 2

0 31/05 5/06 10/06 15/06 20/06 25/06 30/06

Figure 9-9 Time series of silt concentrations above background - BHD dredging only (Top: The Pinnacles, Mussel Farm 1 and Mussel Farm 2; Middle: Cattle Bay and Snug Bay; Bottom: Wharf Tip and Marina)

157

Figure 9-10 shows the 50%, 80%, 95% and 98% exceedances of bed deposition of the silt fractions calculated by the model, assuming that the density of the bed layer is 400 kg/m3 (i.e. corresponding to partly consolidated mud. It can be seen that the greatest deposition of silt would be limited to the immediate dredge areas under the BHD only scenarios, although parts of the mussel farm may be affected by deposition of between 1mm and 5mm for up to 5% of the time during the dredging campaign.

Figure 9-11 shows the 50%, 80%, 95% and 98% exceedances of bed deposition of the sand fractions calculated by the model, assuming that the density of the bed layer is 400 kg/m3. It can be seen that deposition of the sand fraction is restricted completely to the immediate vicinity of the dredging.

Figure 9-10 Bed deposition (silt fraction) Scenario 1 (BHD dredging only, Summer NE energetic conditions)

158

Figure 9-11 Bed deposition (sand fraction) Scenario 1 (BHD dredging only, Summer NE energetic

9.1.2.2 Option 3, BHD and TSHD – Partial double-handling method

Sediment plume modelling was undertaken by Advisian (2016b) to identify the extent of potential impacts associated with the proposed dredging activities of Option 3 (partial double-handling method). A series of simulations was undertaken under a range of winter and summer scenarios. The simulation results shown below are for the ‘Summer energetic NE wind’ scenario, which was found to result in the largest spread of turbid plumes outside Snug Cove. For Option 3, dredging was assumed to occur over the first three weeks of the month, to simulate the expected duration of dredging under this method, and also the persistence of the plume following cessation of dredging.

Results from the modelling were used to predict the extent of potential impacts on water quality and nearby sensitive receptors (i.e. seagrass habitats in Cattle Bay). This scenario estimates the ‘worst case’ (based on the maximum amount of material to be dredged) and a conservative approach has been adopted by presenting the 98th percentile and 95th percentile when the dispersion of the dredge plume is likely to be greatest. The 50th percentile is also shown for comparative purposes. The summer results are summarised below and presented in Figure 9-12.

Key aspects of the modelling results for Option 3:

 Overlap of turbid plume over the eastern section of mussel farms for less than 5% of the dredging period (equivalent of 2 days out of 42 days of dredging).

 Expect up to 2mg/l above ambient TSS over Cattle Bay seagrass bed for up to 20% (very conservative) of the dredging period (equivalent to 8 days out of 42 days of dredging).

159

 Expect up to 2mg/l above ambient TSS on Cocora Beach for up to 20% (very conservative) of the dredging period (equivalent to 8 days out of 42 days of dredging).

Option 3 (BHD and TSHD) represents worst case in terms of spread of plume and plume intensity however duration is much shorter than Option1, as Option 3 is estimated to take only 6 weeks.

Figure 9-12 Near-surface TSS concentration above background Scenario 3 (combined BHD and TSHD dredging, Summer NE energetic conditions)

Figure 9-13 shows the time-series plot over the month of near-surface sediment concentrations, for the scenario where both BHD and TSHD dredging is being carried out. Under this scenario, suspended sediment concentrations reach 7 mg/L above background at the tip of the proposed wharf, up to 14 mg/L at Snug Cove (nearest to the dredging site) and 3 mg/L at the mussel farm. Sediment plumes completely dissipate from all the measurement sites within 12 hours of the cessation of dredging.

160

Near surface concentrations above background, mg/L, BHD and TSHD dredging 10

6 The Pinnacles 5 Mussel Farm 2 Mussel Farm 1 4

TSS concentration above background (mg/L) background above concentration TSS 2

0 31/05 5/06 10/06 15/06 20/06 25/06 30/06 Near surface concentrations above background, mg/L, BHD and TSHD dredging 20

Cattle Bay 10 Snug Bay

TSS concentration above background (mg/L) background above concentration TSS 4

0 31/05 5/06 10/06 15/06 20/06 25/06 30/06 Near surface concentrations above background, mg/L, BHD and TSHD dredging 10

Wharf tip 5 Marina

TSS concentration above background (mg/L) background above concentration TSS 2

0 31/05 5/06 10/06 15/06 20/06 25/06 30/06 Figure 9-13- Time series of silt concentrations above background - BHD and TSHD dredging (Top: The Pinnacles, Mussel Farm 1 and Mussel Farm 2; Middle: Cattle Bay and Snug Bay; Bottom: Wharf Tip and Marina)

161

9.1.2.3 Offshore Disposal Site

The potential for dredge spoil material to advect from the Offshore Spoil Ground (OSG) to shore was investigated via numerical simulation, assuming that dredge spoil material is delivered to the OSG by split hopper barge with 650m3 capacity, every four hours.

The simulations assume that the 90% remaining fines within the sediment that were not dispersed to the water column during dredge plant operations are disposed of by the barge at the spoil ground over a period of 20 minutes. The sediment mass is introduced as a slurry to the top three layers of the model, and diluted within the grid cell volume for that location.

To simplify the simulations it was assumed that sediment was always delivered at the same location. In reality sediment would be dispersed over a grid system, but this is unlikely to have a major impact on dispersal patterns to Snug Cove.

The worst-case wind direction for dispersal of sediment to Snug Cove from the OSG is that approaching from due east, which blows sediment towards the shore. Therefore only this sector is considered within the model, for the ‘Summer ‘environmental scenario, because this was the highest wind speed from the East sector and was therefore the “worst-case”. To maximise the dispersal of sediment to Snug Cove, ‘energetic’ wind speeds were applied to the model. TSS concentrations in the top and layer of the model are shown in Figure 9-14.

The values shown are the 50%, 80%, 95% and 98%ile exceedances of suspended sediment concentration above background (mg/L) observed at each grid cell during the simulation. It should be noted that the model resolution at the OSG is relatively coarse, and that the modelled concentrations are averaged over the grid cells in this location (approximately 500 x 500m), so the maximum concentrations at the OSG would likely be higher than those shown in Figure 9-4. However, the model provides a good indication of the expected maximum dispersion distance of the sediment plume from the offshore spoil disposal ground.

Figure 9-14 suggests that, under the modelling assumptions of this report, the area where silt concentrations greater than 1 mg/L above background are higher than 1 mg/L remains confined to within 2km of the spoil disposal ground.

162

Figure 9-14 Near-surface TSS concentration above background Scenario 3 (combined BHD and TSHD dredging, Summer NE energetic conditions)

9.1.3 Potential Construction Impacts

Water quality in the study area has been investigated by considering the environment within and surrounding Snug Cove, the applicable water quality guidelines and existing known water quality conditions described above. For the purpose of the impact assessment it has been assumed that dredging operations are aligned with the scenarios previously modelled and reported by AMA (2015d) and Advisian (2015, 2016). Given the limitations surrounding the environmental scenarios and conditions in which modelling has been conducted a conservative approach has been adopted in the risk assessment and proposed mitigation measures.

Water-based construction activities that have the greatest potential to affect water quality include:

 Capital dredging.

 Bottom dumping of sediments (both at the offshore disposal site and also within the deeper regions of the dredge footprint in the case of the Option 3 dredging method).

Other construction related activities that also have the potential to affect water quality include:

 Piling works including rock socketing.

 Installation of dolphins and wharf associated infrastructure.

163

 Movement and anchoring/mooring of construction vessels, including dredge vessels, hopper barges and tug/tow vessels.

 Grout spillage from connecting dolphin topside module to pile.

 Spillage of Interzone 954 paint that is used as a protective coating on steel construction materials.

 Spillage of drilling muds and cuttings excavated by piling activity.

 Excess turbid water affecting the seawater quality of the Marine Discovery Centre seawater intakes located at/near the Cat Balou pontoon.

 Site based laydown area activities and water run-off from these areas.

Any vessel-based activities pose a risk of accidental hydrocarbon spills and associated environmental damage. These risks can be effectively mitigated and minimised where oil spill contingency plans are implemented, and rigorous training occurs and stringent operational practices and response planning are in place.

Land-based activities also have the potential to affect water quality in the case of accidental spills into the waterway, or from storm-water runoff. The land-based component of the project involves a small component of earthworks and no significant changes to the existing wharf and therefore no further activities to those identified above are predicted to impact water quality.

The marine sediment quality assessments undertaken to date across the dredging footprint indicate that sediments released into the water column from construction are unlikely to contain organic chemicals, heavy metals, or other potentially harmful chemicals, at concentrations that are of environmental concern or toxic to marine organisms.

There are two primary water quality impacts that may arise during construction:

 Sediment plumes and subsequent elevated turbidity, which may arise through the following mechanisms: Minor (likely to be short-term and highly localised):

o Piling works and installation of subsea infrastructure. o Propeller wash of tug vessels as it positions the backhoe dredger. o Spuds or anchors of tug vessels, hopper barges or the dredger vessels (BHD or TSHD). o Bottom dumping of material in the offshore disposal ground. Major (short-term but have the potential for significant impacts to marine biota):

o Dredging works. o Overflow of the TSHD (Dredging Option 2 and 3 only). o Bottom dumping of material from the hopper barge in deeper areas of the dredge footprint (Dredging Option 3 only).

 Significant spills or discharges of any chemical entering the waterway, including fuel, as a result of accidental collisions, refuelling or during transfers between vessels and barges.

164

Whilst turbidity plumes from Option 3 cover a greater area and produce more intense plumes, the potential impact is offset by the significantly shorter dredging duration.

A detailed summary of all identified potential construction impacts and associated consequences are described below.

Sediment plumes within and adjacent to Snug Cove caused by dredging, overflow of the TSHD, pile driving activities, propeller wash or by anchoring or movement of construction vessels.

 Increased turbidity around dredging activities resulting in plumes that reduce light attenuation through the water column affecting light sensitive species. Modelling of Option 1 shows that up to 2 mg/l above ambient TSS over Cattle Bay seagrass bed for less than 5% of the dredging period (equivalent to 5 days out of 105 days of dredging). Modelling of Option 3 shows up to 2 mg/l above ambient TSS over Cattle Bay seagrass bed for up to 20% of the dredging period (equivalent to 8 days out of 42 days of dredging). At this intensity and duration, no impacts on seagrass are expected with either option. Sediment plumes completely dissipate from all the measurement sites within 12 hours of the cessation of dredging.

 Localised and short term increases in turbidity in the immediate vicinity of piling activities. Any sandy sediment disturbed by piling is expected to be highly localised and fall rapidly to the seafloor (i.e. within hours).

 Rock socketing may also generate localised and short term increases in turbidity in the immediate vicinity of the piling activities. Any excess fine sediment generated by the socketing has the potential to create small turbid plumes, however these should dissipate quickly and will not present a risk to the local environment.

 Localised and short term increases in turbidity affecting filter feeding organisms through clogging of pores and filter apparatus with fine suspended sediment (e.g. sponges and ascidians) although modelling indicates that turbidity will be well within the tolerance limits for these species.

 Potential for localised smothering of flora / fauna and their habitats. Modelling of sedimentation indicates that between 1 and 5mm of sediment deposition within Snug Bay which is also within the tolerance limits of seagrass and other benthic species.

Modelling indicates that the impact from both turbidity and sediment deposition is unlikely to be significant as the bulk of the dredge material is sand and will settle rapidly within the immediate dredge areas and dredge pocket. It is noted that turbidity curtains were not considered a viable option for the Project due to (but not limited to) the depth of water at this site, exposure to open ocean sea conditions and incompatibility with the proposed dredging methodologies.

165

Sediment plumes caused by offshore disposal of dredged material.

 Bottom dumping of sediments from towed hopper barges and/or the trailer suction hopper dredger will cause increased turbidity at the offshore disposal site until such time sediments settle out of the water column.

 The area where silt concentrations greater than 1 mg/L above background are higher than 1 mg/L remains confined to within 2 km of the spoil disposal ground.

 Generally in an offshore environment, turbidity plumes are short-lived, with larger grain sizes settling, and the remainder of the plume dispersing to the wider environment within just a few tidal cycles.

 Sediment plumes can lead to aesthetic impacts for offshore users (i.e. local whale watching tourism or fishing charter operators), particularly given they are more concentrated in the top layers of the water column and therefore can be easily observable.

 Localised and short term levels of reduced dissolved oxygen in zones of increased turbidity with the potential to impact on marine flora and fauna within the extent of the plume. There is also a potential for localised eutrophication should nutrients bound to sediments become suspended in the water column, particularly where nitrogen and/or phosphorous is introduced, giving rise to increased phytoplankton growth in the water column. The increased growth can have indirect positive impacts by attracting baitfish (that feed on plankton), which in turn attract higher order predators. Significant hypoxic (and anoxic) conditions can lead to mortality of marine organisms. This is considered highly unlikely given the location of the disposal zone.

 Short-term reductions in light penetration below the plume potentially affecting predator-prey interactions of marine fauna.

 Smothering of flora and/or fauna and their habitats (particularly bottom-dwelling organisms) within the extent of the sediment plume.

This impact is unlikely to be significant, as the dredge material has been approved for unconfined ocean disposal (in accordance with the NAGD requirements) and the material will be placed offshore in relatively deep and well mixed oceanic waters. The plumes are expected to be of short duration, and to disperse within a matter of a few tidal cycles. While the overall impact on the seabed is expected to be high, the consequences of the disposal are relatively minor.

Spills of fuel, oil and other harmful substances from construction vessels leading to changes to the chemical signature of marine waters in Snug Cove (i.e. increased nutrients, heavy metals, increased pH) (eg. via rupture of a fuel tank from a collision, or during refuelling).

 Contamination of Snug Cove and nearby bays (ie. Cattle Bay) with chemicals or other harmful substances.

 Contaminants that are heavier than seawater (such as fuel oil) will sink to the bottom and cause toxic effects to benthic biota. Those that are lighter than seawater (such as diesel) will either disperse naturally, or bind to fine sediments and particles in the water column and subsequently settle on the benthos.

166

 Impacts on marine flora and fauna within the extent of the contaminated area may occur, such as toxic effects or impacts to growth and reproduction on mobile and sessile biota or oiling of plumage which can affect buoyancy and insulation.

 Significant spills may result in oil reaching the coastline and building up on beaches (eg. Cocora Beach).

 Spills are expected to be able to be contained effectively. Any substances accidently spilled/discharged are likely to be of small quantity and booms/spill containment equipment are readily available from Contractors as well as the Port.

The likelihood of a significant spill of fuel or oil while in Snug Cove is quite low, and the most likely scenario is an accidental spill of <20L which should be able to be effectively contained and removed before impacting marine biota or settling to the seabed. Therefore with the recommended mitigation measures in place the overall level of risk of this impact is low.

Spills of fuel, oil and other harmful substances from construction vessels leading to changes to the chemical signature of marine coastal and offshore waters within and adjacent to Twofold Bay (i.e. increased nutrients, heavy metals, increased pH) (eg. via rupture of a fuel tank from collision).

 Contamination of marine waters within or offshore from Twofold Bay.

 Significant spills may result in oil reaching the coastline and building up on beaches.

 Spills are expected to be able to be contained effectively. Any substances accidently spilled/discharged while transiting to the offshore disposal area would be rapidly diluted (i.e. 1-2 days) due to the high degree of mixing of the waters resulting from the large water body of Twofold Bay with its associated ocean currents, tides and waves.

While the consequence of large spills of fuel, oil and other harmful substances (i.e. rupture of a fuel tank from collision) have the potential to be widespread, they considerably rare. Therefore the overall impact of this is expected to be able to be managed and have a low residual risk rating.

Pollution of waterway with construction waste, general waste or ‘foreign materials’ from stormwater runoff.

 Potential for contamination of local waterway with general waste from construction employees and for this waste to be carried further into Twofold Bay if not contained.

 Aesthetic impacts on the local waterway (i.e. Snug Cove) from debris floating on the water.

 Harm to marine fauna through ingestion and / or entanglement in debris causing harm or death.

167

Where appropriate levels of education, housekeeping practices (including separation, management and disposal of waste) are implemented and waste and recycling depositories are available the likelihood of stormwater polluting receiving waters should be very low.

Impacts on mussels in nearby aquaculture facilities associated with elevated levels of turbidity from dredging activities, and spills of fuel, oil and other harmful substances from construction vessels.

 Modelling indicates that while some plumes have the potential to interact with the mussel farms, the concentration of TSS and the duration of the plume are too short to have any effect on mussel condition or productivity. Similarly, the modelled deposition is also relatively low and unlikely to have any impact on mussel aquaculture.

 Toxic effects associated with spills of fuel, oil and other harmful substances from construction vessels on mussels and subsequent impacts on humans as a result of consumption.

 Regular testing of water quality (including phytoplankton) is undertaken by the aquaculture facilities. Shut down of the facility would be required where levels were above the guidelines and posed a risk to human health.

 Loss or reduction in shellfish harvest as a result of water quality deterioration caused by dredging or construction activities.

It is anticipated that the potential effect on nearby mussel farms is low, however, DI – Lands has arranged for the aquaculture farms to be temporarily relocated before dredging and construction works commence.

Impacts on commercial and recreational fishing stocks associated with elevated levels of turbidity from dredging activities, and spills of fuel, oil and other harmful substances from construction vessels.

 Species avoidance of affected area, including potential effects on suitability of spawning habitat and subsequent flow on effects to future fishing stocks and reduced efficiency in foraging success.

 Toxic effects associated with spills of fuel, oil and other harmful substances from construction vessels on fisheries and subsequent impacts on humans as a result of consumption.

 Loss or reduction in catch rates as a result of water quality deterioration caused by dredging or construction activities.

This impact is not expected to be significant given fish species are mobile and therefore able to move away from the disturbance. No known significant spawning habitats are expected to be affected.

An assessment of the water quality risks and impacts relating to Project construction identified by the above impact assessment, including the results of the risk assessment, proposed mitigation measures are provided in Table 9-9.

168

9.1.4 Potential Operational Impacts

The potential operational water quality impacts and associated environmental consequences are described below.

Pollution of waterway with contaminants, general waste or ‘foreign materials’ from stormwater runoff or from cruise ship passengers and employees.

 Potential for contamination of local waterway with general waste from cruise ship passengers and employees and for this waste to be carried further into nearby bays (i.e. Cattle Bay) and Twofold Bay if not contained.

 Aesthetic impacts on the local waterway (i.e. Snug Cove, Cattle Bay and Cocora Beach).

 Harm to marine fauna through ingestion and / or entanglement in debris causing harm or death.

This impact has the potential to be significant, however with appropriate waste facilities and disposal practices (such as regular emptying of waste receptacles) at the wharf and regular inspections of the site occurs, then the likelihood of a significant impact occurring is rare.

Spills of fuel, oil and other harmful substances leading to changes to the chemical signature of Snug Cove (i.e. increased nutrients, heavy metals, increased pH).

 Contamination of Snug Cove and nearby bays (ie. Cattle Bay) with chemicals or other harmful substances.

 Contaminants that are heavier than seawater (such as heavy fuel oil) will sink to the bottom and cause toxic effects to benthic biota. Those that are lighter than seawater (such as diesel) will either disperse naturally, or bind to fine sediments and particles in the water column and subsequently settle on the benthos. These contaminants may become re-mobilised as a result of propeller wash, or build up within sediments on the benthos.

 Impacts on marine flora and fauna within the minor extent of the contaminated area may occur, such as toxic effects or impacts to growth and reproduction on mobile and sessile biota.

 Aesthetic impacts on the local waterway (i.e. Snug Cove).

Runoff from cleaning activities on the passenger wharf leading to contamination of the water column with pollutants.

 Localised contamination of Snug Cove with pollutants such as oils, detergents, plastics, etc.

 Aesthetic impacts on the local waterway.

169

This impact is unlikely to be significant where proper management practices are implemented in accordance with the mitigation measures in Table 9-9.

Compounds (i.e. copper) entering the water column from anti-fouling biocidal coatings on ship hulls.

 Heavy metal contamination of the local water column, and potential local marine sediments.

 Harm to marine fauna through ingestion causing harm or death.

Where best practice hull cleaning procedures are followed and in-water cleaning of hulls only occurs on vessels using anti-fouling coatings suitable for in-water cleaning the likelihood of compounds entering the water column and impacting on water quality is very low.

Illegal discharge of vessel holding tanks.

 Contamination of the local water column (ie. Snug Cove) with pathogenic waste, with potential for contamination impacts to marine flora and fauna.

 Aesthetic impacts on the local waterway (i.e. Snug Cove).

Given discharge of vessel holding tanks is illegal, standard operating practices of the visiting passenger ships would involve appropriate procedures to ensure this does not occur. Therefore the severity of this impact is rated as low.

Accidental discharge or spills of bilge water, sewage and grey water.

 Phytoplankton blooms as a result of increased nutrient loads and/or increases in local water temperatures.

 Highly localised changes in the chemical signature of the receiving waters within Snug Cove. It is expected that volumes would be quite small.

 Potential impacts on nearby aquaculture facilities from microbial organisms entering the waterway and dispersing through natural hydrodynamics of the system (wind, waves, currents, etc.).

 Aesthetic impacts on the local waterway (i.e. Snug Cove).

A significant accidental discharge of bilge water, sewage and grey water while cruise ships are berthed in the Breakwater Wharf is unlikely, and the most likely scenario is an accidental spill of <20L which should be able to be effectively managed before further impact occurs (ie. to marine biota). Therefore with the recommended mitigation measures in place the overall level of risk of this impact is low.

Mobilisation of sediments resulting from propeller wash disturbing sediments on the seabed

 Localised and short term increases in turbidity in the immediate vicinity of the wharf and approach path, by cruise ships and tug vessels are expected to settle and disperse relatively quickly (within 1-2 days).

 Localised and short term levels of reduced light may occur in zones of increased turbidity.

 Potential for minor siltation of benthic flora / fauna.

170

Modelling indicates there will be some residual material left over after dredging in the order of 1-5mm over parts of Cattle Bay and Snug Bay. Residual sediment in the order of 5 to 50mm is mostly concentrated within the dredged shipping basin. Currents are very low even in a large storm event so this material would likely not be resuspended by wave action and currents except in the shallower areas close to shore, where deposition would be low (typically less than 5mm in the shallow areas). The coarse sandy fractions would not pose any problem for resuspension and these would be transported onshore onto the beaches by swell waves.

The fine fractions will be resuspended and would eventually be flushed out of the dredged basin and embayment following completion of dredging with the resuspended sediment concentrations returning to background levels within weeks of the dredge campaign ending. The overall level of risk of this impact is low.

Noxious air emissions from cruise ships settling in the area and impacting on water quality

 Given the semi-enclosed nature of Snug Cove, contamination of local waters may arise as emissions in to the air have the potential to transmit across the air-water interface. The severity of this will depend on the concentration of the emission and the local environmental conditions.

In accordance with the Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation 2010, while at the Eden Port cruise ships shall burn only low sulphur fuels (≤0.1%) unless an exception has been granted by the NSW EPA. Furthermore, air quality management measures have been described in Section 9.7.4 to effectively control the risk of noxious emissions. Therefore, air quality should be maintained to a level that does not impact upon water quality.

9.1.5 Proposed Water Quality Monitoring Program

It is proposed that real time turbidity monitoring be undertaken during dredging at Site CB1 (seagrass monitoring site), Site MU1 (aquaculture monitoring site) and Bay 1 (reference site) to monitor turbidity at key receptor sites as well as validate the plume modelling. Refer to Figure 9-15.

171

Figure 9-15 Proposed Real Time Monitoring Locations (During Dredging)

9.1.5.1 Tolerance Limits

The following assessment is based on limits and triggers that have been derived from a review of previous dredging assessments (DHI 2010).

Tolerance limits developed for the Wheatstone Project (DHI 2010) which are highly conservative and are developed on the vulnerability of the most sensitive seagrass species indicate a no impact zone (outside influence of plume) or a zone of influence (where exposure to low levels of plume are unlikely to result in impact). Refer to Table 9-6 and 9-7.

Table 9-6 Tolerance Limits and Thresholds for Seagrass (Suspended Sediments)

No Impact Threshold Zone of Influence

Excess SSC>25mg/l for <1% of Excess SSC>25mg/l for 1-5% of the time, OR the time, OR

Excess SSC >10mg/l for <1% of Excess SSC >10mg/l for 1-20% the time, OR of the time, OR

Excess SSC >5 mg/l for <5 % of Excess SSC >5 mg/l for >5 % of the time the time

172

Table 9-7 Tolerance Limits and Thresholds for Seagrass (Sedimentation)

No Impact Threshold Zone of Influence

<1.5 mm/14 day 1.5-10 mm/14 day

Previous limits applied to other recent NSW dredging projects included the Caltex Dredging project in Botany Bay (refer to EPL 20349) which used the following criteria:

 any three consecutive 15 minute readings at Point 2, 3 or 4 are greater than 10 mg/L TSS above the same three consecutive 15 minute readings at the background reference point (Point 1)

 any three consecutive 15 minute readings at Point 5 or 6 are greater than 50 mg/L above the same three consecutive 15 minute readings at the background reference point (Point 1)

Note: Points 2, 3 and 4 are located over seagrass beds. Points 5 and 6 are up current and down current of the operating dredge.

