aquis resort environmental impact statement
Post on 04-Jan-2017
229 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
AQUIS RESORT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION REPORT
REV 1 - OCTOBER 2014
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page i
CONTENTS
1 COORDINATOR-GENERAL’S REQUIREMENTS 7
2 ISSUE 1: AQUIS LOCAL PLAN AND CODE 8
2.1 RESPONSE 8
3 ISSUE 2: TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 10
3.1 RESPONSE 10
4 ISSUE 3: POPULATION PROJECTIONS AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSAL 25
4.1 RESPONSE 26
5 ISSUE 4: LAKE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, WATER QUALITY LIMITS 30
5.1 RESPONSE TO LAKE MANAGEMENT 30 5.1.1 Background 30 5.1.2 Item 1.1 – Lake Monitoring and Response Regimes 30 5.1.3 Item 1.2 – Different Depth Scenarios 31 5.1.4 Item 1.3 – Flood Performance 34
5.2 RESPONSE TO WATER QUALITY RELEASE LIMITS 45 5.2.1 Background 45 5.2.2 Regulation and Lake Management 45 5.2.3 Water Quality Targets and Trigger Levels 47 5.2.4 Monitoring For Compliance 51 5.2.5 Trigger and Management Measures 52 5.2.6 Flooding Management During & After Flood Events 53
5.3 RESPONSE TO BASELINE WATER QUALITY DATA 55 5.3.1 Background 55 5.3.2 REMP Objectives 55 5.3.3 Proposed Releases and Characterisation 56 5.3.4 Receiving Environment Attributes 57 5.3.5 Monitoring Program Design 59 5.3.6 Sampling Site Selection and Frequency 61 5.3.7 Data Collected to Date 65
5.4 –RESPONSE TO INLET AND OUTLET PIPELINES 65 5.4.1 Background 65 5.4.2 Item 4.1 – Dredge Impact Mitigation Measures 65 5.4.3 Item 4.2 – Treatment of Excavated Material 72 5.4.4 Item 4.3 – Vulnerability of Inlet Pipeline at Richters Creek Mouth 72 5.4.5 Item 4.4 – Alternative Off-shore Outlet 74 5.4.6 Item 4.5 – Lake Monitoring Regimes 83
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page ii
6 ISSUE 5: MATTERS OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE 84
6.1 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES 84 6.2 DESIGN DETAILS (ITEM 2) 89
6.2.1 Background 89 6.2.2 Discussion 89 6.2.3 Conclusions 90
6.3 LIGHTING DESIGN AND MITIGATION OF LIGHT EMISSIONS (ITEM 3 – PART) 91 6.3.1 Background 91 6.3.2 Lighting Design 91 6.3.3 Visibility Modelling 94
6.4 MITIGATION OF NOISE EMISSIONS (ITEM 3 – PART) 99 6.4.1 Background 99 6.4.2 Discussion 99 6.4.3 Conclusions 100
6.5 IMPACT OF LAKE FLOODING (ITEM 4) 100 6.5.1 Background 100 6.5.2 Discussion 100 6.5.3 Conclusions 102
6.6 CLIMATE AND FLOODING ISSUES (ITEM 5) 102 6.6.1 Background 102 6.6.2 Discussion 102 6.6.3 Conclusions 103
6.7 IMPACTS OF LIGHT ON AESTHETIC VALUES (ITEMS 6, 25, 27-30) 104 6.7.1 Background 104 6.7.2 Discussion 104 6.7.3 Conclusions 110
6.8 IMPACTS OF LIGHT ON TERRESTRIAL SPECIES (ITEM 6 – PART AND 25 – PART) 111 6.8.1 Background 111 6.8.2 Discussion 111 6.8.3 Conclusions 117
6.9 IMPACTS OF LIGHT ON TURTLES (ITEMS 6, 25, 26, AND 29 – PART) 118 6.9.1 Background 118 6.9.2 Discussion 118 6.9.3 Conclusions 119
6.10 SCREENING VEGETATION (ITEM 7 AND 32) 120 6.10.1 Background 120 6.10.2 Discussion 120 6.10.3 Conclusions 121
6.11 ON-SITE WATERBODIES (ITEM 8) 121 6.11.1 Background 121 6.11.2 Discussion 121 6.11.3 Conclusions 131
6.12 BASELINE SURVEYS (ITEM 9) 131 6.12.1 Background 131 6.12.2 EIS Surveys 132 6.12.3 Post EIS Surveys 132 6.12.4 Reporting 139
6.13 LOCATION OF SITE WITH RESPECT TO GBRMP PLANNING UNITS (ITEM 10) 139 6.13.1 Background 139 6.13.2 Discussion 139 6.13.3 Conclusions 140
6.14 LAKE HABITAT (ITEM 11) 141 6.14.1 Background 141 6.14.2 Discussion 141 6.14.3 Conclusion 141
6.15 PEST MANAGEMENT (ITEM 12) 141
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page iii
6.15.1 Background 141 6.15.2 Discussion 142 6.15.3 Conclusions 142
6.16 SENSITIVE AREAS / IMPACTS FOR AQUATIC FAUNA (ITEMS 13, 14, 15, 21 AND 24) 143 6.16.1 Background 143 6.16.2 Discussion 143 6.16.3 Conclusions 204
6.17 SENSITIVE AREAS / IMPACTS FOR TERRESTRIAL FAUNA HABITAT (ITEM 14 AND 21 –
PART) 204 6.17.1 Background 204 6.17.2 Discussion – Values 204 6.17.3 Discussion – Impacts 209 6.17.4 Conclusions 224
6.18 WTWHA OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE (ITEM 35) 224 6.18.1 Background 224 6.18.2 Discussion 224 6.18.3 Conclusion 226
6.19 GBRWHA OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE/IMPACTS (ITEMS 16 TO 19, 30-31, 37-39)226 6.19.1 Background 226 6.19.2 Discussion 227 6.19.3 Conclusions 233
6.20 INDIGENOUS CULTURAL HERITAGE ARTIFACTS (ITEM 20) 233 6.20.1 Background 233 6.20.2 Discussion 233
6.21 BEACH ACCESS (ITEM 22) 234 6.21.1 Background 234 6.21.2 Discussion 234 6.21.3 Conclusion 234
6.22 IMPACT MITIGATION FOR INLET/OUTLET PIPELINES (ITEM 23) 234 6.22.1 Background 234 6.22.2 Discussion 234 6.22.3 Conclusion 235
6.23 SOCIAL ASPECTS OF AESTHETICS (ITEM 33) 235 6.23.1 Discussion 235 6.23.2 Conclusion 236
6.24 SHORE BIRDS (ITEM 34) 236 6.24.1 Background 236 6.24.2 Discussion 236 6.24.3 Conclusion 236
6.25 TOURISM IMPACTS (ITEM 36) 236 6.25.1 Background 236 6.25.2 Discussion 237 6.25.3 Conclusion 238
6.26 MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS (ITEM 40) 238 6.26.1 Background 238 6.26.2 Discussion 238 6.26.3 Conclusion 240
6.27 CORAL MAPPING (ITEM 41) 241 6.27.1 Background 241 6.27.2 Discussion 241 6.27.3 Conclusion 242
6.28 ROLE OF MANAGEMENT (ITEM 42) 242 6.28.1 Background 242 6.28.2 Management of the GBRWHA 243 6.28.3 Management of the WTWHA 244 6.28.4 Other Management Issues 246
6.29 CONCLUSIONS 248
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page iv
7 ISSUE 6: ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL 249
7.1 RESPONSE TO CBD LOCATION 249 7.2 RESPONSE TO SCALE OF PROPOSAL 251 7.3 RESPONSE TO REQUIREMENT FOR A LAKE AND LAKE OPTIONS 254
7.3.1 Background 254 7.3.2 Flood Mitigation 254 7.3.3 Lake Solutions Considered 257 7.3.4 Lake Sustainability Issues 263 7.3.5 Detailed Assessment of Seasonal Lake Option 264 7.3.6 Comparison of Lake Options 272 7.3.7 Other Lake Issues – Discharge to GBRWHA 274
7.4 RESPONSE TO ALTERNATIVE OFF-SHORE DISCHARGE POINT 276 7.4.1 Background 276 7.4.2 Discussion 276 7.4.3 Conclusions 277
7.5 RESPONSE TO OPTION FOR MAINTAINING AQUACULTURE PONDS 278 7.5.1 Background 278 7.5.2 Overview of Existing Situation 278 7.5.3 Biodiversity Values 279 7.5.4 Potential Educational Values 283 7.5.5 Risks 284 7.5.6 EIS Proposal 293 7.5.7 Consideration of Alternatives to EIS Solution 299 7.5.8 Option 2 – Drain and Fill the Ponds with Excess Material 299 7.5.9 Option 3 – Retain the Ponds 301 7.5.10 Option 4 – Hybrid Scheme (Retain Some of the Ponds) 303 7.5.11 Comparison of Options 306 7.5.12 Conclusions 307
8 ISSUE 7: HOUSING AND ACCOMMODATION PLAN 308
8.1 RESPONSE 308
9 ISSUE 8: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN 316
9.1 RESPONSE 316
10 ISSUE 9: REGISTER OF PROPONENT COMMITMENTS 330
10.1 RESPONSE 330
11 ISSUE 10: RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY ISSUES 335
11.1 RESPONSE 335
12 REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES 337
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page v
APPENDIX A COGS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
APPENDIX B DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN
APPENDIX C TRAFFIC MODELLING OUTPUTS
APPENDIX D POPULATION PROJECTIONS
APPENDIX E TABULATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS
APPENDIX F GRAPHS WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS
APPENDIX G CONTINUOUS YSI (IN-SITU) MONITORING DATA
APPENDIX H PROFILE MONITORING DATA
APPENDIX I TUFLOW-FV OFFSHORE DISCHARGE RESULTS
APPENDIX J VISUAL IMPACT FIGURES
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page vi
TERM MEANING
AEP Annual Exceedance Probability
DAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
DoTE Department of the Environment (Commonwealth)
DSITIA Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts
DSM Digital Survey Model
EHP (Department of) Environment and Heritage Protection
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth)
LiDAR Light Detection And Ranging
NC Act Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld)
NQA North Queensland Airports
PMF Probable Maximum Flood
SDPWO Act State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld)
WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design
ZVI Zone of Visual Influence
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 7
1 COORDINATOR-GENERAL’S REQUIREMENTS
By letter dated 16 September 2014 the Coordinator-General issued a request for additional information
required in order to complete the evaluation of the project. A copy of the request is included in
Appendix A. Attachment A set out details of the issues required to be addressed as follows:
Issue 1: Aquis Local Plan and Code
Issue 2: Transport and Infrastructure Impact Assessment
Issue 3: Population Projections
Issue 4: Lake Management Strategy and Water Quality
Issue 5: Matters of NES
Issue 6: Alternative Options for the Proposal
Issue 7: Housing and Accommodation Plan
Issue 8: Community Engagement Plan
Issue 9: Register of Proponent Commitments
Issue 10: Response to Community Issues.
This Supplementary Information Report addresses each of these issues in Chapter 2-11. In some
cases there is duplication and this is dealt with by cross references or summary information.
In most cases the findings of detailed studies undertaken for this report are integrated into the body of
the document. However, some material is considered to be excessively detailed and is retained in the
following appendices that accompany this report:
Appendix B – Draft Aquis Local Plan
Appendix C – Traffic Modelling Results
Appendix D - Population Projections
Appendix E to I– Water Quality Data
Appendix J – Landscape and Visual
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 8
2 ISSUE 1: AQUIS LOCAL PLAN AND CODE
The Aquis Local Plan and development code is proposed to form part of the preliminary approval
under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The draft Plan and code provided in the environmental
impact statement did not adequately define the acceptable outcomes and solutions needed to inform
and assess subsequent development applications. The proponent has continued to refine both
documents since the public notification period, but further work is required to ensure that the Plan and
code:
Clearly articulate the project's proposed land uses, built form and relationship to adjoining uses,
and the appropriate levels of assessment.
Integrate with the Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme and provide a robust basis for
assessing subsequent development applications.
Reflect key State interests particularly in the areas of water quality and impacts on State
transport infrastructure.
Assist in providing the basis for impact assessment in relation to the Outstanding Universal
Values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
Requirement: Further refine the Aquis Local Plan and code to achieve the objectives outlined above.
The Plan and code should also satisfy comments from Cairns Regional Council and key State
agencies set out in the submissions on the project.
2.1 RESPONSE
Since the receipt of community and Agency submissions on the EIS, the Aquis EIS team has been
working collaboratively with CRC and DSDIP officers to revise the draft Aquis Local Plan included in
the EIS to incorporate CRC and DSDIP suggestions and amendments and relevant state and
CairnsPlan Code provisions to ensure that it is a robust development control instrument for future
development applications.
A series of workshops (4 no) involving officers from Cairns Regional Council and the Department of
State Development and Infrastructure Planning have been convened to progressively revise and
develop a Draft Aquis Local Plan which :
articulates the project's proposed land uses, built form and relationship to adjoining uses, and
the appropriate levels of assessment.
integrates with the Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme and provide a robust basis for
assessing subsequent development applications.
reflects key State interests particularly in the areas of water quality and impacts on State
transport infrastructure.
assists in providing the basis for impact assessment in relation to the Outstanding Universal
Values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 9
The outcomes of this collaborative process has been the development the Draft Aquis Local Plan
which provides a planning framework for assessing development within the Aquis Local Plan Area
including:-
(1) a Precinct Plan nominating the location of Precincts within the ALP Area;
(2) a Vision and Development Principles providing context for the implementation of this
Local Plan;
(3) a Table of Assessment identifying levels of assessment and assessment criteria for
development within each Precinct; and
(4) a Code containing performance criteria and acceptable outcomes for certain land
uses and infrastructure in the ALP area.
The Draft Aquis Local Plan (7 October 2014) is attached in Appendix B.
The Draft Aquis Local Plan (7 October 2014) addresses the concerns raised by both CRC and DSDIP
in their submissions on the EIS and represents a robust development control instrument to guide the
assessment of future development applications as part of the implementation of Aquis.
The Draft Aquis Local Plan (7 October 2014) is considered to achieve the right balance of clarity
/certainty regrading development outcomes with appropriate flexibility so as not to fetter design and
innovation in project implementation.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 10
3 ISSUE 2: TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
The Department of Transport and Main Roads have assessed the environmental impact statement
and have advised there is insufficient information to determine the direct and indirect impacts on the
transport network. In particular, the assumptions appear to be unjustified and result in an
understatement of the impacts. In addition, agencies responsible for infrastructure provision have also
outlined similar concerns for infrastructure.
Requirement: Transport and infrastructure impact assessment should be revised to identify impacts to
the current and future planned infrastructure. In relation to transport impacts, the AEIS should include
a detailed response to the Department of Transport and Main Roads submission on the environmental
impact statement.
3.1 RESPONSE
The Department of Transport and Main Roads has assessed the environmental impact statement does
not sufficiently determine the direct and indirect impacts on the transport network.
In undertaking their review, DTMR have reviewed the adequacy of the EIS relative to the Guidelines
for the Assessment of Road Impacts of Development (GARID). GARID is a guideline document that is
appropriate for the assessment of road impacts arising from development where the scale of the
development does not materially change the planning framework within which the impacts are
measured.
DTMR have sought further specific details as to the wide ranging impact on specific intersections and
links across the transport network of Cairns. The details as to the construction and operation of the
development (e.g. actual materials haul routes and methods of material haulage, and anticipated
spatial distribution of resident workers across Cairns), cannot be fully understood until such time as the
proposal is further advanced beyond the land use approval. As such the ability to provide definitive
and reliable responses to the detailed issues raised by DTMR is not achievable at this time, and can
be captured through “downstream” approvals processes.
Cairns Regional Council were generally satisfied with the assessment of transport network impacts on
Council roads adjacent to the development site but sought to understand broader impacts on their
road network.
Cairns Regional Council Water and Waste have indicated agreement with the philosophy of a first
principles approach to the derivation of water demands and waste water generation for the
development, but acknowledge that there is no precedence for determining the actual potable water
demands for a project of the size and scale in Australia. Hence Council retain some uncertainty as to
the efficacy of the water demands for Aquis.
Recognising that the concerns generated by the two primary infrastructure providers in DTMR and
CRC, the Proponent established a infrastructure working group to provide a forum for discussion and
resolution of issues raised by these agencies.
The objectives of the infrastructure workshops are to establish:
actions required to allow assessment of the direct and cumulative impact of Aquis on
infrastructure networks
‘principles’ on which future Infrastructure Agreements would be established
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 11
A key principal underpinning the philosophy of impacts arising from Aquis is the notion that the
development has not generated unplanned growth for Cairns, but rather has bought forward planned
growth for Cairns. In 2013 the State Government’s Office of Economic and Statistical Research
(OESR) produced population projections from 2011 to 2036 for the Cairns Regional Council area
which shows the population growing from 150,992 persons in 2011 to 244,088 in 2036.
Planning for such growth is set out the Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 (FNQRP)
which includes a number of requirements for Cairns Regional Council to accommodate in the
preparation of future planning schemes. These include:
The achievement of higher average densities for residential development.
The achievement of minimum densities in the remaining ‘green field’ areas within the urban
development areas.
Planning for a Major Regional Activity Centre at Smithfield to achieve better employment ‘self-
containment’ on the Northern Beaches.
The current planning scheme – CairnsPlan was prepared and adopted in 2005 prior to the gazettal of
the FNQRP and consequently does not reflect the regional plan initiatives. This has translated to the
planning scheme for Cairns focusing on growth around the proposed Edmonton Town Centre and
associated urban development between Edmonton and Gordonvale the south of the city.
Population growth forecasts indicate that the 244,000 population threshold will occur by 2022.
Evidently the majority of the residential growth (and employment) is planned to be accommodated in
consolidated densification in the central suburbs and around Edmonton as well as in the urban
expansion area known as Mt Peter located between Edmonton and Gordonvale to the south. Hence
the context through which the impacts of Aquis can be measured is not relevant to current planning by
DTMR and CRC as the presence of Aquis will create a fundamental change to the spatial land use
planning for Cairns, and hence relieve some aspects of demand on planned infrastructure upgrades in
some parts of Cairns and create greater demands on others.
Recognising the above, DTMR and CRC agreed that a population threshold based land use and
associated infrastructure planning exercise is required to understand the impacts of Aquis as the
construction and operation of Aquis is rolled out over time.
a) Road Network
The road network planning and upgrade needs for Cairns is most sensitive to the spatial distribution of
traffic associated with growth and hence a suite of scenarios were agreed as a means of comparing
impacts and the opportunity to explore mitigating impacts through land use planning changes for
Cairns to a 244,000 population threshold. These scenarios are:
Case B1: Existing Business as Usual (BAU) Planning for Cairns
Case B2: Existing BAU Planning for Cairns with a 20,000 job generator at Yorkeys Knob (i.e.
Aquis)
Case P1: 20,000 job generator at Yorkeys Knob with 50% of the planned resident settlement
pattern redistributed from the southern suburbs to North Cairns and the Northern Beaches.
Scenario Case P1 represents an opportunity whereupon the land use planning is modified to respond
to constraints on infrastructure rather than the traditional response of infrastructure requiring upgrade
to respond to land use planning decisions. Cairns Regional Council Officers have presented an
overview of opportunities to densify urban development of the Northern Beaches and North Cairns.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 12
Whilst the analysis was high level, the assessment supported the concept of Scenario Case P1, and
Council Officers have discussed providing incentives to increase densities being provided in existing
development approvals currently being implemented on the northern beaches.
Figure 3.1 shows the location of major development proposals in proximity to the Aquis site that could
support densification and higher yield.
Figure 3-1 Major development proposals in proximity to the Aquis site.
By way of a comparative assessment of impact on the DTMR and CRC road network of Cairns, the
Cairns Strategic Transport Model (CSTM) established by DTMR was utilised as the assessment tool.
DTMR initially undertook a review of the existing model to ensure the CSTM reflected the planning and
upgrade thresholds for a population of 244,000 and this was provided to the Proponent on 24
September 2014. The CSTM has been used to model the impacts of the B2 and P1 case scenarios.
The traffic modelling outputs are included in Appendix C.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 13
Case B1: Business as Usual
The CSTM provided by DTMR identified business as usual network upgrades required by DTMR
through to the 244,000 population threshold as shown in Table 3-1
Bruce Highway – Kate St to Buchan St – Upgrade to 6 lanes
Sheridan St – Grove St to Aeroglen Dr – Upgrade to 6 lanes
CWAR - Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes
Panguna St - Extension to McGregor Rd
Foster Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Bentley interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Deppeler Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Closure of Robert Rd intersection with Bruce Highway (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Closure of Mill Rd intersection with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Closure of Peterson Rd intersections with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Pregno links (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) - Deppeler Rd to Thompson Rd - Thompson Rd to Bentley Interchange - Bentley Interchange to Swallows Rd
Mulgrave Rd – Brown St to Aumuller St – Upgrade to 6 lanes
Captain Cook Highway – Aeroglen Dr to Arnold St – Upgrade to 6 lanes
Captain Cook Highway – Poolwood Rd to Endeavour Rd – Upgrade to 4 lanes
Smithfield Bypass – Upgrade to 4 lanes & add connection to CWAR roundabout
CWAR 6 lanes Pease Street to Loridan Drive
Cairns Western Arterial Road - 6 lane upgrade - Redlynch Connection Rd to Loridan Dr
McCoombe St - Mulgrave Rd to Moody St - 6 lane upgrade
Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive - 6 lanes
Bruce Highway - Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange - 8 lanes
Bruce Highway - Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange - 6 lanes
Bruce Highway - Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge - 4 lanes
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 14
The BAU network upgrades identified by the CSTM for the Cairns Regional Council road network to
the 244,000 population threshold are shown in Table 3-2.
New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to
highway
Upgrade Kate Street intersection to 6 lanes
Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout to T
intersection
Smithfield Village Dr – Upgrade to 4 lanes
Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt Peter Rd
and Mill Rd
Reed Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to
Smithfield Village Dr
McGregor Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy
to Sidlaw St
Earlville Bypass - Upgrade to 4 lanes
Earlville Bypass - ramps to Mulgrave Rd right in, left out only
Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd - 4
lanes
Mt Peter Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided
Maitland Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided
Draper Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes - Dempsey St to Cairns Rd
Case B2: BAU with 20,000 jobs at Yorkeys Knob
The Proponent established an alternative CSTM that provided for the redistribution of 20,000 jobs from
the southern suburbs of Cairns to Yorkeys Knob. Case B2 demonstrates the road network
infrastructure upgrades need for the current town planning framework maintaining urban growth to the
south of the city and 20,000 jobs to the north. The forecast network upgrades required through to the
244,000 population threshold is summarised for the DTMR and CRC networks in Tables 3-3 and 3-4.
Bruce Highway – Kate St to Buchan St – Upgrade to 6 lanes
Sheridan St – Grove St to Aeroglen Dr – Upgrade to 6 lanes
CWAR - Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes
Panguna St - Extension to McGregor Rd
Foster Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Bentley interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Deppeler Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Closure of Robert Rd intersection with Bruce Highway (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade
Master Plan)
Closure of Mill Rd intersection with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads (as per
Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Closure of Peterson Rd intersections with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads
(as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 15
Pregno links (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) - Deppeler Rd to Thompson
Rd - Thompson Rd to Bentley Interchange - Bentley Interchange to Swallows Rd
Mulgrave Rd – Brown St to Aumuller St – Upgrade to 6 lanes
Captain Cook Highway – Aeroglen Dr to Arnold St – Upgrade to 6 lanes
Captain Cook Highway – Poolwood Rd to Endeavour Rd – Upgrade to 4 lanes
Smithfield Bypass – Upgrade to 4 lanes & add connection to CWAR roundabout
CWAR 6 lanes Pease Street to Loridan Drive
Cairns Western Arterial Road - 6 lane upgrade - Redlynch Connection Rd to Loridan Dr
McCoombe St - Mulgrave Rd to Moody St - 6 lane upgrade
Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive - 6 lanes
Bruce Highway - Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange - 8 lanes
Bruce Highway - Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange - 6 lanes
Bruce Highway - Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge - 4 lanes
Kennedy Highway - Canopys Edge Blvd - intersection capacity improvement on the western
leg
CWAR, CCH Roundabout to Kamerunga Road - 6 lanes
New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to highway
Upgrade Kate Street intersection to 6 lanes
Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout to T intersection
Bunda St – Spence St to Kenny St – Upgrade to 4 lanes
Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt Peter Rd and Mill Rd
Reed Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Smithfield
Village Dr
McGregor Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Sidlaw St
Earlville Bypass - Upgrade to 4 lanes
Earlville Bypass - ramps to Mulgrave Rd right in, left out only
Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd - 4 lanes
Mt Peter Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided
Maitland Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided
Draper Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes - Dempsey St to Cairns Rd
Yorkeys Knob Road- Captain Cook Highway to Dunne Road - upgrade to 4 lanes
Dunne Road - Yorkeys Knob Rd. to McGregor Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes
Case P1: 20,000 Jobs at Yorkeys Knob and 50% Redistributed Settlement Pattern to Northern
Beaches
Case P1 reflects an opportunity to modify the planning scheme recognising the ability to mitigate
infrastructure impacts by redistributing the urban settlement pattern from the southern suburbs of
Cairns to the north of Cairns in proximity to where the jobs generator in Aquis would exist. The
redistribution of the urban settlement pattern in the CSTM has been undertaken as a coarse and high
level exercise and does not accurately reflect actual and specific densification opportunities across
North Cairns and the Northern Beaches. Hence Scenario Case P1 reflects a concept or opportunity to
mitigate road network upgrade needs by changing the planning framework rather than a specific
outcome.
The road network upgrades required for 20,000 jobs at Yorkeys Knob and redistribution of settlement
patterns to the northern beaches through to the 244,000 population threshold is summarised for the
DTMR and CRC networks in Tables 3-5 and 3-6
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 16
Bruce Highway – Kate St to Buchan St – Upgrade to 6 lanes
Sheridan St – Grove St to Aeroglen Dr – Upgrade to 6 lanes
CWAR – Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes
Panguna St – Extension to McGregor Rd
Foster Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Bentley interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Deppeler Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Closure of Robert Rd intersection with Bruce Highway (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade
Master Plan)
Closure of Mill Rd intersection with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads (as per
Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Closure of Peterson Rd intersections with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads
(as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Pregno links (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) – Deppeler Rd to
Thompson Rd – Thompson Rd to Bentley Interchange – Bentley Interchange to Swallows Rd
Captain Cook Highway – Aeroglen Dr to Arnold St – Upgrade to 6 lanes
Captain Cook Highway – Poolwood Rd to Endeavour Rd – Upgrade to 4 lanes
Smithfield Bypass – Upgrade to 4 lanes & add connection to CWAR roundabout
CWAR 6 lanes Pease Street to Loridan Drive
Cairns Western Arterial Road – 6 lane upgrade – Redlynch Connection Rd to Loridan Dr
Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive – 6 lanes
Bruce Highway – Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange – 8 lanes
Bruce Highway – Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange – 6 lanes
Bruce Highway – Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge – 4 lanes
Kennedy Highway – Canopys Edge Blvd – intersection capacity improvement on the western
leg-
Captain Cook Highway – Arnold Street to Yorkeys Knob Road- 6 lanes
New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to highway
Upgrade Kate Street intersection to 6 lanes
Reed Rd – 4 lane median divided upgrade – Captain Cook Hwy to Smithfield
Village Dr
McGregor Rd – 4 lane median divided upgrade – Captain Cook Hwy to Sidlaw St
Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd – 4 lanes
Mt Peter Rd – upgrade to 4 lanes median divided
Yorkeys Knob Road- Captain Cook Highway to Dunne Road – upgrade to 4 lanes
Dunne Road – Yorkeys Knob Rd. to McGregor Rd – upgrade to 4 lanes
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 17
Comparison of Scenario Cases
A comparison of the scenario cases will demonstrate the relative road infrastructure upgrade
requirements and the potential benefits that Case P1 can deliver in mitigating network impacts by
adopting a targeted land use planning response to Aquis. Tables 3-7 and 3-8 provide a direct
comparison of the B1, B2 and P1 case scenarios and the associated DTMR and CRC network
augmentation required for each to arrive at the 244,000 population threshold.
Network Element Upgrade Case B1 Case B2 Case P1
Bruce Highway – Kate St to Buchan St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes
Sheridan St – Grove St to Aeroglen Dr – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes
CWAR - Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes Yes Yes Yes
Panguna St - Extension to McGregor Rd Yes Yes Yes
Foster Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade
Master Plan)
Yes Yes Yes
Bentley interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade
Master Plan)
Yes Yes Yes
Deppeler Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade
Master Plan)
Yes Yes Yes
Closure of Robert Rd intersection with Bruce Highway (as per
Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes Yes
Closure of Mill Rd intersection with Bruce Highway and
construction of service roads (as per Cairns Bruce Highway
Upgrade Master Plan)
Yes Yes Yes
Closure of Peterson Rd intersections with Bruce Highway and
construction of service roads (as per Cairns Bruce Highway
Upgrade Master Plan)
Yes Yes Yes
Pregno links (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
- Deppeler Rd to Thompson Rd - Thompson Rd to Bentley
Interchange - Bentley Interchange to Swallows Rd
Yes Yes Yes
Mulgrave Rd – Brown St to Aumuller St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes No
Captain Cook Highway – Aeroglen Dr to Arnold St – Upgrade to 6
lanes
Yes Yes Yes
Captain Cook Highway – Poolwood Rd to Endeavour Rd –
Upgrade to 4 lanes
Yes Yes Yes
Smithfield Bypass – Upgrade to 4 lanes & add connection to
CWAR roundabout
Yes Yes Yes
CWAR 6 lanes Pease Street to Loridan Drive Yes Yes Yes
Cairns Western Arterial Road - 6 lane upgrade - Redlynch
Connection Rd to Loridan Dr
Yes Yes Yes
McCoombe St - Mulgrave Rd to Moody St - 6 lane upgrade Yes Yes No
Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive - 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes
Bruce Highway - Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange - 8 lanes Yes Yes Yes
Bruce Highway - Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange - 6
lanes
Yes Yes Yes
Bruce Highway - Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge -
4 lanes
Yes Yes Yes
Kennedy Highway - Canopys Edge Blvd - intersection capacity
improvement on the western leg-
No Yes Yes
Captain Cook Highway - Arnold Street to Yorkeys Knob Road- 6
lanes
No No Yes
CWAR, CCH Roundabout to Kamerunga Road - 6 lanes No Yes No
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 18
Network Element Upgrade Case B1 Case B2 Case P1
New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to
highway
Yes Yes Yes
Upgrade Kate Street intersection to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes
Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout
to T intersection
Yes Yes No
Bunda St – Spence St to Kenny St – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes No
Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt
Peter Rd and Mill Rd
Yes Yes No
Reed Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy
to Smithfield Village Dr
Yes Yes Yes
McGregor Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook
Hwy to Sidlaw St
Yes Yes Yes
Earlville Bypass - Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes No
Earlville Bypass - ramps to Mulgrave Rd right in, left out only Yes Yes No
Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd
- 4 lanes
Yes Yes Yes
Mt Peter Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes Yes
Maitland Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes No
Draper Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes - Dempsey St to Cairns Rd Yes Yes No
Yorkeys Knob Road- Captain Cook Highway to Dunne Road -
upgrade to 4 lanes
No Yes Yes
Dunne Road - Yorkeys Knob Rd. to McGregor Rd - upgrade to
4 lanes
No Yes Yes
The comparison demonstrates that there are particular elements of the DTMR and CRC road networks
that may not require upgrade should the scenario case P1 be implemented and these include:
Mulgrave Rd – Brown St to Aumuller St – Upgrade to 6 lanes
McCoombe St - Mulgrave Rd to Moody St - 6 lane upgrade
CWAR, CCH Roundabout to Kamerunga Road - 6 lanes
Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout to T intersection
Bunda St – Spence St to Kenny St – Upgrade to 4 lanes
Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt Peter Rd and Mill Rd
Earlville Bypass - Upgrade to 4 lanes
Earlville Bypass - ramps to Mulgrave Rd right in, left out only
Maitland Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided
Draper Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes - Dempsey St to Cairns Rd
The comparison also illustrates there are additional elements of the DTMR and CRCC networks that
may require upgrade should the scenario case P1 be implemented and these include:
Kennedy Highway - Canopys Edge Blvd - intersection capacity improvement on the western
leg
Captain Cook Highway - Arnold Street to Yorkeys Knob Road- 6 lanes
Yorkeys Knob Road- Captain Cook Highway to Dunne Road - upgrade to 4 lanes
Dunne Road - Yorkeys Knob Rd. to McGregor Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 19
Noting the coarse and nonspecific redistribution of the urban settlement pattern across North Cairns
and the Northern Beaches and the assumption as to the quantum of the redistribution from the south,
the above reflects a potential outcome and benefit of a scenario case P1 type town planning response
to Aquis. This needs to be further tested and refined in liaison with DTMR and Cairns Regional
Council.
In addition to the above, Table 3-9 provides network statistics which quantify the differences of the
network performance of each scenario.
Vehicle Kilometres Travelled 5,902,936 6,187,155 6,282,383 6,294,690 6,048,669 6,231,367
Vehicle Hours Travelled 145,798 121,119 126,169 122,913 142,070 129,429
Total Vehicle Trips 718,373 719,252 726,908 726,965 725,492 725,622
Average Trip Time (minutes) 12.2 10.1 10.4 10.1 11.7 10.7
Average Trip Distance (KMs) 8.2 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.3 8.6
Lane KM's Over Practical Capacity-Before Upgrade
247 134 228
Lane KM's Over Practical Capacity-After Upgrade
146 107 110
Lane KM's of Required Upgrades 179 37 161
The following commentary is made in relation to the comparison of the case scenarios and their
comparative network statistics.
When comparing B1 v P1, a lot of investment can be made upgrading the network to achieve a B1
(BAU) land use pattern or the infrastructure spend can be reduced by about 10% and achieve a better
network outcome (146km residual over capacity in B1 v 110km over capacity in P1) simply by
changing the land use pattern. Note that P1 has an assumed redistribution of 50% of population
growth to the north and this could be optimised further and more sensitively in a spatial sense to
further reduce network impacts. It should also be noted the network modelled as being required under
P1 is a coarse estimate and it is expected further savings can be identified with more detail in analysis
post the land use approval to significantly under-capacity upgrades and taking more of them out (i.e.
from those used under B1).
When comparing B1 v B2, there is obviously significant benefit in moving the jobs up to Aquis to
reduce trip lengths for those already in the northern beaches and the results are logical. Scenario B2
shows that diversifying employment to centres away from the CBD has benefits to the network
compared to B1 as a proportion of work trips can be of a shorter length. Further network benefits are
expected to be realised if a proportion of population growth is also sensitively dispersed to these
centres and particularly in areas closer to Aquis.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 20
That is, even shorter trips would therefore be possible, significantly reducing VKT. The amount of
population (and even service employment) that should be re-allocated to the north of the city to
optimise the degree of infrastructure savings possible would need to consider land use and transport
in an integrated way; also considering public and active transport opportunities to further reduce
private vehicle usage. It may be that somewhere between 20% and 50% of future population growth
should be relocated to the north in specific "nodes" where possible and a transport network "designed"
to better facilitate and support this new demographic pattern. The benefits to road infrastructure
expenditure could potentially be significant rendering such an investigation worthy of further effort
following the land use approval.
The comparison of B2 v P1 appears counter-intuitive; however, this is more a consequence of both
model runs starting with a heavily upgraded B1 network (as provided by TMR). This means that the
trip length reductions for northern beaches residents for their trip to work under B2 are significant
under a primarily B1 network. However, when a significant population change is made (again still
mostly under a B1 network) then there are extra trips moving from the northern population areas to the
southern employment areas as well which are not catered for under the primarily B1 network.
When comparing B1 v B2 v P1 it is clear that moving jobs to Aquis reduces traffic infrastructure
needs. By how much will be a consequence on detailed network optimisation and land use
optimisation, preferably in an integrated way also considering potential public and active transport
discounts for a multi-nodal city.
SUMMARY
The following is noted in relation to DTMR and CRC comments on the Aquis EIS for the road network:
It is not proposed at this time to respond to the queries raised by DTMR in relation to
demonstrating specific direct and indirect impacts on intersections and links. In the absence
of a land use approval there is insufficient certainty on numerous aspects of the construction
and operational phases of the development that can reliably inform such an analysis. There
are several downstream approval processes in place that will require the Proponent to
demonstrate road network impact and mitigation measures. The MCU Code will be followed
by Operational Works and then Building works. Given the scale and duration of this project
there will be multiple approvals required and many of these will be carried out in parallel and
some will be done sequentially. All development downstream of the 242 will be code
assessable in accordance with the Aquis Local Plan which will be a condition of the 242
approval. For instance the Resort Complex will be built in stages over 10 years. There will
need to be a MCU (code) application of various stages of the works. There may be at least 2
(one for each stage) or even multiple applications for various elements of the Resort complex
i.e. the Hotels may be applied for individually. Similarly the casinos and Expo may also be
applied for separately.
The design of the resort complex is complicated and will take several years. Elements will be
progressively designed and individual applications will be sought. Given the period of time
required for design, the first application will likely be a MCU(earthworks) which will incorporate
an ERA 16.1.(b) for the excavation of the Lake and for site shaping works. In parallel with this
there is likely to be separate operational works applications for external works (road upgrades
and services connections as well as tidal works applications for the Lake plumbing. The detail
and of approvals will need to worked through with Cairns Regional Council and DTMR once
the Land Use and casino licence approvals are galvanised and a managing Contractor is
appointed.
The CSTM road network modelling undertaken for Scenario Cases B1, B2 and P1 shows the
road network infrastructure upgrades required for BAU Planning (B1), BAU Planning with
Aquis as an employment generator (B2), and Aquis as an employment generator with 50% of
future settlement redistributed to North Cairns and the Northern Beaches (P2).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 21
The network modelling demonstrates the placement of Aquis at Yorkeys Knob and maintaining
planned residential settlement patterns to the south of the City will place further and significant
demands on the road network between Aquis and the southern suburbs of Cairns. (i.e. B1 v
B2). Scenario Case P1 illustrates the potential benefits of replanning the city in response to
Aquis to align the urban settlement pattern adjacent to the job generator (Aquis) and thereby
reducing trip demands on the road network and as a consequence mitigating the need for
upgrading of road infrastructure on other parts of the network.(i.e. P1 v B1 v B2).
Subsequent to securing the land use approval and Casino licence, several parallel processes
will be triggered by the Proponent including appointment of a managing contractor and
development of the civil works design, both of which will inform and have inputs to the
downstream approvals processes required to deliver the construction and operations of Aquis.
This will include further development of a CSTM aligned with the construction and operational
phases of the project, and will reflect a process of land use planning in concert with Cairns
Regional Council and DTMR that will optimise existing road network utilisation and minimise
the need to upgrade over time. This will allow the detailed analysis of intersection and link
performance and impacts to be undertaken.
As discussed in the EIS, Road Network Infrastructure Agreements will be formulated with
Cairns Regional Council and DTMR that will be underpinned by the land use planning,
network modelling and detailed analysis of intersections and links to establish upgrade
requirements directly attributable to Aquis. This process would also recognise the road
network upgrade needs deferred as a result of Aquis and replanning residential settlement
patterns to the north of Cairns.
b) Infrastructure
Cairns Regional Council Water and Waste (CRCWW) is the infrastructure agency responsible for the
trunk network servicing the demands for potable water and reuse water and the treatment of sewage.
Council’s response to the EIS is the first principles methodology for the derivation of water demands is
supported; however Council retained some concerns that the full quantum of water demands has not
been captured.
Through the infrastructure workshops, CRCWW was provided with an overview of the assumptions
supporting the first principles analysis of water demands. Council advised agreement with the
assumptions in relation to hotel room occupancy rates and seasonal variations, however considered
there was still some water uses understated or not captured.
A rigorous review of the hotel operations related to the potable water uses was further undertaken
which identified some gaps in the original EIS figures related to the following:
Top up from backwash water use from the swimming lagoons. (+1.2ML/d extrapolated from
the Cairns Esplanade Lagoon turnover)
Evaporation losses from the swimming lagoons (+0.6ML/day)
Increased water use for laundry (linen, pool towels, retail etc.) (+Double previous allowance)
Cleaning and wash down of back of house (+12KL/d)
Outdoor sports and recreation facilities (+30KL/d)
Network leakage (+7%)
Top Up of the Aquarium (+10KL/day)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 22
In addition a sensitivity analysis was undertaken on the key water demand assumptions to establish a
band width of potable water demand. The sensitivity analysis was undertaken to demonstrate the
potential outcome on water demands should the use assumptions prove to be understated. The
sensitivity is demonstrated in Table 3-10.
Avg occupancy 80% +10% 88%
Visitor Proportion 25% +20% 31%
Staff per Room 1.5 +10% 1.65
Meals (L/day/guest) 105 +25% 132
Showers (L/day/guest) 180 +25% 225
Drinking (L/day/guest) 2 +50% 3
Hygiene (L/day/guest) 16 +25% 20
Laundry (Towels)(L/day/Guest) 1.5 +100% 3
Laundry (Clothes)(L/day/Guest) 20 +50% 30
Cleaning (L/day) 7,300 +100% 14600
General Losses due to leakage etc. 7% 50% 10.5%
Aquarium Top Up 10,000 100,000
The resultant potable water demand calculation derived based upon the additional water demands and
the sensitivity is summarised in Table 3-11
MDMM 8.88 7.67 4.45
Avg Day 7.90 6.97 3.88
Peak Day 8.64 7.66 4.37
Max Day 9.38 7.75 4.85
Table 3-11 demonstrates the original EIS submission had some omissions on the potable water
demands that have now been captured in the revised EIS figures. The sensitivity also illustrates that
the band width of outcomes in the event the assumptions have been understated. In the context of the
water demand quantum, the band width is not significant.
Notwithstanding the robustness of the above, CRCWW maintain some uncertainty as to the potable
water demands given the unprecedented scale and size of the development and have suggested a
third party review of the water demand calculations. It is likely that a third party will arrive at a third
opinion that will not necessarily arrive at a clear outcome on water demands for Aquis.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 23
The reuse water demands were also recalculated as part of the review process with Council. The
review identified an additional re-use water demand for external wash down and is provided for the
revised EIS figures in Table 3-12
MDMM 1.02 0.92
Avg Day 0.90 0.81
Peak Day 1.01 0.91
Max Day 1.11 1.01
The waste water generation is a function of the first principles calculation of potable and reuse water
returned to the waste water system. The adjustment to the potable and reuse water demands
translates to an associated increase in waste water generation as summarised in Table 3-13
ADWF 7.42 5.64
Peak Flow 29.68 22.56
It is noted the waste water has not proportionally increased relative to the potable water demands.
This is because the backwash water will be returned to the waste water network but some other
potable water uses including top up of the lagoons due to evaporation will not.
SUMMARY
In relation to the potable water, reuse water and waste water generation the following is noted:
CRCWW retain some uncertainty as to the potable and reuse water demands to service
Aquis. Given Aquis will be delivered in two stages, it is proposed that the infrastructure
required to establish the connection to the trunk network will be installed for Stage 1 to cater
for the ultimate development. During the period of operation of Stage 1, the water use will be
monitored and measured to establish actual demands and if it should be established that the
network connection is marginally undersized, provision will be made for additional storage to
buffer the difference.
The re-use water demands for the development are largely unchanged from the original EIS.
The waste water generation has increased to reflect the revised potable water demands. The
need to upgrade the capacity of Marlin Coast Waste Water Treatment to meet the increased
flows from Aquis remains consistent with the findings of the EIS.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 24
As discussed in the EIS, the Proponent intends to enter into an infrastructure agreement with
Cairns Regional Council for the cost of dedicated trunk infrastructure to connect to the existing
water and waste water networks, and will share its proportionate share of the cost for the
upgrades of trunk infrastructure. It is proposed that the fundamental elements of the IA will be:
Connection to the trunk infrastructure network will be funded by the Proponent.
Infrastructure will be sized based upon the ultimate development proposal and in place for the
commencement of operation of Stage 1. Demands and sizing will be based upon agreed
conservative assumptions underpinned by a demand based assessment utilising upon a risk
assessment regime.
Water (potable and reuse) and waste water utilisation and generation will be monitored and
measured over time during operation of Stage 1. This measurement will be used as the basis
for calibrating the design assumptions and adjustments to infrastructure sizing/capacity will be
implemented prior to Stage 2 of Aquis entering into operation.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 25
4 ISSUE 3: POPULATION PROJECTIONS AS A RESULT OF THE
PROPOSAL
The impact of the project on the Cairns population has a direct bearing on a number of matters
requiring impact assessment that will be evaluated by the Coordinator-General. Agreed projections are
required to support the impact assessment presented in the environmental impact statement
documentation, including land-use planning, transport/infrastructure impact assessment and the
housing plan.
Following the public notification period, the proponent was asked to use the Office of the Government
Statistician's 2013 series population projections for the Cairns Local Government Area as the basis for
developing growth projections that reflect the potential impact of the project. Review of the draft
projections provided on 26 August 2014 and 10 September 2014 has revealed the following issues for
clarification:
There are technical errors in the way that the data and population projection graphs have been
constructed. For example, the construction workforce continues to be included in the cumulative
population total after construction ceases, and operational workforce projections accumulate
year-on-year rather than annually thus exaggerating potential population impacts.
The economic modelling undertaken for the environmental impact statement, and used to
support the population projections, does not appear to apply appropriate labour market
constraints.
International literature suggests that much tighter constraints should be applied, potentially
affecting the number of additional jobs (and the rate of population increase) that the project
might generate.
Furthermore, the modelling assumes no population movement from regions outside Cairns,
including for highly mobile construction workers. This means that there is no accounting for any
crowding out that might occur should the project result in workers moving to Cairns for new
employment opportunities.
The data analysis includes analysis of regions that are unlikely to provide labour pools the
project would draw from (such as remote indigenous communities).
Indirect job multipliers for the construction and operations workforces appear excessively high,
particularly for non-resident workers and those currently located in Cairns.
The dependency rate multiplier applied to the construction and operations workforces is applied
regardless of residency status - i.e. it appears to ignore the fact that non-resident workers won't
bring dependents, and that dependents of workers already residing in Cairns have been
factored into baseline projects resulting in double counting.
In summary, the modelled impacts of this project on the resident population of the area appear to be
over-exaggerated. The modelled population of 277,327 in year 2024 (under the "with Aquis" scenario)
is 79,256 (40%) higher than the OGS baseline projection of 198,071 for that year.
Requirement: Revise the population forecast as a result of the proposal to inform land-use planning,
transport/infrastructure impact assessment and the housing plan. The assumptions for the forecast
should be clearly outlined and information provided to demonstrate their suitability for the population projection.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 26
4.1 RESPONSE
The proponent accepts that population and growth forecasts are important considerations for the Coordinator General in the evaluation of the project as the Evaluation Report will have multiple audiences i.e. the Proponent, The State Government (its infrastructure and services agencies) , the Council and the community. Population projections are an important consideration for Government’s and Council’s land use, infrastructure and community services planners and providers. The population projections referenced by OESR are attached in Appendix D. The projections were based on the following assumptions and inputs:
Business as Usual projections are the OESR 2013 mid-series with pro- rata (linear) distribution in the intermediate years
Construction workforce numbers are sourced from Ch. 4 (section 4.27) of the EIS
Operational workforce numbers are sourced from Ch. 4 (section 4.2.1) of the EIS
Dependency rate @ 1.5 ( i.e. 2 employed persons support 1 extra person not in the workforce)
Ratio of indirect jobs to direct jobs during construction from Deloitte Access Economics modelling (Ch. 13 of the EIS)
Proportion of construction jobs taken up by new residents 50%
Proportion of operational jobs taken up by new residents 80%
Occupancy rate for dwellings based on weighted average of units an detached dwellings i.e. (60%x2.1 +40%x 2.5) = 2.3
Proportion of dwelling stock comprising multiple dwellings units (60%)
Proportion of dwelling stock comprising detached dwellings (40%) Detached dwelling = 1 Equivalent demand unit (EDU) for Infrastructure Charges purposes
Multiple dwelling unit =0.6 EDU rate for Infrastructure Charges purposes
Infrastructure Charges Rate assumed at $25,000 ($2014) The forecast revealed a population increase of an additional 79,256 persons over and above the business as usual forecast resulting in a 2036 population of 323,330 persons compared to the business as usual forecast of 244,083 persons. The forecast population growth will result is a demand for 71,000 dwellings (43,000 units, 28,000 detached dwellings) by 2036. The construction of these dwellings is estimated to generate $1.35 Billion in infrastructure contributions to Cairns Regional Council at current rates. This estimate does not take in to account any “leakage” of indirect jobs and population to the surrounding Local Government areas. The “Business as Usual” (No Aquis scenario) estimated residential population of 244,000 by 2036 will be likely to be reached in 2022 in the “with Aquis” scenario. Council officers have reviewed the projections and advised as follows:
“..the assumptions are reasonable. Because it is forecasting it is based on the assumptions that make up the curve and with that in mind the only thing that varies, if the assumptions are too far off, is the time in which things happen. For infrastructure and housing delivery it is not timing alone that is the key, but also how much and whether it is able to be delivered. Time is the biggest risk if the delivery exceeds the capacity to meet demand.”
Conversely OESR rate the projections as too ambitious and resulting in overstated population growth.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 27
Taking into account OESR’s criticism of the “double counting” of construction jobs in the population forecast, the forecast has been redone to exclude the Construction phase direct and indirect employment contribution to forecast population growth. The revised population projections excluding the construction phase employment is also attached in Appendix D. The revised forecast reveals a population increase of an additional 66,000 persons over and above the business as usual forecast resulting in a 2036 population of 310.083 persons compared to the business as usual forecast of 244,083 persons. The forecast population growth will result is a demand for 65,000 dwellings (39,000 units, 21,000 detached dwellings) by 2036. The construction of these dwellings is estimated to generate $1.24 Billion in infrastructure contributions to Cairns Regional Council at current rates. This estimate does not take in to account any “leakage” of indirect jobs and population to the surrounding Local Government areas. The “Business as Usual” (No Aquis scenario) estimated residential population of 244,000 by 2036 will be likely to be reached in 2023 in the “with Aquis” scenario. A key determinant in the population forecasts is the ratio of indirect to direct employment. Deloittes modelling indicates a ratio of 1.75 for long term operational employment. It is noted that OESR’s view is that this is too high. The labour market constraints applied in Deloitte’s modelling are a reflection of econometric estimation exercises undertaken on historical real world data, and as such Deloittes consider them to be appropriate. An alternate labour market specification sometimes used is to assume that employment changes in each region are entirely offset by changes in other regions of Australia – this is a highly conservative assumption that is likely to significantly underrepresent the economic impacts of project investments, particularly in regions that have comparatively high unemployment rates and are attractive for relocation. It is respectfully suggested that the OESR might not be considering the inclusion of tourism activity in the region and could be comparing Deloitte’s results to a more simple exercise where only the activity that occurs on-site is included. From the comments made it is a little difficult to determine the basis on which the criticism is levelled. In the light of this uncertainty the only guidepost can be OESR’s most recently published data on the topic (which unfortunately is from 96/96). When considering indirect multipliers both the numerator and denominator are important – casinos have a significantly higher output per FTE than other service providers in the cultural and recreational services sector – if reference is made to: http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/qld-reg-io-tables/qld-reg-io-tables-34-industries.pdf It can be seen that the most recent indirect employment per million dollars of output in the cultural and recreational services sector in the far north is 4.2 – the AQUIS financial model suggests approximately 1.6 direct FTEs per million dollars (very different to their number for the broad sector number of 9.4 – see page 109) of output implying an IO style indirect to direct ratio of approximately 2.6 would not be unreasonable. This compares very favourably with Deloitte’s generated numbers. Reference is made to following publication from the OESR: http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/overview-econ-impact-analysis/overview-econ-impact-analysis.pdf The summary of the impact analysis report is valuable – “that the analyst should exercise professional judgement when determining the economic environment appropriate for the analysis, and that the choice of methodology appropriate for the analysis varies on a case by case basis” – which is entirely consistent with the approach Deloitte’s have taken.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 28
The other key issue is the dependency rate used to convert employment (both direct and indirect) forecasts to population forecasts. The forecast prepared adopted a conservative dependency rate of 1.5 based on advice from Deloittes regarding experiences in resource projects in WA. An extract of that advice follows:
“…a fixed dependency ratio could provide for a fairly high estimate of the consequential population impacts and you would anticipate the dependency ratio decreasing (at least in the short to medium term) in the face of a sharp labour market shock. To test that some quick numbers based on the 2001, 06 and 11 census in the East Pilbara LGA. Based on these numbers the proportion of the total population employed has risen from 60% to 71.8% to 79.6% (with some reasonable assumptions about the employment characteristics of people who didn’t state their employment). While Cairns and the Pilbara are pretty different regions the intuition is pretty consistent – if someone moves to one of these regions there is a good chance they relocate as a single person (lowering the dependency ratio), they might move as a childless adult couple (again, downward pressure), the could move with children (probably slight downward pressure on balance) but they are unlikely to move with elderly dependents, who are going to be a pretty important part of the denominator.”
Council officers have advised that they consider that adopted rate (1.5) is too low and would prefer that the current regional (and state) dependency rate of 2.0 be adopted Their concerns are that adoption of a low dependency factor will result in understating long term population growth and consequential housing (and infrastructure and services) demand. It is clear that bounds of this parameter will be somewhere between 1.0 and 2.0 (the current regional and Queensland rate). The Deloitte’s advice relates to remote resource areas in Northern WA which may not be attractive for family relocation but attractive for singles and childless couples. Cairns is not a remote “hardship posting” but rather well connected, high amenity location with attractive climate and environment, employment opportunities and with a relatively high level of social and community services and infrastructure. Aquis is not a resource project but an opportunity for sustainable employment in an attractive location and consequently attractive for family relocation as well as for singles to achieve sustainable employment, .partner up and choose to raise families (and possibly relocate aging parents). It is therefore considered that the 1.5 dependency factor adopted is conservative and likely to be low when considering long term population growth. Notwithstanding this a revised population projection has been prepared based on including a variable dependency factor over time (1.2 for construction jobs, 1.5 for Stage 1 jobs and 2.0 for Stage 2 Jobs). These adjustments tend to cancel each other out and result is a slightly larger population in the long term. The revised forecast with a variable dependency rate reveals a population increase of an additional 94,875 persons over and above the business as usual forecast resulting in a 2036 population of 338,958 persons compared to the business as usual forecast of 244,083 persons. The forecast population growth will result is a demand for 78,000 dwellings (47,000 units, 31,000 detached dwellings) by 2036. The construction of these dwellings is estimated to generate $1.24 Billion in infrastructure contributions to Cairns Regional Council at current rates. This estimate does not take in to account any “leakage” of indirect jobs and population to the surrounding Local Government areas.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 29
The “Business as Usual” (No Aquis scenario) estimated residential population of 244,000 by 2036 will be likely to be reached in 2022 in the “with Aquis” scenario. As with all planning and projections it is highly unlikely that any of the above projections will be proved absolutely correct. There just has to be a “reasonable” basis on which to plan. An underlying theme in all planning strategies going forward will be continuous monitoring and re assessment. It is important for the Infrastructure and service providers to plan for threshold populations (say 300,000 persons). The timing for achieving that population is uncertain but threshold based planning (with appropriate increments of service provision triggered at identified population thresholds along the way) should mean that the slope of the curve is largely irrelevant and can be monitored over time and infrastructure and service upgrades timed accordingly. The concern for Aquis is that underestimating population growth may result in infrastructure or community services shortfall which will make relocating to Cairns less attractive resulting in difficulties for recruitment of operational workforce and likely competition for existing staff with consequential crowding out effects which are the identified negative economic impacts that need to be avoided. The population projections that land use planners, infrastructure and service providers will need to reach agreement on to base their planning on will be an important first task as part of the Strategic Growth Management Plan. These population forecasts will be an important input into the implementation of the Housing and Accommodation Plan and the Community Services and Facilities Plan.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 30
5 ISSUE 4: LAKE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, WATER QUALITY
LIMITS
The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) provided a detailed submission on a
number of matters that OCG requires the proponent to address. These are:
lake management
water quality release limits
baseline water quality data
inlet and outlet pipelines.
The overall requirement is that the proponent proposes a detailed lake management strategy to
support specific water quality standards to be achieved. The lake management strategy should
respond to the issues outlined above and detailed below.
It should be noted that there is some duplication in the Request for Further Information and some
consolidation of items has been required in the following discussion.
5.1 RESPONSE TO LAKE MANAGEMENT
5.1.1 Background
EHP indicated that the EIS does not provide:
Sufficient information regarding the design, construction and management of the proposed lake
to determine projected impacts or whether impacts could be adequately managed.
An investigation of hydrodynamic (and water quality) performance of the lake design at different
depths.
The EIS does not state how seawater intake, rate, retention time and the discharge regime has
been optimised to minimise associated environmental impacts.
EHP requested that the proponent:
1. Describe appropriate lake monitoring regimes, trigger levels of water quality and quantity and
response mechanisms to exceedances of trigger levels.
2. Provide additional hydrodynamic and water quality monitoring scenarios for the lake design at
different depths to determine whether different scenarios can achieve acceptable water quality
outcomes.
3. Provide detail on how lake water management would be optimised to ensure associated
environmental impacts are minimised whilst maintaining acceptable water quality effects and
incorporate this consideration into discussions about selecting flood mitigation options and
setting compliance limits.
5.1.2 Item 1.1 – Lake Monitoring and Response Regimes
Variations of this RFI occur under a number of EHP items and a consolidated response is included in
Section 5.2.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 31
5.1.3 Item 1.2 – Different Depth Scenarios
In the Agency Submissions and Issues Report for the EHP submission (Issue 15) it was noted:
The lake depth as stated is the best solution based on the current level of design. While it is
likely to remain as proposed, there is to be a period of detailed design where this and other
parameters may be optimised.
Investigations in preparation regarding lake management and discharge strategies for all
conditions.
Findings of this work are discussed below.
a) Depth Optimisation
The issue of water depth was an important matter for concept design during the EIS. Considerations
were:
Maximum water level was set at 1.5 m AHD in order to provide some freeboard to the natural
surface / design ground levels for open space (typically at 2.0 m AHD). Lake could have a lower
water level than this required for other criteria.
Maximum bed level was set at 0.5 m AHD by flooding criteria. Bed could be deeper than this if
required for other criteria.
Minimum bed level (maximum depth) was influenced by:
- shallow lake:
o minimising volume of excavation (cost, quantity of ASS to manage)
o minimising revetment costs
o minimising lake volume and hence rate of pumping for 14 day turnover
- deep lake:
o minimising water quality problems (in particular stratification and algal growth)
o aesthetics.
Groundwater levels are relevant for an un-lined or non-quarantined lake but are otherwise not
an issue providing that the quarantining performance criteria can be met.
Detailed discussions on these matters were held at two multidisciplinary lake workshops:
25 November 2013 (EIS team, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Department of
National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing).
22 and 23 April 2014 (EIS team only).
All work has indicated that the critical lake criteria are flood performance and good water quality. All
other considerations are seen as secondary to these. A minimum water depth was taken as 4 m on the
basis of advice from BMT WBM and frc environmental derived from other projects. A detailed review of
hydrodynamic and water quality modelling results shows that this depth appears to be appropriate.
However, two examples of shallower lakes are as discussed below in support of this statement:
a shallow but ‘always wet’ lake (2.5 m deep).
a shallow (‘dry’ or ‘seasonal’) lake.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 32
b) Shallow but ‘always wet’ lake (2.5 m deep)
This option was examined specially to address this RFI, with details as follows:
plan dimensions as per EIS lake
bed level = -1.0 m AHD
top water level = 1.5 m AHD (as per EIS lake)
depth = 2.5 m.
Full optimisation was not undertaken – rather, the behaviour of chlorophyll a was modelled as this has
been found to be the critical parameter for water quality. As for the EIS, the model was executed using
historic data from August 2012 to July 2013 to capture a suite of dry and wet conditions as follows (see
also Figure 5-27). The data covers the period:
Dry: October to December 2012 (i.e. daily flows are generally at or below the 20th percentile)
Wet: January to March 2013 (i.e. peak daily flows during events generally exceed 90th
percentile)
Extreme Wet (Australia Day 2013): 20 January 2013 to 14 February.
This period reflects the previous EIS lake analysis. However, for this shallow lake option the simulation
was only run for the first six months as this represents a period when chlorophyll a concentrations are
likely to be at their highest.
Figure 5-1 Model simulation period for dry and wet weather conditions – first six months used.
Source: EIS Figure 11-23. This is a sub-set of the annual data period described above.
A comparison of performance for chlorophyll a concentration is shown below. Note that the vertical
axis scale should read µg/L not mg/L.
Simulation period
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 33
Figure 5-2 Chlorophyll a comparison of shallow (2.5 m) and deep (4.0 m) lake.
As the above figure demonstrates, the shallow lake will experience increased phytoplankton growth.
While this is not desirable, discharge of such water is unlikely to cause any problems in the receiving
environment. Further optimisation will be undertaken during detailed design as there are significant
cost savings if lake depth can be reduced, such as:
reduced volume of excavation (a 0.5 m reduction will save 165,000 m3 of excavation and
associated treatment and handling)
reduced height and hence cost of retaining edge structures
reduced pumping volumes due to smaller lake volume (0.825 GL VS 1.32 GL (for a lake
turnover of 14 days, the smaller the volume the lower the rate of pumping) – this could save on
the size of pipes and pumps and running costs.
c) Shallow (‘dry’ or ‘seasonal’) Lake
An extreme limit of a lake depth is one that is dry most of the time while being deep enough to satisfy
flood conveyance criteria. Such an option (described as a ‘seasonal lake’) was discounted in the EIS.
Further information on this option is included in this information request response Issue 6 (see Section
7.3).
This assessment concludes that a shallow ‘seasonal lake’ is not feasible. Despite the suitable flood
behaviour and some beneficial features, it is considered that the poor water quality performance and
aesthetics rule out this option from further consideration. The presence of the large waterbody has
developed into an architectural theme for the Aquis Resort and the proponent does not wish to
jeopardise this feature.
d) Groundwater
The EIS discusses the issue of surface water / groundwater interaction and concludes that there is a
need to quarantine the groundwater from lake influences. As stated in s10.2.1e):
… the functional requirement to quarantine the lake from groundwater is to reduce the permeability of the system to minimise exchange of lake water and salinity horizontally out of the lake and into the shallow aquifer. Quarantining the lake from groundwater can be achieved in one of two ways:
lining the lake walls and floor with an impermeable membrane
using cut-off walls to create an impermeable barrier outside the lake walls that extends down into the more impermeable clays that exist at depth.
The consideration of salinity migration mechanisms was modelled and this shows that low permeabilities are required to minimise both horizontal and vertical migration of salt water. With the known high permeability of the shallow sandy sediments, a quarantining solution with a hydraulic conductivity of 0.001 m/d (~10-8 m/s) or lower is required. (p10-29 to 10-30)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 34
It was noted that additional testing is required to refine the preliminary groundwater modelling
undertaken and that further design is necessary. In summary, the EIS concludes:
The consideration of salinity migration mechanisms shows that low permeabilities are required to minimise both horizontal and vertical migration of salt water. With the known high permeability of the shallow sandy sediments, a cut-off wall of 0.001 m/d (~10-8 m/s) or lower hydraulic conductivity is required.
In the vertical direction, the vertical permeability and continuity of the stiff clay unit needs to be confirmed to be 0.001 m/d (~10-8 m/s) or lower. If the unit is discontinuous, thin or has a higher permeability, then the lake will require lining or ground treatment measures to mitigate impacts on the deeper natural groundwater system. Feasible solutions such as soil mixing and grout injection exist for this treatment.
Provided that the quarantining layer is provided as recommended above, there will be no surface water / groundwater interaction. (p10-37)
The Register of Proponent Commitments includes a commitment that the proponent:
Investigate transmissivity of low permeability layer beneath lake as input to groundwater
quarantining solution. (In the vertical direction, the vertical permeability and continuity of the stiff
clay unit needs to be confirmed to be 0.001 m/d (~10-8 m/s) or lower.)
It is recognised that adjacent terrestrial, riparian, and freshwater habitats have come to depend on the
current groundwater regime and in particular the freshwater lakes in the woodland between the lake
and Richters Creek. It will be critical to ensure that an appropriate salinity regime is maintained.
5.1.4 Item 1.3 – Flood Performance
EHP and DSITIA have provided comment with regards to ‘inadequate information has been provided
on flood or emergency releases of lake water to determine what release would be necessary and the
conditions that would apply to protect the receiving environment’.
Consequently, further numerical water quality modelling was performed to assess how the water
quality within the lake would respond to a flood event that would inundate the lake (i.e. capable of
overtopping the 50% AEP bund). In addition, the modelling was also used to assess the potential
impacts to the natural environment related to the discharge of lake water post-flood and thereby inform
the release strategy.
a) Model Application
A new TUFLOW-FV model was extended to encompass the Barron River delta floodplain, connecting
the lake with the natural waterways. Boundary conditions were kept consistent with the previous EIS
numerical modelling works apart from the Barron River flow boundary.
The hydrograph from the March 2008 flood (peak flow of 3,200 m3/s) at Myola was applied at the
uppermost Barron River Flow boundary. The hydrograph was shifted in time so the peak in the flood
levels in Richters Creek coincided with a high Spring tide to maximise the flood height at the lake. A
flow of 3,200 m3/s represents a design flood of approximately 5% AEP.
The simulations were performed in 3D with coupled salinity, temperature, and water quality
parameters. A passive tracer was also used to aid the assessments.
Within the model, the Richters Creek Overflow Channel was simulated to allow the flooded lake to
drain back to its design level of 1.5 m AHD post-flood. Once flood waters within the lake had subsided
to below 2 m AHD, a simulation with water from off-shore being pumped into the lake at 2.15 m3/s (the
rate at which the full lake volume (i.e. 1.6 GL) could be turned over in seven days) was conducted. In
the simulation, water was pumped from the lake directly to Richters Creek at the EIS proposed
discharge location and was drawn from 1 m below the surface. After seven days the pumping rate was
reduced to 1.25 m3/s to represent normal operating conditions in the simulation.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 35
b) Lake Discharge Assumptions
The EIS concept for lake discharge involves a piped outlet arrangement with a diffuser in the mouth of
Richters Creek, supplemented by two Lake Overflow channels. These overflows were provided to
release water stored above the normal top water level (e.g. following heavy rainfall or floods) at two
locations (see Figure 5-3 below):
one discharging to Richters Creek near the south-east corner of the lake at a location where
there is a natural clearing and where the creek bank is eroded (erosion protection integrated
with the outlet structure is proposed)
the other discharging to Yorkeys Creek at the north-west corner of the lake where the creek
runs through the Aquis Resort site and where floodwaters currently discharge.
Under flood conditions when the Barron River breaks its banks and floodwaters enter the site, the lake
will first fill and then surcharge, leaving the built form of the Hotel Complex well above the expected
flood levels. At this time, most of the rest of the site and the adjacent Yorkeys Knob area will be
inundated and flow through the lake will join the general overland flood flow and exit the site via the
existing creek system. As the flood falls, the lake level will be gradually lowered by the two lake
overflows (until the level falls below their inverts) and by pumping to the lake outlet.
In undertaking the modelling described below, it was found that the Yorkeys Creek overflow is not
necessary and that all flood overflow can be discharged into Richters Creek. This is highly desirable
from an ecological perspective. The modelling assumed for simplicity that floodwaters would be
discharged into the mouth of Richters Creek by pumping (i.e. a pipe solution), although gravity
discharge via the Richters Creek Lake Overflow would be functionally equivalent and be preferred for
a number of reasons. This would require that the inlet flow be split to ensure adequate
circulation/flushing of the lake once pumping resumes. The performances of the two options with
respect to the hydrodynamic and water quality modelling are considered identical.
c) Modelling
Flood Flow Volumes
An analysis of the flood flow volumes was undertaken to determine the quantum of the Barron River
flow that discharge down Richters Creek and through the lake. As noted in the EIS, the lake has a
stored volume of 1.3 GL.
Based on the numerical model, approximately 2.3 GL of Richters Creek flood water passes over the
lake at a peak rate of approximately 100 m3/s. This flux represents approximately 1.8 x the lake’s
volume. As demonstrated below (see Figure 5-5 to Figure 5-7), the lake volumes is largely displaced
by the floodwaters, resulting in a tracer concentration from the flooding of about 90% (i.e. 90%
Richters Creek water and 10% lake water remaining) and salinity reducing from 35 ppt to 7 ppt.
The total volume of flood water diverted along Richters Creek is approximately 115 GL, with a peak
flow through Richters Creek at the mouth of approximately 930 m3/s. It should be appreciated that the
tidal prims at Richters Creek mouth are in the order of 0.2 GL to 0.6 GL per tide cycle (refer to EIS)
and hence are insignificant.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 36
Figure 5-3 Location of Yorkeys Creek and Richters Creek overflows (EIS concept).
Source: EIS Figure 11-18.
Flushing Time
As described in the EIS (s11.3), a key determinant of the lake’s water quality is the flushing time. To
analyse the impact that the inundation of flood waters could have on the lake’s ability to return to
normal operating conditions, the Barron River inflow boundary condition was dosed with a tracer at
100% concentration, whilst the offshore boundary was at 0%.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 37
Table 5-1 shows the time taken between the lake reaching maximum concentrations and decreasing
below the e-folding limit for an initial concentration of 90%.
SITE LOCATION DEPTH LOCATION FLUSHING TIME (DAYS)
L1 - North (intake)
Top 1
Avg. <1
Bottom <0.5
L2 - West
Top 2
Avg. 2
Bottom 2
L3 - East
Top 6
Avg. 6
Bottom 6
L4 - North East (discharge)
Top 7
Avg. 8
Bottom 8
As shown in the table above:
Over three-quarters of the lake has a significantly reduced concentration of flood water (below
the e-folding limit) after a period of 8 days from when the lake water level / Richters Creek has
been reduced to below 2 m AHD.
The lake’s ability to flush is not affected by the further small creek flow events after the main
flood peak and discharge off-shore (see Section 5.4.5) could occur within 10 to 14 days with
negligible impact on offshore conditions.
The results are presented as time-series plots on Figure 5-5 to Figure 5-7 at four locations around the
lake as per the original EIS (see Figure 5-4).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 38
Figure 5-4 Location
of four reporting sites within the lake model.
Source: EIS Figure
11-26.
Figure 5-5 Tracer
concentration (top metre).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 39
Figure 5-6 Tracer
concentration (average).
Figure 5-7 Tracer
concentration (bottom metre).
2D plan views of tracer concentration are presented on Figure 5-8 and on Figure 5-9 in four day
increments.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 40
Figure 5-8 Lake Flushing Predictions – 4 day increments.
Day 1 Day 4
Day 8 Day 12
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 41
Figure 5-9 Richters Creek tracer predictions – 4 day increments.
The results show that:
Flood water inundates the lake, reaching peak concentrations 18 hours after the flood peak on
31 January.
Tracer concentrations in the lake peak at around 90%, showing that floodwaters essentially
displace normal lake water.
The lake pumping rate commences when the lake level recedes below the to 50% AEP level
(i.e. approx. 2.0 m AHD) on 1 February and is sufficient to flush over three quarters of the lake
in its seven day period, leaving only the lake locations closest to the outlet with noticeable flood
water concentrations.
Approximately 8 days to 10 days are ultimately required to flush the fresh Barron River
floodwaters out of the lake system and reduce tracer concentrations to negligible levels. This
could be further reduced through optimisation with additional pumping, circulation devices etc.
Discharge Physico-Chemical Quality Comparison
The following graphs (Figure 5-10 to Figure 5-14) visually compare the water quality for various
parameters at three locations:
off-shore lake inlet
lake flood outlet (assumed at mouth of Richters Creek)
in situ conditions at the mouth of Richters Creek.
These plots are intended to assist with the Regulation and Compliance/Licensing requirements as
discussed in Section 5.2. Note that the vertical axis scale for chlorophyll a should read µg/L not mg/L.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 42
Figure 5-10
Dissolved Oxygen predictions.
Figure 5-11
Chlorophyll-a predictions.
Figure 5-12
Total nitrogen predictions.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 43
Figure 5-13
Total phosphorous predictions.
Figure 5-14 Salinity recovery.
Specific comments on the results are as follows:
DO levels decrease with the decrease in chlorophyll a, and do not return to normal until
chlorophyll a again begins growing in the lake. This suggests that there is the potential for
biodegradation within the lake, post-flood, that may consume oxygen. Chlorophyll a releases
oxygen with growth, and stabilises this, though removal of organic matter from the lake after a
major flood event will be important.
Chlorophyll a levels in the lake are drastically reduced by the flood event, but steadily return,
and begin to grow within the lake over a two week period.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 44
TN and TP levels of the water being discharged by the lake are back to typical off-shore levels
within two weeks of the lake inundation.
The flushing ability of the lake is sufficient that the lake has no delayed water quality impacts
post-flood, and is able to return to normal operating conditions very quickly.
Overall the figures demonstrate that the lake stabilises and returns to within normal operating
conditions 8 to 10 days after a flood whilst the creek concentrations remain relatively high well after the
lake becomes well flushed.
d) Provision for Fish
The possibility of fish kill resulting from a flood was addressed in the EIS (s11.3.2c)). This concludes
that:
Whilst fish-kills are likely to be an inevitable consequence of significant flood events, preparedness and prompt action to remove dead fish will result in only a brief period of impact to both the amenity of the lake and its ecosystem health. The impact on downstream water quality and ecosystem health will be negligible in the context of the associated flood. (p11-92)
Fish kills of two types may eventuate:
saltwater fish trapped for an extended time when the lake becomes fresh (these may be able to
escape via the Lake Overflow structures)
freshwater fish carried into the lake by floodwaters and then at risk once seawater pumping is
resumed (the pumping system to the outfall could feature a mechanism to intercept and facilitate
the escape of freshwater biota to Richters Creek).
Both circumstances will need to be designed for under the Lake Management Strategy which is
covered by the Register of Proponent Commitments.
e) Summary
The lake discharge during a flood event is expected to have negligible influence on the receiving
environment of Richters Creek as essentially the flood waters are being returned back to the creek to
join similar water at that location. The off-shore water quality at the site of the lake inlet is largely
unaffected by a Barron River flood, particularly as the intake is located close the bed level in deep
water (6.5 m below lowest astronomical tide).
The tracer plots and the physico-chemical plots demonstrate that the lake water quality is likely to be
better than that of Richters Creek during a Barron River flood. The off-shore discharge option (see
Section 5.4.5) could commence within 10 to 14 days after a flood event (i.e. once lake water quality
returns to pre-flood conditions).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 45
5.2 RESPONSE TO WATER QUALITY RELEASE LIMITS
5.2.1 Background
EHP indicated that:
The EIS does not adequately describe how water trigger values for water discharge will be
established.
There are difficulties in assessing the quality of floodwater prior to discharge.
It is unclear whether marine ecosystem trigger values should be used for the assessment of
discharges into fresh floodwaters.
The EIS does not provide a maximum total suspended solids (TSS) limit for the construction
phase.
EHP requested the proponent to:
1. Provide details of how locally relevant trigger levels for water quality values will be determined
for the proposed water discharges.
2. Re-analyse and re-report water quality data and to develop an appropriate set of discharge
criteria in consultation with EHP.
3. The quality of the waters sampled and reported in the EIS are reassessed and appropriate
comparisons are made with the available criteria.
4. Determine the relevant guideline to use in establishing trigger values for water quality discharge
in consultation with EHP.
5. Establish a relevant maximum TSS limit for incorporation in any approvals.
These issues are all interrelated and are dealt with below in an integrated manner.
5.2.2 Regulation and Lake Management
a) Overview
Regulation of the Aquis lake with regards to release to the lake has been based upon the Technical
Guideline Licensing – Wastewater Release to Queensland Water (EHP 2012) which applies the
philosophy of the ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) water quality guidelines and the intent of the
Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009.
The overall assessment flowchart included in EHP (2012) is provided in Figure 5-15 below for ease of
reference.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 46
Figure 5-15 Assessment flow chart.
Source: EHP (2012).
With reference to the flowchart, the Aquis activity has previously been described in the EIS and
updates provided herein with regards to the potential for an off-shore discharge (Section 5.4.5) and
impacts from a flood event (Section 5.1.4). From these assessments, it has been demonstrated that
there is a low risk of adverse impacts on the receiving environment water quality, provided that the
quality in the lake is maintained and managed appropriately in a flood event.
