APPLICATION ON NOTIFICATION – CROWN DEVELOPMENT

Applicant: Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Development Number: 010/V048/17 Nature of Development: Capital dredging to widen the existing channel and swing basin located at outer harbor by approximately 40m for a distance of approximately 7km requiring the removal of 1.55 million m3 of material to be placed off-shore at a designated placement (7km x 5km) area within the Gulf St Vincent. Type of development: Public Infrastructure Zone / Policy Area: No Zones Subject Land: Out of Council land – Outer Harbour Swing Basin and Outer Harbour Channel Contact Officer: Reece Svetec Phone Number: (08) 8343 2950 Start Date: 22 November 2017 Close Date: 13 December 2017

During the notification period, hard copies of the application documentation can be viewed at the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, Level 5, 50 Flinders Street, Adelaide during normal business hours. Application documentation may also be viewed during normal business hours at the local Council office (if identified on the public notice).

Written representations must be received by the close date (indicated above) and can either be posted, hand-delivered, faxed or emailed to the State Commission Assessment Panel (SCAP). A representation form is provided as part of this pdf document.

Any representations received after the close date will not be considered.

Postal Address: The Secretary State Commission Assessment Panel GPO Box 1815 ADELAIDE SA 5001

Street Address: Development Division Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure Level 5, 50 Flinders Street ADELAIDE

Email Address: [email protected] Fax Number: (08) 8303 0753

#11862379 DEVELOPMENT ACT, 1993 S49/S49A – CROWN DEVELOPMENT REPRESENTATION ON APPLICATION

Applicant: Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Development Number: 010/V048/17 Nature of Development: Capital dredging to widen existing channel and swing basin located at outer harbour by approximately 40m for a distance of approximately 7km, requiring the removal of 1.55million m3 of material to be placed off-shore at a designated placement (7km x 5km) area within the Gulf St Vincent. Zone / Policy Area: No Zones Subject Land: Out of Council land – Outer Harbour Swing Basin and Outer Harbour Channel Contact Officer: Reece Svetec Phone Number: 8343 2950 Close Date: 13 December 2017

My name:______My phone number: ______PRIMARY METHOD(s) OF CONTACT: Email address: ______Postal address: ______Postcode______You may be contacted via your nominated PRIMARY METHOD(s) OF CONTACT if you indicate below that you wish to be heard in support of your submission.

My interests are: [ ] owner of local property [ ] occupier of local property [ ] a representative of a company/other organisation affected by the proposal [ ] a private citizen

The address of the property affected is ...... …………………...... Postcode...... ……...... ….

The specific aspects of the application to which I make comment on are: ...... …………...... …...……………

...... …………...... ………......

...... …………...... ………......

...... …………...... ………......

...... …………...... ………......

...... …………...... ………......

...... …………...... ………......

...... …………...... ………......

I [ ] wish to be heard in support of my submission [ ] do not wish to be heard in support of my submission (Please tick one) by [ ] appearing personally [ ] being represented by the following person : ...... …...... (Cross out whichever does not apply)

Date: ...... Signature: ...... ………...... Return Address: The Secretary, State Commission Assessment Panel, GPO Box 1815, Adelaide, SA 5001 or [email protected] #11862591 LOGO The Government of South Australia

DEVELOPMENT ACT 1993

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO DEVELOPMENT

SECTION 49 – PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE

Notice is hereby given that an application has been made by Flinders Ports Pty Ltd for Capital dredging to widen existing channel and swing basin located at outer harbour by approximately 40m for a distance of approximately 7km, requiring the removal of 1.55million m3 of material to be placed off-shore at a designated placement (7km x 5km) area within the Gulf St Vincent. (Development Number: 010/V048/17).

The land is situated at Outer Harbour Channel, Gulf St Vincent. For identification purposes, the nearest Certificate of Title is: Volume 6126 Folio 861.

The subject land is located within the Coastal Zone of the Land Not Within a Council Area (Metro) consolidated 5 May 2016, and the Land Not Within a Council Area (Coastal Waters) consolidated 20 October 2016.

The application may be examined during normal office hours at the office of the State Commission Assessment Panel, Level 5, 50 Flinders Street and at the office of Port Adelaide Enfield Council, 163 St Vincent Street, Port Adelaide SA 5015. Application documentation may also be viewed on the SCAP website: http://www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov.au/scap/public_notices.

Any person or body who desires to do so may make representations concerning the application by notice in writing delivered to the Secretary, Development Assessment Commission, GPO Box 1815, Adelaide 5001 not later than 13 December 2017.

Each person or body making a representation should state the reason for the representation and whether that person or body wishes to be given the opportunity to appear before the Commission to further explain the representation.

Submissions may be made available for public inspection. Please indicate in writing if you object to your submission being made available in this way.

Should you wish to discuss the application and the public notification procedure please contact Reece Svetec on (08) 8343 2950 or [email protected]

Alison Gill SECRETARY STATE COMMISSION ASSESSMENT PANEL www.saplanningcommission.sa.gov.au/scap

PUBLISHED IN : The Portside & The Advertiser PUBLICATION DATE : 22 November 2017

Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Development Application Report July 2017

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Executive Summary

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd (Flinders Ports) has identified the need to widen the existing shipping channel and swing basin at Outer Harbor in the Port of Adelaide. This is being driven by the emergence of Post Panamax class vessels which are wider than the 36m design vessel width of the existing channel and swing basin. Outer Harbor can only currently accommodate vessels up to a maximum of 42.2m width with operational restrictions. The Outer Harbor Channel Widening (OHCW) Project will enable the Port to accommodate vessels with a maximum width of 49m once complete, without operational restrictions. The optimal upgrade to meet this growing demand is to widen the existing channel by approximately 40m, resulting in the need to dredge approximately 1.55 million m3 of material. The last capital dredge project (deepening the channel and swing basin) was completed in 2005. It is forecast that the OHCW Project will meet the future needs for Outer Harbor for at least the next ten years.

Project Justification As the global shipping owners convert more and more ships to the Post Panamax class, Flinders Ports is compelled to provide suitable infrastructure to support this activity (Outer Harbor experienced a four-fold increase in 2016 and forecast this doubling again in 2017). The OHCW Project is responding to this change in vessel size (broader) as the key driver to ensure economic operations are maintained to support South Australian trade and avoid any decrease through use of alternative Australian ports and land routes for import and export trade. Also contributing to the demand and urgency for the OHCW Project to proceed, it is noted that from 2018 there will be similar increases (change in shipping class) for visiting Cruise Liners, with a general trend towards broader ships seeking to visit South Australian waters. The economic assessment shows that upon completion, and hence avoiding losing Adelaide as a destination for these broader freight and cruise ship visitations, there is a positive Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) conservatively in a range of five to ten. This concludes that for every dollar spent on the OHCW Project there is an economic benefit of between five to ten dollars for South Australia through increased economic activity. The Development Report has considered all the potential impacts associated with the project and proposed mitigation measures to manage them appropriately. The majority of impacts are short term and localised, with some loss of seagrass identified as unavoidable. The risk for not completing the OHCW Project is that the containerised trade and cruise shipping may “skip” Adelaide and utilise alternative ports that can operate without restrictions and hence be more efficient. This would create a negative impact upon the South Australian economy through increased costs to transport our imports and exports across land and the lost opportunity costs of less visitations from cruise ships.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page I

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Planning & Legislation The project has been declared to be public infrastructure in accordance with the provisions of the Development Act 1993 (Development Act) with sponsorship provided by the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure for South Australia, which was received June 2017. Public infrastructure includes structures that ‘have traditionally been provided by the State’, such as shipping channels and associated facilities. Assessment of the application will be undertaken by the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) and the Minister administering the Development Act (i.e. Minister of Planning for South Australia). This report has reviewed the relevant State and Commonwealth Legislation as well as the relevant policies and planning instruments. It has also identified the additional licenses that will be required as part of the overall approvals process.

Project Description The channel will be dredged to achieve the design width (some minor variations in width may occur through further optimisation of the design in conjunction with detailed operational reviews for safe navigation), with the dredged material proposed to be placed approximately 30km off-shore in Gulf St Vincent (the same location utilised in 2005, a zone approximately 7km by 5km in size located in deep water (>30m) and avoiding major shipping routes). Flinders Ports conducted an optimisation study to assess the appropriate channel width to safely operate the channel and swing basin for increased vessel sizes. This study resulted in the recommendation to increase from the existing 130m wide channel to the proposed 170m wide channel. As the channel is being widened, there is also a need to relocate existing navigational aids to reflect the new alignment of the channel. There are potentially 16 in total that may require works of some nature, with a total of nine currently identified as requiring physical relocation prior to any dredging. The most suitable dredging method adopted is a combination of a medium size Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) and a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) of about 10,000m3 hopper capacity. The CSD will be used for breaking up hard material and side casting (placing material on the sea bed) for final dredging by a TSHD. The TSHD will dredge the sea bed material for removal to the Dredge Material Placement Area (DMPA). The TSHD will also be used to directly dredge soft material encountered. This is the same methodology utilised for the 2005 Outer Harbor Channel Deepening (OHCD) Project. The dredging program is anticipated to be approximately 4 to 6 months in duration. Dredging will take place following a mobilisation period on a 24 hour a day, seven days a week basis for optimal efficiency and this has been considered in all assessments throughout this report. Provided all environmental approvals are in place, it is expected dredging will commence in early to mid-2018.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page II

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Project Environs The Port of Adelaide is a tidal port, utilising a deepened shipping channel that extends approximately 7km into Gulf St Vincent to manage the safe and efficient movements of visiting shipping. The channel, swing basin and the Gulf St Vincent DMPA are not zoned under any Development Plan as they are below low water and constitute crown land. The material to be dredged from the Outer Harbor Channel consists primarily of shelly sand and silt, with some clays and limestone also likely to be encountered. Levels of contaminants within these sediments have previously been identified as below the guideline values of the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009), meaning they are suitable for placement at sea. Seagrass meadows occur within Gulf St Vincent, including in areas within or adjoining the Outer Harbor and Outer Harbor Channel. These can support feeding by marine fauna such as dolphins as well as providing habitat for fish species. Other important values within the Outer Harbor area include resident and migratory shorebird habitat on Bird Island and the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary (which overlaps with the Outer Harbor). By contrast, the Gulf St Vincent DMPA is not known to support sensitive environmental receptors (e.g. seagrass). There are no known significant social or recreational values associated with the Outer Harbor, though residential areas are present within 300m of the Port, at North Haven. Commercial fishing activity occurs within Gulf St Vincent in proximity to the DMPA and contribute to the local and state economy. Recreational fishing (both land and marine based) and boating, including the presence of the Royal South Australian Yacht Squadron (in Outer Harbor) and the Cruising Yacht Club of SA and Gulf Point Marina (to the south) occur adjacent the OHCW Project environs.

Potential Environmental Impacts The potential environmental impacts identified in this report are predominantly associated with the construction phase of the project, with the physical dredging activity generating turbidity in the marine environment the key impact associated with these works. The operational phase of the project has also been assessed where relevant to ensure all potential impacts have been identified and addressed. The construction phase impacts include:  Dredging activity within the Outer Harbor, including direct disturbance of the seabed (causing the release of turbid plumes and the disturbance of contaminated material)  Placement of material at the DMPA (causing release of turbid plumes during placement and subsequently from resuspension).  The release of contaminants from dredge vessel operations, including spills from refuelling, waste disposal etc.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page III

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 Smothering of benthic fauna from placement of material at the DMPA  Injury to fauna from vessel strike associated with the movement of the dredge vessel  Disturbance to marine fauna from underwater vessel noise generated by dredge vessel and piling activity  Spread of marine pests from dredging activity  Loss of fisheries values.  Disturbance to local environment due to airborne and underwater borne noise from dredging and piling activity as well as vessel movements  Vibration impacts from dredging and piling activities  Impacts upon Native Title and Indigenous Cultural heritage  Disturbance of shipwrecks from dredging and piling activities. Operational phase impacts assessed included:  Movement and berthing of larger vessels (up to 49m wide), including operation of tugboats to assist with vessel movement  An increased risk of future maintenance dredging  Altered channel morphology and changes to coastal processes. The assessment has concluded that the main environmental impact of the project will be the creation of turbid sediment plumes which will most likely result in some loss of seagrass within the immediate vicinity of dredging activity. These areas of seagrass do provide habitat for species that are a food source for dolphins and migratory birds in this area. The area affected represents only a small portion of the habitat available within 5km of the channel (less than 1%). As a result, the loss is not expected to cause impact to availability of feeding habitat. In addition, surveys undertaken following the previous dredge campaign in 2005 indicate that seagrass meadows can recover post-dredging over time. The movement of dredge equipment and dredging activity may also cause temporary avoidance behaviour for marine fauna within 100-200m of dredging. It has also been identified that piling activities and dredging works may exceed noise limits under adverse weather conditions at a small number of nearby residential areas (near the port entrance) during night works.

Mitigation Measures The assessment of all potential impacts resulted in a range of proposed mitigation measures to address the associated impact. The remainder of impacts were assessed as negligible and not requiring specific mitigation measures to manage or can be managed through standard mitigation measures. To reduce the potential impacts of the project, specific management measures for the project include:

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page IV

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 Preparation of a Dredge Management Plan for construction phase that sets out procedures, consistent with port rules, to control the following impacts:  Sediment plumes  Ballast water exchange  Sewage/black-water discharge  Refuelling  Vessel strike from vessel movement The Dredge Management Plan will also set out the proposed dredging methodology based on the season works will be undertaken in and include monitoring requirements with triggers for changes in dredge methodology in order to reduce plume and sedimentation impacts.  The dredge vessel selected for the works will be equipped with fauna exclusion devices and ‘green valves’ designed to reduce turbidity impacts during dredging.  Piling works in the vicinity of residential areas (e.g. near the port entrance and near the Adelaide Passenger Terminal) will only occur between 7am and 7pm to avoid night time noise nuisance.  Dredging works at night under adverse conditions will be avoided wherever practicable in close proximity to South Australia One Drive

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page V

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Contents

Page

Executive Summary I

Introduction and Project Overview 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Background 1 1.3 Project Description 3 1.4 Proponent Background 8 1.5 Strategic Context 9 1.6 Project Need 10 1.7 Project Environs 12 1.8 Prior Capital Dredging (2005) 17 1.9 OHCW Capital Dredging Methodology 19 1.10 Project Alternatives 22 1.11 Assessment Process 24 1.12 Study Methodology 25 1.13 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement 25

2 Legislation and Planning Context 27 2.1 Introduction 27 2.2 Planning Context 27 2.3 Other Legislative Requirements 30 2.4 Strategic policies 36 2.5 Guidelines and Assessment Criteria 37

3 Geology and Contamination 42 3.1 Introduction 42 3.2 Available Geotechnical Information 42 3.3 Existing Geotechnical Conditions 47 3.4 Site Geology 47 3.5 Particle Size Distribution for Water Quality Studies 50 3.6 Contamination Assessment 52 3.7 Acid Sulfate Soils 52 3.8 Conclusion and Recommendations 52

4 Water Quality 53 4.1 Overview 53 4.2 Study Area 53 4.3 Assessment Approach 53

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

4.4 Existing Conditions 59 4.5 Potential Impacts 65 4.6 Management Measures 72

5 Coastal and Marine Ecology 73 5.1 Overview 73 5.2 Study Area 73 5.3 Conservation Status 73 5.4 Assessment Approach 73 5.5 Existing Conditions 80 5.6 Potential Impacts 111 5.7 Management Measures 119

6 Amenity 121 6.1 Overview 121 6.2 Previous Studies 121 6.3 Site Description and Existing Noise Environment 122 6.4 Noise Criteria 124 6.5 Potential Impacts 131 6.6 Mitigation Measures 143 6.7 Conclusions 145

7 Cultural Heritage 147 7.1 Introduction 147 7.2 Existing information and previous studies 147 7.3 Indigenous Cultural Heritage 147 7.4 Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage 149

8 Framework Dredge Management Plan 153 8.1 Introduction 153 8.2 Dredge Methodology 157 8.3 Environmental Management Strategies 159 8.4 Specific Management Elements 162

9 References 174

Tables

Table 1 PIANC Requirements for New Panamax Vessels Table 2 Prescribed Bodies for Referral under Schedule 8 of Development Regulations Table 3 ADS Management Plan Relevant Priority Issues Table 4 Applicable Guidelines and Assessment Criteria

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Table 5 Summary of Existing Documents Table 6 Summary of Available Ground Investigation Data Table 7 Breakdown of Dredge Volume by Area and Sediment Class Table 8 Assumed Sediment Class Particle Size Distributions Table 9 Impact Thresholds for Above Ambient Turbidity (above background) Table 10 Impact Thresholds for Sediment Deposition (above background) Table 11 Port River 2 and Port River 3 Averaged Seasonal Turbidity Data, 1995- 2008 Table 12 Habitat Classification Categories Table 13 Threatened Marine Mammals, Cartilaginous Fishes and Marine Turtles of Gulf St Vincent (Kemper et al. 2008 and Baker et al. 2008) Table 14 Shorebirds of Gulf St Vincent (Purnell et al. 2009, 2011 and 2013; Delta Environmental, 2009) Table 15 Comparison of Abundance of Benthic Organisms at DMPA Site, 2002 and 2016 (Wiltshire and Tanner, 2016) Table 16 Indicative Noise Factor with respect to point (i) above Table 17 Indicative Noise Factor with respect to point (ii) above Table 18 Noise limits for operational noise associated with the OHCW Project Table 19 Summary of approximate Noise Thresholds for Species Table 20 Vibration impact criteria for construction vibration – Human Comfort Table 21 Cosmetic damage criteria as defined in BS 7385-2:1993 Table 22 Assessed weather conditions Table 23 Predicted construction vibration levels – Piling Table 24 SA Historic Shipwrecks in Outer Harbor Table 25 General Requirements Environmental Management Table 26 DMP Structure Table 27 Marine Water Quality and Ecology DMP Table 28 Marine Megafauna DMP Table 29 Marine Pests and Ballast Water DMP Table 30 Waste Management DMP Table 31 Acoustic Quality DMP

Figures

Figure 1 OHCW Project Study Area Figure 2 OHCW Project Location Figure 3 Gulf St Vincent DMPA Figure 4 Flinders Port Holdings Pty Ltd Organisational Structure Figure 5 Container Vessels – evolution of size (Flinders Ports, 2017) Figure 6 Post Panamax Vessels – Port Adelaide Forecasts (Flinders Ports, 2017) Figure 7 Land Uses surrounding the OHCW Project Figure 8 Conservation Area surrounding the OHCW Project Figure 9 CSD D’Artagnan (Image © DEME Group)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 10 TSHD Nile River (Image © DEME Group) Figure 11 Flowchart of Section 49 Public Infrastructure Assessment Process Figure 12 Historic Shipwreck Locations in Project Area; Excerpts from Australian National Shipwreck Database Figure 13 Port Adelaide Enfield Council Development Plan Zone Map PAdE/3 (Outer Harbor East) Figure 14 Port Adelaide Enfield Council Development Plan Zone Map PAdE/2 (Outer Harbor West) Figure 15 Port Adelaide Enfield Council Development Plan Zone Map PadE/4 (Gulf Point Marina) Figure 16 Existing Ground Investigation Boreholes in Relation to OHCW Project Figure 17 Geological Map of Flinders Port Area (from map.sarig.sa.gov.au) Figure 18 Inferred Geological Section (Golder, 2004a) Figure 19 Split of Stratigraphical Units Based on Likely Clay and Silt Content (Golder, 2004a) Figure 20 Concept Design of Zones of Impact (WA EPA, 2016) Figure 21 Changes in Turbidity (NTU) Due to Seasonal Convergence Patterns in Gulf St Vincent: March (top) and September (bottom) (Oceaniques, 2004) Figure 22 Annual Changes in Suspended Sediment Concentrations at DMPA Site Figure 23 Zones of Impact (Turbidity) – Summer Figure 24 Zones of Impact (Turbidity) – Winter Figure 25 Zones of Impact (Sediment Deposition) – Summer Figure 26 Zones of Impact (Sediment Deposition) – Winter Figure 27 Clinton Biounit Habitat Mapping (EPA, 2013) Figure 28 Important Marine/Wetlands Protected Areas for Gulf St Vincent Figure 29 SPRAT Database Habitat Areas for Humpback Whale (top) and South Right Whale (bottom) Figure 30 Research Management Blocks for Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery (Beckmann and Hooper, 2016) Figure 31 Total Prawn Catch (‘000 kg) and Total Value ($’000) in South Australian Waters between 2000/01 and 2014/15 (data from EconSearch 2016a) Figure 32 Total Prawn Catch (‘000 kg) and Total Value ($’000) in Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery Between 2000/01 and 2014/15 Financial Years (data from EconSearch 2016a) Figure 33 Total Scalefish Catch (‘000 kg) and Total Value ($’000) in South Australian Waters between 2000/01 and 2014/15 Financial Years (data from EconSearch, 2016b) Figure 34 Total Scalefish Catch of Seven Species with Highest Catch in South Australian Waters between 2009/10 and 2014/15 Financial Years (data from EconSearch, 2016b) Figure 35 Adelaide Metro Biounit Habitat Mapping (EPA, 2013) Figure 36 Seagrass Mapping (April 2017) Figure 37 Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery and Dredged Material Placement Area Figure 38 South Australia Marine Scalefish Fishery and Dredged Material Placement Area

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 39 Total Prawn Catch (‘000 kg) and Total Value ($’000) from Blocks 14 and 19 within Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery between 2000/01 and 2015/16 Financial Years (data from SARDI) Figure 40 Total Scalefish Catch (‘000 kg) and Total Value ($’000) in Block 36 between 2003/04 and 2015/16 Financial Years (data from SARDI) Figure 41 Marine Scalefish and Miscellaneous Fisheries Total Whole Weight Catch (‘000 kg) by Eight Major Species in Block 36 from 2003/04 to 2015/16 (data from SARDI) Figure 42 Proximity of sensitive receptors to the OHCW Project Figure 43 Ground vibration data from tunnelling operations classified according to geology (TRL) Figure 44 Typical airborne and underwater noise sources from CSD dredging, from CEDA (2011) Figure 45 Average dredge source levels from Port Curtis, Robinson et al (2011) and JASCO (2011) data, showing logarithmic-average source level (189 dB re 1 µPa at 1m) used for assessment. Figure 46 Typical piling time history data, from McCauley et al (2002) showing secondary pile “bounces”. The middle and bottom plots are zoomed-in plots of the last piling pulse in the upper plot showing the “bounces” (middle) and the primary impact (bottom). Figure 47 Frequency spectra of impact piling (4.3 m diameter pile) in shallow water, adapted from Nedwell et al (2007b). Blue curve is at approximately 100 m from source; green curve is at approximately 10 km from source, red curve is background noise at approximately 20 km from source Figure 48 Approximate relationship between pile diameter and peak sound pressure level (normalised to 20 m water depth and 750 m distance from source), from Diederichs et al (2008) Figure 49 Average source level of bulk carriers entering/exiting port, from Hallett (2004) Figure 50 SA Historic Shipwrecks Map Extract and legend Figure 51 Flinders Ports Environmental Management Framework Figure 52 Schematic of the proposed Reactive Monitoring Program

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

1 Introduction and Project Overview

1.1 Introduction This Development Application (DA) Report has been prepared to clearly document the proposed Outer Harbor Channel Widening (OHCW) Project and the potential environmental, social and economic impacts associated with the proposal to widen the existing channel and swing basin located adjacent Berth 6 at Outer Harbor. It has been structured to ensure consistency with the planning requirements in accordance with the Development Act 1993 and to present a clear, detailed understanding and assessment of the proposed project, the potential risks associated and the mitigation measures proposed to ensure compliance with all statutory requirements whilst realising the benefits associated with undertaking the OHCW Project. This DA Report addresses the following matters:  Detailed project proposal including project justification and alternatives considered  Dredging methodology  Approvals processes and legislative requirements  Existing environmental, social and economic conditions  Potential impacts upon the environmental, social and economic conditions  Mitigation measures to be implemented to manage potential impacts in accordance with applicable legislation and policies  Framework Dredge Management Plan for the implementation stage The DA Report is supported by a number of technical studies and an existing body of knowledge from prior investigations and studies to ensure a robust and detailed assessment is undertaken. This Chapter provides a detailed introduction and overview to the OHCW Project and establishes the detailed understanding for the development of this Project.

1.2 Background The Port of Adelaide is the primary port in South Australia, located approximately 14km west of the Adelaide CBD. Operated by Flinders Ports the Port handles a

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 1 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

diverse array of inbound and outbound cargoes, contributing significantly to the State’s economic activity. A significant amount of this trade is containerised, and Outer Harbor is the location for the Flinders Adelaide Container Terminal, which forms a critical freight hub for South Australia and the import and export of goods. It also includes the Port Adelaide Passenger Terminal which is growing in visitations to Adelaide and hence adding to the economic stimulus provided through the operations and infrastructure at Port Adelaide. The Port is a tidal port, utilising a deepened shipping channel that extends approximately 7km into Gulf St Vincent to manage the safe and efficient movements of visiting shipping. Prior investment by Flinders Ports deepened the existing channel in 2005 from an existing depth of 12.2m Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) to the current depth of 14.2m LAT. This deepening project was driven by the emergence globally of larger, deeper draught vessels (known as Panamax class vessels). Seaborne trade is a globally competitive industry, and port operators need to ensure that the infrastructure to support these global organisations that own and operate the vessels is able to accommodate planned visitations efficiently. This includes the ability to operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to avoid delays for ships to immediately berth upon arrival (not have to wait for appropriate tidal conditions if high tide is missed which may result in anchoring for up to 12 hours in deeper waters), complete their cargo transfers, and depart within the shortest possible time. Failure to provide efficient port access and egress risked Adelaide being omitted by Panamax class shipping, and being forced to over-land our trade from alternative Australian Ports with the associated increase in costs and possible impacts upon rail and road networks. This 2005 project, referred to as the Outer Harbor Channel Deepening (OHCD) Project within this DA report, involved the dredging of approximately 2.7 million m3 of material to create a deeper channel 130m wide. It also included the deepening of the swing basin (the area where ships are turned around within the harbour) adjacent to Berth 6 within Outer Harbor. This was to enable the larger (deeper draft) Panamax vessels to utilise the port at all times independent of tide and hence maintain Adelaide on the global freight routes. The OHCD Project was successfully delivered in 2005 after obtaining all the necessary approvals, and has enabled the Port to accommodate the emergence of the Panamax Class of vessel as they have become more prevalent over time. Now, 12 years after the OHCD Project there is a new global trend towards another class of vessels referred to as Post Panamax in this DA Report which are broader than the current Panamax class of vessel (refer Table 1 in following Section 1.6). These vessels are forecast to become more prevalent on the Australian trade route as they are capable of carrying larger volumes of cargo (predominantly container cargo) and hence more efficient for their operators. As in 2005, the Port is requiring an upgrade to its infrastructure to ensure it can safely and efficiently accommodate modern Post Panamax vessels and remain competitive in the national seaborne freight market to the benefit of South Australian economy. Without this upgrade, it is likely that container vessels will ‘skip’ Adelaide in

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 2 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

favour of other accessible ports (such as Melbourne), meaning that goods will have to be freighted overland, with substantial cost to the SA economy. The key driver now for the OHCW Project is the width required to enable these broader vessels to safely navigate along the channel and then to be turned around in the swing basin on arrival or departure. Flinders Ports has determined that an additional 40m width is required to safely and efficiently accommodate these new vessels and has prepared this DA Report to achieve this objective as part of maintaining the Port of Adelaide as a modern, flexible and critical piece of infrastructure for South Australian commerce.

1.3 Project Description An upgrade of the existing infrastructure is a priority project for Flinders Ports. Flinders Ports have identified the optimal upgrade to meet this growing demand is to widen the existing channel to suit the Post Panamax class vessels. It currently caters to vessels with a maximum width of 36.0m, (up to 42.2m with operational restrictions which includes speed and tidal restrictions), and are planning to increase the overall width to accommodate vessels up to a maximum width of 49.0m without the need to implement operational restrictions and hence ensuring maximum efficiency. To avoid capacity constraints and maintain the significant economic benefit to South Australia of a sustainable and efficient port, Flinders Ports is seeking development approval to undertake the proposed OHCW Project subject to Section 49 of the Development Act 1993 as it is considered public infrastructure as defined by the Act (Chapter 2 Legislation and Planning provides further details regarding the Section 49 approval process). Sponsorship by the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure of South Australia in accordance with the Act has been obtained, enabling the preparation and lodgement of this DA Report. Figure 1 shows the study area addressed in this DA Report for the OHCW Project. The channel will be hydraulically dredged to achieve the design width (some minor variations in width may occur through further optimisation of the design in conjunction with detailed operational reviews for safe navigation), with the dredged material proposed to be placed approximately 30km off-shore in Gulf St Vincent. Flinders Ports commissioned an optimisation study (DHI, 2016) to assess the appropriate channel width to safely operate the channel and swing basin for increased vessel sizes. This study resulted in the optimal recommendation to increase from the existing 130m wide channel to the proposed 170m wide channel.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 3 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 1 OHCW Project Study Area

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 4 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

It is proposed to use the same off-shore placement area used in the previous 2005 channel deepening project. In total, approximately 1.55 million m3 of in-situ material will be removed from the channel and swing basin. The current design depth of 14.2m LAT will be maintained as will the existing batters (approximately 1:2) as the geology remains consistent in such close proximity to the 2005 works (Chapter 3 Geology and Contamination provides a detailed assessment of the site geology). As the channel is being widened, there is also a need to relocate existing navigational aids to reflect the new alignment of the channel. There are potentially 16 in total that may require works of some nature, with a total of nine currently identified as requiring physical relocation prior to any dredging. The additional 7 navigational aids currently lie outside of the planned widening works and will only be altered if a final assessment by the Harbour Master of the overall navigational requirements indicates they need upgrading, relocation or alteration in any manner. The navigational aids are single pile structures, which will be removed where required and new piles (with refurbished or new equipment attached) driven at their new locations. Additional details on these works are outlined in Section 1.9.3 below. The 2005 channel deepening project was successfully delivered following the same approval pathway as proposed for the current OHCW Project. There is a significant body of knowledge and experience retained for this project from 2005 and this has been supported by new technical studies and field investigations to ensure a robust and detailed approach to the preparation of this DA Report. The draft of ships has remained fairly constant since the deepening project in 2005 and are forecast to remain thus into the future. Hence it is considered appropriate for the long term planning of operations at the Port to maintain the existing 14.2m LAT depth. Upon completion, the OHCW Project is also anticipated to satisfy the forecast requirements for vessel widths well into the future (greater than 10 years based upon current estimates) as the current design width of 49m is anticipated to be consistent due to the constraints of the recently upgraded Panama Canal and its effects on global shipping design to ensure an uninterrupted, efficient route to markets (i.e. if designs increase beyond this limitation, they will not be able to utilise the Panama Canal and incur greater costs through increased travel distances). Figure 2 below provides an overview of the proposed OHCW Project location showing the channel and swing basin within the Port and Figure 3 shows the location within Gulf St Vincent for the proposed Dredge Material Placement Area (DMPA).

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 5 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

2

Figure 2 OHCW Project Location

7 July 2017 | Arup Page 6 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

3

Figure 3 Gulf St Vincent DMPA

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 7 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

1.4 Proponent Background Flinders Ports Pty Ltd (Flinders Ports) was formed in 2001 when the Flinders Ports consortium successfully acquired seven ports that were privatised by the South Australian Government. These include:  Port Adelaide  Port Giles  Port Lincoln  Port of Wallaroo  Port Pirie  Klein Point  Thevenard Port. In addition to the port infrastructure, Flinders Ports acquired a 99-year land lease and port operating licence for the Port of Adelaide and the six regional ports. Governed by the Harbors and Navigation Act 1993 Flinders Ports operates these assets through a Port Operating Agreement, which requires Flinders Ports to meet defined obligations related to the provision of port infrastructure and safely operating the ports in accordance with the agreement and relevant statutory requirements (refer to Chapter 2 Legislation and Planning). Flinders Port Holdings is the overall entity that includes three key businesses; Port Operations (Flinders Ports), Logistics (Flinders Logistics) and the Container Business (Flinders Adelaide Container Terminal) and is owned by five shareholders including four Superannuation Funds:  Equipsuper  Motor Trades Association of Australia Super  State Super  Statewide Super  Infrastructure Capital Group. Flinders Ports operates a range of businesses and services based out of Port Adelaide with its principle offices located at 296 St Vincent Street, Port Adelaide SA 5015. The organisation is structured around the primary management functions as outlined below in Figure 4 and has the responsibility to provide the necessary infrastructure to deliver safe and efficient operations at the Port of Adelaide.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 8 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 4 Flinders Port Holdings Pty Ltd Organisational Structure

Flinders Ports strives for the highest standards in environmental and social governance, holding internationally recognised certifications in the following management systems amongst others:  ISO 14001: Environmental Management Systems  OHSAS 18001: Occupational Health & Safety Systems  ISO 9001: Quality Management Systems Flinders Ports have a positive history of compliance with its environmental obligations and any approval conditions for all projects undertaken.

1.5 Strategic Context The OHCW Project is consistent with the strategic direction set by key State-wide policies and plans. These include: South Australia’s Strategic Plan – part of the vision of the strategic plan is for the development of a strong sustainable economy that builds on the strengths of South Australia, including through the expansion of the State’s export economy. This is intricately linked with improving the shipping capacity of South Australia’s most important port and remaining competitive with other ports across Australia. South Australia’s Seven Strategic Priorities – the OHCW Project aligns with several strategic priorities by supporting the expansion of an export economy for South Australia, especially through linking to ‘growing advanced manufacturing as the way for the future’. South Australia’s Ten Economic Priorities – similar to the strategic priorities, the OHCW Project supports some of the economic priorities associated with an export economy, by maximising the ability of the port to cater for SA exports. Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan – the plan accounts for the need for ports to have increased capacity and efficiency to cater for growth and diversification in mining and agricultural sectors and the growth of containerised freight. Strategic Infrastructure Plan – this plan recognises the importance in ongoing improvement and redevelopment of maritime assets (e.g. ports) to account for moves in international shipping.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 9 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

1.6 Project Need In accordance with the Permanent International Association of Navigation Congress (PIANC) standard, Outer Harbor has a vessel design limitation based on the Panamax class dimensions (i.e. a vessel of 296m in length and 32.2m in beam). These dimensions equate up to a maximum 5,000 Twenty foot Equivalent Unit (TEU) container vessel. Table 1 outlines the difference between Panamax and New Panamax vessel sizes and navigational requirements. Increasingly Outer Harbor is being requested to receive vessels (which have been accepted with restrictions) considerably larger in beam for the following reasons:  In 2016 the Panama Canal opened a new lock which has increased the dimensions of vessels that can be accepted through the canal and subsequently into the Australian trade routes  As the size of the container vessels navigating transatlantic routes has grown, larger container vessels (with beam widths >36m) have been moved to the Australian trade routes  The larger vessels are more economical and container line owners are looking to place these larger vessels on the Australian trade route to increase vessel capacity and productivity  Flinders Adelaide Container Terminal, with three Post Panamax capable cranes, stacking 19 rows of containers across the deck  Adelaide Passenger Terminal can accommodate broader beam cruise ships which are also increasingly being utilised in the Australian market. Panamax vs Post Panamax (all figures are maximums) PIANC* requirements for safe navigation of Post Panamax vessels Panamax Post Panamax Length 294m 366 m Width 32m 49 m Draft 12m 15.2 m TEU 5000 13,000 No. of Bays 13 19 Table 1 PIANC Requirements for New Panamax Vessels *PIANC – Permanent International Association of Navigation Congress. The graphs below highlight the increase in Post Panamax vessels (i.e. vessels with beam greater than 32m) calling into Port Adelaide over the past 5 years and the forecast for 2017 (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Of a total of 494 expected vessel calls in 2016, it was originally forecast that 185 would be oversize in beam (i.e. > 39m). 2016 actual visitations were 172, which grows to a forecast 312 vessels by 2017 (Figure 6), subsequently creating a bottle neck during high and low water times when operational restrictions will be required with the existing channel width (multiple vessels queuing for access at appropriate tides). Whilst Flinders Ports has been able to historically accommodate these broader vessels, as shown in Figure 6 below (37 visitations in 2014, 53 in 2015 and 172 in

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 10 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

2016), this has only been through applying operational constraints and hence has been manageable to date due to the lower numbers of visits. With the forecast increase in demand for vessels of this width into the future (a four-fold increase experienced in 2016 and forecast doubling again in 2017) the application of operational constraints will no longer be an acceptable practice and is driving the urgency for the OHCW Project to maintain safe and efficient operations. As the global shipping owners convert more and more ships to this class, Flinders Ports is compelled to provide suitable infrastructure to support this activity. Appendix A Economic Assessment provides further analysis on the impacts associated with these changes to shipping including the potential additional costs to South Australia if this trade were to avoid Adelaide and utilise other ports in Australia. It is important to note that this is a change in shipping class (size) and not a forecast of significant increase overall in shipping (trade) volumes. Growth forecasts for trade through the Port of Adelaide remain within existing forecasts, with the OHCW Project responding to the change in vessel size (broader) as the key driver to ensure economic operations are maintained to support South Australian trade and avoid any decrease through use of alternative Australian ports and land routes for import and export trade. Also contributing to the demand and urgency for the OHCW Project to proceed, it is noted that from 2018 there will be similar increases (change in shipping class) for visiting Cruise Liners, with a general trend towards broader ships seeking to visit South Australian waters (refer Appendix A Economic Assessment).

Figure 5 Container Vessels – evolution of size (Flinders Ports, 2017) As a result of these trends, Flinders Ports needs to widen the channel to maintain our competitiveness with the other capital city ports. Most Australian container ports can accommodate such vessels without restrictions. Adelaide has a disadvantage with channel width currently without implementing the OHCW Project.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 11 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 6 Post Panamax Vessels – Port Adelaide Forecasts (Flinders Ports, 2017) Appendix A Economic Assessment highlights the economic returns anticipated for the OHCW Project across three capital cost scenarios for sensitivity (high, medium and low). This economic assessment shows that upon completion, and hence avoiding losing Adelaide as a destination for these broader freight and cruise ship visitations, there is a positive Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) conservatively in a range of five to ten. This concludes that for every dollar spent on the OHCW Project by Flinders Ports there is an economic benefit of between five to ten dollars (including the State of South Australia overall through increased economic activity).

1.7 Project Environs Port Adelaide is the primary maritime gateway for South Australia and includes 19 berths of varying capacity, including seven within Outer Harbor (OH1, OH2, OH3, OH4, OH6, OH7 and OH8), located on Lefevre Peninsula. The Outer Harbor berths include South Australia’s only container terminal facility (OH6 and OH7), a dedicated grain wharf (OH8) and a dedicated fuel berth (OH4). The majority of the land within the Outer Harbor (above the low water mark) is zoned as Industry under the Port Adelaide Enfield Council Development Plan and heavily utilised for industrial purposes, as illustrated in Figure 7. The Outer Harbor Channel, swing basin and the Gulf St Vincent DMPA are not zoned under any Development Plan as they are below low water and constitute crown land. In addition, Bird Island (also known as Section Banks), located on the northern side of the Outer Harbor Channel, is not zoned under a Development Plan and is vacant land. This is an artificial island that has developed by a combination of anthropogenic (human-induced) and natural processes acting upon the Outer Harbor breakwater.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 12 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

The material to be dredged from the Outer Harbor Channel consists primarily of shelly sand and silt, with some clays and limestone also likely to be encountered. Levels of contaminants within these sediments have previously been identified as below the guideline values of the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (Commonwealth of Australia, 2009), meaning they are suitable for placement at sea (refer Chapter 3 Geology and Contamination).

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 13 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

7

Figure 7 Land Uses surrounding the OHCW Project

7 July 2017 | Arup Page 14 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Seagrass meadows occur within Gulf St Vincent, including in areas within or adjoining the Outer Harbor and Outer Harbor Channel. These can support feeding by marine fauna such as dolphins as well as providing habitat for fish species. Other important values within the Outer Harbor area include resident and migratory shorebird habitat on Bird Island and the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary (which overlaps with the Outer Harbor) as shown in Figure 8. By contrast, the Gulf St Vincent DMPA is not known to support sensitive environmental receptors (e.g. seagrass). Chapter 5 Coastal and Marine Ecology provides more detail. There are no known significant social or recreational values associated with the Outer Harbor, though residential areas are present within 300m of the Port, at North Haven. Commercial fishing activity occurs within Gulf St Vincent in proximity to the DMPA and contribute to the local and state economy. Potential impacts to these values are covered in Chapter 5 Coastal and Marine Ecology of this DA Report. Recreational fishing (both land and marine based) and boating, including the presence of the Royal South Australian Yacht Squadron (in Outer Harbor) and the Cruising Yacht Club of SA and Gulf Point Marina (to the south) occur currently within the Project environs. Section 1.13 provides additional details on the planned engagement approach by Flinders Ports with relevant stakeholders through the entire project (approvals and delivery stages). Potential impacts are anticipated to be minor due to the nature of the works occurring within the operating port environment and through the application of an overall management plan incorporating these stakeholders to safely mitigate potential risks.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 15 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 8 Conservation Area surrounding the OHCW Project

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 16 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

1.8 Prior Capital Dredging (2005) The last capital dredging project at Port Adelaide was undertaken in 2005 and involved deepening the existing channel and swing (turning) basin from its existing depth at the time of 12.2m LAT to the current depth of 14.2m LAT. This project was driven by the emergence of larger (deeper draft) cargo shipping trends requiring the new depth to enable safe and efficient operations as previously discussed. Development approvals were sought and obtained through the same process as this application, as a Crown Development under Section 49 of the Development Act 1993. The project was also referred to the Commonwealth in accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) where it was deemed a “non-controlled” action, requiring no further approval. Subsequent approvals with conditions to mitigate potential environmental impacts, including a dredging license (issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) were received in late 2004 and the project was completed in 2005. Monitoring was undertaken during and post-dredging, with no significant breaches of approval conditions recorded. A detailed review of the project was undertaken by KBR, titled “Deepening of the Shipping Channel at Outer Harbor – Completion of Dredging” on behalf of Flinders Ports (KBR, 2007). This report concluded that the anticipated environmental effects developed from the prior studies were demonstrated through the project monitoring and delivery stage as being accurate and as predicted. The report reviewed the dredging documentation (monitoring data) and noted that compliance with the conditions imposed as part of the licensing and approvals process were adhered to at all times with three incidents recorded when turbidity levels reached the agreed trigger levels to cease works until levels returned to acceptable limits. Overall, the project was deemed not to have had a long term significant environmental impact and has provided a valuable knowledge base and experience (including technical data) that has informed this current report and associated investigations. Since its completion in 2005, the deepened channel has not required any maintenance dredging which indicates very limited mobilisation of sediments occurring either by natural forces (wind and tides) or shipping movements. This is anticipated to be similar for the OHCW Project upon completion. Some minor maintenance dredging has occurred within the swing basin since 2005 and separate approvals have been obtained for these maintenance works.

1.8.1 Dredge Methodology (2005) The 2005 project utilised a combination of hydraulic dredge plant, namely a Trailer Suction Hopper Dredge (TSHD) and Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD) (refer Section 1.9 for further details on each dredge type). Each dredge had a different role within the dredge plan, with the CSD predominantly targeted at breaking up harder material using its cutter capability, allowing the TSHD to utilise its trailing arm to collect material into its hopper prior to removal to the DMPA.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 17 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

This approach was assessed to meet the necessary range of factors that influence final dredge methodology, including engineering and constructability matters (plant suitable for the geological conditions and volumes of material to be encountered), environmental effects (different dredge types result in different environmental effects), and commercial issues (overall costs and efficiency and plant availability within the global market). The hydraulic dredge campaign was completed over approximately 11 months, with a large TSHD utilised for four months during this period, and a CSD for the balance of works.

1.8.2 Dredge Material Placement Area (2005) As part of the overall development application process, the options for the placement of dredge material were considered. Land based options were investigated on Le Fevre Peninsula and Gillman due to the proximity and availability of sizeable land parcels as well as the desire for fill to facilitate potential future uses. Additional studies were also commissioned to investigate potential ocean based placement areas as part of the overall options assessment. The land based alternatives were discounted in the 2004 DA Report for a range of factors following assessment. These considerations remain relevant to the 2017 Project and included:  Sizable settling ponds would be required to contain dredge material and associated slurry (water that is mixed with material as a result of hydraulic dredging) increasing costs and land areas required.  Significant technical and cost implications associated with transporting dredge material to land based sites including limitations on pumping distances and earthworks to construct settling ponds and managing discharges from the settling ponds to the surrounding environment, which potentially have an adverse impact on water quality and environmentally sensitive areas.  The long duration to de-water land sites and convert the material into a suitable engineering fill for future commercial development is very cost prohibitive when compared to other sources of material within metropolitan Adelaide. An ocean based DMPA was proposed and approved in 2004 for the OHCD Project. An area in Gulf St Vincent was identified through detailed assessment as being the most appropriate location for a range of factors, including:  It was located away from shipping activity and in deep water to avoid any navigational hazards (30m to 35m depth).  The site did not support any significant marine flora or fauna – any impacts were assessed as localised and short term in nature.  The site is of sufficient depth and suitable tidal conditions that material is retained at that location (i.e. unlikely to become mobile and travel from site).

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 18 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 Only short term and localised impacts to existing fisheries values were expected.  The site (and travel route) was not a known pathway or breeding area for migratory species (including mega-fauna such as listed sharks and whales), therefore minimising the risk of vessel strike. Based upon this recommendation, a DMPA was established in Gulf St Vincent in a rectangular area 7km by 5km and approximately 30km from Outer Harbor. This DMPA remains a designated area on the current navigation charts and is proposed to be utilised again for this project following a re-analysis of placement options (refer to Appendix B DMPA Options Assessment).

1.9 OHCW Capital Dredging Methodology In order to carry out an assessment of the potential impacts of the project, the most likely dredge methodology has been determined and then been utilised to perform the impact assessment for the OHCW Project throughout this DA report. The selection of an appropriate dredging methodology considered the scale and type of material to be dredged. As described in Chapter 3 Geology and Contamination, the material generally comprises of a combination of loose and firm to hard material. Various dredge methodologies were assessed based upon the known limitations of different dredge types, the existing site conditions and scope of works, resulting in a preferred dredge methodology for the OHCW Project that balanced engineering and constructability issues with environmental and economic impacts as detailed throughout this DA report. The most suitable dredging method adopted is a combination of a medium size Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) and a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) of about 10,000m3 hopper capacity. The CSD will be used for breaking up hard material and side casting (placing material on the sea bed) for final dredging by a TSHD. The TSHD will dredge the sea bed material for removal to the DMPA. The TSHD will also be used to directly dredge soft material encountered. This is the same methodology utilised for the 2005 OHCD Project.

1.9.1 Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) CSDs have the ability to dredge most type of soils including sand, clay and rock (with certain limitation related to the strength of rock encountered) within the anticipated program. Assessment of the existing geological conditions, volumes involved and prior OHCD Project experience resulted in a medium CSD with a dredge output rate of at least 1,250m3 per hour of operations to be selected. An example of a CSD is shown in Figure 9. Dredging takes place with the CSD in a stationary position, moored with spuds or anchors. All CSDs are equipped with a rotating cutter head, which is able to cut hard rock or soil into fragments. The material once broken up is placed on the sea bed for the TSHD to remove once the CSD has finished.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 19

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 9 CSD D’Artagnan (Image © DEME Group)

1.9.2 Trailer Suction Hopper Dredge (TSHD) TSHDs are self-propelled suction dredgers. TSHDs have the ability to dredge loose material such as soft clay, sand and gravel. An example of a TSHD is shown in Figure 10. When dredging, the TSHD moves forward at a speed of approximately one to two knots. Dredging takes place at the drag head which is attached to suction pipe trailing arms. There are two trailing arms, one at each side of the TSHD. The dredging depth depends on the trailing arm length which is selected for appropriateness of the project. For the base case dredge methodology, a TSHD with a 10,000m3 hopper capacity and an effective dredge output of 5,000m3 per hour has been adopted based on its suitably for the site conditions and to meet the program. The dredged material would be loaded into the hopper in the form of slurry (approximately 10% solids: 90% water). As the hopper is filled up, excess water is separated and discharged through an overflow process utilising a “green valve”. An overflow system provides the means to separate the solids and the water by reducing the turbulence of the slurry mixture and allowing sufficient time for the solids to settle in the hopper. The water overflow is discharged through a green valve below the keel. The green valve is an adjustable valve that chokes the flow to reduce the air that is taken down in the overflow mixture leaving the hopper. This results in a denser particle stream, causing less turbulence and allowing sediments to travel more quickly to the seabed. Once loaded, the TSHD sails under its own power to the DMPA where the doors of the hull are opened to allow the dredged material to drop to the sea bed. This process is called bottom dumping and is conducted as the TSHD sails slowly in

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 20

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

circular or “figure 8” patterns at pre-designated coordinates within the DMPA to ensure a controlled and evenly distributed placement of the material is achieved.

Figure 10 TSHD Nile River (Image © DEME Group)

1.9.3 Navigational Beacon Relocation The OHCW Project will require the relocation of a number of navigational aids along the channel and within Outer Harbor as a result of the widening works. There are a total of 16 existing navigational aids along the alignment of the channel and Outer Harbor that may be impacted. At least nine will require physical location prior to the commencement of dredging works, with the additional seven potentially to be relocated following a detailed assessment of operations (some or all may remain in-situ) by the Harbour Master. These are not anticipated to be time sensitive to the dredge campaign and will be coordinated around maintaining safe operations within the channel and Port at all times. The form of navigational aid existing along the channel are single hollow steel piled structures with navigation equipment installed at the top. The existing piles to be relocated will have their existing equipment salvaged for re-use before being removed by extracting from their current positions to enable dredging to proceed post removal. At each new location, a new hollow steel pile of approximately one metre diameter will be installed and the navigational equipment reinstated atop at an appropriate distance from the planned new channel edge and as determined by port operating requirements to achieve safe and compliant operations. Works will be completed by barge utilising spud piles for stability with the piling rig located safely on the barge. Piles will be driven (hammered) into location using hollow piles of the same design as the existing ones. It has been assumed

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 21

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

that one pile per day will be relocated, with actual hammering works (driving the pile into the ground) lasting between 2 to 4 hours each day pending the geological conditions specific to each location. The impacts and mitigation management measures proposed for these works are addressed in Chapter 6 Amenity.

1.9.4 OHCW Project Timing The dredging program is anticipated to be approximately 4 to 6 months in duration based upon the current known site conditions and the most likely dredge plant as utilised for this assessment. Final program duration will be determined as part of the procurement process for a Contractor. Physical hydraulic dredge activities are forecast to occur for approximately 4 months with the plant identified, the balance of time allowed for associated works (piling) and potential delays such as inclement weather and maintenance activities. Provided all environmental approvals are in place, it is expected dredging will commence in early to mid-2018. There are significant costs associated with mobilising these types of plant and final availability and precise plant sizes will be determined as part of a final procurement process once all development approvals have been obtained which will also inform the final selection process to ensure ability to meet any approval conditions. Dredging will take place following a mobilisation period on a 24 hour a day, seven days a week basis for optimal efficiency and this has been considered in all assessments throughout this DA report. Flinders Ports will stipulate the necessary controls for safely managing the interface with shipping operations at the Port through the commercial contract with the Dredge Contractor, ensuring that the final agreed dredge plan incorporates specific rules and management approaches to safely complete the construction works. The existing control tower operated by Flinders Ports provides 24/7 coverage of the Port and Gulf St Vincent and will provide a key role as part of the overall management planning for delivery of the OHCW Project.

1.10 Project Alternatives Two main considerations have been assessed by Flinders Ports in preparing this DA Report as the most appropriate potential alternatives to undertaking the OHCW Project:  “Do nothing” (maintain status quo)  Alternative DMPA options for the project

1.10.1 Do Nothing Alternative If the OHCW Project was not to proceed, and Flinders Ports maintained the existing infrastructure through the channel and swing basin at Outer Harbor, then there is a real risk that Post Panamax vessels will look to avoid the necessary

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 22

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

operational constraints in place at the Port of Adelaide and utilise other Australian ports to load and unload their cargoes more efficiently. Section 1.6, Figure 6 previously highlighted the increasing volume of Post Panamax vessels visiting Outer Harbor, and these are forecast to almost double again in 2017 following a four-fold increase in 2016. Operational restrictions require the use of tides to safely navigate these vessels into Outer Harbor including speed restrictions. Reliance upon tidal conditions restricts the opportunities for vessels to operate 24/7 and hence if they are delayed or miss the available tide, are forced to anchor in deeper water off-shore until the next opportunity presents to enter Outer Harbor (up to 12 hours potentially). As the volumes increase, it can be assumed that delays will increase as the number of arriving and departing vessels will create bottle-necks at the available tidal windows and potentially lead to longer delays if the number of vessels waiting cannot be safely piloted through the channel on a single tide. This may result in some vessels being delayed for up to 24 hours at any one time. Such delays to these international shipping companies that operate the Post Panamax vessels impact their schedules and hence commercial return. A stationary container vessel is not generating income for the asset owner and is to be avoided at all times. This is another reason why ports, operating in a global market, invest in significant infrastructure to ensure turn-around times (load and unload cargoes) is delivered in the most efficient, safe and reliable manner to minimise the time at port and maximise usage of the wharf and associated infrastructure. Delays at the Port of Adelaide may cause shipping companies to consider alternative destinations, such as Melbourne, requiring South Australian trade to be conveyed across land via road and rail if this were to eventuate, adding time and cost to all imports and exports impacted, as well as increased impacts and usage on the existing road and rail networks. As described in Appendix A Economic Assessment the OHCW Project generates a positive Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) of between five to ten across the three scenarios assessed, meaning that for every dollar invested by Flinders Ports on the OHCW Project, there is an economic return of between five and ten dollars for every one spent. If the OHCW Project were not to proceed, then these economic benefits will not be realised. It is on this basis that the “Do Nothing” option has not been considered any further and the OHCW Project is deemed a high priority project for Flinders Ports to progress.

1.10.2 DMPA Alternatives As part of the development of the OHCW Project, a number of alternatives were considered for the disposal of the dredged material. A detailed study was undertaken in 2014 to consider potential options for a land based DMPA and to assess these against the ocean based DMPA as utilised in the 2005 OHCD Project. The 2014 study by KBR (KBR, 2014) was reviewed and reassessed for this DA Report to ensure it remained relevant and to incorporate the most up to date details of the OHCW Project. There were three considerations assessed:

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 23

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 DMPA in Gulf St Vincent  Land based DMPA  Beneficial re-use options for material. Beneficial re-use options were eliminated following assessment based upon the known material qualities (Chapter 3 Geology and Contamination). The mostly fine material is not suitable for habitat restoration or beach placement projects. Potential land-based options were identified and assessed to identify the potential risks and opportunities associated with them. The key constraints that limit the potential to utilise land-based DMPA sites include:  Accommodate required volumes of material (physical land parcel size) – estimated at 1.55 million m3 in-situ  Meet environmental and social objectives (achieve environmental targets and minimise potential impact upon sensitive environmental receivers)  Remain economically feasible (reasonable total capital cost comparatively to alternatives)  Be able to be completed within project timeframes (including potential risks to the established priority for OHCW Project to proceed)  Meet all legislative requirements. Once assessed against all these criteria and evaluated against the developed methodology for utilising an ocean-based DMPA, it is evident that an ocean DMPA is the most appropriate and feasible solution for material placement and has been adopted as the methodology for the OHCW Project and this DA Report. Appendix B DMPA Options Assessment provides additional details on the assessment undertaken.