9.1.5.2 Proposed Response Levels and Environmental Limits

It is proposed that dredging plumes be actively managed through both application of response levels and environmental limits. Environmental limits are defined levels of maximum tolerance to an environmental condition whereas response levels provide an early warning that conditions may be trending toward an environmental limit.

Response levels will inform dredge management by providing an early warning system so that management actions can be taken by the Contractor to ensure the limit is not breached.

Consistent with ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) the Level 1 response is for the Principal to be notified and the Contractor to investigate the nature and cause of the trigger and report findings and actions in which the Contractor is taking to the Principal.

A trigger of response level 2 requires the Contractor to notify the Principal and for the Contractor to implement actions and closely monitor water quality until turbidity is reduced to below 10 mg/l. This could include measures such as moving the location of the dredging or dredging at reduced speed.

A formal trigger breach is declared if:

 The daily calculated mean (or median) for turbidity (based on 24 hours’ worth of measurements at 30 minute intervals) is greater than the trigger listed in Table 9-8; and

 The data are shown to be accurate and the exceedences are not shown to be related to natural environmental fluctuations through comparison to reference sites and metocean data.

It is also intended that a five day rolling average of the daily medians for each site be calculated to identify longer term trends in the turbidity.

Triggers based on short term consecutive readings (e.g. 5 x 15 minutes) are not recommended when monitoring in real-time as the risk of a false exceedance is very high. A false exceedance is commonly caused by abnormal fouling on sensor, drift algae covering sensor, fish or other biota obstructing sensor.

173

Table 9-8 Proposed Environmental Limits and Trigger Values for turbidity at CB1 and MU1

Response Level Limit Response

Validation of equipment and data accuracy (within 24 hours). Increased visual monitoring of plume (during 1 10 mg/l (above ambient) daylight hours) until levels fall below 10 mg/l. Dredge Contractor to consider reviewing dredging method to ensure conformance with turbidity limits.

Validation of equipment and data accuracy (within 24 hours). Amend dredging until turbidity levels fall below 2 15 mg/l (above ambient) 10 mg/l. Dredge Contractor to revise and modify dredging activities to ensure conformance with turbidity limits.

Environmental Cease Dredging until turbidity is reduced to less than 25 mg/l (above ambient) Limit 15 mg/l

Limits and trigger values may be amended following completion of the Department’s baseline water quality monitoring program.

9.1.6 Proposed Mitigation Measures

The mitigation and/or management measures for water quality which are to be adopted during the construction and operational phases are provided in Table 9-9. These will be contained within the CEMP for the Project as relevant. The publications “Environmental Action for Marinas, Boatsheds and Slipways” (DECC 2007), “Best Practice for Marinas and Boat Repair Facilities” (EPA 1999) and the “Code of Practice for Antifouling and In-Water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance” (ANZECC 1997) provide contextual information on water quality management.

Table 9-9 Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Phase The following mitigation / management measures are to be adopted Construction during the construction phase:

 Inspection of all construction equipment and vessels by qualified personnel prior to commencement of work, to reduce the risk of hydrocarbon spills or leaks.

 Timing of works should be planned to avoid, where possible, periods of high rainfall or during storm/wind warnings. Where this is not possible, preparation and tidying should occur around the worksite to reduce the potential for contamination of the waterway from stormwater runoff.

 Hopper barges for dredged material will not be overloaded to prevent spillage of dredged material while being transported offshore.

 Containment of the work area to prevent contamination of water

174

Mitigation Measure Phase by materials associated with pile replacement or repair, , grouting and concreting.

 All ships at sea must adhere with the amendments to the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO’s) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex V which came into force on 1 January 2013.

 Waste management as per measures described in Section 9.18 to reduce the likelihood of rubbish and construction materials entering the waterway.

 The Department shall notify the aquaculture permit holder(s) at least one week prior to commencement of any) dredging related activities that may result in the disturbance of any sediment.

 DPI-Fisheries (1800 043 536) shall be immediately notified of any fish kills in the vicinity of the construction works. In such cases, all works other than emergency response procedures are to cease until the issue is rectified and written approval to proceed is provided by DPI-Fisheries.

 To avoid the disruption to the operations at the Cattle Bay mussel farm from the risk of the dredging and construction works that may impact on water quality in Twofold Bay, the Department and Eden Sea Farms in accordance with the Deed of Settlement and Release agrees for the temporary relocation of the Cattle Bay Mussel Farm (lease No. AL07/098 and AL08/098) to a predetermined location pursuant to Lease No. AL06/001 in Twofold Bay.

 Water quality monitoring to be conducted in accordance with the CEMP, which includes appropriate trigger levels and a tiered management response depending on the trigger levels reached (Appendix D).

 Portable toilets to be emptied on a regular basis and human waste disposed of to a local sewage treatment plant.

 Establish comprehensive vessel/ship refuelling procedures to avoid or reduce the possibility of release. Include as a minimum requirements for:

o Adhering to all PANSW and pollution regulations o Refuelling during daylight hours where possible, depending on sea conditions

o Training personnel involved with refuelling or fuel transfer in their roles, functions and responsibility, including emergency response

o Maintaining open communication channels o Deploying spill prevention systems in accordance with

175

Mitigation Measure Phase established procedures and regulatory requirements

o Maintaining emergency response equipment to ensure that it is readily available

 Spill response kits located around the construction site, on the passenger wharf and on-board construction and dredging vessels.

 The existing dedicated oil spill recovery area at the landward end of the Breakwater Wharf, containing spill containment booms, chemical absorbent materials and dispersants shall be maintained and operated by PANSW.

 Environmentally Friendly/water based drilling muds to be used for pile drilling activities.  Industry standards, PANSW and pollution prevention regulations shall be adhered to during refuelling, transfer, storage and handling of hazardous materials.

 The lowest level of hydrocarbons (oil, grease, petrol, diesel) practicable will be stored on site.

 Bunding of chemical storage areas and stored in accordance with the products Safety Data Sheet (SDS) on board construction and dredging vessels, and land-based construction areas.

 Vessels (self-propelled and unpowered) shall have adequate on- board communication, containment, drainage, bunding and monitoring systems to prevent discharges of unauthorised effluents.

 Containment of spills and leaks in accordance with the technical guidelines section Bunding and Spill Management of the Authorised Officers Manual (EPA 2012) and the most recent version of the Australian Standards in the guidelines, PANSW Spill Response Plan and Contractor(s) EMP. Containment should be designed for no discharge.

 Appropriate site and project inductions/training detailing the potential water quality impacts and relevant construction measures and spill and emergency response procedures.

 Spill response strategy and procedures should include the contact details of the relevant authorities to be notified in the event of a spill, including the PANSW: Harbour Master/Pilot, PANSW Port of Eden Main Jetty, Eden NSW 2551

176

Mitigation Measure Phase T: +61 2 6496 1719 E: [email protected] W: http://edenport.com.au/contact_us The following mitigation / management measures are to be adopted Operation during the operational phase of the Breakwater Wharf:

 Appropriate waste facilities should be readily accessible on the passenger wharf to encourage passengers to dispose of waste correctly.

 Regular inspection and clearing of marine debris from waters, land- side, adjacent to the cruise ship berth and along the foreshore should be undertaken by management and / or subcontractors. The regular inspection should also include a periodic inspection of the seabed to remove any accumulated rubbish.

 Use of water sensitive urban design measures.  Educate employees of the cruise ship terminal on best practice for washing of wharf / land based facilities. Where possible, rinse with water only or use detergents with low-phosphate content.

 In-water cleaning to occur only on anti-fouling coatings suitable for in-water cleaning (obtainable from coating manufacturer).

 Best practice hull cleaning procedures (where required) to be followed (e.g. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) Anti-fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines, 2013, and the ANZECC Code of Practice for Antifouling and In-Water Hull Cleaning and Maintenance 1997).

 Prevent/minimise sewage pump-out by docked passenger ships.  Oils and hazardous chemicals should be stored in bunded and covered storage areas.

 To limit the resuspension of seabed sediments, appropriate speed zones should be enforced.

 Ongoing periodic monitoring of water quality and surface sediments.

 Establish comprehensive vessel/ship refuelling procedures to avoid or reduce the possibility of release. Include as a minimum requirements for:

o Adhering to all PANSW and pollution regulations o Refuelling during daylight hours where possible, depending on sea conditions

o Training personnel involved with refuelling or fuel transfer in their roles, functions and responsibility, including emergency response

177

Mitigation Measure Phase

o Maintaining open communication channels o Deploying spill prevention systems in accordance with established procedures and regulatory requirements

o Maintaining emergency response equipment to ensure that it is readily available

 Low EHS-risk cleaning products will be preferentially selected (i.e. biodegradable detergents and dispersants).

 Vessels shall have adequate on-board communication, containment, drainage and monitoring systems to prevent discharges of unauthorised effluents.

 The use of any surfactants, dispersants and detergents will be restricted to the minimum amount required to complete tasks.

 Prohibit discharge of contaminated bilge water into the waterway.  In NSW State waters, Transport for NSW is responsible for ensuring that maritime incidents (including oil and chemical spills) are responded to quickly and effectively. At the Port of Eden, the PANSW (Sydney resources) is the lead response agency. Containment of spills and leaks in accordance with the technical guidelines section Bunding and Spill Management of the Authorised Officers Manual (EPA 2012) and the most recent version of the AS in the guidelines.

 Containment should be designed for no discharge.  Spill response strategy and procedures should include the contact details of the relevant authorities to be notified in the event of a spill, including the PANSW: Harbour Master/Pilot, PANSW Port of Eden Main Jetty, Eden NSW 2551 T: +61 2 6496 1719 E: [email protected] W: http://edenport.com.au/contact_us

178

9.2 Sediment Quality

Historical foreshore and waterway uses can result in marine sediments within estuaries, ports and marinas containing a range of potential contaminants. They include heavy metals and metalloids, foreign materials, organotins (e.g. tributyltin), organochlorine pesticides (OCPs), total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and other pollutants that have the potential to impact the marine environment.

Contaminated marine sediments have been shown to affect assemblages of benthic marine invertebrates (i.e. those organisms living within the sediment) (Clements 2004, Millward et al. 2004; Johnston and Roberts 2009). Furthermore, the disturbance of contaminated marine sediments through activities such as dredging, piling, shipping and other boating related activities (e.g. anchoring) can result in the resuspension of sediment-bound contaminants into the water column (Simpson et al. 1998, Saulnier and Mucci 2000).

Exposure to contaminated resuspended sediments has the potential to have adverse effects on a wide variety of marine organisms living outside of marine sediments. These include marine algae, phytoplankton and bacteria, epibenthic and sessile invertebrates (i.e. those organisms living on the sediments surface or attached to hard rocky substrates and artificial structures), mobile invertebrates (e.g. crustaceans) and mobile pelagic species (e.g. fish, marine mammals and marine reptiles) (e.g. Knott et al. 2009; Nayar et al. 2004; Airoldi 2003; Hoonkoop et al. 2003).

Adverse impacts are most likely to occur following large-scale and prolonged exposure to contaminated sediments (e.g. through dredging activities) (Knott et al. 2009), with some studies indicating that short term or intermittent exposure may not have a significant impact on marine species (Wilber and Clarke 2001; Knott and Johnston 2009). However, impacts following small-scale resuspensions have also been shown to occur (Nayar et al. 2004).

A number of activities associated with the Project have the potential to remobilise and/or disturb marine sediments at the site. These activities include dredging and excavation works, piling works, rock pre-treatment (should it be required), boating movements and anchoring during the construction phase, as well as bottom dumping of marine sediments at the offshore disposal site and cruise ship operations (i.e. movements when berthing and propeller wash). In addition, activities proposed at the site have the potential to lead to localised contamination of marine sediments.

The Project includes a total estimated dredge volume of 231,500m3 (including allowance for overdredging) of which 18,500m3 is OTR, rock and rock-like materials (refer to Figure 5-1 in Section 5.1.2.) The final dredge footprint has been extended to the north and north-west, in addition to increasing the dredge depth immediately adjacent to the wharf from the design depth of -10.5mCD to -11.5mCD (scour protection level) and to -12.5mCD in a small sediment trap to the south of the Multipurpose Jetty.

The NAGD set out an approach to determine the suitability of dredge material for unconfined ocean disposal using a five phase decision-tree approach (Figure 9-16 (Commonwealth of Australia 2009). To determine the potential impacts on and associated with sediment quality from the Project, AMA undertook a Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) (AMA 2016a) and prepared a SAP Implementation Report (AMA 2016b) for the dredge site (Appendix H). In addition, sediment sampling at the proposed offshore disposal site was completed as part of their Infauna Survey – Offshore Disposal Location Report (AMA 2016c) (Appendix I).

This chapter includes an assessment of the existing sediment quality studies that have been conducted in and adjacent to Snug Cove with reference to the NAGD. Environmental impacts relating to the

179

resuspension, dispersal and settlement of marine sediments as a result of dredging and offshore dredge material disposal are discussed further in Section 9.1 Water Quality and the ecological impacts in Section 9.3 Aquatic Ecology.

Figure 9-16 Five-phase approach for the assessment of dredge material suitability for unconfined ocean disposal

Source: Commonwealth of Australia, 2009

180

9.2.1 Existing Environment

Existing catchment use also has the potential to impact sediment quality. Twofold Bay is fed by three key fluvial systems; the Towamba, Nullica and Pallestine catchments. The most dominant of the three is the Towamba River, in which peak flows occur in February and March. Their river mouths are located in the eastern and southern areas of the Bay and do not directly discharge into Snug Cove.

The major coastal pollution issues that exist in the local coastal zones are that of effluent disposal (sewage and septic), stormwater run-off (including gravel roads, heavy metals and toxicants from urban and industrial areas) and nutrient rich run-off from agricultural lands. Other potential pollution sources include hydrocarbon residues from boating, ballast water from shipping and chemical run-off from slipways and golf courses. Eden and to a lesser degree Bermagui have traditionally been based on the industrial and commercial fishing sectors, but in recent times both have become increasingly popular tourist destinations (BVSC 2002).

9.2.1.1 Sediment Characterisation: Dredge Location (Snug Cove)

Sediment sampling within the dredge location was completed by AMA across two separate sampling campaigns; prior to and following the first revision of the proposed quantity of dredge material:

 20-23 April 2015 – sampling undertaken in the dredge area (as defined in the preliminary design phase and not shown in figure 9-19) adjacent to the existing Breakwater Wharf facility. Sediment sampling was conducted at 15 sites (sites 1-15) (Figure 9-17) via vibracoring from a floating barge to the proposed dredge depth of -10.5mCD.

 8-9 July 2015 – sampling undertaken in the final dredge footprint seaward of the existing Breakwater Wharf facility. Sediment sampling was conducted at a further 11 sites (sites 16-26) (Figure 9-17) via piston coring from a vessel to the proposed dredge depth of -10.5mCD.

In total, 24 sites were characterised. Two sampling locations, 15 and 16, fall outside the current dredge footprint and were subsequently excluded from the overall material characterisation (AMA 2016b).

181

Figure 9-17 Sampling locations for the two campaigns (pink = campaign 1, green = campaign 2) and the original (yellow solid line) and proposed (black line) dredge footprint

The sampling plan was designed in accordance with the NAGD and included field and laboratory QA procedures. The number of sampling locations was determined in accordance with the requirements for medium sized capital dredging projects. The entire dredge area was treated as a single site and sampling was undertaken at randomly selected locations within it. The sampling locations number used was conservative and based on the volume of potentially contaminated dredged material that may be present.

Samples were analysed for a range of organic and inorganic analytes and compounds in addition to primary samples being analysed for particle size distribution (PSD) and acid sulphate soils (ASS) (Table 9-10). Organic compounds were normalised to 1% total organic carbon (TOC).

182

Table 9-10 Organic and inorganic analytes and compounds tested Test Limit of Method Reference Practical Reporting Quantitation Limit (PQL) Moisture Content N/A Gravimetric 0.1% Particle Size Distribution N/A Sieve and 2-2000 µm hydrometer Metals As, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, ZN 1.0 mg/kg USEPA 3050/ 200.7 0.1 mg/kg Cd, Ag 0.1 mg/kg ICP/AES Co 0.5 mg/kg Hg 0.01 mg/kg USEPA 3050/ 7471A 0.01 mg/kg CVAAS Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 0.02% Handbook of soil and water Organotins Tributyltin 0.5 µSn/kg In house (Abalos et 0.5 µSn/kg al. 1997, Attaar 1996) Organics Benzene, Ethylbenzene, Toluene 0.2 mg/kg USEPA 5030/8260 0.2 mg/kg and Xylene (BTEX) PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) 5.0 µg/kg USEPA 3640/3620 5.0 µg/kg USEPA 8081/8082 PAHs (polycyclic aromatic 5.0 µg/kg USEPA 3640/8270 5.0 µg/kg hydrocarbons) TRH (total recoverable 10-50 mg/kg USEPA 3510 10-50 mg/kg hydrocarbons) (C10-C40) Organochlorine Pesticides (OCPs) Aldrin, DDT, DDE, DDD, Dieldrin, 0.5 µg/kg USEPA 3640/3620 0.25-0.5 µg/kg Endosulfan, Endrin, Heptaclor, USEPA 8081/8082 Hexachlorobenzene, Methoxychlor Lindane (Gamma (BHC)) and 0.25 µg/kg Chlordane

All target depths for both campaigns were successfully achieved. Images of the cores and full laboratory results are available in the SAP Implementation Report (AMA 2016b; Appendix H).

Physical Characteristics

The percentage fraction of gravel (>2 mm), sand (0.06-2.0 mm), silt (2-60 µm) and clay (<2 µm) in each sediment sample were determined by sieve and hydrometer. The sediments at the dredge site are dominated by the sand fraction with only minor components of clay and silt (maximum of 11% silt and clay), and in some instances a high proportion of gravels (up to 32%) (Figure 9-18). On average, the sampled proposed dredge material was 93.5% sand and gravel and therefore there is minimal fine- grained material present within the proposed dredge footprint which can be attributed to the low intensity dredge plumes shown in dredge plume modelling.

183

Figure 9-18 Particle Size Distribution fraction percentages in the dredge area sediment samples. Note that fractions were averaged across the whole core

Geochemical Characteristics

A summary of the chemical analytical results from both sampling campaigns is shown in Table 9-11. The 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) calculated for the inorganic compounds were all below the NAGD screening levels. At site 9 the surface sediments returned silver concentrations exceeding the NAGD screening level however the 95% UCL level was below screening levels. All samples returned organochlorine pesticide (OCP) concentrations below the limit of reporting (LOR) (AMA 2016a).

Table 9-11 Summary of the chemical analytical results of sediment samples within the dredging footprint compared with the NAGD screening levels

The results of the AMA sampling campaigns were compared to the recent sediment sampling and analysis conducted in the adjacent Cattle Bay in Snug Cove (Marine Pollution Research 2013). This investigation found that all organic and inorganic contaminants were below the ANZECC (2000) ISQG low values (Marine Pollution Research 2013; AMA 2016b). This confirms that the sampling completed to date for the Project is sufficient.

The 95% UCL of the mean concentrations for the potential contaminants of concern were below the General Solid Waste CT1 (contaminant threshold) and National Environmental Protection Measure

184

(NEPM) Health-based Investigation Level (HIL) A (for low density residential including a sizeable garden, which represents the land-use category with the most exposure).

The EPA, under the Environmentally Hazardous Chemicals Act 1987, has issued a Chemical Control Order (CCO) in Relation to Organotin Wastes. The CCO sets controls on the disposal of all solid or liquid organotin wastes generated during the application or removal of antifouling paint. The EPA states that:

“The CCO only applies to dredged sediments contaminated with organotin where these are clearly associated with facilities used to apply or remove organotin products (this is likely to include, for example, sediments immediately adjacent to slipways).” (http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/pesticides/ccos.htm)

As the sediments proposed for dredging are not located directly adjacent to the existing slipway, and have a 95% UCL of the mean concentration level of TBT below the Sediment Quality High Values, the CCO is not considered applicable to the dredged sediments.

Tributyltin (TBT)

Tributyltin (TBT) reported a 95% UCL above the NADG Screening level. Samples from sites 4, 5 and 13, which are located close to the existing port returned elevated tributyltin tin (TBT) concentrations from surface sediments. Site 5 which is located approximately 100m from the existing Multipurpose Jetty and 400m from the existing slipway had the highest values, with a normalised concentration of 113.5 µg/kg compared to a non-normalised concentration of 22.7 µg/kg. The other sites are located closer to the existing Multipurpose Jetty, but more than 100 m from the existing slipway. In accordance with the NAGD (2009) phased approach, further elutriate testing at these sites returned TBT concentrations below the laboratory detection limits (<2 µg/kg) indicating that TBT is tightly bound to the sediment particles and therefore is of low bioavailability (i.e. when sediments are resuspended they are unlikely to be of a form that will cause adverse impacts to marine organisms).

Acid Sulfate Soils

All of the sediment results returned a net acidity of <0.02 %S, confirming that the acid production potential of the sediments targeted for dredging to facilitate the Project is low due to water depth and location.

Suitability of Dredge Material for Disposal

The material to be dredged and disposed of is predominantly sand, with minor components of silt, clay and gravel. Based on the above findings, the sediments proposed for capital dredging works for the Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension are considered suitable for onshore or offshore disposal.

Limitations of previous sediment sampling programmes

The methodology and sampling regime completed to date complies with the requirements of capital dredging according to the NAGD. While it is acknowledged that the dredge footprint and in some locations the dredge depth has increased since sampling occurred, sufficient sampling has been completed. in the extended footprint to the north-west to categorise the overall sediment quality of the dredge material. The program and findings have been independently reviewed by Royal Haskoning DHV (RHDHV) confirming that the sampling done to date is sufficient and representative of the dredge material.

185

9.2.1.2 Sediment Characterisation: Offshore Disposal Site

Sediment characteristics of the proposed offshore disposal site were determined as part of the Infauna Survey conducted by AMA to characterise the background conditions prior to disposal activities (AMA 2016c, Appendix G).

For infauna analysis, three replicate samples were collected from each of eight sampling sites within and adjacent to the offshore disposal site (Figure 9-19). Sites were located in approximately 68 m of water and were collected using a Van Veen Grab sampler. Sampling sites were selected based upon similar seabed characteristics determined from video transects completed prior to the sediment sampling. One replicate sample was collected and analysed from each sampling site for particle size distribution (PSD) using a wet sieving method.

Figure 9-19 Offshore Disposal Site sample locations

Source: AMA 2016c

The particle size analysis indicated that between 85 - 94% of the sediment samples consisted of sand (i.e. 0.06-2.0 mm) and clay and silt fractions were consistently low in all samples (Figure 9-20).

186

Figure 9-20 Particle size analysis at infauna sample sites

Source: AMA 2016c

The AMA (2016c) report concludes that the physical sediment characteristics at the proposed offshore disposal location are similar to those within the proposed dredge footprint. Average concentrations between the two locations were consistent for sand, silt and cobble, however clay was found in slightly higher concentrations at the proposed disposal location (7.75%) compared to the proposed dredge location (4.75%).

9.2.2 Potential Construction Impacts

Dredging and Sediment Disturbance

Marine sediments and associated contaminants may be mobilised at the dredge site during construction via:

 Direct disturbance of the seabed from the dredge head;

 Overflow dredging – i.e. where excess water is drained from the TSHD and released back into the water column; or from

 Spills occurring from the backhoe dredge during transfer of material to the barge.

Minor disturbance and mobilisation of sediments may also occur as a result of other construction activities, such as pile driving for the new wharf extension and berthing dolphins, boating movements (i.e. propeller wash) and anchoring.

Sediment characterisation completed by AMA (2016b) found that marine sediments in the proposed dredging footprint contain potential contaminants at concentrations (95% UCL) that are below the NAGD (2009) screening levels and therefore resuspension and exposure to these sediments are not considered to be of risk to the marine environment. This chapter is principally concerned with the disturbance of sediments and exposure of potential contaminants during capital dredging (and other

187

minor works) and offshore material placement. Impacts resulting from increased suspended sediments and turbid plumes to water quality and marine ecology are discussed in Section 9.1 and Section 9.2 respectively.

The exposure (through excavation or dredging activities) and oxidation of acid sulfate soils (which can occur if exposed to air) can lead to water quality and aquatic ecology impacts. As previously discussed however, tested sediments returned a net acidity of <0.02 %S, confirming that the acid production potential of the sediments is low. Therefore, the risk of acid sulfate soils being oxidised is considered to be negligible.

While the sediments proposed to be dredged do not contain contaminants at levels that are a risk to the marine environment (e.g. water quality) or local marine ecology at risk, settlement of resuspended sediments does have the potential to cause adverse effects to marine flora and fauna (discussed in further detail in Section 9.3 and 9.4).

The consequences associated with sediment quality are not predicted to be impacted any more or less via the three proposed dredging options (as described in Section 5.1.2).

Dredge Material Placement

The dredge material has been categorised as suitable for unconfined marine disposal and no impact is anticipated at the offshore spoil ground.

