Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd WHALE POINT SALMON NURSERY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN
25 August 2017
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page i of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table of Contents Foreword ...... xii Glossary ...... xiv Executive Summary ...... xvi 1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background of project proponent ...... 1 1.2 Name and contact details ...... 1 1.3 Proposed timeline for the project ...... 2 2 Environmental Legislation ...... 4 2.1 Commonwealth legislation ...... 4 2.2 State legislation ...... 4 2.2.1 State Policies and Projects Act 1993 ...... 4 2.2.2 State Coastal Policy 1996 ...... 4 2.2.3 State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 ...... 4 2.2.4 State Policy on Protection of Agricultural Land 2009 ...... 5 2.2.5 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 ...... 5 2.2.6 Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 ...... 5 2.2.7 Other state legislation applicable to the project ...... 5 2.2.7.1 Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 ...... 5 2.2.7.2 Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 ...... 5 2.2.7.3 Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 ...... 5 2.2.7.4 Forest Practices Act 1985 ...... 5 2.2.7.5 Inland Fisheries Service fish farm permit ...... 6 2.3 Local government ...... 6 2.3.1 Planning aspects ...... 6 2.3.1.1 Huon Valley Council Interim Planning Scheme 2015 ...... 7 2.3.1.1.1 Approval Status ...... 7 3 Description of Proposed Project ...... 9 3.1 Construction ...... 10 3.2 Commissioning ...... 10 3.3 Site background ...... 11 3.4 Location ...... 13 3.5 Physical characteristics ...... 15 3.6 Land tenure ...... 15 3.7 Access, infrastructure and equipment ...... 16 3.7.1 Salmon nursery / growout facility ...... 16 3.8 Water supply ...... 22 3.8.1 Water supply pre-treatment ...... 22 3.9 Power supply ...... 22 3.10 Wastewater salmon nursery effluent ...... 22 3.10.1 Wastewater sources ...... 23 i Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page ii of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
3.10.2 Wastewater volumes ...... 26 3.10.3 AGD bathing re-use ...... 27 3.10.4 Wastewater treatment ...... 28 3.10.5 Wastewater quality ...... 30 3.10.6 Protected environmental values ...... 31 3.10.7 AGD bathing process ...... 31 3.10.8 Net liners ...... 33 3.11 Wastewater other...... 35 3.11.1 Domestic wastewater (sewage) ...... 35 3.11.2 Stormwater ...... 35 3.11.3 Dam assessment ...... 38 3.11.4 Consequence Category definitions ...... 38 3.11.5 Dam Failure Consequence Category ...... 38 3.11.5.1 Assessment of Population at Risk (PAR) ...... 39 3.11.5.2 Assessment of damages and losses ...... 39 3.11.6 Dam Spill Consequence Category ...... 39 3.11.7 Implications of Consequence Category ...... 39 3.11.8 Minimum competency requirements for design, construction and surveillance activities 39 3.11.8.1 Monitoring requirements ...... 40 3.11.8.2 Inspection requirements ...... 40 3.11.8.3 Reporting requirements ...... 40 3.12 Solid waste production ...... 41 3.13 Noise sources ...... 44 3.13.1 Fixed plant and equipment...... 44 3.13.2 Road transport ...... 45 3.13.3 Marine vessels ...... 45 3.14 Traffic ...... 45 3.15 Off-site infrastructure ...... 46 3.16 Personnel ...... 46 4 Consultation Process ...... 47 4.1 Community consultation ...... 47 4.2 Regulation/approval ...... 47 4.2.1 Environment Protection Authority ...... 47 4.2.2 Huon Valley Council ...... 48 4.3 Biosecurity ...... 48 5 Existing Environment ...... 49 5.1 Planning aspects ...... 49 5.2 Neighbouring land use ...... 49 5.3 Reserves and conservation areas ...... 49 5.4 Topography ...... 51 5.4.1 Whale Point marine ...... 51 5.5 Climate ...... 53 ii Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page iii of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
5.6 Natural values ...... 56 5.6.1 Vegetation communities ...... 56 5.6.1.1 Introduced plants ...... 62 5.6.2 Fauna ...... 62 5.6.2.1 Terrestrial fauna habitat ...... 64 5.6.3 Hospital Bay ...... 64 5.6.4 Whale Point jetty ...... 66 5.7 Surface water ...... 67 5.7.1 Kermandie River ...... 67 5.7.2 Huon River ...... 68 5.7.3 Water quality ...... 69 5.7.3.1 Kermandie River ...... 69 5.7.3.2 Huon River ...... 70 5.7.3.3 Hospital Bay ...... 72 5.7.3.4 Whale Point jetty area ...... 75 5.8 Groundwater ...... 76 5.9 Noise environment ...... 77 5.9.1 Identification of sensitive noise receptors ...... 77 5.9.1.1 Port Huon ...... 77 5.9.1.2 Wattle Grove ...... 80 5.10 Visual Amenity ...... 83 5.10.1 Visible proposal elements ...... 83 5.10.2 Viewing locations ...... 83 5.11 Heritage values ...... 86 5.11.1 Aboriginal cultural heritage ...... 86 5.11.2 Historic heritage ...... 86 5.11.3 Heritage values of the proposed site ...... 87 5.12 Contaminated land ...... 87 6 Identifying Environmental Aspects ...... 90 6.1 Risk assessment ...... 90 6.1.1 Identifying the hazards ...... 90 6.1.2 Risk ranking ...... 90 6.1.2.1 Methodology ...... 90 6.1.3 Hazard risk evaluation ...... 92 6.2 Environmental aspects high risk ...... 113 6.3 Environmental aspects moderate risk ...... 113 6.4 Environmental aspects moderate risk managed through management protocols ...... 113 6.4.1 Comments on High Consequence (4 – 5) Risks and high end Moderate Risks ...... 113 6.4.1.1 Discharge of treated salmon nursery effluent into inshore receiving waters ...... 113 6.4.1.2 Catastrophic inshore discharge from net liner ...... 113 6.4.1.3 Net liner leakage ...... 115 6.4.1.4 Release of disinfection by-products ...... 115 6.4.1.5 Construction noise, impact on Port Huon residents ...... 116
iii Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page iv of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
6.4.1.6 Operational noise from Whale Point, impact on Port Huon residents ...... 117 6.4.1.7 Biosecurity risks ...... 117 7 Potential Effects and Their Management ...... 119 7.1 Liquid waste ...... 119 7.1.1 Existing conditions ...... 119 7.1.2 Performance requirements ...... 119 7.1.2.1 PEVs Huon River catchment (for surface waters including forest on private land) ...... 119 7.1.2.2 PEVs for the Huon Valley catchments estuarine surface waters outside of the Southwest National Park and Southport Lagoon Conservation Area...... 120 7.1.2.3 PEVs for the waters within D’Entrecasteaux Channel, but excluding marine reserves ...... 120 7.1.3 Potential effects ...... 121 7.1.3.1 Site water requirements ...... 121 7.1.3.2 Stormwater ...... 121 7.1.3.3 Sewage ...... 121 7.1.3.4 Storage and use of fuel and oils ...... 122 7.1.3.5 Process wastewater ...... 122 7.1.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 122 7.1.4.1 Water supply treatment ...... 122 7.1.4.2 Stormwater management ...... 122 7.1.4.3 Sewage disposal ...... 123 7.1.4.4 Storage and use of fuel and oils ...... 123 7.1.4.5 Wastewater discharge ...... 123 7.1.4.5.1 Wastewater discharge to Huon River ...... 123 7.1.4.5.2 Indirect wastewater discharge offshore pens ...... 123 7.1.5 Water quality impacts ...... 127 7.1.6 Assessment of residual effects ...... 128 7.2 Erosion and sediment loss ...... 128 7.2.1 Existing conditions ...... 128 7.2.2 Performance requirements ...... 129 7.2.3 Potential effects ...... 129 7.2.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 129 7.2.4.1 Mitigation measures for erosion and sediment loss during construction ...... 129 7.2.4.2 Mitigation measures for erosion and sediment loss during operation ...... 130 7.2.5 Assessment of residual effects ...... 130 7.3 Groundwater ...... 130 7.3.1 Existing conditions ...... 130 7.3.2 Performance requirements ...... 130 7.3.3 Potential effects ...... 130 7.3.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 131 7.3.5 Assessment of residual effects ...... 131 7.4 Air emissions ...... 131 7.4.1 Existing conditions ...... 131 7.4.2 Performance requirements ...... 131 7.4.3 Potential effects ...... 131 iv Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page v of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.4.3.1 Dust ...... 132 7.4.3.2 Odours ...... 132 7.4.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 134 7.4.5 Assessment of residual effects ...... 136 7.5 Solid and controlled waste management ...... 136 7.5.1 Existing conditions ...... 137 7.5.1.1 Performance requirements...... 137 7.5.2 Potential effects ...... 137 7.5.2.1 General solid waste ...... 137 7.5.2.2 Organic waste ...... 137 7.5.3 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 137 7.5.3.1 General solid waste ...... 137 7.5.3.2 Organic Waste ...... 137 7.5.4 Assessment of residual effects ...... 138 7.6 Dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials ...... 138 7.6.1 Existing conditions ...... 138 7.6.2 Performance requirements ...... 138 7.6.3 Potential effects ...... 138 7.6.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 138 7.6.5 Assessment of residual effects ...... 141 7.7 Biodiversity and natural values – flora and vegetation ...... 141 7.7.1 Existing conditions ...... 141 7.7.2 Performance requirements ...... 142 7.7.3 Potential effects ...... 142 7.7.3.1 Threatened vegetation communities ...... 142 7.7.3.2 Declared weeds and pathogens ...... 142 7.7.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 142 7.7.4.1 Threatened vegetation communities ...... 142 7.7.4.2 Declared weeds and pathogens ...... 142 7.7.4.3 Weed hygiene measures ...... 143 7.7.5 Assessment of residual effects ...... 143 7.7.5.1 Vegetation communities ...... 143 7.7.5.2 Declared weeds and pathogens ...... 143 7.8 Biodiversity and natural values - Fauna ...... 144 7.8.1 Existing conditions ...... 144 7.8.2 Performance requirements ...... 144 7.8.3 Potential effects ...... 144 7.8.3.1 Swift parrot ...... 144 7.8.3.2 Other threatened species ...... 145 7.8.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 145 7.8.5 Assessment of residual effects ...... 145 7.8.5.1 Wedge-tailed eagle ...... 145 7.8.5.2 Swift parrot ...... 145 7.8.5.3 Other threatened species ...... 145 v Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page vi of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.9 Visual impact ...... 146 7.9.1 Existing condition ...... 146 7.9.2 Performance requirements ...... 146 7.9.3 Potential effects ...... 146 7.9.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 146 7.9.5 Assessment of residual effects ...... 147 7.10 Noise impact ...... 147 7.10.1 Existing conditions ...... 148 7.10.2 Performance requirements ...... 148 7.10.3 Potential effects ...... 149 7.10.3.1 Noise associated with proposed development ...... 149 7.10.3.1.1 Construction ...... 149 7.10.3.1.2 Operation ...... 149 7.10.3.1.3 Noise assessment reviews ...... 152 7.10.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 154 7.10.5 Assessment of residual effects ...... 154 7.11 Land use and development ...... 155 7.11.1 Existing conditions ...... 155 7.11.2 Performance requirements ...... 155 7.11.3 Potential effects ...... 155 7.11.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 155 7.11.5 Assessment of residual effects ...... 155 7.12 Contaminated land ...... 155 7.12.1 Existing conditions ...... 155 7.12.2 Performance requirements ...... 155 7.12.3 Potential effects ...... 156 7.12.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 156 7.12.5 Assessment of residual effects ...... 158 7.13 Traffic impacts ...... 158 7.14 Health impact assessment ...... 159 7.14.1 Public health ...... 159 7.14.2 Occupational health and safety ...... 159 7.15 Fire risk ...... 159 7.15.1 Existing conditions ...... 159 7.15.2 Performance requirements ...... 159 7.15.3 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 160 7.16 Biosecurity risk ...... 160 7.16.1 Existing conditions ...... 160 7.16.2 Performance requirements ...... 161 7.16.3 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 161 7.16.3.1 Potential pathways for introduction and spread of disease ...... 161
vi Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page vii of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.16.3.2 Stock movements ...... 161 7.16.3.3 Water, wastewater and solid waste management ...... 162 7.16.3.4 Management of fish mortalities ...... 162 7.16.3.5 Management of equipment transfers ...... 162 7.16.3.6 Management of biosecurity risks within the Whale Point facility ...... 162 7.16.3.7 Management of staff visitors and vehicles...... 162 7.16.3.8 Other disease prevention strategies ...... 162 7.16.3.9 Emergency response ...... 163 7.17 Greenhouse gases and ozone depleting substances...... 163 7.17.1 Existing conditions ...... 163 7.17.2 Potential effects ...... 163 7.17.3 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 163 7.17.4 Assessment of residual effects ...... 164 7.18 Heritage ...... 164 7.18.1 Aboriginal heritage ...... 164 7.18.1.1 Existing conditions ...... 164 7.18.1.2 Performance requirements...... 164 7.18.1.3 Potential effects ...... 164 7.18.1.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 164 7.18.2 Historic heritage ...... 165 7.18.2.1 Existing conditions ...... 165 7.18.2.2 Performance requirements...... 165 7.18.2.3 Potential effects ...... 165 7.18.2.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 165 7.19 Land use and development ...... 165 7.19.1 Existing conditions ...... 165 7.19.2 Performance requirements ...... 165 7.19.3 Potential effects ...... 165 7.19.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures ...... 165 7.19.5 Assessment of residual effects ...... 166 7.20 Social, health and economic issues ...... 166 7.20.1 Economic benefits ...... 166 7.21 Cumulative and interactive effects ...... 166 7.21.1 Cumulative vegetation clearance ...... 167 7.21.2 Connectivity ...... 167 7.21.3 Other proposals in the region ...... 167 7.22 Environmental and management systems ...... 167 8 Monitoring ...... 169 8.1 Surface water monitoring ...... 169 8.1.1 Wastewater discharge monitoring ...... 170 8.1.2 Review of monitoring ...... 172 8.1.2.1 Data management ...... 172 8.2 Noise monitoring ...... 172 9 Commitments ...... 174 vii Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page viii of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
10 Additional Approvals ...... 177 10.1 Inland Fisheries Service ...... 177 10.2 DPIPWE dam approval ...... 177 11 Conclusions ...... 178 12 References...... 180
List of Appendices
Appendix A On-site Wastewater Assessment
Appendix B Building Layout and Pipeline Alignment Plans
Appendix C Land Titles and Survey
Appendix D` Community Consultation Presentation
Appendix E Natural Values Atlas Reports Whale Point and Hospital Bay
Appendix F Protected Matters Report
Appendix G Site Environmental Assessment (Contaminated Land)
Appendix H Wastewater Impact Review
Appendix I Swift Parrot Fencing Guidelines
Appendix J Visual Impact Assessment
Appendix K Noise Assessment
Appendix L Biosecurity Plan
Appendix M Advice from Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania
Appendix N Planning Report
Appendix O Noise Review
Appendix P Forest Home Operational Fact Sheet
viii Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page ix of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
List of figures Figure 1 Project timeline ...... 3 Figure 2 Land tenure surrounding the proposed development ...... 7 Figure 3 Net slab current infrastructure ...... 11 Figure 4 Proposed salmon nursery building location within HA Net slab facility ...... 12 Figure 5 Proposed site location – local context...... 13 Figure 6 Proposed site location in relation to Huon Valley ...... 14 Figure 7 Land title ...... 15 Figure 8 Site access from Huon Highway ...... 17 Figure 9 Western alignment pipeline to Whale Point jetty ...... 18 Figure 10 Eastern alignment pipeline to Whale Point jetty ...... 19 Figure 11 Salmon nursery internal design ...... 20 Figure 12 Cross-section salmon nursery looking from the south ...... 21 Figure 13 Cross-section salmon nursery looking from the north ...... 21 Figure 14 Whale Point wharf and net liners ...... 24 Figure 15 Process water flow chart ...... 25 Figure 16 Modelled monthly wastewater production and AGD bathing requirement 2017–2021 ...... 28 Figure 17 Wastewater treatment schematic ...... 30 Figure 18 AGD bathing by location and month ...... 33 Figure 19 Upgraded stormwater pond ...... 36 Figure 20 Stormwater Pond Cross Section ...... 37 Figure 21 Sludge treatment flow sheet ...... 42 Figure 22 Reserves and conservation areas ...... 50 Figure 23 Informal coastal reserve ...... 51 Figure 24 Whale Point jetty depth profiles close to jetty ...... 52 Figure 25 Whale Point jetty depth profiles ...... 53 Figure 26 Mean temperature and rain records for Grove and Geeveston ...... 54 Figure 27 Proposed site – hardstand and fringing vegetation ...... 57 Figure 28 Threatened vegetation communities within 150 m ...... 58 Figure 29 TASVEG 3.0 communities within 150 m ...... 62 Figure 30 Threatened fauna within 150 m of the site ...... 64 Figure 31 Sample sites Whale Point jetty area ...... 66 Figure 32 Sample site and video transect starting point and direction ...... 67 Figure 33 Residual circulation in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel and Huon Estuary ...... 71 Figure 34 Local topography ...... 77 ix Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page x of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 35 Potentially sensitive noise receptors ...... 78 Figure 36 Noise receptors and Huon Highway ...... 79 Figure 37 Background noise sample locations ...... 81 Figure 38 Vantage points Whale Point APM building ...... 83 Figure 39 Kermandie Pulp Mill location ...... 87 Figure 40 Site borehole layout ...... 89 Figure 41 Marine leases Huon River ...... 125 Figure 42 Marine leases Storm Bay ...... 126
Figure 43 Estimated annual loads Huon River – total N, NH4, NOx, total P and PO4 for 1996–2012 ...... 127 Figure 44 Potential odour receptors ...... 132 Figure 45 Nestralox diagram ...... 135 Figure 46 Modified view from Kermandie Marina with new growout building in place ...... 147 Figure 47 Salmon nursery 35 dB(A) contours ...... 152 Figure 48 Water monitoring locations ...... 169 Figure 49 Proposed noise monitoring locations ...... 173 List of tables Table 1 Tenure details ...... 15 Table 2 Seasonal wastewater volumes ...... 27 Table 3 Wastewater production and AGD bathing re-use ...... 27 Table 4 Effluent quality limits Whale Point Salmon Nursery ...... 31 Table 5 Monthly treated wastewater to freshwater ratios – stored in net liners ...... 34 Table 6 Modelled water quality in Whale Point net liners ...... 34 Table 7 Minimum competency requirements ...... 40 Table 8 Magnitude of componentry noise sources at Forest Home ...... 44 Table 9 Ronja Huon at Whale Point jetty Feb 17 – Jan 18 ...... 45 Table 10 Mean temperature and rain records for Grove and Geeveston ...... 55 Table 11 Fauna species of conservation significance previously recorded within 150 m of the site ...... 63 Table 12 Average daily flows 2009–2011 ...... 68 Table 13 Kermandie River water quality ...... 69 Table 14 Geeveston STP effluent discharge limits ...... 72 Table 15 Trace element concentration ranges in surface sediments Huon estuary ...... 73 Table 16 HA sampling 2008–2009 ...... 74 Table 17 Dissolved oxygen and temperature levels ...... 75 Table 18 Metals in surface water 13 March 2014 ...... 75 Table 19 Water Quality 13 March 2014 ...... 76 x Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page xi of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 20 Metals in sediments ...... 76
Table 21 Ambient noise Port Huon in L,A,eq ...... 80 Table 22 Wattle Grove background noise readings ...... 82 Table 23 Consequence of hazard ...... 91 Table 24 Likelihood of occurrence ...... 91 Table 25 Risk ranking matrix ...... 92 Table 26 Preliminary risk assessment ...... 93 Table 27 Impact of catastrophic net liner failure ...... 114 Table 28 HA marine leases ...... 124 Table 29 Estimated nutrient loads from proposed development by month ...... 127 Table 30 Annual river flow and total nitrogen loads for 1996–2012 ...... 128 Table 31 Dangerous goods register ...... 140
Table 32 Ambient noise Port Huon in L,A,eq ...... 148 Table 33 Sound pressure levels HA Forest Home facility – 100 m north side ...... 150 Table 34 Forest Home River site...... 151 Table 35 Major noise sources Forest Home ...... 151 Table 36 Ronja Huon at Whale Point jetty Feb 17 – Jan 18 ...... 153 Table 37 Surface water monitoring Kermandie Creek ...... 170 Table 38 Surface water monitoring Whale Point jetty ...... 170 Table 39 Commissioning monitoring program ...... 171 Table 40 Operation effluent monitoring program ...... 172 Table 41 Summary of commitments ...... 174 List of plates Plate 1 Billund triple belt filter sludge dewatering plant (existing plant in Norway) ...... 43 Plate 2 Fringing vegetation north of hardstand ...... 59 Plate 3 Vegetation and existing conditions north of hardstand ...... 59 Plate 4 Fringing vegetation north-east of hardstand ...... 60 Plate 5 Eastern end of proposed stormwater retention pond ...... 61 Plate 6 Fringing vegetation north-east of hardstand ...... 61 Plate 7 Current view from Kermandie Marina ...... 84 Plate 8 View from Kermandie Lodge upper levels ...... 84 Plate 9 View from Palmer Road Park...... 85 Plate 10 View from Huon Highway towards Whale Point ...... 85 Plate 11 View from Huon Highway near Port Huon ...... 86 Plate 12 Red net liner and blue net liner at Whale Point jetty ...... 115 xi Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page xii of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Foreword This Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) has been prepared to support a development application by Huon Aquaculture Group Limited (HA) to the Huon Valley Council (HVC). HA is the project proponent for the Whale Point Salmon Nursery project.
The application is for the construction and operation of a freshwater salmon nursery at Whale Point to increase the size of smolt (juvenile salmon), which will then be delivered to HA’s offshore operations. The proposed operations will be located on freehold land owned by HA approximately 55 km south-east of Hobart. The new freshwater salmon nursery will be constructed within the boundary of the existing HA net maintenance operations on the site.
The purpose of this DPEMP is to provide: supporting documentation to the development application to the HVC a basis for the HVC and the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to consider the planning and environmental aspects of the proposal under the Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) and the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA) a basis for the conditions under which any approval can be given a source of information for interested individuals and groups to gain an understanding of the proposal.
A Notice of Intent (NOI) was submitted to the EPA on 3 March 2017 noting that the proposed Whale Point Salmon Nursery project was expected to be a Schedule 2 activity under the EMPCA. After initial review, the EPA advised on 27 March that it did not consider the proposal to be a Schedule 2 activity and requested that the NOI be resubmitted as a Project Description so the EPA could assess this and formally call it in under Section 24 of the EMPCA. A Project Description was then submitted to the EPA on 28 March 2017. On 30 March 2017, the EPA formally required the HVC to refer the application to the Board for environmental assessment under Section 24 (1) of the EMPCA. On 10 May 2017, the Director of the EPA advised in writing that the class of assessment will be Level 2B.
The DPEMP has been prepared according to the Board of the EPA’s General Guidelines for preparing a Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan for Level 2B activities and ‘called in’ activities, January 2014 and the EPA’s project specific guidelines for the preparation of a DPEMP for the proposal issued 6 June 2017. The DPEMP guidelines were developed by the Board of the EPA based on the information supplied to the HVC by the proponent in accordance with the Board of the EPA guidelines and the requirements of Section 27B of the EMPCA.
The development application will be advertised by the HVC in relevant newspaper(s) and the DPEMP will be available for public scrutiny at: the HVC offices at 40 Main Street Huonville, TAS, 7109 the EPA’s internet site Service Tasmania, at 134 Macquarie St, Hobart.
A Planning Permit will be required from HVC for the development.
The DPEMP also fulfils the role of providing information on the proposed activities to other decision- making authorities and the public, who have the opportunity to make submissions on the proposal under Section 57 of the LUPAA. Any person may make representations relating to an application or proposal in the case of a class 2B assessment, within 28 days after the application or proposal is advertised.
xii Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page xiii of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
List of abbreviations AGD amoebic gill disease AHR Aboriginal Heritage Register AHT Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania APM Australian Paper Manufacturers BEMP Broadscale Environmental Monitoring Program BOD biological oxygen demand BoM Bureau of Meteorology BPEM best practice environmental management CEMP construction environmental management plan DPIPWE Department of Primary Industries, Parks Water and Environment DPIWE Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment DSEMP Dam Safety Emergency Management Plan EMS Environmental Management System ENEV estimated no effects value FPP Forest Practices Plan GHG Greenhouse gases HSEC Health Safety, Environmental and Community LVIA landscape and visual impact assessment MNES Matters of national environmental significance MSDS materials safety data sheets NOHSC National Occupational Health and Safety Commission NGER National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting NVA Natural Values Atlas OHS occupational health and safety ORP oxidation-reduction potential PALP Protection of Agricultural Land Policy PWS Parks and Wildlife Service RMPS Resource Management and Planning System STC sound transmission class STP sewage treatment plant TAN Total Ammonia Nitrogen TASI Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index UIA Un-ionised ammonia UV ultraviolet VHP Veterinary Health Plan
xiii Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page xiv of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Glossary Access – The driveway by which vehicles and/or pedestrians enter and/or leave property adjacent to a road.
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) – Biological oxygen demand is a measure of the amount of biologically and/or chemically degradable organic material that is present in the water. It indicates the amount of oxygen that aerobic aquatic organisms could potentially consume in the process of metabolising all the organic matter available to them. The consequence of high BOD is low levels of dissolved oxygen in affected waterways, resulting in aquatic organisms becoming stressed and, in extreme cases, suffocating and dying.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) – Dissolved oxygen analysis measures the amount of gaseous oxygen (O2) dissolved in an aqueous solution. Oxygen dissolves in water by diffusion from the surrounding air, by aeration (rapid movement) and as a product of photosynthesis.
Cationic polymer – A cationic polymer is a polymer containing a net positively-charged atom or atoms or associated group/s of atoms covalently linked to its polymer molecule. Examples are the ammonium, phosphonium and sulfonium cations. There is a slight variation in each polymer used however typically organic fish sludges use sulfonium based polymers, the dose rate is low and the majority of the polymer is captured within the sludge during the coagulation phase. They are not listed as hazardous. H
Electrical conductivity 1:5 (EC1:5) – EC1:5 results are a measure of electrical conductivity on a 1:5 soil water extract (w/w) determined by equilibrating the waste samples in deionised water overnight, at a solid to water ratio of 1:5 (w/w). This gives an indication of the inherent salinity of the waste material when initially exposed.
Ambient noise – The Australian Standard AS 1633–1985 Acoustics – Glossary of terms and related symbols defines ambient sound as ‘The all-encompassing noise at a point composed of sound from all sources near and far’.
Amoebic gill disease (AGD) – AGD has been the most significant health problem for marine salmon aquaculture in Tasmania for many years. AGD is characterised by multifocal lesions that appear as pale gill tissue, or white mucoid spots and plaques. The main histological feature of the disease is prominent epithelial hyperplasia resulting in a complete lamellar fusion.
Background noise – The Tasmanian Noise measurement procedures manual defines background noise level as a reference level against which an intrusive noise is assessed. For the purposes of the policy (Noise EPP), background noise level is defined as the L90 statistic, in the absence of the noise under consideration.
Smolt – Originally defined as a young salmon about two years old, that is at the stage of development when it assumes the silvery colour of the adult and is ready to migrate to the sea. Now taken to mean juvenile salmon ready for transfer from fresh water to saline water.
Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) – ORP is a measure of the cleanliness of the water and its ability to break down contaminants. Units are in millivolts (mV) with a range of –2000 to +2000 mV.
Total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) – Ammonia is the major waste product of protein or nitrogenous metabolism in fish and other aquatic organisms. In water, the TAN occurs in two forms: unionised ammonia (NH3) which is toxic to fish, and the ammonium ion (NH4) which is relatively non-toxic, except at extremely high concentrations. xiv Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page xv of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Un-ionised ammonia (UIA) – Ammonia is present in all natural water. The un-ionised form of the ammonium ion (NH3) is the most toxic. Ammonia can change from one form to the other, creating a balance between the two forms. Water pH and temperature influence the proportion of total ammonia occurring as the toxic (NH3) form. In general, ammonia toxicity is greater the higher the temperature and pH and the lower the levels of dissolved oxygen and salinity.
xv Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page xvi of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Executive Summary Huon Aquaculture (HA) is proposing to construct and operate a freshwater salmon nursery at Whale Point within the footprint of its existing current net maintenance operations at Whale Point Road, Port Huon. The project objective is to increase the size of smolt (juvenile salmon), which will then be delivered to HA’s offshore operations. The proposed operations will be located on freehold land owned by HA approximately 55 km south-east of Hobart. The operation will have an annual production of 800 tonnes with a maximum biomass of 504-tonnes.
The Tasmanian Environment Protection Authority (EPA) advised HA that the proposed project is not a Level 2 activity under Schedule 2 of the Tasmanian Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA). The EPA is assessing the activity under its call-in powers in Section 24 (1) of the EMPCA and has advised that in accordance with Section 27C of the EMPCA, it has classified the assessment as Level 2B.
The project does involve waste treatment and disposal; however, no treated wastewater will be directly discharged to ‘land or water’ as per the activity definition of wastewater treatment in the EMPCA. The treated effluent produced at Whale Point will form a small proportion of fresh water used to bathe salmon in offshore pens for the treatment of amoebic gill disease (AGD).
In this process, as described in Section 3.10.3 AGD bathing re-use, salmon are bathed in fresh water in HA’s well-boat, the Ronja Storm, which is slated to replace the Ronja Huon by the time the nursery is operational. This process will be repeated at up to 10 treatment pens, but new bathing water is expected to be needed after seven treatments on average. The bathing water will be tested in situ after each use. The water quality criterion used to determine whether the water is safe for salmon is a maximum of 0.02 mg/L un-ionised ammonia (UIA). UIA is calculated by measuring total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) and using a formula based on temperature and pH to determine UIA. The well water will be tested after each bath so before the UIA concentrations become dangerous to fish, the well water will be discharged into the marine environment. At the time of discharge, the well water will still contain a small proportion of the original treated effluent from Whale Point, plus a high proportion of fresh water plus influent seawater added as ballast makeup, plus the detritus from salmon swimming in the well-boat for between 21 and 30 hours. The water quality criteria that are needed to ensure healthy salmon dictate the wastewater discharge quality. This criteria is lower than proposed effluent discharge limits.
Modelling of the discharge water quality shows that this indirect discharge only marginally increases the nutrient loads in the marine environment. Even if the fish were not bathed, the wastes produced by the fish would still have been discharged from their pens into the surrounding environment. The criteria for well-water discharge are described in Section 7.1.4.5.2 Indirect wastewater discharge .
The proposed development will regenerate the existing net slab facility and establish a state-of-the-art smolt nursery. This location will allow HA to produce larger smolt for use within its offshore operations. The most significant changes to the existing facilities at Whale Point will be the removal of disused, derelict buildings from earlier industrial uses and the removal of the water treatment plant previously used to treat net-washing water contaminated with copper and zinc from antifouling operations. These will be replaced by a purpose-built salmon nursery, which will involve the development of a fully enclosed nursery building approximately 106 m × 83 m × 11 m high housing: a state-of-the-art recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) maximising efficient use through mechanical, chemical and biological filtration and ozone and ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. a state-of-the-art supply water pre-treatment system 12 × 825 m3 growout tanks for smolt– utilising a maximum of 8000 kg of feed per day internal grading and vaccination tanks
xvi Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page xvii of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment system producing high-quality wastewater for re-use within HA’s AGD bathing operations.
This system is being designed to be at the cutting edge of fish and water quality emission standards. It will exceed current Freedom Foods/RSPCA guidelines for fish welfare in all aspects of stocking and water quality for a recirculation system.
The proposal will allow HA to develop the facility specifically for growing smolt to a larger size than can currently occur while running fewer truck movements than currently occurs.
The production of smolt will generate waste feed and faeces (sludge), which will be removed from the wastewater during the water treatment and recycling operations. To manage and treat sludges produced from salmon farming, wastewater at the Whale Point nursery will be filtered through three belt filters feeding into a decanter/ centrifuge / screw press system, producing a sludge at 30% wet weight by volume (Figure 21). The belt filters will be situated inside to the wastewater treatment facilities, significantly reducing the need for wastewater storage from 400 m3 at Forest Home to 75 m3 at Whale Point. After passing through the belt filters, wet solids will feed directly into a slurry mix tank where additional polymer will be added. The polymer is a catonic organic compound. The coagulated solids will feed into the decanter/ centrifuge / screw press system where water will be compressed out from the solids. This wastewater will report back to the water treatment plant and the resultant solids will report to a closed 10 m skip bin (6–7 tonne capacity). The bin will be emptied once or twice per week, with solid wastes removed from site using approved K100 licensed waste transport contractors. Organic waste will be sent to an approved composting facility for re-use as compost.
It is anticipated that the facility will employ around seven full-time staff along with associated maintenance staff.
A risk assessment (6.1 Risk assessment) has shown that there are no high-risk hazards associated with the proposed development. There is a moderate risk of construction noise having a temporary impact on Port Huon residents; however, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and restricted hours of operation to between 0800 and 1700 Monday to Friday will mitigate this risk. Low-risk hazards identified include the discharge of treated or poorly treated salmon nursery effluent into receiving waters following a catastrophic failure of the treatment plant; operational noise impacting on sensitive receptors at Port Huon and biosecurity risks such as the escape of diseased fish which could pose a risk to wild fish species or other fish farming operations in the Huon Estuary. These risks have been assessed by HA and specialist environmental consultants and can easily be mitigated through construction and management protocols.
The current net maintenance operations at this location will become more cost-effective to HA because the site will be fully utilised. This proposal will see current employees at this location (>10 full- and part- time staff) given enhanced job security. An additional 7 full-time and 4–6 part-time staff will be located at the new salmon nursery, increasing total staff employment at this location to approximately 20 full- or part-time staff.
The southern Huon Valley area will receive the benefits from construction staff requiring accommodation and meals. Local contractors will be utilised wherever possible. Many local and regional service, supply and trade companies have formed business relationships with HA. This proposed development provides an opportunity for these businesses to grow, with this development potentially leading to additional employment opportunities within these companies.
xvii Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page xviii of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
The day-to-day operation of the facility will be incorporated into HA’s Environmental Management System (EMS). This DPEMP will provide the base information for the development of the site’s EMS. HA has undertaken key stakeholder and community consultation sessions during project development. During local community meetings, the audience seemed to comprise mainly local (Port Huon) residents who expressed concern regarding what are largely local issues such as noise, odour, traffic and lighting. Experience from HA’s Forest Home hatchery allowed HA to reassure attendees that these issues had been considered in depth and that mitigative solutions were being developed and would be in place. Meeting feedback was that locals were generally supportive with no negative comments received.
The use of an advanced RAS system (such as at Forest Home) has shown that pristine freshwater inputs can be avoided, reducing stream and catchment issues as well as noise from transport issues. The development of a nursery adjacent to a marine jetty is the next step in sustainability. This significantly reduces the size of smolt being transported from hatcheries to the proposed nursery and therefore reduces the number of vehicle movements (more fish per unit volume in tankers and consequently less transport noise, greenhouse gas, traffic).
The proposed nursery adjacent to the jetty offtake allows smolt leaving the nursery to be bigger than smolt from a hatchery because they can be safely and economically piped into the well boat. This means that the fish populating offshore pens in marine leases are bigger and more robust. This in turn allows the marine leases to be moved further offshore where a combination of high water movement and wave action (regularly greater than 4 m) equates to a high-energy site. This results in more available oxygen and quicker flushing of carbon dioxide and ammonia, which is better for the fish. The higher energy of the water movement also reduces any impacts of the sediments on the sea floor, nutrients in the water column or visible plumes from captive fish feeding. This proposal further reduces wastewater quantities and improves wastewater quality from that produced at Forest Home.
Whale Point is expected to be the first salmon nursery in the Southern Hemisphere to use second stage wastewater treatment. At Whale Point the wastewater treatment plant will incorporate second stage water treatment to dramatically reduce any remaining nitrogen through a biological de-nitrification filter and phosphorus through flocculation. Wastewater will then be re-oxygenated and pass through a final biological filtration system. This is seen as a major step forward for on land advanced salmon farming and forms part of HA’s move towards maximising onshore grown salmon within RAS facilities for extended time periods to produce larger fish, consequently reducing the impact on offshore environments and improving sustainability.
The ultimate goal for RAS systems is to achieve 100% reuse of water within a facility and this method of advanced water treatment which is well above accepted modern technology (AMT) is a giant step in this direction.
The development of the Whale Point Salmon Nursery is a major step in the development of a sustainable salmon aquaculture industry in Tasmania. Facilities such as the proposed development allow the industry to grow while reducing overall environmental impacts. As a result, a positive cumulative effect is expected from this proposed development.
xviii Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 1 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
1 Introduction
1.1 Background of project proponent Huon Aquaculture Group Ltd (HA) operated as a private company from 1994 until it was listed on the Australian Stock Exchange (ASX) in October 2014. The majority owners, Peter and Frances Bender, purchased the company from Huon Atlantic Salmon Pty Ltd through the reorganisation of a Bender family company in December 1994. The business grew to become the largest privately-owned salmon farming operation in Australia. With the ASX listing in 2014, it has seen further expansion, currently employing over 600 staff Australia wide.
HA currently operates two recirculating hatcheries and four flow-through hatcheries as well as a processing facility in the north of the state, and offshore operations with land bases located at Dover and Tinderbox in the south and Strahan in the west of Tasmania.
HA currently operates a net maintenance operation at Port Huon that supports its offshore farming operations.
This Development Proposal and Environmental Management Plan (DPEMP) refers to the site of the net maintenance facility. 1.2 Name and contact details Proponent contact details The Proponent for this development is: Huon Aquaculture Group Limited. Registered address Huon Aquaculture Group Limited Level 13, 188 Collins Street Hobart Tasmania 7001 Phone: (03) 6239 4200 Web: www.huonaqua.com.au Primary contact details Sam Tucker Project Manager Commercial Project Delivery Phone: 0429 025 518 Web: www.cpdelivery.com.au
This DPEMP was prepared by:
Adam Chapman Environmental Manager (Freshwater Operations) Huon Aquaculture Group Limited Phone: 0497 042 809 Email: [email protected]
1 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 2 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
In conjunction with:
Caloundra Environmental Pty Ltd PO Box 242 Golden Beach QLD 4551
Contact: Stephen Kent Phone: 0417 574 799 Email: [email protected]
Commercial Project Delivery ABN 51 921 459 008 PO Box 210 Newstead 7250 1/47A Brisbane Street, Launceston, 7250
Contact: Chloe Lyne Phone: 0408 397 393 Email: [email protected] 1.3 Proposed timeline for the project The timeline for the project is dictated by the growing season for smolt, which is in turn dictated by the seasonal movement of smolt into offshore pens. This annual process is described in Section 3.10.2 Wastewater volumes. For the facility to be cost-effective, approval to construct the facility will be needed by late September 2017 or early October 2017 at the latest. This allows for a 12-month construction and commissioning process, with fry moving into the growout tanks in November 2018 and smolt going to offshore pens in March to April 2019.