The EIS assessment and this cover Step 2 – Describe the Existing Environment and Step 3 – Predict
Outcomes or Impacts of Proposed Discharge) in the flow chart. This section focusses upon the last
step, namely Step 4 – Set Circumstances, Limits and Monitoring Conditions.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 47
b) Operating Conditions/Circumstances
Operating conditions / circumstance of the lake will vary based upon local climatic conditions in Cairns
and moreover Barron River flows. It is envisaged that there will be three operating conditions /
circumstance for the lake:
Dry Season (typically April to December): the lake will operate with the intake and discharge
without any notable influence of wet weather and / or flood conditions.
Wet Season (typically January to March): the lake will operate with intake as per normal
operation and a slightly modified discharge/overflow to maintain the desired lake level.
Flood: the lake will be inundated temporally suspending the intake and discharge. The lake will
then be returned to normal operating conditions through appropriate management measures.
Numerical modelling of the ‘Dry’ and ‘Wet’ season was previously presented in the EIS whilst further
numerical water quality modelling of a flood event was undertaken for this RFI and presented in
Section 5.1.4.
Compliance targets for the licensing of the Aquis lake discharge has been considered based on a
‘Normal’ and ‘Wet’ weather cycle with flood conditions presenting a separate temporary
condition/circumstance for the lake.
5.2.3 Water Quality Targets and Trigger Levels
The EHP (2012) guideline was used to assisting in deriving end-of-pipe limits for the Aquis lake
discharge. As noted in the document, limits should be derived from inputs used in the predictions and
guidance is provided for setting limits for indicators and indicator types.
a) End of Pipe Concentrations
Presented in Table 5-2 to Table 5-5 is the numerical water quality model predictions based upon the
August 2012 to July 2013 modelling period.
The end-of-pipe concentrations and loads presented are indicative only at this stage of the Aquis
proposal and are used for illustration of potential licensing conditions (i.e. water quality targets and
indicators etc. As previously noted in the EIS, the numerical modelling will require recalibration and
revalidation as the data collection campaigns progresses.
It is envisaged the numerical modelling period for recalibration and revalidation will ultimately include a
two year (i.e. minimum) simulation which will account for seasonality. Operational water quality targets
will need to be further refined.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 48
PARAMETER LOCATION MIN 20% MEDIAN 80% MAX
TP (µg/L)
Discharge 34 36 39 44 62
Intake 44 47 47 48 69
TN (µg/L)
Discharge 256 267 290 312 358
Intake 291 294 295 295 374
Chl-a (µg/L)
Discharge 0.2 3.4 5.5 10.1 13.1
Intake 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.7 4.3
DO (mg/L)
Discharge 3.6 6.1 6.3 6.6 7.0
Intake 3.2 6.3 6.6 6.7 6.9
Salinity
Discharge 31 34 35 35 36
Discharge 32.7 34.8 35.2 35.3 35.5
Temp (oC)
Intake 23.5 26.0 28.6 31.5 34.5
Discharge 21.8 24.2 26.5 29.4 33.0
PARAMETER LOCATION MIN 20% MEDIAN 80% MAX
TP (µg/L) Discharge 34 36 38 42 62
Intake 44.2 46.5 47.3 47.6 55.8
TN (µg/L) Discharge 256 264 275 296 311
Intake 291 293 294 295 304
Chl-a (µg/L) Discharge 0.2 3.0 4.6 7.5 11.0
Intake 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 4.1
DO (mg/L) Discharge 3.6 6.2 6.4 6.6 7.0
Intake 3.2 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9
Salinity Discharge 33 35 35 35 36
Intake 33.1 35.1 35.2 35.3 35.5
Temp (oC) Discharge 23.5 26.0 28.6 31.5 34.5
Intake 21.9 24.1 25.8 28.0 31.1
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 49
TP LOCATION MIN 20% MEDIAN 80% MAX
TP (µg/L) Discharge 42 43 44 46 47
Intake 44 46 47 48 56
TN (µg/L) Discharge 309 313 325 336 358
Intake 294 295 296 298 374
Chl-a (µg/L) Discharge 0.2 3.4 5.5 10.1 13.1
Intake 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 2.5
DO (mg/L) Discharge 5.4 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.4
Intake 5.7 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.8
Salinity Discharge 30.9 32.8 33.7 34.3 35.2
Intake 29.9 33.9 34.6 34.8 35.1
Temp (oC) Discharge 23.5 25.4 27.6 29.8 32.4
Intake 28.0 29.0 30.3 31.2 33.5
TP INTAKE DISCHARGE % ∆
TP (kg/yr) 11,652 11,609 -0.4%
TN (kg/yr) 1852 1615 -13%
b) Indicative Limits for Discharge
With regards to developing indicative limits for discharge, it should be noted that the modelling to date
demonstrates:
no notable adverse impact to the receiving environment and no know toxicants are envisaged
from the development
tracer modelling results mixing indicate high dilution rates within the receiving environment for
both a Richters Creek discharge or an offshore discharge.
Consequently, indicative limits for discharge based upon both concentration and loads are proposed in
Table 5-6 as per the guidance provided in EHP (2012) Table 8 and referring to the Queensland Water
Quality Guidelines (QWQG) (DERM 2009). As noted in the following table, an indicative turbidity level
is provided (refer to Appendix G) based on the current monitoring program. Further numerical
modelling, calibration, and analysis are required to determine an appropriate TSS target.
The assessment process for measuring compliance of the lake water quality throughout the annual,
‘dry’ and ‘wet’ season is provided in Section 5.2.4. Monitoring of the receiving environment has also
been discussed in the REMP (Section 5.3.2).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 50
RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT - WATER QUALITY TRIGGERS LAKE WATER DISCHARGE TARGETS4
QWQG Default Approach to assess compliance
Annual Enclosed Costal QWQG
REMP Compliance Target (wet/dry)
1
Dry Season Water Quality Target Wet Season Water Quality Target
Intake (modelled) End-of-Pipe2
(modelled/Target3)
Intake (modelled) End-of-Pipe2
(modelled/Target3)
Physico-Chemical Stressor
‘A trigger for further investigation will be deemed to have occurred when the median concentration of n independent samples taken at a test site exceeds the QWQG value.
The guideline value applicable will be based on the QWQG Enclosed Coastal or Offshore dependent upon final discharge location (i.e. Richters Creek or Offshore) and will ultimately be influenced by REMP.
DO 85 - 105 %sat
TN = 160µg/L
TP = 20 µg/L
Chl a = 2 µg/L
Turb = 10 NTU
pH = 7.5 to 8.4 /
NH4 = 15 µg/L
NOx = 135 µg/L
FiltR P = 5 µg/L
Data
Co
llatio
n O
n-G
oin
g
(re
fer
to A
pp
en
dix
E t
o H
fo
r cu
rre
nt
resu
lts)
DO
6.6mg/L (20th
%ile) &
6.8mg/L (80th
%ile)
TN
<310 µg/L (max) &
280 µg/L (median)
TP
<65 µg/L (max) &
40 µg/L (median)
Chl-a
<5 µg/L (max) &
1 µg/L (median)
Turbidity5
<320 NTU (max)
DO
>4mg/L
TN
<310 µg/L (max) &
< 280 µg/L (median)
TP
<65 µg/L (max) &
<40 µg/L (median)
Chl-a
<11 µg/L (max) &
5 µg/L (median)
Turbidity5
<Intake (max)
DO
6.6 (20th
%ile) &
6.8 (80th
%ile)
TN
<310 µg/L (max) &
280 µg/L (median)
TP
<65 µg/L (max) &
40 µg/L (median)
Chl-a
<3 µg/L (max) &
1 µg/L (median)
DO
>4mg/L
TN
<310 µg/L (max) &
< 280 µg/L (median)
TP
<65 µg/L (max) &
<40 µg/L (median)
Chl-a
<14 µg/L (max) &
6 µg/L (median)
Annual Loads
Intake
TP 12 000 kg/yr
TN: 1900 kg/yr
Lake Discharge (no Change Criteria)3
TP 12 000 kg/yr
TN: 1900 kg/yr
Notes: 1. Note current water quality data at Control Site 2 and / or 3 in Richters Creek and off-shore, but insufficient to present true comparisons and/or limits. Refer to Appendix E to H for latest monitoring data.
2. Modelled End-Of-Pipe discharge quality
3. Target defined from Intake quality
4. Additional calibration of the water quality numerical model including extended modelling periods is required to more accurately inform End-Of Pipe Targets
5. Indicative only (refer to Appendix G), based on current monitoring program. Further numerical modelling, calibration and analysis are required to determine an appropriate TSS target.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 51
5.2.4 Monitoring For Compliance
a) Overview
Monitoring of the lake’s water quality is expected to occur indefinitely to demonstrate that water quality
targets are being met and to assess triggers for early detection of adverse water quality conditions. In
addition to the REMP discussed in Section 5.3.2, four monitoring points will consistently be monitored
throughout the life of the Aquis development; the two key monitoring points are as follows:
Intake Location: Monitoring at the point where the inlet pipeline discharges into the lake will
occur to provide baseline data of the off-shore inlet quality. This monitoring location will enable
inferences of water quality changes in the lake to be attributed to either anthropogenic activity or
natural variation.
Discharge Location: Monitoring at the discharge location (i.e. where lake water leaves the lake
on its way to the outlet) will provide an absolute data set that can be directly used for licensing
the discharge into the receiving environment. The data at this location will also enable absolute
changes from the intake quality to be compared to assist in measuring the quality change
throughout the lake.
The remaining two water quality monitoring sites are within the body of the lake and will be located at
equally spaced locations to assist with defining the in situ quality change.
b) Continuous Monitoring - Physico Parameters
The proposed monitoring program will consist of an in situ continuous system for an ‘early detection’
indicator. The continuous in situ system will typically use four instruments, with two placed within the
lake’s extents (inlet / outlet pipelines) and the remaining two within the lake. The instruments will relay
the data via real-time telemetry and can be appropriately powered from mains supply (i.e. noting that
Aquis will have back-up supply power) and reduced to 12 volts. The continuous in situ system will
provide the following physical parameters:
conductivity/salinity
temperature
turbidity
pH
water level.
These parameters will provide a rapid detection method to enable triggers for further investigation to
occur and management options to be implemented to meet water quality targets.
Vertical profiling will also occur within four locations or more as deemed necessary during the
sampling of chemical parameters (refer to Section 5.2.4c)) to determine if any stratification has
occurred. If stratification is observed, then monitoring of the chemical parameters will occur at both the
surface and depth.
c) Chemical Parameters
For chemical stressors it is envisaged that weekly sampling will be undertaken in the initial phase of
operational development then reduced to fortnightly and ultimately monthly sampling once the system
has stabilised. The chemical parameters to be assessed will consist of the following:
total N incl. NOx, TKN, organic N and ammonia
total P and filterable reactive P
TSS
chlorophyll a.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 52
Four sampling locations are envisaged and will include directly at the inlet and outlet locations and two
further samples within the lake. Further sampling may also occur if trigger points are activated,
particularly with regards to the physico-chemical parameters described above.
d) Toxicants
Monitoring for toxicants will include the typical suite of metal and metalloids and non-metallic
inorganics, including hydrocarbons, pesticides, and herbicides that could be potentially introduced into
the lake. Monitoring of toxicants is likely to occur at three locations:
the inlet for control purposes
within the lake
directly at the discharge point.
Monitoring of toxicants is expected to initially occur on a monthly basis. Provided that triggers are not
activated, then monitoring as required by management based on platform operating conditions would
be considered acceptable, such as when herbicides may be used for example.
5.2.5 Trigger and Management Measures
Based on a method similar to the ANZECC (2000), control charts as shown in Figure 5-16 will be
used for the monitoring of both the receiving environment and the lake to determine if trigger/limit
levels are being exceeded.
If an exceedance occurs this would warrant further investigation cause of the adverse water quality
conditions to determine if appropriate management actions are required and/or if this is a natural
perturbation. Management action may initial result in ensuring Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)
features on the platform for example are appropriately performing or if direct management measures
are required in the lake to mitigate against adverse natural or anthropogenic influences in water quality
conditions. Management measures in the lake were previously presented in the EIS and would consist
of the following:
increased flushing
increase mixing via mechanical means (i.e. de-stratification)
aquatic plant harvesting
lake de-silting
containment and treat in-place.
It should be noted that with regards to the treat in-place option, the Resort Complex will have 12.5 ha
of saltwater pools with a typical volume of 0.16 GL which is about 10% of that of the lake. As a result,
the pool water filter hardware will be of a significant size and could be used in an emergency to filter
the lake water to some degree if required.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 53
Figure 5-16 Example control chart for test site against default trigger values, time and recommended actions.
Source: ANZECC (2000).
5.2.6 Flooding Management During & After Flood Events
a) Flood Management
During the recession of a Barron River Delta flood event and once the level has fallen below the Aquis
lake bund level, appropriate management measures are required to discharge the waters received
from Richters Creek / Barron River delta back to the Richters Creek in a timely manner. Discharge of
the flood water will need to occur before cessation of the flood event while there is a large fluvial
outflow and while the lake and Richters Creek water quality will be of similar quality.
As noted in Section 5.1.4, no discernible impacts to the receiving waters of Richters Creek are
predicted during a flood from the Barron River based on the proposed flood management regime
which will consist of the following active measures:
1. Once the lake and flood level drops below 2 m AHD (i.e. flood bund height), the outlet pumps
will be run 24 hours a day on the falling limb of the flood and will occur jointly with the seawater
intake pump also running full-time.
2. The pump regime is expected to turn the lake over and reach the e-folding conditions within 7 to
8 days.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 54
3. Pumping will continue until the lake has reached an in situ water quality considered to be similar
to that of normal operating conditions and/or until the receiving water has returned to ‘typical’
non-flood conditions.
4. When the lake system is flushed to an acceptable quality, then re-commencement of typical
turnover/flushing regime to either Richters Creek or the optional off-shore discharge will
recommence.
With respect to Point 3 above, the following monitoring system will assist in determining the
recommended point for returning to the typical turnover / flushing regime of Point 4.
b) Flood Monitoring Requirements
The proposed in situ water quality monitoring equipment will provide the first indication that the water
quality. As shown on Figure 5-14, salinity will be used as the first indicator to determine when the
discharge may return to the normal turnover / flushing regime.
Once salinity has recovered, parameters such as turbidity and dissolved oxygen will assist in
assessing the recovery of the lake. From the numerical assessments, it appears that once salinity has
recovered, it is expected that nutrients (TN & TP), chlorophyll a, and dissolved oxygen will have also
recovered.
Monitoring in Richters Creek will also occur when considered safe to do so to measure the in situ
salinity to confirm if the creek has recovered. From the results presented, provided pumping is
immediately commenced then recovery in the lake will occur at a rate much faster than the receiving
environment.
Use of the flow gauging at Myola may also provide additional information regarding the return of
Richters Creek back to typical base flow conditions. From the EIS and the data presented herein this
would typically below 100 m3/s at the gauge and more likely in the range of 10 m
3/s to 50 m
3/s.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 55
5.3 RESPONSE TO BASELINE WATER QUALITY DATA
5.3.1 Background
The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) provided a detailed submission on the
assessment documentation and indicated that the:
Removal of the tidal gates would have significant implications for establishing baseline water
quality values.
Water quality data provided in the EIS does not suit requirements for comparison against water
quality guidelines or for baseline determinations.
EHP requested that
1. The proponent provide monitoring programs to establish local baseline values which would
accommodate changes due to tidal gate removal on aquatic biodiversity values.
These queries are addressed below and are in alignment with the recently released Receiving
Environment Monitoring Program Guideline (REMP) prepared by EHP in June 2014. It should be
noted that sediment and biological monitoring is being undertaken by frc environmental and is not
included in the REMP. However, the results will be integrated into the overall impact monitoring
program as the project develops.
The water quality REMP presented reflects the proposed and potential lake water releases to the
receiving environment and the potential for associated contaminants in that discharge. Furthermore
consideration of further monitoring has also been provided for the removal of the tide gates currently
located on Yorkeys Creek (see Section 5.3.6b)). Full details of the proposed Aquis development with
regards to the potential to release contaminants into the receiving environment and drainage works is
described in detail in the EIS and only summarised herein, where relevant.
5.3.2 REMP Objectives
The objectives of the Aquis water quality REMP are to:
1. Determine the ambient water quality characteristics (i.e. baseline) of the existing water
environment in the study area for the EIS with regards to the terms of reference (ToR 2.1, 2.3,
7.22) within Richters Creek, Yorkeys Creek and the Half Moon Bay (Marina area).
2. Provide a robust water quality baseline to support design, impact assessment, construction and
operational requirements to ensure the mitigation measures proposed are effective.
3. Provide supporting data for control sites, compliance activities including the identification and
prevention of environmental harm.
4. Provide supporting data to assess the suitability of limit and trigger values for specific water
quality indicators including the potential for compliance levels for the construction and
operational phases of the development.
The water quality REMP was also devised to assist with the calibration and verification of
hydrodynamic and water quality models presented in the EIS. The water quality models have enabled
impacts to be predicted and mitigation measures to be devised as required in the EIS ToR.
The REMP as presented herein has not aimed at determining in situ water quality objectives (WQOs),
as a reference site is not readily achievable due to the need to find an appropriate ‘undisturbed’ site.
The water bodies adjacent to Aquis are impacted as follows:
Richters Creek: impacted by the Ponderosa Prawn Farm discharges in addition to runoff from
adjacent farming, particularly cane.
Half Moon Creek: impacted by a WWTP discharge.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 56
Yorkeys Creek: impacted by urban development including an influence from Richters Creek at
the confluence.
It should also be noted that the REMP has evolved with the Aquis development and as a result
monitoring in Half Moon Creek Marina is no longer a key consideration as an alternative water supply
is no longer deemed necessary.
5.3.3 Proposed Releases and Characterisation
a) Aquis Intake and Discharges
Development of the Aquis lake will result in the following discharges as shown on Figure 5-17 and
described as follows:
regular ebb tide discharge at the mouth of Richters Creek that may also partially circulate in
Yorkeys Creek naturally
overflow water from either extreme wet weather periods or from Barron River flood events at a
location approximately 2.5 km from the mouth and potentially into Yorkeys Creek.
Figure 5-17 Proposed discharge points.
* As discussed in Section 5.1.4b), while the ‘flood outlet’ was modelled as a pipe in the mouth of Richters Creek,
this is functionally identical to using a gravity solution at the Richters Creek Lake Overflow.
As described in the EIS, during normal operation exchange water for the lake will be delivered via a
combined gravity / pumping system from the inlet sump located some 2.2 km seaward of the Yorkeys
Knob beach via a 1.8 m diameter pipe. The pump system is intended to enable a 14 day lake turnover.
However, the system proposed will also allow the lake’s volume to be turned over within five to seven
days based on a 24 hours pumping regime to provide an emergency turnover rate if required.
Off-shore inlet
Off-shore outlet
Flood outlet*
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 57
The inlet located 2.2 km offshore can be relied upon to deliver good quality salt water free from local
fresh water conditions and any effects of a partial closure of Richters Creek. The option for an off-
shore discharge has also been considered and results are reported in Section 5.4.5.
b) Water Quality Characterisation
Lake discharge water quality was detailed in the EIS and this confirmed that, in general, the quality is
similar to the intake quality and consequently represents a low risk to the receiving environment.
However, should the lakes quality become less than optimal, then the Aquis development has the
potential to influence the receiving water quality environment of Richters Creek via the proposed
discharge at the mouth. As noted in the EIS, the lake’s biophysical processes, sediment-water column
exchanges and internal water quality cycling processes resolve around the key water quality indicators
of:
available nutrients
organic material / sediment fluxes
physical parameters such as temperature, oxygen, turbidity (i.e. light) etc. regarding their
cycling rates.
These water quality indicators represent the key monitoring requirements for the REMP for the Aquis
development.
5.3.4 Receiving Environment Attributes
a) Background
The receiving environment attributes and baseline water quality is detailed in the EIS based upon both
historical and current water quality monitoring data. The following is a brief summary of the receiving
environment attributes by way of background for the ensuing discussion. Refer to Figure 5-18.
b) Thomatis / Richters Creek
Thomatis / Richters Creek is located in the Barron River delta. Thomatis Creek is the tidal reach that
commences at the confluence of the Barron River and joins Richters Creek approximately 2.7 km
downstream (i.e. at the confluence of Thomatis Creek). For ease of reference, the main reach of the
two creeks is referred to as Thomatis / Richters Creek or simply Richters Creek at the downstream
extent.
Thomatis / Richters Creek locally receive runoff from a catchment area of 449 ha which is a
predominantly agricultural area with fringing residential development. Thomatis / Richters Creek is
essentially a double ended estuary which forms part of the Barron River delta, with a bifurcation from
the river at its upstream extent, where flow into the creek is received from the Barron River. Richters
Creek ultimately discharges into Trinity Bay (i.e. Coral Sea) approximately 5.6 km north of the Barron
River and adjacent to Yorkeys Creek mouth, immediately adjacent to the proposed Aquis development
site.
A notable feature on the Thomatis / Richters Creek are the abandoned aquaculture ponds on the
south-east of the Aquis site as shown on Figure 5-17. As discussed in Section 7.5, these ponds are
currently proposed to be drained and filled are assumed to have no impact to the receiving
environment during the operation of Aquis.
Thomatis / Richters Creek receives waters from the Barron River which is influenced by five major
dams and/or weir(s) that influence the freshwater flows to Richters Creek and an extensive irrigation
network that supports a significant area of agricultural use.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 58
Figure 5-18 Receiving environment attributes.
The water quality in Thomatis / Richters Creek can be summarised as follows:
Water quality at the mouth is strongly influenced by oceanic influences. Mean salinity is higher
than the other sites within the creek, similarly with pH. Mean water clarity is marginally lower
than other sites, reflecting the influence of near shore sediments resuspended by wave action.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 59
The creek exhibits a freshwater flow related ‘salt-wedge’ type phenomenon for the majority of
field surveys presented. During the high flow survey (refer to EIS) this salt wedge was distinct,
with turbid riverine waters overlying clearer oceanic waters. This salt wedge was observed to
move upstream with the flooding tide, and downstream with the ebbing tide.
Nutrient levels during high wet season are typically twice those levels recorded during the dry
season. Nutrient levels at times of lower wet season flows (i.e. Barron River base-flows) are
equivalent to dry season values. Estuarine water clarity during high wet season flows is
considerably less than that both during the dry season and at times of lower wet season flows.
Current monitoring indicates turbidity increase with notable inflows from the Barron River.
Occasional dissolved oxygen super-saturation was observed in the upper reaches of the
estuary. Current and continuous monitoring indicates DO saturation is low in the upper reach of
Richters Creek and only just above toxic levels for some fish.
Metal concentrations are generally below the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) toxicity trigger values
for 95% level of protection. Manganese and particularly Boron typically exceed guideline values.
During high wet season flows, upper estuarine reaches experience purely freshwater conditions
and elevated suspended sediment and nutrient concentrations.
Full details of the Baseline water quality of Richters Creek is provided in the EIS.
c) Yorkeys Creek
Yorkeys Creek has a limited catchment area of some 267 ha consisting of urban development in the
north and agricultural (i.e. cane farming) in the southern area of the Barron Delta. Yorkeys Creek
divides the project boundary with the main resort located to the south-east and the golf course areas
to the north-west and west.
Yorkeys Creeks would naturally be tidal to just upstream of Yorkeys Knob Road, although tide gates
have been installed approximately 300 m upstream of the mouth. As previously mentioned Yorkeys
Creek discharges into Trinity Bay (i.e. Coral Sea) at approximately the same location as Richters
Creek.
Available water quality data in Yorkeys Creek is limited by safe access but from the data available the
following is noted:
nutrient levels of TN and TP recorded from single grab samples were above the QWQG
recommended levels
the concentration of all other nutrients (i.e. ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, ortho-P, chlorophyll-a
organic carbon, BOD) were below the QWQG.
Full details of the baseline water quality of Yorkeys Creek is provided in the EIS.
5.3.5 Monitoring Program Design
a) Overview
The REMP was conceptually devised in late 2013 based on the REMP objectives previously
presented and to commensurate with initial planning / EIS requirements. Field works for the Aquis
development commenced on the 16 December 2013 and is planned to continue until at least February
2015, with the likelihood of extension through the construction phase
The REMP has evolved with the proposed planning and EIS requirements of development and is
constantly being reviewed and revised where necessary to inform each phase of planning, design,
construction and operational requirements.
As a result, the water quality monitoring data collection campaign has included continuous in situ
physical water quality monitoring data and monthly physico-chemical water quality sampling. The
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 60
monitoring program design is discussed further below, whilst the current set of monitoring data is
detailed in Appendix E to Appendix H.
It should be noted that if an off-shore discharge is considered to be of preference and acceptable to
government agencies, then the monitoring program will be further revised to account for this potential
change.
b) In situ Continuous Water Quality Monitoring
The key physical water quality indicators within the receiving environment are recorded by in situ
continuous monitoring equipment. The in situ monitoring capture physical parameters during the ebb,
flood, spring and neap tidal periods where grab sampling cannot.
Continuous in situ water quality data is currently being collected using BMT WBM’s submersible YSI
water quality logging instruments. The YSI loggers are self-cleaning and an anti-foulant applied to the
outer-casing and are bed mounted on a heavy duty frame. The instruments are configured to collect
the following continuous data:
turbidity
depth
conductivity/salinity
temperature
dissolved oxygen
pH.
Further to the in situ monitoring, monthly vertical profile monitoring at each of the 4 YSI sites is also
included in the data suite to determine if vertical gradients exists.
c) Chemical Monitoring
Monthly physico-chemical monitoring has been undertaken for key chemical water quality indicators
that are expected to influence the receiving environment and the lake. Furthermore, metals have also
been undertaken on a bi-monthly regime to ensure there are no adverse toxicity issues in the
receiving environment.
Ten sites are typically sampled that includes the YSI sites and additional sites located in Thomatis /
Richters Creek and the enclosed coastal and offshore region. All sampling has been undertaken in
accordance with the Department of Environment and Resource Management - Monitoring and
Sampling Manual 2009 Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 - Version 2 September 2010.
Parameters sampled are:
total N incl. NOx, TKN and Ammonia
total P and reactive P
TSS
chlorophyll a
metals typically include the following: Sb, As, Be, B, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, Ag, Sn,
Zn, Hg.
All samples are analysed at Australian Laboratory Services (ALS) that are certified by National
Association of Testing Authorities (NATA).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 61
NUTRIENTS LOR (µg/L) DISSOLVED METALS LOR (µg/L)
Organic Nitrogen as N 50 Selenium 2
Ammonia as N 5 Antimony 0.5
Nitrite as N 2 Arsenic 0.5
Nitrate as N 2 Beryllium 0.1
Nitrite + Nitrate as N 2 Boron 100
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N 50 Cadmium 0.2
Total Nitrogen as N 50 Chromium 0.5
Reactive Phosphorus as P 1 Cobalt 0.2
Total Phosphorus as P 5 Copper 1
Chlorophyll LOR (mg/m3)
Lead 0.2
Manganese 0.5
Chlorophyll a 1 Molybdenum 0.1
Suspended Solids LOR (mg/L)
Nickel 0.5
Silver 0.1
Suspended Solids 1
Tin 5
Zinc 5
Mercury 0.1
5.3.6 Sampling Site Selection and Frequency
Sampling sites have been dominated by the lake design and receiving environment attributes with
regards to the locations required for lake water supply and discharge whilst also cognisant of having
representative control sites. With regards to Richters Creek the three key receiving environmental
attributes are:
Ponderosa Prawn Farm
proposed Aquis lake pumped discharge location and overflow location
characteristics of the mouth water quality and hydrodynamics and that of the upper reaches of
Richters Creek.
With regards to Yorkeys Creek and the potential removal of the tide gate the two key receiving
environmental attributes are:
upstream freshwater quality above the tide gate
downstream quality below the tide gate.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 62
a) Physical Monitoring Sites
Four in situ continuous monitoring instruments are presently located in Richters Creek with the
locations described below and shown on Figure 5-19.
1. Near shore - Offshore from the mouth of Richters Creek – represents the marine receiving
environment. This location has slightly moved further offshore from its initial position to the
location proposed for the lake intake.
2. Mouth - Mouth of Richters Creek – represents the mouth of Richters Creek receiving
environment and is generally located where the discharge is proposed (i.e. slightly upstream
due to physical limitation of placement). This site provides the following:
- Test site for proposed discharge
- hydrodynamic and water quality characteristics for numerical water quality monitoring.
3. Mid - Mid-way along Richters Creek – upstream of the proposed development, and downstream
of Ponderosa Prawn Farm. This site provide the following:
- Control Site for the proposed Aquis discharge (up-current)
- Test Site for the Ponderosa Prawn discharge (down current).
4. Upper/Richters Bridge/Barron - Upper Richters Creek – upstream of the proposed
development and upstream of the Ponderosa Prawn Farm. This site provide the following:
- control Site for the proposed Aquis discharge (up-current)
- control Site for the Ponderosa Prawn discharge (up-current).
The continuous in-situ monitoring will provide value long-term control and test site data for the Aquis
development and has also provided the necessary data for numerical modelling calibration and
verification.
b) Chemical Monitoring Sites
Monthly water quality grab samples have been taken at each monitoring location for laboratory
analysis of the water quality parameter suite previously noted. Ten sites are typically sampled as
shown on depicted Figure 5-19and include the continuous in situ sites and additional sites located in
Thomatis / Richters Creek and the enclosed coastal and offshore region.
The ten monitoring sites initially included Half Moon Creek and Yorkeys Creek, however due to
changes in the Aquis design and the physical limitation in accessing Yorkeys Creek, monitoring has
recently focussed upon Thomatis / Richters Creek. This creek and its near shore environment will
have the most potential to be influenced by Aquis if any influence were to be noted or perceived.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 63
Figure 5-19 Water quality monitoring locations.
The monitoring locations are described as follows:
11. Off-shore Intake - 11 (2.2 km): Intake Point - represents the marine receiving environment
for the location proposed lake intake.
1A. Near-shore (YSI-1.0 km): Test site - represents the near shore location and the potential for
an offshore discharge location. The location was sampled to ensure a complete set of in situ
physical data and chemical data was available;
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 64
1. Near-shore GS 0.7 km): Test Site - same as above but closer to the mouth (no in situ
physical monitoring)
2. Richters (GS 0.0 km): Release Point - Within the mouth of Richters Creek at the proposed
discharge location.
2A Richters (YSI 0.5 km): Control Site - Within the mouth of Richters Creek, but approximately
400m upstream of the proposed discharge location.
3. Richters (GS 1.0 km): Control Site - 1.0 km upstream of Richters Creek,
4. Richters (GS 2.5 km): Control/Release Point - 2.5 km upstream of Richters Creek and
represent a control site during operation and a test site when overflows from the lake occur
during wet notable weather events.
5. Richters (YSI 3.3 km): Control/Test Site - 3.3 km upstream of Richters Creek mouth and
represents a control site for Aquis and a test site with regards to potential impact from the
Ponderosa Prawn farm.
6. Richters (GS 5.0 km): Control Site - 5.0 km upstream of Richters Creek mouth and
represents a control site for both Aquis and the Ponderosa Prawn farm.
7. Yorkeys (GS Mouth): Control Site - Located at the mouth of Yorkeys Creek due to restricted
safe access into the creek.
8. York Alt (GS): Control Site - Located on the downstream side of Yorkeys Knob Road. Access
further into the site (i.e. immediately upstream of tide gate) is not currently possible, but will
occur when approval is granted.
The above sites are considered sufficient to represent the water quality within the receiving
environment with regards to control, test and release/intake points.
c) Temporal Frequency
Based on the QWQG, a two year monthly monitoring campaign is ultimately required for defining the
base-line water quality at a particular location with the minimum number of data samples typically
consisting of 24. A sampling regime of this length enables a statistically suitable baseline data suite to
be compared to the QWQG that is not dominated by one season.
For the Aquis development, a significant wet and dry season distinction occurs within the receiving
environment. For water quality purposes the dry season and wet season is defined as follows:
Wet Season: January to March with the potential to extend to April
Dry Season: April to December with the potential to start in May.
Consequently, for compliance/license limits to be appropriately set, sampling more than the 2 years
(i.e. 24 samples) will be required to adequately define the baseline water quality for each season.
Provided in Table 5-8 is the ultimate sampling time-frames that will be needed for Aquis.
SAMPLING FREQUENCY DRY SEASON (8-9 MONTHS) WET SEASON (3-4 MONTHS)
Monthly 3 years (i.e. 3 seasons) 8 years for 3 month wet season, or 6 years for 4 month season.
Fortnightly 2 year (i.e. 2 seasons) 4 years for 3 month wet season, or 3 years for 4 month wet season.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 65
Extension of the monitoring program including the potential to up-grade to fortnightly monitoring,
particularly for the wet season will accurately reflect the long term seasonal compliance/license limits
for operation.
5.3.7 Data Collected to Date
A summary of the water quality data is presented in Appendix E to Appendix H to assist with defining
the data outcomes from the current water quality REMP. No further interpretation of this data has been
provided within this document.
The data will ultimately be used for subsequent TUFLOW-FV water quality calibration and verification
and will also be appropriately analysed to provide control and test site statistics to commensurate with
the QWQG requirements.
5.4 –RESPONSE TO INLET AND OUTLET PIPELINES
5.4.1 Background
EHP indicated that:
The EIS does not describe the mitigation measures that would be used to mitigate impacts
associated with this disturbance or management options for the disposal or reuse of the dredge
material generated by this activity.
The vulnerability of the intake pipeline to changes in the river mouth and bar has not been
assessed.
The EIS does not provide sufficient justification for the proposed outlet pipeline.
EHP requested that the proponent to:
1. Describe mitigation measures likely to be implemented to minimise dredging associated
impacts.
2. Describe management options for disposal or reuse of dredge material.
3. Assess the vulnerability of the intake pipeline to changes in the river mouth and bar as per the
terms of reference.
4. Provide justification for the proposed outlet pipeline alignment to consider the alternative options
(e.g. off-shore outside of the active coastal zone).
5. Describe appropriate lake monitoring regimes, trigger levels of water quality and quantity and
response mechanisms to exceedances of trigger levels.
5.4.2 Item 4.1 – Dredge Impact Mitigation Measures
a) Existing Environment
The existing environment of the inlet pipeline route is described in the EIS (s7.1.5e)). In summary:
Sediments: The first 1.3 km of the proposed pipeline runs through the estuary and shallow bar
of Richters Creek, characterised by shifting coarse riverine sand deposits with mud. The
sediment transitioned to mud with fine sand approximately 1.3 km from the pipeline intake
sump, and remained relatively uniform to the seaward end of the pipe.
Benthos: The surface sediment at the mouth of the creek and on the sand bank was loosely
consolidated and there was no evidence of faunal activity or seagrass. Further off-shore, the
benthic communities were dominated by polychaete worms and bivalves. The benthic
macroinvertebrate communities were dominated by polychaetes and crustaceans, with some
molluscs. Based on recent experience of soft-sediment benthic communities in tropical
Queensland, the communities along the alignment are typical of much of the Trinity Bay area
and in-shore areas of the Great Barrier Reef.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 66
Since the EIS was published, an additional dry season survey along the inlet pipeline route has been
completed (frc environmental 2014d). During this investigation, sub tidal benthic habitat was surveyed
using a towed video camera. Ten transects, each approximately 500 m long and perpendicular to the
proposed pipeline were surveyed (Figure 5-20). The track of each transect was mapped using GPS
and linked to depth and other key characteristics of the habitat. Video of benthic habitat was viewed
live on board the boat.
This survey (and the 2014 wet season work documented in the EIS (Appendix F – Aquatic
Biodiversity)) found no evidence of seagrass in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline alignment. Benthic
habitat consisted primarily of un-vegetated soft sediment.
Figure 5-20 Sub-tidal survey transects.
Source: FRC (2014a).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 67
b) Construction Methodology – On-shore
Between the lake and the foreshore, the inlet / outlet pipelines consist of twin 1200 mm diameter
pipes. As noted in EIS Figure 11-15 (see Figure 5-21 below for an extract), the route is to follow the
existing clearing though the coastal vegetation. This clearing is shown on Photo 5-1 below. This
clearing is currently used for vehicular access to the clearing adjacent to the western bank of Richters
Creek and is varies between 4 and 8 m wide.
Photo 5-1 Existing clearing (proposed to be used for pipeline route).
Existing clearing
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 68
Photo 5-2 Existing clearing
– detail.
Prior to construction of the pipeline through this area, the lowest-impact route will be confirmed on site
and the path marked. Construction will preferably take place during the dry season and will involve a
simple open trench construction methodology. Should any particular values be identified, then there is
an option to utilise directional boring / thrust boring. Following construction, the cleared area will be
stabilised with groundcover (not trees in case there is a need to access the people in the future). Any
un-needed clearing at the side of the works, however, will be fully restored.
The above clearing goes right to the water’s edge as shown on Photo 5-3 below. This photo was
taken from the water’s edge looking landward.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 69
Photo 5-3 Point of transition from on-shore to off-shore works (looking landward).
At a suitable location in this general area, a deep well will be excavated to install the works shown
schematically on Figure 5-22. It is likely that this infrastructure will be constructed well shoreward of
the creek edge to simplify the construction. Sheet-piling and dewatering will most likely be required.
c) Construction Methodology – Transitional Zone
Once the pipeline encounters sufficient depth, excavation and pipe-laying will be via a barge operation
as described below. In the transitional zone between this area and the land-based aspects, the works
are likely to be constructed ‘in the dry’ using a sheet pile coffer dam from which water is pumped out.
Following de-watering, the trench will be excavated to the necessary levels. Given the location of the
site and the potential for ASS / PASS, the excavated material will be stockpiled in a contained area, if
necessary, the material neutralised with lime in accordance with the ASSMP, which will be in place at
the time of construction.
Sediments will be contained by the use of a silt curtain installed around the work area. This is common practice and can be expected to adequately manage construction impacts.
Temporary and permanent navigational structures (markers / signage) will be installed in accordance
with the requirements of Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 70
d) Construction Methodology – Off-shore
It is assumed in this discussion that the alternative off-shore outlet pipeline is adopted as described in
Section 5.4.5.
The inlet and (alternative) outlet pipelines are expected to be in the order of 1.8 m and 1.5 m in
diameter respectively, are likely to utilise polyethylene piping, and are proposed to be buried to
minimise the risk of damage to the pipes and to ensure safety to boats. The inlet pipe will be
approximately 2.2 km in length while the outlet pipe will be in the order of 1.4 km in length as
described in Item 4.4 (Section 5.4.5). These are intended to share the same alignment and
consequently use the same trench. Since the completion of the EIS, a check was undertaken
regarding any obstacles to the pipelines and as a result the inlet has been moved 100 m shoreward to
be within the False Cape to Taylor Pt trawling exclusion zone as defined in the Fisheries Regulations
2008. This new location has been used for the revised modelling.
The depth of burial of the pipe is expected to be in the order of 1.0 m to obvert along the main route
with a deeper burial required at the mouth of Richters Creek to allow for creek mouth scouring which
can occur during Barron River flood events as described in Section 5.4.4 below.
Along the main pipe (i.e. off-shore region), the bottom width of the trench at placement would be in the
order of 4.0 m wide when a dual pipe line is required and would reduce to approximately 2.2 m wide
with a single pipe line. The depth of excavation along the main route would be in the order of 3.0 m
which allows for 1.2 m cover to a 1.8 m diam. pipe. With these dimensions, approximately 70,000 m3
of excavation will be required. This is a conservative estimate determined as follows:
1.4 km x 30 m2 cross sectional area (i.e. bottom width 4 m, top width 16 m, depth 3 m) = 42,000
m3
0.8 km x 24 m2 cross sectional area (bottom width 2 m, top width 14 m, depth 3m) = 19,000 m
3
Construction of the pipeline would typically be undertaken by a four spud pile barge. A spud pile barge
can be moored through the use of deck pilings to provide a stable work platform whilst a long reach
excavator will dredge the required trench for the pipeline to be laid in. Excavated material would be
transferred to a second barge for transport to the Aquis site. It is envisaged that either a third spud pile
barge would be used to weld and place the pipeline into the trench.
Suitable clean fill material comprising of sand and/or fine gravel mix material will be used to cover the
pipeline and to backfill the trench. This material will be placed over the pipe-line via a bottom dump
dredge or placed via an excavator from a barge.
A portion of the excavated material if considered suitable and complying with the NAGD guidelines
may also be used to cover the outer extents of the pipeline. Excess material will be taken on-shore,
treated as necessary and be including as part of the Aquis lake earthworks. See Item 4.2 (Section
5.4.3).
e) Sampling and Analysis Plan
Prior to commencement of construction activities a sediment quality assessment will be undertaken in
accordance with the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009 (Commonwealth 2009;
henceforth NAGD).
A Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) will be developed addressing all requirements of sampling plans
as outlined in Appendix B of NAGD. The specific SAP objectives will be to:
provide a summary of proposed dredging and disposal operations for the project
identify a list of contaminants based on a review of existing data and potential contaminant
sources
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 71
determine the number of samples required to provide an adequate characterisation of the
physical and chemical sediment properties
develop procedures for adequate field collection and handling of sediment samples
outline adequate quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures for field sampling
and laboratory analysis
provide a description of statistical procedures used to determine the contaminant status of the
dredged material
describe procedures for validating the analytical data to assess whether the sample collection,
handling and laboratory analysis was undertaken to a standard allowing assessment of
sediment quality against the NAGD guidelines
outline the proposed reporting framework for the sediment quality results that will address the
requirements of the Determining Authority.
The draft SAP will be submitted to the Determining Agency (DSITIA) for comments and approval.
Sediment sampling will then be undertaken in accordance with the approved SAP. Based on a
conservative estimate of 70,000 m3 (refer to Section 5.4.2a)) of dredged material, it is expected that
15 sampling locations would need to be sampled as per NAGD. Based on the depth of dredging that is
likely required to bury the pipeline (ca. 3 m depth), it is expected that sampling will be undertaken by
coring down to dredge depth.
The sediment samples will be submitted to analytical laboratories that are fully accredited by the
National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) for the required analyses. Concentrations of
chemicals measured in the sediment samples will be compared to screening levels listed in Table 2 of
NAGD to determine whether the material is suitable for unconfined placement at sea (i.e. and/or
pipeline cover material), or if further analyses, such as elutriate, bioavailability or toxicity testing, are
required. Specifically, mean concentrations of chemical parameters at the upper 95% confidence level
(95% UCL) will be compared against NAGD guideline levels to assess suitability of the sediments for
placement at sea. The statistical analysis will follow the approach given in Appendix A of NAGD.
The reporting of sediment quality results will be undertaken in a SAP Implementation Report in
accordance with NAGD including the following components:
Summary of the SAP, or SAP appended to the report.
Outline of potential problems encountered and deviations from the SAP, including justification.
Description of the sampling carried out, along with the actual sampling locations, sample
numbers (including replicates and QA samples), completed Chain forms, field logs and
description of sediments.
Comparison of the 95% UCL of mean chemical concentrations of sediments in the Inner Port
and Outer Channel dredge subareas.
Assessment of QA/QC procedures for both field and laboratory data.
Data validation including comparison to data quality objectives.
Appendices including all laboratory and field data.
Conclusions as to the acceptability or otherwise of the dredge material for marine placement,
pipe cover, Aquis platform fill etc. and recommendations as to further work required will be
provided.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 72
f) Other Impact Mitigation Measures
Detailed plans and construction management methodologies will need to be developed in support of
the necessary approvals (coastal works, works in a Marine Park, works in a FHA, any EPBC Act
conditions). This will involve:
use of clean backfill for underwater trench operations
use of silt curtains to reduce the spread of turbid waters
best-practice construction techniques to avoid impact on marine megafauna (e.g. use of
spotters to allow works to be stopped if target species are nearby, soft-start piling where
required, air curtains if practical, timing of start-up/shut-down operations to avoid important
feeding / breeding times)
management of all excavated material as described below
management of boating hazards as required by the Regional Harbourmaster.
Further details will be developed during the preparation of the EMP (Construction) which is a project
commitment under the Register of Proponent Commitments.
5.4.3 Item 4.2 – Treatment of Excavated Material
Excavated material exported to the Aquis site will be handled in accordance with the propose Soil and
Water Management Plan / Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan to be in place during the construction
phase. This is to be covered by the EMP (Planning) which is a project commitment under the Register
of Proponent Commitments.
5.4.4 Item 4.3 – Vulnerability of Inlet Pipeline at Richters Creek Mouth
The EIS proposes that exchange water will be delivered to the lake under a combined gravity /
pumping system from the inlet sump located some 2.2 km seaward of the Yorkeys Knob beach via a
1.8 m diameter pipe. This arrangement was selected in preference to an inlet within Richters Creek as
it can be relied upon to deliver good quality salt water free from local fresh water conditions and any
effects of a partial closure of Richters Creek.
Figure 5-21 below is an extract from the EIS and shows the general arrangement of infrastructure in
the mouth of Richters Creek while Figure 5-22 is a schematic cross section.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 73
Figure 5-21 EIS inlet and outlet pipework proposal – mouth of Richters Creek (plan view).
Source: EIS Figure 11-15B (part).
Figure 5-22 EIS inlet proposal – mouth of Richters Creek (section).
Source: EIS Figure 11-16 (part).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 74
This section is schematic only and shows that the pipeline is beneath the schematised bed level.
Further investigations undertaken for this report involved the assessment of historic data on erosion
and sedimentation extremes (the 1977 flood and the 1987 sedimentation maximum). Based on the
1977 post flood survey and the proposed vertical alignment, the inlet pipeline at this point is likely to
be in the order of -8 m AHD to invert (i.e. approximately 3 m below the 1977 scoured bed depth). See
Figure 5-23. This will ensure the pipeline remains well buried even following a major flood event.
Figure 5-23 1977 Survey and approximate location of inlet / outlet pipeline.
Detailed design will be required to confirm these levels.
5.4.5 Item 4.4 – Alternative Off-shore Outlet
The EIS proposes an outlet in the mouth of Richters Creek. This was selected as it is close to the
project and in an area where extensive dilution is available on ebb flows. The concept design is for an
outlet to consist of a diffuser located parallel to the bank with sufficient jets to adequately mix the
discharge. The initial mixing zone would be designed to be within 2 m of the jet so there will be no
discernible effect on the natural tidal velocities within 5 m of the outlet (assessment of these velocities
and appropriate design responses will be addressed during detailed design). Relevant details are
provided below based on extracts from EIS figures.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 75
Figure 5-24 EIS outlet proposal – mouth of Richters Creek (section).
Source: EIS Figure 11-16 (part).
However, as discussed in Section 5.4.4 above, the mouth of Richters Creek is known to be mobile at
times and this can result in substantial erosion or siltation. Erosion could put the infrastructure at risk
while sedimentation could smother the outlet. As required by the Information Request, additional work
has been undertaken to investigate an off-shore outlet.
a) Alternative Location to Avoid Active Coastal Zone
A suitable location for dry season discharge has been found along the route of the inlet pipeline
approximately 1.4 km off-shore (refer to Figure 5-25 which is a copy of Figure 5-17) to ensure that the
outlet is:
deep enough so that it does not pose a risk to navigation
outside the active coastal zone (i.e. free from erosion and sedimentation)
sufficiently away from the intake location to ensure re-circulation of lake water does not occur
located along the alignment of the intake structure to limit dredging requirements during
construction.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 76
Figure 5-25 Proposed discharge points.
* As discussed in Section 5.1.4b), while the ‘flood outlet’ was modelled as a pipe in the mouth of Richters Creek,
this is functionally identical to using a gravity solution at the Richters Creek Lake Overflow.
The optional off-shore outlet pipeline is proposed to follow the route of the inlet pipeline and, as
discussed in Section 5.4.4, will be free from the coastal process effects at the mouth of Richters
Creek.
b) Modelling
The performance of this alternative off-shore outlet during non-flood conditions was assessed using
the existing TUFLOW-FV model (refer to Figure 5-26), re-configured as appropriate. The discharge
rate to the receiving off-shore location was changed to a continuous pumping regime rather than the
EIS ebb tide only discharge) at a rate to commensurate with the intake rate of 1.09 m3/s and varied as
required to maintain lake level (i.e. for evaporation and rainfall).
Off-shore inlet
Off-shore outlet
Flood outlet*
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 77
Figure 5-26 Revised TUFLOW model incorporating off-shore outlet.
As for the EIS, the model was executed using a full 12 months data from August 2012 to July 2013 to
capture a suite of dry and wet conditions as follows (see also Figure 5-27):
Dry: October to December 2012 (i.e. daily flows are generally at or below the 20th percentile)
Wet: January to March 2013 (i.e. peak daily flows during events generally exceed 90th
percentile)
Extreme Wet (Australia Day 2013): 20 January 2013 to 14 February.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 78
Effectively this period reflects the previous EIS analysis with the only change being the new location of
the outlet.
Figure 5-27 Model simulation period for dry and wet weather conditions.
Source: EIS Figure 11-23 (this shows the first seven months of the available 12 month hydrograph).
c) Water Quality (Physico-Chemical) Results
Detailed tabulated and graphed water quality results for the proposed offshore discharge are
presented in a similar manner to the EIS with the reporting points shown on Figure 5-26 and
discussed further in Appendix I.
Summary Graphs
The Appendix I data is summarised below via the following graphs (Figure 5-28 to Figure 5-32
visually compare the water quality for various parameters at three locations:
off-shore lake inlet
lake flood outlet (assumed at mouth of Richters Creek)
in situ conditions at the mouth of Richters Creek.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 79
Figure 5-28
Salinity.
Figure 5-29
Dissolved oxygen.
Figure 5-30
Total nitrogen.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 80
Figure 5-31
Total phosphorous.
Figure 5-32
Chlorophyll a.
The results depicted in the above figures show that the intake quality is:
similar to the discharge quality from the lake (i.e. end of pipe) for salinity, total nitrogen, total
phosphorous and dissolved oxygen
similar to Richters Creek for chlorophyll a.
These findings are consistent with results presented in the EIS. Consistent with the results quoted in
the EIS, the lake has a propensity for phytoplankton growth, though the numerical modelling has not
represented the proposed mechanical mixing devices and aerators that will assist in limiting their
growth.
Summary
In summary:
there is limited change in nutrient concentrations at the entrance of Richters Creek and the off-
shore region due to the proposed discharge from the lake
no notable changes in DO levels
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 81
chlorophyll a:
- there is a slight increase to chlorophyll a levels at the outlet location, but less than 1 µ/L
- at the mouth of Richters Creek, there is a negligible decrease in the higher percentiles
- there are no notable changes to chlorophyll a in other adjacent locations, with percentile
changes being less than 0.1 µ/L
- overall there is limited to no change in chlorophyll a concentrations in Richters Creek and
the near-shore region.
Overall there is no notable physico-chemical change to the off-shore receiving environment from the
off-shore outlet.
d) Dilution Rates
As for the EIS, an assessment of dilution was undertaken using a conservative tracer. The purpose of
this was to simulate the available dilution in the event that lake water quality is poor.
Similar to the EIS, to ensure the impact assessment is rigorous, an assessment of how the proposed
lake discharge could affect water quality levels in the near and offshore environment was undertaken
as if adverse conditions in the lake resulted. In order to inform such, the TUFLOW FV model was
interrogated to determine what levels of dilution of lake waters will be present in the receiving waters
using a conservative tracer assessment.
The results of the assessments are presented in Table 5-9 at the locations shown on Figure 5-26.
SITE LOCATION VERTICAL LOCATION
10TH PERCENTILE
20TH PERCENTILE
MEDIAN 80TH
PERCENTILE 90TH
PERCENTILE
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
R1 - Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.24 0.35
Avg. 1.52 1.77 3.84 7.41 9.26
Bottom 0.74 0.85 1.41 2.58 3.07
R2 - Inlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
R3 - Near Shore (330m)
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.38
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.21
R4 – Creek Mouth
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
GBRMP Boundary
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R5 – NW of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.12 0.17
Avg. 0.05 0.11 0.29 0.74 1.04
Bottom 0.04 0.08 0.19 0.33 0.45
R6 – S of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.07
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 82
SITE LOCATION VERTICAL LOCATION
10TH PERCENTILE
20TH PERCENTILE
MEDIAN 80TH
PERCENTILE 90TH
PERCENTILE
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
R7 – E of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.25
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.08
R8 – Far N of Outlet
Top 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.13
Avg. 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.20 0.27
Bottom 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.17
R9 - Far S of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R10 – N of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03
Concentrations are shown on Figure 5-33 as a 2D tracer plot. The 2D tracer plot is provided at two
different scales with the inset portion at the normal 100% to 0% scale while the main figure is at the
enlarged 2% to 0% scale. At the 100% to 0% scale the plume is not detectable.
Figure 5-33 Tracer Plots for Offshore Discharge Location (%).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 83
Modelling shows that dilutions are generally high (i.e. low tracer concentrations), including in the
immediate vicinity of the lake water discharge point. The following conclusions can be drawn from the
results presented:
There is minimal change in the off-shore conditions, with the depth averaged profile being
generally greater than 99% diluted in the 90th percentile.
Slightly north-west of the outlet (along the lines of typical currents) shows concentrations slightly
above this at just better than 98.9% dilution.
Only the location directly over the outlet shows any mentionable impact, but this presents
dilution rates in excess of 90% at the 90th percentile.
The outlet al.so shows median dilution rates of 96% for depth averaged profile. For all the other
areas, both the chronic and acute percentiles show better than 99% dilution rates of lake water.
In general the lake discharge will have limited impact to the receiving environment with an off-shore
discharge under adverse water quality conditions in the lake.
e) Summary and Conclusions
Locating the lake discharge seaward of the active mouth of Richters Creek will provide a solution to
risks of erosion and sedimentation in the active coastal zone at the mouth of Richters Creek.
Modelling shows that the influence of lake discharge at this point will have a negligible influence on the
receiving environment. Furthermore, if lake water quality is maintained in a similar condition to the
intake quality, then no discernible reduction in water quality is expected. Even if lake water quality is
poor, the available dilution rates are very high.
It should also be noted that detailed near-field mixing of the discharged lake water has not been
assessed in the regional model. Additional detailed modelling assessments and optimisation will be
required and are recommended to estimate the degree of near-field and far-field dilution associated
with the outlet diffuser operation; however the diffuser can be designed to achieve full mixing within a
few metres of the discharge point if required.
5.4.6 Item 4.5 – Lake Monitoring Regimes
See Item 1 (Section 5.1).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 84
6 ISSUE 5: MATTERS OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
SIGNIFICANCE
6.1 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES
In its submission (212), the Department of the Environment (Commonwealth) (DoTE) raised a number
of issues regarding Matters of National Environmental Significance (matters of NES). These issues
are addressed below as shown in Table 6-1.
As recognised in Item 1 of the DoTE submission, there is some duplication in the issues raised as they
are separated into values and impacts. These are treated together in the following discussion where
the flow of the discussion can be improved. In addition, some issues involve aesthetic issues and
terrestrial and aquatic species and these are separated because they have involved different
methodologies appropriate to the species in question, their habitats, and the types of impacts to which
they may be subjected.
ID DOTE COMMENT / SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS WHERE DISCUSSED
1 There are some issues that may seem to be repeated throughout these comments. This is because some issues need to be addressed in a number of sections in the EIS
N/A
2 The final design of the project has not been provided. This will influence impacts relating to Outstanding Universal Value. In particular:
height of buildings
colour of buildings
lighting on site
design of lake relating to water quality and bird (and other fauna) habitat.
Section 6.2
3 Please provide further details regarding the commitments to implement best practice lighting and noise.
Section 6.3
Section 6.15
4 The EIS states that flooding overflow will drop the lake salinity (undesirable) and the management response will be to reduce water level as soon as possible and raise the salinity by pumping seawater at an enhanced rate. However, the EIS does not address the fact that this will in-turn result in additional freshwater being pumped into the receiving waters and impacts this may have. Further information is required on the impacts of flooding on matters of national environmental significance (MNES).
Section 6.5
5 The Terms of Reference specify that the proponent should provide information on climate in regards to both long term averages and extreme values, including consideration of rainfall patterns and storm events. Chapter 3 of the draft EIS provides information on rainfall data for the area, including monthly averages, highs and lows. However, the number of years over which this data has been collected has not been provided, and a description of the area’s flood history and probability of future flood events has not been discussed. As run-off from storm events, other extreme rainfall or flood events may potentially impact MNES, further information relating to the probability of flood events (of varying levels) is required.
Section 6.6
6 Further information is required on the potential impacts of artificial lighting on MNES, for example turtles, birds and visual impacts from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA), avoidance and mitigation measures.
Section 6.7
Section 6.8
Section 6.9
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 85
ID DOTE COMMENT / SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS WHERE DISCUSSED
7 Please provide additional information on the proposed vegetated screen including the type of vegetation to be used, the management of the vegetated screen and the likely effectiveness of the vegetated screen for this project.
Section 6.10
8 It is important to note that the aquaculture ponds and artificial drainage networks currently on site provide habitat for fauna including MNES. Although they are not considered to be natural, they still provide habitat that will be removed by the Aquis development. Further information is required as to how the impacts of removing this habitat will be fully considered and mitigated.
Section 6.11
9 The surveys summarised in Appendix F were designed to provide input into the design of the proposed development, rather than as baseline surveys for a known development. Please provide baseline data to ensure that changes to water quality can be monitored during the construction and operation of the proposed development.
Section 6.12
10 There is some lack of clarity (pp. 22-108-109) as to where the site is located in terms of the North/South, Inshore/Off-shore, and Inland/Coastal zones described in the draft GBRMPA strategic assessment. The EIS claims that the Aquis site is within the ‘Southern in-shore and southern off-shore’ areas, despite also stating that the inshore/off-shore dividing line is generally about 20 km off-shore. It appears that the text intends to indicate that the Aquis site (particularly the pipeline) is within the southern inshore area, since the pipeline extends only 2.2 km off-shore; however the confusion raises doubts about the potential area of influence of the Aquis site (are its impacts likely to be observable 20+ km out to sea?). Likewise, in terms of onshore habitats, the text states that the Aquis site was in the Southern Inland area, while in the next sentence quotes GBRMPA’s definition of coastal areas as being those areas less than 5 km from the coast or where the land reached 10 m AHD, whichever was furthest (with the inland area being the remainder of the catchment), and indicates that the project site is within the coastal zone. Please provide a clear description of the location of the project in regard to the coastal areas.
Section 6.13
11 As mentioned above [Item 8], further discussion is required regarding the impacts associated with the loss of the aquaculture ponds. The EIS states that the proposed artificial lake will result in an overall increase in habitat as it will provide habitat for birds (including MNES). However the lake is being designed to minimise attracting waders and crocodiles by designing the lake with steep sides. Further information is required to clarify what habitat the lake is providing for which species.
Section 6.14
12 Appendix F lists colonisation of lake by pest species as a potential negative outcome. Further information is required as to the impacts of potential pest species on MNES and how this potential threat will be avoided including mitigation measures.
Section 6.15
13 While the EIS addresses cetaceans, turtles and dugong it is difficult to understand how conclusions were reached regarding the importance of habitat present and the severity of impacts. There is no information on sensitive areas. This needs to be provided and set in context for all species. For example, while some of the more important habitats for marine turtles occur elsewhere in the GBRWHA, the EIS needs to discuss the regional importance of habitat present and provide maps of these habitats adjacent to the site and within the region.
Section 6.15
14 Statements that this area is not considered to be core habitat for a species and not considered to support important populations or offer habitat critical to the survival of the species need to be supported by evidence. This is also the case when describing the area may be low or moderately likely to provide habitat for a species. Further justification is required when attributing low or moderate score to habitat features for the species.
Section 6.15
Section 6.15
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 86
ID DOTE COMMENT / SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS WHERE DISCUSSED
15 The proposal could potentially result in adverse impacts to Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) and Australian snubfin dolphins (Orcaella heinsohni), which generally occur in waters less than 15 metres deep that are close to river and creek beds within the proximity of seagrass beds. The EIS concludes that significant impacts on the inshore dolphin species are not likely as there are only small numbers present. The Australian snubfin and the Indo-pacific humpback dolphin occur in small and isolated populations. Further evidence is required to demonstrate that these species or their habitat will not be significantly impacted by the proposed development.
Section 6.15
16 Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Outstanding Universal Value
Criterion vii - contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance.
Justification needs to be made as to why the mangroves on site are not considered representative of the attribute of Outstanding Universal Value (page 22-94).
Section 6.18
17 Low visibility and turbid waters are not sufficient explanation as to why marine flora and fauna are not considered to be a significant contribution to Outstanding Universal Value. Please justify this statement.
Section 6.18
18 Please justify why the beaches south of Yorkeys Knob, the Richters Ck mouth and the northern part of Holloways Beach are not considered spectacular sandy beaches contributing to the Outstanding Universal Value of GBRWHA.
Section 6.18
19 Claiming that the mainland (and development site) is an area that visitors leave behind to visit the GBRWHA and that it is not part of the GBRWHA experience itself does not recognise the full extent of the GBRWHA. The aesthetic values of the GBRWHA need to be considered as broader than the actual reef and include a broad landscape experience.
Section 6.18
20 Examples of indigenous use of land and sea resources were found on site in 1991 although not in 2013 surveys. The EIS states they are outside the development footprint and therefore not an issue. The EIS needs to substantiate why these values no longer exist.
Section 6.18
21 Potential impacts to listed species or their potential habitat have been discussed in the EIS, however further information is required to outline which impacts are relevant to which listed species.
Section 6.15
Section 6.15
22 Of the potential impacts to MNES identified (table 22-12), wildlife disturbance was stated to be not relevant as there is no beach access provided and all resort activities will take place onsite. How is access to the beach going to be restricted? Not providing access may mean that guest/staff/people wanting to gain access from the resort to the beach make their own, resulting in multiple and not maintained paths to the beach or creek. This may have a greater impact than providing maintained access to the beach. As discussed above, further information is required relating to wildlife disturbance including; how access to the beach and creek will be restricted, all disturbance impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project and how these impacts will be mitigated.
Section 6.21
23 Please specify mitigation measures for the construction of the inlet/outlet pipes. These should include measures for noise impacts to marine fauna such as soft start-up of machinery/drilling equipment, start up and shutdown times to avoid important feeding/movement times of fauna such as turtles.
Section 6.22
24 Impacts to shorebirds and turtles need to be addressed under the relevant controlling provisions, for example listed threatened species, listed migratory species and World Heritage Area (Outstanding Universal Value of the GBRWHA).
Section 6.15
Section 6.19
25 Light Section 6.7
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 87
ID DOTE COMMENT / SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS WHERE DISCUSSED
The EIS acknowledges numerous impacts of artificial light but concludes that light from the proposed development will not impact on any matters of national environmental significance.
Section 6.8
Section 6.9
26 The EIS list mitigation measures that will reduce the impact of light on turtles however there is no evidence provided to suggest that this is the case. Evidence is required to justify these statements.
Section 6.9
27 The EIS claims that the night time light of the Aquis resort will be perceived as part of the Cairns node of intensive development. There is significant distance between the proposed development and Cairns particularly relating to night time glow. Further justification is required relating to the perceived single node of intensive development.
Section 6.7
28 Further consideration needs to be given to how all lighting onsite will be managed to mitigate impacts to fauna (including turtles), and to minimise the night time glow from the resort as seen from onshore and off-shore sites.
Section 6.7
29 Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
Criterion vii - contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance
As discussed above, further justification is required regarding the impacts of light on the aesthetic values of the GBRWHA and fauna such as marine turtles.
Section 6.7
Section 6.9
30 The EIS states that the development won't impose a visual change to the connectivity between GBRWHA and Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA) (this occurs further north). However, there will be a visual impact when looking from the WTWHA towards the GBRWHA. Further justification is required regarding visual impacts to GBRWHA and WTWHA.
Section 6.7
Section 6.18
31 There is inconsistency in the EIS as to whether or not the resort (tall buildings) will be seen from Green Island. Clarification needs to be provided on this issue.
Section 6.18
32 As discussed above, further information is required on the adequacy of vegetation screens. For example, where vegetation has been used to successfully screen similar developments from light impacts to aesthetics of an undeveloped area.
Section 6.10
33 There is no evidence of consultation on aesthetic impacts with either residents or existing visitors to the Cairns region. The EIS makes assumptions about their ‘likely’ views. Social research on the opinions of residents and visitors on the development’s likely impacts on their aesthetic enjoyment of the area could assist to address this.
Section 6.23
34 Criterion x - contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation
shore birds – as discussed above further information is required on the impacts of the project on migratory birds and /or their habitats and the impact on Outstanding Universal Value of GBRWHA.
Section 6.24
35 Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area Outstanding Universal Value
Criterion vii - contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance.
Insufficient consideration of the impacts on WTWHA is provided in the EIS. Further justification is required regarding the impact the project will have on the aesthetic values of WTWHA and its links to GBRWHA.
Section 6.18
36 Criterion x - contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation.
Further consideration needs to be given to the impacts of increased tourism to the WTWHA.
Section 6.25
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 88
ID DOTE COMMENT / SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS WHERE DISCUSSED
37 Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
Criterion vii - contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance
The EIS relies on the property having been a sugar cane property as evidence of diminished World Heritage Value. The fact that there is cropping on the site does not mean that the attributes of the world heritage area do not exist. For example, the visual connectivity between GBRWHA and WTWHA. Although agricultural land is not natural vegetation, the change from agricultural landscape to an urban landscape will impact on both WHAs. Further discussion regarding the impact of changing landscape should be provided.
Section 6.18
38 As discussed above, the department considers it likely that there would be a noticeable increase in artificial lighting and noise and in turn impacts on wildlife and aesthetics. The impact of artificial light and noise requires further investigation.
Section 6.18
39 As well as discussing the visual impacts of the development from Green Island and other off-shore points, the visual impact of the development in the more immediate vicinity needs to be discussed. It is likely that the resort will be visible from a broad sweep of the adjacent coastline, coastal waters and hinterland, and from the WTQWHA.
Section 6.18
40 Criterion x - contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation.
Further discussion is needed on the impacts to migratory shorebirds including:
What are the impacts to shorebird habitat including water quality?
What are the likely impacts of introduced species (weeds) on migratory shorebirds?
What are the likely impacts of noise on migratory shorebirds?
Section 6.26
41 In Table 22-27 on page 22-130, the text indicates that there are coral reefs at Haycock Reef and Double Island Reef, approximately 10 km north of Richters Creek mouth. Earlier in the document, it is stated that the ‘nearest mapped coral is approximately 25 km north-east of the site’ (p22-121, p 22-123) and ‘there are no reef structures within 25 km of the investigation area (p 22-142). This inconsistency should be corrected.
Section 6.27
42 In relation to the discussion of the concept of Outstanding Universal Value on pages 22-87 to 22-89, the proponent includes discussion of the criteria and integrity as components of Outstanding Universal Value; however the third element of Outstanding Universal Value, protection and management is not discussed and must also be included.
Section 6.28
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 89
The listing criteria referred to above (i.e. vii to x) have been amended and renumbered since the Reef
was inscribed. For the reasons described in the EIS, these original numbering is preserved. Table 6-2
below shows the relationship between original and current criteria.
SHORT TITLE CRITERIA AT TIME OF LISTING (1981)
CURRENT CRITERIA (2008)
Major stages of the Earth’s evolutionary history
(i) outstanding examples representing the major stages of the earth's evolutionary history
(viii) be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;
Ecological and biological processes
(ii) outstanding examples representing significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man's interaction with his natural environment
(ix) be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;
Natural beauty and phenomena
(iii) unique, rare or superlative natural phenomena, formations or features or areas of exceptional natural beauty, such as superlative examples of the most important ecosystems to man
(vii) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;
Habitats for conservation of biodiversity
(iv) habitats where populations of rare or endangered species of plants and animals still survive
(x) contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.
Source: GBRMPA (2013e) Table 4.1.
6.2 DESIGN DETAILS (ITEM 2)
6.2.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 2 states:
(2) The final design of the project has not been provided. This will influence impacts relating to Outstanding Universal Value. In particular:
height of buildings
colour of buildings
lighting on site
design of lake relating to water quality and bird (and other fauna) habitat.
6.2.2 Discussion
Design of the development has not progressed substantially since the completion of the EIS on the
basis that at this stage only land use approval is being sought. However, progress has been made as
outlined below.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 90
ITEM PROGRESS COMMENTS
Height of buildings No change has been made. The current proposal remains i.e. that building heights are limited to a maximum of 65 m above the existing ground level (2.5 m AHD) or below the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) for the Cairns airport, whichever is the lesser.
Zone of Visual Influence (broad scale and local) is based on of the top of resort buildings (61.5 m AHD) and a midpoint on the buildings (36.5 m AHD). Reference is also made to ‘tall buildings of 60 m height’. These are sufficiently consistent for the purposes of this assessment.
Colour of buildings No further details are available. The architectural concept is likely to retain the current ‘light and breezy’ colours. Given the height and bulk of buildings, it is not proposed to attempt any form of camouflaging (other than by screening using natural vegetation).
Details are provided in Section 6.10 on
vegetation screening.
Lighting on site Further assessment has been made for this report on lighting. Light modelling has been based on a ‘worst-case’ scenario of illumination calculated at 1 x 100 watt halogen bulb at 3 m intervals on each balcony of every floor, (but representing a combination of interior and exterior lights) totalling approximately 7000 lights. All lights are shown as being simultaneously ‘on’, and unshielded.
This is the basis of the visualisations and impact assessment covered by this report.
Design of lake relating to water quality and bird (and other fauna) habitat.
Further assessments detailed in this report have been made regarding:
performance of lake during a Barron River flood
lake management strategy.
Refer to many aspects of lake design and management under Issue 4 (Chapter 5).
a) Lighting Design
Refer to Section 6.7.
b) Lake Design
Refer to Chapter 5 and Section7.3 .
6.2.3 Conclusions
Sufficient additional design details have been provided to allow assessments of impacts required by
the request for further information covered by this report. Substantial detailed design effort is required
to advance this concept level work and will be undertaken progressively in line with the approvals
program.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 91
6.3 LIGHTING DESIGN AND MITIGATION OF LIGHT EMISSIONS (ITEM 3 –
PART)
6.3.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) includes a number of items related to light emissions and then to impacts
from both aesthetic and ecological perspectives. For clarity these are collected together as follows
this section:
- lighting design and assumed design-phase mitigation
- visibility (i.e. where Aquis lights can be seen from)
impact on light on aesthetic values of the GBRWHA and WTWHA (Section 6.7)
impact on terrestrial species (Section 6.8)
impact on aquatic species (Section 6.9).
6.3.2 Lighting Design
The DoTE submission includes the following requirement:
(3) Please provide further details regarding the commitments to implement best practice lighting and noise.
Issues associated with lighting design are discussed below.
a) Airport Requirements
As noted in the EIS, Aquis will need to comply with CairnsPlan with respect to lighting design. The
following is an extract from EIS Appendix W – Airport and Aircraft Issues.
Figure 6-1 Extract from CairnsPlan.
Source: CairnsPlan (see EIS Appendix W – Airport and Aircraft Issues Figure 2-1).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 92
The map above shows that the southern part of the project area is within Zone D. Performance
Criteria and Acceptable Measures for light under the CairnsPlan for Zone D are as follows.
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ACCEPTABLE MEASURES
Lighting
P2: Development does not impact on the operational aspects of the Cairns Airport with regard to light emissions.
A2.1: Lighting does not exceed the maximum intensity of illumination, within the respective zone, as identified on the Overlay Maps.
For Zone D (see above), maximum Intensity of Light Sources is 450 Candela measured at 3 degrees above the horizontal.
Primary Light Control
P6: Development does not impact on the operational aspects of the Cairns Airport with regard to light emissions.
A6.1 Development does not involve external lighting or road layout that creates straight parallel lines of lighting that is 500 m to 1000 m long.
A6.2 Buildings and structures do not contain reflective cladding, upwards shining lights or flashing or sodium lights.
Source: CairnsPlan (see EIS Appendix W – Airport and Aircraft Issues Table 2-1).
Lighting will be designed to comply with these criteria (see Register of Proponent Commitments).
b) Best-practice Lighting Design (General)
In addition to the above, measures to mitigate the visibility and glare of resort lighting, as it may affect
places beyond the project site boundaries, will be adopted. These include:
design of lighting, particularly for upper stories of buildings, so it is downward-directed, part-
shielded and of low intensity to reduce light spillage
external lighting (including security lights) mounted at a level which is below the nearby tree
canopy height
shields, louvres, screens and/or window tinting on east-facing windows and balconies, and
those above the fourth storey or the height of nearby tree canopies
automatic light switches to turn off when not in use, especially on the upper VIP level
siting of any recreational facilities which require night-time lighting behind (west of) one or other
of the buildings, which can thereby act as a light shield for the beach and ocean
screening initiatives (see Section 6.10) involving:
- off-site planting of additional Casuarina (Beach Oak) trees in dunes between the project
site and the adjacent beach
- on-site planting of tall-growing Norfolk Island Pines and Hoop Pines along eastern edge
of golf course.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 93
General guidelines for ‘best practice’ design, installation and operation of external lighting for Aquis
Resort to minimise potential adverse impacts arising from external lighting, consistent with AS 4282-
1997 (Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting) also include:
limiting the use of external lighting after a specified time at night, to only that required for safety
and security
automatic controls on external lighting (incorporate occupancy sensor control & automatic
control to switch on/off or dim the lights state when a high illumination level is not essential
position and aim lighting properly to avoid overspill of light to outside the area needed, direct the
beam(s) just to the target structures. and avoid over-illumination of signs, facades, vertical
structures or trees, shop fronts and facilities
use lower intensity lamps , and/or lighting with appropriate shields, baffles, louvres and cut-off
features to prevent light overspill into the sky, and glare from the light source
switch off the lighting when it is not operationally required or dim down the lighting
minimise the upward spread of light near to and above the horizontal. The most critical zone for
minimising sky glow is between 90° to 100°. To keep glare to minimum, the main beam angle of
all lights directed to any potential observer is not more than 70°
use luminaires with double asymmetric beams as appropriate so that the front glazing is kept
nearly parallel to the surface being lit to minimise overspill light
lighting of pathways by bollards, if necessary spaced closely together for a more even spread of
light, rather than pole-mounted lighting
solar shades, tint and interior reflectors are effective to reduce spill light from the building’s
glass envelope. Green-tinted glass reduces glare and provides shade for occupants
design interior lighting so that angle of maximum candela from each luminaire intersects opaque
surfaces and does not exit through the windows.
Figure 6-2 Types of intrusive light – to be avoided (general information only).
It is considered that all of these matters can only be dealt with during the detailed design phase.
Attention to minimum impact design is included in the Register of Proponent Commitments.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 94
c) Best-practice Lighting Design (Biological Aspects)
Lighting has a biological dimension, for example to minimise impacts on nesting and hatching marine
turtles. Visibility modelling (see Section 6.3.3 and in particular Figure 6-5) shows that there is only a
very limited section of beach (at PP05) likely to be affected by night-time lights from the resort hotel
buildings. The closest building will be set back 800 m from the beach to the north, and the lighting
impact mitigation measure outlined below are capable of appropriately mitigating any such impacts.
The beach is sufficiently close to towns that any nest would probably be noticed, and the length of
beach potentially affected by direct lights from the upper storeys of Hotel B is so small that any nesting
could be screened by site-specific measures.
Specific design features for fauna include:
reviewing the need for each light source
keeping lights off when not needed
mounting lights low
shielding lights to stop escaping upwards and outwards
using long wave length lights (500 – 700 nanometres, orange to red)
reducing the wattage and brightness of lights
using natural topography to shield nesting areas from light
screening interior lights with blinds, screens and / or window tinting.
These are similar to the architecturally-based measures previously listed. It is considered that all of
these matters can only be dealt with during the detailed design phase. Attention to minimum impact
design is included in the Register of Proponent Commitments.
6.3.3 Visibility Modelling
a) Assumptions
In order to assess the impacts of lighting it is necessary to determine where Aquis Resort lights can be
seen from. The following assumptions have been made in undertaking assessment of the zone of
visual influence (ZVI):
Light modelling has been based on a ‘worst-case’ scenario of illumination calculated at 1 x 100
watt halogen bulb at 3 m intervals on each balcony of every floor (but representing a
combination of interior and exterior lights), totalling approximately 7000 lights. All lights are
shown as being simultaneously ‘on’, and unshielded.
While Yorkeys Knob Road and the surrounding area are currently mainly dark at night, the
resort access roads and entry signage will probably be brightly lit, and the upgrade may have
street lighting, all of which will reduce the contrast between the building lights and their rural
surrounds. However, this has not been modelled.
Light effects may be visible over distance, even from viewpoints which are outside the ZVI of
buildings, because of night time ‘glow’ from beyond the horizon or visible skyline. However it is
difficult to model night-time glow, as it is likely to depend on contrast (for example, more
noticeable on moonless nights) and on clouds, haze and other variable atmospheric factors.