1.11 Assessment Process The project has been declared to be public infrastructure in accordance with the Development Act 1993 (Development Act), and sponsorship was confirmed by the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure in June 2017. Public infrastructure includes structures that ‘have traditionally been provided by the State’, such as shipping channels and associated facilities and the Development Act specifically cites ports as public infrastructure for the purposes of the Development Act. Assessment of the application will be undertaken by the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) and the Minister administering the Development Act (i.e. the Minister for Planning). The application will be publically notified, and interested bodies invited to make comment. Taking into account all submissions received. The DAC will prepare a report to the Minister within 3 months of application receipt, who will then determine whether to approve or refuse the application. At the same time, the project will be referred to the Commonwealth Government under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 24

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

(EPBC Act) to determine if further assessment under that Act is required. Chapter 2 Legislation and Planning provides further details.

1.12 Study Methodology

1.12.1 Study Area The study area, identified in Section 1.3, Figure 1 above, encompasses the immediate dredge footprint, the DMPA in Gulf St Vincent, the travel route to the DMPA that vessels will take and an area where it would it be expected that indirect impacts from dredge plumes, noise etc. might be expected to occur.

1.12.2 Study Approach A number of detailed technical studies were undertaken as part of the DA Report prepared for the 2005 OHCD Project, and subsequently for this DA Report, to assess the impacts of dredging. In addition, the State government has undertaken a number of recent surveys within the study area, including shorebird surveys. These were examined in detail, and a gap analysis performed to identify any information gaps. Where it was concluded that existing data was insufficient to be able to perform an assessment of impact, further technical studies were undertaken to support this DA Report. This included:  A survey of seagrass meadows within the study area to gain an accurate understanding of its extent  Modelling the extent of sediment plumes caused by dredging and the placement of material at the DMPA, to understand the potential impacts to nearby sensitive marine habitats. This modelling was undertaken in accordance with best practice standards, which require a detailed risk assessment to be performed. Further technical studies will be undertaken prior to the commencement of works to inform both the detailed dredge design and environmental controls to be applied, including background water quality measurements and additional geotechnical investigations. Chapter 8 Framework Dredge Management Plan provides a draft Dredge Management Plan (DMP), addressing controls that are to be applied during dredging works to minimise potential environmental impacts. This draft DMP will be further updated prior to commencing any works as part of the overall licensing and contracting of the dredge works to comply with all necessary requirements.

1.13 Stakeholder Consultation and Engagement Chapter 2 Legislation and Planning provides details on the statutory requirements for consultation once this DA Report is officially submitted for assessment by DAC in accordance with the Development Act 1993 for a Section 49 application. This includes a period of public notification of not less than 15 business days as well as referral to all prescribed bodies as defined by the Act.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 25

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Flinders Ports is also committed to ensuring that relevant stakeholders and the local community remain informed and aware of the proposed project and will be undertaking additional consultation and engagement activities to align with the approval process as well as ongoing as the project progresses post approvals and throughout the construction period. Engagement objectives for Flinders Ports for the OHCW Project include:  Maintaining Flinders Ports’ social licence to operate through proactive and transparent engagement with key stakeholders and the community in the Port Adelaide Enfield local area.  Making key stakeholders aware of the project and the details of the proposed scope of works and planned timing.  Supporting the public comment period for the DA by briefing key stakeholders, making supporting information available, providing opportunities for people to talk to technical specialists and answering stakeholder questions in a timely manner as required.  Preparing and informing stakeholders and the community for the construction period and supporting them during these works. These objectives will be achieved through an ongoing series of activities and provision of information through multiple channels led by Flinders Ports as part of its overall commitment to proactive engagement with the community and key stakeholders.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 26

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

2 Legislation and Planning Context

2.1 Introduction This chapter provides the statutory planning context for the OHCW for the purposes of this DA Report. It considers the following:  Planning context and requirements of the Development Act 1993  Other legislative requirements under:  Commonwealth legislation  State legislation  Applicable policies and planning instruments.

2.2 Planning Context The project has been declared to be public infrastructure in accordance with the provisions of the Development Act 1993 (Development Act) with sponsorship provided by the Minister for Transport and Infrastructure for South Australia, which was received June 2017. Public infrastructure includes structures that ‘have traditionally been provided by the State’, such as shipping channels and associated facilities; the OHCD Project was undertaken as public infrastructure. Figure 11 shows the process required for assessing this application under s40 of the Development Act. Assessment of the application will be undertaken by the Development Assessment Commission (DAC) and the Minister administering the Development Act (i.e. Minister of Planning for South Australia).

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 27

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Lodgement of application with DAC

DAC referral of application to prescribed bodies

DAC and prescribed bodies may request additional documents or information 6-8 weeks

DAC invite interested persons to make written submissions At least 15 business days

DAC considers all responses and prepares report to Minister 3 months (inclusive of above)

Minister decides to approve or refuse application

Figure 11 Flowchart of Section 49 Public Infrastructure Assessment Process

In accordance with Schedule 8 of the Development Regulation 2008 the prescribed bodies for the application are the Coastal Protection Board, the Environment Protection Authority South Australia (EPA), and the Ministers administering the South Australia Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981 (Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR)) and the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 (Department of the Environment and Energy (DotEE)). This is shown in Table 2. Referral is also required to the Minister administering the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act 2005 (ADS Act) as the project occurs within the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary (ADS). While referral to a local council is not necessary as the project is below low water and outside council jurisdiction, referral will be made to Port Adelaide Enfield, the council with jurisdiction of land adjoining the dredging area. Public notification is required as the value of the project exceeds $4,000,000.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 28

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Development type Relevant Referral Jurisdiction agency period

1—Development near the coast Coastal 6 weeks Direction, as works Protection involve excavation in Development on coastal land. Board excess of 9m3 within NOTE: Coastal land includes an area 3 three nautical miles nautical miles seaward of mean high seaward from the water mark on the sea shore at spring mean high water tide mark.

11—Activities of major environmental EPA 6 weeks Direction significance Development that involves or is for the purposes of an activity specified in Schedule 22. NOTE: Schedule 22, Item 7(4) includes dredging, defined as ‘removing solid matter from the bed of any marine waters or inland waters by any digging or suction apparatus…’

17—Historic shipwrecks Minister 8 weeks Direction of (1) Development to be undertaken DEWNR within 500 m of a historic shipwreck or historic relic within the meaning of the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981, other than development within the River Murray Floodplain Area.

(2) Development to be undertaken Minister 8 weeks Direction within 500 m of a historic shipwreck of DotEE or historic relic within the meaning of the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 (Cth). See Section 2.3 for applicability of these Acts.

Table 2 Prescribed Bodies for Referral under Schedule 8 of Development Regulations

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 29

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

2.3 Other Legislative Requirements

2.3.1 Commonwealth Legislation Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 The EPBC Act requires development to be referred where there is the potential for a ‘significant impact’ on a matter of national environmental significance (MNES). Following the assessment of a referral, the Minister administering the EPBC Act can require the activity to go through an assessment and approval process under the Act. MNES values in the project area, based on use of the protected matters search tool (PMST) and assessment of habitat availability, include 12 listed threatened species, 25 listed migratory species, and one listed threatened ecological communities (TEC). Based on a referral made in regard to these values, the project is not expected to have a significant impact on any of these matters. Further information on ecological impacts is provided in Chapter 5 Coastal and Marine Ecology. Species are categorised under the EPBC Act as follows:  Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable – this applies to listed threatened species and listed TECs (both MNES values)  Migratory – this applies to listed migratory species (MNES value)  Marine and/or Cetacean – this applies to a number of marine/cetacean species but is not a MNES value (i.e. it is not considered in the assessment of impacts from an activity). Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 The Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 provides the framework for assessing activities that involve placement of material at sea with Commonwealth water (i.e. beyond three nautical miles from state waters). While this does not include waters in Gulf St Vincent and is therefore not applicable to the project, this Act sets up a regime for assessing contamination in marine sediment intended to be placed at sea. This regime, detailed in the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009 (NAGD, 2009) has been adopted for the project and is discussed in Section 2.5. Native Title Act 1993 The Native Title Act 1993 establishes a framework for the recognition of native title rights. Outer Harbor is covered in the area subject to the Kaurna Peoples Native Title Claim (SAD6001/2000). While this claim has not yet been formalised, works within this area will be required to adhere to duty of care provisions under the Act. See further Chapter 7 Cultural Heritage. Maritime Safety and Pollution Legislation In accordance with international treaties, the Commonwealth Government has enacted a number of instruments in relation to maritime safety and pollution.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 30

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

These include the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1983, the Protection of the Sea (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) (Orders) Regulations, and various Marine Orders made under the Act and Regulation (e.g. Marine Orders 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97). This legislation is reflected in State level instruments (e.g. Pollution of Marine Waters (Prevention of Pollution from Ships) Act 1987). These instruments set operational requirements for vessels in Australian waters, including dredge vessels and any shipping traffic using Port Adelaide. Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 The Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 (Cth) requires a permit for any activities that have the potential to damage or interfere with an historic shipwreck or relic, or for any activities requiring entry into a protected zone around a shipwreck. Figure 12 below shows excerpts from the Australian National Shipwreck Database, administered under the Act. This has identified a number of historic shipwrecks sites within the project area, although there is no protected zone associated with any of these shipwrecks. As dredging will occur within 500m of some of these sites (within the Outer Harbor), referral to the Minister administering the Act is required as part of the DA process (see Section 2.3.2) Actual impact to these shipwrecks is not expected as a result of the project, however, as shipwrecks are either outside of the dredging and placement areas or located within areas that were previously dredged as part of the OHCD.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 31

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 12 Historic Shipwreck Locations in Project Area; Excerpts from Australian National Shipwreck Database

2.3.2 Other State Legislation Other Permits and Licences In addition to approval under the Development Act, the project is expected to require the following permits and licences:  Dredging and disposal licence under the Environment Protection Act 1993 – assessed by the South Australia Environment Protection Authority (EPA)  Permit to interfere with benthic animals and/or plants under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 – assessed by Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (PIRSA)  Permission to place material at sea on Crown Land under the Crown Land Management Act 2009 – assessed by Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure (DPTI).

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 32

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

A clearing permit under the Native Vegetation Act 1991 is not considered necessary to the extent that s5(d) of the Native Vegetation Regulation 2003 applies. However, in accordance with s5(d), an ‘offset’ payment into the Native Vegetation Fund will be required of an amount sufficient to achieve a significant environmental benefit as per s21(6) of the Act. The direct loss of seagrass triggering this requirement is discussed further in Chapter 5 Coastal and Marine Ecology. These permits and licences would be sought subsequent to the receipt of an approval under the Development Act but the assessment requirements for these approvals have been considered in the preparation of this DA Report. Native Title (South Australia) Act 1994 As for the Commonwealth Native Title Act, the Native Title (South Australia) Act provides a framework for recognising Native Title. Outer Harbor is covered in the area subject to the Kaurna Peoples Native Title Claim (SAD6001/2000). While this claim has not yet been formalised, works within this area will be required to adhere to duty of care provisions under the Act. See Chapter 7 Cultural Heritage for further information. Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981 As noted in Table 2, referral is required to the Minister administering the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1981 where an activity occurs within 500m of an historic shipwreck. Based on the Australian National Shipwreck Database, which mirrors the South Australian database within state waters, there are a number of shipwrecks within 500m of dredging areas (Figure 12). However, as discussed in Section 2.2, no impacts to any of these shipwrecks is expected and therefore no permit under the Act is required. Protected Areas In addition to the ADS (discussed below) the following protected areas occur within Gulf St Vincent and Barker Inlet:  Upper Gulf St Vincent Marine Park  Encounter Marine Park  Lower Yorke Peninsula Marine Park  Barker Inlet - St Kilda Aquatic Reserve  St Kilda - Chapman Creek Aquatic Reserve  Port Noarlunga Reef Aquatic Reserve  Torrens Island Conservation Park  Adelaide International Bird Sanctuary National Park. Marine Parks are declared under the Marine Parks Act 2007, aquatic reserves are declared under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 and conservation and national parks are declared under the NPW Act. These protected areas are shown in Figure 8.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 33 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Of these areas, impacts are expected to occur only within Barker Inlet - St Kilda Aquatic Reserve. Applications associated with works in this area will be included within the application for a permit to interfere with benthic species under the Fisheries Management Act (see above). Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act 2005 Part of the project occurs within the ADS; see map in. Figure 8 in Chapter 1. Under the DA Act, the DAC assessing a project that has a potential to cause impact to the ADS is required to include a member approved by the Minister administering the ADS Act. This is intended to ensure the objectives of the ADS Act continue to be met in relation to the proposed development. These objectives are as follows: The protection of the dolphin population of the Port Adelaide River estuary and Barker Inlet from direct physical harm is to be maintained and improved. The key habitat features in the Port Adelaide River estuary and Barker Inlet that are necessary to sustain the dolphin population are to be maintained, protected and restored. Water quality within the Port Adelaide River estuary and Barker Inlet should be improved to a level that sustains the ecological processes, environmental values and productive capacity of the Port Adelaide River estuary and Barker Inlet. The interests of the community are taken into account by recognising indigenous and other cultural, and historical, relationships with the Port Adelaide River estuary and Barker Inlet and surrounding areas, and by ensuring appropriate participation in processes associated with the management of the Port Adelaide River estuary and Barker Inlet. Public awareness of the importance of a healthy Port Adelaide River estuary and Barker Inlet to the economic, social and cultural prosperities of the local communities, and the community more generally, is to be promoted. The principles of ecological sustainable development in relation to the use and management of the Port Adelaide River estuary and Barker Inlet are to be promoted. The Act also establishes the basis for the ADS Management Plan which includes actions intended to be implemented by the Minister and relevant agencies to achieve the objectives of the Act. The most relevant issues under the ADS Management Plan in the context of the project are listed in Table 3.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 34 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Issue Priority

1.2 Vessel strike (commercial, shipping, fishing and Medium recreational vessels)

1.5 Impacts from human interaction Medium

2.1 Food supply High

2.2 Loss of vegetation: seagrass, mangroves and High supporting species

2.3 New developments High

2.4 Marine pests: Caulerpa taxifolia, Caulerpa racemosa High and others

3.3 Discharges of ballast water Medium

3.4 Turbidity and release of toxins from sediment Medium

Table 3 ADS Management Plan Relevant Priority Issues Chapter 4 Water Quality and Chapter 5 Coastal and Marine Ecology provide an assessment of the project against the relevant objectives of the ADS Act, including priority issues within the ADS Management Plan. Threatened Species Legislation Flora and fauna species are protected at a state level under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (NPW Act). This provides for the following categories of threatened species:  Endangered  Vulnerable  Rare. Species listed within each of these categories are included in Schedules to the Act.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 35

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

2.4 Strategic policies The OHCW is considered to be consistent with the following State-wide strategic policies and plans: South Australia’s Strategic Plan – part of the vision of the strategic plan is for the development of a strong sustainable economy that builds on the strengths of South Australia, including through the expansion of the State’s export economy. This is intricately linked with improving the shipping capacity of South Australia’s most important port and remaining competitive with other ports across Australia. South Australia’s Seven Strategic Priorities – the OHCW aligns with several strategic priorities by supporting the expansion of an export economy for South Australia, especially through linking to ‘growing advanced manufacturing as the way for the future’. South Australia’s Ten Economic Priorities – similar to the strategic priorities, the OHCW supports some of the economic priorities associated with an export economy, by maximising the ability of the port to cater for SA exports. Integrated Transport and Land Use Plan – the plan accounts for the need for ports to have increased capacity and efficiency to cater for growth and diversification in mining and agricultural sectors and the growth of containerised freight. Strategic Infrastructure Plan – this plan recognises the importance in ongoing improvement and redevelopment of maritime assets (e.g. ports) to account for moves in international shipping.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 36

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

2.5 Guidelines and Assessment Criteria Table 4 lists the guidelines and assessment criteria that have been used in making technical assessments as part of this report.

Instrument Summary Relevant chapter

ANZECC/ARMCANZ Provides levels indicating Chapter 3.2, Water (2000) Australian and concentrations of Quality New Zealand contaminants beyond which Guidelines for Fresh toxicity impacts will occur and Marine Water Quality

National Assessment Provides assessment Chapter 1.4, Project Guidelines for requirements for dredge Alternatives Dredging (2009) material disposal (including beneficial reuse, land-based Chapter 3.1, disposal) Geology & Contamination Provides levels indicating concentrations of contaminants beyond which toxicity impacts will occur

EPA 396/10 Water Provides application n/a – used to inform Quality Guidelines: requirements for a licence to assessments as part Dredging and dredge under the Environment of DA earthworks drainage Protection Act

Table 4 Applicable Guidelines and Assessment Criteria While not within the boundary of the Port Adelaide Enfield Council Development Plan, assessments regarding local amenity, socio-economic values and noise have included consideration of local land uses under this plan. These are shown in Figure 13 to Figure 15.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 37

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 13 Port Adelaide Enfield Council Development Plan Zone Map PAdE/3 (Outer Harbor East)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 38

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 14 Port Adelaide Enfield Council Development Plan Zone Map PAdE/2 (Outer Harbor West)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 39

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 15 Port Adelaide Enfield Council Development Plan Zone Map PadE/4 (Gulf Point Marina)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 40

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

3 Geology and Contamination

3.1 Introduction The purpose of this Chapter is to provide a geotechnical assessment to support the DA Report for the OHCW Project. This document summarises and interprets existing available geotechnical information with the following key objectives:  Determining the nature of sediments to be dredged and inform the preferred dredging methodology  Determining whether contaminated material is present within the area to be dredged and is suitable for ocean disposal.

3.2 Available Geotechnical Information Documents that were reviewed during preparation of this report are summarised in Table 5 and Table 6. The majority of these documents were prepared for the previous channel deepening project carried out in 2005, as described in Chapter 1.7 Prior Capital Dredging (2005). The OHCW Project runs along the same alignment as the previous channel deepening project, hence all work associated with the last phase of the project is highly relevant to the OHCW Project.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 42

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Year Originator Document Title Overview of results Issued 2001 PPK Deepening of the Outer Harbor Geotechnical and environmental Shipping Channel assessment 2001 PPK Port Adelaide Approach Channel Refraction Survey Refraction Survey 2003 Coffey Port Adelaide Capital Works, Geotechnical Factual Report for Pelican Point Geotechnical deepening at Berth 8. Investigation – Dredging Works 2004 Golder Geotechnical Investigation, Geotechnical Interpretative Associates Approach Channel Dredging, Report for channel deepening. Outer Harbor, South Australia Includes interpretation of PKK 2001 data. 2004 Golder Contamination Assessment Contamination assessment Associates Proposed Dredge Material Outer Harbor Approach Channel South Australia 2007 KBR Deepening of the Shipping Channel and Berth 8 deepening Channel at Outer Harbor, completion report Completion of Dredging 2016 Flinders Proposed Widening Sketch Design Drawings prepared by Ports Flinders Ports for the OHCW Project

Table 5 Summary of Existing Documents

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 43

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Year Contractor Comments 2001 PPK, Ground investigation for the channel deepening. laboratory 13 boreholes: OHBH1 to OHBH9 (logging, sampling, field strength, testing by soil classification tests, particle size distribution, chemical Coffey composition). The majority of particle size distribution test is from depths below the proposed OHCW project. Environmental testing included pH, heavy metals, TBT, TPH, PAH, TKN, anions/cations, OCPs and PCBs. 2001 PPK, Fugro Refraction Survey. 2003 Coffey Ground investigation in the wharf area. 5 boreholes: BH1W to BH5W (logging, sampling, field strength, soil classification tests, particle size distribution). 2004 Golder Ground investigation for the channel deepening. Associates 11 borehole locations: BH01 to BH11 (logging, sampling, field strength, soil classification tests, particle size distribution, triaxial shear test). Soil classification tests were usually carried out within the proposed OHCW project depth and hence are more relevant than 2001 soil classification tests. 2004 Golder 39 borehole samples for contamination assessment. Testing included Associates pH, Heavy Metals and Nutrients; TBT; TBH, OCP, PAH and PCB; and Acid Sulfate Soils

2016 Golder Sediment Sampling of Swing Basin and Bird Island to test for Associates contaminants

Table 6 Summary of Available Ground Investigation Data The location of existing ground investigation boreholes in relation to OHCW Project is shown in Figure 16. The key findings of the 2001 PPK study, relevant to this report were:  A wide range of geological conditions was encountered along the alignment. The Glanville formation was encountered in all boreholes, with calcrete or calcareous sandstone encountered in all boreholes between OHBH4 and OHBH6. A mixture of soil overlaid the Glanville formation and was described as very stiff to hard clay (OHBH3A, 4, 4A, 5 and 6), sand with some gravel and clay (OHBH7, 7A, 8 and 9) or sand (OHBH1, 2, 2A and 3)  The recommended dredging method was a Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD) supported by a Trailer Suction Hopper Dredge (TSHD). The material was assessed as being suitable for sea disposal The 2004 Golder Associates Geotechnical Investigation report (Golder, 2004a) interprets geotechnical data from PPK from 2001 and additional ground investigation undertaken in 2004. The key findings relevant to this report are:  Blasting is not expected to be required during the dredging

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 44

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 Recommended dredge slopes are 1V:2.6H for uncemented sands, 1V:1H for cemented sands, 1V:2H for sections with alternating cemented and uncemented sands and 1V:2H for clays  Creation of turbid plume is expected due to the presence of significant clay material. The Golder Associates 2004 Contamination Assessment report (Golder, 2004b) found:  Contaminants were below the National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredge Material (2002) with the exception of one sample for tribulyltin  Soils are potentially acid sulphate (PASS) forming. It is assumed that these are only weakly acid generating and that there is sufficient neutralising capacity within the soils should they oxidise. No additional measures are expected to be required for the sea disposal as the material will not be exposed sufficiently to allow oxidisation and the release of acidic substances to occur. The KBR (2007) Completion of Dredging report states that:  The majority of dredging was carried out by a TSHD (to remove soil material and broken rock) and CSD (to break hard rock for later removal by TSHD and for fine shaping of the channel and basin). The latest sediment sampling was performed by Golder Associates in 2016 (Golder, 2016), and undertaken in accordance with the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009 (NAGD) and compared to ANZECC water quality criteria. Concentrations for all criteria were below the Limit of Reporting (LOR) for both guidelines and were therefore considered suitable for marine disposal.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 45

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

16

Figure 16 Existing Ground Investigation Boreholes in Relation to OHCW Project

7 July 2017 | Arup Page 46

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

3.3 Existing Geotechnical Conditions The data presented in this section is based on the boreholes and testing available along the OHCW Project alignment (refer to Figure 16 for borehole locations). The stratigraphical boundaries are indicative only and may vary by several hundred of meters in-situ. Similarly estimated ground parameters and the estimated proportion of each material may vary on site.

3.4 Site Geology Golder (2004a) describes the regional geology as: “The regional geology at Outer Harbor comprises Quaternary sequence St Kilda Formation of shelly sand and silt, overlying Glanville Formation, typically mottled shelly clay to moderately cemented skeletal calcareous sandstone, fossiliferous limestone, sand marls and sandy clays. This in turn overlies clays and sandy clays of the Hindmarsh Clay Formation”. The regional geology is shown in Figure 17 and the geological section presented in the Golder (2004a) report is provided in Figure 18.

Figure 17 Geological Map of Flinders Port Area (from map.sarig.sa.gov.au)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 47 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 18 Inferred Geological Section (Golder, 2004a)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 48

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

3.4.1 Glanville and St Kilda Formation Limestone/Calcareous Sandstone Based on the review of the data from the Glenville and St Kilda Formation, Limestone and Calcareous Sandstone have similar properties. They are described as variable in strength and as jointed and fractured. It is expected that some borehole logs material logged as gravel is actually fractured Limestone or Calcareous Sandstone. The measured Unconfined Compressive Strength (UCS) of the material ranges between 0.89 and 3.12MPa, which is consistent with a low to medium strength. The Golder (2004a) report also mentions that in some areas, due to the fragmented to highly fractured nature of the materials, it was difficult to find samples large enough for UCS testing. The Glenville and St Kilda Formation Limestone and Calcareous Sandstone was found in boreholes in beds up to 1.0m thick. The limestone and sandstone layers may be discontinuous and were often underlain by sandy beds.

3.4.2 Glanville Formation and Hindmarsh Clays Glanville Formation and Hindmarsh Clays are usually high to medium plasticity clays with similar properties. Some Glanville Formation clays were described as low to medium plasticity, however these materials were only present locally in a few boreholes and in thin beds, often overlaying high to medium plasticity clay units. Both formations contain some beds containing gravel or sand. Pocket penetrometer test results range between 500-650kPa, consistent with hard clays. There is one undrained shear strength test available in Hindmarsh Formation clay suggesting undrained shear strength of 200kPa, consistent with a very stiff to hard clay.

3.4.3 St Kilda Formation and Superficial Deposits Sands Sand units of St Kilda Formation and the Superficial Sand Deposits vary considerably in their composition. Between BH9 and BH5 (approximate easting 262900 to 269400) the description of sand material in borehole logs and particle size distribution tests varies between sand, clayey sand and sandy clay. In particular, in this section the material composition is very variable and the sand appears to have high clay content. Between BH3 and BH9 (approximate easting 260600 to 262900) descriptions in borehole logs and particle size distribution tests are more consistent and they usually describe the material as sand, silty sand or sandy silt. In some cases there was no core recovery in boreholes which would suggest presence of loose, non- cohesive sand. Golder (2004a) reported the St Kilda Formation sand as variable in composition.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 49

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

3.5 Particle Size Distribution for Water Quality Studies Based on the available geotechnical data, an assumption of particle size distributions has been made to inform plume modelling and an assessment of the impact of the project on water quality. Table 7 provides a breakdown of the total in-situ dredge volume by sediment class, with a description of each class and its particle distribution included in Table 8.

Dredge Area In-Situ Volume (m3) (survey sheet) Total Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 16 173305 17330 155974 0 17 180767 18077 162690 0 18 211306 21131 190176 0 19 139980 27996 41994 69990 20 169251 33850 50775 84625 21 139490 27898 41847 69745 22 135238 27048 40571 67619 23 131076 117968 0 13108 24 100845 90760 0 10084 25 69289 62360 0 6929 26 52608 47347 0 5261 27 46847 42162 0 4685 TOTAL (m3) 1550000 533927 684028 332045

Table 7 Breakdown of Dredge Volume by Area and Sediment Class

Material Description Insitu Particle Size Distribution Class Dry Sand Silt Clay L’stone Density (kg/m3) Class 1 Sand to clayey sand 1500 70% 15% 15% 0% Class 2 Clayey sand to sandy 1500 30% 35% 35% 0% clay Class 3 Clayey sand with 1500 30% 35% 0% 35% calcareous sandstone

Table 8 Assumed Sediment Class Particle Size Distributions Figure 19 below shows various stratigraphical units along the alignment based on the expected particle size distribution (extract from Golder (2004a)).

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 50

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 19 Split of Stratigraphical Units Based on Likely Clay and Silt Content (Golder, 2004a)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 51

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

3.6 Contamination Assessment Based on available sediment sampling from the PPK (2001) environmental assessment, the Golder (2004b) environmental assessment and more recent sampling of the swing basin in 2016 (Golder, 2016), the material to be removed is expected to be suitable for marine placement as there is no indication of contamination in any of these sampling events. Sediment sampling will be conducted to confirm the material to be dredged is appropriate for placement at the DMPA in Gulf St Vincent. In the unlikely event material is found that exceeds trigger levels, it will be disposed to land at a suitably licensed facility.

3.7 Acid Sulfate Soils Some limited acid sulfate in-situ soil sampling and laboratory analysis undertaken in 2004 identified some mild levels of Potential Acid Sulfate Soils (PASS) were present along the existing channel. These were only weakly acidic, and it was identified that there was sufficient neutralising capacity within the soils that further treatment was not necessary. Further ASS testing undertaken in the swing basin area in 2016 did not identify any acid sulfate sediments. As all material will be kept in water and disposed at sea (i.e. not exposed to oxygen), any PASS material would not require further treatment.

3.8 Conclusion and Recommendations Geotechnical investigations undertaken in 2004, 2011 and 2016 provide a good indication of the likely material to be encountered as part of channel widening, that is sufficient for assessment purposes and to formulate the likely dredging methodology. Based on previous available information, the majority of works can be carried out by TSHD with a CSD to treat the harder material and assist with the fine shaping of the channel. Clays and sand beds would be expected to be encountered along the alignment with rock in some areas. The material to be removed is unlikely to contain contamination or be acid-sulfate soil forming and is considered suitable for placement at sea. Sediment sampling will be conducted to confirm the material to be dredged is appropriate for placement at the DMPA in Gulf St Vincent

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 52

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

4 Water Quality

4.1 Overview This chapter of the DA Report addresses the potential environmental issues and impacts to water quality associated with the OHCW Project, largely in relation to the dredging and placement of dredged material. This chapter specifically describes:  The main features of the existing environment in the study area, focusing on existing water quality in the study area  Potential impacts to water quality from the construction and operation of the OHCW Project  Proposed management measures to mitigate impacts.

4.2 Study Area For the purposes of this chapter, the study area consists of the Gulf St Vincent, including Barker Inlet and the Port River (refer Chapter 1 Figure 1). These areas provide the regional setting for the OHCW Project, with project activities occurring within the Outer Harbor (including channel and swing basin) and the Gulf St Vincent DMPA.

4.3 Assessment Approach

4.3.1 Gap Analysis Several water quality investigations and monitoring programs have been previously undertaken within the study area, which provide a basis for characterising the existing environment and its sensitivities, as summarised below. A gap analysis was undertaken to identify:  Key processes that may impact upon water quality  Further investigations required beyond previous studies undertaken that would be critical to understanding likely water quality impacts as a result of the project. The gap analysis provides a basis for conducting targeted technical assessments (i.e. numerical modelling) as described in Section 4.3.2.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 53

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

4.3.1.1 Regional Studies and Monitoring Programs The following relevant regional assessments have been conducted within the study area and have been used to characterise existing water quality:  Adelaide Coastal Waters Study (CSIRO, 2007) and technical reports  Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary water quality reference paper (DEWNR, 2007)  Gulf St Vincent Bioregional Assessment Report 2010-2011 (EPA, 2011). In addition, water quality monitoring has been undertaken by the South Australia Environment Protection Authority (EPA) in Port River/Barker Inlet. Data is available for the following periods:  1995-2008, including from one site in the Outer Harbor (Port River 3) and an additional seven sites in Port River or other parts of Barker Inlet (Port River 1-2, Port River 5-8 and Port River 9/Inner Harbor)  2010-2011, including from one site in Barker Inlet (m0025). This data is publicly available and/or described in reports prepared by the EPA or other South Australia Government agencies. These various studies have informed the description of the baseline water quality environment in Section 4.4.

4.3.1.2 Previous Dredging Projects

Outer Harbor Channel Deepening (OHCD) Project The 2005 OHCD Project (see Chapter 1.7 Prior Capital Dredging (2005)) conducted pre- and post-dredging water quality data collection in the study area as well as preparing plume modelling to estimate the impact of dredging. Although these assessments were undertaken some time ago, the location and dredge methodology of the OHCD Project was similar to that proposed for this Project and are therefore directly relevant. Findings from the pre- and post-dredging studies have assisted in providing an understanding of the likely impacts of this current project. These include studies conducted as part of the preparation of a DA Report for the OHCD Project (KBR, 2004) as well as post-approval monitoring activities. The key findings from these studies consisted of the following:  The Port River at Outer Harbor has a background turbidity of <5 NTU, but regularly experiences high levels of turbidity (up to 40 NTU) due to shipping traffic and berthing. Turbidity at the DMPA site is <2 NTU throughout the year, with turbidity levels increasing slightly with depth.  Sediments to be dredged have a high potential for turbid plume production due to a high limestone and clay content (20% and 50% respectively). This poses a risk for seagrass meadows in the nearby area that may be

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 54

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

adversely impacted by turbidity, which can restrict their growth (see Chapter 5 Coastal and Marine Ecology).  Simulations of turbid plumes associated with different stages of the dredging identified:1  Initial dredging of overlying material with a Trailer Suction Hopper Dredge (TSHD) predicted sediment plumes in excess of 100 mg/L and up to 200 mg/L (up to ~70 NTU above background) could occur, reducing to between 20 and 50 mg/L (up to ~10 NTU above background) by the start of the next dredging cycle (i.e. by the time the dredge returned from the DMPA).  In the second stage of dredging, TSHD dredging at the outer part of the approach channel caused similar plumes to the first stage of dredging. Pre-treatment of hard clays in the Outer Harbor using a Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD) was predicted to cause higher turbidity levels in the immediate vicinity of the dredge but with much smaller plume extents.  The final dredging stage involved the TSHD and CSD operating in close proximity. This leads to higher suspended sediment levels within Port River, spreading across inter-tidal flats and out into Gulf St Vincent.  Turbid plumes at the DMPA site during and after disposal activities were predicted to have low suspended sediment concentrations (<5 NTU above background) and dispersion extents, with the highest suspended sediment levels occurring during placement.  Contamination levels in sediment were all below the guidelines set in the (then) National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material 2002 with the exception of tributyltin (TBT) and mercury. Despite these results, the risk of contamination within the material was considered low and the material was identified as suitable for unconfined disposal at sea (Golder Associates, 2004a).  During dredging, a turbidity ‘investigation level’ of 30 NTU was exceeded 10 times at multiple locations, and the ‘action level’ of 60 NTU was exceeded five times (included within the 10). This included high levels of turbidity at intertidal communities of Section Banks and monitoring locations north and south of the Outer Harbor approach channel.  Monitoring by SARDI during and post-dredging indicated turbidity caused by dredging was sufficient to cause impacts to seagrass meadows south of the approach channel (monitoring was only undertaken within 5.5km south of the approach channel), although significant recovery was recorded at monitoring sites within 12 months of the completion of dredging.2

1 Note – the dredging methodology employed was slightly different to that modelled although had similar stages 2 No surveys were undertaken to the north of the channel

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 55

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

4.3.1.3 Water Quality Criteria South Australia adopts the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines water quality criteria through the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2015. These criteria provide indicators of the expected water quality to be achieved for the study area during dredging. The study area waters are categorised as ‘marine waters’ for the purposes of the policy and guidelines, and support aquatic ecosystems, recreation and aesthetics, and primary industries (aquaculture and human consumption of aquatic foods) values. Default triggers set for marine and estuarine waters in south central Australia include a turbidity trigger of 0.5-10 NTU.

4.3.1.4 Key Gaps Whilst previous baseline data and modelling could be used to provide an estimate of the plume extent for this project, it is best practice to prepare a project specific model to most accurately predict the impact from this dredge campaign and hence, the potential impacts to nearby sensitive receptors (i.e. seagrass meadows). It was determined that this be conducted in accordance with the Western Australian Guidelines for environmental impact assessment of marine dredging proposals, which require a risk assessment based on modelling be undertaken to delineate zones of impact. These are considered best practice guidelines in Australia and have been adopted by the Commonwealth Government for marine dredging projects.

4.3.2 Numerical Modelling Numerical modelling was undertaken by BMT WBM in April-May 2017 in order to identify the extent, nature and behaviour of turbid plumes generated by the proposed dredging for the OHCW Project. This allowed for the identification of likely impacts associated with dredging activities. The methodology adopted for this modelling is described in more detail below. A detailed description of modelling activities is included in Appendix D – Plume Modelling Report.

4.3.2.1 Modelled Scenarios The most likely dredging scenario, i.e. the assumed (base) case, was simulated. This consists of using a CSD to pre-treat stiff clays and limestone (i.e. dredging and side-casting into the water) with a 10,000m3 TSHD used for dredging loose material and the side-casted material from the CSD, allowing for overflow from the TSHD. The TSHD would then place material at the DMPA. This has a total dredging program of approximately 4-6 months. Two simulation periods were adopted in order to represent summer and winter climates:  October 2015 to April 2016 (summer)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 56

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 May 2014 to September 2014 (winter).3

4.3.2.2 Water Quality Assessments In order to understand the risk of turbid plumes to water quality, a ‘zone of impact’ methodology was adopted. This is recognised as best practice in dredging environmental assessments and is recommended by the Commonwealth Government, based on the methodology developed by the Western Australia Environmental Protection Agency (WA EPA, 2016). The zones relevant to the assessment are:  Zone of High Impact = water quality impacts resulting in predicted mortality of ecological receptors with recovery time greater than 24 months.  Zone of Low to Moderate Impact = water quality impacts resulting in predicted sub-lethal impacts to ecological receptors and/or mortality with recovery between 6 months (lower end of range) to 24 months (upper end of range).  Zone of Influence = extent of detectable4 plume but no predicted ecological impacts. A concept design of the zones of impact is shown in Figure 20. Derivation of the impact zones requires selection of thresholds related to the excess turbidity and sediment deposition due to the Project. The turbidity thresholds that were adopted are listed in Table 9and sediment deposition thresholds in Table 10. These take into account the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines in determining the thresholds at which impacts occur.

3 These were determined to be representative years based on a survey of historical data – see further Appendix D – Plume Modelling Report. 4 ‘Detectable’ plume in terms of detectable above background conditions by instrumentation deployed in the water column.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 57

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 20 Concept Design of Zones of Impact (WA EPA, 2016) Impact Zone Turbidity (NTU) thresholds above background 20th 50th 80th 95th percentile percentile percentile percentile Zone of High 3 5 15 - Impact Zone of Low to 1 2 5 - Moderate Impact Zone of Influence - 0.5 2 5 Table 9 Impact Thresholds for Above Ambient Turbidity (above background) Impact Zone 50th percentile 95th percentile Final deposition (~15 days per (~1.5 (mg/cm) month) days/month) (mg/cm2/day) (mg/cm2/day) Zone of High >70 >700 >700 Impact Zone of Low to 20-70 200-700 200-700 Moderate Impact Zone of Influence 3.0-20 30-200 30-200 Table 10 Impact Thresholds for Sediment Deposition (above background)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 58

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

4.4 Existing Conditions This Section primarily describes the existing water quality within the study area; it also considers known information on marine sediment characteristics, including contamination status, in order to provide context. For further information regarding marine sediment, see Chapter 3 Geology and Contamination.

4.4.1 Regional Water Quality

4.4.1.1 Gulf St Vincent The dominant currents in Gulf St Vincent operate in a clockwise direction, with a net sediment transport and accumulation towards the north. However, the entire gulf is subject to two seasonal convergences which impact on water quality (Oceaniques, 2004; KBR, 2004). During summer months, residual currents together with predominantly southerly/south-easterly winds cause waters to move in a northerly direction along the eastern and western sides of the gulf. Once reaching the head of the gulf, these waters return in a southerly flow through the centre of the gulf, causing the movement of suspended sediment in a south-to- south easterly direction. In winter, this convergence is mostly reversed, with waters moving in a southerly direction in near shore waters, with a northerly return flow through the centre of the Gulf. The effect of these seasonal convergences on turbidity is shown in Figure 21, developed by Oceaniques (2004). Overall turbidity and suspended sediment levels in Gulf St Vincent are low, with higher suspended sediments recorded in northern waters of the gulf comparative to southern waters (KBR, 2004) and higher turbidity levels closer to the seabed comparative to shallower parts of the water column (Water Technology, 2004). As this was based on sampling conducted in summer months, it is expected to be associated with the flow of denser, more saline water southwards toward the mouth of the gulf (KBR, 2004). Evaporation in the gulf exceeds rainfall, leading to the generation of hypersaline waters (CSIRO, 2007). Other than high salinity, however, the water quality of the gulf is considered to be consistent with marine waters generally.

4.4.1.2 Barker Inlet and Port River Barker Inlet, including the Port River, drains much of the northern Adelaide plains (DEWNR, 2007). While part of an estuary, the waters of this area are primarily marine (DEWNR, 2007; CSIRO, 2007). Much of Barker Inlet is subject to discharges associated with industrial development, including the Bolivar Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), the Penrice Soda facility and Pelican Point power station, as well as other industrial developments associated with the port (CSIRO, 2007; DEWNR, 2007). As a result, the area has historically been subject to contamination, with high levels of some contaminants within soils of Barker Inlet, and continues to experience ongoing levels of freshwater, nutrient and sediment discharge. While some water

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 59

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

quality improvements have been made, overall water quality in the inlet continues to be of concern (CSIRO, 2007). Of particular note are high levels of nutrients within the waters of Barker Inlet (CSIRO, 2007; DEWNR, 2007; EPA, 2011). These concentrations, combined with ‘dodge tides’ (i.e. neap tides) experienced in the area, creates a risk of algal blooms. Nutrient levels are higher in summer than winter (DEWNR, 2007).

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 60

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 21 Changes in Turbidity (NTU) Due to Seasonal Convergence Patterns in Gulf St Vincent: March (top) and September (bottom) (Oceaniques, 2004)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 61

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

4.4.2 Outer Harbor

4.4.2.1 Background Water quality in the Outer Harbor is predominantly driven by one of two processes:  Ship movements  Tides.

Ship movements Of these two processes, ship movements are considered to be the main driver of changes in turbidity and suspended sediments. A study conducted by GHD (2003) as part of the OHCD Project identified the impacts of different ship activities on background turbidity, measured in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU). This study, adopting a base lined turbidity of 5 NTU5, identified the following impacts:  Berthing activities by Panamax class vessels (utilising berths 6 and 7) caused an increase in turbidity of approximately 35 NTU, with the potential for a maximum increase of 85 NTU. Plumes caused by berthing were primarily associated with tugboat movements and capable of extending up to 100m. These plumes would then have a residence time of up to one hour, although Seedsman and Marsden (1980), quoted in Water Technology (2004), indicate the potential for plumes to remain visible for up to six hours after generation.  Turning in the swing basin had the potential to cause smaller plumes with a turbidity of 15 NTU above background.  Departing vessels caused an increase in turbidity of approximately 11NTU, extending up to 50m and lasting less than 20 minutes.  Shipping traffic within the channel had the smallest effect, causing an increase in turbidity of up to 10 NTU with an extent of approximately 10m and a residence time of less than 10 minutes. While these assessments were made prior to the completion of Berth 8 at the Outer Harbor, they demonstrate the impact made by ship movements, particularly berthing. As Berths 6 and 7 were used only every second day (at the time of the assessment), daily turbidity was expected to reach a maximum of 20 NTU in the swing basin, increasing to 40 NTU every second day at berths 6 and 7 (GHD, 2003). Notably, the material disturbed by ship movements is typically marine sands located within the channel, rather than clays (Golder, 2004b). Clays are more likely to be disturbed during dredging activities and are expected to have different plume behaviour comparative to sand.

5 Actual mean turbidity was commonly less than 2 NTU but a level of 5 was adopted for the purposes of the assessment

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 62

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Water Technology (2004) has identified a turbidity to suspended sediment (NTU to mg/L) relationship for the waters in the Outer Harbor. For every 1 NTU increase in turbidity as a result of dredging, there was expected to be a 2-6 mg/L increase in suspended sediment. This is approximately equivalent to a relationship of 3 mg/L TSS to 1 NTU. This same relationship has been used for the OHCW Project modelling. While this relationship was not tested during monitoring of dredge plumes during the OHCD Project, the turbidity results were noted to be mostly consistent with what was originally estimated (KBR, 2007).

Tidal movement The tide is also noted to impact on water quality in the Outer Harbor, though in terms of turbidity and suspended sediments this change is negligible comparative to the impact of ship movements. Water quality is typically better during incoming tides comparative to outgoing. This is due to the higher quality of water in Gulf St Vincent comparative to the water within the Port River.

4.4.2.2 Background water quality The results of water quality monitoring undertaken by the EPA at Port River 3 (Outer Harbor) and Port River 2 (Port River near port quarantine jetty) between 1995 and 2008 for turbidity, metals and nutrients are presented in Table 11 based on seasonal averages. Table 11 presents averaged seasonal turbidity for this period, together with standard deviation and maximum levels. Season Turbidity (NTU) Mean Standard Maximum Minimum deviation Port River 3 (Outer Harbor) Summer 3.14 4.19 16.83 0.90 Autumn 2.62 1.93 7.63 0.60 Winter 1.57 0.66 3.13 0.85 Spring 2.52 2.12 9.04 0.50 Port River 2 (Port River near port quarantine jetty) Summer 5.35 5.53 21.33 1.07 Autumn 3.84 2.79 10.71 1.10 Winter 2.43 1.33 5.73 1.30 Spring 2.80 1.30 4.80 0.50 Table 11 Port River 2 and Port River 3 Averaged Seasonal Turbidity Data, 1995-2008 This data shows that while turbidity typically remains low throughout the year, there is significant fluctuation between years in summer and autumn (and spring in the Outer Harbor). The highest turbidity measurements occur in summer, while the lowest is in winter, and turbidity tends to be higher in all seasons further upstream. Marine sediments in the Outer Harbor included a combination of marine sands and clay. Previous testing of this material (e.g. Golder, 2004a; PPK, 2001) report low levels of contaminants. This limits the potential for turbid plumes to cause

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 63

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

significant impacts to water quality, other than those related to increases in turbidity and suspended sediment. This is discussed further in Chapter 3 Geology and Contamination.

4.4.2.3 Water Quality During OHCD Dredging Campaign Dredging impacts on turbidity were modelled by Water Technology (2004) as part of the OHCD Project DA Report. In general, the turbid plumes generated by the dredging behaved similarly to predictions, with turbidity at monitoring locations generally remaining below 30 NTU, with occasional spikes up to and over 60 NTU during severe weather events. In addition to turbidity, sedimentation was recorded within areas 100m either side of the Outer Harbor approach channel.

4.4.3 DMPA Limited water quality assessments have been conducted at the DMPA site. Overall the site is expected to be consistent with the water quality experienced across Gulf St Vincent at a regional scale (see Section 4.4.1.1). Turbidity in this area is low, with a slight increase at depths greater than 15 m. Oceaniques (2004) recorded a seasonal variation, with the highest suspended sediment concentrations (1.5µg/L) occurring in March-April and minimum values in September-October. This is shown in Figure 22, reproduced from KBR (2004). The mean suspended sediment concentration at the DMPA site was 0.9µg/L (Oceaniques, 2004).

Figure 22 Annual Changes in Suspended Sediment Concentrations at DMPA Site

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 64

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

4.4.3.1 Water Quality During OHCD Dredging Campaign No water quality monitoring was undertaken at the DMPA site during material placement to determine behaviour of turbid plumes from placement and resuspension – this was reasonable, given model predictions showing minimal impact.

4.5 Potential Impacts

4.5.1 Impacting Processes The impacts of the project are assessed in terms of impacting processes, i.e. activities or processes associated with the project that have the potential to have a negative effect on the environment. The impacting processes relevant to water quality are:

Construction Phase  Dredging activity within the Outer Harbor, including direct disturbance of the seabed (causing the release of turbid plumes and the disturbance of contaminated material)  Placement of material at the DMPA (causing release of turbid plumes during placement and subsequently from resuspension).  The release of contaminants from dredge vessel operations, including spills from refuelling, waste disposal etc.

Operational Phase  Movement and berthing of larger vessels (up to 49m wide), including operation of tugboats to assist with vessel movement  An increased risk of future maintenance dredging  Altered channel morphology and changes to coastal processes. The impacts associated with these processes are discussed below in the context of the construction and operational phases of the project.

4.5.2 Construction Phase

4.5.2.1 Turbid Plumes (Dredging and Placement) The key impact during the construction phase is that associated with dredging and placement activities, as well as the potential for resuspension of material placed at the DMPA. These activities have the potential to generate a turbid plume, i.e. an area of heightened turbidity and suspended sediment concentrations. This is particularly the case for clays and fine silts which are readily mobilised and remain in suspension for a longer time than marine sands. Clays are also more likely to be associated with contaminants than sands.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 65

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 23 to Figure 26 present the results of zone of impact modelling for this assessment (see Appendix D – Plume Modelling Report for further information). These zones represent the overall impact, accounting for plume concentration, dispersion rates and dredging cycles. The results of this modelling for the base case (i.e. proposed dredging) can be summarised as follows:  During summer, the Zone of High Impact for turbidity will be isolated to parts of the Port River and Outer Harbor, immediately adjacent to the dredging area. The Zone of Low to Moderate Impact will extend further than this, covering an area up to 3km southeast of the Port River mouth and 6km north of Section Banks. An even larger Zone of Influence occurs, extending to south Thompsons Beach, approximately 25km north of Outer Harbor.  In winter, the Zone of High Impact extends 3km from the mouth of the Port River, either side of the approach channel. The Zone of Low to Moderate Impact extends approximately 3km around this zone as well as up the Port River as far as northern Torrens Island. The Zone of Influence extends northwards to the top of Section Banks and as far south as West Beach, approximately 17km south of the approach channel. A small zone of influence also occurs at the DMPA site.  The Zone of High Impact for sediment deposition in summer is mainly constrained to the approach channel and the DMPA, with a relatively small Zone of Low to Moderate Impact immediately adjacent to this area. The Zone of Influence at the approach channel is approximately 10km across from north to south at its greatest extent, and up to 15km north to south at the DMPA site.  Sediment deposition rates in winter are mostly the same as for summer, with a slightly smaller Zone of Low to Moderate Impact at the approach channel. Note: These are results based on preliminary modelling and considered to be conservative based upon the modelling assumptions. Further refinement is likely to occur subject to geotechnical investigations, detailed engineering design etc.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 66

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

23

Figure 23 Zones of Impact (Turbidity) – Summer

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 67

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

24

Figure 24 Zones of Impact (Turbidity) – Winter

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 68

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

25

Figure 25 Zones of Impact (Sediment Deposition) – Summer

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 69

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

26

Figure 26 Zones of Impact (Sediment Deposition) – Winter

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 70

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

These results indicate that the greatest plume extents are expected to occur during summer, although the Zone of High Impact for turbid plumes is greatest in winter. Plume influences tend to occur from the Outer Harbor northwards during summer and southwards (to a lesser extent) during winter. Deposition rates are similar regardless of season, with the highest impacts experience within the dredging and placement areas. The implications of these turbidity and sedimentation impacts on marine ecology values are described in Chapter 5 Coastal and Marine Ecology.

4.5.2.2 Contamination from Spills and Discharges Fuel and hydraulic fluids from the dredge vessel(s) are unlikely to be discharged to the environment except where there is a spill during bunkering (at the port) or during transit/operation (e.g. from vessel collision, equipment failure). Slow leaks can also occur if the vessel hull or hydraulic equipment are in a state of disrepair. The likelihood of a spill or leak occurring is considered very low due to the existing procedures and facilities for bunkering in Port Adelaide and the expected condition and experience of the dredge vessel (and ancillary vessels) and crew. Hydrocarbon spills have the potential to cause long-lasting impacts to the marine environment should they occur. However, the risk of spills associated with dredging are considered to be the same as the existing risk of spill associated with daily shipping movement in Outer Harbor and Gulf St Vincent. Responses to these events are managed through the existing port rules established by Flinders Ports. Other discharges from dredge vessels include sewage/black-water and solid waste and litter. Sewage discharge has the potential to cause elevated nutrient levels within water which can lead to impacts such as algal blooms. However, discharges are currently undertaken subject to Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) regulations which prevent discharge in the vicinity of sensitive environmental features. Sewage disposed at sea is expected to rapidly disperse and not cause any acute or chronic impacts to ecological values. Solid waste and litter, if disposed of (intentionally or accidentally) in the marine environment, can cause impacts to habitat values. In particular, litter consumed by marine fauna (e.g. turtles) can cause mortality within individual animals. However, the risk of waste contamination from the dredge vessel is considered to be low due to existing waste containment measures and the magnitude of waste produced comparative to the existing risk associated with daily shipping movements.

4.5.3 Operational Phase Following the completion of the OHCW Project, larger vessels (widths up to 49m) will be able to access the Outer Harbor and associated berths. As noted by GHD (2003) majority of the turbidity generated in the Outer Harbor is as a result of ship movement, especially berthing of Panamax class vessels. Expansion of the Outer Harbor channel and swing basin may therefore contribute to larger turbid plumes in the Outer Harbor associated with larger vessels. The size, concentration

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 71

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

and residence time of turbid plumes are uncertain but, as the largest turbidity impacts associated with ship movement was actually caused by the operation of tugboats (GHD, 2003), the overall impact is expected to be fairly consistent with the existing situation. The expansion of the Outer Harbor approach channel may increase the maintenance dredging needs. This has the potential to cause an increase in the frequency and/or extent of turbid plumes associated with dredging and placement activities. Noting, however, that maintenance dredging is expected to occur over a cycle of several years, with recovery of the marine environment from water quality impacts occurring on a much shorter cycle, the additional impact from the OHCW Project in the context of maintenance dredging is considered to be low. Experience upon completion of the 2005 OHCD Project has shown that maintenance dredging has been minimal, with none required to the channel since 2005 and minor occurrences within the swing basin.

4.6 Management Measures In order to mitigate the impacts discussed in Section 4.5, the following management measures are proposed:  Update water quality modelling based on further geotechnical, engineering and other relevant investigations in order to provide refined zones of impact. This should then define the dredging methodology, including triggers/conditions for standby or adoption of different dredging approaches that will reduce the extent of impacts.  Preparation of a Dredge Management Plan for construction phase that sets out procedures, consistent with port rules, to control the following impacts:  Ballast water exchange  Sewage/black-water discharge  Refuelling  This should include compliance with existing protocols established by Flinders Port.  The Dredge Management Plan should also set out the proposed dredging methodology based on the season works will be undertaken in and include monitoring requirements with triggers for changes in dredge methodology in order to reduce plume and sedimentation impacts.  The dredge vessel selected for the works must be equipment with ‘green valves’ designed to reduce turbidity impacts during dredging.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 72

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

5 Coastal and Marine Ecology

5.1 Overview This chapter of the Development Approval Report addresses the potential environmental issues and impacts to marine ecology associated with the OHCW Project, specifically in relation to the dredging and placement of dredged material. This report section specifically describes:  The main features of the existing environment in the study area, focusing on important or sensitive ecological resources and the integrity of coastal and marine ecosystems  Potential impacts to marine and coastal ecology from the construction and operation of the OHCW Project  Proposed management measures to mitigate impacts.

5.2 Study Area For the purposes of this assessment, the study area consists of the Gulf St Vincent, including Barker Inlet and the Port River (refer Chapter 1 Figure 1) These areas provide the regional setting for the OHCW, with project activities occurring within the Outer Harbor (including channel and swing basin) and the Gulf St Vincent DMPA.

5.3 Conservation Status Within this report, the conservation status of a species may be described as Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Rare. These terms are in accordance with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act) or National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 (SA) (NPW Act). Additionally, species can be listed as cetaceans, marine and/or migratory, which are specifically protected under the EPBC Act. Threatened is a common use term to collectively describe endangered and vulnerable species.

5.4 Assessment Approach

5.4.1 Gap Analysis Several marine ecological investigations have been previously undertaken within the study area, which provide a basis for characterising the existing marine

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 73

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

environment and its sensitivities. These are summarised below. A gap analysis was undertaken to identify:  Key environmental issues of relevance to the Project  Key gaps in the knowledge base that are critical to understanding key environmental values relevant to the Project. The gap analysis provides a basis for conducting targeted technical assessments (i.e. seagrass mapping) as described in Section 5.4.2.

5.4.1.1 Spatial Data and Databases NatureMaps, part of Enviro Data SA, provides mapping of habitats (including seagrass) and flora and fauna species sightings for the study area. This is based primarily upon historical records, and is not considered a comprehensive database of presence/absence. Similar to NatureMaps, the Atlas of Living Australia provides an Australia-wide database of species sightings which supplements local/regional databases. This database also does not provide a comprehensive database of presence/absence. The Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) provides a search tool for identifying matters (e.g. threatened species, migratory species, and threatened ecological communities) protected under the EPBC Act. This is based on modelled distribution for species and therefore indicates the matters that may potentially occur within the study area; it is not an indication of actual presence. The Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) database maintained by the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy (DoEE) includes profiles for individual species and ecological communities protected under the EPBC Act, including information on occurrence, habitat requirements and threats.