This proposed timeline is shown in a Gantt chart in Figure 1.
Once developed, the facility will be utilised by HA for an expected 25-year period. Upgrades and redesigning may occur throughout the 25 years of the facility’s operation, potentially extending its expected lifespan beyond this period.
2 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 3 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 1 Project timeline
3 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 4 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
2 Environmental Legislation An overview of legislation relevant to the project is given in the following sections. The application of legislation to relevant environmental factors as performance requirements is addressed in Section 7. 2.1 Commonwealth legislation The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) is unlikely to be triggered by this proposal. The project is situated on existing industrial land and does not involve any clearing of vegetation or actions that should significantly impact on matters of national environmental significance (MNES), namely listed threatened species and communities. 2.2 State legislation The Tasmanian Resource Management and Planning System (RMPS) was established to achieve sustainable outcomes from the use and development of the state’s natural and physical resources. Several pieces of legislation embody the aims of the RMPS.
Within the context of this development proposal, a number of statutes apply: State Policies and Projects Act 1993 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 (LUPAA) Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA). 2.2.1 State Policies and Projects Act 1993 The State Policies and Projects Act 1993 establishes the process to put in place state policies under the Tasmanian RMPS. State policies seek to ensure a consistent and coordinated approach and incorporate the minimum amount of regulation necessary to achieve their objectives of managing natural resources. State policies are implemented by being integrated into local government planning schemes.
Currently there are three state policies: State Coastal Policy 1996 (Coastal Policy) State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 (Water Quality Policy) State Policy on Protection of Agricultural Land 2009 (PALP). 2.2.2 State Coastal Policy 1996 The purpose of the Coastal Policy is to implement the sustainable development objectives of the RMPS in Tasmania’s coastal areas. The policy is based on three core principles that address these objectives: Natural and cultural values of the coast shall be protected. The coast shall be used and developed in a sustainable manner. Integrated management and protection of the coastal zone is a shared responsibility.
The Coastal Policy is applicable to all Tasmanian state waters and land (excepting Macquarie Island) within one kilometre inland of the high-water mark.
The Coastal Policy is applicable to this proposal and will be addressed within the proposal where necessary 2.2.3 State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 The purpose of the Water Quality Policy is to achieve the sustainable management of Tasmania’s surface water and groundwater resources by protecting or enhancing their qualities while allowing for sustainable development in accordance with the objectives of the RMPS.
4 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 5 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
2.2.4 State Policy on Protection of Agricultural Land 2009 The purpose of the PALP is to ‘conserve and protect agricultural land so that it remains available for the sustainable development of agriculture, recognising the particular importance of prime agricultural land’. The main objective of the PALP is to ensure that the productive capacity of agricultural land is appropriately recognised and protected in the use and development of agricultural land.
No agricultural land will be affected by this proposal. 2.2.5 Land Use Planning and Approvals Act 1993 Under the LUPAA, councils are required to administer the development and use of land within their municipal boundary. Development and use will be assessed in accordance with the Huon Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2015. 2.2.6 Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 The project is a not a Level 2 activity under Schedule 2 of the EMPCA. A Project Description has been submitted to the EPA and the Director of Environmental Management has advised that he intends to call the project in under Section 25(1) of the EMPCA which requires Council to refer the application to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (the Board) for assessment under the Act.
This report and application describes in detail how the potential environmental and planning impacts of the proposal will be managed and mitigated. Approval under this Act will establish the environmental operating permit and conditions for the salmon nursery. 2.2.7 Other state legislation applicable to the project 2.2.7.1 Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania has completed a search of the Aboriginal Heritage Register regarding the proposed salmon nursery at Whale Point Road, Port Huon, and can advise that there are no Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within the proposed works area. Because the area is highly disturbed, it is believed that there is a low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present within the proposed works footprint. Accordingly, there is no requirement for an Aboriginal heritage investigation and Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania has no objection to the project proceeding. 2.2.7.2 Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 The site is situated on existing industrial land. No vegetation or fauna habitat is situated on the site of the proposed development. Some remnant flora is situated to the immediate north of the site. No impact on threatened or endangered species should occur as a result of this proposed development. 2.2.7.3 Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995 The site is situated on existing industrial land. The site is not listed on the latest Tasmanian Heritage Register (5 January 2016). 2.2.7.4 Forest Practices Act 1985 A Forest Practices Plan is required under the Forest Practices Act 1985 for many activities where the clearing of forest is in excess of 1 hectare or 100 tonnes of timber (in areas of ‘vulnerable land’ these thresholds are lower).
Minimal clearing, mainly weeds and trees planted by HA, is required for this development and consequently a Forest Practices Plan is not required.
5 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 6 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
2.2.7.5 Inland Fisheries Service fish farm permit The Inlands Fisheries Service manages fish farming in Tasmania to ensure that adequate safeguards for the freshwater environment are implemented and maintained. All fish farming proposals go through a rigorous assessment procedure involving consultation and approvals from various government authorities.
HA will need to obtain an Inland Fisheries Service fish farm permit for the Whale Point facility before salmon smolt arrive on site. 2.3 Local government The proposed development is located within the boundaries of the Huon Valley Council (HVC). The proposed use and development within the municipality will be assessed in accordance with the Huon Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2015.
The proposed development is solely within the General Industrial Zone. 2.3.1 Planning aspects A development application and permit (subject to compliance with the relevant acceptable solutions or performance criteria) is required. Because the project is being assessed under Section 24 of the EMPCA, Council has referred the development application to the Board of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) for environmental assessment.
The land to be used for this proposed development is zoned ‘General Industrial’ under the Huon Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The operation of the land as a salmon nursery is a discretionary use in the Huon Valley Interim Planning Scheme for the General Industrial Zone.
Figure 2 shows the zoning of land surrounding the proposed development. The land in the vicinity of the site comprises: coastal fringe (informal reserve) to the north, east and west (Figure 23) farmland to the south.
The closest sensitive receptor is approximately 500 m west of the site.
6 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 7 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 2 Land tenure surrounding the proposed development
Source: http://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map?bookmarkId=137033 2.3.1.1 Huon Valley Council Interim Planning Scheme 2015 The proposed development will meet the relevant acceptable solutions and/or performance criteria standards of the General Industrial Zone and applicable Codes through the measures described in this DPEMP and detailed in the attached planning report.
The development proposed is the construction and operation of a salmon nursery over the footprint of the current HA net maintenance operations at Whale Point Road, Port Huon, Tasmania.
2.3.1.1.1 Approval Status ‘Resource Development’ is identified in the Use Table at Clause 25.2 as being a discretionary use class in the General Industrial Zone with the following site-specific qualification: only for aquaculture or a marine farming shore facility sited on: (a) land at Whale Point Road, Port Huon contained within folio of the Register volume 142071 folios 3 and 4; and (b) land, including any accretion to the sea, adjoining the Huon River and contained in PID 5261568 and PID 5261576.
Given the subject site comprises both CT 142071/3 and CT 142071/4, and the proposed use and development is for an on-growing smolt facility, the proposal meets the qualification for the use class in the zone and therefore can be considered as discretionary.
The application also requires a permit as it does not comply with the acceptable solutions identified below. It relies on an assessment against the associated performance criteria.
7 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 8 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Clause E2.5 Use Standards (P1) Clause E2.6.2 Excavation (P1) Clause E5.5.1 Existing Road access and junctions (P3) Clause E6.7.5 Layout of Parking Areas (P1) Clause E6.7.8 Landscaping of Parking Areas (P1) Clause E6.7.13 Facilities for Commercial Vehicles (P1) Clause E7.7.1 Stormwater Drainage and Disposal (P1) Clause E23.8.1 Development Standards for Non-Residential Development (P1)
A complete planning report is attached as Appendix N.
8 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 9 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
3 Description of Proposed Project The proposed Whale Point Salmon Nursery will involve the development of a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS) facility capable of holding biomass of around 500 tonnes (~1.68 million smolt at 300 grams = 504 tonnes) with an annual production rate of 800 tonnes comprising: 840,000 smolt at 300 grams ~252 tonnes. 700,000 smolt at 600 grams ~420 tonnes. 840,000 smolt at 150 grams ~126 tonnes.
The facility will increase HA’s ability to produce larger smolt (a young salmon after parr stage, which is ready for transfer from fresh water to saline water), decreasing by several months the time required for the fish to reach harvest size at sea. This will reduce the cost of production of HA’s final harvested product and will minimise the potential loss of small fish that can occur using the current smaller smolt.
The main components of the development include temporary, construction-related infrastructure and operational infrastructure. Construction-related infrastructure A temporary construction compound including: contractor’s site office parking area amenities and materials storage
Some of the existing site infrastructure will be utilised for these purposes.
Construction will occur after the existing Australian Paper Manufacturers (APM) buildings and associated infrastructure have been demolished (Figure 3). Demolition will take place after approval by the HVC through the development application and building approval process. It is expected that buildings will be disassembled slowly and in a piecemeal fashion to reduce impacts from noise, dust and potential sources of hazardous materials. Non-hazardous materials won from the demolition process will be crushed on site and used as fill over the existing concrete hardstand areas. The resulting filled and compacted hardstand will rise above the existing concrete slab by ≈2–3 m. This filled and compacted area will in turn be concreted to provide a sealed surface and foundation for the new growout building. A site environmental assessment for existing contamination indicated that soil with elevated hydrocarbons may be encountered in existing settlement ponds. This soil will be removed to licensed landfills for disposal. Other hazardous materials are not expected to be encountered during the demolition process (see Appendix G). Operational infrastructure Operational infrastructure will include: a 105.8 m × 83 m building housing the salmon nursery: 12 × 825 m3 circular growout tanks, each 4 m deep; four smaller grading tanks; biofiltration, denitrification, solids and phosphorous removal; staff offices; chemical storage; feed storage; ablutions and staff accommodation an external wastewater treatment plant to treat solids and disinfect water for re-use/disposal a pipeline to transfer treated wastewater from the treatment plant to the Whale Point jetty a pipeline to transfer pre-treated fresh water from the Kermandie River to the Whale Point jetty a pipeline or flexible hose to transfer salmon from the nursery tanks to net liners at the Whale Point jetty and from there to the Ronja Huon for transfer to offshore nets.
It should be noted that HA is replacing the Ronja Huon with a new vessel, the Ronja Storm. The Ronja Storm is expected to be in service by the time this nursery has been constructed and commissioned. Consequently, further descriptions of the Ronja Huon and its ancillary use in relation to this proposal will refer to the Ronja Storm and describe the ancillary impacts of it use. 9 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 10 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
The new freshwater salmon nursery will be constructed within the boundary of the existing HA Net slab operations (Figure 3 and Figure 4) utilising land currently housing two derelict buildings, a disused wastewater treatment plant and two wastewater storage ponds (see Appendix B). 3.1 Construction The building contractor will be required to submit a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) for the site’s construction, including waste removal procedures, identification and management of potentially contaminated land, dust and noise control and stormwater management. HA will monitor this CEMP and its implementation and management to ensure compliance with all regulations and conditions contained within the CEMP, and any breaches of the agreed CEMP will see construction halted until breaches are corrected. An initial Retention Pond CEMP will be submitted to the EPA for approval before construction works on the retention pond commence. This recognises that most excavation and consequently potential for exposing contamination from the sites previous uses will involve the construction of new retention pond. 3.2 Commissioning Once works are completed there will be a 3- to 4-week period of commissioning the plant without fish. Water will be introduced, flows within each tank will be recorded and all treatment systems, pumps, electrical circuits, alarms and signals will be tested and certified operational by each respective supplier. During this time, staff training will occur in all aspects of the systems operation.
The nursery is able to operate in two separate halves with six large tanks in each section. After the initial commissioning stage, one half of the facility will begin to operate 24/7 with all systems operational. During the initial commissioning, there is no requirement to discharge water as water will be recycled completely. Water will begin to be removed once the fish are introduced. In the initial commissioning: Water will circulate through the nursery except the external wastewater plant which will not be operating. The pH will be raised to 11 using lime to disinfect the facility. After 48 hours, aluminium sulphate or any acid will be used to lower the pH, returning the pH to 7. At this stage, bacteria will be introduced from the Forest Home hatchery (typically using a bucket of water from the hatchery for inoculation). HA will then gradually add a little more fish feed to the system each day to feed the bacteria. This will be increased gradually over 30 days until the feed added equals the amount of feed required by the to-be-transferred fish. During this period, the water quality will be monitored each day. The expectation is for a gradual rise in ammonia to around 5 mg/L, then at around day 7 we expect to see an increase in nitrite to between 10–15 mg/L and a gradual decrease in ammonia. Within a day or so we will begin to see a slow rise in nitrate and a decrease in nitrite, which means that nitrite is being converted. Around day 21 we should see an ammonia of <1 mg, nitrite of <5 mg/L and nitrate of <30 mg/L. At this stage, the biological system is thought to be inoculated and the water quality should remain at this stable level until day 30 when fish are introduced. The wastewater treatment plant will then be brought on line. The wastewater treatment plant will be seeded with bacteria in the same way as the hatchery. Aerobic nitrifying bacterium will be introduced to the wastewater discharge biological filtration system, which will have a constant low flow of water passing through and Pseudomonas bacterium will be introduced to the denitrification filter. Flows through the wastewater plant will be insignificant to low during the first few weeks, which will allow the bacterial numbers within the biological filter and denitrification filter to increase in line with the demand to remove any remaining nutrients.
10 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 11 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Once treated wastewater meets discharge standards, the second half of the plant will be commissioned as above.
Initial discharge will be low in flow and if wastewater quality does not meet bathing water standards it will be pumped to a single 12 ML net liner which provides 192 days of storage capacity on half plant commissioning rates. It is expected that due to the low volume of water exiting the facility, after dilution with Kermandie River water in the liner, the quality parameters will be well above the standards required for bathing and any higher-than-expected levels of nutrients will be effectively diluted. However, if the water quality is found to still be above that required for re-use, the water in the net liner can be bled back through the treatment system. The second half of the plant will not be commissioned until the wastewater treatment is fully functional.
Using this system, the hatchery should be operational 8 weeks after the end of construction. 3.3 Site background The proposed site was initially developed and used as a pulp mill. Since HA’s ownership, it has been used for net painting, net maintenance and water treatment. The current Net slab site has contained several industrial uses over its history. Up until the early 1990s it was used as a heavy industrial site as part of the APM operations. The remaining buildings from the APM operations, with labels superimposed over a Google Earth image of the site, are shown in Figure 3 below. It is noted that approval has been granted by HVC for demolition of some of these buildings (DA 83.2017).
Figure 3 Net slab current infrastructure
Source: Google Earth image dated 15 September 2013.
11 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 12 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 4 Proposed salmon nursery building location within HA Net slab facility
The existing buildings and existing infrastructure within the proposed development area are currently unused and derelict. The portion of the site proposed for redevelopment under this plan has remained primarily unchanged and underutilised. It is in derelict condition with all services removed and the buildings require major repairs. Demolition of buildings on the existing net slab facility have commenced. The surrounding concrete slabs have been utilised by HA for waste storage (antifouling and contaminated seaweed storage) and for a small wastewater treatment operation, which was decommissioned in 2014.
The Net slab facility consists of approximately five hectares of land previously developed as the APM site. It has roads, buildings, stormwater drains and electrical systems. The freshwater salmon nursery will utilise some of this existing infrastructure while further developing the site to maximise its value for HA. There are no tributaries, creeks or rivers within the site.
12 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 13 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
3.4 Location The Whale Point Salmon Nursery is located opposite Port Huon (Figure 5), approximately 55 km south-east of Hobart in the Huon Valley region (Figure 6) at Lot 3 and Lot 4 Whale Point Road, Port Huon (Figure 7 and Table 1).
Figure 5 Proposed site location – local context
13 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 14 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 6 Proposed site location in relation to Huon Valley
14 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 15 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
3.5 Physical characteristics The Net slab site is situated on the southern side of Hospital Bay, Port Huon, which is located on the western side of the Huon River. The Huon River flows from the Scotts Peak Dam and Lake Pedder, and is a major catchment for Southwest National Park. The river flows into the D’Entrecasteaux Channel at Huonville/Franklin where it meets tidal influence.
The site of the proposed freshwater salmon nursery is on level ground previously developed for buildings that were used for producing pulp from forestry operations. 3.6 Land tenure Table 1 provides the title details for the Net slab site (Figure 7 and Appendix C). All development associated with the proposed nursery will be contained within CT 142071/4, with the exception of borrow pit extraction works that will be conducted within CT 142071/3. The land comprised within CT 142071/3 will also provide access to the site via Whale Point Road. There are no known financial restrictions on the title that will prevent this proposed development from proceeding.
Table 1 Tenure details
Name Detail Property address Whale Point Road, Port Huon Property ID 2536626 Title reference 142071/4 and CT 142071/3 Description of land Lot 3 on Sealed Plan 142071 and Lot 4 on Sealed Plan 142071 Owner’s name Huon Aquaculture Group Limited Owner’s address 961 Esperance Coast Road, Surveyors Bay, Tasmania
Figure 7 Land title
Source: http://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map?bmlayer=3&layers=210&hilayer=210&hiquery=VOLUME%3D% 27142071%27+and+FOLIO%3D4&zoomtohilayer=true
15 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 16 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
3.7 Access, infrastructure and equipment Access to the site is via an existing roadway, Whale Point Road (Figure 8). Whale Point Road provides sealed access to the property from an intersection on the Huon Highway (A6). Whale Point Road has a site access bridge without a load rating, so no additional road upgrades are expected to be required for this proposal to proceed. This access is considered adequate without modification for this project. The Huon Highway is a Category 3, Regional Access Road. Regional access roads provide safe and efficient access to Tasmania’s regions.
The proposed plant and equipment includes: 12 × 825 m3 tanks for storing and handling fish and smolt pumps for pumping water around the internal fish tanks chillers housed within shedding trickle filters enclosed within the main shed supply water pre-treatment plant oxygen and ozone generators wastewater treatment plant fire detection and firefighting equipment including smoke detectors, alarm systems, fire hydrants, hose reels and extinguishers a pipeline to transfer treated wastewater from the treatment plant to the Whale Point jetty a pipeline to transfer fresh water from the Kermandie River to the Whale Point jetty via the stormwater settlement pond a pipeline or flexible hose to transfer salmon from the nursery tanks to the net liners at the Whale Point jetty and from there to the Ronja Storm for transfer to offshore nets.
The pipeline alignment is shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10.
The proposed internal layout of the system is shown in Figure 11 and Figure 12 and Appendix B and described below.
The location of other infrastructure, including site input water treatment and, where possible, any additional water storage and wastewater storage, will be aligned to minimise any potential environmental impact. 3.7.1 Salmon nursery / grow out facility Each of the major components of the proposed nursery building is summarised below: The grow out facility will be contained within a building approximately 7992 m2 in area and have a height of approximately 11.2 m from finished floor level. The maximum height of the building from natural ground level will be approximately 16 m, taking into account the area of the building site that requires fill. The southern section of the building will comprise the biofilter and plant room, entry and sterilisation room, crib room and dry lab. The northern section of the building will comprise the primary grow out facility, which will contain 12 × 16 m diameter growout tanks and 4 × 10 m diameter grading tanks. The upper level will include suspended grating that provides access to the tank, a meeting room and the sleepout area. It is noted that one person sleeps on site each night to be able to respond to any emergencies or equipment failures. Four storage tanks 16 m in diameter will be located parallel to the main building along the western elevation and will serve as intake water storage from river and mains water sources. A water balance tank with a diameter of 10 m will be located to the north-east of the building site at the base of the embankment. This will be used to buffer treated water supply volumes by temporarily storing and 16 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 17 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
then returning treated fresh water to the nursery proper and is not associated with the wastewater treatment facility. An unloading tank (for receipt of fry from Lonnavale and Forest Home) with a diameter of 10 m will be located to the north-east of the building. A wastewater treatment shed will be located to the north of the external tanks (Figure 12) and will be approximately 86.5 m2 in area and will have a height of approximately 5.7 m. A water treatment shed will be located to the south of the external tanks and will be approximately 57.5 m2 with a height of approximately 5.5 m. Fish feed will be delivered to the feed storage area to the immediate west of the main southern entrance. The main nursery building will contain all production equipment facilities. The building’s walls will be made of Bondor foam panels because of their insulation properties.
Figure 8 Site access from Huon Highway
The final design of the operation will follow that of the HA hatchery operation at Forest Home (See Appendix P). Wastewater treatment will be significantly improved with the development and use of a multistage water recovery treatment system, which will enable wastewater to be re-used within the operation and externally for bathing penned salmon.
17 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 18 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 9 Western alignment pipeline to Whale Point jetty
18 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 19 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 10 Eastern alignment pipeline to Whale Point jetty
19 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 20 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 11 Salmon nursery internal design
20 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 21 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 12 Cross-section salmon nursery looking from the south
Figure 13 Cross-section salmon nursery looking from the north
21 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 22 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
3.8 Water supply The proposed grow out operation is expected to use a maximum of 1 ML of water per day, with an average daily use of < 500 kL. The maximum use only occurs during filling of the system and is neither reflective of normal operational use or of normal wastewater volumes.
Water is to be sourced from the following locations: 1. Rainwater. Rainwater tanks will be installed to catch rainwater from the building’s roof. This will report to the upgraded retention and cooling pond which will augment the freshwater supplied to HA net liners at Whale Point jetty. This will not supply the quantities required for the operation but will augment other supplies. 2. Mains supply. Potable water for employees and visitors in the administration building and overnight facilities will be from mains supply. 3. Kermandie River. HA has a water licence (500264) for the extraction of 2700 ML per annum from Kermandie River. HA has licensed access to a potential extraction of up 5400 ML per annum in total, some of which would come from a storage dam on Rileys Creek. In conjunction with treated wastewater from the proposed development, this would be sufficient to supply water for bathing salmon at sea. A pump station is in operation adjacent to the Whale Point bridge. 4. Taswater. HA has a contract with Taswater for the supply of town water under a trade agreement. This water is currently supplied from the Port Huon jetty and is used to bathe salmon at sea. This contract ensures water security in the event that other sources of water prove insufficient.
Bore water was originally envisaged as a source of water for the operation. HA engaged Geo- Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd (GES) to evaluate groundwater on the site. Initial drilling showed that groundwater was not readily available. A single bore to 25 m did not find groundwater. If in the future, further investigations do indicate that groundwater may be viable to supplement water supplies, then HA will test the groundwater and apply for a permit variation to approve that use. 3.8.1 Water supply pre-treatment The facility’s process water will continually undergo internal inflow treatment processes including mechanical filtration, carbon filtration then disinfection using ozonation, followed by UV disinfection. 3.9 Power supply The Net slab facility is currently serviced with an upgraded 240 V mains power supply. The proposed growout operation will not require any additional energy management infrastructure. 3.10 Wastewater salmon nursery effluent The main type of wastewater produced at the salmon nursery will be salmon nursery effluent. The salmon nursery will produce effluent as the smolt grow. When water filtration systems are cleaned and flushed, wastewater containing faeces and waste feed will be generated. This wastewater will be pumped from the internal process systems to the wastewater recovery system.
HA intends to re-use as much treated wastewater as possible within the salmon nursery by internally treating and recirculating wastewater. Internal treatment will involve: mechanical filtration (rotating drum microstrainers) which remove solids from the wastestream aeration to reduce carbon dioxide biofiltration and further aeration to oxidise ammonia to nitrite and then nitrate ozone disinfection oxygen addition.
22 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 23 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Experience at Forest Home shows that it is possible to recirculate up to 98% of treated wastewater. However, the Whale Point facility will not have a set water exchange rate where a small percentage of the water is discharged and replaced with fresh water each day (e.g. at Forest Home). 3.10.1 Wastewater sources The equipment supplier Billund advises that most of the water exiting the facility will be generated from the internal water treatment processes: Micro strainers. Three mechanical filters with Hydrotech HDF2009-SA 60-micron screens. Solids >60 micron are captured on screens, removed with a high-pressure water spray and pumped to the wastewater treatment plant. Biofilters. Ten chambers filled with bio-media type RK are back flushed daily to reduce biological slime and this reports to the wastewater treatment plant. Plate separators. Sludge captured on the separators reports to denitrification chambers within the facility, where it provides organic material to feed anaerobic bacteria. The denitrification chambers are back flushed daily and wastes report to the wastewater treatment plant.
In summary, the solids captured in micro strainers and the water spray used to remove them from the screens, the biological slime and the water used to backwash in biofilters, and the solids removed and the water utilised for back flushing plate separators are the sources of wastewater.
It is proposed that this final treated wastewater will provide a small component of the fresh water used to bathe salmon at sea via the Ronja Storm vessel.
Once treated wastewater is produced it will be stored within 240 m circumference floating net liners at the Whale Point jetty for collection and utilisation within HA’s amoebic gill disease (AGD) bathing regime. Each liner has a maximum capacity of 14 ML but the liners are usually filled with 12 ML water to allow freeboard. HA plans to provide additional net liner storage of 12 ML adjacent to the Whale Point jetty (Figure 14). This storage will be used in the event of contingencies such as breakdown or maintenance of the treatment plant or bad weather preventing the Ronja Storm from sailing.
23 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 24 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 14 Whale Point wharf and net liners
Source: Google Earth image dated 30 December 2013.
The process for water management and wastewater re-use and discharge is depicted in Figure 15.
24 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 25 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 15 Process water flow chart
25 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 26 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
3.10.2 Wastewater volumes Modern, advanced RAS facilities typically use an industry standard formula to manage and estimate potential wastewater volumes from recirculation systems. This formula allows for 50 L of wastewater production for every kilogram of food fed per day. The proposed Whale Point facility has a potential maximum biomass of 504 tonnes and the standard feed rate to advanced sized smolt is 1.587% of feed to biomass per day. Therefore, the expected feed fed per day for the facility will be a maximum of 8,000 kg. Using the above formula, the maximum estimated wastewater production from the facility would be 400 kL per day (8000 kg feed × 50 L). This formula, though reasonably accurate, does not account for wastewater generated from the daily maintenance of filtration systems, including backwashing and flushing of pipework. In practice – that is, at Lonnavale and Forest Home operations, where wastewater systems are not as advanced as the proposed Whale Point facility – HA has found that an additional 25% should be added to the final figure from the formula to allow for standard daily wastewater generation. At peak loading, therefore, the maximum wastewater produced for external re-use per day is estimated at 500 kL under this formula.
However, at Whale Point as noted in Section 3.10 Wastewater salmon nursery effluent, the Whale Point facility will not have a set water exchange rate where a small percentage of the water is discharged and replaced with fresh water each day. The installation of additional biofilters, enlarged denitrification plants and multiple belt filters means that fresh water will be treated and recirculated through the nursery and the wastewater volume formula becomes 27 litres per 1kg of feed per day which is equivalent to a volume reduction of 43% over Forest Home (see Appendix P). At peak loading (504 tonne salmon biomass) therefore, the maximum wastewater produced for external re-use is estimated at 216 kL. However, to model the potential impact of this wastewater, the peak loading has been calculated over a (calendar) monthly basis which reduces the maximum daily average to 130 kL per day during June each year.
Wastewater produced for external re-use will fluctuate across the year depending on the total biomass of smolt within the facility: The growout season starts in October each year when the salmon nursery is empty. Fish arrive in late October or early November but are small in size; consequently, wastewater production will be minimal or non-existent. By mid-November the fish numbers and size increase. The site should be at 50% of capacity, with capacity and use increasing towards the end of January. During February through June, the site is at full capacity with peak biomass and maximum wastewater production. During July, August and September, fish are being moved out to offshore pens and wastewater production is reducing.
Table 2 shows the planned seasonal variations in wastewater produced for external re-use or discharge.
26 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 27 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 2 Seasonal wastewater volumes
Wastewater produced for external re-use Growing season (kL/day) Late October to mid-November 0–50 Mid-November through January 50–216 February through June 216–130 July through September 112–56 3.10.3 AGD bathing re-use As noted above, HA plans to utilise treated wastewater from the facility for AGD bathing operations. AGD bathing is a seasonal operation and its intensity varies even within this summer period.
In 2016, HA used 1100 ML of water for AGD bathing operations. This water was sourced as potable water from Taswater and piped into the Ronja Huon at Port Huon. The proposed development provides an opportunity to reduce the amount of clean water used, freeing up this water for more suitable uses. With the proposed recirculation of wastewater within the plant, the facility should produce approximately 35,100 kL of treated wastewater per annum(Table 3). In effect, this means that the volume of treated wastewater produced is significantly less than the volume required for AGD bathing. Table 3 compares estimated annual wastewater production with the annual AGD bathing requirement. This shows that the volume of wastewater produced will be an order of magnitude less than the volume of water required for AGD bathing, which means that a significant amount of water will be required to make up the shortfall. Estimates of monthly production and re-use are shown in Figure 16.
Table 3 Wastewater production and AGD bathing re-use
Annual production of Annual requirement From To treated wastewater for AGD bathing (kL) (kL) Jan-18 Dec-18 35,124 972,583 Jan-19 Dec-19 35,124 1,027,548 Jan-20 Dec-20 35,124 1,015,214
27 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 28 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 16 Modelled monthly wastewater production and AGD bathing requirement 2017–2021
During late autumn and early winter, AGD bathing needs are reduced; however, the volumes required for AGD bathing still greatly exceed the volume of wastewater produced at Whale Point. As a result, HA expects that treated wastewater will not need to be directly discharged into the Huon River. In extreme and unlikely circumstances, such as a long-term breakdown in the treatment plant combined with long- term adverse weather conditions preventing the Ronja Storm from sailing, HA will utilise an additional 12 ML net liner for contingency storage at the Whale Point Jetty. This water will then be bled off for AGD bathing over the next six to 12 months. HA currently has two 12 ML net liners moored at the Whale Point Jetty as part of its AGD bathing operations. As noted above they will be augmented by a single additional 12 ML net liner if and when necessary. This net liner would be towed across from Port Huon jetty where it is moored as part of its AGD bathing and normal fish movement operations. 3.10.4 Wastewater treatment HA will utilise a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment facility, which will include biological and mechanical filtration, denitrification, phosphorous removal, coagulation, flocculation and sterilisation.
HA is taking the latest processing technology which has been developed and used in countries such as Norway and further refining and improving it to redefine best practice environmental management in Australia. This includes a range of measures to minimise water usage and waste generation.
28 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 29 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
HA’s aim is to sufficiently treat all wastewater produced to enable complete reuse within the plant. It is envisaged that the chosen treatment system will either reach this objective or get close enough that the next facility constructed should be able to meet this goal.
The Whale Point facility will not have a set water exchange rate like previous facilities, where a small percentage of the water is discharged and replaced with fresh water each day (e.g. at Forest Home see Appendix P). Most of the water exiting the facility will be generated from the internal water treatment processes. The solids captured in microstrainers and the water spray used to remove them from the screens, the biological slime and the water used to backwash in biofilters, and the solids removed and the water utilised for back flushing plate separators are the sources of wastewater: Micro strainers. Three mechanical filters with Hydrotech HDF2009-SA 60-micron screens. Solids >60 micron are captured on screens, removed with a high-pressure water spray and pumped to the wastewater treatment plant. Biofilters. Ten chambers filled with bio-media type RK are back flushed daily to reduce biological slime and this reports to the wastewater treatment plant. Plate separators. Sludge captured on the separators reports to denitrification chambers within the facility, where it provides organic material to feed anaerobic bacteria. The denitrification chambers are back flushed daily and wastes report to the wastewater treatment plant.
All wastewater (known as raw wastewater) from the above processes will report to the wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant will utilise the following steps (see Figure 17): Screening. Bar screen – to remove larger foreign particles (e.g. plastic, tools etc.). These screens are cleaned manually daily and waste is disposed of as general wastes. Grit chamber. This is located within the first coagulation tank to capture heavy sands and small foreign particles. This small chamber is cleaned out daily with solids placed in waste solids compost bin. Coagulation. This involves ferric addition within a mixer tank, which coagulates the sludge and, most importantly, phosphorous. There will be 1 × 75 m3 mixing tank and 2 × spare 75 m3 tanks. Flocculation. A cationic organic polymer is added to form large clumps of solids from the coagulated particles after the addition of ferric sulphate. Polymer dosage is low, typically 1:60 of diluted 1% polymer will coagulate 60,000 litres of raw wastewater of which 1% becomes sludge (@ 30% solids). It is expected therefore that <4.5 litres of polymer will be used each day during peak biomass (at maximum site discharge) which will generate <2.5 tonne of sludge. An overdose of polymer would result in low pH of the wastewater and would therefore be recognised and addressed within the water treatment plant. HA has committed to a discharge pH and are committed to this in the DPEMP, therefore if overdosing of polymer occurred leading to a low pH the pH would be corrected using lime. This is not expected to occur as it does not occur at our other facilities e.g. Forest Home or Lonnavale. Separation. Three 5-micron belt filters will be utilised to ensure that wastewater is not stored for long periods. The 5-micron belt filters allow the clean discharge water to pass through the slowly rotating belt whilst trapping the coagulated solids on its surface. At Whale Point, wastewater will be processed three times faster than at Forest Home. This helps prevent degradation of water while in storage, thereby preventing the development of ammonia, other anaerobic compounds and elevated odour. Additional denitrification after the belt filter. Water reclaimed from the belt filters will undergo additional denitrification. Denitrification is a process in which psuedemonous bacteria are established on filter media within in a low oxygen environment (<2mgO2/L). These bacteria convert nitrogen into nitrogen gas which disperses into the environment. This is achieved by reducing flow through the area in which denitrification occurs. Equipment suppliers Billund have advised that water reclaimed from belt filters at a similar plant in Norway has a median Total Nitrogen of 50 mg/L. Based on current
29 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 30 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
denitrification results achieved at HA’s Forest Home hatchery which has now been operational for 18 months, the additional denitrification filter is expected to reduce this level to <5 mg/L. Additional biofiltration. Denitrification plants can generate low levels of nitrite and/or ammonia within the wastewater stream. n additional biofiltration unit will be installed to utilise aerobic bacteria to convert any generated ammonia or nitrite to nitrate. Ozonation. All wastewater exiting the wastewater facility will be disinfected using ozone to 700 mV.
Figure 17 Wastewater treatment schematic
3.10.5 Wastewater quality HA has selected preliminary treatment specifications for wastewater. These are shown in Table 4. The preliminary treatment specifications have been based on: wastewater quality limits easily achievable from HA’s experience at Forest Home preliminary boundary limits for the design of a new treatment plant for Whale Point water quality criteria for the wellbeing of fish Emission Limit Guidelines for Sewage Treatment Plants that Discharge Pollutants into Fresh and Marine Waters (DPIPWE, 2012).
Based on the performance of the Forest Home hatchery treatment plant and the improvements to be implemented at Whale Point, HA expects the wastewater from the Whale Point treatment plant to exceed the specifications in Table 4. The suggested monitoring location for wastewater is described in Section 8.1.1 Wastewater discharge monitoring and shown in Figure 48.
30 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 31 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 4 Effluent quality limits Whale Point Salmon Nursery Parameter Unit 50%ile 90%ile Maximum pH pH unit 7.5 8.5 <6.5 or >8.5 Electrical conductivity µs/cm <1,000 Total suspended solids mg/L <10 <20 20 Biological oxygen demand mg/L <10 <20 20 Oil and grease mg/L 2 5 1 Dissolved reactive phosphorous mg/L 0.7 3.5 4.9 Total phosphorous mg/L 1 5 7 Total nitrogen mg/L 7 15 20 Nitrite and Nitrate mg/L 6 14 19 Nitrite mg/L 1 2 4 Nitrate mg/L 4 11 15 Total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) mg/L <1 <1 1 Thermotolerant coliforms cfu/100 mL 200 500 750
For comparison, the Geeveston Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) discharge limits, set by Environmental Protection Notice, are provided in Table 14. The Geeveston STP is licensed to treat an average dry-weather inflow of approximately 300 kL per day, whereas the proposed nursery is expected to discharge an average of 96 kL per day (during 2018, i.e. after full commissioning and steady state is reached), regardless of weather. The nursery effluent will be lower in concentrations of suspended solid, oil and grease, total N and TAN. 3.10.6 Protected environmental values In February 2003, PEVs were established by the Board of Environmental Management and Pollution Control under the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 for the Huon Valley catchments. This includes the Huon River from its source to its exit, estuarine surface waters outside of the Southwest National Park and Southport Lagoon Conservation Area and waters within the D’Entrecasteaux Channel, but excluding marine reserves. These PEV’s are described in Section 7.1.2 Performance requirements. 3.10.7 AGD bathing process As noted in Section 3.10 Wastewater salmon nursery effluent, HA plans to use treated wastewater as a small proportion of the water used to bathe salmon at sea via the Ronja Storm well-vessel. At present, HA uses potable water purchased from Taswater for this activity.
AGD has been a significant health problem for marine salmon aquaculture in Tasmania for many years. The commonly used treatment is a freshwater bath, often repeated every 4–6 weeks (Ruane et al., 2013).