This modelling has been facilitated by the availability of 2010 LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging)
data that has been used to:
model natural ground levels
model what is called the ‘first echo’ which is the top of the canopy in the case of natural areas
and the top of buildings elsewhere.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 95
These surfaces were used to more accurately model the height of nearby vegetation and its screening
potential as a Digital Surface Model (DSM) (Appendix J Figure 8). Previous assessments had
adopted conservative assumptions in order to model visibility of the proposed resort, but the LiDAR-
based DSM has helped to more accurately model the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) in the area
immediately surrounding the project site and along the nearby beaches.
In order to analyse and predict night time visual impacts, the height of beach front vegetation was
modelled as a DSM as described above.
b) Modelling Results
ZVI and selected night-time photomontages were prepared. The material is presented in the attached
figures included in Appendix J:
Figures 1 – 2: Zone of Visual Influence (broad scale and local) of the top of resort buildings
(RL61.5 m AHD - 59m above ground level at RL 2.5m AHD) and a midpoint on the buildings
(RL 34.5m AHD 29m above podium level at RL 7.5m AHDabove ) using a LiDAR-based DSM
indicating that the built form will be visible from off-shore, but only the top floors will be seen
(depending on haze and weather) from Green Island; and that the existing coastal vegetation
will almost completely screen buildings from mainland beaches and coastal towns.
Figures 3 – 7: ‘Zoomed in’ ZVIs of proposed resort hotel buildings (again at two levels) in the
areas of Yorkeys Knob hill and Half Moon Bay marina (Fig 3), Yorkeys Knob town and beach
(Fig 4), southern YK beach and Richters Creek mouth (Fig 5), Holloways Beach (Fig 6) and
Machans Beach (Fig 7). These indicate that the resort buildings will be completely screened
from the adjacent beaches, except for a small area near the creek mouth. This spot was
selected as Photo point PP05 in order to test ‘worst case’ lighting impacts on the beach.
Figures 8 & 9: The vegetation heights derived from LiDAR data were used to prepare cross
section through the resort buildings and existing vegetation to the beach at PP05, and to
indicate the long term potential for supplementary screen planting.
Figure 10: For comparison of built form scale, one of the proposed resort buildings (Hotel B) is
shown beside and at the same scale as the cruise ship Pacific Dawn which currently visits
Cairns regularly and anchors off Yorkeys Knob, and the larger cruise ship QE 2 which is
planned to visit Cairns and anchor off-shore in the near future.
Figure 11: Night-time photographs (taken on the clear moonless night of 26/8/14) from Yorkeys
Knob Beach PP05, with photomontage of resort building lights, modelled as per methodology
and assumptions below.
Figure 12: Night-time photographs (taken on the moonless night of 26/8/14) from Green Island
jetty, with photomontage of resort building lights.
Figure 13: Night-time photographs (taken on the moonless night of 27/8/14) from Henry Ross
Lookout, with photomontage of resort building lights.
c) ZVI Modelling
Additional work has been undertaken on the likely propagation of light from the Aquis resort and the
visibility of these emissions from inshore and near-shore locations. The built form of the Aquis Resort
is proposed to be located 500 m shoreward of the mouth of Richters Creek, with the lower levels
screened from the ocean by coastal vegetation. A visual assessment has been undertaken involving
modelling the likely propagation of light from the Aquis Resort and visibility of these emissions from
inshore and near shore locations (Appendix J).
Overall ZVI
Figure 6-3 is an extract from Appendix J (Figure 1) and shows the overall ZVI of the Aquis Resort
(see Figure 6-4 below for a zoom of the beaches area surrounding the Aquis site).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 96
Figure 6-3 Overall zone of visual influence (ZVI) of the Aquis Resort.
Source: Appendix J (Figure 1).
This modelling shows that lights from the higher levels of buildings will not be visible along most of
Yorkeys Knob Beach and Holloways Beach, but that they will be visible from near-shore and off-shore
waters. See Figure 6-4 and various zoomed images in Appendix J (Figures 3 to 7). In general, the
lights will not be visible closer than 240 m to shore where the coastal vegetation extends to 20 m in
height. Although some buildings will be visible from near-shore areas, at the closest point the highest
buildings will be approximately 740 m shoreward, meaning that the light will be diffused.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 97
Figure 6-4 Zone of visual influence – beaches area.
Source: Appendix J (Figure 2). See also Figures 3 to 7 for detailed (zoomed) images.
The modelling indicates that direct light spill from the upper storeys of buildings is likely to be visible
only at the mouth of Richters Creek. In this area, gaps in the coastal vegetation may allow some light
spill to reach the beach / inshore area (Appendix J). Photomontages prepared for this area show that
while there will likely be some direct light visible from the beach, it is unlikely that there will be any
night-time glow. It is suggested that any direct light spill in this location could be screened by planting
additional casuarina trees, mitigating any potential impacts on nesting marine turtles (see Section
6.9). Figure 6-5 shows a detail of the mouth of Richters Creek from where some of the resort will be
visible.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 98
Figure 6-5 Zone of visual influence - Richters Creek.
Source: Appendix J (Figure 5).
This work also included preparation of photomontages from a location on Yorkeys Knob Beach (refer
Figure 6-6). The modelling undertaken on site has shown that it is only at the mouth of Richters Creek
that there will be any direct light spill from the upper storeys of buildings, although there is also likely to
be some additional night-time ‘glow’. However it should be noted that even on a moonless night,
Yorkeys Knob Beach is not completely dark due to:
the southern end of Yorkeys Knob Beach has some light glow from Cairns CBD and the airport
the northern half of Yorkeys Knob Beach is within view of house lights on the inland hills
there are off-shore flashing lights of the harbour channel leads
there are planes landing and taking off on a regular basis, even late at night
the stinger enclosure has floodlights during summer periods.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 99
Figure 6-6 PP05 Richters Ck mouth/beach – night view.
Source: Appendix J (Figure 11).
Further discussion is provided in Section 6.7.
6.4 MITIGATION OF NOISE EMISSIONS (ITEM 3 – PART)
6.4.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 3 states:
(3) Please provide further details regarding the commitments to implement best practice lighting and noise.
Issues associated with noise emissions are discussed below.
6.4.2 Discussion
The need for utilisation of best-practice noise mitigation measures is recognised in the EIS, from the
perspectives of both human nuisance and potential impacts on fauna. Regarding fauna, the EIS
(s7.3.9b)) notes that:
Impacts on marine fauna as a result of noise can be reduced where a marine fauna exclusion zone (nominally 500 m from the noise source) is established prior to the commencement of a noise-intensive activity (e.g. dredging). Impacts to marine fauna can be reduced if noise intensive activities are suspended when listed threatened species, such as marine turtles, are sighted within the exclusion zone, until 30 minutes of observations have passed until the last sighting.
Noise is likely to be mainly a construction issue (pile driving) and this requires management via the EMP (Construction).
It is recommended that further assessment of this issue take place in the context of the EMP (Planning) and in the design of the proposed Fauna Management Strategy. (p7-80)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 100
As noted in the EIS, the Aquis site is currently subjected to considerable noise impacts arising from, in
particular, airport traffic, road traffic, and agricultural machinery. The main new activities likely to
produce noise are piling, earthworks, concrete batching and placement, and the construction of the
lake water exchange pipework.
Specific mitigation initiatives will involve:
‘soft-start’ piling
consideration of timing (i.e. to minimise noise emissions at times when specific fauna are likely
to be sensitive to noise)
other initiatives as developed during detailed design.
The Register of Proponent Commitments includes commitments to noise mitigation by design and
management.
6.4.3 Conclusions
Overall, the project covers a large site and so while there will be noise emissions from its construction
and operation, it is expected that these will be controllable due to the opportunity for reasonable buffer
distances through appropriate design layout and construction management. However if there are
multiple plant items in the area closest to Richters Creek mouth and the construction of pipework in
Richters Creek, there may be short periods when noise levels may be increased. Shorebirds can be
expected will naturally respond to noise and movement by avoiding the immediate area of disturbance
and/or moving to a safe distance if noise or movement occurs whilst birds are foraging near the
disturbance site. However unless the noise disturbance occurs during the migration period for
migratory shorebirds (September – April), these species will not be impacted.
The Register of Proponent Commitments includes commitments to noise mitigation by design and
management.
6.5 IMPACT OF LAKE FLOODING (ITEM 4)
6.5.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 4 states:
(4) The EIS states that flooding overflow will drop the lake salinity (undesirable) and the management response will be to reduce water level as soon as possible and raise the salinity by pumping seawater at an enhanced rate. However, the EIS does not address the fact that this will in-turn result in additional freshwater being pumped into the receiving waters and impacts this may have. Further information is required on the impacts of flooding on matters of national environmental significance (MNES).
6.5.2 Discussion
In response to this issue, additional work has been undertaken to model the response of the lake to a
Barron River flood. This is discussed in detail in Section 5.1.4. The findings of this work are best
demonstrated by Figure 6-7 (a duplicate of Figure 5-9) which shows 2D plan views of tracer
concentrations in four day increments. The results show that (referring to dates of the actual Barron
River flood hydrograph):
Flood water inundates the lake reaching peak concentrations 18 hours after the flood peak on
31st January.
Tracer concentrations in the lake peak at around 90%, showing the influence of flood water to
displace normal lake water.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 101
The lake pumping rate commences when the lake level recedes below the to 50% AEP level
(i.e. approx. 2.0 m AHD) on 1 February and is sufficient to flush over three quarters of the lake
in its seven day period, leaving only the lake locations closest to the outlet with noticeable
floodwater concentrations.
Approximately 8 days to 10 days are ultimately required to flush the fresh Barron Delta
floodwaters out of the lake system to reduce tracer concentrations to negligible levels (bottom
right image below). This could be further reduced through optimisation with additional pumping,
circulation devices etc.
Figure 6-7 Richters Creek tracer predictions – 4 day interval.
In summary:
The influence of the lake discharge during a flood event is expected to have negligible influence
on the receiving environment of Richters Creek as essentially the flood waters are being
returned back to the creek normally. The off-shore water quality is largely unaffected from a
Barron River flood, particularly as the intake is located close the bed level in deep water (6.5 m
below lowest astronomical tide).
The tracer plots and the physico-chemical plots demonstrate the lake water quality is likely to be
better than that of Richters Creek through a Barron River flood. The off-shore discharge option
could commence within 10 to 14 days after a flood event, long before Richters Creek itself
recovers to its pre-flood condition.
Over three-quarters of the lake has a significantly reduced concentration of flood water (below
the e-folding limit) after a period of 8 days from when the lake water level/Richters Creek has
been reduced to below 2 m AHD.
The lake’s ability to flush is not affected by the further small creek flow events after the main
flood peak and that discharge to an off-shore region could occur within 10 to 14 days with
negligible impact on off-shore conditions.
It should be noted that in the absence of the development, fresh floodwaters inundate the site and flow
directly to Richters Creek, Yorkeys Creek, and Half Moon Creek. An analysis of the flood flow volumes
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 102
was undertaken to determine the quantum of the Barron River flow that discharge down Richters
Creek and through the lake. As noted in the EIS, the lake has a stored volume of 1.3 GL. Modelling
shows that for the 20% AEP event assessed in Section 5.1.4:
Approximately 2.3 GL of Richters Creek flood water passes over the lake at a peak rate of
approximately 100 m3/s. This flux represents approximately 1.8 x the lake’s volume. As
demonstrated in Figure 5-5 to Figure 5-7, the lake volumes is largely displaced by the
floodwaters, resulting in a tracer concentration from the flooding of about 90% (i.e. 90%
Richters Creek water and 10% lake water remaining) and salinity reducing from 35 ppt to 7 ppt.
The total volume of flood water diverted along Richters Creek is approximately 115 GL, with a
peak flow through Richters Creek at the mouth of approximately 930 m3/s. It should be
appreciated that the tidal prims at Richters Creek mouth are in the order of 0.2 GL to 0.6 GL per
tide cycle (refer to EIS) and hence are insignificant.
6.5.3 Conclusions
The effect of the lake under these circumstances is totally insignificant and if anything will (very
slightly) raise salinity of floodwaters due to mixing with the initially saline lake water. The new
modelling demonstrates that the lake stabilises and returns to within normal operating conditions 8 to
10 days after a flood, while the Richters Creek concentrations remain relatively high well after the lake
becomes well flushed.
6.6 CLIMATE AND FLOODING ISSUES (ITEM 5)
6.6.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 5 states:
(5) The Terms of Reference specify that the proponent should provide information on climate in regards to both long term averages and extreme values, including consideration of rainfall patterns and storm events. Chapter 3 of the draft EIS provides information on rainfall data for the area, including monthly averages, highs and lows. However, the number of years over which this data has been collected has not been provided, and a description of the area’s flood history and probability of future flood events has not been discussed. As run-off from storm events, other extreme rainfall or flood events may potentially impact MNES, further information relating to the probability of flood events (of varying levels) is required.
6.6.2 Discussion
a) Climate Statistics
Data provided in EIS s3.6 is described as having been derived from climate statistics from the Bureau
of Meteorology (BoM) station, Cairns Aero (Station 031011). It is noted that ‘This rainfall station … has
records from 1942 to the present. It has the most accumulated data and least amount of missing data
and is therefore the most reliable gauge in the area.’ As noted, the records commenced in 1942 and
therefore the number of years over which the data has been collected is 73 (missing records not
known).
The discussion on Climate Change in s3.6.6 is based on the best current advice that is that:
… annual rainfall is projected to decrease by two per cent (-25 mm) and three per cent (-38 mm) under low and high emissions scenarios respectively. The largest seasonal decrease under a high emissions scenario of 16 per cent (-21 mm) is projected for spring. (DERM 2009b). For Queensland in general it is predicted that there will be a stronger but shorter rainfall season during January and February thus resulting in drier autumns. It is generally anticipated that the number of rainy days will decrease but the amount of rain falling on wet days may increase by up to 20%. Extreme rainfall events are predicted to also become more frequent during the summer months (Office of Climate Change 2012). (p3-18)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 103
b) Flood History and Future
The flood history was not stated in detail in the EIS (although two historic floods were referred to as
they were within reasonably recent living memory). However, the modelling described in EIS Chapter
9 uses CRC’s Barron Delta Flood Model which is based on industry-standard hydrologic and hydraulic
techniques. The frequency analysis of rainfall and floods included in the model was based on peer
reviewed consideration of all historic data and current best-practice. The flood model has been used
on over 50 separate development assessments to date, including for setting urban development levels
across the delta, for Cook Highway upgrades and for major tourist developments such as Skyrail. It
has standing in the Queensland’s P&E Court.
Current practice in flood prediction is to generate synthetic floods based on statistical techniques.
These were used in the EIS to generate floods with AEPs of 20%, 10%, 5%, and 1% (Figures 9-5 to 9-
9) as well as the Probable Maximum Flood. A velocity profile for the 1% AEP was also included.
c) Effect of Extreme Rainfall
Regarding the likely effect of extreme rainfall or flood events on MNES, it needs to be acknowledged
that the Aquis site at 343 ha represents just 0.16% of the area of the Barron River catchment. The
proportion of sediment and other nutrient loads is set out in Table 11-10 and this shows that the Aquis
export of pollutants is 0.15% of the Barron catchment. For the untreated condition (i.e. existing cane
farm), the figure is 0.25%. These figures apply to the whole Aquis site – when the Environmental
Management and Conservation precinct (113 ha) and much of the Sport & Recreation Facilities
Precinct (155 ha in total) are excluded on the basis that they are largely natural areas, the role of the
Aquis site in generating contaminants diminishes further. In any case, modelling shows that the effect
of WSUD is to reduce the contribution of the site to pollution compared with the cane farm. Under
flood conditions when the Barron River breaks its banks and floodwaters enter the site, the lake will
first fill and then surcharge, leaving the built form of the Hotel Complex well above the expected flood
levels (i.e. even above the PMF). At this time, most of the rest of the site and the adjacent Yorkeys
Knob area will be inundated by floodwaters and flow through the lake will join the general overland
flood flow and exit the site via the existing creek system. As the flood falls, the lake level will be
gradually lowered by the lake overflow system (until the level falls below their inverts) and by pumping
to the lake outlet. This is described in detail in Section 5.1.4.
Under these extreme conditions, the effect of any discharge from Aquis is totally insignificant. The
plume of the Barron River discharge under high flows is known to extend up to 1 km off-shore, totally
swamping any local effect on Matters of NES.
d) Probability of Future floods
Regarding the assessment of the probability of future floods, the AEP approach provides just this
assessment. Should climatic circumstances change in the future, then adjustments need to be made
to either the probability of events of a certain magnitude, or conversely, adjustment made to the
magnitude for a given probability. If future rainfall intensity is to increase, then floods of a certain AEP
will be bigger. Conversely, floods of a certain magnitude will be more common (i.e. numerically larger
AEP). These future circumstances are unknowable.
Given that these future circumstances will apply to the whole Barron River catchment (and the whole
GBR), the impact of the small Aquis catchment and lake will remain insignificant.
6.6.3 Conclusions
The presence of the Aquis Resort will have a totally insignificant effect on impacts on matters of NES
arising from Barron River flooding, now or in the future.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 104
6.7 IMPACTS OF LIGHT ON AESTHETIC VALUES (ITEMS 6, 25, 27-30)
6.7.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) includes a number to items relevant to this issue, namely:
(6) Further information is required on the potential impacts of artificial lighting on MNES, for example turtles, birds and visual impacts from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA), avoidance and mitigation measures.
(25) The EIS acknowledges numerous impacts of artificial light but concludes that light from the proposed development will not impact on any matters of national environmental significance.
(27) The EIS claims that the night time light of the Aquis resort will be perceived as part of the Cairns node of intensive development. There is significant distance between the proposed development and Cairns particularly relating to night time glow. Further justification is required relating to the perceived single node of intensive development.
(28) Further consideration needs to be given to how all lighting onsite will be managed to mitigate impacts to fauna (including turtles), and to minimise the night time glow from the resort as seen from onshore and off-shore sites.
(29) As discussed above, further justification is required regarding the impacts of light on the aesthetic values of the GBRWHA and fauna such as marine turtles.
(30) The EIS states that the development won't impose a visual change to the connectivity between GBRWHA and Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA) (this occurs further north). However, there will be a visual impact when looking from the WTWHA towards the GBRWHA. Further justification is required regarding visual impacts to GBRWHA and WTWHA.
This section discusses light emissions and impacts on the landscape values component of OUV.
Refer also to:
impact on terrestrial species (Section 6.8)
impact on aquatic species (Section 6.9).
6.7.2 Discussion
a) Visibility of the Proposed Development
Yorkeys Knob/Richters Creek Foreshore
ZVI modelling has been discussed in Section 6.3.3c). As shown on Figure 6-6, existing night-time
views from PP05 on Yorkeys Knob Beach are relatively dark (on a moonless night) with some glow
from the city of Cairns and the airport, although the ‘static’ photographs do not show the flashing lights
of off-shore channel markers nor the regular overhead lights of aircraft approaching or leaving the
nearby Cairns Airport. As shown on EIS Figure 6-11 (which is reproduced below), PP05 is a ‘worst
case’ viewpoint in that it is close to the mouth of Richters Creek, without much screening from the
dense foreshore band of casuarina trees along most of the Yorkeys Knob Beach, and out of sight of
house lights from the Yorkeys Knob hill. It is likely that PP05 is out of sight of any summer time lights
from the swimming enclosure on the Yorkeys Knob Beach.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 105
Figure 6-8 View from Photo point 05 – Yorkeys Knob Beach.
Source: EIS Figure 6-11 – see also Appendix J (Figure 11).
Figure 6-9 (see Appendix J Figure 9) shows the 800 m wide buffer between the beach and closest
proposed resort building, and supports the day-time photomontage in the EIS Figure 6-11 above. The
upper level penthouse and roof of a proposed 60 m tall building will be just visible above or between
existing coastal vegetation. The night-time photomontage in Figure 6-6 is consistent with this,
showing just a ‘sliver’ of top floor lights visible. At night, the light from the penthouse level of proposed
Hotel B will be seen from Yorkeys Knob Beach and will be the only direct source of illumination apart
from the flashing channel markers off-shore, or the occasional plane. However, the upper level of
Hotel B is proposed as a IP area, with opportunities for reduced lighting when not in use, so visual
impacts can be mitigated through a combination of design and operational controls and screening by
supplementary planting (see Figure 6-9).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 106
Figure 6-9 Typical cross section.
Source: Appendix J (Figure 9).
However, this modelling does not represent the night-time glow from a brightly-lit resort complex,
which is likely to be more apparent than the direct view of lights per se, although it will be seen in
context of the glow from Cairns CBD and the Airport.
b) Views from the Wet Tropics WHA
There is little night-time use of the WTWHA, and very few observers will have the opportunity to see
the Barron River floodplain from elevated viewpoints at night. Skyrail does not operate at night, and
the only observers will be an occasional motorist who stops at night at Henry Ross Lookout. Existing
night time views from the lookout over the coastal plain (Figure 6-10) are dominated by lights of the
highway and road networks, the airport, and clusters of urban settlements, including the city of Cairns
in the background, beyond the dark void of Mt Whitfield. At night, narrow strips of lighting in the
coastal settlements (Machans and Holloways Beaches, and Yorkeys Knob), define the edge between
land and water.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 107
Figure 6-10 Night-time view from Henry Ross Lookout.
Source: Appendix J (Figure 13).
The lights of the proposed development will be seen in this context, similar in extent to the lights of
Yorkeys Knob, and reinforcing the pattern associated with coastal settlements and separated by a
dark void of rural land from the highway and Smithfield lights. However this photomontage does
include any additional street lighting which may be associated with an upgrade of Yorkeys Knob Road.
It is usual practice for only intersections to be lit and route lighting is minimal.
c) Views from the GBRWHA
In order to assess the visibility of the Aquis Resort at night from the GBRWHA, a photographic study
was undertaken on the night of 26 August where conditions were perfect (fine weather, little haze, no
moon). This involved a trip to and from Green Island and a number of observations over the period
5.30 pm to 9.30 pm.
Night-time views from the Green Island jetty towards the mainland are of a distant cluster of lights and
night-time glow associated with Cairns and the Airport (including red beacons on Mt Whitfield), and a
scattered linear pattern of lights from Machans Beach to the Half Moon Bay marina (Figure 6-11A,
zoomed in to focus on this section of coastline) with distant lights at Trinity Beach further to the north.
Houses on Yorkeys Knob hill are apparent at a slightly higher elevation than those of Machans Beach
and Holloways Beach suburbs, and a very bright set of two lights south of Yorkeys Knob is associated
with recreational facilities (Go Kart Track or Golf Driving Range) until about 9.30 pm each night.
However this ‘static’ snapshot of existing lights does not show flashing lights associated with markers
for the Green Island jetty and channel, and those of the Cairns Harbour channel in the distance; nor
does it show the lights of beach swimming enclosures which may be apparent in summer time, nor
those of cruise ships which anchor off Yorkeys Knob from time to time.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 108
Figure 6-11 Night-time view from Green Island.
Source: Appendix J (Figure 12).
As shown on Figure 6-10A, there are few voids or expansive areas of darkness visible along the
coastline between Cairns and the Northern Beaches. The lights of the proposed development (Figure
6-10B) will be visible as part of other coastline lighting as seen from off-shore waters, and will not
create a significant new node of light in a previously dark section of coastline. Although this
photomontage does not represent the extent to which resort lights might create a night-time glow, the
design of lighting on the resort buildings will ensure the glow is not as great as that of the existing
recreational facilities near Yorkeys Knob. The extent of light of the proposed development potentially
visible from Green Island will not significantly increase the intensity of coastal lighting, nor alter the
aesthetic experience of the GBRWHA currently enjoyed by tourists.
On the night when the observations were made, no tourists were present on the jetty. However, it is
known that there is occasional use of the jetty for star gazing. The following image is extracted from
the Green Island website, which includes the caption:
Green Island’s distance from the big city lights makes it an excellent spot for some amateur astronomy. On a clear night the skies above Green Island are perfect for star gazing.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 109
Figure 6-12 Stargazing promotional image.
Source: http://www.greenislandresort.com.au/star-gazing/ accessed 2 October 2014.
It is of interest that the attraction as promoted is framed by the bright lights of the Green Island resort
itself and not the darker view back to Cairns. The existence of Aquis will not affect the view as
promoted.
d) Impacts of Lighting on Night-time Views
The ZVI modelling described above indicates that:
1. No houses or roads will be within view of the Aquis resort buildings in either Machans or
Holloways Beach suburbs, nor from roads or houses on the ‘flat’ low-lying parts of Yorkeys
Knob, nor from boats or roads in the vicinity of the Half Moon Bay marina. Only the tree
canopies and roof tops show up as visible on the ZVI model (i.e., Aquis would only be visible
from on top of the canopy at those locations).
2. The nearby mainland beaches will be fully screened from view of the Aquis resort buildings,
except for a very limited section of the southern end of Yorkeys Knob beach (PP05) where there
is a gap in the existing vegetation. As seen from PP05, lights from the top floor (proposed VIP
level) are likely to be visible at a distance of approximately 800 m (to the closest hotel building),
but this will be no more intrusive than the Airport red beacons on Mt Whitfield, the flashing lights
on navigation channel markers off-shore, overhead planes, houses on the Yorkeys Knob hill,
and the summertime swimming enclosure at Yorkeys Knob. While the night-time glow from a
brightly lit resort is likely to be visible beyond the places affected by direct lines of sight to the
hotel lights, this will be similar to the existing night-time glow from Cairns and the Airport. For
the few people likely to use the isolated sections of these beaches at night (including those
fishing in the estuary), the presence of lights and night-time glow from the top floor of a resort
800 m away are unlikely to detract significantly from their experience which would be regularly
interrupted by aircraft movements.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 110
3. As seen from off-shore at night, the hotel buildings will be visible over the tree tops of
beachfront vegetation as a node of brightly lit hotels, within a radius of approximately 25 km,
and the top floor of a 20 storey / 60 m building may be visible from up to 27 km away at Green
Island (Figure 6-3). However, the section of coastline between Cairns and Trinity Beach is not
currently dark at night, and a node of visible lights associated with the resort will not detract
from any dark patches within the discontinuous string of constant lights (Cairns City, Airport and
the Northern Beaches suburbs), flashing lights (channel navigation markers and Airport
beacons), and other lights (recreational facilities, swimmer enclosures and regular aircraft
movements). The proposed resort lights will be consistent with the existing pattern of coastline
lights. Although the buildings will be higher (with lights up to 60 m above ground) they will set
back more than 800 m behind the beach and will be designed and operated to minimise glare
and light spillage. Tourist cruise ships anchored off-shore from time to time are of similar scale
to the resort buildings (Figure 6-13) and will not be screened by vegetation.
4. Near the Richters Creek mouth (PP05) where the tops of some buildings will be visible, existing
trees in a wide band behind the beach will provide some screening of the bottom two-thirds of
the closest building (Figure 6-9). Additional planting is suggested as described in Section 6.10.
Figure 6-13 Proposed development size comparison with cruise ships.
Source: Appendix J (Figure 10).
6.7.3 Conclusions
It is concluded that, although the lights from the Aquis Resort will be visible from many viewpoints
including the two world heritage areas, the section of coastline between Cairns and Trinity Beach is
not currently dark at night, and a node of visible lights associated with the resort will not detract
significantly from World Heritage values.
The Yorkeys Knob Beach will remain essentially dark and marine megafauna are most unlikely to be
visible. In fact, any additional lighting would make this more likely, not less. See also Section 6.9.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 111
6.8 IMPACTS OF LIGHT ON TERRESTRIAL SPECIES (ITEM 6 – PART AND 25
– PART)
6.8.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) covers two items relevant of impact of light on terrestrial species, namely:
(6) Further information is required on the potential impacts of artificial lighting on MNES, for example turtles, birds and visual impacts from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA), avoidance and mitigation measures.
(25) The EIS acknowledges numerous impacts of artificial light but concludes that light from the proposed development will not impact on any matters of national environmental significance.
This section discusses impacts on terrestrial species. Refer also to:
light spill (Section 6.3)
impacts on turtles (Section 6.9).
6.8.2 Discussion
a) Potential Impacts of Artificial Lighting
Information regarding the potential impacts of lighting is provided in the EIS (p7-73 and p22-66). The
EIS concludes that (with respect to terrestrial fauna):
Although some buildings will be visible from near-shore areas, at the closest point the highest
buildings will be approximately 740 m away, meaning that the light will be diffused. However,
gaps in coastal vegetation will most likely allow some light spill to reach the beach / inshore
area.
Artificial light sources are likely to have differential effects on wildlife depending on a range of
factors including the foraging strategy employed by each nocturnal species, and the effect of
artificial light on this strategy, including secondary effects of artificial light on the prey items of
active hunters, and changes in food consumption and foraging behaviours, as well as alteration
to reproduction and communication (see Gaston et al. 2013). While slower flying, insectivorous
microbat species are known to avoid artificially lit areas (Stone et al. 2012), there are also
beneficial impacts to faster-flying insectivorous microbat species that can exploit insects
attracted to artificial light sources. Behavioural changes associated with illumination in small
mammals may include avoidance of well-lit areas as an anti-predator response, because of the
perceived risk of predation increases with increasing light.
Artificial lighting may impact on birds by disrupting nesting patterns, disrupting roost sites and
changed timing of dawn calling. Birds have been known to be disoriented by lighting. They may
become ‘trapped’ and be unable to leave a lit area (see Gaston et al. 2013). Conversely, the
impacts of lighting on shorebirds foraging at night can be positive as they may increase foraging
activity and success due to increased invertebrate activity and visibility.
Further information is on specific matters of NES is provided below.
b) Potential Specific Impacts on Matters of NES (Terrestrial Species)
Confirmed listed threatened species
Pteropus conspicillatus (Spectacled flying-fox) (V) is the only MNES fauna species that has been
confirmed on the site. This species has been recorded foraging on but not roosting at the site. The
small potential increase in light as a result of the development is highly unlikely to have any impact on
this species. Pteropus conspicillatus regularly use urban areas with intense artificial lighting, including
the Cairns CBD area where a large colony roosts and forages. This suggests that artificial lighting
does not deter the use of an area by this species.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 112
Listed threatened species with potential to occur on-site
As for the EIS, the balance of this report incorporates the following terminology:
Confirmed: The species has been definitively recorded using one or more of the survey
techniques described.
Likely: The species is known to occur within the project area and/or there is core habitat in the
project area.
Unlikely: The species is considered to have a low likelihood of occurring in the project area, or
occurrence is infrequent and transient. There may be habitat for the species; however, it is
marginal or not considered core habitat. Existing database records are considered historic,
invalid or based on predictive habitat modelling. Despite a low likelihood based on the above
criteria, the species is known from the wider region and could potentially occur.
Table 6-5 sets out criteria used to assess the likelihood of occurrence of species.
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
DEFINITION FURTHER ASSESSMENT REQUIRED?
Low The species is considered to have a low likelihood of occurring in the study area, or occurrence is infrequent and transient. Existing database records are considered historic, invalid or based on predictive habitat modelling. The habitat does not exist for the species or the species is considered locally extinct. Despite a low likelihood based on the above criteria, the species cannot be totally ruled out of occurring within the study area.
No
Moderate There is habitat for the species; however, it is either marginal or not particularly abundant. The species is known from the wider region and could potentially occur in the study area.
Yes
High The species is known to occur within the study area and there is core habitat in the study area.
Yes
Source: EIS (Table 22-7).
Potential terrestrial species are as follows.
Erythrotriorchis radiatus (Red goshawk) (V) is a listed bird that may overfly the site. The species
is unlikely to be impacted by artificial lighting as this species is diurnal, therefore the impact on
their foraging regime will be negligible. There are no nests recorded on site so it seems highly
unlikely there would be any impact on breeding activities.
Dasyurus hallucatus (Northern Quoll) (E) and Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus (Bare-
rumped sheathtail bat) (CE) are listed species that have the potential to occur on site. These
are both nocturnal species. The potential impact of artificial lighting on nocturnal species
depends on the foraging strategy employed by the species, and the effect of artificial light on
this strategy, including secondary effects of artificial light on the prey items of active hunters,
and changes in food consumption (Rydell and Baagoe 1996, Gaston et al. 2013).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 113
- The vegetation within the project area that could be utilised by Dasyurus hallucatus
(Eucalyptus / Melaleuca woodland) is likely to receive additional light as a result of the
proposed development. This species occasionally occurs around human dwellings and
campgrounds (DoTE 2014a), suggesting that artificial light is not a repellent to the
species. The additional illumination may reduce presence and activity of prey species
(such as some invertebrates and reptiles) and thereby potentially impact on foraging
success. However they are an opportunistic predator and scavenger (Curtis et al. 2012)
and will be able to continue to use food sources that will be unaffected by the artificial
light such as fruit in addition to invertebrates, mammals, reptiles and birds. Light
emissions are likely to attenuate within a short distance into the woodland and there is
limited habitat on site that can support foraging of this species (approximately 13 ha). The
impact of artificial light on any Dasyurus hallucatus that may utilise the site as a small part
of their range (approximately 35 ha for both sexes) (Curtis et al. 2012) is likely to be
insignificant.
- Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus forages in the open air above the forest canopy.
It has long narrow wings and a rapid, straight flight although it is also known to be
reasonably manoeuvrable in flight (Curtis et al. 2012). The vegetation within the project
area that could be utilised by this species (Eucalyptus / Melaleuca woodland) is likely to
receive additional light as a result of the proposed development, although the light is
likely to attenuate within a short distance into the woodland. Increased light may attract
insects which are a food source for this species; however Australian studies have shown
that different bat species react differently to artificial lighting (Scanlon & Petit 2008) with
some species advantaged by such lighting. Due to the relative rarity of S. saccolaimus,
research on the effect of artificial light on this species has not been undertaken. However,
the presence of S. saccolaimus has been confirmed immediately next to the Bruce
Highway south of Townsville, suggesting some resilience and ability within this species in
living and foraging safely, adjacent to a high level of artificial lighting (DTMR 2013).
Migratory Species
The site is known to provide habitat for five widespread terrestrial migratory birds, another is likely to
overfly the site, and one additional species seems unlikely to utilise the site (refer Table 6-6). The
effects of project lighting on these birds are difficult to quantify and may be species-specific. While a
study undertaken by Poot et al. (2008) describes the influence of lighting on nocturnal migrating
species, none of the species likely to occur on the site are nocturnal, hence there is unlikely to be any
impact on these species as a result of increased lighting.
Two aerial foraging migratory species (Apus pacificus (Fork-tailed swift)) and Hirundapus caudacutus
(White-throated needle tail)) regularly occur over highly impacted landscapes and will not be impacted
by an increase in light as a result of the Aquis development.
The remainder are wetland birds of which ten are confirmed, 12 are likely to occur, two may overfly
site, and four are unlikely to occur.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 114
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS GROWTH FORM SITE OCCURRENCE
Actitis hypoleucos Common sandpiper MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur
Apus pacificus Fork-tailed swift MMB Aerial bird Confirmed
Ardea ibis Cattle egret MWS Wetland bird Confirmed
Ardea modesta (syn. Ardea alba)
Great egret / White egret MWS Wetland bird Confirmed
Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone MWS Wetland bird Unlikely
Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed sandpiper MWS, SIG Wetland bird Confirmed
Calidris alba Sanderling MWS Wetland bird May overfly site
Calidris canutus Red knot / Knot MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur
Calidris ferruginea Curlew sandpiper MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur
Calidris ruficollis Red-necked stint MWS, SIG Wetland bird Confirmed
Calidris tenuirostris Great knot MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur
Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded plover MWS Wetland bird Unlikely
Charadrius leschenaultii Greater sand plover / Large sand plover
MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur
Charadrius mongolus Lesser sand plover / Mongolian plover
MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur
Charadrius veredus Oriental dotterel MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur
Crocodylus porosus Estuarine crocodile MMS Marine reptile Confirmed
Egretta sacra Eastern Reef Egret MMB Marine bird Confirmed
Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s snipe / Japanese snipe
MWS, SIG Wetland bird Confirmed
Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied sea-eagle MTS Terrestrial bird Confirmed
Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated needle tail
MTS Aerial bird Confirmed
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 115
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS GROWTH FORM SITE OCCURRENCE
Hirundo rustica Barn swallow MTS Terrestrial bird May overfly site
Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed sandpiper MWS Wetland bird Unlikely
Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed godwit MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur
Limosa limosa Black-tailed godwit MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur
Merops ornatus Rainbow bee-eater MTS Terrestrial bird Confirmed
Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced monarch MTS Terrestrial bird Confirmed
Monarcha trivirgatus (syn Symposiarchus trivirgatus)
Spectacled monarch MTS Terrestrial bird Confirmed
Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin flycatcher MTS Terrestrial bird Confirmed
Numenius madagascariensis
Eastern Curlew MWS, SIG Wetland Bird Confirmed
Numenius minutus Little curlew / Little whimbrel
MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur
Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel MWS, SIG Wetland bird Confirmed
Pandion cristatus (syn Pandion haliaetus)
Eastern Osprey
PMST result: Other: Marine Species (breeding),
Listed in online EPBC Migratory Species and Marine Species
Marine bird Confirmed
Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis
Listed in online EPBC Migratory Species and Marine Species
Wetland bird Confirmed
Pluvialis squatarola Grey plover MWS Wetland bird May overfly site
Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous fantail MTS Terrestrial bird Unlikely
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 116
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS GROWTH FORM SITE OCCURRENCE
Rostratula australis (syn. Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato))
Painted Snipe E, MWS Wetland bird Unlikely
Sterna albifrons sinensis Little Tern MMB Marine bird Likely to occur
Tringa brevipes (syn. Heteroscelus brevipes)
Grey-tailed tattler MWS, SIG Wetland bird Confirmed
Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank
Listed in online EPBC Migratory species and Marine Species,
SIG
Wetland bird Confirmed
Tringa stagnatilis Marsh sandpiper / Little greenshank
MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur
Xenus cinereus Terek sandpiper MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur
Abbreviations: MMB – Migratory Marine Birds, MMS – Migratory Marine Species, MTS – Migratory Terrestrial Species, MWS –
Migratory Wetlands Species, SIG – listed in Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species (DEWHA 2009)
A number of migratory species that were not considered in detail with regards to impacts from
increased lighting before are listed in Table 6-7 and impacts assessed.
SPECIES COMMON NAME ACTIVITY MODALITY POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM INCREASED LIGHTING
Ardea modesta (syn. Ardea alba)
Great egret / White egret
Diurnal species The species is diurnal and would not be affected by light.
Egretta sacra Eastern Reef Egret
Forages diurnally and nocturnally.
The species is mostly diurnal, although it may occasionally forage at night.
Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s snipe / Japanese snipe
Active at dusk and dawn The species is not active during night hours.
Pandion cristatus Eastern Osprey Mostly a diurnal species
The species is mostly diurnal although it may occasionally forage at night. Light may assist in finding and capturing prey which are mostly fish.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 117
SPECIES COMMON NAME ACTIVITY MODALITY POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM INCREASED LIGHTING
Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis Diurnal species The species is diurnal and would not be affected by light.
Tringa brevipes (syn Heteroscelus brevipes)
Grey-tailed Tattler
Diurnal species The species is diurnal and would not be affected by light.
Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank
Diurnal species The species is diurnal and would not be affected by light.
Migratory shorebird habitat is already limited on the site and will be further reduced by the removal of
the aquaculture ponds as currently proposed. Shorebird habitat will be restricted largely to the mouth
of Richters Creek. The site is at best only likely to be used temporarily by most species during
migration as there is more suitable habitat such as the Cairns foreshore within 10 km of the Aquis site.
The Cairns foreshore is a well-known area for migratory shorebirds and has been designated as an
internationally important site for some species of migratory bird (Bamford et al. 2008). It has been
noted (Rojas et al. 1999) that some shorebird species employ visual foraging diurnally but use tactile
foraging during hours of darkness. Artificial light may extend nocturnal visual foraging for longer
periods, although the extent and effect of this is unknown. The Cairns foreshore is directly adjacent to
Cairns CBD with significant associated levels of artificial light. This level of light does not appear to
affect the significant number of migratory species that continue to utilise this site. Given the reduction
in minor habitat available for migratory shorebird / wetland species, and that the actual disruptive
influence of artificial light on these species remains somewhat conjectural, the impact of lighting on
these species is expected to be negligible.
c) Mitigation
Best-practice lighting methods will be used on-site to minimise the amount of light spill from the site.
These methods are outlined in Section 6.3.2. This may be further augmented by choices to the type
of lighting used at the Aquis site. In a UK study, Stone et al. (2012) reported that LED street lights
caused a reduction in activity of slow-flying bats in light levels as low as 3.6 LUX, but found no similar
effect on the relatively fast-flying species. Despite their low-emission qualities, LED lights may
fragment commuting routes for bats with negative outcomes for some species. Studies show that
there are significant differences in the nature and intensity of effects on wildlife from the use of
different artificial lighting types (see Gaston et al. 2013). Such factors need further investigation.
The project design incorporates a vegetation regeneration program surrounding the site which in the
long-term can be expected to provide additional screening from project lighting for the extant
Eucalyptus / Melaleuca habitat for Dasyurus hallucatus and Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus in
the unlikely event that they appear on the site.
6.8.3 Conclusions
Overall, the expected project impacts to migratory birds and threatened species is considered neutral.
The site’s current contribution to OUV under the GBRWHA under Criterion (x) – Habitats for
conservation of biodiversity (formerly Criterion (iv)) is minor at best.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 118
6.9 IMPACTS OF LIGHT ON TURTLES (ITEMS 6, 25, 26, AND 29 – PART)
6.9.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) covers several items relevant to impact of light on aquatic species,
namely:
(6) Further information is required on the potential impacts of artificial lighting on MNES, for example turtles, birds and visual impacts from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA), avoidance and mitigation measures.
(25) The EIS acknowledges numerous impacts of artificial light but concludes that light from the proposed development will not impact on any matters of national environmental significance.
(26) The EIS lists mitigation measures that will reduce the impact of light on turtles; however, there is no evidence provided to support that this is the case. Evidence is required to justify these statements.
(29) As discussed above, further justification is required regarding the impacts of light on the aesthetic values of the GBRWHA and fauna such as marine turtles.
The issues raised under these items with respect to turtles are related and are responded to below in
an integrated manner. This section discusses impacts on aquatic species. Refer also to:
light spill (Section 6.3)
impacts of light on terrestrial species (Section 6.8).
6.9.2 Discussion
a) Light spill
Details of predicted light spill have been provided in Section 6.3. This information is relied on in the
following discussion.
b) Potential Impacts of Artificial Light on Marine Turtles
Marine turtles require sandy beaches to nest, and indirect impacts to marine turtles can arise from
lights generated by coastal developments. The life stages most at risk from impacts from light include
nesting adult turtles and hatchlings. Marine turtles are predominantly nocturnal nesters; artificial
lighting near nesting beaches can disrupt visual cues and alter behaviour in reproductively active
females. This includes:
potentially deterring females from nesting (Salmon 2003)
reducing nesting productivity when compared to turtles nesting on unlit beaches (Pike 2008)
a tendency for adult females to nest in darker, shaded areas of the beach (Salmon 2003)
selection of alternative nesting beaches, which may provide less suitable nesting habitat resulting in reduced nesting success (Salmon 2003).
Hatchlings also emerge from nests at night. Studies have shown that post-emergence, sea-finding in
marine turtles is directed by several cues, and can be affected by the presence of artificial lighting on
beaches (Salmon 2003, Tuxbury and Salmon 2005, Verheijn 1985, Witherington and Martin 1996).
Turtle hatchlings appear to integrate light over a broad area and crawl away from a tall dark horizon
(dunes) and towards a lower and lighter seaward horizon (Limpus 1971, Mrosovsky and Carr 1967,
Salmon et al. 1992, Tuxbury and Salmon 2005, Van Rhijn and Van Gorkom 1983, Witherington 1992).
Artificial lights from coastal developments can impact hatchling sea-finding behaviour in two ways:
disorientation, where hatchlings crawl on circuitous paths or
misorientation, where they move landward, possibly attracted to artificial lights (Witherington
and Martin 1996).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 119
Delayed arrival at the water due to disorientation or misorientation increases their exposure to
predation (Salmon 2005, Salmon and Witherington 1995).
Field studies of flatback turtle hatchlings on Barrow Island (Western Australia) have shown that
hatchlings respond primarily to light stimuli at eye level (Pendoley Environmental 2007, cited in
Chevron Australia 2014). When the light source was elevated to 12° behind a tall dune, the hatchlings
ignored the light cues and responded by moving away from the tall dark horizon created by the dune
towards the ocean (Pendoley Environmental 2007, cited in Chevron Australia 2014). They also
showed that when relative differences in light intensity are low, hatchlings did not show significant
orientation to these light cues (Pendoley 1997, cited in Chevron Australia 2014). Further studies
investigating the effects of different light wavelengths on flatback turtle and loggerhead turtle
hatchlings found that they select and orient towards short wavelengths over long wavelengths
(Pendoley 2005, and Pendoley Environmental 2008 cited in Chevron Australia 2014, Witherington
1992).
c) Likely Impacts of Artificial Lighting from the Aquis Resort on Marine Turtles
The coastal area in the vicinity of the Aquis Resort comprises two extended sandy beaches at Yorkeys
Knob and Holloways Beach, which are separated by the mouth of Richters Creek (which is lined with
mangroves and does not provide suitable nesting habitat for marine turtles). The EIS (Chapter 22)
documents a detailed desktop assessment of the likelihood of marine turtles occurring within 5 km of
Aquis Resort. This assessment found that in the context of the greater region, marine turtles are likely
to have a limited dependency on the inshore and near shore habitats adjacent to the proposed Aquis
site. Yorkeys Knob and Holloways beaches are not key nesting areas for any species of marine turtle,
and there are currently no definitive records of turtles nesting on these beaches, although marine
turtles may nest on these beaches in low densities (Bunce 2013 pers. comm., Trenerry 2013 pers.
comm.). Aquis has committed to surveys scheduled for the 2014 / 2015 nesting season to determine
whether these beaches are used as a nesting area by marine turtles (see Section 6.12.3 and the
Register of Proponent Commitments).
Given the abundance of artificial light in the Cairns area (including light from the adjacent beach-side
suburbs of Yorkeys Knob and Holloways Beach), the actual disruptive influence of artificial light on
marine turtles in the local area is conjectural. As noted in Section 6.3, the beaches of Yorkeys Knob
and Holloways Beach are currently not completely dark, even on a moonless night, because:
the southern end of the Yorkeys Knob Beach has some light glow from Cairns CBD and the
airport (and the northern half of Yorkeys Knob beach is within view of house lights on the hill)
there are off-shore flashing lights of the harbour channel leads
there are planes [displaying navigation lights] landing on a regular basis, even late at night
the stinger enclosure during summer has floodlights.
6.9.3 Conclusions
The risk of impact on nesting marine turtles and turtle hatchlings due to changes to the current light
climate is considered low, because:
a limited number of marine turtles are likely to utilise Yorkeys Knob Beach and Holloways
Beach for nesting
the light shed modelling undertaken for this report indicates that lights from the Aquis Resort
would not be seen along the vast majority of beach in the vicinity of the development
Yorkeys Knob Beach and Holloways Beach are currently subject to light impacts from other
sources (including residential lights and the floodlights at the stinger enclosure at Yorkeys
Beach, which operate during the turtle nesting season).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 120
It is possible that reproductively active female turtles sighting the Aquis Resort lights from off-shore
could be deterred from nesting on Yorkeys or Holloways Beaches. However, it is considered more
likely that any avoidance behaviour would be associated with the current sources of lighting, which are
lower on the horizon. Hatchlings are also unlikely to be affected by lighting from the Aquis Resort as
they would be unable to see any sources of light from the Aquis Resort along most of Yorkeys Knob
Beach or Holloways Beach. Where lights may be visible at Richters Creek mouth, the relative
differences in natural and artificial light intensity have been shown to be low, and are thus unlikely to
disorientate hatchlings.
6.10 SCREENING VEGETATION (ITEM 7 AND 32)
6.10.1 Background
The DoTE submission includes two items relevant to the use of screening vegetation, namely:
(7) Please provide additional information on the proposed vegetated screen including the type of vegetation to be used, the management of the vegetated screen and the likely effectiveness of the vegetated screen for this project.
(32) As discussed above, further information is required on the adequacy of vegetation screens. For example, where vegetation has been used to successfully screen similar developments from light impacts to aesthetics of an undeveloped area.
6.10.2 Discussion
Figure 6-14 below shows a LiDAR map of vegetation heights in the vicinity of the development as
discussed in Section 6.3.3, while Figure 6-9 shows a typical cross section through the area of
interest.
Figure 6-14 Vegetation heights.
Source: Appendix J (Figure 8).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 121
These figures reveal that, near the Richters Creek mouth (PP05) where the tops of some buildings will
be visible, existing trees in a wide band behind the beach will provide some screening of the bottom
two-thirds of the closest building (Figure 6-9). Additional planting of Casuarina spp. along the frontal
dunes within 60 – 120 m of the high water mark would be capable of filling in any sightline gaps within
about 10 years of planting (when the trees reach about 15 m height). Taller growing trees (such as
Norfolk Island Pines or Hoop Pines) will be planted on the eastern boundary of the golf course, and
these could reach 30 – 40 m at maturity (over approximately 20 – 30 years) at which stage they would
provide additional screening of the buildings. Planting on the subject land will be part of a 30 year
plan. It is also recommended that planting be undertaken on and behind the dunes, as part of
revegetation works in collaboration with Council and/or local Landcare groups so as ensure that the
vegetated screen is permanent.
Such plantings are practical and effective as evidenced by many examples in the region. The Aquis
team includes specialists with the necessary skills and experience to ensure that these will be
sustainable. Such plantings will be incorporated into the restoration strategy described in the Register
of Proponent Commitments.
6.10.3 Conclusions
This assessment confirms that with some strategic plantings of appropriate trees, natural vegetation
will be capable of filling in any sightline gaps within about 10 years of planting (when the trees reach
about 15 m height).
Such plantings are considered to be practical and will be incorporated into the restoration strategy
described in the Register of Proponent Commitments.
6.11 ON-SITE WATERBODIES (ITEM 8)
6.11.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 8 states:
(8) It is important to note that the aquaculture ponds and artificial drainage networks currently on site provide habitat for fauna including MNES. Although they are not considered to be natural, they still provide habitat that will be removed by the Aquis development. Further information is required as to how the impacts of removing this habitat will be fully considered and mitigated.
6.11.2 Discussion
a) Waterbodies On-site
The EIS notes that the site contains minor water resource features consisting of four different types:
Type 1: the abandoned aquaculture ponds on Lot 1 RP800898
Type 2: natural freshwater ponds in the melaleuca wetlands on Lot 100 NR3818
Type 3: small man-made dams, principally on Lot 100 NR3818
Type 4: agricultural drains constructed for stormwater drainage purposes throughout the farm.
A representative photo of each of these is included below. See Figure 6-15 for locational details.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 122
Photo 6-1 Largest of the disused aquaculture ponds on
Lot 1 RP800898 (July 2013).
Source: EIS Appendix G (Plate 10).
Photo 6-2 Residual freshwater pond on north-east
corner of Lot 100 NR3818 (July 2013).
Source: EIS Appendix G (Plate 4).
Photo 6-3 Man-made dam on Lot 100 NR3818 (July
2013).
Source: EIS Appendix F (p76 – Site 7a).
Photo 6-4 Cane drainage waterway on Lot 100
NR3818 (July 2013).
Source: EIS Appendix F (p76 – Site 7).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 123
Figure 6-15 Land use plan showing aquaculture ponds and other waterbodies.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 124
b) Type 1: Aquaculture Ponds
Details
Table 6-8 provides details of the five abandoned aquaculture ponds on Lot 1 RP800898.
LOCATION AREA (HA)
Pond 1 (adjacent to Richters Ck/Intensive Study Site 5) 0.35
Pond 2 (adjacent to Richters Ck/Intensive Study Site 5) 0.20
Pond 3 (adjacent to Richters Ck/Intensive Study Site 5) 0.78
Pond 4 (adjacent to Richters Ck/Intensive Study Site 5) 3.10
Pond 5 (adjacent to Richters Ck/Intensive Study Site 5) 1.16
TOTAL 5.59
Values
A number of the waterbirds recorded in the EIS at the aquaculture ponds are listed under both the
Nature Conservation Act 1992 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999, and/or are protected under conventions to which the Commonwealth is a signatory (e.g.,
JAMBA and the Bonn Convention). These species are listed below in Table 6-9.
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC ACT EPBC ACT
FORM SITE OCCURRENCE
Ardea ibis Cattle egret S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed
Ardea modesta (syn Ardea alba)
Great egret / White egret
S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed
Calidris ruficollis Red-necked stint S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed
Egretta sacra Eastern reef egret S MMB Marine bird Confirmed
Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater S - Wetland bird Confirmed
Plegadis falcinellus Glossy ibis S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed
Tringa brevipes (syn Heteroscelus brevipes)
Grey-tailed tattler S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 125
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC ACT EPBC ACT
FORM SITE OCCURRENCE
Tringa nebularia Common greenshank S SIG Marine bird Confirmed
Abbreviations: MMB – Migratory Marine Birds, MMS – Migratory Marine Species, MTS – Migratory Terrestrial Species,
MWS – Migratory Wetlands Species, SIG – listed in Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird
species (DEWHA 2009).
The terrestrial biodiversity component of the EIS included dedicated survey of the freshwater
aquaculture ponds on the Aquis site, particularly for avifauna and amphibians. The total number of all
bird species recorded within the aquaculture ponds environment up to July 2014 is 52. The following
details are relevant.
During dry season surveys in July / August 2013, water levels within the ponds were low and
there were large numbers of waterbirds present in response to the optimal foraging conditions
at substrate level, and the sparse vegetation on the bank margins. Diversity and abundance
were high and for many species there was a range of age classes present. The July / August
dry season survey of 2013 recorded 27 bird species at the aquaculture ponds. At the time of an
additional dry season survey in October 2013, water levels were around 30% lower than the
preceding July. This significantly increased habitat availability and bird numbers had increased
to 40 species.
The wet season survey of March 2014 demonstrated the effect of increased water depth on
reducing diversity and abundance. Water depth had increased by as much as 2.5 m in some
ponds, and the steepness of the banks provided little suitable habitat at the margin of the
ponds. The margins were dominated by dense stands of Persicaria orientalis that provided few
foraging opportunities (Note: An incidental visit to the site in January 2014 showed water levels
had reached a high level by that time.) As a result, the total number of bird species present
declined to 34, with only three of those species being associated with wetland habitats, and the
remaining 31 being terrestrial birds that were either over-flying the water or foraging within the
vegetation surrounding and adjacent to the ponds.
Rainfall between March and August 2014 was sufficiently high to maintain elevated water levels
within the ponds. The pond margins were clear of tall vegetation, but the August 2014
monitoring survey showed that the resulting habitat supported only 20 faunal species. When
water levels are high and pond edges are steeply-sloping the diversity and abundance of birds
is much reduced. In the 2014 year, water levels between January and August remained
sufficiently high to keep bird numbers low throughout this period. Survey effort late in August
2014 (Northcote pers. comm. 28.08.2014) revealed further increases in both diversity and
abundance, associated with a rapid decline in water levels with the onset of dry conditions in
August.
These four surveys have shown that there is a degree of seasonal variation in waterbird utilisation of
the existing ponds. There is an optimal water depth which attracts large numbers of species, and
dense flocks of a sub-set of these species. This water depth appears to vary between 150 mm and
1500 mm. The timing of this depth is dependent on seasonal rainfall, but it appears likely to persist for
three months between August and October.
Data from the four surveys suggests that the ponds are providing an important local habitat resource
during the annual dry season. The diversity and abundance of species present is high, as in similar
habitats close by (e.g. Cattana Wetlands) during some periods of the year. In addition to the variety of
water depths present, the Aquis ponds also display habitat heterogeneity. The main pond contains a
variety of wetland plants including relatively dense stands of Typha orientalis and a dense community
of reeds and sedges which develops seasonally along the southern and northern margins of the pond.
Shallower ponds contain large stands of T. orientalis which supported flocks of Anseranas
semipalmata in August 2014. Other ponds are ringed by woody vegetation including mangroves, and
terrestrial birds are more commonly encountered within this vegetation.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 126
The diversity of water depths and the variety of different habitats across the pond network are the key
reasons for the attractiveness of the ponds on the Aquis site during the peak seasonal use period, as
was suggested in the Aquis EIS.
Adverse Impacts of Development
The key impact associated with draining and filling the aquaculture ponds as proposed in the EIS will
be the loss of habitat. As noted, the existing ponds display a variety of water depths and there is a
variety of vegetation associated with the different ponds. This habitat is especially favoured as a dry
season refuge when there are fewer other freshwater bodies available. However, all other freshwater
resources on site (other than farm drains) will be retained as part of the development as described in
the following sections.
The loss of this pond habitat would only affect those species which are dependent on freshwater
habitats.
Beneficial Impacts of Development (Birdstrike)
As noted in the EIS, Cairns Airport has a very high level of bird-strike incidents, and this was the main
drawback associated with the ecological values of the existing ponds. The ponds provide habitat for
many birds, some of which are flocking species, and the position of the lakes in relation to the northern
airport approach path increases the likelihood of collisions. Filling the ponds would alleviate this issue.
In addition, other species such as Milvus migrans often forms flocks of 20-30 birds during cane
harvesting events when small mammal prey is abundant. The conversion of the existing land-use
away from sugar cane production will significantly alleviate the potential for strikes caused by this
species.
Unfortunately there are no records available which provide precise locations of bird-strike at Cairns
Airport, so there are no indications of the actual strike numbers that may be positively attributed to the
Aquis ponds. In the absence of reliable data, a precautionary approach was adopted in the EIS and
filling of the existing ponds was canvassed. See the more detailed discussion of this issue in Section
7.5.
Beneficial Impacts of Development (Other)
Other reasons for draining and filling the ponds are protection of lake water quality and reduction in
the risk of river migration. These matters are expanded upon in Section 7.5.
c) Types 2 and 3: Other Freshwater Resources (On-Site)
Details
Other freshwater resources on the Aquis site (other than farm drains) are detailed in Table 6-10
below. All of these resources will remain as part of the development. These resources will be available
for fauna displaced by the loss of the aquaculture ponds. See Photo 6-2 and Photo 6-3 in Section
6.11.2a).
Sites described as ‘Intensive Study Sites’ above are shown on Figure 6-16 below.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 127
FRESHWATER RESOURCE TYPE
LOCATION AREA
Ephemeral Freshwater Pond NE boundary of Lot 100 NR3818; adjacent E to Intensive Study Site 3 165 m2
Ephemeral Freshwater Pond NE boundary of Lot 100 NR3818; adjacent E to Intensive Study Site 3 33 m2
Ephemeral Freshwater Pond NE boundary of Lot 100 NR3818; adjacent E to Intensive Study Site 3 9 m2
Artificial Water Storage Lot 100 NR3818; next to track to Richters Ck mouth/beach; west of/near Intensive Study Site 4
0.19 ha
Clay Pan Lot 60 RP835486; Dunne Rd; adjacent to Half Moon Ck Estuary 3.42 ha
Clay Pan Lot 60 RP835486; Dunne Rd; adjacent to Half Moon Ck Estuary 3.67 ha
Clay Pan/Seasonal Swamp/Wetland
Lot 100 NR3818; adjacent to Yorkeys Ck Estuary; between Intensive Study Site 2 & 3
1.95 ha
TOTAL 9.26 ha
Figure 6-16 Intensive study sites referred to above.
Source: EIS Appendix G (Terrestrial Biodiversity) Map 1.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 128
Values
Within the stands of Melaleuca on the north-eastern side of Lot 100 NR3818, a number of small
freshwater pools persist in deeper swales during the dry season, following the more widespread
inundation of the wet season. With the exception of the aquaculture ponds, these were the only
sources of freshwater found in the project area during ground survey in July 2013.
Observations revealed that these are high value areas at that time of the year, being visited by a large
number of woodland birds. In the wet season these Melaleuca-dominated forests form a continuous
chain of freshwater pools flanked by woodlands on raised, relict dunes and anthropogenic grasslands.
The pools surveyed were physically similar (relatively small, shallow, with a sandy substrate and high
detritus load), although floral and faunal communities differed significantly. Various aquatic plants
augmented fallen brush and root mats to provide habitat complexity. A number of pools supported
abundant invertebrate life together with native rainbowfish and gudgeons.
Each farm dam supports a variety of aquatic plants. The dam on Lot 100 supports both native and
exotic fishes. Waterfowl were abundant at each site.
Impacts of Development
With the exception of the ‘artificial water storage’ (next to the track to Richters Creek mouth / beach),
all on-site freshwater resources/habitats are proposed to be retained.
d) Type 4: Farm Drains
Description
Various channels constructed to drain stormwater from the cane fields cross all lots (see Photo 6-4) in
Section 6.11.2a). These are typically 2–3 m wide and 1 m deep. Due to the low-lying nature of the site
and its proximity to the coast, these drains are often brackish to saline and this is reflected in their
floral and faunal assemblages.
Most of the drains have been extensively colonised by marine plants and freshwater plants that are
relevantly tolerant of brackish waters
Values
Although these drains are artificial features, they provide some habitat value for aquatic and terrestrial
species. Water quality typically reflects distance from the (tidal) outfall and recent rainfall. Abundant
algal mats result in a daily cycle of hyperoxia and hypoxia. Estuarine flora colonises drains (in
patches) between clearing events. Crabs are common in sections subject to brackish waters. Fish of
various species are likely to be present when conditions are suitable.
Artificial drains within the sugar cane environment have been colonised by a range of marine plants,
so a number have been recorded from the anthropogenic grasslands/disturbed area environments.
There were also some artificial drains where marine plants have reached 75-100% cover. One of
these drains extends from one side to the other of Lot 100 NR3818.
Plant distribution is determined by drain depth, salinity, and length of inundation. Shallow drains in the
most saline areas are dominated by Cyperaceae, Acrostichum speciosum and Sporobolus virginicus,
whereas Typha orientalis, Persicaria orientalis and Eleocharis equisetina dominate drains which are
deep and where salinity is lowest.
At the time of the July 2013 survey, only drains nearest Richters Creek contained water, and in these
areas Acrostichum speciosum and various Cyperaceae were common. In March 2014, all drains were
full but generally the same plant species were present.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 129
Impacts of Development
All farm drains will be drained and filled during construction of the development. While this will involve
the loss of a small amount of habitat, such features are ubiquitous in the Barron River delta and the
significance of the Aquis Resort will be very small. It is not expected to involve a significant impact on
a matter of NES.
The loss of any aquatic fauna could be mitigated by salvage operations (currently considered ‘best
practice’ for industrial and urban developments). During salvage operations, native fauna (fish and
crabs) would be relocated, while any exotics would be humanely destroyed. Any mangrove seedlings
that are present will be salvaged.
Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed other than salvage of native fauna and any mangrove seedlings that are
present.
e) Alternative Habitats (Off-site)
There are a number of alternative off-site habitats within the local area (within 3 km of the proposed
development) as shown on Figure 6-17. This includes former sand mines (e.g. Cattana Wetlands),
artificial dams and lakes, dammed drainages, estuary pools, aquaculture ponds (active) and claypans
with seasonally variable inundation regimes as detailed below. All of these provide alternative habitat
for birds likely to currently utilise the Aquis aquaculture ponds.
Figure 6-17 Water resources within 3 km of Aquis.
Details of these resources are shown in Table 6-11 below.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 130
WATER RESOURCE TYPE
LOCATION AREA (ha)
Clay Pan SL Lot 27 AP13734 - Lot3/USL9661; Half Moon Ck estuary; 150m south-east of (new) Bluewater Marina, Yorkeys Knob
7.84
Clay Pan SL Lot 34 SP113641; Wattle St. Yorkeys Knob; opposite Golf Course 4.16
Dammed Drainage LL Lot 227 SP122860; adjacent south of old Yorkeys Knob Marina, Golf Course Infrastructure
1.14
Artificial Lake Lot 167 SP122860; Wattle St. Yorkeys Knob; Golf Course Infrastructure
1.77
Artificial Lake Lot 2 RP715316; Wattle St. Yorkeys Knob; Golf Course Infrastructure 0.46
Estuary Pool Lot2 RP715316; Cunningham St. Yorkeys Knob; adjacent Golf Course 0.18
Aquaculture (active) Lot2 RP894172; Walkers Rd 25.48
Artificial Dam Lot1 SP256273; Yorkeys Knob Rd/Robinson Rd 4.80
Claypan Lot 1 SP256273; Yorkeys Knob Rd/Robinson Rd 6.06
Claypan RE Lot 126 NR5009; Yorkeys Knob Rd/Dunne Rd; Council Reserve 10.74
Claypan Lot 61 RP867132; Dunne Rd 0.27
Cattana Wetlands (Former Sand Mine)
Lot 2 SP268644; Dunne Rd 0.91
Cattana Wetlands (Former Sand Mine)
Lot2 SP268644; Dunne Rd 7.57
Cattana Wetlands (Former Sand Mine)
Lot2 SP268644; Dunne Rd 0.40
Cattana Wetlands (Former Sand Mine)
Lot2 SP268644; Dunne Rd 1.53
Cattana Wetlands (Former Sand Mine)
Lot 2 SP268644; Dunne Rd 0.55
Cattana Wetlands (Former Sand Mine)
Lot 2 SP268644; Dunne Rd 0.42
Cattana Wetlands (Former Sand Mine)
Lot 2 SP268644; Dunne Rd 0.13
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 131
WATER RESOURCE TYPE
LOCATION AREA (ha)
Artificial Lake Lot1 SP207020; Skyrail Terminal 1.67
Artificial Lake Lot 2 RP894173; Skyrail Terminal 0.63
Former Sand Mine Lot 1 RP713843; Wistaria St, Holloways Beach 2.72
Artificial Lake Lot 26 RP742501; Caribbean St, Holloways Beach; dwelling on centre island
0.99
Clay Pan Lot 147 NR4789; Machans Beach Access Road 3.34
TOTAL 83.77
This assessment reveals that there is approximately 84 ha of similar habitats to those proposed to be
removed within 3 km of the proposed development. This is 14 times the area of the aquaculture
ponds.
6.11.3 Conclusions
In conclusion
Aquaculture ponds on the Aquis site provide habitat for a wide range of waterbirds, some of
which are EPBC-listed Migratory species. Their principal use appears to be as a dry season
refuge. As the Aquis site is one of a number of artificial water bodies in the local area that are
similarly utilised, the loss of the habitat is not considered significant. There is approximately 84
ha of similar habitats to those proposed to be removed within 3 km of the proposed
development. However, the option remains to retain the ponds should the risk of birdstrike, lake
water quality and river migration be found to be acceptable (see Section 7.5).
With the exception of the ‘artificial water storage’ (next to the track to Richters Creek mouth /
beach), all onsite freshwater resources/habitats are proposed to be retained. The loss of this
single storage is not considered significant.
All farm drains will be drained and filled during construction of the development. While this will
involve the loss of habitat, this impact is not considered significant. No mitigation is proposed
other than salvage of native fauna and mangroves.
6.12 BASELINE SURVEYS (ITEM 9)
6.12.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 9 states:
(9) The surveys summarised in Appendix F [Aquatic Biodiversity] were designed to provide input into the design of the proposed development, rather than as baseline surveys for a known development. Please provide baseline data to ensure that changes to water quality can be monitored during the construction and operation of the proposed development.
The first sentence of this statement is true in that the material supplied in Appendix F (Aquatic
Ecology) was prepared in support of the EIS. Since the preparation of the EIS, additional work
relevant to this comment has been undertaken and is planned. This is discussed in s23.6 of the EIS
under the heading Future Investigations and Monitoring. This is discussed below, referring to the
material in s23.6 as updated to October 2014.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 132
This covers:
aquatic ecology, water quality / sediment analysis
terrestrial ecology
water quality / sediment analysis
groundwater.
6.12.2 EIS Surveys
The EIS was based on ecological, water quality, groundwater, and sediment analysis obtained during
the following periods:
Dry season 2013 (July 2013):
- terrestrial ecology
- aquatic ecology
- water quality
- groundwater.
Dry season 2013 extra (October 2013)
- terrestrial ecology
- aquatic ecology
- water quality
- groundwater.
Monthly monitoring 2013/14 (December 2013 to March 2014):
- water quality
- flows, tides, water quality (for calibration of water quality model)
- groundwater
Wet season 2013/14 (February to April 2014):
- terrestrial ecology (including first two quarterly mangrove monitoring surveys)
- aquatic ecology
- inlet pipeline route.
6.12.3 Post EIS Surveys
a) Scope
The post-EIS surveys are designed to extend the EIS work as appropriate but with a revised focus on
baseline monitoring rather than impact assessment. Topics covered are:
terrestrial ecology
aquatic ecology
water quality
groundwater.
An on-going program is committed to run until February 2015 at least. The committed program to
February 2015 is as shown on Table 6-12 below. Documents completed detailing findings are
indicated where appropriate.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 133
TIMING TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
AQUATIC ECOLOGY
WATER QUALITY GROUNDWATER
Dry season 2013 EIS Appendix G EIS Appendix F EIS Appendix M EIS Appendix L
Wet season 2013/14
EIS Appendix G EIS Appendix F EIS Appendix M EIS Appendix L
Dry season 2014 Biotropica Australia (2014d)
frc environmental (2014b)
EIS Appendix M and Appendix E to this
report
N/A
Wet season 2014/15
Planned Planned N/A N/A
Dec-2013 N/A N/A Appendix E to this
report Golder Associates (2014)
Jan-2014 Mangroves: Biotropica Australia (2014a)
Appendix E to this
report Golder Associates (2014)
Feb-2014 N/A BMT WBM (2014A) Golder Associates
(2014)
Mar-2014 N/A Appendix E to this
report Golder Associates (2014)
Apr-2014 Mangroves - Biotropica Australia (2014b)
Appendix E to this
report Golder Associates (2014)
May-2014 N/A N/A Appendix E to this
report Golder Associates (2014)
Jun-2014 N/A N/A Appendix E to this
report Golder Associates (2014)
Jul-2014 Mangroves Biotropica Australia (2014c)
N/A Appendix E to this
report Golder Associates (2014)
Aug-2014 N/A N/A Appendix E to this
report Golder Associates (2014)
Sep-2014 N/A N/A Planned Planned
Oct-2014 Mangroves - Planned N/A Planned Planned
Nov-2014 N/A N/A Planned Planned
Dec-2014 N/A N/A Planned Planned
Jan-2015 Mangroves - Planned N/A Planned Planned
Feb-2015 N/A N/A Planned Planned
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 134
b) Details: Aquatic Ecology Surveys
Two surveys are involved:
a 2014 dry season survey was completed in August 2014 and is documented in frc
environmental (2014d)
a 2014/15 wet season survey will be undertaken when conditions are appropriate (most likely in
February 2015).
These surveys involve a repeat of the survey aspects of the work documented in Appendix H –
Aquatic Ecology (dry season and wet season) as well as an assessment of:
macroinvertebrates in the sediment of the receiving environment at three sites in Thomatis /
Richters Creek and at a comparative site
macroinvertebrates in mangrove ecosystems of Richters Creek (to be coordinated with the
terrestrial ecology mangrove survey) and to include a sediment sampling program
estuarine fish surveys at five locations in Richters Creek and elsewhere
water quality (samples to be taken from all sites where biota are sampled) with testing of:
- TN, TP, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, reactive phosphorous
- chlorophyll a
- total organic carbon
- biological oxygen demand
sediment quality (samples to be taken from all sites where biota are sampled) including testing
of grain size, moisture content, total organic carbon, total nitrogen and total phosphorous
follow-up benthic survey of the off-shore pipeline route.
The purpose of this work is to create a baseline for future impact monitoring and inform detailed
design where relevant.
c) Details: Terrestrial Ecology Surveys
Two surveys are involved:
a 2014 dry season survey was undertaken in August 2014 and is documented in (Biotropica
Australia (2014d)
a 2014/15 wet season survey will be undertaken when conditions are appropriate (most likely in
February 2015).
These surveys will involve a repeat of the survey aspects of the work documented in Appendix G –
Terrestrial Biodiversity (dry season and wet season) as well as an assessment of:
terrestrial flora (species composition in three forest strata, foliage projective cover, leaf litter
cover, presence absence of coarse woody debris, presence absence of epiphytic life forms,
overall vegetation health)
terrestrial fauna (avifauna (nocturnal, diurnal), microbats (nocturnal), small mammals
(nocturnal), aquatic invertebrates (diurnal), terrestrial invertebrates (nocturnal, diurnal), crab
mounds/m2 (diurnal), amphibians (nocturnal, diurnal).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 135
In addition, a program of quarterly baseline surveys commenced in January 2014 and will continue
until January 2015). These involve regular mangrove surveys to record:
species composition and density
tree growth
canopy cover
seedling density, species richness and growth
soil salinity (conductivity)
soil pH
sediment levels.
The purpose of this work is to create a baseline for future impact monitoring and inform detailed
design where relevant.
Figure 6-18 Typical mangrove survey
pro forma.
Source: Biotropica Australia (2014c)
d) Surface Water
Purpose
A detailed water quality baseline program is included in EIS Appendix M (Water Quality). This was
developed specifically to characterise existing water quality within Richters Creek, Yorkeys Creek and
Half Moon Bay (marina area). These three water bodies are regarded as ‘project-related’ and have the
potential to be impacted upon by the proposed development.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 136
The primary objective of the water quality monitoring campaign is to collect data with which to:
develop a robust and defensible water quality baseline dataset
ensure availability of sufficient and up to date information with which to calibrate and verify the
numerical water quality modelling tools
determine creek trigger and compliance levels for the construction and operational phases of
the development.
Ultimately, the program will be converted to require two years of monthly monitoring data to enable
long-term compliance limits to be set.
Details
In Situ Monitoring
Twelve months of continuous in situ water quality data is being collected using submersible YSI water
quality logging instruments and this work commenced in December 2013. The instruments are being
configured to collect the following continuous data:
turbidity
depth
conductivity/salinity
temperature
dissolved oxygen
pH.
Four YSI monitors were initially placed exclusively in Richters Creek during an intensive wet weather
(i.e. 3 month) monthly monitoring campaign during the months of January, February and March at the
following general locations within Richters Creek:
off-shore from the mouth of Richters Creek – representing the marine receiving environment
just inside the mouth of Richters Creek – downstream of the proposed development
mid-way along Richters Creek – upstream of the proposed development, and downstream of
Ponderosa Prawn Farm
upper reach of Richters Creek – upstream of the proposed development and upstream of the
Ponderosa Prawn Farm.
Further to the intensive wet weather monitoring campaign recently completed, an intensive dry
weather monitoring campaign of three months’ duration will also be undertaken. Following the wet and
dry weather intensive monitoring campaigns, a normal dry weather monitoring campaign is planned in
Half Moon and Yorkeys Creek to collect a minimum of six months of data within these watercourses.
This data, in addition to any historic water quality data, will be used to confirm baseline conditions in
the local receiving waters.
Grab Sample Monitoring
During the proposed monthly YSI equipment servicing period, water quality grab samples are being
taken at each monitoring location for laboratory analysis of the following water quality parameter suite:
Total N incl. NOx, TKN and ammonia
Total P and Reactive P
TSS
Chlorophyll a
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 137
Metals typically include the following: Sb, As, Be, B, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, Ag, Sn,
Zn, Hg.
Hydrodynamic Data
Monitoring has also been completed to provide the hydraulic and hydrographic data needed within
Richters Creek with has been used to refine, calibrate, and validate the numerical hydraulic and water
quality models. This has involved collecting the following data:
flow profiles during a full spring and neap tide cycle in both dry and wet seasons to provide data
with which to respectively calibrate and validate the tidal hydraulic model
echo sounding work to supplement and detail the bathymetry of the creek along its full length.
Ultimately, the full water quality data set (e.g. nutrients, DO, SS etc.) as described in the data
collection campaign above will be used to further calibrate and verify the full water quality model to
represent in situ conditions within Richters Creek, Yorkeys Creek, and in the receiving waters of trinity
Bay. This water quality model will be used in detailed design and in the development of appropriate
water quality parameters for discharge.
Variations
The program has been varied to suit changes to the project concept and this is discussed in detail in
Section 5.3.
e) Groundwater
It is known that the water quality of the upper aquifer on the site varies considerably, both spatially and
temporally. Baseline water quality monitoring is required to quantify these fluctuations.
The baseline groundwater monitoring program started in December 2013 and is planned to continue
until January 2015 at least in order to capture a full cycle of seasonal variation. Eight existing shallow
aquifer wells are being monitored – these have been selected in areas where groundwater
disturbance is expected to be greatest (in the lake footprint), as well as locations providing broad
coverage of the site.
A monitoring schedule detailing the parameters for analysis is presented below. The suite of
parameters will also provide a sufficient baseline for acid sulfate soil related groundwater conditions.
