PORT PHILLIP BAY CHANNEL DEEPENING PROJECT ASSESSMENT under ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS ACT 1978 Minister for Planning November 2007 ii ISBN 978-1-74208-165-6 Assessment: Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project iii FOREWORD This Assessment of the environmental effects of the Port Phillip Bay Channel Deepening Project (CDP) completes the assessment process under the Environment Effects Act 1978 for this proposal. It also constitutes the Assessment Report required as part of the accredited assessment process under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This Assessment process has entailed an unusual intensity of effort on the part of the Port of Melbourne Corporation (PoMC), as the proponent, as well as by agencies and submitters in response to the 2004 Environment Effects Statement (EES) and the 2007 Supplementary Environment Effects Statement (SEES), and the two inquiries appointed under the Environment Effects Act. I acknowledge these efforts and thank all those who have contributed to the process, including PoMC, submitters and most recently the members of the “SEES Inquiry”, including Dr Allan Hawke as the Chair, and Ms Kathryn Mitchell and Dr Mike Lisle-Williams as Members. I particularly wish to thank the members of the Independent Expert Group (Dr Graeme Mitchell as Chair, and Dr John Parslow, Prof. Mick Keough, Dr Kerry Black and Mr Nick Bray), for their advice during both the preparation of the SEES and the SEES Inquiry process. These various efforts have assisted in ultimately achieving a comprehensive understanding of the potential environmental effects of the CDP, in terms of magnitude and likelihood, as well as appropriate management responses. Clarity about these effects has been necessary to assess the ability of the CDP to proceed on an environmentally acceptable basis, having regard to both the important environmental assets and values of the Bay and the priority of this critical infrastructure project for the future economic prosperity of Victoria. This Assessment concludes, having regard to the findings of the Inquiry, that the CDP can proceed on an environmentally acceptable basis: • The design of the CDP appropriately responds to relevant legislation, policy, strategies and guidelines • The technology selected for the CDP represents best practice in the context of the project; and moreover, • The residual effects of the CDP can be effectively managed or offset. The Assessment also provides clear guidance to relevant decision-makers to assist them in putting appropriate measures in place. Overall, it is my assessment that the CDP would provide a net benefit to the State of Victoria, having regard to long-term and short-term economic, environmental, social and equity considerations. I am satisfied that through this assessment process for the CDP the public and stakeholders have had a full and fair opportunity to express their views and provide relevant input. I note that it is necessary to bring closure to such an Assessment of environmental effects, notwithstanding the fact that monitoring and Assessment of effects will continue for the life of the CDP. In this context, I have identified the need for refinement of the proposed Environmental Management Plan (EMP) for implementation of the CDP to ensure effective protection of iv Bay assets. It will be desirable for the Independent Expert Group to provide advice in relation to the EMP. Further, to assist the transparent and successful implementation of the CDP EMP, this Assessment supports the appointment of an independent monitor to advise PoMC and relevant Government Ministers. Acknowledging that there may be some residual effects of the CDP, this Assessment recommends that PoMC be required to make offset payments to support environmental management and that consideration also be given to the provision of an environmental performance bond or similar performance mechanism. Finally, there are two key outcomes of the CDP that can be anticipated: one is the achievement of infrastructure vital to Victoria’s future prosperity; the other is the recovery of the Bay from temporary disturbances. There is also the opportunity through this project to achieve an enduring legacy in improved environmental management of the Bay, building on the knowledge generated to date through the SEES and further developed through implementation of the EMP and related offset programs. I look forward to the implementation of the CDP with successful environmental outcomes. JUSTIN MADDEN MLC Minister for Planning v LIST OF ACRONYMS ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council BPEMGD Best Practice Environmental Management Guidelines for Dredging BWC Blue Wedges Coalition CAD Contained Aquatic Disposal CAMBA China – Australia Migratory Birds Agreement CDP Channel Deepening Project CDP EMP Channel