The proposed bathing process is summarised below. 1. Between September 2017 and October 2021, an average of 2.6 ML per day of water will be pumped from the Kermandie River via the Whale Point Road pump station to the proposed development. 2. A daily average of 96 kL will be sent to the salmon nursery’s water pre-treatment plant for use within the plant. The remaining water will be pumped to a blue net liner, 240 m in circumference, at the Whale Point jetty for storage. 3. Treated wastewater will be pumped from the to-be-constructed Whale Point wastewater treatment plant to the Whale Point jetty, where it will be fed into the same blue net liner (Figure 14) for storage. Net liners will be aerated to ensure oxygenated water fit for fish use. Water use and water quality have 31 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 32 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
been modelled, indicating that the resultant water should have an annual average quality of 0.6 mg/L total N, 0.3 mg/L total P and 0.1 mg/L TAN. Monthly averages are shown in Table 6. 4. The Ronja Storm will pump water from the net liner into its well, which will have a capacity of 7.2 ML. 5. When the Ronja Storm arrives at the required offshore salmon pen, either at Storm Bay or in the Huon River (Table 28, Figure 41 and Figure 42), it will capture salmon from the pen using a vacuum pump and dewater technique. 6. The salmon will remain in the well, bathing in the fresh water/treated wastewater mix, for approximately three hours, which is sufficient to treat any AGD. During this time, the fish will produce some waste, which will remain in the well-boat. When the fresh water/treated wastewater mix is to be reused, there is no discharge of the fresh water/treated wastewater mix, fish are screened and the fresh water/treated wastewater mix is returned to the Ronja Storm storage tanks. 7. The salmon are then be returned to the pen while the treatment water remains in the boat well. 8. This process will be repeated for up to 10 treatments, however on average new bathing water is expected to be needed after seven treatments on average. The bathing water will be tested in situ after each use. The water quality criterion used to determine whether the water is safe for salmon is a maximum of 0.02 mg/L un-ionised ammonia (UIA). UIA is calculated by measuring total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) and using a formula based on temperature and pH to determine UIA. 9. Before the maximum UIA is reached, the water in the well of the vessel will be discharged to the marine environment in deep, higher energy areas and the Ronja Storm will return to the Whale Point jetty to capture a fresh load of water from a net liner. 10. The most common method for discharging wastewater is for seawater to be pumped into the water storage tanks (which act as ballast tanks) whilst the vessel is under way. This takes approximately 40 minutes, during which time the mix of fresh water and treated wastewater is totally replaced by seawater. This is achieved by opening the well hatches in the base of each tank to allow seawater to enter, and slowly discharging the mix of fresh water and treated wastewater through outlets in the hull below the waterline. One outlet is forward on the starboard side, the other aft on the port side. Due to the rapid mixing created by the circulation pumps, the salinity of the discharged water increases over 40 minutes. Current experience of replacing used recirculated bathing water with seawater is that no sign of discharged water is visible at any time during the process. The discharged water is actually a mix of recirculated bathing water and fresh seawater rather than a discharge of pure recirculated bathing water. The percentage of recirculated bathing water contained within the discharge decreases over time as more seawater enters the tanks and ballast is equalised. 11. This method of discharge can also be used while the vessel is stationary, if required by sea conditions. Current experience is that the recirculated bathing water can sometimes be seen discharging through the subsurface outlets at the start of the discharge process. However, after approximately 10 minutes it has been diluted with the fresh seawater and is not visible from the vessel.
HA has decided to site its pens in offshore locations where a combination of fast water movement and wave action (regularly greater than 4 m) equates to a high-energy site. This results in more available oxygen and quicker flushing of carbon dioxide and ammonia, which is much better for the fish. The higher energy of the water movement also reduces any impacts on the sediment and water column. Details on the location of offshore pens and the monthly volumes used for bathing are provided in Section 7.1.4.5.2 Indirect wastewater discharge .
Ross and Macleod (2013) describe the waste produced from fish farms as approximately 5% of total feed entering the environment as N, 85 % of which is released as dissolved N (this is the fraction used to estimate total permissible dissolved nitrogen output) and 15 % as particulate N. 32 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 33 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
The annualised volume of water used for AGD bathing is shown in Table 3. For bathing forecast purposes, HA uses 1 ML per bath, which equates to refilling the well of the Huon Ronja after three baths. The larger Ronja Storm is expected to provide between seven and 10 baths per well tank. Figure 18 shows the number of baths forecast by location and month from October 2017 until January 2021.
Figure 18 AGD bathing by location and month
3.10.8 Net liners The ratio of fresh water to treated wastewater stored in net liners will vary each month as production varies and, consequently, as wastewater production varies. Table 5 shows the average daily volumes of treated wastewater to fresh water stored in net liners at the Whale Point jetty over a 12-month period. This is based on HA’s forecast bathing water needs for the period January 2018 – December 2018. This provides the most accurate bathing water forecast model and, for the purpose of water quality modelling, simply assumes the Whale Point facility will be fully operational at this time. Table 6 and Table 29 use the same time periods and the same assumptions.
Daily average volumes have been calculated by assuming production step changes on a monthly basis and averaging the volumes used over the days in the relevant month. In practice, operation volumes of production and wastewater will change up or down with circular grow out tanks and requisite pumps and other plant being brought into and out of production, depending on the annual production cycle (Table 2, Table 3, Section 3 Description of Proposed Project).
33 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 34 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 5 Monthly treated wastewater to freshwater ratios – stored in net liners
Average daily Average daily Average daily Average daily volume treated AGD freshwater ratio treated Month wastewater requirement make up wastewater to (kL) (kL) (kL) freshwater Jan 121 3774 3,653 1:30 Feb 112 3714 3,602 1:32 March 121 2645 2,524 1:21 April 121 2175 2,054 1:17 May 125 2782 2,657 1:21 June 130 1311 1,182 1:9 July 112 1452 1,339 1:12 August 82 1811 1,729 1:21 Sep 56 1729 1,672 1:30 Oct 28 3315 3,286 1:117 Nov 56 3200 3,144 1:56 Dec 91 4097 4,006 1:44
Each net liner has a circumference of 240 m and a storage capacity of 12 ML. It is envisaged that as treated wastewater is added to a net liner at the Whale Point jetty, the relative ratio of fresh water will also be added by piping water from the retention pond. The concentrations shown by month in Table 6 reflect the differing volumes of bathing water required each month and the differing volumes of wastewater produced each month.
Table 6 Modelled water quality in Whale Point net liners
Total ammonia Total N mg/L in Total P mg/L in Month N mg/L in net net liner water net liner water liner water Jan 0.14 0.31 0.73 Feb 0.14 0.30 0.69 March 0.15 0.41 1.00 April 0.16 0.48 1.20 May 0.15 0.40 0.99 June 0.20 0.77 2.06 July 0.18 0.63 1.63 August 0.15 0.40 0.99 Sep 0.14 0.32 0.74 Oct 0.12 0.15 0.26 Nov 0.13 0.21 0.44 Dec 0.13 0.24 0.53 Mean 0.15 0.39 0.94 Median 0.14 0.36 0.86 Max 0.20 0.77 2.06 34 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 35 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
3.11 Wastewater other As well as salmon nursery effluent, wastewater in the form of domestic sewage and stormwater will also be produced at the proposed development. 3.11.1 Domestic wastewater (sewage) Sewage produced on site will be disposed of in on-site septic disposal systems (see Appendix A). 3.11.2 Stormwater All clean site run-off from around the new building pad and roof catchment will be diverted to an upgraded retention pond via an open, 1.5 m wide cut-off channel (see Figure 19 and Appendix B). This then overflows at 8.5 m ASL via a DN300 outlet to the net liners at the Whale Point wharf. Although the pond is not designed to spill water, a 3 m wide dam emergency overflow spillway to Hospital Bay will be constructed at 9.00 m ASL to allow for a 1:100 rainfall event so that the retention pond is not eroded in intense rains. The spillway will discharge into an existing vegetated gully to ensure a natural flow path to the wetlands around the bay to mitigate erosion and sediment build-up. The upgraded retention pond will have a HDPE liner with an underlying clay layer 0.3 m thick to bed the HDPE liner on and reduce seepage to prevent loss to groundwater in case of a liner puncture. The proposed location of the spillway is shown in Figure 19 and it design in shown in Appendix B.
The proposed production process will take place inside the to-be-constructed building on site and, as a consequence, potentially contaminated process wastewater will be kept separate from clean stormwater.
The dam is located south of the Grow-out Facility on ground sloping from North to South falling towards the Huon River. The embankment is proposed to be a cut/fill constructed with locally won material most likely general fill composed of weathered dolerite clayey gravel. It is proposed to stockpile some of the low permeability clayey materials from site earth works to be used to provide a 0.3m thick clay liner over the general fill to provide a secondary low permeability barrier and suitable subgrade for the HDPE liner.
A minimum 3m wide crest road at RL9.5m is proposed with grade of 3% fall to the upstream crest with a 0.15m thick gravel pavement. This crest width does not allow for vehicle access. If vehicle access is required on the east, west and south walls, the crest width should be increased to a minimum of 4m and 0.3m safety high safety bunds added to the upstream and downstream sides.
35 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 36 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 19 Upgraded stormwater pond
36 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 37 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 20 Stormwater Pond Cross Section
37 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 38 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 19 shows the upgraded stormwater pond situated over and to the west of an existing pond. The southern edge of the pond is over existing gravel hardstand. The pond is entirely situated within the current land title and to the south of the existing boundary fence. The retention pond will be used to: mix clean stormwater and Kermandie River water provide a modulation facility to ensure consistent available clean water flow into the net liners provide a cooling pond for chiller water (closed system with piped chilled water will recycle through the pond and the chillers). 3.11.3 Dam assessment On behalf of HA, GHD have discussed the construction and design of the proposed retention pond with the DPIPWE Water Management branch, which has advised that a dam permit in line with a Type 4 dam will be required.
Tasmanian legislation relating to dam safety includes the Water Management Act 1999 and the Water Management (Safety of Dams) Regulations 2015. On technical requirements, the regulations defer to the relevant Australian National Committee on Large Dams (ANCOLD) Guidelines. The guidelines and to a certain extent the regulations, adopt a risk based approach with dam safety requirements dependent on the potential consequence of a dam failure. The consequence from a dam failure can vary and ANCOLD’s Guidelines on the Consequence Categories for Dams (ANCOLD, 2012b) defines a range of Consequence Categories according to the severity of the impacts.
GHD has undertaken an assessment of the Dam Failure Consequence Category and the Dam Spill Consequence Category of the proposed dam to define design criteria and design, construction and operational requirements. This assessment has been undertaken in accordance with ANCOLD and documents the assessment and the implications for design, operation, monitoring and surveillance. This will likely include investigation and supervision during construction by a dam engineer, and a work- as-executed report along with a submitted high-level description of the site and purpose of the dam, a plan and typical section drawings and a Consequence Category assessment in accordance with ANCOLD.
3.11.4 Consequence Category definitions The consequence from dam failure can vary and the ANCOLD Guidelines on Tailings Dams (ANCOLD 2012a) defines a range of Consequence Categories according to the severity of the impacts of a failure. Two scenarios are considered: 1. ‘Dam Failure’ - potential failure of the structure (all credible failure modes), releasing stored water and solids; and 2. ‘’Dam Spill’ - the effect of spilling water from the designated spillways or outlets during a flood or an extreme wet period.
3.11.5 Dam Failure Consequence Category This “initial” level (i.e. engineering judgement -no inundation modelling) consequence assessment has been based desktop review of 1:25,000 scale TASMAP topographic maps and aerial imagery of the downstream zone.
The dam is a part cut/part fill storage (2m in cut and 2.5m fill), with confining embankments along the south, west and eastern edges. While unlikely, failure of the embankment has the potential to release stored freshwater and stormwater from above the surrounding ground level. The dam break flood would
38 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 39 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
propagate over non-contaminated land (see Section 3.1 Construction and Section 7.12 Contaminated land) that forms the drainage path downstream before entering the Huon River approximately 90 m downstream of the dam.
3.11.5.1 Assessment of Population at Risk (PAR) ANCOLD (2012b) defines the PAR as all people who would be directly exposed to flood waters assuming they took no action to evacuate. This includes people in dwellings, at businesses and itinerants. Based on the desktop review of the topography and given there is not infrastructure downstream it is considered that a conservative estimate of Population at Risk (PAR) would be <1.
3.11.5.2 Assessment of damages and losses The Severity of Damage and Loss is taken as the highest category estimated using information provided in ANCOLD (2012b). This information assists in evaluating dam failure impacts such as: Estimated costs of damage caused; Impact on dam owner’s business; Health and social impacts; and Environmental impacts.
The severity of damage and loss has been assessed as “Minor” given the potential impacts of a dam break on the natural environment with due consideration of the small volume of water that could foreseeably be released in a dam break scenario.
Therefore in accordance with ANCOLD the dam has been assigned a Consequence Category of “Very Low”.
3.11.6 Dam Spill Consequence Category The intended operation of the dam is to store freshwater from Kermandie Creek and stormwater runoff. Therefore, should a spill occur it is likely to be either through overfilling with pumping fresh water, or from stormwater runoff both of which are likely to be of negligible impact to the receiving environment (Huon River). Therefore, the Dam Spill consequence hass been assessed byu the dam engineers as less than the Dam Failure Consequence of “Very Low”.
The spillway channel will be lined with rockfill over a HDPE liner to reduce the risk of material erosion and mobilisation of sediments along the concentrated flow path. Spillway channel outflows will then discharge from the channel to a natural drainage line to the Huon River. Spillway flow quality will be visually monitored for clarity / mobilised solids, and additional sedimentation control installed if required.
3.11.7 Implications of Consequence Category
3.11.8 Minimum competency requirements for design, construction and surveillance activities The Water Management (Safety of Dams) Regulations 2015 (S.R. 2015, No. 98) outlines minimum competency requirements for individuals undertaking certain activities relating to the design, construction and surveillance of dams in Tasmania. Minimum activity and competency requirements for activities are based on the consequence category and the height of the dam.
39 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 40 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Regulatory requirements for the dam (i.e. a “Very Low” consequence category dam, less than 10m high) are reproduced in Table 7.
Table 7 Minimum competency requirements
Activity Requirement Competency Requirement
Design plans and specifications Not required -
Pre-construction, investigation, design and report Not required -
Supervision of construction and decommissioning Not required -
Work as Executed Report Required No specific class of competence required
Dam safety emergency management plans Not required -
Intermediate / Comprehensive surveillance inspections Not required -
Safety Reviews (consequence category assessment) Required Class 2
Dam incident investigation and report Required Class 2
3.11.8.1 Monitoring requirements ANCOLD Guidelines on Dam Safety Management (2003) gives guidance on the frequency of dam monitoring for different consequence category dams. For a “Very Low” consequence category dam the suggested frequency of monitoring of parameters relevant to the dam are as follows: Rainfall, Storage Level and Seepage – Monthly
3.11.8.2 Inspection requirements ANCOLD (2003), gives guidance on inspection frequency for different consequence category dams. For a “Very Low” consequence category the frequency of inspection should be as follows: Intermediate Inspection and Routine Visual Inspections– Dam Owners Responsibility, with suggested monthly routine and 5 yearly intermediate inspections with test operation of equipment and review of consequence category. Special – As required (Dam Engineers and Specialists).
As shown in Table 7, the Water Management (Safety of Dams) Regulations 2015, does not require an inspection frequency. HA will adopt the suggested ANCOLD inspection frequencies for this dam.
3.11.8.3 Reporting requirements
Operations and Maintenance Manual ANCOLD (2012a) requires an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Manual be produced prior to the commissioning of all but “Very Low” Consequence Category dams. Tasmanian regulations also do not require an O&M Manual. However, given the value of the dam to the operation, developing an O&M
40 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 41 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Manual is considered good practice. As such, an O&M Manual will be incorporated into the Grow-out Facility Asset Management system. The O&M Manual will cover design intent, predicted behaviour of dam, daily operations and inspections, water management procedures, criteria for mechanical and electrical works (including pumps), surveillance, maintenance and reporting requirements. The Operational Management Plans within the O&M Manual will specifically highlight all designer requirements for operation and response actions that must be met to ensure the ongoing safety of the dam.
Dam Safety Emergency Management Plan ANCOLD (2012a) suggests that a Dam Safety Emergency Management Plan (DSEMP) in conjunction with appropriate emergency authority planning should be prepared where any persons, infrastructure or environmental values could be at risk if the dam were to fail.
Given the PAR <1 and consequence category of “Very Low” a DSEMP is not deemed necessary based on ANCOLD or Tasmanian regulations. 3.12 Solid waste production The production of smolt will generate waste feed and faeces (sludge), which will be removed from the wastewater during the water treatment and recycling operations. This sludge is classified as a K100 waste under the National Environment Protection Measure Code 75 and will need to be managed effectively and sustainably and according to K100 conditions and guidelines.
Organic waste produced from the salmon nursery will fluctuate across the year depending on the total biomass of smolt within the facility and, consequently, the level of production: The salmon nursery season starts in October each year when the salmon nursery is empty. Fish arrive in late October or early November but are small in size. Biomass grows and plant is switched on accordingly. By mid-November the fish have increased significantly in size and number. The site should be at 50% of capacity, with capacity and use increasing until the end of January. During February through June, the site is at full capacity with peak biomass and maximum production. All plant and equipment is usually operating at this time. During July, August and September, the use of plant and operation of equipment is reducing and fish are being moved out to offshore pens.
General solid waste will be generated at the proposed facility from packaging materials and wastes from the staff amenities. These will be managed with standard council collection services, with additional hard rubbish removal as required.
The organic sludge produced will be passed through a decanter/centrifuge/screw press, resulting in a nearly dry product at 30% solids. The resultant solids at Whale Point will be placed into a bin with a closed top. All wastewater treatment facilities apart from the ozone generator will sit inside the closed waste treatment shed attached to the western side of the main nursery building (see Figure 11, Figure 12 and Appendix B). It should be noted that in Figure 11, the balance tank to the northwest and outside the nursery building is part of the plant water supply system and not part of the wastewater treatment facility.
41 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 42 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 21 Sludge treatment flow sheet
42 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 43 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Unlike the Forest Home hatchery, which utilises a wastewater storage tank to buffer the wastewater flows before the wastewater passes through a single belt filter and produces a wet sludge at 70% wet weight by volume (waste sludge is produced at between 8–15% solids and is sucked from the storage tank using a vacuum truck), the Whale Point nursery will utilise three belt filters feeding into a decanter/ centrifuge / screw press system, producing a sludge at 30% wet weight by volume (Figure 21 and Plate 1). All wastewater facilities will be inside the wastewater treatment building under a slight negative pressure. The belt filters will be situated adjacent to the wastewater treatment facilities, significantly reducing the need for wastewater storage. Wastewater storage at Forest Home is 400 m3. This will reduce to 75 m3 at Whale Point. Wet solids (after passing through the belt filters) will feed directly into a slurry mix tank where additional polymer will be added. The coagulated solids will feed into the decanter/ centrifuge / screw press system where water will be compressed out from the solids. This wastewater will report back to the water treatment plant and the resultant solids will report to a closed 10 m skip bin (6–7 tonne capacity).
The bin will be emptied once or twice per week with solid wastes removed from site using approved K100 licensed waste transport contractors. Organic waste will be sent to an approved composting facility for re- use as compost.
Plate 1 Billund triple belt filter sludge dewatering plant (existing plant in Norway)
This process will utilise best practice for the prevention of odour generation (Vincent, 2001): Minimise the time for storage of wastewater and sludges under anaerobic conditions. Minimise odour release by avoiding turbulent flow. Use bio filters to absorb anaerobic compounds into the biofilm. Minimise the effect of odour release by locating the potential odour release away from sensitive site boundaries. The product will be dry. Anaerobic conditions will not develop. Significant odours will not be produced. 43 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 44 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
3.13 Noise sources The major noise sources at the proposed development are expected to be from fixed plant and equipment with minor contributions from marine and road based transport. 3.13.1 Fixed plant and equipment HA’s Forest Home hatchery contains similar plant and equipment to the proposed nursery at Whale Point (see Appendix P). However, noise issues have arisen at Forest Home once the hatchery reached full production in January 2017. These are attributed to the use of blowers, chillers, and ozone and oxygen generators. A near-field noise survey was undertaken at Forest Home in April 2017 to assess the relative magnitude of component noise sources. The results are shown in Table 8.
Table 8 Magnitude of componentry noise sources at Forest Home Sample site dB(A)
LAeq 63.6
Outside chiller room (2 m) LAFmax 67.7
LAFmin 61.0
LAeq 67.9
Outside blower room (2 m) LAFmax 70.3
LAFmin 66.1
LAeq 55.4
Ozone room doors closed (2 m) LAFmax 67.5
LAFmin 53.4
LAeq 58.7
Ozone room doors open LAFmax 70.1
LAFmin 54.9
LAeq 86.7
Inside chiller room LAFmax 89.8
LAFmin 82.5
LAeq 100.4
Inside smolt blower room LAFmax 104.3
LAFmin 97.1
As a result, the following changes have been implemented in the design at Whale Point: The chiller room motors and ozone and oxygen generators are situated on the south-east corner of the building facing Whale Point Hill. This reduces the impact of noise from these pieces of plant while allowing oxygen and or ozone to be piped into the requisite plant areas (water pre-treatment, wastewater treatment and possibly wastewater treatment building air emissions if necessary for ozone and tank aeration for oxygen). Sound insulated doors will be fitted to these rooms where they are on an outside wall. Blowers will not be used to remove carbon dioxide and will be replaced by fans and trickle filters. The use of Bondor for external cladding will be augmented with high-mass acoustic cladding. Acoustic curtains will be installed inside the chiller room doors.
44 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 45 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
3.13.2 Road transport Smolt will be delivered to the nursery from HA hatcheries at Lonnavale and Forest Home in converted milk tankers. Delivery will take place seasonally. Fish arrive in late October or early November each year and are delivered into a receptor tank on the north-east of the nursery building (Figure 11). The strategic design of the nursery allows HA to reduce the size of smolt sent from the hatcheries. This means fewer trucks and facilitates delivery only between 0800 and 1700 during the smolt delivery period.
The other main delivery item is fish feed. This is delivered regularly to a storage room on the southern side of the nursery building (Figure 11). 3.13.3 Marine vessels The Ronja Huon currently moors at the Whale Point jetty to take on river water to mix with town water for ADG bathing. The frequency is shown in Table 9.
Table 9 Ronja Huon at Whale Point jetty Feb 17 – Jan 18
Ronja Huon Ronja Storm Baths and forecast Month moorings per moorings per baths month month Feb-17 94 31 13 Mar-17 85 28 12 Apr-17 66 22 9 May-17 77 26 11 Jun-17 37 12 5 Jul-17 42 14 6 Aug-17 54 18 8 Sep-17 49 16 7 Oct-17 92 31 13 Nov-17 86 29 12 Dec-17 116 39 17 Jan-18 117 39 17
By the time the nursery is operational, the Ronja Huon will have been replaced by the Ronja Storm. The Ronja Storm will be taking on bathing water routinely and fish from the nursery in season. The far-right column in Table 9 provides the equivalent number of trips by the Ronja Storm during the same period, for comparison purposes only. In addition to the reduced frequency of travel and local mooring, the Ronja Storm is being constructed to reduce its noise emissions in comparison to the Ronja Huon. 3.14 Traffic Tanker trucks will be used to move salmon smolt to the facility from Lonnavale and Forest Home. The number of vehicle movements will not exceed the current vehicle movements that occur to move these fish. Currently upwards of 300 of these truck movements occur from the Lonnavale and Forest Home facilities, mainly during the period from late February to October. The trucks are converted milk tankers with a gross weight of 42.5 to 45 tonnes. Truck movements beyond Port Huon would be reduced as there would no longer be any need to move smolt further south to Hideaway Bay.
45 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 46 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Peak vehicle movements will be: early to mid-March – estimated 72 truckloads in total at around 6 truckloads per day late May to early June – 100 truckloads in total at up to 12 truckloads per day late August – upwards of 100 truckloads across a 4-week period at 4–5 truckloads per day.
The project will eliminate a requirement for an estimated 370 truck movements a year by transferring fish ready for the ocean directly into Net Liners at the Whale Point jetty and from those to the Ronja Storm.
Fry for the Whale Point facility will be transferred from HA hatcheries at Judbury and Lonnavale twice a year 40–45 truck movements in November 20–25 movements in May. There will also be feed delivery and waste removal, amounting to about 65 truckloads a year. 3.15 Off-site infrastructure No additional off-site infrastructure facilities are required for the proposed development.
As noted earlier, a pipeline is proposed to follow the site’s existing internal road for approximately 850 metres and then attach to the HA wharf infrastructure for discharging treated wastewater into blue net liners for use in the bathing operations. The total length of pipework required will be approximately 950 metres. A pipeline will also be required to discharge fish from the facility to discharge into the well boat at the wharf. These pipeline’s follow an existing pipeline taking freshwater from the Kermandie and discharging it into the net liners for use in bathing. 3.16 Personnel It is anticipated that the facility will employ around seven full-time staff along with associated maintenance staff.
46 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 47 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
4 Consultation Process 4.1 Community consultation A formal community and stakeholder engagement strategy commenced in February 2017 with a presentation to an open meeting of Port Huon residents (see Appendix D).
The February audience was mainly local Port Huon residents with approximately 5% from elsewhere. Immediate feedback was supportive. Issues raised and discussed were potential community concerns around essentially local issues, i.e. light, noise, odour and visual disturbance. Experience from Forest Home allowed HA representatives to positively reassure the audience on these issues. The local feedback was that HA had already considered these issues in depth and had potential solutions. No negative comments were received by HA representatives.
Community consultation will continue during the approval process. An advertised, open, public information day will be held at which all aspects of the project will be displayed and where discussion can take place between project team members and the general public. An issues register will be maintained to record issues and concerns and a survey opportunity will be provided to exiting attendees to gauge their knowledge about and support of the project.
HA intends to be open and transparent in the supply of information to all government departments and the general public. Once developed, the site DPEMP will be available for downloading from the HA website.
HA has held an open day at the Forest Home hatchery for Port Huon residents where the differences and similarities between the hatchery and the Whale Point nursery were explained.
HA also intends to hold discussions with major stakeholders during the approval process, including the HVC, EPA, Inland Fisheries Service and Taswater. These discussions commenced in December 2016. 4.2 Regulation/approval 4.2.1 Environment Protection Authority Initial consultation was with an EPA Regulatory Officer in early December 2016. HA were advised that the project would be a ‘Level 2 activity’ under Schedule 2 Subsection (4) (c) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 (EMPCA), being an animal processing factory producing more than 100 tonnes of product per year. The officer also requested submission of a short NOI to start the assessment process. The NOI was submitted on or about 20 December 2016.
In late December, an EPA Assessment Officer verbally advised that it was not an animal processing factory and therefore not a Level 2 activity. It would therefore need to go to Huon Valley Council as a Development Application.
In early January 2017, environmental consultant reviewed the activity and advised HA that it was likely a ‘Level 2 activity’ under Schedule 2 Subsection (4) (c) of the EMPCA, being 3(a) Wastewater Treatment Works: the conduct of wastewater treatment works that involve the discharge of treated or untreated sewage, septic tank effluent or industrial or commercial wastewater to land or water, being works with a design capacity to treat an average dry-weather flow of 100 kilolitres or more per day of sewage or
47 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 48 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
wastewater. After discussing this with an EPA Assessment Officer , a meeting was organised with HA’s Environmental Manager and the EPA’s Assessment Section Head, to confirm this.
At this meeting, on 3 February 2017, it was noted that the proposal presented few environmental risks. HA was requested that a new NOI be submitted which described the project and environmental risks in detail to enable the EPA to decide whether they even needed to assess the proposal. 4.2.2 Huon Valley Council HA has had a number of discussions with HVC’s Development Services Coordinator, Consultant Planner and Planning Officer: in September 2016, to ascertain the likelihood of Council support for a planning scheme amendment to enable the development in October 2016, confirming that a recently approved urgent amendment to the planning scheme meant that the proposed growout facility did not require a planning scheme amendment and is permissible in January 2017, discussion around which planning scheme codes are applicable to the development, which supporting reports are required and outlining in detail applicable zone and code provisions. in February 2017, clarifying applicable planning scheme codes for a DA. 4.3 Biosecurity Preliminary discussions have occurred between HA’s General Manager Fish Performance and the Company Veterinarian and the Chief Veterinary Officer regarding biosecurity and management of animal health. These factors are already covered under existing approved management plans at HA's hatcheries at Lonnavale and Forest Home. The principles and management protocols in these plans are easily transferable to Whale Point.
Biosecurity management plans are part of HA’s Veterinary Health Plan which is submitted to the Chief Veterinary Officer. They are considered commercial in confidence and only available on request to the HA’s General Manager. Relevant biosecurity sections are provided in Appendix L.
48 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 49 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
5 Existing Environment 5.1 Planning aspects A development application to the Huon Valley Council (HVC) and consequent permit (subject to compliance with the relevant acceptable solutions or performance criteria) will be required. The project is not a Level 2 activity under Schedule 2 of the EMPCA; however, HA has been advised that the EPA Board will require the council to refer the application to it for an environmental assessment under Section 24 of the EMPCA.
The land to be used for this proposed development is zoned ‘General Industrial’ under the Huon Valley Planning Scheme 2015. The operation of the land as a salmon nursery is a discretionary use in the Huon Valley Planning Scheme for the General Industrial Zone. 5.2 Neighbouring land use The site is located on a single title, Lot 4 on Sealed Plan 142071 (Figure 7) with frontage onto Hospital Bay (at the mouth of the Kermandie River and immediately west of the Huon River). Blocks to the south and south-west are zoned ‘Rural Resource’, blocks to the west across Kermandie Rive are zoned ‘Rural Living’, and south of that zone are smaller parcels of ‘Low Density Residential’. 5.3 Reserves and conservation areas State reserves and conservation areas are situated to the north, south-east and west of the proposed development site (Figure 22). The main areas are: West 16.2 km to the declared Tasmania Wilderness World Heritage Area West 23.3 km to Arve Loop Forest Reserve South-west 21.9 km to Hartz Mountain National Park South-east 20.9 km to the Ninepin Point Marine Nature Reserve East 13.7 km to Port Cygnet Conservation Area North 125 m to the coastal strip, which is an informal reserve on public land (Figure 23).
The proposed operation and its potential impacts are local in nature and not expected to impact on any of these reserves or conservation areas.
49 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 50 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 22 Reserves and conservation areas
50 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 51 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 23 Informal coastal reserve
Source: http://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map 5.4 Topography The site is essentially flat with elevations ranging from 20 to 10 m above sea level. The tidal banks of the Kermandie River approximately 100 m to the north of the site are at 5mAHD. The site is situated approximately 825 m to the north of the peak of Whale Point Hill, which has an elevation of 23mAHD. 5.4.1 Whale Point marine The seabed around the Whale Point jetty was surveyed for HA by Aquaculture, Management & Development in 2014. Figure 24 and Figure 25 show the depth profiles in the vicinity of the jetty. The seabed at the distal end of the jetty is 7 m in depth and rapidly drops to more than 10 m in depth.
51 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 52 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 24 Whale Point jetty depth profiles close to jetty
52 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 53 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 25 Whale Point jetty depth profiles
5.5 Climate The closest active Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) weather stations to the proposed Whale Point Road site are at Groves, 30 km to the north, and Geeveston, 2.5 km to the west. The average rainfall and temperature records for Groves and Geeveston are shown in Figure 26 and Table 10. The Huon Valley has a warm temperate climate, characterised by winter rainfall and drier and warm, but rarely hot, summers.
53 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 54 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 26 Mean temperature and rain records for Grove and Geeveston
54 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 55 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 10 Mean temperature and rain records for Grove and Geeveston
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mean minimum temperature Grove (°C) 9.7 9.4 8 5.7 4.3 2.1 1.9 2.8 4.4 5.5 7.3 8.3 Mean minimum temperature Geeveston (°C) 10 9.9 8.5 6.3 4.7 2.4 2.2 3 4.5 6 7.6 8.7 Mean maximum temperature Grove (°C) 23.3 22.8 21.1 17.9 15 12.5 12.2 13.4 15.5 17.3 19.1 21.1 Mean maximum temperature Geeveston (°C) 21.8 22.1 20.1 17.2 14.6 12.3 12.1 13 14.8 16.4 18.3 19.9 Mean rainfall Grove (mm) 47.1 50.9 41.2 45.2 62.5 65.7 69.2 85.1 81.2 64 59.8 58.4 Mean rainfall Geeveston (mm) 57.2 49.2 54.7 63.6 73.6 72.4 92.7 104.6 93.1 92.2 69.4 70.5
55 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 56 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
5.6 Natural values The proposed location for the facility is within an area of the site that has been previously developed. No impact on current surrounding flora and fauna should occur. Figure 27 is a Google Earth image from 15 September 2013, which shows the proposed location of the development bounded by site roads. The proposed development site is covered by sealed hardstand. 5.6.1 Vegetation communities As can be seen in Figure 27, there is minimal vegetation within the proposed development area.
A Natural Values Atlas Report for the proposed site was generated on 22 December 2016 from the Department of Primary Industries, Parks Water and Environment (DPIPWE) website for threatened vegetation communities and TASVEG 3.0 communities within 150 m of the centre of the proposed development site. This showed Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland as a threatened community within 150 m (Figure 28 and Figure 29 and Appendix E. A Protected Matters Report was generated from the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy website on 14 December 2016. This is shown as Appendix F.
There are no threatened flora species onsite that are potentially affected by the proposed activity. As noted above and shown in Figure 28 and Figure 29, Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland is a threatened community which exists on the coastal fringe adjacent to the existing operation.
56 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 57 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 27 Proposed site – hardstand and fringing vegetation
Source: Google Earth image dated 15 September 2013
57 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 58 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 28 Threatened vegetation communities within 150 m
Source: Natural Values Atlas 22 December 2016
TASVEG 3.0 communities within 150 m were listed as: (ARS) Saline sedgeland/rushland (DOV) Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland (FAG) Agricultural land (FUM) Extra-urban miscellaneous (OAQ) Water, sea.
Figure 28 shows Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland encroaching within the fence line of the HA property. On-site inspections, however, show that the land north of the existing hardstand (Figure 27) is mainly regrowth, with Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland to the north of the fence. This can also be seen in Plate 2 and Plate 3.
58 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 59 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Plate 2 Fringing vegetation north of hardstand
Plate 3 Vegetation and existing conditions north of hardstand
59 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 60 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Plate 4 Fringing vegetation north-east of hardstand
Plate 4 shows the current view looking towards the existing easternmost stormwater pond. HA planted regrowth (mainly wattle), and some weeds (gorse) can be seen in the foreground with Eucalyptus ovata in the background.
Plate 5 is a close-up view of the area where the bulk of the proposed retention pond will sit.
Plate 6 below is taken from the north-western edge of the hardstand on site (Figure 27) looking towards the existing easternmost stormwater pond. This existing pond can also be seen in Figure 19. The new stormwater pond is proposed to sit over the regrowth shown in Plate 6.
60 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 61 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Plate 5 Eastern end of proposed stormwater retention pond
Plate 6 Fringing vegetation north-east of hardstand
61 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 62 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 29 TASVEG 3.0 communities within 150 m
Source: Natural Values Atlas 22/12/16 5.6.1.1 Introduced plants A Natural Values Atlas Report for the proposed site was generated on 22 December 2016 from the DPIPWE website for introduced weed species within 150 m of the centre of the proposed development site. This showed: no Tasmanian Weed Management Act 1999 weeds found within 150 m of the site no priority weeds found within 500 m.
As noted above, however, on-site inspections show that the land north-east of the existing hardstand (Figure 27) contains some gorse around the existing eastern stormwater pond (Plate 4). 5.6.2 Fauna There are no threatened fauna species onsite that are potentially affected by the proposed activity. As noted in Section 5.11.2 Historic heritage the site has been used for industrial purposes since the 1880’s.
Threatened species known to inhabit the vicinity of the Port Huon area are shown in Appendix E. Risks associated with the proposal; are described in Section 7.8.3 Potential effects along with mitigation measures proposed in Section 7.8.4.
62 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 63 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
A Natural Values Atlas Report for the proposed site was generated from the DPIPWE website for threatened fauna within 150 m of the centre of the proposed development site.
The report showed no raptor nests or sightings found within 150 m and two confirmed records for the swift parrot within 50 m to the north-east of the proposed site (Figure 30).
Table 11 Fauna species of conservation significance previously recorded within 150 m of the site Species Status Observations Comments TSPA EPBC Act Records within the site There are no records within the site. Records within 150 m of the site There are two records within 150 m of the site. Potential habitat is described as ‘Breeding range (comprising foraging and nesting habitat) is within 10 km of the coastline (nearest coast including shores, bays, inlets or peninsulas). Foraging habitat: all Eucalyptus ovata – E. viminalis shrubby forest (OV), grassy E. globulus forest (GG) and E. globulus wet forest Lathamus discolor e 2 database floristic communities (subsumed into R) or any forest (swift parrot) EN records type with >10% E. globulus canopy cover. Nesting habitat: Eucalyptus trees present >70 cm dbh, with hollows present’ (FPA, 2011). The database record most likely represents a sighting of migrating/dispersing/vagrant individual. The proposed development will have no impact on this species. Note: Species are listed as rare (r), vulnerable (v), endangered (e), or extinct (x) on the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995; and as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN), critically endangered (CR) or extinct (EX) on the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
63 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 64 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 30 Threatened fauna within 150 m of the site
5.6.2.1 Terrestrial fauna habitat The proposed development site has been used for industrial purposes since the 1920s. No terrestrial fauna habitat remains on site. 5.6.3 Hospital Bay A Natural Values Atlas Report for the proposed site was generated on 3 May 20176 from the DPIPWE website (see Appendix E).
The Huon Estuary is largely unimpacted by major industrial and urban contamination sources throughout its catchment; finfish aquaculture is the only major industry affecting the system. Several researchers have described the natural values in the Huon Estuary in general, with specific notes on Hospital Bay
Macleod and Helidoniotis (2005) undertook a broad assessment of the ecological changes in the Derwent and Huon estuaries in 2005 to provide baseline information to assist in the ongoing management of these systems. Spatial sampling was undertaken throughout the estuary to characterise the benthic communities. These communities were then evaluated in relation to the changes in the natural environmental conditions as well as changes in the level of organic enrichment and metal contamination. In the Huon, 25 infaunal samples were collected from sites selected to give a broad overview of the ecology of the system. Sediment samples were also collected from the Huon for analysis of sediment particle size and evaluation of metal levels and organic carbon content.
64 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 65 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
In evaluating biota in the Huon River, Ross and Macleod (2013) noted that sediment biogeochemistry and infaunal community structure broadly reflect the prevailing environmental conditions, particularly the degree of exposure and current flow regimes within the region.
Macleod and Helidoniotis (2005) found that the highest metal levels were in the vicinity of Hospital Bay and are likely associated with historic outputs from the pulp mill, which was adding both organic and metal contaminants to the system whilst in operation. The Huon Estuary is strongly depositional with the majority of the estuary composed of soft sediments. These sediments act as a repository for any contaminants to the system and the benthic infauna in turn reflect the cumulative effects of these pollutants.
There were no areas where fauna was completely absent, with diversity high throughout most of the sample sites. The faunal community was most strongly related to the natural geomorphology and salinity gradient of the estuary, and in turn to the depositional character of the system and the organic content. Changes throughout the estuary were gradual but several discrete communities were identified.
Hall (1994) noted that sediment particle size is one of the most important factors in determining community structure. Macleod and Helidoniotis (2005) found that the sediments were very similar throughout most of the Huon. Mud was the predominant substrate, although there were sandier regions in the northern estuary around the Egg Islands and in the estuary mouth. The salt wedge extends well up the estuary, with the bottom waters being strongly saline as far up as Brabazon Point. The toxic status of the sediments also has a structuring effect on the biological communities and for much of the estuary the sediments were well oxygenated. Redox potential levels and sulfide concentrations in the sediments around Hospital Bay suggested that conditions in this area were quite strongly reducing. Butler (2006) noted that this is probably a legacy of the wood chip operations that once occurred in the bay and which have left a substantial organic loading (see Sections 5.11.2 Historic heritage and 5.7.3.3 Water Quality Hospital Bay).