MONITORING LOCATION FREQUENCY PARAMETER
YK1
YK2
YK3
YK4
YK7
YK8
YK9
YK10
Monthly
Groundwater Depth*
pH
EC
Total Acidity
Total Alkalinity
Sulfate
Chloride
Aluminium (filtered)
Iron (filtered)
Redox (field)
Dissolved oxygen (field)
* continuous for selected bores.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 138
Chart 6-1 Sample groundwater level and salimity plots.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 139
6.12.4 Reporting
As all future monitoring is being undertaken outside the EIS process, results will be reported on within
the framework of the EMP (Planning) and will be focused on setting design and construction standards
and establishing a future impact and compliance monitoring framework.
6.13 LOCATION OF SITE WITH RESPECT TO GBRMP PLANNING UNITS (ITEM
10)
6.13.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 10 states:
(10) There is some lack of clarity (pp. 22-108-109) as to where the site is located in terms of the North/South, Inshore/Off-shore, and Inland/Coastal zones described in the draft GBRMPA strategic assessment. The EIS claims that the Aquis site is within the ‘Southern in-shore and southern off-shore’ areas, despite also stating that the inshore/off-shore dividing line is generally about 20 km off-shore. It appears that the text intends to indicate that the Aquis site (particularly the pipeline) is within the southern inshore area, since the pipeline extends only 2.2 km off-shore; however the confusion raises doubts about the potential area of influence of the Aquis site (are its impacts likely to be observable 20+ km out to sea?). Likewise, in terms of onshore habitats, the text states that the Aquis site was in the Southern Inland area, while in the next sentence quotes GBRMPA’s definition of coastal areas as being those areas less than 5 km from the coast or where the land reached 10 m AHD, whichever was furthest (with the inland area being the remainder of the catchment), and indicates that the project site is within the coastal zone. Please provide a clear description of the location of the project in regard to the coastal areas.
6.13.2 Discussion
The Aquis Resort lies within the following areas defined in GBRMPA (2013e, 2014):
GBR Region – within the southern in-shore (S.I.) area:
- the north/south dividing line is around Port Douglas
- within 18 km of the southern off-shore (S.O.) area as the dividing line is 20 km off-shore.
GBR catchment – within the southern coastal (S.C.) area.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 140
Figure 6-19 Location of the Aquis Resort site relative to GBRMPA’s regionalisation.
Source: GBRMPA (2014).
However, because the EIS assessment aimed to be conservative, values and impacts beyond this
location were also considered (hence the reference to the S.O. area). With respect to the issue raised
in the submission:
impacts of the development on the GBR Region are likely to restricted to the coast (i.e. within
the 20 km boundary) although they are not expected to extend beyond the project site to any
significant extent)
impacts of the development on the GBR Catchment are likely to be restricted to the coastal area
(defined as being a minimum of five kilometres landward from the coastline or where land
reaches the height of 10 metres AHD, whichever is furthest from the coast).
6.13.3 Conclusions
The EIS descriptions were correct but a conservative approach was taken with respect to assessing
possible impacts arising in the inshore area on off-shore values.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 141
6.14 LAKE HABITAT (ITEM 11)
6.14.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 11 states:
(11) As mentioned above [Item 8], further discussion is required regarding the impacts associated with the loss of the aquaculture ponds. The EIS states that the proposed artificial lake will result in an overall increase in habitat as it will provide habitat for birds (including MNES). However the lake is being designed to minimise attracting waders and crocodiles by designing the lake with steep sides. Further information is required to clarify what habitat the lake is providing for which species.
6.14.2 Discussion
Based on learnings associated with investigations into the potential for aircraft birdstrike arising from
the ponds, a strategy was developed to reduce the attractiveness of the proposed artificial lake. In
addition to being saline, a deep (4-5 m) water column, steep banks, no islands providing habitat, and
no fringing (aquatic) vegetation, are all key design features postulated to reduce attractiveness to
birds. The potential for the lake to support birds remains, although the change in resource availability
is likely to result in a change in species composition. Moreover, the lack of any shallow water or
surface resting features will deter many birds and beneficially affect the nature and duration of
utilisation by different species, depending on such features as diet and social behaviour.
There are no such analogous (natural) habitats in North Queensland that allow stronger
presence/absence inferences to be made. Lake design would be likely to preclude utilisation by other
listed species. Pelecanus conspicillatus is considered to be one species that may find the artificial lake
surface attractive and thereby pose a bird-strike risk.
Some lake features will deter (but probably not eliminate) bird usage:
vertical sides
fountains
aerators
circulation propellers.
The lake may, but is not intended to, provide habitat for Crocodylus porosus which is the only listed
reptile recorded on the site.
6.14.3 Conclusion
The artificial lake is not intended to function as a replacement for the aquaculture ponds and its role in
contributing to bird-strike potential should be minimised in preference to enhancing habitat value.
Neither the MNES chapter (22) nor the terrestrial biodiversity (Chapter 7) component of the EIS
proposes to use the artificial lake to increase bird habitat.
6.15 PEST MANAGEMENT (ITEM 12)
6.15.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 12 states:
(12) Appendix F [Aquatic Biodiversity] lists colonisation of lake by pest species as a potential negative outcome. Further information is required as to the impacts of potential pest species on MNES and how this potential threat will be avoided including mitigation measures.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 142
6.15.2 Discussion
a) OUV
The lake is not expected to have any OUV.
b) Listed Species
The lake will be an artificial environment that, by virtue of its expected high water quality, will provide
habitat for a range of marine species and birds that may colonise or use this resource. It is not
possible to speculate on what listed species will inhabit it, although the proposed screening of the inlet
can be expected to exclude any aquatic megafauna. Crocodiles, should they colonise the lake, are
unlikely to be affected by aquatic pests.
The proposed mitigation as envisaged in the EIS involves (Table 22-50 which is a duplicate of Table
23-2):
A lake management strategy including a major commitment to lake management and maintenance
measures including clean-up after floods, de-silting through periodic dredging, aquatic plant
harvesting, and weed and pest fish management.
A specific Tilapia Management Plan.
As described in the EIS (s19.2.3), the required response for pest animals is management. A Weed
and Pest Management Strategy is incorporated into the EMP (Planning) and implemented in the
project’s EMP (Construction). With respect to tilapia, there are a number of control measures to
manage colonisation of the proposed lake by the two possible tilapia species. These include:
biological controls
physical removal
poisoning
environmental management.
Management options are summarised in EIS Table 19-5. The above management initiatives form
aspects of the Register of Proponent Commitments.
6.15.3 Conclusions
Mitigation of impacts of lake pests on matters of NES requires the preparation of specific management
plans and these form aspects of the Register of Proponent Commitments.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 143
6.16 SENSITIVE AREAS / IMPACTS FOR AQUATIC FAUNA (ITEMS 13, 14, 15,
21 AND 24)
6.16.1 Background
There are a number of inter-related issues raised in the DoTE submission (212) regarding habitats for
aquatic fauna and subsequent impacts, namely:
(13) While the EIS addresses cetaceans, turtles and dugong it is difficult to understand how conclusions were reached regarding the importance of habitat present and the severity of impacts. There is no information on sensitive areas. This needs to be provided and set in context for all species. For example, while some of the more important habitats for marine turtles occur elsewhere in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA), the EIS needs to discuss the regional importance of habitat present and provide maps of these habitats adjacent to the site and within the region.
(14) Statements that this area is not considered to be core habitat for a species and not considered to support important populations or offer habitat critical to the survival of the species need to be supported by evidence. This is also the case when describing the area may be low or moderately likely to provide habitat for a species. Further justification is required when attributing low or moderate scores to habitat features for the species.
(15) The proposal could potentially result in adverse impacts to Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) and Australian snubfin dolphins (Orcaella heinsohni), which generally occur in waters less than 15 metres deep that are close to river and creek beds within the proximity of seagrass beds. The EIS concludes that significant impacts on the inshore dolphin species are not likely as there are only small numbers present. The Australian snubfin and the Indo-pacific humpback dolphin occur in small and isolated populations. Further evidence is required to demonstrate that these species or their habitat will not be significantly impacted by the proposed development.
(21) Potential impacts to listed species or their potential habitat have been discussed in the EIS; however, further information is required to outline which impacts are relevant to which listed species.’
(24) Impacts to shorebirds and turtles need to be addressed under the relevant controlling provisions, for example listed threatened species, listed migratory species and World Heritage Area (Outstanding Universal Value of the GBRWHA).
The issues raised under these five items are related and are responded to in this report in an
integrated manner. Related terrestrial ecology aspects are dealt with in Section 6.17.
6.16.2 Discussion
a) Marine and Estuarine Habitats of Importance to Listed Marine Species
The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) is one of the richest and most complex
natural ecosystems on Earth, and one of the most significant for biodiversity conservation. The
diversity of habitats supports tens of thousands of marine and terrestrial species, many of which are of
national and global conservation significance (GBRMPA 2013b). Critical habitats are defined in the
EPBC Act as ‘habitats that are critical to the survival of the species or community concerned and the
actions needed to protect those habitats’ (Section 270(d) of the EPBC Act), where survival means the
long term security or persistence of the species. That is, that it recovers to the point where it is no
longer endangered or threatened with extinction.
Habitats of particular importance to Commonwealth listed marine and estuarine species (i.e. critical
habitats) include their preferred / key:
nesting / breeding areas
feeding habitats, and
migration corridors (Reeves 2008; Stern 2009).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 144
They also include areas where the species may not presently occur, which are critical if the species is
to recover from its currently threatened state (Gibson & Wellbelove 2010). A knowledge of the
presence and condition of these key areas / habitats (and other habitats that are vital for the day-to-
day survival of listed species) can assist in determining whether a species is likely to occur within a
particular area. The likelihood of occurrence of a species within an area will in turn influence the extent
of likely impacts on the population from any proposed development.
b) Marine and Estuarine Habitats Adjacent to the Aquis Site
The waters adjacent to, and off-shore of, the Aquis site are within the Southern Inland and Southern
Inshore areas of the GBRWHA, respectively (Figure 6-20) (GBRMPA 2013b). The in-shore / off-shore
dividing line is approximately 20 km off-shore. It corresponds to enclosed coastal and open coastal
water bodies described in the Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
(GBRMPA 2010), but also includes areas further off-shore that are habitats for recognised inshore
specialist species such as dugongs.
An assessment of the marine and estuarine habitats of the GBRWHA near to the Aquis site is
documented in Table 6-14. Of these, seagrass meadows, coral reefs, and mangrove forests provide
feeding and breeding habitats for a number of species of conservation significance, and are
considered particularly sensitive to the known impacts of coastal development in general. The location
of known sensitive habitats in proximity to the proposed development site is shown on Figure 6-21.
Figure 6-20 Indicative broad assessment areas for the Great Barrier Reef Region and catchment.
Source: GBRMPA (2013e).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 145
Figure 6-21 Sensitive marine and estuarine habitats in the vicinity of the proposed Aquis site.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 146
HABITAT DESCRIPTION
Estuaries of Richters, Thomatis, Yorkeys and Half Moon creeks
Mangroves dominate the estuarine riparian zones of rivers and creeks in the Barron River catchment (Figure 6-21), while there are
coastal dunes and beach systems at the mouths of each waterway (Connolly et al. 1996). The mangrove forests of the Barron River catchment are typical of similar areas along the Great Barrier Reef coastline. Mangroves constitute 41% of the natural vegetation on the Aquis site and cover 22 ha; there are 14 mangrove species present. Most mangrove areas are in good condition and represent a viable and healthy assemblage of mangrove species. There is also a small area (1.9 ha) of saltpan / saltmarsh in the north-west corner of the Aquis site.
Extensive urban development and sugar cane plantations have impacted estuarine habitats in the Barron River catchment, including Richters, Thomatis, Yorkeys and Half Moon creeks adjacent to the Aquis site. Despite this, the creeks of the Barron River Catchment (DEHP 2013a), including those surrounding the proposed development site, provide valuable habitat for a range of estuarine and marine fish species, and provide connectivity between marine and freshwater habitats (frc environmental 2014c). They are important nursery grounds for a range of commercially and recreationally important species, as evidenced by an influx of juvenile fish in summer (Doherty & Sheaves 1994). In recognition of their role in sustaining local fisheries, the reaches of two creeks adjacent to the proposed Aquis development are protected under state legislation: the Yorkeys Creek Fish Habitat Area (FHA-034) – Area B and the Half Moon Creek Fish Habitat Area (FHA-033) – Area B.
Seagrass meadows The closest recorded seagrass bed is at the mouth of Trinity Inlet, approximately 8 km south-east of the proposed Aquis site (DAFF 2013). Seagrass has also been recorded at Green Island (approximately 25 km east of the Aquis site) (Figure 6-21) and within intertidal
areas around Double Island (approximately 10 km north of the Aquis site) (R. Coles, pers. comm. 24 Sept. 2014).
The seagrass beds in Trinity Inlet are a small portion of the total area of seagrass along the tropical Queensland coast; however, their localised relative abundance, provides a disproportionately important nursery ground for prawns and other commercially and recreationally important species (Lee Long et al. 1993; Rasheed et al. 2013). In the past four years, above average rainfall, the 2010 / 11 La Niña and tropical cyclone Yasi, have resulted in major decreases in the distribution and abundance of seagrass along the north-eastern coast of Queensland (including the seagrass beds in Trinity Inlet). Historical lows in seagrass area, and biomass were recorded in Cairns Harbour and Trinity Inlet in 2012 (Figure 6-22); however, the most recent survey suggests that these seagrass meadows may be
recovering slowly (Jarvis et al. 2014) (Rasheed et al. 2013).
Thirteen seagrass species have been recorded from the wider region, with seagrass meadows around Cairns Harbour usually dominated by Zostera meulleri subsp. capricorni (Seagrass Watch 2013). Seagrass meadows typically have a greater distribution and are denser in the dry season (October to November) when light and temperature conditions are most favourable.
There are no known records of seagrass in Half Moon, Yorkeys, Thomatis or Richters Creek, nor in the waters off-shore of these creeks, despite a number of surveys being undertaken by Queensland Fisheries and James Cook University pre-2007 (Rob Coles pers. comm.) and frc environmental in 2007, 2013 and 2014 (frc environmental 2007; frc environmental 2013). The detailed surveys by frc environmental in March 2014 and July 2014 confirmed the absence of seagrass along the proposed Aquis inlet pipeline alignment (frc environmental 2014b) – see Section 5.4.2a).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 147
HABITAT DESCRIPTION
Coral reefs The nearest mapped coral reefs to the proposed development site are the mid-shelf fringing reef at Green Island (approximately 25 km east of Richters Creek mouth) and the coastal fringing reef of Double Island and Haycock Island (approximately 10 km north of Richters Creek mouth) (Figure 6-21). Of these reefs, the Green Island reef has been the most studied to date. The reef at Green Island has an
area of 7.1 km2
(AIMS 2014b). Hard coral cover is low (0–5%) and has declined in recent years due to outbreaks of crown of thorns starfish (AIMS 2014a). The coral communities are dominated by massive growth forms, with some plate and branching growth forms (AIMS 2014a). The western side of the reef closest to the proposed Aquis site has a low level of reef structure (AIMS 2014a). Algae is the dominant growth form on the reef but there is a moderate cover of soft corals (AIMS 2014a). Fish abundance on Green Island reef is moderate with reef fish such as parrotfish, butterflyfish and damselfish present (AIMS 2014a).
The closest known reef is approximately 7 km to the north-west at Taylor Point (north of Trinity Beach). This reef covers a small area (approx. 0.0075 km
2) on the western side of the headland, and is likely to provide habitat for a variety of flora and fauna that are usually
found on inshore reefs (Flanagan Consulting Group 2014a).
Submission 51 to the EIS notes that at Double Island there are quite a large number of scleractinian hard coral species, particularly of the family Acroporidae and Favidae, as well as encrusting and branching soft coral species on all the reefs around Double Island, on both the
exposed and protected reef sides. There are other live coral formations, for example micro-atolls of the Poritidae family of stony corals, present on the reef flats at some time in the recent past.
Rocky reefs There is limited information available regarding intertidal rocky shores of the region.
Rocky headlands such as those found at Yorkeys Knob (2.7 km north of the mouth of Richters Creek) provide hard surfaces for sessile marine communities. The habitat diversity (including rock pools, gullies and ledges) of these environments often supports diverse ecological communities that include fishes, reptiles (such as sea snakes and turtles), echinoderms, polychaetes and crustaceans. These habitat types are of importance to many species that require hard substrate for colonisation.
Artificial structures in the local area, such as jetties, seawalls and pipes, are also likely to provide hard surfaces for sessile marine communities.
Non-vegetated soft substrate of inshore waters (including creek systems)
Non-vegetated soft substrate is found in the creek systems adjacent to the proposed Aquis site, and off-shore of the Aquis site. These habitats typically have few bathymetric features.
Soft substrate provides habitat for benthic marine invertebrates such as polychaetes and crustaceans, which can provide food for a number of Commonwealth listed species. Benthic invertebrate species richness and abundance are typically lowest in the fine muddy substrates of intertidal areas, and highest in coarse sandy sediments further off-shore (Currie & Small 2005; 2006). The abundance of macroinvertebrate infauna typically increases with regional rainfall and freshwater inflow (Currie & Small 2005; 2006).
The waters overlying the soft substrate are typically turbid in the creek systems and inshore waters off the mouth of Richters Creek. The epifaunal communities in this area are typical of other river mouths along the coast, being influenced by high turbid flows from the catchment during summer (frc environmental in prep). During the March 2014 field survey, a low density of burrows over the sediment surface and low numbers of crustaceans and other invertebrates were recorded (frc environmental 2014c).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 148
Figure 6-22 Seagrass distribution in Trinity Bay, 2012.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 149
c) Sensitive Marine and Estuarine Habitats of the Wider Region
The coastal waters near the Aquis site are described as being within the ‘high nutrient coastal strip’
bioregion of the Great Barrier Reef. This bioregion is characterised by terrigenous mud, high levels of
nutrients from the adjoining land, seagrass in sheltered waters and a wet tropic climate. Within this
area, there are scattered coastal fringing reefs that generally develop around the mainland and high
continental islands that have high coverage of hard coral, soft coral and macroalgae, but low coral
diversity (Kerrigan et al. 2010). Inshore habitats (i.e. within 20 km of the coastline) of the wider region
include:
islands
beaches and coastlines (including rocky headlands)
mangrove forests
seagrass meadows
lagoon floor (soft substrate)
coral reefs
shoals (GBRMPA 2013b).
Off-shore habitats (i.e. >20 km from the coastline) of the region include the mid-shelf and outer coral
reefs and deeper, open waters off the continental shelf.
The location of known sensitive habitats of the wider region is shown in Figure 6-23. These sensitive
habitats are presented in context of the Commonwealth Marine Area, which extends from 3 to 200
nautical miles (i.e. approximately 5.6 to 370.4 km) from the coastline (but excludes the national park
areas around Green Island, Upolu Cay, Michaelmas Cay and associated reefs).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 150
Figure 6-23 Sensitive marine and estuarine habitats of the wider region.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 151
d) Regional Importance of Local Marine and Estuarine Habitats
In the context of the greater region, species of conservation significance may have a limited
dependency on marine and estuarine habitats adjacent to the proposed Aquis site. Key feeding and
breeding habitat such as seagrass meadows (>8 km away) and coral reefs (>7 km away) are beyond
the likely geographical extent of impact from the construction and operation of the Aquis resort. The
beaches of Trinity Bay are not recognised as major nesting areas for any marine turtle species
(Worley Parsons 2010).
Nevertheless, the coastal zone around Yorkeys Knob contributes to the biodiversity and functioning of
the GBRWHA ecosystem, providing a range of ecological services that support the reef, including
water distribution, food and habitat, and nutrient and chemical cycling. For example, mangrove forests
along Half Moon, Yorkeys, Thomatis and Richters Creeks provide habitat value and contribute to the
biodiversity of the local region by supporting a number of fish and macroinvertebrate species that are
consumed by Commonwealth listed marine species such as dolphins. Such resources will remain and
be enhanced by the development.
The seagrass meadows of Cairns Harbour and Trinity Inlet have significantly diminished over the past
five years. However, should the seagrass meadows recover substantially, they are likely to again
become an important food source for a number of listed species, including marine turtles and dugong.
James Cook University ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies has modelled the likelihood
of seagrass occurring in the inshore waters of the GBRWHA, based on metadata of historical
seagrass distribution (JCU 2014). Whilst there is a low to moderate probability that seagrass occurs in
the waters around the Aquis site, there is a much higher probability that seagrass meadows occur in
waters >100 km to the north and south of the Aquis site (Figure 6-24).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 152
Figure 6-24 Probability of seagrass distribution in the GBRWHA.
Source: JCU 2014. Insets show high probability of seagrass occurrence in coastal areas north and south of
the Aquis site.
Aquis site
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 153
e) Likelihood of Occurrence of Listed Species in Local Marine and Estuarine Areas
Listed aquatic species that may be present in the project area (i.e. site an immediate surrounds), and
in areas that may be impacted by the Aquis Project, were identified by generating an EPBC Act
Protected Matters Report for a 5 km area around the project footprint, with a 5 km buffer. The EPBC
Act Protected Matters Report was originally generated on 30 July 2013, with subsequent revisions
generated on 19 February 2014 and 26 May 2014 (i.e. included as Appendix I of the EIS). The
following listed aquatic species were identified on the Protected Matters Report:
13 nationally threatened species
17 migratory species
65 listed marine species (including fish, sharks, mammals and reptiles)
13 whales and other cetaceans.
The likelihood of listed threatened and migratory aquatic species being present in the estuarine areas
adjacent to the site (i.e. Richters, Thomatis, Yorkeys and Half Moon Creeks) and in marine areas off-
shore of the proposed development (within the Protected Matters search area) was assessed using
the criteria presented Table 6-5. The likelihood of other listed species (i.e. ‘listed marine species’ and
‘whales and other cetaceans’) that are protected only in Commonwealth Marine Areas (i.e. from 3 to
200 nautical miles from the coastline) were assessed using the same criteria, but for Commonwealth
Marine Areas only.
Ecological information used in the assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of each aquatic species
listed in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Report included:
the results of literature searches (including five databases, 150 source documents and
community / government agency consultations)
the results of three field surveys
professional experience.
The results of the literature review showed that the proposed development site, the surrounding
creeks, and near-shore areas were not likely to contain important populations of, nor provide important
nesting / breeding areas for, any listed threatened and migratory aquatic species (including cetaceans,
marine turtles and dugong). The beaches of Trinity Bay were also not recognised as major nesting
areas for any marine turtle species (Worley Parsons 2010). At the time of the baseline EIS studies,
technical staff from the Queensland Government were not aware of the results of any surveys of
marine turtles nesting in the vicinity of the proposed development.
No listed species were recorded during any of the field surveys undertaken by frc environmental prior
to the submission of the EIS. However, in July 2014, a humpback whale was sighted within 2 km of
the pipeline alignment (frc environmental, in prep). No habitats critical to the survival of populations of
listed species (e.g. key areas for feeding, breeding and migration) were recorded within the potential
area of impact of the Aquis development (see Figure 6-21). The relatively shallow waterways adjacent
to the proposed development site were deemed unlikely to provide significant habitat for listed
threatened and migratory aquatic species, although some species, including Australian snubfin
dolphin, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin and green turtle, may forage in these creeks on occasion.
Although turtle nesting surveys are yet to be conducted, it is also likely that some (limited) turtle
nesting occurs on the beaches in the vicinity of the proposed development (Bunce pers. comm. 2013,
Trenerry pers. comm. 2013).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 154
Table 6-15 and Table 6-16 provide a summary of the likelihood of occurrence of each threatened and
migratory species in areas that may be impacted by the proposed development. Table 6-17 and Table
6-18 provide a summary of the likelihood of occurrence of listed marine species and cetaceans within
the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the proposed development. The likelihood of
occurrence of each species is supported by evidence of their habitat preferences, and the distribution
of sensitive habitats in proximity to the proposed development (Figure 6-21), and the wider region
(Figure 6-23).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 155
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Mammals
Balaenoptera musculus
Blue whale E, M, C Blue whale sightings in Australian waters have been widespread, and it is likely that the whales occur right around the continent at various times of the year (DoTE 2013c). Most sightings have been in the waters off Australia’s Antarctic Territory, and along the southern parts of the Australian coast including Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales through to southern Queensland (DEH 2005a).
Habitat boundaries are not fixed, especially in terms of hunting and feeding areas; they are dependent on upwellings and other changing oceanographic conditions (Hoyt 2005). Much of the Australian continental shelf and coastal waters have no particular significance to blue whales and are used only for migration and opportunistic feeding. They can occur both in deeper waters and relatively close to the coast (Bannister et al. 1996); however, they are rarely sighted in the GBR Region (GBRMPA 2013b).
Feeding Areas
The only known areas of significance to blue whales are feeding areas around the southern continental shelf, notably the Perth Canyon in Western Australia and the Bonney Upwelling and adjacent upwelling areas of South Australia and Victoria (Figure 6-25) (DEH 2005a).
Breeding Areas
Blue whales calve in tropical open oceans. Although specific areas have not been identified (Bannister et al. 1996) it is likely that calving occurs in tropical areas of high localised biological production (DoTE 2013c).
Migration Routes
Migration paths of blue whales are widespread, not obviously following coastlines or oceanographic features. Blue Whales are thought to migrate to Antarctic waters in early summer and to leave in autumn (Mackintosh 1965).
Summary
The likelihood of blue whales occurring within 5 km of the Aquis site is low.
– – – – – M M, F, B L L
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 156
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Megaptera novaeangliae
Humpback whale
V, M, C Humpback whales are among the most commonly sighted and reported whale species on the Great Barrier Reef (GBRMPA 2011f). Humpback whales use habitat seasonally and are typically found along various parts of the Australian coastline for up to nine months of the year (April to December). The Australian east coast population of humpback whales migrate from summer cold-water feeding grounds in sub-Antarctic waters; to warm water winter breeding grounds in the Great Barrier Reef. They are regularly observed in Queensland waters in June and July, during the northward migration, and October and November, during the southward migration (Figure 6-26 (DoTE 2013h).
Feeding Areas
Feeding occurs primarily on Antarctic krill around the Antarctic continental shelf break and productive, transitional ice-edge zones (DEH 2005b).
Breeding Areas
Humpback whales utilising Australian waters have tropical calving grounds along the mid and northern parts of the east and west coasts of Australia (DEH 2005b). Known calving areas in Queensland include the Great Barrier Reef Complex between 14°S and 27°S (DEH 2005b).
Migration Routes
Along parts of the migratory route there are narrow corridors and bottlenecks resulting from physical and other barriers where the majority of the population passes close to shore (i.e. within 30 km of the coastline). These habitat areas are important during the time of migration. In Queensland they include areas east of Stradbroke Island and east of Moreton Bay (DEH 2005b).
Resting areas are used by cow-calf pairs and attendant males during the southern migration. Humpback whales appear to use sheltered bays to opportunistically rest during migration to the feeding grounds. In Queensland, resting areas include the Whitsundays, Hervey Bay, Moreton Bay, the Swain Reefs complex of the Great Barrier Reef, Bell Cay and the Palm Island Group (DEH 2005b).
Summary
Humpback whales, including calves, have been observed migrating along the coast near Cairns; however, the area is not considered to be core habitat for this species and would not be considered to support important populations or offer habitat critical to the survival of this species. The likelihood of humpback whales occurring within 5 km of the Aquis site is moderate.
– – – – – B, M B, M L M
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 157
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Reptiles
Caretta caretta
Loggerhead Turtle
E, M, O Feeding Areas
The loggerhead turtle forages on molluscs and crabs in a wide range of intertidal and subtidal habitats, including coral and rocky reefs, seagrass meadows, and non-vegetated sand or mud areas (Error! Reference source not found.Figure 6-27 (Limpus 2008c). In eastern Australia,
there is evidence that they spend their first 15 years or more in the open ocean (M. Chaloupka pers. comm. cited in Bjorndal et al. 2000), with much of their feeding in the top 5 m of water (Spotila 2004), before recruiting to their chosen inshore or neritic feeding area.
Breeding / Nesting Areas
Loggerhead turtles nest on open, sandy beaches (Spotila 2004). In Queensland, breeding and nesting occurs mainly in the southern Great Barrier Reef (Capricorn/Bunker group) and adjacent mainland near Bundaberg (Figure 6-27A and Figure 6-28Error! Reference source not found.) (GBRMPA 2011c). The islands of the Swain Reefs, especially Pryce Island and Frigate, Bylund, Thomas and Bacchi cays support lower density nesting activity (Dobbs 2007; Limpus 2008b). During the nesting months, females generally remain within 10 km of the rookery (Tucker et al. 1995).
Migration Routes
Loggerhead turtles show fidelity to both their feeding and breeding areas, and can make reproductive migrations between foraging and nesting areas of over 2600 km (Limpus et al. 1992). Loggerhead turtles that nest and forage in the GBRWHA migrate along the Queensland coast, and to the Gulf of Carpentaria, Arnhem Land, Torres Strait, and Papua New Guinea (GBRMPA 2011c).
Summary
Loggerhead turtles may feed in, or traverse, coastal areas near Yorkeys Knob and they are moderately likely to occur in waters off-shore of the study area
3. They are unlikely to occur
in the estuaries surrounding the Aquis site.
– F F – B F, B, M F, M L M
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 158
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Chelonia mydas
Green turtle V, M, O The green turtle is globally distributed in tropical and sub-tropical waters, and is usually associated with shallow marine habitats that support seagrass and algal communities (DoTE 2013e). Green turtles spend their first five to ten years drifting on ocean currents (DoTE 2013e). During this pelagic phase, they are often found in association with rafts of Sargassum (Robins et al. 2002). Juvenile green turtles swim against the current to get back to their coastal habitats where they live as adults (Luschi et al. 2003).
Feeding Areas
Immature green turtles are carnivorous (Brand-Gardner et al. 1999), while adults are generally herbivorous, feeding mostly on algae and seagrass. Adults will occasionally eat other items such as mangrove fruit, sponges and jellyfish (Forbes 1994; Pendoley & Fitzpatrick 1999). Adult green turtles typically forage in shallow benthic habitats such as tidal and subtidal coral and rocky reefs and inshore seagrass beds and algae mats (Figure 6-28Error! Reference source not found.) (Poiner & Harris 1996; Musick & Limpus 1997; Robins et al. 2002).
Breeding / Nesting Areas
Green turtles nest on sandy beaches. In Queensland, northern green turtle populations typically nest around Raine Island and Moulter Cay (Limpus et al. 2003), but also nest on islands of the outer edge of the reef (Figure 6-27B and Figure 6-28) (DoTE 2013e). Mainland rookeries can
occur on the mainland, and inner and outer shelf islands from Cape Grenville north to the Torres Strait (DoTE 2013e). Green turtle mating occurs in October, with nesting peaking in January until the end of March (DoTE 2013e).
Migration Routes
Green turtles can migrate more than 2600 km between their feeding and nesting grounds. Green turtles that nest and forage in the GBRWHA migrate to Indonesia, Gulf of Carpentaria, Arnhem Land, Torres Strait, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia (GBRMPA 2011a).
Summary
Green turtles may feed in, or traverse, coastal areas near Yorkeys Knob and they are moderately likely to occur in waters within 5 km of the Aquis site
3. They may also forage
on occasion in the estuaries adjacent to the Aquis site.
F F F F B F, B, M F, M M M
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 159
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Dermochelys coriacea
Leatherback turtle
E, M, O
The leatherback turtle is a pelagic species known to occur in tropical, subtropical and temperate waters. On the Australian east coast, leatherback turtles typically occur from south-east Queensland to central New South Wales. As the most pelagic of all marine turtles, the leatherback turtle spends much of its time in the open ocean and venturing close to shore mainly during the nesting season (Lutz & Musick 1996; Benson et al. 2007), (GBRMPA 2011b). They are uncommon on the Great Barrier Reef (GBRMPA 2011b).
Feeding Areas
The leatherback turtle is a pelagic feeder, primarily consuming gelatinous organisms such as jellyfish and salps (Kaplan 1995; Bjorndal 1997). Their distribution reflects the distribution of their food, and can be explained by ‘hot spots’ of jellyfish abundance (Leary 1957; Lazell 1980). Foraging leatherbacks have been recorded as far south as Bass Strait and through the Gulf of Carpentaria (GBRMPA 2011b).
Breeding / Nesting Areas
Leatherback turtles require sandy beaches to nest. There are no large leatherback turtle rookeries in Australia; however, leatherback turtles occasionally nest within the GBRWHA with nesting recorded at Wreck Rock and adjacent beaches near Bundaberg (one to three nests per annum) (Figure 6-27C) (GBRMPA 2011b). Sporadic nesting has been recorded at other widely
scattered sites in Queensland; however, there is a strong likelihood that leatherback turtles have not nested in Queensland since 1996 (Hamman et al. 2006), (GBRMPA 2011b).
Migration Routes
Leatherback turtles migrate from Australia to rookeries in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands (Limpus 1995; Hamman et al. 2006).
Summary
Leatherback turtles are rarely found close to shore in Australia, and are unlikely to be present in the estuarine areas adjacent to the Aquis site, or within 5 km of the Aquis site
3.
– – – – B F, B, M F, M L L
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 160
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Eretmochelys imbricata
Hawksbill turtle
V, M, O The hawksbill turtle is globally distributed in tropical, sub-tropical and temperate waters (GBRMPA 2013c). Hawksbill turtles spend their first five to ten years drifting on ocean currents (Limpus et al. 1994b). During this pelagic phase, they are often found in association with rafts of Sargassum (Carr 1987).
Feeding Areas
Hawksbill turtles are heavily reliant on coral reef and rocky habitats, where they forage mainly on sponges but also seagrass, algae, squid, gastropods, sea cucumbers, soft corals and jellyfish (Figure 6-28) (GBRMPA 2013c). As juveniles, they eat plankton (Meylan 1984).
Breeding / Nesting Areas
Hawksbill turtles breed in the northern Great Barrier Reef and the Torres Strait. They tend to nest in low numbers in the GBRWHA (GBRMPA 2013c). In Australia, the key nesting and inter-nesting areas (where females live between laying successive clutches in the same season) are: Milman
Island and the inner Great Barrier Reef Cays north from Cape GrenvilleCentral; Torres Strait
islands; Crab Island; Murray Islands; Darnley Island; Woody Island; Red Wallis and Woody Wallis Islands; Bramble Cay and Johnson Islet (Torres Strait); and, Western Cape York Peninsula (Figure 6-27D and Figure 6-28) (DEHP 2005). Woody Island is the closest key nesting area to
the proposed development area, being approximately 54 km north north-west of the study area.
Migration Routes
Hawksbill turtles that nest or forage in the GBRWHA migrate to Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu (GBRMPA 2013c).
Summary
Hawksbill turtles may feed in, or traverse, coastal areas near Yorkeys Knob, and they are moderately likely to occur off-shore of the Aquis site
3. Their likelihood of occurring in the
estuaries around the Aquis site is low.
– F F F B F, M, B F, M L M
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 161
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Lepidochelys olivacea
Olive Ridley turtle
E, M, O Olive Ridley turtles occur in tropical and sub-tropical regions of the Pacific and Indian oceans. In Australia, they are found in soft-bottomed, shallow, protected waters from southern Queensland, around northern Australia to Joseph Bonaparte Gulf in Western Australia (GBRMPA 2013d). They are uncommon in the GBRWHA (GBRMPA 2013d).
Feeding Areas
Olive Ridley turtles feed in continental shelf waters on crabs, echinoderms, shellfish and gastropods (GBRMPA 2013d). A substantial part of the immature and adult population forage over shallow benthic habitats from northern Western Australia to south-east Queensland (Harris 1994 cited in Limpus 2008a) though large juvenile and adult olive Ridley turtles have been recorded in both benthic and pelagic foraging habitats (Musick & Limpus 1997). Foraging habitat can range from depths of several metres (Conway 1994) to over 100 m (Whiting et al. 2005).
Breeding / Nesting Areas
There are two main breeding areas for olive Ridley turtles in Australia, one in the Northern Territory with about 1000 nesting females per year, and the other in the Gulf of Carpentaria with less than 100 nesting females per year. No nesting by the species has been recorded in the GBRWHA (GBRMPA 2013).
Migration Routes
Studies in the eastern Pacific and Atlantic Ocean show long distance reproductive migratory behaviour for olive Ridley turtles, which is similar to other sea turtle species (Meylan 1982).
Summary
Olive Ridley turtles are uncommon in the Great Barrier Reef, and are unlikely to be present in the estuarine areas adjacent to the Aquis site, or within 5 km of the Aquis site
3.
– F F F B F, B, M F, M L L
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 162
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Natator depressus
Flatback turtle V, M, O Adult flatback turtles inhabit soft bottom habitat over the continental shelf of northern Australia, extending into Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya (Spring 1982) although the extent of their range is not fully known (Zangerl et al. 1988). Hatchling flatback turtles are unique in that they do not have an oceanic pelagic phase, rather they are believed to inhabit inshore areas of clear reefal waters (Walker & C.J. 1990).
Feeding Areas
The flatback turtle tends to forage in shallow continental shelf waters with soft substrates (Figure 6-28) feeding on a variety of soft-bodied animals, including soft corals, sea pens, sea cucumbers and jellyfish (Limpus 2007). Catch records from trawlers (as bycatch) indicate that the flatback turtle also feeds in turbid, shallow (depth of 10 m to 40 m) inshore waters (Robins 1995).
Breeding / Nesting Areas
Flatback turtle nesting habitat includes sandy beaches in the tropics and subtropics, with all recorded nesting beaches in Australia (Limpus et al. 1989). In eastern Queensland, flatback turtles nest between Bundaberg in the south to the Torres Strait in the north. The main nesting sites in the southern Great Barrier Reef are Curtis Island, Peak Island, Facing Island, Hummock Hill Island, and Wild Duck islands (Figure 6-27E and Figure 6-28 (Limpus 1971; Limpus et al. 1983). Scattered aperiodic nesting occurs along the mainland and on inshore islands between Townsville and the Torres Strait (Limpus et al. 1994a).
Migration Routes
Flatback Turtles make long reproductive migrations similar to other species of sea turtles, although most of these movements are restricted to the continental shelf (DoTE 2013i). Migrations have been recorded between Australia and Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu (GBRMPA 2013a).
Summary
Flatback turtles are unlikely to occur in the estuaries surrounding the Aquis site, and are moderately likely to occur within 5 km of the Aquis site
3.
– – F – B F, B, M M L M
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 163
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Sharks
Carcharodon carcharias
great white shark
V, M Great white sharks are found throughout temperate and sub-tropical regions in the northern and southern hemispheres (Last & Stevens 2009). In Australia, great white sharks have been recorded from the central Queensland coast, around the south coast to north-west Western Australia. In Queensland, they are primarily found south of Mackay (Figure 6-29Error! Reference source not found.) (Paterson 1990; Last & Stevens 2009; DoTE 2013d). The white shark is primarily an inhabitant of continental and insular shelf waters but is also known to inhabit the open ocean. It often occurs close inshore near the surf-line, and may move into shallow bays (DSEWPC 2013a).
Determining trends in the Australian white shark population is difficult because the speciesis a
widely dispersed, low density, highly mobile apex predator (DSEWPC 2013a).
Feeding Areas
Great white sharks can be found around inshore rocky reefs, surf beaches and shallow coastal bays and on the outer continental shelf and slope (DoTE 2013d). Great white sharks are often found around islands, in regions with high prey density, such as near seal colonies (Figure 6-29) (DEWHA 2009) (Malcolm et al. 2001). The white shark is a versatile predator. As juveniles (< 3 m), they feed primarily on finfish, rays and shark species prior to adding larger prey items to their diet (DEWHA 2009).
Breeding Areas
Pupping and mating locations for white sharks in Australia remain unknown (DEWHA 2009). Recent genetic studies have supported the theory that white sharks are philopatric — that is, they return to their birth place for biological purposes such as breeding (Blower et al. 2012).
Migration Routes
The white shark is known to travel widely over distances of thousands of kilometres, which can include travel associated with shelf waters and off-shore excursions. Great white sharks tend to move seasonally along the east Australian coast, moving northerly during autumn and winter and returning to southern Australian waters by early summer (Bruce et al. 2006).
Summary
The study area is unlikely to provide significant habitat for the great white shark. Their likelihood of occurring in the estuaries around the Aquis site or in the off-shore study area is low.
– – – – – F, B, M F, B, M L L
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 164
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Pristis clavata Dwarf sawfish V The dwarf sawfish historically ranges from Cairns and along the northern coastline to Eighty Mile Beach, the southern-most point of its Western Australia range (Stevens et al. 2008; Last & Stevens 2009). Although there is record of dwarf sawfish from the Pine River in north-western Cape York Peninsula, there are no recent records of the species from the eastern coast of the Cape York Peninsula (Peverell 2005)
The dwarf sawfish usually inhabits shallow coastal waters (2–3 m) and estuarine habitats (GBRMPA 2012b). They have limited, tidally influenced movements and occupy a restricted range of only a few square kilometres within the coastal fringe (GBRMPA 2012b). In mangrove areas, data showed they often spend high tide resting within the inundated vegetation, relatively protected from fishing activities (GBRMPA 2012b).
Feeding Areas
Sawfish feed on fishes and benthic invertebrates. They are relatively active on the mud and sand flats on a moving tide, presumably feeding (GBRMPA 2012b).
Breeding Areas
Estuarine habitats are used as nurseries with juveniles migrating into marine waters (Thorburn et al. 2007).
Summary
Yorkeys Knob is at the edge of the range for dwarf sawfish. Dwarf sawfish have not been recorded within the local area, despite the estuarine waterways and near-shore marine areas being popular with recreational fisherman. Their likelihood of occurring in the estuaries around the Aquis site or in the off-shore study area is low.
F, B – – – – F F L L
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 165
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Pristis zijsron Green sawfish V In Australian waters, green sawfish are distributed from about Cairns north and around to Shark Bay in Western Australia (Stevens et al. 2005). They are most commonly known from the Gulf of Carpentaria, Queensland (Stevens et al. 2005). There has been no record of the species south of Cairns since the 1960s (Stevens et al. 2005).
The green sawfish inhabits inshore marine waters, estuaries and river mouths with both sandy and muddy bottom habitats (Allen 1997; Peverell et al. 2004; Stevens et al. 2005). It has been recorded in very shallow water (<1 m) to off-shore trawl grounds in over 70 m of water (Stevens et al. 2005)
Feeding Areas
Sawfish feed on fishes and benthic invertebrates. They are relatively active on the mud and sand flats on a moving tide, presumably feeding (GBRMPA 2012b).
Breeding Areas
Estuarine habitats are used as nurseries with juveniles migrating into marine waters (Thorburn et al. 2007).
Summary
Yorkeys Knob is at the edge of the range for green sawfish. Green sawfish have not been recorded within the local area, despite the estuarine waterways and near-shore marine areas being popular with recreational fisherman. Their likelihood of occurring in the estuaries around the Aquis site or in the off-shore study area is low.
F, B – – – – F F L L
Rhincodon typus
Whale shark V, M The whale shark occurs in both warm-temperate and tropical waters, oceanic and inshore, usually between latitudes 30°N and 35°S (Compagno 1984). In Australia, the whale shark is known from NSW, Queensland, Northern Territory, Western Australia and occasionally Victoria and South Australia, but it is most commonly seen in waters off northern Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland (Compagno 1984; Last & Stevens 1994). They are often seen far off-shore, but also come close inshore and sometime enter lagoons of coral atolls (DoTE 2013l).
Feeding Areas
They are filter-feeders that are typically encountered close to the surface, either individually or occasionally in schools (Compagno 1984). Ningaloo Reef, off the Western Australian coast, is the main known aggregation site of whale sharks in Australian waters, with smaller aggregations in the Coral Sea (DoTE 2013l). Seasonal aggregations, are thought to be linked to localised seasonal 'pulses' of food productivity (DEH 2005c).
Breeding Areas
Data on the breeding habitats of this species is largely unknown (DEH 2005c).
– – F – – F F, B L L
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 166
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Migration Routes
Whale Sharks are known to be highly migratory, with studies demonstrating migrations of at least 13,000 km over 37 months (Eckert & Stewart 2001). They tend to be philopatric, returning regularly to the same seasonal feeding locations (DEH 2005c).
Summary
The study area does not provide important habitat for whale sharks. The likelihood of whale sharks occurring in the estuaries around the Aquis site or in the off-shore study area is low.
Fish
Melanotaenia eachamensis
Lake Eacham rainbowfish
E The freshwater Lake Eacham rainbowfish is only found in Lake Eacham in the Atherton Tablelands and several other moderately flowing streams in the upper reaches of the Tully Catchment and is highly unlikely to occur in the project area (Pusey et al. 1997). The rainbowfish is an opportunistic feeder and feeds on algae, aquatic invertebrates and terrestrial insects (Tappin 1991).
– – – – – – – L L
Source: DoTE 2014b
E endangered
V vulnerable
M migratory species
O marine species
C whales and other cetaceans
– not known as key habitat
1 <20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per (GBRMPA 2013b)
2 >20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per (GBRMPA 2013b)
3 turtle nesting surveys of the beaches around Yorkeys Knob are planned for the 2014 / 2015 nesting season
L Low likelihood of occurrence
M Moderate likelihood of occurrence
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 167
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Mammals
Balaenoptera edeni
Bryde’s whale M, C Bryde's whales occur in both temperate and tropical waters, oceanic and inshore, bounded by latitudes 40°N and 40°S (Bannister et al. 1996), mostly swimming alone or in pairs. They have been found in all Australian states, except the Northern Territory. Insufficient information exists as to how Australian Bryde's Whales use their habitat, as no specific feeding or breeding grounds have been discovered off Australia. Both an inshore and off-shore form have been identified (DoTE 2013b).
Feeding Areas
They are considered to be a fairly opportunistic feeders, readily consuming whatever shoaling prey is available (DSEWPC 2011). The coastal from of Bryde's whale appears to be limited to the 200 m depth isobar, moving along the coast in response to availability of suitable prey (Best et al. 1984). The off-shore form is found in deeper water (500 m to 1000 m) (DoTE 2013b).
Breeding Areas
Limited data suggest that breeding and calving occur in lower latitudes (Kato 2002).
Migration Routes
It appears that the off-shore form of Bryde's Whale may migrate seasonally, heading towards warmer tropical waters during the winter (DoTE 2013b).
Summary
The study area does not provide important habitat for Bryde’s whales. The likelihood of Bryde’s whales occurring in the estuaries around the Aquis site or in the off-shore study area is low.
– – – – – F, B F, B, M L L
Balaenoptera musculus
Blue whale E, M, C See Table 6-15. – – – – – M M, F, B low low
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 168
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Dugong dugon
Dugong M, O A significant proportion of the world's dugongs are found in north Australian waters from Shark Bay, Western Australia, in the west to Moreton Bay, Queensland, in the east (Marsh & Lefebvre 1994). On the urban coast of Queensland, dugongs range from Cooktown to the Queensland / NSW border. The most important areas are around Hinchinbrook Island, Cleveland Bay and Shoalwater Bay in the Great Barrier Reef, and Hervey Bay and Moreton Bay further south (Marsh et al. 2002b).
Dugongs prefer shallow and protected areas with seagrass meadows. While dugongs frequent coastal waters, they also use estuarine creeks and streams and have been tracked travelling within creeks upstream for several kilometres (Lawler et al. 2002).
Feeding Areas
Dugongs feed almost exclusively on seagrass, particularly H. uninervis, H. ovalis and H. spinulosa, and principally inhabit seagrass meadows (Preen 1992; Preen et al. 1995; Lanyon & Morris 1997). Their dependence on seagrass for food generally limits them to waters within 20 km of the coast, although individuals have been sighted further from the coast during aerial surveys (e.g. Marsh & Lawler 2002) and they have been observed feeding in deep-water (water depth of more than 20 m) seagrass (Lee Long et al. 1997). Feeding aggregations tend to occur in wide, shallow protected bays; wide, shallow mangrove channels; and in the lee of large inshore islands (Heinsohn et al. 1979). Dugong feeding trails were recorded at Double Island by researchers at James Cook University in 2013 (R. Coles, pers. comm., 24 September 2014).
Breeding Areas
Shallow waters, such as on tidal sandbanks (Marsh et al. 1984) and estuaries (Hughes & Oxley-Oxland 1971), have been reported as sites for calving.
Migration Routes
Dugongs can be highly migratory due to their search for suitable seagrass or warmer waters (Marsh et al. 2002a) and are known to travel several hundreds of kilometres.
Summary
Given the absence of seagrass in areas off-shore of Yorkeys Knob, dugong are unlikely to feed in areas close to the proposed development. They have a low likelihood of occurring in the estuaries surrounding the Aquis site. However, they are moderately likely to traverse areas off-shore of the Aquis site.
– F – – – F, B, M F, M L M
Megaptera novaeangliae
Humpback whale
V, M, C See Table 6-15. – – – – – B, M B, M L M
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 169
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Orcaella brevirostris
3
Australian snubfin dolphin
M, C The Australian snubfin dolphin is Australia’s only endemic dolphin and was described as a separate species from the Irrawaddy dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) in 2005 (Beasley et al. 2005). Little is known about the ecology and population status of this species throughout its range (Parra et al. 2006a; Ross 2006).
Australian snubfin dolphins occur only in waters off the northern half of Australia, from approximately Broome on the west coast to the Brisbane River on the east coast (Parra et al. 2002). There appears to be 'hotspots' of higher Australian snubfin dolphin densities along the Queensland coast (Parra et al. 2002a) and preliminary data suggest that they occur in small, localized populations (Stacey & Arnold 1999).
Coastal, estuarine and riverine areas are important for Orcaella species in other regions; however, only marine populations are evident in Australia. They appear to inhabit shallow waters <15 m deep within 10 km of the coast and 20 km of a river mouth, often in proximity to seagrass meadows (GBRMPA 2013b). It is doubtful that they venture very far upstream in river systems, although occasional vagrants may venture upstream (Parra et al. 2002).
Feeding Areas
The Australian snubfin dolphin is an opportunistic-generalist feeder, taking food from the bottom and water column. Its diet consists primarily of fish, but includes cephalopods (squid and octopus) and crustaceans (prawns and crabs). Feeding may occur in a variety of habitats, from mangroves to sandy bottom estuaries and embayments, to rock and / or coral reefs. Feeding primarily occurs in shallow waters (less than 20 m) close to river mouths and creeks (DoTE 2013j).
Breeding Areas
There is limited information on the breeding and calving areas of the Australian snubfin dolphin. No calving areas are known in Australian waters (DoTE 2013j).
Migration Routes
Limited information exists on their migration routes; however, home ranges and territories for Australian snubfin dolphin appear to be large (DoTE 2013j).
Summary
Given their preference for inshore coastal and estuarine areas, the Australian snubfin dolphin is moderately likely to feed in or traverse both the estuarine areas adjacent to the Aquis site, and off-shore areas within 5 km of the Aquis site.
F F F F – F, B, M – M M
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 170
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Orcinus orca Killer whale M, C Killer whales occur in all oceans and contiguous seas from equatorial regions to polar pack ice zones and may even ascend rivers (DoTE 2013k). In Australia, Killer Whales are recorded from all states, and are most commonly reported around Tasmania (DoTE 2013k). Their preferred habitat includes oceanic, pelagic and neritic (relatively shallow waters over the continental shelf) regions (DoTE 2013k).
Feeding Areas
Killer whales are top-level carnivores with a seasonally and regionally variable diet (DoTE 2013k). In Australia, they are most numerous in coastal waters and cooler regions where productivity is high (Dalhlheim & Heyning 1999), and more commonly found around seal colonies.
Breeding Areas
No calving areas are known in Australian waters (DoTE 2013k).
Migration Routes
Killer whales are known to make seasonal movements, and probably follow regular migratory routes (DoTE 2013k). However, there is no information on migration routes in Australian waters (DoTE 2013k).
Summary
The study area does not provide important habitat for killer whales. The likelihood of killer whales occurring in the estuaries around the Aquis site or in the off-shore study area is low.
– – – – – F, B F, B, M L L
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 171
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Sousa chinensis
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin
M, C The distribution of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins appears to be continuous along the east coast of Queensland (Corkeron et al. 1997). Similar to the Australian snubfin dolphin, the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin usually inhabits shallow coastal waters in association with rivers or creeks, estuaries, enclosed bays and coastal lagoons (Hale et al. 1998; Parra 2006). Recent surveys conducted in the far northern section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park showed that most sightings of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins occurred in waters less than 5 km from land, 20 km from the nearest river mouth, and in waters less than 15 m deep (Parra et al. 2006b).
Feeding Areas
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins have only been recorded feeding in shallow waters. They feed in a variety of habitats, from mangroves to sandy bottom estuaries and emban kments to rock and / or coral reefs (DEHP 2013; DSEWPC 2013b). They are opportunist-generalist feeders, consuming a wide variety of coastal and estuarine fishes, but also reef, littoral and demersal fishes, and some cephalopods and crustaceans (Parra 2005).
Breeding Areas
No key calving areas are known in Australian waters (Bannister et al. 1996).
Migration Routes
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins are considered to be migratory, with evidence of migration across international boundaries (Culik 2003). In Queensland they have not been recorded as migrating, although at the northern and southern limits of their range they may move closer to the tropics in the colder winter months (DEHP 2013b).
Summary
Given their preference for shallow coastal and estuarine areas, the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin is moderately likely to feed in or traverse both the estuarine areas adjacent to the Aquis site, and off-shore areas within 5 km of the Aquis site.
F F F F – F, B, M – M M
Reptiles
Caretta caretta
Loggerhead turtle
E, M, O See Table 6-15. – F F – B F, B, M F, M L M
Chelonia mydas
Green turtle V, M, O See Table 6-15. F F F F B F, B, M F, M M M
Dermochelys coriacea
Leatherback turtle
E, M, O See Table 6-15. – – – – B F, B, M F, M L L
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 172
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Eretmochelys imbricata
Hawksbill turtle
V, M, O See Table 6-15. – F F F B F, M, B F, M low moderate
Lepidochelys olivacea
Olive Ridley turtle
E, M, O See Table 6-15. – F F F B F, B, M F, M low low
Natator depressus
Flatback turtle V, M, O See Table 6-15. – – F – B F, B, M M low moderate
Sharks and Rays
Carcharodon carcharias
Great white shark
V, M See Table 6-15. – – – – – F, B, M F, B, M low low
Lamna nasus Mackerel shark
M The mackerel shark is a wide ranging coastal and oceanic species found in temperate and cold-temperate waters worldwide, preferring water temperatures below 18°C (Stevens et al. 2006). In Australia, the species occurs from southern Queensland to south-west Australia (Last & Stevens 2009). They typically occur in oceanic waters off the continental shelf, although they occasionally enter coastal waters (Francis et al. 2002).
Feeding Areas
Mackerel sharks are thought to be reasonably flexible in the types of habitat used for foraging (Pade et al. 2009). The mackerel shark feeds on pelagic fish and cephalopods, with elasmobranchs forming a small part of their diet (Joyce et al. 2002).
Breeding Areas
Mackeral sharks in the Southern Hemisphere are thought to give birth off New Zealand and Australia in winter (Francis & Stevens 2000); however, little is known of their key pupping areas.
Migration Routes
The mackerel shark is known to undertake seasonal migrations, although the timing and details of these migratory movements are not well-understood (Saunders et al. 2011).
Summary
Mackerel shark typically occur in waters off the continental shelf are unlikely to occur in the estuaries surrounding the Aquis site or in waters within 5 km of the Aquis site.
– – – – – F F, B, M low low
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 173
SPECIES COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR
LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE
Es
tua
ry /
Man
gro
ve
Se
ag
ras
s
Co
ral
Ree
f
Ro
ck
y R
eef
Co
as
tal
Be
ac
h
Ins
ho
re O
pen
Wa
ters
1
Off
-sh
ore
Op
en
Wa
ters
2
Ad
jac
en
t E
stu
ari
ne
Are
as
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
f S
ite
Manta birostris
Giant manta ray
M The Manta genus was recently re-evaluated and split into two species based on genetic evidence; the reef manta ray (Manta alfredi) and the giant manta ray (Manta birostris) (Kashiwagi et al. 2008; Marshall et al. 2009; Ito & Kashiwagi 2010). The giant manta ray has a widespread distribution, being found in both tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. The giant manta ray is likely to be a more oceanic and more migratory species than the reef manta ray (A. Marshall et al. unpubl. data from IUCN 2013).
Feeding Areas
The giant manta ray feeds on plankton, and can be encountered in large numbers along productive coastlines with regular upwelling, oceanic island groups and particularly off-shore pinnacles and seamounts (Marshall et al. 2011). They can also be encountered on shallow reefs while being cleaned or feeding at the surface inshore and off-shore. In inshore areas, they can occasionally be observed in sandy bottom areas and seagrass beds (Marshall et al. 2011).
Breeding Areas
There is little information on the reproductive biology of the giant manta ray (Marshall et al. 2011).
Migration Routes
While the giant manta ray is widely distributed and appears to be a migratory species, regional populations appear to be small considering the scale of their habitat (Marshall et al. 2011).
Summary
The study area does not provide significant habitat for giant manta rays. Giant manta rays typically occur in waters off the continental shelf are unlikely to occur in the estuaries surrounding the Aquis site or in waters within 5 km of the Aquis site.
– – F – – F F, M, B L L
Rhincodon typus
Whale shark V, M See Table 6-15. – – F – – F F, B L L
Source: DoTE 2014b
E endangered
V vulnerable
M migratory species
O marine species
C whales and other cetaceans
– not known as key habitat
1 <20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per (GBRMPA 2013b)
2 >20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per (GBRMPA 2013b)
3 previously considered to be Orcaella brevirostris (Irrawaddy dolphin); the Australian snubfin dolphin was formally recognised as a separate species in 2005 (GBRMPA 2012a)
L Low likelihood of occurrence M Moderate likelihood of occurrence
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 174
Species Common Name
EPBC Act Listing Status
Habitat Preferences
Key Breeding (B) and Feeding (F) Habitat, and Migration Areas (M) in Commonwealth Marine Areas of GBR
1 Likelihood of
Occurrence in the Commonwealth Marine Area Off-shore of the project Site Seagrass
Coral Reef
Rocky Reef
Inshore Open Waters
2
Off-shore Open Waters
3
Mammals
Dugong dugon Dugong M, O See Table 6-16. F – – F, B, M F, M Moderate
Sea snakes and Kraits F, B F, B F, B F, B F, B Moderate
Acalyptophis peroneii Horned seasnake O Sea snakes and sea kraits are predatory marine reptiles that inhabit shallow, tropical waters over reef, inter-reef or sandy habitats throughout the Indo-Pacific region (Stokes 2004). The highest diversity occurs in northern Australia and south-east Asia. There are approximately 54 species within approximately 13 genera, and each genus is represented by both widespread and endemic species (Lukoschek 2008 and references cited within).
Basic biological, distributional, and ecological information is limited for most seasnakes (Lukoschek 2008); they have been described from sandy, muddy, seagrass, estuaries and coral reef habitats. The diet of sea snakes is often species specific, with a variety of species being recorded, including small fish, eels, fish eggs and a variety of small invertebrates (Limpus 1975; Fry et al. 2001; Ineich & Laboute 2002).
The olive seasnake is one of the most studied species. The olive seasnake typically occurs at discrete reefs, with habitat preference related to reef location, exposure and area; distribution did not appear to be related to the protection status of reefs (GBRMP zoning). Factors driving spatial and temporal changes are poorly understood (Lukoschek 2008 and references cited within). Studies of the olive seasnake in the Keppel Island region found that this species maintains small home ranges over short time periods, and that females have larger home ranges than males (Burns & Heatwole 1998; Lynch 2000). Males also appear to move off reefs in the summer, returning to the same or a nearby reef to mate in winter (Lynch 2000). Despite their ability to expand into new marine habitats, local populations appear to be relatively isolated and, if subject to extinction, are unlikely to re- establish by dispersal (Lukoschek 2008 and references cited within).
Summary
There is limited ecological information on the habitat preferences of most species of sea snakes. However, it is moderately likely that they occur within the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site.
Aipysurus duboisii Dubois’ seasnake O
Aipysurus eydouxii Spine-tailed seasnake
O
Aipysurus laevis Olive seasnake O
Astrotia stokesii Stoke’s seasnake O
Disteira kingii Spectacled seasnake
O
Disteira major Olive-headed seasnake
O
Enhydrina schistosa Beaked seasnake O
Hydrophis elegans Elegant seasnake O
Hydrophis mcdowelli Small-headed seasnake
O
Hydrophis ornatus (a seasnake) O
Lapemis hardwickii Spine-bellied seasnake
O
Laticauda colubrina (a sea krait) O
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 175
Species Common Name
EPBC Act Listing Status
Habitat Preferences
Key Breeding (B) and Feeding (F) Habitat, and Migration Areas (M) in Commonwealth Marine Areas of GBR
1 Likelihood of
Occurrence in the Commonwealth Marine Area Off-shore of the project Site Seagrass
Coral Reef
Rocky Reef
Inshore Open Waters
2
Off-shore Open Waters
3
Marine Turtles
Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle E, M, O See Table 6-15. F F – F, B, M F, M Moderate
Chelonia mydas Green turtle V, M, O See Table 6-15. F F F F, B, M F, M Moderate
Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle E, M, O See Table 6-15. – – – F, B, M F, M Low
Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill turtle V, M, O See Table 6-15. F F F F, B, M F, M Moderate
Lepidochelys olivacea Olive Ridley turtle E, M, O See Table 6-15. F F F F, B, M F, M Low
Natator depressus Flatback turtle V, M, O See Table 6-15. – F – F, B, M M Moderate
Pipefish, Pipehorse and Seahorse
Halicampus nitidus glittering pipefish O Very little is known about the biology of pipefish, pipehorse and seahorse species in Queensland waters. About half of the world’s Syngnathid species live in Australian waters, and there are approximately 49 species of pipefish / pipehorse, and nine seahorse species known from the GBRWHA (Stokes 2004). Species from the families Syngnathidae and Solenostomidae have been found attached to seagrass, gorgonians, drifting debris (after storms or floods), live coral, mangrove roots, floating Sargassum, or swimming freely in mid-water (Lightowler 1998 and Vincent 1996 from Stokes 2004). Foster and Vincent (2004) found that the most commonly reported seahorse habitat was seagrass, while mangroves were the least reported. Tropical species are primarily found among coral reefs (Foster & Vincent 2004; Scales 2010).
Syngnathids have low mobility, and small home ranges, and are typically found in water 1–15 m deep; however, some species occur at 45–60 m depth (Stokes 2004). Some seahorse species change habitat and depth choice as they grow (Foster & Vincent 2004).
Summary
Given the absence of seagrass beds in the off-shore study area, pipefish, pipehorse and seahorse are unlikely to be common in Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site. While they are likely to found in coral reefs of the region, the coral reefs off-shore of the Aquis site are not part of the local Commonwealth Marine Area (see Figure 6-23).
F, B F, B – F, B – Low
Halicampus spinirostris spiny-snout pipefish O
Hippichthys cyanospilos Blue-speckled pipefish
O
Hippichthys heptagonus Madura pipefish O
Hippichthys penicillus Beady pipefish O
Hippichthys spicifer Belly-barred pipefish
O
Hippocampus bargibanti Pygmy seahorse O
Hippocampus histrix Spiny seahorse O
Hippocampus kuda Spotted seahorse O
Hippocampus planifrons Flat-faced seahorse O
Hippocampus zebra Zebra seahorse O
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 176
Species Common Name
EPBC Act Listing Status
Habitat Preferences
Key Breeding (B) and Feeding (F) Habitat, and Migration Areas (M) in Commonwealth Marine Areas of GBR
1 Likelihood of
Occurrence in the Commonwealth Marine Area Off-shore of the project Site Seagrass
Coral Reef
Rocky Reef
Inshore Open Waters
2
Off-shore Open Waters
3
Micrognathus andersonii Anderson’s pipefish O
Micrognathus brevirostris Thorntail pipefish O
Microphis brachyurus Short-tail pipefish O
Nannocampus pictus Painted pipefish O
Phoxocampus diacanthus Pale-blotched pipefish
O
Siokunichthys breviceps Soft coral pipefish O
Solegnathus hardwickii Pallid pipehorse O
Solenostomus cyanopterus
Robust ghost pipefish
O
Solenostomus paegnius 4 Rough-snout ghost
pipefish O
Solenostomus paradoxus Ornate ghost pipefish
O
Syngnathoides biaculeatus
Double-end pipehorse
O
Trachyrhamphus bicoarctatus
Bentstick pipefish O
Trachyrhamphus longirostris
Straightstick pipefish
O
Source: DoTE 2014b
E endangered
V vulnerable
M migratory species
O marine species
C whales and other cetaceans
– not known as key habitat; 1 estuarine / mangrove areas and sandy beaches do not occur in the Commonwealth Marine Area directly off-shore of the project site;
2 <20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per (GBRMPA 2013b);
3 >20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per (GBRMPA 2013b);
4 listed under Solenostomus cyanopterus in Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 177
Species Common Name EPBC Act Listing Status
Habitat Preferences Key Breeding (B) and Feeding (F) Habitat, and Migration Areas (M) in Commonwealth Marine Areas of GBR
1
Likelihood of Occurrence in the Commonwealth Marine Area Off-shore of the project Site Seagrass Coral
Reef Rocky Reef
Inshore Open Waters
2
Off-shore Open Waters
3
Balaenoptera acutorostrata
Minke whale C Until recently, there was thought to be only one species of minke whale, referred to as Balaenoptera acutorostrata. There are now two generally accepted species, the common
minke whale(B. acutorostrata) and the Antarctic minke whale (B. bonaerensis) — a listed
migratory species. The dwarf minke whale, which is regularly sighted in the Region, is currently regarded as an undescribed subspecies of B. acutorostrata and is, therefore, not a listed migratory species.
Minke whales prefer temperate to boreal waters, but are also found in tropical and subtropical areas (NOAA Fisheries 2014). They can be found in both coastal / inshore and oceanic / off-shore areas (NOAA Fisheries 2014). There are several forms of minke whales in east Australian waters (Arnold et al. 1987). While little is known about the habits of the dwarf minke sub-species, they form a well known winter aggregation in the northern Great Barrier Reef, especially in the Ribbon Reefs between Port Douglas and Lizard Island (GBRMPA 2011e).
Feeding Areas
Minke whales feed most often in cooler waters at higher latitudes (NOAA Fisheries 2014). They feed predominantly on krill (Bannister et al. 1996). Whilst dwarf minke whales have never been seen feeding in the northern Great Barrier Reef (Birtles et al. 2002) there are direct and indirect signs that feeding does occur in waters in or adjacent to the Marine Park (M. Curnock, pers. comm. 2012, cited in GBRMPA 2011).
Breeding Areas
Small calves of dwarf minkes are recorded in Australian waters from May to July. Usually, only one or two cow and calf pairs are seen per season in northern Great Barrier Reef waters. This suggests either that these waters are not a major nursing area or that cows with calves do not regularly approach vessels there (Dunstan et al. 2007; Sobtzick 2011).
Migration Routes
Minke whales undertake extensive migrations between cold water feeding grounds and warmer water breeding grounds (NOAA Fisheries 2014). Migration paths are presumably
widespread (approximately 12 to 65 S), although they are less predictable than most other Balaenopterids, such as the humpback whale (GBRMPA 2011e).
Summary
The study area is unlikely to be an important habitat for minke whales and they are unlikely to feed in the area, however they may traverse open waters of the Commonwealth Marine Area during their annual migration.
– – – F, B, M F, B, M Moderate
Balaenoptera edeni
Bryde’s whale M, C See Table 6-15. – – – F, B F, B, M Low
Balaenoptera musculus
Blue whale E, M, C See Table 6-15. – – – M M, F, B Low
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 178
Species Common Name EPBC Act Listing Status
Habitat Preferences Key Breeding (B) and Feeding (F) Habitat, and Migration Areas (M) in Commonwealth Marine Areas of GBR
1
Likelihood of Occurrence in the Commonwealth Marine Area Off-shore of the project Site Seagrass Coral
Reef Rocky Reef
Inshore Open Waters
2
Off-shore Open Waters
3
Delphinus delphis
Common dolphin C Common dolphins are found in off-shore waters. They have been recorded in waters off all Australian states and territories, but are rarely seen in northern Australian waters (Jefferson & Van Waerebeek 2002; Ross 2006). Common dolphins appear to occur in two main locations around Australia, with one cluster in the southern south-eastern Indian Ocean and another in the Tasman Sea (DoTE 2013f). The species is not known to be migratory (Bannister et al. 1996) although they are highly mobile and capable of moving long distances (Ross 2006).
Feeding Areas
The common dolphin is an opportunistic feeder that may move inshore or off-shore following food (Ross 2006). It is known to feed on mesopelagic fish and cephalopods (Bannister et al. 1996) to a depth of 280 m but also at the surface and in association with tuna (Ross 2006).
Breeding Areas
Information on reproduction is only available for populations outside of Australia. No specific calving areas in Australia are known (Bannister et al. 1996).
Summary
Common dolphins are primarily found in off-shore waters, however they may move to inshore areas following food. They are moderately likely to occur in the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site.
– – – F F Moderate
Grampus griseus Risso’s dolphin C Risso’s dolphins are considered to be pelagic and oceanic species to latitudes of ~55 (Ross 2006). They are most frequently seen over the continental slope, usually in waters deeper than 1000 m (Ross 1984). Off-shore waters of Fraser Island have the only known ‘resident’ population in Australia (Bannister et al. 1996)
Feeding Areas
Risso’s dolphins feed primarily on squid, some octopus and possibly fish (Bannister et al. 1996). In South Africa, Risso's dolphins appear to forage in both coastal and off-shore waters (Peddemors 1999) and it is likely that similar foraging behaviour would occur in Australian waters (DoTE 2013g).
Breeding Areas
No calving areas are known in Australia (Perrin & Reilly 1984; Bannister et al. 1996).
Summary
Risso’s dolphins are primarily found in off-shore waters, however they may move to inshore areas following food. They are moderately likely to occur in the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site.
– – – F F Moderate
Megaptera novaeangliae
humpback whale V, M, C See Table 6-15. – – – B, M B, M Moderate
Orcaella brevirostris
Australian snubfin dolphin
M, C See Table 6-16. F F F F, B, M – Moderate
Orcinus orca killer whale M, C See Table 6-16. – – – F, B F, B, M Low
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 179
Species Common Name EPBC Act Listing Status
Habitat Preferences Key Breeding (B) and Feeding (F) Habitat, and Migration Areas (M) in Commonwealth Marine Areas of GBR
1
Likelihood of Occurrence in the Commonwealth Marine Area Off-shore of the project Site Seagrass Coral
Reef Rocky Reef
Inshore Open Waters
2
Off-shore Open Waters
3
Sousa chinensis Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin
M, C See Table 6-16. F F F F, B, M – Moderate
Stenella attenuata
Spotted dolphin C Spotted dolphins are mostly found in oceanic tropical zones between about 40°N and 40°S, inhabiting both near-shore and oceanic habitats (DoTE 2013m). They have been recorded off all northern Australian states.
Feeding Areas
Spotted dolphins feed mainly on small epipelagic and mesopelagic fish, and squid. Nemertean worms and crab larvae are also consumed on occasion (Sekiguchi et al. 1992; Würtz et al. 1992).
Breeding Areas
No calving areas are known in Australian waters (Bannister et al. 1996).
Summary
The is limited information on the habitat preferences of spotted dolphins; however, they are considered moderately likely to occur in the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site.
– – – F F Moderate
Tursiops aduncus
Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin
C The taxonomy of the genus Tursiops is controversial. Tursiops aduncus, the current taxon of the Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin, occurs widely around Australia in large groups (Hale et al. 2000 in Ross 2006). The species is highly visible and relatively common in
coastal, estuarine, pelagic and oceanic waters between about 65 N and 55 S; it is found slightly further off-shore where sympatric with the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Bannister et al. 1996). In Australia, the Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin is restricted to inshore areas such as bays and estuaries, near-shore waters, open coast environments, and shallow off-shore waters including coastal areas around oceanic islands (Hale et al. 2000; Kogi et al. 2004).
Feeding Areas
This species is generally considered an opportunistic feeder on items such as fish, cephalopods and crustaceans (DoTE 1997) and often feeds in association with trawlers (Bannister et al. 1996).
Breeding Areas
No calving areas are known in Australian waters (Bannister et al. 1996).
Summary
Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins can occur in both inshore and off-shore waters. They are moderately likely to occur in the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site (and are also moderately likely to occur in estuarine areas adjacent to the Aquis site – however; under Commonwealth legislation, this species is only protected in Commonwealth Marine Areas).
F F – F F Moderate
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 180
Species Common Name EPBC Act Listing Status
Habitat Preferences Key Breeding (B) and Feeding (F) Habitat, and Migration Areas (M) in Commonwealth Marine Areas of GBR
1
Likelihood of Occurrence in the Commonwealth Marine Area Off-shore of the project Site Seagrass Coral
Reef Rocky Reef
Inshore Open Waters
2
Off-shore Open Waters
3
Tursiops truncatus
Bottlenose dolphin C Tursiops truncatus is currently considered the more poorly known species of the Tursiops genus in Australian waters. They are usually found off-shore in waters deeper than 30 m (Hale et al. 2000; Ross 2006) but also appear be found in some coastal waters (Hale et al. 2000; Kemper 2004). The bottlenose dolphin tends to inhabit cooler, deeper off-shore waters than the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Bannister et al. 1996). They are associated with many types of substrate and habitats, including mud, sand, seagrasses, mangroves and reefs (Hanson & Defran 1993; Barros & Wells 1998).
Feeding Areas
Inshore bottlenose dolphins feed mainly on a variety of fish and invertebrates from both the littoral and sub-littoral zones, while off-shore animals feed primarily on mesopelagic fish and oceanic squids (Reyes 1991).
Breeding Areas
No calving areas are known in Australian waters (Bannister et al. 1996).
Summary
Bottlenose dolphins are primarily found in off-shore waters, however they may move to inshore areas following food. They are moderately likely to occur in the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site.
– – – F F Moderate
Source: DoTE 2014b.
E endangered
V vulnerable
M migratory species
C whales and other cetaceans
– not known as key habitat
1 estuarine / mangrove areas and sandy beaches do not occur in the Commonwealth Marine Area directly off-shore of the project site.
2 <20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per GBRMPA 2013b
3 >20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per GBRMPA 2013b
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 181
Figure 6-25 Recognised aggregation areas of the blue whale.
Source: DEH (2005a).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 182
Figure 6-26 Distribution, migration and recognised aggregation areas of the humpback whale.
Source: DEH (2005b).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 183
Figure 6-27 Significant known nesting areas along the Queensland coast for: a) loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), b) green turtles (Chelonia mydas), c) leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), d) hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imricata), and, e) flatback turtles (Natator depressus).
Source: GBRMPA (2011d).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 184
Figure 6-28 Identified important feeding and breeding areas for loggerhead turtles, green turtles, hawksbill turtles
and flatback turtles within the region.
Source: GBRMPA (2013b).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 185
Figure 6-29 Distribution, foraging and aggregation sites for the great white shark.
Source: DSEWPC (2013a).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 186
This analysis shows that of the threatened and migratory aquatic species listed as potentially
occurring in the study area in the Protected Matters Report, no species were deemed highly likely to
occur. The following species were deemed moderately likely to occur:
five threatened species – loggerhead turtle, green turtle, hawksbill turtle, flatback turtle and
humpback whale
eight migratory species – loggerhead turtle, green turtle, hawksbill turtle, flatback turtle, dugong,
humpback whale, Australian snubfin dolphin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin.
f) Potential Impacts to Listed Species or Their Habitat
In the absence of effective mitigation, development in the coastal environment can have a variety of
impacts on coastal processes and coastal habitats, and the aquatic organisms that depend on those
habitats. Direct impacts (such as the disturbance, removal or burial of marine plants and soft sediment
aquatic habitats) may occur during construction of some projects. A number of indirect impacts may
also occur during both construction and operation. Potential indirect impacts to listed species in
coastal waterways and in off-shore coastal areas may occur through:
changes to water quality of the surrounding environment, including:
- increases in the concentration of suspended sediments, and consequent sediment
deposition
- releases of nutrients and potential contaminants from disturbed sediments
- acidic leachate from disturbed acid sulfate or potential acid sulfate soils
- spills of hydrocarbons and other contaminants
- increased litter and waste
changes to local hydrology (i.e. both increased and decreased flows and creek diversions)
changes to the light climate
increased recreational boating activities
increased noise.
These impacts, and measures to avoid, minimise and mitigate these impacts are described in detail in
Chapters 7 and 22 of the EIS and in frc environmental (2014a). The EIS concludes that overall, the
development design features and construction methodologies, proposed habitat
protection / restoration, enhancements to connectivity, and improvements to water quality are such
that no significant impacts on Commonwealth listed species are considered likely.