Upgrade/Installation to Wharf Infrastructure

The activities associated with the upgrade or installation of wharf infrastructure are not expected to significantly affect the quality of marine sediments within the dredge footprint, unless a substantial water quality contamination event occurs (e.g. spill of fuel or oil) which subsequently affects sediment quality. Quantities of fuels, lubricants and other chemicals that may be spilled are likely to be small, of which only a very small proportion is likely to settle out of the water column to the seabed.

There is also a slight chance of minor sediment contamination through leaching of antifouling paints (e.g. biocides and copper) which may be used on construction barges and/or other smaller vessels into the water column and local sediments (Cassi et al. 2008; Dafforn et al. 2008; Almeida et al. 2007). The fact that the dredge site is already widely used by both commercial and recreational vessels indicates that the likelihood of these impacts from short term site usage by these vessels is low.

Although not tested by AMA, (as it is not required by the NAGD (2009)), sediment quality can also be impacted by ‘foreign materials’ (which are defined by the NSW EPA as rubber, plastic, bitumen, paper, cloth, paint and wood). Foreign materials associated with construction may include any waste products that are not contained of and disposed of appropriately which end up on and within the seafloor sediments at the site.

An assessment of the sediment quality risks and impacts relating to Project construction identified by the impact assessment, including the results of the risk assessment, proposed mitigation measures and residual risk are provided in Section 9.2.4.

188

9.2.3 Potential Operational Impacts

Increased Shipping

An inherent risk of increased shipping and berthing is the increased risk of contamination entering the waterway and potentially contaminating seabed sediments. Potential contaminants from cruise ships include leaching from antifouling paints (containing biocides / metals such as copper), accidental spills of fuels and oils, accidental spills of sewage and wastewater, general waste materials (i.e. rubbish or foreign materials) from passengers and commercial waste, chemicals from cooling water discharges. Of greatest concern, though of a low likelihood of occurrence, is the potential spill from storage and distribution of fuel oil from compromised or failed infrastructure.

A proportion of any spilled liquid entering the waterway will remain on the surface (eg. surface oil slick) or become entrained in the water column and subsequently dispersed through wave and current action, while a small percentage of may settle to the seafloor, leading to potential contamination of marine sediments. As noted above, Snug Cove is semi-enclosed and therefore, depending on the location of the spill, contaminants may not disperse before settling on the seafloor. This can lead to localised increased concentrations of organic contaminants in marine sediments. A decline in sediment quality can lead to irreversible changes to the species and communities within the Project footprint.

Future Maintenance Dredging and Material Placement

Potential future maintenance dredging (and material disposal) may be required and if this occurs, will inevitably mobilise sediments. Future maintenance dredging and material placement during the operational phase will be undertaken in accordance with NAGD requirements and subsequently the potential impacts relating to this activity are considered negligible.

9.2.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures

Under section 120 of the POEO Act (and MARPOL) it is illegal to pollute or cause or permit pollution of waters, including introduction of anything, including litter, sediment, fuel, oil, grease, wash water, debris, detergent, paint, etc. into waters or placing such material where it is likely to be washed or blown into coastal waters (DECC 2007). Therefore, all practicable steps need to be taken to ensure pollutants do not contaminate waters and risk contaminating sediments in Snug Cove resulting from the Project.

To prevent fuel or other chemicals spilling and entering the waterways and potentially contaminating sediments, fuel and chemical handling and bunkering procedures are required to be adequate, appropriate and considered standard operating procedures for the Port. Appropriate emergency procedures are required by the contracting dredges (and barges) to ensure adequate processes and equipment are available in the unlikely event of a spill. Relevant staff and contractors are to be trained in emergency response procedures. Further measures regarding waste management for the Project are described in Section 9.18 – Waste Management.

Furthermore, any cleaning of hulls (should it be required) by construction vessels or cruise ships will be permissible only where best practice guidelines are followed (Commonwealth of Australia 2013) in order to prevent impacts relating to release of antifouling products into the waterway and sediment. No discharge of sewage or wastewaters is to occur while berthed. Appropriate waste (sewage, general rubbish and commercial waste) facilities is to be on board vessels and at the wharf during and following construction for users to dispose of waste correctly and spill kits and facilities to be available on board and at the wharf to clean up any spills.

189

Proposed mitigation measures are outlined in Table 9-12.

Table 9-12 Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Phase Ensure fuel handling, bunkering and emergency procedures and Construction and equipment are appropriate, available and considered standard in the Operation Port's and contractors procedures. Adequate equipment and facilities will be available on board and at the wharf during construction. Ensure relevant staff and contractors are trained in emergency response. Best practice hull cleaning procedures (where required) to be followed Construction (e.g. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Anti-fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines, 2013). Appropriate general waste handling and disposal processes in Construction contractor's policies and procedures.

9.3 Aquatic Ecology

An Aquatic Ecology Assessment (Appendix M) was prepared to provide an overview of the existing aquatic (marine) environment within Twofold Bay, specifically within the study area of Snug Cove and Cattle Bay, and at the proposed offshore disposal site. The review includes a description of marine protected areas, marine habitats, marine fauna (including threatened and protected species), invasive marine species, aquaculture and Key Threatening Processes (KTP). Following this, potential impacts associated with Project construction and operation, as well as measures to mitigate and/or manage those impacts are recommended.

9.3.1 Existing Environment

Twofold Bay is an open oceanic embayment (Roy et al. 2001). It has a catchment area of 11km² with a total volume of 334,559mL over a surface area of 30.7km² at an average depth of 10.9m making it reputedly the third deepest natural harbour in the Southern Hemisphere (OEH 2012).

Twofold Bay is located within the South-East Marine Region of Australia which covers more than 2,000,000km² of waters extending from Bermagui in southern NSW, Victoria, Tasmania (including Macquarie Island) and eastern South Australia from the South Australian / Victorian border to Victor Harbor (National Oceans Office 2004).

Twofold Bay is also located within the Twofold Shelf Marine Bioregion (Australia’s marine waters have been classified into 65 marine bioregions and provinces under the Integrated Marine and Coastal Regionalisation of Australia (IMCRA). These provide a national framework for consistent, ecologically based planning of marine protected areas. The bioregions include all estuarine, coastal and offshore waters to the edge of the continental shelf at the 200 m depth contour (Breen et al. 2005). The Twofold Shelf Marine Bioregion extends from Wallagoot Lake, NSW, to east of Wilsons Promontory in Victoria and south into Tasmanian waters.

No marine protected areas set aside for conservation under the NP&W Act 1974 and managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) occur within Twofold Bay or in the immediate study area. The closest marine protected area to the site is the Bateman’s Marine Park (BMP), the southern extent of which ends at Wallaga Lake, just north of Bermagui (i.e. 90km north of Twofold Bay).

190

Waterway and Fish Habitat Classification

Under the DPI-Fisheries NSW Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat Conservation and Management (NSW DPI 2013) (Table 2 of the Policy), the waterway of Twofold Bay would be considered as a CLASS 1 – Major Key Fish Habitat, i.e. “a marine or estuarine waterway or permanently flowing or flooded freshwater waterway (e.g. river or major creek), habitat of a threatened or protected species or ‘critical habitat”.

Considering the specific attributes of the marine habitats in the study area (as discussed in the ensuing sections), and in accordance with Table 1 of the Policy, much of Snug Cove and Cattle Bay outside the immediate dredge footprint would be considered as a TYPE 1 – Highly Sensitive Key Fish Habitat, as it contains seagrass beds >5m² in area. The area within the immediate dredge footprint would be classed as TYPE 2 – Moderately Sensitive Key Fish Habitat, as it contains marine macroalgae (NSW DPI 2013).The disposal site would be considered as TYPE 3 – Minimally Sensitive Key Fish Habitat as it consists of unvegetated sandy substrate (NSW DPI 2013).

No freshwater aquatic ecosystems (with the exception of coastal wetlands) are located within the study area.

SEPP 14 Wetlands

The aim of SEPP 14 - Coastal Wetlands is to ensure that the coastal wetlands are preserved and protected in the environmental and economic interests of the State. Lake Curalo, which is located >2 km north of the study area, north of the Eden town centre and adjacent to Aslings Beach and Calle Calle Bay, contains wetlands identified under SEPP 14.

Directory of Important Wetlands

The Directory of Important Wetlands (Environment Australia 2001) is a co-operative project between the Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments of Australia and is coordinated by The Department of Environment and Heritage to identify Nationally Important Wetlands. The Directory lists 698 nationally important wetlands (including Twofold Bay) which are classified into 40 different wetland types in three categories.

Twofold Bay has an area of 850 ha and is classified as a Marine and Coastal Zone Wetland with the following attributes:

 Marine waters - permanent shallow waters less than six metres deep at low tide; includes sea bays, straits (A1).

 Estuarine waters; permanent waters of estuaries and estuarine systems of deltas (A6).

 Brackish to saline lagoons and marshes with one or more relatively narrow connections with the sea (A10).

Land Identified as Critical Habitat

An area of land is listed as Critical Habitat under the TSC Act 1995 if it is critical to the survival of an endangered or critically endangered species, population or ecological community. No areas of Critical Habitat currently listed under the TSC Act 1995 occur within the study area (OEH 2016).

191

The Register of Critical Habitat for species listed under the EPBC Act 1999 also indicates that no areas of listed Critical Habitat under this Act occur within the study area (Commonwealth of Australia 2016).

The FM Act 1994 also makes provision for the declaration of Critical Habitat by the Minister for Primary Industries. Critical Habitat is defined under the FM Act 1994 as “the whole or any part of the habitat of an endangered species, population or ecological community that is critical to the survival of the species, population or ecological community”. No areas of critical habitat are located proximate to the Project.

Key Ecological Marine Features

Key Ecological Features are parts of the marine ecosystem that are considered to be important for the biodiversity or ecosystem functioning and integrity of the Commonwealth Marine Area. The Project site is located within Upwelling East of Eden is a Key Ecological Marine Feature of the South-east Marine Region which is listed under the EPBC Act 1999 (DoE 2015). The Upwelling East of Eden is an area of regionally high primary productivity supporting fisheries and with high biodiversity, including aggregations of marine life.

Marine Habitats and Flora

Twofold Bay contains a wide variety of natural marine habitats including intertidal rocky shores, sandy beaches, intertidal and subtidal reefs, deep-water areas, sand flats and coastal wetlands which provide important habitat for marine life, cetaceans and threatened and migratory birds (Breen et al. 2005).

Marine habitats located in the vicinity of the study area (i.e. Snug Cove and Cattle Bay) have been mapped by a variety of sources. The NSW DPI mapped the estuarine habitats (i.e. seagrass, mangroves and saltmarsh) of Twofold Bay using a combination of aerial photography (2003) and field surveys (2004). The estuarine habitat map in which the study area is included (Map 65 - “Curalo Lagoon, Nullica River, Towamba River and Fisheries Creek”) is provided in Appendix A of the AEA.

A large area of Zostera sp. seagrass (dark blue area) is located within Cattle Bay, to the approximate north-west of the existing Breakwater Wharf, with a smaller area of Zostera sp. occurring within Snug Cove, to the immediate north of the site. The map in Appendix A shows that the area of seagrass mapped within Cattle Bay is one of the largest within Twofold Bay. No other species of seagrass, mangroves or saltmarsh are mapped by NSW DPI in the vicinity of the study area.

In 2014, Marine Solutions undertook bathymetric surveys and benthic habitat mapping within Cattle Bay for the recently approved Cattle Bay Marina. Cattle Bay is in close vicinity to the Project area, especially the dredge footprint. Towed video transects coupled with diver based investigations were completed. Four main benthic habitat classes were identified within Cattle Bay, and their approximate distribution mapped. These were:

a) High profile rocky reef dominated by brown macroalgae.

b) Cobble, shell and broken stone.

c) Seagrass: three species detected - Heterozostera sp, Posidonia sp. and Halophila sp.

d) Unconsolidated sand and silt.

192

Rocky reef was the dominant habitat present in shallow waters of Cattle Bay adjacent to the rocky foreshore. Cobbles and shell were found at the outer edge of the rocky reef, and only represented a small band of habitat. Further offshore, either sand or seagrass, or a mosaic of both, were present.

Much of the seagrass mapped in Cattle Bay by Marine Solutions (2014) was very sparse, indicating that while the area has suitable seagrass habitat, at the time of survey (July 2014) it was not supporting dense seagrass beds. The mapping indicated the 7m depth contour as the approximate outer boundary between bare sand and seagrass habitat, potentially due to light restrictions with an increase in depth. The inner boundary of seagrasses was at approximately 1 m depth. The seagrass species found exhibited some level of zonation, with Halophila sp. being present in mixed seagrass patches close inshore at the head of Cattle Bay. This survey confirmed the location and extent of Posidonia sp. patches previously identified by Marine Pollution Research (2013), along the eastern shore of Cattle Bay, just offshore of the rocky reef edge. Heterozostera sp. occurred throughout the bay, although no dense beds were noted at the time of survey. The Heterozostera sp. distribution throughout the bay was a mosaic of sparse seagras with unvegetated sand patches (Marine Solutions 2014).

In 2015 AMA undertook field surveys within Snug Cove and Cattle Bay to identify and delineate the distribution of marine habitats within the study area. In early 2015, diver based field surveys of the rocky intertidal and subtidal areas immediately adjacent to the foreshore and existing marine infrastructure were conducted to describe the communities present in intertidal and subtidal areas and on artificial structures (AMA 2015).

A small embayment south of the Breakwater Wharf contained an intertidal rocky foreshore with small rock pools. The marine macroalgae Neptune’s necklace (Hormosira spp.) dominates the intertidal zone here.

On the northern side of Snug Cove a rocky intertidal foreshore occurs. Subtidally, the rocky seafloor in this area is inhabited by the large brown macroalgae species, Sargassum spp.

The closest sandy beach to the site is located within Cattle Bay, approximately 800 m from the Breakwater Wharf. Offshore from this beach one of the largest mapped seagrass areas in the vicinity of the proposed development, and within Twofold Bay, occurs.

Towed video surveys undertaken by AMA in June 2015 showed that large beds of macroalgae (kelp - Ecklonia spp.) occur along the northern extent of the Breakwater Wharf and along the seawall, extending from the Police Jetty, east into the cove between the Breakwater Wharf and Multipurpose Jetty. A small patch of Posidonia spp. seagrass was recorded adjacent to the Twofold Bay Bait Jetty and a small Heterozostera spp. seagrass meadow occurs offshore of the Cattle Bay Jetty. The mapping of seagrass undertaken by AMA (2015) was generally in agreement with previous mapping undertaken by Marine Solutions (2014), however, the area of seagrass detected by AMA (2015) was smaller. This was noted by AMA to perhaps be due to natural senescence during winter (however, both surveys were undertaken in the winter months). No seagrass was recorded within the actual dredge footprint.

Benthic habitat within the dredge footprint consisted of bare sand with occasional epifauna (e.g. sea pens). Temperate rocky reef and low profile reef were found on the northern shore of Snug Cove, as well as an extensive area extending off Cocora Point to the west of Cattle Bay.

The closest seagrass beds mapped by AMA (2015) occur approximately 50 m to the north-east of the proposed dredge area (i.e. the small Posidonia spp. bed near the Twofold Bay Bait Jetty). The larger Heterozostera spp. bed mapped in Cattle Bay by NSW DPI, Marine Solutions and AMA, is located approximately 200 m away to the north-west. Areas of subtidal rocky reef located off Cocora Point and

193

on the northern side of Snug Cove are located within 100 m of the proposed dredge footprint (Marine GeoSolutions 2016). Refer to Figure 9-21.

Figure 9-21 Habitat mapping and dredge plan

Source: Marine GeoSolutions, 2016

Artificial structures at the site provide habitat for marine flora and fauna. These include the rocky areas and sheet pile walls of the existing Breakwater Wharf along with wooden piles of the Multipurpose Jetty and Mooring Jetty. Diver surveys undertaken by AMA (early 2015) found that subtidal areas of the artificial rocky reef created by the Breakwater Wharf Wall were dominated by the large brown macroalgae Ecklonia spp. This species was also found at the base of the sheet pile walls that make up approximately 40% of the Breakwater Wharf Wall. Marine flora on the wooden wharf piles included a wide range of micro and macroalgae species including encrusting coralline algae.

The various marine habitats present within Twofold Bay are likely to provide areas for shelter, feeding and breeding for a wide range of mobile marine fauna.

Threatened and Protected Species – TSC Act 1995 & EPBC Act 1999

As part of the REF undertaken by AMA (2015), database searches under the TSC Act (i.e. Atlas of NSW Wildlife) and EPBC Act 1999 (i.e. Protected Matters Search Tool) were undertaken. Based on these searches a list of all threatened and protected marine species listed under these Acts is provided in Table 9-13.

194

In summary:

 The TSC Act 1995 search listed 10 threatened marine species as being known from the study area (i.e. previously recorded from within a 10 km radius of the study site) (excluding marine and migratory birds which are addressed under Terrestrial Ecology) (refer to Appendix E of AMA 2015).

 The EPBC Act 1999 search listed 72 listed marine species, 12 whales and other cetaceans, 53 threatened species and 43 listed migratory species with the potential to occur in the study area (i.e. within a 5 km radius of the study site) (marine and migratory birds are addressed in the Terrestrial Ecology Section of the main EIS). The likelihood of occurrence of these species in the study area (which is determined by the database) is provided in Table 9-13.

Table 9-13 Threatened and protected marine species listed under the TSC Act 1995 and EPBC Act 1999 with the potential to occur in the study area

Common Species TSC Act EPBC Act Likelihood of Name Name 1995 1999 Occurrence *

Epinephelus Species or species habitat Black Cod - V daemelii may occur within area

Little Penguin Eudyptula minor P - -

Loggerhead Breeding likely to occur Caretta caretta - E, M, L Turtle within area

Foraging, feeding or related Green Turtle Chelonia mydas - V, M, L behaviour known to occur within area

Leatherback Dermochelys Species or species habitat - E, M, L Turtle coriacea known to occur within area

Hawksbill Eretmochelys Species or species habitat - V, M, L Turtle imbricata known to occur within area

Grey Nurse Species or species habitat Shark (east Carcharias taurus - CE likely to occur within area coast pop’n)

Great White Carcharodon Species or species habitat - V, M Shark carcharias known to occur within area

Species or species habitat Whale Shark Rhincodon typus - V, M may occur within area

Species or species habitat Porbeagle Lamna nasus - M likely to occur within area

Balaenoptera Species or species habitat Blue Whale E1, P E, M, W musculus likely to occur within area

195

Common Species TSC Act EPBC Act Likelihood of Name Name 1995 1999 Occurrence *

Southern Eubalaena Breeding likely to occur E1, P E, M, W Right Whale australis within area

Congregation or Humpback Megaptera V, P V, M, W aggregation known to occur Whale novaeangliae within area

Pygmy Sperm Kogia breviceps P - - Whale

Species or species habitat Killer Whale Orcinus orca P M may occur within area

Balaenoptera Species or species habitat Brydes Whale - M, W edeni may occur within area

Pygmy Right Caperea Species or species habitat - M, W Whale marginata may occur within area

Balaenoptera Species or species habitat Minke Whale - W acutorostrata may occur within area

Indian Ocean Species or species habitat Bottlenose Tursiops aduncus - W likely to occur within area Dolphin

Bottlenose Tursiops Species or species habitat - W Dolphin truncatus s. str. may occur within area

Common Species or species habitat Delphinus delphis P W Dolphin may occur within area

Lagenorhynchus Species or species habitat Dusky Dolphin - M, W obscurus may occur within area

Risso's Species or species habitat Grampus griseus - W Dolphin may occur within area

Dugong Dugong dugon E1, P - -

New Zealand Arctocephalus Species or species habitat V, P L Fur Seal forsteri may occur within area

Australian Fur Arctocephalus Species or species habitat V, P L Seal pusillus may occur within area

Species or species habitat Syngnathids Syngnathidae - L may occur within area

196

Threatened and Protected Species - FM Act 1994

Threatened and protected species and Key Threatening Processes (KTPs) listed under Schedules 4 to 6 of the FM Act 1994 (see search results in Appendix B of the Aquatic Ecology Assessment in Appendix M) were also reviewed for the EIS in order to satisfy requirements of the Fisheries NSW Policy and Guidelines for Fish Habitat Conservation and Management (NSW DPI 2013).

Marine species, populations and ecological communities currently listed as endangered, critically endangered and/or vulnerable under the NSW FM Act 1994 which are thought to have the potential to occur in the study area are listed below.

In addition, KTPs under the FM Act 1994 which are relevant to the proposal are listed.

Schedule 4: Endangered Species, Populations and Ecological Communities

 Scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) - endangered species.

 Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) - endangered species.

 Marine worm (Hadrachaeta aspeta) - species presumed extinct.

 Green sawfish (Pristis zijsron) - species presumed extinct.

 Bennetts seaweed (Vanvoorstia bennettiana) - species presumed extinct.

Schedule 4A: Critically Endangered Species and Ecological Communities

 Grey nurse shark (Carcharius taurus) - critically endangered species.

 Marine slug (Smeagol hilaris) - critically endangered species.

 Marine brown algae (Nereia lophocladia) - critically endangered species.

Schedule 5: Vulnerable Species and Ecological Communities

 Great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) - vulnerable species.

 Black cod (Epinephelus daemelii) - vulnerable species.

 Great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran) - vulnerable species.

Schedule 6: Key Threatening Processes (KTPs)

The only KTP listed under the FM Act 1994 which may potentially be associated with the current proposal is the “introduction of non-indigenous fish and marine vegetation to the coastal waters of New South Wales”. Introduction of non-indigenous fish and marine vegetation may occur during the construction and/or operation phases if appropriate measures are not adopted by construction vessels or cruise ships coming into the port.

197

Protected Species

As of July 2004 all species of the families 'Syngnathidae', 'Solenostomidae' and 'Pegasidae' were listed as "protected" under the NSW FM Act 1994.

Considering the location of the site, habitats present in the study area and the required habitat and conservation status of each of the species listed under the FM Act Schedules above, those species which are considered to have a moderate to high chance of occurring at the study site are:

 Black cod (E. daemelii) - vulnerable

 Syngnathids - protected

Bony Fishes

Six marine bony fishes which may occur within the Twofold Shelf Bioregion are protected under the EPBC Act 1999 (Breen et al. 2005):

 Orange roughy (Hoplostethus atlanticus) - conservation dependent.

 Eastern gemfish (Rexea solandri) - conservation dependent.

 Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) - conservation dependent.

 Black cod (Epinephelus daemelii) – vulnerable.

 Spotted handfish (Brachionichthys hirsutus) - critically endangered.

 Red handfish (Thymichthys politus) - critically endangered.

Of the threatened or protected bony fishes listed above, the black cod (E. daemelii) is considered tohave the potential to occur in the Twofold Bay study area.

Syngnathids (Seahorses, Seadragons, Pipefishes and Pipehorses)

As many as 40 species of Syngnathid (seahorses, pipefish, pipehorses and seadragons) may also occur within the region. This group of fish is protected under the FM Act 1994 and EPBC Act 1999. No Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) have been identified for bony fish species in the Temperate East Marine Region (DSEWPC 2012).

No syngnathids were recorded by AMA during the aquatic ecology surveys undertaken at the site in June 2015 (AMA 2015), however, during a biological survey of damaged wharf piles in the Port of Eden undertaken in 2012 (Koopman and Rudge 2012) one syngnathid, a potbelly seahorse (Hippocampus abdominalis) was recorded.

Sharks

Six species of shark listed under the Commonwealth EPBC Act 1999 are known to occur in the Temperate East Marine Region (DSEWPC 2012):

 Grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus - east coast population) - critically endangered.

198

 White shark (Carcharodon carcharias) - vulnerable, migratory.

 Whale shark (Rhincodon typus) - vulnerable, migratory.

 Porbeagle (Lamna nasus) – migratory.

 Shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) – migratory.

 Longfin mako (Isurus paucus) – migratory.

Two species may occur infrequently in this region (school shark (Galeorhinus galeus) and green sawfish (Pristis zijsron)). In addition, two species are currently undergoing assessment for potential listing (Harrison’s dogfish (Centrophorus harrissoni) and southern dogfish (Centrophorus zeehaani)) (DSEWPC 2012b).

Sharks which are known to occur in the South-east Marine Region include the white shark, grey nurse shark, porbeagle, school shark, shortfin mako, Harrison’s dogfish and southern dogfish (DoE 2015).

The NSW FM Act 1994 lists the following shark species as threatened or protected in NSW:

 Grey nurse shark (C. taurus) - critically endangered.

 Scalloped hammerhead shark (Sphyrna lewini) – endangered.

 Great white shark (C. carcharias) – vulnerable.

 Great hammerhead shark (Sphyrna mokarran) – vulnerable.

 Green sawfish (P. zijsron) - species presumed extinct.

Marine Mammals (Cetaceans)

The following species of cetacean are listed as having the potential to occur in the study area under the TSC Act 1995 and/or the EPBC Act 1999:

 Little penguin (Eudyptula minor).

 Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus).

 Southern right whale (Eubalaena australis).

 Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).

 Pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps).

 Killer whale (Orcinus orca).

 Brydes whale (Balaenoptera edeni).

 Pygmy right whale (Caperea marginate).

 Minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata).

199

 Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus).

 Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus s. str.).

 Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis).

 Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus).

 Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus).

 Dugong (Dugong dugon).

 New Zealand fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri).

 Australian Fur Seal (Arctocephalus pusillus).