There was no evidence of any significant heavy metal contamination in the Huon other than in the vicinity of Hospital Bay where the main contaminants were arsenic, copper, nickel and zinc. There was some evidence to suggest that material may be being entrained out of the bay, mainly to the south, although there was also a slight increase at two sites just north of Hospital Bay.
The fauna was dominated by euryhaline and/or estuarine species, with no specifically freshwater or marine species collected within the sampling area. Species diversity throughout the system was relatively high (Shannon index >2.0), although levels were lower in the upper reaches and there were significant differences between the upper estuary and other regions. The main differences appeared to be in response to position within the estuary according to the prevailing salinity gradient.
Butler (2006) in particular noted that the Huon Estuary has not experienced major industry, apart from three operations on the shore of Hospital Bay (Port Huon). The ‘largest sawmill in Australasia’ was cutting local timbers there from the early 1900s until its closure in 1929. On the same site, a neutral sulfite semi- chemical pulping mill (processing eucalypt hardwoods) operated 1962–1982 and 1986–1991.
Historically, the Huon estuary has received small loadings of materials from human activities, more often than not diffuse inputs in run-off after alteration of catchment land cover and riparian zones. Hyde (1996) has been referenced by a number of authors as noting that Hospital Bay was more seriously degraded:
65 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 66 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
initially from sawdust washed into the bay during the time of the sawmill, and later from direct discharge of wastes from the pulp mill. Deposits of sawdust changed the western foreshore of the bay markedly, filling in what was the original watercourse.
CSIRO (2000) noted that the legacy of wood processing on the shores of Hospital Bay for much of this century has left some environmental degradation (Chesterman 1995). Deposits of sawdust have changed the western foreshore markedly, filling in what was originally watercourse. In a 1980 survey, wood fibres and other wood-derived particles were also evident in sediments throughout Hospital Bay and out into the main arm of the estuary (Jones and Lawson 1980). While the pulp mill was operational, its discharge caused the surface sediments of Hospital Bay to be a soft, sticky mud that reeked of hydrogen sulfide. This ‘anaerobic blanket’ has declined from a recorded 72 ha of bay sediments in 1982 to about 1 ha about the pulp mill wharf in 1996 (Hyde 1996). 5.6.4 Whale Point jetty Aquaculture Management & Development undertook a survey of the Whale Point jetty area in March 2014. The survey included water and sediment sampling as well as the use of a VideoRay Remotely Operated Inspection System using a colour video camera with 170 degrees of tilt range, 350 lines of resolution and 0.5 lux of sensitivity, accompanied by two 20-watt adjustable halogen lights; and a Nomad 800L mobile GIS unit with attached Novatel Smart Antenna Differential GPS to locate all sites. Sample points and survey locations are shown in Figure 31 and Figure 32.
Figure 31 Sample sites Whale Point jetty area
Sampling point and start of video transect Denotes the direction of the video survey
66 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 67 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 32 Sample site and video transect starting point and direction
Sampling point and start of video transect Denotes the direction of the video survey
Fine brown silt sediments were observed with no trace of any darkened layer or deposits, even within burrows, suggesting that the sediments are well oxygenated. Although generally quite flat in relief, the surface of the deposits was broken up by the numerous burrows that dominated the sediments throughout the filming suggesting that there is a very active fauna subsurface. The surface of the sediments was covered in fine, small elongated deposits, which may be worm tubes of some kind or faecal waste deposits from animals inhabiting the burrows. There was also an occasional large worm tube, fish (possible goby and leather jacket), a cushion star, and an occasional piece of drift algae. There also appeared to be fine trails in the surface deposits.
Very little fauna or flora was observed during filming. No rock outcrops or seaweed beds were observed in the area.
Overall, the survey is indicative of well-oxygenated fine sediments with a healthy subsurface fauna. 5.7 Surface water There are two waterways in the vicinity of the development: the Kermandie River and the Huon River. 5.7.1 Kermandie River The Kermandie catchment is located in southern Tasmania; it has a total catchment area of 207.5 km2 and discharges into the Huon River. The catchment consists of the Kermandie River, with a catchment area of 136.2 km2, and 19 smaller streams discharging directly into the sea. The headwaters of the catchment start at Taylors Ridge (650mAHD) and Scotts Divide (530mAHD). This portion of the catchment is unpopulated and the landscape is dominated by native and plantation eucalypt forest. 67 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 68 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
The middle and lower parts of the catchment consist of a mixture of agriculture and smaller (lifestyle) residential allotments. Included in the lower catchments are the township of Geeveston and the smaller settlements of Franklin, Port Huon, Kermandie and Castle Forbes Bay (Department of Primary Industries and Water, 2008).
The lower catchment around Franklin receives a typical annual rainfall of around 800 mm and the upper catchment near Taylors Ridge receives around 1400 mm.
There were 171 registered (current) entitlements for water extraction registered on the Water Information Management System as of July 2007. Most of these extractions were concentrated in the lower subcatchments and relate to irrigation and water supply. The largest extraction entitlement is 1100 ML associated with an industrial extraction from a storage dam on Rileys Creek. This entitlement is largely taken up by HA and Tassal for aquaculture purposes.
The Kermandie River flows into the Huon River and may supply water to the proposed development as noted in Section 3.8 Water supply. 5.7.2 Huon River The Huon River is a significant watercourse immediately to the north and east of the site. The Huon River is the fifth-longest in Tasmania, starting at the Scotts Peak Dam and descending over 1100 m, flowing east through the Huon Valley into the D’Entrecasteaux Channel. The Huon River catchment is 1362 km2. Flows in the Huon River vary with rainfall in the catchments of the river and its feeder tributaries.
The Huon River near the site is used for recreational boating, rowing and fishing, and as a Tasport location. The Port Huon wharf is part of HA operations and is utilised by feed barges and the well-boat, the Ronja Huon.
Table 12 reproduced from Ross and Macleod (2013) compares the average daily flow for the major catchment sources draining into the Huon River downstream as far south as the Whale Point jetty.
Table 12 Average daily flows 2009–2011
DPIWE gauging Flow ML/day Flow ML/day Flow ML/day Location station 2009 2010 2011 635 Huon River 8905 6477 8203 downstream Judbury Rd Bridge 6210 Mountain River at 277 115 240 Ranelagh 341 Kermandie River 125 91 114 at Geeveston Total flow at 9307 6683 8557 Whale Point
From Table 12 it can be seen that the Kermandie River flow is overwhelmed by the Huon River flow once it leaves Hospital Bay and enters the Huon River (see Figure 5).
68 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 69 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
5.7.3 Water quality 5.7.3.1 Kermandie River The Kermandie River ecosystem is influenced by urban stormwater run-off and agricultural and forestry practices. The Geeveston sewage treatment plant (STP) is located on the Huon Highway and receives wastewater from the Geeveston township. The STP discharges into the Kermandie River.
Ross and Macleod (2013) reported median concentrations of selected water quality parameters measured at the DPIPWE monitoring station in the Kermandie River near Geeveston from 2009 to 2012. This is compared in Table 13 with water quality at the Whale Point pump station as sampled by HA on 27 January 2017.
Table 13 Kermandie River water quality
Kermandie River near Geeveston (median Kermandie River concentrations of Whale Point pump Parameter Unit selected water quality station 27 January parameters 2009– 2017 2012) No. samples 20 1 pH 6.39 Conductivity µS/cm 162 TSS mg/L 10 Total alkalinity mg/L 35 NO2 mg/L 0.008 0.014 NO3 mg/L 0.150 0.091 NH4 N mg/L 0.055 0.042 Total N mg/L 0.598 0.68 Total P mg/L 0.044 0.07 BOD mg/L <5
Ross and Macleod (2013) reported that there was a strong seasonal pattern of flows evident, with highest flows during winter and early spring and lowest flows during summer and early autumn. Nutrient concentrations measured in each river system feeding into the Huon River showed that the relative loads of total nitrogen and phosphorus largely reflected differences in flow; that is, the Huon contributes the vast majority of total N and total P loads, with loads at their greatest during the winter and early spring and greater in 2009 and 2011 than in 2010. The Kermandie River showed loads of dissolved nitrogen, which most likely reflect the influence of the Geeveston STP that operates near the mouth of the river.
The levels of nitrates in the upper Kermandie River and its tributaries, Scotts Rivulet and Rileys Creek, are consistent with karst affected rivers in Tasmania. Examples of karst affected rivers are the Tyenna River, Junee Creek and the Florentine River (Derwent Estuary Program Schooner Water Quality Database).
69 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 70 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
5.7.3.2 Huon River
Ross and Macleod (2013) reported that NOx concentrations showed a pronounced seasonal pattern, reaching a maximum of 3–5 µM in winter and a minimum, often to below detection limits (<0.05 µM), in summer, consistent with the intrusion of nutrient-rich ocean waters in winter and the subsequent biological uptake and depletion through spring, summer and early autumn. Concentrations were typically higher throughout the Huon Estuary and in the southern half of the channel, most likely reflecting the proximity to both the larger intrusion of ocean waters that occurs across the southern boundary of the channel and inputs from the Huon River.
The seasonal pattern observed for ammonium was not as clear as that seen for NOx, with lower concentrations of ammonium during summer, particularly in surface waters. Concentrations of ammonium were similar in bottom and surface waters from mid-autumn through early spring, before surface waters become depleted throughout summer relative to bottom water concentrations. This most likely reflects increased biological activity and uptake through summer in the photic surface waters, compared with bottom waters that continue to be supplied with ammonium through sediment remineralisation of organic matter. Concentrations of ammonium were generally more elevated at sites in the Huon Estuary relative to sites in the southern half of the channel, which is consistent with model predictions that nutrients accumulate in the Huon River and the northern channel due to the residual regional circulation (Figure 33), which generally flows from the south to the north via estuarine circulation of the Huon River.
70 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 71 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 33 Residual circulation in the D’Entrecasteaux Channel and Huon Estuary
Source: Herzfield et al., 2004 (From Ross and Macleod (2013)
Phosphate concentrations also follow a seasonal pattern with concentrations elevated from autumn through to early spring, reaching a maximum in winter. Concentrations in bottom waters remained higher than in surface waters throughout the year. The decrease in phosphate concentrations in surface waters in summer is likely due to increased biological activity and uptake, and sediment remineralisation of organic matter is likely to be a significant contributor to bottom water concentrations. Data collected in Storm Bay through 2009–2012 indicated that marine waters are a source of phosphate, particularly during winter.
In Ross and Macleod (2013), nutrient loads were estimated for the Huon River because it contributes the vast majority of flows and loads to the Huon Channel. Loads for the Huon River were calculated based on the relationship between nutrient concentration and river flow. River flow and loads from the Huon River were highly variable at inter- and intra-annual time scales. During the period assessed, average annual 71 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 72 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
river flow ranged from ~2800 to 2900 GL and nutrient loads ranged from 770 to 830 t total N per annum (Table 30).
Ross and Macleod (2013) also reported that fish farm inputs of total dissolved nitrogen in the Huon River and Port Esperance Marine Farming Development Plan Area remained relatively stable at ~1000 t/year across the calendar years 2009, 2010 and 2011. In the D’Entrecasteaux Channel Marine Farming Development Plan Area, inputs increased from 709 tonnes in 2009 to 849 tonnes in 2011. Seasonally, feed inputs are at their lowest in late summer before increasing through winter to a maximum in spring each year. 5.7.3.3 Hospital Bay The Geeveston STP outfall currently discharges into the Kermandie River, approximately 4 km upstream of the outflow to Hospital Bay and approximately 2.2 km upstream of Shipwrights Point (Huon River). The Geeveston STP discharge is mandated by an Environment Protection Notice issued by the EPA.
Table 14 Geeveston STP effluent discharge limits Parameter Unit Maximum pH pH unit 8.5 Total suspended solids mg/L 25 Biological oxygen demand mg/L 15 Oil and grease mg/L 10 Total phosphorous mg/L 5.5 Total nitrogen mg/L 24 Total ammonia – nitrogen mg/L 18.5 Thermotolerant coliforms cfu/100 mL 200 Chlorine mg/L 1
Water quality in Hospital Bay is influenced by flows in the Huon and Kermandie rivers, which are in turn related to rainfall in their relative catchments. Kermandie River water mixes with Huon River water as it flows past Shipwrights Point and then south past the Whale Point jetty. Given the corresponding catchments of the Huon and Kermandie rivers, there is expected to be significant dilution of Kermandie River water by Huon River water. HA has undertaken limited sampling and analysis around the Whale Point jetty. When the results have been compared with reports undertaken for the Huon River system by CSIRO (2000), Ross and Macleod (2013), Butler (2006) and Gallagher (1996), the concentration of nutrients and total ammonia N appear slightly elevated around the mouth of Hospital Bay, reducing rapidly as sampling is undertaken south of the Whale Point jetty.
Gallagher (1996) noted the effects of the pulp mill, operating at Whale Point from 1962 to July 1991 (interim closure 1982–1986). CSIRO (2000) noted that it is possible that the elevated organic matter adjacent to the Whale Point jetty in Hospital Bay is due to the presence of wood fibres from the former sawmill at Hospital Bay.
Butler (2006) described the Huon Estuary as a modified water body, but a much less degraded system than the Derwent Estuary. He also noted that historical industrial activity, notably in the Hospital Bay precinct, has left a small but fading ‘footprint’.
72 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 73 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Chesterman (1985) obtained metal concentrations (among 70 elements) in sediments associated with Hospital Bay and the decommissioning of the pulp mill (Table 15 reproduced in full). The samples were collected about the APM wharf (the main discharge point for mill effluents), although results were also reported for a ‘background’ site at Castle Forbes Bay, a small bay 3 km upstream of Port Huon on the western shore. Higher concentrations were found in the surface sample at site 13 alongside the wharf.
Table 15 Trace element concentration ranges in surface sediments Huon estuary
Jones et al.b CSIROc Trace Chestermana Guidelines Guidelines Entire Entire element ANZECC/ ANZECC/ Hospital Bay estuary estuary ARMCANZ ARMCANZ mg/kg, dry 3 sites 18 sites 6 sites matter basis (1995) (1997) (1998) ISQG low ISGQ high Arsenic 18–22 4–25 1.9–28 20 70 Cadmium 0.2–0.4 <10 0.02–0.26 1.5 10 Chromium 34–53 50–80 – 80 370 Cobalt 9–20 15–35 3.7–12.5 – – Copper 17–252 7–32 3.6–47.0 65 270 Iron (%) 2.3–4.1 1.73–4.05 0.6–4.3 – – Lead 10–88 <2–48 3.6–29 50 220 Manganese 98–116 – 27–87 – – Mercury – <5 0.15 1 Nickel 24–36 <2–28 5.6–21.6 21 52 Vanadium 59–112 – – Zinc 51–1002 <2–66 14–92 200 410 a Acid-extractable metals (conc. HNO3 /HCl); also reported Ti, Mo, Th and U (not shown) b Total metals (XRF and NAA); also reported Sb and Au (not shown) c Acid-extractable metals (conc. HNO3 , ICP-SMS) d Includes a site in Castle Forbes Bay e Includes a site in Hospital Bay
HA undertook heavy metal sampling of Hospital Bay water during 2008–2009 (Table 16) from above and below the weir at the bottom of the Kermandie River and along the southern shore of Hospital Bay, about 200 m to the west of Whale Point jetty. These results demonstrate that there is reasonable variation both in the freshwater source (Kermandie River) and in the vicinity of Whale Point.
73 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 74 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 16 HA sampling 2008–2009 Upstream weir Kermandie River Downstream weir Kermandie River Hospital Bay near Whale Point Date Cu T Cu D Zn T Zn D Cu T Cu D Zn T Zn D Cu T Cu D Zn T Zn D µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L µg/L 2 Nov 2007 5 3 22 12 <10 <10 <15 <15 <10 <10 <20 <20 28 Jan 2008 18 3 105 9 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 <1 27 Feb 2008 2 1 4 <1 2 <1 2 <1 4 <1 1 <1 19 Mar 2008 3 6 <2 <2 4 <2 8 <2 11 <2 20 Aug 2008 2 4 1 1 <1 1
74 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 75 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
5.7.3.4 Whale Point jetty area Aquaculture Management & Development (2014) sampled for surface water quality and found surface water temperatures and DO levels reflecting the shallow depth of the sample site (2–3 m depth) and the time of day and the time of the year (Table 17). Sample locations are shown in Figure 31 and Figure 32.
Table 17 Dissolved oxygen and temperature levels
DO % saturation DO mg/L Temperature Sample site 92 7.3 19.3 Closer to shore 94 6.7 22.4
Sampling for dissolved and total metals showed that levels of dissolved metals were below the detectable levels, indicating that any increase in metals concentrations as shown in the total metals results can be presumed to be derived from the suspended solids in the water column. Although Hospital Bay has a history of elevated heavy metals in the sediments, the concentrations measured in the water column (Table 18) are below the guideline’s trigger limits for 95% level of protection for a slightly–moderately disturbed system, except total copper.
Table 18 Metals in surface water 13 March 2014
ANZECC 2002 trigger values for marine water µg/L – level of protection % species Dissolved Total Parameter µg/L µg/L 99% 95% Al (pH > .5) <20 41 As <10 <10 Cd <1 <1 0.7 5.5 Co <3 <3 0.005 1 Cr (V1) <1 <1 0.14 4.4 Cu <2 2 0.3 1.3 Fe <20 93 Mn <2 4 Ni <5 <5 7 70 Pb <10 <10 2.2 4.4 Se <20 <20 Zn <2 5 7 15
Nutrient data for the sample site is provided in Table 19. Although there was a slightly elevated concentration of nitrate nitrogen in the water at the time of sampling, analytes that might cause concern as a toxicant were well below any significant level.
75 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 76 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 19 Water Quality 13 March 2014
Parameter Units Value EC mS/cm 50.4 Total suspended solids mg/L 2.0 Total dissolved solids g/L 51.4 TAN mg/L <0.08 Kjeldahl nitrogen mg/L 0.57 Nitrate nitrogen mg/L 0.48 Nitrite nitrogen mg/L <0.01 Total nitrogen mg/L 0.32 Total phosphorous mg/L <0.05 Phosphate phosphorous mg/L <0.1
Residual Metals in sediments are shown in Table 20.
Table 20 Metals in sediments
Parameter mg/kg Cd <2 Cr 34 Cu 96 Fe 31,000 Mn 85 Ni 19 Pb 20 Zn 100
The sediments are composed of silt with approximately 15% fine sand. The metal concentrations are comparable to sampling undertaken at the site for AMCOR Ltd (June 1994). 5.8 Groundwater There are no known groundwater bores within the proposed development site. Local topography slopes from the peak of Whale Point Hill at an elevation of 23mAHD towards the tidal banks of the Kermandie River approximately 100 m to the north of the site at 5mAHD (Figure 34). The local groundwater catchment is not expected to produce significant quantities of groundwater.
HA engaged GES to undertake a groundwater assessment at the proposed development site. Shallow diamond core holes were drilled to varying refusals at between 3.3 m and 6.5 m around edges of the APM concrete slab (see Figure 40). These did not encounter groundwater. Below 2.0 m highly weathered dolerite clayey gravel matrices were found. Some were logged as moist. Hole TH06 found slightly moist silty clay from 0.7 m to termination at 3.3 m. A single deep hole was drilled to 25 m. This did not encounter groundwater.
76 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 77 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
5.9 Noise environment A baseline noise survey at Port Huon and at the proposed development site was conducted by Caloundra Environmental for HA on 18 and 19 January 2017. The assessment was conducted in accordance with the Noise measurement procedures manual published by the Environment Division, Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts, July 2008. Sound pressure levels were recorded during day, evening and night periods. 5.9.1 Identification of sensitive noise receptors 5.9.1.1 Port Huon The proposed Whale Point site is essentially flat with elevations ranging between 10 m and 20 m above sea level. The tidal banks of the Kermandie River approximately 100 m to the north of the site are at an elevation of 5mAHD. The proposed Whale Point site is situated approximately 825 m to the north of the peak of Whale Point Hill, which has an elevation of 230mAHD.
Whale Point Road is on the southern side of Hospital Bay at the mouth of the Kermandie River. The Kermandie Marina and Port Huon jetty sit on the northern side of the bay. The local topography (Figure 34) slopes south and down from Doodys Hill and Garths Point on the northern side of Hospital Bay and slopes down to the north from the peak of Whale Point Hill. In the context of the local area, Port Huon sits in a bowl between the hills to the north and south.
Figure 34 Local topography
Source: http://maps.thelist.tas.gov.au/listmap/app/list/map
The proposed development site has an existing coastal vegetation strip shielding current site operations from the Huon Highway, the Kermandie Hotel and Port Huon residents. The nearest residences and potentially sensitive land uses are shown as green dots in Figure 35. 77 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 78 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
There is little industrial or commercial development in the Port Huon area, with a few shops, a cafe, a hotel and a few motel-style premises. There is some light industrial noise at the Kermandie Marina (water blasting, diesel generators) and Port Huon (maintenance work on nets and metal frames and fuelling and unloading of the Ronja Huon). As a result, ambient noise in Port Huon is dominated by coastal traffic along the Huon Highway and wave noise, both of which propagate upwards to the rural residential and low- density residential developments on the southern slopes of Doodys Hill (Figure 34 and Figure 35).
Figure 35 Potentially sensitive noise receptors
Most premises (84%) at Port Huon are within 200 m of the Huon Highway, with 20% within 100 m of the highway (Figure 36).
The potentially sensitive noise receptors closest to the proposed development are: the nearest residence, to the north-west of the facility at 4962249E: 5221533N, which is 517 m from the north-west end of the proposed growout building the next closest residence, to the west of the facility at 496095E: 5221288N, which is 544 m from the north-west end of the proposed growout building the entrance to the Kermandie Marina, at 496655E: 5221881N, which is 674 m from the north-west end of the proposed growout building the Kermandie Hotel at 496688E: 5221911N, which is 710 m from the north-west end of the proposed growout building the upper-level units at Kermandie Lodge, at 496656E: 5221966N, which are 769 m from the north- west end of the proposed nursery building. 78 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 79 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 36 Noise receptors and Huon Highway
Ambient noise during the surveys was dominated by traffic along the Huon Highway and some local traffic on Port Huon streets. Other than traffic, noises noted during the survey were birds (mainly gulls), light industrial noises such as water blasting at Kermandie Marina, and metallic works from Port Huon.
Distance attenuation calculations using a reduction of 3 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the highway (assuming the highway traffic noise acts as a line source) indicate that a typical daytime ambient noise at Port Huon 50 m from the Huon Highway is 53.2 dB A eq and at 100 m is 50.2 dB A eq. An evening ambient noise at Port Huon 50 m from the Huon Highway is 52 dB A eq, and at 100 m is 49 dB A eq. A night ambient noise at Port Huon 50 m from the Huon Highway is 50.0 dB A eq, and at 100 m is 47.4 dB A eq. This is shown in Table 21 below.
79 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 80 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 21 Ambient noise Port Huon in L,A,eq
Distance from Huon Highway
50 m 100 m 200 m Day 53.2 50.2 47.2 Evening 52.0 49.0 46.2 Night 50.4 47.4 44.4
When baseline noise was sampled at the Whale Point site during the day, highway noise was not audible.
Although the L90 statistic is usually used to describe background noise, and the noise from the source under investigation (the proposed Whale Point Salmon Nursery) will be relatively constant, the ambient noise at Port Huon is expected to fluctuate significantly as traffic movements increase or decrease along the Huon Highway. As a result, the Leq (i.e. the equivalent continuous sound pressure level) is considered appropriate for use in describing background noise and for assessing the potential impact of the proposal. 5.9.1.2 Wattle Grove Wattle Grove and Glaziers Bay are situated to the east across the Huon River. The area mainly comprises small farms and rural residential living. A few bed-and-breakfast establishments are sited in the area.
Background noise readings were taken at the locations shown in Figure 37. This location was chosen to provide a direct line of sight between it and the Port Huon jetty and the Whale Point jetty. Readings were taken during day, evening and night periods in 30-minute sample sets. Results are shown in Table 22. The dominant audible noise source was traffic along the Huon Highway. Occasional rural noises, such as animals or birds, could be heard.
80 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 81 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 37 Background noise sample locations
81 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 82 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 22 Wattle Grove background noise readings Location 499835E 499803E 499803E 499803E 499840E 499840E 499840E 499840E 499840E 499840E 5220892N 5220895N 5220895N 5220895N 5220869N 5220869N 5220869N 5220869N 5220869N 5220869N BG1 BG3 BG3 BG3 BG2 BG2 BG2 BG2 BG2 BG2 Measurement Date 14/06/17 16/06/17 16/06/17 16/06/17 15/06/17 15/06/17 15/06/17 15/06/17 15/06/17 16/06/017 Start 14:49:11 8:15:27 8:50:23 9:41:48 6:58:39 20:07:19 21:03:26 22:00:58 22:32:45 5:46:26 Stop 15:19:11 8:45:27 9:20:23 10:11:48 7:28:39 20:37:19 21:33:26 22:30:58 23:11:02:45 6:16:26 Duration 00:30:00 00:30:00 00:30:00 00:30:00 00:30:00 00:30:00 00:30:00 00:30:00 00:30:00 00:30:00 Time Period Day Day Day Day Evening Evening Evening Night Night Night Results dB(A) LAeq 51.1 50.7 55.2 54.1 42.5 46.3 39.7 38.8 42.6 38.7 LAE 83.7 83.2 87.8 86.6 75.1 78.8 72.3 71.3 75.1 71.2 LAF1.00 63.3 61.8 65.1 66.4 51.0 58.3 50.5 48.6 54.2 47.4 LAF10.00 50.4 52.4 55.3 55.9 47.1 50.1 41.5 41.3 44.3 39.9 LAF23.30 46.3 48.5 51.4 51.6 43.4 42.8 38.1 38.5 40.1 37.2 LAF50.00 42.1 45.8 47.1 47.8 37.7 35.9 33.0 35.2 34.6 35.3 LAF90.00 36.2 43.1 42.1 43.6 32.3 31.8 31.1 32.0 31.6 33.3 LAF99.00 34.4 40.4 39.6 41.5 31.1 30.8 30.6 31.1 30.9 32.8 Background LAeq 52.5 42.8 40.0 LAF90.00 41.3 31.7 32.2 LAF90.00 41.3 31.7 32.3
82 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 83 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
5.10 Visual Amenity 5.10.1 Visible proposal elements Caloundra Environmental undertook a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) in regard to the proposed Whale Point salmon nursery in January 2017 (See Appendix J).
The proposed development site has an existing fringing coastal vegetation strip, effectively shielding current site operations from most vantage points along the Huon Highway and from most Port Huon residents. As can be seen in Plate 7 to Plate 11, the only aspect of the current site infrastructure visible from the major vantage points is the higher levels of the disused APM building. The proposed growout building will largely occupy the same space and will have the same roofline height as the current APM building, which is at approximately 26mAHD. 5.10.2 Viewing locations Figure 38 shows the location of vantage points used for this assessment.
Figure 38 Vantage points Whale Point APM building
The Kermandie Marina provides the best view of the Whale Point site from the Huon Highway. It provides a parking stop and ready views of the upper levels of the APM building.
83 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 84 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Plate 7 Current view from Kermandie Marina
The Kermandie Lodge has motel units just above the Huon Highway and also has some units sitting on a higher level at approximately 21mAHD. The roof and upper levels of the APM building can easily be seen from these units and also from the first-floor windows of the Kermandie Hotel. (See http://kermandie.com.au/accomodation.aspx#.)
Plate 8 View from Kermandie Lodge upper levels
There is a public park at 148 Palmer Road (Figure 38). It is approximately 1250 m to the north-north-east of the proposed development. The roof and upper floors of the existing APM building at Whale Point are visible from this location.
84 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 85 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Plate 9 View from Palmer Road Park
From the Huon Highway, there are few opportunities to view the Whale Point site, except for the fringing vegetation on the north and/or the south of Hospital Bay. Plate 10 shows one site from where the roof of the APM building can be seen. As can be seen in the bottom right of Plate 10, there is no safe parking location in this area at which to stop and take in the views towards the proposed Whale Point site.
Plate 10 View from Huon Highway towards Whale Point
85 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 86 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Plate 11 View from Huon Highway near Port Huon
Plate 11 shows the view from the Huon Highway adjacent to Port Huon. The extensive fringing vegetation on the southern shore of Hospital Bay dominates the views in the vicinity of the proposed Whale Point site. 5.11 Heritage values 5.11.1 Aboriginal cultural heritage Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania has completed a search of the Aboriginal Heritage Register regarding the proposed salmon nursery at Whale Point Road, Port Huon, and can advise that there are no Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within the proposed works area. Due to the area being highly disturbed, it is believed that there is a low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present within the proposed works footprint. Accordingly, there is no requirement for an Aboriginal heritage investigation and Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania has no objection to the project proceeding. 5.11.2 Historic heritage The proposed site was developed and used as a pulp mill prior to HA’s ownership. Since this time, it has been used for net painting, net maintenance and water treatment. APM built the mill on the site in 1961. Pulp pellets were taken by conveyor belt along the jetty and up a gantry, then down a chute into the ship’s hold. It took around 44 hours to load 13,000 tonnes of pelleted pulp into a ship. The mill closed in 1991 due to volatile prices, the falling Australian dollar, lack of domestic markets and obsolescence.
The Kermandie Pulp Mill operated approximately 550 m to the west of the site from the late 1800s until 1929 when the operating company was wound up.
86 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 87 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 39 Kermandie Pulp Mill location
The historic heritage activities appear to have left a legacy of degraded natural values and water quality in the vicinity of Hospital Bay. CSIRO (2000) reported that the ‘largest sawmill in Australasia’ was at Whale Point on Hospital Bay (Port Huon) early this century (Row, 1980). At its peak in 1922, a tramway network over 60 km long fed the mill from a timber concession in the hills around Geeveston. The sawmill employed 170 people and was cutting 22 cubic metres per day. An aquaduct from the Kermandie River supplied water to the mill to wash sawdust into Hospital Bay. Later in the 1920s, the more easily accessible forests were cut out and the industry (which was never really profitable) declined and then closed in 1929 (Row, 1980). On the same Whale Point site, a new secondary industry grew from eucalypt pulping trials before the Second World War by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (the predecessor to CSIRO). A neutral sulfite semi-chemical pulping mill (Australian Paper Manufacturers [APM]) operated there from 1962 to July 1991 (interim closure 1982–1986). It ceased operation when world prices for unbleached pulp fell by 30%. The waste from this type of mill was mostly suspended solids and organic matter (causing both biological oxygen demand and discolouration). 5.11.3 Heritage values of the proposed site Neither the Kermandie site nor the APM site is listed on the Tasmanian Heritage Register. 5.12 Contaminated land As noted in Section 5.11.2 Historic heritage, the proposed site was used for industrial activities, being the paper manufacturing and associated works, from 1961 until 1991. It is expected that residual
87 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 88 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
contamination of soil around the site remains from that activity. The EPA’s Contaminated Land Unit sampled the site prior to HA’s use. HA does not have results from this sampling.
The proposed construction methods (Section3 Description of Proposed Project) should reduce the permeability of the land immediately around the current infrastructure and, consequently, reduce the potential for existing contaminants to seep or leach into the receiving environment, including any groundwater around the site.
Geo-Environmental Solutions Pty Ltd (GES) undertook an Environmental Site Assessment at Whale Point between February 2017 and April 2017 in accordance with procedures and practices detailed in the National environment protection (assessment of site contamination) measures (2013) guidelines (see Appendix G).
In summary, this found that: The geology of the site was mapped as Jurassic dolerite and man-made deposits (fill). There is no plausible exposure risk to trench workers due to dust inhalation or soil ingestion. Impacted soil/sediments in existing settlement dams needs to be managed to prevent the migration of contaminants to marine ecosystem.
GES drilled seven soil bores and excavated four test pits at the site to identify potential human health risk to on-site receptors from soil that is potentially impacted by contamination. The location of the bores and pits is shown in Figure 40.
GES concluded that if exposed fill material is covered as soon as practicable to ensure that the material is not left to dry out and become airborne because of disturbance by wind or general earthworks, and a CEMP which includes this recommendation is implemented then: The land will be suitable for the approved use and development. The proposed development will not adversely impact upon human health or the environment. There is a low risk that future users of the site will be in direct contact with impacted soil within the excavation areas and mobilised from the excavation areas. Excavation works within the investigation areas will not adversely impact on the environment.
Management of excavated soils is described in Section 7.12 Contaminated land and 7.12.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures.
88 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 89 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 40 Site borehole layout
89 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 90 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
6 Identifying Environmental Aspects Caloundra Environmental and HA have conducted preliminary assessments to identify key environmental aspects associated with the proposed development. Environmental issues were assessed by identifying and reviewing emissions from the existing HA Forest Home hatchery. A risk assessment was then carried out for each of the expected emissions to assess potential impacts from the operation and to rate the priorities for investigation and management (Table 26). It is envisaged that the risk assessment will be finalised after all operational, environmental and design studies have been completed by adding an assessment column for risks once they have been mitigated by design features and management protocols.
6.1 Risk assessment The overall methodology for the risk assessment has adopted the recommended approach as outlined by the AS/NZS ISO 31000:2009.
6.1.1 Identifying the hazards This initial step seeks to identify potential hazards and the potential modes of occurrence. It is conducted using a structured, systematic process to ensure that all possible hazards are identified. Thus, the hazard identification process included: discussions with operational and environmental personnel to evaluate emissions and associated environmental hazards desktop review of available information site inspections.
In all cases, the process considered the potential timescale and extent of influence of the hazard’s effect. 6.1.2 Risk ranking 6.1.2.1 Methodology The objective of the assessment is to evaluate the risks associated with potential operational aspects on a semi-quantitative basis to provide a mechanism for prioritising hazards. The risk is scored using a semiquantitative numerical scoring system that combines estimates of the likelihood and consequences of a hazard in the context of the existing control measures. The risk analysis provides a ranking system that can be used to compare and prioritise risks associated with each hazard.
The evaluation of likelihood and consequence involves comparing the significance of the hazard against predetermined criteria. The following table outlines the general assumptions used to categorise the likelihood and consequence of the identified hazard.
90 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 91 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 23 Consequence of hazard Numerical ranking Description 1 Low Negligible or acceptable impact. No further management controls are required, assuming no change to current conditions. 2 Low to Moderate Impact may be acceptable. Further monitoring is required to establish potential significance. Implementation of simple management controls may be required. 3 Moderate Moderate impact. Potentially acceptable if appropriate management controls are implemented. 4 Moderate to High Impact has the potential to be unacceptable. Further monitoring may be required to establish potential significance. Implementation of appropriate management controls is required. 5 High Unacceptable impact. The potential impact has a high severity and cannot be managed should it occur.
Table 24 Likelihood of occurrence Numerical ranking Description 1 Rare Hazard is unlikely to occur within lifetime of project operations. Low likelihood of occurrence. No further management controls are required to minimise potential for occurrence. 2 Low Minor management control may need to be considered to reduce likelihood of occurrence. 3 Moderate Hazard has moderate likelihood of occurrence. Appropriate management control can result in low likelihood of occurrence. 4 High Appropriate management control may not be sufficient to minimise likelihood and thus engineering or design solutions may need to be considered. 5 Almost certain Hazard will inevitably occur or has already occurred. Management controls cannot practically minimise likelihood of occurrence to acceptable levels. Engineering or design solutions are required.
The ranking for likelihood and severity are combined in a matrix to establish an overall risk ranking as shown in Table 25.
91 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 92 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 25 Risk ranking matrix Consequence
Low Low to Moderate Moderate Moderate to High High Likelihood (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Rare 1 2 3 4 5 (1) Low Low Low Moderate Moderate
Low likelihood 2 4 6 8 10 (2) Low Low Moderate Moderate Moderate
Moderate likelihood 3 6 9 12 15 (3) Low Moderate Moderate Moderate High
High likelihood 4 8 12 16 20 (4) Moderate Moderate Moderate High High
Almost certain 5 10 15 20 25 (5) Moderate Moderate High High High Where: high degree of risk = Score ≥15 moderate degree of risk = Score ≥5 and ≤15 low degree of risk = Score ≤5.
In terms of risk management: Low-risk hazards: the potential hazard or impact should be acceptable and no additional management controls should be required. The hazard needs to be periodically monitored to assess whether the status of the hazard has altered. Moderate risk hazards should only need to be mitigated through administrative change such as ongoing management protocols. Some treatment works may be required. High risk hazards: when neither the consequence nor the frequency of the hazard or impact can be appropriately managed, the risk needs to be engineered to reduce or remove the hazard. 6.1.3 Hazard risk evaluation This section of the study has been presented in spreadsheet form for ease of reference. Table 26 summarises the outcome of the environmental hazard identification and risk evaluation study as outlined above. It must be understood that the values of likelihood and consequences that have been assigned in this table are based on subjective interpretation and experience. The risk rankings are intended to provide a basis for prioritising the hazards as outlined and should not be interpreted as a relative magnitude of risk. The difference in risk between hazards may be orders of magnitude. In addition, the consequence of the hazard is based on the most sensitive environmental receptors. Hence, in some cases, the environmental receptor may be people, while in other cases it may be ecological species, aesthetic issues or amenity.