5.4.1.2 Regional Studies and Monitoring Programs The following relevant regional assessments have been conducted within the study area:  Adelaide Coastal Waters Study (CSIRO, 2007) and technical reports  Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary technical reference papers for dolphins (DEWNR, 2007a) and aquatic habitat (DEWNR, 2007b)  Natural History of Gulf St Vincent (Shepherd et al. 2008), especially chapters 25 (marine mammals) and 27 (sharks and rays)  Gulf St Vincent Bioregional Assessment Report 2010-2011 (EPA, 2013)  Bird Island Biodiversity Action Plan 2014 (EAC – Ecological Evaluation Pty Ltd, 2014)  Habitat mapping for the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board shorebird habitat conservation program (Delta Environmental, 2009 and Purnell et al. 2009)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 74

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 Various technical studies into the distribution and population of dolphins in Barker Inlet and the Port River (e.g. Steiner and Bossley, 2008; Filby et al. 2010; Steiner, 2012; Filby et al. 2013; Bossley et al. 2017)  Review of South Australia marine pest records and distribution mapping (Wiltshire et al. 2010). In addition, data from surveys as part of the following monitoring programs are available:  Breeding birds at Bird Island and Northern Revetment Mound – 2016 (SARDI)  Shorebird populations within Gulf St Vincent – 2010 to 2013 (Birds Australia)  Whaler shark within Gulf St Vincent – 2008-2012 (SARDI). These various studies have informed the description of the baseline coastal and marine environment in Section 5.5

5.4.1.3 Previous Dredging Projects

Outer Harbor Channel Deepening Project The 2005 Outer Harbor Channel Deepening (OHCD) Project (see Chapter 1.7 Prior Capital Dredging (2005) included coastal and marine ecology assessments in the study area. Although these assessments were undertaken some time ago, the location and dredge methodology of the OHCD Project was similar to that proposed for this OHCW Project and are therefore directly relevant. Findings from the pre- and post-dredging studies have assisted in providing an understanding of the likely impacts of this current project. These include studies conducted as part of the preparation of a DA Report for the OHCD Project (KBR, 2004) as well as post-approval monitoring activities. The key findings from these studies consisted of the following:  Seagrass meadows occur within Gulf St Vincent and Barker Inlet (Tanner, 2004). These meadows were identified adjacent to the channel and in the area potentially affected by dredge plumes but were not recorded at the DMPA or within the Outer Harbor approach channel (KBR, 2004; Tanner, 2004).  Following dredging as part of the OHCD, seagrass meadows to the south of the channel were impacted up to 1km southward of the channel edge (KBR, 2007). Post-dredging surveys within 12 months of dredging indicated a recovery of seagrass meadows that remained relatively similar over time (Tanner and Rowling, 2008; Wiltshire and Tanner, 2016).  The Port River and Barker Inlet support populations of dolphins and migratory shorebirds, protected under state and federal legislation (KBR, 2004).

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 75

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 Marine megafauna (e.g. cetaceans, sharks, turtles) occur within Gulf St Vincent and may also occur in Port River and Barker Inlet, although their occurrence is not common (other than dolphins) (KBR, 2004).  The main marine pest species recorded within the study area was the macroalgae, Caulerpa racemosa (now C. cylindracea) which was introduced from Western Australia (Tanner, 2004). This species was recorded in Port River and has the potential to outcompete native seagrass and macroalgae species. A recent survey of the DMPA (Wiltshire, 2016) did not identify the species, indicating that the previous dredging campaign did not result in its translocation, likely because the characteristics of the DMPA were unsuitable (i.e. depth, substrate).  The seafloor of the DMPA prior to dredge material placement was bare benthic substrate, supporting a range of macroinvertebrate species (Tanner, 2004). The substrate based on recent surveys (2016) is currently bare sand with a lower faunal abundance than prior to dredging, although this could be the result of lower sampling effort (Wiltshire and Tanner, 2016).  No significant impact to any matter of national environmental significance (MNES) was anticipated to occur as a result of the OHCD (KBR 2004). In addition, no such impact was recorded during the works or post-works surveys (KBR, 2007; Tanner and Rowling, 2008; Wiltshire and Tanner, 2016).

5.4.1.4 Key Gaps Seagrass meadows represent the main sensitive ecological receptor in the study area and provide a range of values including habitat for many fish and benthic invertebrate species of direct fisheries value. Species supported by seagrass are also important to threatened and otherwise protected species, such as cetaceans. Plumes generated by dredging in 2004 resulted in the loss of seagrass meadows, with recovery observed post-dredging. There is presently insufficient information to determine the existing distribution and extent of seagrass meadows, which represent the key information gap. Other key ecological values supported in the area include marine mammals, wader birds and species of fisheries significance. The existing information base is considered sufficient for the purposes of assessing these values.

5.4.2 Seagrass Assessment Seagrass assessments were undertaken by BMT WBM in April 2017 based on a combination of preliminary mapping and ground-truthing with the intention of developing a seagrass distribution map for the area adjoining the Outer Harbor approach channel (i.e. the area where dredging and turbidity impacts will occur). The methodology adopted is described in more detail below.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 76

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

5.4.2.1 Preliminary Mapping Based on Satellite Imagery The proposed map area was broadly inferred from 2004 plume mapping (Water Technology, 2004) associated with previous channel deepening activity, and also from a preliminary assessment of the likely extent of plumes from the current proposed channel widening project. Recent (February 2016) geo-rectified digital remote imagery (Sentinel2, 10m2 resolution) for the study area was downloaded from the United States Geological Service Earth Explorer website and processed using ArcMap 10.3.1. The Sentinal2 imagery was used in combination with a high resolution (5 m) digital elevation model (DEM; combined navigational chart and bathymetric data provided by Flinders Ports) to calculate the benthic reflective index (BRI). Habitat classifications were derived using a BRI based on the blue and green visible colour spectra, as per Sagawa et al (2010). The optically deep reflective minima and attenuation relationships (required to calculate BRI) were established by querying reflectance over a range of unvegetated substrates at variable depths. The time of satellite capture was used to determine the amount of tide over the seafloor based on tidal predictions and tidal planes from the Australian Hydrographic Service. Reliable unvegetated reflectance data between the 12 and 15m water depths were not available due to the seemingly ubiquitous nature of seagrass cover in this depth range. The resultant map product was also compared to other available mapping information previously compiled by BMT WBM, sourced from EPA records and previous surveys.

5.4.2.2 Field Surveys Towed video transects were completed on 10th and 11th April 2017. A total of 30 proposed transects were located within the study area (on the preliminary habitat map) to target areas of likely seagrass habitat, but also to focus on areas directly (the area of the existing channel to be widened) affected by the project. The underwater video camera system consisted of a high definition camera (3840x2160 pixels per frame) with a wide-angle lens. The camera was flown at approximately1m above the substratum at a speed of 1–2km/h. All footage was recorded onto the internal camera memory, while composite standard definition footage was relayed to a screen on the vessel for real-time data analysis by a trained marine ecologist. All equipment (laptop, GPSs and the camera) were set to the same date/time to ensure that habitat data collected along each transect could be geo-referenced onto the final habitat map. At some sites where the water quality was poor or there were more cryptic species of seagrass encountered, a Van Veen grab sampler was used to collect samples of the seabed to confirm classifications made from the video imagery. The video footage was also reviewed post-field to ensure a consistent approach to habitat classification and to match the survey data to the GPS tracklog (by date and time) for mapping.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 77

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

5.4.2.3 Mapping Seagrass Habitat and Classification Categories Unsupervised habitat classifications were performed using the ArcMap 10.3.1 Iso Class tool and the BRI. The unsupervised classification resulted in 16 habitat categories, out of a maximum of 30. To produce the final map, unsupervised habitat classifications were merged systematically, based on ground truthing data to establish the final five habitat mapping categories in Table 12.  Eleven categories represented different forms of unvegetated benthos, as a result of different reflectance due to depth.  Two categories that appeared similar based on satellite imagery and represented macroalgae associated with molluscs, unconsolidated rock, interspersed with occasional/sparse seagrass.  The final three categories remained unmerged and represented: moderate to dense mixed Amphibolis/Posidonia seagrass; a weak seagrass signal representing sparse Halophila australis or Posidonia; and seagrass dominated by Heterozostera sp. Classification categories in Table 12 were broadly based on previous classifications produced by EPA (2013a) and a visual estimate of seagrass cover in-line with EPA (2013b):  Sparse –35% seagrass coverage  Moderate 35–70% seagrass coverage  Dense 70–100% seagrass coverage. Classification of substrate without seagrass was based on a fine-scale interpretation of the CATAMI Classification scheme for Scoring Marine Biota and Substrate in Underwater Imagery (Althaus et al 2014).

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 78

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Classification Coverage Notes category

Moderate to dense Moderate to Amphibolis and/or Posidonia seagrass dense (35- 100%)

Sparse seagrass Sparse (1-35%) Halophila australis and/or very sparse Posidonia

Seagrass dominated by Moderate to Based on unsupervised classification and past Heterozostera dense (35- distribution (EPA, 2011); not ground-truthed 100%) during this survey

Macroalgae dominant n/a Macroalgae was generally associated with ± seagrass, molluscs or consolidated rock or razorfish rocks Molluscs indicates razorfish cover between 10 and 50%

Consolidated rock, where present, was generally low relief limestone reef covered in sparse to moderate macro- or turf algae

Sparse Halophila australis and/or Posidonia recorded between macroalgae habitat

Unconsolidated sand n/a -

Table 12 Habitat Classification Categories Other notes regarding final habitat classification categories include:  Deep water (>20m) unsupervised classifications of seagrass cover were unreliable due to the limited unvegetated reflectance data at these depths, and were therefore not included in the final map.  Small patches of seagrass within the channel, at a 15m depth, were originally categorised as moderate to dense seagrass by the unsupervised classification tool, however, ground truthing indicated these patches were actually sparse seagrass cover and were re-classified accordingly.  Any habitat mapped beyond the remote sensing limit (i.e. available navigational chart and high resolution bathymetric data) was digitised by hand according to: 2011 mapping (EPA 2013a), presently resolved community boundaries, and satellite and aerial imagery. Large amounts of wrack6 (50–100% cover) observed along some ground truthed transects were categorised as ‘unconsolidated sand’. This was to avoid confusion

6 Detached leaves and stems.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 79

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

interpreting map results between years, as wrack is seasonally different (i.e. increased in winter when perennial seagrass shed leaves).

5.5 Existing Conditions This Section describes the existing coastal and marine ecology environment in the study area. It has been divided into a focus on the following three areas: (1) Gulf St Vincent, (2) Barker Inlet and the Port River, including the Outer Harbor, and (3) the Gulf St Vincent DMPA site.

5.5.1 Gulf St Vincent

5.5.1.1 Habitat Types Gulf St Vincent is an inverse estuary, subject to high levels of evaporation and relatively low freshwater input. This leads to the development of hypersaline conditions (with salinity higher than the open ocean to the south) and an increasing salinity and temperature gradient toward the shallower waters at the head (i.e. northern end) of the gulf (EPA, 2013). The most substantial freshwater inflows into the gulf are those associated with the Port River, which drains most of the north Adelaide plains. As part of a bioregional assessment of Gulf St Vincent, EPA has divided the area into a number of biounits. Clinton (discussed in this Section) and Adelaide metro (discussed in Section 5.5.2) biounits are considered most relevant to the project: Clinton biounit (Figure 27) is dominated by vast seagrass meadows in intertidal and subtidal areas. Significant continuous seagrass meadows occur within the near shore areas of the gulf, with patch seagrass and unconsolidated substrate in deeper waters (EPA, 2013). Extensive mangroves and tidal flats fringe the coast north of the Port River (EPA, 2013).

5.5.1.2 Habitat Values The seagrass, mangroves and tidal flats of the Clinton biounit are considered to be the most extensive within Gulf St Vincent. Part of the Clinton biounit is included in the Upper Gulf St Vincent Marine Park, which protects seagrass, mangrove, saltmarsh and delta areas. Wetland areas on the coastline of the biounit are also included in the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia (DIWA) as part of the Clinton wetlands of national importance (SA007). Other protected areas in Gulf St Vincent include parts of the Encounter and Lower Yorke Peninsula marine parks. These areas are shown in Figure 28.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 80

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 27 Clinton Biounit Habitat Mapping (EPA, 2013)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 81

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

28

Figure 28 Important Marine/Wetlands Protected Areas for Gulf St Vincent

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 82

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

5.5.1.3 Marine Megafauna species Marine megafauna species (cetaceans such as whales, dolphins and porpoises, pinnipeds (seals), shark and ray species, and marine turtles) regularly occur within Gulf St Vincent. Table 13 presents threatened and/or migratory marine megafauna species listed under the EPBC Act and NPW Act known to occur in Gulf St Vincent, based on Kemper et al. (2008) and Baker et al. (2008). A full list of marine megafauna species, including non-threatened and migratory species, is provided in Appendix E.1. Appendix E.2 presents the EPBC Act PMST report for the area.

Whales Cetacean species travel to Gulf St Vincent with newborn calves occasionally as part of their annual migratory patterns (e.g. humpback whales). The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) and southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) are two key threatened whale species in the study area. The South Australia Whale Centre maintains records of southern right whale and humpback whale sightings across South Australia. Between 2013 and 2017 there were nine confirmed sightings of southern right whales and six humpback whales within Gulf St Vincent, along with an additional seven sightings of unidentified whales (SAWC, 2017). These were between Rapid Bay and North Haven,7 on the eastern side of the gulf (within 80km of Barker Inlet); at Stansbury, on the western side of the gulf, opposite Adelaide (within 70km of Barker Inlet) and within the main body of the gulf itself. All of these sightings were between the months of May and September. Noting that in some cases, individual sightings in the same year and month may represent the same whale, the total number of recent whale occurrence within the study area is considered to be low. These sightings represent around 5% of the total sightings of these species recorded by the SA Whale Centre across the entire state (SAWC, 2017).8 Mapping presented on the SPRAT profiles for these species indicate that Gulf St Vincent is within the ‘likely species range’ for the humpback whale but outside the ‘species core range’ or areas used for resting, feeding or calving. For the southern right whale, however, Gulf St Vincent is within the ‘current core coastal range’ and is noted as an emerging coastal aggregation area in a ‘historic high use area with evidence of current use’. This indicates the potential (future) significance of the study area for this species. This mapping is shown in Figure 29. Other threatened whale species that Kemper et al. (2008) identified as occurring within the gulf are the blue whale, fin whale and Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera musculus, B. physalus and B. edeni) fin whale (B. physalus), sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), and pygmy and dwarf sperm whales (Kogia breviceps and K. sima). Based on the habitat requirements and movement patterns of these species, they are expected to occur in Gulf St Vincent only as visitors.

7 These were at Rapid Bay, Carrickalinga, Myponga Beach, Aldinga Beach, O’Sullivan Beach boat ramp, Hallett Cover Beach, Henley Beach jetty, and North Haven 8 http://www.sawhalecentre.com/whale-sightings/sightings-log/

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 83

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

On this basis, the gulf is not currently considered to represent critical habitat for whale species.

Common name Scientific name EPBC status NPW status

Balaenidae (right whales)

Southern right Eubalaena australis Endangered, Vulnerable whale Migratory, Cetacean

Balaenopteridae (rorquals)

Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni Migratory, Cetacean Rare

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered, Endangered Migratory, Cetacean

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Vulnerable, Migratory, Vulnerable Cetacean

Humpback whale Megaptera Vulnerable, Migratory, Vulnerable novaeangliae Cetacean

Cetotheriidae

Pygmy right whale Caperea marginata Migratory, Cetacean Rare

Delphinidae (oceanic dolphins)

Short-finned pilot Globicephala Cetacean Rare whale macrorhynchus

False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens Cetacean Rare

Kogiidae (small sperm whales)

Pygmy sperm Kogia breviceps Cetacean Rare whale

Dwarf sperm whale Kogia sima Cetacean Rare

Physeteridae (sperm whales)

Sperm whale Physeter Migratory, Cetacean Rare macrocephalus

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 84

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Common name Scientific name EPBC status NPW status

Ziphiidae (beaked whales)

Arnoux’s beaked Berardius arnuxii Cetacean Rare whale

Gray’s beaked Mesoplodon grayi Cetacean Rare whale

Cuvier’s beaked Ziphius cavirostris Cetacean Rare whale

Otariidae (eared seals)

Australian sea lion Neophoca cinerea Vulnerable, Marine Vulnerable

Subantarctic fur Arctocephalus Endangered, Marine Endangered seal tropicalis

Phocidae (earless seals)

Leopard seal Hydrurga leptonyx Marine Rare

Cheloniidae and Dermochelydiae (marine turtles)

Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta Endangered, Migratory Endangered

Green turtle Chelonia mydas Vulnerable, Migratory Vulnerable

Pacific ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Endangered, Migratory -

Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered, Migratory Vulnerable

Lamnidae (white sharks)

Great white shark Carcharodon Vulnerable, Migratory - carcharias

Table 13 Threatened Marine Mammals, Cartilaginous Fishes and Marine Turtles of Gulf St Vincent (Kemper et al. 2008 and Baker et al. 2008)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 85 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Marine Turtles

Gulf St Vincent supports marine turtles, though no significant populations or nesting sites occur in the area. The most important habitat values within the gulf are seagrass meadows which are used for feeding habitat. Based on records from the Atlas of Living Australia, there have been two historical sightings of green turtles in Gulf St Vincent (including one in the Inner Harbor in 2003), two sightings of loggerhead turtles, and 21 sightings of leatherback turtles. Majority of these sightings are from the 1990s or earlier, although there are a number of sightings of leatherback turtles in the 2000s and 2010s, as well as sightings of the green turtle in 2003.

Pinnipeds, Threatened Sharks and Dolphins

Commonwealth and state-listed threatened pinniped species recorded in Gulf St Vincent include the Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea), the subantarctic fur seal (Arctocephalus tropicalis), and the leopard seal (Hydruga leptonyx). Sea lions and fur seals are known to use rock platforms as haul-out sites within the gulf (Kemper et al. 2008) but feed in a variety of habitat types. Australian sea lion colonies occur at Dangerous Reef (Spencer Gulf) and The Pages Island (Encounter Bay) but significant aggregation or feeding sites are not known to occur in Gulf St Vincent. There are no colonies or significant feeding sites for subantarctic fur seal and leopard seal in Gulf St Vincent, suggesting that these species likely occur only as transient visitors.

The great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) is the only threatened shark species known from the gulf. This species preys primarily on fish and pinnipeds, and is expected to occur in a variety of habitats throughout the gulf. Smaller (non- threatened) sharks and rays are expected to breed within localised areas, as evidenced by shark/ray eggs that sometimes wash onto shore (Baker et al. 2008).

Short-finned pilot whale (Globicephala macrorhynchus) and false killer whale Pseudorca crassidens) are both known to occasionally use the gulf (Kemper et al. 2008). Both species prefer deep waters at the edge of the continental shelf and over deep submarine canyons but are occasionally visitors to the coast.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 86 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 29 SPRAT Database Habitat Areas for Humpback Whale (top) and South Right Whale (bottom)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 87 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

5.5.1.4 Shorebirds The shoreline of Gulf St Vincent supports populations of shorebirds. These species utilise a combination of local habitat types, including tidal flats (important for feeding purposes), sandy shores (important for roosting habitat and utilised for feeding by some species), saltmarsh (feeding and roosting), saltpans (roosting), and commercial saltfields and artificial wetlands (alternative feeding areas) (Purnell et al. 2009, 2011 and 2013; Delta Environmental, 2009). While not listed as Ramsar wetlands, two sites within Gulf St Vincent are considered as internationally significant for migratory shorebirds using the East Asian- Australasian flyway (Bamford et al. 2008):  Site 47: Penrice (Cheetham) Dry Creek Saltfields – this site is known to support up to 9,100 red-necked stints and up to 2,130 sharp-tailed sandpipers.  Site 99: Port Wakefield to Webb Beach – this site is known to support up to 5,500 red-necked stints and up to 1,970 sharp-tailed sandpipers. In addition to these recognised sites, Watkins (1993, reported in Delta Environment, 2009) recommended the following four sites as having international and/or national importance for shorebirds (migratory and resident):  Penrice Dry Creek Saltfields – important for red-necked stints, sharp-tailed sandpipers, red-capped plovers, curlew sandpipers, banded stilts, greenshanks, red-necked avocets and marsh sandpipers  Great Sandy Point to Port Parham, important for grey plovers and sharp- tailed sandpipers  Port River Mouth, important for sooty oystercatchers  Port Prime, important for grey plovers. The majority of these sites are included in the Adelaide International Bird Sanctuary, a strip of coastline extending from Barker Inlet to Port Parham, which is shown in Chapter 1, Figure 8. Shorebirds known to occur in Gulf St Vincent, based on monitoring records from Birds Australia (collected 2009 to 2013) and survey recorded by Delta Environmental (2009) are listed in Table 14. The majority of these species are protected as migratory species under the EPBC Act. Some species are also listed as threatened under the EPBC Act and/or NPW Act.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 88 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Common name Scientific name EPBC status NPW status

Charadriidae (plovers, dotterels and lapwings)

Double-banded Charadrius bicinctus Migratory, Marine - plover

Little ringed plover Charadrius dubius Migratory, Marine -

Greater sand plover Charadrius leschenaultii Vulnerable, Migratory, Rare Marine

Lesser sand plover Charadrius mongolus Endangered, Migratory, Rare Marine

Red-capped plover Charadrius ruficapillus Marine -

Oriental plover Charadrius veredus Migratory, Marine -

Black-fronted Elseyornis melanops - - dotterel

Red-kneed dotterel Erythrogony cinctus - -

Pacific golden Pluvialis fulva Migratory, Marine Rare plover

Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola Migratory, Marine -

Masked lapwing Vanellus miles - -

Banded lapwing Vanellus tricolor - -

Glareolidae (pratincoles and coursers)

Oriental pratincole Glareola maldivarum Migratory, Marine -

Australian Stiltia isabella Marine - pratincole

Haematopodidae (oystercatchers)

Sooty oystercatcher Haematopus fuliginosus - Rare

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 89 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Common name Scientific name EPBC status NPW status

Pied oystercatcher Haematopus longirostris - Rare

Recurvirostridae (avocets and stilts)

Banded stilt Cladorhynchus - Vulnerable leucocephalus

Black-winged stilt Himantopus himantopus Marine -

Red-necked avocet Recurvirostra Marine - novaehollandiae

Buff-breasted Tryngites subruficollis Marine - sandpiper

Rostratulidae (painted snipes)

Australian painted Rostratula australis Endangered, Marine Vulnerable snipe

Scolopacidae (sandpipers)

Common sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos Migratory, Marine Rare

Ruddy turnstone Arenaria interpres Migratory, Marine Rare

Sharp-tailed Calidris acuminata Migratory, Marine - sandpiper

Sanderling Calidris alba Migratory, Marine Rare

Biard’s sandpiper Calidris bairdii Marine -

Red knot Calidris canutus Endangered, Migratory, - Marine

Curlew sandpiper Calidris ferruginea Critically Endangered, - Migratory, Marine

White-rumped Calidis fuscicollis - - sandpiper

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 90 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Common name Scientific name EPBC status NPW status

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos Migratory, Marine Rare

Little stint Calidris minuta Marine -

Red-necked stint Calidris ruficollis Migratory, Marine -

Long-toed stint Calidris subminuta Migratory, Marine Rare

Great knot Calidris tenuirostris Critically Endangered, Rare Migratory, Marine

Latham’s snipe Gallinago hardwickii Migratory, Marine Rare

Broad-billed Limicola falcinellus Migratory, Marine - sandpiper

Hudsonian godwit Limosa haemastica - -

Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica Migratory, Marine Rare

Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa Migratory, Marine Rare

Eastern curlew Numenius Critically Endangered, Vulnerable madagascariensis Migratory, Marine

Whimbrel Numenius minutus Migratory, Marine Rare

Red-necked Phalropus lobatus Migratory, Marine - phalarope

Ruff Philomachus pugnax Migratory, Marine Rare

Grey-tailed tattler Tringa brevipes Migratory, Marine Rare

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes - -

Wood sandpiper Tringa glareola Migratory, Marine Rare

Common Tringa nebularia Migratory, Marine - greenshank

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 91 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Common name Scientific name EPBC status NPW status

Marsh sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis Migratory, Marine -

Common redshank Tringa totanus Migratory, Marine -

Terek sandpiper Xenus cinereus Migratory, Marine Rare

Table 14 Shorebirds of Gulf St Vincent (Purnell et al. 2009, 2011 and 2013; Delta Environmental, 2009)

5.5.1.5 Fisheries Values The Gulf St Vincent is an important nursery ground for a large number of fish and invertebrate species, and sustains some of South Australia’s largest marine commercial fisheries. The broader bioregion supports fisheries based on southern rock lobster Jasus edwardsii; green and black lip abalone Haliotis rubra, Haliotis laevigata; the western king prawn (Melicertus latisulcatus); Australian sardine (Sardinops sagax), multi-species marine scale fishery, and blue swimmer crab Portunus pelagicus (Knight and Tsolos 2010). Key fisheries in the gulf are summarised below. Details on commercial fisheries values specific to the Gulf St Vincent DMPA are discussed in Section 5.5.3.2.

Prawn Fishery Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery (GSVPF) is one of three commercial prawn fisheries that operate in South Australia. The GSVPF is the second largest of these fisheries and targets the western king prawn, Penaeus latisculcatus. Penaeus latisculcatus is a benthic species and inhabits shallow inshore, tropical and subtropical waters. The fishing season in Gulf St Vincent occurs between 1st November and 31st July, with an annual closure in January and February. As they are nocturnal species, trawling is undertaken during the night between sunset and sunrise (Beckmann and Hooper, 2016). Figure 30 shows the boundaries of the GSVPF, divided into 121 prawn fishing blocks by Beckmann and Hooper, 2016.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 92 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 30 Research Management Blocks for Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery (Beckmann and Hooper, 2016) Based on records by EconSearch (2016a), the total commercial prawn catch in both the GSVPF and South Australian waters generally varied widely between 2000/01 and 2015/16, with the highest catch and value recorded in 2000/01. This is represented in Figure 31 and Figure 32. These figures indicate the following:  With the exception of 2005/06 and 2011/12, where the other two prawn fisheries were closed (i.e. 100% of prawn catch for South Australia was from GSVPF), and 2013/14, where GSVPF was closed, the GSVPF

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 93 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

typically accounts for approximately 10% of the total South Australian prawn fishery total catch (EconSearch (2016a).  Total catch in the GSVPF decreased 35% from 384 tonnes in 2000/01 to 249 tonnes in 2014/15. In 2011/12, the total catch was 125 tonnes, which was the lowest catch during the reporting period and resulted in the fishery closure for the next two years. The GSVPF was reopened in 2014/15 with a total catch of 249 tonnes, similar to the catch in 2009/10 (EconSearch, 2016a).  The value of the GSVPF has more than halved between 2000/01 to 2014/15 due to the decline in catch in addition to a 34% decline in prawn retail price (EconSearch, 2016a). The value of catch in 2014/15 was $4.1 million, which was more than double than in the year prior to the fishery closure of $1.9 million in 2011/12.

Figure 31 Total Prawn Catch (‘000 kg) and Total Value ($’000) in South Australian Waters between 2000/01 and 2014/15 (data from EconSearch 2016a)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 94 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 32 Total Prawn Catch (‘000 kg) and Total Value ($’000) in Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery Between 2000/01 and 2014/15 Financial Years (data from EconSearch 2016a)

Scalefish Fishery The marine scalefish fishery (MSF) is a large multi-species and multi-gear fishery in South Australia. Approximately 60% of the total fishery production and 70% of total fishery value is made up of four species: King George whiting (Sillaginodes punctatus), southern garfish (Hyporhamphus melanochir), snapper (Chrysophyrs auratus) and southern calamari (Sepioteuthis australis). In addition to scalefish, the MSF includes other species, such as squid, worms and sharks (PIRSA, 2017). The MSF includes the waters of Gulf St Vincent, as shown in Figure 33. The total catch and value of the MSF between financial years 2000/01 and 2014/15, based on EconSearch data (2016b), are shown in Figure 33. The highest total catch was in 2000/01 with a catch of 5,342 tonnes, decreasing by almost 50% to 2,604 tonnes in 2014/15. The lowest reported total catch was in 2013/14 with 2,324 tonnes. Despite the total catch declining, the total value increased over the reporting period. The highest total catch value was in 2014/15 with $25.21 million. The lowest value was in 2005/06 with a catch value of $17.72 million (EconSearch, 2016b). Total scalefish catch for the South Australian MSF for the seven most common species is shown in Figure 34. With the exception of one year, snapper had the highest catch of all MSF species between 2000/01 to 2014/15, with an average catch of 655 tonnes. The highest snapper catch was in 2010/11 with 975 tonnes; however, it has declined since this peak. Australian salmon had the highest catch in 2002/03 with 576 tonnes. King george whiting and Southern calamari also reported high catches, with an average catch of 345 and 386 tonnes, respectively. Note that since 2005/06, the southern calamari catches include reported bycatch from prawn fishers.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 95 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 33 Total Scalefish Catch (‘000 kg) and Total Value ($’000) in South Australian Waters between 2000/01 and 2014/15 Financial Years (data from EconSearch, 2016b)

Figure 34 Total Scalefish Catch of Seven Species with Highest Catch in South Australian Waters between 2009/10 and 2014/15 Financial Years (data from EconSearch, 2016b)

Abalone Fishery The South Australian Abalone Fishery targets the blacklip abalone Haliotis rubra and greenlip abalone Haliotis laevigata. The South Australian Abalone Fishery provides approximately 20% of the national wild abalone production and is the third most valuable fishery in South Australia, behind the Southern Rock Lobster and Western King Prawn fisheries (Fisheries Division of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, 2009). The gulf is located in the central zone of the South Australian Abalone Fishery.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 96 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Abalone occur in reef habitats, which are not represented in the Clinton biounit (Figure 27).

Rock Lobster fishery The South Australian Rock Lobster fishery is based on the capture of southern rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii). The total commercial catch of J. edwardsii from South Australian waters has historically averaged between 2,000 and 2,500 tonnes per year, which represents about 30% of the total annual commercial catch for the species. The total South Australian recreational catch is estimated to be between 95 and 118 tonnes (Fisheries Division of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, 2003). Southern rock lobster inhabits a variety of reef habitats, which are not represented in the Clinton biounit (Figure 27).

5.5.1.6 Marine Pests A review of marine pest records by SARDI (Wiltshire et al. 2010) identified 27 marine pest species that are likely or known to occur in Gulf St Vincent (not including Barker Inlet). Of these species, none were considered by Tanner (2004) as posing a risk of being spread by dredging and disposal works during the OHCD Project.

5.5.2 Barker Inlet, Port River and Outer Harbor Barker Inlet is a small marine embayment located on the eastern side of Gulf St Vincent. This area drains the northern Adelaide plains. The inlet includes a number of islands and intertidal areas, including Torrens Island and Bird Island/Section Banks. The Port River is part of Barker Inlet, located between the Lefevre Peninsula and Torrens and Bird islands. The Port Adelaide Outer Harbor includes the ‘downstream’ extent of the Port River, adjacent to Bird Island, while the Inner Harbor occurs further ‘upstream’. Barker Inlet, including the Port River, is treated as a separate biounit under the EPA bioregional assessment (EPA, 2013) due to the distinctive character and pressures associated with this area. This biounit, Adelaide Metro, hosts both significant coastal and marine ecological values as well as significant industrial and metropolitan land uses. Barker Inlet is classified as an aquatic reserve under the Fisheries Management Act 2007 and is also included in the DIWA database as the Barker Inlet and St Kilda Nationally Important Wetlands (SA005). This recognises the extensive wetland habitat values within this area, including tidal mudflats, mangroves and samphire saltflats, as well as seagrass. This overlaps with part of the Adelaide International Bird Sanctuary that occurs along part of the coastline of Barker Inlet (see Figure 8). The majority of the inlet has also been declared as the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary (ADS) under the Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act 2005. The location of the ADS is shown in Figure 8.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 97 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

In addition to these area, part of Torrens Island is located within the Torrens Island Conservation Park.

5.5.2.1 Habitat Areas

Seagrass Meadows Mapping by the EPA (2013) of benthic habitats in the Adelaide Metro biounit (Figure 35) indicate large areas (up to 70% of the biounit) of continuous seagrass occurs in Barker Inlet. EPA (2013) mapping of Barker Inlet indicate this area is dominated by Heterozostera tasmanica. While not ground-truthed in 2017, near shore transects indicated the presence of Heterozostera sp. near these areas. Within the Outer Harbor, ground-truthing surveys completed in April 2017 by BMT WBM confirm the presence Amphibolis antarctica or Posidonia sinuosa meadows or a mixed meadow of these species ( Figure 36). Ephemeral seagrasses (predominantly Halophila australis) were present throughout the study area, particularly in water depths between 6 and 13m below Lowest Astronomical Tide. Ephemeral seagrasses were difficult to map as they were only present in low densities (0-35%) and often interspersed with low density P. sinuosa, macroalgae wrack or razorfish with macroalgal cover. Adjacent to the offshore shipping channel, areas previously mapped as unconsolidated bare substrate (Tanner, 2004) were identified as having sparse seagrass cover in 2017, mainly H. australis. This potentially indicates some expansion from previous surveys. There were also small patches of sparse (0- 35%) H. australis within the shipping channel.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 98 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 35 Adelaide Metro Biounit Habitat Mapping (EPA, 2013)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 99 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

36

Figure 36 Seagrass Mapping (April 2017)

7 July 2017 | Arup Page 100 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

The Adelaide Coastal Waters Study (ACWS) investigated a number of pressures to seagrass meadows in Barker Inlet and adjoining waters. These included the following:  Elevated nutrient levels, associated with discharge from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and the Penrice Soda Ash Plant.  Freshwater, sediment and nutrient inflows associated with stormwater discharge, causing changes in salinity levels.  Turbidity associated with ship movements and dredging projects. The study found that nutrients from stormwater and wastewater discharges are the most likely cause of historical broad scale seagrass losses, although turbidity from stormwater is expected to have contributed to losses (CSIRO, 2011). Subsequent to initial losses, freshwater inputs from stormwater causing a reduction in salinity may then cause impacts to the regenerative capacity of seagrass by impacting on the ability of seedlings to grow. Results from the post-dredging seagrass surveys associated with the OHCD indicate that dredging has not caused a permanent impact on seagrass meadows in Barker Inlet (Tanner and Rowling, 2008; Wiltshire and Tanner, 2016).

Intertidal Areas Intertidal areas of Barker Inlet support areas of samphire/saltmarsh and mangroves (Figure 35). Mangrove woodlands within the inlet through to the Port Gawler Conservation Park (approximately 10km north of Barker Inlet) represent the largest continuous expanse of mangroves in Gulf St Vincent as well as the most significant nursery area for fish species within the gulf (DEWNR, 2007b; Morelli, 1995). These woodlands are composed of grey mangrove (Avicennia marina) and are mostly located around the coastline of Barker Inlet and Torrens Island (DEWNR, 2007b). Saltmarsh and samphire communities occur in the tidal mud flats throughout the inlet, including at Bird Island. Mangroves are noted to be expanding their range within southern Barker Inlet and on Torrens Island, replacing existing areas of saltmarsh and samphire (DEWNR, 2007b). Saltmarsh species on Bird Island and other intertidal areas in Barker Inlet potentially form part of the EPBC Act listed Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh threatened ecological community (TEC). This is a Vulnerable community, listed due to its small geographic distribution, threats of loss over the medium-term future, reduction in community integrity, and rate of continuing detrimental change (TSSC, 2013). However, based on assessments undertaken by EAC Ecological Evaluation, 2014) it is considered unlikely that this TEC occurs on Bird Island.

Benthic Habitat Other than areas of marine vegetation, the benthic habitat of Barker Inlet and the Port River is bare substrate. This consists of sandy sediment that is regularly disturbed within the Outer Harbor by the wash from vessel movements (Tanner, 2004; KBR, 2004).

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 101 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

5.5.2.2 Marine Megafauna

Dolphins The most common dolphin species within Barker Inlet, including the Port River, is the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) (DEWNR, 2007a). The population of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins occurring within the area forms the basis for the ADS, which seeks to protect important habitat areas for the species. Although protected under the ADS Act, the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin is considered common in coastal waters of Australia and is not listed as a threatened species under either the NPW Act or EPBC Act. This population has been subject to historical impacts but improvements in local water quality are suggested to have caused an annual increase in population numbers (e.g. Bossley et al. 2017 indicate an estimated 6% annual increase in sightings since the 1980s). Threats still persist to this population, particularly from boat strike (Steiner and Bossley, 2008; DEWNR, 2007a). A study by Steiner (2012) into temporal determinants of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin activity indicated no significant seasonal difference in dolphin activity budgets (i.e. time spent travelling, foraging, feeding, socialising, resting etc.). However, during the dolphin breeding season (December to March) there is an increase in foraging activities comparative to other times of the year. Other activities tend to remain the same during non-breeding periods. The Short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) and the common bottlenose (Tursiops truncatus) are also likely to be transient visitors to the area, though spend more time in the deeper waters of Gulf St Vincent (Kemper et al. 2008; DEWNR, 2007a; Filby et al. 2010; Filby et al. 2013).

Pinnipeds The Australian sea lion (Neophoca cinerea) has been sighted hauling out on the rocks associated with the Outer Harbor breakwater in the past and are likely to feed occasionally in the area (Kemper et al. 2008). The species is Vulnerable under both the EPBC Act and NPW Act, with its biggest threat considered to be incidental bycatch from commercial fishing activity (Goldsworth et al. 2015). As discussed in Section 5.5.1.3 there are no key breeding colonies for this species in the study area. The New Zealand fur seal (Arctocephalus forster) also occurs in the study area, hauling out on the breakwater. This species is not currently listed as threatened under the EPBC Act or NPW Act.

Sharks and Rays Barker et al. (2008) suggest a number of shark and ray species known from Gulf St Vincent (see Appendix E.2) may also occur in the shallow waters of Barker Inlet. These include bronze and dusky whalers (Caracharhinus brachyurus and c. obscurus), Port Jackson sharks (Heterodontus potusjacksoni), smooth and black stingrays (Dasyatis brevicaudata and D. thetidis), southern eagle ray (Myliobatis

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 102 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

australis), magpie fiddler ray (Trygnorrhina melaleuca) and banded stingaree (Urolophus cruciatus).

5.5.2.3 Shorebirds The tidal flats and beaches of Barker Inlet provide habitat for resident and migratory shorebirds. In particular, Bird Island, an artificial island caused by the trapping of sediment behind the Outer Harbor breakwater, provides habitat for a large number of shorebirds. Surveys by SARDI conducted in 2016 and records summarised by EAC – Ecological Evaluation (2014) indicate up to 44 shorebird and wetland bird species are regular visitors to Bird Island, including seven species noted to nest on the island (SARDI, 2016):  Silver gull (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae) – listed as Marine under EPBC Act  White ibis (Threskiornis molucca) – listed as Marine under EPBC Act  Australian pelican (Pelecanus conspicillatus) – listed as Marine under EPBC Act  Little egret (Egretta garzetta) – listed as Marine under EPBC Act and Rare under NPW Act  Caspian tern (Hydroprogne caspia) – listed as Migratory and Marine under EPBC Act  Crested tern (Thalasseus bergii) – listed as Migratory and Marine under EPBC Act  Fairy tern (Sternula nereis nereis) – listed as Vulnerable under EPBC Act and Endangered under NPW Act. While the numbers or variety of migratory shorebirds at Bird Island have not been confirmed as sufficient to designate the area as ‘important habitat’ under the EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21 – Industry Guidelines for avoiding, assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC-listed migratory shorebird species, the area still functions as an important area for shorebirds in Barker Inlet.

5.5.2.4 Fisheries Values Seagrass meadows, mangroves and tidal flats provide important nursery areas for fish, cephalopod and crustacean species in Barker Inlet (DEWNR, 2007b). Baker (2004, in DEWNR, 2007b) describes the inlet as one of the most significant fish and crustacean nursery and feeding areas in Gulf St Vincent, providing a significant spawning area for certain fish species. Of the fish species in this area, the following are considered important food species for dolphins and other marine megafauna (DEWNR, 2007b):  Yellow fin whiting  Snapper  King George whiting

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 103 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 Black bream  Southern sea garfish  Flathead species  Western river garfish  Mulloway  Yellow eye mullet  Australian salmon  Jumping mullet  Squid  Striped trumpeter  Tommy rough  Flounder species  Striped trumpeter. The mud cockle fishery (MCF) is part of the South Australian MSF (PIRSA, 2013). This fishery was previously significant within both Port River and Barker Inlet, including at Section Banks, targeting Katelysia peroni, K. rhytophora and K. scalarina. However, due to concerns regarding stock declines, the fishery has been closed in sections of the Port River since 2011 to enable regeneration (PIRSA, 2016). Other commercial scalefish fishing is concentrated in the deeper waters of Gulf St Vincent (PIRSA, 2013) and does not occur in the study area.

5.5.2.5 Marine Pests A marine pest species survey undertaken by SARDI (Tanner, 2004) as part of the OHCD Project identified the following exotic species within the OHCD Project dredging area, based on the list provided in Cohen et al. (2001):  Alexandrium minutum  Alexandrium tamarense  Pseudopolydora paucibranchiata  Sabella spallazanii. An additional 18 exotic species have also been listed by Cohen et al. (2001) for the area, although not confirmed present by SARDI (KBR, 2004). As well as these species, SARDI identified the introduced macroalgae species, Caulerpa cylindracea (formerly Caulerpa racemose var. cylindracea), in the Port River and Barker Inlet (Tanner, 2004). While not traditionally considered a marine pest species, C. cylinadracea is thought to have been introduced from Western Australia and is perceived as a threat due to its potential to out-compete locally occurring seagrass species (KBR, 2004). This species is known to occur throughout the Port River system, as well as offshore from Section Bank in Barker Inlet and between Semaphore and North Haven (Wiltshire et al. 2010). Although

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 104 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

concerns were raised about the potential for the 2004 OHCD Project to spread the species, surveys of the DMPA (Wiltshire, 2016; KBR, 2007) did not identify the presence of this species, and it is believed that conditions are not suitable for it to become established (i.e. unsuitable depth and substrate).

5.5.3 DMPA

5.5.3.1 Benthic Organisms The DMPA site in Gulf St Vincent is characterised as a bryozoan assemblage area, featuring bryozoan, sponge and oyster species. This area was used for placement of dredged material as part of the OHCD Project. The taxon observed from surveys before and after dredge material placement (2002 and 2016) are summarised in Table 15. Overall abundance observed in 2016 was lower than observed in 2002, with reductions in Porifera sponge abundance and an absence of bryozoa in 2016. However, razorfish, scallops, the red macroalga (Osmundaria prolifera) and Zoanthidae soft corals were all observed in 2016 despite being absent in 2002.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 105

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Taxon Abundance per 500 m (± s.e., n=15)

2002 2016

Sponge (Porifera) 99 ± 6.5 57.3 ± 6.2

Razorfish (Pinna bicolor) - 8.1 ± 6.2

Scallop (Pectinidae) - 8.1 ± 3.1

Seastars (Asteroidae) 1.2 ± 0.22 1.1 ± 0.5

Osmundaria prolifera 0.2 ± 0.1

Ascidacea 9.0 ± 0.84 0.9 ± 0.5

Zoanthidae - 0.5 ± 0.3

Bryozoa 38 ± 6.5 0.2 ± 0.1

Pencil urchin 1.4 ± 0.37 -

Holothuria 0.11 ± 0.09 -

Table 15 Comparison of Abundance of Benthic Organisms at DMPA Site, 2002 and 2016 (Wiltshire and Tanner, 2016) No seagrass meadows or other high value marine habitat values occur at the DMPA. While this area may be transited by fish and marine megafauna species, it does not support assemblages of any species of conservation significance.

5.5.3.2 Fisheries Values The DMPA is within the GSVPF and the South Australian MSF. Figure 37 and Figure 38 indicates the research blocks of these fisheries that overlap with the DMPA.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 106

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

37

Figure 37 Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery and Dredged Material Placement Area

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 107 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

38

Figure 38 South Australia Marine Scalefish Fishery and Dredged Material Placement Area Within the GSVPF, the DMPA covers parts of research blocks 14 and 19. The total catch and value of these blocks between 2001/02 and 2015/16 is shown in Figure 39 based on data reported by SARDI. The contribution of these blocks to the total GSVPF catch between 2000/01 and 2015/16 varied between 0.1% and

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 108

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

23.6%, in part reflecting the variability in effort applied to each block from year- to-year. The highest catch in this area occurred in 2001/02 at 54.8 tonnes. No fishing occurred during 2012/13 and 2013/14 due to a closure of the entire fishery. Data from 2004/05 and 2010/11 is not available.

Figure 39 Total Prawn Catch (‘000 kg) and Total Value ($’000) from Blocks 14 and 19 within Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery between 2000/01 and 2015/16 Financial Years (data from SARDI) Within the MSF, the DMPA is included within part of block 36. The total catch and value of the MSF within this block has varied between 2003/04 and 2015/16 as shown in Figure 39 (based on data from SARDI). Over this period, this block contributed approximately 7.3% of the total catch for the MSF across South Australia. The highest reported catch was in 2004/05 at 295 tonnes while the lowest was in 2010/11 with 111 tonnes. Based on Figure 40, the average commercial scalefish catch value for 2003/2004 to 2015/16 for block 36 was $1.8M. The highest catch value occurred in 2013/14 at $2.6M while the lowest was $1.1M in 2010/11. Catch value has generally increased annually within the reporting period, reflecting a trend towards increased efficiency. The total value of block 36 between 2003/04 and 2015/16 was approximately 7.9% of the total value of the MSF.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 109 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 40 Total Scalefish Catch (‘000 kg) and Total Value ($’000) in Block 36 between 2003/04 and 2015/16 Financial Years (data from SARDI) The total catch of the eight major species of the MSF in block 36 is shown in Figure 41 for the period 2003/4 to 2015/16 (based on SARDI data)9. The following observations can be made from the data:  In 2003/04 southern calamari recorded the largest catch, while the largest from 2004/05 and 2008/09 was the garfish. Between 2009/10 and 2015/16 snapper had the largest catch by a significant margin, peaking at 207 tonnes in 2013/14.  The majority of species recorded within block 36 made up less than 10% of the total catch of that species in South Australian waters. The two exceptions were Australian herring and snapper. In 2012/13 and 2014/15 Australian herring caught in block 36 made up 10.5% and 13.7% of the total catch in SA. The percentage of snapper caught in block 36 varied widely across reported years. Catches from 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 in block 36 accounted for approximately one third of total snapper catch (by weight) within SA waters.

9 This data does not include yellowfin whiting or Australian salmon catch data due to confidentiality

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 110

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 41 Marine Scalefish and Miscellaneous Fisheries Total Whole Weight Catch (‘000 kg) by Eight Major Species in Block 36 from 2003/04 to 2015/16 (data from SARDI) A brief summary of the distribution and habitat association of scalefish and other miscellaneous species caught within block 36 are provided in Appendix E.3. Based on this summary, the DMPA is unlikely to provide significant habitat values important to any MSF species.

5.6 Potential Impacts

5.6.1 Impacting Processes The impacts of the project are assessed in terms of impacting processes, i.e. activities or processes associated with the project that have the potential to have a negative effect on the environment. The impacting processes relevant to coastal and marine ecology are:

Construction Phase  The release of contaminants from dredge vessel operations, including spills from refuelling, waste disposal etc.  Dredging activity within the Outer Harbor, including direct disturbance of the seabed (causing the release of turbid plumes and the disturbance of contaminated material)  Smothering of benthic fauna from placement of material at the DMPA  Injury to fauna from vessel strike associated with the movement of the dredge vessel  Disturbance to marine fauna from underwater vessel noise generated by dredge vessel and piling activity  Spread of marine pests from dredging activity  Loss of fisheries values.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 111 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Operational Phase  Movement and berthing of larger vessels (up to 49m wide), including operation of tugboats to assist with vessel movement  An increased risk of future maintenance dredging  Altered channel morphology and changes to coastal processes. The impacts associated with these processes are discussed below in the context of the construction and operational phases of the project.

5.6.2 Construction Phase

5.6.2.1 Contamination from Spills and Discharges Fuel and hydraulic fluids from the dredge vessel are unlikely to be discharged to the environment except where there is a spill during bunkering (at the port) or during transit/operation (e.g. from vessel collision, equipment failure). Slow leaks can also occur if the vessel hull or hydraulic equipment are in a state of disrepair. The likelihood of a spill or leak occurring is considered very low due to the existing procedures and facilities for bunkering at Flinders Port and the expected condition and experience of the dredge vessel (and ancillary vessels) and crew. Hydrocarbon spills have the potential to cause long-lasting impacts to the marine environment, particularly for marine mammals and birds. However, the risk of spills associated with dredging are considered to be the same as the existing risk of spill associated with daily shipping movement in Outer Harbor and Gulf St Vincent, i.e. the dredging will not cause significant increase in ship movements within the study area and therefore will not create additional risk of spills. Responses to these events are managed through the existing port rules established by Flinders Ports. Other discharges from dredge vessels include sewage/black-water and solid waste and litter. Sewage discharge has the potential to cause elevated nutrient levels within water which can lead to impacts such as algal blooms. However, discharges are currently undertaken subject to Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) regulations which prevent discharge in the vicinity of sensitive environmental features. Sewage disposed at sea is expected to rapidly disperse and not cause any acute or chronic impacts to ecological values. Solid waste and litter, if disposed of (intentionally or accidentally) in the marine environment, can cause impacts to habitat values. In particular, litter consumed by marine fauna (e.g. turtles) can cause mortality within individual animals. However, the risk of waste contamination from the dredge vessel is considered to be low due to existing waste containment measures and the magnitude of waste produced comparative to the existing risk associated with daily shipping movements.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 112 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

5.6.2.2 Turbid Plumes (Dredging and Placement) The key impact during the construction phase is turbidity generated from dredging and placement activities, as well as the potential for resuspension of material placed at the DMPA. The extent of turbid plumes likely to be generated by the project and its impact to water quality is described in Chapter 4 Water Quality. This impact assessment identifies three ‘zones of impact’:  Zone of High Impact – water quality impacts resulting in predicted mortality of ecological receptors with recovery time greater than 24 months  Zone of Low to Moderate Impact – water quality impacts resulting in predicted sub-lethal impacts to ecological receptors and/or mortality with recovery between 6 months (lower end of range) to 24 months (upper end of range).  Zone of Influence – extent of detectable plume but no predicted ecological impacts. Modelling of the ‘base case’ (i.e. preferred dredging methodology) using this zone of impact approach identified the following:  Modelling of the summer plume indicates that turbidity adjacent to the TSHD operating in the approach channel will be 100 NTU above background, with levels still above 5 NTU approximately 10km north of the dredge footprint.  Modelling of the winter plume indicates a southward drift of the plume but at lower turbidity levels and a lesser magnitude comparative to summer.  During flood tide (i.e. incoming tide) conditions, turbid plumes from dredging are expected to move up Port River and drift over the intertidal flats adjacent to Section Banks/Bird Island at approximately 60 NTU above background concentrations.  By comparison to the Outer Harbor, impacts at the DMPA are minor in both seasons. The nature of these impacts to coastal and marine ecology values is discussed below. The extent of plumes and impacts is currently based on preliminary modelling, with more refined assessments possible following detailed design, further geotechnical investigations etc. The use of green valves on the dredge vessel is also expected to limit the impact of plumes, though the extent of this mitigation is uncertain.

5.6.2.2.1 Disturbance to Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Benthic Primary Producer Habitat (BPPH) represent habitats supporting species that require light (i.e. seagrass). These typically represent habitats of high

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 113 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

ecological value and are sensitive to reductions in benthic light due to sediment loading. BPPH may be affected during dredging and offshore placement of dredge material by:  Direct removal within the dredge footprint  Indirect loss of seagrass habitat from dredge related turbidity and/or sedimentation, resulting in reduced light availability for photosynthesis/burial, respectively. BPPH adjacent to the Outer Harbor were mainly mixed moderate–dense Posidonia sinuosa and Amphibolis antarctica meadows and sparse ephemeral seagrass Halophila australis (interspersed with sparse P. sinuosa) while Barker Inlet is dominated by Heterozostera tasmanica (refer Figure 36). As no other BPPH occurs within the study area, this assessment focuses only on seagrass. The DMPA site does not support BPPH and is not considered in the assessments below (see Section 5.5.3).

Direct Loss A total of approximately 4ha of seagrass occurs in the areas that will be dredged as part of the OHCW Project. This consists of sparse seagrasses, mainly Halophila australis, although it is likely some of this is detritus which has collected in the channel. This material will be directly lost as a result of dredging and is unlikely to recolonise due to the proposed depth of the channel.

Indirect Loss from Turbidity Indirect impacts on seagrass due to increased water column turbidity vary depending on the physiological characteristics of the seagrass species. For instance, colonising/ephemeral species (such as Halophila spp.) are characterised by short turnover times (

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 114 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

ranges (>20m) to P. sinuosa and H. tasmanica it is likely these species have a lower light requirement (Duarte, 1991; EPA, 2005). These species are therefore less susceptible to decreased light conditions compared to P. sinuosa and H. australis. The zones of impact shown in Chapter 4.2 Water Quality are based on generic threshold values based on case studies elsewhere. The zones should therefore be considered as indicative only but are sufficient to determine areas most at risk from dredge plumes and for the purpose of determining appropriate mitigation measures to limit impacts. For the purposes of this impact assessment, the elevated turbidity associated with both the High and Low-to-Moderate Impact Zones are expected to cause seagrass loss. Assessing the modelled outputs for these zones, the following can be identified:  In summer, the Zone of High Impact is predicted to be concentrated within Port River, and the Zone of Moderate Impact will extend ~8km north, across the entrance to the Barker Inlet, resulting in the loss of sparse H. australis and moderate–dense P. sinuosa and A. antarctica adjacent to the approach channel and within the ~8km extent of the turbid plume, north of Section Bank. The extent of the loss is uncertain (as zones of impact are indicative) but it is likely some seagrass will be lost throughout this zone.  Winter plume modelling results indicate that sparse H. australis within a ~2km radius of the approach channel, a small area of moderate–dense P. sinuosa and A. Antarctica and H. tasmanica adjacent to Section Bank will be directly impacted by the turbid plume. A direct interpretation of the High to Moderate Zones of Impact during winter and summer indicate a similar loss of seagrass habitat, regardless of seasonal differences in predicted plume extent. However, literature suggests that the time of year that shading is applied may also affect tolerance of seagrasses to shading (Bulthuis, 1983; Fitzpatrick and Kirkman, 1995). For instance, seagrass shaded during spring or the start of summer could have a greater impact on survival because seagrasses increase respiration during periods of elevated light availability to store carbohydrates. Seagrass unable to store adequate carbohydrates over spring/summer will be more vulnerable to turbidity in winter because their carbohydrate store will deplete rapidly. Therefore, impacts to seagrass health and recovery are likely to be higher if seagrass is shaded in spring/summer. As discussed in Chapter 1.2 Project Description, the timing of the dredge campaign will not be known until such time as a dredge contractor is appointed and plant availability is known; therefore, a conclusion about the impact of dredge timing cannot be made at this time, but will be a consideration when appointing a dredge contractor.

Indirect Loss from Sedimentation Ephemeral genera like Halophila spp. are more vulnerable to sedimentation, though it can be difficult to separate effects of turbidity, sedimentation, contamination and/or nutrient enrichment on seagrass health in field studies

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 115 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

(Erftemeijer and Robin Lewis, 2006). Research indicates that Halophila ovalis will experience 100% mortality with a 2cm burial level (Cabaço et al. 2008). Though the tolerance of H. ovalis to burial may not directly applicable to H. australis, these smaller ephemeral species are generally more susceptible to burial than perennial species due to smaller above ground biomass, leaf length, rhizome diameter and/or lack of vertical rhizomes (Erftemeijer and Robin Lewis, 2006; Cabaço et al. 2008). Conversely, studies indicate that Amphibolis and Posidonia sinuosa were unaffected by 10cm and 30cm burial, respectively (Erftemeijer and Robin Lewis, 2006; Cabaço et al. 2008). Predicted sedimentation over summer and winter indicates a smaller extent to the modelled turbid plume, remaining within close proximately to the Outer Channel, Port River and Section Bank (see Chapter 4 Water Quality). The highest net sedimentation likely to occur adjacent to the Outer Channel and Port River for winter and summer is approximately 1cm10. Given burial of 1cm is below predicted tolerance levels for similar ephemeral and perennial seagrass species, it is unlikely that sedimentation on its own will impact seagrass habitat adjacent to the Project.