Biologically Important Areas (BIAs) have been identified for the humpback whale and Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin in the Temperate East Marine Region (DSEWPC 2012c), while BIAs have been identified for the Southern right whale in the South-east Marine Region (DoE 2015). Twofold Bay is listed as a BIA for the Southern right whale while BIA’s for the humpback whale and the Indo-Pacific dolphin are not located within the study area. While the proposed works are located in the vicinity of a BIA, it is unlikely that they will have any significant impact on transient populations of Southern right whales (DSEWPC 2012c) considering the range of mitigation measures which will be applied to the project relating to marine mammals.

Marine Turtles

All six species of marine turtles that occur in Australian waters are protected under the EPBC Act 1999. Four of these species, the leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) occur in southern Australian waters and are reported to have the potential to occur in the study area under the EPBC Act 1999 Protected Matters Search (AMA 2015).

Marine turtles are not classed as ‘fish’ so are not listed under the NSW FM Act 1994.

The Atlas of NSW Wildlife Search for species listed under the TSC Act 1995 did not return any records for marine turtles in the study area.

Phytoplankton

Regular water quality monitoring of temperature, salinity, faecal coliforms and phytoplankton is undertaken for the mussel aquaculture facilities in Twofold Bay at a number of sites near the study area. Several potentially toxic phytoplankton species were found during these surveys; four Pseudo- nitzchia species/groups and two Alexandrium species. Very large concentrations, as found in algal blooms of these particular species, have a potential to poison the mussels growing in the aquaculture farms located in Twofold Bay.

Marine Invertebrates

Predatory invertebrates include whelks (Penion maxima and Dicathais orbita), cephalopods (e.g. southern blue-ringed octopus, Hapalochaena fasciata, Maori octopus, Octopus moarum and giant cuttlefish, Sepia apama), crustacea (e.g. red bait crab, Plagusia chabrus, eastern rock lobster, Jasus

200

verreauxi) and sea stars (Nectria spp., Tosia spp.). The feather star, Comanthus trichoptera, a mobile filter feeder, can also be abundant. Sessile filter feeding taxa include sponges, bryozoans, hydroids, ascidians and corals (Breen et al. 2005; DoE 2015).

Mobile marine invertebrates of the subtidal reef communities in the Twofold Shelf Bioregion include algal grazers, mobile predators and sessile filter feeders. The most common grazing taxa are gastropods, abalone (Haliotis rubra), tent shell (Astralium tentoriformis), warrener Turbo (Undulatus) and long-spined urchin (Centrostephanus rodgersii).

In early 2015 AMA undertook aquatic ecology surveys of the intertidal and subtidal areas immediately adjacent to the foreshore and existing marine infrastructure within the study area to assist in describing the communities present in intertidal areas, subtidal rock and on artificial structures (AMA 2015). The nearby intertidal rocky foreshores, particularly in the mid to upper intertidal zone, contained a variety of gastropods (sea snails), including Nerita spp.. Blue mussel (Mytilus spp.) beds were present in the subtidal areas adjacent to the beaches on the northern side of Snug Cove and in the intertidal areas of the western foreshore of Cattle Bay. Intertidal and shallow subtidal areas, including in front of the Breakwater Wharf, also contained beds of oysters (Saccostrea spp.) (AMA 2015).

A variety of sessile marine growth was also recorded on the sheet pile wall which constitutes approximately 40% of the Breakwater Wharf wall. Oysters were generally found at the top of the concrete pylons and were reported to outcompete the blue mussels (Mytilus spp.) which occurred directly below them. The flat surfaces of the sheet pile walls were occupied by barnacles and limpets, while ascidians and tube worms were found on the deeper horizontal surfaces. The Multipurpose Jetty and Mooring Jetty located to the north of the breakwater wharf contained wooden pylons which supported a wide range of filter feeding organisms such as oysters, mussels, tubeworms and ascidians (AMA 2015).

Analysis of infauna at the dredge site was not undertaken, nor is it required as dredging of the seabed will remove all of the infauna that is present in the dredge footprint. Benthic recolonisation in the dredged area will begin as soon as the dredging is completed with the resultant infauna being similar to adjacent areas, although some differences in species composition may occur due to the difference in substrate type and also due to the level of ongoing disturbance that may be caused once the port is operational. As the infauna will recolonise as part of natural recovery processes, no further mitigation is required.

Characterisation of benthic infauna assemblages at the proposed offshore dredge disposal ground was undertaken by AMA in 2015. The main findings of the AMA study were as follows:

 Forty-four taxa (families) were identified across the eight sites sampled. This included one invasive species, the European fan worm, Sabella spallanzanii.

 Multidimensional Scaling (nMDS) found little similarity between samples collected along each of the transect lines and also little similarity between replicate samples collected within sites, suggesting high variability within the sampling area.

 Although nMDS analysis showed little similarity among sites, there was consistency in the dominant species found. Of the 44 families identified, five were found to dominate assemblages. The families Spionidae, Orbiniidae, Gammaridea, Apseudida and Hydrozoa accounted for 63% of overall biodiversity.

201

 Analysis of Similarities (ANOSIM) showed some association between similarities in species composition of grab samples within sampling positions (strongest in the north-west transect).

 Similarity Percentages Analysis (SIMPER) suggested that northern samples had the highest average similarity.

 One-way PERMANOVA suggested a significant difference between similarity of the benthic community and position of the grab sample site. PERMANOVA pair-wise tests demonstrated significant differences in the similarity of species composition between north and west.

 Particle size distribution (PSD) analysis showed that sediments at the disposal site were predominately sand (85 - 94% at each site). The percentage of clay and silt were also relatively consistent between sites. The overall physical composition of the offshore disposal location was shown to closely reflect the physical composition at the dredge site (AMA 2015).

The main findings of the Advisian (2016) power analysis were:

 The power analysis found that the power of the AMA (2016) study was relatively low.

 The power analysis calculated a permutational maximum difference distribution based on the pilot study (i.e. AMA 2016) samples and found that the 95%ile equated to a maximum difference between the impact and reference sites of 0.52 on the Shannon diversity index.

 Power analysis found that for a maximum difference effect size of 0.52, the power of the study was 18.70% (95% confidence interval 16.33% - 21.26%). This means that if there was a major difference in Shannon diversity between impact and reference sites, the analysis will only successfully identify this difference approximately 19% of the time at the 0.05 significance level.

 A simulation of power values that could be achieved by increasing the number of sites revealed that a minimum of 29 sites would be required to achieve a power of 80%.

 Unbalanced sampling designs such as that adopted by AMA (2016) are more prone to provide misleading results under certain circumstances (Anderson and Walsh 2013).

Advisian was engaged in September 2016 to undertake the recommended power analysis on the AMA (2016) infauna data to determine whether the study design adopted is adequate to detect a relevant ecological change in infauna communities before and after dredge spoil has been deposited on the seabed at the offshore disposal site. The power analysis was also used to determine the level of future sampling effort required to detect an effect of a given size with a given degree of confidence.

Invasive Marine Species

Invasive species pose one of the greatest threats to biodiversity and primary production in NSW (NSW DPI 2008). Marine pests are plants or animals that have a significant impact on Australia’s marine industries and environment. The following are the most notable invasive marine species which are found in NSW (and specifically from Twofold Bay):

 Caulerpa (Caulerpa taxifolia).

 Dinoflagellate (Alexandrium catenella).

202

 European fan worm (Sabella spallanzanii).

 European green crab (Carcinus maenas).

 New Zealand screwshell (Maoricolpus roseus).

 Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas).

 Yellowfin goby (Acanthogobius flavimanus).

 Japanese goby (Tridentiger trigonocephalus).

Mussel Aquaculture

Commercial mussel farming of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) has been conducted in Twofold Bay since the mid-1970s. The species is native to the area and prefers water temperatures between 5 and 20°C. In Twofold Bay (with average sea surface temperatures of ~ 19°C) the blue mussel has achieved fast growth rates and appears to reach a larger size than anywhere else in Australia. The blue mussel is farmed by Eden Sea Farms with an aquaculture area located nearby to the proposed Project area.

Mussels are very tolerant to elevated exposures of turbidity and TSS concentrations well in excess of 100 mg/L (Wilber and Clarke 2001; Appelby and Scarratt 1989). However, very thin veneers of sediment are known to adversely affect both settlement and recruitment of bivalve larvae. The settlement of mussel spat can therefore be affected if there is excessive settlement of fine sediments onto collection ropes or substrates. Concentrations of TSS around the mussel farm are also unlikely to exceed 2 mg/L above ambient for the duration of the program, hence the likelihood of significant sedimentation is also considered low.

Key Threatening Processes

NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995

A threat may be listed as a KTP under the NSW TSC Act 1995 if it “adversely affects threatened species, populations or ecological communities, or may cause species, populations or ecological communities to become threatened”. Key Threatening Processes (KTPs) under the TSC Act 1995 are managed with priorities action statements until new conservation projects are developed under the Saving our Species program (OEH 2016).

A full list of KTP listed under the TSC Act 1995 can be found at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/KeyThreateningProcessesByDoctype.htm

Of the listed KTP under the TSC Act the only one with the potential to apply to the Project is:

1. Entanglement in or ingestion of anthropogenic debris in marine and estuarine environments.

Further detail on this KTP can be found at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/determinations/MarineDebrisKtpDeclaration.htm

NSW Fisheries Management Act 1994

Key Threatening Processes (KTPs) are defined under the FM Act 1994 as “processes that, in the opinion of the Fisheries Scientific Committee, adversely affect threatened species populations or ecological

203

communities, or could cause species, populations or ecological communities that are not threatened to become threatened” (NSW DPI 2016). Key Threatening Processes (KTPs) are listed under Schedule 6 of the Act (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/fma1994193/sch6.html).

Of the KTPs listed under the FM Act the only one with the potential to be associated with the Project is:

 Introduction of non-indigenous fish and marine vegetation to the coastal waters of New South Wales.

A Priorities Action Statement for this KTP is available and can be found at: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/species-protection/conservation/what-current/key/introduction-of- non-indigenous-fish-and-marine-vegetation/priorities-action-statement-actions-for-the-introduction- of-non-indigenous-fish-and-marine-vegetation-to-coastal-waters-of-nsw-ktp

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

The EPBC Act 1999 provides for the identification and listing of KTP. A threatening process is defined as a KTP under this Act if it threatens or may threaten the survival, abundance or evolutionary development of a native species or ecological community (Commonwealth of Australia 2016).

A process can be listed as a KTP under the EPBC Act if it could:

 Cause a native species or ecological community to become eligible for inclusion in a threatened list (other than the conservation dependent category); or

 Cause an already listed threatened species or threatened ecological community to become more endangered; or

 Adversely affect two or more listed threatened species or threatened ecological communities.

The full list of KTP under the EPBC Act 1999 can be found at: http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicgetkeythreats.pl

Of the listed KTP under the EPBC Act the following have the potential to apply to the project:

1. Injury and fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement in, harmful marine debris. 2. Novel biota and their impact on biodiversity.

An approved Threat Abatement Plan is currently available for “Injury and fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement in, harmful marine debris”: http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/publications/threat-abatement-plan-impacts-marine-debris- vertebrate-marine-life

Consultation with Indigenous communities over a Threat Abatement Plan for Invasive Species (i.e. “novel biota and their impact on biodiversity”) is currently underway: http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/pages/fa564fd1-b2ed-4e32-b994- d2c1e457ff8e/files/indigenous-consultation-guidelines.pdf

204

Is the Project a Key Threatening Process?

In summary, the Project as a whole is not considered to be a KTP as listed under any of these Acts. However, two potential impacts of construction and/or operation relating to the Project, being the introduction of marine species and injury / fatality caused by marine debris, are both KTPs. These are discussed further in Sections 5.2 and 6.2.

9.3.2 Potential Construction Impacts

9.3.2.1 Marine Habitats and Flora

The following sections outline the potential impacts of construction on marine habitats and marine flora that have the potential to occur within the study area.

Fish Habitat Types (NSW DPI 2013)

There is the potential for direct and indirect impacts of construction on TYPE 1 – Highly Sensitive Key Fish Habitat located outside of the dredge footprint (i.e. within Cattle Bay and Snug Cove), on TYPE 2 – Moderately Sensitive Key Fish Habitat located within the dredge footprint and also on TYPE 3 – Minimally Sensitive Key Fish Habitat present at the dredge and disposal sites. In summary, these are:

 Potential smothering / sedimentation of seagrass beds (i.e. TYPE 1 Fish Habitat) located outside of the immediate dredge footprint, but within the area modelled as being potentially affected by suspended sediments and bed deposition resulting from dredging operations.

 Potential smothering / sedimentation of macroalgae (i.e. TYPE 2 Fish Habitat) growing on the breakwater and wall and nearby subtidal rocky reef areas which are located within the modelled area of impact from sediment plumes and bed deposition generated by dredging.

 Direct harm to macroalgae (i.e. TYPE 2 Fish Habitat) on the seabed adjacent to the breakwater through piling and the activities of construction vessel (e.g. anchoring).

 Direct removal of subtidal soft sediment habitat (i.e. TYPE 3 Fish Habitat) within Snug Cove (i.e. in the immediate dredge footprint) through dredging.

 Smothering of subtidal soft sediment habitat (i.e. TYPE 3 Fish Habitat) at the offshore disposal site through sediment disposal.

Marine Protected Areas and Environmentally Sensitive Lands

 No marine protected areas occur within Twofold Bay or at the proposed disposal ground so will not be impacted by the construction phase of the Project.

 The SEPP 14 Coastal Wetlands of Lake Curalo do not occur within the proposed construction area so will not be impacted by the construction phase of the Project.

 Twofold Bay is listed on the Directory of Important Wetlands. Impacts on the aquatic flora and fauna of this wetland are discussed in the ensuing sections.

205

 No areas of Critical Habitat for marine species listed under the FM Act 1994, TSC Act 1995 or EPBC Act 1999 occur within the study area. Therefore no areas of Critical Habitat will be impacted by the construction phase of the Project.

 The Upwelling East of Eden is a Key Ecological Marine Feature listed under the EPBC Act 1999, which occurs offshore from Twofold Bay. The proposed disposal site is located within the upwelling area. However, considering the small area of the proposed disposal ground (~ 0.5km²) in comparison to the extensive size of the Upwelling East of Eden, any impacts from the disposal of predominantly sandy sediment in this area are expected to be negligible. In addition, more extensive areas of this disposal ground have been used for previous disposal of dredged material from Twofold Bay.

Impacts on Marine Habitats in the Study Area

Potential construction related impacts on marine habitats and flora can be summarised as:

 Sedimentation / smothering of various seafloor habitats and/or marine vegetation from the settlement of resuspended sediments generated via dredging, or through disposal of dredged sediment.

 Reductions in light availability through increased turbidity levels.

 Direct removal of soft sediment seafloor habitat through dredging.

 Direct damage to seafloor habitats and vegetation through the activities of construction vessels.

 Impacts of water pollution on marine habitats.

Refer to Section 5.1.3 of Appendix M for further discussion on the above potential impacts.

9.3.2.2 Marine Fauna

Marine Vertebrates

A discussion of the general potential construction impacts on marine fauna is provided in Section 5.2 of Appendix M, followed by tables for each of the species listed above providing an assessment as per s9.2 of the FBA.

Potential construction related impacts on marine fauna can be summarised as:

 Entanglement / ingestion of marine debris.

 Impacts of floating plant and cable strike.

 Impacts of water pollution.

 Lighting impacts.

 Noise impacts.

 Hydrographic survey impacts.

206

 Cumulative habitat sterilisation.

Key Threatening Processes

The Project as a whole is not considered to be a KTP as listed under any of these Acts. However, two potential impacts of construction and/or operation relating to the Project, being the introduction of marine species and injury / fatality caused by marine debris, are both KTPs. These have been discussed separately in Sections 5.2 and 6.2 of Appendix M.

9.3.2.3 Marine Infauna

Benthic marine infauna which are likely to occur at the dredge site, and which have been collected and identified from the disposal location (AMA 2015), have been discussed in Section 4.4.2.2 of Appendix M.

Dredge Site

During construction (i.e. dredging), benthic marine infauna within the dredge footprint will be directly impacted (i.e. removed). If these benthic organisms survive the initial disturbance (dredging), they will be translocated and disposed of at the offshore disposal ground. However, as the distribution and abundance of benthic invertebrate species are known to be influenced by a wide variety of physical parameters (e.g. substrate composition, water temperature, depth, dissolved oxygen concentrations, pH, salinity, sediment C/N ratios and hydrography) (GeoScience Australia 2015), which are likely to differ considerably between the dredge and disposal areas (with the exception of sediment composition which has been assessed by AMA (2015) and is known to be similar), there is a high chance that many organisms translocated to the disposal ground will not survive once disposed of offshore.

Due to the nature of the project, which requires dredging of 231,500m3 of material, the direct impacts on benthic marine infauna at the dredge site are unable to be mitigated. However, there is an abundance of similar soft sediment habitat within Twofold Bay which is expected to support similar assemblages as those which will be lost and recolonisation at the site by these species is expected to occur over time. The loss of sensitive species from an area can cause a change in community structure, although such changes are often hard to detect and can be small in comparison to natural variability measured over seasons and years (Currie et al. 1996; Currie and Parry 1999).

In addition to the direct impacts on marine infauna at the dredge site, smothering of the seafloor at the disposal site will impact on the infauna living within these sediments. AMA (2016) reported that areas dominated by large particle size sediments (i.e. the dredge and disposal sites) have been shown to benefit the recolonisation of some benthic macroinvertebrate communities (Brooks and Boulton 1991). While rapid recolonisers showed little difference in their ability to recover from natural disturbance across sediment types; slow recolonisers favoured gravel substrata (Brooks and Boulton 1991).

9.3.2.4 Invasive Species

A summary of the risk of translocation each of these exotic marine species into Twofold Bay and/or the proposed disposal site, considering their presently known distribution, is provided in Table 9-14.

207

Table 9-14 Consideration of the risk of introducing exotic marine species to Twofold Bay or the disposal site

Potential Species Presence Hazard Risk Mitigation Impact

Caulerpa Not reported in Translocation to Habitat Low. Remove wrack (Caulerpa Twofold Bay or study area as modification. Potentially and biofouling taxifolia) at the disposal wrack on beyond suitable from site. construction temperature construction vessels / range for vessels and equipment from invasive equipment prior other affected Caulerpa. to mobilisation. estuaries. Depth at disposal site unsuitable.

Dinoflagellate Widespread in Mobilisation / Toxic bloom Low. Avoid spillage (Alexandrium NSW and dispersal within affecting Already of dredged catenella) known to occur study area in recreational use, established in sediments in low densities disturbed aquaculture. Twofold Bay during transit. at the dredge sediment. and widespread site. in NSW. Unknown if Possible for the occurs at the species to be disposal site. translocated to disposal site. Bloom occurrence is driven by environmental conditions.

European fan Known to occur Dispersal within Nuisance Low. Maintain vessel worm on wharf the study area fouling. Already antifouling. (Sabella structures in the in sediments / Competition for established in Periodically spallanzanii) Port of Eden through native and Twofold Bay remove and on adjacent biofouling / in aquaculture and at disposal biofouling from sediments. ballast water. species. site. submerged Know to occur equipment (e.g. at the disposal 24 hr air site. exposure). Avoid spillage of dredged sediments during transit. Ballast water management.

208

Potential Species Presence Hazard Risk Mitigation Impact

European green Known to occur Dispersal within Compete with Low. N/A crab in the study study area. native species. Already (Carcinus area (dredge Possible established. In maenas) site) in littoral predation of Twofold Bay. and intertidal aquaculture areas. Highly unlikely species. to survive at Not found at disposal site the disposal due to water site. depths.

New Zealand Widespread in Dispersal within Compete with Low. Avoid spillage screwshell study area - study area. native species. Already of dredged (Maoricolpus previously established. sediments roseus) identified in during transit. Snug Cove. Ballast water Previously management. identified along the eastern coastline at depths of 80 m.

Pacific oyster Widespread in Dispersal within Compete with Low. Maintain vessel (Crassostrea study area study area. native species. Already antifouling. gigas) (dredge area). established in Periodically Not found at Twofold Bay. removed disposal site. Unable to biofouling from survive at the submerged depths at the equipment/ disposal site. moorings Ballast water management.

Yellowfin goby Not reported in Translocation to Compete with Medium. Remove wrack (Acanthogobius Twofold Bay or study area in native species. Within the and biofouling flavimanus) at the disposal ballast water or range of from project site. eggs on existing invasive vessels and biofouling. populations. equipment prior to mobilisation. Known to displace native Ballast water species. management.

209

Potential Species Presence Hazard Risk Mitigation Impact

Japanese goby Not reported in Translocation to Compete with Medium. Remove wrack (Tridentiger Twofold Bay or the study area native species. Within the and biofouling trigonocephalus) at the disposal in ballast water range of from project site. or eggs on existing invasive vessels and biofouling. populations. equipment prior to mobilisation. Potential to displace native Ballast water species. management.

9.3.2.5 Mussel Aquaculture

Potential impacts on mussel aquaculture which may result from construction related activities include:

 Toxic effects on mussels associated with spills of fuels and oils and illegal or accidental releases of sewage from construction vessels.

 Sedimentation / smothering of mussel lease areas from the spread of resuspended dredged sediments affecting spat or mussel growth (modelling undertaken by Advisian 2016 has shown that impacts of suspended sediment or sedimentation on the mussel lease area are likely to be very low and short lived if they do occur).

 Impacts on spat fall and spat collection and mussel growth.

 Impacts on local water quality resulting in the shutdown of aquaculture areas (construction related water quality impacts can be mitigated effectively as per Section 9.1 (Water Quality).

 Potential health risks to humans associated with consumption of contaminated mussels.

However, to reduce any potential risks on local mussel aquaculture from the Project, The Department has entered into an agreement with Eden Sea Farms Pty Ltd to allow a temporary relocation of operations from the current Cattle Bay lease area (AL07/098 + AL08/098) and establish infrastructure on an existing aquaculture lease area (AL06/001) at Boydtown for the duration of the development. The Food Authority has also split the harvest area into two so that if a spill occurs near the Cattle Bay lease area the Boydtown lease is not shut down.

Overall, considering the above, the risk to mussel aquaculture from the construction phase of the Project is considered to be very low.

9.3.3 Potential Operational Impacts

9.3.3.1 Marine Habitats and Flora

Operational impacts on marine habitats and fauna will be limited to potential water quality impacts resulting from the cruise ships using the wharf. Water quality impacts on marine habitats are described under Construction Impacts in Section 9.3.2.1.

210

9.3.3.2 Marine Fauna

Many operational impacts on marine fauna will be similar in nature to those from the construction phase and include the following:

 Entanglement/ingestion of marine debris.

 Impacts of water pollution.

 Lighting impacts.

 Noise impacts.

 Vessel strike.

Refer to Section 6.2 of Appendix M for further discussion on the above potential impacts.

9.3.3.3 Invasive Species

During the operation phase of the Project invasive marine species from within and outside of Australian waters have the potential to be translocated into Twofold Bay attached to the hulls of cruise ships or in cruise ships ballast. Invasive marine species currently present in Twofold Bay also have the potential to attach to the hulls of cruise ships while at dock and be translocated to other areas along the Australian coastline or to offshore waters. The impacts of invasive marine species are as per those described for the Project construction phase (refer to Section 9.3.2.4 above).

9.3.3.4 Mussel Aquaculture

Impacts on nearby mussel aquaculture areas during the operation phase of the Project will largely be related to potential water quality impacts from cruise ships using the facility. These may include:

 Toxic effects on mussels associated with spills of fuels and oils, or the illegal or accidental releases of sewage from cruise ships.

 Potential health risks to humans associated with consumption of contaminated mussels.

As there are many measures to mitigate water quality impacts during operation, as well as legislation regarding the disposal of ships waste and discharge of sewage, the risk of impacts to mussel aquaculture during the operation phase is considered to be negligible as can be managed effectively.

9.3.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures

Proposed mitigation measures are outlined in Table 9-15.