92 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 93 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 26 Preliminary risk assessment
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking 1 Wastewater emissions 1.1 Treated The salmon Treatment of Treated effluent 2 Maximum 2 4 Plant design to salmon nursery will wastewater is will be low in expected maximise quality nursery produce expected to be of nutrients, BOD, production and re-use. effluent effluent as the a significantly coliforms, TSS volumes Monitor effluent. smolt grow. higher quality and and oils and 130 kL/day Provide effective When the lower volume greases with plant water filtration than Forest Home neutral pH and maintenance systems are due to treatment close to ambient systems. Monitor cleaned and plant upgrades. temperature. receiving waters flushed, Plan to re-use all Given minimal and AGD bathing wastewater wastewater for volumes pens containing ADG bathing in produced, there faeces and offshore pens should not be waste feed will any need to be generated discharge directly to the Huon River 1.2 Untreated Breakdown in Maintenance Short-term high 4 Use of a 1 4 Provision of salmon salmon nursery lessons from nutrient and BOD scheduled 12 ML net liner nursery wastewater Forest Home plus load discharged maintenance storage as effluent treatment scheduled into receiving program which contingency plant maintenance waters has been storage refined from 93 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 94 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking system mitigate implementation this possibility at Forest Home mitigates against this possibility 1.3 Poor quality Poor quality The operation of Short-term high 4 If commission- 1 5 Provision of treated effluent the wastewater nutrient and BOD ing problems additional 12 ML effluent produced treatment system load discharge occur and net liners for during at Forest Home into receiving wastewater storage as commissioning provides HA with waters alone is stored contingency. confidence that in a net liner, a Pump few single 12ML net wastewater from commissioning liner provides the net liner back problems will be 96 days of through the encountered storage wastewater capacity at an treatment plant assumed maximum production rate. 1.4 AGD bathing Discharge of AGD bathing Increased 1 Ronja Storm 4 4 Current bathing water bathing water water is ‘clean’ localised UIA and bathing water water monitoring into seawater fresh water used TAN in marine will be reused for TAN and UIA at and around to bath fish in waters when 7–10 times concentrations marine leases offshore locations. Ronja Storm before being with a maximum 94 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 95 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking It will be reused empties its discharged into UIA of 0.02 mg/L 7–10 times before bathing water the marine designating being discharged into marine environment release into the marine waters environment 1.5 Stormwater Site run-off. Sealed hardstand Small potential 3 No additional 1 3 Regular Minimal will be provided for oils or grease stormwater monitoring of hazardous around the site to escape to run-off. stormwater substances on buildings stormwater Stormwater drainage and site and all system overflowing drainage lines used within from the roofed retention pond buildings will flow through a lined drainage path to prevent the mobilisation of potentially contaminated soils 1.6 Sewage from Domestic Existing offices No impact on 2 Existing offices 1 2 Trade waste and personnel on wastewater and sewage receiving and sewage or domestic site from on-site reticulation environment reticulation wastewater personnel systems to remain expected. systems to disposal contract in place Domestic remain in place with Taswater 95 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 96 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking wastewater will be treated in a septic system with on-site disposal of wastewater. 1.7 Seepage from Slow leak from The water in the Short-term 3 Little likelihood 2 6 Monitoring net liner net liner net liners will be a medium nutrient of seepage systems on net storage mixture of treated and BOD load from net liners liners to detect wastewater and discharged into to the marine change in fresh water with receiving waters environment. salinity, the treated Other than for temperature and wastewater small ruptures depth. Provision making up osmotic for rapid repairs between 5% and pressure will 23% of the water migrate in a net liner. As a seawater into consequence, this the liner. In the water will have a event of a hole lower solute in a liner, the concentration propose than the monitoring surrounding system will seawater. identify the leak Consequently, 96 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 97 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking osmotic pressure and lead to will drive repairs seawater into the net liners in the event of a small liner rupture. HA monitors EC in the net liners to detect ruptures 1.8 Catastrophic Net line Any impact would Short-term 4 Likelihood of a 1 4 Ongoing discharge overturns in be almost medium nutrient net liner tipping management from net liner storm or negligible and BOD load is very little to and monitoring unforeseen compared to discharged into zero. HA has event wastewater receiving waters had no discharging form catastrophic the Geeveston failures in net STP into the liners in more Kermandie River. than ten years of operations indicating a very low likelihood of catastrophic failure
97 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 98 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking 1.9 Disinfection Formation of N-nitrosodi- NDMA is a 5 Given that HA 1 5 Management of by-products 4,4'- methylamine nitrogen‐ does not use effective chlorine methylenedi- (NDMA) appeared containing chlorine as a free treatment aniline (MDA) to be a by-product organic disinfectant, processes. of chloramination compound that the formation Ongoing of water and has known of NDMA is monitoring on wastewater, with carcinogenic unlikely during water supply and the level of NDMA properties the proposed wastewater post formed directly RAS process at treatment related to the Whale Point. chloramine dose. Ozone and/or NDMA has been UV will be used shown to form to disinfect when a variety of water at the organic nitrogen pre-treatment precursors react and wastewater with chloramines. treatment Ozone, not phases along chlorine, is used with as a disinfectant mechanical filtration and carbon filtration, mechanical filtration, 98 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 99 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking carbon filtration then disinfection using ozonation and UV disinfection 1.10 Concentration Supply water The wastewater Increase in 3 Inshore 1 3 Installation of of nitrates in before pre- treatment system nutrients in the discharge is high-quality discharge treatment. The will remove the receiving waters unlikely with wastewater levels of nitrogenous the availability treatment. nitrates in the nutrients via of two 12 ML Treatment will upper denitrification net liners for involve Kermandie processes where emergency mechanical River and its nitrate is storage filtration, tributaries, converted to aeration to Scotts Rivulet nitrogen gas. The reduce carbon and Rileys nitrate that is not dioxide, Creek, are removed via biofiltration and consistent with denitrification will further aeration karst affected be discharged to oxidise rivers in with the ammonia to Tasmania. wastewater nitrite and then Examples of stream ozone karst affected disinfection and Rivers are the 99 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 100 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking Tyenna River, ultraviolet Junee Creek disinfection and the Florentine River. In addition, the wastewater treatment system proposed will convert ammonia to nitrate 1.11 Antibiotics External to Antibiotics are not Not applicable 0 Not applicable 0 0 Nil spread to wild operation used anywhere in fish HA’s recirculation process 1.12 Biocides Biocides used If biocides are Discharge of 3 All wastewater 1 3 If biocides are discharged in process at required, use of biocides albeit at and water used required, use of into the the direction of wastewater for potentially very for AGD bathing wastewater for marine the Chief AGD bathing will low is ozonated to AGD bathing will environment Veterinary cease until the concentrations destroy cease until the Officer operation returns could impact on pathogens operation to normal marine life returns to normal. During 100 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 101 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking this time, all wastewater will be stored in net liners and recycled through treatment system. 2 Air emissions 2.1 Odour Fish farming No odour Odour 2 Low. >500 m 2 2 Routine growout tanks complaints complaints from west to monitoring for received at Forest residents at Port sensitive odour from Home. No Huon receptors. plant. Ensure apparent odour Zonal westerly treatment outside salmon winds with SSW systems are well nursery building to NNW maintained common 2.2 Odour Breakdown in A serious Anaerobic 3 The distance to 2 6 The provision for emissions wastewater breakdown in the conditions lasting receptors, the ozonation (using causing treatment wastewater more than three potential ozone planned to adverse plant causes treatment plant days could allow development be produced in impacts, anaerobic would necessitate odours to inside building excess of during worst conditions cessation of develop. and the ability requirements) of case operations. The to ozonate emissions from scenarios. design of the emissions the wastewater wastewater significantly treatment shed 101 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 102 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking treatment plant reduces the can provide provides for some likelihood temporary redundancy minimisation of without causing odour if potentially serious produced. delays in wastewater treatment. 2.4 Odour Anaerobic Experience at Not meeting the 2 HA has 2 4 Commitments emissions not conditions in other sites and Air Policy limit of proposed pre- for odour meeting the the wastewater other hatchery 2 odour units at construction modelling, Air Policy limit treatment and nursery the boundary of odour introduction of of 2 odour plant operations the property modelling and ozonated air units at the indicates low us of ozonated exhaust from boundary of likelihood of exhaust air to wastewater the property significant odour mitigate against treatment plant propagation any potential building and post impacts installation of photoionization if necessary 2.4 Dust from Increase in No obvious signs Dust settlement 1 Low. Whale 2 2 Routine road use traffic along of visible dust off site. Point Road is monitoring Whale Point plumes (road Considerable sealed. >500 m Road access to Forest distance to off- west to sensitive 102 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 103 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking Home along site human receptors. unsealed road) receptors Zonal westerly winds with SSW to NNW common 3 Noise 3.1 Construction Increased Noise survey Potential for 3 Short-term 3 9 Construction to noise plant, undertaken at temporary, noise emissions occur only equipment and Forest Home to short-term, between 0700 machinery model impact at moderate but and 1700 noise during Port Huon not serious Monday to site annoyance at Friday. Monitor construction outdoor living noise during works areas during the construction to construction confirm model phase predictions 3.2 Operational Tonal noise Noise survey When the 2 Potential for 2 4 Monitoring ⅓- noise from oxygen undertaken at potential noise attenuation octave and ozone Forest Home to impact from from growout frequencies generators and model impact at operations at building to be along on higher blower motor Port Huon Port Huon is negated on ground on the fans calculated and higher ground western side of compared with on the western Port Huon and the Environment side of Port commit to indicator levels Huon installing 103 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 104 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking from the silencers or Environment additional Protection Policy acoustic cladding (Noise), there if necessary should be no adverse impact on acoustic environmental values at receptor locations. HA has selectively chosen quieter equipment for oxygen generation and eliminated blowers to reduce this noise output by 30– 50%. 4 Contaminated land
104 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 105 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking 4.1 Land Existing EPA Potential for 3 The proposed 2 6 Groundwater contaminated industrial Contaminated existing soil development monitoring by earlier contaminants Lands Unit has contaminants to will not change before and industrial leach into previously leach or seep the hardstand during (pulp mill) surrounding sampled the site. into groundwater area or the operations. activities soil or Proposed current surface Implementation groundwater groundwater permeability. of CEMP during sampling should The potential construction identify if for seepage of groundwater is surface water currently affected into groundwater, should remain as it has been since before HA commenced net washing on the site. With the proposed CEMP and mitigation measures in place there is little likelihood of increasing 105 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 106 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking ground contamintionco ntamination
4.2 Retention Previous site Retention pond Discharge of 4 Presence of 2 8 Retention pond pond uses CEMP will include hydrocarbons long chain CEMP will construction additional into marine hydrocarbons include could expose sampling and environment likely in current additional contaminants management ponds from sampling and protocols long term site management runoff protocols and the possible need to excavate, sample and treat soil removed from the current pond area depending on findings Exposure and Ground on Retention pond Mobilisation of 4 Likelihood of 2 8 Identify potential transmission seaward side of CEMP will include existing soils dam failure is contaminants of retention pond additional contaminants low. Dam will through sampling contaminants may contain investigation and into receiving be constructed program. If contaminants sampling to waters (Hospital and maintained necessarynecess Bay) to ANCOLD ary, develop 106 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 107 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking identify potential standards. diversion contaminants Sampling may drainage to avoid not identify all contaminants contaminants. and or line with HDPE and rockfill 5 Visual aspects 5.1 Change in Replacement of Growout building The views from 0 Positive impact 1 0 Replace APM visual amenity current APM will have a similar Port Huon to the expected building with a visible from building with height to and west towards the purpose-built, Port Huon growout wider profile than Whale Point site escalpyptus building the current APM would be green colour– building enhanced by the blended nursery demolition and building removal of the APM building and its replacement with a purpose- built, terrain colour–blended growout building 6 Natural Values 6.1 Risk to Natural Values No habitat exists Minor potential 1 Industrial 2 2 Note presence threatened or Atlas search within the for disturbance activities have during site vulnerable shows no proposed during occurred on or induction fauna raptor nests development construction processes and 107 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 108 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking within 500 m footprint. No near the site for forbid clearing or and two clearing of over 100 years disturbance confirmed vegetation will during sightings of occur during operations swift parrots in construction or fringing operations vegetation ≈30 m from development 6.2 Risk to Natural Values No vegetation No impact 1 Industrial 1 1 Note presence threatened or Atlas search exists within the expected activities have during site vulnerable shows fringing proposed occurred on or induction flora vegetation, development near the site for processes and Eucalyptus footprint. No over 100 years forbid clearing or ovata forest clearing of disturbance and woodland, vegetation will during as a threatened occur during operations community construction or within 150 m of operations the proposed development 7 Greenhouse gases 7.1 Greenhouse Indirect The development Tasmania is a 1 Short duration 4 4 Desktop gas (GHG) emissions from and operation of greenhouse and small calculations of the salmon positive state greenhouse gas 108 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 109 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking mainly carbon electricity use nursery will with hydro development emissions. Below dioxide on site reduce the road power and a low profile NGER reporting transport used by GHG generation threshold HA in other factor operations 7.2 Greenhouse Vehicle and Greenhouse gases Tasmania is a 1 Short duration 4 4 Desktop gas mainly construction (predominantly greenhouse and small calculations of carbon machinery carbon dioxide) positive state development greenhouse gas dioxide emissions will be generated with hydro profile emissions. Below during the power NGER reporting construction threshold phase
7.3 Greenhouse Transportation The development Reduced GHG 0 Short duration 4 0 Management of gas mainly of goods and and operation of emissions from and small off-site truck carbon products the salmon HA operations development usage to achieve dioxide nursery will overall profile overall traffic reduce the road reductions transport used by predicted HA in other operations
109 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 110 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking 8 Solid Wastes 8.1 General The production All organic solids Organic wastes 3 Solid and 1 3 Management wastes and of smolt will will be removed from growout controlled protocols and organic generate waste from site using operations could waste from use of licensed wastes from feed and faeces approved K100 present a risk to sites will waste fish tanks (sludge) which licensed waste aquatic comply with the transporters will be transport ecosystems due Tasmanian removed from contractors. to the potentially Environmental the wastewater Organic waste will high organic Management during water be sent to an loads leading to and Pollution treatment. approved reduced Control (Waste General solid composting dissolved oxygen Management) waste including facility for re-use and/or high Regulations papers, as compost. nutrient 2000 and plastics, food General waste will concentrations if National materials and be disposed of in not treated, environment empty bottles, a licensed landfill handled and protection and materials dispose of measure code from routine correctly 75, minor Environment machinery Division, maintenance Department of will also be Environment, produced Parks, Heritage and the Arts 110 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 111 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking 9 Biosecurity 9.1 Escape of Ineffective Site biosecurity is Escape of 5 HA has an 1 5 Effective diseased fish disinfection of crucial for the diseased fish extensive protocols and could pose a wastewater success of any could pose a risk effective procedures to be risk to wild before re-use aquaculture to wild fish biosecurity in place to fish species or or release operation species or other management ensure other fish HA fish farming system that will wastewater is farming operations be extended to completely operations include the disinfected Whale Point facility. 9.2 Zoonotic Infected fish or The facility's Zoonotic 3 The facility's 1 3 Compliance with disease infection in process water will pathogens are process water animal health transmission organisms in continually diseases that can will continually and biosecurity supply water undergo internal be transmitted undergo plans. Monitor inflow treatment from humans to internal inflow supply water and processes animals. Disease treatment treated including transmission processes wastewater for ozonation and UV including total coliforms disinfection, ozonation and microfiltration UV disinfection, and activated microfiltration carbon filtration and activated at the pre- carbon
111 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 112 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Item Environmental Source HA comment Consequence Likelihood after Summary of action
aspect proposed required
mitigation works
Rating Rating Risk Ranking treatment and filtration post-use phases processes
112 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 113 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
6.2 Environmental aspects high risk There are no high-risk hazards associated with the proposed development. 6.3 Environmental aspects moderate risk Moderate risk hazards: construction noise, impact on Port Huon residents 6.4 Environmental aspects moderate risk managed through management protocols Moderate risk hazards: discharge of treated or poorly treated salmon nursery effluent into receiving waters including commissioning problems seepage or net liners disposal of general wastes and organic wastes from fish tanks stormwater discharge to Hospital Bay potential for existing industrial contaminants to leach into surrounding soil or groundwater biosecurity risks – the escape of diseased fish could pose a risk to wild fish species or other HA fish farming operations existing land contamination migrating into the environment or posing an unacceptable risk to the receiving environment retention pond dam wall failure odour emissions, potential impact on sensitive receptors at Port Huon 6.4.1 Comments on High Consequence (4 – 5) Risks and high end Moderate Risks 6.4.1.1 Discharge of treated salmon nursery effluent into inshore receiving waters At maximum wastewater production in June each year, the nursery will produce 216 KL of wastewater per day. When this is mixed with fresh water in the net liners, a maximum of 1.31 ML of fresh and wastewater will enter each net liner each day during each June which is the month each year when the highest daily average volume of treated wastewater is discharged. During other months, there is a higher volume of water going into net liners but this contains has a higher proportion of fresh water and less wastewater because the amount of water is driven by the bathing needs not the volume of wastewater produced (Table 5). With the net liners continuing to receive the wastewater – fresh water mix, there is 18 days capacity in the two existing net liners at maximum wastewater discharge rates, i.e. from June onwards. If the wastewater treatment plant breaks down, HA can easily bring a third net liner to Whale Point for wastewater storage only (i.e. not diluted with fresh water). The worst-case scenario would see a third net liner towed to the site from Port Huon where it would receive only treated wastewater. This would then provide a further 96 days of storage. The likelihood of HA needing to discharge treated wastewater into inshore waters near the Whale Point jetty is very low. In practical terms, the nursery would need to stop operations to safeguard fish health given the inability to safely recirculate treated wastewater through the nursery. 6.4.1.2 Catastrophic inshore discharge from net liner With a release of fresh water into the marine environment, the fresh water will float on the more saline water. The floating water will then disperse rapidly on the surface, as it transitions to the state of having the lowest potential energy. In evaluating the consequence of a sudden release of water from the net liners, a thinning freshwater layer would form on the surface until the fresh water is mixed by wind action with the underlying salt water. With the discharge of the Kermandie River into Hospital Bay, the same float and disperse process would occur in the region of the net liner storage.
113 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 114 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Apart from the above, the potential impact of treated wastewater being discharged into water near the Whale Point jetty can also be evaluated by comparing the relative emission limits, wastewater volume and receiving water flows for the salmon nursery at Whale Pint and the Geeveston STP upstream on the Kermandie River. Table 4 provides the emission limits proposed for the salmon nursery; Table 14 provides the current emission limits for the Geeveston STP; Table 12 compares the average daily flows in the Kermandie River at Geeveston into which the STP discharges and the Huon River at Whale Point into which the nursery would discharge in the event of a catastrophic failure (such as an overturned net liner). Table 6 shows the expected net liner water quality by month.
These are combined into a single table, (Table 27) below for ease of risk assessment.
Table 27 Impact of catastrophic net liner failure Geeveston Salmon Mean net Median Water STP nursery liner net liner quality Parameter Unit emission emission water water Whale limits limits quality quality Point jetty Average daily flow ML/day 110 Kermandie River Average daily flow ML/day 8182 8182 8182 Huon River at Whale Point pH pH unit 8.5 6.5–8.5 7.0 8.0 Total suspended solids mg/L 25 20 <20 2 Biological oxygen mg/L demand 15 20 <20 <20 Oil and grease mg/L 10 1 <1 <1 Total phosphorous mg/L 5.5 7 0.4 0.4 <0.05 Total nitrogen mg/L 24 20 0.9 0.9 0.32 TAN mg/L 18.5 1 0.1 0.1 <0.008 Thermotolerant cfu/100 mL 200 750 200 200 coliforms n NA NA NA NA 5
Plate 12 below shows both a red and a blue liner moored at the Whale Point jetty. Each net liner has a circumference of 240 m and a capacity to the waterline of 12 ML. It has a maximum depth of 3 m and a freeboard of 450 mm. As a result, a filled net liner sits with 12 tonnes in ballast below the waterline and has little area in cross-section to catch any wind. The likelihood of a net liner tipping is very little to zero.
114 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 115 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Plate 12 Red net liner and blue net liner at Whale Point jetty
6.4.1.3 Net liner leakage Apart from osmotic pressure tending towards the seepage of seawater into net liners rather than leakage of liner contents into the receiving water, HA is installing net liner monitoring to provide alarms to facilitate rapid maintenance of net liners.
The net liners HA use for holding and storing freshwater for bathing are being fitted with sensors to remotely monitor salinity, temperature and depth, enabling HA staff to request data via text to ensure water is available and suitable without having to physically go to each liner. Recent trials measuring salinity, temperature and depth have provided excellent results and another five units have been ordered (as of May 2017) to provide one for each HA net liner. The sensors will detect any change in salinity (that would indicate saltwater seepage into the liner) and depth (that would indicate a loss of water if the water level is lower than expected). These sensors can be set to alarm if recording measurements outside the normal range (i.e. higher than 2 ppt salinity or less than 1 m of water depth). 6.4.1.4 Release of disinfection by-products N‐nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) is a nitrogen‐containing organic compound that has known carcinogenic properties. In reviewing the formation of NDMA in water and wastewater in 2001, Najim and Trussel noted that NDMA has been found in the effluents of various water and wastewater plants. They also evaluated NDMA formation during various water and wastewater treatment processes including chlorination and chloramination, ozonation and ion exchange. They found that NDMA appeared to be a by-product of chloramination of water and wastewater, with the level of NDMA formed directly related to the chloramine dose. NDMA has been shown to form when a variety of organic nitrogen precursors react with chloramines. Many researchers since this time have demonstrated similar formation routes. Sedlack and Kavanagh (2006) found that NDMA has been shown to form as a disinfection by-product, particularly in water that is high in organic material, such as treated wastewater, and was of particular concern for water supply utilities that practise indirect potable re-use using chlorinate treated wastewater effluents. Najim and Trussel (2001) found that UV treatment systems could be used to remove NDMA from wastewater streams to meet the then California notification level of 10 ng/L.
NDMA has been a health concern for some industries for a number of years because it is used in rubber formulations, as a fire retardant, antioxidant, additive for lubricants and softener of copolymers; it is also a degradation product of dimethylhydrazine, an additive to rocket fuel. Most people are exposed to NDMA via a number of diverse routes including cigarette smoke (actively or passively) and processed foods, for example smoked meat products. However, it has only come to the attention of the international water industry since it was recognised as a disinfection by‐product of chloramination or chlorination in the presence of ammonia (Newcombe et al., 2014). 115 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 116 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
NDMA is not a halogenated chemical; therefore, its formation may not be limited to chlorination but could be induced by other oxidation processes such as ozonation. Najim and Trussel (2001) undertook testing by dosing water fractions with ammonia nitrogen and ozone concentrations. The amount of NDMA formed in each fraction was less than the reporting limit.
Shah et al. (2012) compared the reduction in NDMA formation due to chlorine, ozone, chlorine dioxide, and UV over oxidant exposures relevant to Giardia control coupled with postchloramination under conditions relevant to drinking water practice. Relevant to the proposed water supply pre-treatment and RAS wastewater treatment, they found that various primary disinfectants can deactivate NDMA precursors prior to chloramination. Ozone reduced NDMA formation by 50% at exposures as low as 0.4 mg x min/L. UV decreased NDMA formation by ∼30% at fluences >500 mJ/cm2, levels relevant to advanced oxidation. In terms of water treatment (for drinking water), they found that among preoxidants, ozone achieved the greatest reduction in NDMA formation at the lowest oxidant exposure associated with each disinfectant and that preozonation may inhibit NDMA formation with minimal risk of promoting other by-products.
The indicative safe levels from an environmental perspective found in the literature (Ray, 2017) so far are: A World Health Organization article does state the ‘Estimated no effects value (ENEV)’ is 40 µg/L. The ENEV value has a safety factor of 1000 over the lowest observed effect. The province of Ontario has an interim Provincial Water Quality Objective for the protection of surface fresh water of 15 µg/L. An archived web article also states the province of Quebec, in its ‘Surface water quality criteria’, has a criterion of 0.00069 µg/L for the prevention of contamination of water and aquatic organisms.
There are no known Australian standards, legislative or otherwise, for NDMA concentrations relating to ecosystem health in marine or estuarine environments.
Given that HA does not use chlorine as a disinfectant, the formation of NDMA is unlikely during the proposed RAS process at Whale Point. To check this, HA sampled and analysed inflow water to Forest Home and wastewater after treatment, which includes ozone and UV disinfection. Inflow concentrations were 0.010 µg/l. Post-treatment, the concentration was 0.009 µg/L. This reflects the research noted above, which indicted that ozonation and UV disinfection reduced NDMA concentrations.
A potential source of NDMA is the use of water from the Kermandie River. The emission limits specified by the EPA from the Geeveston STP do not include NDMA (Table 14).
Because the welfare of fish is of prime concern to HA in the development of this operation, the influent water supply will always undergo pre-treatment processes including mechanical filtration, activated carbon filtration and then disinfection using ozonation and UV disinfection (3.8.1 Water supply pre- treatment). The wastewater treatment system also includes these steps. As noted above, these are not precursors to NDMA formation but have been found to reduce NDMA concentrations in wastewater.
The likelihood of NDMA formation at Whale Point is low to negligible. 6.4.1.5 Construction noise, impact on Port Huon residents Construction noise has the potential to create a temporary, short-term, moderate but not serious annoyance at outdoor living areas in the closest sensitive noise receptors at Port Huon.
Management protocols during construction and the implementation of a CEMP restricting work hours to daytime, 0700–1700 Monday to Friday, and requiring contractor adherence as well as positive selection for quiet plant and equipment during construction should effectively mitigate this risk.
116 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 117 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Follow-up noise measurements during construction will be undertaken. 6.4.1.6 Operational noise from Whale Point, impact on Port Huon residents During a noise survey at Forest Home carried out between 4 and 6 April 2017 several plant components – the chiller room motors, blower room motors and the ozone generator, all on the south-east corner of the building – were identified as the dominant noise sources at the hatchery. The ozone generators were identified as a source of low-frequency noise, whereas the blower room and the chiller room had significant tonal peaks in the 50 Hz range, as well as lesser peaks in the 160–400 Hz range and again in the 800–1250 Hz range.
As a result of this survey, it is understood that HA is implementing noise attenuation measures at Forest Home including: installing high mass cladding on the outside of the Bondor walls on the south-eastern side of the hatchery building (i.e. adjacent to the major noise sources) installing an attenuating curtain inside the chillers room installing purpose-built silencers on the blower room compressors.
At Whale Point additional attenuation will be installed: selection of quieter equipment for oxygen generation (see Appendix K). replacement of blower motors with fans installing additional high-mass cladding on the outside walls on the southern and eastern sides of the nursery building. Install sound insulated doors where oxygen, ozone and chiller rooms open on an outside wall
Follow-up noise measurements will be undertaken once operations commence. If tonality is shown to create adverse noise impacts on higher ground at Port Huon during operations, then a commitment to install acoustic silencers and additional high-mass external cladding on the walls and roofs of the chiller room, blower rooms and ozone generators should mitigate the noise impact. 6.4.1.7 Biosecurity risks Biosecurity is the prevention of disease-causing organisms entering or leaving any site where they pose a risk to farmed stock, other animals, humans or the safety and quality of food. Biosecurity in an aquatic environment poses many challenges as often potential pathogens can be carried in wild fish and never totally eliminated from aquatic systems.
The HA Biosecurity Plan identifies potential disease risks and implements effective preventative strategies. Biosecurity plays an important role throughout every stage of the life cycle from hatching through to processing. It is not just a case of good hygiene and disinfection procedures. The Biosecurity Plan level identifies the level of risk and establishes procedures to significantly reduce the risks.
Biosecurity aims to avoid the spread of infectious agents within sites as well as between sites.
Tasmania operates strict biosecurity measures (Tasmanian biosecurity strategy 2013–2017). The HA salmon industry operates in line with these measures. No importation of salmon or other fish products is permitted from outside of Tasmania.
Biosecurity management will include: Pre-treatment of all water entering the facility including disinfection utilising ozone and UV disinfection plus microfiltration and activated carbon filtration to prevent solids including insects, plants, fish and snails entering the system.
117 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 118 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Disinfection of all trucks (utilising on-site spray units) entering the facility. HA currently uses Virkon (Active ingredient 497g/kg of Potassium peroxymonsulphate. A non–tainting disinfectant cleanser for use in cleaning and disinfection of industrial agricultural equipment and has been in use within aquaculture for >10 years). Foot baths at all doors and on-site protective clothing to minimise the risk of spreading disease between different areas. All equipment is site specific (no transfer of equipment between HA sites can occur without proper sterilisation of this equipment). Sign-in books which highlight if a person or vehicle has attended another hatchery in the past 24 hours. If so, additional sanitisation of person and vehicle is required.
118 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 119 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7 Potential Effects and Their Management
7.1 Liquid waste Liquid waste will be generated during the construction and operational phases of the salmon nursery.
The potential primary sources of liquid waste include: process wastewater from nursery effluent stormwater storage and use of fuel, oils and grease sewage and waste water.
7.1.1 Existing conditions The relevant receptors considered in this section are surface waters, particularly the downstream environment, and groundwater. Existing conditions are described in Section 5.7.3.2.
Currently, stormwater from the site reports to two existing stormwater settlement ponds, which then overflow via natural gullies to Hospital Bay.
7.1.2 Performance requirements Aqueous emissions, including both diffuse and point source emissions to surface waters and groundwater, during construction must meet the requirements of the State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997.
Point source pollution should be managed to protect the protected environmental values (PEVs) by implementing best practice environmental management in conjunction with emission limits set by the regulatory authority.
In February 2003, PEVs were established by the Board of Environmental Management and Pollution Control under the State policy on water quality management 1997 for the Huon Valley catchments. This includes the Huon River from its source to its exit, estuarine surface waters outside of the Southwest National Park and Southport Lagoon Conservation Area and waters within the D’Entrecasteaux Channel, but excluding marine reserves. 7.1.2.1 PEVs Huon River catchment (for surface waters including forest on private land) A: Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems (ii) Protection of modified (not pristine) ecosystems (a) From which edible fish, shellfish and crustacea are harvested B: Recreational Water Quality and Aesthetics (i) Primary contact water quality (Numerous locations (where permitted) including: Oates Bridge at Mountain River; Judds Creek; Weld Eddy; Kellaways Creek at Pelverata; in the Russell River, upstream of the junction of the River and Jollystone Creek at the river reserve and also adjacent to the nearby bridge crossing; in the Russell River near (downstream) the bridge crossing on Lorkins Road; in the Russell River at the small islands located downstream of the junction of Toms Creek and the River and upstream of the junction of Peartree Creek and the River (5242825N, 486775E); and the Huon River.) (i) Secondary contact water quality (ii) Aesthetic water quality C: Raw Water for Drinking Supply (ii) Subject to course screening plus disinfection (Huonville, Franklin, Geeveston, Dover, Cygnet, Mountain River, Judbury, Nicholls Rivulet, Ranelagh, Castle Forbes Bay, Port Huon)
119 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 120 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
D: Agricultural Water Uses (i) Irrigation (ii) Stock Watering E: Industrial Water Supply – Aquaculture, Commercial Bottling of Spring Water, On-Farm Produce Processing, Produce Processing.
That is, as a minimum, water quality management strategies should seek to provide water of a physical and chemical nature to support a healthy, but modified aquatic ecosystem from which edible fish may be harvested; that is suitable as raw water for drinking water supply subject to coarse screening plus disinfection at the offtake locations for town water supplies at Huonville, Franklin, Geeveston, Dover, Cygnet, Mountain River, Judbury, Nicholls Rivulet, Ranelagh, Castle Forbes Bay and Port Huon; that is acceptable for irrigation and stock watering purposes; which will allow people to safely engage in primary contact recreation activities such as swimming at numerous locations (where permitted) including Oates Bridge at Mountain River, Judds Creek, Weld Eddy, Kellaways Creek at Pelverata, in the Russell River upstream of the junction of the River and Jollystone Creek at the river reserve and also adjacent to the nearby bridge crossing, in the Russell River near (downstream) the bridge crossing on Lorkins Road, in the Russell River at the small islands located downstream of the junction of Toms Creek and the River and upstream of the junction of Peartree Creek and the River (5242825N, 486775E), and the Huon River; which will allow people to safely engage in secondary contact recreation activities such as paddling or fishing in aesthetically pleasing waters; and which is suitable for aquaculture, commercial bottling of spring water, on-farm produce processing, and produce processing. For private land within the Ida Bay karst system, water quality management should also have particular regard to the values associated with that system. 7.1.2.2 PEVs for the Huon Valley catchments estuarine surface waters outside of the Southwest National Park and Southport Lagoon Conservation Area. A: Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems (ii) Protection of modified (not pristine) ecosystems (a) From which edible fish, shellfish and crustacea are harvested B: Recreational Water Quality and Aesthetics (ii) Primary contact water quality (Where permitted) (iii) Secondary contact water quality (iv) Aesthetic water quality C: Raw Water for Drinking Supply (ii) Subject to course screening plus disinfection (Huonville, Franklin, Geeveston, Dover, Cygnet, Mountain River, Judbury, Nicholls Rivulet, Ranelagh, Castle Forbes Bay, Port Huon) D: Agricultural Water uses (iii) Irrigation (iv) Stock watering E: Industrial Water Supply – (Aquaculture in Marine Farming Zones)
That is, as a minimum, water quality management strategies should seek to provide water of a physical and chemical nature to support a modified (not pristine) ecosystem from which edible fish, shellfish and crustacea are harvested; which will allow people to safely engage in recreation activities such as swimming (where permitted), paddling or fishing in aesthetically pleasing waters; and which is suitable for the farming of fish and shellfish in marine farming zones. For estuarine waters within the Ida Bay karst system, water quality management should also have particular regard to the values associated with that system. 7.1.2.3 PEVs for the waters within D’Entrecasteaux Channel, but excluding marine reserves A: Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems (ii) Protection of modified (not pristine) ecosystems (a) From which edible fish, shellfish and crustacea are harvested B: Recreational Water Quality and Aesthetics (iii) Primary contact water quality (Where permitted) 120 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 121 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
(v) Secondary contact water quality (vi) Aesthetic water quality C: Raw Water for Drinking Supply (ii) Subject to course screening plus disinfection (Huonville, Franklin, Geeveston, Dover, Cygnet, Mountain River, Judbury, Nicholls Rivulet, Ranelagh, Castle Forbes Bay, Port Huon) D: Agricultural Water uses (v) Irrigation (vi) Stock Watering E: Industrial Water Supply – (Aquaculture)
That is, as a minimum, water quality management strategies should provide water of a physical and chemical nature to support a healthy, but modified aquatic ecosystem from which edible fish, crustacea and shellfish may be harvested; and which will allow people to safely engage in recreation activities such as swimming, paddling, fishing or boating in aesthetically pleasing waters; and which is suitable for the farming of fish and shellfish in marine farm zones.
On-site sewage disposal will need to comply with AS1547:2012 and the Building Act 2016 Guidelines for On-site Wastewater Disposal. 7.1.3 Potential effects 7.1.3.1 Site water requirements Water will be required for processing, potable water and for dust suppression during construction.
Water supply is discussed in Section 3.8 Water supply. The use of water from the Kermandie River, which receives chlorinated discharge from the Geeveston STP, is a potential source of NDMA.
The Kermandie River will not be adversely impacted by this development. Water is currently sourced from the Kermandie River under water licence. This water is drawn from the lower section of the creek. Additional water will be utilised from a licence to extract water from Rileys Creek Dam. This water will flow downstream into the Kermandie River and be extracted at the current pump station site.
Currently, HA utilises several sources of fresh water for its required offshore bathing operations for the management of AGD. These include town water pumped into the Ronja Huon at the Port Huon jetty and water pumped to Roaring water pump station (Esperance River, Dover). This proposal will reduce the amount of treated town water needed for AGD bathing and the water pumped to Roaring water pump station from the Esperance River. 7.1.3.2 Stormwater Stormwater reporting to the Huon River from the proposed facility will overflow from the retention pond after extreme rainfall events. This will be clean stormwater from building rooves and will not have come in contact with the process and become contaminated. Stormwater overflow therefore should not affect the Hospital Bay or Huon River PEVs. 7.1.3.3 Sewage Any loss of sewage effluent has the potential to contaminate surface and groundwater, potentially leading to elevated nutrient levels in drainage systems associated with the site. Loss of effluent away from drainage systems is likely to be absorbed by soils and vegetation. Sewage effluent also presents a health risk.
121 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 122 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.1.3.4 Storage and use of fuel and oils Any loss of fuels or oils has the potential to contaminate surface water, reduce the water quality of the creek systems, degrade aquatic habitat and cause reductions in or loss of aquatic populations.
Loss of fuel or oil during construction and operation may occur during refuelling or from spillage and breakage during normal construction or operational activities. 7.1.3.5 Process wastewater The discharge of treated or inadequately treated process wastewater into the Huon River at or near Whale Point could increase the nutrient loads in the river, increase BOD and suspended solids and decrease DO, thus affecting the aquatic ecosystem.
7.1.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures 7.1.4.1 Water supply treatment The facility’s process water will continually undergo internal inflow treatment processes including mechanical filtration, carbon filtration and then disinfection using ozonation and/or UV disinfection (Section 3.8 Water supply).
The proposed facility will utilise state-of-the-art water management methods to minimise water use, wastewater generation and adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems. Internal water quality management proposed includes mechanical filtration, biological filtration, UV light disinfection, ozone disinfection, denitrification and de-phosphorous treatment (Section 3.10 Wastewater salmon nursery effluent).
These management techniques will ensure optimum water quality for fish husbandry and also limit the potential for nutrients and solids to build up within the internal system. During the process of back flushing the mechanical filtration and biological filtration systems and daily cleaning of tanks, wastewater will be generated. This wastewater will report to the facility’s wastewater treatment process.
Given that HA does not use chlorine as a disinfectant, the formation of NDMA is unlikely during the proposed RAS process at Whale Point. Because the welfare of fish is of prime concern to HA in the development of this operation, the influent water supply will always be pre-treated with ozone and UV disinfection as well as microfiltration (Section 3.8.1 Water supply pre-treatment). The wastewater treatment system also includes these steps. These are not precursors to NDMA formation and are recommended to reduce NDMA concentrations in wastewater.
HA will monitor influent water supplies for NDMA. Given that concentrations should be highest in summer when river levels are lowest, HA will test annually in January or February each year. 7.1.4.2 Stormwater management The construction site is relatively flat and the erosion risk is small. Surface run-off will report to new stormwater drains on site and to an upgraded lined retention pond. This then overflows at 8.5 m ASL via a DN300 outlet to the net liners at the Whale Point wharf for re-use as bathing water in conjunction with fresh water and treated wastewater. An overflow spillway from the upgraded stormwater pond to Hospital Bay will be constructed at approximately 9.00 m ASL to allow for a 1:100 rainfall event so that the pond is not eroded in intense rains. The spillway will discharge into an existing vegetated gully to ensure a natural flow path to the wetlands around the bay to mitigate erosion and sediment build-up.
The retention pond will function as a reservoir for mixed Kermandie River water and clean (rooftop) stormwater from the site. It will have a maximum depth of 2 m (see Appendix B). As such, the mixing from
122 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 123 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
inflows and wind should maintain aerobic conditions within the pond. Regular overflows to the net liners will occur as water is drawn from the river.
A CEMP will be implemented to monitor and manage stormwater during construction. 7.1.4.3 Sewage disposal Sewage produced on site will be disposed of by constructing an on-site wastewater disposal system using tanks (see Appendix A). 7.1.4.4 Storage and use of fuel and oils The proposed operation will not be a large user of fuels or oils. Minor storages of oils will be on site inside buildings in robust containers and in accordance with the performance requirements in Section 7.6 Dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials and 7.6.2 Performance requirements. Maintenance measures and spill clean-up procedures are implemented through HA’s Health, Safety, Environment and Community system.