Potential impacts relevant to each listed marine and estuarine species based on their habitat
preferences and the likelihood of impact after mitigation measures is discussed in Table 6-19.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 187
Species Common Name
Relevant Controlling Provision/s
Likelihood of Occurrence
Potential Impacts Likelihood of Impact after Mitigation
Ad
jac
en
t
Es
tua
rie
s
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
ff-
sh
ore
Dir
ec
t H
ab
ita
t
Dis
turb
an
ce
1
Inc
rea
sed
Tu
rbid
ity
&
Se
dim
en
t
Su
sp
en
sio
n1
Nu
trie
nt
En
ric
hm
en
t1
Dis
turb
an
ce
of
Acid
Su
lfate
So
ils
1
Sp
ills
of
Co
nta
min
an
ts1
Inc
rea
sed
Lit
ter
&
Wa
ste
Ch
an
ge
s t
o L
oc
al
Hyd
rolo
gy
1
Ch
an
ge
s t
o L
igh
t
Clim
ate
1
Inc
rea
sed
Bo
ati
ng
Ac
tiv
itie
s
Inc
rea
sed
No
ise
Mammals
Balaenoptera acutorostrata Minke whale C* Low Low ✓ ✓ Low
Balaenoptera edeni Bryde’s whale
M, C Low Low ✓ ✓ Low
Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale E, M, C Low Low ✓ ✓ Low
Delphinus delphis Common dolphin
C* Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Dugong dugon Dugong M, O Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Grampus griseus Risso’s dolphin
C* Low Low ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale
V, M, C Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Orcaella brevirostris Australian snubfin dolphin
M, C Moderate Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Orcinus orca Killer whale M, C Low Low ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Sousa chinensis Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin
M, C Moderate Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Stenella attenuata Spotted dolphin
C* Low Low ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 188
Species Common Name
Relevant Controlling Provision/s
Likelihood of Occurrence
Potential Impacts Likelihood of Impact after Mitigation
Ad
jac
en
t
Es
tua
rie
s
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
ff-
sh
ore
Dir
ec
t H
ab
ita
t
Dis
turb
an
ce
1
Inc
rea
sed
Tu
rbid
ity
&
Se
dim
en
t
Su
sp
en
sio
n1
Nu
trie
nt
En
ric
hm
en
t1
Dis
turb
an
ce
of
Acid
Su
lfate
So
ils
1
Sp
ills
of
Co
nta
min
an
ts1
Inc
rea
sed
Lit
ter
&
Wa
ste
Ch
an
ge
s t
o L
oc
al
Hyd
rolo
gy
1
Ch
an
ge
s t
o L
igh
t
Clim
ate
1
Inc
rea
sed
Bo
ati
ng
Ac
tiv
itie
s
Inc
rea
sed
No
ise
Tursiops aduncus Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin
C* Moderate Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin
C* Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Sharks and Rays
Carcharodon carcharias Great white shark
V, M Low Low Low
Lamna nasus Mackerel shark
M Low Low Low
Manta birostris Giant manta ray
M Low Low Low
Pristis clavata Dwarf sawfish
V Low Low Low
Pristis zijsron Green sawfish
V Low Low Low
Rhincodon typus Whale shark V, M Low Low Low
Turtles Low
Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle
E, M, O Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Chelonia mydas Green turtle V, M, O Moderate Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle
E, M, O Low Low ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 189
Species Common Name
Relevant Controlling Provision/s
Likelihood of Occurrence
Potential Impacts Likelihood of Impact after Mitigation
Ad
jac
en
t
Es
tua
rie
s
Wit
hin
5 k
m o
ff-
sh
ore
Dir
ec
t H
ab
ita
t
Dis
turb
an
ce
1
Inc
rea
sed
Tu
rbid
ity
&
Se
dim
en
t
Su
sp
en
sio
n1
Nu
trie
nt
En
ric
hm
en
t1
Dis
turb
an
ce
of
Acid
Su
lfate
So
ils
1
Sp
ills
of
Co
nta
min
an
ts1
Inc
rea
sed
Lit
ter
&
Wa
ste
Ch
an
ge
s t
o L
oc
al
Hyd
rolo
gy
1
Ch
an
ge
s t
o L
igh
t
Clim
ate
1
Inc
rea
sed
Bo
ati
ng
Ac
tiv
itie
s
Inc
rea
sed
No
ise
Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill turtle
V, M, O Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Lepidochelys olivacea Olive Ridley turtle
E, M, O Low Low ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Natator depressus Flatback turtle
V, M, O Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low
Seasnakes and Kraits O* Low to Moderate
Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Pipefish, Pipehorse and Seahorse O* Low to Moderate
Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
E endangered
V vulnerable
M migratory species
C whales and other cetaceans
* protected under Commonwealth legislation only within Commonwealth Marine Areas (i.e. between 5.6 to 370.4 km off-shore) 1
only likely to impact listed species that have a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence in estuaries adjacent to the Aquis site, or in waters within 5 km off-shore of the
Aquis site.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 190
This further assessment confirms the findings of the EIS that the likelihood of significant impact after
mitigation is low.
g) Impacts on Marine Turtles
Impacts on marine turtles that are moderately likely to occur either within the estuarine areas adjacent
to the Aquis site, or within 5 km off-shore of the Aquis site, are addressed under the relevant
controlling provisions in the sections following.
h) Likely Impact on Listed Endangered Species
Of the three marine turtles species listed as endangered, the loggerhead turtle is considered
moderately likely to occur within 5 km of the Aquis site. No endangered marine turtles are considered
likely to occur in the estuaries adjacent to the Aquis site. The significant impact assessment for the
loggerhead turtle is presented in Table 6-20.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION LOGGERHEAD TURTLE (CARETTA CARETTA)
Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population
Populations of loggerhead turtles in the region are low and are likely to represent only migratory and foraging individuals along the coast.
Reduce the area of occupancy of the species The area downstream of the Aquis site is not a known breeding or aggregating area for loggerhead turtles.
Fragment an existing population into two or more populations
Loggerhead turtles of the study area are likely to be transient. The Project will not fragment habitat for this species.
Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
The study area is not considered to be near any habitat recognised as critical to loggerhead turtle populations.
Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population The study area is not a known loggerhead turtle breeding ground and should not impact on the breeding cycle.
Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline
Direct disturbance to bare (non-vegetated) substrates will occur at the mouth of Richters Creek and off-shore, along the inlet pipeline footprint. This habitat is not essential to the survival or reproduction of loggerhead turtles and thus no long-term impacts to the species are predicted to occur.
Result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species Becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat
It is unlikely that a harmful invasive species will be introduced during any stage of the project.
Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline
There is limited potential for disease to be introduced to loggerhead turtle populations, through introduced pests or other means.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 191
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION LOGGERHEAD TURTLE (CARETTA CARETTA)
Interfere with the recovery of the species The Aquis Project is not located near breeding or nesting sites. Low numbers of loggerhead turtles may forage in Trinity Inlet south of the project area, but they are unlikely to occur in sufficient numbers immediately downstream of the Aquis site. The Project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of this species.
Overall impact assessment result The study area does not support an important population of loggerhead turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species.
The Project will not result in a significant impact on loggerhead turtles.
It is concluded that the study area does not support an important population of loggerhead turtles and
does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species. The project will not result in a significant
impact on loggerhead turtles.
i) Likely Impact on Listed Vulnerable Species
Of the three marine turtles species listed as vulnerable, three species are considered moderately likely
to occur within 5 km of the Aquis site. The green turtle, hawksbill turtle and flatback turtle are
moderately likely to occur off-shore of the Aquis site. The green turtle is also moderately likely to occur
in the estuaries adjacent to the Aquis site. The significant impact assessment for these species is
presented in Table 6-21.
j) Likely Impact on Listed Migratory Species
All six species of marine turtles are considered migratory. The significant impact assessment for the
four species that are considered moderately likely to occur within 5 km of the Aquis site is presented in
Table 6-21.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 192
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION
GREEN TURTLE (CHELONIA MYDAS) HAWKSBILL TURTLE (ERETMOCHELYS IMBRICATA)
FLATBACK TURTLE (NATATOR DEPRESSUS)
Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species
The study area does not represent a unique habitat type that the green turtle would depend on. No significant impacts to green turtle populations are expected to occur.
The presence of hawksbill turtles in the region is not known, but there are only likely to be migratory populations along the coast near the proposed development.
The presence of flatback turtles in the region is not known, but there are only likely to be migratory populations along the coast near the proposed development.
Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population
The area downstream of the Aquis site is not a known breeding or aggregating area for green turtles.
The area downstream of the Aquis site is not a known breeding or aggregating area for hawksbill turtles.
The area downstream of the Aquis site is not a known breeding or aggregating area for flatback turtles.
Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations
The occurrence of green turtles downstream of the Aquis site is likely to be limited. A relatively small area of mangroves will be cleared during construction of the pipelines. These mangroves will be rehabilitated once construction is complete, and the temporary loss of this small area of mangroves is unlikely to affect green turtles that may forage on occasion in the creek.
The occurrence of hawksbill turtles downstream of the project area is transient and most likely seasonal. The Project will not fragment any marine habitats that are critical to the survival of hawksbill turtles.
The occurrence of flatback turtles downstream of the Aquis site is transient and most likely seasonal. The Project will not fragment any marine habitats.
Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species
The Aquis site is not considered to be near any habitat recognised as critical to green turtle populations.
The study area is not considered to be near habitats recognised as critical to hawksbill turtle populations.
The Aquis site is not considered to be near any habitat recognised as critical to flatback turtle populations.
Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population
The study area is not a known green turtle breeding ground and the proposed development is unlikely to impact on the breeding cycle.
The study area is not a known hawksbill turtle breeding ground and the proposed development is unlikely to impact on the breeding cycle.
The study area is not a known flatback turtle breeding ground and the proposed development is unlikely to impact on the breeding cycle.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 193
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION
GREEN TURTLE (CHELONIA MYDAS) HAWKSBILL TURTLE (ERETMOCHELYS IMBRICATA)
FLATBACK TURTLE (NATATOR DEPRESSUS)
Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline
Direct disturbance to bare (non-vegetated) substrates will occur at the mouth of Richters Creek and off-shore, along the inlet pipeline footprint. A relatively small area of mangroves will also be cleared during construction of the pipelines. These mangroves will be rehabilitated once construction is complete, and the temporary loss of this small area of mangroves is unlikely to affect green turtles that may forage on occasion in the creek. These habitats are not essential to the survival or reproduction of the green turtle and thus no long-term impacts to the species are likely to occur.
Direct disturbance to bare (non-vegetated) substrates will occur at the mouth of Richters Creek and off-shore, along the inlet pipeline footprint. This habitat is not essential to the survival or reproduction of the hawksbill turtle and thus no long-term impacts to the species are likely to occur.
Direct disturbance to bare (non-vegetated) substrates will occur at the mouth of Richters Creek and off-shore, along the inlet pipeline footprint. This habitat is not essential to the survival or reproduction of the flatback turtle and thus no long-term impacts to the species are likely to occur.
Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat
It is unlikely that invasive species may be introduced during any stages of the project.
It is unlikely that invasive species may be introduced during any stages of the project.
It is unlikely that invasive species may be introduced during any stages of the project.
Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline
There is limited potential for disease to be introduced to green turtle populations, through introduced pests or other means.
There is limited potential for disease to be introduced to hawksbill turtle populations, through introduced pests or other means.
There is limited potential for disease to be introduced to flatback turtle populations, through introduced pests or other means.
Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species
The Project is not located near key breeding or nesting sites. Low numbers of green turtles may forage in Trinity Inlet south of the project area, and green turtles may forage in the estuarine areas adjacent to the development on occasion. However, habitats critical to the survival of the species are found in greater abundance, and often in better condition, elsewhere in the region. The Project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of this species.
The Project is not located near breeding or nesting sites. Low numbers of hawksbill turtles may forage in nearby coral and rocky reefs, and in Trinity Inlet south of the project area, but they are unlikely to occur in marine areas directly off-shore of the Aquis site. The Project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of this species.
The Project is not located near breeding or nesting sites. Low numbers of flatback turtles may forage in Trinity Inlet south of the Aquis site, or other nearby rocky and coral reefs. The Project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of this species.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 194
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION
GREEN TURTLE (CHELONIA MYDAS) HAWKSBILL TURTLE (ERETMOCHELYS IMBRICATA)
FLATBACK TURTLE (NATATOR DEPRESSUS)
Overall impact assessment result
The study area does not support an important population of green turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species that is not available elsewhere in the local and regional area. The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on green turtles.
The study area does not support an important population of hawksbill turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species. The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on hawksbill turtles.
The study area does not support an important population of flatback turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species. The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on flatback turtles.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 195
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION LOGGERHEAD TURTLE (CARETTA CARETTA)
GREEN TURTLE (CHELONIA MYDAS)
HAWKSBILL TURTLE (ERETMOCHELYS IMBRICATA)
FLATBACK TURTLE (NATATOR DEPRESSUS)
Substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species
Populations of loggerhead turtles in the region are low and are likely to represent migratory populations only. Coral and rocky reefs or seagrass beds are not likely to be disturbed during the project construction or during operations. Loggerhead turtle populations are highly unlikely to be modified, destroyed or isolated.
Populations of green turtles in the region are moderate and are likely to represent resident and migratory populations. Coral reefs or seagrass beds are not likely to be disturbed during the project construction or during operations. Green turtle populations are highly unlikely to be modified, destroyed or isolated.
Populations of hawksbill turtles in the region are low are likely to represent migratory populations only. Coral and rocky reefs or seagrass beds are not likely to be disturbed during the project construction or during operations. Hawksbill turtle populations are highly unlikely to be modified, destroyed or isolated.
Populations of flatback turtles in the region are low are likely to represent migratory populations only. Coral reefs or seagrass beds are not likely to be disturbed during the project construction or during operations. Hawksbill turtle populations are highly unlikely to be modified, destroyed or isolated.
Result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species, or
It is highly unlikely that invasive species will be introduced during any stage of the project.
It is highly unlikely that invasive species will be introduced during any stage of the project.
It is highly unlikely that invasive species will be introduced during any stage of the project.
It is highly unlikely that invasive species will be introduced during any stage of the project.
Seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.
The study area is not a known key loggerhead turtle breeding ground and the project is unlikely to affect the breeding cycles of any populations.
The study area is not a known key green turtle breeding ground and the project is unlikely to affect the breeding cycles of any populations.
The study area is not a known key hawksbill turtle breeding ground and the project is unlikely to affect the breeding cycles of any populations.
The study area is not a known key flatback turtle breeding ground and the project is unlikely to affect the breeding cycles of any populations.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 196
Overall impact assessment result
The study area does not support an important population of loggerhead turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species.
The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on loggerhead turtles.
The study area does not support an important population of green turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species that is not available elsewhere in the local and regional area.
The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on green turtles.
The study area does not support an important population of hawksbill turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species.
The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on hawksbill turtles.
The study area does not support an important population of flatback turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species.
The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on flatback turtles.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 197
It is concluded that the project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on any species of turtles.
k) Likely Impact on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
An action is likely to have a significant impact on the World Heritage values of a declared World
Heritage property if there is a real chance or possibility that it will cause one or more of the World
Heritage Values to be lost, degraded, damaged, notably altered, modified, obscured or diminished
(DoTE 2013a). The likelihood of significant impacts to the GBRWHA and its Outstanding Universal
Values as a consequence of any impacts to marine turtles and their habitats is presented in Table
6-23 and Table 6-24 .
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 198
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION ASSESSMENT
Values associated with geology or landscape
NA
Biological and ecological values
Reduce the diversity or modify the composition of plant and animal species in all or part of a World Heritage property
The project is unlikely to affect the diversity of marine turtle species in the local or regional area. The project is also not expected to significantly modify the composition of any plant or animal species that are consumed by marine turtles.
There are no known seagrass communities in the study area, and the nearest coral reef is beyond the likely extent of impact from the construction and operation of the resort and pipelines.
A relatively small area of mangroves will be cleared during construction of the pipelines. These mangroves will be rehabilitated once construction is complete, and the temporary loss of this small area of mangroves is unlikely to affect green turtles that may forage on occasion in the creek.
Direct impacts to soft sediment benthic fauna are likely to be temporary, and unlikely to have a measurable impact beyond the project footprint.
Fragment, isolate or substantially damage habitat important for the conservation of biological diversity in a World Heritage property
The proposed development is unlikely to result in a significant loss or degradation of habitats required for maintaining the diverse fauna and flora of the region, including marine turtles.
There are no known seagrass communities in the study area, and the project is unlikely to interfere with the recovery of seagrass beds in Trinity Inlet and Cairns Harbour.
The nearest coral reef is beyond the predicted extent of impact from the construction and operation of the project.
A relatively small area of mangroves will be cleared during construction of the pipelines. These mangroves will be rehabilitated once construction is complete. Mangroves surrounding the proposed development are extensive, and are mostly connected along Richter, Thomatis, Yorkeys and Half Moon creeks. Construction or operation of the resort is not expected to fragment, isolate or substantially damage these aquatic habitats.
Areas of non-vegetated soft substrate will also be disturbed during construction of the pipeline. Given that the bare substrates are typical of the region, the loss of this habitat is not likely to have a measurable ecological impact beyond the project footprint and is unlikely to affect marine turtles. Any impact is likely to be temporary.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 199
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION ASSESSMENT
Cause a long-term reduction in rare, endemic or unique plant or animal populations or species in a World Heritage property
The project is highly unlikely to cause a long-term reduction in any marine turtle populations. The study area does not support an important populations of any species of marine turtle and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species. Low numbers of green turtles may forage in Trinity Inlet south of the project area, and green turtles may forage in the estuarine areas adjacent to the development on occasion. However, the species is found in greater numbers elsewhere in the region.
Fragment, isolate or substantially damage habitat for rare, endemic or unique animal populations or species in a World Heritage property.
The proposed development is unlikely to result in the loss or degradation of habitats required for maintaining the diverse fauna and flora of the region, including marine turtles.
There are no known seagrass communities in the study area.
A relatively small area of mangroves will be cleared during construction of the pipelines. These mangroves will be rehabilitated once construction is complete. Mangroves surrounding the proposed development are extensive, and are mostly connected along Richter, Thomatis, Yorkeys and Half Moon creeks. Construction or operation of the resort is not expected to fragment, isolate or substantially damage these aquatic habitats.
Areas of non-vegetated soft substrate will also be disturbed during construction of the pipeline. Given that the bare substrates are typical of the region, the loss of this habitat is not likely to have a measurable ecological impact beyond the project footprint and is unlikely to affect marine turtles. This impact is likely to be temporary.
Wilderness, natural beauty or rare or unique environment values
Involve construction of buildings, roads, or other structures, vegetation clearance, or other actions with substantial, long-term or permanent impacts on relevant values
NA
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 200
NA not applicable
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION ASSESSMENT
Introduce noise, odours, pollutants or other intrusive elements with substantial, long-term or permanent impacts on relevant values.
The construction of the pipelines will cause noise that may disturb marine turtles in Richters Creek mouth, and in the adjacent off-shore areas, causing them to move away from the area temporarily; however, marine turtles are likely to return to the area once construction is complete. Changes to water quality associated with the construction and operation of the resort and pipeline may also affect marine turtles. For example, if contaminated sediments or acid sulfate soils (which are toxic to marine fauna) are disturbed during the construction of the pipelines, or if spills of hydrocarbons or other contaminants occur. With appropriate mitigation measures in place, these potential impacts to marine turtles are unlikely to occur.
Indirect impacts to marine turtles may also be caused by increased illumination in the local area. However, there are no definitive records of turtles nesting on the beaches in the vicinity of the Aquis site and the area is not recognised as a key nesting area for any species of marine turtle. Where appropriate design features are incorporated into the Aquis development, any impacts to nesting and hatching marine turtles are likely to be minimised.
It is unlikely that there will be a substantial, long-term or permanent impact on the values of the GBRWHA, including marine turtles and their habitats.
Historic heritage values NA
Other cultural heritage values including Indigenous heritage values
Permanently diminish the cultural value of a World Heritage property for a community or group to which its values relate
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have hunted marine turtles for traditional food and medicines for thousands of years. Traditional hunting and the consumption of turtles, especially green turtles, serve important economic, cultural and social functions and forms part of the cultural and heritage values associated with the GBRWHA.
The project is not likely to significantly affect marine turtle populations in the local or regional areas, and will not affect the cultural heritage values for Indigenous communities.
Overall impact assessment result The project is highly unlikely to significant impact the values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area as a consequence of any impacts to marine turtles and their habitats.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 201
OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE AND ASSOCIATED AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES
POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
Criterion (i) an outstanding example representing the major stages of the earth's evolutionary history
Reefal Systems The nearest mapped coral reefs to the Aquis site are the inshore fringing reefs around Green Island (approximately 25 km east of Richters Creek mouth), and Haycock Reef and Double Island Reef (approximately 10 km north of Richters Creek mouth). The closest known reef is a very small reef approximately 7 km to the north-west at Taylor Point (north of Trinity Beach). Coral cover at these reefs is low, and has declined in recent years. Despite this, new coral growth and old massive corals are likely to exist.
Water quality data collected to date indicate that the waters off-shore of Richters Creek are subject to natural fluctuations in turbidity and total suspended solids as result of plumes from Richters Creek and the Barron River (particularly during the wet season). Modelling of potential impacts of water quality from the proposed lake has assessed that the water quality will be in similar or better condition than the receiving environment (Flanagan Consulting Group 2014a). Further, negligible changes in water quality concentrations are expected off-shore near any reef systems, with 90th percentile changes indicating over 99% dilution.
If the models are not accurate, then there may be some impacts to water quality in the GBRWHA. If appropriate mitigations measures are not employed during dredging operations, then turbid plumes may reach nearby coral reefs, temporarily affecting feeding, respiration and growth of corals and epibenthos (some of which are consumed by marine turtles) during the construction period.
Construction and operation of the proposed development is unlikely to impact on the key interrelated and interdependent elements of coral reefs. The proposed development is unlikely to affect the Great Barrier Reef as an outstanding example representing the major stages of the earth’s evolutionary history.
coral cays Low
new phases of coral growth Low
old massive corals Low
coral reef ecosystem Low
inshore fringing reefs, mid-shelf reefs, and exposed outer reefs, including examples of all stages of reef development
Low
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 202
OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE AND ASSOCIATED AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES
POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
Criterion (ii) an outstanding example representing significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man's interaction with his natural environment
Marine Attributes Construction of the proposed inlet and outlet pipes at Richters Creek mouth will result in the direct loss of non-vegetated soft sediments, and the associated micro- and macrobenthos. Given that the estuarine and marine areas adjacent to the areas of disturbance are typical of the region, the loss of this micro- and macrobenthos (including molluscs, marine worms and crustaceans) is not likely to have a measurable ecological impact beyond the project footprint.
It is unlikely that any Halimeda beds that may be associated with the nearest reefs would be impacted, as they are 7–25 km away, and water quality in these areas is unlikely to be impacted during construction and operation of the Aquis Resort. Likewise, sand banks around coral cays are unlikely to be affected.
Construction and operation of the proposed development is unlikely to result in the loss of necessary elements that are essential for the long-term conservation of the area’s ecosystems and biodiversity. The proposed development is unlikely to affect ongoing geological processes, biological evolution or man’s interaction with the natural environment.
coral reefs, sand banks and coral cays Low
beds of Halimeda algae Low
evolution of hard corals Low
4000 species of molluscs, over 1500 species of fish, plus a great diversity of sponges, anemones, marine worms, crustaceans and many others
Low
other marine fauna including microfauna NA
Criterion (iii) contains unique, rare or superlative natural phenomena, formations or features or areas of exceptional natural beauty, such as superlative examples of the most important ecosystems to man
Marine Attributes The proposed development is unlikely to impact on the aesthetic value of coral reefs, including hard and soft corals, in the GBRWHA. Provided that appropriate mitigation measures are employed during dredging, it is also unlikely that coral spawning will be affected.
There are no key turtle nesting areas in the vicinity of the proposed development, and thus it is unlikely that there are significant breeding colonies of the marine turtles nearby.
Construction and operation of the proposed development is unlikely to result in the loss or degradation of areas that are essential for maintaining the beauty of the aquatic ecosystems of the GBRWHA.
string of reef structures Low
coral assemblages of hard and soft corals Low
thousands of species of reef fish NA
coral spawning NA
migrating whales NA
significant spawning aggregations of many fish species NA
breeding colonies of marine turtles Low
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 203
OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE AND ASSOCIATED AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES
POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT
ASSESSMENT
Criterion (iv) contains habitats where populations of rare or endangered species of plants and animals still survive.
Marine Habitat Diversity The proposed development is unlikely to result in the loss or degradation of habitats required for maintaining the diverse fauna and flora of the region, including marine turtles.
There are no known seagrass communities in the study area, and the project is unlikely to interfere with the recovery of seagrass beds in Trinity Inlet and Cairns Harbour.
A relatively small area of mangroves will be cleared during construction of the pipelines. These mangroves will be rehabilitated once construction is complete. Mangroves surrounding the proposed development are extensive, and are mostly connected along Richter, Thomatis, Yorkeys and Half Moon creeks. Construction or operation of the resort is not expected to fragment, isolate or substantially damage these aquatic habitats.
Areas of non-vegetated soft substrate will also be disturbed during construction of the pipeline. Given that the bare substrates are typical of the region, the loss of this habitat is not likely to have a measurable ecological impact beyond the project footprint and is unlikely to affect marine turtles. This impact is likely to be temporary.
The likelihood of marine turtles occurring the study area is low to moderate. Some turtles may feed in mangroves areas in the estuarine reaches of the creeks; however, these areas are not ideal or preferred foraging habitat. The riverbanks adjacent to the Aquis site are lined with mangroves and are not suitable for turtle breeding; there are no major breeding grounds known to occur in the study area. If appropriate mitigation measures are not employed, then marine turtles may be impacted by changes to water quality, changes to light regimes or by underwater noise through resort operations (e.g. water pumps and generators) and during construction. Where appropriate mitigation measures are employed, the risk of these impacts is low.
coral reefs (400 species of corals in 60 genera) Low
coral cays Low
diversity of mangroves Low
diversity of seagrass Low
Marine Species
dugong NA
species of whale NA
species of dolphins NA
humpback whale calving NA
marine turtles Low
Overall Assessment The project is highly unlikely to significant impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area as a consequence of any impacts to marine turtles and their habitats.
NA not applicable
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 204
6.16.3 Conclusions
The above assessment confirms statements made in the EIS that the development of the Aquis Resort
is not likely to result in a significant impact on any matters of NES related to the marine environment
and its species. The main potential impacts of land-based development (deterioration in water quality
and loss of terrestrial habitats and associated ecological processes) have been addressed by design
initiatives (WSUD, lake water quality, and restoration of habitats) and further mitigation and
management are commitments of the construction and operation phases. There are practical and
effective mitigation techniques available and these will be applied to the project.
6.17 SENSITIVE AREAS / IMPACTS FOR TERRESTRIAL FAUNA HABITAT (ITEM
14 AND 21 – PART)
6.17.1 Background
There are a three inter-related issues raised in the DoTE submission (212) regarding habitats for
terrestrial fauna and subsequent impacts, namely:
(14) Statements that this area is not considered to be core habitat for a species and not considered to support important populations or offer habitat critical to the survival of the species need to be supported by evidence. This is also the case when describing the area may be low or moderately likely to provide habitat for a species. Further justification is required when attributing low or moderate score to habitat features for the species.
(21) Potential impacts to listed species or their potential habitat have been discussed in the EIS, however further information is required to outline which impacts are relevant to which listed species.
(24) Impacts to shorebirds and turtles need to be addressed under the relevant controlling provisions, for example listed threatened species, listed migratory species and World Heritage Area (Outstanding Universal Value of the GBRWHA).
This section discusses values and impacts on terrestrial species. Refer also to the similar discussion
on aquatic species in Section 6.16.
6.17.2 Discussion – Values
a) Listed Threatened Flora
The assessment concludes that there are 16 listed flora species in the protected matters search, of
which:
one species (Myrmecodia beccarii (Vulnerable – V) was confirmed on the site
one species (Durabaculum mirbelianum (Endangered – E) is considered likely to or may
possibly occur
remaining species (14) are unlikely to occur, based on knowledge of the habitats present and a
targeted search.
Confirmed Listed Species
Only one listed species (Myrmecodia beccarii (V)) was located on the Aquis site. Commonly known as
the Ant plant because of its mutualistic relationship with ants, this epiphytic species is found
throughout the Cairns City area where there are mangrove and/or Melaleuca-dominated habitats. The
plant can be seen in range of age and size classes across the project area within these plant
communities. It is readily seen using Ceriops australis and Xylocarpus moluccensis as hosts within
mangroves, similarly on mature Melaleuca leucadendra and M. quinquenervia in wetland ecosystems.
The epiphyte is also occasionally seen in the small patches of residual woodlands, hosted on
Corymbia intermedia and Acacia crassicarpa. Because of its reliance on canopy level vegetation,
Myrmecodia beccarii was not found outside well-developed forest habitats.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 205
On the basis of the Ant plant population present on site and its habitat, the site exhibits some value,
but this cannot be described as unique, outstanding, or of universal importance.
In relation to M. beccarii, the following analysis is relevant.
There will be no decrease in the size of a population or a long-term adverse effect on an
ecological community given that all individuals and their habitat will be protected. All plants
occur within well-developed habitats that are planned for retention.
There will be no reduction in the area of occupancy of the species given that habitat will be
protected, and expanded in the longer term. An additional 29.8 ha (plus 11.4 ha outside the
project boundary) of mangrove ecosystem is proposed for restoration. The total M. beccarii
population on-site has not been quantified but based on mangrove surveys on the site, the
density is estimated at around 30 plants/ha, suggesting that an additional 40 ha of mature
restored mangroves could support a large number of additional M. beccarii.
Fragmentation of the existing population will not occur as habitat will be protected and existing
levels of connectivity potentially enhanced through restoration. Because continuity of habitat will
not be affected, existing populations should not become ecologically isolated. Moreover,
attendant ants and pollinating butterflies should be similarly free of fragmentation impacts.
No disturbance or destruction of habitat critical to the survival of the species is proposed. The
mangrove and Melaleuca communities in which M. beccarii occurs are outside the proposed
construction zone. The species occurs in similar habitats in the local area and greater Cairns
City environs.
No disruption of the breeding cycle of a population would occur and in the longer term increased
habitat and enhanced connectivity may lead to population increases. As noted, there should be
minimal/no disturbance to mutualistic species that are important to the long term persistence of
M. beccarii.
There will be no modification, destruction, removal, isolation or reduction of the availability or
quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline and net habitat area is
proposed to increase. The project is unlikely to exacerbate edge effects or generate other
biotic/abiotic effects that may impact habitat quality or integrity.
Modification or destruction of abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients or soil)
necessary for the ecological community's survival (Not Applicable).
The introduction of invasive species that are harmful to the species or ecological community
becoming established (Not Applicable).
Interference with the recovery of the species or ecological community (Not Applicable).
Action that may be inconsistent with a recovery plan (Not Applicable – there is no recovery plan
or threat abatement plan for M. beccarii).
The project should not adversely impact on the population of M. beccarii on-site and is
consistent with the Conservation Advice.
Generally, the most significant impact on this species is an ongoing loss of habitat, with edge effects,
loss of mutualistic relationships, and illegal collecting likely to be key secondary impacts. These threats
are not impacts that are now present on the site, and the development is unlikely to give rise to such
impacts.
The species and its habitat will be protected, with no clearing of its habitat as a result of the
development. Additional habitat will become available as Melaleuca wetlands are restored during the
habitat restoration process. The existing population will not be fragmented, and genetic exchange
within the local population may be enhanced by facilitating improved habitat connectivity through
riparian restoration.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 206
Listed Species with Potential to Occur On-site
Targeted searches were conducted for the two listed orchids Durabaculum mirbelianum (E) and
Durabaculum nindii (E), which were both considered to be potentially present on-site. Both species are
known to occur within mangroves, coastal swamps and associated habitats. Mangrove habitats on the
Aquis site provide suitable habitat for both these species. These habitats were extensively sampled
during the recent surveys, and while other epiphytes and mistletoe have been recorded during various
surveys, neither D. mirbelianum nor D. nindii were seen. Detectability is relatively straightforward in
this instance, so the chance of having missed species is unlikely.
In addition, Eleocharis retroflexa (V), although not listed in the results of the protected matters search
for the site, was also considered to be potentially present. This species is known from seasonally
inundated habitats around the Cairns area (Environment North 1998). The species is not known from
saline habitats, but sections of Yorkeys Creek, some internal cane drains, and the aquaculture ponds,
do provide some suitable niche habitats. However, targeted surveys in these areas failed to locate any
individuals of E. retroflexa.
b) Listed Threatened Fauna
There were 20 listed fauna species in the protected matters search, of which:
one species (Pteropus conspicillatus (V)) was confirmed on the site
one species (Erythrotriorchis radiatus (V)) may overfly the site
two species (Dasyurus hallucatus (E) and Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus (CE)) are
likely to occur
remaining species (16) are unlikely to occur, based on knowledge of the habitats present and a
targeted search.
Confirmed Listed Threatened Species
Individuals and small groups of Pteropus conspicillatus (Spectacled flying-fox) were seen and heard
during nocturnal surveys. This species occurs between Ingham and Cooktown, and between the
McIlwraith and Iron Ranges of Cape York Peninsula. In the greater Cairns region there are known
roosting colonies in Yorkeys Knob, Cairns City, Cairns Central Swamp, Anderson Park, Edmonton and
Gordonvale (Freeman 2003). This species is associated primarily with rainforest and sometimes with
mangroves, and large roosts are always found within 6 km of rainforests. There are no camps of P.
conspicillatus within the Aquis site, however all the natural habitats in the area provide suitable
foraging and temporary resources for this species.
In relation to P. conspicillatus, the following analysis is relevant to the MNES guidelines:
There will be no habitat loss associated with the project that may lead to a decrease in the size
of a population, given that all habitats will be protected. All habitat utilised by this species is
marked for retention.
There will be no reduction in the area of occupancy of the species, given that habitat will be
protected and expanded in the longer term. In excess of 55 ha of degraded agricultural lands is
proposed for some form of ecological restoration, and all local biota are likely to benefit from the
provision of extra habitat.
Fragmentation of the existing population will not occur, given that habitat will be protected and
existing levels of connectivity enhanced. The species mobility would not be expected to decline
as a direct result of the proposed development.
No disturbance or destruction of habitat critical to the survival of the species is proposed. The
species occurs in similar habitats in the local area and greater Cairns City, with a number of
camps known between Yorkeys Knob and Gordonvale.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 207
No disruption of the breeding cycle of the population is envisaged and, in the longer term,
increased habitat and enhanced connectivity may lead to population increases. The
development will not impinge on any existing camp.
There will be no modification, destruction, removal, isolation or reduction of the availability or
quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline and net habitat area is
proposed to increase. The project is unlikely to impact on habitat quality or integrity.
Modification or destruction of abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients or soil)
necessary for the ecological community's survival (not applicable).
The introduction of invasive species that are harmful to the species or ecological community
becoming established (not applicable).
Interference with the recovery of the species or ecological community (not applicable).
Listed Threatened Species with Potential to Occur On-site
Dasyurus hallucatus (Northern quoll) (E) is the smallest of the quoll species and the most
arboreal. Although found in a variety of habitats, it is most common in rocky eucalypt woodland
and open forest within 200 km of the coast. They are opportunistic omnivores feeding on
invertebrates, small birds and mammals, frogs, reptiles, fruits and nectar. Northern quolls will
den in tree hollows, termite mounds, fallen logs and rock crevices and will use a number of dens
across their territory (Oakwood 2002). Suitable habitat on the site for this species is very limited
in extent but potential prey is abundant. Nonetheless, the species has been recorded in and
around the Cairns area in recent years (Wildlife Protection Society of Queensland (WPSQ)
2012) and therefore, has potential to occur in the area. As the usual home range for both sexes
is approximately 35ha (although this increases to nearly 100 km for a male during mating
season) (DoTE, 2014), the small amount of potentially suitable habitat on site will at best only
form part of a home range.
Erythrotriorchis radiatus (Red goshawk) (V) occurs in woodlands and forests of tropical and
warm temperate Australia. It prefers mosaic habitats that hold a large population of birds and
permanent water. Riparian areas are heavily favoured and nests are restricted to trees taller
than 20 metres and within one kilometre of a watercourse or wetland (Garnett and Crowley
2000). The species may occur and forage in the area, although there is no nesting habitat on
the project site. There are large tracts of more suitable habitat in the area surrounding the site.
Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus (Bare-rumped sheathtail bat) (CE) is a large microbat
that occurs in coastal tropical woodland/open forest from Bowen north to the Lockhart River
area as well as the Top End in the Northern Territory, but is a rarely recorded species in
Australia. It is known to roost in large tree hollows in a variety of Eucalyptus species (Dennis
2012). There is habitat on the project site including some large trees which may contain suitable
roost hollows. A roost site was recently known to occur relatively nearby at Centenary Lakes in
Cairns (pers. comm. T. Reis). The subspecies has potential to occur on the project site. Anabat
recordings confirmed a species of Saccolaimus on-site however the call could only be identified
to genus level so it remains conjectural as to whether Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus is
present on the site. The presence of S. saccolaimus has been confirmed immediately next to
the Bruce Highway south of Townsville, suggesting some resilience and ability within this
species in living and foraging safely, adjacent to a high level of anthropogenic disturbance
(DTMR 2013).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 208
Listed Threatened Fauna Summary
Based on the protected matters search, knowledge of the habitats present, and detailed, targeted fieldwork:
One species (Pteropus conspicillatus (V)) was confirmed on the site
One species (Erythrotriorchis radiatus (V)) may overfly the site
Two species (Dasyurus hallucatus (E) and Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus (CE)) are
likely to occur.
No camps of P. conspicillatus were found within the Aquis site, although all the natural habitats in the
greater Cairns area provide suitable foraging and temporary resources for this species. The preferred
habitats for some of the other species are present on the site and at many other locations nearby. Two
Crocodylus porosus have been recorded utilising the man-made aquaculture ponds on the southern
margin of the site abutting Richters Creek. This is also a highly mobile species which is known from a
variety of similar habitats in the Cairns area.
The Aquis site is not considered critical for the survival of any of the confirmed or likely species due to
the abundance of suitable habitat of similar or great quality outside of the site boundary.
Migratory Species Summary
Based on the migratory species protected matters search, knowledge of the habitats present, and
detailed, targeted fieldwork:
14 species were confirmed on the site
4 species may overfly the site
15 species are likely to occur.
Of the 14 confirmed species one (C. porosus) is a reptile and the remainder are birds. Five are
considered terrestrial migrants to/within the Australian mainland and all are relatively common species
that occur over a wide area (refer Table 6-6).
Suitable habitat for all of these species exists within the project site, mainly utilising the seasonal
abandoned aquaculture ponds, although some species may also forage on the clay pans following
tidal inundation. Mangrove habitats are also valuable.
Migratory bird fauna contribute to OUV because of their international distribution and the need to
protect habitats which support annual migration, breeding habitats, and seasonal resource utilisation.
A number of migratory fauna have been recorded on-site, and both resident and ‘obligate’ migratory
species have been encountered. Two ‘obligate migratory’ fauna, Numenius phaeopus and N.
madagascariensis, are relatively widespread on the Australian coast-line, although they are less
abundant in the south (Higgins and Davies 1996). Both migrate annually from the northern hemisphere
(Higgins and Davies 1996) and on the site occupy similar habitats to the more sedentary Esacus
magnirostris. Both Numenius species are mobile and likely to move in response to local resource
availability. The migratory species habitat values available on-site are not unique or outstanding in a
local context, nor are they proposed to be disturbed by the development.
There were three other EPBC-listed migratory wetland birds observed on the property. These species
were only seen on the (man-made) aquaculture ponds and on the farms artificial drainage network.
These species are present on a seasonal basis, and have only been recorded during the dry season
when water levels provide suitable wading habitat.
The shoreline at Richters Creek is unlikely to form core habitat for any of the discussed species due to
its small size and disturbed nature (kite surfers, dog walkers, fishers and swimmers were all observed
during the site surveys). The Aquis site is at best only likely to be used temporarily by most species
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 209
during migration as there is more suitable habitat such as the Cairns foreshore within 10 km of the
Aquis site. The Cairns foreshore is a well-known area for migratory shorebirds and has been
designated as an internationally important site for some species of migratory bird due to the number of
migratory birds that use the site annually (Bamford et. al, 2008).
The aquaculture ponds are unlikely to provide core habitat for any of the discussed species due to
their small size and transient water levels. Permanent freshwater bodies such as the Cattana
Wetlands (80 ha), and ephemeral freshwater in nearby Melaleuca-dominated habitats, are habitat
resources that are used seasonally by a number of birds, including migratory shore-birds and waders.
Cattana Wetlands recorded over 150 species of bird during 2013 (Birdlife Northern Queensland 2013)
including most migratory species positively identified on the Aquis site.
The site’s listed migratory fauna are largely dependent on the presence of man-made habitats. Such
habitat also exists adjacent to the site. Values relating to those migratory fauna which occur in natural
habitats should not be affected, given that these habitats are not proposed to be disturbed.
6.17.3 Discussion – Impacts
Within the MNES chapter (22) of the EIS, refer to s22.11.2, 22.12.2 and 22.14.2 for the potential
impacts specific to threatened species which have been identified as a result of the project. Table 6-25
summarises the potential impacts on each MNES-listed species recorded on the Aquis site.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 210
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Threatened Species (Flora)
Myrmecodia beccarii
Ant plant V Recorded
Generally, the most significant threat to this species is an ongoing loss of habitat, with edge effects, loss of mutualistic relationships, and illegal collecting likely to be key secondary impacts. The risk of these threatening processes will not be increased as a result of the development as there will be no loss of suitable habitat for this species.
The species and its habitat will be protected, with no clearing of its habitat as a result of the development. Additional habitat will become available as Melaleuca wetlands and mangroves are restored during the habitat restoration process. The existing population will not be fragmented, and genetic exchange within the local population may be enhanced by facilitating improved habitat connectivity through riparian restoration.
Durabaculum mirbelianum (syn. Dendrobium mirbelianum)
Dark-stemmed antler orchid or Mangrove orchid
E Potentially occurring
Generally, the most significant threats to this species are loss of habitat and over-collection by orchid enthusiasts. The risk of these threatening processes will not be increased as a result of the development.
With a projected net-increase of suitable habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration, the development is not expected to impose impacts on this species that would adversely affect potentially occurring populations or relevant habitat.
Durabaculum nindii (syn. Dendrobium nindii)
Blue antler orchid
E Potentially occurring
Generally the main identified threats to Dendrobium nindii are clearing of coastal habitats and illegal collection The risk of these threatening processes will not be increased as a result of the development.
With a projected net-increase of suitable habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration, the development is not expected to impose impacts on this species that would adversely affect potentially occurring populations or relevant habitat.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 211
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Eleocharis retroflexa
n/a V Potentially occurring
In Queensland, where the species grows near habitation, it is potentially affected by weed ingress, urban development, and changed drainage conditions. Despite targeted searches this species was not recorded on site and is therefore unlikely to be impacted by the development.
Marginal niche habitat may be present on site in sections of Yorkeys Creek, some internal cane drains, and the aquaculture ponds. However, as targeted searches did not detect the species the development is not expected to have any direct impacts on populations or suitable critical habitat.
Threatened Species (Fauna)
Pteropus conspicillatus
Spectacled flying-fox
V Recorded
Known threats to the Spectacled flying-fox include loss of habitat, conflict with humans and/or man-made obstacles, entanglement in nets, illegal shooting, electrocution on power-lines, entanglement in barbed wire fencing and backyard drape netting, tick paralysis, genetic disorders (e.g. cleft palate syndrome), agricultural pesticide residue poisoning and vehicle-related mortality. None of these threats are significantly relevant with regards to the proposed development.
No camps of P. conspicillatus were found within
the Aquis site, although it was recorded foraging on the site. All the natural habitats in the greater Cairns area provide suitable foraging and temporary resources for this species and the species
P. conspicillatus is often found occurring in urban areas with significant artificial lighting and noise (such as Cairns CBD); hence the small increase in these factors as a result of the development is not expected to significantly influence their behaviour.
The development will provide a net increase of suitable habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration.
Best practice lighting and noise reduction methods will be used on-site during construction and operation to minimise the amount of light and noise that may potentially impact on this species.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 212
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Dasyurus hallucatus
Northern quoll E Potentially occurring
Known threats to D. hallucatus are habitat
degradation/clearing, introduction of invasive species, pastoralism/inappropriate fire regimes and traffic.
There may be some temporary diminution of habitat quality during construction (increased noise / vibration / heavy machinery activity). During operation there will be an increase in light and noise that may impact on this species and its prey in small areas of the site. However the small amount of suitable habitat on site is likely to form only a small part of an individual’s home range. Hence any potential impact on this species is unlikely to be significant.
As woodland habitats are protected and not degraded, and projected to be expanded through post-construction restoration, the proposed development is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on this species.
Best practice lighting and noise reduction methods will be used on-site during construction and operation to minimise the amount of light and noise that may potentially impact on this species.
Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus
Bare-rumped sheathtail bat
CE Potentially occurring
The distribution, habitat preferences and biology of the bare-rumped sheathtail bat have not been comprehensively investigated, making the identification of all known and likely threats facing this species difficult to determine. The known primary threat is habitat loss. There will be no habitat loss for this species on site as a result of the development.
There may be some temporary diminution of habitat quality during construction (increased noise / vibration / heavy machinery activity). During operation there will be an increase in light and noise that may impact on this species and its prey in small areas of the site. However the presence of S nudicluniatus has been recorded adjacent to the Bruce Highway in Townsville, proving the resilience and ability of this species to live and forage safely adjacent to a high level of artificial lighting.
As habitat suitable for this species (woodland bearing long deep tree hollows) will not be cleared, the proposed development would not be expected to adversely affect this species.
Best practice lighting and noise reduction methods will be used on-site during construction and operation to minimise the amount of light and noise that may potentially impact on this species.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 213
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Erythrotriorchis radiatus
Red goshawk V May overfly site
The primary threat to this species is considered to be widespread deforestation, particularly of lowland and riverine forests.
The site is not considered critical for the survival of the species due to the abundance of suitable habitat of similar or great quality outside of the site boundary. E. radiatus is not likely to nest on site due to lack of suitable habitat.
There will be no net reduction of habitat for this species on site as a result of the development and there is likely to be neutral impact on this species.
With a projected net-increase of habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration, the development is not expected to impose impacts that would adversely affect this species.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 214
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Migratory Species (EPBC-listed)
Reptiles
Crocodylus porosus
Estuarine crocodile
MMS Recorded
A variety of habitats suitable for C. porosus such as freshwater rivers and lakes, mangroves and brackish water are available in the area surrounding the proposed development site. C. porosus are known to disperse from areas in search of resources such as food or habitat. The individual(s) seen within the development envelope are likely to utilise different areas depending on seasonal resource availability.
The removal of the aquaculture ponds and the design of the lake to make it unsuitable for use by crocodiles may result in a small net reduction of habitat on site. Suitable habitat for this species (including the mangroves and wet woodland areas) will be retained on site, and given the current population size and distribution in Queensland; there are many more suitable habitats available in the closer and wider proximity. The very small reduction in available sub-optimal water habitat is unlikely to have a significant impact on this species.
The development has a projected net-increase of habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 215
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Aerial Birds
Apus pacificus Fork-tailed swift MMB Recorded
A widespread summer migrant from the northern hemisphere this species forages over a wide range of natural and manmade habitats and likely utilises the site’s habitat resources only vagrantly. No impacts on the migratory habits of this species are expected.
The site contains some habitat that is suitable for the species, but the proposed development is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on this species’ migratory habits.
Hirundapus caudacutus
White-throated needle tail
MTS Recorded
A widespread summer migrant from the northern hemisphere this species forages over a wide range of natural and manmade habitats and likely utilises the site’s habitat resources only vagrantly. No impacts on the migratory habits of this species are expected.
The site contains some habitat that is suitable for the species, but the proposed development is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on this species’ migratory habits.
Marine Birds
Egretta sacra Eastern Reef Egret
MMB Recorded
This species is widespread, occurring in all mainland states and Tasmania, and especially common in Great Barrier Reef environments. It is restricted to coastal environments where it takes a variety of prey.
The species may be impacted by the disturbance at the Richters Ck mouth, although this should only be a temporary effect.
The species may occasionally forage at night, but is mostly diurnal.
Because it is mostly marine-based the loss of the aquaculture ponds should not affect habitat availability.
The species is known to nest in mangroves and restored habitat would be expected to offset any loss of habitat.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 216
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Terrestrial Birds
Haliaeetus leucogaster
White bellied sea-eagle
MTS Recorded
The main threats to the species are the loss of habitat due to land development, and the disturbance of nesting pairs by human activity.
H. leucogaster was recorded foraging in the mangroves and Eucalyptus / Melaleuca woodland on site. No nesting sites were detected on site during surveys and there are abundant suitable habitat resources available in the closer and wider proximity.
The development has a projected net-increase of habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration.
The proposed lake may provide a habitat resource which would benefit the species, but also increase the risk of bird-strike. Management to deter lake use by this species will be required in the interest of public safety.
Overall the proposed development is likely to be neutral in terms of its effect on this species.
Merops ornatus Rainbow bee-eater
MTS Recorded
This species is especially abundant in mangrove areas on the development site where it has been recorded during all systematic and incidental surveys.
Given that mangroves will be protected and in some areas expanded, the proposed development would be expected to have a neutral to beneficial effect on this species
Monarcha melanopsis
Black-faced monarch
MTS Recorded
A widespread summer migrant from PNG, the species likely utilises the site’s habitat resources only vagrantly. No impacts on the migratory habits of this species are expected.
The development has a projected net-increase of habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration.
The site contains habitat that supports the species, but the project is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on this species’ migratory habits.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 217
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Monarcha trivirgatus (syn. Symposiarchus trivirgatus)
Spectacled monarch
MTS Recorded
Generally confined to closed forest environments (e.g., rainforest, mangroves) this species migrates from SE Australia but is a common resident in NE QLD. Given the highly mobile nature of migratory species and with abundant suitable habitat available locally and regionally no impact is expected from the proposed development.
The development has a projected net-increase of habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration.
The site contains some habitat that is suitable for the species, but the project is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on migratory habits of this species.
Myiagra cyanoleuca
Satin fly-catcher MTS Recorded
A winter migrant from Tasmania/SE Australia this species was recorded in the eucalypt woodland on site. No nest sites were recorded.
The species likely utilises the site’s habitat resources only vagrantly. No impacts on the migratory habits of this species are expected.
The development has a projected net-increase of eucalypt woodland habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration.
The site contains some habitat that is suitable for the species, but the proposed development is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on this species’ migratory habits.
Wetland Birds
Ardea ibis Cattle egret MWS Recorded
Ardea ibis is widespread and common according to migration movements and breeding localities surveys. Non-breeding birds may remain in breeding areas, but most migrate elsewhere. Its association with livestock added to its habitat adaptability which assisted species spread.
This species is widespread and common and is known to occur in areas of human habitation and disturbed areas. The development is unlikely to impact on this species.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 218
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Ardea modesta (syn. Ardea alba)
Eastern Great
Egret MWS Recorded
Occurring in all mainland states and Tasmania, this species may occur in large breeding flocks of over a thousand pairs (Marchant and Higgins 1990). The species uses a wide variety of habitats, both natural and man-made, and is known to breed in mangroves. They occur in both freshwater and saline habitats.
Loss of the aquaculture ponds would represent
some loss of habitat.
Significant areas of mangroves and Melaleuca wetland will be restored as part of the development process.
There will be a net gain in habitat for this species.
The site contains some habitat that is suitable for the species, but the project is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on migratory habits of this species.
Calidris acuminata
Sharp-tailed sandpiper
MWS, SIG Recorded
A widespread summer migrant from the northern hemisphere, the species occupies a range of habitats including brackish and freshwater wetlands, lagoons, swamps, littoral zone environments, and man-made habitats. It was recorded on site utilising the aquaculture ponds.
The loss of the aquaculture ponds and design of the lake may reduce the amount of habitat suitable for this species on the site. However the aquaculture ponds are likely to be a small part of the local resources used by this species with the Cattana Wetlands representing a much larger and less transient habitat resource. The loss of the aquaculture ponds as a result of the development will not have a significant impact on this species.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 219
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Calidris ruficollis Red-necked stint
MWS, SIG Recorded
Observed at the aquaculture ponds or occasionally on ephemeral drainages across the property, this species forages on a range of wetland habitats and may occur well inland of the project site.
The loss of the aquaculture ponds and design of the lake may reduce the amount of habitat suitable for this species on the site. However the aquaculture ponds are likely to be a small part of the local resources used by this species with the Cattana Wetlands representing a much larger and less transient habitat resource. The loss of the aquaculture ponds as a result of the development will not have a significant impact on this species.
Gallinago
hardwickii Latham’s snipe MWS, SIG Recorded
Observed at the aquaculture ponds or occasionally on ephemeral drainages across the property, this species forages on a range of wetland habitats and may occur well inland of the project site.
The loss of the aquaculture ponds and design of the lake may reduce the amount of habitat suitable for this species on the site. However the aquaculture ponds are likely to be a small part of the local resources used by this species with the Cattana Wetlands representing a much larger and less transient habitat resource.
The loss of the aquaculture ponds as a result of the development will not have a significant impact on this species.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 220
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Numenius madagascariensis
Eastern Curlew MWS Recorded
This species occurs on sheltered coasts, especially estuaries, harbours and coastal lagoons, and are often recorded in saltmarsh and on mudflats within mangroves. The mouth of Richters Creek provides the only likely habitat for this species on the site.
The habitat for this species may be temporarily affected during lake-outfall construction.
Consideration of N. madagascariensis breeding
regime when planning the construction works in the immediate vicinity of Richters’ Creek mouth.
Providing shoreline/mudflat habitat is not degraded, the project is likely to be neutral in terms of its long term effects on the migratory habits of this species.
Numenius phaeopus
Whimbrel MWS Recorded
This species was regularly observed foraging next to mangroves at the mouth of Richters’ Creek; this is a largely coastal species and one of the few waders that regularly roost on the branches of mangroves.
The habitat for this species may be temporarily affected during lake-outfall construction.
Consideration of N. phaeopus breeding regime when planning the construction works in the immediate vicinity of Richters’ Creek mouth.
The development has a projected net-increase of mangrove habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration.
Providing shoreline/mudflat habitat is not degraded, the project is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on the migratory habits of this species.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 221
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Pandion cristatus (syn Pandion haliaetus)
Eastern Osprey
PMST result: Other: Marine Species
(breeding).
Listed in
online
EPBC
Migratory
Species
and
Marine
Species
Recorded
This is a widespread species occurring across Australia, and occasionally in Tasmania. The species is almost entirely coastal and uses a variety of saline and freshwater habitats within large territories. They are mostly diurnal although they may also occasionally forage at night.
Loss of the aquaculture ponds would represent some loss of habitat.
Changes in light availability should not negatively affect this species as most foraging is diurnal and extra night-time light may increase foraging success. Potential loss of the aquaculture ponds should be offset by the extra habitat available through the restoration process.
Plegadis falcinellus
Glossy Ibis
Listed in online EPBC
Migratory Species
and Marine Species
Recorded
Most common in the eastern states, this diurnal species is restricted to shallow water bodies where it feeds on a wide range of prey in addition to plant parts. It migrates within Australia, and may migrate internationally (Marchant and Higgins 1990).
Because of its dependence on shallow water, the species would use the aquaculture ponds as a dry season refuge, and their loss would represent diminution of habitat. Other parts of the property would also provide seasonal habitat resources.
Significant areas of Melaleuca wetland will be restored as part of the development process.
There should be a net gain in habitat for this species as a result of this restoration.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 222
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Tringa brevipes (syn Heteroscelus brevipes)
Grey-tailed
Tattler MWS, SIG Recorded
Occurring in all mainland states, as well as Tasmania, this species also has a widespread global distribution. It feeds mostly in coastal, littoral zone habitats but has also been recorded in inland areas. It is a northern hemisphere breeder, which also migrates seasonally across Australia (Marchant and Higgins 1990).
The species may be impacted by the disturbance at the Richters Ck mouth, although this should only be a temporary effect.
The site contains some habitat that is suitable for the species, but the project is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on migratory habits of this species.
Tringa nebularia Common
Greenshank
Listed in online EPBC
Migratory species
and Marine
Species, SIG
Recorded
The species is widespread, occurring in all mainland states of Australia, and occurs in a wide variety of wetland habitats. It is found mainly in coastal areas using both saline and freshwater habitats, as well as mangroves. Breeding takes place in the northern hemisphere.
Loss of the aquaculture ponds would represent loss of habitat.
The site contains some habitat that is suitable for the species, but the project is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on migratory habits of this species.
Significant areas of mangroves and Melaleuca wetland will be restored as part of the development process. There will be a net gain in habitat for this species.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 223
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
EPBC ACT STATUS
SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION
Remaining EPBC-listed migratory species that are considered likely to occur or may overfly site
n/a n/a likely to occur or may overfly site
The aquaculture ponds, woodland, wetland and shore habitats on the site are habitat resources that are used seasonally by a number of birds, including migratory shore-birds and waders.
Although it is recognised that these habitats have some transient value to these species, there are other larger and more suitable freshwater habitats (such as the Cattana Wetlands and other freshwater reservoirs (e.g. abandoned sandmine at Holloways Beach)), ephemeral freshwater habitat (nearby Melaleuca-dominated habitats) and shore / mudflat habitats (Cairns foreshores is a nationally important area for migratory species) in the local area.
Short term noise and light impacts during construction may cause a temporary movement of some species to the other suitable resources in the area.
The loss of the aquaculture ponds may cause a small loss of habitat for some species although this is not likely to be significant on a local or regional level due to the presence of similar habitats in the immediate and wider surrounding areas.
Any long-term increase in light or noise as a result of the development is likely to be negligible in the habitats used by these species due to attenuation over distance, and shielding by vegetation.
Due to an overall net increase in habitat for some species, the overall impact on migratory species is likely to be neutral.
The development has a projected net-increase of eucalypt woodland, Melaleuca wetland and mangrove habitats through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration.
Best practise noise and light management guidelines will be implemented for the duration of the construction and operation phases of the development.
Abbreviations: CE – Critically Endangered; E – Endangered, V – Vulnerable, MMB – Migratory Marine Birds, MMS – Migratory Marine Species, MTS – Migratory Terrestrial
Species, MWS – Migratory Wetlands Species. SIG – listed in Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 224
6.17.4 Conclusions
The observed and potential listed flora species will not be at risk from the development as their
habitats will be protected and enhanced. The existing population will not be fragmented, and genetic
exchange within the local population may be enhanced by facilitating improved habitat connectivity
through riparian restoration.
The Aquis site is not considered critical for the survival of any of the confirmed or likely listed fauna
species due to the abundance of suitable habitat of similar or great quality outside of the site
boundary.
The site’s listed migratory fauna are largely dependent on the presence of man-made habitats. Such
habitat also exists adjacent to the site. Values relating to those migratory fauna which occur in natural
habitats should not be affected, given that these habitats are not proposed to be disturbed.
With respect to migratory species, the Aquis site does not meet the draft Significant Impact Guidelines
for 36 migratory shorebird species (DEWHA 2009) for being recognised as either a nationally or
internationally important site for the 36 migratory shorebird species covered by the EPBC Act policy
statement 3.21. The proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on these species.
6.18 WTWHA OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE (ITEM 35)
6.18.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 35 refers to Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area
Outstanding Universal Value Criterion vii (formerly (iii)) - contain superlative natural phenomena or
areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance and states:
(35) Insufficient consideration of the impacts on WTWHA is provided in the EIS. Further justification is required regarding the impact the project will have on the aesthetic values of WTWHA and its links to GBRWHA.
6.18.2 Discussion
The subject land is visible from parts of the WTWHA, in particular from Skyrail and from the Henry
Ross Lookout, and from these places the proposed development will be prominently visible (albeit at a
distance) as a contrast to the surrounding part of the Barron River floodplain. The view from Skyrail
(with the Aquis Resort superimposed) is documented in the EIS and reproduced below.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 225
Figure 6-30 View from Skyrail.
Source: EIS Figure 6-12.
A broader view of the Barron River delta from the Henry Ross Lookout is included as part of Appendix
J Figure 13A, reproduced below as Figure 6-31.
Figure 6-31 View from Henry Ross Lookout.
These images show that the coastal plain (with extensive rural and urban land uses, linear transport
infrastructure, and the Cairns Airport) separates the two WHAs along this part of the coastline. The
proposed development will be viewed in the context of these mixed land uses, rather than as an
intrusion into an otherwise natural or highly scenic landscape. The visual connectivity between parts of
the GBRWHA and the WTWHA is strengthened where the two WHAs are in close proximity to each
other and the rainforested landscapes of the WTWHA can be seen to extend right down to the waters
of the GBRWHA. This occurs variously along the coastline, and in the Cairns region extends almost
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 226
continuously from Yarrabah down to Innisfail, and from Palm Cove north (Photo 6-5 ) but not where
the coastal plain is wider around Cairns (Figure 6-31).
Photo 6-5 View of WTWHA and the coastal waters of the GBRWHA near Rocky Point.
6.18.3 Conclusion
It is concluded that in the Cairns area, the two world heritage areas are separated by the coastal plain
that, in the vicinity of the Aquis site, is characterised by extensive urban and industrial development.
Although the forested backdrop of the WTWHA is visible from the GBRWHA, so is the linear
development of Cairns. Modelling shows that the Aquis Resort will be visible as another man-made
feature in this viewshed but not one of any particular significance.
Similarly, the views of the GBRWHA are visible from some vantage points within the WTWHA but this
view is interrupted by extensive development of the coastal plain. It is concluded that although the
Aquis Resort will be clearly visible from two such vantage points (Skyrail and the Henry Ross
Lookout), it will not be detract from World Heritage values.
6.19 GBRWHA OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE/IMPACTS (ITEMS 16 TO 19,
30-31, 37-39)
6.19.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Items 16 to 19 and 30 and 31 all deal with Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area Outstanding Universal Value Criterion vii - contain superlative natural phenomena or
areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance and state:
(16) Justification needs to be made as to why the mangroves on site are not considered representative of the attribute of Outstanding Universal Value (page 22-94).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 227
(17) Low visibility and turbid waters are not sufficient explanation as to why marine flora and fauna are not considered to be a significant contribution to Outstanding Universal Value. Please justify this statement.
(18) Please justify why the beaches south of Yorkeys Knob, the Richters Ck mouth and the northern part of Holloways Beach are not considered spectacular sandy beaches contributing to the Outstanding Universal Value of GBRWHA.
(19) Claiming that the mainland (and development site) is an area that visitors leave behind to visit the GBRWHA and that it is not part of the GBRWHA experience itself does not recognise the full extent of the GBRWHA. The aesthetic values of the GBRWHA need to be considered as broader than the actual reef and include a broad landscape experience.
(30) The EIS states that the development won't impose a visual change to the connectivity between GBRWHA and Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA) (this occurs further north). However, there will be a visual impact when looking from the WTWHA towards the GBRWHA. Further justification is required regarding visual impacts to GBRWHA and WTWHA.
(31) There is inconsistency in the EIS as to whether or not the resort (tall buildings) will be seen from Green Island. Clarification needs to be provided on this issue.
Also relevant are Items 37 to 39 refer to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Criterion vii –
(formerly (iii)) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and
aesthetic importance and state:
(37) The EIS relies on the property having been a sugar cane property as evidence of diminished World Heritage Value. The fact that there is cropping on the site does not mean that the attributes of the world heritage area do not exist. For example, the visual connectivity between GBRWHA and WTWHA. Although agricultural land is not natural vegetation, the change from agricultural landscape to an urban landscape will impact on both WHAs. Further discussion regarding the impact of changing landscape should be provided.
(38) As discussed above, the department considers it likely that there would be a noticeable increase in artificial lighting and noise and in turn impacts on wildlife and aesthetics. The impact of artificial light and noise requires further investigation.
(39) As well as discussing the visual impacts of the development from Green Island and other off-shore points, the visual impact of the development in the more immediate vicinity needs to be discussed. It is likely that the resort will be visible from a broad sweep of the adjacent coastline, coastal waters and hinterland, and from the WTQWHA.
These are discussed together in an integrated manner.
6.19.2 Discussion
a) GBRWHA Outstanding Universal Value – Aesthetic Attributes
As discussed in the EIS, the project site is not within the GBRWHA. However, resort buildings will be
visible from GBRWHA waters, by day and by night, hence the visual impacts on the aesthetic values of
the GBRWHA require consideration. Assessment of potential impacts on GBRWHA aesthetic values
was based on the seven Criterion (vii) attributes recorded in the World Heritage citation and the
Statement of Outstanding Universal Values (GBRMPA 2011), plus consideration of the more holistic
and experiential ‘response to place’ as adapted from the 2013 Context Report (Defining the Aesthetic
Values of the Great Barrier Reef).
Although the Great Barrier Reef is an exceptionally large-scale feature, and many of its aesthetic
attributes are holistic in nature, the contribution of adjoining mainland sites is appropriately addressed
in a reductionist manner (does this site contribute aesthetically to any of the RSoOUV attributes?).
Accordingly, EIS Table 22-22 tabulated the GBRWHA attributes represented near Yorkeys Knob.
Additional assessment now clarifies the contribution of the subject land and the Yorkeys Knob
coastline to the GBR World Heritage Values and their contribution to the seven attributes listed in the
Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (2012) (RSoOUV) which express the extent
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 228
to which the GBRWHA ‘contains superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty
and aesthetic importance’.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 229
One way of assessing the terms ‘superlative’ and ‘exceptional’ is by comparison to other parts of the
Far North Queensland coastline which border the GBRWHA, and to nearby places which contribute in
different ways to coastal, island and Great Barrier Reef scenery. Three such places (Green Island,
Cape Tribulation and Hinchinbrook Island) have been selected in order to compare their RSoOUV
attributes with those of Yorkeys Knob (Table 2-1 below), in order to identify and describe their relative
contributions to OUV. This ‘relative contribution’ approach assumes that some aesthetic attributes,
although attractive and significant locally or regionally, may vary in their contribution to “exceptional
natural beauty and aesthetic importance” and hence to the OUV of the GBRWHA, notwithstanding that
they may be adjacent to or visible from GBRWHA waters1.
This assessment is therefore guided by the definition and meaning of OUV as coined by which follows
the common sense interpretation of the words2:
Outstanding: For properties to be of outstanding universal value they should be exceptional, or
superlative - they should be the most remarkable places on earth.
Universal: Properties need to be outstanding from a global perspective. World heritage does not
aim to recognise properties that are remarkable from solely a national or regional perspective.
Countries are encouraged to develop other approaches to recognise these places. Australia
does this through the national heritage listing process.
Table 6-25 below summarises the relative expression or representation of the seven aesthetic
attributes of OUV (Criterion vii) at Yorkeys Knob, Green Island, Cape Tribulation, and Hinchinbrook
Island.
1
2 http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/understanding-world-heritage-what-outstanding-universal-value
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 230
ATTRIBUTE
World Heritage Criterion
(vii) Aesthetic attributes3
EXPRESSION OF VALUE
Degree or extent to which values are expressed or represented
1.Absent or Rare
2. Uncommon or Poorly Expressed
3. Regular or Representative
4. Frequent or Uniquely Expressed
5. Superlative, world’s best
Hinchinbrook
Island Green Island Cape Tribulation Yorkeys Knob
Vast extent of reef and island systems and unparalleled aerial vistas
3.
Reefs associated with small islands to the north and north-east
5.
Distinctive circular reef and lagoon surrounding a coral cay, typical but so well known as to be ’emblematic’ of the GBR
Other reefs extend northwards to Batt Reef, visible in aerial vistas, including Arlington, Oyster and Thetford Reefs and Upolu Cay
1.
Reef system and islands are at least 20 kms off-shore
1.
Main coral reef systems occur 25 - 30 km off-shore; Closest reefs are at Double Island (8 kms north)
Forested continental islands and coral cays
4.
One of the largest and most densely forested islands off the Queensland coast, close to and visible from the mainland, and of very high landscape significance
5.
One of Queensland’s most famous and distinctive coral cays
1.
No islands within 20 kms
1.
Double Island is 8 kms north
Coastal and adjacent islands with mangrove systems of exceptional beauty:
5.
One of Queensland’s largest and most scenically attractive mangrove systems
1.
No mangroves
2.
Limited area of mangroves at Myall Beach
3.
The Richters Creek estuarine mangroves are typical of creek mouths in tropical North Queensland, but are also part of the Barron Delta estuarine system
3 From (www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/world/great-barrier-reef/values.html)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 231
ATTRIBUTE
World Heritage Criterion
(vii) Aesthetic attributes3
EXPRESSION OF VALUE
Degree or extent to which values are expressed or represented
1.Absent or Rare
2. Uncommon or Poorly Expressed
3. Regular or Representative
4. Frequent or Uniquely Expressed
5. Superlative, world’s best
Hinchinbrook
Island Green Island Cape Tribulation Yorkeys Knob
The rich variety of landscapes and seascapes including rugged vegetated mountains and adjacent fringing reefs
4.
Exceptionally rugged and diverse landscape
3.
Coral cays have limited landscape / seascape diversity
3.
Forest-clad mountains meeting a tropical sandy beach – distinctive imagery of the GBRWHA / WTWHA interface
2.
Yorkeys Knob Beach has attractive landscape variety, with canefields, a modest cape and mountains visible behind the creek mouth, but this combination is not characteristic of the GBRWHA
Marine fauna and flora in the coral reefs (an “... abundance and diversity of shape, size and colour...”)
3.
4.
1.
No coral reefs nor clear reef lagoon waters for underwater viewing
1.
No coral reefs nor clear reef lagoon waters for underwater viewing
Breeding colonies of seabirds and aggregations of butterflies
3.
4. 2. 1.
Migrating whales, dolphins, dugong, whale sharks, sea turtles, seabirds and concentrations of large fish
3.
4.
2.
2.
The above comparison with three places which contribute to coastal, island and Great Barrier Reef
scenery in different ways:
Yorkeys Knob does not express or represent GBRWHA aesthetic values except inasmuch as
the Richters Creek mouth mangroves are part of the larger Barron River delta system.
Nor do landscape and aesthetic attributes of the subject land, nearby creek mouth and beach
contribute significantly to scenic and experiential diversity, relative to comparable places.
This assessment supports that in EIS Table 22-22, in that the project site is not part of the GBRWHA
experience for observers. While the Yorkeys Knob Beach near Richters Creek is an attractive beach
which offers a view eastward to GBRWHA waters:
no islands or reefs are visible
the visual impression is of a quiet sandy beach and broad bay framed by mainland mountains,
near a major coastal city and port
these scenic amenity and landscape attributes are not spectacular or outstanding, and are
similar to many other parts of the North Queensland coastline.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 232
b) The Importance of the Surrounds to the Experience of the GBRWHA
The Mainland
The geographic boundary of the GBRWHA does not include the mainland, but there are parts of the
mainland where forested mountains slope to the coastline, framing and contributing to the scenic
values of the GBRWHA, and/or offering lookout opportunities over GBRWHA waters and islands. In
several places (for example in the Whitsunday Passage), the natural mountain ranges of both the
mainland and the islands contain and partly enclose the attractive scenery of GBRWHA waters. This
close association of mountains and coastline contributes to GBRWHA aesthetic values where seen
from boats, from the air and from some coastline viewpoints. The role of forested mountain ranges as
a scenic backdrop to GBRWHA waters, with little or no intervening coastal plain, is apparent to the
north of Palm Cove (where the MacAllister Range forms a forested frame) and to a lesser extent from
Cape Grafton south to Innisfail, but is not apparent in the Cairns – Northern Beaches area where a
rural or urbanised coastal plain separates the beaches from the mountains.
In this regard, the mainland forms part of the World Heritage visitor experience, when seen in transit
from off-shore waters and the ferry routes or aircraft to the island tourist attractions or reefs, as a point
of departure or arrival. In this context, the visual elements of the Cairns region such as the forested
background mountain range of the MacAllister Range, and the coastline contributes to the broad
landscape experience and the ‘genus loci’ of the northern Australian tropics. However, these visual
elements do not contribute to the aesthetic experience of the GBRWHA per se. The project site is
similarly not part of an explicit World Heritage experience for GBRWHA visitors, apart from being
within the viewshed of both the GBRWHA and the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA). As
seen from off-shore, the mountains of the WTWHA form a visually prominent background element
behind the coastline, but are separated by visible evidence of a developed coastal plain in the Cairns –
Trinity Beach section of coastline, including the development site.
c) Green Island
Regarding Item 31, visitors to Green Island and adjacent off-shore reefs may have views of the
mainland approximately 27 kilometres away, although the degree of discernible detail depends on the
weather conditions and visibility, time of day and sea haze. ZVI modelling (Figure 6-3) identifies the
extent of visibility of the proposed resort buildings4 and indicates that the built form may be just visible
from the beach and jetty on Green Island, depending on weather conditions and sea haze, although at
this distance the buildings will be barely discernible. This is supported by the Night Photomontage from
Green Island (Figure 6-11) which shows that, at night, in a worst-case scenario of maximum light glow
(and assuming a clear night) the lights from the top levels of the resort buildings can be seen from the
Green Island jetty.
d) Impact on World Heritage Values
As shown in Photo 6-5 above, the project site and Yorkeys Knob locality do not express, represent or
contribute to the scenic or aesthetic attributes of the GBRWHA, relative to other Far North Queensland
places which contribute to these values in various ways, although the Richters Creek mouth
mangroves are part of the wider Barron River delta system. Previous assessment of impacts on
GBRWHA aesthetic values in the EIS Visual Report (including consideration of experiential ‘response
to place’) indicated that the proposed development will have only minor impact, and the comparison
with Green island, Cape Tribulation, and Hinchinbrook Island confirms this assessment.
Although the proposed resort will be visible from parts of the WTWHA (in particular from Skyrail and
from the Henry Ross Lookout), the scenic values and opportunities of the WTWHA will not be
4 The ZVI of the roofline at 60 m above ground (61.5 m AHD) is modelled, as well as the middle of the built form at 35 m
above ground (36.5 m AHD)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 233
significantly affected. The close physical relationship between the WTWHA and GBRWHA, which
characterises the coastline north of Palm Cove, is not present in the Smithfield - .Yorkeys Knob area
where a wide band of urban and rural coastal plain separates the two World Heritage Areas. Views
eastward from Skyrail or Henry Ross Lookout towards the coastline and the Northern Beaches
suburbs are across a mixture of uses, with the Coral Sea in the background. In this context, and as
seen from elevated viewpoints, the proposed resort will be prominently visible and a marked contrast
with the surrounding canefields and coastal vegetation, but will not affect WTWHA values.
The scenic and aesthetic values of both the GBRWHA and WTWHA are almost entirely associated
with daylight, and any night-time use of these areas (by boaters or motorists) is incidental and related
to travel, not to scenic appreciation. However, even if World Heritage Area visitors took the opportunity
to view the Cairns – Trinity Beach coastline at night (e.g. from the Green Island jetty or from Henry
Ross Lookout), the impacts of resort lighting on aesthetic values will be minor.
6.19.3 Conclusions
It is concluded that while Yorkeys Knob Beach is an attractive, locally significant area, it does not
express or represent GBRWHA aesthetic values nor contribute significantly to scenic and experiential
diversity, relative to comparable places.
The project site itself is similarly not part of an explicit World Heritage experience for GBRWHA
visitors, apart from being within the viewshed of both the GBRWHA and the WTWHA as explained in
Section 6.18.3 above.
Although the Aquis Resort will be visible from Green Island (indistinctly by day, and as another light
source by night) in both circumstances it will be just another piece of urban infrastructure in the context
of the developed coastal plain which is dominated by the Cairns CBD, the airport, transport
infrastructure, urban nodes, and a host of development.
6.20 INDIGENOUS CULTURAL HERITAGE ARTIFACTS (ITEM 20)
6.20.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 20 states:
(20) Examples of indigenous use of land and sea resources were found on the site in 1991 although not in 2013 surveys. The EIS states they are outside the development footprint and therefore not an issue. The EIS needs to substantiate why these values no longer exist.
6.20.2 Discussion
In summary:
A 1991 survey located three items of ICH and coordinates were submitted to the Queensland
Government. These sites were all within the current wooded area.
Despite a targeted search for these in 2013 (i.e. knowing the coordinates and what to look for),
the archaeologists were unable to locate the sites. This means that they were either not present
or not visible.
The project footprint was selected partly to avoid these sites should they still exist (and also to
maximise the retention of existing natural vegetation for biodiversity conservation and other
reasons).