211

Table 9-15 Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Phase Marine Habitats and Flora To minimise damage to sensitive marine habitats (seagrass and subtidal Construction rocky reef) in the immediate construction area, Snug Cove and Cattle Bay, all construction vessels must avoid anchoring over areas of sensitive habitat including mapped seagrass beds and areas of subtidal rocky reef. Vessels must only anchor (except in the case of emergencies) in areas marked as a dedicated mooring zone for construction vessels on the Figure 5-4 of the EIS. To minimise unnecessary damage to marine habitats Contractor(s) must Construction limit any unnecessary / temporary construction (i.e. through selection of the most appropriate construction methods) and limit any anchoring which is required by vessels. Any temporary barge / platform structures along the breakwater must be positioned so as to minimise physical disturbance of macroalgae. All construction works must be undertaken by suitably qualified and Construction experienced Contractor(s) to reduce the risk of error and accidental environmental damage. To reduce the potential impacts of water quality on marine habitats Construction / during construction and operation, all mitigation measures outlined in Operation Section 9.1 (Water Quality) of the main EIS must be adopted. To reduce the potential impacts of sediment quality on marine habitats Construction / during construction and operation, all mitigation measures outlined in Operation Section 9.2 (Sediment Quality) of the main EIS must be adopted. To enhance the potential for contractors to be able to assist in the Construction protection of marine habitats (especially seagrass, macroalgae and rocky reef areas) in the study area, all contractors, in particular skippers, must be made aware of the areas of sensitive habitat within the study area and of the potential impacts that construction works may have on these areas. A turbidity curtain with a minimum drop of 4m must be used locally Construction around the perimeter of pile drilling works to limit the spread of plumes generated by drilling activities. Drilling spoil and cuttings must be deposited at seabed level within the footprint of the new wharf and contained within the turbidity curtain. Monitoring of water quality (particularly turbidity) during construction Construction should be undertaken and dredging operations ceased if levels of suspended sediment become higher than trigger values developed for the Project. Due to the nature of the Project there is no way to mitigate the direct Construction impact of dredging on soft sediment habitats within the dredge area. Post construction surveys of marine vegetation (i.e. seagrass and Post-Construction macroalgae) should be undertaken to determine the degree of damage

212

Mitigation Measure Phase and recovery of benthic habitats in the study area. Marine Fauna To minimise damage to marine habitats in the study area which may be Construction / utilised by marine fauna, all measures listed under ‘Marine Habitats and Operation Flora’ above to protect marine habitats must be adopted. To reduce potential water quality impacts on marine fauna during Construction / construction and operation all measures listed in Section 9.1 of the main Operation EIS (Water Quality) must be adopted. To reduce potential sediment quality impacts on marine fauna during Construction / construction and operation all measures listed in Section 9.2 of the main Operation EIS (Sediment Quality) must be adopted. To reduce the potential impacts of marine debris on marine fauna, waste Construction / associated with construction and operation must be managed as per Operation Section 9.18 of the main EIS (Waste Management). In addition, all ships at sea must adhere with the amendments to the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO’s) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (Marine Pollution: MARPOL) Annex V which came into force on 1 January 2013. The amendments prohibit the discharge of all garbage from ships into the sea (except under very specific circumstances). This reverses the presumption that garbage may be discharged into the sea based on defined distances from shore and the nature of the garbage. The amendments also list requirements for garbage management plans on ships and port reception facilities for receiving waste. MARPOL is implemented in Australia through the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. To reduce the potential for lighting related impacts on marine fauna the Construction / following measures should be adopted: Operation

 Limit the need for construction activities to be undertaken during the evening and night time to reduce the overall need for construction related artificial lighting (on vessels and on the land portion of the site) and associated impacts.

 The use of sensor lighting or dimmers on the wharf to reduce brightness during times of night when the facility is less likely to be in use. If possible, the risk of overnight cable strike can be minimised by placing Construction floating plant on a swing mooring, where space permits and it is deemed safe to do so by the vessel Master, rather than leaving plant in a fixed mooring configuration as the reliance on a single swing mooring line will minimise cable oscillation. The risk of vessel strike during construction and operation may be Construction / reduced through the adoption of: Operation

213

Mitigation Measure Phase

 All vessels associated with dredging and construction will travel at speeds no higher than 10 knots within the port limits, en-route to, or at the disposal ground.

 Vessels must maintain a 300 m exclusion zone with all whales en- route to and from the disposal ground and within the disposal ground.

 Education of all personnel.  Active management such as daily information exchange on known marine mammal activity (e.g. via local residents, commercial fishers, mussel farmers, NPWS whale watch and Cat Balou Cruises).

 Awareness of the presence of marine fauna in the local waterway by vessel operators so that they can adopt appropriate speeds and clearance when cetaceans are nearby.

 Variable or zoned (time and place) speed limits during the operation phase, particularly in relation to Southern right whales and humpback whale feeding aggregations and during peak marine mammal visitation periods within Twofold Bay. To reduce the potential for noise impacts on marine fauna (specifically Construction marine mammals) the Piling Operation Procedures outlined in the EPBC Act Referral must be followed: Piling Operation Procedures: a) Pre-start Observation: Marine mammal observers must visually monitor observation and shut-down zones for whales for a minimum of 30 minutes before the commencement of piling. b) Soft-Start Procedure: If after the 30 minute pre-start observation no whale/s have been spotted within the observation or shutdown zone a soft start procedure may commence with a gradual increase in piling impact energy of no more than 50% of full impact energy for 10 minutes. The soft start procedure must be implemented after breaks in piling driving of 30 minutes or more. c) Stand by procedure: If a whale is spotted within the observation zone during the soft start procedure the operator of the piling equipment must be placed on standby to shut-down the piling rig and a trained crew member should continuously monitor the whale/s in sight at all times. d) Normal Piling Procedure: If no whale/s has been sighted during the soft-start procedure full impact piling may commence. Contractor(s) must make reference to EPBC Act Referral for specific details. To reduce the potential for noise impacts on marine fauna (specifically Construction marine mammals) the following Shut-Down requirements outlined in the EPBC Act Referral must be followed:

214

Mitigation Measure Phase Shut-Down requirements: a) If visibility is poor and the marine mammal observer is unable to clearly identify objects to the full observation zone distance, a vessel or aircraft search must be conducted or the action postponed until visibility has improved. b) Piling is not permitted between 6.00 pm and 7.00 am. c) If any whales are spotted within the shut-down zone, piling must cease immediately or as soon as safe to do so until the whale/s has moved outside of the shut-down zone. d) All piling must cease for a minimum of 1 hour after the last sighting of a whale within the observation zone. Piling must recommence at the pre- start observation after the 1 hour shutdown has elapsed. Contractor(s) must make reference to EPBC Act Referral for specific details. Methods on how to deter seals and sea lions from damaging property Construction have been published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 2015). These methods include:

 Barriers and exclusion devices (e.g. fencing, posts, bull rails, electric fencing, netting, swim step protectors).

 Visual repellents (e.g. flags, flashing lights / strobes, balloons, human attendants).

 Noise makers (e.g. horns, whistles or bells, electronic acoustic devices, clapping, banging).

 Physical contact (e.g. water hoses, poles, sprinklers or sprayers). The potential impacts and possible deterrents to stop Fur Seals from utilising the end of the breakwater during construction were discussed with experts in the field of marine mammals from the Merimbula NPWS (Craig Dickman), DPI Fisheries, Eden (Matthew Proctor), Macquarie University (Rob Harcourt) and ORRCA (Organisation for the Rescue and Research of Cetaceans in Australia). All experts advised that seals will move away from the area during construction and remain at distance from any activities occurring at the end of the breakwater whilst construction is occurring. Any attempt to deter seals using barriers, visual and noise deterrents and physical are more likely to cause impacts to the seals than the development itself. Based on this advice no removal or deterrence of fur seals from the breakwater or construction area should be undertaken as a mitigation measure. All injured marine mammals should be immediately reported to the Construction / ORRCA 24 hour hotline on 02 9415 3333 or NPWS on 1300 361 967. The Operation ORRCA telephone hotline is staffed by volunteers and keeps ORRCA members, Government Authorities and interested members of the public informed of marine mammal emergencies, incidents and sightings. ORRCA representatives will quickly mobilise to site and attempt to

215

Mitigation Measure Phase capture and treat the stricken animal. Depending upon the location of the animal and the circumstances that surround the injury, breakwater construction activities may need to cease or be altered to enable the rescue of the animal. There is no way to mitigate the direct impacts of dredging on benthic Construction marine infauna within the dredge footprint as these organisms will be directly removed via dredging activities. There is no way to mitigate the impacts on smothering of benthic Construction infauna at the disposal site from dredge material disposal. However, given that the sediment which will be disposed of consists mainly of sand, recolonisation of the disposal area following disposal is expected to occur over time.

Invasive Marine Species The four goals of the NSW Invasive Species Plan 2008 – 2015 (NSW DPI Construction / 2008) should be adopted for the Project: Operation

1. Exclude – i.e. prevent the establishment of new invasive species. The challenge is to identify species, thoroughly assess potential invasiveness and implement effective barriers to prevent their establishment.

2. Eradicate or Contain – i.e. eliminate or prevent the spread of new invasive species. The challenge is to develop and deploy effective and efficient ways to eradicate or contain an introduced species before it becomes widespread.

3. Effectively Manage – i.e. reduce the impacts of widespread invasive species. The challenge is to manage or control of species to reduce their impact where benefits are greatest.

4. Capacity – i.e. ensure NSW has the ability and commitment to manage invasive species. The challenge is for NSW to have the knowledge, skills, resources and systems to address the impacts of invasive species. All Contractor(s) must undertake a Vessel Risk Assessment (VRA) for each Construction vessel prior to mobilisation of the vessel to site. The VRA may be undertaken by the vessel owner/operator. All vessels, floating plant and dredge equipment mobilised to site from any place inside or outside of Australia shall be subject to a VRA. The VRA will determine if an Invasive Marine Species inspection (IMS) is required. The Contractor(s) must provide the completed VRA to the Principal at least four weeks prior to the vessel leaving the departure port. The Contractor(s) must undertake an Invasive Marine Species (IMS) Construction inspection of all vessels assessed in the VRA as uncertain or high risk for introduction of invasive marine species. Any construction vessels mobilised from outside of Australia shall be considered high risk and an IMS inspection must be carried out.

216

Mitigation Measure Phase The IMS inspection must be undertaken by an appropriately qualified Construction practitioner with experience in biosecurity of marine vessels. The Contractor(s) is responsible for arranging the IMS inspection and attendance of DPI-Fisheries. The Contractor(s) must provide the completed IMS report to the Construction Principal at least seven days prior to the vessel leaving the departure port. Where IMS inspections identify significant amounts of sediment and/or Construction the presence of an invasive marine species (as deemed by the IMS inspector) the vessel must be dry docked and cleaned prior to entering the site. The Contractor(s) must then resubmit the VRA and if the vessel is classified as low risk it shall be permitted to sail to site and begin operations. Construction vessel antifouling must be maintained to avoid the Construction attachment and potential translocation of invasive species into and out of Twofold Bay. Spillage of dredged sediments during transit to the disposal location Construction must be avoided so as not to increase the distribution of invasive species which may occur within the Snug Cove area but not yet in other areas of Twofold Bay. This should be done via proper containment of marine sediments on the barges. Ballast water management: Construction / Operation  Ballast water exchange by domestic vessels must be avoided.  Domestic vessels should manage ballast water in accordance with the Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements (Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2016).

 Any ballast water exchange from international vessels must be undertaken in accordance with the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments (BWM) (IMO 2016) – i.e. “whenever possible, conduct ballast water exchange at least 200 nautical miles from the nearest land and in water at least 200 m in depth, taking into account Guidelines developed by IMO” and “in cases where the ship is unable to conduct ballast water exchange as above, this should be as far from the nearest land as possible, and in all cases at least 50 nautical miles from the nearest land and in water at least 200 m in depth”. For all commercial vessels and/or barges, dredge or other equipment Construction coming from overseas the Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources processes for pre-arrival, arrival and inspection and post-arrival must be followed. These can be found at: http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/avm/vessels/commercial- vessels/barges-and-towed-vessels http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/avm/vessels/commercial-

217

Mitigation Measure Phase vessels/process_for_commercial_vessels For cruise ships coming from outside of Australian waters the procedures Operation outlined in Australia’s National System for the Prevention of Marine Pest Incursions shall be adopted. Cruise ships must also adopt the Australian Government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources processes of reporting and pre-arrival which can be found at: http://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity/avm/vessels/commercial- vessels/cruise-vessels Monitoring and inspection / surveillance of the dredge vessel and barges Construction must be undertaken in accordance with the Biosecurity Act 2015. Monitoring of potential pest species establishment at the disposal Post-Construction ground post disposal must be undertaken. Mussel Aquaculture Temporary relocation of the nearby mussel aquaculture facility from their Construction current Cattle Bay lease area to lease AL06/001 at Boydtown for the duration of construction will help to ensure that construction related impacts on mussel aquaculture are avoided. To reduce the potential impacts of water quality on the mussel Operation aquaculture lease area located near the study area during operation all mitigation measures outlined in Section 9.1 (Water Quality) of the main EIS must be adopted. DPI-Fisheries (1800 043 536) must be immediately notified of any fish Construction / kills in the vicinity of the construction works. In such cases, all works Operation other than emergency response procedures are to cease until the issue is rectified and written approval to proceed is provided by DPI-Fisheries.

9.4 Terrestrial Ecology

As the proposed works are to be undertaken on already disturbed terrestrial and/or man-made landforms adjacent to Twofold Bay (i.e. the existing Breakwater Wharf wall and associated wharf structures in Eden) and within the waterway itself (i.e. Snug Cove and Cattle Bay), no natural terrestrial habitats will be disturbed by the proposal. As such, the potential impacts on terrestrial ecology from the Project are expected to be limited to impacts on shorebirds, marine and/or migratory birds which are known to occur in the area and utilise aquatic and foreshore habitats or man-made structures at the site.

The assessment identifies and reports on the following:

 An assessment of terrestrial biodiversity impacts in accordance with current guidelines including the FBA.

 An assessment of any impacts on biodiversity values not covered by s2.3 of the FBA.As terrestrial habitats and terrestrial fauna other than shorebirds, marine and/or migratory birds

218

are not expected to be impacted by the proposal they are not considered further under the FBA.

Section 2.3 of the FBA outlines a number of biodiversity values which are not to be considered under the FBA. Biodiversity values excluded under the FBA which are associated with terrestrial ecology, thought to be relevant to the Project and addressed in this section are:

 wandering sea birds (addressed in Section 9.4.1.3).

 vehicle strike (vessel strike is referred to for this assessment – (see 9.4.2 and 9.4.3).

9.4.1 Existing Environment

9.4.1.1 Protected Areas and Environmentally Sensitive Lands

The SEARs require that the EIS address Protected Areas and Environmentally Sensitive Lands specifically including:

 Protected areas managed by OEH under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

 State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No.14 – Coastal Wetlands

 Directory of Important Wetlands

 State Environmental Planning Policy (SEPP) No.26 – Littoral Rainforest

 Biobank sites, private conservation lands and other lands identified as offsets

 Land identified as Critical Habitat under the TSC Act 1995 or EPBC Act 1999

For the purpose of the terrestrial assessment, the ‘study area’ is defined as the southern side of Snug Cove.

Protected Areas Managed by OEH under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974

Protected areas, set aside for conservation under the NP&W Act 1974 are managed by the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) which is part of the Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH). These areas play a critical role in protecting biodiversity, natural and cultural heritage. NSW reserves which protect the state’s range of habitats and ecosystems, plant and animal species, significant geological features and landforms. They also provide shelter for cultural heritage on public land (OEH 2015).

Ben Boyd National Park and Eagles Claw Nature Reserve are protected areas that are both located near to Eden and/or Twofold Bay. Ben Boyd National Park covers an area of 104.9 km² and runs along the coastline to the north and south of Twofold Bay (NPWS 2016a) (Figure 9-22). Eagles Claw Nature Reserve is a small reserve covering an area of 1 ha on the north-eastern foreshore of Lookout Point, Eden (NPWS 2016b) (Figure 9-23). Neither of these protected areas are located within the immediate study (ie. The southern side of Snug Cove) area nor have the potential to be affected by the Project so are not discussed further in this EIS.

219

Figure 9-22 Location of Ben Boyd National Park (dark green) and the study site (star)

Source: NPWS 2016a

Figure 9-23 Location of Eagles Claw Nature Reserve and the study area (star)

Source: NPWS 2016a

220

State Environmental Planning Policy No.14 – Coastal Wetlands

SEPP 14 – Coastal Wetlands is discussed under the Aquatic Ecology Section of this EIS (refer to Section 9.3.1.1).

No SEPP 14 – Coastal Wetlands are located in the immediate vicinity of the study area or will be impacted by the Project, so are not discussed further in this EIS.

Source: NPWS 2016b

State Environmental Planning Policy No.26 – Littoral Rainforest

The aim of SEPP 26 – Littoral Rainforest is to provide a mechanism for the consideration of applications for development that are likely to damage or destroy littoral rainforest areas with a view to the preservation of those areas in their natural state.

No SEPP 26 – Littoral Rainforests are located within the vicinity of the study area nor will be impacted by the Project so are not discussed further in this EIS.

Land identified as Critical Habitat under the TSC Act 1995 or EPBC Act 1999

No areas of terrestrial Critical Habitat which are listed under the TSC Act 1995 occur within the study area (OEH 2016b): http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/criticalhabitat/criticalhabitatprotectionbydoctype.htm.

The only areas of Critical Habitat for terrestrial species identified under this Act are:

 Stott’s Island Nature Reserve, Tweed River, Northern NSW – Critical Habitat for the Mitchell’s Rainforest Snail - Thersites mitchellae.

 Wollemi National Park within the Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area, NSW – Critical Habitat for the Wollemi Pine - Wollemia nobilis.

Neither of these sites are located anywhere near to Eden or Twofold Bay so will not be impacted by the Project. As such, Critical Habitat under the TSC Act 1995 is not discussed further in this EIS.

No areas of terrestrial Critical Habitat listed under the EPBC Act 1999 occur within the study area (Commonwealth of Australia 2016): http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi- bin/sprat/public/publicregisterofcriticalhabitat.pl.

The only species’ for which listed terrestrial critical habitat have been declared under the EPBC Act are:

 Ginninderra Peppercress - Lepidium ginninderrense: Northwest corner Belconnen Naval Transmission Station, ACT.

 Black-eared Miner - Manorina melanotis: Gluepot Reserve, Taylorville Station and Calperum Station, excluding the area of Calperum Station south and east of Main Wentworth Road.

Neither of these areas of Critical Habitat are located in the vicinity of the study area or Twofold Bay and so are not discussed further in this EIS.

221

Critical Habitat under the EPBC Act also exists for three migratory marine bird species which are listed under the Aquatic Ecology section of this EIS in Section 9.3.1.1. None of these areas of Critical Habitat are located within the study area and so are not discussed further.

Biobank sites, private conservation lands and other lands identified as offsets

A search of BioBanking sites for the Bega Valley Shire Council (BVSC) Local Government Area (LGA), in which the study site is located, returned no results (OEH 2016c): http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/bimsprapp/SearchAgreementResult.aspx. No BioBanking sites will be impacted by the Project. Formal offset arrangements are part of the BioBanking scheme. No offset arrangements are located within the study area or will be impacted by the Project.

No conservation agreements on privately owned land are located within the study area and will not be affected by the Project.

Directory of Important Wetlands

Twofold Bay is listed as a nationally Important Wetland under the Directory of Important Wetlands (Environment Australia 2001) in Section 9.3. The Directory of Important Wetlands can be accessed online at: https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/18f0bb21-b67c-4e99-a155- cb5255398568/files/directory.pdf.

9.4.1.2 Terrestrial Flora

A NPWS Atlas of NSW Wildlife search for threatened or protected flora species listed under the TSC Act 1995 was undertaken by AMA (2015). This search reported that 22 protected plant species occur within a 5 km radius of the Project area.

The terrestrial land area of the Project site is highly modified (i.e. the existing Breakwater Wharf wall and associated wharf access areas) and no native terrestrial vegetation occurs here. In addition, no riparian aquatic vegetation (i.e. mangroves or saltmarsh) which may be impacted by land based activities occur at the site. Therefore, the construction and operational activities of the Project are not expected to have any direct or indirect impacts on areas of native terrestrial vegetation or aquatic riparian vegetation. Terrestrial flora is not considered further in this EIS.

Potential construction and operational impacts on terrestrial protected areas and terrestrial habitats / flora are unlikely to occur (refer to Sections 9.4.2.1 and 9.4.3.1).

9.4.1.3 Terrestrial Fauna

Due to the absence of natural terrestrial habitats within the footprint of the Project, native terrestrial fauna (with the exception of shorebirds, marine and/or migratory birds) are not expected to occur within the study area, so will not be impacted by the Project. Terrestrial fauna with the exception of shorebirds, marine and/or migratory birds are not discussed further in this EIS.

Shorebirds, Marine and Migratory Birds

Shorebirds, marine and migratory birds are known to utilise natural aquatic habitats (e.g. rocky intertidal shores and sandy beaches) and artificial structures (e.g. the breakwater, floating pontoons, piles, wharves and jetties) within the immediate study area (as reported by Marine Pollution Research

222

2013, AMA 2015, Ocean Environmental 2015a and 2015b and the South Coast Birdwatchers Group 2015) and therefore have the potential to be impacted by the Project.

An aquatic ecology assessment of nearby Cattle Bay, undertaken by Marine Pollution Research (2013), stated that the aquatic habitats of Cattle Bay do not support any permanent populations of marine or migratory bird species, however, it was expected that these birds may utilise the resources of Cattle Bay on occasion.

OEH provided correspondence to Ocean Environmental in February 2015 indicating that incidental sightings of the following marine and migratory bird species have been observed within Twofold Bay over the last 20 years: wandering albatross, shy albatross, black-browed albatross, flesh-footed shearwater, northern giant petrel, providence petrel, eastern osprey, sooty oystercatcher, pied oystercatcher and hooded plover.

Following consultation with OEH, Ocean Environmental undertook further research into the potential for shorebirds, marine and/or migratory bird species to occur within Cattle Bay / Snug Cove. An EPBC Act 1999 Protected Matters Search was undertaken for the local area in February 2015 (see Appendix 1 of Ocean Environmental 2015a), listing 39 threatened or protected marine and migratory marine birds with the potential to occur within a 5 km radius of Cattle Bay (i.e. including the wharf extension area). An assessment of the potential of occurrence for each species was made, taking into account their individual habitat requirements and the aquatic habitats present in the local area (i.e. sandy beaches, shallow intertidal sands, inshore and offshore subtidal sands (vegetated and unvegetated), intertidal rocky shores, subtidal rocky reef and artificial habitats (jetty support piles, mooring tackle and pipelines) – refer to Table 1.1 of Ocean Environmental 2015a). It was concluded that the antipodean albatross, wandering albatross, Buller’s albatross, shy albatross, Campbell albatross, black-browed albatross, white- capped albatross, southern giant petrel, northern giant petrel, flesh-footed shearwater, osprey, hooded plover and eastern hooded plover all have the potential to forage in the study area. Many of these species are scavengers that are known to follow fishing vessels into bays and harbours. Behavioural data suggested that if any of these species was to occasionally occur in the study area that they would only occur as individuals or in pairs (Ocean Environmental 2015a).

The little penguin (Eudyptula minor), which is listed as protected under the TSC Act, is known regularly from Twofold Bay and has the potential to occur in the Project area. Most little penguins that occur in the bay are likely to be visitors from large colonies located at Montague Island (6,000 breeding pairs) and Gabo Island (18,000 breeding pairs), both located a considerable distance (i.e. >70 km) from Twofold Bay. A minor breeding colony at Eagles Claw Nature Reserve (24 breeding pairs) was once present but was decimated by dogs in 1993.

The little tern (Sternula albifrons) also has the potential to forage or roost in aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are present in the local area. However, no little tern nesting sites have been recorded in the study area in the Little Tern Recovery Plan (NPWS 2003): http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/nature/recoveryplanfinallittletern.pdf.

Marine and shorebird site usage data collected between 1997 and 2015 for Snug Cove, Cattle Bay and Cocora Beach was obtained from the South Coast Birdwatchers Group Inc., analysed and reported in Ocean Environmental (2015b) (refer to Table 1 of the report). Twenty bird species have been recorded by the South Coast Birdwatchers Group Inc. to use these areas. The Group reported regularity of site use ranging from ‘rare’ to ‘regular’. They also reported that foraging and roosting behaviour are both known to occur in the area, however, no nesting of any of these marine and / or shorebirds has been noted in the area. They reported that within Snug Cove and Cattle Bay marine birds and shorebirds have been observed to roost on the Eden Breakwater Wharf, jetties, floating pontoons and moored

223

boats. Rocks along the shorelines and headlands are also reported to provide shelter for marine and shorebirds (South Coast Birdwatchers Group Inc. 2015 as reported in Ocean Environmental 2015b).

The bird species recorded between 1997 and 2015 by the South Coast Birdwatcher’s Group in the local area (Cattle Bay, Snug Cove and Cocora Beach) include:

 Arctic jaeger  Hooded plover

 Australasian darter  Kelp gull

 Australasian gannet  Little black cormorant

 Australian pelican  Little pied cormorant

 Australian pied oystercatcher  Pacific gull

 Black-faced cormorant  Pied cormorant

 Crested tern  Silver gull

 Eastern great egret  Sooty oystercatcher

 Eastern reef egret  White-bellied sea-eagle

 Great cormorant  White-faced heron

A NPWS Atlas of NSW Wildlife Search for threatened and protected species listed under the TSC Act 1995 undertaken by AMA (2015) as part of the REF for the Project (presented in Appendix E of the REF) reported that 12 vulnerable and three endangered species of shorebirds have been reported within a 5 km radius of the study site. Endangered and critically endangered bird species include:

 Pied oystercatcher - Haematopus longirostris (endangered) – a species of wader that prefers intertidal flats of inlets and bays, open beaches and sandbanks. They forage on exposed sand, mud and rock at low tide (OEH 2014).

 Hooded plover - Thinornis rubricollis (critically endangered) – a species of shorebird that prefers sandy ocean beaches, especially broad and flat beaches with a wide wave wash zone for feeding, seaweed and backed by sparsely vegetated sand dunes for shelter and nesting (OEH 2014).