Neither fuels nor oils will be stored in bulk on site in any permanent facility during the construction phase. Fuel and oil will be brought onto the site as required in a mobile tanker for the construction activities. The tanker will be parked away from drainage lines in a secure area for refuelling activity. 7.1.4.5 Wastewater discharge The site will effectively operate as a zero emissions facility at Whale Point: all wastewater will be treated and re-used within the operation. To achieve this, HA will treat the wastewater to a high standard. The wastewater treatment will include microfiltration, coagulation, flocculation, solids capture and removal, denitrification, phosphorous removal and disinfection utilising ozone and UV. This is described in more detail in Section 3.10.4 Wastewater treatment.
All wastewater from the proposed facility will be treated and disinfected for re-use within HA’s offshore bathing program. All wastewater produced will be mixed with fresh water from Kermandie Creek and will be stored within 12 ML, 240 m circumference floating liners at the Whale Point jetty for collection and utilisation within HA’s AGD bathing regime. The net liners will be aerated to maintain aerobic conditions within the liners. Therefore, BOD and DO are not expected to be water quality issues in the liners. Maintaining the water quality for the protection of fish health will dominate water quality management.
A review of the wastewater discharge process and major issues has been conducted by Aquatic Science. This is included as Appendix H.
7.1.4.5.1 Wastewater discharge to Huon River Wastewater production and re-use models developed by HA show that there will not be a need to discharge treated wastewater directly into the Huon River.
7.1.4.5.2 Indirect wastewater discharge offshore pens As noted above (Sections 3.10.3 AGD bathing re-use and 3.10.7 AGD bathing process), when HA is utilising treated wastewater to treat AGD, the Ronja Storm will use the water up to 10 times to bathe salmon from offshore pens (Table 28, Figure 41 and Figure 42) before discharging the bathing water into the marine environment. The need for discharge will be dictated by turbidity, conductivity and a maximum UIA concentration of 0.02 mg/L in the bathing water. A UIA concentration of 0.02 mg/L is used as a limiting factor to the bathing of fish for a 3–hour period, it is not at this level immediately toxic or dangerous to fish, however could cause gill damage and stress to fish if they are exposed to this level for extended periods. Once diluted in sea water the levels would be no longer toxic to fish virtually immediately.
123 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 124 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
+ Total ammonia in aqueous solution comprises two principal forms: the ionised ammonium ion (NH4 ) and UIA (NH3). There are technical difficulties in measuring the un-ionised form and consequently total ammonia nitrogen (TAN) is usually monitored instead. There is a British Environmental Quality Standard proposed of 0.021 mg/L UIA for the protection of saltwater fish and shellfish.
The proportion of ionised and un-ionised ammonia can be calculated from total ammonia, the relative proportions depending on salinity, temperature and pH. The proportion of UIA increases with increasing temperature and pH, but decreases with increasing salinity (Seager et al., 1988). Because of this, HA staff measure TAN as [NH3-N] and calculate UIA using the relative proportions of salinity, temperature and pH and a standard formula. The ANZECC 2002 guideline specifies a trigger value for the protection of 99% of species in the marine environment for TAN at pH 8. Assuming a pH of 8 and at a sea temperature of 8 °C, a UIA concentration of 0.02 mg/L is equivalent to a TAN concentration of 1.1 mg/L.
The method for discharging used bathing water into marine leases is described in Section 3.10.7 AGD bathing process. Given the mixing expected in windy tidal and marine regions such as Storm Bay and the D’Entrecasteaux Channel, where HA’s offshore pens are situated (Table 28, Figure 41 and Figure 42), adequate mixing is readily achieved and the PEVs for the receiving waters should easily be met. It should be noted that these nutrients would already exist in the environment because of the loads from the fish in the existing pens. The miniscule volume of nutrients and even lower increase in volume of nutrients potentially discharged outside existing marine leases would almost be unmeasurable and given the fluxes described in Table 29 should not adversely impact current PEV’s.
7.1.4.5.2.1 Marine leases HA owns and utilises marine leases in offshore locations where a combination of fast water movement and wave action (regularly greater than 4 m) equates to a high-energy site. This results in greater oxygen availability and quicker flushing of carbon dioxide and ammonia, which is much better for the fish. The higher energy of the water movement also reduces any impacts on the sediment and water column. HA’s leases are marked in orange polygons in Figure 41 and Figure 42. The closest leases not owned by HA are marked in filled orange polygons.
Table 28 HA marine leases
Closest shore Name Location Lease no. Area (m2) distance (m) Police Point Huon River 167 179,856 325 east Hideaway Bay Huon River 93 691,455 33 east Garden Island Huon River 151 479,612 844 west Flathead Bay Huon River 87 766,688 706 east East of Redcliffes Huon River 221 789,385 634 east South of Zuidpool Rock Lower D’Entrecasteaux 141 1,538,810 2,634 Channel south-west Storm Bay off Trumpeter Bay Storm Bay 261 1,998,435 1,846 east
124 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 125 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 41 Marine leases Huon River
125 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 126 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 42 Marine leases Storm Bay
126 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 127 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.1.5 Water quality impacts As noted in Section 3.10.7 AGD bathing process, water use and water quality have been modelled for the proposed development. The monthly nutrient loads into the receiving environment are shown in Table 29 for the period January 2018 to December 2018 as per Table 5 and Table 6. Monthly variations reflect the annual production and bathing cycles. Table 29 also shows the split in nutrient loads between the Huon River and Storm Bay. These loads include nutrients from the Kermandie River which would otherwise report to the Huon River at Hospital Bay.
Table 29 Estimated nutrient loads from proposed development by month
Total N Total N Total P Total P TAN tonnes/year TAN tonnes/year Month tonnes/year tonnes/year tonnes/year tonnes/year Huon River Storm Bay Huon River Storm Bay Huon River Storm Bay Jan 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 Feb 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 March 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 April 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 May 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 June 0.005 0.003 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.01 July 0.004 0.004 0.04 0.04 0.01 0.01 August 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 Sep 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 Oct 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Nov 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.01 Dec 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 Total 0.06 0.04 0.37 0.25 0.15 0.10
Figure 43 and Table 30 from Ross and Macleod (2013) show estimates of nutrient loads from the Huon River between 1996 and 2011. Nutrient loads are strongly influenced by flows.
Figure 43 Estimated annual loads Huon River – total N, NH4, NOx, total P and PO4 for 1996–2012
127 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 128 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
From Ross and Macleod (2013)
Table 30 Annual river flow and total nitrogen loads for 1996–2012
River flow Total N Year (GL/year) (t/year) 1996 3473 986 1997 2652 731 1998 2219 580 1999 2080 539 2000 3066 874 2001 2559 698 2002 3404 987 2003 2620 752 2004 3074 874 2005 2527 696 2006 2665 728 2007 2517 726 2008 2361 648 2009 3250 929 2010 2364 640 2011 2994 839 From Ross and Macleod (2013)
When comparing the mass loads, the annual input of total N of 0.37 tonnes/year from the salmon nursery is insignificant compared to the current annual load of between 640 and 986 tonnes.
Commitment When HA will employ a full-time wastewater manager for the site During operations Operation of the fish processing facility will comply with the measures Construction and ongoing described in this DPEMP Treated wastewater will be recirculated through the operation and then During operations re-used as bathing water in the treatment of AGD in marine pens No process wastewater will be discharged from the proposed nursery During operations
7.1.6 Assessment of residual effects The measures outlined above should ensure that any potential aqueous emissions during the construction and operation phases are properly controlled, monitored and managed and present a negligible risk to the environment.
7.2 Erosion and sediment loss Measures to mitigate erosion and sediment loss are described in Section 7.1.4.2 Stormwater management.
7.2.1 Existing conditions The relevant receptor considered in this section is the adjacent downstream environment. A summary of existing conditions is provided in Sections 5.6.3 and 5.7.3.3 Hospital Bay.
128 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 129 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.2.2 Performance requirements The performance requirements outlined in Section 7.1.4.2 Stormwater management apply and will be spelt out in a CEMP for the project’s construction.
7.2.3 Potential effects The potential for erosion and sediment is not considered to be relatively high due to the relatively even rainfall on the south-east coast of Tasmania and the relatively small catchment for this site.
Erosion and sediment loss may occur during the construction of the processing infrastructure.
Sediment loss to the drainage systems has the potential to: increase turbidity displace aquatic organisms from the riverbed affect fish health degrade aquatic habitat alter geomorphology.
7.2.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures Construction activities will take place in areas of existing industrial development. Minimal vegetation will be cleared as part of the proposed development. No drainage lines will be constructed to change current watercourses or drainage lines. Erosion or sediment loss is not expected to be a significant environmental aspect of the proposed operation.
HA will manage run-off generated during site preparation and the construction of site infrastructure. A suite of erosion and sediment control mitigation measures will be implemented during the construction phase and maintained as necessary as the project moves into operation. 7.2.4.1 Mitigation measures for erosion and sediment loss during construction The following measures to control potential erosion and sediment loss arising from clearing and construction of the infrastructure area will be described in a CEMP, which will be implemented: Vegetated buffer areas will be left in situ. No construction works will be undertaken during high rainfall conditions that may present an unacceptable risk of sediment loss to the environment. Temporary silt fencing will be utilised where required to prevent transport of any eroded material into Kermandie Creek and the Huon River prior to construction of any stormwater diversion infrastructure. Silt fences will be installed and maintained appropriately, based on Institute of Engineers Australia guidelines. Temporary silt stop netting will be utilised as required in areas directly adjacent to drainage lines where space or topography prevents diversion of overland flow. Temporary sandbagging will also be used to manage and control any sediment-laden run-off as required. Disturbance areas will be kept to the minimum practicable level required for construction. Erosion and sedimentation controls will be established as needed prior to the commencement of works.
129 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 130 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.2.4.2 Mitigation measures for erosion and sediment loss during operation The following mitigation measures will be implemented to control potential erosion and sediment loss from the infrastructure work areas during operation: Stormwater upslope of the processing areas will be diverted around work areas for discharge as overland flow. Clean water diverted into cut-off drains will be kept separate from contamination from oils and fuels and sewage.
Commitment When A CEMP will be developed and implemented to ensure that temporary silt During construction fencing will be utilised where required to prevent transport of any eroded material into Kermandie Creek and the Huon River prior to construction of any stormwater diversion infrastructure. Silt fences will be installed and maintained appropriately, based on Institute of Engineers Australia guidelines. A CEMP will be developed and implemented to ensure that disturbance During construction areas will be kept to the minimum practicable level required for construction.
7.2.5 Assessment of residual effects There is not expected to be any impact on the drainage systems as a result of excessive erosion and sediment loss during the construction or operational phases of the project.
The emphasis is on erosion prevention through minimising cleared areas and by diverting stormwater away from construction and infrastructure areas.
7.3 Groundwater This section will consider the impact of the construction and operation activities on groundwater flow and quality.
7.3.1 Existing conditions The relevant receptor considered in this section is the groundwater quality and quantity of the site.
A description of existing groundwater conditions is provided in Section 5.8.
7.3.2 Performance requirements Groundwater emissions from activities must comply with the following: State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 Water Management Act 1999 Groundwater Act 1985.
7.3.3 Potential effects Potential effects on groundwater include the following: the potential for interception of local groundwater near natural discharge zones in the low-lying areas near the Huon River impacts to groundwater quality from pollution associated with oil and fuel spills impacts to groundwater quality from contaminated wastewater. 130 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 131 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.3.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures The mitigation measures used to protect surface waters from fuel and oil, sewage and off-site discharge will also protect groundwater. These are discussed in Section 7.1.4.4 Storage and use of fuel and oils.
7.3.5 Assessment of residual effects The measures outlined above should ensure that any potential impacts on groundwater quality during the construction and operation phases are properly controlled, monitored and managed, and present a negligible risk to the environment.
Groundwater is not expected to be intercepted, used or adversely impacted by the proposed development. 7.4 Air emissions No significant adverse air emissions are anticipated.
The primary potential air pollutant sources during the construction phase include: dust generation from clearing of the site; stockpiling of vegetation, topsoil and clay; and construction of the nursery, office area and access roads emissions from the operation of construction and transportation equipment.
The primary potential air pollutant sources during the operational phase include: dust from handling of construction materials.
7.4.1 Existing conditions There are currently no known significant point sources of air pollutants in the Port Huon or Whale Point areas.
7.4.2 Performance requirements Air emissions from the proposed operation must comply with the following: Tasmanian OHS requirements (Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 2012) Tasmanian Environment Protection Policy (Air Quality) 2004 Tasmania Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 – Environmental nuisance provisions Huon Valley Council Interim Planning Scheme 2015.
7.4.3 Potential effects No significant adverse air emissions are anticipated from the proposed development.
Prevailing winds blow from the west, south-south-west and north-north-west, away from Port Huon which contains the closest sensitive receptors (between 500 m and 1000 m distant). Residences to the east are situated at Wattle Grove approximate 3000 m from the site (see Figure 44).
HA has more than 10 years of experience in the management of fish sludge at its Lonnavale and Forest Home facilities and have never received a compliant regarding odours from either of these facilities. (HVC, personal communication). However, to further improve its sludge management at Whale Point, HA is developing a well-planned waste treatment and storage facility that incorporates a fully enclosed waste treatment and storage area, is constructed fit for purpose, will ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses and allows for adequate separation distances from all sensitive receptors. This all mitigates against contingencies if a process upset was to occur for any unforeseen reason. HA have further 131 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 132 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
enhanced the principles of waste minimisation which will result in cleaner production and best practice management control technology which will minimise or eliminate the release of odours from site.
Figure 44 Potential odour receptors
7.4.3.1 Dust Dust is potential source of fugitive emissions from the operation.
Dust has the potential to cause an environmental nuisance if it is blown beyond the boundary of the proposed construction and operational activities. It can cause respiratory annoyance, reduce visual amenity and fall out onto land or surfaces in other ownership, with the potential to soil clean surfaces and contaminate roof-collected water supplies. In addition, dust can fall onto vegetation and, in extreme cases, retard plant growth by blocking photosynthesis. Diesel exhaust fumes can release particulates, which could cause an environmental nuisance and contribute to greenhouse gases. 7.4.3.2 Odours A potential point source of air emissions is odour from the wastewater treatment shed. The production and storage of solid organic wastes is a potential source of odour. However, the quality of the sludge to be produced and the management processes proposed mean a significant odour impact is unlikely.
Another source of odour is the production and management of fish mortalities (morts). An analysis of fish mortalities during peak production at Forest Home shows an average of 25 morts per day with an average weight of 233 grams. Given the increased size of fish at Whale Point, the biomass of morts could be doubled. This is conservative as industry experience shows that most morts occur when fish are smallest. Billund, as equipment supplier, has advised that in practice a system the size of Whale Point could expect a daily mortality rate of <20 kg per day.
132 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 133 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
The mort disposal system for the Whale Point facility will be that morts are collected twice daily from the tanks using an automatic collector. The morts are then placed within wax-coated cardboard boxes and frozen. They are then placed within the organic sludge, i.e. in the sludge bin, on the day that the sludge is sent to compost (at a K100 compost facility). As noted previously, this is expected to occur twice weekly. No odour complaints have been received by HA during its Forest Home operations.
Discussions with the Huon Valley Council (HVC) have confirmed that the council has not received odour complaints in regard to any HA hatcheries in the council area. The closest residences to the Lonnavale hatchery are 287 m from the plant. At Forest Home, the closest residence is less than 200 m from the rear of the hatchery where the sludge management is situated. These are closer than the nearest receptors at Port Huon and Wattle Grove (Figure 44). Tassal operates a large hatchery at Rookwood, which is 230 m from the nearest residence to the north-west and 245 m to the nearest residence to the south-west. HA is not aware of any odour issues from this plant.
Notwithstanding this, HA is significantly upgrading the water, wastewater and solid waste management practices at Whale Point (Section 3.12 Solid waste production).
HA’s goal is that there will be no release of noxious or offensive odours or any other noxious or offensive airborne contaminant beyond the boundary of the site that causes environmental harm at any odour sensitive receptor. In addition, HA will commit that if in the unlikely event (based on previous history with this waste) that if a significant odour development occurs, then a fan will be installed within the fully enclosed waste treatment and storage area drawing air towards an ozone treatment vent, where all exhaust air will be treated with ozone before it escapes the confines of the treatment building. Further modelling and treatment options are noted below.
As noted in Section 3.10.4 Wastewater treatment, Section 3.12 Solid waste production, HA is proposing to install a state of the airt wastewater treatment facility at Whale Point and is unaware of any similar advanced treatment facilities outside of Norway. The wastewater treatment system is designed to minimise odour production as described below.
The Whale Point facility will not have a set water exchange rate like previous facilities, where a small percentage of the water is discharged and replaced with fresh water each day (e.g. at Forest Home see Appendix P). Most of the water exiting the facility will be generated from the internal water treatment processes. The solids captured in micro strainers and the water spray used to remove them from the screens, the biological slime and the water used to backwash in biofilters, and the solids removed and the water utilised for back flushing plate separators are the sources of wastewater: Micro strainers. Three mechanical filters with Hydrotech HDF2009-SA 60-micron screens. Solids >60 micron are captured on screens, removed with a high-pressure water spray and pumped to the wastewater treatment plant. Biofilters. Ten chambers filled with bio-media type RK are back flushed daily to reduce biological slime and this reports to the wastewater treatment plant. Plate separators. Sludge captured on the separators reports to denitrification chambers within the facility, where it provides organic material to feed anaerobic bacteria. The denitrification chambers are back flushed daily and wastes report to the wastewater treatment plant.
All wastewater (known as raw wastewater) from the above processes will report to the wastewater treatment plant. The wastewater treatment plant will utilise the following steps (see Figure 17): Screening. Bar screen – to remove larger foreign particles (e.g. plastic, tools etc.). These screens are cleaned manually daily and waste is disposed of as general wastes.
133 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 134 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Grit chamber. This is located within the first coagulation tank to capture heavy sands and small foreign particles. This small chamber is cleaned out daily with solids placed in waste solids compost bin. Coagulation. This involves ferric addition within a mixer tank, which coagulates the sludge and, most importantly, phosphorous. There will be 1 × 75 m3 mixing tank and 2 × spare 75 m3 tanks. Flocculation. A cationic organic polymer is added to form large clumps of solids from the coagulated particles after the addition of ferric sulphate. Polymer dosage of is low, typically 1:60 of diluted 1% polymer will coagulate 60,000 litres of raw wastewater of which 1% becomes sludge (@ 30% solids). It is expected therefore that <4.5 litres of polymer will be used each day during peak biomass (at maximum site discharge) which will generate <2.5 tonne of sludge. An overdose of polymer would result in low pH of the wastewater and would therefore be recognised and addressed within the water treatment plant. HA has committed to a discharge pH and are committed to this in the DPEMP, therefore if overdosing of polymer occurred leading to a low pH the pH would be corrected using lime. This is not expected to occur as it does not occur at our other facilities e.g. Forest Home or Lonnavale. Separation. Three 5-micron belt filters will be utilised to ensure that wastewater is not stored for long periods. The 5-micron belt filters allow the clean discharge water to pass through the slowly rotating belt whilst trapping the coagulated solids on its surface. At Whale Point, wastewater will be processed three times faster than at Forest Home. This helps prevent degradation of water while in storage, thereby preventing the development of ammonia and anaerobic compounds. Additional denitrification after the belt filter. Water reclaimed from the belt filters will undergo additional denitrification. Denitrification is a process in which psuedemonous bacteria are established on filter media within in a low oxygen environment (<2mgO2/L). These bacteria convert nitrogen into nitrogen gas which disperses into the environment. This is achieved by reducing flow through the area in which denitrification occurs. Equipment suppliers Billund have advised that water reclaimed from belt filters at a similar plant in Norway has a median Total Nitrogen of 50 mg/L. Based on current denitrification results achieved at HA’s Forest Home hatchery which has now been operational for 18 months, the additional denitrification filter is expected to reduce this level to <5 mg/L. Additional biofiltration. Denitrification plants can generate low levels of nitrite and/or ammonia within the wastewater stream. An additional biofiltration unit will be installed to utilise aerobic bacteria convert any generated nitrite or ammonia to nitrate. Ozonation. All wastewater exiting the wastewater facility will be disinfected using ozone to 700 mV.
7.4.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures Air emissions could occur during the construction and operational phases of the project.
There is potential for wind blown dust during construction and operations as vehicles drive into and out of the site. Factors which will mitigate this include: A CEMP will be implemented, including use of water carts as necessary. Prevailing winds blow from the west, south-south-west and north-north-west, away from Port Huon. Whale Point Road is sealed to the proposed development location. Sealed hardstand will remain at the site after construction. No vegetation clearance will be undertaken. Exhaust emissions will be minimised by ensuring that all equipment is properly maintained; only reputable contractors with well-maintained equipment will be used on site.
To prevent the development and/or transmission of odour from the Whale Point nursery, HA will utilise a waste treatment, filtration, drying and collection facility that meets best practice requirements within the complex (Section 3.12 Solid waste production).
134 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 135 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
All organic solids generated from the site operations will be treated through the site’s sludge management system inside the wastewater treatment shed which will operate at a slight negative pressure compared to ambient air: Sludge (fish waste and waste feed) will be removed from the wastewater stream by using three belt filters followed by a decanter/ centrifuge / screw press system before anaerobic conditions can develop. Concentrated solids will be coagulated, flocculated and then captured on an 800-micron belt filter, providing 90% volume reduction. Filtered solids will be further compressed and dewatered through a decanter/ centrifuge / screw press system, reducing their volume by an additional 70%. Morts will be collected twice daily from tanks, placed in wax-coated cardboard boxes and frozen; then taken off site with the dried organic sludges.
Mass mortalities (i.e. a major disaster) would be transported in waste bins to a K100 composting facility, on the same day as the disaster occurred. Inevitably, all tanks and equipment would then need to be cleaned and disinfected.
Similarly, in the event of treatment plant breakdown, the organic sludges present will be moved to the sealed sludge storage bins and transported in waste bins to a K100 composting facility, on the same day. Organic sludges which are controlled wastes will be removed from site using approved K100 licensed waste transport contractors and will be sent to a licensed disposal or management (composting) facility such as Dulverton.
If significant odour development occurs, then a fan will be installed drawing air towards an ozone treatment vent, where all exhaust air will be treated with ozone before it escapes the confines of the treatment building. Further modelling and treatment options are noted below.
This would be a small version of a photoionisation plant such as sold by NEUTRALOX. The NEUTRALOX odour control utilises UV light and catalysts to break down odorous compounds in air in a highly efficient and compact process (photoionisation).
Photoionisation describes a physical-chemical treatment method for oxidation of odours and other air emissions, originating from waste, sewage and sludge treatment processes. Photoionisation is essentially based on the application of UV-light and catalysts. The UV-light creates strong oxidizing agents (O-2, OH-, O3 ), activated O2 and other free radicals) that begin to oxidize the odour causing compounds. A downstream catalyst provides a surface, for oxidation of odour compounds.
Figure 45 Nestralox diagram
Source:http://www.hydrofluxindustrial.com.au/product-item/odour-control-2/#squelch-taas- accordion-shortcode-content-3
135 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 136 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Given that the plant will not be operational until late 2018, HA proposes to undertake odour modelling before the plant is operational and to install additional odour controls in accordance with the commitments below and in Table 41.
Commitment When A CEMP will be implemented to mandate the use of water carts as During construction necessary to prevent dust migration past the boundary of the land All waste material generated by the processing activities will be stored During construction in appropriate containers and removed from site, either for disposal at an appropriately authorised facility or for transport directly to an authorised recycler/re-user. All organic wastes will be processed via coagulation, flocculation and During operations thickening to reduce volume. Resulting sludges will be stored within a sealed bin and disposed of via a K100 waste transporter to an approved K100 composting agent. Before the facility is commissioned and operational, HA will engage a At least three months before qualified consultant to conduct an odour survey including modelling construction and potential impacts to ASNZ standards 4323.3 and 4323.4 and provide commissioning the repot to the EPA. If the modelled impact shows that <2 odour units is not achievable at If significant odour the site boundary, then a fan will be installed drawing air towards an development occurs or the ozone treatment vent, where all vented air will be treated with ozone modelled impact show that <2 before it escapes the confines of the treatment building. odour units is not achievable at the site boundary If the modelled impact shows that ≥2 odour units will be present at Before construction and the any sensitive receptor, HA will install a photoionisation system to commissioning replace the exhaust air ozonation system.
7.4.5 Assessment of residual effects Dust generation associated with the operations is expected to be low, given the small traffic volumes, internal workings and consistent rainfall.
Adoption of the above mitigation measures and commitments will ensure dust and air emissions will not cause environmental nuisance. It is the intent of the mitigation measures and commitments to avoid dust and odour being blown beyond the site boundaries, and to minimise impacts on workers on site. 7.5 Solid and controlled waste management The production of smolt will generate waste feed and faeces (sludge), which will be removed from the wastewater during water treatment and recycling operations. This sludge is classified as a K100 waste under the National Environment Protection Measure Code 75 and will need to be managed effectively and sustainably and according to K100 conditions and guidelines.
To prevent the development and/or transmission of odour from the Whale Point nursery, HA will utilise a waste treatment, filtration and collection facility that meets best practice requirements within the complex. This is described in Section 3.12 Solid waste production and Section 7.4 Air emissions above.
136 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 137 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.5.1 Existing conditions General waste management facilities are currently located on site. These are associated with the current office and administration on site as well as the net maintenance works. Other wastes associated with the net maintenance works are managed on a case-by-case basis. 7.5.1.1 Performance requirements Solid and controlled waste from sites must comply with the following: Tasmanian Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2000 National environment protection measure code 75, Environment Division, Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts The Tasmanian waste and resource management strategy.1st edn, June 2009 Tasmanian biosolids reuse guidelines (1999) Approved management method for biosolids reuse (2006)
7.5.2 Potential effects Waste material can cause environmental nuisance or harm if it is not contained and disposed of appropriately. Inappropriately managed solid waste has the potential to contribute to surface and groundwater pollution. 7.5.2.1 General solid waste General solid waste – including papers, plastics, food materials and empty bottles, and materials from routine minor machinery maintenance – may result in impacts to soil and water if not managed appropriately. Inappropriate management of food wastes may result in pests, such as rodents. Solid wastes will also include waste feed plastic bags and waste feed bulka bags. 7.5.2.2 Organic waste Organic wastes from growout operations could present a risk to aquatic ecosystems due to the potentially high organic loads leading to reduced dissolved oxygen and/or high nutrient concentrations if not treated, handled and dispose of correctly.
7.5.3 Avoidance and mitigation measures 7.5.3.1 General solid waste The following will be undertaken to mitigate effects from general solid waste: All general solid waste material will be disposed of offsite, in accordance with HVC requirements. Rubbish bins or skips, with lids, will be provided at appropriate locations around the site; all staff will be required to avoid littering and to collect and bin any rubbish and litter that they observe on site. Refuse will be periodically taken to an approved waste disposal facility.
Waste minimisation practices will be adopted in order to reduce waste production and promote recycling as much as practicable. All waste that cannot be recycled will be disposed of in the appropriate manner. Wastes will be recycled, reused or disposed of accordingly. If products supplied to HA are contained within non-recyclable material, suppliers of these products will be asked to supply dates for when these will be made recyclable. 7.5.3.2 Organic Waste The management of organic wastes and mitigation of potential adverse environmental issues is described in Section 3.12 Solid waste production and Section 7.4 Air emissions above.
137 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 138 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.5.4 Assessment of residual effects The measures outlined above should ensure that potential effects from solid waste during the construction and operation phases are properly controlled, monitored and managed and present a negligible risk to the environment.
7.6 Dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials Fuel and oil will be brought onto the site as required for construction activities. Construction work at the site will comply with the CEMP developed by the chosen contractor. The CEMP will capture management of any emissions during the construction phase. The contractor will be required to have ISO/AS 140001 accreditation.
HA will conduct weekly site inspections to ensure the contractor adheres to the supplied CEMP and manages emissions.
Construction tenders will be required to comply with this strategy and its associated site management procedures.
7.6.1 Existing conditions The site is currently used for office, administration and net maintenance activities. Few dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials are associated with these activities.
7.6.2 Performance requirements Management of dangerous goods and hazardous materials must comply with the following statutes, regulations and codes: Work Health and Safety Act 2012 Australian Dangerous Goods Code, 7th edition National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC). Approved Criteria for Classifying Hazardous Substances, 3rd Edition, October 2004. NOHSC:1015 (2001): National Standard for Storage and Handling of Dangerous Goods NOHSC:1005 (1994): National Model Regulations for the Control of Workplace Hazardous Substances NOHSC:2017 (2001): National Code of Practice for Storage and Handling of Dangerous Goods. AS 1940-2004: The storage and handling of flammable and combustible liquids Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 – Environmental nuisance or harm provisions Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Waste Management) Regulations 2000 Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Controlled Waste Tracking) Regulations 2010
7.6.3 Potential effects Incorrect storage and handling of dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials could potentially result in land and water contamination. Incorrect storage and handling of fuels and chemicals can also result in health and safety implications including explosions, fire and exposure of personnel to dangerous liquids or fumes. Incorrect disposal of asbestos material poses a threat to human health.
7.6.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures A number of potentially hazardous substances will be utilised within daily site operations for cleaning, disinfection and wastewater treatment. The chemicals listed in Table 31 below are expected to be utilised within site operations. These chemicals are to be stored in a dedicated storage room in the current workshop shown in Figure 9 to the immediate west of the engineering building, which will be upgraded
138 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 139 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
during site refurbishment. This area will be bunded and managed according to the National Standard and National Code for Managing Risks of Hazardous Chemicals. The management of corrosive substances will comply with AS 3780–20085 Storage and handling of corrosive substances (safe handling) legislation. The proposed facility will be classed as a minor facility due to the small quantities of limited dangerous substances on site. The environmental and safety requirements for storage and handling for minor facilities are outlined in the National Code of Practice for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous Goods [NOHSC:2017(2001).
In addition to these substances, some fuels and oils will also be stored and used on site for machine maintenance operations.
HA will manage hazardous substances on the site in accordance with the specifications as outlined in the National Code NOHSC:2017(2001).
139 Origin date: November 2016 Prepared by: Adam Chapman Date: 05.07.2017 Revision: C (Draft) Authorised by: David Wood Date:
DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 140 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 31 Dangerous goods register
Product Use Product Use Product Use 1. Acid solution HI 3811-0 Alkalinity test kit 19. Chloride reagent salt 37. Methanol Methyl alcohol 2. Alkali solution Water soluble base 20. Chloride salt 38. Mr Muscle Oven cleaner 3. Ammonia 23% Anhydrous ammonia 21. Chloride test method Measure chloride 39. Nitric acid 60% Cleaning agent 4. Amm. cyan reagent Measuring ammonia 22. Citro Clean Cleaner 40. Nitrite test method Measuring nitrite 5. Ammonia no 1 Anhydrous ammonia 23. Citrus 6000 Cleaner 41. Nitrite test strips Measuring nitrite 6. Ammonia no 2 Anhydrous ammonia 24. CRC Degreaser 42. Ovaplant Roe treatment 7. Ascorbic Acid Reducing agent 25. Decon 90 Cleaning agent 43. Over Prim Roe inducer 8. Bartran 46 Hydraulic fluid 26. Diesel engine oil Lubricant 44. Compressed oxygen Oxygen 9. Benzocaine Topical anaesthetic 27. Diesel fuel Fuel 45. Ozone Ozone 10. Bromard paste Rodenticide 28. EDTA solution 1M Calcium hardness 46. Pan solution Measuring magnesium 11. Bromard Rentokil Rodenticide 29. Electrolyte Salt 47. Pea Beau Insecticide 12. Bromothymol blue pH indicator 30. Ethanol 96% Alcohol 48. Phenol red Indicator 13. Buffer pH 7 Buffer 31. Formalin Formaldehyde 49. Propane Gas 14. Buffer pH 4 Buffer 32. Hydrated lime Calcium hydroxide 50. PVC cement PVC glue 15. Buffer pH 6.88 Buffer 33. Hydraulic oil Oil 51. Roundup Glyphosate herbicide 16. Buffer colour code Buffer 34. Compressor oil Lubricating oil 52. Sodium bicarbonate Sodium bicarbonate 17. Buffodine Disinfectant 35. Liquid oxygen Oxygen 53. Virkon R Disinfectant 18. Calcium chloride Ionic salt 36. LPG gas Gas Expected list of dangerous goods to be stored on site
140 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 141 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
The following will be undertaken to mitigate effects from dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials: Spill kits will be made available when maintenance is being undertaken. If there is any residual contaminated soil evident after a spill and clean-up, it will be taken for disposal or treatment at an appropriately licensed facility. Refuelling and lubrication will be undertaken away from any freestanding water. Reagents associated with the processing plant will be stored in a secure bunded area in accordance with the National Code for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous Goods (NOHSC 2001). Material safety data sheets (MSDSs) will be held for all chemicals used on site. MSDSs will be made available to staff as required. Processing plant staff will be trained in the appropriate operation of the plant including use of reagents, and appropriate safety information will be made available in worker and visitor site inductions.
Where hazardous materials are required within the facilities operations, they will be stored in a chemical storage room that is bunded and managed according to National Standard and National Code for the Storage and Handling of Workplace Dangerous Goods. The management of the corrosive substance will comply with AS 3780–2008.
Where the above avoidance and mitigation measures are not already reflected in previous commitments, these are included below.
Commitment When Any spills of potentially contaminating liquids will be reported to the During construction and construction manager immediately and cleaned up as soon as practicable operations Hazardous chemicals to be used at the factory site will be stored in dry, During construction and bunded areas that comply with AS 3780–2008 Storage and handling of operations corrosive substances The management of the hazardous substances will be in accordance with During construction and the National Standard and National Code for the Storage and Handling of operations Workplace Dangerous Goods
7.6.5 Assessment of residual effects The measures outlined above should ensure that potential effects from dangerous goods and environmentally hazardous materials are properly controlled, monitored and managed, and present a negligible risk to the environment.
7.7 Biodiversity and natural values – flora and vegetation 7.7.1 Existing conditions The location for the proposed facility is within a previously developed area of the site. There is a small amount of regrowth (mainly wattle) planted by HA as screening vegetation within the proposed development area (see Plate 4 and Plate 6).
A Natural Values Atlas (NVA) Report for the proposed site was generated on 22 December 2016 from the DPIPWE website for threatened vegetation communities and TASVEG 3.0 communities within 150 m of the centre of the proposed development site. This showed
141 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 142 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Eucalyptus ovata forest and woodland as a threatened community within 105 m of the centroid of the development site but outside of the development itself (see Section 5.6.1 Vegetation communities and Appendix E ).
An NVA Report for the proposed site was generated on 22 December 2016 from the DPIPWE website for introduced weed species within 150 m of the centre of the proposed development site (See Section 5.6.1.1 Introduced plants). This showed: no Tasmanian Management Act weeds found within 150 metres of the site no priority weeds found within 500 metres.
The land north-east of the existing hardstand (Figure 27) contains some gorse around the existing eastern stormwater pond (Plate 4).
7.7.2 Performance requirements Flora management must comply with the following statutes: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 Nature Conservation Act 2002 Crown Lands Act 1976 Weed Management Act 1999.
7.7.3 Potential effects 7.7.3.1 Threatened vegetation communities There will be no clearing of threatened vegetation as a result of the proposed development. No impact on surrounding flora should occur as a result of the proposed development. 7.7.3.2 Declared weeds and pathogens No NVA-listed weeds within 150 m of the proposed development site. Gorse is a declared agricultural and environmental weed in Tasmania. Gorse control will be imitated during the pre-construction phase of development.
7.7.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures 7.7.4.1 Threatened vegetation communities The following mitigation measures will be undertaken to ensure there is no adverse impact on vegetation from the development: The proposed processing plant and associated infrastructure will be largely contained within the footprint of previous industrial activities to remove the need for additional cleared areas other than for some wattle regrowth. All works, vehicles and materials will be confined to the designated works areas. Topsoil recovered during the construction phase will be stockpiled for future rehabilitation works. The location of threatened vegetation communities will be marked on maps in the CEMP to reduce the risk of inadvertent damage. 7.7.4.2 Declared weeds and pathogens The risk of introducing weeds and/or plant diseases to the site or transporting weeds and/or plant diseases from the site is greatest during the initial construction phase, when earthmoving equipment is transported. Once the project is operating, works will be undertaken by HA’s own machines, which will remain on site, and there will be very little requirement to bring external equipment onto the site.
142 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 143 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Weed management will form part of the general environmental management of the site to prevent the spread of weed species into the site, manage any existing weed species and prevent recruitment in other areas.
Specific gorse management will include: Remove all small plants by hand. Spray larger plants with Garlon 600 (mixing ratio 200 mL to 100 L water) and Grazon DS (mixing ratio 300 mL to 100 L water). HA employs a contractor to manage and eradicate weeds and does not store any herbicides on site. Regularly inspect (monthly) to monitor any regrowth, should it occur, and reapply chemicals to new growth if necessary.
The infestations of gorse on site are few and where there are multiple plants they are relatively small. Regular spraying should be adequate to control these infestations. 7.7.4.3 Weed hygiene measures With a single dedicated entrance to the site from the Huon Highway, the implementation of a weed hygiene plan to prevent the spread of weeds into or out of the site should be effective. HA will maintain a 50 m wide weed-free buffer zone between the nursery site and the entrance to the property. All weeds (if any) will be cleared prior to construction. The zone will be inspected by site personnel on a monthly basis with the presence of any weeds triggering immediate action to remove the weeds.
The following plant hygiene measures will be implemented during the construction and operation of the proposed development. The hygiene plan covers, but is not limited to: vehicle, machinery and equipment hygiene wash down protocols which may be necessary when travelling between clean and contaminated areas and also when vehicles are entering clean or leaving contaminated sites location and management of wash down areas and facilities, including management of effluent maintaining logbooks detailing adherence to hygiene protocols for all contractors material hygiene (soils, gravel, plant material etc.) ensuring that no materials contaminated with weed propagules (seed, propagative vegetative material) are imported into the study area. appropriate hygiene protocols, including wash down procedures for weeds, will be maintained on the site during construction. Protocols will be consistent with the Tasmanian washdown guidelines for weed and disease control, Edition 1 (Forestry Tasmania; Agricultural Contractors of Tasmania; Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment).
7.7.5 Assessment of residual effects 7.7.5.1 Vegetation communities Adherence to the avoidance and mitigation measures outlined above will ensure that clearance of vegetation will be kept to a minimum. 7.7.5.2 Declared weeds and pathogens Adherence to the avoidance and mitigation measures outlined above will ensure that the likely spread of weeds and diseases to and from the site is kept to a minimum.