Thus, whether or not the sites still exist they will not be impacted. Further, Aquis has signed off on a
Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) with the Yirrganydji (Irukandji) people following
procedures set out in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) (ACH Act). This ensures a high
level of care during construction and the appointment of monitors.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 234
In addition to the CHMP process, Aquis proposes to include all Indigenous groups in planning for the
Interpretive Centre under the Interpretation Strategy (see EIS Table 23-2).
6.21 BEACH ACCESS (ITEM 22)
6.21.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 22 states:
(22) Of the potential impacts to MNES identified (table 22-12), wildlife disturbance was stated to be not relevant as there is no beach access provided and all resort activities will take place onsite. How is access to the beach going to be restricted? Not providing access may mean that guest/staff/people wanting to gain access from the resort to the beach make their own, resulting in multiple and not maintained paths to the beach or creek. This may have a greater impact than providing maintained access to the beach. As discussed above, further information is required relating to wildlife disturbance including; how access to the beach and creek will be restricted, all disturbance impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project and how these impacts will be mitigated.
6.21.2 Discussion
As shown on EIS Figures 11-14 and 11-15 and further in Section 5.4.2 above, lake inlet and outlet
pipework will be installed between the lake and the Richters Creek area. The route of this pipeline is
shown to utilise an existing clearing and minimal-impact techniques will be used in finalising route
selection and construction. It is proposed to provide hardened access along this route for small
vehicles and foot traffic for regular or emergency maintenance. This will for official use only and will be
fenced with locked gates and appropriate signage.
Regarding public access, the EIS (s4.2) states:
There is no plan to install infrastructure to facilitate Aquis Resort guests access the public foreshore. (p4-38)
6.21.3 Conclusion
Prevention of public access to the foreshore will be achieved by:
providing no public infrastructure that facilitates formal access
fencing and appropriate signage to prevent access of the maintenance track described above
fencing off the boundary of the site to prevent any informal access
appropriate signage along the boundary
guest education.
6.22 IMPACT MITIGATION FOR INLET/OUTLET PIPELINES (ITEM 23)
6.22.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 23 states:
(23) Please specify mitigation measures for the construction of the inlet/outlet pipes. These should include measures for noise impacts to marine fauna such as soft startup of machinery/drilling equipment, start up and shutdown times to avoid important feeding/movement times of fauna such as turtles.
6.22.2 Discussion
Details of the construction of the inlet and outlet pipelines has been discussed in Section 5.4.2. This
involves a detailed Sampling and Analysis Plan developed in accordance with Appendix B of the
National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009 (Commonwealth 2009). This will identify any risks
associated with the dredging operation. The recent marine survey (frc environmental 2014d) confirms
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 235
that there is no seagrass or coral present along the route and that the substrates to be encountered
will be sands in the near-shore area and silts and muds further off-shore.
Detailed plans and construction management methodologies will need to be developed in support of
the necessary approvals (coastal works, works in a Marine Park, works in a FHA, any EPBC Act
conditions). This will involve:
use of clean backfill for underwater trench operations
use of silt curtains to reduce the spread of turbid waters
best-practice construction techniques to avoid impact on marine megafauna (e.g. use of
spotters to allow works to be stopped if target species are nearby, soft-start piling where
required, air curtains if practical, timing of start-up/shut-down operations to avoid important
feeding / breeding times)
management of all excavated material as described below
management of boating hazards as required by the Regional Harbourmaster.
Further details will be developed during the preparation of the EMP (Construction) which is a project
commitment under the Register of Proponent Commitments.
6.22.3 Conclusion
The proposed works are straightforward and are routinely carried out in marine areas. Specific
methodologies will be developed during the preparation of the EMP (Construction) which is a project
commitment under the Register of Proponent Commitments.
6.23 SOCIAL ASPECTS OF AESTHETICS (ITEM 33)
The DoTE submission (212) Items 33 states:
(33) There is no evidence of consultation on aesthetic impacts with either residents or existing visitors to the Cairns region. The EIS makes assumptions about their ‘likely’ views. Social research on the opinions of residents and visitors on the development’s likely impacts on their aesthetic enjoyment of the area could assist to address this.
6.23.1 Discussion
The reference to ‘likely views’ in the EIS assessment of landscape and visual issues was to ‘views’ in a
visibility sense, and did not purport to be an assessment of opinions. The EIS assessment was clearly
focused on what a viewer could see from a number of locations and not whether or not viewers liked
what they saw. This matter was addressed in the post-EIS assessment of community submissions
(Flanagan Consulting Group 2014b) where it was stated that:
The EIS recognises that one of the unavoidable impacts of the development will be on rural character and visual amenity. It clearly states that ‘tall buildings on the site will also be seen from off-shore, from some elevated houses at Yorkeys Knob and Smithfield, and will be glimpsed above the mangroves as seen from the Cairns Esplanade’ and that the ‘existing quiet beach at the mouth of Richters Creek may lose its perceived naturalness and seclusion, although development is quite distant from the beach and the screening effectiveness of coastal vegetation will be enhanced.’ These facts are accepted by the submitters, many of whom (but not all) see this as negative.
Not unusually, some find the architecture pleasing while to others it is abhorrent. This is a matter of opinion.
In response to concerns, Aquis is undertaking additional work (Cat 3) to determine:
further assessment of impacts on OUV of the GBRWHA and WTWHA
opportunities for enhanced screening when viewed from the mouth of Richters Creek
opportunities for reducing light emissions (p75).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 236
This additional work has since been completed and is documented in this report.
6.23.2 Conclusion
The EIS reported on the visibility of the resort from a number of relevant vantage points and used
photomontage techniques to demonstrate what a viewer at these locations could see. No attempt was
made to determine how such views could affect the aesthetic enjoyment of the area.
6.24 SHORE BIRDS (ITEM 34)
6.24.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 34 refers to Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Criterion x -
contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological
diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding Universal Value from the point
of view of science or conservation and states:
(34) Shore birds – as discussed above further information is required on the impacts of the project on migratory birds and /or their habitats and the impact on Outstanding Universal Value of GBRWHA.
6.24.2 Discussion
A total of 13 listed migratory bird species are known from the site. These species occur in an area that
is dominated by a highly modified agricultural landscape and is already subject to regular noise
impacts due to the overhead presence of the northern flight path for aircraft using the Cairns airport.
Migratory shorebirds occurred in low diversity and low numbers (<15 individuals/species observed
across the site in October 2013 during peak utilisation). The site provides only minor value to migratory
shorebirds and this is largely restricted to the aquaculture ponds which may be removed. Most
migratory shorebird species prefer shallow mudflats and there is more suitable habitat elsewhere in
the region (e.g. Cairns foreshore which is designated as an area of international importance to some
migratory bird species).
6.24.3 Conclusion
The sites current contribution to OUV of the GBRWHA for listed migratory birds under Criterion 10
(Habitats for conservation of biodiversity) is minor at best. The removal of the aquaculture ponds will
result in the reduction of minor habitat for migratory wetland/shorebird species which may offset the
potential for bird-strike from overhead planes using the northern flight path to and from Cairns airport.
The project design incorporates a vegetation regeneration program surrounding the site which in the
long-term should increase the value of the area for migratory terrestrial birds.
6.25 TOURISM IMPACTS (ITEM 36)
6.25.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 36 refers to Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area
Outstanding Universal Value Criterion x - contain the most important and significant natural habitats
for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of
Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation and states:
(36) Further consideration needs to be given to the impacts of increased tourism to the WTWHA.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 237
6.25.2 Discussion
As discussed under Item 42 (Role of Management) in Section 6.28, tourism impacts were addressed
in s22.7.2) to the extent that this is possible for the proponent. It is stated:
It is likely that any Aquis guests will add to already high demand for an off-site rainforest experience. Tourism can also involve a range of impacts and these are managed by the WTMA and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) through a comprehensive management system. Aquis-based tourists are most likely to experience the rainforest as commercial passengers, thereby falling under the commercial permit management system.
While it is inevitable that Aquis will add to tourism demand, Aquis visitors on commercial tours will be subject to the laws and management arrangements in place at the time and will be part of the ultimate carrying capacity deemed suitable. This is not within Aquis’ ability to influence.’ (p22-162).
Relevant aspects of tourism management in the WTWHA were described in the subsequent EIS
discussion on tourism use in s22.17.8f) and some of this material is repeated in Section 6.28.3c)
below. In summary:
According to the strategic review of the GBR coastal zone (DSDIP 2013a), visitor use is not
listed as one of the major threats to the values of the WTWHA.
Management of tourism use of the WHA is via a zoning system (that establishes which activities
in the Area are prohibited, allowed under permit, or allowed without a permit) and via the
associated permit system as appropriate. In general, tourism infrastructure is located within
Zone D of the WHA and this zone is managed to minimise any adverse impacts of activities and
facilities, and to protect and rehabilitate the land. Between them, the zoning and permit system
ensure the likely impact of the proposed activity on the WTWHA’s World Heritage values is
minimised. Decision-making principles and criteria also include the precautionary principle and
consideration of prudent and feasible alternatives, carrying capacity, and community aspects
(DSDIP 2013a).
Specific consultation was been undertaken with WTMA and documented in the EIS and this can
be summarised as follows:
- WTMA believes that tourism is being managed and undertaken sustainably.
- The best way to present and promote discovery, understanding and connection with the
World Heritage Area and its rich natural and cultural values is via tourism and WTMA’s
partnership with the tourism industry. WTMA has extremely positive and constructive
relationships with the nature-based tourism sector and cooperate with the like of Skyrail,
Daintree Discovery Centre, and Jungle Surfing in presenting the World Heritage Area.
- There have not been any management issues or concerns relating to the operation for the
tourism sector over the past five years. Most of WTMA’s activities involve partnering and
supporting the nature-based tourism sector rather than managing or constraining their
operations in any way. WTMA does have a role when there are major infrastructure
projects such as erecting the Skyrail cable towers – in this case WTMA places stringent
conditions on the construction and erection to ensure they had little negative impact.
- There have been issues present from time to time about non-permitted operators
detracting from best standard practices but the new QuEST policy will help ensure that
only the best standard operators can operate in our high value and visitation sites.
The Queensland Government’s strategic assessment of the coastal zone (DSDIP 2013a) covers
management of the WTWHA as one of the demonstration projects. This work concludes that
current management of this use is ‘effective’.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 238
6.25.3 Conclusion
While it is inevitable that Aquis will add to tourism demand, Aquis visitors on commercial tours will be
subject to the laws and management arrangements in place at the time and will be part of the ultimate
carrying capacity deemed suitable by the WTMA.
The Queensland Government’s strategic assessment of the coastal zone (DSDIP 2013a) concludes
that current management of the WTWHA is ‘effective’. The WTMA also believes that it is adequately
managing tourism and that the Aquis Resort will not create unacceptable impacts.
6.26 MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS (ITEM 40)
6.26.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 40 refers to Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Criterion x –
(formerly (iv)) contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of
biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding Universal Value from
the point of view of science or conservation and states:
(40) Further discussion is needed on the impacts to migratory shorebirds including:
What are the impacts to shorebird habitat including water quality?
What are the likely impacts of introduced species (weeds) on migratory shorebirds?
What are the likely impacts of noise on migratory shorebirds?
6.26.2 Discussion
Migratory shorebird habitat is already limited on the Aquis site and will be further reduced by the
removal of the aquaculture ponds. Shorebird habitat will be restricted largely to the mouth of Richters
Creek. Although several other listed species are considered ‘likely to occur’ (refer Table 6-6) the
habitat on the site is only likely to support small numbers of migratory species due to the lack of
suitable habitat on site and more suitable and widely used habitat available in the vicinity (e.g. Cairns
foreshore which has been designated as a site of international importance to some migratory bird
species). The Aquis site is only likely to be used temporarily by a small number of individuals of
migratory shorebirds during the migratory period.
a) Water Quality
Potential Impacts on Migratory Shorebirds
Without the appropriate management, construction and operation of the proposed development may
mobilise various chemicals in on-site or estuarine soils and result in an increase in nutrients to the
estuaries and downstream coastal waters via a number of processes including:
disturbance and excavation of soil and sediment
release of treated effluent.
Nutrient enrichment of coastal waters can impact the health, composition and resilience of local flora
and fauna communities including migratory shorebirds. Impacts to biota that relate to nutrient
enrichment include:
Aquatic plants:
- Changes to community composition and distribution of the mangrove and saltmarsh
communities
- An initial increase in biomass of mangroves followed by longer-term degeneration of
mangrove communities as nutrient saturation levels are reached, and as species
composition changes
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 239
- Increased uptake of other toxic chemicals as a consequence of enhanced growth due to
increased nutrient supply
- Increased biomass of algae such as Ulva and Enteromorpha within the mangrove
habitats, blocking drainage lines and preventing / retarding the establishment and growth
of young seedlings.
Benthic invertebrates:
- A reduction in community diversity and species richness
- Trophic shifts toward deposit feeding taxa and the dominance of polychaetes in soft
sediment communities
Marine vertebrates:
- Reduced habitat availability due to the deterioration of mangrove communities
- Reduction in the species diversity and production of crustaceans and molluscs can affect
fish populations, that are important prey for many vertebrate species
Proposed Mitigation
The remediation / management of contamination associated with historical cane farming activities is
not a complex task. A large number of former cane farming properties in the Cairns region have been
successfully remediated and redeveloped for residential and other sensitive land uses. Management of
soils is an element of the proposed EMP (Construction) described in Section 22.18.3. The net impacts
are likely to be very minor.
Risks to the receiving environment through the release of operation phase nutrient-rich water will be
minimised through design of the proposed development, and in particular of the lake, stormwater, and
sewage effluent management regimes. Changes to water quality and hydrology are addressed in
Chapter 11 (Water Quality). Modelling indicates that the water quality of the lake discharge is expected
to be superior to that of Richters Creek into which it will be discharged.
The design of the project includes a commitment to the adoption of WSUD features as part of the
stormwater drainage strategy. Modelling of stormwater indicates that, compared to current conditions
(a functioning cane farm), the development will reduce export of the modelled pollutants by 131.6 t/a
(45%). Effluent re-use (including importing of class ‘A’ treated effluent from nearby WWTP) will further
reduce discharges to the estuaries and ultimately the Coral Sea (this effluent is licensed to be
discharged to Half Moon Creek – by importing it to the Aquis site all remnant nutrients will be used
onsite).
Where these measures are implemented, the risk of impact due to nutrient enrichment or disturbance
of contaminated sediment to low number of migratory bird species that utilise the site during the
migratory period is low.
b) Potential Impact of Weed Species on Migratory Shorebirds
Active weed management will be included as part of the project's overall Environmental Management
Plan and will ensure no detrimental impacts to any migratory shorebird habitat occurring on the site.
Habitat for the Eastern curlew and Whimbrel (recorded in low numbers at Richters Creek mouth)
includes mangroves and tidal sands. The potential for unmanaged weed species to invade this habitat
is minor. Habitat availability for other migratory shorebird species will be reduced by the removal of the
aquaculture ponds as part of the project design and therefore weed impacts will not be a factor.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 240
c) Potential Impact of Noise On Migratory Shorebirds
GBRMPA (2013e) lists increased noise amongst local-scale impacts from urban development. Chapter 7 of the EIS (Flora and Fauna) includes a detailed discussion of the effects of noise and concludes that:
There are no specific standards for the range of noise pollution affecting Great Barrier Reef
species. Given the increases in man-made underwater noise and the observed effects on
marine life around the world, there is an urgent need for a greater understanding of the
ecological impacts of noise within the region and for guidance on measures to avoid or mitigate
these impacts.
There is also little data available relating to the effects of artificial noise, apart from the literature
regarding the effects of road noise. Studies show that noise can disrupt predator-prey
interactions leading to enhanced reproductive success in noisy areas, as well as interfere with
mating calls.
Noise is a factor leading to expanded populations of disturbance-tolerant species, and a
corresponding decline of birds less tolerant of noise.
The construction of the seawater inlet and Richters Creek outlet pipes will result in increased
noise and a change in the characteristics of ambient background noise. Increased noise may
also arise from construction-related boating traffic, additional human activities and resort
operations (e.g. water pumps and generators). This may temporarily disturb fauna such as
dolphins, dugongs and turtles, and they may move away from the area. However, this is likely to
be a short-term response, and they are expected to return once construction is completed.
The site experiences occasionally high levels of noise, the sources of which have been in place
for some time. By implication, fauna on the site has been subjected to this artificial noise for a
long period of time from:
Monitoring of the ambient noise environment near the mouth of Richters Creek has shown background
noise levels related to insect noise, bird calls and wind whilst being significantly affected by aircraft
passing overhead (Chapter 17 – Noise).
The project covers a large site and so whilst there will be noise emissions from its construction and
operation, it is expected that these will be controllable due to the opportunity for reasonable buffer
distances through appropriate design layout and construction management. However if there are
multiple plant items in the area closest to Richters Creek mouth and the construction of the inlet pipe in
Richters Creek, there may be short periods when noise levels may be increased. Shorebirds will
naturally respond to noise and movement by avoiding the immediate area of disturbance and/or
moving to a safe distance if noise or movement occurs whilst birds are foraging near the disturbance
site. However unless the noise disturbance occurs during the migration period for migratory shorebirds
(September – April), these species will not be impacted.
Habitat availability for other migratory shorebird species will be reduced by the removal of the
aquaculture ponds as part of the project design and therefore noise impacts will not be a factor.
6.26.3 Conclusion
Given the low numbers of migratory shorebirds likely to be using the area the expected project impacts
to migratory shorebirds and their contribution to OUV of the GBRWHA under Criterion 10 (Habitats for
conservation of biodiversity) is considered minor at worst.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 241
6.27 CORAL MAPPING (ITEM 41)
6.27.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 41 states:
(41) In Table 22-27 on page 22-130, the text indicates that there are coral reefs at Haycock Reef and Double Island Reef, approximately 10 km north of Richters Creek mouth. Earlier in the document, it is stated that the ‘nearest mapped coral is approximately 25 km north-east of the site’ (p22-121, p 22-123) and ‘there are no reef structures within 25 km of the investigation area (p 22-142). This inconsistency should be corrected.
6.27.2 Discussion
The EIS does say in a number of places that that the nearest mapped coral is approximately 25 km
north-east of the site. This is incorrect as noted in the submission. The best available information is
contained in the following EIS references:
p7-28: ‘The field survey confirmed that no rocky or coral reefs are present in the survey area. It
is also known that there are no rocky or coral reefs in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline
alignment. The closest known reef is approximately 7 km to the north-west at Taylor Point. This
reef covers a small area (approx. 0.0075 km2) on the western side of the headland, and is likely
to provide habitat for a variety of flora and fauna that are usually found on inshore reefs.’
p22-25: ‘No listed species were recorded during any of the field surveys undertaken by frc
environmental [and this includes the survey of the pipeline route]. In addition, no habitats critical
to the survival of listed species (e.g. seagrass meadows, rocky reefs, coral reefs) were recorded
within the potential area of impact of the Aquis development.’
p22-128: ‘The nearest coral reefs to the project site are Green Island (approximately 25 km east of
Richters Creek mouth), Haycock Reef and Double Island Reef (approximately 10 km north of
Richters Creek mouth).’
The additional assessment of sensitive areas (Section 6.16) confirms that (Table 6-14):
The nearest mapped coral reefs to the proposed development site are the mid-shelf fringing reef
at Green Island (approximately 25 km east of Richters Creek mouth) and the coastal fringing
reef of Double Island and Haycock Island (approximately 10 km north of Richters Creek mouth)
(Figure 6-21). Of these reefs, the Green Island reef has been the most studied to date. The reef
at Green Island has an area of 7.1 km2. Hard coral cover is low (0–5%) and has declined in
recent years due to outbreaks of crown of thorns starfish. The coral communities are dominated
by massive growth forms, with some plate and branching growth forms. The western side of the
reef closest to the proposed Aquis site has a low level of reef structure. Algae is the dominant
growth form on the reef but there is a moderate cover of soft corals. Fish abundance on Green
Island reef is moderate with reef fish such as parrotfish, butterflyfish and damselfish present.
The closest known reef (i.e. not mapped) is approximately 7 km to the north-west at Taylor Point
(north of Trinity Beach). This reef covers a small area (approx. 0.0075 km2) on the western side
of the headland, and is likely to provide habitat for a variety of flora and fauna that are usually
found on inshore reefs.
Submission 51 to the EIS notes that at Double Island, there are quite a large number of scleractinian
hard coral species, particularly of the family Acroporidae and Favidae, as well as encrusting and
branching soft coral species on all the reefs around Double Island, on both the exposed and protected
reef sides. There are other live coral formations, for example micro-atolls of the Poritidae family of
stony corals, present on the reef flats at some time in the recent past.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 242
No impacts are expected on these distant communities. Although the water quality assessment model
does not extend north of Trinity Beach and therefore does not cover the Double Island area which is
greater than 10 km from the mouth of Richters Creek, the model results show that there is ‘negligible
change in water quality concentrations off-shore with 90th percentile changes indicating over 99.9%
dilution’. The EIS notes that dilution need only be considered if the discharge is of a worse quality than
the receiving water body – all work done to date suggests that discharge will be of a better standard
than the receiving waters.
6.27.3 Conclusion
There was an error in the EIS statement as noted and the correct situation is described above. No
impacts are expected on these distant communities.
6.28 ROLE OF MANAGEMENT (ITEM 42)
6.28.1 Background
The DoTE submission (212) Item 42 states:
In relation to the discussion of the concept of Outstanding Universal Value on pages 22-87 to 22-89, the proponent includes discussion of the criteria and integrity as components of Outstanding Universal Value; however the third element of Outstanding Universal Value, protection and management is not discussed and must also be included.
The issue of management of the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics WHAs was addressed in various
parts of the EIS as outlined below. Some key material has been extracted from the EIS and this is
supplemented by additional explanation derived from the statements of OUV for the Great Barrier Reef
and Wet Tropics WHAs. EIS references to the two strategic assessments necessarily refer to the 2013
drafts. New material refers to the 2014 final versions as noted.
As noted in the EIS in s22.5.1:
The strategic assessments (i.e. GBRMPA (2013a [now 2013e]) and DSDIP (2013a)) provide for review and assessment of the effectiveness of management arrangements at protecting the GBR’s World Heritage values as well as all other matters of NES which are afforded protection under the EPBC Act. The goal is to help identify, plan for and manage existing and emerging risks to the unique environmental values of the matters of NES relevant to the GBR coastal zone. The GBRMP document also provides a comprehensive statement of the values of the GBRWHA and current threats to these values. The study area includes the Queensland coastal zone (defined as Queensland Coastal Waters, islands, and inland areas to a distance of five kilometres or the 10 metre AHD contour, whichever is further) and Commonwealth waters to the edge of the continental shelf. (p22-76)
The EIS contains other references to management as described below. In particular:
s22.5.2 (Strategic Assessment of GBR region) – management of International visitation to the
Great Barrier Reef catchment. Reference to s22.16.2b). This is discussed in Section 6.28.2c)
and Section 6.28.3c) for the GBRWHA and WTWHA respectively.
s22.5.3 (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone):
- s22.5.3a (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) – management of the WTWHA
(Demonstration Case 3)
- s22.5.3b) (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) – management of water quality
(Demonstration Case 7)
- s22.5.3c (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) – Ella Bay Resort
(Demonstration Case 5).
Relevant comments are repeated / expanded on as appropriate in the following discussion.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 243
6.28.2 Management of the GBRWHA
a) Statement of the Outstanding Universal Value
An extract from the Statement of the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area (SOUV) is included as Appendix 3 of the strategic assessment of the GBR (GBRMPA
2014a). The SOUV describes the following aspects of management of the GBRWHA:
The GBRMP covers 99% of the WHA and therefore is under the control of the Great Barrier
Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cwlth) administered by the GBRMPA. According to the SOUV: The
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 was amended in 2007 and 2008, and now provides for
the long term protection and conservation of the Great Barrier Reef Region ”with specific
mention of meeting "... Australia's responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention."
Other areas (i.e. state waters) are included in the GBR Coast Marine Park managed under the
Marine Parks Act 2004 (Qld).
The overlapping jurisdictional arrangements mean that the importance of complementary
legislation and complementary management of islands and the surrounding waters IS well
recognised by both governments strong cooperative partnerships and forma l agreements exist
between the Australian Government and the Queensland Government.
Development and land use activities in coastal and water catchments adjacent to the property is
managed by the Queensland Government under natural resource management, land use
planning, and biodiversity conservation legislation, while the EPBC Act manages designated
Commonwealth biodiversity values (species, World Heritage properties, and the GBRMP).
The SOUV goes on to discuss some aspects of management arrangements including zoning,
designated Management Areas, and non-statutory tools such as Codes of Practice. These are
described in the EIS in s22.17.8e).
b) Strategic Assessment
EIS s22.5.2 describes the Strategic Assessment of GBR region and refers specifically to management
of International visitation to the Great Barrier Reef catchment, together with a reference to EIS
s22.16.2b). Other aspects of management were not specifically mentioned in the EIS and this issue is
addressed below. Specifically, the strategic assessment of the GBR (GBRMPA 2014a) discusses
management and states:
Through an intergovernmental agreement, the Australian and Queensland governments have been working together for the long-term protection and conservation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park since its inception in 1975.
Management of the Region relies upon a number of Australian and Queensland government agencies to regulate access and to control or mitigate impacts associated with activities. These agencies use a combination of management tools, including zoning plans, plans of management, permits, policies and the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan (Reef Plan). They employ various
management approaches including education, planning, environmental impact assessment, monitoring, stewardship and enforcement.
In this strategic assessment, the management arrangements under the jurisdiction of the Authority are considered. They include, but are not limited to:
statutory instruments, including Regulations, zoning plans, plans of management and permits
non-statutory mechanisms including policies, position statements and guidelines
partnership and collaborative arrangements with other Australian and Queensland government agencies
partnerships with Traditional Owners in the management of marine resources
partnership and stewardship programs, including education programs and engagement with local governments, communities, Indigenous persons and industry
research and monitoring programs.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 244
Based on the Authority’s statutory functions as set out in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (the GBRMP Act), the Authority’s management focus is the protection and conservation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (the Marine Park). The Authority also assists in meeting Australia’s international responsibilities in relation to the environment and protection of the world heritage properties of the Region. (p3-3)
These statements outline the broad management arrangements for the GBRWHA. With respect to the Aquis
Resort and the GBRWHA and WTWHA:
land use, natural resources, and on-site biodiversity values are protected via the EIS and the
provisions of the SDPWO Act and associated legislation for operational works (identified in the
EIS)
external protected areas (i.e. the Fish Habitat Areas and the GBR Coast) are protected by other
Queensland legislation (identified in the EIS)
matters of NES are protected by the EPBC Act
the project does not involve any need for approvals under the GBRMP Act.
However, as identified in the EIS (s22.17.8) the management of tourism use consequential to the
development is of relevance and this is discussed in detail in that section.
c) Tourism Management
The following conclusions regarding management of tourism are relevant (s22.17.8e)):
Of importance is the fact that it is not practical for Resort guests to visit the GBR unless on a commercial tour. All commercial tours are covered by the permit system and permits are only issued in accordance with the relevant plan of management and ultimately the zoning plan. Therefore, Aquis Resort guests will add (slightly) to the overall visitation demand and will be subject to current management arrangements.
According to GBRMPA (2013a) [now 2013e], the permit conditions seek to limit cumulative impacts. The potential problems arising from significant latent capacity within the permit system have been recognised and, at least, partially addressed through GBRMPA’s plans of management, capping permits, and a booking system for sensitive sites. The permitting system is thought to manage tourism well, although the system is complex and its effectiveness in informing and educating tourism operators ‘… about what they can and can’t do — while delivering required outcomes for the environment, social, cultural and heritage values — requires evaluation’ (GBRMPA 2013e). (p22-266)
6.28.3 Management of the WTWHA
a) Statement of the Outstanding Universal Value
The Statement of the Outstanding Universal Value of the WTWHA (WTMA 2014) does not address
management specifically, although under Integrity (quoted in EIS s22.7.1b)) it is stated:
Since inscription, the Australian and Queensland governments have worked cooperatively to put in place a comprehensive management regime for the property, outlined in the following section. Logging has been prohibited since 1987 with the infrastructure associated with this activity removed and the impacted forests allowed to recover. Maintenance activities associated with the provision of community infrastructure are now regulated under a statutory management plan and guided by environmental codes of practice. (EIS p22-159).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 245
b) Strategic Assessment
EIS s22.5.3a (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) – management of the WTWHA
(Demonstration Case 3) notes the following:
The Aquis Resort site is 2.5 km from the WTWHA (line-of-site) although in terms of ecological
connections it is 8.4 km downstream. This EIS concludes that there will be no direct impact of
the Aquis Resort on the WHA’s values and that presentation values could be enhanced by on-
site interpretation and education. The relevance of the WTMP to the project lies in the
management of off-site consequential impacts of possible extra visitation of the WHA by Aquis
Resort guests. This is discussed in Section 22.17.8.
The WTMP is relevant to the Aquis Resort to the extent that it is the principal means by which
tourism infrastructure and use is managed in the WTWHA. Commercial tours are managed by
the QPWS’ Commercial Activity Permits. Under this regime, day visits to the WTWHA via
commercial tours are highly regulated and management has been shown to be effective.
It is concluded that there are sufficient controls in place to ensure that tourism use of the
WTWHA by Aquis Resort guests is managed sustainably. (p22-79).
Table 22-18 – Effectiveness:
- Effective
- The Wet Tropics Management Plan and supporting Program components provide specific
planning and operational arrangements to avoid and mitigate impacts from development
activity within the Wet Tropics WHA.
c) Tourism Management
The EIS concludes (s22.7.2) that ‘The WTWHA is considered to be sufficiently distant and
unconnected to the site that it can be expected to be little impacted by the development.’ (22-161). The
assessment discusses certain off-site impacts and in particular tourism use of the WHA where it is
stated: ‘While it is inevitable that Aquis will add to tourism demand, Aquis visitors on commercial tours
will be subject to the laws and management arrangements in place at the time and will be part of the
ultimate carrying capacity deemed suitable. This is not within Aquis’ ability to influence.’ (p22-162).
Relevant aspects Management of the WTWHA are described in the subsequent EIS discussion on
tourism use in s22.17.8f) as per the following extracts:
According to the strategic review of the GBR coastal zone (DSDIP 2013a), visitor use is not listed as one of the major threats to the values of the WTWHA.
Management of the WHA is via a zoning system (that establishes which activities in the Area are prohibited, allowed under permit, or allowed without a permit) and via the associated permit system as appropriate. In general, tourism infrastructure is located within Zone D of the WHA and this zone is managed to minimise any adverse impacts of activities and facilities, and to protect and rehabilitate the land. Between them, the zoning and permit system ensure the likely impact of the proposed activity on the WTWHA’s World Heritage values is minimised. Decision-making principles and criteria also include the precautionary principle and consideration of prudent and feasible alternatives, carrying capacity, and community aspects (DSDIP 2013a).
The strategic assessment also notes that promoting presentation of the Wet Tropics WHA to visitors is a key function of the WTMA under the World Heritage Convention and the Wet Tropics Act. The WTMA works with QPWS, community conservation groups, and the tourism industry, to inform and educate residents and visitors about the wonders of the WTWHA, its unique plants and animals, and its scenic beauty. Specifically, the WTMA recognises that properly managed, nature based tourism provides a valuable opportunity to present the Wet Tropics WHA and promote regional, national, and international recognition, understanding, and appreciation of the OUV of the WHA. Such recognition and appreciation has resulted in enhanced support for the protection of the WHA and its OUV (DSDIP 2013a). (p22-267)
As noted in Section 6.28.4a) below, the Queensland Government’s strategic assessment of the
coastal zone (DSDIP 2013a) covers management of the WTWHA as one of the demonstration
projects. This demonstrates that current management of this use is ‘effective’.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 246
6.28.4 Other Management Issues
EIS s22.5.3 (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) also deals with two import non-tourism
aspects of management as repeated below:
a) Management of Water Quality
EIS s22.5.3b (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) – management of water quality
(Demonstration Case 7) notes the following:
This demonstration case explores how the Queensland and Australian governments are working
to halt and reverse the decline in water quality entering the Great Barrier Reef. Specifically, it
highlights some of the work being done to improve water quality flowing to the GBR from the
Mackay Whitsundays region, including work through Reef Plan. It demonstrates development of
best management practices supported by the Queensland Government and the Reef Rescue
Program delivered by the Australian Government.
Although the study area is remote from the Aquis Resort site, the issues of runoff to the GBR is
relevant. Referring to the discussion on urban runoff, the case study notes that the management
of urban stormwater, sewage and trade waste are key local government water quality policy,
planning and investment areas. The EPP Water requires specific local governments to
undertake this responsibility within a total water cycle management (TWCM) context that
addresses the different elements of the water cycle within an urban area and its catchment,
advancing a whole system approach to the management of water, while enhancing and
protecting the environmental values of receiving waters.
To support TWCM, Queensland Government produced the Urban Stormwater Quality Planning
Guidelines in 2010 which provides direction on the development of strategies for improved
environmental management of urban catchments and waterways. This includes the preparation
of urban stormwater quality management plans as part of the total water cycle management
plans required under the EPP Water taking into account any EVs and WQOs in waterways
where discharges may occur. Guidelines also exist to support the implementation of Australia’s
National Water Quality Management Strategy for a range of issues including sewage,
stormwater management, groundwater management, effluent from intensive animal production
systems and designing monitoring programs. (p22-79)
The Scientific Consensus Statement (DSDIP (2013a) Appendix I p I-7 to I-8) found that:
- Improved land and agricultural management practices are proven to reduce the runoff of
suspended sediment, nutrients and pesticides at the paddock scale. (p22-89)
Table 22-18 – Effectiveness:
- Effective.
In addition, the Reef Water quality Protection Plan (Reef Plan) prepared by GBRMPA (2013f) sets land
and catchment management targets for the year 2018. The extent to which the Aquis Resort complies
is indicated in the following table.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 247
TARGET Aquis RESORT COMPLIANCE
90 per cent of sugarcane, horticulture, cropping and grazing lands are managed using best management practice systems (soil, nutrient and pesticides) in priority areas.
All sugarcane use will cease, to be replaced with a more benign land use incorporating water sensitive urban design principles.
Minimum 70 per cent late dry season groundcover on grazing lands.
Not applicable
The extent of riparian vegetation is increased. The extent of riparian vegetation will be increased due to restoration works on Richters Creek, Yorkeys Creek and Half Moon Creek.
There is no net loss of the extent, and an improvement in the ecological processes and environmental values, of natural wetlands.
There will be a net doubling of the extent, and an improvement in the ecological processes and environmental values, of natural wetlands.
Source: Column 1 – GBRMPA (2013e); Column 2 – study team compilation.
b) Ella Bay Resort
EIS s22.5.3c (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) – Ella Bay Resort (Demonstration Case
5) notes the following:
The review focused on two aspects of the EIS process:
- Impact assessment. The SDPWO Act:
o requires development proponents to undertake detailed investigations on the impacts of proposals
o requires the evaluation of proposed management responses to those impacts
o provides a rigorous and transparent process to avoid impacts to MNES including OUV, or mitigate and offset impacts where they cannot be avoided.
- Conditions and Environmental Management. The Coordinator-General can set binding
conditions of approval. In the case of the Ella Bay Resort, the proponent is required to
implement a variety of management strategies to mitigate potential construction and
operational related impacts on fauna, flora and communities. These include an offsets
strategy, EMPs, protected area management and species-specific management sub-
plans. Management sub-plans have been developed for the cassowary, stream-dwelling
rainforest frogs, spectacled flying-fox, marine turtles and significant flora. These sub-plans
identify impacts of the development on these fauna and flora and provide a number of
strategies to manage or mitigate these impacts.
The assessment concluded that the process was a thorough and very effective process for
managing potential impacts to MNES including OUV. Critical to this effectiveness is the suite of
post-approval environmental management strategies that are to be developed and implemented
prior to construction and that are intended to mitigate those impacts that were not able to be
avoided or minimised by design.
The relevance to Aquis is considered to be as follows:
- The ability of the Coordinator-General to set conditions requiring, amongst other things,
post-approval attention to impact mitigation and management strategies is an essential
component of the Aquis Resort and is especially relevant to the current situation where
only land use approval is being sought initially. However, all subsequent approvals will be
subject to Queensland legislation and this can be expected to adequately regulate
construction and operation phase activities and minimise impacts. (p22-82)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 248
Table 22-18 – Effectiveness:
- Very effective
- The EIS process is considered to be a thorough and very effective process for managing
potential impacts to MNES including OUV.
6.29 CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions of the above references with respect to relevant management issues (quotes are from
various DSDIP Strategic Assessment case studies) are:
WTWHA:
- the Aquis Resort is unlikely to result in any management issues other than consequential
tourism use
- tourism use of the WTWHA is likely to be ‘effectively’ managed via the WTMP.
GBRWHA:
- water quality associated with stormwater drainage from the development is likely to be
‘effectively’ managed via state processes (e.g. TWCM) to be given effect via expected
conditions of approval and will meet Reef Plan 2018 targets.
- general land development issues are likely to be to be ‘very effectively’ managed via
expected conditions of approval
- the permitting system tourism use of the GBRWHA / GBRMP ‘is thought to manage
tourism well’.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 249
7 ISSUE 6: ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL
A number of community and agency submissions outlined concern with various aspects of the project
description and evaluation of alternative options. These project aspects requiring additional information
and consideration include:
1. Location of the proposal in comparison with the option identified within Cairns CBD in a number
of community submissions.
2. Scale of the proposal with respect to changes required of land-use planning, transport networks
and housing.
3. The requirement for the lake (or a seasonal lake) surrounding the development considering the
potential impact of lake management (e.g. discharge to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area).
4. The location of the discharge point in the mouth of Richters Creek vs. a discharge point in the
Coral Sea.
5. Investigate risks and benefits of maintaining the aquaculture ponds containing high biodiversity
values (including MNES species) which are proposed to be removed.
Requirement: Clarify the options considered for the project and consider the alternatives identified in
the community and agency submissions. Provide an assessment of the project alternatives. The
assessment should include information demonstrating the final project description to be evaluated
through the environmental impact statement process.
7.1 RESPONSE TO CBD LOCATION
Section 2.2, 3.2 of the EIS sets out the site selection process undertaken which gave consideration to
alternate locations available in the Cairns region for the siting of an Integrated Resort. The Cairns
CBD was given consideration; however the conclusion was that the CBD is not able to accommodate
a development of the scale required on any one site or likely combination of sites. Suitable land is not
available in the CBD.
The content of some community submissions went to considerable effort to demonstrate that a project
of the scale of Aquis could be developed in a significant proportion of the CBD. The main difficulty
with that proposal is that the land is in multiple ownerships and not all readily available for
development or to be incorporated within an integrated resort development. A key issue in considering
suitable sites is not only the capability of the land to accept the development but also its availability.
Suitable land within the CBD was not available for the purpose of establishing an integrated resort
project.
An integrated resort by its very nature involves multiple activities on a single facility site (rather than a
locale) which can accommodate multiple components which generally do not straddle inner city lots
and public roads. Multiple facilities distributed over city blocks would not form an integrated resort.
CBD based Casino projects, such as the Crown in Melbourne, Star Casino, Bangaroo and indeed the
proposed Queens Wharf involve establishment of integrated facilities on a single site.
The community submissions indicated that Marina Bay Sands is an appropriate comparison to a
Cairns CBD location. It not clear whether the authors of the submission have an understanding of
Marina Bay Sands and the concept of an integrated resort.
Marina Bay Sands is an integrated resort located on a single site in a large metropolitan area. It is an
urban integrated resort located in a large modern busy city centre which relies heavily on the
infrastructure of the existing city including existing five star hotel rooms and business and convention
infrastructure.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 250
Such resorts also rely heavily on the local city population to visit to IR, meaning reduced need for hotel
rooms to support the casino and entertainment facility customers. Aquis is proposed to be a
“Destination Integrated Resort” which are generally not located in city centres. Resorts such as
Resorts World Sentosa project in Singapore, is located near but not within the l city.
A destination integrated resort should be located in a non-metropolitan environment. The Cairns CBD
tourist area is not a city comparable to Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney or Singapore. Cairns lacks
significant tourism infrastructure and the lodging, retail, food and beverage and entertainment sectors.
There are no six or five star hotels in Cairns or nearby. There is no boutique premium luxury shopping
locations (except for a small duty free sector located near the current Reef Hotel Casino in Cairns).
There are very limited high quality restaurants in Cairns and no regular shows or theatre productions in
Cairns. Cairns has never had the capital investment in tourism that occurred for example in Port
Douglas and the Gold Coast with the Sheraton Mirage Hotel and Shopping Centre projects over 30
years ago (primary to support the then Japanese tourism influx).
Cairns has an abundance of natural attractions – the reef, rainforest and tablelands etc., an existing
casino and airport with significant underutilised capacity. Cairns has 5,000 four star and below rooms
for lodging, however Chinese and other international tourists in Cairns is not increasing commensurate
with the growth being experienced in Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Singapore.
Notwithstanding the practical ability to achieve a similar sized development in the Cairns CBD, the
practical reality is that the land is not available and a destination integrated resort could not be
achieved within the Cairns CBD.
A further consideration would be the impacts on the CBD as a result of concentrating such a high
employment generator as an integrated resort in the CBD location. Marina Bay Sands for instance
has excellent public transport connections into the CBD established through very large volumes of
passenger usage. Cairns CBD does not have public transport connections. The existing road
transport connections to the CBD have limited existing capacity and very limited capacity for upgrade
to handle the likely transport demands for 20,000 employees located within the Cairns CBD.
The location of an intensity of development that an integrated resort requires distributed around the
CBD streets, even concentrated in the Wharf Street / City Port area would accentuate existing
transport and access problems within the Cairns CBD.
The location of an integrated resort style facility within the CBD would not necessary lead to the
revitalisation of the CBD, CBD’s tend to be revitalised through permanent accommodation rather than
tourism accommodation and the evolution of CBD’s into residential hubs. This is evident in the major
capital cities within Australia , in particular Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. The alienation of land
from residential use to short term tourism accommodation and the concentration of an integrated
resort may lead to the degradation of the CBD and reduce its attractiveness as a central business
district for the community of Cairns.
A destination integrated resort requires a large parcel of land to incorporate all of the features that are
required resort most particularly outdoor recreation, golf courses etc. Redevelopment of the inner
CBD in a series of built forms simply to accommodate the floor plans proposed for Aquis would not
result in an integrated high value, high end integrated resort that would be competitive in the
international market. The location of Aquis on a large site, allows the development to offer a full suite
of facilities remote from the CBD on a site which features good access from north, north-west, south-
west and south. It provides the opportunity for a major employment and activity node north of the CBD
leading to the potential for more self-containment for employment trips and leading to better transport
network outcomes in the city.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 251
Whilst the EIS notes the constraints on the Yorkeys Knob site, the scale of the site and the scale of the
development provides the opportunity for those hazards and constraints to be dealt with. It is noted
that locating the facility in the CBD would not be able to achieve the flood immunity and protection
from coastal processes (wave action etc.) that are a feature of the current Aquis proposal on the
Yorkeys Knob site.
7.2 RESPONSE TO SCALE OF PROPOSAL
As is identified in Section 2.3.1 of the EIS the Aquis proposal is for the development of an Integrated
Resort representing an opportunity for Cairns and Queensland to participate in an emerging Asian
Integrated Resort market.
Integrated Resorts fall into two distinct categories:
Urban IRs such as Crown Melbourne, the proposed Baranagroo resort in Sydney and the proposed Queen’s Wharf Resort in Brisbane and the example cited in community submissions Marina Bay Sands in Singapore and the initial casinos developed in Macau are located in large modern busy cities and rely heavily on the infrastructure of the existing city - including existing 5 star hotel rooms and business and convention infrastructure. These developments also rely heavily on the local city population (and in the case of Macau day visitors) to visit the IR meaning a reduced need for hotel rooms to support all custom.
Destination IRs are not located in cities. Resorts World Sentosa in Singapore is an example of a Destination IR located near but not in a city centre. Recent IR development in Macau are not located in the city centre but are located on large site remote from the city centre such that the full comprehensive range of accommodation, entertainment and recreation facilities can be located on a single site.
AQUIS is a “Destination IR “ to be located in a non city environment - Cairns, the closest business and
tourist area is not itself a city comparable to Melbourne, Sydney , Brisbane or Singapore.
Cairns lacks significant new developed tourism infrastructure in the lodging, retail, food and beverage
and entertainment sectors. There are no 6 or 5 star hotels in Cairns or nearby. There is no boutique or
premium or luxury shopping locations (except for the small duty free sector near the current REEF
Hotel and Casino) in Cairns. There are very limited (less than four) high quality restaurants in Cairns.
There are no regular (daily) shows or theatre productions in Cairns. Cairns has not had the capital
investment in tourism that occurred , for example , in Port Douglas and the Gold Coast with the
Sheraton Mirage Hotel and Shopping Centre projects 30 odd years ago (primarily to support the then
Japanese tourism influx)
Cairns has abundant natural attractions (the REEF; the Rainforest; the Tablelands etc. etc.) and a
Casino (REEF Hotel and Casino) and an airport with significant under-utilised capacity and circa 5000
4 star and below rooms for lodging however Chinese and other international tourism to Cairns is not
increasing commensurate with other locations such Japan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Singapore
etc. which have or are about to enter the IR market.
Cairns is a city in the Asia Pacific hub competing for international tourists with cities and countries like
South Korea , Singapore , The Phillipines and the Maldives which feature modern innovative iconic 6
and 5 star accommodation, significant premium and luxury and boutique shopping offerings ; world
class restaurant offerings often featuring celebrity chefs and world class convention, expo and
entertainment options.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 252
For Cairns to attract more international tourism (particularly Asian tourism) its offering needs to be
competitive (if not better) than what else is available or which will become available in the Asia Pacific
region. As Cairns is a longer flight distance from the major Chinese markets than other Asian
destinations, the offering in Australia needs to be compelling and second to none. It has to be good
enough to make people want to come to Cairns.
A Destination IRD needs:
to be iconic - it cannot be iconic if it is sub scale when measured against other Asian Pacific offerings
6 and 5 star modern best of breed hotel rooms and such offering cannot be less than is available in other Asian Pacific offerings
a large amount of high quality luxury premium and boutique shopping to compete with other Asian offerings ( all within walking distance of the hotel rooms )
a large and varied number of first class restaurant and other food and beverage locations ( all within walking distances of the hotel rooms)
regular world class professional entertainment ( indoors and outside ) on a daily basis ( within walking distance of the hotel rooms )
world class modern varied gaming facilities to provide a service to its customers who want to game ( within walking distance of the hotel rooms )
A project of a reduced scale to the current proposal to be will not be of a scale to compete with the
other Asia Pacific options ; nor will it have sufficient area to provide all the facilities such as golf
courses ; outdoor leisure activities etc. The project needs to be big enough and iconic enough to
change Asian tourism behaviour and compete with Singapore, Macau ,South Korea and the
Philippines etc.
A smaller hotel /casino project in the Cairns CBD as mooted in a number of community submissions -
would indeed provide a higher and better gaming experience and a better small hotel than that
currently provided by the REEF Hotel and Casino but such proposal would NOT increase tourism
numbers to Cairns as it would not be iconic nor have sufficient scale to make people travel large
distances past easier to get to locations like Singapore.
The significant scale of the AQUIS project is vital to create the iconic reputation and “game changing”
outcome that will be a pre requisite to increasing tourism to Cairns.
An urban IR in a capital city is supported and supplemented by the existing infrastructure of the city
e.g. Melbourne has multiple 6 and 5 star hotel rooms in the city beyond those at the Crown Resort ;
multiple retail and shopping offerings in the city and nearby ; multiple world class restaurants in the
city; and attractions like Museums and Aquariums etc. in the city as well as first class surrounding golf
courses etc. - Cairns has no such supporting network.- For AQUIS to compete even with Crown
Melbourne it needs to provide all its own such infrastructure. If it does not then it will fail. As such the
AQUIS project needs to be of substantial scale to provide all such needed supporting infrastructure.
AQUIS will not open until late 2019 /early 2020. AQUIS needs to be competitive with what will be in the
Asian Pacific tourism market in 2019/2020 and beyond; not what is in the market today. With new
projects in Macau and Japan and South Korea and the Philippines and Vietnam and Cambodia and
Saipan all coming on stream between now and 2021 the AQUIS project needs to be so iconic and
compelling an offering so as to be highly competitive with such projects for it to be and remain
successful. A proposal any less in size substance and scale than that proposed for AQUIS will be
uncompetitive internationally come 2020 and beyond.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 253
Some core facts (all sourced from CLSA Research Hong Kong 2014)
Chinese GDP per capita has increased 10 fold between 2001 and today and is expected to at least double again by 2018.
320 million Chinese (which is equivalent to the whole USA population) will join “the middle class” by 2020 taking the total to above 600 million Chinese in the middle class.
Outbound Chinese tourism is expected to be at a minimum annual rate of 200 million plus by 2020 up from circa 100 million presently
Of those planning to travel more than 64% wish to travel internationally and Australia is a top 10 desired destination beyond for example
AQUIS will have a maximum of 4000 hotel rooms by 2020 even on current scale proposal plans ; with
an assumed absolute maximum of 1 460 000 room nights per annum. If just 5% of Chinese outbound
tourists visit Australia in 2020, 10 million visitors will come to Australia. If just one third of those visitors
visit Cairns for 3 nights to stay at AQUIS (as a family group - assumed maximum of 3 ) then that would
produce a need for 3 333 333 room nights per annum
AQUIS needs its current proposed scale to even begin to service the likely needs of just Chinese
tourism to Cairns in 2020.
This analysis does not even contemplate tourism domestically nor tourism from any other Asian
destinations (Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan etc. ) nor tourism from non-Asian destinations
around the world nor does this analysis contemplate any locals staying in rooms
AQUIS needs, as an absolute minimum to be of its proposed scale.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 254
7.3 RESPONSE TO REQUIREMENT FOR A LAKE AND LAKE OPTIONS
7.3.1 Background
OCG requirement (Issue 6 Item 3 is) as follows:
(3) The requirement for the lake (or a seasonal lake) surrounding the development considering the potential impact of lake management (e.g. discharge to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area)
This section also provides further information on options that were considered in selecting the current
(EIS) flood mitigation solution, namely the 4 m deep saltwater lake with seawater exchange. This issue
is included in the EHP submission (as ‘comments for consideration’ by DSITIA) and by a private
submitter (247 / BHLF-W377-M7BZ-R). The EHP / DSITIA submission states:
Section 4.1.2, Operations and Section 4.1.4, Environmentally Sustainable Development (Pages 4-13 through to 4-19). Issue: Justification for the inclusion of a 4m deep “lake”:
Section 4.1.3a, paragraphs 1 and 2 states that through the EIS process, the initial concept was refined as a result of detailed considerations and investigations; however no justification is provided for the inclusion of a lake, nor for the specific depth proposed. In Chapter 9, design considerations for the lake are presented but they do not appear to represent the full range of considerations.
Recommendation: The proponent should investigate (or at least present) any alternative inclusions or solutions that would make the ‘always dry’ flood conveyance structure workable, in terms of addressing the reasons why the option was rejected (i.e. aesthetics, maintenance, disease vector control, crocodiles and the potential for bird strike).
Submitter (247 / BHLF-W377-M7BZ-R) provides substantial detail on the issue and this is referred to
below where relevant.
There is some unavoidable overlap with other issues raised in Issue 4 (Lake management and water
quality limits) (see Chapter 5).
7.3.2 Flood Mitigation
a) Nature of Constraints and Design Solutions
The best available advice based on BMT WBM’s extensive experience of Barron River flooding and
use of CRC’s Barron Delta Flood Model documented in s9.1 of the EIS shows that Barron River
flooding impacts on the whole site for floods with an Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of less than
20%. Habitable floors are based on the 1% AEP and Figure 7-1 below shows the depths of floodwater
for this event. This is characterised by the following:
east of the Yorkeys Knob Road depths are typically 2.0 m
west of the Yorkeys Knob Road, depths are greater due to lower elevation of the land and are
typically over 3.0 m.
As explained in the EIS (s9.2.1), the design-related mitigation options to deal with site flooding are one
or more of the following:
adopting flood-tolerant land uses (e.g. golf courses) involving minimal earthworks that could
affect external properties (see below), and accepting frequent inundation
building habitable floors and important infrastructure above (at least) the 1% AEP level (plus
freeboard) on piers such that floodwaters can pass beneath the development with no effect on
external properties
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 255
building habitable floors and important infrastructure above (at least) the 1% AEP level (plus
freeboard) – this could be achieved by either filling to constructing structures to the necessary
levels and for ease of description both are described below as ‘fill’ options.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 256
Figure 7-1 Flood depths for undeveloped site (1% AEP flood).
For all flood mitigation solutions, CairnsPlan (the Flooding Code) requires that development should not
result in adverse flooding impacts on off-site areas, namely:
afflux (a rise in water level upstream of an obstruction due to damming effect) outside the
property boundaries
higher velocities or adverse flow paths outside the property boundaries.
Therefore, for a mitigation solution to be acceptable, it must include a drainage element that has
sufficient hydraulic capacity to convey the floodwaters around any floodplain obstruction without
creating unacceptable afflux and velocity impacts as noted above. Both open channels or closed lakes
would achieve this – for ease of description both are described below as ‘lake’ options.
b) Options Considered for Dealing With Floods
A review of site flooding history and other details revealed the following:
a fill / lake solution is suitable for the eastern lots (subject to coastal erosion and ecological
considerations)
a fill / lake solution is not suitable for the western lots due to excessive distance from
waterbodies suitable for water exchange
pier solutions are suitable on all lots (subject to cost criteria)
flood-tolerant uses are suitable on all lots.
Fill / lake solutions require attention to water quality and groundwater interaction criteria. This requires
turnover of lake water typically every 14 days (normal conditions) and seven days (emergency
conditions). This needs:
access to a suitable clean (saline) water source
access to suitable saline water outlet
in-lake infrastructure such as propellers, agitators, aerators etc.
c) Design Fill Levels
In designing the Aquis Resort, the following minimum standards were adopted:
habitable floors: 1% AEP + freeboard
structural integrity and human safety: PMF (for a ‘shelter in place’ sty such as has been adopted
for Aquis).
These are minimum standards. Based on all design criteria, the Resort Complex is to be built on a
raised podium (i.e. fill platform) set at 7.5 m AHD. This level:
is approximately 5 m above natural ground level
is above the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for all parts of the site
provides 2 m freeboard to the 0.01% AEP storm tide (allowing for 0.8 m sea level rise)
is also well above the 6 m AHD refuge level set by CRC for tsunami
provides adequate allowance to any conceivable extreme event, even with sea level rise.
This is the design response for safety of Aquis infrastructure and guests. In essence it involves
building an island above the level of the natural surface to a level of 7.5 m AHD with buildings above
this level.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 257
7.3.3 Lake Solutions Considered
Three broad mitigation options (i.e. a lake to mitigate the effect of building the Resort Complex above
the flood level) were considered during the development of the concept design for the EIS and these
comprised:
open flood conveyance zones (i.e. the IAS solution – see Figure 7-2)
a closed ‘mostly dry’ (seasonal) lake (considered during concept development phase post-IAS
and pre-EIS)
a closed ‘always wet’ lake (i.e. EIS solution – see Figure 7-3).
Figure 7-2 Concept
buffer design.
Source: Figure 9 of
IAS.
Filling
Conveyance channels
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 258
Figure 7-3 EIS
solution (deep ‘always wet’ lake).
a) Previous Consideration of a ‘Mostly Dry’ Lake
The ‘always dry’ (described in the EIS as the ‘mostly dry’) option was considered in the preparation of
the EIS although the full documentation was not provided in the interests of brevity and to avoid the
confusion inherent with discussing an abandoned option. However, the issue was discussed briefly in
s9.2.1e) as follows:
A bed level of about 0.5 m AHD is close to that of the dry season groundwater level
(approximately 0.3 m AHD although this is seasonally variable). Thus there is an option to have
a ‘dry’ channel that is perched above this level and that would only contain water during the wet
season and especially during a flood. Modelling was undertaken to check the performance of
such a channel and it was found to be acceptable in terms of flood mitigation. However, it was
determined that such a waterway would have maintenance problems as it would be so close to
local groundwater that it would be boggy and difficult to maintain in a healthy and aesthetically
pleasing state. In the wet season, groundwater rises as high as RL 1.5 m AHD which could fill
the lake. In particular:
- lined options (e.g. concrete) were considered to be impractical and aesthetically undesirable
and were therefore rejected
- any natural vegetation established on the bed and banks would need to be tolerant to
waterlogging – the end result would be an ephemeral wetland that would be predominantly
fresh to brackish and that would pond shallow water for extended periods of time, leading to
algal growth and die-off issues, periodic rotting vegetation, and a generally unacceptable
aesthetic outcome
- such vegetation would be difficult to mow and otherwise maintain as a waterway with
acceptably low flood plain roughness such that it could convey the design flow
- there would be health risks associated with standing water (mosquitos and midges) and the
resulting environment would encourage birdlife, with associated additional bird strike risk.
(p9-11)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 259
The DSITIA and private submissions state that this explanation is inadequate and that the option was
‘quickly dismissed’. The discussion in Section 7.3.5 provides additional detail to address this issue. It
is also relevant to note that better information on groundwater levels is now available and this has a
profound effect on the performance of the seasonal lake option.
b) Lake Solution: EIS Optimisation
Designing and managing the lake involves multiple objectives. These include:
flooding (normal, extreme) and associated post-flood management
water quality (dry season, wet season, flood)
hazard management (especially birdstrike, crocodiles, and vector control)
ecological function (shore and aquatic habitat, fish stocking)
pest plant and animal management
interaction with groundwater
slope stability, bank erosion
aesthetics
interpretive values
maintenance.
The ‘always wet’ lake is just one solution to the need to provide a compensatory waterway and
floodplain conveyance. During the development of the EIS, a process of optioneering was undertaken
in arriving at the design as submitted. Table 7-1 below summarises the findings of this work and is
provided to demonstrate the consideration of prudent and feasible alternatives. Although further
assessment of the seasonal lake is provided in Section 7.3.5, this table reports on decisions made
during the preparation of the EIS which was to proceed with the 4 m deep saltwater lake.
ASPECT PRIMARY INFLUENCE(S) SECONDARY INFLUENCE(S)
EIS PROJECT
Location, orientation, and plan dimensions
Proximity to appropriate water body for lake solution
Available land area, lots, location
Flooding (conveyance, floodplain storage)
Avoid coastal bite
Protect natural vegetation
Implement recommended buffers
As per current Concept Land Use Plan.
Lake form Flood mitigation Sustainability
Aesthetics
‘Always wet’ solution adopted. See Section 7.3.3a) for details of
previous assessment of ‘seasonal lake’ option and Section 7.3.4 for further
discussion.
Filling details – islands
Flooding and storm tide Aesthetics
Cost
Northern part of Resort Complex 5.0 m AHD.
Southern part of Resort Complex 5.5 m AHD.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 260
ASPECT PRIMARY INFLUENCE(S) SECONDARY INFLUENCE(S)
EIS PROJECT
Filling details – outer edge
Flooding and storm tide Golf course design
Stormwater drainage and runoff quality
Aesthetics
Cost
2.0 m AHD minimum (approximately natural surface)
Bund at this level to contain lake water, drainage to flow away from lake.
Top water level (TWL)
Flood performance – e.g. conveyance, floodplain storage
Groundwater level / soil porosity / proximity to tidal water (if connected to groundwater)
Aesthetics
Cost
TWL = 1.5 m AHD.
Prior to adoption of cut-off option a lower figure of 0.3 m AHD was selected as this was the average groundwater level. Could be optimised as lake will be quarantined from groundwater influences.
Little seasonal variation (quarantined from groundwater, maintained by pumping).
Bed level Flooding
Water quality – sufficient depth to avoid stratification
Aquatic ecology – sufficient depth to avoid bottom rooted water plants, photosynthesis issues
Edge details -1.5 m AHD.
May include 0.5 m over-dredge for sediment storage. Limit over-dredge as much as possible.
Note provision of Lake Management Plan.
Residence time Water quality– need to continually refresh contents
Infrastructure (short residence time means large pipes and pumps and vice versa). Pipe location and size constrained by other criteria (e.g. hydraulic, environmental, aesthetic)
Infrastructure (need for backup supply and possibly discharge?)
Influenced by lake volume
14 days (normal).
7 days (emergency, using greater pump rate). Backup supply from Half Moon Bay was considered but ruled out as described below.
Lining / quarantining from groundwater
Groundwater (level and quality)
Avoid impact on external bores and groundwater use
Avoid impact on adjacent vegetation (i.e. salinity and depth regime)
Preferred ecology (see below)
Soil chemistry (need to isolate from water body?)
“Edge details” (see below)
Aesthetics
Cost
Assumed quarantined from adjacent groundwater (either lined or isolated via sheet pile, impervious membrane etc.).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 261
ASPECT PRIMARY INFLUENCE(S) SECONDARY INFLUENCE(S)
EIS PROJECT
(Continued over)
Edge details Hydraulic capacity
Erosion (flood, wind)
Slope stability
Edge ecology
Habitat adversely contributing to birdstrike risk
Vector habitat and control
Crocodile management
Weed management
Aesthetics
Cost
Inner edges – vertical walls (combined with structure).
Outer edges assume vertical (could have sections of 1V:2H sloping batter. Erosion protection provided where needed, assume mangrove forest along most of outer edge.
Preferred environment
Groundwater (depth, salinity) unless lined
Edge details as above
Birdstrike issues (i.e. discourage problem birds – pelicans)
Soil/water/groundwater chemistry and other water quality influences
Light effects (e.g. turbid water could reduce eutrophication)
Pest control (e.g. introduce predators for mosquitos)
Pest fish management (e.g. mosquitofish, tilapia)
Recreational needs
Aesthetics
Cost
“Harsh environment” – brackish to saline. Will approximate or improve on conditions in Richters Creek.
Will develop into a normal aquatic environment similar to Richters Creek (with fish etc. either stocked or natural). Inlet will be screened to limit fish intake but fish will undoubtedly become established.
Management required for pest fish, algae, vectors, crocodiles, birds.
Will experience wet season and flooding influences and will become fresh on occasions for short periods.
Stormwater drainage inflows
Water quality – affected by inflow of pollutants
Stormwater drainage design details (catchments, piping, available sites for SQIDs, WSUD features)
Landscape / circulation plans for islands (architect / civil designer)
Site grading (architect / civil designer)
Management of fertiliser, herbicides etc.
Divert all flows away from lake where possible and treat with SQIDs.
Resort Complex flows treated with SQIDs prior to discharge to lake.
Harvest and store roof water.
Wet season (not flood) performance
Placement of lake overflow infrastructure – flooding
Suitability of receiving environment (western overflow) – ecological
Suitability of receiving environment (eastern overflow) – ecological, bank erosion of Richters Creek
Effect on lake ecology and therefore water exchange
Environmental design details
Structural design / erosion protection
Mobility (pedestrian and buggy passage)
Aesthetics
Cost
Two lake overflows provided as per current Concept Land Use Plan – western (Yorkeys Creek), eastern (Richters Creek).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 262
ASPECT PRIMARY INFLUENCE(S) SECONDARY INFLUENCE(S)
EIS PROJECT
Normal maintenance
Overall lake ecology
Expected aquatic pest plant and animal management needs
Expected terrestrial pest plant and animal management needs
Silt deposition rate – possible over-dredge bed?
Availability / design of spoil and vegetation disposal areas
Cost
Recommendation for 0.5 m over-dredge for sediment storage and associated sediment removal.
Limit over-dredge as much as possible
Flood (1% AEP) performance
Performance of lake overflows during high discharge
Preferred secondary flow paths
Silt deposition
Effect on lake ecology and therefore water exchange
Treatment options (to bring water quality back quickly)
Safety against river migration
See ‘Filling Details’
Availability / design of spoil and vegetation disposal areas
Cost
Floor levels etc. as recommended by flooding assessment.
Note structural design requirements.
Flood (PMF) performance
As above but more extreme. Availability / design of spoil and vegetation disposal areas
Cost
Floor levels etc. as recommended in flooding assessment.
Note structural design requirements.
Lake inlet (main) Water quality (dry conditions)
Water quality (flood conditions)
Creek stability
Boating safety
Aesthetics
Cost
Initial option considered involved main inlet in mouth of Richters Creek.
Ruled out on water quality and reliability grounds. Off-shore inlet selected.
Lake inlet (standby)
Water quality (flood conditions)
Right of way
Cost Initial option considered involved emergency supply from Half Moon Bay. Ruled out on cost and right of way grounds.
Lake outlet Water quality of receiving environment (dry conditions)
Water quality receiving environment (flood conditions)
Creek stability / erosion and sedimentation
Boating safety
Aesthetics
Cost
EIS option involves outlet in mouth of Richters Creek with armouring and diffuser.
Additional option (see Section 7.4) is for an off-
shore outlet.
The above assessment resulted in the following design decisions:
Site flooding requires an appropriate flood mitigation solution that protects the Aquis assets and
does not cause unacceptable impacts on neighbouring lands. Consideration of possible
mitigation solutions led to a lake option.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 263
Consideration of alternative lake options led to assessment of groundwater and water quality
issues. This led to a lake solution involving a 4 m deep saltwater lake with seawater exchange.
Seawater exchange options were considered and this led to a preferred off-shore inlet and
outlet in the mouth of Richters Creek. Further assessment has since been made of an option for
an off-shore outlet to Richters Creek mobility risks (see Section 7.4).
It is recognised that the main design criteria requiring optimisation post-EIS are:
edge details
lake biology.
In addition, detailed work is required on a number of management strategies as recommended in the
EIS, especially on issues including:
sediment
lake water quality
pests and weeds
crocodiles and vector control.
These will be addressed as part of the site’s Environmental Management Plan (Planning) which is
covered by the Register of Proponent Commitments (see Chapter ).
7.3.4 Lake Sustainability Issues
As noted previously, the lake as described in the EIS is just one solution to the need for compensatory
waterway area. While the EIS reveals that this is a feasible solution, it has some complexities. These
are succinctly set out in submission 247 as quoted below:
Source off-shore seawater, involving 2.2 km of dredging.
Install a seawater intake structure, and the associated 2.2 km of 1.8 m diameter pipeline.
Dispose approximately one-third of the dredge spoil (being excessive to the trench-filling
requirements), proposed to be disposed of in situ, with associated sediment plume impacts.
Install a seawater receiving pit with associated pumps and an ongoing power demand and
associated greenhouse gas emission load.
Steel sheet-pile kilometres of lake boundary with associated supply and transport demands.
Excavate a 4 m-deep lake, and possibly needing to treat a vast quantity of Actual Acid Sulfate
Soil (AASS) or Potentially Acid Sulfate Soil (PASS) with vast quantities of lime prior to soil
reuse, with associated lime-supply, transport and on-site storage demands and hazards.
Manage significant transportation demands for transporting treated soil to re-use sites.
Manage dry and wet excavation including AASS-PASS stockpiles, construction-phase lake
water treatment, disposal, and monitoring issues.
Install a lake water discharge (diffuser) structure, with associated dredging-related disposal and
sediment plume management and impacts.
Have a continuous life-of-project lake seawater release and an ongoing power demand and
associated greenhouse gas emission load.
Have a continuous life-of-project:
- lake marine biota entrainment impact
- lake water quality management demands
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 264
- lake biology management demands, including crocodile-inhabitable waters, pest species,
perceived removal and disposal of flood-related fish kills, etc.
It could probably be regarded as strongly debatable whether all of these implications could be
justifiable as ecologically sustainable development to solve a wet season mowing and aesthetics
issue. (Submission 274).
As noted above, DSITIA suggests that:
The proponent should investigate (or at least present) any alternative inclusions or solutions that would make the ‘always dry’ flood conveyance structure workable, in terms of addressing the reasons why the option was rejected (i.e. aesthetics, maintenance, disease vector control, crocodiles and the potential for bird strike).
Further details on this issue are included below.
7.3.5 Detailed Assessment of Seasonal Lake Option
a) Description
This seasonal lake option investigated in the development of the EIS involved a shallow channel
broadly duplicating the footprint of the lake but much shallower (as shallow as possible based on
achieving the desired flood performance). Such a channel was expected to be dry during most
conditions, and would only contain water following rainfall, Barron River flooding, or when groundwater
is high. Key features of what the seasonal lake option are:
footprint essentially identical to the 55 ha lake (as proposed when this option was considered)
bed level of 0.5 m AHD (as high as possible to limit groundwater impacts) – flood modelling
revealed that a higher bed level would not provide sufficient conveyance capacity
high level discharge points similar to the current Lake Outlets to allow the channel to be drained
following rainfall and Barron River flooding
no seawater exchange.
Submission 247 provides some alternative suggestions and these are assessed below where relevant.
b) Flood Performance
Flood modelling not published in the EIS but reported separately (BMT WBM 2013d) includes an
assessment of the performance of the seasonal lake option as described above. During Barron River
flooding, this solution will perform essentially identically to the lake solution in that over-bank flow will
enter the void and pass around the central island and discharge over the dunes at the north of the site.
Preliminary modelling was undertaken and Figure 7-4 below shows the results.
It should be noted that this modelling was based on the then configuration of the Resort Complex
which involved two ‘islands’ (actually concrete structures with deep basements). Many modelling runs
on this and the final EIS lake configuration reveal that their hydraulic performance is essentially
identical.
Discussion
Figure 7-4 shows that the results are generally acceptable but as anticipated, the overall flood level
reductions are less than for the full lake depth.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 265
Figure 7-4 ARI 100 year (1% AEP) flood levels for seasonal lake option (bed at 0.5 m AHD).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 266
Of note, afflux occurs upstream of the then-proposed stadium and to a lesser degree at Holloways
Beach. It is possible that the proposed bunds to the north would not be required for this option or could
perhaps be reduced in level. This could help reduce impacts in the Holloways Beach area. Although
not optimised, the configuration as modelled performs sufficiently well to be considered as a viable
flood mitigation solution.
Conclusion
The performance of the seasonal lake as described above in mitigating flooding impacts is likely to be
adequate.
c) Effect of Groundwater
Groundwater monitoring was undertaken for the EIS and this has continued to the present. This has
consisted of continuous water level monitoring at some bores and monthly chemical monitoring at
others as shown on Figure 7-5. The location of the lake is shown on this figure.
Figure 7-5 Location of monitoring bores in relation to lake footprint.
This figure shows that:
bore YK4 will be directly intersected by the western part of the lake
bore YK3 is very close to the eastern part of the lake
YK7 and YK10 are close to the southern part of the lake.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 267
Water Levels
The following graph shows the temporal variation in level for bores YK3 and YK4 located in the vicinity
of the lake over the period July 2013 to August 2014. Water level measurements in
September/October 2013 indicated groundwater levels in YK9 and YK10 similar to those at YK3. The
graph also shows the proposed lake bed level (0.5 m AHD) of the seasonal lake.
Chart 7-1 Time series of typical groundwater levels at site of lake.
This data shows that:
YK3 levels are almost entirely greater than 0.5 m AHD
YK4 levels are above 0.5 m AHD for five months of the year (February to June).
Groundwater Quality
The following graph shows the variation in salinity levels for bores YK3, 4, 7 and 10 located in the
vicinity of the lake over the period July 2013 to August 2014. Also plotted is YK2 which lies near the
mouth of Richters Creek.
Proposed lake bed level (0.5 m AHD)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 268
Chart 7-2 Time series of typical salinity levels at site of lake.
This data shows that boreholes located near the lake exhibit very low salinity levels – never exceeding
5 ppt (seawater is 35 ppt). That is, they contain freshwater at all times. YK2 reveals elevated salinity
(nearly that of seawater) during the wet season and when tides are high, while remaining fresh for
most of the year.
Discussion
The groundwater levels show that excavating a lake to a bed level of 0.5 m AHD would therefore
intersect the eastern part of the groundwater (YK3) for all of the year. This may also occur in the
southern end of the lake (YK10). This would result in inflow to the lake excavation, with water filling it
to a level that varies between 0.5 m and 2.2 m AHD. This latter level is approximately that of the
natural ground. This is a very simplistic interpretation and ignores recharge, evaporation, and rainfall
effects and the likelihood that such works could actually drain the aquifer in the vicinity of YK3 and
YK10. However, it is evident that groundwater levels can be expected to be above the lake bed level
for much of the year and could be depressed from their natural level due to draw-down caused by lake
interactions.
If this draw-down was to happen, it would have serious implications for the melaleuca wetlands in the
area (YK3 is immediately beside such a wetland) and the woodland vegetation in general. Saltwater
intrusion of this freshwater aquifer could ensue, but this requires additional work to assess its
likelihood. The balance between recharge and evaporation would need further study and it may be that
recharge from the south could help offset the saline intrusion to some extent.
The lowering of groundwater as a result of drainage into the open lake could lead to acid sulfate soil
issues although this has not been investigated.
The submission 247 design makes allowance for groundwater and suggests that pressure relief valves
be included in a lined base of the lake as shown on Figure 7-6 below.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 269
Figure 7-6 Schematic showing flow of rainwater and groundwater to lateral gutters.
Source: Submission 247.
Water thus collected (rainfall and groundwater) is proposed to drain to gutters and carried to ‘treatment
units’. See Section 7.3.5e).
The above data suggests that a seasonal lake with a bed level of 0.5 m AHD would be wet for most if
not all of the year and that it would most likely change the groundwater balance and reduce
groundwater levels on the eastern and northern part of the site. Under these circumstances, it would
probably be necessary to construct a cut-off wall as proposed for the EIS lake solution. With this
solution, it may be possible to control the water level to some extent. Alternatively, it would be
necessary to continuously pump the water entering through the relief valves. This would constitute
groundwater extraction and would require an NRM licence for this. It would be a waste of a valuable
resource if the water was discharged. It is would also most likely depress surround groundwater levels
as noted above.
d) Effect of Rainfall
The EIS lake is designed to receive runoff from the Resort Complex after collection and treatment
under the stormwater drainage strategy documented in s11.2 of the EIS. It is likely that the seasonal
lake would also receive this runoff, along with rainfall falling on its own catchment. As for the EIS
solution, external catchments would be drained away from the seasonal lake to minimise water quality
problems. It is assumed at this stage therefore that the catchment of the seasonal lake would mimic
that of the EIS lake, i.e. would be 40 ha of Resort Complex plus 33 ha of direct catchment.
No design work has been undertaken on the hydraulic and water quality components of the
stormwater drainage. However, it is clear that during heavy rain substantial volumes of water would be
involved. For 10 mm of runoff over this catchment, a volume of 7300 m3 would be produced and this
would need to be drained somewhere. Although runoff from the Resort Complex will be treated by the
WSUD features, that falling on the lake will not be and will mobilise any pollutants lying on the 33 ha of
lined floor or in the shallow water.
This will require treatment prior to discharge. Given that the Resort Complex runoff will already be
treated, it would be prudent to discharge this separately to reduce the volume of lake treatment. Two
ocean outfalls (or a combined one handling both runoff sources following treatment) would most likely
be required due to the risk of introducing polluted water to Richters Creek where it could be ingested
into the Ponderosa Prawn farm upstream.
While there will be sufficient head available to discharge the Resort Complex stormwater drainage, the
lake bed is only 0.5 m above mean sea level, meaning that drainage could only occur on a low tide
unless pumping is utilised. If a gravity system is used then it will need to be fitted with tide gates to
prevent the lake filling with salt water via the outlet.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 270
e) Likely Water Quality Issues
Under the scenario suggested in Submission 247, the following conditions are likely to apply:
During the dry season, water in the lake will be fresh and, without drainage, be of the order of
0.5 to 1.0 m deep due to groundwater effects. During the wet season this could rise to 2.0 m
although this could be reduced by drainage.
Irrespective of lining, there will be extended periods of up to months where the shallow drains
pond water, and would become super-heated and prone to algal blooms and excessive aquatic
weed growth. Such water could not be discharged to Richters Creek without treatment. A
shallow and warm freshwater system will form a favourable environment for plants and algae
when compared with a saltwater system.
Many of the same water quality issues as were addressed for the EIS lake will be involved although
the conditions will be vastly different. A preliminary assessment reveals that the following likely water
quality conditions could be adversely affected in the absence of treatment:
Temperature. Likely to be elevated due to shallow depth and large surface area. Will be too
shallow for stratification to be an issue.
Salinity. Likely to be fresh and certainly of much lower salinity than receiving waters during the
dry season.
pH. Could be low due to acid drainage from inflowing groundwater.
Nutrients. Likely to be significant due to pollutants falling on 33 ha surface. Also there is a likely
issue of plant growth and decay affected water quality.
Chlorophyll a. Likely to be elevated due to growth of algae
Lake water will need to be treated prior to discharge to:
reduce temperature
remove nutrients and Chlorophyll a and possibly pollutants
raise pH.