Comparison to OHCD Project When comparing these predicted impacts to those from the OHCD Project it is noted that the proposed dredging campaign will have both a lower dredging volume and shorter campaign duration (see Chapter 1.8.4 OHCW Project Timing). Seagrass surveys undertaken after the OHCD Project (KBR, 2007; Tanner and Rowling, 2008; Wiltshire and Tanner, 2016) indicated a recovery of seagrass impacted during this dredging, indicating that permanent or long-term loss of seagrass habitat due to turbid plumes from the OHCW Project is unlikely.

5.6.2.2.2 Disturbance to Marine Fauna The loss of seagrass can indirectly affect marine fauna and result in reduced species diversity and abundance. In general, direct and indirect loss of seagrass (Section 5.6.2.2.1) is restricted to areas adjacent to the approach channel and Section Bank and is unlikely to affect finfish and other miscellaneous species caught by commercial fisheries (Section 5.5.2). The potential loss of H. tasmanica on Section Bank may impact some of the species that rely on this habitat as a nursery (i.e. black bream and yellow eye mullet – Appendix E.3), which are a food source for dolphins and other migratory birds in this area (Section 5.5.2). Seagrass meadows are also feeding habitat for marine turtles (Section 5.5.2). The area of direct impact (4ha) represents only 0.2% of the available seagrass in Barker Inlet and less than 0.05% of that available within 5km of the channel. As a result, the loss is not expected to cause impact to availability of feeding habitat.

10 Conservatively based on a conversion of 10 mm for 500 mg/cm2 with an assumed dry density of 500 kg/m2

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 116 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

5.6.2.3 Disturbance of Benthic Habitat at DMPA Placement of dredge material at the DMPA will cause the smothering of sessile benthic flora and fauna. This impact is not expected to be permanent, with flora and fauna species likely to recolonise the DMPA. Even where species do not recolonise or where impacts recur to due to maintenance dredging (see Section 5.6.3) the flora and fauna species lost from the DMPA are well represented in most of the gulf and therefore the impacts are not expected to significantly affect species populations. This disturbance is also not expected to cause any impacts to commercial fisheries as the DMPA is not considered of importance to any particular fish species.

5.6.2.4 Vessel Strike and Entrainment Dredge vessel movement poses the risk of strike of marine megafauna that may be moving in Gulf St Vincent (i.e. between dredging and placement areas). Vessel strike can cause physical injury and mortality in marine megafauna. While the risk is generally considered to be low, as most megafauna species are deterred by the noise caused by the dredge vessel, some species and individuals are attracted to moving vessels (e.g. dolphins riding bow-waves). DEWNR (2007a) reports dolphins are attracted to dredging activities due to the dredging causing fish aggregation. In these situations, the risk of vessel strike increases. In addition to strike, the operation of the dredge-head poses the risk of entrainment of marine fauna. This primarily includes turtles and other species that feed on seagrass beds and benthic environments. However, most dredge vessels are now equipped with turtle-exclusion devices which minimises the risk of entrainment associated with dredging activities.

5.6.2.5 Underwater Noise Within the project area, existing underwater noise sources include those associated with daily shipping movements. Despite this existing environment, however, dredging activities will cause the following additional noise impacts:  Noise associated with vessel movement during dredging will be continual in the dredging location rather than the periodic noise associated with ship movement  Additional noise will be generated by the operation of the dredge-head  Noise from piling for the relocation of navigation aids. Acoustic assessments undertaken of dredging noise in Chapter 6 Amenity indicate that dredging noise will have negligible impacts on sensitive marine fauna, with localised behavioural changes within approximately 100-200m of the dredge. Hearing damage is expected only if animals remain in the immediate vicinity (approximately 10m of the dredge vessel) for prolonged periods. This is considered unlikely.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 117 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

In addition, underwater noise from piling is expected to have negligible impact, with hearing damage limited to the immediate vicinity (approximately 10m) of the piling rig. Behavioural changes are expected to occur within the local vicinity (approximately 100-500m) of the piling rig. See further Chapter 6 Amenity.

5.6.2.6 Spread of Marine Pests (Dredging) As discussed in Section 5.5.2, C. cylindracea (formerly C. racemosa) is known to occur within the Outer Harbor but not within Gulf St Vincent. As part of the OHCD Project, a key risk was the translocation of this species from the dredging area to Gulf St Vincent within the dredged material. Mitigation measures introduced to control this risk included segregation and treatment of dredged material containing C. cylindracea which were considered successful in preventing the spread of this species. However, it has been identified that this species is unlikely to establish at the DMPA site due to depth and unsuitable substrate conditions. For this reason, a repeat of mitigation measures from the OHCD Project are considered unnecessary for the OHCW Project. Similarly, other exotic species identified by SARDI (Tanner, 2004) are not expected to be able to survive within the deeper waters of the DMPA site and are therefore not expected to pose a risk (KBR, 2004). There is also a risk of the spread of marine pest associated with ballast water discharge from the vessel. See Section 5.6.2.7.

5.6.2.7 Spread of Marine Pests (Ballast Water) Ballast water has the potential to carry marine pest species, especially in regard to vessels travelling from international jurisdictions (e.g. dredge vessels). Pest species transported by ballast water can quickly become established in new marine environments, out-competing locally occurring species and causing changes to ecosystem and environmental health. Ballast water can also cause the spread of diseases that can significantly impact local species populations. At present, ballast water exchanges are regulated by port rules established by Flinders Ports and/or national/international regulations which limits the potential for ballast water impacts in the project area. These include the National Bio- fouling Management Guidelines for Non-trading Vessels and the Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements. The risk of marine pest impacts from ballast water associated with dredge vessels is, therefore, not considered to be any higher than present operational risks associated with ballast water exchange of international cargo ships.

5.6.3 Operational Phase The following impacts have been assessed as having the potential to occur as a result of the OHCW Project:  A wider channel may have more frequent siltation, leading to increased maintenance dredging requirements. This poses a risk of more frequent

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 118 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

turbidity impacts to seagrass meadows and smothering of the DMPA benthic habitat.  Changes to channel morphology will also cause changes in hydrodynamic processes within the Outer Harbor which may cause some scour and/or deposition at Bird Island. Where scour occurs, this will cause some loss of intertidal habitat used by shorebirds. These impacts are considered further below.

5.6.3.1 Increased Maintenance Dredging Maintenance dredging already occurs within the Outer Harbor in order to keep channels and berths at a design depth. The widening of the Outer Harbor approach channel and swing basin has potential to cause some increase in maintenance dredging requirements for this area. Noting that seagrass meadows and other benthic habitats are expected to recover over a period of a few years, increased maintenance dredging would be expected to be a significant impact if it occurred more frequently than this (thereby prevent the opportunity for benthic habitats to become re-established). However, maintenance dredging could occur on a much greater time cycle based on historical maintenance dredging requirements (the channel has not required any maintenance dredging since completion of the OHCD Project in 2005), thereby significantly reducing the risk associated with this impact. In addition, the additional maintenance dredging required comparative to that already required for the Outer Harbor is considered to be low and is therefore unlikely to increase overall risk to coastal and marine ecology.

5.6.3.2 Changed Channel Morphology Dredging activities will cause changes in channel morphology and hydrodynamics (e.g. flow of water, deposition of sediment) in the Outer Harbor. These impacts have the potential to cause changes in the intertidal and supratidal environment at Bird Island which could then reduce habitat areas utilised by migratory and resident shorebirds. This impact is uncertain as changes could lead to greater erosion (and habitat loss) or accretion (and habitat gain) at the island. Based on a comparison to the OHCD Project (which dredged 2.7 million m3 compared to the 1.55 million m3 of the OHCW Project) hydrodynamic and morphological impacts from the proposed dredging are not expected to be in excess of those already experienced, with the exception of some short-term erosion at a local scale from channel batter slumping. As Bird Island appears to have remained in a healthy state over this time, significant impacts from the OHCW Project are unlikely.

5.7 Management Measures In order to mitigate the impacts discussed in Section 5.6 the following management measures are proposed:

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 119 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 Preparation of a Dredge Management Plan for construction phase that sets out procedures, consistent with port rules, to control the following impacts:  Vessel strike from vessel movement – this will include procedures for spotter-catchers as well as megafauna exclusion zones  Ballast water exchange  Sewage/black-water discharge  Refuelling  The Dredge Management Plan should also set out the proposed dredging methodology based on the season works will be undertaken in and include monitoring requirements with triggers for changes in dredge methodology in order to reduce plume and sedimentation impacts.  The dredge vessel selected for the works will be equipped with fauna exclusion devices and ‘green valves’ designed to reduce turbidity impacts during dredging.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 120 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

6 Amenity

6.1 Overview This Chapter assesses acoustic impacts of the project, and addresses:  The existing noise environment of the study area  Criteria for assessing impacts from the proposed works on ecological and human noise-sensitive receivers  Airborne and underwater noise and vibration impacts from the proposed construction works  The potential ongoing airborne and underwater noise and vibration impacts following completion of the works due to dredge, piling and shipping activities  The need for any mitigation measures to reduce identified noise or vibration impacts.

6.2 Previous Studies A previous noise assessment for the Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Shipping Channel Deepening (OHCD) project was conducted in 2004 by Bassett (Bassett, 2004). The results of this study have been used as reference for this DA Report, supplemented by more recent research into airborne and underwater noise emissions from shipping. Bassett (2004) concluded the following for the OHCD Project:  Dredge activities at night may consider working west of Beacon 4 to avoid potential noise impacts to residential areas located on South Australia One Drive in adverse conditions  Blasting should be avoided (and noting blasting was not required to remove any hard material in 2005 and is not considered for the current OHCW Project either)  No additional impacts related to traffic, shipping or operations were considered of significance or requiring any mitigation.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 121 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

6.3 Site Description and Existing Noise Environment The land use adjacent to the Outer Harbor shipping channel is a mix of industrial and residential land usage as detailed in Chapter 1.6 Project Environs. The closest residential receivers to the shipping channel are those located on South Australia One Drive, approximately 300m from the centreline of the shipping channel, as shown in Figure 42. These receivers are also approximately 550m from the cruise ship passenger terminal. The closest residential receivers to the container terminal are located on Oronsay Drive, approximately 950m from the closest berth at the container terminal.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 122 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

42

Figure 42 Proximity of sensitive receptors to the OHCW Project

7 July 2017 | Arup Page 144 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Background noise measurements have not been conducted as part of this DA Report due to the existence of previous studies for the Outer Harbor vicinity. Further, the assessment criteria are absolute criteria which are based on land usage and hence the background noise level would not change the outcomes of the assessment. Noise measurements from the previous noise assessment have been used to estimate the existing background noise levels at noise-sensitive residential receivers in proximity to works. Note that despite the age of the previous noise assessment (2004) and noise measurements (2001), background noise levels are unlikely to have decreased in the intervening time, and hence using historical background noise levels is expected to be a conservative approach. If existing background noise levels have increased since the previous study this means that the noise impacts from the OHCW Project, which are assessed against fixed noise criteria, would have proportionally reduced impact compared to the existing noise environment. The previous noise assessment measured unattended background noise levels at a location along Victoria Road (corner of Victoria Road and Pelican Point Road), which can be considered to be representative of the worst-affected properties. The representative background noise level has been estimated from the presented logger data using the tenth-percentile method, which is commonly used in Australia for obtaining representative background noise levels from noise survey data, and is originally based on the approach of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy, and is:  38 dB(A) during the day  35 dB(A) at night.

6.3.1 Marine Environment No underwater noise monitoring has previously been undertaken at the Port, however this assessment considers potential impacts to sensitive marine fauna known to be present in the study area, which includes dolphins, seals and whales (Refer to Chapter 5 Coastal and Marine Ecology).

6.4 Noise Criteria

6.4.1 Airborne Noise

6.4.1.1 Industrial Noise Under the Environment Protection Act 1993 (EP Act), subsidiary policy has been developed to govern noise emission from noise sources, as contained in the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 (The EPP (Noise)). Noise criteria for a new development are provided in Part 5, Development authorisation applications, Clause (3) of the EPP (Noise). The criteria are detailed below:

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 124 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 A predicted source noise level (continuous) for a new development should not exceed the relevant indicative noise level less 5 dB. Note that due to the extended duration of likely dredging activities, it is considered most appropriate to consider dredging as an operational industrial noise source rather than a construction noise source. This is the same approach as taken by Bassett (2004) for the OHCD Project. The indicative noise level can be determined using the following method:  For cases where the proposed noise source falls into one of the categories in Table 16 and the noise sensitive receiver falls within this same category, then the indicative noise level is equal to the indicative noise factor in Table 17.  For all other cases, the indicative noise level is equal to the indicative noise factor in Table 17.

Land use category Indicative noise factor (dB(A)) Day (7am – 10pm) Night (10pm – 7am) General Industry 65 65 Special Industry 70 70

Table 16 Indicative Noise Factor with respect to point (i) above

Land use category Indicative noise factor (dB(A)) Day (7am – 10pm) Night (10pm – 7am) Rural Living 47 40 Residential 52 45 Rural Industry 57 50 Light Industry 57 50 Commercial 62 55 General Industry 65 55 Special Industry 70 60

Table 17 Indicative Noise Factor with respect to point (ii) above Notes: [1] If the land uses for the noise source and the noise sensitive receiver fall within a single land use category, the indicative noise level for the noise source is the indicative noise factor for that land use category. [2] If the land uses noise source and the noise sensitive receiver do not all fall within a single land use category, the indicative noise level for the noise source is the average of the indicative noise factors for the land use categories within which those land uses fall. [3] If the noise from the noise source contains characteristics, the source noise level (continuous) must be adjusted in the following way:

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 125 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 Addition of 5 dB for one characteristic  Addition of 8 dB for two characteristics  Addition of 10 dB for 3 or 4 characteristics. The indicative noise levels for residential receivers within Outer Harbor and North Haven been determined using the method detailed in Note 2 above. The indicative noise level is the rounded average of General Industry and Residential, less 5 dB for a new development i.e. 58 dB (day) and 50 dB (night). The EPP (Noise) also contains specific requirements for receivers located in “quiet localities”, which are defined as a locality with Development Plan land use rules promoting residential development. The noise-sensitive receivers relevant to the OHCW Project fall within Coastal Marina or Residential zones of the Port Adelaide Enfield Council Development Plan 2016. Additionally, based on the measured noise data from the previous assessment, the background noise levels during quiet periods of the day are likely to be < 40 dB(A). Therefore the “quiet locality” provisions of the EPP (Noise) would be considered applicable. Part 5 of the EPP (Noise) provides for the following additional requirements in quiet localities:

 During the day (7am to 10pm) a LAeq noise level not exceeding 52 dB(A)

 During the night (10pm to 7am) a LAeq noise level not exceeding 45 dB(A) and a LAmax noise level not exceeding 60 dB(A). Noise limits for dredging are provided in Table 18 below.

Receiver Location Noise Limit, dB Daytime (0700 to 2200) Night-time (2200 to 0700)

Residential receivers in Outer 52 LAeq,15min 45 dB LAeq,15min

Harbor and North Haven 60 dB LAmax

Table 18 Noise limits for operational noise associated with the OHCW Project As dredging activity is planned to occur 24 hours per day, a worst case assessment has been undertaken assuming operation for comparison with the relevant night- time noise limit.

6.4.1.2 Construction Noise Construction noise requirements in SA are defined by the EPP (Noise) 2007, Part 6 – Special noise control provisions, Division 1 – Construction noise. These provisions are summarised below:  Construction noise is considered to have an adverse impact on amenity at noise sensitive receivers when:  The continuous noise source level exceeds 45 dB(A) or the ambient continuous noise level, whichever is higher

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 126

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 The maximum noise source level exceeds 60 dB(A) or the ambient maximum noise level (that is reached consistently), whichever is higher. Noise that is considered to have an adverse impact on amenity should:  Not occur on a Sunday or public holiday  Not occur during the night-time or evening period (7pm to 7am) Unless construction must occur to:  Avoid unreasonable interruption of vehicle or pedestrian traffic movement  If other grounds exist that the administering agency determines to be sufficient. Where construction noise is considered to have an adverse impact on amenity all reasonable and practicable measures must be taken to minimise construction noise and its impact.

6.4.1.3 Underwater Noise Underwater noise impacts from the dredging and piling activity also have the potential to impact on marine and coastal fauna. In the absence of specific legislative criteria for assessing impacts on marine and terrestrial fauna, a literature review has been conducted to identify the hearing characteristics of species and derive appropriate impact criteria for each species. Research into the effects of underwater noise on marine animals and plants is frequently inconclusive, and there are difficulties in applying the results of research for one species to another. However, available noise criteria are summarised in the following sections. Various studies on marine animal behaviour, including reactions to noise, are available in the literature. Sound stimuli range from frequency-specific stimuli to explosions/seismic airguns. These studies have shown that underwater noise can potentially have adverse behavioural or physiological effects on underwater life. The adverse effects, in ascending level of impact (and in ascending order of noise exposure) are, broadly:  Auditory masking (the presence of noise may cause important biological sounds to be obscured). This generally has impacts that persist only as long as the masking sound is on operation (i.e. generally short-term except in cases of chronic noise exposure), for example:  Missing out on feeding opportunities  Impeded communication (social interaction, mating calls, etc.)  Decreased ability to detect predators or danger.  Avoidance behaviour (animals becoming stressed and leaving the vicinity of the noise source). This can have long-term adverse effects on a species, for example:

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 127

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 Disruption of migration, breeding or feeding patterns  Separation of infant animals from adult animals (and consequent increased vulnerability to predators)  In cases of chronic exposure, long-term physiological impacts due to prolonged increase in levels of stress hormones  In extreme cases, physical injury or death if behavioural changes lead to vessel collisions or strandings.  Temporary hearing damage, due to fatigue/exhaustion of the auditory system. Hearing ability recovers over a timeframe of hours or days. This has short-term adverse impacts such as:  Increased vulnerability to predators  Disorientation (for species that rely wholly or partially on sound for navigation or hunting), reducing ability to feed and increasing the risk of stranding  Reduced ability to communicate (disrupting group social behaviour, ability to hear mating calls.).  Permanent hearing damage, due to cell death of the auditory system (either physical damage to the hearing structures or nerve damage to the auditory nerve). This has similar impacts to temporary hearing damage, but the impacts are permanent rather than short term.  Physical trauma/injury (especially to gas-containing structures), which can lead to death.  Fatality. Noise impact criteria for underwater noise impacts are discussed in Section 6.4.1.3. A summary of impact criteria for marine species is given in Table 19.

Impact Species Sound Pressure Sound Exposure Level dB re 1 µPa dB re 1 µPa²·s 50% Mortality (all sizes) Migratory birds 198 dB and shorebirds

Serious Physical Injury Marine 240 dBpeak Mammals Migratory birds 195 dB (onset of and seabirds mortality) (diving)

Permanent Hearing All species 130 dBht 135 dBht Damage (PHD) Whales – 230 dBpeak 198 dB(Mmf) Toothed (impulsive)

215 dB(Mmf) (continuous) Seabirds 110 dB(A) (airborne) (continuous)

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 128

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Impact Species Sound Pressure Sound Exposure Level dB re 1 µPa dB re 1 µPa²·s 125 dB(A) (impulsive) Seabirds 193 dB (diving)

Temporary Hearing Whales – 224 dBpeak 183 dB(Mmf)

Damage (TTS) Toothed 160 dBrms (impulsive) (continuous) Seabirds 93 dB(A) (airborne) (continuous) 110 dB(A) (impulsive) Seabirds 190 dB (diving) (safe level for no injuries)

Disturbance – Strong All species 90 dBht (~90% avoidance) (SA) Marine 160 dBrms Mammals (impulsive)

120 dBrms (continuous) Seabirds 72 dB(A) (airborne)

Masking Whales – 115 dBrms Toothed and Baleen

Table 19 Summary of approximate Noise Thresholds for Species11

6.4.2 Vibration

6.4.2.1 Human Comfort There are no legislative requirements with respect to vibration in South Australia. However, guidance for vibration limits for human comfort is provided in the NSW EPA Assessing vibration: A Technical Guideline 2006 document (NSW Department of Environment and Conservation, 2006), which is referenced in AS2436 (Standards Australia, 2010) as providing standard guidance for vibration from construction activities. Vibration generating equipment from OHCW Project construction (i.e. piling activity for the installation of navigational aids) is best characterised as being intermittent vibration sources. There will be up to a maximum of 16 hollow steel piles to be driven in association with the OHCW Project. Establishment and

11 There are limited studies to determine noise criteria for underwater fauna. These limits are approximate only.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 129

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

preparation for each pile will limit works to one pile a day, with actual pile driving activities assumed to occur for between two to four hours at any one time. The Assessing Vibration guideline recommends impact threshold levels to manage vibration impacts from intermittent vibration, using the Vibration Dose Value (VDV) parameter, which is a complicated parameter taking into account both the level of vibration and its duration. BS5228.2 (BSI 2009) also provides guidelines for human comfort, but using a simplified metric (the Peak Particle Velocity), which only takes into account the maximum level of vibration. These are broadly similar to the maximum recommended values for human comfort from the previous Australian Standard, AS2670.2, which is now superseded. The VDV parameter is more robust, but requires more information and is more difficult to measure, while the PPV parameter is relatively straightforward to apply. Hence, the VDV criteria should be assessed wherever possible, but for some equipment or vibration sources there may not be enough information to calculate VDV at early stages of assessment and a simplified assessment using PPV may be necessary. Hence, criteria for both parameters are presented, but the VDV criteria should take precedence for any more-detailed future studies where it is practicable to assess VDV. Vibration impact criteria are given in Table 20. For intermittent vibration, the following impact threshold values are recommended based on BS5228.2 and the Assessing Vibration guideline.

Impact Category PPV (mm/s) VDV (m/s1.75) Subjective Impact (from BS5228.2) Day (0700-2200) Night (2200-0700)

Negligible PPV ≤ 0.3 VDV ≤ 0.2 VDV ≤ 0.13 Vibration just perceptible

Minor 0.3 < PPV ≤ 1.0 0.2 < VDV ≤ 0.4 0.13 < VDV ≤ 0.26 Vibration perceptible, potential for complaint

Moderate 1.0 < PPV ≤ 10 0.4 < VDV ≤ 0.8 0.26 < VDV ≤ 0.52 Complaints likely

Major PPV > 10 VDV > 0.8 VDV > 0.52 Vibration likely intolerable

Table 20 Vibration impact criteria for construction vibration – Human Comfort

6.4.2.2 Building Damage There is little reliable data on the threshold of vibration-induced damage in buildings. Although vibrations induced in buildings by ground-borne excitation are often noticeable, there is little evidence that they produce even cosmetic damage (BRE 1995). This lack of data is one of the reasons that there is variation between international standards, why the British Standards Institution (BSI) did not provide guidance before 1992 and why there are still no International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) guidance limits. Guidance on limiting vibration values for structural damage are typically defined with reference to either DIN 4150 or BS 7385-2: 1993. Given the relatively large distances to properties and associated low risk of structural damage from marine construction, combined with the fact that human response to vibration will be the

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 130

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

limiting factor for vibration, the Project has been assessed against criteria defined in BS 7385-2: 1993 as shown in Table 21.

Type of Building Peak Particle vibration velocity for cosmetic damage from transient vibration, mm/s 4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above Reinforced or framed structures 50mm/s at 4 Hz and above Industrial and heavy commercial buildings

Unreinforced or light framed structures 15 mm/s at 4 Hz 20 mm/s at 15 Hz Residential or light commercial type increasing to 20 mm/s increasing to 50 mm/s at 15 Hz at 40 Hz and above buildings

Table 21 Cosmetic damage criteria as defined in BS 7385-2:1993

6.5 Potential Impacts A study of expected noise levels has been conducted based on reference to previous assessments and screening calculations to define the expected zones of impact for each noise source. No detailed computer noise modelling has been conducted. The expected impacts are summarised in the following sections. Airborne operational noise levels from all activities have been predicted at the nearest affected noise sensitive receptors for the weather conditions described in Table 22. Meteorological corrections have been calculated using the CONCAWE noise model (CONCAWE 1981) implemented in a spreadsheet noise model.

Pasquil CONCAWE Meteorological Wind Speed Temperature Humidity Stability Meteorological Condition (m/s) (°C) (%) Category Category Neutral 0 20 80 Neutral (D) 4 Adverse 6.5 15 80 Neutral (D) 6

Table 22 Assessed weather conditions

6.5.1 Airborne Noise

6.5.1.1 Dredging Noise levels from Trailing Suction Hopper Dredging (TSHD) and Cutter Suction Dredging (CSD) have been predicted based on a comparative literature review of published dredge sound levels (e.g. MDA, 2009; Epsilon, 2006; Cinotech, 2003; Sonus, 2012). There is less data available about the sound power levels associated with CSD dredging compared to other dredging methods such as THSD, however based on available data a sound power level of 109 dB(A) has been used for a medium CSD dredge (Port Botany). Noise levels for TSHD are slightly higher in terms of sound power level (112 dB(A) for a typical TSHD), however noise impacts from TSHD will be reduced for individual receivers despite the louder

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 131

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

source sound power of a TSHD. This is because a TSHD is a moving noise source and will spend less time in the vicinity of a single receiver over the 15-minute assessment period compared to CSD dredging, which has a stationary noise source.

Predicted LAeq,15min noise levels at the boundary of sensitive residential receptors for dredging are 48 dB(A) [neutral] / 52 dB(A) [adverse]. These would marginally exceed the EPP (Noise) indicative noise levels at night under neutral conditions. Note that these impacts are for the worst-case source location with the dredger at the closest point of approach to residential receivers, and hence these impacts would only occur for a limited time period while the dredger is located at the closest-point of approach. For dredger locations further than 400m (neutral) / 650m (adverse), noise levels are predicted to comply with the EPP (Noise) requirements.

Predicted LAmax noise levels for dredging are 54 dB(A) [neutral] / 58 dB(A) [adverse]. These comply with the EPP (Noise) requirements.

No noise impacts on birds are expected, since the 72 dB(A) LAmax threshold for impacts would occur at a distance of ~30m from the dredge, which is less than the distance to the nearest known location of shorebirds (i.e. Bird Island).

6.5.1.2 Piling Activity Piling activity will be associated with the relocation of navigational aids as previously mentioned (up to a maximum of 16 individual piles). The bulk of these piles are removed (> 850m from residential receivers) with only a single pile predicted to be within this threshold. Piling activities have been modelled as follows:

 A sound power level of Leq,activity 117 dB(A) / Lmax 134 dB(A) for piling associated with relocation of navigational aids (based on data from BS 5228 and AS 2436) These have been corrected for a typical 15-minute assessment period assuming that the piling rig is operational 50% of a typical assessment period. Predicted construction noise levels at the nearest residential receivers on South Australia One Drive are Leq,15min 58 dB(A) [neutral] / 61 dB(A) [adverse] and LAmax 78 dB(A) [neutral] / 81 dB(A) [adverse], assuming a closest point of approach of the piling rig of 200m.

These exceed the 45 dB(A) LAeq / 60 dB(A) LAmax definition of “adverse impact” for construction noise under the EPP (Noise).

Piling noise is predicted to be under the 45 dB LAeq / 60 dB LAmax EPP (Noise) requirement at a distance of 850m (under neutral conditions) / 1,600 m (under adverse conditions), assuming line-of-sight from the piling rig to the receiver (i.e. no shielding from intervening buildings or structures).

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 132

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

If shielding exists (e.g. the line of sight is interrupted by intervening buildings), these impact distances would reduce to 550m (neutral) / 1,000m (adverse). Piling occurring within these calculated impact distances from a residential receiver should only occur between 7 am and 7 pm, unless special permission from the EPA is obtained. All “reasonable and practicable” mitigation measures should be implemented to reduce noise impacts from piling. Maximum noise levels from piling may cause disturbance to bird populations, with the 72 dB(A) LAmax threshold for impacts predicted to occur at ~400m (under neutral conditions) or ~800m (under adverse conditions). Some bird habitat may be within these distances for some piling locations. The mitigation measures recommended for controlling underwater noise impacts detailed in Section 6.6.1.4, particularly the use of soft start in accordance with the DPTI Underwater Piling Noise Guidelines (2001), are likely to mitigate potential impacts to bird populations by allowing birds to avoid the vicinity of the piling activity and are not considered significant.

6.5.2 Vibration

6.5.2.1 Piling Vibration levels from piling are dependent on the hammer energy, which in turn is related to the hammer mass and drop height. These factors will be determined as part of the detailed planning of construction activities. The TRL guidance recommends the use of the following relationship for the prediction of upper bound vibration velocity levels from piling works;

Where vres is the resultant PPV velocity level (mm/s), W is the nominal hammer energy (J), r is the distance from the source (m) and kp is an empirical scaling factor based on ground conditions. Soft cohesive soil has been used as the basis of calculating vibration levels as being representative of the channel bed. Predicted PPV velocity levels in Table 23 have been calculated for nominal typical hammer energies to the nearest potentially affected residential receptors (200m). Results are presented in table for varying nominal hammer energies.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 133

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Location Nominal Hammer Energy Predicted PPV velocity (W)(kJ) level (mm/s)

South Australia One Drive 25 0.16 45 0.22 65 0.26

Table 23 Predicted construction vibration levels – Piling Predicted vibration impacts on residential receptors are calculated to be in the range PPV < 0.3 for all nominal hammer energies. This corresponds to a “negligible” impact for both human comfort and building damage.

6.5.2.2 Dredging There is very little data available for the vibration impacts of dredging. The TRL guidance provides ground vibration data from tunnelling operations classified according to geology. Figure 43 is an excerpt from TRL (Figure 48).

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 134 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 43 Ground vibration data from tunnelling operations classified according to geology (TRL) As an approximation for the likely impacts from dredging, predicted vibration levels for tunnelling works in sand and clay presented in TRL have been used as a reference. The closest source-receiver distance for dredging for OHCW Project (~200m to the closest edge of the channel) is higher than the maximum distance from the TRL guidance, however the data for 100m indicates that all tunnelling methods (except for blasting, which would not be used for OHCW Project), would produce vibration levels <0.3 mm/s, which corresponds to a “negligible” impact for both human comfort and building damage. It should be noted that vibration impacts from underwater dredging are likely to be significantly lower than the data presented for tunnelling in TRL due to the large amount of energy that will dissipate into the water column for dredging as opposed to air due to the (higher) impedance mismatch between rock and air - i.e. for underwater dredging a higher proportion of the vibrational energy of the source will radiate as underwater noise, resulting in lower ground borne vibration levels compared to those from tunnelling beneath an air column.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 135 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

6.5.3 Underwater Noise

6.5.3.1 Dredging The World Association of Dredging Associations (WODA 2013) presents a Technical Guidance paper on underwater sound from dredging that is a useful overview of sources of dredging noise and provides typical source levels. Noise levels from a CSD include noise from the ship itself, noise from thrusters used to keep position while dredging, pump noise from the suction tube, and noise from the drag head itself, as shown in Figure 44.

Figure 44 Typical airborne and underwater noise sources from CSD dredging, from CEDA (2011) Noise levels below 1 kHz are similar to shipping noise for comparable-sized ships; however above 1 kHz the source spectrum for a TSHD is higher than a typical ship due to the dredging pumps and noise from the dredging material itself (Robinson et al 2011). Data from Robinson el at (2011) suggests that high-frequency noise emission may increase when dredging “harder” materials (e.g. gravel) by ~5 dB compared to “soft” material such as sand or mud. Data from de Jong et al (2010) suggests that (for “soft material”, at least) noise levels from discharging dredged material is likely to be lower than noise level from the dredging operation itself or from noise from the dredge in transit. Source levels for TSHD and CSD are generally similar, in the range 180–190 dB re 1 µPa at 1m, e.g:

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 136 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

 CEDA presents results from Thomsen et al 2009 giving a source level of 186–188 dB re 1 µPa at 1m for TSHD dredging  Underwater noise measurements of two CSD dredges at Port Curtis QLD reported source levels of 180–187 dB re 1 µPa at 1m for CSD dredges (Blue Planet Marine, 2013)  A report by Robinson et al (2011) for the Marine Aggregate Levy Sustainability Fund (MALSF) presents measured source levels for seven TSHD dredges with source levels between 176–190 dB re 1 µPa at 1m.  A summary of dredge noise measurements (type unknown) by JASCO (2011) presented in SKM (2012) includes source levels between 175–187 dB re 1 µPa at 1m A source level of 189 dB re 1 µPa at 1m has been assumed for the purposes of the OHCW Project dredging assessment, based on the average source spectrum of the Port Curtis, Robinson et al (2011) and JASCO (2011) data, as shown in Figure 45. This level is considered representative of dredging operations at the swing basin and within the shipping channel. Using this source level at the DMPA is expected to be conservative since available evidence suggests that noise levels from disposal of dredged material are lower than noise levels from the dredging operation itself.

190.0

180.0

170.0 Arco Axe City of Chichester City of London City of Westminster 160.0 Sand Falcon (sand) Sand Falcon (gravel) Sand Harrier 150.0 Athena (CSD) JASCO Average 140.0 1/3 Octave Band Source Level (dB re 1 µPa at 1 m) at µPa 1 (dB re Level Source Band Octave 1/3

130.0 10 100 1000 10000 Frequency (Hz)

Figure 45 Average dredge source levels from Port Curtis, Robinson et al (2011) and JASCO (2011) data, showing logarithmic-average source level (189 dB re 1 µPa at 1m) used for assessment. Dredge noise has been predicted based on this source level, assuming the transmission loss in shallow water is the same as for similar previous port projects (e.g. Port of Cairns). Based on this, dredging noise is predicted to have negligible impacts on sensitive marine fauna, with localised behavioural changes

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 137 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

(avoidance) within approximately100–200m of the dredge. Hearing damage would only be expected if animals remain in the immediate vicinity (approximately10m of the dredge) for prolonged periods, which is considered extremely unlikely to ever occur.

6.5.3.2 Piling The waveform from a piling impact involves reflection and reverberation effects, including resonance of the pile as it is struck, and secondary noise generation from the seafloor by vibration travelling down the pile. Some piling methods cause additional secondary noise pulses from the piling hammer “bouncing” on the pile head. Typical piling time history data and secondary pile ‘bounces’ are shown in Figure 46 below.

Figure 46 Typical piling time history data, from McCauley et al (2002) showing secondary pile “bounces”. The middle and bottom plots are zoomed-in plots of the last piling pulse in the upper plot showing the “bounces” (middle) and the primary impact (bottom). The dominant frequency range is between 100 Hz and 1 kHz) (Finneran, 2002) as demonstrated by the example spectra in Figure 47.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 138 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 47 Frequency spectra of impact piling (4.3 m diameter pile) in shallow water, adapted from Nedwell et al (2007b). Blue curve is at approximately 100 m from source; green curve is at approximately 10 km from source, red curve is background noise at approximately 20 km from source Noise from the impact of piling hammers is directly correlated to the pile diameter (Diederichs et al, 2008), as shown in Figure 48.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 139 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 48 Approximate relationship between pile diameter and peak sound pressure level (normalised to 20 m water depth and 750 m distance from source), from Diederichs et al (2008) Peak noise levels from large-diameter (4–5m) piles were recorded at approximately 240–250 dB re 1 µPa (peak) and 200–215 dB re 1 µPa²s SEL at 1m (Diederichs et al, 2008). A 0.9m diameter pile has been assumed based on the diameter of the existing channel navigational aids, which equates to a nominal source level of approximately 228–233 dB re 1 µPa at 1m (peak) and 193–198 dB re 1 µPa²·s at 1m (SEL). The upper values within these ranges have been used as source levels in this assessment with spectra adjusted using the spectra presented in Nedwell et al (2007b) for shallow-water piling. A source level of 232dB re 1 µPa at one metre (peak) and 198 dB re 1 µPa²-s at 1m (SEL) has been used for impact piling. The source spectrum was based on the presented spectrum for shallow water piling from Nedwell et al (2007b). Detailed underwater noise predictions were beyond the scope of this assessment, however the transmission loss in shallow water for the OHCW Project was assumed to be the same as for previous dredging projects, e.g. Port of Cairns (Arup, 2014). Using this data, piling noise is expected to have negligible impacts on marine mammals (dolphins, seals and whales), with hearing damage limited to the immediate vicinity of the piling rig (up to approximately 10m). The use of exclusion zones as required by the DPTI Underwater Piling Noise Guidelines (2001) would mean that these impacts would be extremely unlikely ever to occur. Although behavioural changes (avoidance) are expected, these are predicted to be limited to the local vicinity of the piling rig (approximately between 100–500m

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 140 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

depending on the metric considered) and hence not considered likely to have significant long-term impacts.

6.5.3.3 Vessels During the construction phase of the OHCW Project, including piling, propeller noise from workboats associated with the navigational aid relocation will likely be the dominant vessel source. Boats fitted with outboard motors can produce relatively intense sound levels, due to the small propeller size and fast rotation of the propeller, which is not as hydrodynamically efficient and causes higher noise levels due to cavitation. Outboard motors are the most common propulsion type for small boats in Australian waters. Outboard motors produce broadband noise with many strong tonal components, over a frequency range up to 6 kHz. Peak source levels are approximately 150– 180 dB re 1μPa at 1m range (Richardson, 1995). Once the OHCW Project is operational, shipping impacts will be minimal as there is not proposed to be an overall increase in shipping traffic but rather larger, newer vessels (broader) vessels rather than introduction of a new noise source. Hallett (2004) presents underwater noise data (Figure 49) for merchant ships taken on entry/exit to the Port of Dampier and the Port of Gladstone, with dominant frequencies 63–100 Hz. The ships were mainly bulk carriers, including some Cape size (up to 200,000 tons DWT) ships and hence are likely to be larger (and potentially louder) than the Post Panamax container ships accessing Outer Harbor following the OHCW Project, which are up to 120,000 tons DWT.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 141 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 49 Average source level of bulk carriers entering/exiting port, from Hallett (2004) The available data indicates that worst-case source levels are approximately the same for small outboard-motor powered boats and for bulk carriers (~180 dB re 1 µPa at 1m), although the frequency of maximum noise generation is different for small/large vessels. Hence the following source levels were used for prediction:  Small work boat 180 dB re 1µPa at 1m (dominant frequencies 300 Hz–5 kHz)  Container ship 180 dB re 1 µPa at 1m (dominant frequencies 50–100 Hz) Underwater noise levels from ships transiting the shipping channel are predicted to have negligible impact on marine mammals. There is existing vessel traffic at Port Adelaide and the upgrade will result in no additional volume of vessels purely a change in vessel typology (size). Indeed it is assumed that the newer Post Panamax vessels associated with the project will be quieter than existing vessels accessing Outer Harbor due to improvements in design and construction associated with newer, more modern vessels. Noise levels from shipping may cause avoidance behaviour from marine mammals within ~150–200m of the vessel. This avoidance behaviour is unlikely

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 142 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

to cause significant disruption to marine mammals and indeed may assist in avoiding the potential for ship strikes.

6.6 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to be considered for the OHCW Project works:

6.6.1 Airborne Noise

6.6.1.1 Ship Movements No specific noise mitigation measures recommended.

6.6.1.2 Berthed Ships No specific noise mitigation measures recommended.

6.6.1.3 Dredging Where possible, dredging should avoid the vicinity of residential receivers (i.e. within the vicinity of the port entrance / Passenger Terminal) at night, especially under “downwind” meteorological conditions (i.e. westerly or northerly wind greater than 3m/s). It is noted that previous channel deepening works included some night-time dredging without noise complaint; however the channel widening works would result in the dredge noise source being slightly closer to residential receivers than for previous works in the current shipping channel and hence if it is feasible and reasonable to avoid night works in the vicinity of residential receivers this should be considered.

6.6.1.4 Construction Piling will occur during the day and occur in line with the DPTI Underwater Piling Noise Guidelines (2001). Piling at night should especially be avoided for piling occurring near the entrance of the port i.e. for piling occurring within the vicinity of residences on South Australia One Drive, which are the most-affected residential receivers.

Additional mitigation measures maybe considered where feasible for piling in the vicinity of residential receivers, including using a resilient pad (dolly) between the pile and hammer head in order to reduce airborne noise impacts, as recommended by BS5228.

6.6.2 Vibration No additional mitigation measures are considered necessary for construction or operational vibration.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 143 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

6.6.3 Underwater Noise The predicted zones of adverse impact are generally within the immediate vicinity of the noise source, with the only impacts predicted to occur beyond ~100m being behavioural response or auditory masking. Nevertheless, it is relevant to consider potential mitigation measures that could be considered for OHCW Project in order to satisfy the general environmental duty under the EP Act. The DPTI Underwater Piling Noise Guidelines (2001) provide a suite of standard mitigation measures to be implemented for any offshore piling construction works. These mitigation measures are recommended for all marine construction activities since they represent current Australian best practice for managing underwater noise impacts from construction.

6.6.3.1 Safety/Exclusion Zones It is common to adopt safety zones around the sound source and to monitor for animals entering these zones, shutting down the sound source if necessary if the animal continues to approach the source. The requirement to visually detect animals means that piling activities must occur during daylight hours which is planned for the OHCW Project. The DPTI Underwater Piling Noise Guidelines (2001) sets out two safety zones:  The observation zone (where animals are detected and monitored, and the activity is prepared to be ceased if the animal continues to approach)  The shut-down zone (where piling shuts down as soon as reasonably practicable if the animal enters this zone). The size of these zones is determined based on the source emission from the piling activity (based on the SEL from a single pile strike). For OHCW project, the required observation zone for all marine mammals is 1km and the shut-down zone 100m for piling associated with the OHCW project. Flinders Ports operates a 24/7 control tower that monitors and communicates with all shipping associated with the Port and South Australian waters. It is proposed that the control tower will manage notification of any marine mammals in proximity to the works and communicate to the piling team of the approach of any marine mammals, thus supplementing observations made directly by the piling team which will also be responsible for monitoring any activity in the area adjacent piling works. The required shut down zones are significantly larger than the predicted zone where damage to marine mammals is predicted to occur and hence no injury is expected to marine mammals if these zones are followed in construction.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 144 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

6.6.3.2 Soft Start Since damage (generally) increases with closer distance to the source, “ramping up” sound levels can potentially be an effective mitigation measure to avoid animals being suddenly exposed to loud sound levels, e.g. if animals happened to be in the immediate vicinity of the source when it started up. A gradual increase of sound levels is theorised to allow animals to flee the area without experiencing permanent damage. The DPTI Underwater Piling Noise Guidelines (2001) require a soft start of ten minutes at the beginning of piling and after any prolonged (>30 minute) break in piling. This measure will be adopted for the piling for the OHCW project.

6.7 Conclusions Airborne noise, underwater noise and vibration impacts from the proposed Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project have been assessed against South Australian government policy and best practice guidance. Operational noise impacts from the Post Panamax vessels able to access the Port following the upgrade are predicted to be negligible, except for ship transits at night under adverse environmental conditions (i.e. strong winds from source to receiver), which may result in marginal exceedances of the criteria which are not considered significant. There are no forecast additional vessel visitations above business as usual conditions, but purely an increase in the class of Post Panamax vessels visiting, which are of newer, more modern design. This operational noise is based on the maximum expected ship noise emission level, corresponding to the EU SILENV noise standard. Noise levels from individual ship movements may be lower than the worst case assumptions used for this assessment, and will be confirmed as the project develops further. Noise impacts from dredging activities are predicted to have negligible impact, except for works at night under adverse environmental conditions, which would have minor impacts during the infrequent time periods when these conditions would apply. Night works under adverse conditions should be avoided wherever practicable in close proximity to South Australia One Drive, which represents only a small area in the whole OHCW Project. Construction noise impacts from piling works associated with relocation of navigational aids is predicted to exceed the EPP (Noise) definition of having an “adverse impact on amenity” for source locations within ~850m of residential areas (under neutral conditions) or ~1,600m (under adverse conditions). Accordingly, piling works in the vicinity of residential areas (e.g. near the port entrance and near the Adelaide Passenger Terminal) should only occur between 7am and 7pm.Piling during daytime hours is likely to be required in any case to satisfy the requirement for visual observation of marine mammals under the DPTI Underwater Piling Noise Guidelines (2001). The OHCW Project intends to only conduct piling activity during daylight hours.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 145 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Vibration impacts from the proposed works are predicted to be negligible at all residential receivers. Significant underwater noise impacts (i.e. damage to marine mammals) from piling would only occur in the immediate vicinity (~10m) of the piling works, although some avoidance behaviours may be exhibited at distances of up to 500m. Adopting the DPTI Underwater Piling Noise Guidelines (2001) including a 100m shut-down zone if any marine mammal approaches the pile, and the use of soft start procedures means that impacts would be extremely unlikely to occur. Underwater noise impacts from dredging or shipping would be limited to avoidance behaviour in the immediate vicinity of the noise source and would not change significantly compared to existing noise impacts from current shipping.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 146 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

7 Cultural Heritage

7.1 Introduction This Chapter forms the cultural heritage reporting requirements for the OHCW Project DA Report and addresses both Indigenous and non-Indigenous cultural heritage values and impacts of the Project area. It identifies the relevant Federal, State, and local legislative requirements and quantifies the likely impacts on the identified values, and subsequently the cultural heritage approval requirements for the OHCW Project. This includes:  Native Title and Aboriginal Heritage  Non Indigenous Cultural Heritage and Historic Shipwrecks.

7.2 Existing information and previous studies The 2005 Outer Harbor Channel Deepening (OHCD) Project DA Report did not include reference to any impacts to cultural heritage. Information has been sought from the South Australian Government including from the Department of State Development-Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation (DSD-AAR) - advice regarding requested search of Central Archive received 30 May 2017. The OHCD Project documentation was reviewed for any matters relevant to Cultural Heritage.

7.3 Indigenous Cultural Heritage

7.3.1 Legislation and Policy Context

7.3.1.1 Native Title (Commonwealth) Act 1993 The Native Title Act 1993 establishes a framework for the recognition of native title rights. Outer Harbor is covered in the area subject to the Kaurna Peoples Native Title Claim (SAD6001/2000). While this claim has not yet been formalised, works within this area will be required to adhere to duty of care provisions under the Act.

7.3.1.2 Native Title (South Australia) Act 1994 The Native Title (South Australia) Act 1994 operates in conjunction with associated Federal legislation and recognises and protects native title in South

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 147 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Australia. South Australia is one of three states to have an alternative native title regime in place with the Supreme Court of South Australia and the Environment, Resources and Development Court (ERDC) having jurisdiction to determine 'native title questions'. The Federal Government has determined that the Supreme Court and the ERDC are ‘recognised State/Territory bodies’. The Native Title (South Australia) Act 1994 (SA) (NTSAA) Section 39 “confirms Crown ownership of all natural resources; the rights of the Crown to use, control and regulate the flow of water; and all existing fishing access rights as well as, public access to and enjoyment of waterways; beds, banks and foreshores of waterways; coastal waters; beaches; stock routes and areas that were public places as at 31 December 1993.” The Active Claim registered with the National Native Title Tribunal- Kaurna Peoples (SC2000/001) includes the Port River/Outer Harbor area and “810 metres west of the mean high water mark, in the Gulf St Vincent”. There is no registered Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) over the proposed placement site. The claim representative is: Tim Campbell Campbell Law 1st Floor 18 - 20 Grenfell Street ADELAIDE SA 5000 Phone: (08) 8410 1844

7.3.1.3 Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (South Australia) The Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (the Act) provides for the protection of Aboriginal sites of significance. The Act does not specify if it includes protection for riverbed or seabeds areas. The SA Department of State Development-Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation (DSD-AAR) administers the Act including the Central Archive, which contains the Register of Aboriginal Sites and Objects (the Register). DSD-AAR has undertaken a search of the Central Archive and advised that the Register has no entries for Aboriginal sites in the development area. (DSD-AAR, 23/05/17). It was advised that sites or objects may exist in the proposed development area, even though the Register does not identify them. All Aboriginal sites and objects are protected under the Act, whether they are listed in the central archive or not. Land within 200m of a watercourse (for example the River Murray and its overflow areas) in particular, may contain Aboriginal sites and objects. It is an offence to damage, disturb or interfere with any Aboriginal site or damage any Aboriginal object (registered or not) without the authority of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation (the Minister). If the planned development activity is likely to damage, disturb or interfere with a site or object, authorisation of the activity must be first obtained from the Minister under Section 23 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act requires that any Aboriginal sites, objects or remains,

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 148 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

discovered on the land, need to be reported to the Minister. Penalties apply for failure to comply with the Act. DSD-AAR advised that there are various Aboriginal groups / organisations / traditional owners that may have an interest in the area. These may include:  Kaurna Nation Cultural Heritage Association Inc.  Ramindjeri Heritage  Ramindjeri Heritage Association Inc.

7.3.2 Impact on Native Title No impacts to Native Title were advised in the 2005 OHCD Project DA Report. The Government of South Australia Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) Fact Sheet: Native Title on Crown Land, states that Native Title can be extinguished by the granting of freehold land, the issuing of Crown leases and the construction or establishment of public works. Therefore the historic and existing use of the Port River Outer Harbor Channel by Flinders Ports under a 99-year land lease and port operating licence for the Port of Adelaide, and the previously completed public infrastructure works approved as part of the 2005 Development Application are likely to have extinguished Native Title in the project location.

7.3.3 Impact on Indigenous Cultural Heritage There are no known or anticipated impacts to Indigenous cultural heritage for the project works in the Outer Harbor Channel and the Dredge Material Placement Area (DMPA) in Gulf St Vincent as the Act does not apply to sea bed or river bed locations. There are no land based works associated with the project. The project area river bed and seabed have previously been disturbed and there were no reported impacts during these works. No impacts to Indigenous cultural heritage were advised in the 2005 OHCD Project DA Report.

7.4 Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage

7.4.1 Legislation and Policy Context

7.4.1.1 Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 (Commonwealth) The Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 (Commonwealth) requires a permit for any activities that have the potential to damage or interfere with an historic shipwreck or relic, or for any activities requiring entry into a protected zone around a shipwreck. Chapter 2 Figure 2 shows excerpts from the Australian National Shipwreck Database, administered under the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976. This has identified a number of historic shipwrecks sites within the project area, although

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 149 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

there is no protected zone associated with any of these shipwrecks. As dredging will occur within 500m of some of these sites (within the Outer Harbor), referral to the Minister administering the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 is required as part of the DA process (see Chapter 2.2.2).

7.4.1.2 Historic Shipwrecks (South Australia) Act 1981 The Historic Shipwrecks (South Australia) Act 1981 is complimentary to the Commonwealth Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976, and protects historic shipwrecks in State waters, such as bays, harbours and rivers. It is administered by the South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR) and the South Australian Heritage Council. There are two “Protected not found” shipwreck sites and one “Protected found” shipwreck listed on the SA Historic Shipwrecks Register within 500m of the Channel widening area at Outer Harbor.

Wreck Name and Year Lost SA Register Status Latitude Longitude Number

Grecian #34 1850 Protected (found) -34.7896 138.4689

Corsair #86 1865 Protected (not found) -34.7662 138.4938

Trial #45 1854 Protected (not found) -34.782 138.4938

Table 24 SA Historic Shipwrecks in Outer Harbor

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 150

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Figure 50 SA Historic Shipwrecks Map Extract and legend

7.4.1.3 Heritage Places Act 1993 (South Australia) The main function of the Heritage Places Act 1993 is to provide for the identification, recording and conservation of non-Indigenous places and objects of heritage significance and to establish the South Australia Heritage Council.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 151

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

7.4.1.4 Other Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage The Local Heritage Places under the City of Port Adelaide Enfield Development Plan provide protection for sites of historic significance on land.

7.4.2 Impact on Non-Indigenous Heritage The Former Outer Harbor Pilot Station (State Heritage Place) Oliver Rogers Road, Outer Harbor and the Outer Harbor Railway Station (Local/Contributory Heritage Place) Oliver Rogers Road, North Haven are listed Heritage places in the locality. As the OHCW Project will not involve land based works, no impact to these or any other historic sites on the land abounding Outer Harbor under the Heritage Places Act 1993 or Local Government Heritage Places is anticipated. Excerpts from the Australian National Shipwreck Database, (Chapter 2 Figure 2) and the DEWNR SA Historic Shipwrecks Map identified a number of historic shipwrecks sites within the project area. Actual impact to these shipwrecks is not expected as a result of the OHCW Project, however, as shipwrecks are either outside of the dredging and placement areas or located within areas that were previously dredged as part of the OHCD Project.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 152 Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

8 Framework Dredge Management Plan

8.1 Introduction This chapter presents the framework Dredge Management Plan (DMP) for the OHCW Project. This incorporates mitigation measures identified in other chapters of this report along with other measures considered relevant to the operation of the dredge vessel(s). In general, the DMP reflects and/or provides a greater level of detail to mitigation and monitoring commitments discussed in the preceding chapters of the DA Report. This is achieved by setting out the framework for management, mitigation and monitoring of relevant impacts of the action within issue-specific management strategies. It is intended that this DMP will guide the development of a Contractor’s Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) DMP upon granting of required regulatory approvals and appointment of a construction Contractor, at which point detailed design and dredge methodology will be finalised. Flinders Ports is committed to achieving a high standard of environmental performance during construction and mitigating any identified environmental risks. This DMP is based on the project description contained in Chapter 1 Introduction and Project Overview which is considered the most likely dredging strategy, considering the current understanding of dredging quantities, material characteristics and the preliminary design. The specific construction methodology and equipment to be used will be developed by the construction Contractor and may be subject to alteration.

8.1.1 Purpose, Scope and Objectives The purpose of the framework DMP is to identify the preferred means of managing environmental issues associated with dredging for the OHCW Project. This DMP covers all aspects of the Project, based on the following elements:  Dredging  Vessel movements  Dredged material placement  Vessel management (e.g. bunkering, ballast water exchange). This DMP does not provide management measures related to the ‘operational phase’ of the Project as this will be managed directly by protocols administered by Flinders Ports and/or vessel owners.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 153

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Further detail of management measures, including management triggers, will be developed following approval of the OHCW Project under the Development Act 1993 but prior to commencement of dredging. These will be addressed in further detail as part of the dredging licence application sought in accordance with Schedule 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1993. The objectives of this framework DMP are:  To describe relevant legal and other requirements and how compliance with these is to be achieved  To describe Flinders Ports’ environmental requirements, procedures and processes for the project  To outline environmental management roles and responsibilities  To promote environmental best practice  To describe performance objectives for the construction phase of the project that the Contractor must meet  To outline incident procedures, monitoring and reporting requirements for the construction component of the project  To minimise, monitor and manage water quality impacts attributable to dredging and placement operations  To identify and adopt best practice management for the following:  Handling and storage of all waste materials on the dredge vessel  Handling and management of fuel and wastewater transfer operations  Reducing the risk of translocation of organisms in ballast water or on the hull of the dredge vessel  Minimising nuisance noise from the dredging on surrounding facilities, users and visitors  Minimising air emissions produced during dredging operations and thereby minimising potential effects on the airshed  To minimise the risk of an environmental incident occurring with the dredging operations such as a megafauna strike, oil spill, vessel collision or similar  To ensure cultural heritage items are not impacted during dredging. The appointed Contractor will be required to comply with these objectives and general controls outlined in this DMP as part of their contractual obligations. This DMP has been prepared to provide approval authorities with an outline of how the project will be managed to minimise impacts on the coastal and marine environment during construction. Following the approval process, the conditions and other statutory requirements of the permits will be incorporated into this document to ensure consistency between the DMP and approval conditions.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 154

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Following the approval process, the conditions and other statutory requirements of the permits will be incorporated into this document to ensure consistency between the CEMP and approval conditions.

8.1.2 Legislation The DMP has been developed in accordance with, and taking into account legislative requirements set out in Acts and Regulations at Commonwealth and State level that are listed below.