Deepening Project Environmental Management Plan CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CHMP Cultural Heritage Management Plan CM Act Coastal Management Act 1995 DMG Dredged Material Ground DPCD Department of Planning and Community Development DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment EE Act Environment Effects Act 1978 EES Environment Effects Statement EMP Environmental Management Plan EMS Environmental Management System EP Act Environment Protection Act 1970 EPA Environment Protection Authority EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 ESD Ecologically Sustainable Development FFG Act Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 GSC Great Ship Channel Ha Hectare IAPH International Association of Ports and Harbours IEG Independent Expert Group IGAE Inter-Governmental Agreement on the Environment IMO International Maritime Organisation JAMBA Japan-Australia Migratory Birds Agreement km kilometres LIDAR Light Detection and Ranging m metres mg/l Milligrams per litre MNP Marine National Park vi MPAs marine protected areas MRLs maximum residual levels MSV Marine Safety Victoria NODG National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material NTU nephelometric turbidity units OBP Orange-bellied Parrot PAN Pollution Abatement Notice PAR Photosynthetically available radiation PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls PDS Project Delivery Standard PIANC Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses PoMC Port of Melbourne Corporation PPB Port Phillip Bay PPB EMP Port Phillip Bay Environmental Management Plan PPHMNP Port Phillip Heads Marine National Park PSAC Project Stakeholder Advisory Committee SEES Supplementary Environment Effects Statement SEPP State Environment Protection Policy SEPP (WoV) State Environment Protection Policy (Waters of Victoria) TDP Trial Dredging Program TEU Twenty-foot Equivalent Unit TSHD Trailer suction hopper dredge TSS Total Suspended Solids VCA Victorian Channels Authority VCS Victorian Coastal Strategy VNVM Victoria’s Native Vegetation Management Framework VSQAP Victorian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program vii TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD……………………………………………………………………..….. iii LIST OF ACRONYMNS……………………..……………………………………… iv 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………….………………………………... 1 1.1 Purpose of this Document………………………...………………….. 1 1.2 Origin of the Proposed Channel Deepening Project…………….… 1 1.3 Project Description …………………………………………….……... 3 1.4 Environmental Setting ………………….………………………….… 4 1.5 Structure of this Assessment…………………………………………. 5 2. EES PROCESS…………………………………………………………………. 7 2.1 Requirement for an EES ……………………………...……………... 7 2.2 Accreditation under the EPBC Act ………………………………….. 7 2.3 The EES and ‘EES’ Inquiry……………………………….……….… 8 2.4 Response to EES Inquiry Report………………………………….… 9 2.5 The Requirement for and Preparation of the SEES …………….… 9 2.6 The ‘SEES’ Inquiry………………………………………………….... 12 2.7 General Considerations under the EE Act…………………………. 13 2.8 Next Steps……………………………………………………….……. 14 3. SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT……..................…... 15 3.1 Introduction………………………………………………………..…... 15 3.2 Bay Systems and Potential CDP Hazards……………….…..……. 15 3.3 Potential CDP Effects……………………………………………….… 18 3.4 Evaluation Objectives……………………………………………….… 19 4. INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT …………………………………………..……. 22 4.1 Economic Effects………………………………………………..……. 22 4.2 Hydrodynamics and Sediment Transport…………………………… 27 4.3 Ecological Effects…………………………………………………..….. 32 4.3.1 Nutrient cycling and algal blooms ….………………...….. 33 4.3.2 Mobilisation and availability of contaminants ….……..... 36 4.3.3 Seagrass habitats …………………………………..…….. 41 4.3.4 Ramsar-listed wetlands …………. ….…………….....….. 48 4.3.5 Reef communities in the Entrance ….…………….…….. 54 4.3.6 Other natural benthic habitats ….………………..…..….. 59 4.3.7 Native fish species in the lower Yarra River…………….. 62 4.3.8 Pelagic fauna and migratory bird species .……….…….. 66 viii 4.3.9 Marine protected areas ………….….…………………….. 70 4.4 Other Effects………………………………………………………..….. 71 4.4.1 Human health………………………………..……….……. 71 4.4.2 Public amenity and recreation………………...…….…... 74 4.4.3 Marine based tourism and commerce………………….. 77 4.4.4 Cultural heritage……………………………………….…… 80 4.4.5 Shipping-related risks……………………………………… 82 4.5 Environmental Risk Management……………………………………. 85 4.5.1 Risk assessment………………………………………...… 86 4.5.2 Environmental Management Plan…………………….…. 88 4.5.3 Decision-making and accountability for the CDP .…..… 91 4.6 Overall Environmental Acceptability……………………………...….. 95 4.6.1 Key environmental outcomes …………………………… 96 4.6.2 Consistency with specific legislation and policy .……… 99 4.6.3 Consistency with ESD principles and objectives …..….. 101 4.6.4 CDP