Some in-situ treatment could be provided by:
circulation by propeller pumps
heat removal by evaporative processes coupled with pumps.
Submission 247 discusses treatment options as involving the following:
This type of water-handling mechanism could be used, possibly in conjunction with pre-dosed pH controlling fountain water to minimise staining-effects by potentially iron-aluminium enriched groundwater intrusion.
Other treatment approaches could be used to control algal growth concerns, such as shock or continuous chlorine dosing, either from a central location or delivered in a more targeted fashion using solid-form pool chlorine in cages or wells distributed across the structure, as required. Spot issues could be managed by adopting a routine high-pressure water removal maintenance regime. (Submission 247 p3).
These and other treatment options have not been investigated but the proposed high dosage of
chlorine for algal control is extremely dangerous environmentally. A large rainfall event early in the wet
season would mobilise poor quality water (‘first flush’) and this would cause challenges to any
treatment system. Similarly, a flood would transport large volumes of algae and other plants from the
site.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 271
Overall, it is expected that the maintenance of water quality in a shallow freshwater environment will
be problematic. Such as situation is the complete opposite of that selected for the EIS which seeks a
deep, well mixed saltwater environment.
Should a cut-off wall be constructed, it may be possible to keep the dry season water level artificially
depressed in which case the lake may be able to be kept dry for more of the year.
f) Birdstrike
As noted above, it is likely that the seasonal lake will contain shallow water for much (if not all) of the
year and that algae and other plants are likely to be present. Such a large area of shallow freshwater
will be attractive to wading birds that are undesirable so close to the airport.
This problem would be worse with an un-lined lake as the vegetation would be largely uncontrolled.
Maintenance would be difficult if not impossible as land-based plant would not be able to traverse the
boggy or most likely permanently wet ground.
Should a cut-off wall be constructed and the lake kept dry for more of the year, it may be possible to
mow the base and reduce this impact. However, it will still be a wet season issue.
g) Insect Vectors
Similarly, a large area of shallow freshwater will be attractive to mosquitos and biting midges that are
undesirable for health and amenity reasons.
This would be not as much of an issue should a cut-off wall be constructed and the lake kept dry for
more of the year. However, it will still be a wet season issue.
h) Aesthetics
The comments made in the EIS are still considered valid. In particular:
The seasonal lake a waterway would have maintenance problems as it would be so close to
local groundwater that it would be boggy and difficult to maintain in a healthy and aesthetically
pleasing state.
Lined options (e.g. concrete and polyethylene) are considered aesthetically undesirable.
Any natural vegetation established on the bed and banks would need to be tolerant to
waterlogging – the end result would be an ephemeral wetland that would be predominantly fresh
and that would pond shallow water for extended periods of time, leading to algal growth and die-
off issues, periodic rotting vegetation, and a generally unacceptable aesthetic outcome.
Such vegetation would be difficult to mow and otherwise maintain as a waterway with
acceptably low flood plain roughness such that it could convey the design flow.
The ‘art-scape’ features suggested in Submission 247 are unlikely to remain visible for long and will
most likely be under water for most of the time. Should a cut-off wall be constructed and the lake kept
dry for more of the year, the artwork would be visible for some time. However, it will still be a wet
season issue.
Finally, the presence of the large waterbody has developed into an architectural theme for the Aquis
Resort and the proponent does not wish to jeopardise this feature.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 272
7.3.6 Comparison of Lake Options
Table 7-2 below is a summary of the likely performance of the EIS lake and the seasonal lake
described in the previous discussion. For ease of interpretation, the preferred option for each criterion
is shaded. When these are equal, both are shaded
CRITERION EIS LAKE SEASONAL LAKE COMMENTS
Flooding Suitable. Suitable. No significant difference.
Water quality Excellent (at least comparable to Richters Creek).
Requires circulation system and seawater exchange.
Likely to be poor, especially with respect to temperature, nutrients, plant growth and decay, and algae.
Requires circulation / treatment system – will be problematic with freshwater.
Seasonal lake will be difficult to manage as water will be fresh and shallow.
Groundwater interaction
Suitable (with quarantining option). Unsustainable without.
Unsustainable without a quarantining solution (could deplete resource, contaminate groundwater).
Even with a cut-off wall containment system, the seasonal lake has direct connection to the shallow groundwater system within the cut-off wall perimeter. This groundwater will still vary over the time with at or above existing surface levels in the wet for prolonged periods.
Similar quarantining works required. Seasonal lake
Birdstrike risk Present – expected to be manageable.
Expected to be significant due to large area of shallow freshwater habitat with likely algal growth and other plant life, even with liner.
Seasonal lake will be a higher risk for birdstrike.
Insect vectors Negligible due to seawater and limited beach area.
Considerable due to large area of shallow freshwater habitat.
Vector control for seasonal lake would reduce risk but would involve extensive use of poisons.
Maintenance Necessary, especially removal of silt and dead fish post-flood.
Dredging and floating plant will be needed.
Necessary, especially removal of silt and dead fish post-flood.
Land-based plant will be needed and access will be very difficult (land likely to be boggy or mostly submerged).
Regular maintenance of liner will be required.
Seasonal lake is expected to require a more complex maintenance regime due to fluctuating water levels and occasional drying out.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 273
CRITERION EIS LAKE SEASONAL LAKE COMMENTS
Aesthetics Excellent (deep water with high expected water quality). Architectural treatment of edges to be confirmed.
Poor (shallow with expected poor water quality, perhaps empty at times). No solutions apparent (‘art-scape’ features are unlikely to remain visible for long and will most likely be under water for most of the time).
Presentation of Resort/Lake will vary seasonally for the non-permanent (seasonal lake) solution.
Energy use Significant (continuous pumping of large volumes of water to achieve 14 day turnover). In-lake circulation also needed (aerators, fans)
Significantly less than EIS lake due to no need for pumping.
For the seasonal lake, energy will still be needed for circulation, treatment, and probably discharge pumping activities.
Off-shore works Ocean inlet and either ocean or near-shore outlet required.
May need ocean outfall for stormwater drainage, particularly when lake water quality is poor and discharge to the creek is therefore not allowable
Seasonal lake ‘plumbing’ not considered in detail but likely to be of lesser scale.
Construction Approximately 1.5 million m3
required, together with treatment of ASS and off-site transport of surplus material.
Approximately 0.5 million m3
required and proportionally less treatment of ASS and off-site transport.
Seasonal lake likely to result in savings in energy and off-site impacts during construction; however long term operational energy requirements could be higher than for the EIS lake.
Cost High. Moderate. Seasonal lake likely to be substantially cheaper in capital and operating costs.
Cost High. Moderate. Seasonal lake likely to be substantially cheaper in terms of capital costs. However, operating costs could be excessive when all the additional maintenance requirements are taken into account.
Environmental Risk Low. High. The shallow lake inherently has a significantly greater risk of environmental harm than the EIS lake.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 274
Overall, the seasonal lake is expected to:
perform adequately as a flood mitigation solution
have acceptable impacts on groundwater if it is quarantined as proposed for the EIS solution,
although there are likely to be some sustainability issues with groundwater depletion and
contamination
have serious water quality issues
have serious maintenance problems including those related to birdstrike and insect vectors
be aesthetically unappealing
require less (but not no) off-shore works
involve lower construction costs and energy consumption
likely to involve high operating costs due to maintenance needs.
Despite the suitable flood behaviour and some beneficial features, it is considered that the poor water
quality performance and aesthetics rule out this option from further consideration. The presence of the
large waterbody has developed into an architectural theme for the Aquis Resort and the proponent
does not wish to jeopardise this feature.
7.3.7 Other Lake Issues – Discharge to GBRWHA
The above discussion has confirmed the need for the lake as a flood mitigation solution and has
demonstrated that the seasonal lake option is not viable. It (and the detailed work included in s11.3 of
the EIS) has also demonstrated the maintenance of lake water quality requires seawater exchange in
the form of an off-shore inlet and therefore an ocean outlet. The EIS proposes that this be in the mouth
of Richters Creek. The option of an off-shore outlet is canvassed in Section 7.4.
The remaining component of this Information Request issue is to demonstrate that discharge to the
GBRWHA is necessary and by implication, sustainable.
a) Need for an Ocean Discharge
Lake water exchange is essential for the maintenance of water quality. This involves pumping clean
seawater into the lake and then out again to preserve lake volume. Modelling suggests that a target
flushing time of 14 days is optimal. In terms of lake water quality, an outlet to anywhere would be
adequate, so the issue is to find the best location for such an outlet.
A minimum-cost solution requires that the discharge pipeline be as short as possible but other criteria
must be considered, namely:
integrity of infrastructure (i.e. free from erosion and sedimentation, both under normal and
extreme conditions)
acceptable environmental impacts in constructing the infrastructure (i.e. considering the need to
minimise clearing of natural vegetation and disturbing important substrates such as coral)
acceptable environmental impacts in operating the infrastructure (water quality, hydrodynamic
effects)
acceptable community impacts in operating the infrastructure (avoid boating hazards, minimise
visual intrusion).
For the Aquis site, the only feasible discharge points for the volume of water to be discharged are:
Richters Creek (in theory, anywhere along the eastern boundary of the site but preferably near
the mouth where transport to the ocean is more direct (and away from other users such as the
Ponderosa Prawn Farm) and the tidal prism is greatest)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 275
off-shore of Richters Creek.
Both of these involve works in and discharge to the waters of the GBRWHA as the boundary follows
low water.
b) Impacts on the GBRWHA
Water quality
The EIS solution involves an outlet fitted with a diffuser in the mouth of Richters Creek. Modelling (EIS
s11.3) confirms that this is likely to perform satisfactorily and that the water quality values of the
GBRWHA will not be at risk. In particular:
water quality modelling suggest that lake discharge will be as good as or better than the
receiving waters
even if this were not the case, the available dilution is such that lake discharge would very
quickly become indistinguishable from the surrounding waters.
Additional modelling has been undertaken for the off-shore outlet (Section 5.4.5) and this has similar
results. Also, modelling has been undertaken of a possible flood scenario (Section 5.1.4) and this
reveals that:
lake water can be safely discharged into Richters Creek itself until the lake recovers its desired
salinity
this occurs several days before Richters Creek also returns to normal.
The EIS work and the additional modelling described in this report confirms that there will be little if
any impact from the lake discharge under all circumstances.
Pipeline construction
Details of constructing the off-shore pipeline are provided in Section 5.4, along with proposed
mitigation measures. These are all considered to be industry best-practice. The assessment of
impacts of this work on OUV and matters of NES (various parts of Chapter 6) conclude that no
significant impacts are likely to occur.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 276
7.4 RESPONSE TO ALTERNATIVE OFF-SHORE DISCHARGE POINT
7.4.1 Background
OCG requirement (Issue 6 Item 4 is) as follows:
(4) The location of the discharge point in the mouth of Richters Creek vs. a discharge point in the Coral Sea.
Another OCG requirement (Issue 4 Item 4.4) also touches on this topic, namely:
(4.4) Provide justification for the proposed outlet pipeline alignment to consider the alternative options (e.g. off-shore outside of the active coastal zone).
This latter point has been discussed in detail in Section 5.4.5.
7.4.2 Discussion
To avoid repetition, a summary is provided of the detailed findings of the assessment detailed in
Section 5.4.5, namely:
While the EIS discharge solution in the mouth of Richters Creek performs adequately in terms of
water quality and hydrodynamic performance, there is a risk of erosion and sedimentation due
to costal processes in the shallow waters of the creek mouth.
Investigations into historic erosion and sedimentation effects provide details of likely minimum
and maximum bed levels and these have been used to select a vertical alignment for inlet and
outlet pipelines. The levels selected are likely to be suitable although further investigations
during detailed design will be required.
Water quality results are excellent,
The following table provides a comparative analysis of the EIS solution and the off-shore option
discussed in this report.
ISSUE IN-SHORE (EIS SOLUTION) OFF-SHORE (THIS REPORT)
Coastal processes (erosion and sedimentation)
Vulnerable to excessive erosion during floods and cyclones and sedimentation after extended quiet periods.
Outlet free from coastal processes due to depth and distance from active coastal zone.
Pipeline can be built below likely minimum bed level in Richters Creek mouth (proposed to be invert of -8 m AHD invert (i.e. approximately 3 m below the 1977 scoured bed depth).
Water quality performance at discharge point (beyond mixing zone)
Excellent. The influence of the lake discharge is expected to have only a small influence on the receiving environment of Richters Creek including the near-shore environment with no likely effect at all remote from the outlet.
Excellent. The influence of the lake discharge is expected to have only a small influence on the receiving environment of Richters Creek including the near-shore environment.
Hydrodynamic performance
Adequate – maximum flow will constitute 20% of the tidal prism at neap tides and 7% at spring tides.
Excellent. No issues as discharge is at depth in open water.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 277
ISSUE IN-SHORE (EIS SOLUTION) OFF-SHORE (THIS REPORT)
Bed shear calculations show that even under the most adverse conditions, additional erosion caused by lake discharge is not likely to occur.
Construction Complex, involving coffer dams, dewatering, silt curtains and possible treatment of acid sulfate soils.
Cheaper due to shorter length of pipeline although inclusion with inlet pipeline reduces marginal cost.
Not an issue as little extra work is required to allow the outlet pipeline to share the inlet pipeline’s trench and construction process.
Maintenance needs Likely to be required in vicinity of outlet.
Removal of algal growth in short pipeline will be required.
Unlikely to be required in vicinity of outlet.
Removal of algal growth in long pipeline will be more significant than for the Richters Creek outlet.
Safety for boating Can be made safe but depends on signage.
Unlikely to be an issue due to depth of outlet.
Visual impacts Works and signage would be visible which would involve some adverse visual impact.
Nil.
7.4.3 Conclusions
This assessment shows that both options can be expected to perform well in terms of water quality
and hydrodynamics. However, the off-shore option is superior in that:
it is less prone to erosion and sedimentation in the active coastal zone
will not be visible to users of the Yorkeys Knob beach and Richters Creek mouth.
The off-shore option is likely to be more expensive to build and will require more maintenance in terms
of removal of marine plant growth.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 278
7.5 RESPONSE TO OPTION FOR MAINTAINING AQUACULTURE PONDS
7.5.1 Background
OCG requirement (Issue 6 Item 5 is) as follows:
(5) Investigate risks and benefits of maintaining the aquaculture ponds containing high biodiversity values (including MNES species) which are proposed to be removed.
7.5.2 Overview of Existing Situation
The site contains 5 artificial ponds on Lot 1 RP800898 constructed by excavation and creation of
elevated bunds using the excavated material. The following table (which is a copy of Table 6-8)
provides details of the five abandoned aquaculture ponds.
LOCATION AREA (HA)
Pond 1 (adjacent to Richters Ck/Intensive Study Site 5) 0.35
Pond 2 (adjacent to Richters Ck/Intensive Study Site 5) 0.20
Pond 3 (adjacent to Richters Ck/Intensive Study Site 5) 0.78
Pond 4 (adjacent to Richters Ck/Intensive Study Site 5) 3.10
Pond 5 (adjacent to Richters Ck/Intensive Study Site 5) 1.16
TOTAL 5.59
The ponds (which comprise just under 6 ha of seasonal freshwater habitat) were formerly used for
farming barramundi. This activity was abandoned many years ago and these ponds have been
colonised by a range of native and exotic plants and animals. Water levels vary considerably over the
year and the ponds are seasonally used by many species of birds and other fauna initially described in
Chapter 7 of the EIS. Some salient points regarding these ponds are as summarised below:
The abandoned aquaculture ponds (see Figure 7-7 below) are mapped as a lacustrine (lake)
wetland (see Figure 7-8) and support a distinctive native plant community that has developed
since their construction in the 1980s.
These ponds constitute the on-site ecological community with the second highest species
diversity, mainly due to a high prevalence of wetland birds observed during the July and October
2013 surveys. Further records have resulted from the 2014 dry season survey.
This habitat also recorded the highest number of threatened species of any on-site community.
Notwithstanding these values, the ponds are proposed to be drained and filled to reduce birdstrike risk,
water quality concerns, and possible river migration as described in Section 7.5.4.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 279
Figure 7-7 Abandoned aquaculture ponds.
Source: EIS Figure 7-3 (part).
Photo 7-1 The largest of the abandoned aquaculture
ponds.
Source: EIS Photo 7-9.
Photo 7-2 Bund separating cane land from one of the
abandoned aquaculture ponds.
Source: EIS Photo 21-2.
7.5.3 Biodiversity Values
Much of this text is repeated from Section 6.11.2b) where the DoTE required further information on
the impacts on matters of NES of filling the ponds. Relevant material is repeated or summarised in the
following discussion.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 280
a) Overview
According to the EIS (s7.1.5), around 6 ha of aquaculture ponds (five ponds in total) in the south of the
project area support a distinctive (native) plant community that has developed since their construction
which was completed in the 1980s.
The terrestrial biodiversity component of the EIS included dedicated survey of the freshwater
aquaculture ponds on the Aquis site, particularly for avifauna and amphibians. The total number of all
bird species recorded within the aquaculture ponds environment up to July 2014 is 52.
During dry season surveys in July/August 2013, water levels within the ponds were low and there were
large numbers of waterbirds present in response to the optimal foraging conditions at substrate level,
and the sparse vegetation on the bank margins. Diversity and abundance were high and for many
species there was a range of age classes present. The July/August dry season survey of 2013
recorded 27 bird species at the aquaculture ponds. At the time of an additional dry season survey in
October 2013, water levels were around 30% lower than the preceding July. This significantly
increased habitat availability and bird numbers had increased to 40 species.
The wet season survey of March 2014 demonstrated the effect of increased water depth on diversity
and abundance. Water depth had increased by as much as 2.5 m in some ponds, and the steepness
of the banks provided little suitable habitat at the margin of the ponds. The margins were dominated by
dense stands of Persicaria orientalis that provided few foraging opportunities (Note: An incidental visit
to the site in January 2014 showed that water levels had reached a high level by that time.). As a
result, the total number of bird species present declined to 34, with only three of those species being
associated with wetland habitats, and the remaining 31 being terrestrial birds that were either over-
flying the water or foraging within the vegetation surrounding and adjacent to the ponds.
Rainfall between March and August 2014 was sufficiently high to maintain water levels within the
ponds. The pond margins were clear of tall vegetation, but the August 2014 monitoring survey showed
that the resulting habitat supported only 20 species. When water levels are high and pond edges are
steeply-sloping the diversity and abundance of birds is much reduced. In the 2014 year, water levels
between January and August remained sufficiently high to keep bird numbers low throughout this
period. Survey effort late in August (Northcote pers. comm. 28.08.2014) revealed further increases in
both diversity and abundance, water levels declining more rapidly with the onset of dry conditions in
August.
These four surveys have shown that there is a degree of seasonal variation in waterbird utilisation of
the existing aquaculture ponds. There is an optimal water depth which attracts large numbers of
species, and dense flocks of a sub-set of these species. This water depth appears to vary between
150 mm and 1500 mm. The timing of this depth is dependent on seasonal rainfall, but it appears likely
to persist for three months between August and October.
Data from the four surveys suggests the aquaculture ponds are providing an important local habitat
resource during the annual dry season. The diversity and abundance of species present is high, as in
similar habitats close by (especially the Cattana Wetlands but many other smaller areas exist) during
some periods of the year. In addition to the variety of water depths present, the Aquis ponds also
display habitat heterogeneity. The main pond contains a variety of wetland plants including relatively
dense stands of Typha orientalis and a dense community of reeds and sedges which develops
seasonally along the southern and northern margins of the pond. Shallower ponds contain large
stands of T. orientalis which supported flocks of Anseranas semipalmata in August 2014. Other ponds
are ringed by woody vegetation including mangroves, and terrestrial birds are more commonly
encountered within this vegetation.
Apart from its actual presence, the diversity of water depths and the variety of different habitats across
the pond network are the key reasons for the attractiveness of the ponds on the Aquis site during the
peak seasonal use period, as was suggested in the EIS.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 281
b) Flora
Standing water within these ponds support dense, monospecific patches of Typha orientalis,
Persicaria orientalis and Eleocharis equisetina, present as large clumps on pond edges and as islands
surrounded by water. These are the main aquatic species present with the exception of Nymphaea
spp., but were most abundant during the July 2013 survey when low water levels facilitated
establishment. Regrowth Melaleuca leucadendra, Acacia auriculiformis, A. crassicarpa and Nauclea
orientalis have partially colonised the margins of these ponds. Exotic and native palms have been
used to landscape the ponds, but none of these are known to invade natural areas in the Wet Tropics,
with the exception of Ptychosperma elegans which is regenerating in the Melaleuca wetlands.
c) Fauna
The aquaculture ponds form an ecological community that showed the second highest faunal species
diversity of the on-site communities (89 species VS 100 for the woodland / vine forest community),
mainly due to a high prevalence of wetland birds during the July and October 2013 surveys, with this
habitat also recording the highest number of threatened species (4). These are (V = Vulnerable; NT =
Near Threatened, M – Migratory):
Crocodylus porosus (Saltwater crocodile) – V (NC Act), M (EPBC Act)
Aerodramus terraereginae (Australian swiftlet) – NT (NC Act)
Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus (Black-necked stork) – NT (NC Act)
Tadorna radjah (Radjah shelduck) – NT (NC Act).
A number of the waterbirds recorded in the EIS at the aquaculture ponds are listed under both the
Nature Conservation Act 1992 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999, and/or are protected under conventions to which the Commonwealth is a signatory (e.g., JAMBA
and the Bonn Convention). These species are shown below (this is a copy of Table 6-9).
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC Act EPBC ACT
FORM SITE OCCURRENCE
Ardea ibis Cattle egret S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed
Ardea modesta (syn Ardea alba)
Great egret / White egret
S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed
Calidris ruficollis Red-necked stint S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed
Egretta sacra Eastern reef egret S MMB Marine bird Confirmed
Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater S - Wetland bird Confirmed
Plegadis falcinellus Glossy ibis S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed
Tringa brevipes (syn Heteroscelus brevipes)
Grey-tailed tattler S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 282
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC Act EPBC ACT
FORM SITE OCCURRENCE
Tringa nebularia Common greenshank S SIG Marine bird Confirmed
Abbreviations: MMB – Migratory Marine Birds, MMS – Migratory Marine Species, MTS – Migratory Terrestrial Species,
MWS – Migratory Wetlands Species, SIG – listed in Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird
species (DEWHA 2009).
d) Wetlands
Figure 7-8 shows that the abandoned aquaculture ponds are mapped as a lacustrine waterbody.
Lacustrine (lake) wetlands are designated as high conservation value wetlands under the Environment
Protection Act 1994. These constitute Matters of SES as described in the EIS.
Figure 7-8 Mapped
wetlands.
Source: EIS Figure
22-34.
Abandoned
aquaculture ponds
Section 6.11.2e) details the findings of a survey of all waterbodies within 3 km of the ponds. This
(Table 6-11) reveals that there is 84 ha of similar habitat varying in size between 0.1 and 25.5 ha (the
latter figure is the Ponderosa Prawn Farm on the opposite side of Richters Creek and which is also
mapped as a lacustrine waterbody).
Regardless of their anthropogenic origin, the site’s aquaculture ponds provide the values of a seasonal
waterbody, especially in the dry season when many other nearby areas are depleted.
Under CairnsPlan (see EIS s5.2.1 Module 11 (p5-26):
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 283
PO1 Development is not carried out in a wetland protection area unless there is an overriding need in the public interest or the development is a development commitment or the development is for community infrastructure.
The EIS position is that there is an overriding need in the public interest based on birdstrike, water
quality and river migration as discussed below in Section 7.5.5 in more detail.
e) Condition and Seasonality
During the 2013 dry season survey documented in the EIS, these ponds were very shallow and both
the water surface and the margins provided optimal foraging depth for a wide range of water birds (52
species recorded). During the 2014 dry season survey (Biotropica Australia 2014d), water depths
across the ponds were much deeper and birds were uncommon (ten species). Eight native frogs were
recorded, again reflecting the relative abundance of water across the survey area when compared to
the dry season survey in 2013. Biotropica Australia (2014d) conclude that this shows the inherent
natural variability of coastal ecosystems in the tropics, including the variation in seasonal intensity.
These differences are most clearly seen in bird assemblages between years and seasons, and are
particularly noticeable in the declines in diversity and abundance of water birds associated with the
aquaculture ponds. The persistence of many frogs in the 2014 dry season is also at variance with the
2013 dry season when water resources/levels were much reduced.
7.5.4 Potential Educational Values
The abandoned aquaculture ponds have some potential value for education and interpretation as at
most times of the year they are attractive and interesting. The following images (taken in September
2013) show some typical views. Should the ponds remain, they would be able to be incorporated into
the proposed walking track network. However, as noted above, the bird populations are seasonal and
birds are largely absent when water levels are high and beach habitat minimal.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 284
Photo 7-3 Images of aquaculture ponds.
7.5.5 Risks
a) Birdstrike Risk
Statutory Issues
CairnsPlan contains an Operational Aspects of the Cairns International Airport Code whose purpose is
to:
Ensure that the Cairns International Airport and State significant aviation facilities within the City are protected from the adverse impacts of development.
This is relevant as the Aquis Material Change of Use application will be assessed under CairnsPlan.
Appendix W to the EIS (Airport and Aircraft Issues) notes that the Primary Light Control Plans/Bird and
Bat Strike Hazards Overlay and the Overlay Code 4.6.7 in CairnsPlan together document the
requirements for development. Performance Criteria and Acceptable Measures for bird and bat hazard
under the CairnsPlan and the relevant map are as follows (extracted from Appendix W).
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ACCEPTABLE MEASURES
Managing Bird and Bat Hazard to Aircraft
P3: Development and the design of facilities and landscaping in the immediate environs of the airport does not compound the potentially serious hazard from wildlife (bird or bat) strike.
A3.1: N/A (Public Utility (refuse collection and disposal)).
A3.2: N/A (Aquaculture (major), Industry Class B uses involving food handling or processing, Primary industries involving fruit or turf production, and Intensive animal husbandry including the keeping or protection of wildlife outside enclosures).
A3.3: For a Restaurant or Outdoor Sport and Recreation:
a) There (sic) the use is located within the 3 km radius shown on the overlay map potential food
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 285
and waste sources are covered and collected so that they are not accessible to wildlife; or
b) The use is located outside the 3 km radius.
Source: Appendix W Table 2-3 based on CairnsPlan.
Figure 7-9 Primary Light Control Plans / Bird and Bat Strike Hazards (Bird & Bat Strike)*.
Source: Appendix W Figure 2-2 based on CairnsPlan. The Aquis project site (marked in green) is within Area 2 (3
km to 8 km radius).
The Overlay Code specifies that land uses listed in Table 7-6 above (A3.1 and A3.2) are not permitted
within specified distances of the airport and documents acceptable measures to manage the potential
to encourage wildlife that pose a risk to aircraft. Of relevance to the Aquis Resort is the fact that there
are no relevant acceptable measures. However, CairnsPlan requires that Aquis comply with the
performance criterion that requires that the development does not compound the potentially serious
hazard from wildlife. This will be assessed as part of the Aquis MCU process.
Consultation – Pre-EIS
Consultation was undertaken with Cairns Airport Pty Ltd (North Queensland Airports) and CASA
during the preparation of the EIS and this is documented in Appendix W of the EIS (Airport and Aircraft
Issues). This is repeated below.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 286
Figure 7-10 CAPL and CASA advice re birdstrike.
Source: EIS Appendix W (s2.3.3 and s2.3.43).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 287
Consultation – Post EIS
North Queensland Airports made a submission on the EIS (221) where it was stated in their first item
(see Table 7-8):
Cairns Airport has been consulted during the preparation of the Aquis EIS and Is satisfied that the development will be designed to conform with the purpose and performance criteria of the ‘Operational Aspects of the Cairns International Airport Code’ in the Cairns Regional Council’s Planning Scheme, CairnsPlan which includes performance criteria and acceptable measures to minimise the effect a development will have on airport operation and the effect activities associated with the airport will have on a development. We accept that the key operational issues have been noted in the document and adequately addressed for the design, construction and operational phase. (Agency Submissions and Issues Report p113)
As noted above, the EIS proposal was for the aquaculture ponds to be drained and filled and the
submission must be read in this context. NQA will be consulted further should this decision be
reversed.
Re-assessment of Risk
As noted in the EIS, Cairns Airport has a very high level of bird-strike incidents, and this was the main
drawback associated with the ecological values of the existing ponds. The following is based on
material included in Appendix G of the EIS (Terrestrial Biodiversity).
Due to the proximity of the project area to Cairns International Airport (less than 5 km distant), the
effect of the development on the risk of avifauna strikes (including flying birds and mammals) on
airplanes should be considered.
Historically, over 90% of reported strikes have occurred on or in close proximity to airports
(International Civil Aviation Organisation 1999). Consequently, the primary focus of management
programs is directed on-airport with the responsibility resting on airport owners and operators. It is
however important that the whole airport community and surrounding land managers are aware of bird
strike as an issue and are included in the process of reducing the hazard birds represent to aircraft
operations. It is imperative that the risk presented from bird-attracting land use on and adjacent to the
airport is managed appropriately and effectively (Ecosure 2008).
In 2006/07, Cairns International Airport recorded the fifth highest bird strike rate per aircraft movement
for all major airfields in Australia (Australian Transport Safety Bureau 2007; Airservices Australia
2007), down from the second highest in 2004. Whilst this crude measure of risk does not differentiate
between confirmed strikes or possible strikes, and also gives no consideration to the species involved
and the probability of damage, it does indicate that bird and other wildlife strike is an important issue
for Cairns Airport (Ecosure 2008).
The main factors determining the consequences of a strike are the number and size of bird(s) which
are struck, the phase of flight when struck, and the part of the aircraft hit. Generally, the larger the bird
the greater the damage caused. Large birds have the ability to destroy engines and windshields and
cause significant damage to airframe components and leading edge devices. Strike events involving
more than one bird (multiple strikes), including those comprised of relatively small birds, can be
serious and potentially disable engines and/or result in major accidents (Ecosure 2008).
At present, the project area supports the majority of species known to be implicated in bird strike.
Once the project is completed, the new artificial lake surface and the landscaped surrounds are likely
to be new habitats that will be colonised and/or exploited by birds that may impact approaching
aircraft. Equally, conversion of the site from cane production should reduce the risk of bird-strike from
flocks (i.e., >80 individuals) of Milvus migrans which are common in the northern approach path during
cane harvest season.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 288
There will be differences in the types of wildlife using the artificial lake and lagoons depending on
water quality, salinity, depth, food resources, and the level of anthropogenic disturbance on and
adjacent to water surfaces. In considering the management of bird strike, these and other factors
should be considered during the planning stage to minimise the potential for bird strike to occur. A
range of mitigation measures is likely to be required to ameliorate the risk that may be incurred by this
species in relation to potential bird strike by aircraft from Cairns International Airport. This mitigation
will be the subject of a detailed management plan which will be prepared in consultation with a local
steering group consisting of relevant Government departments, experts in the field of study, and local
interest groups.
Figure 7-11 Cairns Airport Bird Strike Rates.
Source: EIS Appendix G (Figure 6) derived from Ecosure (2008).
Bird-strike is the term given to all collisions between avifauna (flying birds and mammals) and aircraft.
The issue of bird-strike has arisen largely as a result of the artificial water-bodies that are planned for
the development. The artificial lake and lagoons area may provide suitable habitat for waterbirds,
particularly those birds which are likely to use open-water habitats rather than species that are
confined to the shallow water margins of water bodies. The presence of the lake and lagoons may
then increase the diversity and abundance of water birds at the site, with a concomitant increase in the
risk of bird-strike. The planned habitat restoration on site would also be expected to generate changes
in the diversity and/or abundance of avifauna in the project area.
Ecosure’s (2008) review of bird-strike at Cairns Airport nominated a number of species that are
implicated in aircraft bird-strike incidents, and the majority of the species implicated in aircraft collisions
have been recorded from the project area. This includes a number of forest birds and waterbirds, and
‘unknown flying-fox’, (probably Pteropus conspicillatus) – a nocturnal flying mammal that is considered
responsible for the largest number of strikes (Ecosure 2008). There are also water birds that are
currently considered low-risk which may pose an elevated risk once the lake has been constructed.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 289
Birds
To better understand risk, all birds involved in aircraft collisions in Cairns between 1983 and 2007, a
summary of the Ecosure (2008) data was produced reflecting the three categories of ‘bird-strike’ data
cited:
species involved in more than 10 strikes between 1983-2007
species known to have caused aircraft damage
species involved in multiple (e.g., flock) strikes.
If any species in any category was also recorded on site during the July 2013 survey, this has been
included.
BIRD SPECIES MORE THAN 10 STRIKES BETWEEN
1983-2007
BIRD STRIKE CAUSED DAMAGE
STRIKES INVOLVING MORE
THAN ONE ANIMAL
RECORDED ON SITE DURING
SURVEY
Australian pratincole
Black kite
Black-fronted dotterel
Unknown dotterel
Black-tailed gull
Bush stone-curlew
Common sandpiper
Fairy martin
Martin / swallow
House sparrow
Magpie goose
Magpie lark
Masked lapwing
Metallic starling
Nankeen kestrel
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 290
BIRD SPECIES MORE THAN 10 STRIKES BETWEEN
1983-2007
BIRD STRIKE CAUSED DAMAGE
STRIKES INVOLVING MORE
THAN ONE ANIMAL
RECORDED ON SITE DURING
SURVEY
Pacific black duck
Unknown duck
Pied imperial pigeon
Rainbow lorikeet
Welcome swallow
Wood duck
White tern
Unknown tern
White-faced heron
Unknown heron
Unknown ibis
Unknown owl
Unknown sandpiper
Unknown swift
Source: EIS Appendix G (Table 18).
The project area contains suitable habitat for all these species, and it seems likely they may be
occasionally or regularly present on-site at some time. However, the development is not intending to
create habitat that favours these species above any others, or habitat that would be especially
attractive to these species. On this basis, it seems unlikely that the development will significantly
elevate population density although the development does intend to restore areas of native forest. This
would be expected to have the effect of increasing the abundance of some birds, although those that
might be attracted in the longer term would be biased towards the type of habitat that was being
restored (e.g. wetlands vs. woodlands).
Apart from ‘species unknown’ categories (Ecosure 2008), the species most commonly implicated in
bird-strike and multiple bird-strike (>50 strikes 1983-2007), and known to be present in the project
area, are the black kite Milvus migrans, masked lapwing Vanellus miles, and bush stone-curlew
Burhinus grallarius (Ecosure 2008). The magpie-goose (Anseranas semipalmata) and swallows
(Hirundinidae) were recorded on site in July and are the other species known to be implicated in
>2strikes - 1983-2007 (Ecosure 2008). These species are all considered in greater detail in EIS
Appendix G. The following chart shows additional information produced by Lamont (2010).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 291
Chart 7-3 Birdstrike records Cairns airport 1983 to 2009.
Source: Lamont (2010).
In summary, the ponds provide habitat for many birds, some of which are flocking species, and the
position of the lakes in relation to the northern approach path increases the likelihood of collisions.
Filling the ponds would alleviate this issue. In addition, other species such as Milvus migrans often
forms flocks of 20-30 birds during cane harvesting events when small mammal prey is abundant. The
conversion of the existing land-use away from sugar cane production will significantly alleviate the
potential for strikes caused by this species.
Unfortunately, there are no records available which provide precise locations of bird-strike at Cairns
Airport, so there are no indications of the actual strike numbers that may be positively attributed to the
Aquis ponds. In the absence of reliable data, a precautionary approach was adopted in the EIS and
filling of the existing ponds was proposed.
b) Lake Water Quality Risks
The EIS (Chapter 9 – Flooding) reveals that the walls of the aquaculture ponds are at about the 10%
AEP flood level. This means, for floods higher than this, it is likely that floodwaters could flush these
ponds and mix sediments and organic matter with the lake to the detriment of water quality. The EIS
notes that this was considered to be highly undesirable and that, although no modelling or detailed
analysis has been undertaken of this issue, the removal of the ponds would reduce this risk.
Should the ponds be retained, then this risk remains and would need to be incorporated into the Lake
Management Plan.
c) Possible River Migration
The EIS (Chapter 8 – Coastal Processes) addresses the issue of river migration and in particular the
risk of erosion in Richters Creek. The EIS notes (s8.3.1):
In addition, there is evidence of erosion on the banks of Richters Creek just opposite Lot 2 RP8000898. As this point is quite close to the abandoned aquaculture ponds, the ponds could make the area vulnerable to river erosion to the detriment of safety and project infrastructure. (p8-19)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 292
The following is a snapshot of an aerial photo of this part of the site with spot levels and contours
superimposed. The possible ‘line of weakness’ is indicated. The south-eastern pond is particularly
close to Richters Creek.
Figure 7-12 Possible ‘line of weakness’.
The EIS (s8.3.2) recommends that the preferred approach for managing erosion of Richters Creek
involves:
ensuring that the lake and Resort Complex Precinct are structurally secure against erosion
provision of rock protection of the banks of Richters Creek just opposite Lot 2 RP8000898 – this
is to be integrated with erosion protection works associated with the lake overflow at that
location
draining and filling the disused aquaculture ponds to reduce the risk of river migration along this
‘line of weakness’
Although no modelling or detailed analysis has been undertaken of this issue, the removal of the
ponds would reduce this risk. Should the ponds be retained, armouring may be necessary.
Richters Creek (bend eroding)
Possible ‘line of weakness’
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 293
Alternatively, consideration could be given to filling just the south-east pond. This is discussed in
Section 7.5.10.
7.5.6 EIS Proposal
a) Overview
The EIS proposes that the ponds would be drained and filled during the construction process. Figure
7-14 is an extract from EIS Figure 7-18 (Ecological restoration priorities). This figure shows that:
some of the ponds (3.7 ha) are proposed to be drained and filled but will receive no ecological
restoration (i.e. to be incorporated into the Sport & Recreation Precinct)
the remaining ponds (2.3 ha) are proposed to be drained and restored as a mangrove
community (i.e. to be incorporated into the Environment Conservation and Management
Precinct).
Figure 7-13 shows schematically that this will involve:
draining the ponds after removing fish in accordance with Department of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Forestry (DAFF) procedures (Table 7-8)
filling by demolishing the outer bunds and spreading this material in the existing voids
covering with topsoil
restoring either as open space or mangroves as shown on Figure 7-14.
Figure 7-13 EIS proposal – drain and fill ponds with bund material.
As noted in Section 7.5.6b), DAFF advise that draining aquaculture ponds will require the removal of
fish species prior to filling. They also advise that any fish removal will need to be undertaken either by
a commercial fisher or by a contractor with a General Fisheries Permit, depending on methods used.
DAFF also advise that the proponent refer to Fisheries Queensland for advice regarding approvals
required or methodologies involved in the removal of fish stocks from the aquaculture ponds.
The EIS (s11.3.2a)) observes that the voids provide an opportunity during construction as they are
large ponds with high bunds that may be suitable for a range of soil and water management activities
should they be drained. Essentially, the bunds provide an immunity or about 10% AEP, meaning that
they could be used as dykes to protect the enclosed area from floods during construction. Possible
uses include storage of soil as part of the Soil and Water Management Plan (and possibly Acid Sulfate
Soil Management Plan). Such use would provide an economical and practical solution to management
of the works during the wet season. Management will be required while the bunds remain to ensure
that they are protected against construction phase flooding. In addition, any use of the voids as part of
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 294
the Soil and Water Management Plan and / or the Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan would need to
be detailed under those plans.
Once the voids are no longer needed they would be filled by demolishing the surrounding bunds,
covered with topsoil, and then used for golf course / park or restoration as defined by the ALP. The
current proposal involves a mixture of use in the Sport and Recreation Precinct (purple) and the
Environment Conservation and Management Precinct (purple lines) as detailed below.
Figure 7-14 EIS proposal for aquaculture ponds (drain and fill).
Source: EIS Figure 7-18 (extract).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 295
b) Agency and Community Response to Proposal to Remove
Agency Submissions
Several agency submissions noted the dilemma involved in deciding the fate to the ponds. The
relevant comments are included below.
AGENCY (SUBMISSION NO) ITEM AGENCY COMMENT
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (104)
6 s7.1.13, p?-69. Draining aquaculture ponds will require the removal of fish species prior to filling.
Suggested Solution:
Any fish removal will need to be undertaken either by a commercial fisher or by a contractor with a General Fisheries Permit depending on methods used. Refer to Fisheries Queensland for advice regarding approvals required or methodologies involved in the removal of fish stocks from the aquaculture ponds.
North Queensland Airports (221)
1 Cairns Airport has been consulted during the preparation of the Aquis EIS and Is satisfied that the development will be designed to conform with the purpose and performance criteria of the ‘Operational Aspects of the Cairns International Airport Code’ in the Cairns Regional Council’s Planning Scheme, CairnsPlan which includes performance criteria and acceptable measures to minimise the effect a development will have on airport operation and the effect activities associated with the airport will have on a development. We accept that the key operational issues have been noted in the document and adequately addressed for the design, construction and operational phase.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (254)
9 There is a recommendation in the specialist report to survey and translocate native fish from ‘onsite waterbodies’ prior to the water body’s removal. This mitigation approach may address some of the concerns surrounding habitat loss and environmental harm, e.g. from the loss of the disused aquaculture ponds. However, the proposed recommendation from the specialist report was not transferred into the EIS, leaving it unclear if the recommendation would be implemented.
Suggested Solution:
It is recommended that the proponent clearly indicate which recommendations and commitments will be adopted as part of the project proposal.
Department of the Environment (212)
8 It is important to note that the aquaculture ponds and artificial drainage networks currently on site provide habitat for fauna including MNES. Although they are not considered to be natural, they still provide habitat that will be removed by the Aquis development. Further information is required as to how the impacts of removing this habitat will be fully considered and mitigated.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 296
AGENCY (SUBMISSION NO) ITEM AGENCY COMMENT
11 As mentioned above, further discussion is required regarding the impacts associated with the loss of the aquaculture ponds. The EIS states that the proposed artificial lake will result in an overall increase in habitat as it will provide habitat for birds (including MNES). However the lake is being designed to minimise attracting waders and crocodiles by designing the lake with steep sides. Further information is required to clarify what habitat the lake is providing for which species.
Source: Agency Submissions and Issues Report.
The implications of these submissions are:
DAFF – consult with DAFF and obtain an appropriate permit to remove fish. Native fish would
be conserved as appropriate and pest fish humanely destroyed prior to disposal.
NQA – this submission was prepared on the EIS concept which involved the draining and filling
of the ponds. Further consultation with NQA (and Airservices Australia) is required should
consideration be given to retaining the ponds. This will occur in any event as part of CRC’s
assessment of the development under CairnsPlan.
EHP – the EHP comment is addressed in this discussion.
DoTE – the DoTE comment is addressed in this discussion and in Section 6.11.2b) and
Section 6.14.
Community Submissions
Eleven unique community submissions concerned the ponds, making two main points:
most submitters recognised the value of these as habitat, in which case it was suggested that
the decision to drain and fill them be reviewed / reversed
a contrary point was raised by one submitter who believed that ponds ‘are a nuisance to
Yorkeys residents and any future change to these, by any development, would be a benefit to
locals’.
The points raised in these submissions are covered in this discussion.
c) Adverse Impacts of Draining and Filling
Overview
Draining and filling the ponds will involve:
loss of biodiversity values
loss of potential educational and interpretive values
removed risk of birdstrike, loss of lake water quality, and river migration
use of void during construction for deploying certain plant and equipment and as part of Soil and
Water Management Plan
provision of approximately 3.7 ha of golf course / park and 2.3 ha of mangrove restoration.
Loss of Biodiversity Values
Draining and filling the aquaculture ponds would involve the loss of wetland habitat and that adds
significantly to the diversity of habitat available on the Aquis site. However, it is likely that many of the
birds recorded in the environs of the aquaculture ponds also utilise similar habitats at the Cattana
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 297
Wetlands and other waterbodies in the local area. Ecologically, the project area and the Cattana
wetlands are only loosely connected although this is expected to be improved by the site restoration
works. This is of little consequence to birds. The EIS (Chapter 7) concludes that although other
species may be affected by the filling of the aquaculture ponds on the southern end of Lot 100
NR3818, the nearby Cattana Wetlands offers a similar, protected habitat resource, in addition to other
ephemeral habitats on the adjacent coastal plain. Other alternative freshwater bodies are listed in
Table 6-10 (on-site resources) and Table 6-11 (off-site resources). Off-site resources are shown on
Figure 6-17.
In summary and referring to the discussion in Section 6.11.2b), the loss of 6 ha of aquaculture ponds
would occur in the context of:
9.3 ha of on-site freshwater wetlands that are to remain
83.8 ha of off-site freshwater wetlands that are to remain.
These resources provide similar habitat to that of the aquaculture ponds.
In terms of species covered by the EPBC Act, a detailed assessment is included in Section 6.11.2b).
In summary:
The key impact associated with draining and filling the aquaculture ponds will be the loss of
habitat. As noted, the existing ponds display a variety of water depths and there is a variety of
vegetation associated with the different ponds. This habitat is especially favoured as a dry
season refuge when there are fewer freshwater bodies available.
The loss of this habitat would only affect those species which are dependent on freshwater
habitats. Listed threatened species are shown in Table 7-5, namely:
- Ardea ibis (Cattle egret)
- Ardea modesta (syn Ardea alba) (Great egret / White egret)
- Calidris ruficollis (Red-necked stint)
- Egretta sacra (Eastern reef egret)
- Merops ornatus (Rainbow Bee-eater)
- Plegadis falcinellus (Glossy ibis)
- Tringa brevipes (syn Heteroscelus brevipes) (Grey-tailed tattler)
- Tringa nebularia (Common greenshank)
Impacts on listed species are assessed in Table 6-25. This assessment concludes that:
- The Aquis site is not considered critical for the survival of any of the confirmed or likely
listed fauna species due to the abundance of suitable habitat of similar or great quality
outside of the site boundary.
- The site’s listed migratory fauna are largely dependent on the presence of man-made
habitats. Such habitat also exists adjacent to the site. Values relating to those migratory
fauna which occur in natural habitats should not be affected, given that these habitats are
not proposed to be disturbed.
- With respect to migratory species, the Aquis site does not meet the draft Significant
Impact Guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species (DEWHA 2009) for being
recognised as either a nationally or internationally important site for the 36 migratory
shorebird species covered by the EPBC Act policy statement 3.21. The proposed
development is unlikely to have a significant impact on these species.
Loss of Potential Educational and Interpretive Values
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 298
The potential educational and interpretive values would be lost should the ponds be drained and filled.
While this would be unfortunate, it does not involve a critical loss as there are many other habitats of
interest around the site in areas to be protected. Two examples of other wetlands are shown below.
Photo 7-4 Examples of other wetlands on site with educational and interpretive values.
d) Beneficial Impacts of Draining and Filling
Additional Biodiversity Values
The EIS solution involves the use of 2.3 ha of the current pond area for mangrove restoration. This
would provide compensatory habitat but of a different type and of benefit to different species.
However, many of the EPBC Act listed birds also utilise mangrove habitats.
Mitigation of Risks
Whether or not the removal of the ponds will make a significant change in the risk of birdstrike cannot
be definitely stated. One reason is that the other on-site and off-site freshwater resources identified
above are also in close proximity to the airport and as previously discussed, there are no records
available which provide precise locations of bird-strike at Cairns Airport and therefore no indications of
the actual strike numbers that may be positively attributed to the Aquis ponds.
Without further investigations, all that can be said is that NQA prefers that the ponds be removed.
NQA’s Cairns Airport Bird and Wildlife Management Strategy (Ecosure 2008) is the principal means of
management. While this does not provide any specific recommendations for sites other than within
Cairns Airport, there are many management actions that could be taken to minimise risk and these will
be considered should the ponds remain.
Appendix W of the EIS concludes that the following actions are required for birdstrike:
Use design elements that reduce the risk of attracting wildlife.
Develop a concept level wildlife management strategy to implement during operation to
minimise the potential to attract high risk birds.
Consider the acceptability of retaining the aquaculture ponds that are currently used as bird
habitat.
The EIS (Table 23-2) lists an Airport Safety Strategy as one of the many strategies to be detailed as
design proceeds. It contains two relevant actions:
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 299
Remove (drain and fill) aquaculture ponds to reduce bird strike risk.
Use design elements that reduce the risk of attracting wildlife.
These apply to the site as a whole (i.e. whether or not the ponds remain).
Filling the lakes to create a stable grassed or vegetated surface will remove this risk to lake water
quality during floods.
Filling the lakes to create a stable grassed or vegetated surface will dramatically reduce the risk of
river migration at the eroding bend of Richters Creek.
Construction Phase Utility
As noted above, the aquaculture pond voids provide an opportunity during construction as part of the
Soil and Water Management Plan (and possibly Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan).
Not mentioned in the EIS is the recent finding that this area is ideally suited by topography and
location to the propagation of mangrove seedlings for the restoration works.
7.5.7 Consideration of Alternatives to EIS Solution
In order to explore this issue further, three possible options to the above (Option 1) have been
developed, namely:
Option 2 – Drain ponds and retain the bunds at full height and fill the voids to top of bunds with
surplus material from site and utilise as golf course and restoration.
Option 3 – Retain the ponds.
Option 4 – Hybrid solution (retain major ponds, drain and fill others to mitigate river migration
threat).
These are discussed below.
7.5.8 Option 2 – Drain and Fill the Ponds with Excess Material
a) Overview
Figure 7-15 shows schematically that this will involve:
draining the ponds after removing fish in accordance with DAFF procedures (Table 7-8)
filling with excess material arising from other site activities (the outer bunds would remain)
covering with topsoil
restoring final surface either as open space or woodland.
As noted below, this would involve impacts as per Option 1, namely:
loss of biodiversity values
loss of potential educational and interpretive values
removed risk of birdstrike, loss of lake water quality, and river migration
use of void during construction for deploying certain plant and equipment and as part of Soil and
Water Management Plan
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 300
provision of approximately 3.7 ha of golf course / park and 2.3 ha of restoration (but in this case
woodland rather than mangroves).
In addition, Option 2 would involve use of void to spoil up to 200 000 m3of construction waste (not
possible in Option 1).
Figure 7-15 Option 2 – Drain and fill ponds with excess material.
b) Adverse Impacts of Option 2
As for Option 1, draining and filling the aquaculture ponds would involve the loss of a habitat that is
uncommon in the local area and adds significantly to the diversity of habitat available.
It would also involve the loss of potential educational and interpretive values.
c) Beneficial Impacts of Option 2
Additional Biodiversity Values
Unlike Option 1, Option 2 will be filled to a level of approximately 3.5 m AHD which will be too high for
the proposed 2.3 ha of mangrove restoration. In this case, a woodland habitat of this area would be
created that would provide compensatory habitat but of a different type and of benefit to different
species.
Mitigation of Risks
As for Option 1, filling and draining the ponds would reduce the risk of birdstrike.
Lake Water Quality
As for Option 1, filling the lakes to create a stable grassed or vegetated surface will remove the risk to
lake water quality during floods.
River Migration
As for Option 1, filling the lakes to create a stable grassed or vegetated surface will dramatically
reduce the risk of river migration at the eroding bend of Richters Creek.
Construction Phase Utility
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 301
As for Option 1, the aquaculture pond voids provide an opportunity during construction as part of the
Soil and Water Management Plan (and possibly Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan).
In addition, in this option the pond voids will also be able to be filled with a range of construction waste
materials once the ponds are no longer needed for the other construction uses described above. An
approximate volume of 200 000 m3 is available for this purpose.
Material that could be placed here could include:
inert construction waste (e.g. concrete rubble)
contaminated soils (if placed in the lower levels with suitable attention to seepage and
remediation)
topsoil.
Further investigations regarding suitability of materials will be undertaken during detailed design. By
storing this material on site, the number of off-site truck movements will be reduced as will the need to
find a suitable disposal location off-site.
Once filled with the above material, the area would be covered with topsoil, and then used for golf
course / park or restoration as allowed for in the ALP but at a higher level. It should be noted that flood
modelling has assumed that these bunds will remain so there is no un-assessed flooding impact.
7.5.9 Option 3 – Retain the Ponds
a) Overview
Figure 7-15 shows schematically that this will involve:
retaining the ponds
managing current risks
ongoing management of pest plants and animals.
Figure 7-16 Option 3 – retain the ponds.
As noted below, this option would involve:
maintenance of biodiversity values
development of potential educational and interpretive values
unmitigated risk of birdstrike, loss of lake water quality, and river migration
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 302
no opportunity to use the void during construction
no opportunity for the provision of approximately 3.7 ha of golf course / park and 2.3 ha of
mangrove restoration
on-going management needs.
b) Adverse Impacts of Option 3
Additional Biodiversity Values
Retaining the ponds would remove the opportunity to create 2.3 ha of mangroves as part of the
restoration plan.
Mitigation of Risks
Retaining the ponds would mean that the existing risk of birdstrike would remain. Should this option be
adopted, actions would be taken to mitigate risk as recommended by further investigations in
consultation with NQA and Airservices Australia.
Lake Water Quality
Retaining the ponds would mean that the existing risk to lake water quality would remain. Should this
option be adopted, actions would be taken to mitigate risk as recommended by further investigations
into lake management.
River Migration
Retaining the ponds would mean that the existing risk of river migration would remain. Should this
option be adopted, actions would be taken to mitigate risk as recommended by further investigations
into stream geomorphology. It may be that structural works are required in the area between Richters
Creek and the ponds.
Construction Phase Utility
Unlike Options 1 and 2, there will be no opportunity to use the pond voids during construction.
Management Needs
The 2014 dry season terrestrial ecology survey (Biotropica Australia 2014d) notes that there are clear
comparisons in the timing, frequency and intensity of aquaculture pond utilisation by birds, depending
on water depth. Relatively high water levels between December and August correspond to low levels
of bird use, because diet items are either not present or are too deep to be accessible. Reduced bird
diversity and abundance may continue through seasons when water levels remain high, but
conversely bird populations appear likely to remain abundant whilst water is at an ideal foraging depth.
Diversity and abundance is then likely to decline until water is no longer present and birds move on in
search of alternative resources. This suggests that the risk of birdstrike could be substantially
alleviated by maintaining high water levels within the ponds if they were to be retained. This may not
be a simple matter as it would require a large supply of fresh water to offset seepage and evaporation.
Should the ponds be retained, additional management will be required as follows:
control of weeds and pest animals:
- Mangifera indica (Mango)
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 303
- Ptychosperma elegans (Solitaire palm)
- Emilia sonchifolia (Emilia)
- Sphagneticola trilobata (Singapore daisy)
- Passiflora foetida (Stinking passionfruit)
- Rhinella marina (Cane toad)
- Hemidactylus frenatus (Asian house gecko)
- Sturnus tristis (Common mynah)
stabilisation of banks to protect against erosion and river migration
development of a lake management regime to deal with occasional inflow of sediment, organics,
and turbid water.
This management would be practical but would involve significant cost and effort.
c) Beneficial Impacts of Option 3
Retaining the ponds would mean that the existing biodiversity and potential educational and
interpretive values would remain.
7.5.10 Option 4 – Hybrid Scheme (Retain Some of the Ponds)
a) Overview
This is a hybrid option that would involve:
retaining some of the ponds (3.7 ha as shown in purple below (60% of ponds) and the western
area shown with purple lines (1.1 ha or 20% of pond area)
draining and filling the eastern pond area and restoring with 1.2 ha (20% of pond area) of
mangroves in the Environment Conservation and Management Precinct (purple lines)
managing current risks
ongoing management of pest plants and animals.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 304
Figure 7-17 Option 4 – hybrid scheme involving partial filling only.
Source: EIS Figure 7-18 (extract, marked up for this option).
As noted below, this would involve:
maintenance of 80% of the area with high biodiversity values
development of potential educational and interpretive values
partially mitigated risk of birdstrike, loss of lake water quality, and river migration
opportunity to use 20% of the voids during construction
no opportunity for the provision of approximately 3.7 ha of golf course / park
opportunity for 1.2 ha of mangrove restoration
on-going (but reduced) management needs.
b) Adverse Impacts of Option 4
Loss of Biodiversity Values
Draining and filling 20% of the aquaculture ponds would involve the loss of a small area of habitat that
is uncommon in the local area and adds significantly to the diversity of habitat available. However, the
impact is substantially less than for the EIS solution (Option 1).
Retain ponds in this area
Fill ponds in this area, rehabilitate with mangroves.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 305
Mitigation of Risks
Retaining 80% of the ponds would mean that the existing risk of birdstrike would remain but would be
reduced to some extent. Should this option be adopted, actions would be taken to mitigate risk as
recommended by further investigations in consultation with NQA and Airservices Australia as per
Option 1.
Lake Water Quality
Retaining 80% of the ponds would mean that the existing risk to lake water quality would remain but
would be reduced to some extent. Should this option be adopted, actions would be taken to mitigate
risk as recommended by further investigations into lake management as per Option 1.
River Migration
Draining and filling the eastern ponds would help stabilise the area and largely mitigate the risk of river
migration. It may be that this filling could remove the need to consider structural works.
Construction Phase Utility
There will be a reduced opportunity to use the pond voids during construction (i.e. 20% of the Option 2
/ Option 3 area) as well as for mangrove propagation.
Management Needs
Draining and filling 20% of the ponds would reduce the quantum of the required management.
c) Beneficial Impacts of Option 4
Existing Biodiversity Values
Retaining the western ponds would mean that the majority (80%) of the existing biodiversity values
would remain.
Potential Educational and Interpretive Values
Retaining the western ponds would mean that essentially all of the potential educational and
interpretive values would remain
Additional Biodiversity Values
Half of the proposed 2.3 ha of mangrove restoration (i.e. 1.2 ha) can proceed.
Construction Phase Utility
As for Option 1 but to a lesser extent, the eastern aquaculture pond void provides an opportunity
during construction as part of the Soil and Water Management Plan (and possibly Acid Sulfate Soil
Management Plan).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 306
7.5.11 Comparison of Options
The pros and cons of the above options as described above are assessed below in a simple ‘traffic
lights’ analysis. Colour coding is used as follows. It should be noted that the terms ‘major’ and ‘minor’
are used in their relative sense, i.e. this is a comparative evaluation.
- Very little or no impact ▄ Major adverse impact
▄ Minor adverse impact ▄ Major beneficial impact
▄ Minor beneficial impact
OF POND OPTIONS
VALUE / ISSUE OPTION 1 (DRAIN AND FILL WITH
BUND MATERIAL)
OPTION 2 (DRAIN AND FILL WITH
EXCESS MATERIAL)
OPTION 3 (RETAIN)
HYBRID SCHEME
(OPTION 1 / OPTION 3)
Habitat / biodiversity values ▄ ▄ - ▄
Educational / interpretive values
- - ▄ ▄
Birdstrike threat ▄ ▄ - ▄
Water quality threat ▄ ▄ - -
River migration threat ▄ ▄ ▄
Use in Soil and Water Management Plan
▄ ▄ - ▄
Storage of construction waste
- ▄ - -
Additional area for golf course / park
▄ ▄ - -
Additional area for restoration
▄ ▄ - ▄
Operation management (i.e. water levels, weeds and pests)
- - ▄ ▄
Source: Study team compilation.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 307
This simple analysis shows that:
In terms of biodiversity values:
- Option 3 is the best option as it retains all of the current biodiversity values
- Option 4 is marginally worse, although the area of ponds to be filled (20%) is offset by an
equivalent area of mangroves
- Options 1 and 2 are equally worst (although there are some positives in terms of the
restoration of mangroves or woodlands).
In terms of risk mitigation:
- Options 1 and 2 are equally the best options
- Option 4 is next best in that the risk of river migration is mitigated and birdstrike and water
quality risks are partly mitigated
- Option 3 is the worst as all three risks are not mitigated (but could be managed to some
extent).
In terms of project utility values:
- Option 2 is the best option as it allows for use of the voids for soil and water management
and disposal of excess material
- Option 1 is of less benefit as it allows for use of the voids for soil and water management
and mangrove propagation but not disposal of excess material
- Option 4 is of less benefit as it allows for use of the 40% of the voids for soil and water
management and mangrove propagation (but not disposal of excess material)
- Option 3 is worst as it has no construction utility.
7.5.12 Conclusions
In terms of risks and benefits of retaining the ponds:
It is concluded that the real issue is the significance of the (mitigated) birdstrike risk and it
recommended that further assessment of this issue take place during detailed design. This is
likely to arise during the MCU process as the proposal will need to be assessed against the
airport overlay code which has a bird and bat strike aspect. Whether or not this constitutes an
‘overriding need in the public interest’ to clear the mapped wetlands based on birdstrike, water
quality and river migration under CairnsPlan (see EIS s5.2.1 Module 11 (p5-26) can also be
determined at that time.
It is also concluded that there is significant value in using the aquaculture bunds during
construction to ‘flood-proof’ part of the site and to form part of the SWMP. The ability of Option 2
to contain approximately 200 000 m3 of construction waste that would otherwise need to be
taken off-site is considered a significant distinctive between Options 1 and 2. Both are clearly
superior to Option 4 and even more so to Option 3.
Overall, at the current state of knowledge, the habitat and interpretive values are not considered
sufficiently significant to warrant the risks associated with retaining the ponds.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 308
8 ISSUE 7: HOUSING AND ACCOMMODATION PLAN
The environmental impact statement identified potential impacts on housing affordability and the cost
of living in the Cairns region as a result of the project. The submission from Cairns Regional Council
stated that the issue of accommodating the project's construction and operational workforces was not
adequately addressed in the environmental impact statement. The Department of Housing and Public
Works identified the potential for the project to contribute to increased housing stress in local and regional housing markets, and the need for strategies to mitigate these impacts. The outline of a draft Housing and Accommodation Plan included in the environmental impact statement:
Lacked sufficient detail about the proponent's management and mitigation strategies for
responding to these impacts.
Proposed but did not expand upon a monitoring and reporting framework that will be required to
identify impacts in local and regional housing markets at different stages of the project's
development.
Identified key stakeholders for the Plan's implementation but did not consider how this might be
achieved.
Requirement: Further refine the Housing and Accommodation Plan to achieve the objectives outlined
above. The Housing and Accommodation Plan should also satisfy comments from Cairns Regional
Council and the Department of Housing and Public Works.
8.1 RESPONSE
Housing markets in urban and regional areas consist of a series of sub-markets with different
characteristics that determine how housing is developed and consumed. Sub-markets are typically
determined on the basis of location and spatial attributes (such as proximity to services, transport,
employment, amenity features), dwelling supply attributes (such as dwelling type, tenure, price) and
household attributes (such as income, household size and type, employment status). These factors
influence the price and shape of the communities that form in those areas. The spectrum of a
community’s housing needs is represented in Table 8.1.
Table 8-1 The Housing Spectrum
Social Housing Affordable Housing Private Market Housing
Short Term / Tourist Accommodation.
Housing Type:
Crisis & Transitional
housing
Long Term Housing:
Public & Community
rental
Sub-market rental
Sub-market
purchase
Private rental and ownership
Commercial
Target Group:
Homeless / Households
in Crisis
High social needs
Very low income /
ATSI
High social needs
Low-Moderate income
High self sufficiency
Low-Moderate income
High self sufficiency
Middle – high
income workers
High self sufficiency
Tourists / short-stay workers
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 309
Aquis has the potential to significantly impact local and regional housing markets, both prior to and
during the peak construction and following commencement of operations An influx of workers from
beyond Cairns may require housing within a reasonable commuting distance of Aquis.
Accommodating this additional demand for housing may impact on the available supply of tourist
accommodation, or require consolidation and renewal in adjacent suburbs at the expense of older
stock that may represent an important source of lower cost housing for members of the community.
Speculation and redevelopment ahead of increased demand arising from the project could affect
housing supply and affordability in other sub-markets throughout Cairns. Both scenarios could lead to
increased housing stress5 and the displacement of vulnerable households.
The Department of Housing and Public Works (DHPW) considers housing to be affordable when:
the dwelling is appropriate to the needs of low-income households in terms of design, location and
access to services and facilities; and
as a guide, the out-of-pocket rent (i.e. total rent less any applicable Australian Government Rent
Assistance) paid by households, in the lowest 40% of the income distribution, does not exceed
30% of gross household income.
Benchmark rents includes only the rental component of an ‘affordable housing’ outcome and provides
indicative rents for different sized dwellings and possible tenant profiles, within income bands.
Very low-income benchmarks are derived from the income levels of persons or households receiving
the basic income support payment (New Start plus Family Tax Benefit where applicable) without any
additional income. The very low-income category provides a better understanding of the range of
households likely to be facing affordability problems.
Low-income benchmarks are based on aged pension payments (plus Family Tax Benefit where
applicable) plus the maximum amount of additional income that a person or household may earn
without losing any entitlements.
The Benchmark Rent ranges are summarised in Table 8.2 with details in the attached schedules.
While the very low-income and low-income categories and the associated Benchmark Rents are
based on the entitlements of households receiving benefits, other households derive similar incomes
from other sources including:
full-time, part-time and casual employment;
other Centrelink benefits; or
a combination of the above.
The benchmark rents are arranged by dwelling size and gross household income to provide indicative
affordable rent ranges for households who rely on similar incomes to meet their housing needs. The
rents are updated annually and published by DHPW.
5 Housing stress is a widely used term used to describe the circumstances where the lowest 40% of households spend more than 30% of their income to meet their housing costs. Exceeding this threshold, can reduce the availability of income for other essential household expenditure such as food, health care and education).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 310
Table 8-2 Benchmark Rents
Very low-income Low-income
Dwelling size Gross household income range ($/week)
Benchmark Affordable Rent Range ($/week)
Gross household income range ($/week)
Benchmark Affordable Rent Range ($/week)
1 bedroom 250.50 – 452.30 137 – 194 453.85 – 704.60 198 – 270
2 bedrooms 357.15 – 624.50 180 – 260 552.25 – 901.40 238 – 343
3 bedrooms 443.25 – 710.60 206 – 295 650.65 – 999.80 268 – 382
4 bedrooms 615.45 – 796.70 267 – 321 847.45 – 1,098.20 336 – 412
The Benchmark Rents may be used as a performance indicator for establishing and monitoring the
proportion of affordable rental housing in an area. This can be achieved by measuring the proportion
of rental stock falling above and below the Benchmark Rents for each dwelling size category, using
actual rent levels and stock numbers for an area.
Aquis acknowledges these and other potential impacts on local and regional housing markets, and
commits to developing a Housing and Accommodation Plan prior to the commencement of
construction of the project that addresses the project’s planning and development, construction and
operational phases.
Purpose
The Plan will be guided by the following principles:
1. Project impacts will be managed through strategies and actions designed to enable local and
regional housing markets to operate effectively and efficiently in delivering timely supply across the
housing spectrum (including meeting the needs of vulnerable people and households).
2. Implementation of the Plan will be a shared responsibility between the relevant private, community
and public sector agencies in partnership with the project proponent.
3. The actions of the proponent and other stakeholders in responding to housing impacts will be
timely, evidence-based and threshold driven (where practical).
4. The effectiveness of the Plan in managing housing impacts will be regularly monitored and
reviewed, and supported by adaptive management responses.
5. Effective engagement will occur with a range of stakeholders to develop, implement, monitor and
adapt the Plan as needed.
Housing markets may be influenced by a range of factors (such as fiscal and monetary policies of
government, investor confidence, demographic trends) that are largely external to any one project or
initiative. As such, the primary focus of the Housing and Accommodation Plan will be on responding to
any impacts that are directly linked to the project. The involvement of a range of stakeholders with the
monitoring and reporting mechanisms identified in the Plan will provide a basis for identifying broader
market trends.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 311
Objectives
The Housing and Accommodation Plan will be to provide a framework for managing the impacts of
Aquis on local and regional housing markets so that they can operate effectively and efficiently in
meeting resident, visitor and short-term worker populations housing and affordability needs.
The Plan will articulate the proponent’s commitment to the following objectives:
1. Assess the likely impacts of Aquis on the Cairns and regional housing markets taking into account
cumulative impacts associated with other major projects, impacts on potential supply constraints
(including land capacity and construction workforce considerations) and housing affordability.
2. Provide a collaborative planning and implementation framework for mitigating and / or managing
the project’s housing impacts through strategies for action by the relevant project partners (such
as Council, State Government, private sector and community sector agencies, in partnership with
the project proponent), including identifying roles, responsibilities and timing.
3. Establish a robust baseline from which to predict and monitor project impacts on local and regional
housing markets.
4. Establish a regular monitoring and reporting framework to:
a) support implementation of the Plan in relation to any threshold actions;
b) review the Plan’s effectiveness in addressing housing impacts (including the identification of
associated remedial strategies).
5. Identify opportunities for collaboration and innovation in responding to identified housing impacts,
including drawing on local and regional resources, capabilities and related planning and
development processes.
6. Establish an independent governance arrangement for the development, implementation,
monitoring and reviewing of the Plan.
Governance Arrangements
The Housing and Accommodation Plan will be developed by Aquis under the guidance of a Housing
Steering Group with membership from potential partner agencies and key stakeholders. Membership,
terms of reference and meeting frequency will be subject to approval by the CRC and the Co-ordinator
General.
As the Housing and Accommodation Plan is likely to have significant implications for Council as well
as State Government agencies, the final Plan will also require the approval of both the CRC and Co-
ordinator General.
The Plan will be developed in consultation with the key stakeholders), while general information about
the process will be communicated to the wider community through the Aquis Community Engagement
Plan. Engagement with the general public is not otherwise envisaged.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 312
Findings of the Plan will inform and be informed by the development of the Workforce Development
and Management Plan in investigating and responding to the potential impacts of Aquis on labour
force availability. This will be achieved through internal project team mechanisms as well as by
reporting to the Housing Steering Group and the relevant reference group(s) established through the
Aquis Community Engagement Plan.
Baseline monitoring of existing local and regional housing market conditions would begin immediately
following release of the Co-ordinator General’s Evaluation Report (assuming approval), with an initial
monitoring report provided to CRC and the DPWH within 8 weeks.
The Final Draft Housing and Accommodation Plan will be submitted for approval prior to issue of a
development permit for MCU, Operational works or ERA (whichever comes first).
Key Stakeholders and Potential Partner Agencies
Partner agencies are those agencies that would take a lead role in helping to implement the Housing
and Accommodation Plan and will be determined in consultation with CRC and the Office of the Co-
ordinator General upon project commencement.
The Housing and Accommodation Plan will be developed in consultation with key stakeholder and
partner agencies, including the following:
Aquis
Cairns Regional Council
Department of Housing and Public Works
Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning
Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services
Department of Education, Training and Employment
TAFE
JCU
Development and construction sector (including peak bodies: UDIA, HIA, MBA)
Real estate sector (including peak body: REIQ)
Tourism industry sector (including peak body: Queensland Tourism Industry Council)
Community and Indigenous housing providers
Human service providers (housing and homelessness support agencies).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 313
Housing and Accommodation Plan Development
PLAN ELEMENT TIMING / EXTERNAL INPUTS
Project Description and Context
Details about project staging, projected workforce size and composition at each stage, and other relevant information that could impact on housing (such as inward migration of workers, shift patterns and tenure of employment).
Identify other major projects that might generate cumulative impacts on local and regional housing markets
Investigate comparative projects to inform the understanding of likely housing market impacts
Confirmation of stakeholder engagement strategy and formation of Housing Steering Group
Initial engagement with key stakeholders to help ascertain up to date information, identify market opportunities and constraints and capture stakeholder buy-in to the process
Timing:
Formation of Housing Steering Group: prior to lodgement of MCU Development Permit
Inputs:
CRC and CG confirmation of Housing Steering Group membership and Terms of Reference and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy
Preliminary stakeholder engagement
Local and Regional Housing Market Baseline Reporting
Define measures and document supply and demand baselines for key local and broader regional housing markets at project commencement, including:
Demographic profile (Census augmented by CRC community profiles and other relevant information)
Dwelling mix, building completions, development approval rates over the previous year and supply constraints
Government and NGO-funded affordable housing agency presence
Social and community housing supply, waitlist and trends
Tourist accommodation (short term accommodation) supply
Median weekly rent and household purchase prices
Private market rental vacancy and new bond lodgement rates
House sale volumes and clearance rates
Rental affordability, and the amount and proportion of affordable housing stock in an area (using the DHPW Benchmark Affordable
Timing: Completion of first
monitoring report within 6 weeks of OCG’s Evaluation Report
Input:
CRC and DHPW endorsement of proposed baseline data for reporting
DPWH assistance with baseline monitoring
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 314
PLAN ELEMENT TIMING / EXTERNAL INPUTS
Housing Rents 1)
Homelessness data (based on Counting the Homeless Census)
Construction labour force supply
Other relevant industry trends and drivers impacting on housing supply and demand (such as tourism industry movements)
Assess Housing Impacts
Develop population projection scenarios based on likely direct and indirect workforce projections for: 1) baseline trend growth; 2) trend plus Aquis (low and high growth scenarios); 3) Aquis and other major projects (if relevant).
Conduct land capability analysis and assess likely future housing supply across the housing spectrum (including affordable housing, social and community housing, private market housing and short term accommodation).
Generate housing projections for baseline trend and Aquis-related housing demand (and Aquis and other major projects if relevant), reporting housing demand across the housing spectrum.
Conduct demand and supply gap analysis and determine indicative housing impacts, opportunities and / or issues (including any relevant constraints on supply such as construction labour availability, Council development assessment capacity and other constraint).
Identify critical thresholds to trigger housing impact mitigation and/or management strategies (as point in time and/or trend-based thresholds).
Input:
OESR population projections
Stakeholder and Housing Steering Group validation of gap analysis findings and proposed critical thresholds
Strategies and Actions Input:
In consultation with key stakeholders and potential partner agencies, develop and evaluate preferred options, strategies and actions for responding to identified impacts (addressing impacts across the housing spectrum as well as industry impacts and/or Council capacity impacts as relevant).
Define and agree partner agency roles, responsibilities and indicative timing for actions, including actions by the proponent (which may involve monitoring actions as well as workforce accommodation or other mitigation actions as relevant).
Stakeholder and Housing Steering Group engagement in options, and development of strategies and actions development
Housing Steering Group endorsement of roles, responsibilities and indicative timing
Monitoring and Reporting
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 315
PLAN ELEMENT TIMING / EXTERNAL INPUTS
Develop key performance indicators to monitor:
- Plan implementation: monitoring to identify when threshold actions need to be triggered
- Impact mitigation: the effectiveness of strategies outlined in the Plan (including defining corrective action to be taken if the strategies are found to not be effective)
Reporting frequency:
- Impact mitigation monitoring during construction phase and first two years of operation phase (Stage 1 & Stage 2): Quarterly reporting
- Implementation of housing strategies (Stages 1 & 2): half yearly reporting during construction phase; annual reporting in first 5 years of operation
Input:
Housing Steering Group endorsement of roles, responsibilities and indicative timing
DPWH assistance with monitoring
Plan Documentation and Adoption
Document the outcomes from the process described above in a Housing and Accommodation Plan for approval by CRC. Documentation, including:
Identification of a lead agency with responsibility for carriage of the Plan
Strategies and actions, responsibilities and indicative timing
The monitoring and reporting framework
An implementation strategy outlining commitments, roles and timeframes for implementation by the prospective partner agencies (including provision for annual review and adjustment of the Plan as required to respond to changed circumstances).
Input: Housing Steering Group
review of Draft Plan
Timing: Lodgement of Final Plan
with CRC & CG for approval prior to issue of a development permit for MCU, Operational works or ERA.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 316
9 ISSUE 8: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN
The environmental impact statement noted that the project will impact on a number of communities
during the construction and operation stages, and identified the need for ongoing engagement with
these communities. The outline of a draft Community Engagement Plan included in the environmental
impact statement:
1. Lacked sufficient detail about the proponent's management and mitigation strategies for
responding to these impacts.
2. Proposed but did not expand upon a monitoring and reporting framework that will be required to
identify impacts on local communities and the broader Cairns community at different stages of
the project's development.
3. Identified key stakeholders for the completion and implementation of the Plan but did not
consider how this might be achieved.
Requirement: Further refine the Community Engagement Plan to achieve the objectives outlined
above.
9.1 RESPONSE
Aquis notes that some community submissions raised issues about the representativeness,
inclusiveness and transparency of the community engagement process employed during the
preparation of the EIS. In response, Aquis commits to conduct community engagement during project
implementation and operation consistent with best practice and in accordance with the IAP2’s Code of
Ethics6..
The Aquis Resort is a significant and complex project to be developed over a period of up to 10 years.
The Social Impact Assessment conducted as part of the EIS identified the need for the development of
a series of mitigation and management plans to address potential social impacts. The EIS also
identified the requirements for the preparation of additional management plans including a Cultural
Heritage Management Plan and Environmental Management Plans for the planning, construction,
operation and management of the resort project.