International and Commonwealth Legislation  International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL)  Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999  Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981  Biosecurity Act 2015  Protection of Sea (prevention of pollution from ships) Act 1983  Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990

State Legislation  Protection of Marine Water s (Prevention of Pollution from Ships Act 1987  Environment Protection Act 1993  Fisheries Management Act 2007  Native Vegetation Act 1991  Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary Act 2005 This DMP has been prepared to support DA approval; the dredging contractor will be required to document their methodology for complying with both legislation and any conditions of approval granted for the project. Works may not commence until all necessary approvals are in place.

8.1.3 Flinders Ports Environmental Management Framework Figure 51 shows the main elements of the overall environmental management framework, which will be adopted as part of the contractual arrangements between the selected Contractor and Flinders Ports.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 155

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Flinders PortsEnvironmental Policy & ISO 14001 EMS

Concept Design & environmental Planning DMP (this Environmental Approval investigations document) Conditions outlined in the DA Report

Construction Contractual Agreement

Contractors DMP

Environmental performance monitoring and auditing during dredging

Post-dredging monitoring

Figure 51 Flinders Ports Environmental Management Framework

8.1.4 Roles and Responsibilities The principal entities and their roles and responsibilities under the DMP are as follows:

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 156

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Flinders Ports Flinders Ports is the proponent and overall project administrator of the OHCW Project. Following the Development Act 1993 approvals process, Flinders Ports will prepare the contract documentation for appointment of a Dredge Contractor. The contract documentation will include copies of all approval commitments, conditions and requirements. Flinders Ports will also work with a Dredge Contractor, once appointed, to prepare a detailed DMP based on the elements of this framework DMP. To oversee dredging, Flinders Ports will appoint an internal or external Superintendent to oversee the works and to manage the Dredge Contractor. Monitoring and auditing of the Dredge Contractor will be undertaken by an independent third party.

Dredge Contractor The Dredge Contractor will be responsible for preparation of more detailed plans of operation for the dredging, implementation of their environmental management systems, compliance with all conditions of approval, all relevant legislation (including their obligations under the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 (Water Quality Policy) and monitoring and reporting of their activities back to Flinders Ports and/or environmental agencies. Depending on the procurement model, the Dredge Contractor may also undertake the detailed design and obtain approvals for specific project components.

8.1.5 Training All site personnel involved in project construction will be provided with general environmental awareness training and any site specific measures as contained in this DMP by the Dredge Contractor’s Environment Manager. The training is to include, but not be limited to:  Requirements of this DMP (or the Contractor’s CEMP) and any conditions of approvals  Emergency response management in the event of an environmental incident  Site-specific environmental controls to be applied  Incident reporting procedures.

8.2 Dredge Methodology The most likely dredge methodology, and the basis of this DMP, is a combination of a medium size Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) and a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) of about 10,000m3 hopper capacity. The CSD will be used for breaking up hard material and side casting (placing material on the sea bed) for final dredging by a TSHD. The TSHD will re-dredge the sea bed material for removal to the DMPA. The TSHD will also be used to directly dredge the soft

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 157

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

material encountered. This methodology may be subject to change depending on the chosen Contractor and availability of equipment. This is the same methodology utilised for the 2005 OHCD Project. CSDs have the ability to dredge most type of soils including sand, clay and rock (with certain limitation) within the anticipated program. This requires a CSD with a dredge output rate of at least 1,250m3 per hour of operations. Dredging takes place with the CSD in a stationary position, moored with spuds or anchors. All CSDs are equipped with a rotating cutter head, which is able to cut hard rock or soil into fragments. The material once broken up would be placed on the sea bed for the TSHD to remove once the CSD has finished. When dredging, the TSHD moves forward at a speed of approximately 1 to 2 knots. Dredging takes place at the drag head which is attached to suction pipe trailing arms. There are two trailing arms, one at each side of the TSHD. A TSHD with a 10,000m3 hopper capacity and an effective dredge output of 5,000m3 per hour has been adopted based on its suitably for the site conditions and to meet the program. The dredged material would be loaded into the hopper in the form of slurry (approximately 10% solids: 90% water). As the hopper is filled up, excess water is separated and discharged through an overflow process using a “green valve”. An overflow system provides the means to separate the solids and the water by reducing the turbulence of the slurry mixture and allowing sufficient time for the solids to settle in the hopper. The water overflow is discharged through a green valve at the keel. The green valve is an adjustable valve that chokes the flow to reduce the air that is taken down in the overflow mixture leaving the hopper. This results in a denser particle stream, causing less turbulence and allowing sediments to travel more quickly to the seabed. Once loaded, the TSHD would sail under its own power to the DMPA where the doors of the hull are opened to allow the dredged material to drop to the sea bed. This process is called bottom dumping and is conducted as the TSHD sails slowly in circular or “figure 8” patterns at pre-designated coordinates within the DMPA.

8.2.1 Navigation Aids The OHCW Project will require the relocation of a number of navigational beacons along the channel and within Outer Harbor as a result of the widening works. There are a total of sixteen existing beacons along the alignment of the channel and outer Harbor that may be impacted. At least nine beacons will require physical location prior to the commencement of dredging works, with the additional seven beacons potentially to be relocated following a detailed assessment of operations (some or all may remain in-situ) and in accordance with the Port Operating Rules. These are not anticipated to be time sensitive to the dredge campaign and will be coordinated around maintaining safe operations within the channel and Port. The form of navigation beacon existing along the channel are single piled beacon structures with navigation aid equipment installed at the top. The existing piles to be relocated will have their navigational equipment salvaged for re-use before

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 158

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

being removed by extracting from their current positions to enable dredging to proceed post removal. At each new location, a new pile will be installed and the navigational equipment reinstated atop at an appropriate distance from the planned new channel edge and as determined by port operating requirements to achieve safe and compliant operations. Works are undertaken by barge utilising spud piles for stability with the necessary plant (piling rig) located safely on the barge. Piles will be driven (hammered) into location using hollow piles of the same nature as the existing navigational beacons.

8.3 Environmental Management Strategies The following sections outline environmental management measures for potential environmental impacts as a result of dredging activities. These strategies are to be continually reviewed and updated to reflect best practice, changes to construction processes and any conditions of approval issued by authorities (refer to Section 8.1.2). Each strategy outlines specific objectives, performance indicators and monitoring requirements that can measure the effectiveness of environmental performance during construction. The actions outlined in this section may be subject to change following assessment by approval agencies and the setting of conditions of approval or the provision of additional site-specific information i.e. geotechnical information, however the objectives and performance measures should not be subject to significant amendment. An adaptive management approach has been outlined that allows actions to be reviewed and revised through corrective actions where objectives are not being met.

8.3.1 General Requirements This section is supplemented by specific management elements detailed in Section 8.4. General requirements are set out below, using the format discussed further in Section 8.4.1.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 159

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Objective To ensure dredging and disposal operations and associated activities for the OHCW comply with relevant environmental duties and obligations as set out in South Australia legislation and with permit requirements. Performance n/a criteria Management action Responsibility Timing Develop a General Method Statement outlining the Dredge Contractor Prior to intended scope of works and methodology to be commencement of employed. At a minimum, the method statement dredging should include the following:  Description of the general scope of works  Reference to international dredging standards and company standards (e.g. quality, occupational, health and safety and environmental management systems), and how they apply to the current project and any other project-specific document  Responsibilities of the dredge contractor and key staff  A clear map of the areas where dredging activities will take place consistent with regulatory approvals  General description of the dredging process and the specifics of the plant to be used in the dredging process including the proposed methodology, dredging control, dredging patterns, vessel navigation routes to be used and vessel operations while at the disposal site  Specific method statements in accordance with the requirements of Section 8.4 of this DMP. Develop a Detailed Dredge Management Plan that Dredge Contractor Prior to updates this framework DMP based on requirements commencement of of regulatory agencies. This should address the dredging following:  Environmental commitments, including a commitment by senior management of the dredge contractor to achieve specified and relevant environmental goals  Identification of environmental issues and potential impacts  Control measures for routine operations to minimise the likelihood of environmental harm  Contingency plans and emergency procedures for non-routine situations  Organisational structure and responsibility  Effective communication  Monitoring of contaminant releases  Conducting of environmental assessments  Staff training  Record keeping  Periodic review of environmental performance and continual improvement  Specific elements in Section 8.4 of this DMP. Ensure that all measures, plant and equipment Dredge Contractor At all times during necessary to undertake the dredging are operated and dredging maintained in a proper and efficient condition. This campaign includes appropriate servicing and maintenance of engines and emission control devices such that

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 160

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Objective To ensure dredging and disposal operations and associated activities for the OHCW comply with relevant environmental duties and obligations as set out in South Australia legislation and with permit requirements. Performance n/a criteria Management action Responsibility Timing emissions comply with relevant guidelines and standards. Develop a complaints response procedure that covers Dredge Contractor Prior to environmental complaints commencement of dredging Record all complaints received by the dredge Dredge Contractor At all times during contractor or Flinders Ports related to environmental and/or Flinders dredging issues such as noise, air or water quality, including Ports (as relevant) campaign investigations undertaken, conclusions formed and actions taken.

For complaints received by dredge contractor, provide notification about the complaint and any associated response to Flinders Ports in a timely fashion. Take all reasonable and practicable measures to Dredge Contractor At all times during prevent and/or minimise the likelihood of dredging environmental harm being caused by the Project campaign If environmental harm is caused or is likely to have Dredge Contractor At all times during been caused notify South Australia Environmental and/or Flinders dredging Protection Authority immediately Ports (as relevant) campaign Keep records of all monitoring results required by Dredge Contractor At all times during Flinders Ports or as part of permit requirements, in and after dredging accordance with specific elements in Section 8.4 campaign Keep records on the volume and size distribution of Dredge Contractor At all times during material removed from the dredge footprint area, and after dredging summarised in a monthly report. campaign Provide monthly report of dredging volumes and Dredge Contractor Within 5 working environmental compliance to Flinders Ports. days after the end of each month during the dredging campaign Monitoring Monthly audit will be undertaken by Flinders Port of the dredging operations during the campaign to ensure documentation and performance against the general requirements are being met. Reporting Report of environmental compliance to be prepared by dredging contractor each month and provided to Flinders Ports (see above). Additional reporting requirements are outlined in the specific elements of Section 8.4 Corrective action Corrective action will be required in the context of findings of the audits or in the context of any issues raised by regulatory bodies. Corrective actions may also be required because of complaints from the community in accordance with the complaint response process outlined above. Table 25 General Requirements Environmental Management

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 161

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

8.4 Specific Management Elements This section of the DMP identifies specific environmental management strategies associated with different elements of the project. The requirements in this section are intended to apply in addition to the general requirements outlined in Section 8.3.

8.4.1 Structure The following are the key elements that make up this DMP:  Marine water and benthic ecology  Marine megafauna  Cultural heritage  Navigation and maritime safety  Marine pests and ballast water  Bunkering and spills  Waste management  Amenity and emissions. The structure used for each of these DMP elements is as follows in Table 26.

Objective A description of the environmental values associated with the element to be protected, enhanced and/or managed, and associated management commitment Performance Outlines measurable criteria/outcomes for each element that, when criteria achieved, represent compliance with the objective for the element Management action Outlines the strategies, tasks or action program that would be implemented to achieve the performance criteria. For each management action, there is details on responsibility (i.e. person responsible for undertaking the action) and timing (i.e. when the action should occur in the context of the Project) Monitoring Describes the monitoring requirements to measure achievement of performance criteria based on implementation of management actions. This includes auditing actions intended to check compliance with requirements of the element. Reporting Defines the format, timing and responsibility of reporting requirements associated with the element. Corrective action Lists actions to be implemented where monitoring or auditing indicates performance criteria are not being met to minimise environmental harm and/or achieve performance criteria. Table 26 DMP Structure

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 162

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

8.4.2 Marine Water Quality and Marine Ecology This section outlines the management actions necessary to mitigate impacts to marine water quality and benthic ecology. Water quality impacts are concerned mostly with generation of a dredge plume and the resuspension of sediments during the dredging and placement operations. These impacts to marine water quality also impact on benthic ecology, i.e. seagrass meadows. Impacts related to wastewater and spills are discussed in elements below. A range of mitigation measures will be committed to and required to be undertaken by Flinders Ports and its future dredge contractor from the outset of the project. Use of a selection of mitigation measures from a range of possible options will be informed by the experience of the contractor, operational requirements, legislative requirements and direction from Flinders Ports.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 163

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Objective To minimise impacts to water quality and marine ecological sensitive receptors, including seagrass and benthic habitats of the Port River and Gulf St Vincent. Performance Setting trigger values for receiving environments for surface water based criteria on 20th, 50th and 80th percentile values derived from baseline data collection completed prior to dredging activity. Potential Impacts  Impacts to water quality from capital dredging and placement of material.  Impacts to seagrass habitat within areas identified as being in the zone of high-medium impact. Management action Responsibility Timing The dredge will operate at all times within the design Dredge Contractor At all times dredge footprint, guided by an accurate electronic during dredging positioning system to track movements at all times campaign Hopper compartments are maintained water tight Dredge Contractor At all times during all dredge activities during dredging campaign Overflow from the dredge is limited to durations no Dredge Contractor At all times greater than that modelled for this report. during dredging campaign The dredge is fitted with a ‘green’ valve to minimise Dredge Contractor At all times the extent of turbidity plumes generated by the dredge during dredging operation. campaign Background water quality monitoring will be Dredge Contractor Prior to dredging performed prior to the commencement of works to set or Flinders Ports campaign relevant performance triggers Monitoring A Reactive Monitoring Program will be prepared and implemented with appropriate triggers, monitoring locations at sensitive receptors and corrective actions for dredging (refer to diagram below). Reporting Any exceedance of trigger levels will be reported as part of RMP to Flinders Ports. Corrective action Contractors may choose from a range of corrective measures should they not meet water quality performance targets set under the DMP. These may include:  Reducing overflow durations  Modifying the timing or location of dredging when experiencing adverse conditions (i.e. weather conditions or tides), particularly when in proximity to sensitive receptors  Scheduling maintenance activities in adverse conditions  Cease works until water quality is reduced to acceptable levels. Table 27 Marine Water Quality and Ecology DMP

Reactive Monitoring Program As per Table 27 above, a Reactive Monitoring Program (RMP) would be put in place during dredging, as illustrated in Figure 52. It would employ a range of trigger levels for further investigation and instigation of corrective actions. Level 1 Investigation Level – this trigger level provides for an initial water quality assessment through comparison of monitoring data to derived trigger values and background conditions. Water quality measured at compliance locations would be compared against a ‘control’ location to determine if increased turbidity levels are due to natural weather events (i.e. storm or high wind events) or are attributable to dredging. If due to dredging, the dredge would continue to operate during this period of investigation up until a level 2 trigger is reached

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 164

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Level 2 Investigation Level - Exceedance of a level 2 trigger level means that the dredger will likely need to review its operations and/or take corrective actions to control a water quality impact. There are several practical mitigation measures and corrective actions that can be employed by the dredger to minimise impacts. Water quality triggers as part of level 2 will be set on the basis of known stress tolerances of seagrass. Where possible, the design of the RMP will be to ensure that these trigger levels are set such as to ensure they are triggered prior to unacceptable impacts occurring. The dredger will have some flexibility in terms of the sequencing of channel dredging; if impacts are detected at a sensitive receptor, the dredger may be able to dredge other sections whilst allowing a particular area to ‘settle’. Level 3 Compliance Level – Exceedance of this trigger level would require immediate action by the dredge operator to suspend dredging or otherwise implement other mitigation measures such as moving the dredge away from the sensitive receptors where the exceedance occurs. Dredging would not be able to resume until monitored water quality reduced back to acceptable levels (below level 3). Generally this trigger will be set on the basis of known impact levels for biological systems (partial mortality of seagrass) based on background data. Suspension of dredging is generally a last resort option if all other mitigation measures and corrective actions as outlined above have been unsuccessful to control impacts and the compliance trigger has been exceeded. The work method for operations is designed to operate 24/7 so as to minimise the overall duration of the campaign which has both cost and environmental benefits compared to a longer term dredge operation or intermittent capital dredge operations that involve multiple deployments of vessels. Notwithstanding this, suspension of dredging operations will be undertaken if compliance trigger levels in the RMP (level 3) are exceeded at any monitoring site and dredging not re-commenced until water quality levels are below Level 2 trigger levels.

Monitoring Equipment From a water quality perspective, the RMP can be supported using water quality instruments capable of continuous logging of data for a range of parameters, with anti-fouling guards and sensor wiping apparatus to prevent interference to sensors from marine growth. All instruments are to be capable of recording measurements of turbidity, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, salinity and conductivity once every 10 minutes. Telemetry and other appropriate water quality monitoring equipment would also be installed to ensure dredging can be reactive within a timely manner and flag exceedances in real time. This data would be available to both the Contractor and the Flinders Ports Project Superintendent, with alerts via mobile text message or email of any exceedance under the RMP.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 165

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Monitoring Locations Monitoring sites will include:  Indicative near shore water quality monitoring sites (at a distance from the dredge)  Indicative seagrass monitoring sites  A control site outside of the zone of influence.

Setting Trigger Levels Final water quality and ecological trigger values to support the RMP are not proposed to be set within the DA application as they will be agreed as part of the detailed approvals phase (as part of the dredging licence approvals) should the DA be approved. The final triggers will also be augmented by baseline monitoring prior to commencement of dredging. The final trigger levels will consider a range of temporal scales, including 20th, 50th and 80th percentile trigger levels. This approach provides a metric for both chronic and acute impacts. These trigger levels will be based on different levels of concern, as follows:  Level 1 – slightly greater than average conditions. Trigger level calculated using background mean plus half of one standard deviation at each percentile.  Level 2 – approaching limits of natural variability. Trigger value calculated using background mean plus one standard deviation at each percentile.  Level 3 – limits of natural variability. Trigger value calculated using background 95th percentile at each percentile. The continuous monitoring data collected at each compliance monitoring location throughout the dredge campaign will be analysed using moving 30 day percentiles (20th, 50th and 80th). These will then be compared to the trigger values, with implementation of management actions if trigger levels are exceeded. If trigger levels are exceeded, the data from the control sites will be assessed to see if the exceedance at the compliance monitoring sites is naturally occurring or attributable to the dredging or tailwater management activity.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 166

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Water quality Standard dredge

monitoring operations

Level 1 Trigger Continue dredging exceeded on more No than allowable and monitoring

occasions

Yes

No Level 2 Trigger exceeded on more Yes than allowable Modify timing or occasions location of dredging

Yes

Level 3 Trigger Suspend dredging Yes exceeded on more until water quality

than allowable reduced to acceptable occasions levels

Figure 52 Schematic of the proposed Reactive Monitoring Program

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 167

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

8.4.3 Marine Megafauna This section outlines requirements that are to be met associated with the management of potential interactions between dredge equipment (and supporting vessels) and marine megafauna.

Objective To reduce the risk of disturbance or injury to marine megafauna (cetaceans, dolphins, sharks) resulting from dredging and disposal activities. Performance  No incidents of vessel-related disturbance or mortality to marine criteria megafauna, including entrainment. Management action Responsibility Timing All employees to receive training in marine Dredge Contractor Prior to megafauna awareness from a suitably qualified commencement of person. dredging campaign A lookout to be maintained for marine megafauna Dredge Contractor At all times during while the vessel is in transit between the dredging vessel transit area and DMPA. If megafauna (other than dolphins) is sighted, vessel speed and direction to be adjusted to avoid impact on the observed individual (within safety constraints of the vessel). This will include the following management responses:  Vessels will not intentionally approach within 50m of a dolphin, or shark, or within 100m of a large cetacean (whale)  Vessels will operate a ‘no wash’ speed when between 50m and 150m of a dolphin, or between 100m and 300m of a large cetacean  Vessels will attempt not to approach cetaceans from an angle of less than 60° into or away from the direction of travel of the cetacean(s)  Vessels will not encourage bow-riding by cetaceans. Should any cetacean(s) commence bow-riding in front of a vessel, the vessel master will not change course or speed suddenly. These measures do not apply when the dredge vessel is undertaking dredging or placement activities. All sightings of cetaceans to be reported to Flinders Dredge Contractor At all times during Port. dredging campaign Marine megafauna (except dolphin) observation and Dredge Contractor At all times during response procedures, including the application of a dredging and 300m exclusion zone, to be implemented during placement dredging and placement activities. Dredging activities operations to cease where these fauna are observed within 300m of the operating dredge until the animals have moved further than 300m or haven not been sighted for 15 minutes. If a trailer suction hopper dredge is used, water jets Dredge Contractor At all times during on the dredge-head to be switched on before the dredging activities dredge pump is started and remain on until the pump is stopped to direct marine fauna away from the dredge-head. Dredge pumps to be started only when dredge-head is close to seafloor (not while lowering pipe). ‘soft’ start up approach taken during piling activity to Piling Contractor At piling start up. install navigational aids.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 168

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Objective To reduce the risk of disturbance or injury to marine megafauna (cetaceans, dolphins, sharks) resulting from dredging and disposal activities. Performance  No incidents of vessel-related disturbance or mortality to marine criteria megafauna, including entrainment. Management action Responsibility Timing Dredge pump to be stopped as soon as possible after Dredge Contractor At all times during the completion of dredging. dredging activities Light levels from the dredging works to be limited to Dredge Contractor At all times during those lights that are necessary for the safe operation dredging of the vessel. campaign Monitoring Monitoring based on visual observations undertaken always during transit and operation. Reporting All sightings of cetaceans (other than dolphins) to be recorded, indicating the sighting of each individual animal and actions taken. Any instance of animal injury or mortality to be reported to Superintendent and detailed in an incident report. Corrective action In the event of an environmental incident, regulatory agencies are to be informed. Actions to be undertaken in accordance with advice from regulatory agencies, including capture of injured animals if necessary. Environmental incident to be investigated and, if necessary, management actions in this element are to be updated. Table 28 Marine Megafauna DMP

8.4.4 Marine Pests and Ballast Water This section outlines requirements that are to be met by the dredge contractor associated with ballast water management before leaving the port of origin, during transit between areas of operation, during operations, and following completion of dredging activities prior to departing Port Adelaide.

Objective To ensure risk of translocation of organisms in ballast water or on the hull of a dredge vessel is minimised. Potential Impacts Introduction of high risk ballast water or harmful marine organisms/pests into

Port Adelaide.  Management Action  Responsibility  Timing

In accordance with the National Bio-fouling  Dredge  Prior to leaving the Management Guidance for Non-Trading Vessels Contractor vessel’s port of (Australian Government 2008), prior to leaving origin the dredge vessel’s port of origin:  Assess the bio-fouling risk of the vessel prior to departing for Australia and take remedial action as necessary.  Undertake regular inspections of areas most prone to bio-fouling (e.g. damaged paint, propellers, bow and stern thrusters, sea chests and cooling pipes).  Implement a regular schedule for maintenance and dry docking to apply antifouling coatings.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 169

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Objective To ensure risk of translocation of organisms in ballast water or on the hull of a dredge vessel is minimised. Potential Impacts Introduction of high risk ballast water or harmful marine organisms/pests into

Port Adelaide.  Management Action  Responsibility  Timing

 Regularly ensure marine growth prevention systems are operating efficiently and effectively.  Inspect ship hull, hopper, dredge gear (especially dredge- head) to ensure that no material which may transport organisms (sediments, organic material, or waters) is retained. In accordance with the International Maritime  Dredge At all times during Organisation (IMO) Ballast Water Convention Contractor machinery transit 2004, during transit between the Port of Origin and Port Adelaide:  Any ballast tanks holding seawaters to be exchanged with a minimum of 150% of design volume with seawaters at a location as distant from the coastline or other shallow (<100 m) areas as possible but not less than five nautical miles from the coast.  Any waters held in the hopper during transit to be treated as for other ballast water. During operations at Port Adelaide:  Dredge At all times during  On arrival at Port, the dredge is to operate in Contractor dredging activities accordance with DAWR and Australian Quarantine regulations  Hull inspections to be carried out and plant certified as free of marine pests to DAWR standards.

Performance Criteria  No high risk ballast water brought into Port limits.  Ensure ballast water discharge and marine pest inspections occur in accordance with Port Operating Procedures. Monitoring & Reporting  HopperNo harmful water marine discharge organisms and replacement are recordstranslocated are to on be the kept underkeel in the Ship’s hull, log anddredge made-head available or within upon the request hopper. of the dredge.  A record will be kept of volumes, location and time of all ballasting and de-ballasting operations.

Table 29 Marine Pests and Ballast Water DMP

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 170

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

8.4.5 Waste Management This section outlines requirements to manage wastes generated from or incidental to the dredging operations. It is separated into three categories: (i) Solid waste and garbage, (ii) Sewage, and (iii) Hazardous waste.

Objective To ensure that general refuse produced on-board the dredge vessel is collected, retained and transferred to an appropriate facility without unintentional material loss. Performance  No loss of solid waste material overboard during collection or criteria transfer.  No discharge other than at berth. Potential Impact Discharge of solid waste to the environment. Management action Responsibility Timing Vessel fitted with appropriately sized waste Dredge Contractor Prior to disposal bins. commencement of dredging campaign Vessel bins to be secured and fitted with secure Dredge Contractor At all times during lids to prevent material being blown overboard vessel transit during storage or handling. Where practicable, ensure all material Dredge Contractor At all times during compacted to further prevent unintentional loss. dredging campaign Ensure the bins are collected and emptied while Dredge Contractor At all times during at berth at appropriate intervals (e.g. emptied at dredging and 75% capacity or below). placement activities All procedures to minimise spills or leakage Dredge Contractor At all times during during storage to be undertaken and spill dredging response equipment to be provided on board for campaign minor material spills. Monitoring Monitoring based on visual observations Reporting Dredge contractor to report any loss of waste material to Flinders Ports. Corrective action If practicable, take measures to retrieve material that is lost. Review procedures causing material loss and take immediate action to rectify.

Table 30 Waste Management DMP

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 171

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

8.4.6 Noise Quality Objective To protect the acoustic amenity and minimise nuisance noise on surrounding sensitive receivers. To respond effectively to any noise quality issues that arises during construction. Performance There are no complaints lodged from the public or port users about criteria noise associated with dredge operations. Minimal noise impacts experienced by marine fauna. Potential Impact Acoustic nuisance to other port users, the public or sensitive marine fauna from dredging. Management action Responsibility Timing Ensure that engines and equipment on board the Dredge At all times dredge are properly maintained in good working Contractor order. Maintain and operate all equipment on board the Dredge At all times dredge in a safe and efficient manner. Contractor Carry out non-essential maintenance during day- Dredge At all times light hours. Contractor Ensure that the following measures are Dredge At all times implemented in relation to the dredge booster Contractor pumps –  The pumps are sited as far as practicable away from sensitive noise receptors  The pumps are enclosed as far as practicable to reduce and/or muffle noise impacts during operations  Install earth bunds around landside booster pumps  Select low noise emissions boosters as directed by noise modelling  Planned maintenance, refuelling, and similar activities occur outside of sensitive night time noise periods. Dredging activities are to be avoided at night in Dredge At all times proximity to identified residential receptors (refer Contractor to Chapter 6 Amenity). The contractor staff are aware of noise Dredge At all times requirements within relevant permits and/or Contractor approvals. Monitoring Investigation will be required in response to any noise complaints received during the dredging operation. The need for noise monitoring will be discussed with the appropriate regulatory agencies in response to any noise complaints received during the dredging operation. The results of any noise monitoring are to be provided to Flinders Ports within 14 days following completion of the monitoring. In the event that the monitoring indicates an exceedance of a performance criteria set out in a permit or other statutory instrument, refer to Corrective Actions. Reporting  The results of any noise monitoring are to be provided to Flinders Ports within 14 days following completion of the monitoring.

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 172

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Objective To protect the acoustic amenity and minimise nuisance noise on surrounding sensitive receivers. To respond effectively to any noise quality issues that arises during construction. Performance There are no complaints lodged from the public or port users about criteria noise associated with dredge operations. Minimal noise impacts experienced by marine fauna. Potential Impact Acoustic nuisance to other port users, the public or sensitive marine fauna from dredging. Management action Responsibility Timing In the event that the monitoring indicates an exceedance of a performance criteria set out in a permit or other statutory instrument, refer to Corrective Actions. Corrective action In the event that response noise monitoring indicates an exceedance of the noise criteria, an investigation shall be undertaken into the noise source(s). The investigation should include, at a minimum, assessment of the layout and positioning of noise-producing plant and activities and determine actions that could be taken to minimise noise emission levels to surrounding receptors. Should a noise complaint be received, the contractor shall consider further changes to hours of operation in the vicinity of the affected residential area. Table 31 Acoustic Quality DMP

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 173

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

9 References

ANZECC/ARMCMANZ 2000. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. Canberra, Australia. Bamford, M, Watkins, D, Bancroft, W, Tischler, G and Wahl, J (2008), Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian – Australasian Flyway: Population Estimates and Internationally Important Sites, Wetlands International Bassett Acoustics (2004) Outer Harbor –Channel Deepening Project Environmental Noise Assessment Report No. AA0263/DC/B01 Bossley, MI, Steiner, A, Rankin, RW and Bedjer, L (2016), ‘A long-term study of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) in an Australian industrial estuary: Increased sightings associated with environmental improvements’, Marine Mammal Science 33(1):277-290 Branstetter and Finneran (2008) Frequency and level dependent masking of the multiple auditory steady-state response in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). JASA 123 (5), May 2008 Bray, DJ, Gomon, MF (2011), Fishes of Australia: Yelloweye Mullet (Aldrichetta forsteri), Western Australian Salmon (Arripis truttaceus), available: http://fishesofaustralia.net.au/home/classList [Accessed May 2017] Brown, J, Dowling, C, Hesp, A, Smith, K and Molony, B (2013) Status of nearshore finfish stocks in southwestern Western Australia. Part 3: Whiting (Sillaginidae), Fisheries Research Report No. 248, Department of Fisheries, Western Australia Bulthuis, DA (1983), ‘Effects of Insitu Light Reduction on Density and Growth of the Seagrass Heterozostera tasmanica (Martens ex Aschers.) den Hartog in Western Port, Victoria, Australia’, Journal of Experimental Biology and Ecology 67:91-103 Cabaço, S, Santos, R, Duarte, RS (2008), ‘The impact of sediment burial and erosion on seagrasses: A review’, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 79:354– 366 Collier, CJ, Lavery, PS, Masini, RJ and Ralph, PJ (2007), ‘Morphological, growth and meadow characteristics of the seagrass Posidonia sinuosa along a depth related gradient of light availability’, Marine Ecology Progress Series 337:103– 115 Collier, CJ, Lavery, PS, Ralph, PJ and Masini, RJ (2008), ‘Physiological characteristics of the seagrass Posidonia sinuosa along a depth-related gradient of light availability’, Marine Ecology Progress Series 353:65–79 Collier, CJ, Lavery, PS, Ralph, PJ and Masini, RJ (2009), ‘Shade-induced response and recovery of the seagrass Posidonia sinuosa’, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 370:89–103

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 174

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Collier, CJ, Prado, P and Lavery, PS (2010), ‘Carbon and nitrogen translocation in response to shading of the seagrass Posidonia sinuosa’, Aquatic Botany 93(1)47– 54 Collier, CJ, Waycott, M and McKenzie, LJ (2012a), ‘Light thresholds derived from seagrass loss in the coastal zone of the northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia’, Ecological Indicators 23:211–219 Collier, JC, Waycott, M and Giraldo Ospina, A (2012b), ‘Responses of four Indo- West Pacific seagrass species to shading’, Marine Pollution Bulletin 65:342–354 CSIRO (2007), The Adelaide Coastal Waters Study, consisting of the following: Volume 1: Summary of Study Findings Technical Report 1: Audit of the quality and quantity of treated wastewater discharging from Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) into the marine environment Technical Report No. 2: A review of seagrass loss on the Adelaide metropolitan coastline Technical Report No. 3: Audit of contemporary and historical quality and quantity data of stormwater discharging into the marine environment, and field work programme Technical Report No. 4: Estimation of groundwater and groundwater N discharge to the Adelaide Coastal Waters Study area Technical Report No. 5: Distribution of Suspended Matter in Adelaide Coastal Waters Using SeaWiFS Data Technical Report No. 7: In-situ measurements for Adelaide Coastal Waters Study Technical Report No. 9: Responses to reduced salinities of the meadow forming seagrass Amphibolis and Posidonia from the Adelaide metropolitan coast Technical Report No. 11: Elevated nutrient responses of the meadow forming seagrasses, Amphibolis and Posidonia, from the Adelaide metropolitan coastline Technical Report No. 12: Turbidity and reduced light responses of meadow forming seagrasses Amphibolis and Posidonia, from Adelaide metro coastline Technical Report No. 13: Nutrient fluxes in the meadow forming seagrasses Posidonia and Amphibolis from the Adelaide metropolitan coast Technical Report No. 14: Field surveys 2003-2005: Assessment of the quality of Adelaide’s coastal waters, sediments and seagrasses

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 175

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Technical Report No. 15: Assessment of the effects of inputs to the Adelaide coastal waters on the seagrasses, Amphibolis and Posidonia Technical Report No. 17: The loads of particulate matter and atmospheric nitrogen deposited from wet and dryfall to Adelaide metropolitan coastal waters Technical Report No. 18: Volumes of inputs, their concentrations and loads received by Adelaide metropolitan coastal waters Cutts, Hemingway and Spencer (2013) Waterbird Disturbance Mitigation Toolkit – Informing Estuarine Planning and Construction Projects University of Hull Delta Environmental (2009), Adelaide & Mt Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board: Shorebird Management and Conservation, prepared for Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, St Kilda Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (2007a), Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary – Reference Paper 1: Dolphins, DEWNR, Government of South Australia Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (2007), Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary – Reference Paper 1: Key habitat features necessary to sustain the dolphin population, DEWNR, Government of South Australia Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (2007), Adelaide Dolphin Sanctuary – Reference Paper 3: Water Quality, DEWNR, Government of South Australia Department of Fisheries (2015), Department of Fisheries: Fisheries Fact Sheet for the Australian Herring, available: http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/recreational_fishing/fact_sheets/fact_ sheet_australian_herring.pdf [accessed May 2017] Department of Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia (2013), Management Plan for the South Australian Commercial Marine Scalefish Fishery, Government of South Australia, Adelaide Department of Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia (2016), Mud cockle restock in Port River, Government of South Australia, http://pir/sa.gov.au/alerts_news_events/news/sardi/ mud_cockle_restock_in_port_river [accessed April 2017] Department of Primary Industries and Regions, South Australia (2017), Marine Scalefish Fishery, Government of South Australia http://pir.sa.gov.au/fishing/commercial_fishing/fisheries/marine_ scalefish_fishery [accessed March 2017] Diederichs, Nehls, Dähne, Adler, Koschinski, Verfuß (2008) Methodologies for measuring and assessing potential changes in marine mammal behaviour, abundance or distribution arising from the construction, operation and decommissioning of offshore windfarms. COWRIE

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 176

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Dooling and Popper (2007) The Effects of Highway Noise on Birds. California Department of Transportation Dooling (2002) Avian Hearing and the Avoidance of Wind Turbines, National Renewable Energy Laboratory NREL/TP-500-30844 Duarte, C (1991), ‘Seagrass depth limits’, Aquatic Botany 40:363-377 EconSearch (2016a), Economic and Social Indicators for the Gulf St Vincent Prawn Fishery 2014/15, reported prepared for Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, Adelaide EconSearch (2016b), Economic Indicators for the South Australian Marine Scalefish Fishery 2014/15, report prepared for Primary Industries and Resources South Australia, Adelaide Egis (2002), Development Application Report: Flinders Ports, Capital Works, Pelican Point, Outer Harbour – Dredging & Sea Disposal Works, prepared for Flinders Ports, report no. VB0001.OH.01 Environment Protection Authority South Australia (2013), Gulf St Vincent Bioregional Assessment Report 2010-2011, EPA, Government of South Australia Environmental Protection Authority South Australia (2013), Nearshore marine aquatic ecosystem condition reports: Gulf St Vincent bioregional assessment report 2010–2011, EPA SA, Adelaide, SA Erftemeijer, PLA and Lewis, RRR (2006), ‘Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrasses: A review’, Marine Pollution Bulletin 52:1553–1572 Extract (NNTT number: SC2000/001) from the Register of Native Title Claims, National Native Title Tribunal Ferguson G (2006), Fisheries biology of the greenback flounder Rhombosolea tapirina (Günther 1862) (Teleostei: Pleuronectidae) in South Australia, prepared for PIRSA Fisheries, South Australian Research and Development Institute (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide, Report No. RD06/0008-1.18 pp Filby, NE, Bossley, M and Stockin, KA (2013), ‘Behaviour of free-ranging short- beaked common dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in Gulf St Vincent, South Australia’, Australian Journal of Zoology, 61(4):291-300 Filby, NE, Bossley, M, Sanderson, KJ, Martinez, E and Stockin, KA (2010), ‘Distribution and Population Demographics of Common Dolphins (Delphinus delphis) in the Gulf St Vincent, South Australia’, Aquatic Mammals 36(1):33-45 Fitzpatrick, J and Kirkman, H (1995), ‘Effects of prolonged shading stress on growth and survival of seagrass Posidonia australis in Jervis Bay, New South Wales, Australia’, Marine Ecology Progress Series 127:279–289 GHD (2003), Berth 8, Outer Harbor: Study into Turbidity at Outer Harbor During Vessel Operations, prepared for Flinders Ports Pty Ltd

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 177

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Golder Associates (2004a), Contamination Assessment: Proposed Dredge Material, Outer Harbor Approach Channel, South Australia, prepared for KBR Pty Ltd Golder Associates (2004b), Geotechnical Investigation: Approach Channel Dredging, Outer Harbor, South Australia, Contract No. RV3710-CN-C401, prepared for KBR Pty Ltd Gordon, DM, Grey, KA, Chase, SC and Simpson, CJ (1994), ‘Changes to the structure and productivity of a Posidonia sinuosa meadow during and after imposed shading’, Aquatic Botany, 47:265–275 J.R. Nedwell, A.W.H. Turnpenny, J. Lovell, S.J. Parvin, R. Workman, J.A.L. Spinks & D. Howell (2007) A validation of the dBht as a measure of the behavioural and auditory effects of underwater noise. Subacoustech Report No. 534R1231 Jeremy Nedwell, Joe Lovell and Andrew Turnpenny (2005) Experimental validation of a species-specific behavioral impact metric for underwater noise. Subacoustech KBR (2004), Deepening of the Shipping Channel at Outer Harbor: Development Application, prepared for Flinders Port Pty Ltd KBR (2007), Deepening of the Shipping Channel at Outer Harbor: Completion of dredging, prepared for Flinders Ports Pty Ltd, Report No. AEN306.007-G-REP- 014. Kilminster, K, McMahon, K, Waycott, M, Kendrick, GA, Scanes, P, McKenzie, L, O'Brien, KR, Lyons, M, Ferguson, A, Maxwell, P, Glasby, T and Udy J (2015), ‘Unravelling complexity in seagrass systems for management: Australia as a microcosm’, Science of the Total Environment 534:97–109 Lucke, Lepper, Hoeve, Everaarts, van Elk, Siebert (2007). Perception of Low- Frequency Acoustic Signals by a Harbour Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) in the Presence of Simulated Offshore Wind Turbine Noise. Aquat. Mamm. 33: 55-68. Manci, K.M., D.N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M.G. Cavendish. 1988. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: a literature synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. National Ecology Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO. NERC-88/29. 88 pp Native Title on Crown Land Fact Sheet- DEWNR Government of South Australia Native Title Information Handbook South Australia 2016-Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) Nedwell, Edwards, Turnpenny and Gordon (2004) Fish and Marine Mammal Audiograms: A summary of available information. Subacoustech Report 534R0214 Neverauskas, VP (1988), ‘Response of a Posidonia community to prolonged reduction in light’, Aquatic Botany 31:361–366

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 178

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

Oceanique Perspectives (2004), Analysis of suspended matter in Upper Gulf St Vincent using SeaWifFS satellite data, prepared for KBR Pty Ltd Pelican Lagoon Research and Wildlife Centre (2005), Pelican Lagoon Research & Wildlife Centre: Kangaroo Island, South Australia, available: http://www.echidna.edu.au/marine/seagrass.htm [accessed May 2017] PPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty Ltd (2001), Deepening of the Outer Harbor Shipping Channel, prepared for Ports Corp South Australia, Report No. 27M1808 Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (2003), Ecological Assessment of the South Australian South Australian Rock Lobster (Jasus edwardsii) Fishery - South Australian Fisheries Management Series, prepared by the Fisheries Division of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia Primary Industries and Resources South Australia (2009), Ecological Assessment of the South Australian Abalone Fishery Reassessment Report - South Australian Fisheries Management Series, prepared by the Fisheries Division of Primary Industries and Resources South Australia Purnell, C, Diyan, MAA, Clemens, R, Berry, L, Peter, J and Oldland, J (2009a), Shorebird Monitoring and Habitat Mapping Project: Gulf St Vincent, prepared for Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resource Management Board and Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Birds Australia, Melbourne Purnell, C, Peter, J and Clemens, R (2011), Shorebird Population Monitoring within Gulf St Vincent: July 2010 to June 2011 Annual Report, prepared for Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, Birds Australia, Melbourne Purnell, C, Peter, J and Clemens, R (2013), Shorebird Population Monitoring within Gulf St Vincent: July 2012 to June 2013 Annual Report, prepared for Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges Natural Resources Management Board, Birdlife Australia, Melbourne Ralph, PJ, Durako, MJ, Enriquez, S, Collier, CJ and Doblin, MA (2007), ‘Impact of light limitation on seagrasses’. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 350:176–193 Schultz S (2011) Fishes of Australia: Snook (Sphyraena novaehollandiae), available: http://fishesofaustralia.net.au:8084/home/species/2550 [accessed May 2017] Serrano O, Mateo, MA and Renom, P (2011), ‘Seasonal response of Posidonia oceanica to light disturbances’, Marine Ecology Progress Series 423:29–38 Smallwood, CB, Hesp, SA, Beckley, LE (2013), Biology, stock status and management summaries for selected fish species in south-western Australia, Fisheries Research Report No. 242. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 179

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

South Australian Whale Centre (2017), Sightings Log, available: http://www.sawhalecentre.com/whale-sightings/sightings-log/ [accessed May 2017] Steiner, A (2012), ‘Temporal Determinants of Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin (Tursiops aduncus) Activity in the Port River Estuary (Adelaide, South Australia’, Aquatic Mammals 38(3):267-278 Steiner, A and Bossley, M (2008), ‘Some Reproductive Parameters of an Estuarine Population of Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops aduncus)’, Aquatic Mammals 34(1):84-92 Tanner (2004), Environmental Assessment for Proposed Dredging of the Outer Harbour Approach Channel, prepared for KBR Pty Ltd, SARDI Aquatic Sciences Tanner, J and Rowling, K (2008), Monitoring of Seagrass Health Following Dredging of the Outer Harbour Approach Channel in 2006, prepared for KBR Pty Ltd, SARDI Aquatic Sciences Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2013), Commonwealth Conservation Advice for Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, available: www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/pubs/118- conservation-advice.pdf [accessed May 2017] Water Technology (2004), Flinders Port: Port Adelaide Dredge Investigations, prepared for KBR Pty Ltd, Report No. J115/R01 Western Australia Environmental Protection Authority (2016), Technical Guidance: Environmental Impact Assessment of Marine Dredging Proposals, Government of Western Australia Warry, FY, Hindell, JS (2009), Review of Victorian seagrass research, with emphasis on Port Phillip Bay. Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Draft Report, Department of Sustainability and Environment, Heidelberg, Victoria Wiltshire, KH (2016), Dredgate disposal studies milestone report – re-assessment of benthos at the dredge spoil dump site with focus on the occurrence of Caulerpa species, prepared for KBR Pty Ltd, SARDI Aquatic Sciences Wiltshire, KH and Tanner, JE (2016), Re-assessment of sites potentially impacted by dredging in Outer Harbor, Port Adelaide: dredge spoil dump site and seagrass adjacent to dredged channel, prepared for KBR Pty Ltd and Flinders Ports Pty Ltd, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, Publication No. F2016/000542-1 Wiltshire, K, Rowling, K and Deveney, M (2010), Introduced marine species in South Australia: a review of records and distribution mapping, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, Publication No. F2010/000305-1 York, PH, Gruber, RK, Hill, R, Ralph, PJ, Booth, DJ and Macreadie, PI (2013), ‘Physiological and morphological responses of the temperate seagrass Zostera muelleri to multiple stressors: investigating the interactive effects of light and temperature’, Plos One 8:1–13

| | 7 July 2017 | Arup Page 180

Appendix A

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

Issue | 6 July 2017

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party.

Job number 253257-00

Arup Arup Pty Ltd ABN 18 000 966 165

Arup Level 7, 182 Victoria Square Adelaide SA 5000 Australia www.arup.com Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

Contents

Page

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Context 1 1.3 Rationale for Investment 2

2 Cost Benefit Analysis 3 2.1 Methodology 3 2.2 Results 7

3 Conclusion 10

Tables

Table 1 Key Assumptions for Cost Benefit Analysis Table 2 Overview of Benefits Quantified Table 3 Cost Benefit Analysis Results – Low Cost Scenario (30 year appraisal period) Table 4 Cost Benefit Analysis Results – Central Cost Scenario (30 year appraisal period) Table 5 Cost Benefit Analysis Results – High Cost Scenario (30 year appraisal period)

Figures

Figure 1 - South Australia’s Goods and Services Exports ($ billion) Figure 2 Flinders Ports total annual cargo throughput (000s tonnes) Figure 3 Cost Benefit Analysis Method Overview

Appendices

Appendix A References

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose The purpose of this chapter is to present an analysis of the economic impact of the OHCW project, with the following objectives:  Gain an understanding of the economic importance of Port Adelaide to the South Australian economy.  Outline the key economic drivers for the OHCW project.  Provide a cost benefit analysis.

1.2 Context The export of goods and services is of paramount importance to the South Australian economy. Increasing exports of goods and services is a stated priority for South Australia, as per the State’s Economic Priorities strategy. Figure 1 shows South Australia’s trend in exports over time. Most notable is that the value of goods exported dominates the value of services export. Also, the total value of exports has been relatively flat since 2011, at around $11 billion per annum. Regardless of the change over time, the value of exports is a key component of the State economy as a whole.

Figure 1 - South Australia’s Goods and Services Exports ($ billion) Source - http://economic.priorities.sa.gov.au/dashboard [Accessed 10/05/17] Given the importance of exports, and indeed imports to the South Australian economy, it stands to reason that major transport hubs in South Australia are critical to the State’s economy. Port Adelaide is the primary port in South Australia and this is reflected by the value of trade passing through the port. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Maritrade database values exports through the Port in 2016 at $7.8bn and imports at $6.2bn.

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 1

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

The below graph shows total annual cargo tonnage through Flinders Ports as fluctuating year on year.

Figure 2 Flinders Ports total annual cargo throughput (000s tonnes) Source – Essential Services Commission of South Australia (2016), 2016 Ports Monitoring Report In addition to commercial freight traffic, Outer Harbor also has facilities for cruise ships and there has been a significant growth in cruise ship calls to Adelaide in recent years. According to the South Australian Tourism Commission (SATC) there were six cruise ship arrival days in 2006-07 while the forecast for 2017-18 is 37 cruise ship arrivals. Visitor spend associated with cruise ship visitors is typically high, reflected by Australian Cruise Association data (ACA, 2016) which found that total economic value added associated with the cruise industry in Adelaide in 2015-16 totalled $17.8m and supported 88 full-time equivalent jobs.

1.3 Rationale for Investment The rationale for investment is relatively straightforward: Flinders Ports have identified the need to widen the Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Shipping channel due to the increasing width of vessels visiting the Port. There is the need to remain competitive with other Australian Ports, with Melbourne planning to open a new dock to accommodate wider vessels and all other major ports already operationally capable for these vessel types. Flinders Ports is already experiencing capacity constraints with some shipping declined or compelled to operate with restrictions impacting efficiency due to existing constraints.

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 2

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

2 Cost Benefit Analysis

2.1 Methodology The purpose of a cost benefit analysis is to compare the incremental economic benefits of a project to the incremental economic costs over the life of a project. The key output is a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) which summarises the value for money proposition of the project: i.e. does each dollar of investment return more, or less, than a dollar of economic value? As this is an economic analysis, the costs and benefits are considered from the point of view of society as a whole. The following diagram illustrates the elements feeding into this cost benefit analysis for the OHCW project:

Avoided cost of moving Reduction in idle labour freight by rail hours

Benefit Cost Ratio Increase in cruise ship Dredging cost visitor spend

Figure 3 Cost Benefit Analysis Method Overview

It should be noted that the benefit cost analysis follows the methodology as set out by the Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines (ATAP, 2016). This includes the following key assumptions: Key assumptions Discount year 2017 Price base year 2017 Discount rate 7% Appraisal period 30 years Construction start year 2018 Operations start year 2019

Table 1 Key Assumptions for Cost Benefit Analysis The cost benefit analysis has been completed for three cost scenarios – low, central and high scenarios to reflect the current range of cost estimates.

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 3

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

2.1.1 Costs The incremental costs for the project relate to the capital cost of dredging. Initial estimates provided by Flinders Ports are between $35 million and $65 million and the works are expected to be undertaken in 2018. This cost will be further refined as the detailed design is completed. In order to capture the range of possible costs for the dredging, three cost scenarios have been calculated – low, central and high with capital costs of $35m, $50m and $65m respectively. This will provide a range of BCRs which provide an indication within which the value for money of the investment is expected to fall. A cost benefit analysis also takes into account any incremental ongoing maintenance costs from the project and any decommissioning costs at the end of the project life. For this cost benefit analysis there are not considered to be any incremental maintenance costs or indeed decommissioning costs.

2.1.2 Benefits In the simplest of terms the overarching benefit of the OHCW project is that it will allow the Port, and in particular the Outer Harbor, to operate more efficiently. In order to monetise the OHCW project specific mechanisms which make up this overarching benefit should be isolated. In terms of isolating these benefits, there are two facilities at the Port which stand to benefit from the channel widening project: the Adelaide Container Terminal and the cruise ship facilities. The following table sets out the specific benefit streams relating to these two facilities which have been quantified as part of the cost benefit analysis:

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 4

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

Benefit Rationale Data inputs and method

Avoided need to Container vessels calling at Port Data inputs rail freight Adelaide are typically on global  Average number of shipping routes and working to a containers tightly defined schedule. Thus, exchanged by a should there be an issue at a port container vessel of call which would cause delay using Adelaide then a vessel may skip that Port Container Terminal. in order to maintain their schedule.  Average cost of At present, vessels rarely skip transporting a Port Adelaide. However, in the twenty-foot absence of the OHCW project equivalent unit (the ‘do minimum’ scenario) it is (TEU) container anticipated by Flinders Ports that from Melbourne to vessels skipping Port Adelaide Adelaide by rail. will happen as a matter of course. When this occurs the implication Method will be that containers which were due to be unloaded at Port  Worked with Adelaide will instead require Flinders Ports to transfer by train from another identify a reasonable Port (most likely Port of assumption for the Melbourne). It has been assumed forecast number of this would not be the case with vessels skipping Port the OHCW (the ‘do something’ Adelaide. This was scenario) as improved access determined to be one would avert vessels skipping Port vessel per week and Adelaide. is assumed to be constant throughout the appraisal period.  Calculated benefit of avoided additional transport cost by multiplying the average number of containers exchanged by the average cost of transport by rail and the number of vessels skipping Port.

Reduction in idle At present post-panamax labour container vessels are using Port Data inputs Adelaide but their arrival and  Current cost of idle departure is only possible when labour at Flinders tide conditions permit. As such,

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 5

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

there are currently delays in the Adelaide Container arrival and departures of Terminal. container vessels using the  Forecast increase in container terminal. At these post-panamax times of delay there is an vessels to 2019. economic cost in terms of idle labour at the Flinders Adelaide Container Terminal. Method It has been assumed the widening  Worked with of the channel will alleviate this Flinders Ports to delay as it will allow post- identify a reasonable panamax vessels to arrive and assumption for the depart regardless of tide thus reduction in idle reducing idle labour at the labour. This was Flinders Adelaide Container determined to be a Terminal. 50% reduction in idle labour and is assumed to be constant throughout the appraisal period.  Forecast level growth in idle labour based on forecast growth in post- panamax vessels.  Calculated value of reduction in idle labour by combining forecast future value of idle labour by percentage reduction in idle labour.

Increased cruise In recent times the cruise ship Data inputs ship visitor spend market has been consistently growing in South Australia and  Number of specifically at Port Adelaide. A passengers on an larger class of cruise ship is Oasis class of cruise planned to start visiting Australia ship from 2019 (the Oasis class of  Average spend per ship, or equivalent sized vessels, cruise ship passenger which has a 65m beam). visiting Adelaide, However, the current channel based on data width in the Outer Harbor means provided by South that these larger cruise ships Australian Tourism would be unable to visit Commission Adelaide.

With the OHCW project it has been assumed that these larger Method cruise ships would be able to

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 6

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

visit. Therefore, the additional  Established visitor spend of having these assumption for larger cruise ships visiting Port number of Oasis Adelaide as a result of the class (or equivalent) OHCW project would be an vessel. The economic benefit. assumption is a total of four vessels with a build up over four years (i.e. one Oasis vessel call in 2019, two in 2020, three in year 2021 then four per annum from 2022 for the remainder of the appraisal period)  Calculated the value of the benefit by multiplying the number of vessels calls by the number of passengers and the average spend per passenger benchmark.

Table 2 Overview of Benefits Quantified It is important to note that these benefits have been deliberately developed to be conservative. First, the level of benefit calculated is considered conservative, as it assumes that the benefits are constant over the appraisal period; this can be linked back to the data presented in Figure 2 which shows the trend in annual cargo throughput to be flat when considering the last six years of data. Second, the quantified benefits are focussed on those directly attributable to the OHCW project. There are also additional benefits that relate to the broader role of the Port in the supply chain for South Australia, however isolating this value in a robust way is challenging and to avoid the potential pitfalls of false attribution of benefits it was considered prudent to exclude these benefits. Similarly, upside benefit related to the OHCW project catalysing growth in Port traffic has also been excluded as there was a lack of evidence to base this calculation. Note – benefits are the same in the low, central and high costs scenarios as the scenarios are operationally identical.

2.2 Results The following tables highlights the results of the cost benefit analysis:

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 7

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

Present Value ($000s) Project Costs 32,710 Total Costs 32,710

Avoided Costs of Moving Freight by 253,284 Rail Reduction in Idle Labour Hours 13,597 Increase in Cruise Ship Visitor Spend 57,250 Total Benefits 324,131

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 9.9 Net Present Value (NPV) 291,421

Table 3 Cost Benefit Analysis Results – Low Cost Scenario (30 year appraisal period)

Present Value ($000s) Dredging Costs 46,729 Total Costs 46,729

Avoided Costs of Moving Freight by 253,284 Rail Reduction in Idle Labour Hours 13,597 Increase in Cruise Ship Visitor Spend 57,250 Total Benefits 324,131

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 6.9 Net Present Value (NPV) 277,402

Table 4 Cost Benefit Analysis Results – Central Cost Scenario (30 year appraisal period)

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 8

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

Present Value ($000s) Dredging Costs 60,748 Total Costs 60,748

Avoided Costs of Moving Freight by 253,284 Rail Reduction in Idle Labour Hours 13,597 Increase in Cruise Ship Visitor Spend 57,250 Total Benefits 324,131

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 5.3 Net Present Value (NPV) 263,383

Table 5 Cost Benefit Analysis Results – High Cost Scenario (30 year appraisal period) As can be seen in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5, the OHCW project provides a clear value for money proposition in the low, central and high cost scenarios. That is to say, it is expected that the economic benefits outweigh the costs in all three cost scenarios. In terms of the range, the results show that for the low cost scenario, it is expected that every $1 of cost results in $9.90 of economic benefit, and for the high cost scenario, it is expected that for every $1 of cost results in $5.30 of economic benefit. It is worthwhile reflecting on the fact that the benefits are estimated at totalling hundreds of millions of dollars. It would be expected that this level of benefit would have employment implications. However, isolating jobs created from jobs safeguarded from increase in productivity of existing employees is very difficult and beyond the scope of this economic assessment. The key benefit stream arises from the avoided cost of requiring containers to be moved by rail from Melbourne when Port Adelaide is skipped by container vessels. This is logical when considering that impact comprises the avoided cost of moving a weekly container shipment by rail from Melbourne for the entirety of the 30 year appraisal period.