 Swift parrot - Lathamus discolour (endangered) - occur in areas where eucalypts are flowering profusely or where there are abundant lerp (from sap sucking bugs) infestations (OEH 2014).

AMA (2015) reported that the existing Breakwater Wharf does not contain any suitable foraging or nesting habitat for these three endangered / critically endangered species, so they are unlikely to be impacted adversely from the proposed construction or operation of the Project, and that no interaction with natural intertidal or inshore areas would be occurring.

The Atlas of NSW Wildlife Search undertaken by AMA (2015) also listed three species of albatross known from the area (shy albatross, Thalassarche cauta), yellow nosed albatross (Thalassarche

224

chlororhynchos) and the black browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris). AMA reported that as these birds are known to spend most of their time at sea they are not considered to be impacted adversely by construction or operation of the Project. A number of the species listed in the Search by AMA (2015) as occurring in the study area are also listed as migratory species under the EPBC Act 1999, The Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and the China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA). AMA (2015) reported that the construction and operation of the Project are unlikely to impact on the foraging habitat of these species.

During their site visits AMA (2015) recorded two species of shorebird at the site being the egret (Ardea spp.) and cormorant (Phalacrocora sp) (images are shown in Figure 9-24).

Figure 9-24 Egret and cormorant identified at the site Source: images reproduced from AMA 2015

In summary, while the study area provides suitable foraging and roosting habitat for a number of shorebirds, marine and/or migratory birds, little breeding habitat is available and no known breeding colonies of any listed threatened bird species are expected to be affected by the Project.

Potential impacts of the Project on these birds are not expected to be significant and can largely be mitigated (refer to Sections 5.2 and 6.2 of Appendix M).

9.4.2 Potential Construction Impacts

9.4.2.1 Impacts on Terrestrial Habitats and Protected Areas

The Project area does not contain any areas of natural terrestrial habitat nor does it contain any terrestrial protected areas. It lies within an already developed area of foreshore. Therefore no impacts of construction on terrestrial habitats or protected areas are expected to occur.

9.4.2.2 Impacts on Shorebirds, Marine and Migratory Birds

Potential construction impacts on shorebirds, marine and/or migratory birds with the potential to use the natural and artificial habitats in the study area include:

 Disturbance to foraging or roosting habitat.

225

 Entanglement in or ingestion of marine debris.

 Noise impacts.

 Impacts of lighting.

 Impacts of water pollution.

 Vessel and vehicle strike.

Disturbance to Habitats used for Foraging and Roosting

Foraging Habitat

Potential direct and indirect disturbance to local aquatic habitats, which have been reported to be used by a variety of shorebirds, marine and migratory birds for foraging (e.g. nearby seagrass beds, subtidal soft sediments, rocky intertidal and subtidal zones of the Breakwater Wharf wall and nearby rocky shorelines in Snug Cove and Cattle Bay) are expected to occur through dredging and other construction related activities (refer to Sections 9.3.02.1 and 9.3.3.1 for detail).

Potential habitat disturbances associated with construction which may impact on the foraging activities of shorebirds or marine birds include:

 Direct removal of subtidal soft sediment substrate from within the dredge footprint – A wide variety of marine infauna and epifauna, which are known to provide a food source for many shorebirds and marine birds, are likely to reside within the subtidal marine sediments in the dredge footprint. Removal of bottom sediments from the site via dredging may result in a localised but temporary decline in food availability for some bird species (i.e. until recolonisation of bottom sediments within the dredge footprint occurs). However, there is an abundance of similar benthic substrate available for foraging within Cattle Bay, Snug Cove and Twofold Bay, so this impact is not expected to be significant.

 Indirect impacts on nearby seagrass beds and subtidal reefs through sedimentation or smothering – Dredge plume modelling undertaken by Advisian (2016) indicates that in a worst case scenario resuspended sediments of a level 1 mg/L above background have the potential to be transported 1 km from the immediate dredge area. These sediments will then resettle to the seabed. There is the potential for settlement of these sediments on nearby seagrass beds and subtidal rocky reefs mapped within Snug Cove and Cattle Bay. Seagrass beds and subtidal rocky reefs provide habitat for a wide range of sessile and mobile marine invertebrates (e.g. molluscs, amphipods, isopods, gastropods, limpets, sea urchins, mussels, oysters, barnacles, bryozoans, sponges, polychaetes and ascidian) along with vertebrates (e.g. fish, rays, sharks and reptiles) which provide a food source for shorebirds, marine and migratory birds (MESA 2015). Sedimentation related impacts on these fauna, as previously described in Section 9.3.3, may have a flow on effect to birds via a short term reduction in food availability or impacts to the quality of local food source. Again, due to the abundance of similar habitat which will not be affected by dredging, and the likely short term nature of any impacts, the impact of this on birds is unlikely to be significant.

 Avoidance of nearshore foraging habitat – The presence of dredge or other construction equipment on / near the Breakwater Wharf wall may result in birds avoiding potential foraging areas in the short term (i.e. during construction activities). Areas of habitat in the vicinity of the breakwater most likely to be avoided include intertidal and subtidal rocky areas

226

(including macroalgae beds) of the breakwater and soft sediment habitats within the dredge footprint.

 Impacts of water quality / pollution on habitat – If any water quality pollution incidents occur (e.g. spills of fuel or oil) this could result in a degradation of the quality of foraging habitat for bird species.

No direct impacts are expected to occur on the natural intertidal habitats (i.e. intertidal rocky shores or sandy beaches) located on the western side of Snug Cove, in Cattle Bay or the other side of the breakwater which may be used as foraging sites by birds are expected to occur. The only potential impacts on birds in these areas are expected to be from noise / lighting generated from the Project (discussed later).

Overall, given that these foraging habitats are widespread within Twofold Bay, and that birds are highly mobile, any potential short term impacts on local foraging habitat resulting from construction activities are not considered to be significant.

Roosting Habitat

There may be minor and short term impacts on bird roosting areas (i.e. resting areas) within the study area. Shorebirds, marine and migratory birds are known to roost on artificial structures (e.g. the breakwater, pontoons and piles), boats and natural sandy / rocky shorelines within Cattle Bay and Snug Cove as reported in Section 9.4.1.3. The presence of construction machinery and associated noise or lighting impacts (discussed later) may deter birds from some of these roosting areas in the short term. This impact is not considered to be significant given the mobility of birds and the high availability of similar natural and man-made roosting areas within Twofold Bay which will not be impacted by the Project.

Nesting Habitat

Given the site usage data presented in Section 9.4.1.3, no impacts on terrestrial or aquatic habitats used for nesting are expected to occur.

Entanglement in / Ingestion of Marine Debris

As for marine fauna, entanglement in or ingestion of marine debris has the potential to adversely impact on birds utilising the study area. “Entanglement in or ingestion of anthropogenic debris in marine and estuarine environments” is listed as a key threatening process (KTP) under the TSC Act 1995 while “Injury and fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement in, harmful marine debris” is listed as a KTP under the EPBC Act 1999. There is an approved Threat Abatement Plan for “Injury and fatality to vertebrate marine life caused by ingestion of, or entanglement in, harmful marine debris”: http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/publications/threat-abatement-plan-impacts- marine-debris-vertebrate-marine-life

Harmful marine debris may include plastic garbage washed or blown from land into the sea, fishing gear abandoned by recreational and commercial fishers, and solid non-biodegradable floating materials (such as plastics) disposed of by ships at sea. Plastic materials are defined as bags, bottles, strapping bands, sheeting, synthetic ropes, synthetic fishing nets, floats, fibreglass, piping, insulation, paints and adhesives. Disposal of plastics at sea is totally prohibited by the International Convention (DEH 2003). Any accidental or deliberate incorrect disposal of waste which is generated during construction activities would become harmful marine debris.

227

Entanglement of fauna in marine debris can cause restricted mobility, starvation, infection, amputation, drowning and smothering. Shorebirds or marine birds may be severely injured or die if they become entangled in fishing lines, fragments of trawl netting or plastic packing straps. Marine birds caught up in marine debris may lose their ability to move quickly through the water, reducing their ability to catch prey and avoid predators; or they may suffer constricted circulation, leading to asphyxiation and death (DEH 2003).

Ingestion of marine debris occurs when species confuse items such as plastic bags, rubber, balloons and confectionery wrappers with prey and ingest them, causing a physical blockage in the digestive system, leading to internal injuries. Seabirds are known to eat polystyrene balls and plastic buoys, confusing them with fish eggs and crustaceans (DEH 2003). Marine debris has also been known to be regurgitated by adult birds as food for hatchlings (Cooper 1995, Huin and Croxall 1996). Amounts of ingested plastic have been positively correlated with levels of PCBs in seabirds, which can supress immunity or reproductive ability (Ryan et al. 1988).

Records of injured and dead marine wildlife kept by the NPWS and Taronga Zoo show a wide variety of marine vertebrates are impacted by entanglement in line, the presence of hooks in the mouth or gut, wounds caused by line or net and gastric impaction by plastic bodies (OEH 2011; Derraik 2002). A study of 173 estuaries along the NSW coast found at least 10% of the Australian pelican, Pelicanus conspicillatus population to be suffering from entanglement by fishing line (Derraik 2002). Overseas studies show that most albatross and giant-petrel species ingest plastic debris and regurgitate it as food for their offspring (Fry et al. 1987; Ryan 1987; Sileo et al. 1990; Huin and Croxall 1996; Robertson 1998).

OEH (2011) reports that cases of entanglement with and ingestion of marine debris have been recorded in the following bird species and populations that are threatened under the TSC Act 1995 in NSW:

 Wandering albatross - Diomedea exulans (endangered).

 Southern giant-petrel - Macronectes giganteus (endangered).

 Gibson's albatross - Diomedea gibsoni (vulnerable).

 Black-browed albatross - Diomedea melanophris (vulnerable).

 Little penguin - Eudyptula minor (protected) + population in the Manly Point Area (endangered population).

OEH (2011) reports that entanglements with and ingestion of marine debris are also likely to affect the following bird species that are threatened under the TSC Act 1995 in NSW:

 Little tern - Sterna albifrons (endangered).

 Hooded plover - Thinornis rubricollis (endangered).

 Greater sand-plover - Charadrius leschenaulti (vulnerable).

 Lesser sand-plover - Charadrius mongolus (vulnerable).

 Antipodean albatross - Diomedea antipodensis (vulnerable).

228

 Shy albatross - Diomedea cauta (vulnerable).

 Sooty oystercatcher - Haematopus fuliginosus (vulnerable).

 Pied oystercatcher - Haematopus longirostris (vulnerable).

 Black-tailed godwit - Limosa limosa (vulnerable).

 Osprey - Pandion haliaetus (vulnerable).

 Sooty albatross - Phoebetria fusca (vulnerable).

In addition, OEH (2011) reports that entanglement with and ingestion of marine debris could cause the following bird species or populations that are not threatened to become threatened in NSW:

 Eastern curlew - Numenius madagascariensis.

 Whimbrel - Numenius phaeopus.

 Bar-tailed godwit - Limosa lapponica.

 Fluttering shearwater - Puffinus gavial.

The DEH (2003) notes the following marine bird species which are listed under the EPBC Act 1999 which are thought to be particularly vulnerable to ingestion or entanglement in marine debris:

 Tristan albatross - Diomedea dabbenena.

 Northern royal albatross - Diomedea sanfordi.

 Gould's petrel - Pterodroma leucoptera.

 Wandering albatross - Diomedea exulans.

 Antipodean albatross - Diomedea antipodensis.

 Gibson’s albatross - Diomedea gibsoni.

 Southern royal albatross - Diomedea epomophora.

 Indian yellow-nosed albatross - Thalassarche carteri.

 Grey-headed albatross - Thalassarche chrysostoma.

 Blue petrel - Halobaena caerulea.

 Northern giant petrel - Macronectes halli

While the potential impacts of marine debris on birds can be fatal, this potential impact can also be easily managed / mitigated. In addition, while many of the bird species listed above have the potential to occur or are known to occur at the site, the regularity of occurrence and number of birds likely to occur at any time is not high. With appropriate waste management measures in place during

229

construction (see Section 9.16) the potential impact of marine debris on birds is not considered to be significant. Waste Management has been assessed for the Project and further detail is provided in Section 9.16.

Noise Impacts

The Noise and Vibration Assessment undertaken by PEL (2016) considers the four following construction noise scenarios including:

 Site Establishment.

 Dredging.

 Piling.

 Wharf Extension (marine structure works) and wave attenuator (installation).

Potential construction noise impacts on marine fauna have been described in the Aquatic Ecology Section of the EIS (Appendix M). These impacts will also apply to shorebirds and marine birds. However, the potential impacts of noise on birds are not likely to be as significant as for marine fauna (such as marine mammals) which occur within the water column.

As Snug Cove, Cattle Bay and Twofold Bay are already used regularly by recreational and commercial vessels the impacts of construction vessel engine noise or engine noise from other construction plant are likely to be minor. Pulse impact noises from activities such as piling are more likely to impact on birds and are most likely to result in either startle responses, with birds either leaving the affected area, or avoidance of the area for the duration of the activity.

While some construction noise impacts cannot be avoided, measures can be taken to lessen the potential impacts of construction noise on fauna (refer to Section 9.4.4). These measures, along with the high mobility of birds, mean that overall, the impact of noise of shorebirds or marine birds occasionally using the area to forage or roost are likely to be negligible.

Impacts of Lighting

Light emissions relating to the Project will predominantly relate to the use of artificial lighting during night-time construction, in addition to permanent operational lighting that will be installed on the wharf. Background lighting in the vicinity of the Project area includes lighting along the existing wharf in addition to lighting from nearby onshore industrial buildings and vessels. Lit residential areas also occur nearby. Lighting will likely be visible, particularly during the evening and night from the coastline.

Potential impacts of lighting on birds are listed below:

 Artificial lighting, even at low levels, has the potential to influence the behaviour of avifauna.

 As ocean environments are essentially dark environments marine bird species not used to lit environments may be particularly attracted to artificial light sources, such as commercial ships and fishing vessels, lighthouses, coastal industrial areas (including ports and wharfs) and urban lighting (Lebbin et al. 2007; Merkel 2010; Miles et al. 2010; Watson et al. 2016).

230

 Behavioural impacts may include avoidance, disorientation or interruption to reproductive processes such as selection of oviposition sites (see review by Davies et al. 2014).

 As many shorebirds and marine birds are nocturnal, actively foraging at night, feeding behaviour may also be impacted by artificial lighting. For example, birds have been known to forage at night on insects which are attracted to artificial lights.

 Watson et al. (2016) reported more nocturnal flight calls of migratory birds over artificially lit areas with ground-level artificial lights. These species may have changed their original path to migrate over lit areas, flown at lower altitudes over lit areas, increased their call rate over lit areas, or remained longer over lit areas so detection of calls was higher.

 The effects of lighting are likely to be species specific, dependent on the role of light in the species physiology, reproduction and behaviour, and it may also be dependent on the type of light.

 It is widely understood that birds (especially migratory species) can become disoriented in the presence of artificial light and many collisions, with vessels in particular, have resulted in mortality (Merkel 2010).

 While it is suspected that orienting from the sky may be problematic from artificial lighting, orienting in trees and near the ground in laminated areas was not as much of a problem (Lebbin et al. 2007).

 In order to reduce the impact of light, a study of migrating bird species in the North sea compared the impacts of white, red, blue and green light (Poot et al. 2008). Birds were found to be more disoriented and attracted to white and red artificial lighting (long-wavelength radiation), with little reaction to green lighting, and only minor observable effects on orientation under blue lighting (Wiltschko et al. 1993; Poot et al. 2008). This effect is more prominent on overcast nights (Poot et al. 2008). White light interferes with visual orientation on celestial cues, whereby birds become trapped in the beam, attracting them to the light (Poot et al. 2008).

Considering the current background light sources and levels within the study area, nearby Eden township and residential areas, along with measures that may be able to be adopted in the CEMP to reduce the impacts of artificial lighting during construction, lighting impacts on shorebirds, marine and migratory birds are not expected to be significant.

Impacts of Water Pollution

There is the potential for hazardous substances (e.g. fuels, oils and other construction plant related fluids) to accidently enter the waterway through spills or leaks from construction vessels and/or land based equipment. Potential water pollution impacts may be related to construction vessel management (i.e. fuel, bilge and on-board fuel tank and material lifting (crane) regulation) and over water work practices on the Breakwater Wharf (e.g. the installation of services). Water pollution has the potential to cause harm to shorebirds and marine birds through two main routes:

1. Ingestion; and

2. substances such as oils sticking to their bodies and/or feathers.

231

Ingestion of fuels, oils or other harmful substances by birds may occur inadvertently as a result of slicks on the waterway attracting schools of fish, to which birds are attracted to and feed on. Oil in the environment or oil that is ingested can result in:

 Poisoning if they eat large amounts of other organisms that have taken oil into their tissues (e.g. fish and invertebrates).

 Damage to the insides of birds bodies, e.g. causing ulcers or bleeding in their stomachs if they ingest the oil by accident.

 Interference with breeding by making the animal too ill to breed, interfering with breeding behaviour such as a bird sitting on their eggs, or by reducing the number of eggs a bird will lay.

 Irritation or ulceration of skin, mouth or nasal cavities.

 Damage to and suppression of the immune system, sometimes causing secondary bacterial or fungal infections.

 Damage to red blood cells.

 Organ damage and failure such as a bird’s liver.

 Damage to a bird's adrenal tissue which interferes with a bird's ability to maintain blood pressure, and concentration of fluid in its body.

 Decrease in the thickness of egg shells.

 Stress (AMSA 2016).

When oils become stuck to the feathers of birds they can also cause the following impacts:

 Hypothermia (as the insulation and waterproofing properties of feathers is reduced or destroyed).

 Birds becoming easy prey (as their feathers being matted by oil makes them less able to fly away from predators).

 Drowning (because oiled feathers weigh more and their sticky feathers cannot trap enough air between them to keep them buoyant).

 Loss of body weight (as their metabolism tries to combat low body temperature).

 Dehydration and starving as they give up or reduce drinking, diving and swimming to look for food (AMSA 2016).

While the potential impacts of water pollution on birds can be very harmful, it is thought that they can be mitigated effectively through the adoption of the water quality management and mitigation measures described in Section 9.1.4. If these measures are adopted then the potential impacts of water pollution are not considered to be significant.

232

Vessel and Vehicle Strike

Vessel strike during construction is most likely to occur if birds are attracted to lights on vessels during evening or night time construction works. However, any vessels undertaking construction works at night are likely to be sedentary or moving very slowly so the potential impact of vessel strike from construction vessel is considered to be extremely minor.

The potential for vehicle strike on land is considered to be very low considering that most work will be undertaken over water and that vehicle strike with slow moving vehicles at the construction site (as they would be for this Project) and birds is not common.

9.4.3 Potential Operational Impacts

9.4.3.1 Impacts on Terrestrial Habitats and Protected Areas

The Project site does not contain any areas of natural terrestrial habitat nor does it contain any terrestrial protected areas. It lies within an already developed area of foreshore. No terrestrial habitats or protected areas occur on the main routes to the Eden town which passengers may follow on foot when visiting. No natural terrestrial habitats or protected areas are expected to be impacted by the proposed operation of the Project.

9.4.3.2 Impacts on Shorebirds, Marine and Migratory Birds

The potential operational impacts to shorebirds, marine and migratory birds can be summarised as:

 Impacts of lighting.

 Noise impacts.

 Entanglement in, or ingestion of, marine debris.

 Impacts of water pollution e.g. oil spills, sewage.

 Human interference.

 Vessel strike.

Impacts of Lighting

Operational related lighting impacts will include permanent lighting installed on the Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension and occasional additional lighting from ships when at berth. Ships at berth will have a negligible increase in lighting impacts as will only be visiting during daylight hours (i.e. 7 am – 6 pm) during the summer cruise season. No overnight berthing requiring lighting, except for in cases of emergencies or mechanical issues, is expected. The potential impacts of lighting on birds from these sources will be the same as described for the construction phase (see Section 9.4.2.2). While Australian Standards will be required to be adopted in relation to lighting, there are a number of measures which can be taken to reduce the potential impact of operational lighting on avifauna as identified in Section 9.4.4 below.

233

Noise Impacts

The Noise and Vibration Assessment prepared by PEL (2016) provides the following potential noise impacts during operation of the Project:

While entering and exiting the port noise sources are anticipated to include:

 Cruise ship engine/mechanical plant and exhaust.

 Tugboats.

 Rope motors.

 Short term impact noises during berthing operation.

While the ships are at berth during the day time period noise will be generated from:

 Ship auxiliary power generation and ventilation plant.

 Vehicles (buses, taxis accessing the wharf to collect drop off passengers).

 Ship public address system.

 Passengers talking on the wharf and gangway.

The key noise source while the ship is at berth will be the exhaust stack and mechanical ventilation plant (PEL 2016).

There is little potential for many operational noises to be reduced; however, noise impacts associated with cruise ship operation are expected to improve over time with technological advances (PEL 2016). The most likely impact of any ongoing operational noise source will be avoidance behaviour of the immediate berthing area by birds. In addition, any sudden noises such as horns on ship departure from the Port may result in startle responses, causing birds to leave the immediate area. Overall, any operational noise impacts are likely to be short term and insignificant, especially considering that many of these noise sources are already present at the site and that the number of ships expected to enter the port each year are quite low (i.e. two to three per week from November to April).

Entanglement in / Ingestion of Marine Debris

Entanglement in or ingestion of marine debris may also be associated with the operation of the Project if waste from the cruise ship is not disposed of correctly or waste that is generated by passengers is not disposed of correctly. Incorrect disposal of ship waste offshore also has the potential to impact on marine birds. The potential impacts of marine debris on shorebirds, marine and migratory birds from operational activities are the same as described for construction impacts (refer to Section 9.4.2.2).

With appropriate waste management measures in place on the cruise ships using the facility, waste facilities readily available for use by the ship on entry to the port (i.e. to dispose of waste generated at sea) and by passengers at the wharf, the potential impact of marine debris from operation of the Project on birds is not considered to be significant.

234

Waste Management has been assessed for the Project and further detail is provided in Section 9.16. In addition, all ships must abide by the Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships as contained in Annex V of MARPOL (IMO 2016): http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Garbage/Pages/Default.aspx.

Impacts of Water Pollution

The potential impacts of water pollution on shorebirds and marine birds during the operation of the Project will be related to the operation of cruise ships (e.g. spills of fuels / oils / other operational related substances and general waste). Any spills of fuels, oils and other hazardous substances will have the same impacts as previously discussed for the construction phase. Mitigation measures for reducing water quality impacts have been discussed in detail in Section 9.1.4. With adoption of these measures, operational water quality impacts on shorebirds and marine birds are not likely to be significant.

Human Interference – Feeding

There is the potential for cruise ship passengers to feed native shorebirds and marine birds which occur at the site. This can be harmful to these species in a number of ways including:

 Creating a dependency on processed foods that are not part of their natural diet which can make them very sick.

 Loss of their ability to forage for natural foods.

 Promoting aggressive behaviour.

 Potential disruptions to migratory patterns if they start to rely on a local food source and displacement of other species (OEH 2014).

Measures can be taken to reduce the potential for interference behaviour by humans to occur and therefore the overall significance of this potential impact is considered to be low. Refer to Section 9.4.4.

Vessel Strike

There is the potential for birds to be struck by moving cruise ships at sea and on their entry / exit from Twofold Bay. The risk of vessel strike is considered to be highest at night when lighting on ships may attract birds in an otherwise particularly dark environment (e.g. when travelling in coastal waters). However, considering the large size and relatively slow movement of these vessels, particularly when entering / exiting the port, and the high mobility of marine birds, the risk of vessel strike is considered to be negligible.

9.4.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures

Proposed mitigation measures are outlined in Table 9-16.