143 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 144 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.8 Biodiversity and natural values - Fauna
7.8.1 Existing conditions The proposed development site has been used for industrial purposes since the 1920s. No terrestrial fauna habitat remains on site.
An NVA Report for the proposed site was generated from the DPIPWE website for threatened fauna within 150 m of the centre of the proposed development site (Section 5.6.2.1 Terrestrial fauna habitat and Appendix E). This confirmed two observations of swift parrots in fringing coastal vegetation within 30 m of the proposed development.
The report showed no raptor nests or sightings found within 150 m and two confirmed records for the swift parrot within 50 m to the north-east of the proposed site
7.8.2 Performance requirements Fauna management must comply with the following statutes: Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 Nature Conservation Act 2002 Forest Practices Act 1985 Crown Lands Act 1976.
7.8.3 Potential effects 7.8.3.1 Swift parrot The swift parrot (Lathamus discolor) is listed as endangered under the Tasmanian Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 and Endangered on the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
The swift parrot is 23–25 cm long, bigger than a budgie but smaller than a rosella. Streamlined, for rapid flight, it is green with red on the throat, chin and forehead. It also has red patches on its shoulders and under the wings. It has a blue crown and cheeks, blue on its wings and a long, pointed tail. It can be readily identified in flight by its bright red underwing patches (DPIPWE, 2016).
In the breeding season, males and females form pairs. It is not unusual to find more than one pair nesting close to each other. Nest sites may be re-used but not necessarily in successive years. The use of a particular nest site depends on the availability of food in that area. After the breeding season, in February and March, the entire population flies north, dispersing throughout Victoria and New South Wales.
Potential swift parrot habitat is described as:
Breeding range (comprising foraging and nesting habitat) is within 10 km of the coastline (nearest coast including shores, bays, inlets or peninsulas). Foraging habitat: all Eucalyptus ovata – E. viminalis shrubby forest (OV), grassy E. globulus forest (GG) and E. globulus wet forest floristic communities (subsumed into R) or any forest type with >10% E. globulus canopy cover. Nesting habitat: Eucalyptus trees present > 70 cm dbh, with hollows present. (FPA, 2011)
The swift parrot requires tree hollows for nesting and feeds on nectar of blue gum (E. globulus) and black gum (E. ovata) flowers.
144 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 145 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
No swift parrot breeding habitat will be lost or modified as a result of the proposed development. 7.8.3.2 Other threatened species No raptor nests or sightings have been noted within 150 m of the proposed development.
The project will eliminate a requirement for an estimated 370 truck movements a year by transferring fish ready for the ocean directly into net liners at the Whale Point jetty via a pipe straight from the facility and from the liners onto the Ronja Storm. Once the Whale Point site is operational, smaller fish (approximately 25 g) will be delivered from Russel River and Forest Home to Whale Point. This will allow for greater numbers of fish per truck, thus reducing truck movements. The transport distance will also reduce by 15 km each way (the distance between Port Huon and Police Point). The reductions will reduce the risk of roadkill, particularly in regard to known roadside foraging species such as Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil).
7.8.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures As indicated in Section 7.8.3, it is unlikely that the proposal will result in adverse impacts to fauna. Nevertheless, the following mitigation measures will be implemented: The location of swift parrot observations and potential nesting or foraging habitat will be marked on maps in the CEMP to reduce the risk of inadvertent damage. The CEMP to be developed for the site will include commitments that fences constructed or replaced on the site will comply with the guidelines published by WWF-Australia for the Threatened Species Network (see Appendix I).
Commitment When A CEMP will be developed and implemented to ensure that fences constructed During construction or replaced on the site will comply with the guidelines published by WWF- Australia for the Threatened Species Network Advice will be sought from Policy Conservation Advice Branch if eagles are During construction detected on site prior to or during the construction and operational phases of and operations the project
7.8.5 Assessment of residual effects 7.8.5.1 Wedge-tailed eagle The residual impacts of the proposed project to wedge-tailed eagles following the avoidance and mitigation measures as outlined in the commitments are not considered to be significant. 7.8.5.2 Swift parrot There is a very low likelihood of any impact as preferred foraging species will not be removed by the action. 7.8.5.3 Other threatened species Reductions in traffic as a result of this proposal should have a positive residual impact on known roadside foraging species such as Sarcophilus harrisii (Tasmanian devil).
145 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 146 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.9 Visual impact
7.9.1 Existing condition The proposed development site has an existing fringing coastal vegetation strip, effectively shielding current site operations from most vantage points along the Huon Highway and from most Port Huon residents. As can be seen in Plate 7 to Plate 11, the only aspects of the current site infrastructure visible from the major vantage points are the upper floors and roof of the disused APM building. The proposed nursery building will largely occupy the same space and will have the same peak roofline height as the current APM building, which is at approximately 26mAHD.
7.9.2 Performance requirements The project must comply with the requirements of the Huon Valley Council Interim Planning Scheme 2015.
7.9.3 Potential effects The proposal will remove the existing APM building (four storeys high) from the current view and replace it with a “eucalyptus green” coloured salmon nursery building which, although generally lower than the existing building, will still be partially visible from the above locations. The colour and design of the facility should minimise impact and the site should be less noticeable than the original APM building.
Given the distances from Port Huon to the Whale Point site and the current visual disturbance, it was assessed that potential receptors would have low sensitivity to the visual impacts of this proposal. It is assessed that the impact on landscape and visual significance from viewing locations will be not significant.
It is expected that the duration of effects would be long term and the quality of the impacts would be positive. Impacts upon both the landscape character of the site and the visual amenity of road users and Port Huon residents would be negligible and positive during the operational phase.
7.9.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimise and or manage adverse impacts of the proposal during the operation phase: Consider the design of and carefully place new permanent features such as signs, fencing and gates. Minimise the visual impacts of replacement infrastructure. Replace or reinstate with robust materials to a consistent theme. Maintain existing screening natural vegetation along the coastal fringe. Minimise the height of the salmon nursery building to keep it ‘hidden’ within the existing vegetation. Paint the salmon nursery building and associated external tanks in mottled or disrupted patterns with colours from olive to green to maximise terrain colour-blending. This will maximise blending with the vegetation and land tones in most seasonal and weather conditions. Plate 7 shows the current view of the Whale Point site from the Kermandie Marina. The roof and upper-floor walls of the APM building are easily visible among the fringing vegetation. Figure 46 shows the potential new view with the salmon nursery building superimposed and painted according to these recommendations.
146 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 147 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Figure 46 Modified view from Kermandie Marina with new growout building in place
Commitment When A CEMP will be developed and implemented to ensure that no During construction threatened vegetation is cleared and that screening buffers are left intact The peak height of the nursery building will be kept to the current During construction planning APM building height to keep it ‘hidden’ within the existing vegetation and during construction The nursery building and associated external tanks will be painted in During construction planning mottled or disrupted patterns with colours from olive to green to and during construction maximise terrain colour-blending
7.9.5 Assessment of residual effects It is expected that the duration of effects would be long term and the quality of the impacts would be positive. Impacts upon both the landscape character of the site and the visual amenity of road users and Port Huon residents would be negligible and positive during the operational phase.
7.10 Noise impact The potential noise impacts from the proposed development were considered in the context of the sensitivity of nearby noise-sensitive receptors (Section 5.9 Noise environment) and the potential for changes in noise levels due to site works and operational requirements. The potential impact on background noise levels from the proposal has been assessed against the environmental values specified in the Environment Protection Policy (Noise).
The environmental values to be protected under the Environment Protection Policy (Noise) are the qualities of the acoustic environment that are conducive to: the wellbeing of the community or a part of the community, including its social and economic amenity; or the wellbeing of an individual, including the individual’s – health; and
147 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 148 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
– opportunity to work and study and to have sleep, relaxation and conversation without unreasonable interference from noise.
7.10.1 Existing conditions Ambient noise at Port Huon during baseline surveys conducted on 19 January 2017 was dominated by traffic along the Huon Highway and some local traffic on Port Huon streets. Other than traffic, noises noted during the survey were birds (mainly gulls), light industrial noises such as water blasting at Kermandie Marina, and metallic works from Port Huon.
Most premises (84%) at Port Huon are within 200 m of the Huon Highway, with 20% within 100 m of the highway (Figure 36).
Distance attenuation calculations using a reduction of 3 dB(A) for each doubling of distance from the highway (assuming the highway traffic noise acts as a line source) indicate that a typical daytime ambient noise at Port Huon 50 m from the Huon Highway is 53.2 dB A eq and at 100 m is 50.2 dB A eq. An evening ambient noise at Port Huon 50 m from the Huon Highway is 52 dB A eq, and at 100 m is 49 dB A eq. A night ambient noise at Port Huon 50 m from the Huon Highway is 50.0 dB A eq, and at 100 m is 47.4 dB A eq. This is shown in Table 32 below.
Table 32 Ambient noise Port Huon in L,A,eq
Distance from Huon Highway
50 m 100 m 200 m Day 53.2 50.2 43.2 Evening 52.0 49.0 43.2 Night 50.4 47.4 434.4
When baseline noise was sampled at the Whale Point site during the day, highway noise could not be heard.
The Ronja Huon currently moors at the Port Huon jetty for maintenance, seasonal unloading of fish, and uploading of town water from net liners at the jetty.
The Ronja Huon also currently moors at the Whale Point jetty to upload Kermandie River water from net liners at the jetty. The vessel then motors to marine leases to bath fish for AGD (see Section 3.10.7 AGD bathing process. Pit and Sherry (2015) have undertaken noise measurements on the Ronja Huon, concluding that the maximum Ronja Huon pass-by noise at 25 m was 67 dB(A). Therefore, the vessel complies with the 74 dB(A) at 25 m limit set by Regulation 8(1) of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control (Miscellaneous Noise) Regulations 2014.
7.10.2 Performance requirements Noise emissions from proposed activities must comply with the following: Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994 – Environmental nuisance Environment Protection (Miscellaneous Noise) Regulations 2004 Environment Protection Policy (Noise) 2009
148 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 149 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.10.3 Potential effects Noise has the potential to cause environmental nuisance at residential premises and other sensitive uses.
The noise assessment in this report has been reviewed by Bill Butler from Noise Vibration Consulting. This is attached as Appendix O. 7.10.3.1 Noise associated with proposed development
7.10.3.1.1 Construction The potential impact of noise from construction was assessed by: using data from published typical construction noise levels (South Australia, Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure, 2007) for selected noise sources expected to be used at Whale Point during construction works calculating distance attenuation between the source of noise at the Whale Point site and the closest sensitive noise receptors. Attenuation by atmospheric absorption was not used because of the relatively short distances from source to receptors using sound transmission class (STC) ratings (Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage, 1991) for the types of buildings at the receptors to calculate the potential noise inside dwellings and inside bedrooms.
The potential noise impact during various phases of construction at the closest sensitive noise receptors was compared to appropriate acoustic environment indicator levels. This showed that at the closest and second-closest residences there will be a temporary, short-term, moderate but not serious annoyance at outdoor living areas during the construction phase. This is predicated on all items assessed operating at the same time for all eight hours worked. Hence, there is a degree of conservatism built into the assessment.
The recommended acoustic environment indicator levels for dwelling indoors should not be exceeded at the closest noise receptors in Port Huon during construction of the proposed facility.
The recommended environment acoustic indicator level for inside bedrooms at the second-closest residence may experience a temporary, short-term exceedance. However, this level is based on potential sleep disturbance at night-time when construction activities should not occur. Consequently, environmental values should be met.
7.10.3.1.2 Operation The salmon nursery at Whale Point will operate 24 hours per day to keep fish alive; however, standard working hours will be between 0700 and 1800. The site will be manned 24 hours a day with on-site accommodation for staff to attend issues that may arise in regard to fish health after hours. The Whale Point jetty will only operate between 0800 and 1700 so that any noise impact from fish loading will only occur during daytime.
7.10.3.1.2.1 Fixed plant and equipment The potential impact of noise from operation of fixed plant and equipment at the proposal was assessed by: using data from the current noise emissions at the HA salmon nursery at Forest Home assuming these noise emissions are reproduced at Whale Point and calculating distance attenuation between the source of noise at the proposal and the closest sensitive noise receptors. Attenuation by atmospheric absorption was insignificant for the frequencies emitted and the distance involved
149 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 150 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
using STC ratings (Department of Environment and Heritage, 1991) for the types of buildings at the receptors to calculate the potential noise inside dwellings and inside bedrooms.
Sound pressure level measurements were recorded on the road verge of North Huon Road, at 495777E: 5238230N on 19 January 2017. The location was 100 m north-west of the hatchery building, which is more than twice the major dimension of noise source (the hatchery building). The sample site was at the elevation 26mAHD and approximately level with the roof of the hatchery. The site was chosen to replicate the side of the hatchery that will face towards Port Huon at Whale Point. This showed that the hatchery building will attenuate noise from the operation and mitigate impacts on sensitive receptors at Port Huon that are on the same level as the hatchery (Figure 34). Port Huon residents on higher ground may not receive as much barrier attenuation. Additional samples at this location were taken at the same location on 4 April 2017. These were consistent; however, most samples taken on the road verge were impacted by passing traffic, even at night.
At Forest Home, there is a distinct single-frequency tonal component to the noise heard from the plant. One-third octave analysis showed that there are tonal bands at the 31.5, 40 and 50 Hz centre band frequencies. There are also high tonal peaks at the 8,000 Hz and 10,000 Hz bands. These are caused by noise emanating from the chiller rooms, blowers and ozone generators, which are situated on the distal side of the plant (to the measurement location) and will be situated on the distal side of the proposed development to Port Huon residents.
Table 33 Sound pressure levels HA Forest Home facility – 100 m north side
Date Start time End time LAeq LA10 LA90 19 Jan 17 11.03 11.18 45.9 60.5 42.0 4 Apr 17 16.29 16.43 42.00 44.3 40.7 4 Apr 17 16.45 16.56 42.8 44.3 40.7 4 Apr 17 17.00 17.15 41.9 44.2 40.5 4 Apr 17 21.10 21.20 40.5 42.0 33.7 4 Apr 17 21.25 21.35 40.3 41.8 38.5 4 Apr 17 21.40 21.50 39.2 41.2 37.7 4 Apr 17 22.00 22.10 39.4 39.8 37.6 4 Apr 17 22.12 22.22 44.2 41.3 38.0 4 Apr 17 22.24 22.34 36.9 37.5 36.4
The effect of building attenuation is likely to be reduced at distances in excess of 500 m, both at residences along the Huon Highway and at residences sitting higher in the hills above the highway (see Figure 34 and Figure 35). To allow for this, a penalty of 5 dB(A) has been added to the measured noise from the Forest Home site when applied to the Whale Point site to assess potential impact.
Sound pressure level measurements were also recorded to the south of the Forest Home hatchery building between the building and the Huon River at 495598E: 5237732N on 6 April 2017. The location was 353 m south and east of the hatchery building, aligned between the major noise sources and noise- sensitive receptors on the southern side of the Huon River. At this location, no traffic was audible. Other than an irrigation pump, which was just audible, the only sounds heard were those emanating from the hatchery.
150 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 151 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 34 Forest Home River site
Date Start time End time LAeq LA10 LA90 6 Apr 17 8.27 8.37 41.1 42.9 38.8 6 Apr 17 8.38 8.48 40.8 42.3 38.7
Impact assessment indicated environmental acoustic indicator levels at Port Huon should not be exceeded during operation of the proposal.
During a noise survey at Forest Home carried out between 4 and 6 April 2017, several plant components – the chiller room motors, blower room motors and the ozone generator, all on the south-east corner of the building – were identified as the dominant noise sources at the hatchery. The ozone and oxygen generators were identified as a source of low-frequency noise, whereas the blower room and the chiller room had significant tonal peaks in the 50 Hz range, as well as lesser peaks in the 160–400 Hz range and again in the 800–1250 Hz range. Sound pressure level measurements were undertaken in the near field at 2 m from the hatchery building to evaluate the relative magnitude of each component. These are shown in Table 35.
Table 35 Major noise sources Forest Home Sample site Statistic dB(A)
L,A,eq 63.6
Outside chiller room LAFmax 67.7
LAFmin 61.0
L,A,eq 67.9
Outside blower room LAFmax 70.3
LA min 66.1
L,A,eq 55.4
Ozone and oxygen generators LAFmax 67.5
LAFmin 53.4
As a result of this, HA has commenced noise attenuation measures at Forest Home including: installing high-mass cladding on the outside of the Bondor walls on the south-eastern side of the hatchery building (i.e. adjacent to the major noise sources) installing an attenuating curtain inside the chillers room.
HA’s Environmental Manager has advised of measured noise reductions of >5 dB(A) at the same measurement locations outside the chiller room and the ozone and oxygen generators. Additional acoustic attenuation is planned for Forest Home and the proposed Whale Point nursery, which should further reduce the noise emissions and the potential impact from the Whale Point development.
Given the noise attenuation undertaken at Forest Home since the two surveys and the planned implementation of this work at Whale Point, as well as the replacement of blowers with fans and trickle filters, an additional simple noise model was developed and is shown plotted in Figure 47. To develop conservative estimates of the prospective noise output from Whale Point, the LAFmax measurements above were each reduced by 5 dB(A) for the chiller room and the ozone and oxygen generators. Equipment suppliers have advised that replacing the blowers with fans would result in a noise reduction of between 30 and 50%. The output from the blowers was reduced by 7 dB(A). Overall this was calculated
151 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 152 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
as a cumulative noise reduction of 4.2 dB(A). With these noise reductions in place, the 35 dB(A) noise contours were plotted conservatively calculating distance attenuation from the proposed facility. This was equivalent to a distance of 400 m to the west of the Whale Point facility (replicating the noise emissions towards Port Huon) and for the eastern side of the nursery building, the 35 dB(A) noise contours plotted conservatively at a distance of 830 m from the facility. In Figure 47, the 35 dB(A) contours are shown based on the distance attenuation calculations from the respective eastern and western sides of the proposed nursery building. The closest noise-sensitive receptors are outside the contour lines. As a result of the above assumptions the overall assessment is believed to be conservative.
Figure 47 Salmon nursery 35 dB(A) contours
7.10.3.1.3 Noise assessment reviews In addition, Pit and Sherry (2016) have assessed the potential noise emissions from the proposed Whale Point operation and calculated the noise level of the emissions at the nearest sensitive use, which is a residence about 530m to the north west (Figure 35). Sound power levels for the fans and noise reduction performance for silencers etc are based on the manufacturer’s catalogue data for the units specified. Noise levels for the production equipment was based on noise level measurements made by Huon and/or the process equipment designer, made in similar facilities. The combined noise level of these sources was calculated at the nearest residence taking into account distance attenuation and not taking any credit for shielding from buildings or from atmospheric absorption. The estimated noise level at the nearest residence was calculated at 26 dB(A). This highlights the conservatism built into the above assessment. The Pit and Sherry 2016 report has been incorporated into Appendix O.
Bill Butler from Noise Vibration Consulting also reviewed the noise assessment in this report. His review is also incorporated in Appendix O. The review refers to the Ronja Huon which is being replaced by the Ronja Storm; notes that ambient noise levels calculated at Port Huon are too low because 6 dB(A) reductions for distance attenuation have been used when the assessment refers to a line source and a 3 dB(A) reduction for doubling of distance from the highway. This has been rectified. NVC made recommendations on the content of a Construction EMP. This has been incorporated. NVC also
152 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 153 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
suggested that Construction Noise be managed to be fair and reasonable rather than against a background plus 5dB(A) criteria. NVC also used the Pit and Sherry calculations for fan emissions but uses 4 fans and suggests a total of 29 dB(A) at the nearest residence – without a tonality component tonal but notes that this does not allow for attenuation from directivity or building screening which will reduce it further.
This again indicates that the noise contours shown in Figure 47 are conservative and effectively means that the nursery will be virtually inaudible at Port Huon.
7.10.3.1.3.1 Road transport Smolt will be delivered to the nursery from HA hatcheries at Lonnavale and Forest Home in converted milk tankers. Delivery will take place seasonally. Fish arrive in late October or early November each year and are delivered into a receptor tank on the northeast of the nursery building (Figure 11). The strategic design of the nursery allows HA to reduce the size of smolt sent from the hatcheries. This means fewer trucks and facilitates delivery only between 0800 and 1700 during the delivery period.
The other main delivery item is fish feed. This is delivered regularly and its receptor site is a storage room on the southern side of the nursery building (Figure 11).
7.10.3.1.3.2 Marine vessels The Ronja Huon currently moors at the Whale Point jetty to take on river water to mix with town water for AGD bathing. The frequency is shown in Table 9.
Table 36 Ronja Huon at Whale Point jetty Feb 17 – Jan 18
Ronja Huon Ronja Storm Baths and forecast Month moorings per moorings per baths month month Feb-17 94 31 13 Mar-17 85 28 12 Apr-17 66 22 9 May-17 77 26 11 Jun-17 37 12 5 Jul-17 42 14 6 Aug-17 54 18 8 Sep-17 49 16 7 Oct-17 92 31 13 Nov-17 86 29 12 Dec-17 116 39 17 Jan-18 117 39 17
Once the nursery is operational, this activity will be replaced by the Ronja Storm taking on bathing water routinely and fish from the nursery in season. The far-right column in Table 9 provides the equivalent number of trips by the Ronja Storm during the same period for comparison purposes only. In addition to the reduced frequency of travel and local mooring, the Ronja Storm is being constructed to reduce its noise emissions in comparison to the Ronja Huon. Full specifications are not yet available for the Ronja Storm. HA cannot provide evidence that the engine of the Ronja Storm will not be generate noise level above that of the Ronja Huon because the Ronja Storm is yet to be built.
153 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 154 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.10.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures The following mitigation measures will be implemented to minimise and/or manage adverse noise impacts of the proposal during the operation phase: Site the ozone and oxygen generators to the south-eastern side of the Whale Point facility, i.e. facing Whale Point Hill. Locate as much plant and equipment as possible within the nursery building to maximise sound transmission loss. Selectively choose quieter plant and equipment, e.g. use of fans and trickle filters instead of blowers to remove carbon dioxide from the water. Keep all external wall openings shut as much as practicable. Install external cladding and chiller room curtains as per attenuation improvements at Forest Home to maximise noise attenuation at Whale Point. All road transport into and out of the facility will occur between 0800 and 1700 The Whale Point jetty will only operate between 0800 and 1700 so that any noise impact from fish loading will only occur during daytime. The Ronja Storm will be configured to draw power from the Whale Point jetty to avoid having to use diesel motors for power on board when moored.
During construction, work hours will be confined to daytime, 07.00–17.00 Monday to Friday. This will be stipulated in the CEMP. The CEMP will contain detail on the type of construction activities occurring, the types of equipment being used, hours of operation and how community members can contact HA.
Follow-up noise measurements during construction and operations will be undertaken. If tonality is shown to create adverse noise impacts on higher ground at Port Huon during operations, then a commitment to install acoustic silencers and additional high-mass external cladding on the walls and roofs of the chiller room, and ozone generators and replace blowers with trickle filters should mitigate the noise impact.
Commitment When The supply contractor will be required to demonstrate that operating noise During construction levels from the plant will not exceed 45 dB(A) during the day (7 am to planning and before 6 pm), 40 dB(A) during the evening (6 pm to 10 pm) or 35 dB(A) during the operations commence night (10 pm to 7 am) at noise-sensitive receptors Undertake additional noise modelling post approval and pre-construction Before commencement based on the final design to demonstrate that operating noise levels from of construction the plant will not exceed 45 dB(A) during the day (7 am to 6 pm), 40 dB(A) during the evening (6 pm to 10 pm) or 35 dB(A) during the night (10 pm to 7 am) at noise-sensitive receptors and provide the report as a condition for construction to proceed
7.10.5 Assessment of residual effects Adherence to the mitigation measures and commitments, as outlined above, will ensure that any noise effects from construction and operation of the project will be kept to acceptable levels. As a result: Noise impacts from equipment and from the development will meet the requirements of the EMPCA 1994 – Environmental nuisance provisions Environment Protection Policy (Noise) 2009 and the occupational health and safety requirements of the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 and the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 1998 will be met.
154 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 155 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.11 Land use and development
7.11.1 Existing conditions The site is located on a single title, Lot 4 on Sealed Plan 142071 (Figure 7) with frontage onto Hospital Bay (Huon River). Blocks to the south and south-west are zoned ‘Rural Resource’, blocks to the west across Kermandie River are zoned ‘Rural Living’, and south of that zone are smaller parcels of ‘Low Density Residential’. (Figure 2).
7.11.2 Performance requirements The project must comply with the requirements of the Huon Valley Council Interim Planning Scheme, 2015.
7.11.3 Potential effects The project is not expected to conflict with other land use and development in the area. Historically, the region has had a focus on industrial activities. No other significant industrial activities are known to be proposed in the area.
7.11.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures No specific mitigation measures are necessary.
7.11.5 Assessment of residual effects No significant changes in land use will result from the proposed project activities. 7.12 Contaminated land
7.12.1 Existing conditions Historically, the region has had a focus on industrial activities. The proposed site was developed and used as a pulp mill prior to HA’s ownership. Since this time, it has been used for net painting, net maintenance and water treatment. APM built the mill on the site in 1961. It is expected that residual contamination of soil around the site remains from that activity.
The proposed site is potentially contaminated land in that it has been subject to a notice issued in accordance with Part 5A of the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994.
7.12.2 Performance requirements Under the Huon Valley Council Interim Planning Scheme 2015 the land must be suitable for the intended use (in this case general industrial), having regard to: an environmental site assessment that demonstrates that the level of contamination does not present a risk to human health or the environment or a plan to manage contamination and associated risk to human health or the environment that includes an environmental site assessment; specific remediation and protection measures required to be implemented before any use commences; and a statement that the land is suitable for the intended use.
155 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 156 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.12.3 Potential effects The project is not expected to conflict with other land use and development in the area. No other significant industrial activities are known to be proposed in the area. The proposed construction methods (Section3 Description of Proposed Project) should reduce the permeability of the land immediately around the current infrastructure and, consequently, reduce the potential for existing contaminants to seep or leach into the receiving environment, including any groundwater around the site.
When the proposed construction works are managed through a CEMP including minimising the duration of exposure of contaminants and soil/sediments in the existing settlement dams: There is no plausible exposure risk to trench workers due to dust inhalation or soil ingestion. The marine ecosystem should not become exposed to hydrocarbon impact. Soils and materials excavated from the areas examined by GES in April 2017 other than the existing sediment ponds should be suitable for re-use on site once resealed by fresh concrete.
The construction of the retention pond has the potential to expose contaminated soils. Additional testwork will be undertaken prior to the construction of the retention pond and included in the Retention Pond CEMP to be submitted to the EPA for approval prior to commencement of the pond’s construction. This wil include a sampling and analysis plan (SAP) as part of the CEMP, including but not limited to the retention pond, any trenching associated with the existing pipeline easement out to the wharf, and any drainage channel or spillway associated with the retention pond, as well as any locations where soil disturbance is proposed.
7.12.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures A Retention Pond CEMP will be developed, approved by the EPA and implemented to ensure that: Sufficient test work has been undertaken to identify the presence and type of contaminants which may be present in the retention pond construction and use. Because there is risk of dam break spillage, a dedicated channel will be constructed over either clean non-contaminated land to take the resultant spill water to Hospital Bay without mobilising contaminants; or providing an underlying HDPE liner with rockfill protection to again prevent the mobilisation of contaminants. Additional testing will include testing for the presence of acid sulfate soils whether naturally occurring or anthropogenically introduced.
A CEMP will be developed and implemented to ensure that: Fill material will remain within the confines of the current concrete slabs and then will be covered with fresh concrete. Areas of land disturbance for new buildings will be specified in the CEMP and marked on site to ensure no unnecessary land disturbance occurs. The duration of exposure of contaminants will be minimised to prevent windborne migration off site. Contaminated soils or sediments removed from existing settlement dams during refurbishment will be placed in low-permeability (clay lined) cells in the area to be filled with crushed fill prior to being recovered with fresh concrete to prevent seepage into the marine environment. Sufficient test work will be undertaken and described in the Retention Pond CEMP to determine that soils with elevated hydrocarbons in existing settlement ponds can be treated on site or removed to licensed landfills for disposal, depending on the quantities or degree of contamination. Other hazardous materials are not expected to be encountered during the demolition process (see Appendix G).
156 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 157 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
In accordance with the EPA Tasmania Information Bulletin No. 5, a Waste Management Plan will be developed for approval prior to management of contaminated soil.
157 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 158 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Commitment When To undertake a sampling and analysis plan (SAP)as part of the Construction The SAP will be Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), to include but not be limited to forwarded to the Director the retention pond, any trenching associated with the existing pipeline EPA Tasmania for easement out to the wharf, and any drainage channel or spillway approval prior to its associated with the retention pond, as well as any locations where soil implementation and its disturbance is proposed. The SAP will include justification of the choice of findings will be used to contaminants of concern, sampling locations and numbers of samples. inform the CEMP, which will be submitted to the Director EPA for approval prior to commencement of construction. Because there is risk of dam break spillage, a dedicated channel will be Before commencement constructed over either clean non-contaminated land to take the resultant of construction of the spill water to Hospital Bay without mobilising contaminants; or providing retention pond an underlying HDPE liner with rockfill protection to again prevent the mobilisation of contaminants.
7.12.5 Assessment of residual effects No significant changes to long term impacts from contaminated soils are expected to result from the proposed project activities once the above note management and mitigation activities have been implemented including the provision of further test work and management plans as stipulated in Section 7.12.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures.
In Appendix G it notes that the land will be suitable for the approved use and development because: The proposed development will not adversely impact human health or the environment. There is a low risk that future users of the site will be in direct contact with impacted soil within the excavation areas and mobilised from the excavation areas. Excavation works within the investigation areas will not adversely impact on the environment. 7.13 Traffic impacts It is expected that total vehicle movements will reduce through the construction and operation of the proposed development. At present, smolt at approximately 200 g are transported in semitrailer tankers from the Russel River (Lonnavale) and Forest Home (Judbury) hatcheries and are delivered to HA operations at Police Point near Dover for transfer to sea pens.
Once the Whale Point site is operational, smaller fish (approximately 25 g) will be delivered from Russel River and Forest Home to Whale Point. This will allow for greater numbers of fish per truck, thus reducing truck movements. The transport distance will also reduce by 15 km each way (the distance between Port Huon and Police Point).
The project will eliminate a requirement for an estimated 370 truck movements a year by transferring fish ready for the ocean directly to net liners at the Whale Point jetty and from the liners into the Ronja Storm. The Ronja Storm will then transport the fish to the required sea location.
The reduced vehicle movements should reduce the company’s overall greenhouse gas emissions.
158 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 159 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.14 Health impact assessment For the purposes of this assessment, two populations can be identified: employees and contractors working on site at Whale Point the general public not directly engaged in activities related to the operation.
The issue of adverse health effects on workers is an occupational health and safety matter and, as such, will be addressed in HA’s Safety Management System.
7.14.1 Public health
The general public will not be impacted by emissions from the site. The distance from the site to nearby residences and even transport routes precludes the concentrations of any emissions – whether noise, dust, gases or liquids – from adversely impacting passers-by. HA maintains that there are no public health issues associated with the proposed project.
7.14.2 Occupational health and safety
As with the newly established Forest Home facility near Ranelagh, the Whale Point Salmon Nursery should be considered a low-risk industrial activity. HA has a reputation for maintaining a high level of competency and excellence in all areas of occupational health and safety (OHS). Staff responsible for operational and safety systems will have specific training and undertake continuous improvement programs to ensure key health and safety parameters are achieved.
Construction and operation activities at the site will comply with the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995 and the Workplace Health and Safety Regulations 1998. To ensure compliance with the regulations, safety management systems are to be written and implemented for construction and operation of the nursery. These management systems will address any construction phase safety issues; security arrangements to prevent unauthorised access to the proposed site during construction and normal operation’ and operations, maintenance and inspection safety issues.
HA operates to a companywide policy and safety management plan. This will ensure that all health and safety issues relating to employees, site visitors and the public are addressed at the Whale Point site for ongoing operations and activities. 7.15 Fire risk 7.15.1 Existing conditions The proposed facility at Whale Point is on a developed land parcel bordered by coastal fringe vegetation to the north, east and west and open (majority cleared) pastoral land to the south. An approved bushfire management plan for the current facility is in place as required by the current site EPN 7513-2.
The fire risk of the facility itself is considered low given the open nature of the site and the availability of water from the Kermandie River, water tanks on site, and the Huon River. 7.15.2 Performance requirements The legislative and regulatory framework for the preliminary Fire Response Plan is outlined below: Fire Services Act 1979 relevant Australian Standards Huon Valley Council Interim Planning Scheme 2016 requirements.
159 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 160 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
The building fire risk will be assessed against (and will comply with) the relevant provisions in the Building Code of Australia and to the requirements of the insurers. The building will also comply with the relevant requirements of the Fire Services Act 1979 and the Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995. 7.15.3 Avoidance and mitigation measures Suitable measures will be adopted to avoid and mitigate any potential adverse effects. Facility management plans and a fire response plan will be developed in preparedness for a fire. Maintenance manuals will include all necessary inspections and testing required to reduce (and keep) the risk of fire to minimum levels.
Fire detection and firefighting equipment will be located on site including smoke detectors, alarm systems, fire hydrants, hose reels and extinguishers in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.
Commitment When A Fire Response Plan for the site will be developed and finalised in Prior to construction consultation with the appropriate authorities
7.16 Biosecurity risk Disease can be caused by a range of agents including bacteria, viruses and parasites. While Tasmania is free of many serious diseases affecting salmonid farming overseas, it is nevertheless important to implement biosecurity measures to prevent the spread of existing disease agents and prevent the introduction of new diseases such as those that exist overseas or that might reside in local wild stock.
Biosecurity in its broadest definition is the prevention of disease-causing organisms entering or leaving any site where they pose a risk to farmed stock, other animals, humans or the safety and quality of food. Biosecurity in an aquatic environment poses many challenges because often potential pathogens can be carried in wild fish and never totally eliminated from aquatic systems.
A Biosecurity Plan identifies potential disease risks and implements effective preventative strategies. Biosecurity plays an important role throughout every stage of the life cycle from hatching through to processing. It is not just a case of good hygiene and disinfection procedures. The level of risk should be identified and procedures established to significantly reduce risks.
Biosecurity aims to avoid spread of infectious agents within sites as well as between sites.
Site biosecurity is crucial for the success of any aquaculture operation. HA has an extensive effective biosecurity management system that will be extended to include the Whale Point facility. 7.16.1 Existing conditions The current site has little biosecurity risk as it is a derelict industrial site.
HA has Biosecurity Management Plans for existing operations. Biosecurity is a component of HA's Veterinary Health Plan (VHP) for all of its operations. The VHP encompasses all areas of fish health and welfare. The VHP aims to identify and define areas of management and husbandry where agreed protocols and procedures are targeted at ‘best practice’ to optimise salmonid health and welfare. Veterinary and biosecurity practices are outlined in the VHP. Details on specific operational procedures will be integrated as standard operating procedures for the site are developed.
160 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 161 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.16.2 Performance requirements Tasmania operates strict biosecurity measures (Tasmanian Biosecurity Strategy 2013–2017). The salmon industry operates in line with these measures. No importation of salmon or other fish products is permitted from outside of Tasmania.
AQUAVETPLAN is the Australian Aquatic Veterinary Emergency Plan. It is a series of manuals that outline Australia’s approach to national disease preparedness and propose the technical response and control strategies to be activated in a national aquatic animal disease emergency. The manuals also provide guidance based on sound analysis, linking policy, strategies, implementation, coordination and emergency management plans.
The Tasmanian Salmonid Health Surveillance Program is a key component of any fish health emergency within Tasmanian and ensures open communication with industry together with the early notification of all disease events by the producer or diagnostic laboratory.
The Tasmanian Animal Health Act 1995 requires HA by law to report any case or suspicion of a notifiable animal disease. 7.16.3 Avoidance and mitigation measures Biosecurity management plans and procedures cover many facets in the prevention of disease spread, management of biosecurity risks, emergency response procedures, decontamination and disinfection procedures and alignment with and commitment to the Australian Aquatic Veterinary Emergency Plan. 7.16.3.1 Potential pathways for introduction and spread of disease Management protocols will be implemented to control: potential risks resulting in introduction of disease into the site from outside potential risks resulting in spread of disease from the site to areas outside potential risks resulting in spread of disease within the site These include fish movements (fish will only enter from HA controlled facilities at Lonnavale and Forest Home), equipment transfers, education of staff, wildlife controls and mortality management.
Disinfection will also be practiced on the Ronja Storm: each time the vessel moves to treat a newer year class each time the vessel has finished treating fish in Storm Bay and is to re-enter the D’Entrecasteaux Channel.
During normal operations, disinfection is completed once each week using the practice below: The well tanks are filled with clean seawater, and ozone is dissolved until an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of 700 mV is reached. On the Ronja Huon this normally takes 90 minutes, but if lots of freshwater re-use has been carried out, it can take up to 3 hours. ORP is held at 700 mV for 3 hours to complete the disinfection. Each disinfection will be recorded in Ronja Storm’s day book. 7.16.3.2 Stock movements No fish showing clinical signs of disease will be transferred to Whale Point from any hatchery. Stock Health Certificate and Veterinary Health Certificate will be required prior to the transfer.
No egg movements will occur to or from the Whale Point facility.
161 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 162 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.16.3.3 Water, wastewater and solid waste management To maintain optimal water quality and prevent accumulation and spread of infectious organisms: All incoming water will be screened and filtered to prevent solids, insects, plants, fish and snails entering the system. All incoming water will be disinfected with either UV or ozone or a combination of both before entering the system.
The re-use of the site’s wastewater within offshore bathing operations will require effective protocols and procedures to be in place to ensure wastewater is completely disinfected with either UV or ozone or a combination of both before leaving the system
Solid wastes will be concentrated within either a decanter / centrifuge/screw press system with the resulting waste containing around 30% solids. These solids will be stored within a sealed disposal unit for transfer to a K100 composting facility.
This is described in more detail in Sections 7.1 Liquid waste and 7.5 Solid and controlled waste management. 7.16.3.4 Management of fish mortalities A mortality has the potential to act as a reservoir of infectious organisms. Mortalities will be removed daily from tanks and disposed of before they start to decompose, as decomposition considerably increases the opportunity for dissemination of disease organisms.