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 9

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

3 Conclusion

The key finding of this economic assessment is that the OHCW project represents a value for money investment with a BCR estimated in the range of 5.3 to 9.9. This can largely be explained by the high value nature of the activities associated with the Port and its broader importance to the South Australian economy. These findings are based on a conservative cost benefit analysis which was based on context specific input data from Flinders Ports and the South Australian Tourism Commission. It is worth noting that a previous cost benefit analysis of deepening the Outer Harbor Channel which was completed in 20031 calculated a BCR of 9.5 for a 30 year appraisal period (Economic Research Consultants, 2003). The methodology differs somewhat from this cost benefit analysis so the results cannot be viewed as being perfectly comparable although it is telling that the findings are similar.

1 Economic Research Consultants (2003), Cost Benefit Evaluation of Deepening of Outer Harbor Channel

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 10

Appendix A References

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Economic Assessment Report 2017

A1 References

Australian Cruise Association (2016), Economic Impact Assessment of the Cruise Industry in Australia, 2015-16 Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development (2016), Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Economic Research Consultants (2003), Cost Benefit Evaluation of Deepening of Outer Harbor Channel Essential Services Commission of South Australia (2016), 2016 Ports Monitoring Report Government of South Australia (2014), South Australia. The place where people and business thrive. State Government of South Australia, Economic Dashboard. http://economic.priorities.sa.gov.au/dashboard [Accessed 10/05/17]

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page A1

Appendix B

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

Issue | 6 July 2017

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party.

Job number 253257-00

Arup Arup Pty Ltd ABN 18 000 966 165

Arup Level 7, 182 Victoria Square Adelaide SA 5000 Australia www.arup.com Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

Contents

Page

1 Introduction 1 1.1 Overview 1 1.2 Project Outline 1 1.3 Proposed Dredge Methodology 2

2 Prior Investigations 4 2.1 Dredge Material Placement Area 2005 4

3 Options Assessment for DMPA 2017 6 3.1 DMPA in Gulf St Vincent 7 3.2 Land Based DMPA 8 3.3 Beneficial Re-use 10

4 Land Based DMPA Option Assessment 12 4.1 Summary Assessment and Conclusions 16

Tables

Table 1 Prior Relevant Studies Table 2 Comparison of Assumptions Table 3 Beneficial Re-use Options Summary Table 4 Technical Assessment Summary of Options Table 5 Risk Summary Land and Ocean DMPA

Figures

Figure 1 TSHD Nile River (Image © DEME Group) Figure 2 DMPA in Gulf St Vincent Figure 3 DMPA at former Cheetham Salt Crystallisation Ponds Figure 4 Proximity and Location of Salt Crystallisation Ponds Figure 5 Concept Scheme for Slurry Pipeline Route

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

1 Introduction

1.1 Overview This report addresses the options associated with placement of dredge material for the Outer Harbor Widening Channel Project (OHCW Project). To ensure that appropriate consideration has been undertaken in assessing placement areas, and drawing upon a significant body of knowledge developed through specific investigations and past projects, this report seeks to consolidate, update and ensure that the options considered for placement of dredge material are appropriate when assessed from an environmental, socio-economic and technical perspective. This report provides details on the following:  The project outline and methodology that has underpinned this assessment  Summarises prior investigations and compares them against the OHCW Project  Analyses the available options for the placement of material from a technical, environmental and economic evaluation  Proposes a preferred Dredge Material Placement Area (DMPA) for incorporation into the overall Development Assessment (DA) Report.

1.2 Project Outline Flinders Ports have identified the need to widen the Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Shipping channel due to the increasing width of vessels visiting the Port. The existing channel is designed for maximum vessel widths of 36.0m, with a capability to handle oversize vessels with width up to 42.2m with operational restrictions, but the trend internationally is for an ability to accommodate vessels up to a maximum width of 49.0m. To avoid capacity constraints and maintain the significant economic benefit to South Australia of a sustainable and efficient port, Flinders Ports is seeking development approval to undertake the proposed project subject to Section 49 of the Development Act 1993 as it is public infrastructure as defined by the Act (refer Chapter 2 Legislation and Planning for further details). The project will involve the following activities:  Widening the existing 130m channel to 170m, maintaining a 14.2m LAT design depth with 1:2 batters  Widening the existing swing basin to 550m in diameter and maintaining a 14.2m LAT design depth with 1:2 batters  Placing the material off-shore in a designated spoil ground area (7km by 5km) approximately 30km from Port Adelaide  Relocation of up to 16 navigational aids to the edge of the widened channel.

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 1

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

The channel will be widened approximately 40m (some minor variations in width may occur through further optimisation of the design in conjunction with detailed operational reviews for safe navigation). In total, approximately 1.55million m3 of material will be removed from the channel and swing basin. The current design depth of 14.2m LAT will be maintained as will the existing batters (1:2) as the geology remains consistent in such close proximity to the 2005 works (Chapter 3 Geology and Contamination provides a detailed assessment of the site geology).

1.3 Proposed Dredge Methodology As part of the preparation of the DA Report for the OHCW Project, the most suitable dredging methodology was developed following an analysis of the local geology, environmental and economic factors specific to this project. For the purposes of this report, the same methodology has been adopted to ensure any analysis is appropriate to the proposal. The proposed dredge methodology adopted is a combination of a medium size Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) and a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) of about 10,000m3 hopper capacity. The CSD will be used for breaking up hard material and side casting (placing material on the sea bed) for final dredging by a TSHD. The TSHD will re-dredge the sea bed material for removal to a suitable DMPA. The TSHD will also be used to directly dredge the soft material encountered. This is the same methodology utilised for the 2005 Outer Harbor Channel Deepening Project (OHCD Project). Of relevance to this report, the TSHD is the main plant involved in collecting and removing the material to a nominated DMPA and hence the CSD is not considered any further. TSHDs are self-propelled suction dredgers. TSHDs have the ability to dredge loose material such as soft clay, sand and gravel. An example of a TSHD is shown in Figure 1 below. When dredging, the TSHD moves forward at a speed of approximately 1 to 2 knots. Dredging takes place at the drag head which is attached to suction pipe trailing arms. There are two trailing arms, one at each side of the TSHD. The dredging depth depends on the trailing arm length. For the base case dredge methodology, a TSHD with a 10,000m3 hopper capacity and an effective dredge output of 5,000m3 per hour has been adopted based on its suitably for the site conditions and to meet the program. The dredged material would be loaded into the hopper in the form of slurry (approximately 20% solids: 80% water). As the hopper is filled up, excess water is separated and discharged through an ‘overflow’ process. An overflow system provides the means to separate the solids and the water by reducing the turbulence of the slurry mixture and allowing sufficient time for the solids to settle in the hopper. The water overflow is discharged through a “green valve” at the keel. The ‘green valve’ is an adjustable valve that chokes the flow to reduce the air that is taken down in the overflow mixture leaving the hopper. This

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 2

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

results in a denser particle stream, causing less turbulence and allowing sediments to travel more quickly to the seabed. Once loaded, the TSHD sails under its own power to the nominated DMPA where either the doors of the hull are opened to allow the dredged material to drop (for an ocean based DMPA) or the TSHD activates its on-board pump and pipe systems to pump the slurry to another pump and pipe system for transfer in the event of a land based DMPA.

Figure 1 TSHD Nile River (Image © DEME Group)

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 3

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

2 Prior Investigations

The potential identification and assessment for an appropriate and preferred DMPA has been subject to various investigations over time, generating an extensive body of knowledge and data that informs this current options analysis. The following studies are of particular note in their relevance and findings for this study:

Study Title Author and Comment Date

Evaluation of Disposal Sinclair Knight Technical assessment of both marine and Options for Dredged Spoil Merz, 2001 land based options for approx. 4.3million m3 from the Outer Harbor and concluded it may be feasible (with Approach Channel increased costs) to pursue some land based placement but subsequent to the assessment, noted the majority of material would be placed within an ocean based DMPA

Deepening of the Outer PPK, 2001 Technical assessment of options for approx. Harbor Shipping Channel 4.3million m3 and concluded that it may be feasible (with increased costs) to place some material (<20%) to a land based area with the balance ocean based DMPA

Spoil use / disposal option KBR, 2004 Assessed three cases for approx. 3.7million study m3 of material (1x ocean, 2x land based) against feasibility (technical considerations), economic and environmental and recommended ocean based DMPA

Deepening of the Shipping KBR, 2004 Development Application for up to 3million Channel at Outer Harbor m3 and ocean based DMPA Development Application

Dredgate Disposal Study – KBR, 2014 Assessed options for a 20yr timeframe with Options Report a total of 5million m3 with any single capital dredge campaign of between 300,000m3 to 3million m3 and utilising a Multi-Criteria Analysis recommended ocean based DMPA

Table 1 Prior Relevant Studies

2.1 Dredge Material Placement Area 2005 As part of the overall development application process, the options for dredge material placement area (DMPA) were considered (KBR, 2004). Land based options were investigated on Le Fevre Peninsula and Gillman due to the

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 4

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

proximity, availability of sizeable land parcels as well as the prevailing levels which require additional fill if there is planned future uses for the potential sites. A series of studies were also commissioned to investigate potential ocean based placement areas as well. The land based alternatives were discounted in the 2004 DAR for a range of factors following assessment. The main considerations remain relevant to the 2017 OHCW Project and included:  Significant settling ponds required to accommodate slurry if material is hydraulically dredged and pumped as slurry to any site  Significant cost implications associated with transporting slurry via pipes as well as limitations on pumping distances, earthworks to construct settling ponds and environmental factors in managing the settling ponds  The long duration to de-water any slurry and noting the geological conditions, the requirements to convert the material into a suitable engineering fill at a later date is very cost prohibitive when compared to other sources of material  The alternative to piping a slurry would be to mechanically dredge the channel (using a Back Hoe Dredge (BHD)) and utilise trucks to transport to a suitable placement area, adding significant time and cost to the project (estimated in 2004 as more than doubling the duration of works). An ocean based DMPA was proposed and approved in 2004 for the deepening project. An area in Gulf St Vincent was identified through detailed assessment as being the most appropriate location for a range of factors, including:  Deep water away from shipping activity to avoid impacts to shipping (30m to 35m depth)  Low levels of flora and fauna encountered at the location (0.6 living organisms per m2 were surveyed in 2004) with mobile fauna likely to disperse during activity and impacts assessed as localised and short term in nature  Retentive conditions were modelled and subsequently validated for the location (the sediments and materials are not prone to becoming mobile through natural processes (such as tidal and wave forces))  Presence of existing fisheries values were acknowledged (specifically prawn and scale fisheries) with short term localised impacts anticipated and a recovery period forecast within months post placement as the materials settle  Migratory species (including mega-fauna such as listed sharks and whales) were anticipated to avoid the area during placement activities and assessed as localised and temporary in nature when considered against the total areas available in Gulf St Vincent.

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 5

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

Based upon this recommendation, a DMPA was established in Gulf St Vincent in a rectangular area 7km by 5km and approximately 30km from Outer Harbor.

3 Options Assessment for DMPA 2017

In preparing this options assessment, all reasonable and available options for material placement, taking into consideration a balance of social, economic and environmental factors. A risk based approach was adopted to investigate and determine a preferred Dredge Material Placement Area (DMPA) option for the project. . The requirement to determine a suitable DMPA location is driven by the following primary considerations:  Accommodate required volumes of material – estimated at 1.55million m3 in-situ  Meet environmental and social objectives (meet environmental targets and minimise potential impact upon sensitive environmental receivers)  Remain economically feasible (reasonable total capital cost)  Be able to be completed within project timeframes  Be technically feasible for dredge methodology proposed (i.e. if alternative methodology considered, the full impacts across the OHCW Project need to be considered)  Meet all legislative requirements. There are several options that require assessment for the placement of material available to the OHCW Project: 1. DMPA in Gulf St Vincent 2. Land based DMPA 3. Beneficial re-use options (investigated in 2014 (KBR, 2014)) In 2014 Flinders Ports commissioned a study by KBR (KBR, 2014) titled “Flinders Ports Dredgate Disposal Study – Options Report”. The objectives of this study was to assess viable land based options against an established set of criteria addressing the key factors of environment, economics and overall feasibility through a combined Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach whereby all potential land based sites are investigated against multiple parameters to define a smaller sub-set of potentially viable sites that warranted further, detailed investigation before determining a preferred option for the DMPA. This report also considered beneficial re-use options for the material in accordance with the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (NAGD) (2009). The assessment utilised the NAGD approach to determine the risks associated with beneficial use options to the environment, public health as well as the comparative economics compared with the alternative options under consideration (Gulf St Vincent or Land Based DMPA).

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 6

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

3.1 DMPA in Gulf St Vincent The proposed location for a DMPA within Gulf St Vincent is the same as the prior 2005 deepening project and is located approximately 30km from Outer Harbor as shown in the Figure 2 below.

Figure 2 DMPA in Gulf St Vincent This ocean based DMPA was proposed and approved in 2004 for the deepening project. An area in Gulf St Vincent was identified through detailed assessment as being the most appropriate location for a range of factors, including:

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 7

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

 It was located away from shipping activity and in deep water to avoid any navigational hazards (30m to 35m depth)  The site did not support any significant marine flora or fauna – any impacts were assessed as localised and short term in nature The site is of sufficient depth and suitable tidal conditions that material is retained at that location (i.e. unlikely to become mobile and travel from site)  Only short term and localised impacts to existing fisheries values were expected  The site (and travel route) was not a known pathway or breeding area for migratory species (including mega-fauna such as listed sharks and whales), therefore minimising the risk of vessel strike. Based upon this recommendation, a DMPA was established in Gulf St Vincent in a rectangular area 7km by 5km and approximately 30km from Outer Harbor.

3.2 Land Based DMPA KBR (2014) initially identified a multitude of sites (twenty in total) that were refined through the MCA study to five land-based sites that were further investigated, including engagement with land-owners who indicated willingness to participate in the study (noting failure to engage with land-owners as to receptiveness to receive such material immediately eliminates any options not within the owner ship of Flinders Ports as a viable option). A range of key assumptions were applied to the MCA adopted by KBR (2014) and have been reviewed in preparing this assessment as part of the overall OHCW Project approvals study, to ensure any findings or changes in the interim remain valid as well as being able to refine the adopted assumptions with more detailed and developed project knowledge now available to the project team since 2014. The primary assumptions as compared to KBR (2014) and this report are detailed in the table below.

KBR (2014) OHCW Project (2017) Relevance / Comment

All sites investigated No change. Land tenure and future uses are indicated willingness to critical aspects for determining consider receiving material appropriateness to obtain agreement and approvals

Assumed total volume of Assumed total volume OHCW Project remains within the 5million m3 over 20 year of 1.55million m3 core assumptions adopted for any timeframe (i.e. assumed completed in 2018 (i.e. single capital project and hence the several capital dredge single project defined) KBR 2014 study option outcomes projects over time for long remain relevant to 2017 study. term DMPA) with volume from any single campaign

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 8

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

KBR (2014) OHCW Project (2017) Relevance / Comment

assumed as between 500,000 to 3,000,000 m3

Capital Dredge material only No change As per above

No contaminated material (all No change As per above material tested prior to placement and if any contaminants found material is disposed in accordance with EPA requirement to licensed receiving facility)

Material derived through a No change Impacts water content of the “linear” dredge campaign (i.e. material and hence ability of certain use of hydraulic dredge sites to be considered due to the methods) requirements for de-watering, containment works, environmental factors, distance from Outer Harbor and distance from barge tie-in to pipe system for transport of slurry

Hydraulic dredge methods No change As per above produce approx. 20% solids, 80% seawater mixture

Material generated will be No change As per above piped (as slurry) and de- watered at any land based DMPA

Material assessed for land No changes Consideration noting the time, areas based options will require and costs associated with additional “working” if it is to converting this material into be utilised as engineering fill suitable engineered fill. Potential in the future (used for costing for third parties to accept this cost comparisons and suitability of outside of the OHCW Project has potential sites) been considered and hence excluded where appropriate

Ocean based option will be No change This is based upon the retentiveness same as prior (2005) channel and depth of the existing DMPA, deepening campaign distance from sensitive (location). environmental receptors and existing classification for navigation as a DMPA which has previously been utilised for this

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 9

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

KBR (2014) OHCW Project (2017) Relevance / Comment

purpose and retains sufficient capacity for 1.55m3 of material

Table 2 Comparison of Assumptions Following the assessment undertaken in 2014, the preferred land based site for more detailed analysis and comparison against the alternative options was determined as the former salt crystallisation ponds at Cheetham and the evaporation ponds at Ridley North (located within 10km of Outer Harbor). The former Cheetham salt works site covers more than 40km2, with the proportion of the site that was used for salt crystallisation covering approximately 8.6km2. The site has existing infrastructure (with potential modifications required) and capacity for the volumes of material associated with the OHCW Project and the existing owners were willing to be considered for this assessment as a potential land based DMPA for suitable material.

Figure 3 DMPA at former Cheetham Salt Crystallisation Ponds

3.3 Beneficial Re-use KBR (2014) assessed the potential beneficial re-use options for the material based upon the known material properties (a mix of sand, clay and gravel materials). The assessment incorporated the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (2009) approach, which determines the risks associated with beneficial re-use

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 10

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

options and the environment, public health and the comparative economics when compared to other alternatives such as ocean or land based placement. A range of options were assessed against the anticipated material properties (which determines their ability for specific uses), the associated environmental considerations (such as requirements for additives, the saline nature of the material and associated impacts, and possible flow-on environmental impacts post placement), and economics (costs and distances for transport, additional works to material and flow-on works potential at placement sites). Multiple beneficial re-use applications were considered, as summarised in Table 3 below.

Beneficial Re-use Option Comment

Environmental Management such as: Mixed content of material (sands, clays and gravel) prevents ability to separate significant  Shore Protection and Coastal Erosion quantities of any single material Control Additional works to material (drying,  Beach Nourishment reinforcing) plus associated infrastructure  Artificial Habitat Creation requirements results in high costs and need for significant retention ponds to achieve

Engineered fill (multiple purposes) Material is unsuitable to be directly utilised as an engineering fill, and hence requires additional works to achieve necessary properties. This includes drying and addition of materials such as cement which significantly increases costs and requires retention ponds and land areas to dry and work the material

Non-engineered fill (multiple purposes) such Transport costs are a limiting factor given as: there are no suitable locations in proximity to Outer Harbor resulting in the material needing  Mine rehabilitation to be dried prior to transport. Placement of  Large areas not planned for development non-engineered fill also limits future options for any site and hence requires long term  Landfill capping certainty on usage of site.

Table 3 Beneficial Re-use Options Summary There were no viable beneficial re-use options recommended by KBR (2014) and this is supported through a review of the underlying technical, economic and environmental factors associated with each option. In the absence of a clear, viable option in proximity to the OHCW Project it was considered appropriate to eliminate beneficial re-use from further assessment and to focus on land based alternatives for a more detailed assessment against the ocean based DMPA.

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 11

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

4 Land Based DMPA Option Assessment

In assessing the OHCW Project DMPA options, the primary option for a land based site was determined to be the former salt crystallisation ponds as detailed in the previous section. These lands are suitably sized for the volumes under consideration and the owner has indicated willingness to be considered for DMPA and further analysis. All other potential sites have been excluded from further assessment based upon evaluation against multiple criteria and suitability for this project at this time. It has been considered optimal to focus on a single, comparable site that has maximum opportunity to be considered as feasible to enable a considered and risk based evaluation against the alternative option for an ocean based DMPA. A concept analysis was undertaken to investigate the engineering details associated with transporting hydraulic dredge material to this location, and included utilising a slurry pipeline to pump the materials in slurry form (high water content) to the site. This required at concept level and is summarised in Table 4 below:  Temporary barge mooring facility to tie-in with the pipeline and unload (pump) the material from the barge (or storage within a TSHD dredge)  Temporary pipeline utilising floating pipe network (moored to sea bed where required for navigation safety purposes)  Evaluation of potential route(s) to optimise the concept (avoid sensitive environmental receptors, minimise distance and hence additional pump booster requirements for example)  Allowance for modifications at the site to appropriately contain and manage the material upon placement  No allowance was made for converting the material into engineering fill quality or additional works (for de-watering, decanting, additives, and EPA licenses for example). These costs would be additional and assumed to be incorporated by the land owner / developer seeking to utilise this material.

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 12

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

Figure 4 Proximity and Location of Salt Crystallisation Ponds It is important to note that as detailed in Chapter 3 Geology and Contamination prepared as part of the overall DA Report that the material as defined through various geotechnical investigations and the experience of the prior channel deepening project in 2005 will be a mixture of sands, clays and gravel type materials and not suitable as direct engineering fill (once de-watered) so will require additional treatment if required as engineered fill in its final location. As detailed in Chapter 3 Geology and Contamination, the materials are not uniformly dispersed and hence will be mixed, preventing the ability to target specific typologies for alternative placement options. Clays also present challenges for slurry pumping, generating inefficiencies in the pumping solution (potentially requiring additional water and an inability to fully empty barge storages) as well as potential pipe blockages which require access to the pipe system to unblock which creates risk to the environment and access challenges where any pipe systems traverse water (assumed submerged when crossing the shipping channel for example). Delays to dredge operations will also be caused by any blockages requiring clearing resulting in lost productivity and potential delay costs. The requirements to convert dredge material into engineered fill restricts the viability of multiple sites from the outset. There are various methods by which this material can be strengthened to become engineering fill but they all take time and cost and require significant areas for management and working of the material. Frequently used methods include the addition of cement mixed into the dredge material mechanically or surcharge techniques (effectively creating stock piles approximately 3m-5m high to compact the materials to required levels over time). Typically the material is required to be sufficiently de-watered to enable

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 13

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

machinery to access the placement area and this may take years pending the amount of infrastructure constructed (draining systems, weatherproofing). There are also associated risks with managing the chemical properties of the material (such as Acid Sulfate Soils which have the potential to create acid when removed from saturated environments thus potentially releasing metals into the environment). Any containment and de-watering processes adopted for a land based placement area will need to employ additional measures and hence incur additional costs to appropriately manage this risk. Once such solution is to add lime to neutralise the acid forming ability of the soils and would require further more detailed investigations to determine dosing quantities and application methodologies. Another treatment is to “cap” the material with a physical layer of additional soils to prevent the formation of acids which would require both the importation and engineering of additional materials (additional costs) as well as detailed investigations to ensure the proposed long term solution is appropriate to mitigate this risk. It is also important to note that Flinders Ports only has direct control over its project and the land under its direct tenure. For all land based sites considered for the DMPA, there is a requirement for both Flinders Ports, a third party (DMPA land owner / holder) and the approval authorities (Federal, State and Local) to reach agreement on the appropriateness of any site and any conditions applied prior to proceeding. The risks associated with any liabilities between the parties would need to be considered and agreed contractually prior to any viable site being approved. As detailed earlier in this report and as highlighted through Appendix A Economic Assessment to the DA Report, Flinders Ports is progressing this project (subject to approvals being obtained) with time as a priority targeting completion in 2018 in order to realise the benefits and meet demand. Additional risks to timing, and creating additional interdependence with another land owner is a high risk to overall project delivery, particularly resolving the allocation of risk in the event one party delays the other as costs committed and incurred are significant once a dredge contractor has been mobilised for the construction phase of the OHCW Project. These additional considerations are all factored into the final analysis on the appropriateness for a land based DMPA, with the land owner / developer assumed to be accepting the risks associated and time and costs to manage the material upon receipt at the DMPA. The economics if these risks were to be included in the evaluation of the OHCW Project budgeting would severely impact negatively upon the overall project viability even before additional environmental and timing risks were considered.

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 14

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

A concept scheme to utilise the Cheetham salt works at the salt crystallisation was prepared. This requires establishment of a temporary mooring facility to discharge from the TSHD into the pipe system at a distance approximately 9km from the mid-point of the OHCW Project environs (as shown by the red line in Figure 5 below). At this point the TSHD would pump into the pipeline which is approximately 8.5km from the centre of the salt pans. The proposed pipeline alignment is through the Angas Inlet to the crystallisation pans (shown in Figure 5 as the blue line).

Figure 5 Concept Scheme for Slurry Pipeline Route The pipeline route is purely conceptual for proof of concept purposes and would require a detailed environmental and engineering assessment as well as close coordination with the port and all stakeholders to ensure no negative impacts to safety of navigation and general amenity to the area for users. Alternative routes including an overland route may be feasible but has not been tested at this stage. The overall intent of this conceptual study was to determine indicative technical elements and enable identification of key environmental risks for comparison with alternatives.

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 15

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

4.1 Summary Assessment and Conclusions

Scope / Technical Land DMPA Ocean DMPA Comment Change

Material Transport Approx. 8.5km slurry Self-propelled dredge Both methods based Option pipeline and pump plant and / or self- upon hydraulic system requiring propelled barges with dredging methods mooring bottom dumping and hence arrangements for comparable dredge dredge / pipeline tie- plant has been used ins to be established for assessment within the Port purposes

Dredge Cycle times Closer proximity to Long distance to Whilst the ocean dredge operations DMPA (>30km) disposal site is (<10km) but requires requiring multiple 30+km away, the more stop-start barges or sailing time time savings of local dredge operations as for TSHD, improved connection to a slurry material moisture by increased density pipe are significantly content must remain of materials lost through the high for pumping to transported (more efficiency losses with land reducing the solids per cycle) the TSHD having to capacity of the achieved via a “green maintain high dredge hopper valve” facilitating moisture content of overflow to material to enable concentrate material pumping into the in the hopper slurry pipe

Material Ratios Approximately 80% Approximately 20% Noting the clay (solids to seawater) seawater to 20% seawater to 80% content of the solids maintained to solids once overflow anticipated material, enable pumping to via “green valve” has it requires significant slurry pipe system concentrated material water to enable slurry in hopper pumping across large distances

Costs (assumptions / Establishment of Nil additional Land Based option exclusions for temporary mooring does not include comparison) with additional costs to dredge excluded as Build temporary create engineered fill consistent across both slurry pipeline (incl from this material DMPA options pumps) which is assumed by Potential land-side others. earthworks / de- watering system

Table 4 Technical Assessment Summary of Options

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 16

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

Table 4 above provides a summary of the two alternative options, land based and ocean based DMPA from a technical perspective. To complete the comparative assessment, the risks as detailed within this report are summarised below with comments in comparison with the ocean based DMPA.

Risk Land DMPA Ocean DMPA

Environment – Slurry Potential for blockages / No pipeline and hence no Pipeline breakages leading to spill into increased risk of potential environment as it traverses both spills. marine and land environment including sensitive intertidal areas

Environment - Amenity Temporary pipe system impacting No pipeline and hence no ability for community to safely increased risk to community and effectively

Operational - Safety Option requires increased passage TSHD does not need to enter of TSHD through Inner Harbor to Inner Harbor at all and will mooring site and return over many steam directly to sea once months increasing potential for hopper is full each cycle collisions over the alternative

Economic - Cost Higher capital costs to construct Lowest cost with TSHD temporary mooring and pipe and utilised with high efficiency. pump system with no material savings against alternative DMPA

Economic - Cost Introduces third party (land Project directly controlled by owner) into the OHCW Project Flinders Ports with no third and the need to establish clear party contractual risk contractual risk allocations adding introduced cost risk to the project

Economic - Time Added complexity (slurry pipe OHCW Project is seeking to and third party involvement, be implemented early 2018 additional approvals) increases the subject to gaining approvals. risk for time delays including Any delays increase the risk potential contractual costs of to completion to time and delaying works once commenced hence costs and flow-on operational impacts at the Port

Table 5 Risk Summary Land and Ocean DMPA

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 17

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Dredge Material Placement Options Assessment

4.1.1 DMPA Recommendation It can be seen from Table 5 that there is significant risk associated with the OHCW Project adopting a land based DMPA. It will add significant capital costs to the project as well as increase the likelihood of delays through the time required to establish agreements and approvals for the land based DMPA as well as increased risk of delays once construction commences (including direct delay costs) in event of technical difficulties associated with the slurry pipeline which is considered likely based upon the materials (clay content) and distances associated with the pumping requirements. An increase in environmental risk associated with the construction of temporary slurry pipe system within Inner Harbor and traversing the marine and land environments including the sensitive intertidal zone is also a major factor that limits the viability of a land based DMPA. Based upon the whole range of risk factors as detailed in this report, it is recommended that the OHCW Project proceeds with the existing ocean based DMPA (as per Figure 2 in this report) in Gulf St Vincent.

| Issue | 6 July 2017 | Arup Page 18

Appendix C

BMT WBM Pty Ltd Level 8, 200 Creek Street Brisbane Qld 4000 Australia PO Box 203, Spring Hill 4004

Tel: +61 7 3831 6744 Fax: + 61 7 3832 3627

ABN 54 010 830 421

www.bmtwbm.com.au Technical Memorandum: 2017 Seagrass Habitat Mapping

From: BMT WBM To: Flinders Ports Date: 4 May 2017 CC: Lisa McKinnon Adelaide Port Outer Harbour Channel Widening Project: 2017 Seagrass Habitat Subject: Mapping

Flinders Ports propose to widen the Port Adelaide outer harbour shipping channel (hereafter ‘the project’) to accommodate larger shipping vessels and cruise ships, an industry that is of significant economic benefit to South Australia. The channel will be widened by ~40 m and ~1.55 M m3 of dredged material from the channel and swing basin will be placed ~30 km offshore in the Gulf of St Vincent. It is proposed to use the same offshore placement area used during the previous 2005 Port Adelaide channel deepening capital dredging project.

Based on publically available mapping and previous investigations, seagrass is the dominant benthic primary producer habitat adjacent to the area proposed for dredging (Figure 2.1). Previous investigations have not identified seagrasses as being present at, or adjacent to, the material placement site given its depth; therefore no seagrass mapping at the placement site was necessary for this current project (EPA 2013a, SARDI 2016). Seagrasses are environmentally significant – and protected under the South Australian Native Vegetation Act 1991 (NV Act) – as they provide feeding, foraging and nursery habitat for marine and estuarine fauna, oxygenate the water, cycle nutrients, and stabilise marine sediments from erosion. Dredging and disposal of dredged material could potentially impact seagrass by: 1) direct removal within the dredge footprint and/or, 2) indirect loss of seagrass habitat from dredge related turbidity, due to reduced light availability for photosynthesis.

This seagrass habitat mapping memorandum is in support of the Development Application to undertake the proposed project, under Section 49 of the South Australian Development Act 1993 . This memorandum provides an updated (April 2017) seagrass habitat map product to facilitate an assessment of the potential impact the project will have on seagrass habitat.

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\DA Draft A part of BMT in Energy and Environment

1\Technical Appendices\Appendix C Seagrass Mapping.docx 2

Source references: EPA (2013a) & Tanner, 2004

Figure 1-1 Previously mapped seagrass habitat adjacent to Adelaide Port

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\DA Draft 1\Technical Appendices\Appendix C

Seagrass Mapping.docx 3

1 Methods

1.1 Preliminary habitat map The proposed map area was broadly inferred from 2004 plume mapping (Water Technology 2004) associated with previous channel deepening activity, and also from a preliminary assessment of the likely extent of plumes from the current proposed channel widening project.

Recent (February 2016) geo-rectified digital remote imagery (Sentinel 2, 10 m2 resolution) for the study area was downloaded from the United States Geological Service Earth Explorer website and processed using ArcMap 10.3.1. The Sentinal 2 imagery was used in combination with a high resolution (5 m) digital elevation model (DEM; combined navigational chart and bathymetric data provided by Flinders Ports) to calculate the benthic reflective index (BRI). Habitat classifications were derived using a BRI based on the blue and green visible colour spectra, as per Sagawa et al (2010). The optically deep reflective minima and attenuation relationships (required to calculate BRI) were established by querying reflectance over a range of unvegetated substrates at variable depths. The time of satellite capture was used to determine the amount of tide over the seafloor based on tidal predictions and tidal planes from the Australian Hydrographic Service.

Reliable unvegetated reflectance data between the 12 and 15 m water depths were not available due to the seemingly ubiquitous nature of seagrass cover in this depth range.

The resultant map product was also compared to other available mapping information previously compiled by BMT WBM (Figure 1-1 Previously mapped seagrass habitat adjacent to Adelaide Port

), sourced from EPA records and previous surveys.

1.2 Ground truthing survey Towed video transects were completed on 10 and 11 April 2017. A total of 30 proposed transects were located within the study area (on the preliminary habitat map) to target areas of likely seagrass habitat (Section 1.1), but also to focus on areas directly (the area of the existing channel to be widened) affected by the project.

The underwater video camera system consisted of a high definition camera (3840 x 2160 pixels per frame) with a wide-angle lens. The camera was flown at ~1 m above the substratum at a speed of 1–2 km/h. All footage was recorded onto the internal camera memory, while composite standard definition footage was relayed to a screen on the vessel for real-time data analysis by a trained marine ecologist. All equipment (laptop, GPSs and the camera) were set to the same date/time to ensure that habitat data collected along each transect could be geo-referenced onto the final habitat map.

At some sites where the water quality was poor or there were more cryptic species of seagrass encountered, a Van Veen grab sampler was used to collect samples of the seabed to confirm classifications made from the video imagery.

The video footage was also reviewed post-field to ensure a consistent approach to habitat classification (Section 1.3) and to match the survey data to the GPS tracklog (by date and time) for mapping. The classifications used to categorise benthic habitat are presented in Section 1.3.

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\DA Draft

1\Technical Appendices\Appendix C Seagrass Mapping.docx 4

1.3 Mapping seagrass habitat and classification categories Unsupervised habitat classifications were performed using the ArcMap 10.3.1 Iso Class tool and the BRI (Section 1.1). The unsupervised classification resulted in 16 habitat categories, out of a maximum of 30. To produce the final map, unsupervised habitat classifications were merged systematically, based on ground truthing data to establish the final five habitat mapping categories in Table 1-1:

• Eleven categories represented different forms of unvegetated benthos, as a result of different reflectance due to depth.

• Two categories that appeared similar based on satellite imagery and represented macroalgae associated with molluscs, unconsolidated rock, interspersed with occasional/sparse seagrass.

• The final three categories remained unmerged and represented: moderate to dense mixed Amphibolis/Posidonia seagrass; a weak seagrass signal representing sparse Halophila australis or Posidonia ; and seagrass dominated by Heterozostera sp.

Classification categories in Table 1-1were broadly based on previous classifications produced by EPA (2013a) and a visual estimate of seagrass cover in-line with EPA (2013b):

• sparse –35% seagrass coverage

• moderate 35–70% seagrass coverage

• dense 70–100% seagrass coverage (Appendix A).

Classification of substrate without seagrass was based on a fine-scale interpretation of the CATAMI Classification scheme for Scoring Marine Biota and Substrate in Underwater Imagery (Althaus et al 2014).

Other notes regarding final habitat classification categories include:

• Deep water (>20 m) unsupervised classifications of seagrass cover were unreliable due to the limited unvegetated reflectance data at these depths, and were therefore not included in the final map.

• Small patches of seagrass within the channel, at a 15 m depth, were originally categorised as moderate to dense seagrass by the unsupervised classification tool, however, ground truthing indicated these patches were actually sparse seagrass cover and were re-classified accordingly.

• Any habitat mapped beyond the remote sensing limit (i.e. available navigational chart and high resolution bathymetric data) was digitised by hand according to: 2011 mapping (EPA 2013a), presently resolved community boundaries, and satellite and aerial imagery.

• Large amounts of wrack 1 (50–100% cover) observed along some ground truthed transects were categorised as ‘unconsolidated sand’. This was to avoid confusion interpreting map results between years, as wrack is seasonally different (i.e. increased in winter when perennial seagrass shed leaves).

Table 1-1 Habitat classification categories

Classification category Coverage Notes Moderate to dense seagrass Moderate to dense (35– Amphibolis and/or Posidonia 100%)

1 Detached leaves and stems.

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\DA Draft

1\Technical Appendices\Appendix C Seagrass Mapping.docx 5

Classification category Coverage Notes Sparse seagrass Sparse (1–35%) Halophila australis and/or very sparse Posidonia Seagrass dominated by Moderate to dense (35– Based on unsupervised classification and Heterozostera 100%) past distribution (2011), not ground truthed during this study Macroalgae dominant ± n.a. Macroalgae was generally associated with seagrass, molluscs or rock consolidated rock or razorfish Molluscs indicates razorfish cover between 10 and 50% Consolidated rock, where present, was generally low relief limestone reef covered in sparse to moderate macro or turf algae Sparse Halophila australis and/or Posidonia recorded between macroalgae habitat Unconsolidated sand n.a. –

2 Results

2.1 Benthic primary producer species Grab samples were taken on an ad hoc basis to determine the presence of ephemeral seagrasses that were harder to see on the real-time standard definition footage but also to determine whether large ‘clumps’ of seagrass were wrack or live seagrass. The composition of wrack was largely made up of seagrass, confirming that the dominant benthic primary producer habitat adjacent to the Port is seagrass habitat.

Grab samples indicated that the dominant perennial seagrasses in the area were Posidonia sinuosa and Amphibolis antarctica and the ephemeral seagrass Halophila australis (Figure 2.1). It can be difficult to identify Posidoniace ae to species level from video, particularly without the full root structure; however, the brown colouring and smooth nature of the rhizome indicates the presence of Posidonia sinuosa (Figure 2.1b). These same perennial species of seagrass were identified during the SARDI (2016) seagrass survey. There was also some indication of Heterozostera sp. along nearshore transects. This correlates with EPA (2013a) findings, however, Heterozostera sp. are likely more abundant in the muddy intertidal areas north-east of the Port, and outside of the area ground truthed as part of this study. Therefore, Heterozostera habitat mapping in 2017 is based on 2011 distribution (EPA 2013a).

EPA (2013a) indicates the presence of macroalgal communities dominated by Ecklonia radiata and mixed fucoids (i.e. Sargassum spp.). Macroalgae was observed during ground truthing, but only in low quantities and generally associated with razorfish (Figure 2.2) or unconsolidated rock or rubble nearshore and around the port channel entrance.

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\DA Draft

1\Technical Appendices\Appendix C Seagrass Mapping.docx 6

Figure 2.1 Examples of perennial seagrasses a) Amphibolis antarctica and b) Posidonia sinuosa and c) Halophila australis seagrass collected adjacent to Adelaide Port

Figure 2.2 Razorfish covered in macroalgae 2.2 Seagrass habitat map The main seagrass habitats observed in 2017 were large meadows dominated by either the perennial genera Amphibolis or Posidonia , or a mixed meadow of these genera (Seagrass sparse or Seagrass moderate to dense; Figure 2-3). Ephemeral seagrasses (e.g. Halophila australis) were present throughout the study area, particularly in water depths between 6 and 13 m below Lowest Astronomical Tide (Figure 2-3). Ephemeral seagrasses were difficult to map as they were only present in low densities (0–35%) and often interspersed with low density Posidonia spp., macroalgae, wrack or razorfish with macroalgal cover (Figure 2.2). However, areas previously mapped as unconsolidated bare substrate adjacent to the offshore shipping channel were mapped as sparse seagrass cover, mainly Halophila australis , in 2017 (Figure 2-3).

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\DA Draft

1\Technical Appendices\Appendix C Seagrass Mapping.docx 7

There were also small patches of parse (0–35%) seagrass cover (mainly Halophila australis ) within the

shipping channel (Figure 2-3).

Moderate to dense seagrass mapped in 2017 is in general agreement with 2011 map data (EPA 2013a; Figure 1-1 Previously mapped seagrass habitat adjacent to Adelaide Port

). Although, it is noted that 2017 mapping did not differentiate between continuous and patchy seagrass because of the quality and resolution (10 m) of satellite imagery (Section 1.3).

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\DA Draft

1\Technical Appendices\Appendix C Seagrass Mapping.docx 8

Figure 2-3 Seagrass Habitat Map of the Adelaide Port region

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\DA Draft 1\Technical Appendices\Appendix C Seagrass Mapping.docx 9

3 Summary

Since 2011, areas adjacent to the outer channel and small patches (~10.5 ha) within the outer channel have been colonised with sparse seagrasses, mainly Halophila australis (Figure 2-3). The increased presence of sparse seagrasses within and adjacent to the outer channel is likely due to natural recolonisation since the previous dredging campaign in 2005 but could also be attributed to improvements to the quality and resolution of satellite/aerial imagery since previous mapping products were produced and/or changes to the methods of habitat mapping (i.e. interpolation of point source data versus habitat classifications derived using a BRI). Moderate to dense seagrass mapped in 2017 was generally consistent with 2011 mapped data and was mapped within close (~100 m) proximity to the outer channel in some places (Figure 2-3).

Within the area to be dredged, approximately 4ha of sparse seagrass will be removed and directly impacted by works.

To determine the potential loss of seagrass as a result of dredging and/or dredge related turbidity, the risk assessment will need to consider the differences in the way seagrasses are affected and can recover from a reduced light climate. For instance, colonising/ephemeral species (such as Halophila spp.) are characterised by short turnover times (

Therefore, the risk of seagrass loss will depend on the size, shape, direction, duration and intensity of the turbid plume generated by dredging, and will be assessed within the Development Application alongside information provided by plume modelling. Should plume modelling indicate seagrass loss as a result of dredging, there may be a requirement under the NV Act to seek a Significant Environmental Benefit offset, if the loss of seagrass habitat is considered biologically significant.

4 References

Althaus F, Hill N, Edwards L, Ferrari R, et al (2014) CATAMI Classification Scheme for scoring marine biota and substrata in underwater imagery – A pictorial guide to the Collaborative and Annotation Tools for Analysis of Marine Imagery and Video (CATAMI) classification scheme. Version 1.4 ccessed 19 April 2017]

EPA (2013a) Nearshore marine aquatic ecosystem condition reports: Gulf St Vincent bioregional assessment report 2010–2011. Prepared by South Australian Environmental Protection Authority, Adelaide, SA, October 2013

EPA (2013b) The South Australian monitoring, evaluation and reporting program for aquatic ecosystems: rationale and methods for the assessment of nearshore marine waters. Prepared by South Australian Environmental Protection Authority, Adelaide, SA, July 2013

Erftemeijer PLA and Robin Lewis III RR (2006) Environmental impacts of dredging on seagrasses: a review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52:1553–1572

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\DA Draft

1\Technical Appendices\Appendix C Seagrass Mapping.docx 10

Kilminster K, McMahon K, Waycott M, Kendrick GA, Scanes P, McKenzie L, O'Brien KR, Lyons M, Ferguson A, Maxwell P, Glasby T, Udy J (2015) Unravelling complexity in seagrass systems for management: Australia as a microcosm. Science of the Total Environment 534:97–109

Sagawa T, Boisnier E, Komatsu T, Mustapha KB, Hattour A, Kosaka N, Miyazaki S (2010) Using bottom surface reflectance to map coastal marine areas: a new application method for Lyzenga's model. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 31: 3051–3064

SARDI (2016) Re-assessment of sites potentially impacted by dredging in the Outer Harour, Port Adelaide: dredge spoil dump site and seagrass adjacent to dredged channel. Prepared by South Australian Research & Development Institute for KBR Pty Ltd and Flinders Port, Report No. F2016/000542–1, Adelaide, SA, December 2016

Water Technology (2004) Flinders Ports: Port Adelaide Dredge Investigations. Prepared by Water Technology Pty Ltd for Kellogg Brown & Root, Report No. J115/R01, Notting Hill, VIC, August 2004

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\DA Draft

1\Technical Appendices\Appendix C Seagrass Mapping.docx 11

Appendix A

Visual seagrass coverage estimate examples (EPA 2013a)

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\DA Draft

1\Technical Appendices\Appendix C Seagrass Mapping.docx Appendix D

A part of BMT in Energy and Environment

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report

Reference: R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx Date: June 2017 Confidential

Document Control Sheet

Document: R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx BMT WBM Pty Ltd Level 8, 200 Creek Street Title: Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Brisbane Qld 4000 Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Australia Report PO Box 203, Spring Hill 4004 Project Manager: Lisa McKinnon Tel: +61 7 3831 6744 Fax: + 61 7 3832 3627 Author: Ian Teakle

ABN 54 010 830 421 Client: Flinders Ports

www.bmtwbm.com.au Client Contact: Lee Kolokas Client Reference: Synopsis: Dredge Plume Modelling Technical Report for the Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project.

REVISION/CHECKING HISTORY Revision Number Date Checked by Issued by 0 30/5/2017 LCM IAT 1 27/06/2017 LCM IAT

DISTRIBUTION Destination Revision 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Flinders Ports Word PDF BMT WBM File Word PDF BMT WBM Library PDF

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report i Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Flinders Ports have identified a need to widen the Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Shipping channel due to the increasing width of vessels visiting the Port. The channel will be widened nominally by 40m, with the dredged material placed approximately 30km off-shore in the Gulf of St Vincent. It is proposed to use the same off-shore placement area used in the previous 2005 Port Adelaide Channel deepening capital dredging project. In total, approximately 1.55 million m3 of material will be removed from the channel and swing basin. For comparison, the 2005 channel deepening project removed an estimated 2.7 million m3 of material.

This report describes dredge plume numerical modelling assessments undertaken as part of the Development Application (DA) for the Outer Harbor Channel Widening (OHCW) project. This report has informed marine ecological assessments described in the DA. A suite of hydrodynamic, wave and sediment transport models have been developed and applied to prediction of expected dredge plumes associated with the OHCW at both the dredge site and Dredge Material Placement Area (DMPA).

A capital dredging scenario based on the methodology used during the 2005 channel deepening project has been developed as the basis for the OHCW dredge plume modelling assessments. This methodology involves a combination of a 10,000m3 hopper capacity Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge (TSHD) in combination with a medium-sized Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD) for pre-treatment of stiff materials. This scenario is considered the ‘most likely’ methodology to be used for the channel widening, however an alternative dredging scenario may be chosen depending on contractual agreements made post-assessment. In this event, the plume modelling results in this report will be reviewed and appropriate environmental controls implemented in accordance with approval conditions, any subsequent dredging approval issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1993 or approved management plans.

The modelling assessments undertaken for this stage of the OHCW project have relied on available information, much of which had been collected as part of the previous channel deepening project. These historical sources of data were deemed to be appropriate and sufficient for a first pass dredge plume risk assessment. However, there may be opportunities to refine the modelling assessment based on further data to be collected following appointment of a dredging contractor for the OHCW Project. These include project specific geotechnical investigations and baseline metocean and water quality data collection.

Refinement of dredge plume modelling and associated risk assessments could be undertaken as part of the application for a project dredge license under the Environmental Protection act. Refined modelling could be used to inform impact mitigation strategies to be included in a project Dredge Management Plan.

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report ii Contents

Contents

Executive Summary i List of Terminology and Abbreviations v 1 Introduction 1 2 Model Description 3 2.1 Digital Elevation Model (DEM) 3 2.2 Boundary Conditions 3 2.3 Hydrodynamics 4 2.4 Waves 4 2.5 Sediment Transport 4 2.6 Simulation Periods 5 3 Dredge Plume Assessments 11 3.1 Dredging Methodology 11 3.1.1 Dredge Volumes and Materials 11 3.1.2 Assumed (Base) Scenario 15 3.1.2.1 Program Schematisation 15 3.1.2.2 Plume Generation Assumptions 16 3.2 Simulation Periods 18 3.3 Plume Prediction Presentation 18 3.3.1 Plume snapshots 18 3.3.2 Percentile Analysis 19 3.4 Results 21 3.4.1 Plume snapshots 21 3.4.2 Turbidity Percentiles 24 3.4.3 Sediment Deposition 24 3.5 Water Quality Risk Assessment 28 3.5.1 Methodology 28 3.5.2 Base Case 30 4 Summary 35 5 References 36 Appendix A Base Case Timeseries – Summer Scenario A-1 Appendix B Base Case Timeseries – Winter Scenario B-1

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report iii Contents

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Constructed Wind Field Triangulation 3 Figure 2-2 TUFLOW FV Mesh and Bathymetry 6 Figure 2-3 Typical Flood Tide Currents 7 Figure 2-4 Typical Ebb Tide Currents 7 Figure 2-5 SWAN Model Extents 8 Figure 2-6 Typical Significant Wave Height Distribution (summer seabreeze) 9 Figure 2-7 Adelaide Airport (BoM) summer windroses; All available data (Left), and Selected period (Right) 10 Figure 2-8 Adelaide Airport (BoM) winter windroses; All available data (Left), and Selected period (Right) 10 Figure 3-1 Adelaide Port Channel Widening Project 13 Figure 3-2 Inferred Geological Section (from Golder 2004) 14 Figure 3-3 Typical Turbidity Snapshot. TSHD overflow dredging in approach channel with plume drifting northward (typical summer condition). 22 Figure 3-4 Typical Turbidity Snapshot. TSHD overflow dredging in approach channel with plume drifting southward (typical winter condition). 22 Figure 3-5 Typical Turbidity Snapshot. TSHD overflow dredging in outer harbor during flood tide with plume drifting over intertidal flats into Barker Inlet. 23 Figure 3-6 Typical Turbidity snapshot. Relatively small plume at DMPA (far left) compared with inshore residual plumes. 23 Figure 3-7 Summer Scenario Turbidity Percentile Contours. Acute 95th Percentile (left); Chronic 50th Percentile (right). 25 Figure 3-8 Winter Scenario Turbidity Percentile Contours. Acute 95th Percentile (left); Chronic 50th Percentile (right). 25 Figure 3-9 Summer Scenario Sediment Deposition Rate Percentile Contours. Acute 95th Percentile (left); Chronic 50th Percentile (right). 26 Figure 3-10 Summer Scenario Final Net Sediment Deposition Contours. 26 Figure 3-11 Winter Scenario Sediment Deposition Rate Percentile Contours. Acute 95th Percentile (left); Chronic 50th Percentile (right). 27 Figure 3-12 Winter Scenario Final Net Sediment Deposition Contours. 27 Figure 3-13 Concept design of impact zones (WA EPA 2016) 29 Figure 3-14 Zones of Impact – Turbidity – Summer 31 Figure 3-15 Zones of Impact – Turbidity – Winter 32 Figure 3-16 Zones of Impact – Sediment Deposition – Summer 33 Figure 3-17 Zones of Impact – Sediment Deposition – Winter 34

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report iv Contents

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Modelled Sediment Fraction Properties 5 Table 3-1 Breakdown of Dredge Volume by Area and Sediment Class 12 Table 3-2 Assumed Sediment Class Particle Size Distributions 12 Table 3-3 Summary of 10,000m3 TSHD Productivity Assumptions 16 Table 3-4 Summary of CSD Productivity Assumptions 16 Table 3-5 Summary of TSHD Plume Source Rates (Fines only) 17 Table 3-6 Summary of CSD Plume Source Rates (Fines only) 17 Table 3-7 Turbidity percentile plot contour limits 20 Table 3-8 Sediment deposition contour limits 20 Table 3-9 Impact thresholds for above ambient turbidity 29 Table 3-10 Impact thresholds for sediment deposition (above background) 30

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report v List of Terminology and Abbreviations

List of Terminology and Abbreviations

Accretion Build up of material, e.g., sand as a result of coastal or fluvial processes Bed Shear Stress The force per unit area exerted by a fluid on the bed Bioavailable Available for biological processes Climate Forecast System version 2 (produced by United States National CFSv2 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Centers for Environmental Prediction) CSD Cutter Suction Dredge DA Development Application DEM Digital Elevation Model DMPA Dredge Material Placement Area Ebb tide The outgoing tide ENC Electronic Navigational Charts Area of mixing region dominated by the ambient turbulent diffusion, typically Far field hundreds of metres or more from plume source Flood tide The incoming tide HAT Highest Astronomic Tide A data-assimilative hybrid isopycnal-sigma-pressure coordinate ocean HYCOM model model LAT Lowest Astronomic Tide NCEP National Centers for Environmental Prediction The tides which occur around the first and last quarter of the moon, when Neap tide the difference between high and low water is lower than average Area of mixing region dominated by the initial momentum of discharge, Near field typically within tens to hundreds of metres from plume source NLSWE Non-Linear Shallow Water Equations NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Units OHCW Outer Harbor Channel Widening PAR Photosynthetically Active Radiation The process by which sediment that was previously deposited on the Resuspension seabed is entrained back into suspension in the water column SHB Split Hull Barge A turbulent mixing model that assumes that the energy production and Smagorinsky model dissipation at small scales are in equilibrium The tides which occur around the new or full moon, when the difference Spring tide between high and low water is higher than average 3rd generation spectral wave modelling software (produced by Technical SWAN University Delft) TSHD Trailer Suction Hopper Dredge TSS Total Suspended Solids TUFLOW FV Hydrodynamic and advection-dispersion modelling software A measure of the degree to which the water loses its transparency due to Turbidity the presence of suspended particulates

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 1 Introduction

1 Introduction

Flinders Ports have identified a need to widen the Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Shipping channel due to the increasing width of vessels visiting the Port.

The existing channel is designed for maximum vessel widths of 36m, with a capability to handle oversize vessels with width up to 42.2m with operational restrictions, but the trend internationally is for an ability to accommodate vessels up to a maximum width of 49.0m. To avoid capacity constraints and maintain the significant economic benefit to South Australia of a sustainable and efficient port, Flinders Ports is preparing to seek development approval to undertake the proposed project subject to Section 49 of the Development Act 1993 (DA Act) given it is public infrastructure as defined by the Act This report has been prepared to support that application.

The channel will be widened nominally by 40m, with the dredged material placed approximately 30km off-shore in the Gulf of St Vincent. It is proposed to use the same off-shore placement area used in the previous 2005 Port Adelaide Channel deepening capital dredging project. In total, approximately 1.55 million m3 of material will be removed from the channel and swing basin. For comparison, the 2005 channel deepening project removed an estimated 2.7 million m3 of material.

The proposed project will involve the following activities:

• Widening the existing 130m channel to 170m, to a depth of 14.5m (this includes contingency allowances to achieve a final design depth of 14.2m minimum), with 1:2 batters

• Widening the existing swing basin to 550m in diameter, to a depth of 14.5m (this includes contingency allowances to achieve a final design depth of 14.2m minimum)

• Placing the material off-shore in a 7km by 5km area of seabed approximately 30km from Port Adelaide; no onshore disposal is anticipated for this project.

• Relocation of up to 16 navigational aids.

The following report describes dredge plume numerical modelling assessments undertaken as part of the Development Application (DA) for the Outer Harbor Channel Widening (OHCW) project. This report has informed marine ecological assessments described in the DA. A suite of hydrodynamic, wave and sediment transport models have been developed and applied to prediction of expected dredge plumes associated with the OHCW at both the dredge site and Dredge Material Placement Area (DMPA).

A capital dredging scenario based on the methodology used during the 2005 channel deepening project has been developed as the basis for the OHCW dredge plume modelling assessments. This methodology involves a combination of a 10,000m3 hopper capacity Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge (TSHD) in combination with a medium-sized Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD) for pre- treatment of stiff materials.

This scenario is considered the ‘most likely’ methodology to be used for the channel widening, however an alternative dredging scenario may be chosen depending on contractual agreements made post-assessment. In this event, the plume modelling results in this report will be reviewed and appropriate environmental controls implemented in accordance with approval conditions, any

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 2 Introduction

subsequent dredging approval issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1993 or approved management plans.

The numerical models applied to this assessment are described in Section 2. The dredge plume modelling simulations are detailed in Section 3. This includes an assessment of the risk dredge plumes present to water quality, prepared in accordance with accepted best practice techniques, as outlined in the Western Australia guidelines for the environmental impact assessment of marine dredge proposals (WA EPA, 2016).