235

Table 9-16 Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Phase Potential impacts of lighting on birds can be reduced by limiting the Construction need for construction activities to be undertaken during the evening and night time – this will reduce the overall need for construction related artificial lighting (on vessels and on the land portion of the site) and associated impacts. Below water construction noise (from activities such as piling or Construction dredging) is expected to have little impact on shorebirds and marine birds that will generally be above water. Nevertheless, the mitigation measures proposed to reduce underwater noise impacts in the Aquatic Ecology section of this EIS will also negate any potential for underwater noise impacts to occur on birds if they happen to be feeding / diving underwater at the time of these works (refer to Section 9.3 Aquatic Ecology). Above water construction noise impacts, which have the potential to Construction impact on the behaviour of shorebirds and marine birds, are to be managed in accordance with the Construction Noise Management Measures outlined in Section 6.6 of PEL (2016) and the Noise and Vibration Mitigation Measures outlined in Section 9.6.4 of this document. These measures generally aim to reduce the severity and/or duration of noise emissions from construction plant and activities. To reduce the potential impacts of marine debris on shorebirds and Construction and marine birds, waste associated with the construction and operation of Operation the Project are to be managed as per Section 9.16.4 of this document (Waste Management Mitigation Measures). To reduce the potential impacts of water quality / water pollution on Construction and shorebirds and marine birds, water quality impacts are to be mitigated as Operation per Section 9.1.6 (Water Quality Mitigation Measures). There are numerous ways to mitigate water quality impacts and with adoption of these no significant impacts on birds are expected. Mitigation measures to reduce the potential for vessel strike have been Construction and discussed in the Section 9.3.4 (Aquatic Ecology Mitigation Measures). Operation While it is highly unlikely that birds will be impacted by vessel strike to begin with, the adoption of these measures will also reduce the potential risks of vessel strike on birds. Potential impacts of lighting on birds can be reduced through Operation installation of downward directed lighting – this may be adopted for any lighting along the wharf structures. Downward directed lighting will reduce light emissions into the sky and therefore potential impacts such as disorientation of and/or attraction of migratory birds passing by at night. Potential impacts of lighting on birds can be reduced by the use of green Operation or blue lighting (rather than white or red) where possible, noting sector light is red) these colours have been proven to have little or no effect on the behaviour / orientation / attraction of avian species whereas white or

236

Mitigation Measure Phase red lighting are known to have much more of an impact. Many noise impacts associated with the operation of the Project will be Operation similar to impacts already present at the site, and other will be unavoidable, however, some ship noise related impacts are likely to be improved over time with technological advances in industrial standards. In the meantime, operational related impacts will only be short term and occasional and are unlikely to significantly affect birds in the study area. All ships at sea must adhere with the amendments to the International Operation Maritime Organisation’s (IMO’s) International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) Annex V which came into force on 1 January 2013. The amendments prohibit the discharge of all garbage from ships into the sea (except under very specific circumstances). This reverses the presumption that garbage may be discharged into the sea based on defined distances from shore and the nature of the garbage. The amendments also list requirements for garbage management plans on ships and port reception facilities for receiving waste. MARPOL is implemented in Australia through the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983. Human interference with birds, such as inappropriate feeding, can largely Operation be managed through the education of passengers about the potential risks to shorebirds and marine birds from such practices. Educational measures could include signage on the wharf and/or information provided to passengers on board vessels regarding local native wildlife and threats to wildlife on entry to the Port.

9.5 Traffic, Transport and Access

A Traffic, Transport and Pedestrian Access Assessment has been undertaken to assess the construction and operational impacts of the Project. McLaren Traffic Engineering has prepared an assessment (Appendix J) which focuses on land-based traffic, transport and access matters. Advisian has assessed the construction and operational impacts of the Project on maritime navigation.

The assessment identifies and reports on the following:

 The Project’s potential for interaction with maritime, road, pedestrian, cycle and public transport networks.

 The current key pedestrian routes and vehicle access and car parking areas.

 Linkages to adjacent land uses, Eden and its surrounding region.

 The likely traffic generation during construction and operation of the Project.

 An assessment of traffic, transport and access impacts including pedestrian safety and performance of key road intersections.

237

 Any management and mitigation measures required during construction and operation, including infrastructure improvements/upgrades/closures, wayfinding signage, line marking and so forth.

9.5.1 Existing Environment

Road Hierarchy

To access Eden Town Centre from Eden Breakwater Wharf, vehicles travel from Weecoon Street onto Imlay Street / Albert Terrace and back onto Imlay Street.

Weecoon Street has the following characteristics within close proximity to the site:

 Unclassified Local road with a part of Weecoon Street Crown Land.

 Priority controlled intersection of Weecoon Street / Imlay Street.

 Approximately 7m in width facilitating two-way passing.

 Signposted 50km/hr, however there is a 20km/h shared zone along Weecoon Street.

 Unrestricted kerbside parking permitted along both sides of the road where available

Imlay Street has the following characteristics within close proximity to the site:

 Unclassified Local Road.

 Approximately 10m in width facilitating two-way passing.

 No Speed limit signposted – 50km/hr applies.

 Unrestricted kerbside parking permitted along both sides of the road with 90-degree angle parking bays.

 20km/h shared zone along the access road to Eden Wharf (off Imlay Street).

Albert Terrace has the following characteristics within close proximity to the site:

 Unclassified Local road.

 Approximately 7m in width facilitating two-way passing.

 Signposted 50km/hr.

 Pedestrian Crossing at the intersection of Albert Terrace / Imlay Street / access road to Eden Wharf.

 No Parking permitted along both sides of the road.

238

Traffic and Parking Environment

Intersection Performance

Traffic counts were completed at the intersections of Mitchell Street / Imlay Street (the Princes Highway [A1]), Weecoon Street / Imlay Street, Imlay Street / Car park access Albert Terrace between Monday 15 August and Sunday 21 August 2016 for 7 days, representing a typical week.

Existing intersection performances have been assessed using SIDRA INTERSECTION 7. The results of the SIDRA assessment indicate that the surrounding intersections are operating satisfactorily at Level of Service (LoS) A (best operational condition) during the morning and afternoon peak periods. This represents minimal delays and additional capacity. It is noted that the Imlay Street/Albert Terrace intersection has existing traffic management and pedestrian safety issues which are required to be addressed by BVSC.

Traffic counts along Albert Terrace at the entrance to Snug Cove show peak AM and PM period between 11am – 12pm & 12pm – 1pm respectively. Average peak AM and PM vehicle movements for both directions along Albert terrace are 196 and 215 vehicles respectively. The AM and PM average peak vehicle movements are not in excess of 110 vehicles in either the southbound or northbound direction. This shows spare capacity along Albert Terrace / Imlay Street. Similarly, the average peak AM and PM vehicle movements to and from the wharf at the intersection of Imlay Street / Weecoon Street are between 11am – 12pm & 12pm – 1pm are 51 and 54 respectively showing adequate spare capacity along the intersection.

Parking

The existing public car park consists of 160 (including 5 disabled) parking spaces which are shared across the surrounding shops and wharfs. Private bus services are provided by Tour Operators and Eden Cruises for passenger pick-up and drop-off. The area designated for these buses can accommodate two buses and two taxis under the current operation.

A maximum of 3 buses (combination of private and shuttle buses) at any one time on site are required for the existing operation. Taxi services on occasions have used other areas of the wharf for pick-up and drop-off to reduce congestion.

Pedestrian Access

Currently, small tender vessels transport 100 passengers at a time from visiting cruise ships to the wharf. The passengers disembark and are directed to nearby tour and shuttle buses. Passengers who choose to walk to the local port shops / Eden Town Centre utilise the existing 1.2m footpath and a pedestrian crossing.

Warrens Walk is the primary access point from the local port shops to Eden Town Centre. It is a 1.9m wide footpath and runs along Albert Terrace and connecting to the cul-de-sac on Imlay Street. The number of pedestrians that would utilise this route would be minimal as only the “able bodied” would tend to choose the predominantly steep, 1km walk to the centre of Eden.

Pedestrian Transport

Private bus services are provided by Eden Cruises and local tour companies to transport passengers to and from tourist locations outside of Eden. Shuttle bus services are provided to transport pedestrians

239

from Eden Breakwater Wharf to Aslings Beach, Eden Visitor Information Centre, Eden’s Town Centre and back. A full shuttle bus from the wharf will take approximately 25-30 minutes to complete the trip, including all loading and unloading of passengers.

The existing operation for medium and large vessel ships use approximately 2-4 shuttle buses during the period of the ships stay. The current designated pick-up and drop-off areas for buses and taxis are the nearby road loop (Figure 9-25), such that buses can enter the site in a forward direction and leave in a forward direction.

Figure 9-25 Existing loop road marked in red for bus/taxi pick-up and drop-off areas

Source: McLaren Traffic Engineering, 2016

Tour buses arrive at the Breakwater Wharf from the early morning when the vessels dock till 12pm. Passengers who have booked private tours are guided from the wharf to their bus. Passengers who are not booked on private tours may return to the ship at any time. Tour buses currently arrive at staggered intervals to transport passengers. Some tourist locations have more than one bus travelling to each tourist destination.

The shuttle buses into Eden operate at a maximum frequency of 1 every 15 minutes, and provide a maximum capacity of 57 passengers. Taxi services utilise the same loop that buses use for pick-up and drop-off. To avoid congestion taxi services have been required to pick up passengers further from the Wharf.

Sapphire Coast Tourism provided McLaren Traffic Engineering with the current trip distribution of passengers as seen in Table 9-17 below.

240

Table 9-17 Passenger Trip Distribution Mode Percentage of Passengers Tour buses 30% Shuttle bus to Eden 35% Stay on Cruise Ship 5% Independent 30%

Of the 30% portion of independent passengers approximately 2-5% will utilise taxi services, which accounts for approximately 30 passengers. Passengers utilising tour and shuttle buses tend to be off the wharf within 30 minutes if they have disembarked as scheduled just before tour departure. Other passengers may idle on the wharf and nearby shops for longer than 30 minutes if passengers disembark long before their tour.

Eden Cruises provided McLaren Traffic Engineering the distribution of crew that disembark onto the Wharf to access Eden Town Centre. Of the total crew on cruise vessels, 15% disembark and use the shuttle bus services and local pedestrian routes. The split of staff that use shuttle bus services vs. local footpaths 50/50.

Cycling Access

Eden provides access for cyclists to Twofold Bay via Imlay Street / Albert Terrace. There is no designated bicycle lane for cyclists and access would be provided along the road. The current demand for cyclist from visiting passengers from cruise ships is negligible and it is estimated that there will be no additional generation of cyclist after the development.

Public Transport

The site has access to existing Bus Routes 790 and 791 provided by Sapphire Coast Buslines which is 300m walking distance from the wharf along Bramble Street. The bus routes provide access through Eden to Bega via Tura Beach, Kalaru and Wolumula. Bus Route 790 provides two services in the morning from 9am – 10am and Bus Route 791 provides one service at 5:30pm. Both bus services operate during the weekday and do not provide any services on weekends.

Other bus services within Eden include 700-1, provided by Premier Motor Service and 772 operated by NSW Trainlink. These bus routes are coach services which provide access to Nowra (2 services between 2:40am & 6:05am) and Canberra (one service at 7am).

Future Road and Infrastructure Upgrades

A review of the BVSC Development Application tracker and website indicates that there is no future planned road or public transport changes that will affect traffic conditions within the immediate vicinity of the subject site.

BVSC endorsed the Final CBD Landscape Master Plan (LMP) on January 2015. Section 2.7 relates to Eden and specifically contains recommendations for the Albert Terrace Precinct (2.7.6) and Warrens Walk Precinct (2.7.7). The note on page 94 of the LMP states:

241

“Bega Valley Shire Council have endorsed the Eden Landscape Master Plan with a recommendation to proceed with implementation over the next 12 months. Council’s endorsement and recommendation is due to significant design and community engagement undertaken by Council over the past 10 years through the ‘Action on Imlay’ project, and more recent further design work driven by Eden Chamber of Commerce and Council’s infrastructure staff. As such a further round of community engagement is not required, as was originally planned. Bega Valley Shire is now able to proceed with detailed design, tendering and physical implementation of the Master Plan for Imlay Street.”

Maritime Navigation

PANSW operates the Port of Eden which includes the Breakwater Wharf, Multipurpose Jetty and Mooring Jetty located in Snug Cove as well as the Multi-user Wharf, Woodchip Terminal located on the southern side of Twofold Bay.

The Port of Eden provides a Harbour Master, pilotage services, hydrographic surveys, management of wharves and port security functions. Shipping schedules are provided for general public information on the Port of Eden website.

PANSW has the responsibility for:

 Maintenance of safe navigation for shipping.

 Preservation of the marine environment through the execution of its Port Safety Operating Licence (PSOL). Other requirements of the PSOL include the maintenance of navigation aids, the provision of pilotage services where required and communication services.

 Administration of the Dangerous Good regulations.

 Emergency response for marine-based incidents.

 Clean up of any environmental spills within the port and coastal waters.

PANSW have developed passage plans for Twofold Bay and Snug Cove. The passage plan at Figure 9-26 shows the location of existing navigation aids including at Cocora Beach and the Pilot Station near Lookout Point on the headland above Snug Cove.

242

Figure 9-26 Twofold Bay Passage Plan

Source: PANSW, 2016

Section 9.8.1 describes the existing maritime facilities in Snug Cove.

9.5.2 Potential Construction Impacts

Land Based Construction Traffic

McLaren Traffic Engineering has made an assessment of construction traffic impacts of the Project which is set out below.

Construction staff during both stages will use the designated parking area within the site boundary as outlined in the construction boundary reproduced in Annexure M. However, there may be a need to allow any overflow parking of light vehicles in the area adjacent to the site during periods of work. The contractor shall encourage carpooling amongst construction staff where possible to minimise the number of private vehicle trips.

Access to the site will be provided by Weecoon Street which is sufficient to accommodate at least a 19m semi-trailer. Delivery and loading vehicles will enter and exit the site in a forward direction, and it is expected that all loading / unloading of materials will be undertaken wholly on-site. All materials and equipment / machinery will be stored on-site with all deliveries to be coordinated by the Construction Manager.

243

Existing structures in Snug Cove indicate that the area is serviced by semi-trailer vehicles that access “Southland Fish Supplies”. The transport links to the site is from the Princess Highway which will utilise the roundabout at Mitchell Street / Imlay Street and follow Imlay Street down to Snug Cove until the intersection of Imlay Street / Weecoon Street. The main access to Snug Cove is via Imlay Street, which has been upgraded and can only sustain weights carrying full size coach approximately 20 – 22 gross tonne. Trucks transporting material to the wharf will be limited to a maximum load of 20 – 22 gross tonne to reduce any damage to the upgraded road.

The expected truck lengths that will be employed by the site will include, but not limited to the following: small rigid vehicle (6.4m), medium rigid vehicle (8.8m), heavy rigid vehicle (12.5m) truck & dog (18-19m), and a semi-trailer (19m). The estimated number of trucks for dredging is expected to be 20 for mobilisation and 20 for demobilisation resulting in a total of 40 truck movements in a period of 2 – 6 weeks. The estimated total for the mobilisation and demobilisation of the marine structures is 50 trucks, which is a total of 100 truck movements to and from the site over a period of 2 - 6 weeks. It is estimated that a peak of 10 trucks per day will be sufficient to service mobilisation stages. The estimated average number of vehicle deliveries to the site per day for the duration of the Project outside mobilisation and demobilisation times is approximately 2 vehicles per day with peak vehicle movement likely to occur during concrete pouring days with approximately 20 to 25 trucks per day. These truck movements are not expected to have a detrimental impact on the surrounding road network.

The main access point to the site from Eden will be along Imlay Street, it is assumed all light and heavy vehicles will utilise the intersection of Imlay Street / Mitchell Street for entry and egress from Eden to arterial roads. Over a 10 hour working day for the peak of 10 truck movements which equates to 1 truck movement every hour for mobilisation and demobilisation.

The level of private vehicle traffic in conjunction with the heavy vehicle traffic is relatively minor and is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the surrounding road network. Construction traffic will be easily managed by the site contractor who will coordinate all deliveries. All disposal of material from dredging will be completed offshore and will not require any additional heavy vehicles to the site.

All land based construction activities are to be carried out in accordance with the CEMP.

Maritime Networks

During the dredging works and wharf construction works, all water borne vessels (BHD and/or TSHD, barges, tugs and work boats) are to typically operate within the defined “Marine Construction Zone” as shown on Figure 5-4. It is noted that the “Marine Construction Zone” is not for the exclusive use of the contractor. The contractor will be required to co-ordinate transit of all port users vessels through this zone with the Harbour Master and/or vessel masters including occupants of moorings situated adjacent to the dredge pocket.

Safe navigable access to all existing maritime facilities will be maintained during construction. This includes vessels berthed at the NSW Water Police Jetty, the Multipurpose Jetty and Cat-Balou / Freedom Charters Pontoon, which have the potential to be impacted during construction regarding altered navigation channels and access to berths. About 9-10 vessels are located in this pocket. It is noted that the two tugs are largest vessel with 5.5m draft and would require 6m water depth and minimum 30m channel.

A “Construction Vessel Mooring Zone” for temporary mooring/anchoring of construction vessels) has also been identified on Figure 5-4. The contractor is to allow for the installation of buoys with

244

navigation lights along the boundary of construction and mooring zones as required by the Harbour Master.

Small works boats would also be active during construction for the transfer of crew, survey, environmental monitoring and other minor construction activities.

Three swing moorings are located within the footprint of the proposed dredging and will therefore be impacted by the construction of the Project. These swing moorings are numbered: WV006, WV035 and WV052. A further six swing moorings were identified as being impacted by the proposed wave attenuator (Eden Safe Harbour project). Figure 5-6 shows the location of the impacted swing moorings.

RMS advised in writing on 16 September 2015, that it will:

 Liaise with the impacted mooring licence holders;

 Arrange the relocation of the affected moorings prior to 30 June 2017;

 Cover the cost of relocations as per the agreement with Transport for NSW; and

 Take responsibility for the environmental assessment(s) for the relocations, currently done under Part 5 of the EP&A Act.

There will be no impacts to maritime navigation in relation to transporting of materials to the offshore disposal site with vessels to follow established passage plans or as otherwise directed by PANSW.

All water based construction activities are to be carried out in accordance with the CEMP)..

9.5.3 Potential Operational Impacts

Parking Assessment

McLaren Traffic Engineering has assessed the traffic generation and parking provision of the proposed development. The purpose of this assessment is to determine concerns in relation to the traffic and parking facilities provided by the area to sustain the large influx of pedestrians to the wharf from docking cruise ships. The following traffic related impacts will be addressed:

 Bus and taxi loading facilities for increased pedestrian demand on the wharf

 Increased car parking demand and an assessment of parking supply

 Pedestrian access from the Wharf to Eden Town Centre and to local tourist attractions

 Intersection capacities for increased flow of vehicle trips in and around Eden.

Vehicle Parking Demand

The influx of pedestrians onto the wharf will generate minimal additional parking demand for light vehicles for the site as cruise ship passengers do not have their own vehicle transport. It is proposed that the existing public car parking supply of 160 vehicle spaces will be an adequate provision for the wharf, as tourists will utilise the private transport provided by the Cruise Eden and local tour

245

companies. The consideration of any additional parking demand generated by local residents and other tourists when cruise ships are in port is not included in the scope of this Project.

Servicing and Loading

The existing wharf currently does not require any service vehicle to enter the site to resupply large cruise vessel. If any cruise ships need provisions by trucks (semi-trailer) or maintenance, the existing wharf can adequately support truck movements up to the size of a 19m semi-trailer. Sapphire Coast Tourism has informed McLaren Traffic Engineering that cruise ships will not require any service vehicles for the one day stop over.

Cruise Ship Operations

The Project will allow large cruise ships to dock directly at the Wharf, with the transit stop taking place generally between the hours of 7am - 6pm. Passengers will have 11 hours to visit Eden and other tourist attractions within the BVSC LGA. The largest passenger cruise ship that is expected to visit the Port of Eden next season (2017) is the Norwegian Jewel with a maximum passenger capacity of 2,376. Cruise Eden has estimated that the 2,376 passengers will disembark the vessel within 30 minutes. This assumption has been used as the ‘worst case scenario’ for design and impact assessment purposes. It is assumed that passengers with private booked tours will not disembark the cruise ship until one hour before their bus departure. This issue is addressed further below.

Transport Provision

The arrival of cruise ship passengers cannot be sustained by public transport due to the limited number of bus services provided around Eden and the infrequency of arrivals of cruise ships. Tourists who arrive in Eden by cruise ships docking at the proposed wharf will have to use private coaches, shuttle buses and taxi services to navigate to and from tourist attractions around Eden. Cruise Eden provided McLaren Traffic Engineering with the estimated trip distribution of passengers from the cruise ship industry as seen in Table 9-18. The trip distribution of passengers will be the same as existing, as seen in Table 9-17.

Table 9-18 Passenger Distribution Mode Percentage of Passengers Number of Passengers Tour buses 30% 713 Shuttle bus to Eden 35% 832 Stay on Cruise Ship 5% 118 Independent 30% 713

Based on the passenger trip distribution, the number of private buses required is 13 private buses to service 713 passengers based on an occupancy rate of 57 passengers per bus. It is assumed that passengers with private tours will not disembark the cruise ship until 1 hour before their bus departs. Similarly, 15 shuttle bus departures to Eden Town Centre will be required to serve 832 passengers based on an occupancy rate of 57 passengers.

The remaining 713 passengers will make independent trips utilising taxis, walking, or staying locally at the wharf. The split of passengers who utilise taxi services as provided to McLaren Traffic Engineering

246

by Cruise Eden is between 2-5% of the independent passengers - a total of 36 passengers. Assuming a car occupancy rate of 3 passengers per taxi, 12 taxis will be required.

Based on the trip distribution provided by Eden Cruises, it is estimated that 15% of staff will disembark from the cruise ship (Norwegian Jewel). To be conservative the largest crew size was used to determine the expected number of staff to disembark. Based on a crew size of 1100 it is estimated that 165 staff will disembark (15% of 1100). The mode of transport of staff will be a 50/50 split of shuttle buses and walking to Eden Town Centre using Warrens Walk.

Bus links & Local Drop-off Areas

The current road network of Eden provides access to arterial roads via the roundabout intersection of Mitchell Street / Imlay Street. This would be the main ingress and egress from Eden to tourist destinations for all private buses and it is assumed that 100% of bus trips will use this intersection to access the wharf along Imlay Street / Weecoon Street. Similarly, for taxi services into and out of Eden it is assumed that 100% of trips will use the intersection of Mitchell Street / Imlay Street. Given the local road network around the wharf and available routes to and from the site into Eden, it is assumed that 100% of traffic entering / exiting the Port of Eden will use the intersection of Weecoon Street / Imlay Street.

Shuttle buses perform a loop of Eden to continuously service passengers at the wharf. The cycle time for pick-up and drop-off is 30 minutes. The route shuttle buses take to travel back to the wharf will use the intersection of Imlay Street / Mitchell Street, travelling from Mitchell Street west. The existing operation for Shuttle bus services drop passengers to Aslings Beach, the information centre, and to Eden Town Centre. These drop off locations will need to be continuously monitored during operation for necessary upgrades for safe pedestrian operation. Shuttle bus drop off locations can be seen in Figure 9-27 below.

Figure 9-27 Bus Drop-off and Pick-up Locations

Source: McLaren Traffic Engineering, 2016

247

Bus Provision

Based on the trip distribution and using a cruise ship with passenger capacity of 2,376, 28 buses in total will be required to service 1,544 (65% of 2376) pedestrians. 13 of these buses are private tours that operate until 12pm. Assuming the operating hours are over 4 hours (8:00am – 12:00pm) this would be one bus leaving the dock every 19 minutes. Of the 28 required buses 15 departure shuttle buses are required to service the remaining 832 passengers. Assuming the 2 hours of operation, a Shuttle bus is required to depart every 8 minutes as a minimum requirement.

Queuing Analysis

Based on the proposed concept for the pick-up and drop-off location for buses, it is proposed that one bus bay will be designated to private bus tours and three for shuttle buses for the first 2 hours of operation. A queuing analysis was conducted for shuttle bus pick-up for a duration of 2 hours, for the 832 passengers. It is assumed that passengers with private booked tours will disembark 1 hour before their bus departure. The queuing analysis considered three bus operation scenarios: no staggering; staggering, staff and staggering (worst case).

The queuing analysis was conducted using shuttle buses and shuttle buses, the assumptions used for the queuing analysis are:

 Passengers would take 10 minutes to load onto the shuttle buses

 All shuttle buses have a capacity of 57 passengers

 Cycle time of 30 minutes, this includes the initial 10-minute loading time.

The results of the queuing analysis for the worst case scenario indicated that the peak generation from the bus operation is below the 5 bus operation which generates 16 buses (10 shuttle bus, 6 private tours) within any one-hour peak period. It is reiterated that this analysis represents the worst case.

Traffic Impact

The estimated one hourly peak traffic generation of the Wharf on cruise ship days is 32 bus movements and 24 taxis movements. The expected number of private vehicle trips from passengers is negligible, as tourists disembarking from the cruise vessels do not have their own means of vehicle transport and will have to utilise private transport provided by local tour companies. To be conservative it is assumed that all 24 taxi vehicle movements will arrive in the one-hour peak period. The traffic generation outlined above has been added to the existing traffic volumes recorded. As stated at Section 9.5.1, existing intersection performances were assessed using the software SIDRA INTERSECTION 7. The purpose of this assessment was to compare the existing intersection operations to the future scenario under the increased traffic load.

The intersection of Imlay Street / Mitchell Street remains unaltered under the future scenario. The existing LoS has been retained with minimal delays and additional capacity maintained. The additional generation of vehicles from the cruise ships will have minor impacts on the surrounding Port users, as shown from the SIDRA analysis in Appendix J.

248

Pedestrian Assessment

An assessment of the flow of 2,367 pedestrians onto the Wharf within a 30 minute timeframe has been assessed in the below sections, particularly in relation to the capacity of the proposed wharf to safely sustain the influx of pedestrians into the local network. Safe and efficient pedestrian access to and from Eden Town Centre and nearby tourist attractions has also been considered.

Proposed Wharf Pedestrian Capacity

To accommodate the influx of pedestrians into Snug Cove, the pedestrian footpath design from Eden Wharf will be assessed based on Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice; Part 13 Pedestrians. The calculations for the footpath width from the Wharf are designed with a Level of Service C which is the “recommended design level for heavily used transport terminals”.