At the Whale Point facility mortalities will be removed from tanks utilising automatic mort collectors and then stored within closed disposal units for transport to a K100 approved composting facility as per K100 guidelines. 7.16.3.5 Management of equipment transfers Equipment transfers are uncommon because each HA hatchery and each nursery facility is required to be self-sufficient. If equipment transfer is necessary, it must be approved by the company veterinarian or delegate based on assessment of risk and accompanied by a signed Positive Release Form which stipulates the cleaning and disinfection processes required and completed. 7.16.3.6 Management of biosecurity risks within the Whale Point facility Requirements to prevent the spread of disease organisms between areas within the site include the use of site-specific protective clothing; and separate tank-specific equipment for cleaning and mortality removal tasks followed by equipment disinfection and flushing, cleaning and air-drying of nursery tanks prior to re-stocking. 7.16.3.7 Management of staff visitors and vehicles Staff and visitor controls include entry controls, site hygiene requirements, the use of protective clothing and restrictions on equipment use.
Vehicle controls include designated movement and parking requirements as well as the disinfection and quarantine zone requirements. 7.16.3.8 Other disease prevention strategies These include maintaining healthy fish populations and strict attention to feeding practices. Pest controls and waste management requirements apply.
162 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 163 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.16.3.9 Emergency response Emergency response procedures as well as decontamination and disinfection procedures are documented and widely promulgated.
The site Biosecurity Plan forms part of HA’s Veterinary Plan and has been approved by HA’s operational managers and fish health staff, under the guidance of the company veterinarian. The Biosecurity Plan is attached as Appendix L. Commitment When Biosecurity management protocols will be implemented to control: During operations potential risks resulting in introduction of disease into the site from outside potential risks resulting in spread of disease from the site to areas outside potential risks resulting in spread of disease within the site The company biosecurity plan will be implemented in full at Whale Point During operations
7.17 Greenhouse gases and ozone depleting substances Greenhouse gas production at HA operations is minimal on a national or global scale. When compared with major industrial operations, HA is not a large user of energy. As a result, HA in total – and this proposed development in particular – does not emit significant quantities of greenhouse gases either directly or indirectly. 7.17.1 Existing conditions Currently generation of greenhouse gases on the site only occurs as a result of vehicular traffic to and from adjacent operations. No ozone depleting substances are used on the site. 7.17.2 Potential effects Greenhouse gases (predominantly carbon dioxide) will be generated during the construction phase as a result of vehicle and construction machinery emissions.
The proposed establishment of the facility at Whale Point will have minimal direct and indirect effects on greenhouse gas emissions. Indirect effects include the electricity use at the facility; diesel and petrol use in transportation of products and consumables to the site, and transport of waste products from the site. A small amount of indirect carbon dioxide equivalent will be produced through the use of mains electricity.
The development of the site and associated infrastructure will not result in the any vegetation clearance at the site. 7.17.3 Avoidance and mitigation measures All equipment, machinery and vehicles will be well maintained in order to minimise the generation of greenhouse gases.
No ozone depleting substances will be used or generated during construction and operation of the project.
Commitment When No ozone depleting substances will be used or generated during construction During construction and operation of the facility and ongoing
163 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 164 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.17.4 Assessment of residual effects The development and operation of the growout facility will reduce the road transport used by HA in other operations. As a result, and given the low indirect (scope 2) emission factors for consumption of purchased electricity from the grid in Tasmania as published by the Australian Government Department of Environment and Energy, August 2016:0.12 kg CO2-e/kWh, the operation will not have a significant carbon dioxide equivalent emission footprint.
No further reduction of greenhouse emissions for the project is deemed possible.
7.18 Heritage
7.18.1 Aboriginal heritage 7.18.1.1 Existing conditions Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania completed a search of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Site Index (TASI) and provided correspondence on 23 May 2017 advising that there were no Aboriginal heritage sites recorded within or close to the proposed site. Due to the area being highly disturbed as a result of previous industrial activities, Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania believes that the area has a low probability of Aboriginal heritage being present (see Appendix M).
Accordingly, there is no requirement for an Aboriginal heritage investigation. 7.18.1.2 Performance requirements The project must comply with: Tasmanian Aboriginal Relics Act 1975 Commonwealth Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984. 7.18.1.3 Potential effects While very unlikely due to the previously disturbed nature of the site, the project has the potential to inadvertently destroy or damage Aboriginal cultural heritage that may exist on the site. 7.18.1.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures HA will comply with the requirements of the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975. If any major disturbance of previously undisturbed land around the project footprint is planned, HA will commission appropriate surveys and apply for appropriate permission prior to disturbance. In the first instance, an assessment will be carried out to determine whether disturbance can be avoided.
Should Aboriginal relics be discovered during construction or operations, they will be left undisturbed and reported to the Director, Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) in accordance with the Aboriginal Relics Act 1975, and to the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council.
Under no circumstances will Aboriginal or European artefacts be removed, destroyed or interfered with by HA’s employees, contractors or subcontractors.
HA will incorporate the requirements of an Unanticipated Discover Plan (see Appendix M) in its site CEMP during construction and in its EMP during operations.
164 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 165 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Commitment When If any Aboriginal site, relic or artefact is found during ground disturbance, During construction work in the immediate vicinity will cease and notification will be given to the and operations Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania HA will incorporate the requirements of an Unanticipated Discover Plan in its During construction site CEMP during construction and in its EMP during operations and operations
7.18.2 Historic heritage 7.18.2.1 Existing conditions No heritage properties, sites and/or values as listed on the National Heritage List, Register of the National Estate, Tasmanian Heritage Register or the Tasmanian Historic Places Inventory exist in the area of the proposed site. 7.18.2.2 Performance requirements The project must comply with the Historic Cultural Heritage Act 1995. 7.18.2.3 Potential effects Construction and operation of the proposed facility and associated infrastructure will not have any impact on any listed heritage properties and/or values as no places or sites exist in the site that are listed on the National Heritage List, Register of the National Estate, Tasmanian Heritage Register or the Tasmanian Historic Places Inventory. 7.18.2.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures No additional mitigation is considered necessary.
7.19 Land use and development
7.19.1 Existing conditions The site is located on a single title, Lot 4 on Sealed Plan 142071 (Figure 7) with frontage onto Hospital Bay (Huon River). The land to be used for this proposed development is zoned ‘General Industrial’ under the Huon Valley Interim Planning Scheme 2015. The operation of the land as a salmon nursery is a discretionary use in the Huon Valley Interim Planning Scheme for the General Industrial Zone.
Blocks to the south and south-west are zoned ‘Rural Resource’, to the west across Kermandie Rive are zoned ‘Rural Living’, and south of that zone are smaller parcels of ‘Low Density Residential’. (Figure 2).
7.19.2 Performance requirements The project must comply with the requirements of the Huon Valley Council Interim Planning Scheme, 2015.
7.19.3 Potential effects The project is not expected to conflict with other land use and development in the area. Historically, the region has had a focus on industrial activities. No other significant industrial activities are known to be proposed in the area.
7.19.4 Avoidance and mitigation measures No specific mitigation measures are necessary.
165 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 166 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
7.19.5 Assessment of residual effects No significant changes will result from the proposed project activities. 7.20 Social, health and economic issues The most common issues experienced by HA and other similar aquaculture operators at similar facilities in southern Tasmania have been: visual impact noise impacts during construction and operation traffic movements economic benefits.
This proposed development will offer the people in the region consistent permanent employment. This directly provides increased stability for employees and indirectly provides increased stability to support services that are relied upon by staff in the locality. These include local schools, shops and medical care. The increasing expansion of aquaculture facilities in the Huon Valley is expected to continue, with all the flow-on effects of increased employment in the community. This proposal is expected to have a positive socioeconomic impact on the local economy. 7.20.1 Economic benefits The current net maintenance operations at this location will become more cost-effective to HA because the site will be fully utilised. This will see current employees at this location (>10 full- and part-time staff) given enhanced job security. An additional 7 full-time and 4–6 part-time staff will be located at the new salmon nursery, increasing total staff employment at this location to approximately 20 full- or part-time staff.
The southern Huon Valley area will receive the benefits from construction staff requiring accommodation and meals. Local contractors will be utilised wherever possible. Local companies such as BEC Electrical, Mitchells Plastics, Huon Rubbish Removals, Hall Contracting, Netco Pumps and Equipment, Tas Isle Trading, Skretting fish feeds, Ecomist Tasmania, BOC Tasmania, Nubco and many others have formed business relationships with HA. This proposed development provides an opportunity for these businesses to grow, with this development potentially leading to additional employment opportunities within these companies.
7.21 Cumulative and interactive effects The development of the proposal is part of HA’s commitment to advancing the salmon aquaculture industry in Tasmania to be a long-term sustainable industry.
During the initial development of the salmon industry, hatcheries were developed in the headwaters of pristine rivers due to the need for clean, fresh water in the hatcheries. This resulted in the discharge of wastewater (treated to varying degrees) back into these formerly pristine rivers, either directly or indirectly via irrigation. Transport distances of smolt from the hatcheries to ports and then to marine pens were typically long, with traffic and noise problems often resulting.
The use of a recirculating aquaculture system (RAS, such as at Forest Home) has shown that inputs of pristine fresh water can be avoided, reducing stream and catchment issues as well as noise from transport issues. The development of a nursery adjacent to a marine jetty is the next step in sustainability. This significantly reduces the size of smolt being transported from hatcheries and therefore reduces the number of vehicle movements (noise, greenhouse gas, traffic). More importantly, it allows the smolt
166 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 167 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
leaving the nursery to be bigger than those from a hatchery. This means that the fish populating offshore pens in marine leases are bigger and more robust. This in turn allows the marine leases to be moved further offshore where a combination of fast water movement and wave action (regularly greater than 4 m) equates to a high-energy site. This results in more available oxygen and quicker flushing of carbon dioxide and ammonia, which is better for the fish. The higher energy of the water movement also reduces any impacts on the sediments on the sea floor and nutrients in the water column or visible plumes from captive fish feeding. The development of the proposed Whale Point nursery provides further advances in treatment and recirculating technology with less wastewater volume and better-quality wastewater.
The development of the Whale Point Salmon Nursery is a major step in the development of a sustainable salmon aquaculture industry in Tasmania. Facilities such as the proposed development allow the industry to grow while reducing overall environmental impacts. As a result, there is a positive cumulative effect from this proposed development.
Potential negative cumulative environmental effects from the proposed development include an increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the site. These should not create an adverse environmental impact once the mitigation and management measures outlined above are implemented. The cumulative impact will be negligible when compared with the traffic noise along the Huon Highway.
Likewise, odour levels in the immediate vicinity of the proposed plant may increase. HA’s experience at its operations and at competitor’s operations indicates that odour will not increase to levels where they can be noticed by anyone outside the immediate confines of the operations’ wastewater treatment system. 7.21.1 Cumulative vegetation clearance No planned vegetation clearance from activities proposed within the wider regional area is known. 7.21.2 Connectivity The small size and location of the site relative to the very large areas of surrounding habitat and the long history of disturbance on site indicates that loss of habitat connectivity is not a credible risk. 7.21.3 Other proposals in the region At the time of writing there are no other known proposals in the region that will adversely affect the addition of this facility within the existing infrastructure of the HA Net slab operations.
In terms of biodiversity, there are no known or proposed planned disturbance activities within the wider regional area that could affect threatened species such the wedge-tailed eagle, the Tasmanian devil or the spotted-tail quoll.
7.22 Environmental and management systems Operation of the facilities will be undertaken in accordance with HA’s Health, Safety, Environment and Community (HSEC) system. This system will be developed for the site in accordance with appropriate provisions from the AS/NZS ISO 14000 family of standards and will be applied to the construction and operation of the project.
The Site Manager will be the Management representative for environmental policy and implementation, and will be responsible for ensuring that the operation is managed in accordance with best practice environmental management (BPEM) as defined in EMPCA.
167 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 168 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
The company’s objective is to deliver a sustainable operation. This standard will be extended and procedures adopted to cover the proposed operations at Whale Point.
HA has developed a companywide environmental policy for which it is seeking accreditation. This incorporates an EMS for the company, an organisation structure showing environmental responsibilities and the development of procedures and instructions to employees to ensure best practice environmental management is adopted at the all HA sites. The EMS will be extended to include the Whale Point facility.
168 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 169 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
8 Monitoring Water monitoring locations are shown in Figure 48. Net liners have not been included in Figure 48 because their location in relation to the jetty will change from time to time.
Figure 48 Water monitoring locations
8.1 Surface water monitoring A water monitoring program will be implemented for the operational phases of the proposed development. Surface water samples will be taken at the Kermandie Creek pump station, as shown in Table 37, and in the water around the Whale Point jetty.
E. coli, enterococci and thermotolerant coliforms are used as indicator species for bacterial management and the efficacy of disinfection because they typically originate from warm-blooded animals. Total coliforms will also be used as an indicator to test the efficacy of disinfection.
169 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 170 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 37 Surface water monitoring Kermandie Creek
Sampling Method Parameter Unit frequency pH pH unit Daily Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Electrical conductivity µS/cm Daily Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total suspended solids mg/L Weekly NATA laboratory Biological oxygen demand mg/L Weekly NATA laboratory Oil and grease mg/L Weekly NATA laboratory Dissolved reactive mg/L Weekly NATA laboratory phosphorus Total phosphorous mg/L Daily/weekly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total nitrogen mg/L Daily/weekly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total ammonia – nitrogen mg/L Daily/weekly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total nitrate mg/L Daily/weekly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total nitrite mg/L Daily/weekly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total coliforms cfu/100 mL Weekly NATA laboratory Thermotolerant coliforms cfu/100 mL Weekly NATA laboratory Enterococci cfu/100 mL Weekly NATA laboratory Full metals scan mg/L Weekly NATA laboratory NDMA Ng/L Annually NATA laboratory
Table 38 Surface water monitoring Whale Point jetty
Sampling Method Parameter Unit Frequency pH pH unit Weekly Weekly on site Electrical conductivity µS/cm Weekly Weekly on site Total suspended solids mg/L Monthly NATA laboratory Biological oxygen demand mg/L Monthly NATA laboratory Oil and grease mg/L Quarterly NATA laboratory Dissolved reactive mg/L Quarterly NATA laboratory phosphorus Total phosphorous mg/L Quarterly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total nitrogen mg/L Quarterly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total ammonia nitrogen mg/L Quarterly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total nitrate mg/L Quarterly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total nitrite mg/L Quarterly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total coliforms cfu/10 mL Weekly NATA laboratory 8.1.1 Wastewater discharge monitoring HA will sample and internally analyse the effluent quality at the effluent discharge point and from water in the Whale Point net liners on a daily, weekly and monthly basis, depending on the parameter (Table 40). Samples of the effluent will also be analysed by a NATA-accredited laboratory for quality control purposes weekly, monthly and annually.
The effluent parameters to be analysed during commissioning and operation of the hatchery are shown below in Table 39 and Table 40.
170 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 171 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
It is anticipated that the effluent sampling point would be near the net liner outlet just past the retention pond. Commissioning of the system will be required for to ensure that the degree of wastewater treatment anticipated is being produced. During this period, additional testing will be required, during the commissioning phase the following monitoring will occur.
Table 39 Commissioning monitoring program
Sampling Method Parameter Unit Frequency Flow kL Daily Flow meter pH pH unit Daily Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Electrical conductivity µS/cm Daily Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total suspended solids mg/L Weekly NATA laboratory Biological oxygen demand mg/L Weekly NATA laboratory Oil and grease mg/L Weekly NATA laboratory Dissolved reactive mg/L Weekly NATA laboratory phosphorus Total phosphorous mg/L Daily/weekly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total nitrogen mg/L Daily/weekly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total ammonia nitrogen mg/L Daily/weekly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total nitrate mg/L Daily/weekly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total nitrite mg/L Daily/weekly Daily on site / weekly NATA lab Total coliforms cfu/100 mL Weekly NATA laboratory Thermotolerant coliforms cfu/100 mL Weekly NATA laboratory Enterococci cfu/100 mL Weekly NATA laboratory Full metals scan mg/L Weekly NATA laboratory
Once the site and its wastewater operations are commissioned, monitoring will reduce to the operational monitoring shown in Table 40 below.
171 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 172 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Table 40 Operation effluent monitoring program
Sampling Parameter Unit Method Frequency Flow kL Daily Flow meter pH pH unit Daily Daily on site / monthly NATA lab Electrical conductivity µS/cm Daily Daily on site / monthly NATA lab Total suspended solids mg/L Monthly NATA laboratory Biological oxygen demand mg/L Monthly NATA laboratory Oil and grease mg/L Monthly NATA laboratory Dissolved reactive phosphorus mg/L Monthly NATA laboratory Total phosphorous mg/L Weekly Weekly on site / monthly NATA lab Total nitrogen mg/L Weekly Weekly on site / monthly NATA lab Total ammonia nitrogen mg/L Weekly Weekly on site / monthly NATA lab Total coliforms cfu/100 mL Weekly NATA laboratory Thermotolerant coliforms cfu/100 mL Monthly NATA laboratory Enterococci cfu/100 mL Monthly NATA laboratory Full metals scan mg/L Monthly NATA laboratory
HA currently undertakes ambient environmental monitoring for the receiving waters of the Huon River. HA intends to align this proposed wastewater effluent monitoring program with the current ambient monitoring program.
This will allow assessment of the actual inputs into the Huon River and the consequent impacts. 8.1.2 Review of monitoring The monitoring program will be reviewed after 12 months of operation. An assessment of the value of each parameter and the frequency of monitoring will be undertaken. If HA believes that results are unstable or not providing meaningful information, approval will be sought from the EPA to vary the monitoring program accordingly. 8.1.2.1 Data management Field data and analytical reports will be stored electronically for inclusion in reporting as necessary. Results will be graphed to observe trends and allow changes in water chemistry to be observed. 8.2 Noise monitoring A noise survey will be commissioned and undertaken during construction and the consequent report will be provided to the EPA within 60 days of commencement of construction.
A noise survey will be commissioned and undertaken within 60 days of commencement of operations and the consequent report will be provided to the EPA within 90 days of commencement of operations.
A noise survey will be commissioned and undertaken within 10 days of reaching full production (June 2019) and the consequent report will be provided to the EPA within 30 days of the survey being completed.
The precise timing of the noise surveys will be weather dependent.
172 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 173 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Monitoring locations for the noise surveys are proposed as the eastern side of Whale Point jetty, the Kermandie Marina and in front of the Kermandie Motel top-level units. These are shown in Figure 49.
Figure 49 Proposed noise monitoring locations
173 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 174 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
9 Commitments A summary of commitments is provided in Table 41.
Table 41 Summary of commitments Commitment When HA will employ a full-time wastewater manager for the site During operations Operation of the fish processing facility will comply with the measures Construction and ongoing described in this DPEMP Treated wastewater will be recirculated through the operation and then During operations re-used as bathing water in the treatment of AGD in marine pens No process wastewater will be discharged from the proposed nursery During operations A CEMP will be developed and implemented to ensure that temporary During construction silt fencing will be utilised where required to prevent transport of any eroded material into Kermandie Creek and the Huon River prior to construction of any stormwater diversion infrastructure. Silt fences will be installed and maintained appropriately, based on Institute of Engineers Australia guidelines. A CEMP will be developed and implemented to ensure that disturbance During construction areas will be kept to the minimum practicable level required for construction A CEMP will be implemented to mandate the use of water carts as During construction necessary to prevent dust migration past the boundary of the land Commissioning will occur in two stages. The second half of the plant will Commissioning of the not be commissioned until the wastewater treatment is fully functional. facility Groundwater will not be used as a source of water supply. Approval of the EPA will be If in the future, further investigations do indicate that groundwater may sought and obtained be viable to supplement water supplies, then HA will test the before groundwater is used groundwater and apply for a permit variation to approve that use. as a source of water supply To undertake a sampling and analysis plan (SAP)as part of the Construction The SAP will be forwarded Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), to include but not be limited to to the Director EPA the retention pond, any trenching associated with the existing pipeline Tasmania for approval easement out to the wharf, and any drainage channel or spillway prior to its implementation associated with the retention pond, as well as any locations where soil and its findings will be used disturbance is proposed. to inform the CEMP, which The SAP will include justification of the choice of contaminants of will be submitted to the concern, sampling locations and numbers of samples. Director EPA for approval prior to commencement of construction. Because there is risk of dam break spillage, a dedicated channel will be Before commencement of constructed over either clean non-contaminated land to take the resultant construction of the spill water to Hospital Bay without mobilising contaminants; or providing retention pond an underlying HDPE liner with rockfill protection to again prevent the mobilisation of contaminants. HA will adopt the appropriate ANCOLD inspection frequencies for the During the operation of the retention dam as specified in the DPEMP. facility An Operation and Maintenance Manual for the retention pond dam will Prior to operation and use be incorporated into the Grow-out Facility Asset Management system. of the retention pond dam The O&M Manual will cover design intent, predicted behaviour of dam,
174 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 175 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Commitment When daily operations and inspections, water management procedures, criteria for mechanical and electrical works (including pumps), surveillance, maintenance and reporting requirements. The Operational Management Plans within the O&M Manual will specifically highlight all designer requirements for operation and response actions that must be met to ensure the ongoing safety of the dam. All waste material generated by the processing activities will be stored in During construction appropriate sealed containers and removed from site either for disposal at an appropriately authorised facility or for transport to an authorised recycler/re-user All organic wastes will be processed via coagulation, flocculation and During operations thickening to reduce volume. Resulting sludges will be stored within a sealed bin and disposed of via a K100 waste transporter to an approved K100 composting agent. Before the facility is commissioned and operational, HA will engage a At least three months qualified consultant to conduct an odour survey including modelling before construction and potential impacts to ASNZ standards 4323.3 and 4323.4 and provide the commissioning report to the EPA. If the modelled impact shows that <2 odour units is not achievable at the If significant odour site boundary, then a fan will be installed drawing air towards an ozone development occurs or the treatment vent, where all vented air will be treated with ozone before it modelled impact show that escapes the confines of the treatment building. <2 odour units is not achievable at the site boundary If the modelled impact shows that ≥2 odour units will be present at the Before construction and any sensitive receptor, HA will install a photoionisation system to replace commissioning the exhaust air ozonation system. Any spills of potentially contaminating liquids will be reported to the During construction and construction manager immediately and cleaned up as soon as practicable operations Hazardous chemicals to be used at the factory site will be stored in dry, During construction and bunded areas that comply with AS 3780–2008 Storage and handling of operations corrosive substances The management of the hazardous substances will be in accordance with During construction and the National Standard and National Code for the Storage and Handling of operations Workplace Dangerous Goods A CEMP will be developed and implemented to ensure that fences During construction constructed or replaced on the site will comply with the guidelines published by WWF-Australia for the Threatened Species Network Advice will be sought from Policy Conservation Advice Branch if eagles During construction and are detected on site prior to or during the construction and operational operations phases of the project A CEMP will be developed and implemented to ensure that no During construction threatened vegetation is cleared and that screening buffers are left intact The peak height of the nursery building will be kept to the current APM During construction building height to keep it ‘hidden’ within the existing vegetation planning and during construction
175 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 176 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Commitment When The nursery building and associated external tanks will be painted in During construction mottled or disrupted patterns with colours from olive to green to planning and during maximise terrain colour-blending construction The supply contractor will be required to demonstrate that operating During construction noise levels from the plant will not exceed 45 dB(A) during the day (7 am planning and during to 6 pm), 40 dB(A) during the evening (6 pm to 10 pm), 35 dB(A) during operations the night (10 pm to 7 am) at noise-sensitive receptors Undertake additional noise modelling post approval and pre- Before commencement of construction based on the final design to demonstrate that operating construction noise levels from the plant will not exceed 45 dB(A) during the day (7 am to 6 pm), 40 dB(A) during the evening (6 pm to 10 pm), 35 dB(A) during the night (10 pm to 7 am) at noise-sensitive receptors and provide the report as a condition for construction to proceed HA will install acoustic silencers and additional high-mass external If tonality is shown to cladding on the walls and roofs of the chiller room, oxygen and ozone create adverse noise generators impacts on higher ground at Port Huon during operations A Fire Response Plan for the site will be developed and finalised in Prior to construction consultation with the appropriate authorities Biosecurity management protocols will be implemented to control: During operations potential risks resulting in introduction of disease into the site from outside potential risks resulting in spread of disease from the site to areas outside potential risks resulting in spread of disease within the site potential risks resulting in introduction of disease into the site from outside The company biosecurity plan will be implemented in full at Whale Point During operations No ozone depleting substances will be used or generated during During construction and construction and operation of the facility ongoing If any Aboriginal site, relic or artefact is found during ground disturbance, During construction and work in the immediate vicinity will cease and notification will be given to operations Aboriginal Heritage Tasmania. HA will incorporate the requirements of an Unanticipated Discover Plan During construction and in it site CEMP during construction and in its EMP during operations. operations HA will develop and implement an Environmental Management System Prior to the construction for the site in accordance with appropriate provisions from the AS/NZS and operation of the ISO 14000 family of standards project HA will acquire all required approvals associated with the propose Prior to the transfer of fish development such as Stock Health Certificates and Veterinary Health into the facility and before Certificates and the dam safety approval dam construction respectively
176 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 177 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
10 Additional Approvals This DPMEP is being submitted to the Huon Valley Council (HVC) who will refer it to the Tasmanian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for assessment under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act 1994. 10.1 Inland Fisheries Service The Inland Fisheries Service manages fish farming in Tasmania to ensure that adequate safeguards for the freshwater environment are implemented and maintained. All fish farming proposals go through a rigorous assessment procedure involving consultation and approvals from various government authorities.
HA will need to obtain an Inland Fisheries Service fish farm permit for the Whale Point facility before salmon smolt arrive on site. 10.2 DPIPWE dam approval The EPA will refer the stormwater retention pond as a dam to the DPIPWE Water Management branch for dam safety assessment. This will need approval with conditions on the dam permit in line with a Type 4 dam, which would likely include investigation and supervision during construction and a work-as- executed report.
The DPEMP provides basic design plans and specifications for the stormwater retention pond and associated spillways (Figure 19, Figure 20 and Appendix B) to facilitate environmental assessment of the salmon nursery. HA will provide final plans to the DPIPWE Water Management branch for dam safety assessment as a parallel process.
177 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 178 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
11 Conclusions The proposed development aligns with HA’s sustainability approach to business by potentially: increasing production responsibly and safely improving the health and welfare of our fish improving safety for our workers reducing our environmental footprint continuing to positively participate in the community producing world-class salmon products in Tasmania.
The proposed development takes advantage of an existing underutilised site and provides an opportunity to clean up a largely disused industrial site.
HA is taking the latest processing technology, which has been developed and used in overseas countries such as Norway, and further refining and improving it.
This aligns the proposal with the hierarchy of waste management (Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts, 2009): waste avoidance waste recycling/reclamation waste re-use waste treatment to reduce potentially adverse effects waste disposal.
Once treated wastewater has been recirculated through the plant and then treated and reused for AGD bathing, there should be no direct discharge of wastewater to the receiving environment. Indirect discharge of wastewater mixed with water from the Kermandie River will occur after fish have been bathed at marine pens located at Storm Bay and in the Huon River. Currently, potable water is used for AGD bathing. As a result of this proposal, there will be a small and probably undetectable increase in nutrient loads released into the marine environment in the vicinity of the marine leases.
Other impacts such as noise during construction will be local and either short term or minor in nature and easily mitigated through management protocols.
The proposed development will reduce potable water use and GHG emissions from HA’s operations as a whole and should have a long-term positive impact on the environment especially in regard to traffic noise and volumes.
The use of an advanced RAS system (such as that proposed at Whale Point) should be able to show that inputs of pristine fresh water can be avoided in fish development systems and as a result reduce stream and catchment water quality issues. The development of a nursery adjacent to a marine jetty provides for the economic growth and transport of larger fish to marine pens. This significantly reduces the size of smolt being transported from hatcheries and therefore reduces the number of vehicle movements and consequent noise, greenhouse gas and traffic associated with smolt movement out of hatcheries. IN addition, it allows the size of smolt leaving the nursery to be bigger than from a hatchery. This means that the fish populating off shore pens in marine leases are bigger and more robust and will spend less time at sea. This in turn allows the marine leases to be moved further offshore where a combination of fast water movement and wave action (regularly greater than 4 m) equates to a high-energy site. This results in more available oxygen and quicker flushing of carbon dioxide and ammonia, which is better for
178 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 179 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
the fish. The higher energy of the water movement also reduces any impacts on the sediments on the sea floor and nutrients in the water column or visible plumes from captive fish feeding.
HA believes that the development of the Whale Point Salmon Nursery is a major step in the development of a sustainable salmon aquaculture industry in Tasmania. Facilities such as the proposed development allow the industry to grow while reducing overall environmental impacts. As a result, there is a positive cumulative effect from this proposed development.
179 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 180 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
12 References Alexander, A., (ed.) 2002. The companion to Tasmanian history, University of Tasmania, Centre for Tasmanian Historical Studies, School of History and Classics, Hobart.
ANZECC, 1992. Australian water quality guidelines for fresh and marine waters, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC), Canberra.
ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2002. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (ANZECC & ARMCANZ), Canberra.
Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4323.3:2001, Stationary source emissions - Determination of odour concentration by dynamic olfactometry.
Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4323.4:2009, Stationary source emissions - Area source sampling.
Aquaculture Management and Development Pty Ltd, 2014. Environmental monitoring survey – baseline survey. Fish pen assembly area – Whale Point Rd., Port Huon. Report to Huon Aquaculture.
Building Act 2016. Guidelines for on-site wastewater disposal.
Butler, E.C.V., 2006. ‘The tail of two rivers in Tasmania: The Derwent and Huon estuaries’, In Wangersky, P.J. (ed.), Estuaries (Series: The handbook of environmental chemistry, Vol. 5, Part H), pp. 1–49, Berlin, Springer-Verlag. Published online: 8 November 2005, DOI 10.1007/698_5_022
Chesterman R., 1995. ‘AMCOR Paper Group Port Huon mill decommissioning plan’. Unpublished report to AMCOR, March 1995. Environmental Scientific Services, Hobart. Viewed in Butler, 2006.
Commonwealth of Australia, 2009. Matters of national environmental significance. Significant impact guidelines 1.1 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Environment, 2014. Australia’s hazardous waste infrastructure: final report.
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Environment and Energy, 2016. Australian national greenhouse accounts factors.
CSIRO Huon Estuary Study Team, (2000). Huon estuary study: environmental research for integrated catchment management and aquaculture. Project No. 96/284.
Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts (DEPHA), 2009. National environment protection measure code 75: the Tasmanian waste and resource management strategy, 1st edn, Environment Division, DEPHA.
Department of Environment, Parks, Heritage and the Arts (DEPHA), 2009. Environment protection policy (noise).
180 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 181 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 2015. Tasmanian drinking water quality guidelines: containing legal requirements for drinking water suppliers in Tasmania. Public Health Services, DHHS.
Department of Premier and Cabinet, 2009. State Policy on Protection of Agricultural Land.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Heritage and the Arts (2008). Noise measurement procedures manual.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE), 2012. Tasmanian biosecurity strategy 2013–2017. Tasmanian Biosecurity Committee.
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE), 2013. Natural values atlas report, accessed 22 December 2016. http://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/conservation/threatened-species/lists-of- threatened-species/threatened-species-vertebrates/swift-parrot
Department of Primary Industries and Water (DPIW), 2008. Surface water models Kermandie River catchment. A report by Hydro Tasmania consulting for DPIW and the Australian Government, National Waters Commission.
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE), 1996. State Coastal Policy 1996 (Coastal Policy).
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE), 1997. State Policy on Water Quality Management 1997 (Water Quality Policy).
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE), 1999. Tasmanian biosolids reuse guidelines 1999.
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE), 2001. Emission limit guidelines for sewage treatment plants that discharge pollutants into fresh and marine waters.
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE), 2002. Environmental guidelines for the use of recycled water in Tasmania.
Department of Primary Industries, Water and Environment (DPIWE), 2012. Emission Limit Guidelines for Sewage Treatment Plants that Discharge Pollutants into Fresh and Marine Waters.
Department of Tourism, Arts and the Environment (DTAE), 2006. Approved management method for biosolids reuse, Environment Division, DTAE.
Forest Practices Authority (FPA), 2011. Threatened fauna manual.
Gallagher S., 1996. Huon Catchment Healthy Rivers Project: water quality assessment report. Prepared for National Landcare Program, Huon Valley Council and Tasmanian Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Tasmania, DPIF, Hobart.
Geeveston Archives and History Society, 2015. Kermandie experimental mill, Geeveston Archives and History Society, viewed 19 December 2016, https://www.communityheritage.net.au/kermandie- experimental-mill
181 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 182 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Hall, S.J., 1994. ‘Physical disturbance and marine benthic communities: life in unconsolidated sediments’. Oceanography and Marine Biology – An Annual Review, vol. 32, pp. 179–239.
Huon News, 2015. ‘Kermandie site preserved by locals’, 22 April, viewed 12 February 2017, http://www.huonnews.com/index.php/component/k2/item/280-kermandie-site-preserved-by-locals
Huon Valley Council, 2015. Huon Valley interim planning scheme 2015.
Hyde R.G., 1996. ‘Environmental report to APM: Hospital Bay survey 22-3-96’, Unpublished technical report.
Jones, G. & Lawson, B., 1980. ‘Environmental report to the APM on the Huon River estuary’, January 1980. School of Zoology, University of New South Wales, unpublished report.
Macleod, C. & Helidoniotis, F., 2005. Ecological status of the Derwent and Huon estuaries, Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, Marine Research Laboratories, University of Tasmania, Hobart.
Morgan, P.P., Butler, E.C.V., Higgins, H.W., Watson, R.J., McKenzie, D., & Plaschke, R.B., 1996. ‘A comprehensive physical survey of the Huon estuary’ (poster). In: Abstracts, AMSA ’96, Hobart, Tasmania, 10-13 July 1996, Australian Marine Sciences Association, Hobart.
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC), 2001. National standard for the storage and handling of workplace dangerous goods [NOHSC: 1015 (2001)], available from: http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/about/publications/pages/ns200103storageandhandli ng
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission (NOHSC), 2004. Approved criteria for classifying hazardous substances, 3rd edn.
Najim, I. & Trussel, R., February 2001. NDMA Formation in Water and Wastewater. Journal of American Water and Wastewater Association pp. 92–99.
Newcombe, G., Culbert, J. & Morran, J., 2014. Guidance manual for the minimisation of NDMA and other nitrosamines in drinking and recycled water. IWA Publishing on line co-published with Water Research Australia.
Neutralox Photoionisation system. Sourced from website 13 August 2017 http://www.hydrofluxindustrial.com.au/product-item/odour-control-2/#squelch-taas-accordion- shortcode-content-3
Pit and Sherry, 2015. Ronja Huon noise measurements. Report for Huon Aquaculture.
Pfennigwerth, S. 2008. Minimising the swift parrot collision threat: guidelines and recommendations for parrot-safe building design. WWF-Australia, Ultimo, NSW.
Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage, 1991. Environmental guidelines: building design to contain noise.
182 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 183 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2016. Guideline: planning for noise control. EM2371 Version 1.00. Available from: https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/licences- permits/guidelines.html. Last updated 12 August 2016.
Ray, D. 2017. Aquatic Science memo – Whale Point Project description – review. Report to Huon Aquaculture.
Ross, D.J. & Macleod, C.K., 2013. Evaluation of broadscale environmental monitoring program (BEMP) data from 2009–2012. IMAS Technical Report.
RSPCA, 2016. RSPCA approved farming scheme standards – farmed Atlantic salmon, available from: https://www.rspca.org.au/what-we-do/rspca-approved-farming-scheme/rspca-standards-farmed- atlantic-salmon
Ruane, N.M. & Jones, S.R.M., 2013. Amoebic gill disease (AGD) of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.). ICES identification leaflets for diseases and parasites of fish and shellfish. Leaflet no. 60.
Seager, J., Wolff, E.W. & Cooper, V.A., 1988. Proposed environmental quality standards for list II substances in water: ammonia. WRC report No TR26O, Water Research Centre, Marlow, Buckinghamshire.
Sedlack, D. & Kavanaugh, M. 2006. Removal and destruction of NDMA and NDMA precursors during wastewater treatment, WateReuse Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia.
Shah, A.D., Krasner, S.W., Lee, C.F.T., von Gunten, U. & Mitch, W.A., 2012. ‘Trade-offs in disinfection byproduct formation associated with precursor preoxidation for control of N-Nitrosodimethylamine formation’, Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 4809–18. doi: 10.1021/es204717j. Epub 2012 Apr 12.
South Australian Government Department of Planning Transport and Infrastructure, 2007. Management of noise and vibration: construction and maintenance activities – environmental instruction 21.7.
Standards Australia, 1997. Acoustics – Description and measurement of environmental noise – General procedures, AS 1055.1–1997.
Standards Australia, 1997. Acoustics – Description and measurement of environmental noise, Part 2: Application to specific situations, AS 1055.2–1997.
Standards Australia, 1985. Acoustics – Glossary of terms and related symbols, AS 1633–1985.
State Pollution Control Commission (NSW), 1989. Environmental noise control manual.
Vincent, A., 2001, ‘Sources of odours in wastewater treatment’, in Richard M. Stuetz & Franz-Bernd Frechen (eds.) Odours in wastewater treatment, IWA Publishing.
Webb, M., 2008. Swift parrot breeding season survey report – 2007/08, Threatened Species Section, DPIPWE, Hobart.
183 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 184 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
Young, J., 2002. Sustainable communities and the Tasmanian forest industry: the lessons of history for planning the future. Environmental Defenders Office. Unlocking the gates or floodgates, Environmental Defenders’ conference, 23 August 2002, Hobart.
184 DOCUMENT CODE: AQM
EFFECTIVE DATE: 05.07.2017 VERSION 3 Page 185 of 204
DOCUMENT TITLE: DPEMP Whale Point Draft
LIMITATIONS OF REPORT Purpose of Report
Caloundra Environmental Pty Ltd (‘Caloundra Environmental’) has prepared (collated and contributed to) this document titled ‘Huon Aquaculture Group Pty Ltd Whale Point Salmon Nursery Project Description’ (the ‘Report’) for the use of Huon Aquaculture (the ‘Client’).
Limitations of Report
The Report must be read in light of: the readership and purposes for which it was intended; its reliance upon information provided to Caloundra Environmental by the Client and others which has not been verified by Caloundra Environmental and over which it had no control; the limitations and assumptions referred to throughout the Report; the cost and other constraints imposed on the Report; and other relevant issues which are not within the scope of the Report. Care Taken by Caloundra Environmental
Subject to any contrary agreement between Caloundra Environmental and the Client:
Caloundra Environmental makes no warranty or representation to the Client or third parties (express or implied) in respect of the Report, particularly with regard to any commercial investment decision made on the basis of the Report; and use of the Report by the Client or third parties shall be at their own risk.
185