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 3 Model Description

2 Model Description

2.1 Digital Elevation Model (DEM) Digital Electronic Navigational Chart (ENC) data sourced from the Australian Electronic Navigation Charts (AUSENC) data sets have been used to develop bathymetry information for most of the model. Additional high resolution bathymetric survey datasets collected over a period between 2014 and 2016 were provided by Flinders Ports for use in the vicinity of the Outer Harbor.

2.2 Boundary Conditions The hydrodynamic and wave models were forced with predicted tidal water levels sourced from the Oregon State University global model of ocean tides. The tides have been offset with tidal anomaly sourced from the Cape Jervis tide gauge.

Hydrodynamic model atmospheric forcing was sourced from the National Centre for Environmental Prediction Climate Forecast System version 2 (NCEP CFSv2) global atmospheric (Saha et al., 2010) due to the relatively poor comparison of CFSv2 wind in the region to Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) stations.

Following a comparison of CFSv2 wind predictions and data from Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) monitoring stations, wind fields were constructed from an interpolation of measured BoM wind datasets (Figure 2-1). The constructed wind fields were used as forcing conditions for both the hydrodynamic and wave models.

Offshore salinity and temperature profiles were sourced from the HYbrid Coordinate Ocean Model (HYCOM) global ocean model (http://hycom.org).

Figure 2-1 Constructed Wind Field Triangulation

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 4 Model Description

2.3 Hydrodynamics The hydrodynamic modelling component of these assessments has been undertaken using the TUFLOW FV software, which is developed and distributed by BMT WBM (http://www.tuflow.com/Tuflow%20FV.aspx). TUFLOW FV is a numerical hydrodynamic model used to build two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) Non-Linear Shallow Water Equations (NLSWE). The model is suitable for solving a wide range of hydrodynamic systems ranging in scale from open channels and floodplains, through estuaries to coasts and oceans. The Finite-Volume (FV) numerical scheme employed by TUFLOW FV is capable of solving the NLSWE on both structured rectilinear grids and unstructured meshes comprised of triangular and quadrilateral elements. The flexible mesh allows for seamless boundary fitting along complex coastlines or open channels as well as accurately and efficiently representing complex bathymetries with a minimum number of computational elements. The flexible mesh capability is particularly efficient at resolving a range of scales in a single model without requiring multiple domain nesting. Further details regarding the numerical scheme employed by TUFLOW FV are provided in the TUFLOW FV Science Manual (BMT WBM, 2013).

The TUFLOW FV mesh domain extends from the Northern tip of Gulf St Vincent in the north to just outside of Backstairs Passage in the south and to the end of Investigator Strait in the West. Mesh resolution ranges from 1300 m at the boundaries to 45 m in the Outer Harbor. The mesh and bathymetry are shown in Figure 2-2.

Typical snapshots of flood tide and ebb tide currents are shown in Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4 respectively.

2.4 Waves The wave modelling component of these assessments has been undertaken using the spectral wave model SWAN. SWAN (Delft University of Technology, 2006) is a third-generation spectral wave model, which is capable of simulation of the generation of waves by wind, dissipation by whitecapping, depth-induced wave breaking, bottom friction wand wave-wave interactions in both deep and shallow water. SWAN simulates wave/swell propagation in two-dimension, including shoaling and refraction due to spatial variations in bathymetry. This is a global industry standard modelling package that has been applied with reliable results to many investigations worldwide.

A nested grid wave modelling approach has been adopted as shown in Figure 2-5. The nested system is comprised of a regional 1000m grid extending beyond Kangaroo Island that brings offshore swell conditions and 3 nests of increasing resolution to bring these regional waves into the near-shore area.

A typical Gulf St Vincent wave height field modelled on the 500 m SWAN grid is shown in Figure 2-6. This plot corresponds to a typical summer seabreeze condition.

2.5 Sediment Transport The TUFLOW FV Sediment Transport (ST) module has been used to undertake the dredge plume simulations. The ST module has been configured to simulate the advection, dispersion, settling, deposition (to the seabed) and re-suspension (from the seabed) of multiple sediment fractions

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 5 Model Description

introduced into the water column (or onto the seabed) by the proposed dredging activities. The modelling undertaken for this assessment has considered the dredge plume sediment separately from the ambient (background) sediment transport. Ambient sediment transport has not been simulated, which is a reasonable (and often conservative) assumption for undertaking a first pass dredge plume risk assessment.

Dredge plumes have been included in the model by applying sediment source terms comprising four (4) sediment particle size fractions (Sand, Silt, Clay and Limestone fines). Moving source terms have been derived to represent the different dredging operations (TSHD and CSD) over the course of the OHCW project.

Sediment deposition and resuspension due to the combined action of currents and waves has been resolved in the model. This means that dredge plume sediment which has previously deposited on the seabed may subsequently be resuspended into the water column when its critical shear stress for erosion is exceeded. The settling velocity and critical shear stress for both deposition and erosion for each modelled sediment fraction is provided in Table 2-1 and are consistent with published parameter ranges (Whitehouse et.al, 2000) and dredge plume impact assessment practice (BMT WBM, 2016).

Table 2-1 Modelled Sediment Fraction Properties

Modelled Sediment Settling Velocity Critical Shear Critical Shear Fraction (m/s) Stress Deposition Stress Erosion (Pa) (Pa) Sand 0.01 n/a 0.2 Silt 0.001 0.18 0.2 Clay 0.0001 0.18 0.2 Limestone (fines) 0.0001 0.18 0.2

2.6 Simulation Periods The OHCW dredge campaign could potentially occur at any time of the year. Due to the strong seasonality of Gulf St Vincent Metocean conditions, both summer (dry) and winter (wet) season simulations were undertaken for the OHCW dredge plume assessment.

Windroses derived from historical BoM Adelaide Airport data are shown in Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8 for summer dry season (October to April) and winter wet season (May to September) respectively. The summer periods are typically characterised by a predominantly southerly wind condition with a diurnal seabreeze pattern. The winter periods experience more northerly prevailing conditions and periodic storms with strong offshore (westerly) winds.

Representative simulation periods were derived by comparing individual dry season and wet season years with the longer term datesets. The selected winter wet season period was from May to September 2014 and the selected summer dry season from October 2015 to April 2016. The selected summer and winter period windroses are also shown in Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8.

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 7 Model Description

Figure 2-3 Typical Flood Tide Currents

Figure 2-4 Typical Ebb Tide Currents

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 9 Model Description

Figure 2-6 Typical Significant Wave Height Distribution (summer seabreeze)

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 10 Model Description

Figure 2-7 Adelaide Airport (BoM) summer windroses; All available data (Left), and Selected period (Right)

Figure 2-8 Adelaide Airport (BoM) winter windroses; All available data (Left), and Selected period (Right)

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 11 Dredge Plume Assessments

3 Dredge Plume Assessments

A key concern regarding water quality for the project is from the release of sediment particles to the water body during the capital dredging program. Turbid plumes are released as a result of dredging activities and have the potential to migrate and impact upon nearby sensitive ecological receptors which include seagrass meadows and intertidal mudflats. The extent of the plume will depend on a range of factors including season, wind strength and direction, currents, tide status, location and type of dredge, as well as working methods and productivity.

The following section describes dredge plume modelling simulations and water quality risk assessments for the OHCW project.

3.1 Dredging Methodology Numerical simulation of the OHCW capital dredging campaign required the development of representative dredge plume and DMPA placement boundary conditions for input into the hydrodynamic model. Simulations were developed to span the entirety of the capital dredging campaign as described in the Dredging Methodology Technical Note (Arup, 2017a). This document provided expected dredging methodologies for the purpose of informing the dredge plume impact modelling DA Assessment tasks.

3.1.1 Dredge Volumes and Materials The OHCW project involves dredging approximately 1.55million m3 of material from the channel and swing basin and placement at the offshore DMPA (refer Section 1).

A spatial breakdown of estimated dredging volumes has been provided by Flinders Ports and is summarised in Table 3-1. The total volumes in this table include a spatially uniform insurance dredging allowance.

The selection of appropriate dredging plant is largely dictated by the type of sea bed material to be dredged. Available information for classifying the seabed material within the dredge footprint is limited to the geotechnical investigations undertaken for the 2005 channel deepening project (Golder, 2004; PPK, 2001). Based on extrapolating this information to the current project it can be assumed that the sea bed material to be dredged would comprise a combination of both loose and firm to hard substrates. For the purpose of parameterising dredge plume model simulations, three material classes have been defined:

• Class 1 – sand to clayey sand

• Class 2 – Clayey sand to sandy clay (firm)

• Class 3 – Clayey sand with calcareous sandstone (hard)

A spatial breakdown of the material classes has been derived with reference to Figure 3-2 (reproduced from Golder, 2004). The assumed sediment class breakdown is also summarised in Table 3-1.

The dredge plume modelling simulations represent multiple particle size fractions with discrete settling properties. Table 3-2 summarises the assumed Particle Size Distribution (PSD) of the

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 12 Dredge Plume Assessments

material classes and the dry density used for converting insitu volumes into an equivalent dry sediment mass.

Table 3-1 Breakdown of Dredge Volume by Area and Sediment Class

Dredge Area In-Situ Volume (m3) (survey sheet) Total Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 16 173305 17330 155974 0 17 180767 18077 162690 0 18 211306 21131 190176 0 19 139980 27996 41994 69990 20 169251 33850 50775 84625 21 139490 27898 41847 69745 22 135238 27048 40571 67619 23 131076 117968 0 13108 24 100845 90760 0 10084 25 69289 62360 0 6929 26 52608 47347 0 5261 27 46847 42162 0 4685 TOTAL (m3) 1550000 533927 684028 332045

Table 3-2 Assumed Sediment Class Particle Size Distributions

Material Description Insitu Dry Particle Size Distribution Class Density ’ (kg/m3) Sand Silt Clay L stone Class 1 Sand to clayey sand 1500 70% 15% 15% 0% Class 2 Clayey sand to sandy clay 1500 30% 35% 35% 0% Class 3 Clayey sand with 1500 30% 35% 0% 35% calcareous sandstone

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 14 Dredge Plume Assessments

Figure 3-2 Inferred Geological Section (from Golder 2004)

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 15 Dredge Plume Assessments

3.1.2 Assumed (Base) Scenario The base dredging scenario assumes a similar methodology to that employed in the 2005/2006 dredging campaign. It involves a combination of a medium size Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) and a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) of about 10,000m3 hopper capacity. The CSD will be used for breaking up the sea bed material and side casting for final dredging by a TSHD. The TSHD will re-dredge the sea bed material for offshore disposal. The TSHD will also be used to directly dredge the sandy/soft material. In summary, this base scenario makes the following assumptions:

• CSD side-casting of stiff clays and limestones

• 10,000 m3 hopper TSHD to dredge loose material and CSD side-cast material

• TSHD hopper overflow allowed

• The total dredging program is anticipated to be approximately 4 months.

3.1.2.1 Program Schematisation The dredge plume simulations represent the entire OHCW campaign, which requires schematisation of the dredging plant productivity, sequencing and overall schedule. The productivity assumptions related to the 10,000 m3 TSHD operating in the different material classes are summarised in Table 3-3. It should be noted that both material Class 2 and 3 require pre- treatment by CSD prior to TSHD dredging. It should also be noted that the assumed productivities used for plume model schematisation are relatively “optimistic” in relation to a compressed program with minimal downtime, however this assumption provides a conservative basis for simulating dredge plume impacts. The productivity assumptions for the CSD are summarised in Table 3-4.

The major assumptions related to the dredging program sequencing are summarised below:

• The TSHD can dredge all Class 1 material (34% of 1.55M m3 in-situ) without prior CSD treatment

• The CSD is required to pre-treat all Class 2 and 3 material (66% of 1.55M m3 in-situ)

• The TSHD starts on class 1 material in the outer harbor (dredge areas 16, 17 & 18) and moves outwards

• The CSD follows the TSHD in outer harbor pre-treating class 2 and then class 3 material

• The TSHD returns to outer harbor and cleans up pre-treated class 2 and class 3 material

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 16 Dredge Plume Assessments

Table 3-3 Summary of 10,000m3 TSHD Productivity Assumptions

Material Time to Overflow Effective Total Number Efficiency Total Class overflow duration Production Cycle of Duration (mins) (mins) Rate Duration Cycles (hours) (insitu (hours) m3/cycle) Class 1 20 90 8840 7 60 93% 443 Class 2 1 20 110 6840 7 100 93% 793 Class 3 1 20 110 6840 7 49 93% 380 Total – – – – 209 – 1,620 1 TSHD dredges material class 2 and 3 following breakup and side-casting by CSD.

Table 3-4 Summary of CSD Productivity Assumptions

Material Class Production Rate Dredging Duration Efficiency Total Duration (insitu m3/hour) (hours) (hours) Class 1 – – – – Class 2 1,250 547 70% 782 Class 3 1,250 266 70% 380 Total – – – 1,160

3.1.2.2 Plume Generation Assumptions Advection, dispersion, settling and resuspension of the “passive” dredge plume is simulated by the model. The short-term near-field dredge plume behaviour related to the “dynamic” plume is not represented in the model as it is assumed that this material rapidly settles to the dredge footprint or placement area. The long-term, far-field behaviour of the “passive” plume is of most relevance to environmental impact assessments. The dredge plume simulations also require assumptions about the “passive” plume generation source rates, as detailed below for both the TSHD and CSD.

The TSHD source rates comprise terms related to draghead / propeller-wash agitation of the seabed, hopper overflow of sediment laden water and passive plumes generated during bottom dumping placement. The following TSHD source rate assumptions are based on experience in similar dredging projects:

• During TSHD dredging the passive plume source rate due to draghead and propwash entrainment is 3% of the production rate;

• During TSHD overflow 80% of the fines entering the TSHD hopper exit via the overflow;

• Of the TSHD overflowing fines, 85% forms a dynamic plume to the seabed while 15% remains in the water column as a passive plume;

• ADuring TSHD placement at the DMPA, 10% of the material enters a “passive plume that is evenly distributed in the water column.

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 17 Dredge Plume Assessments

The instantaneous and/or per-dredging cycle TSHD source rates are summarised for each material class in Table 3-5. It should be noted that these source rates relate only to the fine material fractions, which are in this case silt, clay and pulverised limestone fines. Coarser sand fractions are also included in the model source terms, however these tend to settle out rapidly and within a short distance of the source location. The total sum of plume fine sediment mass (in tonnes) entrained over the entire project is also included in Table 3-5. From this summary it can be seen that the major source of dredging plumes is associated with overflow dredging of the Class 2 and 3 materials which have already been handled by the CSD.

Table 3-5 Summary of TSHD Plume Source Rates (Fines only)

Material Draghead Overflow Draghead Overflow Placement Total Class /Propwash (kg/s) /Propwash (t/cycle) (t/cycle) Campaign (kg/s) (t/cycle) (t) Class 1 23 90 149 486 171 48,000 Class 2 53 210 410 1386 441 224,000 Class 3 53 210 410 1386 441 110,000 Total – – – – – 380,000

The CSD plume source rates comprise terms related to the action of the cutter head agitation as well as the discharge of material from the short side-casting pipe as indicated below:

• During CSD dredging the cutter head passive plume source rate is 2% of the production rate;

• During CSD dredging the side-cast discharge passive plume source rate is 3% of the production rate.

The instantaneous CSD source rates are summarised for each material class in Table 3-6, along with the total sum of plume fine sediment mass entrained by the CSD over the entire project. From this summary it can be seen that the CSD instantaneous rates and total campaign spill are much smaller than the TSHD spill.

Table 3-6 Summary of CSD Plume Source Rates (Fines only)

Material Cutter Discharge Total Class head (kg/s) Campaign (kg/s) (t) Class 1 – – – Class 2 7.3 10.9 36,000 Class 3 7.3 10.9 17,000 Total – – 53,000

In summary, the estimated total fines spill for the base case dredging scenario is 433,000 t, which is 88% related to TSHD dredging.

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 18 Dredge Plume Assessments

3.2 Simulation Periods Two periods have been selected for simulating the dredge plume campaign in order to represent both summer and winter climates:

• October 2015 to March 2016 (summer);

• April to September 2014 (winter).

These periods have been selected based on being representative of prevailing conditions as discussed in Section 2.6. The total duration of dredging during each simulation is approximately 70 days. A model warmup period of 10 days was allowed at the start of the simulation.

3.3 Plume Prediction Presentation The numerical dredge plume model has been configured to predict the dredging related Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentrations above the ambient conditions. That is, ambient TSS is not simulated by the model. This is a reasonable and commonly adopted assumption for dredge plume modelling assessments and is appropriate given the first pass nature of the current modelling assessments for the OHCW.

A conversion from TSS to turbidity in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) has been applied using the relationship adopted for assessment of the 2005/06 channel deepening project (Watertech, 2004). Based on the adopted relationship, 3 mg/L of TSS is equivalent to a turbidity of 1 NTU. It is recommended that the applicability of this conversion is verified as part of baseline data collection for the OHCW project.

Above ambient plume concentrations have been presented in NTU as baseline water clarity monitoring and hence impact level thresholds are most commonly measured in NTU. Depth- averaged turbidity values are presented since they are most relevant to assessing ecological impacts due to the reduction in seabed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (PAR).

Dredging related above ambient sediment deposition rates have been derived from the daily rate of change in bed sediment mass and are expressed in units of mg/cm2/day. Total net deposition at the end of the project has also been derived and is expressed in mg/cm2.

The model predictions of plumes for the full duration of the OHCW project dredging have been presented in a number of different ways, as described below.

3.3.1 Plume snapshots A number of snapshots of depth-averaged dredge plume turbidity are shown in this report in order to provide examples of predicted plume extents at particular instants in time. These plots differ from the spatial plume percentile maps which present statistical measures of plume exposure over the entire simulated OHCW dredging campaign. Snapshot times have been selected in order to illustrate different plume tracks and extents as a result of differing hydrodynamic conditions (i.e. timing of tides, wind speeds and directions).

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 19 Dredge Plume Assessments

3.3.2 Percentile Analysis The dredge plume simulations have represented the entire OHCW campaign, which entails the operation of multiple dredging plant at different locations over a 2 to 3 month period. In order to represent the spatially varying exposure to dredge plume effects a statistical percentile analysis was applied to the model predictions of both dredging related turbidity and sediment deposition. The percentile maps were used as a primary input to the spatial risk assessment methodology detailed in Section 3.5.

The percentile analysis involved applying a moving 30-day analysis window over the entire simulation period. Impacts at each percentile level were calculated for every 30-day window during the simulation, and the maximum increase at each location in the model domain is presented. Different locations within the model will have experienced their worst period at different times during the simulation and the different percentile statistics may also have occurred during different 30 day windows. It is important to note that the presented turbidity percentile plots do not represent the plume extent at any one particular instance in time.

The 30-day window period is somewhat arbitrary but in a physical hydrodynamic context represents the approximate duration of two (2) consecutive spring-neap tidal cycles, while in an ecological context it is a meaningful timescale for assessing impacts to some key sensitive receptors in the area (e.g. dominant seagrass species Posidonia). The moving window analysis was undertaken by moving the 30-day window by 10 day increments over the entire simulation period.

The percentile impact plots correspond to the predicted increase in turbidity/sedimentation over ambient conditions that are attributable to the dredging. Percentile values considered in this report are 95th, 80th, 50th and 20th which correspond to exceedance durations of 36hrs (5%), 6 days (20%), 15 days (50%) and 24 days (80%) respectively for the 30-day window. The highest percentiles correspond to relatively acute and short-lived increases in turbidity/sedimentation while the lower percentiles correspond to chronic longer-term increases. For conciseness only the 95th percentile (representing acute increases) and 50th percentile (representing chronic increases) are presented in this section of the report. The other percentiles mentioned above have been analysed and used in derivation of the spatial impact zones (Section 3.5).

In summary, some key features of the moving window percentile analysis include:

• Consideration of a range of impact durations from acute to chronic;

• Can be applied to a long term programme and capture periods of high intensity versus low intensity impacts; and

• A similar analysis applied to baseline data (where available) can quantify the ambient conditions including natural variability across different periods. This can be used to derive meaningful thresholds for the impacts.

Percentile plot contour limits have been selected with reference to expected impact threshold levels. It is important to note that these are significantly higher for the acute exceedance durations represented by the 95th percentile plots than for the chronic exceedance represented by the 50th

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 20 Dredge Plume Assessments

percentile plots. The percentile contour limits for depth-averaged turbidity are presented in Table 3-7.

The predicted final distribution of sediment deposited due to dredging activities is also presented. The contour limits for the deposition plots are presented in Table 3-8. Sediment deposition results are presented as dry sediment mass per unit area i.e. mg/cm2 (or mg/cm2/day). As an approximate rule of thumb 500 mg/cm2 can be converted to an equivalent deposition depth of 1 cm. This conversion assumes a freshly deposited dry sediment density of 500 kg/m3.

Table 3-7 Turbidity percentile plot contour limits

Percentile Lower Limit Upper Limit (NTU) (NTU) 95th 5 100 50th 0.5 15

Table 3-8 Sediment deposition contour limits

Metric Lower Limit Upper Limit 95th percentile deposition rate 5 mg/cm2/day 100 mg/cm2/day 50th percentile deposition rate 0.5 mg/cm2/day 10 mg/cm2/day Final deposition 25 mg/cm2 500 mg/cm2

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 21 Dredge Plume Assessments

3.4 Results The dredge plume model results for the base case scenario described in Section 3.1.2 are presented below.

3.4.1 Plume snapshots Four representative plume snapshot figures are presented and described below:

(1) Figure 3-3 is a snapshot of dredge plume turbidity at a time where the 10,000 m3 capacity TSHD is overflow dredging in the inner section of the approach channel. Under prevailing summer conditions (in this case late November) there is a net northerly drift of the plume from the source location. Plume turbidity in the immediate vicinity of the dredge exceed 100 NTU and within around 1km reduce to around 20 NTU. Further afield, plume concentrations exceed 5 NTU for approximately 10km north of the dredge footprint.

(2) Figure 3-4 is another snapshot of dredge plume turbidity at a time where the 10,000 m3 capacity TSHD is overflow dredging in the inner section of the approach channel. Under prevailing winter conditions (in this case late May) there is a net southerly drift of the plume from the source location. In this case, the TSHD has recently completed dredge loading and the most intense plume has advected south of the dredge footprint. The lower intensity plume from the medium-CSD operating seaward of the channel bend can also be seen.

(3) Figure 3-5 is a snapshot of dredge plume turbidity at a time where the 10,000 m3 capacity TSHD is overflow dredging in the outer harbor. While dredging is occurring in the enclosed approach channel and outer harbor, plumes are predicted to regularly advect upstream under flood tide conditions and may subsequently drift over the submerged intertidal flats and into the Barker Inlet.

(4) Figure 3-6 shows a snapshot of dredge plume turbidity at a time when the 10,000 m3 capacity TSHD has recently completed a bottom dump at the DMPA. Of note is the relatively small footprint of the dumping plume compared with the inshore residual plume.

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 22 Dredge Plume Assessments

Figure 3-3 Typical Turbidity Snapshot. TSHD overflow dredging in approach channel with plume drifting northward (typical summer condition).

Figure 3-4 Typical Turbidity Snapshot. TSHD overflow dredging in approach channel with plume drifting southward (typical winter condition).

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 23 Dredge Plume Assessments

Figure 3-5 Typical Turbidity Snapshot. TSHD overflow dredging in outer harbor during flood tide with plume drifting over intertidal flats into Barker Inlet.

Figure 3-6 Typical Turbidity snapshot. Relatively small plume at DMPA (far left) compared with inshore residual plumes.

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 24 Dredge Plume Assessments

3.4.2 Turbidity Percentiles Turbidity percentiles for the summer base scenario are shown in Figure 3-7. The acute exceedance level 95th percentile is shown on the left and the chronic exceedance level 50th percentile on the right.

Relatively high intensity plumes extend along the dredging footprint, with the highest levels in the outer harbor. Plumes extend about 3 to 4 km upstream in the Port River. There is some connectivity of dredge plumes in the Port River across the intertidal flats and into the Barker Inlet.

Plumes discharged from the Port River during ebb tides or from dredging of the approach channel will tend to drift with the longshore current, which under prevailing summer conditions drift northward. The fines content and corresponding slow settling rate of the material to be dredged in combination with the action of nearshore wave resuspension contribute to the northward plume extents. This is particularly evident in the chronic (50th percentile) plot.

Turbidity percentiles for the winter base scenario are shown in Figure 3-8. Under prevailing winter conditions the dredge plumes predominantly drift southward. The overall plume extent is somewhat less than for the summer conditions, which may be due to a greater level of plume material dispersal during the periodic high energy winter storm conditions.

Dredge related turbidities at the DMPA are not seen in the summer percentile plots (Figure 3-7). An area of 0.5 NTU increase in turbidity is seen at the DMPA in the 50th percentile plot for the winter period (Figure 3-8). It is possible that this minor increase is due to resuspension of deposited material from the DMPA under higher energy winter wave conditions. In any case, the model predictions clearly suggest that the risk of water quality impacts at the DMPA are likely to be much lower than those adjacent to the inshore dredging.

3.4.3 Sediment Deposition Sediment deposition rate percentiles for the summer base scenario are shown in Figure 3-9. The acute exceedance level 95th percentile is shown on the left and the chronic exceedance level 50th percentile on the right. The final distribution of net sediment deposition at the end of the summer simulation is shown in Figure 3-10. The corresponding winter base scenario sediment deposition results are shown in Figure 3-11 and Figure 3-12.

The extent of sediment deposition effects does not extend as widely as the turbidity effects. Also in contrast to the turbidity percentiles the signature of DMPA placement can be clearly seen in the deposition plots. Aside from the DMPA footprint the area most at risk from sediment deposition impacts appears to be along the margins of the approach channel.

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 25 Dredge Plume Assessments

Figure 3-7 Summer Scenario Turbidity Percentile Contours. Acute 95th Percentile (left); Chronic 50th Percentile (right).

Figure 3-8 Winter Scenario Turbidity Percentile Contours. Acute 95th Percentile (left); Chronic 50th Percentile (right).

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 26 Dredge Plume Assessments

Figure 3-9 Summer Scenario Sediment Deposition Rate Percentile Contours. Acute 95th Percentile (left); Chronic 50th Percentile (right).

Figure 3-10 Summer Scenario Final Net Sediment Deposition Contours.

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 27 Dredge Plume Assessments

Figure 3-11 Winter Scenario Sediment Deposition Rate Percentile Contours. Acute 95th Percentile (left); Chronic 50th Percentile (right).

Figure 3-12 Winter Scenario Final Net Sediment Deposition Contours.

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 28 Dredge Plume Assessments

3.5 Water Quality Risk Assessment

3.5.1 Methodology A water quality risk assessment methodology was applied to the OHCW project, using the outputs from the predictive dredge plume numerical model. The assessment has considered both excess sedimentation as a result of dredge plumes as well as increased water column turbidity (reduced PAR) lines of effect on the study area water quality and ecological values. Further assessment of impacts to sensitive marine ecological areas is provided in the DA Report.

Impact predictions are presented as 'zones of impact', and are derived using the percentile exceedance plots described above. The zones of impact approach is now recognised as ‘best practice’ in dredging environmental assessments and are commonly used in environmental assessments of dredging projects in Australia, building on the methodologies set out in the dredging environmental assessment guidelines produced by the Western Australia Environmental Protection Agency (WA EPA) (2016).

The zones adopted for the current assessment, include the following:

• Zone of High Impact = water quality impacts resulting in predicted mortality of ecological receptors with recovery time greater than 24 months.

• Zone of Low to Moderate Impact = water quality impacts resulting in predicted sub-lethal impacts to ecological receptors and/or mortality with recovery between 6 months (lower end of range) to 24 months (upper end of range).

• Zone of Influence = extent of detectable1 plume, but no predicted ecological impacts.

It is important to note that the recovery times outlined for the various zones should be considered as indicative only, noting that such timeframes are dependent on a range of factors that are extremely complex and difficult to accurately predict. The zones and their ‘recovery timeframes’ represent a means for comparing the likelihood that significant, detectable impact to sensitive receptors could occur, and are based on the assumption that recovery timeframes are dependent on the magnitude of impact.

A concept design of the zones of impact (sourced from WA EPA 2016) is shown in Figure 3-13.

1 ‘Detectable’ plume in terms of detectable above background conditions by instrumentation deployed in the water column

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 29 Dredge Plume Assessments

Figure 3-13 Concept design of impact zones (WA EPA 2016)

Derivation of the impact zones requires the selection of thresholds related to the excess turbidity and sediment deposition due to the dredging project. The adopted turbidity thresholds are provided in Table 3-9.

Table 3-9 Impact thresholds for above ambient turbidity

Impact Zone Turbidity (NTU) thresholds above background 20%ile 50%ile 80%ile 95%ile Zone of High Impact 3 5 15 - Zone of Low to Moderate Impact 1 2 5 - Zone of Influence - 0.5 2 5

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 30 Dredge Plume Assessments

The sediment deposition threshold values are presented in Table 3-10.

Table 3-10 Impact thresholds for sediment deposition (above background)

Impact zone 50%ile 95%ile Final Deposition i.e. 15 days per i.e. 1.5 days per (mg/cm2) month month (mg/cm2/day) (mg/cm2/day) Zone of High Impact >70 >700 >700 Zone of Low to Moderate Impact 20-70 200-700 200-700 Zone of Influence 3.0-20 30-200 30-200

3.5.2 Base Case In accordance with the methodology presented earlier, spatial zones of predicted impact were developed for both excess turbidity and excess sediment deposition lines of effect.

The turbidity impact zone map is shown in Figure 3-14 for the summer scenario and Figure 3-15 for the winter scenario.

The sediment deposition impact zone map is shown in Figure 3-16 for the summer scenario and Figure 3-17 for the winter scenario.

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 35 Summary

4 Summary

This report has described a numerical modelling assessment of dredge plumes which may potentially be generated by the proposed Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project. The results described in this report have been separately used to inform water quality and marine ecology impact and risk assessments (Chapters 4 and 5 of the DA Application Report), which have been prepared as part of the OHCW Development Approval submission.

The modelling assessments undertaken for this stage of the OHCW project have relied on available information, much of which had been collected as part of the previous channel deepening project (Golder, 2004; WaterTech, 2004). These historical sources of data were deemed to be appropriate and sufficient for a first pass dredge plume risk assessment. However, there may be opportunities to refine the modelling assessment based on further data to be collected following appointment of a dredging contractor for the OHCW Project. These include project specific geotechnical investigations and baseline Metocean and water quality data collection.

Refinement of dredge plume modelling and associated risk assessments could be undertaken as part of the application for a project dredge license under the Environmental Protection act. Refined modelling could be used to inform impact mitigation strategies to be included in a project Dredge Management Plan.

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report 36 References

5 References

Arup (2017), Dredging Methodology Technical Note, May 2017

BMT WBM (2013). TUFLOW FV Science Manual.

BMT WBM (2014). Cairns Shipping Development Project Model Development and Calibration. Report prepared for Ports North, October 2014.

Delft University of Technology (2006). SWAN Technical Documentation, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, Environmental Fluid Mechanics Section, Delft, Netherlands.

Environmental Protection Authority Western Australia (2016). Technical Guidance: Environmental Impact Assessment of Marine Dredging Proposals, Environmental Protection Authority, Perth, Western Australia.

Golder Associates (2004), Geotechnical Investigation: Approach Channel Dredging, Outer Harbor, South Australia, Contract No. RV3710-CN-C401, prepared for KBR Pty Ltd

Kemps, H., Mills, D. (2016), Generation and release of sediments by hydraulic dredging: a review, Western Australian Marine Science Institution, Perth, Western Australia, June 2016.

PPK Environment & Infrastructure Pty Ltd (2001), Deepening of the Outer Harbor Shipping Channel, prepared for Ports Corp South Australia, Report No. 27M1808

Saha, Suranjana, and Coauthors (2010), The NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis. Bulletin of the American Meteorology Society, 91, 1015.1057. doi: 10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1

Water Technology (2004), Flinders Port: Port Adelaide Dredge Investigations, prepared for KBR Pty Ltd, Report No. J115/R01

Whitehouse, R.J.S., Soulsby, R., Roberts, W. and Mitchener, H.J. (2000). Dynamics of Estuarine Muds. Thomas Telford Publications, London.

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report A-1 Base Case Timeseries – Summer Scenario

Appendix A Base Case Timeseries – Summer Scenario

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report A-2 Base Case Timeseries – Summer Scenario

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report A-3 Base Case Timeseries – Summer Scenario

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report A-4 Base Case Timeseries – Summer Scenario

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report A-5 Base Case Timeseries – Summer Scenario

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report A-6 Base Case Timeseries – Summer Scenario

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report B-1 Base Case Timeseries – Winter Scenario

Appendix B Base Case Timeseries – Winter Scenario

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report B-2 Base Case Timeseries – Winter Scenario

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report B-3 Base Case Timeseries – Winter Scenario

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report B-4 Base Case Timeseries – Winter Scenario

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report B-5 Base Case Timeseries – Winter Scenario

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

Port Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening - Dredge Plume Modelling Report B-6 Base Case Timeseries – Winter Scenario

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\R.B22346.006.01.PlumeModelling.docx

BMT WBM Bangalow 6/20 Byron Street, Bangalow 2479 Tel +61 2 6687 0466 Fax +61 2 66870422 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Brisbane Level 8, 200 Creek Street, Brisbane 4000 PO Box 203, Spring Hill QLD 4004 Tel +61 7 3831 6744 Fax +61 7 3832 3627 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Denver 8200 S. Akron Street, #B120 Centennial, Denver Colorado 80112 USA Tel +1 303 792 9814 Fax +1 303 792 9742 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com

BMT WBM London International House, 1st Floor St Katharine’s Way, London E1W 1AY Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com

BMT WBM Mackay PO Box 4447, Mackay QLD 4740 Tel +61 7 4953 5144 Fax +61 7 4953 5132 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Melbourne Level 5, 99 King Street, Melbourne 3000 PO Box 604, Collins Street West VIC 8007 Tel +61 3 8620 6100 Fax +61 3 8620 6105 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Newcastle 126 Belford Street, Broadmeadow 2292 PO Box 266, Broadmeadow NSW 2292 Tel +61 2 4940 8882 Fax +61 2 4940 8887 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Perth Level 3, 20 Parkland Road, Osborne, WA 6017 PO Box 1027, Innaloo WA 6918 Tel +61 8 9328 2029 Fax +61 8 9486 7588 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Sydney Suite G2, 13-15 Smail Street, Ultimo, Sydney 2007 Tel +61 2 8960 7755 Fax +61 2 8960 7745 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com.au

BMT WBM Vancouver Suite 401, 611 Alexander Street Vancouver British Columbia V6A 1E1 Canada Tel +1 604 683 5777 Fax +1 604 608 3232 Email [email protected] Web www.bmtwbm.com

Appendix E

Appendix E.1

Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Chapter 3.5 Coastal & Marine Ecology Marine Megafauna Species List

Marine Megafauna Species List

Table A-1 Marine Megafauna Species List, based on Kemper et al. (2008) and Baker et al. (2008)

Common name Scientific name EPBC status NPW status Balaenidae (right whales) Southern right whale Eubalaena australis Endangered, Migratory, Vulnerable Cetacean Balaenopteridae (rorquals) Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni Migratory, Cetacean Rare Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus Endangered, Migratory, Endangered Cetacean Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Vulnerable, Migratory, Vulnerable Cetacean Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Vulnerable, Migratory, Vulnerable Cetacean Cetotheriidae Pygmy right whale Caperea marginata Migratory, Cetacean Rare Delphinidae (oceanic dolphins) Short-beaked common dolphin Delphinus delphis Cetacean - Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus Cetacean Rare Long-finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus Cetacean - Dusky dolphin Lagernorhynchus obscurus Migratory, Cetacean - Killer whale Orcinus orca Migratory, Cetacean - False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens Cetacean Rare Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin Tursiops aduncus Cetacean - Common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus Cetacean - Kogiidae (small sperm whales) Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps Cetacean Rare Dwarf sperm whale Kogia sima Cetacean Rare Physeteridae (sperm whales) Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Migratory, Cetacean Rare Ziphiidae (beaked whales) Arnoux’s beaked whale Berardius arnuxii Cetacean Rare Gray’s beaked whale Mesoplodon grayi Cetacean Rare Straptooth whale Mesoplodon layardii Cetacean - Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris Cetacean Rare Otariidae (eared seals) Australian sea lion Neophoca cinerea Vulnerable, Marine Vulnerable New Zealand fur seal Arctocephalus forsteri Marine - Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Chapter 3.5 Coastal & Marine Ecology Marine Megafauna Species List

Common name Scientific name EPBC status NPW status Subantarctic fur seal Arctocephalus tropicalis Endangered, Marine Endangered Phocidae (earless seals) Leopard seal Hydrurga leptonyx Marine Rare Cheloniidae and Dermochelydiae (marine turtles) Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta Endangered, Migratory Endangered Green turtle Chelonia mydas Vulnerable, Migratory Vulnerable Pacific ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea Endangered, Migratory - Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered, Migratory Vulnerable Callorhynchidae (elephant fish) Elephant fish Callorhinchus milii - - Carcharhinidae (Whaler sharks) Bronze whaler Carcharhinus barchyurus - - Dusky whaler Carcharhinus obscurus - - Dasyatidae (whiptail stingrays) Smooth stingray Dasyatis brevicaudata - - Black stingray Dasyatis thetidis - - Purple Guiler’s stingray Dasyatis guileri - - Heterodontidae (bullhead sharks) Port Jackson shark Heterodontus portusjacksoni - - Hexanchidae (cow sharks) Broadnose seven gill shark Notorynchus cepedianus - - Lamnidae (white sharks) Great white shark Carcharodon carcharias Vulnerable, Migratory - Myliobatidae (eagle rays) Southern eagle ray Myliobatis australis - - Orectolobidae (wobbegongs) Ornate wobbegong Orectolobus ornatus - - Spotted wobbegong Orectolobus maculatus - - Cobbler wobbegong Sutorectus tentaculatus - - Parascylliidae (collared carpet sharks) Rusty carpetshark Parascyllium ferrugineum - - Varied carpetshark Parascyllium variolatum - - Pristiophoridae (sawsharks) Common sawshark Pristiophorus cirratus - - Southern sawshark Pristiophorus nudipinnis - - Rajidae (skates) White-spotted skate Dipturus cervus - - Pygmy thornback skate Dipturus sp. M - -

Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Chapter 3.5 Coastal & Marine Ecology Marine Megafauna Species List

Common name Scientific name EPBC status NPW status Melbourne skate Dipturus whitleyi - - Rhinobatidae (guitarfish and shovelnose rays) Southern shovelnose ray Aptychotrema vincentiana - - Southern fiddler ray Trygonorrhina fasciata - - Magpie fiddler ray Trygonorrhina melaleuca - - Scyliorhinidae (catsharks) Gulf catshark Asymbolus vincentii - - Draughtboard shark Cephaloscyllium laticeps - - Sphyrnidae (hammerhead sharks) Smooth hammerhead Sphyrna zygaena - - Squalidae (spurdogs) White-spotted spurdog Squalus acanthias - - Piked spurdog Squalus megalops - - Squatinidae (angel sharks) Australian angel shark Squatina australis - - Torpedinidae (electric rays) Short-tail torpedo ray Torpedo macneilli - - Australian numbfish Hypnos monopterygius - - Triakidae (ground sharks) School shark Galeorhinus galeus - - Gummy shark Mustelus antarcticus - - Whiskery shark Furgaleus macki - - Urolophidae (stingarees) Western stringaree Trygonoptera mucosa - - Common stingaree Trygonoptera testacea - - Banded stingaree Uroolophus cruciatus - - Spotted stingaree Urolophus gigas - - Coastal stingaree Urolophus orarius - - Sparsely-spotted stingaree Urolophus paucimaculatus - -

Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Chapter 3.5 Coastal & Marine B-1 Ecology Protected Matters Search Tool Report for Study Area

Protected Matters Search Tool Report for Study Area

Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Chapter 3.5 Coastal & Marine B-2 Ecology Protected Matters Search Tool Report for Study Area

G:\Admin\B22346.g.lm_adelaide port channel widening\03 EPBC\PMST_TRKOTB.pdf Appendix E.2

EPBC Act Protected Matters Report

This report provides general guidance on matters of national environmental significance and other matters protected by the EPBC Act in the area you have selected.

Information on the coverage of this report and qualifications on data supporting this report are contained in the caveat at the end of the report.

Information is available about Environment Assessments and the EPBC Act including significance guidelines, forms and application process details.

Report created: 09/05/17 08:36:21

Summary Details Matters of NES Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Extra Information Caveat Acknowledgements

This map may contain data which are ©Commonwealth of Australia (Geoscience Australia), ©PSMA 2010

Coordinates Buffer: 1.0Km

Summary

Matters of National Environmental Significance

This part of the report summarises the matters of national environmental significance that may occur in, or may relate to, the area you nominated. Further information is available in the detail part of the report, which can be accessed by scrolling or following the links below. If you are proposing to undertake an activity that may have a significant impact on one or more matters of national environmental significance then you should consider the Administrative Guidelines on Significance.

World Heritage Properties: None National Heritage Places: None Wetlands of International Importance: None Great Barrier Reef Marine Park: None Commonwealth Marine Area: None Listed Threatened Ecological Communities: 1 Listed Threatened Species: 41 Listed Migratory Species: 57

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act

This part of the report summarises other matters protected under the Act that may relate to the area you nominated. Approval may be required for a proposed activity that significantly affects the environment on Commonwealth land, when the action is outside the Commonwealth land, or the environment anywhere when the action is taken on Commonwealth land. Approval may also be required for the Commonwealth or Commonwealth agencies proposing to take an action that is likely to have a significant impact on the environment anywhere.

The EPBC Act protects the environment on Commonwealth land, the environment from the actions taken on Commonwealth land, and the environment from actions taken by Commonwealth agencies. As heritage values of a place are part of the 'environment', these aspects of the EPBC Act protect the Commonwealth Heritage values of a Commonwealth Heritage place. Information on the new heritage laws can be found at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage

A permit may be required for activities in or on a Commonwealth area that may affect a member of a listed threatened species or ecological community, a member of a listed migratory species, whales and other cetaceans, or a member of a listed marine species.

Commonwealth Land: None Commonwealth Heritage Places: None Listed Marine Species: 102 Whales and Other Cetaceans: 8 Critical Habitats: None Commonwealth Reserves Terrestrial: None Commonwealth Reserves Marine: None

Extra Information

This part of the report provides information that may also be relevant to the area you have nominated.

State and Territory Reserves: 1 Regional Forest Agreements: None Invasive Species: 35 Nationally Important Wetlands: 2 Key Ecological Features (Marine) None

Details

Matters of National Environmental Significance

Listed Threatened Ecological Communities [ Resource Information ] For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps. Name Status Type of Presence Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh Vulnerable Community likely to occur within area Listed Threatened Species [ Resource Information ] Name Status Type of Presence Birds Acanthiza iredalei rosinae Slender-billed Thornbill (Gulf St Vincent) [67080] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Botaurus poiciloptilus Australasian Bittern [1001] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot [862] Critically Endangered Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand Plover, Large Sand Plover [877] Vulnerable Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover, Mongolian Plover [879] Endangered Roosting known to occur within area Diomedea antipodensis Antipodean Albatross [64458] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea epomophora Southern Royal Albatross [89221] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross [89223] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea sanfordi Northern Royal Albatross [64456] Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area

Name Status Type of Presence Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater [470] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Halobaena caerulea Blue Petrel [1059] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Limosa lapponica baueri Bar-tailed Godwit (baueri), Western Alaskan Bar-tailed Vulnerable Species or species habitat Godwit [86380] may occur within area

Limosa lapponica menzbieri Northern Siberian Bar-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit Critically Endangered Species or species habitat (menzbieri) [86432] may occur within area

Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel, Southern Giant Petrel [1060] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Macronectes halli Northern Giant Petrel [1061] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Neophema chrysogaster Orange-bellied Parrot [747] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew, Far Eastern Curlew [847] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Pachyptila turtur subantarctica Fairy Prion (southern) [64445] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Pedionomus torquatus Plains-wanderer [906] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Pezoporus occidentalis Night Parrot [59350] Endangered Extinct within area Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross [1075] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Pterodroma mollis Soft-plumaged Petrel [1036] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Rostratula australis Australian Painted Snipe [77037] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sternula nereis nereis Australian Fairy Tern [82950] Vulnerable Breeding likely to occur within area Thalassarche cauta cauta Shy Albatross, Tasmanian Shy Albatross [82345] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche cauta steadi White-capped Albatross [82344] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche impavida Campbell Albatross, Campbell Black-browed Albatross Vulnerable Species or species habitat [64459] may occur within area

Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross [66472] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Name Status Type of Presence Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis Hooded Plover (eastern) [66726] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Mammals Eubalaena australis Southern Right Whale [40] Endangered Breeding known to occur within area Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale [38] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Neophoca cinerea Australian Sea-lion, Australian Sea Lion [22] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed Flying-fox [186] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Plants Caladenia tensa Greencomb Spider-orchid, Rigid Spider-orchid [24390] Endangered Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Tecticornia flabelliformis Bead Glasswort [82664] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Reptiles Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle [1763] Endangered Breeding likely to occur within area Chelonia mydas Green Turtle [1765] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour known to occur within area Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth [1768] Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour known to occur within area Sharks Carcharodon carcharias White Shark, Great White Shark [64470] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour known to occur within area Listed Migratory Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Migratory Marine Birds Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Diomedea epomophora Southern Royal Albatross [89221] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross [89223] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel, Southern Giant Petrel [1060] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Macronectes halli Northern Giant Petrel [1061] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Name Threatened Type of Presence Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross [1075] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Puffinus carneipes Flesh-footed Shearwater, Fleshy-footed Shearwater Foraging, feeding or related [1043] behaviour likely to occur within area Sterna albifrons Little Tern [813] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche cauta Tasmanian Shy Albatross [89224] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross [66472] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Migratory Marine Species Balaenoptera edeni Bryde's Whale [35] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Caperea marginata Pygmy Right Whale [39] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Carcharodon carcharias White Shark, Great White Shark [64470] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour known to occur within area Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle [1763] Endangered Breeding likely to occur within area Chelonia mydas Green Turtle [1765] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour known to occur within area Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth [1768] Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour known to occur within area Eubalaena australis Southern Right Whale [40] Endangered Breeding known to occur within area Lagenorhynchus obscurus Dusky Dolphin [43] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Lamna nasus Porbeagle, Mackerel Shark [83288] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale [38] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Migratory Terrestrial Species Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail [642] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail [644] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Migratory Wetlands Species

Name Threatened Type of Presence Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone [872] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris alba Sanderling [875] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper [858] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint [860] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris subminuta Long-toed Stint [861] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot [862] Critically Endangered Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Plover [895] Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand Plover, Large Sand Plover [877] Vulnerable Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover, Mongolian Plover [879] Endangered Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius veredus Oriental Plover, Oriental Dotterel [882] Roosting known to occur within area Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Roosting known to occur within area Gallinago megala Swinhoe's Snipe [864] Roosting likely to occur within area Gallinago stenura Pin-tailed Snipe [841] Roosting likely to occur within area Heteroscelus brevipes Grey-tailed Tattler [59311] Roosting known to occur within area Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed Sandpiper [842] Roosting known to occur within area Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit [844] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit [845] Roosting known to occur within area Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew, Far Eastern Curlew [847] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Name Threatened Type of Presence Numenius minutus Little Curlew, Little Whimbrel [848] Roosting known to occur within area Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel [849] Roosting known to occur within area Pandion haliaetus Osprey [952] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope [838] Roosting known to occur within area Philomachus pugnax Ruff (Reeve) [850] Roosting known to occur within area Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover [25545] Roosting known to occur within area Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover [865] Roosting known to occur within area Thalasseus bergii Crested Tern [83000] Breeding known to occur within area Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper [829] Roosting known to occur within area Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank, Greenshank [832] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper, Little Greenshank [833] Roosting known to occur within area Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper [59300] Roosting known to occur within area

Other Matters Protected by the EPBC Act Listed Marine Species [ Resource Information ] * Species is listed under a different scientific name on the EPBC Act - Threatened Species list. Name Threatened Type of Presence Birds Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper [59309] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Apus pacificus Fork-tailed Swift [678] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Ardea alba Great Egret, White Egret [59541] Breeding known to occur within area Ardea ibis Cattle Egret [59542] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone [872] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper [874] Roosting known to occur within area

Name Threatened Type of Presence Calidris alba Sanderling [875] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris canutus Red Knot, Knot [855] Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper [856] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper [858] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint [860] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris subminuta Long-toed Stint [861] Roosting known to occur within area Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot [862] Critically Endangered Roosting known to occur within area Catharacta skua Great Skua [59472] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Plover [895] Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand Plover, Large Sand Plover [877] Vulnerable Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius mongolus Lesser Sand Plover, Mongolian Plover [879] Endangered Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius ruficapillus Red-capped Plover [881] Roosting known to occur within area Charadrius veredus Oriental Plover, Oriental Dotterel [882] Roosting known to occur within area Diomedea antipodensis Antipodean Albatross [64458] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea epomophora Southern Royal Albatross [89221] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross [89223] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Diomedea sanfordi Northern Royal Albatross [64456] Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Gallinago hardwickii Latham's Snipe, Japanese Snipe [863] Roosting known to occur within area Gallinago megala Swinhoe's Snipe [864] Roosting likely to occur within area Gallinago stenura Pin-tailed Snipe [841] Roosting likely to occur within area Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied Sea-Eagle [943] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Name Threatened Type of Presence Halobaena caerulea Blue Petrel [1059] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Heteroscelus brevipes Grey-tailed Tattler [59311] Roosting known to occur within area Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt [870] Roosting known to occur within area Larus dominicanus Kelp Gull [809] Breeding known to occur within area Larus novaehollandiae Silver Gull [810] Breeding known to occur within area Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed Sandpiper [842] Roosting known to occur within area Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit [844] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit [845] Roosting known to occur within area Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel, Southern Giant Petrel [1060] Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Macronectes halli Northern Giant Petrel [1061] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater [670] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Motacilla cinerea Grey Wagtail [642] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Motacilla flava Yellow Wagtail [644] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin Flycatcher [612] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Neophema chrysogaster Orange-bellied Parrot [747] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat may occur within area

Numenius madagascariensis Eastern Curlew, Far Eastern Curlew [847] Critically Endangered Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Numenius minutus Little Curlew, Little Whimbrel [848] Roosting known to occur within area Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel [849] Roosting known to occur within area Pachyptila turtur Fairy Prion [1066] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Pandion haliaetus Osprey [952] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Name Threatened Type of Presence Phalacrocorax fuscescens Black-faced Cormorant [59660] Breeding known to occur within area Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope [838] Roosting known to occur within area Philomachus pugnax Ruff (Reeve) [850] Roosting known to occur within area Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross [1075] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden Plover [25545] Roosting known to occur within area Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover [865] Roosting known to occur within area Pterodroma mollis Soft-plumaged Petrel [1036] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Puffinus carneipes Flesh-footed Shearwater, Fleshy-footed Shearwater Foraging, feeding or related [1043] behaviour likely to occur within area Recurvirostra novaehollandiae Red-necked Avocet [871] Roosting known to occur within area Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato) Painted Snipe [889] Endangered* Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sterna albifrons Little Tern [813] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Sterna bergii Crested Tern [816] Breeding known to occur within area Thalassarche cauta Tasmanian Shy Albatross [89224] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thalassarche impavida Campbell Albatross, Campbell Black-browed Albatross Vulnerable Species or species habitat [64459] may occur within area

Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross [66472] Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur within area

Thalassarche steadi White-capped Albatross [64462] Vulnerable* Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Thinornis rubricollis Hooded Plover [59510] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis Hooded Plover (eastern) [66726] Vulnerable Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper [829] Roosting known to occur within area Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank, Greenshank [832] Species or species habitat known to occur within area

Name Threatened Type of Presence Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper, Little Greenshank [833] Roosting known to occur within area Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper [59300] Roosting known to occur within area Fish Acentronura australe Southern Pygmy Pipehorse [66185] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Campichthys tryoni Tryon's Pipefish [66193] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Filicampus tigris Tiger Pipefish [66217] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Heraldia nocturna Upside-down Pipefish, Eastern Upside-down Pipefish, Species or species habitat Eastern Upside-down Pipefish [66227] may occur within area

Hippocampus abdominalis Big-belly Seahorse, Eastern Potbelly Seahorse, New Species or species habitat Zealand Potbelly Seahorse [66233] may occur within area

Hippocampus breviceps Short-head Seahorse, Short-snouted Seahorse Species or species habitat [66235] may occur within area

Histiogamphelus cristatus Rhino Pipefish, Macleay's Crested Pipefish, Ring-back Species or species habitat Pipefish [66243] may occur within area

Hypselognathus rostratus Knifesnout Pipefish, Knife-snouted Pipefish [66245] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Kaupus costatus Deepbody Pipefish, Deep-bodied Pipefish [66246] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Leptoichthys fistularius Brushtail Pipefish [66248] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Lissocampus caudalis Australian Smooth Pipefish, Smooth Pipefish [66249] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Lissocampus runa Javelin Pipefish [66251] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Maroubra perserrata Sawtooth Pipefish [66252] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Notiocampus ruber Red Pipefish [66265] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Phycodurus eques Leafy Seadragon [66267] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Phyllopteryx taeniolatus Common Seadragon, Weedy Seadragon [66268] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Pugnaso curtirostris Pugnose Pipefish, Pug-nosed Pipefish [66269] Species or species

Name Threatened Type of Presence habitat may occur within area Solegnathus robustus Robust Pipehorse, Robust Spiny Pipehorse [66274] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Stigmatopora argus Spotted Pipefish, Gulf Pipefish, Peacock Pipefish Species or species habitat [66276] may occur within area

Stigmatopora nigra Widebody Pipefish, Wide-bodied Pipefish, Black Species or species habitat Pipefish [66277] may occur within area

Stigmatopora olivacea a pipefish [74966] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Stipecampus cristatus Ringback Pipefish, Ring-backed Pipefish [66278] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Urocampus carinirostris Hairy Pipefish [66282] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Vanacampus margaritifer Mother-of-pearl Pipefish [66283] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Vanacampus phillipi Port Phillip Pipefish [66284] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Vanacampus poecilolaemus Longsnout Pipefish, Australian Long-snout Pipefish, Species or species habitat Long-snouted Pipefish [66285] may occur within area

Vanacampus vercoi Verco's Pipefish [66286] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Mammals Arctocephalus forsteri Long-nosed Fur-seal, New Zealand Fur-seal [20] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Arctocephalus pusillus Australian Fur-seal, Australo-African Fur-seal [21] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Neophoca cinerea Australian Sea-lion, Australian Sea Lion [22] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour likely to occur within area Reptiles Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle [1763] Endangered Breeding likely to occur within area Chelonia mydas Green Turtle [1765] Vulnerable Foraging, feeding or related behaviour known to occur within area Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback Turtle, Leathery Turtle, Luth [1768] Endangered Foraging, feeding or related behaviour known to occur within area Whales and other Cetaceans [ Resource Information ] Name Status Type of Presence Mammals

Name Status Type of Presence Balaenoptera edeni Bryde's Whale [35] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Caperea marginata Pygmy Right Whale [39] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Delphinus delphis Common Dophin, Short-beaked Common Dolphin [60] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Eubalaena australis Southern Right Whale [40] Endangered Breeding known to occur within area Lagenorhynchus obscurus Dusky Dolphin [43] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback Whale [38] Vulnerable Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Tursiops aduncus Indian Ocean Bottlenose Dolphin, Spotted Bottlenose Species or species habitat Dolphin [68418] likely to occur within area

Tursiops truncatus s. str. Bottlenose Dolphin [68417] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Extra Information State and Territory Reserves [ Resource Information ] Name State Torrens Island SA

Invasive Species [ Resource Information ] Weeds reported here are the 20 species of national significance (WoNS), along with other introduced plants that are considered by the States and Territories to pose a particularly significant threat to biodiversity. The following feral animals are reported: Goat, Red Fox, Cat, Rabbit, Pig, Water Buffalo and Cane Toad. Maps from Landscape Health Project, National Land and Water Resouces Audit, 2001.