With the design criteria of 2,376 passengers based on a 30-minute period for all pedestrians to exit the vessel, and a flow rate of 43.67 pedestrians/metre/minute based on Austroads Table 1.3 Levels of Service for Horizontal Pedestrian Movement, the calculated minimum footpath width from the exit point of the cruise ship is to be 1.81m. The concept design proposes a footpath width of 12.7m for the proposed wharf, which continues onto the existing wharf which has a width of approximately 12m. Both the existing, proposed wharf widths and waiting areas exceed the minimum 1.81m width calculated using Austroads specifications.

The total number of 2,367 passengers to disembark in a 30-minute period to assess/manage pedestrian movements is considered to be a conservative worst-case scenario, as it is unlikely there will be a queue of 2,367 passengers waiting to disembark at 7:00am. It is likely that some passengers will choose to depart the ship immediately upon arrival whilst others will disembark at varying times, dependent on their planned activities for the day. Based on trip distribution information provided to McLaren Traffic Engineering by Eden Cruise, not all passengers will disembark the cruise ship, hence the design of 2,367 passengers is a conservative one.

Local Access Links and Capacity

The main pedestrian access to Eden Town Centre from the Eden Breakwater Wharf is via Warrens Walk. As a worst case scenario, it was assumed that all independent passengers (713) would utilise the local footpath and Warrens Walk.

Local pedestrian links include access along Weecoon Street (north) to the intersection of Imlay Street, however this access is currently unsafe for pedestrians accessing Warrens Walk due to the limited shop front footpath along Imlay Street (east). The main pedestrian access to Warrens Walk will be along the waterfront directly from the wharf. Access to the Eden Town Centre from Warrens Walk is provided via a footpath that runs along the east of Imlay Street.

The minimum required footpath width for Warrens Walk for 713 passengers is 0.55m, this calculation is based on a LoS C, over 30 minutes and also assumes a one-way system given that pedestrians will generally be walking in the one direction, away from the Wharf. Warrens Walk footpath has a 1.9m width and allows for two-way passing, hence the pedestrian flow of 713 pedestrians utilising Warrens Walk over 30 minutes is acceptable.

The pedestrian access routes to the Eden Town Centre include footpath widths varying from 1.2m – 2.5m. The below table outlines the pedestrian capacity of these footpaths for a one-way system based

249

on a Austroads LoS C (recommended design levels for heavily used transport terminals and a 30- minute time period).

The local area around the Wharf can accommodate a pedestrian flow of 713 over a 30-minute period towards the Eden Town Centre. There are multiple pedestrian routes towards Warrens Walk, and it is expected that passengers will not all utilise the same route. However, the direct path from the Wharf can accommodate a flow of 1,572 passengers, based on a 1.2m footpath over a period of 30-minutes. Therefore, the local pedestrian paths can accommodate the anticipated flow of passengers to the Eden Town Centre.

It should be noted that 2,376 passengers disembarking from cruise vessels in 30 minutes is a worst case scenario and that pedestrian exit from the cruise ship will be over a period of 1 to 2 hours.

Staff Impact

The distribution of staff that will use the local pedestrian routes is 50% of the total departure crew (165). As shown above, the local pedestrians’ route shows additional spare capacity. The expected number of passengers to utilise local roads within a 30 minutes’ period is 713. With the addition of the expected 83 crew pedestrians the total estimated demand is 796. The smallest local footpath is 1.2m, which will be at 51% capacity based on a LoS C from the additional of crew pedestrians along local footpaths.

It should be noted that it is unlikely that staff from the crew ship will disembark at the same time as passengers within the initial peak period and that pedestrian exiting from the cruise ship will be carried out of over an extended time period of 1 to 2 hours.

Cycling Impact

Cruise vessels allow passengers to bring their own bicycle on trips. Any additional generation of bicycles due to the development is expected to be of low volume and cyclists will utilise the existing road infrastructure. The low volume of cyclist generated from the cruise ships will have negligible impact on the local road network.

Proposed Land Based Upgrades

A number of concepts are proposed to allow for safe pedestrian and vehicle access to nearby tourist locations, access to Eden and pick-up and drop-off of passengers for buses. It is proposed that works on Crown Land be funded by the Department, whilst the recommended works on BVSC land (to improve safety and pedestrian access at the Imlay Street/Albert Terrace) be funded by BVSC. The concepts include the following;

 Bus pick-up and drop-off (Figure 9-28)

 Taxi pick-up and drop-off (Figure 9-28)

 Traffic controllers

 Pedestrian footpaths (Figure 9-29)

 Improved signage and linemarking for the intersection of Imlay Street / Albert Terrace and the Wharf area (Figure 9-30)

250

Figure 9-28 Bus and Taxi Loading Area Concept Plan

Source: McLaren Traffic Engineering, 2016

Figure 9-29 2m Footpath Concept Plan

Source: McLaren Traffic Engineering, 2016

251

Figure 9-30 Albert Terrace and Imlay Street Intersection Concept Plan

Source: McLaren Traffic Engineering, 2016

Maritime Networks

The Project will introduce the entry of large cruise ships into Snug Cove to access the new Breakwater Wharf. To confirm the suitability of the cruise ship approach, berth pocket layout and manoeuvrability, marine vessel simulations incorporating full mission bridge simulations were carried out by Smartship Australia (2015). The simulations were based on two dredging conditions: -9.5mCD (for vessels up to 260m LOA) and -10.5mCD (for vessels between 260m and 315m LOA).

The two cruise ship models used were: Regal Princess (for vessels up to 260m LOA – Figure 5-18) and the Costa Diadema (for vessels between 260m and 315m LOA – Figure 5-19). Vector tugs model used were Svizter Mars (ASD tug with a bollard pull of 63t) and Neptun (conventional twin screw tug with a bollard pull of 40t). These two cruise ship models were selected because of their limited manoeuvrability for the range of LOA considered.

The simulations conduced to date by Smartship Australia have verified that the design is appropriate and not expected to change. Further simulations recommended by Smartship Australia (2015) are required purely for operational reasons.

The berthing of cruise ships at the Breakwater Wharf extension will not have any impacts to the operation of existing maritime facilities in the vicinity.

A lead LED sector light navigation aid will be a located on the Snug Cove foreshore to the south of the Multipurpose Jetty. It will have a height of 15m (Twofold Bay Height Datum) and have a range of

252

1.1nm. The final location of this aid is to ensure that the existing footpath remains unimpeded to allow access to/from the wharf.

A green navigation beacon will be installed on the westernmost dolphin. The beacon will be solar powered with flash 1 second on and 9 seconds off and a range of 5nm.

Both the navigation aid and beacon are required for maritime safety purposes and will have negligible visual impact for adjoining land and water areas.

There will be no operational impacts for the offshore disposal site.

9.5.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures

It is understood that BVSC already identified in 2015, required traffic management improvement works at Imlay Street/Albert Terrace as part of their Action on Imlay works program. As previously stated at Section 9.5.3, it is proposed that the recommended works on BVSC land (to improve safety and pedestrian access at the Imlay Street/Albert Terrace) be funded by BVSC, whilst the works on Crown Land be funded by the Department.

Proposed mitigation measures are outlined in Table 9-19.

Table 9-19 Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Phase The final location of the navigation aid is to ensure that the existing Detailed Design footpath on the Snug Cove foreshore remains unimpeded to allow access to/from the wharf. Relocation of impacted swing moorings is to be assessed and Pre-Construction undertaken by RMS by 30 June 2017. Preparation and implementation of CEMP to manage the impacts of Pre-Construction / construction works. Construction Implementation and adherence to the defined “Marine Construction Construction Zone” and “Construction Vessel Mooring Zone” to ensure protection of construction vessels and existing and future port users. Consultation with PANSW during construction and operation to ensure Construction and maintenance of safe navigation for shipping. Operation Implement the recommendations of the Smartship Australia report. Operation Preparation of an OEMP prior to operation commencement to manage Operation the use of land and waterway areas from cruise ship operations. Preparation of an Operational TMP prior to operation commencement Operation which should address but be not limited to the following:

 Bus layover area if required.  Proposed new location for the Marquee.  Temporary signage locations and speed limits.  Bus and taxi loading procedures for passengers, including

253

Mitigation Measure Phase disabled access.

 Bus route to locations and drop-off / pick-up method.  Detailed number of shuttle bus required.  Travel access guide.  Any proposed additional bus drop-off locations.

9.6 Noise and Vibration

A noise and vibration assessment has been undertaken for the Project by Pacific Environment Limited and is presented as Appendix K (Pacific Environment Limited (PEL), 2016a).

A dredging options noise and air assessment addendum report (PEL, 2016b), which addresses dredging options that were added subsequent to the initial assessment, is also presented in Appendix K.

The noise and vibration assessment has comprised the following:

 Characterisation of the existing noise environment.

 Establishment of site specific noise and vibration assessment criteria.

 Assessment of impacts from construction and operational phases of the Project.

The purpose of the noise and vibration assessment was to assess the impact on noise receptors in the vicinity of the Project. The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the SEARs, which includes both amenity and structural requirements.

9.6.1 Existing Environment

Local Setting

The site is located at the Port of Eden in Twofold Bay and is surrounded by the Eden township to the immediate north, east and north-west. The nearest sensitive receivers are located to the east in the port precinct and along By Street. Residential and commercial properties, as well as industrial areas that are located proximate to the site are shown on Figure 9-31.

254

Figure 9-31 Local Setting

Source: Pacific Environment Limited, 2016

Noise Monitoring

Both attended and unattended background noise monitoring was undertaken at three locations by PEL between 10 December and 19 December 2015.

The noise monitoring locations were selected to be representative of various noise conditions within proximity to the project site. Location 1 is adjacent to Albert Terrace and was selected to be representative of existing traffic noise. Locations 2 and 3 (8 By Street and 17 Victoria Terrace respectively) are in residential areas and were selected to be representative of two Noise Catchment Areas NCA 1 and NCA 2.

Attended sound level meters and unattended noise loggers were used for the noise monitoring. The noise monitoring methodology is detailed in Appendix K.

The noise monitoring revealed that the ambient acoustic environment is characteristic of a semi-rural environment with intermittent noise from traffic and commercial and industrial activities around the port.

255

Noise Assessment Criteria

In accordance with the Industrial Noise Policy (EPA, 2000) (INP) both intrusiveness and amenity criterion were developed based on the results of the ambient and background noise attended monitoring.

The intrusiveness criterion refers to noise that intrudes above the background level by more than 5 decibels and is summarised as LAeq, 15 minute ≤ RBL background noise level plus 5dB(A).

The amenity criterion is defined to protect or maintain noise level for particular land uses. It is based on noise criteria specified for industrial type activities in indicative noise amenity areas (i.e. rural, suburban and urban) as outlined in the INP. The amenity criteria is summarised as LAeq dB(A).

Project specific noise levels for each period of the day (day, evening and night) are developed from the intrusive and amenity criteria and adopted for the project. The project specific noise levels are presented in Table 9-20 below. Daytime period is from 7am to 6pm, evening is 6pm to 10pm and night is 10pm to 7am.

Table 9-20 Project Specific Noise Levels

Receiver type Period Intrusiveness criteria LAeq, 15 Amenity criteria PSNL

min dB(A) LAeq dB(A) INP

Residential Day 38 55 38 LAeq, 15

(NCA 1) min

Evening 38 45 38 LAeq, 15

min

Night 37 40 37 LAeq, 15

min

Residential Day 42 55 42 LAeq, 15

(NCA 2) min

Evening 42 45 42 LAeq, 15

min

Night 40 40 40 LAeq, 15

min

Commercial When in N/A 65 65 LAeq use

Industrial When in N/A 70 70 LAeq use

Passive When in N/A 50 50 LAeq Recreation Area use

Place of When in N/A 50 50 LAeq Worship use

Construction Noise

The NSW Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECCW, 2009) (ICNG) outlines construction noise management levels which have the specific aim of minimising nuisance noise from construction activities. The construction noise levels are developed using the unattended measured background noise levels. A summary of the project specific construction noise management levels is presented in Table 9-21.

256

Table 9-21 Project Specific Construction Noise Management Levels

Construction Noise Management Level, LAeq, 15 min, dB(A) Land use Standard hours Outside of standard hours Residential (NCA 1) 43 37 Residential (NCA 2) 47 40 Passive recreation area 60 60 Commercial 70 70 Industrial 75 75 Passive recreation area 60 60 Place of worship 55 55

Vibration

Vibration impact can have an effect on both human comfort and building structure.

The publication Assessing Vibration: A Technical Guideline (NSW EPA, 2006) provides acceptable vibration dose values for intermittent vibration such as with construction activities for building occupants. These values for locations relevant to the Project are presented in Table 9-22 below.

Table 9-22 Acceptable vibration dose values for intermittent vibration Daytime Night time Location Preferred Maximum Preferred Maximum value value value value Residences 0.20 0.40 0.13 0.26 Offices, schools, educational 0.40 0.80 0.40 0.80 institutions and places of worship Workshops 0.80 1.60 0.80 1.60

The German Standard DIN 4150-3-1999 Structural Vibration – Part 3 Effects of Vibration on Structures is the current accepted guideline in the absence of an Australian Standard. The recommended vibration limits to ensure minimal risk of damage to buildings is presented in Table 9-23 below.

Table 9-23 Vibration limits for structures Guideline values for velocity (mm/s) Type of building 1 to 10 to 50 to Vibration at horizontal plane of 10 Hz 50 Hz 100 Hz highest floor at all frequencies Commercial and industrial 20 20-40 40-50 40 building Dwellings and buildings of similar 5 5-15 15-20 15 occupancy or design Structures that are sensitive to 3 3-8 8-10 8 vibration and are of great intrinsic value

Operation Phase Noise Modelling

Noise modelling has been undertaken to predict operational noise associated with the Project. The noise modelling has considered the sound power levels of the activities, such as plant and equipment, and the transiting and berthed cruise ships, and has applied various adjustments for attenuation based

257

on existing acoustic shielding, ground topography, meteorological conditions, and atmospheric absorption.

During the operation phase cruise ships will transit in and out of the port and will berth at the extended Breakwater Wharf.

When the ships are in transit in and out of the port the noise emissions would include cruise ship engines, mechanical plant and exhaust, tugboats, and rope motors. When the cruise ships are berthed the likely noise emissions would include ships auxiliary power generation, vehicle movements shuttling passengers along the wharf, ship public address system, and passengers, staff and visitors conversing.

Two modelling scenarios have been undertaken for the operation phase; Scenario 1 models the transit period of the ship coming into the port for day, evening and night periods, and Scenario 2 considered the cruise ship while at berth during day time only. Based on shipping schedules for 2016-2019 cruise ships are expected to arrive between 7am and 10am and depart between 3pm and 6pm. Noise impacts associated with ships arriving and departing would be limited to approximately half an hour before and after arrival and departure time to account for transiting in and out of the port. The shipping schedule has 37 ships currently scheduled to arrive during the 2016-2019 period. Of the 37 planned arrivals nine ships are greater than 250m in length. In future up to 60 cruise ships may arrive in any calendar year.

9.6.2 Potential Construction Impacts

Construction of the Project is anticipated to commence in mid-2017 and continue for approximately 18 to 24 months.

During the construction phase the main sources of noise and vibration emissions are likely to include the following:

 Piling and installation of rock anchors.

 Dredging.

 Barge movements.

 Demolition and removal of part of existing wharf, including concrete breaking.

 Truck and vehicle movements for delivery of construction materials and removal of demolition waste.

 Movement and positioning of materials, including steel piles, around the construction site.

 Operation of work boats for the transfer of surveyors, construction staff, environmental monitoring officers.

The predicted noise levels have been assessed for four distinct construction scenarios:

 Scenario 1- site establishment initial wharf works (2-6 week duration).

 Scenario 2 – dredging. Three options have been considered for this scenario including:

o Option 1 – backhoe dredge

258

o Option 2 – backhoe dredge and trailer suction hopper dredging (single handling)

o Option 3 – backhoe dredge and trailer suction hopper dredging (double handling)

 Scenario 3 – impact piling, concreting and formwork (18 week duration).

 Scenario 4 – construction of wharf extension and other marine structures (37 week duration).

Construction Phase Noise Modelling

Each of the construction scenarios has been modelled. The site establishment, piling and wharf extension works would be undertaken during day time periods only. The dredging would be undertaken during day, evening and night time periods.

The type of plant and equipment that is likely to be required during the construction phase has been determined and sound power levels have been estimated based on UK DEFRA construction noise database, British Standard 5228.2.2009, and the Construction Noise Strategy (TfNSW, 2012).

To predict the noise emission during the construction phase each of the noise sources have been assessed during a 15 minute period. All plant and equipment have been assumed to be operating continuously with the exception of piling, grinding, truck idling, jack hammering and concrete sawing which would be operating intermittently in any 15 minute period.

Noise modelling for the construction scenarios has been undertaken to predict construction noise for each scenario at maximum sound power levels under varying meteorological conditions.

The modelling results for the construction scenarios indicate that there would be exceedances of the noise criteria at the majority of receivers for all four scenarios. The piling is predicted to have the most significant impact. A full summary of predicted noise levels is presented in Table 6.5 of Appendix K.

Dredging activities such as shaking an excavator bucket or metal on metal may result in an LAMax sleep disturbance noise event. The noise modelling predicted noise levels at the nearest receivers in NCA 1 and NCA 2 would be 10 to 20 dB(A) above background during the night time period.

The predicted vibration levels for piling activities are presented in Table 9-24.

Table 9-24 Predicted vibration levels Item Guideline levels (mm/s) Predicted vibration level PPV mm/s at distance Commercial Residential Sensitive 5 10 20 50 150 250 Jackhammer 1.4 0.5 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Impact pile (soft 55 22 9 3 0.7 0.3 cohesive and loose granular soils) 20 5 3 Impact pile (piles - - 46 14 3 1.7 driven to refusal in rock)

The predicted vibration levels are based on separation distance. The modelling predicts that vibration levels would not damage the building structure of the nearest residential receiver, which is

259

approximately 250m from the piling works. Vibration levels on adjacent hillsides could potentially reach 2 to 3mm/s during piling to refusal.

Two different pile driving scenarios have been assessed including normal pile driving and refusal to calculate human comfort predicted values. The levels are below the guideline levels and are expected to not have an adverse impact on nearby receivers.

The predicted vibration levels are conservative but should be tested through monitoring trials at the commencement of piling.

Based on the anticipated traffic movements likely to occur during the day and night time periods the predicted worst case traffic noise level increase would be 1.4 dB which is within the 2 dB(A) increase criteria.

Noise emissions associated with dredging and piling activities have the potential to adversely impact marine fauna. Potential impacts to marine fauna have been addressed in Section 9.3 Aquatic Ecology.

9.6.3 Potential Operational Impacts

The modelling results for the operational phase indicate that for Scenario 1 (ship in transit) the noise emissions would exceed the criteria during the day and evening periods for the majority of residential receivers located in NCA 1 and NCA 2.

In NCA 1 the predicted noise levels would exceed the criteria by up to 11 dB(A) during the daytime period and up to 12 dB(A) during the night time period. The latest time ships would depart is 6pm and therefore the exceedance in the evening would be from 6pm to approximately 6.30pm during the time the ship is in transit out of the port. The night (period between 10pm and 7am) exceedance would be attributed to ships arriving at 7am and the transit period commencing from approximately 6.30am.

For Scenario 2 (ship at berth) the noise predictions indicate that noise levels would exceed the criteria up to 2 dB(A) at 7 residences in NCA 1 for a medium sized ship up to 250m in length. The predicted noise levels for a medium sized ship would not exceed the criteria for any of the residences in NCA 2. For a large ship that is in excess of 300m in length the predicted noise levels would exceed the criteria at the majority of receivers in NCA 1 by up to 12 dB(A) and all of the receivers in NCA 2 by up to 9 dB(A).

Predicted noise levels would not exceed the criteria during either Scenario 1 or 2 at any sensitive places or commercial premises.

A full summary of predicted operational noise levels for the worst case weather conditions for each receiver is provided in Table 5.5 of Appendix K.

The noise modelling predicted that typical sleep disturbance events would include short high level noise events such as vehicle door slamming. The predicted maximum noise levels during the night time period would exceed the sleep disturbance criteria at 17 receivers. This would be relevant for three cruise ship arrivals per year and during transit into the port (approximately 6.30am to 7am).

Based on the anticipated traffic movements likely to occur during the daytime and night time periods the predicted worse case traffic noise level increase will be less than 1 dB which is within the 2 dB(A) increase criteria.

260

9.6.4 Proposed Mitigation Measures

Construction

The noise modelling has predicted exceedance of the construction noise criteria. The predicted construction noise and vibration impacts are to be managed by implementing a Construction Noise and Vibration Management Plan (CNVMP). The CNVMP is to be prepared by the Contractor(s) prior to the commencement of works. The CNVMP is to include mitigation measures to minimise the impacts of noise on sensitive receivers during construction activities. Proposed mitigation measures are outlined in Table 9-25.

Table 9-25 Proposed Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure Phase Source Controls Construction

 Where possible, plant and equipment is to be selected that can be fitted with options to minimise noise such as covers, mufflers, shrouds and other noise suppression equipment.

 Plant and equipment is to be turned off and not left idling when not in use. Anchorages and moorings should be used for boats or other water craft if necessary.

 Plant and equipment is to operate in accordance with industry standards and have been serviced as per manufacturer specifications.

 Noisy plant and equipment is to be oriented away from sensitive receivers where possible.

 Temporary screens or other items that provide a noise buffer (including plant and equipment) are to be used proximate to noise sources.

 Low noise emission plant and equipment is to be selected where available.

 Broadband reversing alarms or similar is to be used as an alternative to a traditional beeper reversing alarm for vehicles permanently on site.

 Plant and equipment is to be well maintained and serviced regularly to ensure it is not generating excessive noise.

 Tools are not to be dropped from a height onto hard surfaces. Administration controls Construction

 Above water noise levels are to be monitored continuously.  Consider respite periods for activities that continue for extended periods of time, particularly those works to be undertaken outside normal working hours such as dredging.

 The use of horns and alarms are to be minimised, most particularly during works undertaken in the evening and night time periods.

261

Mitigation Measure Phase

 The staff and visitor induction protocols are to include awareness of noise generating activities and mitigation measures and techniques that should be implemented. Community management Construction

 The community is to be notified prior to noise intensive activities commencing, such as piling.

 The community is to be informed prior to any planned out of hours work commencing.

 A complaints procedure is to be implemented by the Contractor and contact details provided to potentially affected residents and businesses in the area.

 The Contractor’s complaints procedure is to include a record of complaints indicating cause and measures taken to resolve/minimise cause.

 Where noise levels are above the highly noise affected levels the contractor is to consult with the community to identify work practices or alternative mitigation measures that aim to minimise the intrusiveness of the noise generating activities as much as possible. These may include letterbox drops, attended noise monitoring, individual briefings, project specific respite and phone calls to affected stakeholders. Site controls Construction

 Works are to be scheduled to minimise the number of noisy plant and equipment operating at any one time.

 Construction activities are to be planned to minimise vehicular movements around the site. Construction vibration mitigation Construction

 High vibration methods are to be substituted with lower vibration methods where possible.

 Trial measurements are to be conducted at the furthest point from sensitive receivers to test predicted values and ensure vibration compliance is achieved.

 Alternatives to high vibration plant and equipment are to be used where possible.

Operation

The INP states that noise generators are responsible for applying all feasible and reasonable noise mitigation controls at the noise source in order to reduce likely noise emissions. There are three main mitigation strategies for noise control, in order of preference:

1. Controlling noise at the source.

262

2. Controlling the transmission of noise.

3. Controlling noise at the receiver.

With respect to the Project, opportunities for engineering control at the source i.e. at the cruise ship, would be limited as it is dependent on each individual ship. It is anticipated that as the cruise industry grows and the density of coastal living intensifies there will be increased pressure on ship builders to design new ships with lower emissions compared with current ships.

Controlling the transmission of noise would also be limited due to the relative elevation of primary noise contributing sources and the impracticality of erecting noise barriers.

Controlling noise at the receiver is not considered to be either practical or reasonable given the level of noise impact from the typical cruise ship visit is predicted to be 1-2 dB(A) above criteria during day time periods while the ships are at berth.

9.7 Air Quality

An air quality assessment for the Project has been undertaken by PEL and is presented as Appendix K (PEL, 2016a).

A dredging options noise and air assessment addendum report (PEL, 2016b), which addresses dredging options that were added subsequent to the initial assessment, is also presented in Appendix K.

A quantitative assessment including dispersion modelling has been undertaken for the operational impacts associated with the Project while a qualitative approach has been adopted to assess construction impacts.

The purpose of the air quality assessment was to assess the impact on air quality receptors in the vicinity of the Project. The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the SEARs including the following:

 An Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) for construction and operation of the project in accordance with current guidelines.

 Demonstrated ability to comply with the relevant regulatory framework, specifically the Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 and the Protection of the Environment Operations (Clean Air) Regulation (2010); and

 A cumulative local and regional air quality impact assessment.

9.7.1 Existing Environment

The determined background air quality for the Project air quality levels were sourced from the OEH ambient air quality network operated by the NSW OEH. The closest OEH monitoring site to Eden, with a land use considered to be similar to the Project is the Albion Park South station. Albion Park is south of Wollongong and located some 360km north of the Project site. The Albion Park station collects air quality data for pollutants including the PM10 and PM2.5 particulate size fractions, NO2, SO2 and ozone (O3). PM2.5 data has only been available at this site since February 2015 and therefore PM2.5 data

263