Name Status Type of Presence Birds Acridotheres tristis Common Myna, Indian Myna [387] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Alauda arvensis Skylark [656] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard [974] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Carduelis carduelis European Goldfinch [403] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Name Status Type of Presence Carduelis chloris European Greenfinch [404] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Columba livia Rock Pigeon, Rock Dove, Domestic Pigeon [803] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Passer domesticus House Sparrow [405] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Pycnonotus jocosus Red-whiskered Bulbul [631] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Streptopelia chinensis Spotted Turtle-Dove [780] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sturnus vulgaris Common Starling [389] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Turdus merula Common Blackbird, Eurasian Blackbird [596] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Mammals Bos taurus Domestic Cattle [16] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Canis lupus familiaris Domestic Dog [82654] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Capra hircus Goat [2] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Felis catus Cat, House Cat, Domestic Cat [19] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Lepus capensis Brown Hare [127] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Mus musculus House Mouse [120] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Oryctolagus cuniculus Rabbit, European Rabbit [128] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Rattus norvegicus Brown Rat, Norway Rat [83] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Rattus rattus Black Rat, Ship Rat [84] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Sus scrofa Pig [6] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Vulpes vulpes Red Fox, Fox [18] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Name Status Type of Presence Plants Asparagus asparagoides Bridal Creeper, Bridal Veil Creeper, Smilax, Florist's Species or species habitat Smilax, Smilax Asparagus [22473] likely to occur within area

Chrysanthemoides monilifera Bitou Bush, Boneseed [18983] Species or species habitat may occur within area

Chrysanthemoides monilifera subsp. monilifera Boneseed [16905] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Genista linifolia Flax-leaved Broom, Mediterranean Broom, Flax Broom Species or species habitat [2800] likely to occur within area

Lantana camara Lantana, Common Lantana, Kamara Lantana, Large- Species or species habitat leaf Lantana, Pink Flowered Lantana, Red Flowered may occur within area Lantana, Red-Flowered Sage, White Sage, Wild Sage [10892] Lycium ferocissimum African Boxthorn, Boxthorn [19235] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Nassella neesiana Chilean Needle grass [67699] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Opuntia spp. Prickly Pears [82753] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Rubus fruticosus aggregate Blackberry, European Blackberry [68406] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Salix spp. except S.babylonica, S.x calodendron & S.x reichardtii Willows except Weeping Willow, Pussy Willow and Species or species habitat Sterile Pussy Willow [68497] likely to occur within area

Solanum elaeagnifolium Silver Nightshade, Silver-leaved Nightshade, White Species or species habitat Horse Nettle, Silver-leaf Nightshade, Tomato Weed, likely to occur within area White Nightshade, Bull-nettle, Prairie-berry, Satansbos, Silver-leaf Bitter-apple, Silverleaf-nettle, Trompillo [12323] Tamarix aphylla Athel Pine, Athel Tree, Tamarisk, Athel Tamarisk, Species or species habitat Athel Tamarix, Desert Tamarisk, Flowering Cypress, likely to occur within area Salt Cedar [16018] Ulex europaeus Gorse, Furze [7693] Species or species habitat likely to occur within area

Nationally Important Wetlands [ Resource Information ] Name State Barker Inlet & St Kilda SA Port Gawler & Buckland Park Lake SA

Caveat The information presented in this report has been provided by a range of data sources as acknowledged at the end of the report.

This report is designed to assist in identifying the locations of places which may be relevant in determining obligations under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. It holds mapped locations of World and National Heritage properties, Wetlands of International and National Importance, Commonwealth and State/Territory reserves, listed threatened, migratory and marine species and listed threatened ecological communities. Mapping of Commonwealth land is not complete at this stage. Maps have been collated from a range of sources at various resolutions.

Not all species listed under the EPBC Act have been mapped (see below) and therefore a report is a general guide only. Where available data supports mapping, the type of presence that can be determined from the data is indicated in general terms. People using this information in making a referral may need to consider the qualifications below and may need to seek and consider other information sources.

For threatened ecological communities where the distribution is well known, maps are derived from recovery plans, State vegetation maps, remote sensing imagery and other sources. Where threatened ecological community distributions are less well known, existing vegetation maps and point location data are used to produce indicative distribution maps.

Threatened, migratory and marine species distributions have been derived through a variety of methods. Where distributions are well known and if time permits, maps are derived using either thematic spatial data (i.e. vegetation, soils, geology, elevation, aspect, terrain, etc) together with point locations and described habitat; or environmental modelling (MAXENT or BIOCLIM habitat modelling) using point locations and environmental data layers.

Where very little information is available for species or large number of maps are required in a short time-frame, maps are derived either from 0.04 or 0.02 decimal degree cells; by an automated process using polygon capture techniques (static two kilometre grid cells, alpha-hull and convex hull); or captured manually or by using topographic features (national park boundaries, islands, etc). In the early stages of the distribution mapping process (1999-early 2000s) distributions were defined by degree blocks, 100K or 250K map sheets to rapidly create distribution maps. More reliable distribution mapping methods are used to update these distributions as time permits.

Only selected species covered by the following provisions of the EPBC Act have been mapped: - migratory and - marine The following species and ecological communities have not been mapped and do not appear in reports produced from this database:

- threatened species listed as extinct or considered as vagrants - some species and ecological communities that have only recently been listed - some terrestrial species that overfly the Commonwealth marine area - migratory species that are very widespread, vagrant, or only occur in small numbers The following groups have been mapped, but may not cover the complete distribution of the species: - non-threatened seabirds which have only been mapped for recorded breeding sites - seals which have only been mapped for breeding sites near the Australian continent Such breeding sites may be important for the protection of the Commonwealth Marine environment.

Coordinates

-34.763559 138.508973,-34.763559 138.509145,-34.764123 138.495927,-34.772866 138.486314,-34.822485 138.412156,-34.840521 138.239122,-34.894605 138.237748,-34.919382 138.082566,-34.851792 138.064714,-34.83714 138.186936,-34.817976 138.344865,-34.810929 138.401513,-34.761021 138.480477,-34.758482 138.510347,-34.763559 138.508973

Acknowledgements This database has been compiled from a range of data sources. The department acknowledges the following custodians who have contributed valuable data and advice: -Office of Environment and Heritage, New South Wales -Department of Environment and Primary Industries, Victoria -Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment, Tasmania -Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia -Department of Land and Resource Management, Northern Territory -Department of Environmental and Heritage Protection, Queensland -Department of Parks and Wildlife, Western Australia -Environment and Planning Directorate, ACT -Birdlife Australia -Australian Bird and Bat Banding Scheme -Australian National Wildlife Collection -Natural history museums of Australia -Museum Victoria -Australian Museum -South Australian Museum -Queensland Museum -Online Zoological Collections of Australian Museums -Queensland Herbarium -National Herbarium of NSW -Royal Botanic Gardens and National Herbarium of Victoria -Tasmanian Herbarium -State Herbarium of South Australia -Northern Territory Herbarium -Western Australian Herbarium -Australian National Herbarium, Canberra -University of New England -Ocean Biogeographic Information System -Australian Government, Department of Defence Forestry Corporation, NSW -Geoscience Australia -CSIRO -Australian Tropical Herbarium, Cairns -eBird Australia -Australian Government – Australian Antarctic Data Centre -Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory -Australian Government National Environmental Science Program -Australian Institute of Marine Science -Reef Life Survey Australia -American Museum of Natural History -Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Inveresk, Tasmania -Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery, Hobart, Tasmania -Other groups and individuals

The Department is extremely grateful to the many organisations and individuals who provided expert advice and information on numerous draft distributions.

Please feel free to provide feedback via the Contact Us page.

© Commonwealth of Australia Department of the Environment GPO Box 787 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia +61 2 6274 1111 Appendix E.3

Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Chapter 3.5 Coastal & Marine C-1 Ecology Distribution and Habitat Association of Marine Scalefish Fishery Block 36

Appendix C Distribution and Habitat Association of Marine Scalefish Fishery Block 36

Table C-1 Distribution and Habitat Association of Marine Finfish and Miscellaenous Species Caught in Block 36 between 2003/04 and 2015/16 (based on SARDI data)

Finfish/miscellaneous Distribution/key life strategies Habitat associations Australian herring are found in the southern coastal areas of WA, from Shark Bay to Albany, and also along the south Australian herring (Arripis coast of South Australia, as far east as Victoria (Smallwood Seagrass georgianus) et al. 2013). Australian herring school close to the surface (top 1–2 m of water) in large numbers over seagrass meadows and reefs. The Australian salmon is endemic to the southern half of Australia, and found as far north as Kalbarri in WA (Bray & Gomon 2011, Smallwood et al. 2013). Australian salmon (migratory) Sand and (Arripis trutta) Juvenile salmon inhabit shallow sheltered bays and coastal macroalgae waters while adults form schools in exposed coastal waters near reefs and the surge zone (Bray & Gomon 2011, Smallwood et al. 2013). Dependent on estuaries, lakes, rivers and occasionally coastal marine waters. The estuaries/halophytic samphire Black bream (Acanthopagrus Estuaries/halophytic communities along the eastern shores of the Gulf St butcheri) samphire Vincent are an important spawning area for Black Bream (PLRWC 2005) Endemic to southern Australia. Juveniles are generally Blue morwong (Nemadactylus Sand and found in shallow southern coastal waters and as adults they valenciennesi) macroalgae move to offshore rocky reefs (Smallwood et al. 2013) Generally not a target fisheries species but caught Boarfish (several species) Sand incidentally. Other cephalopods Sand, seagrass and - (cuttlefish/octopus) macroalgae Endemic to southern Australia. Juvenile development stages associated with nearshore estuaries and coastal Southern blue spotted Sand, sparse waters (Smallwood et al. 2013). As adults flathead tend to flathead (Platycephalus seagrass, associate with sand or sparsely vegetated weed or speculator) macroalgae seagrass habitat and can also be found within the surf zone or nearshore reef habitat (Smallwood et al. 2013). Greenback flounder occur from southern New South Wales Greenback flounder and Tasmania to Western Australia. Greenback flounder Sand (Rhombosolea C-1apirine) are generally associated with sand and muddy substrate in nearshore marine waters or estuaries (Ferguson 2006) Endemic to southern Australia. Southern garfish are closely associated with weed beds or seagrass habitat; providing protection, a source of food and an attachment for eggs Southern garfish (DoF 2010, Smallwood et al. 2013). Garfish have limited Seagrass (Hyporhamphus melanochir) migration, often remaining in the seagrass where they are born, making them susceptible to localised fishing pressure or habitat loss (DoF 2010). Jumper mullet Generally not a target fisheries species. Sand

Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Chapter 3.5 Coastal & Marine C-2 Ecology Distribution and Habitat Association of Marine Scalefish Fishery Block 36

Finfish/miscellaneous Distribution/key life strategies Habitat associations Endemic to southern Australia. Juveniles are associated

with sandy areas of sheltered nearshore waters, including King George whiting Sand and estuaries. As adults King George Whiting move to deeper (Sillaginodes punctata) macroalgae water (6–50 m) associated with reefs, macroalgae and sand (Smallwood et al. 2013). Leatherjacket (several Common over seagrass meadows. Generally not a target Seagrass and species) fisheries species. macroalgae Mud cockle Inhabit tidal sand/mud flats (≤5 m). Sand Widely distributed throughout the Indo-West Pacific. Mulloway (Argyrosomus Juvenile mulloway are associated with shallow (<10 m) Macroalgae and sand japonicas) nearshore waters. Adult mulloway move between estuaries, rivers, exposed beaches and inshore/offshore reefs. Parrotfish - -

Rays and skates (various A number of bottom dwelling species that are associated Sand and reef species) with a number of different habitats. Embedded in muddy sand and reef flats, in shallow waters

to depths of about 10 m (Idris et al. (2009). Also found Razorfish (Pinna bicolor) Sand and seagrass buried in hard substratum and associated with seagrass meadows The red mullet is widespread but most common in SA and

coastal waters of Tasmania (Bray 2011). The red mullet Red mullet (Upeneichthys can be found in water depths from 2–200 m and are Macroalgae and sand vlamingii) generally associated with sheltered coastal waters, bays and estuaries, over rocky or sandy substrate (Bray 2011). Sand crab - Sand Southern school whiting are abundant over sandy substrate in southern Australia, occurring from Southern school whiting Sand (Sillago bassensis Cuvier) Geraldton in WA to Western Port in Victoria and tend to move further offshore with increasing size/age (20-35 m) (Brown et al. 2013).

Pink snapper (Centroberyx Endemic to southern Australia. Generally inhabit deep reef Reef gerrardi) habitat along the continental shelf (Smallwood et al. 2013). Snook are found in various locations through Indo-Pacific but in Australia are limited to the southern coastline, ranging Snook (Sphyraena from central WA to Victoria, including Tasmania (Schultz Seagrass, sand and novaehollandiae) 2011). Snook form small schools and are generally found macroalgae over seagrass meadows and macroalgae reefs, near areas of sand (Schultz 2011). Spawning occurs in shallow inshore waters, with egg mass Seagrass, Southern calamari deposits attached to seagrass, macro-algae and reef macroalgae and reefs substrates (FRDC 2016). Striped perch - Banded and sea sweep (Scorpis georgiana/ Scorpis Sweep are a schooling reef fish that generally have a Reefs and georgianus/ Scorpis localised distribution. macroalgae aequipinnis) Skipjack trevally spawn in nearshore reef areas and as Skipjack trevally juveniles stay within inshore waters (<20 m in depth) over Seagrass, (Pseudocaranx wrighti) bare sand (Smallwood et al. 2013). This species tends to macroalgae and sand move further offshore with size and age, and tend to school

Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Chapter 3.5 Coastal & Marine C-3 Ecology Distribution and Habitat Association of Marine Scalefish Fishery Block 36

Finfish/miscellaneous Distribution/key life strategies Habitat associations over reef, seagrass, macroalgal habitats and can be found in water depths >60 m (Smallwood et al. 2013). The estuaries/halophytic samphire communities along the Yellow-eye mullet (Aldrichetta along the eastern shores of Gulf St Vincent are an Estuaries/halophytic forsteri) important nursery area for Yellow Eye Mullet (PLRWC samphire 2005). There are two distinct populations of yellow fin whiting endemic to southern Australia; from Exmouth to Albany in

WA and from the Spencer Gulf to Fleurieu Peninsula in SA Yellow fin whiting (Sillago (Smallwood et al. 2013). The yellow fin whiting is abundant Macroalgae and sand schomburgkii) in shallow waters (<5 m) in nearshore surf zones and associated with reef or sandy substrates (Smallwood et al. 2013). Yellowtail kingfish are a pelagic fish that inhabit coastal Yellowtail kingfish (Seriola waters of South Australia (including the Gulf) and are Reef lalandi) generally associated with reefs. Weedy whiting (several - Macroalgae species) Various mackerels - - Offshore roving species throughout the water column and a

Shark (several non-protected number of different habitats. Some sharks, like the port Macroalgae and sand species) jackson shark, have close association with reef habitat but are generally widespread. Various worms - Sand Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Chapter 3.5 Coastal & Marine 4 Ecology Distribution and Habitat Association of Marine Scalefish Fishery Block 36 Appendix F

AAR 2017/000921 File No. 2017/000011

Sarah Allen Associate Arup Level 7, 182 Victoria square Adelaide SA 5000

Dear Sarah

Thank you for your correspondence (email) dated 10 May 2017, regarding the proposed works area for the Outer Harbor Channel Widening project. The existing channel will be widened from 130m to 170m to a depth of 14.2m, widening the existing swing basin to 550m in diameter to a depth of 14.2m. The material will be placed offshore in a 7km by 5km area of seabed approximately 30km from Port Adelaide. The search was based on the maps and coordinates provided.

I advise that the central archive, which includes the Register of Aboriginal Sites and Objects (the Register), administered by the Department of State Development, Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation (DSD-AAR), has no entries for Aboriginal sites within the project area.

The applicant is advised that sites or objects may exist in the proposed development area, even though the Register does not identify them. All Aboriginal sites and objects are protected under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 (the Act), whether they are listed in the central archive or not. Land within 200 metres of a watercourse (for example the River Murray and its overflow areas) in particular, may contain Aboriginal sites and objects.

Pursuant to the Act, it is an offence to damage, disturb or interfere with any Aboriginal site or damage any Aboriginal object (registered or not) without the authority of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation (the Minister). If the planned activity is likely to damage, disturb or interfere with a site or object, authorisation of the activity must be first obtained from the Minister under Section 23 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act requires that any Aboriginal sites, objects or remains, discovered on the land, need to be reported to the Minister. Penalties apply for failure to comply with the Act.

It should be noted that this Aboriginal heritage advice has not addressed any relevant obligations pursuant to the Native Title Act 1993.

Please be aware in this area there are various Aboriginal groups/organisations/traditional owners that may have an interest, these may include:

KAURNA NATION CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSOCIATION INC Chairperson: Jeffrey Newchurch Postal Address: 414 Swift Street NORTHFIELD SA 5085 Mobile: 0458 973 692 Email: [email protected]

Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Level 7, 11 Waymouth Street | GPO Box 320 Adelaide SA 5001 Tel (+61) 08 8226 8900 | Fax (+61) 08 8226 8999 | www.statedevelopment.sa.gov.au | ABN 83 524 915 929

RAMINDJERI HERITAGE Email: [email protected]

RAMINDJERI HERITAGE ASSOCIATION INC. Chairperson: Mark Koolmatrie Email: [email protected] Mobile: 0459371515 Postal Address: 14 Matson Street, Meningie, SA 5264

If you require further information, please contact the Aboriginal Heritage Team on telephone (08) 8226 8900 or send to our generic email address [email protected]

Yours sincerely

Perry Langeberg SENIOR INFORMATION OFFICER (HERITAGE) ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS & RECONCILIATION

23 May 2017

Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation Level 7, 11 Waymouth Street | GPO Box 320 Adelaide SA 5001 Tel (+61) 08 8226 8900 | Fax (+61) 08 8226 8999 | www.statedevelopment.sa.gov.au | ABN 83 524 915 929

Appendix G

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #1

Issue | 13 September 2017

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party.

Job number 253257-00

Arup Arup Pty Ltd ABN 18 000 966 165

Arup Level 10 201 Kent Street PO Box 76 Millers Point Sydney 2000 Australia www.arup.com

Document Verification

Job title Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Job number 253257-00 Document title DA Report - Addendum #1 File reference

Document ref Revision Date Filename 170913 OHCW DA Report Addendum 1 - Issue.docx Issue 13 Sep Description Final review held addressing EPA RFI queries and response 2017

Prepared by Checked by Approved by Lisa McKinnon / Name John Haese John Haese John Haese Signature Filename Description

Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name

Signature

Filename Description

Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name

Signature

Filename Description

Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document

| Issue | 13 September 2017 | Arup

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #1

Contents

Page

1 Addendum #1 – Introduction 1

2 General 1 2.1 Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy (2015) 1 2.2 Maintenance Dredging 2 2.3 Project Timing 2

3 Water Quality 3 3.1 Dredge Material Placement Options 3 3.2 Monitoring Program 4 3.3 Zone of Impact Thresholds 4

4 Wastewater 5

5 Spill Management 5

6 Solid Waste Management 5

7 Air Quality 6

8 Noise 6

9 Protection of Marine Megafauna 6 9.1 Piling Activity 6

10 Vessel Movement 6

Appendices Model Calibration Data

| Issue | 13 September 2017 | Arup

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #1

1 Addendum #1 – Introduction

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd (Flinders Ports) submitted a development application titled “Outer Harbor Channel Widening (OHCW) Project Development Application Report, July 2017” under Section 49 of the Development Act 1993 in July 2017. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a referral agency in accordance with the Act, raised a Request For Information (RFI) seeking clarification and additional details to the report to support and assist in the assessment process. This Addendum #1 provides a response to the EPA RFI and should be read in conjunction with the OHCW Project DA Report, 2017. The RFI provided a number of requests categorised as per the following headings, and these have been reflected in the response contained within this report for consistency. 1. General 2. Water Quality 3. Wastewater 4. Spill Management 5. Solid Waste Management 6. Air Quality 7. Noise 8. Protection of Marine Mega-Fauna 9. Vessel Movement

2 General

The EPA sought clarification on several matters of a general nature in relation to the DA Report. The following responses address these general queries.

2.1 Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy (2015) Flinders Ports confirms the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy (2015) has been adopted for this DA Report as part of the overall assessment approach incorporating all relevant legislation and policy requirements. Direct reference to this policy is contained in Chapter 4 Section 4.3.1.3 Water Quality Criteria. Additional reference to the Environmental Protection (Water Quality) Policy (2015) should be inferred as included within Chapter 2 Legislation and Planning Context Section 2.5 and throughout the DA Report when assessing Water Quality.

| Issue | 13 September 2017 | Arup Page 1

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #1

2.2 Maintenance Dredging Flinders Ports confirms that no maintenance dredging forms part of this development proposal. The OHCW Project is a capital dredge campaign (capital dredging is undertaken to create new shipping channels or enlarge existing ones and involves significant volumes of material to be removed whereas maintenance dredging involves removal of material within existing channels and harbour environs to ensure the ongoing safe navigation and operations of a port and typically involve smaller volumes of material to be removed). There is no maintenance dredging involved in the OHCW Project.

2.3 Project Timing Flinders Ports has prepared this DA Report in accordance with Section 49 of the Development Act 1993 as it is deemed public infrastructure and as highlighted within the Report, is required to ensure that South Australian seaborne trade remains competitive within the context of the increasing size of container vessels (Post Panamax) being utilised on the Australian cargo routes. Capital dredge campaigns are significant projects and the Dredge Contractors that have the necessary capacity and capability to safely and efficiently perform these works include predominantly international organisations. Flinders Ports is competing within a global market to secure a Dredge Contractor that meets the requirements to deliver this project from a technical, economic and environmental perspective. Experience of this market and prior projects and as part of the overall Flinders Ports procurement strategy for the OHCW Project, requires that Development Approval (and any associated conditions) is achieved so that the procurement process can be informed and potential Dredge Contractors can be adequately assessed prior to formalising any contract on their demonstrated ability to meet the Development Approval conditions as well as being deemed appropriate for meeting the EPA’s Dredge Licensing requirements. This global market for Dredge Contractors is also limited in capacity for the appropriately qualified Dredge Contractors and a significant element of the procurement assessment process is identifying the appropriate contractor and dredge plant, combined with the availability of this contractor and hence the plant which can deliver the project within the identified requirements from both an approvals and technical perspective. Dredge plant moves from project to project with the intention of maximum utilisation across multiple project sites across the globe. Maintaining flexibility during the procurement process and noting that the DA Report is a publicly available document it is necessary to balance the commercially sensitive elements of a major capital undertaking with ensuring a full and robust assessment is undertaken. Flinders Ports believes that the approach undertaken throughout the DA Report reflects a conservative approach

| Issue | 13 September 2017 | Arup Page 2

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #1

that presents a dredge methodology that is realistic, balances the core elements of environmental impacts, technical feasibility and economic viability to propose an approach that presents a base case scenario that will enable a competitive, national and international procurement process that will encourage the market to achieve at minimum compliance with the outcomes of this development assessment and preferably improve upon the outcomes as determined through this process. Procurement will proceed based upon an approved development consent (assuming one is granted) and prior to any commencement of works, Flinders Ports will work with a preferred Dredge Contractor and the EPA and other relevant licensing agencies and stakeholders to prepare and seek approval for a Dredge License that will reflect an agreed set of conditions in accordance with the licensing process.

3 Water Quality

3.1 Dredge Material Placement Options Flinders Ports confirms it has assessed the OHCW Project in accordance with the principles of the waste hierarchy as outlined in the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2015 (WQEPP). Whilst this was not stated explicitly within the DA Report, the DA Report and specifically the Options Assessment (Appendix C) provide the analysis undertaken. Additional assessment has been considered utilising the existing legislation (as detailed in Chapter 2) and the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (2009) (NAGD, 2009) as current best practice for the proposed works. In accordance with the WQEPP waste hierarchy the DA Report addresses the following throughout: Chapter 1, Section 1.10 has considered the alternatives to capital dredging in accordance with 4(a) of the WQEPP. This section summarises the findings of the DA Report that the operational constraints and potential economic impacts for not undertaking the project represents a significant risk to the South Australian economy through the potential diversion of trade to alternative Australian ports driven by the changing profile of cargo shipping evident in the global market (refer Chapter 1, Figure 6). This is further supported as part of the Section 49 public infrastructure assessment pathway as Outer Harbor is an essential trade gateway for the State and the local economy. Flinders Ports has undertaken the design for the OHCW Project to ensure the scope of works is optimally designed to achieve safe and efficient operations for Post Panamax vessels whilst seeking to minimise the amount of dredged material required to be removed to reduce both cost and potential environmental impacts. The dredge methodology (Chapter 1, Section 1.9) has been determined based upon the characteristics of the material to be dredged, the local environs and scope of works (linear dredge campaign, large volumes of materials, operating port environment, sensitive environmental receptors).

| Issue | 13 September 2017 | Arup Page 3

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #1

A detailed assessment of the options for determining the proposed Dredge Material Placement Area (DMPA) was conducted and detailed in the DA Report and provided an assessment (supported by previous works undertaken by Flinders Ports) in accordance with the waste hierarchy as provided in the WQEPP and the NAGD (2009) principles as well. Appendix C of the DA Report provides details on the potential beneficial re-use of dredged material as well as land-disposal options. There exists a significant body of knowledge from the prior (2005) dredge campaign as well as additional experience from a detailed literature review. The Options Assessment Report appended and summarised in main body of the DA Report considered the typology of the material to be removed, the risks and opportunities associated with alternative options to sea based disposal including the technical and economic (cost) factors associated with alternatives and the environmental impacts associated with each option. The conclusion based upon a balanced assessment and in accordance with the WQEPP and NAGD was the proposed off-shore disposal DMPA in Gulf St Vincent.

3.2 Monitoring Program In response to defining an agreed approach for undertaking a monitoring program based upon ‘before after control impact’ (BACI) principles, Flinders Ports confirms the following. A preliminary monitoring program will be provided, noting it would be indicative only at this stage of the approval and project development process. Precise details of an agreed monitoring program we believe would form part of the EPA Dredge Licensing application process and will be provided at the time of application for this licence. The essential elements for an appropriate monitoring program will include: • Quantity, location, duration and data collection requirements (i.e. turbidity, DO, pH, salinity, temperature etc) to be agreed and discussed on merit for contributing to program and outcomes sought • Determining background water quality baseline data requirements (how, what, when) • Additional data collection (survey) requirements – how, what and when Agreed specific details for the monitoring program will be defined to ensure ability to comply with the approval conditions throughout the works. Flinders Ports also provides (refer Appendix 1 to this Addenda) additional data as requested to assist in validating the modelling adopted for the DA Report.

3.3 Zone of Impact Thresholds The water quality Zone of Impact threshold values utilised in the DA Report were derived from literature values and previous dredging works undertaken in similar environments, including the Port of Townsville Port Expansion Project EIS,

| Issue | 13 September 2017 | Arup Page 4

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #1

where more than 12 months of baseline data was collected in relatively clear offshore waters that contain extensive seagrasses around Magnetic Island (this provides a conservative approach to the triggers, which are transferable to the relatively clear waters surrounding the Port). This baseline data was used to develop threshold values (above background) to assess modelling outputs. These threshold values are comparable to thresholds developed by DHI in Chevron (2010) for low turbidity waters, as follows: • Zone of total mortality (high impact) = 80th percentile turbidity threshold of 13 NTU (converted from TSS of 25 mg/L). • Zone of partial mortality (low to moderate impact) = 50th percentile value of 2.5 NTU, and 80th percentile value of 5 NTU. The 'zone of influence' was defined as the extent of detectable plumes due to the proposed dredging. Turbid plumes were assumed to become detectable once they were approximately 20% above background conditions (background conditions assumed to be relatively clear waters with median turbidity of ~3 NTU). The zones of predicted impact mapping provided in the DA Report takes a conservative approach and presents the worst-case predicted impact; it is likely that outcomes will be better than that presented. To account for variability, we have modelled the worst-case 30 day window, and also provided summer and winter impacts to account for potential variability in weather conditions.

4 Wastewater

Flinders Ports confirms that the Dredge Contractor will be contractually obliged to comply with the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2015 as part of the overall operational policies and requirements for operating within South Australian and the Port waters as detailed in the DA Report.

5 Spill Management

The Dredge Contractor will utilise the existing port facilities to refuel in accordance with standard port operating procedures. No refuelling will occur whilst vessels are operational or at sea. The Dredge Contractor will be required to provide a detailed Dredge Management Plan that will include refuelling procedures for implementation. This will include appropriate spill control and mitigation measures to be implemented at all times.

6 Solid Waste Management

Flinders Ports confirms no garbage will be intentionally disposed of in Gulf St Vincent. The Dredge Contractor will be required to comply with all operating procedures for shipping in South Australian waters and demonstrate through the contractual management planning how the dredge contractor will comply with these requirements. Refer to Section 8.4.5 of the Dredge Management Plan

| Issue | 13 September 2017 | Arup Page 5

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #1

(Waste Management) provided with the DA Report which outlines waste management measures the Dredge Contractor will be required to meet.

7 Air Quality

Flinders Ports confirms there are no planned land-based activities associated with this development proposal that may generate dust or odour. The dredge activities are all marine based.

8 Noise

Flinders Ports confirms that the Dredging Contractor will be contractually required to demonstrate through the required management planning how it will schedule dredge activities in the vicinity of sensitive receivers (as identified in the DA Report and included in the outline DMP Section 8.4.6 Noise Quality) to avoid the identified impacts as detailed in the DA Report. This will include sequencing of activities in alternative areas during times of potential adverse impacts in accordance with EPA policy. Flinders Ports confirms that piling works will only occur within 1600 metres of identified sensitive receivers between the hours of 7am to 7pm, Monday to Saturday and that no piling works will occur on a Sunday.

9 Protection of Marine Megafauna

9.1 Piling Activity Flinders Ports confirms that the Piling Contractor will be contractually obliged to comply with the DPTI Underwater Piling Noise Guidelines (2012) through demonstrating via the management planning how appropriately trained mammal observers will be implemented at all times during the works to ensure compliance and include action plans to demonstrate compliance.

10 Vessel Movement

The Dredge Contractor will be contractually obligated to demonstrate through the management plans how it will appropriately reduce the risk of vessel strike during all works as detailed in Section 8.4.3 Marine Megafauna and the outline DMP.

| Issue | 13 September 2017 | Arup Page 6

Model Calibration Data

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #1

| Issue | 13 September 2017 | Arup Page A 1

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #2

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #2

Rev A | 6 November 2017

This report takes into account the particular instructions and requirements of our client. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party.

Job number 253257-00

Arup Arup Pty Ltd ABN 18 000 966 165

Arup Level 10 201 Kent Street PO Box 76 Millers Point Sydney 2000 Australia www.arup.com

| Rev A | 6 November 2017 | Arup Page 1 of 13

Document Verification

Job title Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project Job number 253257-00 Document title DA Report - Addendum #2 File reference

Document ref Revision Date Filename 171030 OHCW DA Report Addendum 2 - Issue.DOCX Issue 30 Oct Description Review complete and approved for issue 2017

Prepared by Checked by Approved by Ross Name John Haese Newcombe, Lisa John Haese McKinnon Signature

Rev A 6 Nov Filename 171106 OHCW DA Report Addendum 2 Rev A.DOCX 2017 Description Updated to confirm Dredge Methodology for Assessment as being that provided in this Addenda #2

Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name John Haese Ross Newcombe John Haese

Signature

Filename Description

Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name

Signature

Filename Description

Prepared by Checked by Approved by Name

Signature

Issue Document Verification with Document 

| Rev A | 6 November 2017 | Arup

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #2

Contents

Page

1 Addendum #2 – Introduction 2

2 Dredge Methodology Drivers 2

3 Alternative Scenario Considerations 3 3.2 Dredge Methodology Summary 8 3.3 Outer Harbor Breakwater and Swing Basin 8

Appendices Alternative Dredge Methodology

| Rev A | 6 November 2017 | Arup Page 1 of 13

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #2

1 Addendum #2 – Introduction

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd (Flinders Ports) submitted a development application titled “Outer Harbor Channel Widening (OHCW) Project Development Application Report, July 2017” under Section 49 of the Development Act 1993 in July 2017. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a referral agency in accordance with the Act, raised a Request For Information (RFI #2) seeking clarification and additional details to the report to support and assist in the assessment process. This Addendum #2 provides a response to the EPA RFI #2 and should be read in conjunction with the OHCW Project DA Report, 2017 and Addendum #1.

2 Dredge Methodology Drivers

The EPA has proposed a range of alternative dredging methodologies for consideration in RFI #2. The adopted dredge methodology for the DA Report has been developed in a considered and methodical manner to date, and is considered the most likely methodology due to a range of factors that have been addressed both within the DA Report and separately by Flinders Ports and its consultants, including the following key drivers in methodology selection:  Geology – the sub-surface conditions to be encountered in the Project area are a fundamental driver in the technologies (plant) adopted for dredging. Different dredge plant have different capabilities according to the typology of the soils to be encountered.  Technical efficiency – the operational ability to complete the works in an optimal timeframe and recognising the local environs of the works (within the operating channel and harbour) influences the selection of dredge plant. The volumes of material to be removed, the location and approach for placement, variations in soil types across the entire Project area as well as operational flexibility due to an operational port environment all contribute to the assessment and selection of dredge methodology.  Program – this is a priority project as demonstrated through the rapid change in arrivals of Post-Panamax vessels to Outer Harbor (4 fold increase in last 2 years) and will also be undertaken in an operational environment. A shorter duration of works provides benefits in minimising the duration of Project and operational interaction as well as providing the opportunity to perform the works within a seasonal window subject to timely procurement and mobilisation of a Dredge Contractor. Minimising the duration of turbidity generation versus longer duration of lower turbidity levels was also a consideration.  Economics – the scale of the Project and productivity assumptions driven by the geology and location of the Project have been assessed in conjunction with all other criteria. This includes an assessment of the overall project economic impacts on trade through the Port of Adelaide and assessment of the capital costs to derive benefit cost ratios across various scenarios as outlined in the DA Report. As the capital cost increased, logically the benefits associated decrease, and the risk increases from a project viability perspective.

| Rev A | 6 November 2017 | Arup Page 2 of 13

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #2

 Commercial Market – preliminary engagement with a range of potential contractors with the requisite skill, experience and credentials to perform the works was undertaken in parallel with the independent assessment by Flinders Ports and its consultants of an appropriate dredge methodology.  Environmental – potential dredge methodologies were assessed for their environmental impacts and appropriateness for the Project environs in parallel with all other assessment criteria. From initial discussions with the EPA, it is understood that preference was for the dredge campaign to be as short as possible. The overall strategic approach adopted for the OHCW Project has been to balance the economic need to complete this priority project with the available technical capability to perform the works whilst minimising environmental impacts. The Project remains a priority for South Australia as detailed in the DA Report due to the growing demand to accommodate the Post-Panamax vessels efficiently and thus enabling trade to flourish through both imports and exports. The risk of losing access to the global shipping trade to an alternative port remains very real and risks damaging the State’s overall economic performance by introducing the need to transport trade by rail with the associated cost increases. It is also noted that the capital costs for undertaking this Project will ultimately be recovered through the continued application of commercial terms and conditions for usage of the port. Additional capital expenditure results in higher costs associated with all containerised trade passing through the Port of Adelaide and this has been another driver in selecting an optimal dredge methodology for the Project. Flinders Ports remains committed to achieving a positive outcome for this Project, and remains committed to seeking improvements upon the proposed methodology where applicable through the procurement and execution stages of the project and leveraging the competitive market to seek improvements in performance and reduction in impacts wherever viable. This commitment, and engagement with the EPA has resulted in presenting an alternative dredge methodology (Appendix A to this Addendum #2) for assessment purposes.

3 Alternative Scenario Considerations

3.1.1 No overflow of TSHD The main impact for limiting or eliminating overflow to the operations of the TSHD (or other dredge equipment used in an alternative methodology) is a reduction in productivity. The overflow process enables the TSHD to maximise the amount of solids retained within the hopper before sailing to the Dredge Material Placement Area (DMPA) and back. Without overflow, the productivity is reduced by a factor of between 4-5, resulting in longer program (refer to summary comparisons below) and capital cost to maintain the plant operating at such low efficiency over an extended period. This option provides some reduction in the predicted impacts of turbidity through reducing the volume of fines that are released into the water column (less than that resulting from no side casting

| Rev A | 6 November 2017 | Arup Page 3 of 13

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #2

(see Section 3.1.2 below) and hence reduces the predicted seagrass losses, but greatly extends the duration of the overall works.

3.1.2 No side casting of CSD This option requires the use of split hopper barges (SHB) to receive the material direct from the CSD as it dredges the sea floor. These SHB’s then remove the material to the DMPA. The SHB utilise overflow to increase productivity in the same manner as the TSHD, noting they are stationary during operations as the CSD pumps the material into the SHB as it dredges. This scenario has assumed 2 SHB of 2,000m3 capacity each. It also has a reduced TSHD (3,000m3 capacity versus the DA Report base case of 10,000m3) which acts as a third barge servicing the CSD as well as direct dredging. This provides the optimal methodology for this scenario in seeking maximum utilisation of appropriately sized plant to achieve program and budget outcomes. This option provides the most significant reduction in the predicted impacts of turbidity through reducing the volume of fines that are released into the water column and hence reduces the predicted seagrass losses, but does extend the duration of the overall works.

3.1.3 Filtration of overflow from TSHD or use of flocculants in the hopper The use of these methods is not a common occurrence commercially and presents many technical challenges to implement on a Project of this scale. Discussions with a dredge contractor on their usage of these methods also confirms that this is not considered feasible for hydraulic dredging. Filtration to overflow system is not feasible due to the nature of the fine sediments that need to be filtered and pressure in the flow system. Flocculants are used mostly to separate water and contaminated sediments. It can also be used for reclamation projects. Use of flocculants require appropriate settling time to be effective and it is not feasible for this to be undertaken in the hopper of a TSHD.

3.1.4 Reduction in the rate (ie speed, velocity and acceleration) of both dredges For the purposes of a sensitivity analyses, a 50% overall reduction in productivity to the DA Report base case methodology was adopted. This involves operating the plant below their optimal efficiency and is considered an unlikely scenario for undertaking the Project as it would be more efficient to utilise smaller plant at their designed efficiency rates. This scenario is considered more a mitigation management approach once an overall Dredge Management Plan and monitoring and trigger levels are established (assuming base case plant is operating) as one of a range of available approaches to respond to any operational and/or environmental events arising throughout the works to satisfy approval conditions.

3.1.5 Alternative dredging methodologies or technologies to reduce turbidity The clear alternative methodology from the options considered already is mechanical dredging. This was considered through development of the DA Report and involves utilising either a Back

| Rev A | 6 November 2017 | Arup Page 4 of 13

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #2

Hoe Dredge (BHD) or Grab Dredge (GD) typically mounted on a barge and supported by a series of SHBs. This form of dredging involves much longer durations and capital costs as shown in the summary table below. The OHCW Project is predominantly a “linear” campaign and hence is more efficient utilising self-propelled hydraulic plant. There are several locations of hard material that may also cause technical challenges for a BHD or GD to address successfully. Mechanical dredging results in significantly lower levels of turbidity but over longer durations at the dredge zone when compared to hydraulic dredging.

3.1.6 Use of CSD only In this scenario, the TSHD is removed from the methodology and SHBs are utilised to receive the material from the CSD operating in isolation. This increases the duration and capital cost of the project and in particular, the CSD is not an efficient solution to final clean up and levelling of the works when compared to a TSHD. Environmentally this option avoids any side casting and hence results in less turbidity to the base case resulting in prediction of less seagrass losses.

| Rev A | 6 November 2017 | Arup Page 5 of 13

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #2

3.1.7 Comparison of Scenarios

Scenario Description Program Cost Range Comment

DA Report Base Case Large TSHD with overflow, CSD with side casting 4 to 6 months $35 to $65 million Assessed as “most likely” (TSHD and CSD with dredge methodology for DA side casting) Report

No overflow to TSHD Same plant as per DA Report, restricting usage of 10 to 12 $77M to $85M TSHD efficiency drops to overflow which impacts efficiency of TSHD but months approximately 20%. significantly reduces fines release into water column Potentially results in a 40%-50% reduction in fines produced

No side casting of CSD Same plant as per DA Report, introduces usage of split 6 to 8 months $62M to $77M Potentially results in a 45% - hopper barges and a small TSHD to work with CSD to 55% reduction in fines produced avoid side casting (material pumped direct from CSD over base case. into barges for removal to DMPA). Barges and TSHD utilise overflow for optimal efficiency. There is a reduced efficiency as CSD production rate reduces to pump directly into barges/TSHD resulting in increased duration of works.

Apply filtration to See commentary above – this option not considered any N/A N/A N/A overflow or use further. flocculants in hopper

Reduce production rates Same plant as DA Report, adopt slower production rates 6 to 8 months $62M to $77M Assumes production reduces by of dredging to reduce the amount of fines entering the water column 50% – all other parameters (such as overflow) remain as per DA Report methodology

| Rev A | 6 November 2017 | Arup Page 6 of 13

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #2

Potentially 10%-15% reduction in fines produced from base case

Alternative Alternative to hydraulic dredging is to utilise mechanical 12 to 15 $70M to $85M Mechanical dredging is very methodologies or dredging – back hoe or grab dredge type. Assumes months inefficient for straight navigation technology 100% mechanical as base case alternative. channels. No modelling undertaken to determine fines estimates

CSD only Remove the TSHD from methodology and requires split 10 to 12 $72M to $90M Potentially results in a 40%-50% hopper barges to receive the material and remove to the months reduction in fines produced DMPA. Use of CSD only for clean-up is very inefficient.

| Rev A | 6 November 2017 | Arup Page 7 of 13

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #2

3.2 Dredge Methodology Summary The DA Report provided an assessment of the OHCW Project utilising a ‘most likely’ dredge methodology. This Addendum #2 provides an alternative, ‘best case’ methodology that has been modelled to predict the anticipated improvements for the predicted generation of turbidity and hence potential impacts upon the local environment, specifically the seagrasses. Flinders Ports will ensure that the procurement process addresses environmental improvements to seek an outcome that minimises environmental impacts within the constraints of the overall Project. Both modelled scenarios do not allow for the application of any mitigation measures during the dredging campaign. Flinders Ports will undertake baseline water quality monitoring (working with the EPA) to inform the formation of water quality triggers for the dredging program. The Dredge Contractor will be required to put a reactive monitoring plan in place which will continuously monitor these triggers at sensitive receptors (i.e. seagrass beds), and change their dredging methodology accordingly, should a trigger level be exceeded. This could mean changing location or the timing of dredging, or even stopping work for a period until conditions are better suited. This best practice monitoring will also contribute to controlling turbidity/PAR levels and reducing impacts to seagrass. These mitigation measures are not included in the modelling provided, which therefore has likely resulted in an overestimation of seagrass impact under both the DA Report and alternative modelled scenarios.

3.3 Outer Harbor Breakwater and Swing Basin The EPA sought clarification on the ability to dispose of material to land dredged from within the Outer Harbor Breakwater and Swing Basin area as a mitigation measure for eliminating the potential spread of Caulerpa taxifolia. Initial calculations from the design indicate a total volume in this zone of the works of approximately 740,000m3. This represents almost half of the entire OHCW Project material to be removed. There is insufficient area within Flinders Ports’ land holdings to accommodate this volume of material. The DMPA Options study conducted for the DA Report remains valid (it assessed 1.55 million m3 of material) for the assessment of placing 740,000m3 of material on land. The same associated costs for infrastructure, approvals and risk profile remains for the revised volume, which reduces any cost/benefit ratio and overall assessment against the Waste Hierarchy for considering this option significantly below the DA Report assessment. The DA Report addressed the successful prior mitigation strategies implemented in the 2005 Deepening Project for managing Caulerpa taxifolia and will work with Bio Security SA, DEWNR and the EPA to ensure the Dredge Management Plan appropriately addresses the potential risk and implements any agreed mitigation measures should they be required prior to works commencing and as part of the Dredge Licensing application process.

| Rev A | 6 November 2017 | Arup Page 8 of 13

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #2

| Rev A | 6 November 2017 | Arup Page 9 of 13

Alternative Dredge Methodology

Technical Memorandum

From: Lisa McKinnon To: John Haese, Arup Date: 23 October 2017 CC: Subject: Alternative Dredging Scenario – Adelaide Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project

1 Introduction

The DA Report submitted for assessment in July 2017 presented a ‘most likely’ dredging methodology which involved a combination of a medium size Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) and a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) of about 10,000m3 hopper capacity. The CSD was proposed to be used for breaking up a proportion of sea bed material which was not suitable for direct TSHD dredging. The CSD would side-case this material, which would then be re-dredged by the TSHD for offshore disposal. The TSHD would also be used to directly dredge any sandy/soft material. In summary, the base scenario presented in the DA report made the following assumptions:

 CSD side-casting of stiff clays and limestones, representing approximately 66% of the 1.55M m3 in-situ material

 10,000 m3 hopper TSHD to dredge loose material without pre-treatment by a CSD (approximately 34% of the 1.55m m3 in situ), in addition to the CSD side-cast material

 TSHD hopper overflow allowed with no restrictions

This scenario was chosen following a detailed assessment of a number of alternative dredging scenarios, balancing environmental, timing, economic and commercial considerations.

Upon receiving feedback from the EPA in regards to their concern about the potential loss of seagrass associated with this option, the project team have reviewed these dredging scenarios and modelled an alternative dredging scenario (presented below) that removes the requirement for double-handling of material that is dredged by the CSD; this is essentially the ‘best case’ methodology. Other options such as limiting overflow were not considered feasible upon further discussions with the EPA, and have therefore not been modelled. It should be noted that the ‘best case’ is based on our knowledge of likely plant that dredge contractors may propose; there may be other combinations which include different sized plant or use of a larger number of Split Hull Barges which could alter the impacts. Variations to the assumed geotechnical conditions encountered, as described in further detail below, will also affect the impacts.

Arup’s Geotechnical Engineer has reviewed known geotechnical conditions and anecdotal evidence from the previous dredge campaign to determine if a less conservative approach could be undertaken in regards to how much of the dredge campaign could be undertaken by TSHD (thereby reducing the modelled impact of the ‘most likely’ scenario); this may be possible once further geotechnical investigations are undertaken later this year (and is indeed likely), however at this point in time we have continued to assume that a TSHD is only capable of dredging looser material without pre-treatment.

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM A Report\M.B22436.005.alternative part of BMT in Energy and Environment dredge scenario (002).docx

2

2 Alternative Unmitigated Dredging Scenario

The alternative scenario involves a combination of a small-medium Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) of about 3,000m3 hopper capacity and a medium size Cutter Suction Dredger (CSD) supported by 2,000m3 hopper capacity Split Hull Barges (SHB). The TSHD would still be used to dredge the sandy/soft material. The CSD would be used for breaking up the sea bed material and discharging directly into SHB’s for transport to the DMPA, thus avoiding side-casting. Key assumptions for this alternative scenario are:

 A 3,000 m3 hopper TSHD would be used to dredge loose material (34% of 1.55M m3 in-situ) without prior CSD treatment

 A CSD would be used to dredge stiff clays and limestone

 A CSD would pump directly to 2,000 m3 SHB’s for transport to DMPA

 Overflow would be allowed from the SHB hopper

 This scenario is modelled as ‘unmitigated’, in that it has not allowed for dredge management procedures, as outlined in the EMP provided for the project i.e. reactive monitoring

Table 2-1 Summary of 3,000m3 TSHD Productivity Assumptions

Material Time to Overflow Effective Total Number Efficiency Total Class overflow duration Production Cycle of Duration (mins) (mins) Rate Duration Cycles (hours) (insitu (hours) m3/cycle) Class 1 15 120 2480 7 215 93% 1505 Class 2 – – – – – – – Class 3 – – – – – – – Total – – – – 215 – 1620

Table 2-2 Summary of CSD/SHB Productivity Assumptions

Material Effective Dredging Efficienc Time to SHB Number Total Class Producti Duration y overflow Overflow of Duration on Rate (hours) SHB duration SHB (hours) (insitu (mins) (mins) Cycles m3/hour) Class 1 N/A N/A N/A – – – – Class 2 1,020 780 70% 20 50 670 1114 Class 3 1,020 380 70% 20 50 325 543 Total – – – – – 995 1657

2.1 Plume Generation Assumptions The 3,000 m3 hopper capacity TSHD plume generation assumptions are essentially identical to the base case larger TSHD, as outlined below. However, the plume generation rates scale with productivity which is approximately 30% of the larger dredge and therefore the instantaneous plume source rates are much lower. The plume generation assumptions for this alternative scenario include:

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM Report\M.B22436.005.alternative dredge scenario (002).docx

3

 During TSHD dredging the passive plume source rate due to draghead and propwash entrainment is 3% of the production rate;

 During TSHD overflow 80% of the fines entering the TSHD hopper exit via the overflow;

 Of the TSHD overflowing fines, 85% forms a dynamic plume to the seabed while 15% remains in the water column as a passive plume;

 During TSHD placement at the DMPA, 10% of the material enters a passive plume that is evenly distributed in the water column;

The instantaneous and/or per-dredging cycle TSHD source rates are summarised for each material class in Table 2-3. The total sum of plume fine sediment mass (in tonnes) entrained over the entire project is also included.

Table 2-3 Summary of TSHD Plume Source Rates (Fines only)

Material Draghead Overflow Draghead Overflow Placement Total Class /Propwash (kg/s) /Propwash (t/cycle) (t/cycle) Campaign (kg/s) (t/cycle) (t) Class 1 5.3 140 43 151 41 50,600 Class 2 – – – – – – Class 3 – – – – – – Total – – – – – 50,600

The CSD/SHB plume source rates comprise terms related to the action of the cutter head agitation and overflow of sediment laden water during filling of the SHB. The SHB overflow is necessary to ensure an economical load is transported to the DMPA. However, as noted in Mills & Kemps (2016), the significantly lower pumping rate of a CSD discharging into a SHB would be expected to result in a lower overflow plume source rate than a TSHD operating in overflow mode. Assumptions for CSD/SHB plumes include:

 During CSD dredging the cutter head passive plume source rate is 2% of the production rate;

 During SHB overflow 60% of the fines entering the SHB hopper exit via the overflow. Of the overflow quantity 15% remains in the water column as a passive plume;

 During SHB placement at the DMPA 10% of the material passive plume is evenly distributed in the water column.

The instantaneous and/or per-cycle source rates are summarised for each material class in Table 2-4. The total sum of plume fine sediment mass (in tonnes) entrained over the entire project is also included.

Table 2-4 Summary of CSD/SHB Plume Source Rates (Fines only)

Material Cutter SHB Cutter SHB Placement Total Class head Overflow head Overflow (t/cycle) Campaign (kg/s) (kg/s) (t/cycle) (t/cycle) (t) Class 1 – – – – – – Class 2 7.3 16.4 30.6 98.4 87.5 145,000 Class 3 7.3 16.4 30.6 98.4 87.5 70,400 Total – – – – – 215,000

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM Report\M.B22436.005.alternative dredge scenario (002).docx

4

In summary, the estimated total fines spill for the alternative case dredging scenario is 265,000 t, which is a 39% reduction compared with the dredge option presented in the DA report. This reduction is achieved by avoiding double-handling of dredge material and by replacing TSHD overflow dredging with CSD discharge into SHB.

2.2 Alternative Case Results The dredge plume model results for the alternative scenario are presented below.

2.2.1 Turbidity Percentiles Turbidity percentiles for the summer alternative scenario are shown in Figure 2-1. The acute exceedance level 95th percentile is shown on the left and the chronic exceedance level 50th percentile on the right. Turbidity percentiles for the winter alternative scenario are shown in Figure 2-2.

The alternative case turbidity percentile maps show a smaller and less intense footprint of elevated turbidity extending from the dredging area for the best case compared to the most likely case. This is primarily due to the lower fine-sediment spill rates associated with the alternative scenario (smaller TSHD and CSD discharging into SHB) than the most likely case side-casting scenario. Slightly higher (but still low) turbidity impacts at the offshore DMPA site are seen in the alternative case results due to the slightly higher fines content of material being placed from the SHB operations.

2.2.2 Sediment Deposition Sediment deposition rate percentiles for the summer alternative case dredging scenario are shown in Figure 2-3 The acute exceedance level 95th percentile is shown on the left and the chronic exceedance level 50th percentile on the right. The final distribution of net sediment deposition at the end of the summer simulation is shown in Figure 2-4. The corresponding winter alternative scenario sediment deposition results are shown in Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6.

The alternative case sediment deposition maps are consistent with the turbidity results in that they show reduced extent and intensity of impacts in the vicinity of the dredging footprint. Slightly higher deposition impacts are seen at the DMPA in the alternative case results.

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM Report\M.B22436.005.alternative dredge scenario (002).docx

5

Figure 2-1 Summer Alternative Scenario Turbidity Percentile Contours. Acute 95th Percentile (left); Chronic 50th Percentile (right).

Figure 2-2 Winter Alternative Scenario Turbidity Percentile Contours. Acute 95th Percentile (left); Chronic 50th Percentile (right).

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM Report\M.B22436.005.alternative dredge scenario (002).docx

6

Figure 2-3 Summer Alternative Scenario Sediment Deposition Rate Percentile Contours. Acute 95th Percentile (left); Chronic 50th Percentile (right).

Figure 2-4 Summer Alternative Scenario Final Net Sediment Deposition Contours.

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM Report\M.B22436.005.alternative dredge scenario (002).docx

7

Figure 2-5 Winter Alternative Scenario Sediment Deposition Rate Percentile Contours. Acute 95th Percentile (left); Chronic 50th Percentile (right).

Figure 2-6 Winter Alternative Scenario Final Net Sediment Deposition Contours.

2.3 Water Quality Risk Assessment Using the same methodology as that undertaken for the DA Report dredge scenario (i.e. the Western Australian ‘zones of impact’ approach), the turbidity impact zone map for the alternative case, overlaying

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM Report\M.B22436.005.alternative dredge scenario (002).docx

8 seagrass coverage is shown in Error! Reference source not found. for the summer scenario and Error! Reference source not found. for the winter scenario.

The sediment deposition impact zone map for the alternative case is shown in Error! Reference source not found. for the summer scenario and Error! Reference source not found. for the winter scenario.

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM Report\M.B22436.005.alternative dredge scenario (002).docx

9

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM Report\M.B22436.005.alternative dredge scenario (002).docx

10

Turbidity

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM Report\M.B22436.005.alternative dredge scenario (002).docx

11

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM Report\M.B22436.005.alternative dredge scenario (002).docx

12

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM Report\M.B22436.005.alternative dredge scenario (002).docx

13

2.4 Mitigated Dredge Management The alternative scenario presented above does not allow for the application of any mitigation measures during the dredging campaign. Flinders Ports are shortly commencing background water quality monitoring (to be discussed further with the EPA) to inform the formation of water quality triggers for the dredging program. The dredge contractor will be required to put a reactive monitoring plan in place which will continuously monitor these triggers at sensitive receptors (i.e. seagrass beds), and change their dredging methodology accordingly, should a trigger level be exceeded. This could mean changing location or the timing of dredging, or even stopping work for a period until conditions are better suited. This best practice monitoring will also contribute to controlling turbidity/PAR levels and reducing impacts to seagrass. These mitigation measures are not included in the modelling provided, which therefore has likely resulted in an overestimation of seagrass impact under both the DA Report and alternative modelled scenarios.

J:\253000\253257-00 OH Channel Widening\Work\Stage 3\EPA RFI #2\WBM Report\M.B22436.005.alternative dredge scenario (002).docx

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd Outer Harbor Channel Widening Project DA Report - Addendum #2

| Rev A | 6 November 2017 | Arup Page A1