The design of the Aquis Community Engagement Plan is influenced by the scope and nature of these
plans which fall into two groups:
Project Plans for which Aquis would have full responsibility for implementation which plans specifically related to the planning, design, construction, operation and ,maintenance of the Resort and its facilities.. Community engagement for these elements will be conducted by Aquis for the duration.
66 The IAP2 is the pre-eminent international organisation promoting best practice in community engagement. Its Code of Ethics
is available at: http://www.iap2.org.au/documents/item/83
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 317
Community Plans with where responsibility for implementation rests largely with community
agencies (including Local and State governments, private and non-government agencies) - In the first instance, engagement during the preparation of the plans will be conducted by Aquis; responsibility for ongoing engagement and plan implementation will then rest with the relevant lead agency (with the exception of the Strategic Change Management Plan where Aquis proposes to have a preliminary role only).
Table 9-1 indicates the Project and Community Plans, the likely lead agency , possible stakeholders
and Issues/Objectives for each Plan
Table 9.1 – Mitigation and Management Plans
The development and implementation of all of these plans will involve engagement with a number of
different communities of interest and other stakeholders across an extended time frame (commencing
immediately at project approval and continuing into the operations of Stage 2, in 2024 and beyond).
Community Engagement for these plans will need to occur across the project’s three key stages:
project planning, project construction and project operations.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 318
Table 9-2indicates the stakeholders and agencies likely to be engaged with in the preparation and
implementation each project and community plan.
Table 9.2 Stakeholder and Agency Engagement
Should project approval be achieved, detailed engagement processes involved in each plan will be
developed for approval by the relevant approving authority.
The Aquis Community Engagement Plan will provide the vehicle for engagement with the general
community, which will complement the targeted stakeholder engagement involved in each of the
mitigation and management plans. The Aquis Community Engagement Plan will provide information to
the general public about each of these plans as they are developed, with appropriate engagement as
relevant.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 319
Purpose and Objectives
The purpose of the Aquis Community Engagement Plan is to facilitate a process through which the
interests and concerns of all affected stakeholders can be understood and taken into account, as part
of decision making associated with project implementation. As the project’s overarching engagement
with the community, that the targeted engagement associated with the development of each of the
mitigation and management plans will be integrated with and co-ordinated through the Aquis
Community Engagement Plan.
The community engagement framework will be guided by the following objectives and principles:
Community Engagement Objectives
1. To build confidence and trust with the community.
2. To provide accurate information to the community about the project and its progress, including
project impacts and how they are being responded to.
3. To provide the opportunity for dialogue with the Cairns community about the Aquis project,
enabling issues and impacts to be understood and responded to where appropriate.
4. To be accountable by reporting outcomes from consultation processes to participants.
5. To adopt inclusive consultation processes that recognise and involve the multiple publics and
groups affected.
6. To respect and maximise efficient use of participants’ time by ensuring community engagement
processes are integrated and co-ordinated.
Community Engagement Principles
1. The people, communities and other relevant stakeholders that are affected by Aquis have the right
to be informed and to contribute to the decision making process.
2. Community engagement will commence early in the planning and decision making processes and
will be adequately resourced.
3. Sufficient and accurate information will be provided to participants so that they can contribute in a
meaningful way.
4. The purpose of community engagement and the extent of participants’ influence in the decision
making process will be clearly communicated to all parties participating.
5. Engaging with the community represents a commitment to take action and to inform participants
how their input has influenced the outcome.
6. Community engagement will be inclusive, providing an opportunity for all relevant stakeholders to
be involved.
7. The level of engagement will be commensurate to the level of anticipated impact or concern.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 320
Scope of Community Engagement
The Aquis Community Engagement Plan is informed by the IAP27 Public Participation Spectrum
shown in Figure 9.1 which has been used as a basis for representing how the general public will be
engaged in the project’s implementation.
Figure 9-1 IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum
Source: http://www.iap2.org.au/documents/item/84
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 321
Engagement for the Aquis project will involve a broad community of interest. To help provide advisory
input on decision making, Aquis proposes to establish a series of thematic (environment, social and
economic) and locality based (Yorkeys Knob) reference groups. These groups will be determined in
consultation with the community and would have an advisory role, providing input to the formulation of
solutions and recommendations within the defined scope of interest for each group.
Because of the transformative nature of the impact of Aquis on the social, economic and built form of
Cairns and its region, Aquis considers that it is important for the community to have an independent
mechanism for project overview in the form of a regional community consultative committee or other
appropriate body. The role of this body would be to advise on overall project performance and
accountability, for community engagement. Such a body may be established and have the potential
to play a role in the Strategic Change Management Strategy. It is highly desirable that representation
on such a body include local, city-wide and regional groups, across a range of social, economic and
environment stakeholder interests, including vulnerable groups. This should be a wholly independent
body, neither established nor led by Aquis. Aquis would report regularly to the body on project
progress and performance.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 322
Table 9-3 provides an overview of how Aquis intends to engage with the community in the development of the project
Project Element /
Project
Phase
Inform
(one way information flow)
Consult
(two way information flow)
Involve
(active involvement)
Collaborate
(partnership)
Empower
(their decision)
PLANNING PHASE
Construction works (external and site) - Stage 1 & 2
Provide information about the construction management planning process and how to get involved, likely construction impacts and how they will be responded to.
Identify community concerns about construction and seek feedback about proposed strategies to minimise disturbance.
Work closely with the affected local community to seek feedback and advisory input to inform decisions.
Nil Nil
Resort - Stage 1
Provide regular information about the project, its progress, impact management, reporting and how to get involved.
Seek feedback from the community on proposed solutions for addressing issues of significance. Seek periodic feedback on the effectiveness of the community engagement process.
Work closely with the community through structured processes to understand issues, seek feedback and invite advisory input to inform decisions.
Nil Nil
Resort - Stage 2
Provide regular information about the project, its progress, impact management, reporting and how to get involved.
Seek feedback on the effectiveness of the community engagement process for Stage 1 and review the process for Stage 2 accordingly.
Seek feedback from the community on proposed solutions for addressing issues of significance, including periodic feedback
Work closely with the community through structured processes to understand issues, seek feedback and invite advisory input to inform decisions.
Nil Nil
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 323
Project Element /
Project
Phase
Inform
(one way information flow)
Consult
(two way information flow)
Involve
(active involvement)
Collaborate
(partnership)
Empower
(their decision)
on the community engagement process.
Yorkeys Knob Community Facility -
Provide regular information about the proposed community facility, the engagement process and how to get involved.
Identify community aspirations and preferences for the facility.
Work together to determine an appropriate purpose and design for the facility; manage any impacts associated with the facility’s operation; and determine workable governance and asset management arrangements. (Note the CRC will be a key stakeholder in this process)
Nil
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
Construction works (external and site) – Stage 1 & 2
Inform affected communities of forthcoming disturbances (such as road closures, movement of large equipment, other); about complaints mechanisms; and how complaints have been responded to.
Seek feedback on community experience during construction and proposed solutions (if relevant).
Work closely with the local community to seek feedback and advisory input to inform decisions.
Nil Nil
Resort - Stage 1
Provide regular information about the project, its progress, impact management, reporting and how to get involved.
Seek feedback from the community on proposed solutions for addressing issues of significance. Seek periodic feedback on the effectiveness of the community engagement process.
Work closely with the community through structured processes to understand issues, seek feedback and invite advisory input to inform decisions.
Nil Nil
Resort - Stage 2
Provide regular information about the project, its progress, impact management, reporting
Seek feedback on the effectiveness of the community engagement
Work closely with the community through structured processes to
Nil Nil
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 324
Project Element /
Project
Phase
Inform
(one way information flow)
Consult
(two way information flow)
Involve
(active involvement)
Collaborate
(partnership)
Empower
(their decision)
and how to get involved. process for Stage 1 and review the process for Stage 2 accordingly.
Seek feedback from the community on proposed solutions for addressing issues of significance, including periodic feedback on the community engagement process.
understand issues, seek feedback and invite advisory input to inform decisions.
Yorkeys Knob Community Facility-
Provide regular information about the construction program for the facility and how to access further information or lodge any complaints.
Work together to oversee facility construction and related impact management.
Nil
OPERATION PHASE
Resort - Stage 1
Provide regular project monitoring and performance reporting.
Provide information on how to participate, make an enquiry or register a complaint.
Seek feedback from the community on proposed solutions for addressing issues of significance. Seek periodic feedback on the effectiveness of the community engagement process.
Work closely with the community through structured processes to understand issues, seek feedback and invite advisory input to inform decisions.
Nil Nil
Resort - Stage 2
Provide regular project monitoring and performance reporting.
Provide information on how to participate, make an enquiry
Seek feedback on the effectiveness of the community engagement process for Stage 1 and review the process for
Work closely with the community through structured processes to understand issues, seek feedback and invite advisory input to inform
Nil Nil
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 325
Project Element /
Project
Phase
Inform
(one way information flow)
Consult
(two way information flow)
Involve
(active involvement)
Collaborate
(partnership)
Empower
(their decision)
or register a complaint. Stage 2 accordingly.
Seek feedback from the community on proposed solutions for addressing issues of significance, including periodic feedback on the community engagement process.
decisions.
Yorkeys Knob Community Facility
Establishment, in conjunction with CRC a Yorkeys Knob Community Sorts and Recreation Association
WHO: All project elements:
Yorkeys Knob and Holloway Beach communities, Cairns urban area and regional communities.
Resort:
Communities of interest impacted by the issues being addressed.
Construction Works:
Yorkeys Knob and Holloways Beach communities.
Construction Works & Community Facility:
Yorkeys Knob and Holloway Beach communities
Community Facility:
Yorkeys Knob community
Community Facility Operations
Management Committee
HOW: All project elements:
Newsletters, information displays, website, telephone hotline, local media,
Resort:
Public comment, public displays, focus groups, surveys
Issues and locality based community reference groups, workshops, search conference, local community polling.
Community Facility:
Locality based community reference group
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 326
Project Element /
Project
Phase
Inform
(one way information flow)
Consult
(two way information flow)
Involve
(active involvement)
Collaborate
(partnership)
Empower
(their decision)
advertisements, social media Construction works:
Community meetings, public displays and public comment with Yorkeys Knob and Holloways Beach communities.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 327
Community Engagement Performance Management
Table 9.4 provides details on performance management for community engagement in relation to the
overall resort project.
Table 9-4 Project Engagement
Objective To ensure the Cairns local and regional communities are well informed about and have the opportunity to be engaged in the implementation of the Aquis project.
To ensure the interests and concerns of affected stakeholders are understood and taken into account as part of decision making associated with project implementation.
To adopt engagement processes which are inclusive, accountable and transparent.
Performance Criteria Submission of half yearly community engagement performance reports to CRC.
Establishment of community reference groups (as ultimately determined in the final community engagement strategy with the CRC) including defining clear and agreed terms of reference and balanced and representative membership.
Development of a Grievance and Dispute Resolution Policy setting out the process for resolving a dispute, grievance or complaint directly associated with the project’s implementation. Establishment of a Complaints Register.
Employment of a range of engagement methods targeting a diversity of stakeholders, supported by responses that are appropriate and clearly communicated to participants.
Responsiveness to changing project and community needs in line with performance review findings.
Scope of Issues Overall project development and impact management
Natural environment impact management
Social, economic and cultural impact management
Regional impact management
Effectiveness of community engagement processes
Monitoring and Auditing Half yearly performance review of the Aquis Community Engagement y based on feedback from the general community, stakeholder groups and agencies and CRC.
Reporting and Corrective Action
Implement the mechanism for grievance and dispute resolution (the Grievance and Dispute Resolution Policy referenced above), including the recording grievances and related corrective responses in a Complaints Register.
Submit half yearly performance monitoring reporting on community engagement to CRC including a summary of activities conducted, feedback received and responses made.
Following half yearly performance monitoring, renegotiate the community engagement strategy with CRC as required.
Timing Approval of the Aquis Community Engagement Strategy within 3 months of receipt of the S242 Preliminary Approval.
Approving Authority CRC and OCG to approve the Aquis Community Engagement Strategy (including the Grievance and Dispute Resolution Policy).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 328
Table 9.5 provides details on performance management for community engagement in relation to
construction works.
Table 9-5 Construction
Objective To minimise disturbance during project construction to and promote positive relationships with surrounding communities (including communities on haulage routes) and users of impacted road networks.
Performance Criteria Consultation with Yorkeys Knob and Holloways Beach communities, Cairns Regional Council (CRC) and Dept. of Transport and Main Roads in developing the Construction Management Plan (including complaints management plan).
Approval of detailed community engagement strategy as part of the draft Construction Management Plan by CRC prior to each Operational Works Permit approval.
Scope of Issues Noise and dust
Light spill
Traffic and transport disruption
Visual impacts
Flood Mitigation
Ground Water Quality
Environmental concerns
Monitoring and Auditing Complaints, non-compliance and reported incidents and related corrective actions and timing will be recorded in the Complaints Register.
Reporting and Corrective Action
The Complaints Register will be monitored and reported to CRC on a monthly basis.
Timing Approval of the Aquis Community Engagement Strategy within 3 months of receipt of the S242 Preliminary Approval.
Approving Authority CRC and OCG to approve the Aquis Community Engagement Strategy (including the Grievance and Dispute Resolution Policy).
, Table 9.6 provides details on performance management for community engagement in relation to the
Yorkeys Knob Community Facility.
Table 9-6 Yorkeys Knob Community Facility
Objective To work with the community to determine the type of facility most appropriate to meet the community’s needs; its design; and its governance and use arrangements. (Note: if CRC is determined to be the owner of the facility, the ultimate decision about the type of facility and its governance and use arrangements will rest with CRC).
Performance Criteria Community support for the facility determined to be needed.
Scope of Issues Ensuring the facility is relevant to the social, cultural and / or recreational needs of the Yorkeys Knob community
Resolution of facility ownership and asset maintenance
Resolution of governance arrangements for the management and operation of the facility
Potential impacts of the facility on the local community (including near
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 329
neighbours)
Monitoring and Auditing Public display of the options proposed (including nomination of the preferred option) for feedback from the local community, followed by a community polling process.
Overview of the community engagement process by the Yorkeys Knob Community Reference Group.
Reporting and Corrective Action
Reporting grievances received (through the Aquis Community Engagement grievance procedures) and responses taken to the Yorkeys Knob Community Reference Group
Timing Approval of the Aquis Community Engagement Strategy within 3 months of receipt of the S242 Preliminary Approval.
Approving Authority CRC and OCG to approve the Aquis Community Engagement Strategy (including the Grievance and Dispute Resolution Policy).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 330
10 ISSUE 9: REGISTER OF PROPONENT COMMITMENTS
While the environmental impact statement included commitments project-wide and for specific issues,
a specific register or schedule was not included.
Requirement: Develop a comprehensive register of proponent commitments for the project. The
register should include the stated commitments found throughout the EIS (e.g. commitments to provide specific information for subsequent applications, specific project actions identified to avoid or
reduce environmental impacts).
10.1 RESPONSE
A draft Register of Proponent Commitments is shown in Table 10.1. This includes all commitments
documented in the EIS and identified in this report.
Table 10.1 Register of Proponent Commitments
ITEM REFERENCE DETAILS
General
1. Proponent Commitments – Environment
EIS 2.4.2a) Adopt best practice solutions to site drainage and water quality.
Adopt best practice solutions for the environmental management of:
Ecosystems
Airport operations
Birds and bats (to avoid interfering with aircraft)
Crocodiles and insect vectors
Dust
Lighting
Noise (including helicopter operations)
Visual screening.
Establish environmental management system to accord with AS14001.
Adopt sustainable development practices, including:
Green building design
Water harvesting and re-use including of treated wastewater and rainwater
Energy efficiency
Waste minimisation, re-use, and recycling.
Develop interpretive and educational programs to protect and present natural and cultural values and engender a high level of environmental awareness for guests and staff.
Adopt and develop an environmental management plan for both construction and operations. The management plan will include traffic management plans for construction and events which attract significant external patronage. The site based management plan will include consideration of erosion and sediment control, management of acid sulfate soils, protection of water quality, and waste minimisation, re-use, and recycling
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 331
ITEM REFERENCE DETAILS
2. Proponent Commitments – Community
EIS 2.4.2b) Work closely with government and the community in developing and implementing the following community plans:
Community Engagement Plan
Workforce Development and Management Plan Local Content Plan
Construction Management Plan Strategic Change Management Housing and Accommodation Plan
Community Services and Facilities Plan Community Health and Safety Plan Cultural Development Plan Responsible Gaming Plan.
Implement the CHMP with the Yirrganydji (Irukandji) People (and any additional signatories from time to time).
Engage with all Indigenous groups in the region for the development and operation of ICH aspects of the Interpretive Centre).
3. Proponent Commitments – Infrastructure
EIS 2.4.2c) Design and construct services connections and upgrades to external infrastructure to a capacity to meet the demands imposed by Aquis.
Design and construct services connections and infrastructure in accordance with the service standards and design standards adopted by the service provider.
Contribute infrastructure charges in accordance with CRC’s ‘Trunk Infrastructure Contribution Policy’ to reflect the capacity of trunk infrastructure networks consumed by the development.
Undertake external works upgrades to the local and state controlled road network to ensure that the safety and efficiency of the networks is maintained.
Provide High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV – buses/coaches) transport solutions for the transfer of:
guests of the resort to/from Cairns Airport guests to/from attractions and features in the region
4. Proponent Commitments – Infrastructure
EIS 2.4.2c) Manage the site during construction and the project operations to ensure that there is no major direct environmental disturbance.
Meet any reasonable requirement for environmental management, repairs and rehabilitation in the event of extreme weather events, accident, calamity or financial distress.
Put in place the necessary policies of insurance to underwrite its commitment to repair and rehabilitate the landscape in these circumstances. Where reasonably required, the proponent will negotiate with the Government in good faith to settle the terms upon which additional security/financial guarantees may be provided to better secure the proponent’s commitment to meet these (subject to further clarification).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 332
ITEM REFERENCE DETAILS
Construction
5. Beneficial re-use of surplus excavation material
EIS 4.2.5 Following treatment of sands under the ASSMP, any excavated sands not needed on site will be made available free of charge for the following beneficial reuse activities (subject to the practicalities of construction and the development of necessary agreements and approvals):
beach replenishment (if required by CRC)
filling and surcharging areas earmarked for future development under the Cairns Airport Land Use Plan (if required by NQA)
embankment filling for external connections
filling voids in the Barron delta.
6. Worker transport
EIS 4.3.1 Operate a staff reward programme to encourage car-pooling, higher private vehicle occupancy and active transport.
provide purpose built end-trip facilities for staff to secure bicycles, and to shower and change as a means of encouraging active transport.
7. Construction water
EIS 4.1.1 Minimise demands on the potable water supply through targeted utilisation of non-potable water sources.
Public Land
8. Public use of foreshore
EIS 4.4.2 The development of the project will not impede public access to the foreshore.
Access to the public foreshore by Aquis Resort guests will not be provided and will be prevented by fencing, signage, and education.
River Migration
9. Sinking fund 8.3.4 Aquis will contribute to a sinking fund to stabilise the Thomatis Creek bifurcation should the Queensland Government and CRC decide that such a project is warranted.
Flooding
10. Increase flood immunity
EIS 9.2 Upgrade Yorkeys Knob Road.
Water Quality
11. Adopt Water Sensitive Urban Design
EIS 11.2 All stormwater drainage will adopt Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) principles to limit the export of sediments and nutrients. This will include appropriate stormwater quality improvement devices (SQIDs).
Hazards
12. Hazard Management
EIS 12.5.2 Develop and implement an Integrated Emergency Management Plan, specific to the project and tailored to the cultural background and demographic of the visitors.
Examine opportunities to provide shelter facilities for Yorkeys Knob residents.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 333
ITEM REFERENCE DETAILS
Environmental Management
13. EMP (Planning)
EIS 23.4 Develop EMP (Planning) based on expanding the details on environmental management strategies (Table 23-2), namely:
Acid Sulfate Soil Management Strategy
Airport Safety Strategy
Contingency Strategy
Crocodile Management Strategy
Fauna Management Strategy
Indigenous Cultural Heritage Strategy
Integrated Water Management Strategy
Interpretation Strategy
Lake Management Strategy
Landscape and Habitat Strategy
Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage Strategy
Restoration and Rehabilitation Strategy
Social Strategies
Sustainability Strategy
Waste Management Strategy
Water Quality Management and Stormwater Management Strategy
Weed and Pest Management Strategy
Identify detailed tasks to be undertaken during:
planning
detailed design
construction
operation and maintenance.
14. EMP (Construction)
EIS 23.4 Develop EMP (Construction) based on recommendations of EMP (Planning) for the construction phase and contractor input.
Require all contractors to develop suitable detailed Contractor’s Environmental Management Plans.
15. EMP (Operation & Maintenance)
EIS 23.4 Develop EMP (Operation & Maintenance) based on recommendations of EMP (Planning) for the operation phase and operator input.
Require all operators to develop suitable detailed Operational Management Plans.
Transport
16. Infrastructure Agreement – Transport
EIS 24.1.3 Enter into an Infrastructure Agreement (Transport) with the DTMR and CRC on the basis that:
the cost of works required to maintain the safety and efficiency of the State and Local Controlled Road network as a direct consequence of the Aquis development will be met by the proponent
the proponent will contribute its proportionate share of the cost of the upgrades to the State and Local Controlled Road Network taking into account existing thresholds for upgrades required to meet planned future growth in Cairns
cost sharing arrangements would be identified for shared trunk infrastructure and for accelerated deterioration of pavement assets.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 334
ITEM REFERENCE DETAILS
Infrastructure
17. Infrastructure Agreement – Services
EIS 25.1.3c) Enter into an Infrastructure Agreement (services) with the CRC for water and wastewater on the basis that:
the development is considered as separate to and
independent of the Council Trunk Infrastructure Contribution Policy
the cost of dedicated trunk infrastructure to connect the development to the existing water supply network where it has capacity is met by the proponent
the proponent will contribute its proportionate share of the cost of the upgrades to local road network
cost sharing arrangements would be identified for shared trunk infrastructure
Enter into an agreement with CRC for the purchase of Class A (or A+) recycled water (if Class A then treat to Class A+) and reticulate throughout site as a potable water substitute.
Monitoring
18. Ecological monitoring
EIS 23.6.2 Undertake 2015 wet season terrestrial ecology survey.
Undertake 2015 wet season aquatic ecology survey (including turtles).
19. Mangrove monitoring
EIS 23.6.2 Undertake quarterly monitoring (October 2014, January 2015 (extend as warranted).
20. Groundwater monitoring
EIS 23.6.3 Undertake monthly monitoring until February 2015 (extend as warranted).
21. Bore monitoring
EIS 10.2 Undertake monitoring of surrounding (off-site) bores during construction and following lake operation until a pattern emerges.
22. Transmissivity (groundwater quarantining solution
EIS 10.2 Investigate transmissivity of low permeability layer beneath lake as input to groundwater quarantining solution. (In the vertical direction, the vertical permeability and continuity of the stiff clay unit needs to be confirmed to be 0.001 m/d (~10-8 m/s) or lower.)
23. Water quality monitoring (A)
EIS 23.6.3 Undertake monthly monitoring until February 2015 (extend as warranted).
24. Water quality monitoring (B)
N/A Undertake on-going monitoring as required by Lake Management Plan (see Commitment 27).
Environmental Design and Management
25. Lake Management Plan
SIR 5.2.4 Expand on Lake Management Strategy to create a detailed Lake Management Plan.
26. Best-practice lighting design
SIR 6.3.2 Design project lighting to:
comply with CairnsPlan and any additional NQA / ASA requirements
best-practice lighting design (general)
best-practice lighting design (biological aspects).
27. Best-practice noise mitigation
SIR 6.4.2 Limit noise emissions that could affect native fauna (design).
Limit noise emissions that could affect native fauna (construction management).
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 335
11 ISSUE 10: RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY ISSUES
The Response to Community Issues received 4 September 2014 appears to accurately identify the
relevant issues raised by the community. While the issues are identified it is difficult to assess the
responses as a result of:
Each submission issue should have a response including the ones that are out of scope.
Cross-referencing is not detailed enough to identify where issues are addressed in the report.
An example: issue ID number 99.20 is not responded to in discussion following the table (page
80) containing the issues early in the document. It is not readily apparent where these issues
are addressed and in fact they are addressed in multiple later sections of the report. Page 125
provides a cross reference and the issue is addressed at page 203. These issues are repeated
throughout the document. This is required to clearly show how Aquis has addressed the
relevant community issues.
Requirement: Revise the Community Submissions and Issues document to clearly respond to each
relevant issue raised in the community submissions on the environmental impact statement,
particularly by addressing cross-referencing issues. The Community Submissions and Issues
document should replicated the format used for the Response to Agency Issues i.e. include columns
'Aquis response' and 'Action'.
11.1 RESPONSE
Prior to the preparation of the Response to Community Submissions and Issues Report it was agreed
with officers of the OCG that it would deal with the issues raised in the submissions rather than
addressing individual submissions. This is in contrast to the Response to Agency Submissions Report
which addresses the individual submissions made by each agency. The two reports which respond to
the submissions are fundamentally different in their approach.
The roles of community and agency submissions in the approvals process are different. It is
necessary for submitters to remain anonymous so each submitter has been allocated a unique ID (e.g.
101).. All points raised by a submitter can be tracked by this number (e.g. 101.1, 101.19).
However, all points raised by all submitters are included in one or more of the tables in Chapter 3 and,
even though not referenced specifically in the discussion following each table, nonetheless contribute
to the definition of the relevant theme and actions arising from it.
When submissions are broken down into discrete points, they often contain more than one theme. In
these cases, the point is listed in each relevant table but only included in the subsequent discussion if
it is considered to reflect a clear expression of the issue raised. By way of example, point 99.20 is as
listed below:
99.20 The cumulative impacts on the Fish Habitat Reserve and Estuarine Protection Zone of
the GBR Coast Marine Park associated with the Richters and Yorkeys Creek estuary and on
the GBRWHA from nutrients and pollutants delivered via the direct discharge from the Aquis
lake into Richter's Creek and run-off from the 'flood tolerant' golf course into the marine
environment of GBRWHA remain undescribed. As quoted from The Scientific Consensus
Statement (DSDIP (2013) in the report: "The decline of marine water quality associated with
terrestrial runoff from the adjacent catchments is a major cause of the current poor state of
many of the key marine ecosystems of the Great Barrier Reef." Instead Aquis has chosen to
describe such impacts as "negligible" without addressing the cumulative impacts that will
result over the years of operations in such a large development with an estimated 1,000,000
users per year. There needs to be much caution in this assessment.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 336
The thematic analysis assigns this text to three themes, namely:
• Theme 7.1 Matters of NES and SES
• Theme 11.3 Receiving Environment Water Quality
• Theme 22.2 Integrity / Ecological Processes
However, it is only discussed in detail in the latter two themes on the basis that although Theme 7.1
deals with matters of NES and SES, it is in Chapter 22 where the more detailed matters of NES work
is documented. In this case, the discussion on integrity relies on water quality which is the reason for
the additional Theme 11.3 reference.
The Community Submissions and Issues Report has been updated with a new Appendix A containing
a print-out of the Aquis Schedule of Submissions, colour coded to show references to Table 2-1 of the
original report where the relationship between EIS chapters and issue categories is set out. Figure
11-1 below is an extract.
Figure 11-1 Extract from Appendix A of the revised Community Submissions and Issues Report
The Community Submissions Issues Report –R1 dated October 2014 was issued to the Coordinator
Generals Office on 7 October 2014
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 337
12 REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES
Airservices Australia. 2007. Website accessed 15 November 2005
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/reports/movement/calytd2004.pdf
Allen, G.R. 1997. Marine fishes of tropical Australia and South-East Asia – A field guide for anglers
and divers. Third Revised Edition, Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia.
ANZECC & ARMCANZ. 2000. Australian Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting,
National Water Quality Management Strategy, Australian and New Zealand Environment and
Conservation Council & Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New
Zealand.
Arnold, P., Marsh, H. & Heinsohn, G. 1987. The occurrence of two forms of Minke Whales in east
Australian waters with a description of external characters and skeleton of the diminutive or
dwarf form, report prepared for Reports of the Whales Research Institute.
Australian Institute of Marine Science. 2014a. Green Island Reef second flank,
http://data.aims.gov.au/waAesthetics/servaesthetics?fullReefID=16049S&zone=4 accessed
September 2014.
Australian Institute of Marine Science. 2014b. Report on surveys of reefs in the Cairns sector of the
Great Barrier Reef, http://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/cairns-and-innisfail-sector-2013,
accessed September 2014.
Australian Transport Safety Bureau. 2005. Website accessed 15 November 2005
http://www.atsb.gov.au/pdfs/statistics/2004_birdstrikes.pdf
Aviation & Airspace Design Solutions. 2014. Aquis Great Barrier Reef Redden Creek Radar Shadow
Assessment. Prepared for Flanagan Consulting Group, 25 April 2014.
Bamford, M, D. Watkins, W. Bancroft, G. Tischler and J. Wahl. 2008. Migratory Shorebirds of the East
Asian - Australasian Flyway; Population Estimates and Internationally Important Sites. Wetlands
International - Oceania. Canberra, Australia.
Bannister, J.L., Kemper, C.M. & Warneke, R.M. 1996. The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans.
Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.
Barros, N.B. & Wells, R.S. 1998. 'Prey and feeding patterns of resident bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops
truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida', Journal of Mammalogy 79: 1045-1059.
Beasley, I., Robertson, K. & Arnold, P. 2005. 'Description of a new dolphin, the Australian snubfin
dolphin Orcaella heinsohni sp. n.(Cetacea, Delphinidae)', Marine Mammal Science 21: 365-400.
Benson, S.R., Dutton, P.H., Hitipeuw, C., Samer, B., Bakarbessy, J. & Parker, D. 2007. 'Post-Nesting
Migrations of Leatherback Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) from Jamursba-Medi, Bird's Head
Peninsula, Indonesia', Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6: 150-154 [Online]. Chelonian
Research Foundation.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 338
Best, P.B., Butterworth, D.S. & Rickett, L.H. 1984. An assessment cruise for the South African inshore
stock of Bryde's Whales (Balaenoptera edeni), report prepared for Report of the International
Whaling Commission.
Biotropica Australia. 2014a. Monitoring Mangrove Health on the proposed Aquis at the Great Barrier
Reef Resort Development February 2014.
Biotropica Australia. 2014b. Monitoring Mangrove Health on the proposed Aquis at the Great Barrier
Reef Resort Development Audit 1 April 2014.
Biotropica Australia. 2014c. Monitoring Mangrove Health on the proposed Aquis at the Great Barrier
Reef Resort Development Audit 2 August 2014.
Biotropica Australia. 2014d. Aquis Resort at the Great Barrier Reef Seasonal Monitoring Dry Season
August 2014.
Birdlife Northern Queensland. 2013. Cattana Wetlands Bird Checklist. Available from
http://birdlifenq.org/pdfs/new_checklist/33-Cattana-Wetlands-Bird-checklist.pdf. Accessed
16/9/2014.
Birtles, R.A., Arnold, P.W. & Dunstan, A. 2002. 'Commercial swim programs with dwarf minke whales
on the northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia: some characteristics of the encounters with
management implications', Australian Mammalogy 24: 23-38.
Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. 'Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles', In: The Biology of Sea Turtles,
Lutz, P. & Musick, J. A. (Eds.), pp. 199-231 Boca Raton: CRC Press Inc.
Bjorndal, K.A., Bolten, A.B. & Martins, H.R. 2000. 'Somatic growth model of juvenile loggerhead sea
turtles Caretta caretta: duration of pelagic stage', Marine Ecology Progress Series 202: 265-272.
Blower, D.C., Pandolfi, J.M., Bruce, B.D., Gomez-Cabrera, M.C. & Ovenden, J.R. 2012. 'Population
genetics of Australian white sharks reveals fine-scale spatial structure, transoceanic dispersal
events and low effective population sizes', Marine Ecology Progress Series 455: 229-244.
Brand-Gardner, S.J., Lanyon, J.M. & Limpus, C.J. 1999. 'Diet selection by immature green turtles,
Chelonia mydas, in subtropical Moreton Bay, South-East Queensland', Australian Journal of
Zoology 47: 181-191.
Bruce, G.D., Stevens, J.D. & Malcolm, H. 2006. 'Movements and swimming behaviour of white sharks
(Carcharodon carcharias) in Australian waters', Marine Biology 150: 161-172.
Burns, G. & Heatwole, H. 1998. 'Home range and habitat use of the olive sea snake, Aipysurus laevis,
on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia', Journal of Herpetology: 350-358.
Carr, A. 1987. 'Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea
turtles', Marine Pollution Bulletin 18: 352-356.
Chevron Australia. 2014. Gorgon Gas Development and Jansz Feed Gas Pipeline: Long-term Marine
Turtle Management Plan. Available online: <http://www.chevronaustralia.com/docs/default-
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 339
source/default-document-library/gorgon-emp-long-term-marine-turtle-management-
plan.pdf?sfvrsn=4> Accessed September 2014.
Compagno, L.J.V. 1984. 'Part 1 - Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes. FAO Species Catalogue, Vol. 4.,
Sharks of the World. An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Sharks Known to Date', FAO
Fisheries Synopsis 4: 1-249.
Connolly, N., Doak, N. & Pearson, R. 1996. Environmental Literature Scan of the Barron River
Catchment ACTFR. 96: 20.
Conway, S. 1994. Diets and feeding biology of adult olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) and
loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtles in Fog Bay, Northern Territory, Hons. Northern Territory
Unviversity, Darwin.
Corkeron, P.J., Morisette, N.M., Porter, L.J. & Marsh, H. 1997. 'Distribution and status of humpback
dolphin, Sousa chinensis, in Australian waters', Asian Marine Biology 14: 49-59.
Culik, B. 2003. Sousa chinensis. Review on Small Cetaceans: Distribution, Behaviour, Migration and
Threats. [Online], report prepared for Compiled for the Convention on Migratory species (CMS).
Currie, D.R. & Small, K.J. 2005. 'Macrobenthic community responses to long-term environmental
change in a east Australian sub-tropical estuary', Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 63: 315-
331.
Currie, D.R. & Small, K.J. 2006. 'The influence of dry-season conditions on bottom dwelling fauna of
an east Australian sub-tropical estuary', Hydrobiologia 560: 345-361.
Curtis, L.K., Dennis, A.J., McDonald, K.R., Kyne, P.M. and Debus, S.J.S. 2012. Queensland’s
Threatened Animals. CSIRO, Victoria.
Dalhlheim, M.E. & Heyning, J.E. 1999. 'Killer whale – Orcinus orca', In: Handbook of Marine Mammals
The second book of dolphins and porpoises, Ridgway, S. H. & Harrison, S. R. (Eds.), pp. 281-
322.
Dennis, A.J. 2012. Bare-rumped Sheathtail bat. In: L.K. Curtis, A.J. Dennis, K.R. McDonald, P.M. Kyne
and S.J. Debus (eds.), Queensland’s Threatened Animals, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.
Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 2013. CHRIS web,
http://chrisweb.dpi.qld.gov.au/chris/, accessed September 2014.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 2005. Issues paper for six species of marine
turtles found in Australian waters that are listed as threatened under the Environment Protection
and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Commonwealth Department of Environment and
Heritage, Canberra.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 2012. Technical Guideline Licensing –
Wastewater Release to Queensland Water.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 340
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 2013a. Barron Drainage Basin Wetland statistics,
http://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/wetlands/facts-maps/basin-barron/, accessed September
2014.
Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 2013b. Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin,
https://http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/animals-az/indopacific_humpback_dolphin.html
accessed September 2014.
Department of Environment and Heritage. 2005a. Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan 2005 -
2010. [Online]. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Canberra, Commonwealth of
Australia,
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/balaenoptera-
sp/index.html., accessed September 2014.
Department of Environment and Heritage. 2005b. Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005 - 2010.
[Online]. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia,
http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/m-
novaeangliae/index.html., accessed September 2014.
Department of Environment and Heritage. 2005c. Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) Recovery Plan:
Issues Paper DEH, Canberra: 26.
Department of Environment and Resource Management. 2009. Queensland Water Quality Guidelines
Version 1, Sept 2009.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. 2011. Environment
Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/index.html,
accessed September 2014.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. 2013a. Recovery
Plan for the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias). Australian Government, Canberra,
ACT.
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. 2013b, Species
Profile and Threats Database: Sousa chinensis – Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin,
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=50 accessed
September 2014.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 1997. Conservation and Management of Whales
and Dolphins in Queensland 1997–2001. Department of Environment, Brisbane.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013a. Matters of Environmental Significance:
Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1. Australian Government, Canberra.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013b. Species Profile and Threats Database:
Balaenoptera edeni – Bryde’s Whale, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-
bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=35. accessed September 2014.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 341
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013c. Species Profile and Threats Database:
Balaenoptera musculus – Blue Whale, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-
bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=36. accessed September 2014.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013d. Species Profile and Threats Database:
Carcharodon carcharias – Great White Shark, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-
bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=64470. accessed September 2014.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013e. Species Profile and Threats Database:
Chelonia mydas – Green Turtle, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-
bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1765. accessed September 2014.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013f. Species Profile and Threats Database:
Delphinus delphis — Common Dolphin, Short-beaked Common Dolphin,
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=60. accessed
September 2014.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013g. Species Profile and Threats Database:
Grampus griseus – Risso’s Dolphin, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-
bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=64 accessed September 2014.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013h. Species Profile and Threats Database:
Megaptera novaeangliae — Humpback Whale, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-
bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=38. accessed September 2014.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013i. Species Profile and Threats Database:
Natator depressus – Flatback turtle, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-
bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=59257 accessed September 2014.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013j. Species Profile and Threats Database:
Orcaella heinsohni – Australian Snubfin Dolphin, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-
bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=81322 accessed September 2014.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013k. Species Profile and Threats Database:
Orchinus orca – Killer Whale, Orca, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-
bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=46 accessed September 2014.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013l. Species Profile and Threats Database:
Rhincodon typus — Whale Shark, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-
bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=66680. accessed September 2014.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013m. Species Profile and Threats Database:
Stenella attenuata — Spotted Dolphin, Pantropical Spotted Dolphin,
http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=51. accessed
September 2014.
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2014a. Dasyurus hallucatus in Species Profile and
Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from:
http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:51:53
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 342
Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2014b. EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool,
http://www.environment.gov.au/arcgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst-coordinate.jsf, accessed
September 2014.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2009. Significant impact guidelines for
36 migratory shorebird species. EPBC Act policy statement 3.21. Canberra.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2009. White Shark Issues Paper
[Online}. Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT.
Department of Transport and Main Roads. 2013. Townsville Ring Road Stage 4. Assessment of Bare
rumped Sheathtail Bat. http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/T/Townsville-Ring-Road-
Section-4.aspx. Accessed 15/09/2014.
Dobbs, K.A. 2007. Marine turtle and dugong habitats in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park used to
implement biophysical operational principles for the Representative Areas Program.
Unpublished Report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.
Doherty, P.J. & Sheaves, M.J. 1994. Fish surveys in Half Moon Creek. Consultancy undertaken by the
Australian Institute of Marine Sciences for TNN Cairns Pty.
Dunstan, A., Sobtzick, S., Birtles, R.A. & Arnold, P.W. 2007. 'Use of videogrammetry to estimate
length to provide population demographics of dwarf minke whales in the northern Great Barrier
Reef', Journal Cetacean Research and Management 9: 215-223.
Eckert, S.A. & Stewart, B.S. 2001. 'Telemetry and satellite tracking of Whale Sharks, Rhincodon typus,
in the Sea of Cortez, Mexico, and the north Pacific Ocean', Environmental Biology of Fishes 60:
299-308.
Ecosure. 2008. Cairns International Airport Bird and Wildlife Strategy. Consultancy report to Cairns
Airport P/L.
Environment North. 1998. Blackfellows Creek Drainage Management Plan – Botanical survey for
Eleocharis retroflexa (Version 2) Report to Cairns City Council, Cairns
Flanagan Consulting Group. 2014a. Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact
Statement. June 2014.
Flanagan Consulting Group. 2014b. Aquis Resort Environmental Impact Statement: Community
Submissions and Issues. Revision 1 October 2014.
Flanagan Consulting Group. 2014c. Aquis Resort Environmental Impact Statement: Agency
Submissions and Issues. September 2014.
Forbes, G.A. 1994. 'The diet of the green turtle in an algal-based coral reef community-Heron Island,
Australia', In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea turtle on Biology and
Conservation, Schroeder, B. A. & Witherington, B. E. (Eds.): 57-59.
Foster, S.J. & Vincent, A.C.J. 2004. 'Life history and ecology of seahorses: implications for
conservation and management', Journal of Fish Biology 65: 1-61.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 343
Francis, M., Natanson, L. & Campana, S. 2002. 'The Biology and Ecology of the Porbeagle Shark,
Lamna nasus', In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation, Camhi, M.,
Pikitch, E. & E., B. (Eds.), Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom.
Francis, M.P. & Stevens, J.D. 2000. 'Reproduction, embryonic development, and growth of the
porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus, in the southwest Pacific Ocean', Fisheries Bulletin 98: 41-63.
frc environmental. 2007. Half Moon Bay Masterplan; Coastal Ecology, report prepared for CLT.
frc environmental. 2013. Aquis Resort Technical Study: Aquatic Ecology. Stage 1 and 2 Reports:
Existing Situation, Preliminary Impact Assessment and Mitigation, report prepared for prepared
for Flanagan Consulting Group.
frc environmental. 2014a. Aquis Resort EPBC Act Issues: Aquatic Ecology, report prepared for
Flanagan Consulting Group.
frc environmental. 2014b. Aquis Resort Proposed Off-shore Intake: Aquatic Ecology Assessment,
report prepared for Prepared for Flanagan Consulting Group.
frc environmental. 2014c. Aquis Resort Technical Study: Aquatic Ecology Addendum: Wet Season
Survey, report prepared for Flanagan Consulting Group.
frc environmental. 2014d. Aquis Resort Technical Study: Aquatic Ecology: Dry Season Baseline
Survey 2014. report prepared for Prepared for Flanagan Consulting Group.
Freeman. 2003. Monitoring Report on the Annual Spectacled Flying Fox Census 2003. Queensland
Parks and Wildlife Service Atherton, Queensland.
Fry, G.C., Milton, A. & Wassenberg, T.J. 2001. 'The reproductive biology and diet of sea snake
bycatch of prawn trawling in northern Australia: characteristics important for assessing the
impacts on populations', Pacific Conservation Biology 7: 55-73.
Garnett, S.T. and Crowley, G.M. 2000. The Action Plan for Australian Birds, Environment Australia,
Canberra.
Gaston, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T. W., and Hopkins, J. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime
light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal Biological Reviews 88. 912–927.
Gibson, L. & Wellbelove, A. 2010. 'Protecting critical marine habitats: The key to conserving our
threatened marine species', WWF-Australia, Ultimo, NSW.
Golder Associates. 2014. Aquis Baseline Groundwater Monitoring September 2014. Prepared for
Flanagan Consulting Group October 2014.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2010. Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park: Revised Edition 2010. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2011a. Green turtle, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-
reef/animals/marine-turtles/green-turtle accessed September 2014.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 344
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2011b. Leatherback turtle, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-
the-reef/animals/marine-turtles/leatherback accessed September 2014.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2011c. Loggerhead turtle, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-
the-reef/animals/marine-turtles/loggerhead accessed September 2014.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2011d. Marine turtles, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-
reef/animals/marine-turtles, accessed September 2014.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2011e. A Vulnerability Assessment for the Great Barrier
Reef: Dwarf minke whales, report prepared for Australian Government; Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2011f. Whales and Dolphins,
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/animals/whales-and-dolphins accessed September
2014.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2012a. A vulnerability assessment for the Great Barrier
Reef: Indo-Pacific humpback and Australian snubfin dolphins, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2012b. A Vulnerability Assessment for the Great Barrier
Reef: Sawfish, report prepared for Australian Government, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park
Authority.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2013a. Flatback turtle, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-
reef/animals/marine-turtles/flatback accessed September 2014.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2013b. Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment:
Strategic Assessment Report, report prepared for Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Townsville.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2013c. Hawksbill turtle, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-
the-reef/animals/marine-turtles/hawksbill accessed September 2014.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2013d. Olive Ridley turtle, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-
the-reef/animals/marine-turtles/olive-Ridley accessed September 2014.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2013e. Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment:
Strategic Assessment Report. Draft for public comment. GBRMPA, Townsville.
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2013f. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan (Reef Plan).
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2014. Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment:
Strategic Assessment Report. GBRMPA, Townsville.
Hale, P., Long, S. & Tapsall, A. 1998. 'Distribution and conservation of Delphinids in Moreton Bay', In:
Moreton Bay and its Catchments, Tibbets, I. R., Hall, N. J. & Dennison, W. C. (Eds.), School of
Marine Science, The University of Queensland.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 345
Hale, P.T., Barreto, A.S. & Ross, G.J.B. 2000. 'Comparative Morphology and Distribution of the
aduncus and truncatus forms of Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops in the Indian and Western Pacific
Oceans', Aquatic Mammals 26: 101-110.
Hamman, M., Limpus, C., Hughes, G., Mortimer, J. & Pilcher, N. 2006. Assessment of the
conservation status of the leatherback turtle in the Indian Ocean and South East Asia, Bangkok:
IOSEA Marine Turtle MoU Secretariat.
Hanson, M.T. & Defran, R.H. 1993. 'The behaviour and feeding ecology of the Pacific coast bottlenose
dolphin, Tursiops truncatus', Aquatic Mammals 19: 127-142.
Heinsohn, G.E., Marsh, H., Gardner, B.R., Spain, A.V. & Anderson, P.K. 1979. Aerial Surveys of
Dugongs. In: Proceedings of Workshop held in Canberra February 1977. ANPWS, Canberra:
85-96.
Higgins, P.J. and Davies, S.J.J.F. (eds). 1996. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic
birds, Vol. 3: Snipe to Pigeons. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Hoyt, E. 2005. Marine Protected Areas for Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises: A worldwide handbook for
cetacean habitat conservation and planning, London, Earthscan, pp. 516pp.
Hughes, G.R. & Oxley-Oxland, R. 1971. 'A survey of Dugong (Dugong dugon) in and around Antonio
Enes, Northern Mozambique', Biological Conservation 3: 299-301.
Ineich, I. & Laboute, P. 2002. Sea Snakes of New Caledonia, I.R.D. and National Museum of Natural
History, Paris.
Ito, T. & Kashiwagi, T. 2010. 'Morphological and genetic identification of two species of manta ray
occuring in Japanese waters: Manta birostris and M. alfredi', Reports of Japanese Society for
Elasmobranch Studies 46: 8-10.
International Civil Aviation Organisation. 1999. The need to strengthen the provisions of ICAO annex
14, Volume 1, relating to bird control on and in the vicinity of Airports. Proceedings of Bird Strike
’99, Vancouver, Canada.
IUCN. 2013. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Manta birostris,
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/biblio/198921/0 accessed September 2014.
James Cook University. 2014. Modelling seagrass distribution and risks to seagrass,
http://research.jcu.edu.au/research/tropwater/research-programs/seagrass-ecology-1/modeling-
seagrass-distribution-and-risks-to-seagrass accessed September 2014.
Jarvis, J.C., Rasheed, M.A., McKenna, S.A. & Sankey, T. 2014. Seagrass Habitat of Cairns Harbour
and Trinity Inlet: Annual and Quarterly Monitoring Report 2013. Report No. 14/09 report
prepared for prepared for Far North Queensland Ports Corporation Limited.
Jefferson, T.A. & Van Waerebeek, K. 2002. 'The taxonomic status of the nominal dolphin species
Delphinus tropicais Van Bree. 1971', Marine Mammal Science 18: 787-818.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 346
Joyce, W., Campana, S., Natanson, L., Kohler, N., Pratt Jr., H. & Jensen, C. 2002. 'Analysis of
stomach contents of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus Bonnaterre) in the northwest Atlantic',
ICES Journal of Marine Science 53: 1263-1269.
Kaplan, I.C. 1995. 'A risk assessment for Pacific leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea)',
Canadian Journal Fishery and Aquatic Sciencies 62: 1710-1719.
Kashiwagi, T., Marshall, A., Bennett, M. & Ovenden, J. 2008. 'DNA evidence for cryptic species
boundaries within Manta birostris?', In: Abstracts of Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists, Montreal, Quebec: 236.
Kato, H. 2002. 'Bryde's Whale Balaenoptera edeni and B. brydei', In: Encyclopedia of Marine
Mammals, Perrin, W. F., Wrsig, B. & Thewissen, H. G. M. (Eds.), Academic Press, pp. 171-117.
Kemper, C.M. 2004. 'Osteological variation and taxonomic affinities of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops
spp., from South Australia', Australian Journal of Zoology 52: 29-48.
Kerrigan, B., Breen, D., De'ath, G., Day, J., Fernandes, L., Tobin (nee Partridge), R. & Dobbs, K. 2010.
'Classifying the Biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area', Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park Authority Research Publication No. 104.
Kogi, K., Toru, H., Imamura, A., Iwatani, T. & Dudzinski, K.M. 2004. 'Demographic parameters of Indo-
Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) around Mikura Island, Japan', Marine Mammal
Science 20: 510-526.
Lamont, P. 2010. Flying Fox and Cairns Airport. Unpublished. Viewed 25 September 2014 at
https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=mZwjVKbIOefC8gfbmoHQCQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=Flying
+Fox+and+Cairns+Airport.
Lanyon, J.M. & Morris, M.G. 1997. The Distribution and Abundance of Dugongs in Moreton Bay,
South-east Queensland, report prepared for Queensland Department of Environment.
Last, P.R. & Stevens, J.D. 1994. Sharks and Rays of Australia, CSIRO, Australia.
Last, P.R. & Stevens, J.D. 2009. Sharks and Rays of Australia, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood,
Victoria.
Lawler, I., Marsh, H., McDonald, B. & Stokes, T. 2002. Current State of Knowledge: Dugongs in the
Great Barrier Reef, report prepared for CRC Reef Research Centre.
Lazell, J.D. 1980. 'New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles', Copeia 1980: 290-295.
Leary, T.R. 1957. 'A schooling of leatherback turtles Dermochelys coriacea, on the Texas Coast',
Copeia 3: 232.
Lee Long, W.J., Coles, R.G. & McKenzie, L.J. 1997. 'Issues for seagrass conservation management in
Queensland', Pacific Conservation Biology 5: 321-328.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 347
Lee Long, W.J., Mellors, J.E. & Coles, R.G. 1993. 'Seagrass between Cape York and Hervey Bay,
Queensland, Australia', Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44: 19-31.
Limpus, C.J. 1971. Sea turtle ocean finding behaviour. Search, 2: 385–387.
Limpus, C.J. 1971. 'The flatback turtle, Chelonia depressa Garman, in southeast Queensland,
Australia', Herpetologica 27: 431-436.
Limpus, C.J. 1975. Coastal sea snakes of subtropical Queensland waters (23° to 28° South Latitude),
The Biology of Sea Snakes, University Park Press, Baltimore.
Limpus, C.J. 1995. Global overview of the status of marine turtles: a 1995 viewpoint. In: Bjorndal, KA,.
ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Revised edition. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington.
Limpus, C.J. 2007. A Biological Review of Australian Marine Turtles. 5. Flatback Turtle Natator
depressus (Garman). Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.
Limpus, C.J. 2008a. A biological review of Australian marine turtle species. 6. Olive Ridley Turtle,
Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz), Queensland Environmental Protection Agency available
from
http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications/p02836aa.pdf/A_Biological_Review_Of_Australian_Mari
ne_Turtles_4_Olive_Ridley_Turtle_emLepidochelys_olivacea/em_Escholtz.pdf.
Limpus, C.J. 2008b. A biological review of Australian Marine Turtles. 1. Loggerhead Turtle Caretta
caretta (Linneaus). Queensland Environment Protection Agency.
Limpus, C.J. 2008c. A Biological Review of Australian Marine Turtles. 2. Green Turtle Chelonia mydas
(Linnaeus). Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.
Limpus, C.J., Couper, P.J. & Read, M.A. 1994a. 'The loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in
Queensland: population structure in a warm temperate feeding area', Memoirs of the
Queensland Museum 37: 195-204.
Limpus, C.J., Miller, J.D., Parmenter, C.J. & Limpus, D.J. 2003. 'The green turtle, Chelonia mydas,
population of Raine Island and the northern Great Barrier Reef: 1843–2001', Memoirs
Queensland Museum 49: 349-440.
Limpus, C.J., Miller, J.D., Parmenter, C.J., Reimer, D., McLachlan, N. & Webb, R. 1992. 'Migration of
green (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) turtles to and from eastern Australian
rookeries', Wildlife Research 19: 347-358.
Limpus, C.J., Parmenter, C.J., Baker, V. & Fleay, A. 1983. 'The Crab Island sea turtle rookery in north
eastern Gulf of Carpentaria', Australian Wildlife Research 10: 173-184.
Limpus, C.J., Walker, T.A. & West, J. 1994b. 'Post-hatchling sea turtle specimens and records from
the Australian region', In: Proceedings of the Australian Marine Turtle Conservation Workshop,
James, R. (Ed.), Canberra, ANCA, Gold Coast 17-17 November 1990: 95-100.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 348
Limpus, C.J., Zeller, D., Kwan, D. & Macfarlane, W. 1989. 'Sea-turtle rookeries in northwestern Torres
Strait (Australia)', Australian Wildlife Research 16: 517-526.
Lukoschek, V., (2008), Molecular ecology, evolution and conservation of hydrophiine sea snakes, PhD
Thesis. James Cook University, Townsville.
Luschi, P., Hays, G.C. & Papi, F. 2003. 'A review of long-distance movements by marine turtles, and
the possible role of ocean currents', Oikos 103: 293-302.
Lutz, P.L. & Musick, J.A. 1996. The Biology of Sea Turtles, CRC Press, United States of America.
Lynch. 2000. The Olive Brown seasnake (Aipysurus laevis), JCUNQ and the Australian Lions Club,
Townsville.
Mackintosh, N.A. 1965. The stocks of whales. London: Fishing News (Books) Ltd.
Malcolm, H., Bruce, B.D. & Stevens, J.D. 2001. A Review of the Biology and Status of White Sharks in
Australian Waters, report prepared for Report to Environment Australia, Marine Species
Protection Program, CSIRO Marine Research.
Marsh, H. & Lawler, I. 2002. Dugong distribution and abundance in the northern Great Barrier Reef
Marine Park November 2000. School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James
Cook University.
Marsh, H. & Lefebvre, L.W. 1994. 'Sirenian Status and Conservation Efforts', Aquatic Mammals 20:
767-788.
Marsh, H., Heinsohn, G.E. & Marsh, L.M. 1984. 'Breeding cycle, life history and population dynamics
of the dugong, Dugong dugon (Sirenia: Dugongidae)', Australian Journal of Zoology 32: 767-
788.
Marsh, H., Penrose, H., Eros, C. & Hughes, J. 2002a. Dugong status report and action plans for
countries and territories. UNEP Early Warning and Assessment Report Series, Keya.
Marsh, H., Penrose, H., Eros, C. & Hugues, J. 2002b. Dugong Status Report and Action Plans for
Countries and Territories, report prepared for United Nations Environment Program.
Marshall, A., Bennett, M.B., Kodja, G., Hinojosa-Alvarez, S., Galvan-Magana, F., Harding, M.,
Stevens, G. & Kashiwagi, T. 2011. Manta birostris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Version 2014.2.
Marshall, A.D., Compagno, L.J.V. & Bennett, M.B. 2009. 'Redescription of the genus Manta with
resurrection of Manta alfredi (Hrefft, 1868) (Chondrichthyes; Myliobatoidei; Mobulidae)', Zootaxa
2301: 1-28.
Meylan, A. 1982. Report to the Department of the Environment and Water Resources., ed. Biology and
Conservation of Sea Turtles. 1st ed., report prepared for Smithsonian Institute Press.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 349
Meylan, A.B. 1984. Feeding ecology of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata): spongivory as a
feeding niche in the Coral Reef Community University of Florida, Gainsville.
Mrosovsky, N. and Carr, A. 1967. Preference for light of short wavelengths in hatchling green sea
turtles, Chelonia mydas, tested in their natural nesting beaches. Behaviour, 28: 217– 231.
Musick, J.A. & Limpus, C.J. 1997. 'Habitat utilisation and migration in juvenile sea turtles', In: The
Biology of Sea Turtles, Lutz, L. & Musick, J. A. (Eds.), CRC Press, pp. 137-164.
NOAA Fisheries. 2014. Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata),
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/minkewhale.htm, accessed
September 2014.
Oakwood, M. 2002. Spatial and social organisation of a carnivorous marsupial, Dasyurus hallucatus
(Marsupiala: Dasyuridae). Journal of Zoology, 257: 237-248
Pade, N., Queiroz, N., Humphries, N., Witt, M., Jones, C., Noble, L. & Sims, D. 2009. 'First results from
satellite-linked archival tagging of Porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus: area fidelity, wider-scale
movements and plasticity in diel depth changes', Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and
Ecology 370: 64-74.
Parra, G., Corkeron, P. & Marsh, H. 2006a. 'Population sizes, site fidelity and residence patterns of
Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins: Implications for conservation', Biological
Conservation 129: 167-180.
Parra, G.J. 2006. 'Resource partitioning in sympatric delphinids: Space use and habitat preferences of
Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins', Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 862-874.
Parra, G.J., 2005. Behavioural ecology of Irrawaddy, Orcaella brevirostris (Owen in Gray, 1866), and
Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, Sousa chinensis (Osbeck, 1765), in northeast Queensland,
Australia: a comparative study, Ph.D. James Cook University, Townsville.
Parra, G.J., Preen, A.R., Corkeron, P.J., Azuma, C. & Marsh, H. 2002. 'Distribution of Irrawaddy
dolphins, Orcaella brevirostris in Australian waters', Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 10: 141-154.
Parra, G.J., Schick, P. & Corkeron, P.J. 2006b. 'Spatial distribution and environmental correlates of
Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins', Ecography 29: 496-506.
Paterson, R.A. 1990. 'Effects of long-term anti-shark measures on target and non-target species in
Queensland, Australia', Biological Conservation 52: 147-159.
Peddemors, V.M. 1999. 'Delphinids of southern Africa: a review of their distribution, status and life
history', Journal of Cetacean Research 1: 157-165.
Pendoley Environmental. 2007. Gorgon Project: Sea Turtle Light Glow Arena Experiments, February
2007. Unpublished report for Chevron Australia, Perth, Western Australia.
Pendoley Environmental. 2008. Gorgon Project: Barrow Island Sea Turtle Nesting Beach Sediment
Characteristics December 2007–February 2008. Unpublished report for Chevron Australia,
Perth, Western Australia.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 350
Pendoley, K. & Fitzpatrick, J. 1999. Browsing of mangroves by green turtles in Western Australia.
Marine Turtle Newsletter.
Pendoley, K. 1997. Impact of Artificial Lighting on Sea Turtles: A Review. Unpublished report for
Apache Energy, Perth, Western Australia.
Pendoley, K. 2005. Sea Turtles and Industrial Activity on the North West Shelf, Western Australia. PhD
thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia.
Perrin, W.F. & Reilly, S.B. 1984. Reproductive parameters of dolphins and small whales of the family
Delphinidae, report prepared for Reports of the International Whaling Commission (Special
Issue 6).
Peverell, S.C. 2005. 'Distribution of sawfishes (Pristidae) in the Queensland Gulf of Carpentaria,
Australia, with notes on sawfish ecology', Environmental Biology of Fishes 73: 391-402.
Peverell, S.N., Gribble, N. & Larson, H. 2004. 'Sawfish', In: National Oceans Office, Description of Key
Species Groups in the Northern Planning Area, Commonwealth of Australia, Hobart, Tasmania.
Pike, D.A. 2008. Natural Beaches confer fitness benefits to nesting marine turtles. Biology Letters, 1–
3.
Poiner, I.R. & Harris, A.N.M. 1996. 'Incidental capture, direct mortality and delayed mortality of sea
turtles in Australia's northern prawn fishery', Marine Biology 125: 813-825.
Poot, H., Ens, B.J., de Vries, H., Donners, M.A.H., Wernard, M.R. and Marquenie, J.M. 2008. Green
Light for Nocturnally Migrating Birds. Ecology and Society, 13. 47.
Preen, A.R. 1992. Interactions between dugongs and seagrasses in a subtropical environment,
(unpublished) Ph.D. Thesis. James Cook University of North Queensland
Preen, A.R., Lee Long, W.J. & Coles, R.G. 1995. 'Flood and cyclone related loss, and partial recovery
of more than 1000 km2 of seagrass in Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia', Aquatic Botany 52:
3-17.
Pusey, B.J., Bird, J., Kennard, M.J. & Arthington, A.H. 1997. 'Distribution of the Lake Eacham
Rainbowfish in the Wet Tropics region', Australian Journal of Zoology 45: 75-84.
Rasheed, M.A., McKenna, S.A. & Tol, S. 2013. Seagrass Habitat of Cairns Harbour and Trinity Inlet:
Annual Monitoring and Updated Baseline Survey – 2012. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic
Ecosystem Research, Cairns.
Reeves, R.R. 2008 'Critical or important habitats for cetaceans: what to protect', In: First International
Conference on Marine Mammal Protected Areas, March 30 - April 3. 2009. Maui, Hawaii, USA
(In Press).
Reyes, J.C. 1991. The conservation of small cetaceans: a review, report prepared for Report prepared
for the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 351
Robins, C.M., Goodspeed, A.M., Poiner , I. & B.D., H. 2002. Monitoring the catch of turtles in the
Northern Prawn Fishery, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Department of
Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry: Canberra.
Robins, J.B. 1995. 'Estimated catch and mortality of sea turtles from the East Coast Otter Trawl
Fishery of Queensland, Australia', Biological Conservation 74: 157-167.
Ross, G.J.B. 1984. 'The smaller cetaceans of the south-east coast of southern Africa', Annals of the
Cape Provincial Museums (Natural History) 15: 173-411.
Ross, G.J.B. 2006. Review of the Conservation Status of Australia's Smaller Whales and Dolphins,
report prepared for Report to the Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage.
Rydell, J. and Baagoe, H.J. 1996. Bats and streetlamps. Bats, (Bat Conservation International)
14(4):11-13
Salmon, M. 2003. Artificial night lighting and sea turtles. Biologist, 50: 163–168.
Salmon, M. and Witherington, B.E. 1995. Artificial lighting and sea finding by Loggerhead hatchlings:
evidence for lunar modulation. Copeia. 1995: 931–938.
Salmon, M., Wyneken, J., Fritz, E. and Lucas, M. 1992. Ocean-finding by hatchling sea turtles: role of
brightness, silhouette and beach slope orientation cues. Behaviour, 122(1–2): 55– 77.
Saunders, R., Royer, F. & Clarke, M. 2011. 'Winter migration and diving behaviour of Porbeagle shark,
Lamna nasus, in the Northeast Atlantic', ICES Journal of Marine Science 68: 166-174.
Scales, H. 2010. 'Advances in the ecology, biogeography and conservation of seahorses (genus
Hippocampus)', Progress in Physical Geography 34: 443.
Scanlon, A.T. and Petit, S. 2008. Effects of site, time, weather and light on urban bat activity and
richness: considerations for survey effort. Wildlife Research 35(8) 821-834.
Seagrass Watch. 2013. Seagrass Watch, http://www.seagrasswatch.org/, accessed September 2014.
Sekiguchi, K., Klages, N.T.W. & Best, P.B. 1992. 'Comparative analysis of the diets of smaller
odontocete cetaceans along the coast of southern Africa', South African Journal of Marine
Science 12: 843-861.
Sobtzick, S. 2011. Dwarf minke whales in the northern Great Barrier Reef and implications for the
sustainable management of the swim-with whales industry James Cook University, Townsville.
Spotila, J.R. 2004. Sea turtles: a complete guide to their biology, behavior, and conservation, The
Johns Hopkins University Press and Oakwood Arts, Baltimore, Maryland.
Spring, C.S. 1982. Status of marine turtle populations in Papua New Guinea. In: Bjorndal, K. A., ed.
Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D.C., pp.
281-289.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 352
Stacey, P.J. & Arnold, P.W. 1999. 'Orcaella brevirostris', Mammalian Species 616: 1-8.
Stern, J.S. 2009. 'Migration and Movement Patterns', In: Encyclopaedia of Marine Mammals, Perrin,
W., Wursig, B. & Thewissen, J. G. M. (Eds.), Elsevier, L London.
Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuna, E., Domingo, A. & Francis, M.
2006. Lamna nasus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2013.2. ,
http://www.iucnredlist.org, accessed September 2014.
Stevens, J.D., McAuley, R.B., Simpfendorfer, C.A. & Pillans, R.D. 2008. Spatial distribution and habitat
utilisation of sawfish (Pristis spp) in relation to fishing in northern Australia, report prepared for a
report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, CSIRO.
Stevens, J.D., Pillans, R.D. & Salini, J. 2005. Conservation assessment of Glyphis sp. A (speartooth
shark), Glyphis sp. C (northern river shark), Pristis microdon (freshwater sawfish) and Pristis
zijsron (green sawfish). CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart.
Stokes, T., Dobbs, K., Mantel, P. & Pierce, S. 2004. Fauna and Flora of the Great Barrier Reef World
Heritage Area, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.
Stone, E. L., Jones, G., and Harris, S. 2012. Conserving energy at a cost to biodiversity? Impacts of
LED lighting on bats Global Change Biology 18. 2458–2465.
Tappin, A.R. 1991. 'Keeping and breeding the "extinct" rainbowfish Melanotaenia eachamensis',
ANGFA Bulletin (Bulletin of the Australia New Guinea Fishes Association) 10: 3-4.
Thorburn, D.C., Morgan, D.L., Rowland, A.J. & Gill, H.S. 2007. 'Freshwater sawfish Pristis microdon
Latham, 1794 (Chondrichthyes: Pristidae) in the Kimberley region of Western Australia', Zootaxa
1471: 27-41.
Tucker, A.D., Fitzsimmons, N.N. & Limpus, C.J. 1995. 'Conservation implications of internesting
habitat use by loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta in Woongarra Marine Park, Queensland,
Australia', Pacific Conservation Biology 2: 157-166.
Tuxbury, S.M. and Salmon, M. 2005. Competitive interactions between artificial lighting and natural
cues during seafinding by hatchling marine turtles. Biological Conservation, 121: 311–316.
Van Rhijn, F.A. and Van Gorkom, J.C. 1983. Optic orientation in hatchlings of the sea turtle, Chelonia
mydas. III Sea-finding behaviour: the role of photic and visual orientation in animals walking on
the spot under laboratory conditions. Marine Behaviour and Physiology, 9: 105–121.
Verheijn, F.J. 1985. Photopollution: Artificial light optic spatial control systems fail to cope with.
Incidents, causations, remedies. Experimental Biology, 44: 1–18.
Walker, T.A. & C.J., P. 1990. 'Absence of a pelagic phase in the life cycle of the flatback turtle, Natator
depressa (Garman)', Journal of Biogeography 17: 275-278.
Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014
Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 353
Whiting, S.D., Long, J., Hadden, K. & Lauder, A. 2005. Identifying the links between nesting and
foraging grounds for the Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles in northern Australia,
report prepared for Report to the Department of the Environment and Water Resources.
Wildlife Protection Society of Queensland. 2012. Spot Tales Newsletter #8: Far North Quoll Seekers
Network (FNQSN)-2012 Half Year Report, Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland,
Queensland.
Witherington, B.E. 1992. Behavioural response of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting.
Herpetologica, 48: 31–39.
Witherington, B.E. and Martin, R.E. 1996. Understanding, Assessing, and Resolving Light – Pollution
Problems on Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches, Rep. No. FMRI Technical Report TR- 2. Florida
Department of Environmental Protection.
Worley Parsons. 2010. Cairns Port Long Term Management Plan 2010. Worley Parsons.
Würtz, M., Poggi, R. & Clarke, M.R. 1992. 'Cephalopods from the Stomachs of a Risso's Dolphin
(Grampus griseus) from the Mediterranean', Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the
United Kingdom 72: 861-867.
Zangerl, R., Hendrickson, L.P. & Hendrickson, J.R. 1988. 'A redistribution of the Australian flatback
sea turtle Natator depressus', Bishop Museum Bulletins in Zoology 1: 69.
APPENDIX A
COORDINATOR GENERAL’S REQUEST
FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
APPENDIX B
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 1 7 OCTOBER 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 THE AQUIS LOCAL PLAN (ALP) 3
1.1 Short Title 3
1.2 Land to which the Aquis Local Plan applies 3
1.3 Purpose of the ALP 3
1.4 Vision 3
1.5 Relationship to Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme 4
2.0 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 5
2.1 Preliminary Approval 5
2.2 Relevant Period 5
2.3 Effect of Preliminary Approval 5
3.0 INTERPRETATION 7
3.1 Terms defined in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 7
3.2 Terms defined in the ALP 7
3.3 Terms defined in the Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme 7
4.0 COMPLIANCE 8
4.1 Assessment Generally 8
4.2 Code Assessment 8
4.3 Impact Assessment 8
5.0 PRECINCTS 9
5.1 Precinct Plan 9
5.2 Resort Complex Precinct Intent 9
5.3 Sports and Recreation Precinct Intent 10
5.4 Environment Management and Conservation Precinct Intent 10
6.0 TABLES OF ASSESSMENT 12
6.1 Interpretation 12
6.2 Material Change of Use Table of Assessment 12
6.3 Other Development Table of Assessment 15
7.0 THE CODE 16
7.1 Applicability 16
7.2 Purpose 16
7.3 Assessment Criteria for all Precincts 21
7.4 Assessment Criteria for Resort Complex Precinct 35
7.5 Assessment Criteria for Sports and Recreation Precinct 43
7.6 Assessment Criteria for Environment Management and Conservation Precinct 46
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 2 7 OCTOBER 2014
SCHEDULE 1 Aquis Local Plan (ALP) Area
SCHEDULE 2 Dictionary
SCHEDULE 3 Precinct Plan
SCHEDULE 4 Concept Master Plan
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 3 7 OCTOBER 2014
1.0 THE AQUIS LOCAL PLAN (ALP)
1.1 Short Title
This document may be cited as the Aquis Local Plan (ALP).
1.2 Land to which the Aquis Local Plan applies
The ALP applies to that part of the Cairns Regional Council Local Government Area
which is subject to the Preliminary Approval to vary the effect of the Planning Scheme,
identified on the land described in Schedule 1 (Aquis Local Plan “ALP” Area).
1.3 Purpose of the ALP
The purpose of the ALP is to provide a planning framework for assessing development
within the Aquis Local Plan Area including:-
(1) a Precinct Plan nominating the location of Precincts within the ALP Area;
(2) a Vision and Development Principles providing context for the implementation of this
Local Plan;
(3) a Table of Assessment identifying levels of assessment and assessment criteria for
development within each Precinct; and
(4) a Code containing performance criteria and acceptable outcomes for certain land
uses and infrastructure in the ALP area.
1.4 Vision
Aquis Resort will be the pre-eminent integrated resort and entertainment complex in
Queensland.
The built form and setting of the Aquis Resort, including its landscaping and protected
natural areas, will be distinctive, readily recognisable and develop a strong international
identity.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 4 7 OCTOBER 2014
To be built in stages, the development will provide the accommodation needs of visitors
to the FNQ region, and provide integrated entertainment, recreational and support
facilities on site. The resort will provide infrastructure and all services to support the
approved uses across the whole site in a manner that promotes self-containment.
Development of the site will be in a form and scale, and of a design, that is responsive to
its setting and natural context. The design, construction and management of all
components of the integrated resort will promote ecologically sustainable development.
Development will be designed, constructed and maintained to Australian best practice
standards.
1.5 Relationship to Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme
(1) The ALP varies the effect of the Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme.
(2) Where there is conflict between the ALP and the Cairns Regional Council Planning
Scheme, the ALP prevails to the extent of any inconsistency.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 5 7 OCTOBER 2014
2.0 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
2.1 Preliminary Approval
(1) This ALP functions as part of the Preliminary Approval, varying the effect of the
Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme as it relates to a development known as
the Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef (Aquis Resort), pursuant to section 242
of the Sustainable Planning Act (SPA) 2009, by:-
(a) stating levels of assessment for development in the ALP Area that are different
to the levels of assessment stated for the land in the Cairns Regional Council
Planning Scheme;
(b) identifying applicable Codes that are different to Codes included in the Cairns
Regional Council Planning Scheme;
(c) in all other respects relying on the applicable codes included in the Cairns
Regional Council Planning Scheme. , Where there is a different, or amended
planning scheme in effect after the preliminary approval takes effect, the
relevant codes applicable to uses apply to the development as outlined in the
tables of assessment. To remove doubt, section 1.6(2) applies in any case; and
(d) identifying definitions that are applicable to the ALP.
2.2 Relevant Period
(1) In accordance with section 341(1) (b) of the SPA, the relevant period for the
Approval is ten (10) years from the date the approval takes effect.
2.3 Effect of Preliminary Approval
(1) To remove any doubt:
a) the ALP does not vary the effect of the SPA 2009 or the SPR 2009 in any way,
including in relation to type of assessment, or to referral agencies or their
jurisdiction1;
1 Including in relation to tidal works, prescribed tidal works or native vegetation clearing.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 6 7 OCTOBER 2014
b) assessment of any development applications should give weight to the
evaluation of the Declared Coordinated Project under the State Development
and Public Works Organisation Act 1971;
c) the assessment and approval of the preliminary approval varying the effect of
the Planning Scheme and the Coordinator General’s published evaluation
report, considered all relevant Commonwealth and State Assessment criteria,
including the State Planning Policy July 2014 (SPP 2014) and its relevant
assessment requirements (Interim Development Assessment Requirements &
State Development Assessment Provisions); and
d) this ALP includes relevant SPP (July 2014) assessment criteria for uses
contemplated in each precinct where requiring code or impact assessment. The
State Planning Policy will be amended from time to time. In line with the planning
act, the State Planning Policy in effect prevails to the extent of any
inconsistency.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 7 7 OCTOBER 2014
3.0 INTERPRETATION
3.1 Terms defined in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009
(1) Terms defined in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 which are used in the ALP have
the meaning given in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.
3.2 Terms defined in the ALP
(1) The dictionary at Schedule 2 defines the additional terms and use definitions
applicable to the ALP.
3.3 Terms defined in the Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme
(1) Terms defined in the Planning Scheme which are used in the ALP have the meaning
given in the Planning Scheme, other than the use definitions in Schedule 2 or unless
identified otherwise.
(2) As per 1.6 (2) of this ALP, where there is conflict between the ALP and the Cairns
Regional Council Planning Scheme, the ALP prevails to the extent of any
inconsistency.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 8 7 OCTOBER 2014
4.0 COMPLIANCE
4.1 Assessment Generally
(1) Every use facilitated by this local plan is attributed a level of assessment (see
Section 6).
(2) In general, development may only proceed where an application is made to and
approved by the Cairns Regional Council for code or impact assessable
development.
(3) To remove any doubt, no development the subject of this ALP is self-assessable.
4.2 Code Assessment
(1) The following provisions apply in determining compliance with the applicable code:
(a) where acceptable outcomes are identified for performance outcomes,
development which complies with the acceptable outcomes complies with the
performance outcomes and Code overall outcomes;
(b) development which complies with the performance outcomes of the ALP Code
complies with the Code overall outcomes and the purpose of the Code; and
(c) development which complies with the overall outcomes of the ALP Code
complies with the purpose of the Code.
4.3 Impact Assessment
(1) For Impact assessable development, any such application is to be assessed against
the entire ALP and the Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme, as deemed
relevant by the assessment manager.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 9 7 OCTOBER 2014
5.0 PRECINCTS
5.1 Precinct Plan
(1) The Precinct Plan is attached at Schedule 3. This plan shows precincts within which
use rights and potential development criteria apply.
(2) The Precincts are:
• Resort Complex;
• Sport and Recreation; and
• Environmental Management and Conservation.
5.2 Resort Complex Precinct Intent
(1) The Resort Complex Precinct is the main feature of the Aquis Resort at The Great
Barrier Reef and comprises the built form of the resort complex surrounded by an
artificial lake. The intent for this precinct is to operate as the main ‘hub’ of activity.
Development will be clustered within the precinct and have a built form presented as
a series of buildings, separated and having a horizontal elevation and scale.
Landscaping is integrated throughout the precinct and its buildings. Standards for
water quality, flood management, mobility, and all environmental operations are to
be best practice. Development in this precinct is a substantial built environment, off-
set by the extensive open space and landscaped areas in the balance precincts of
the Aquis site.
(2) The Precinct will feature:
a) Accommodation for up to 12,000 guests (at peak occupancy) in 7,500 hotel
rooms and suites configured in 8 towers, with a total GFA of 625,000m2;
b) A casino with a total GFA of 40,000m2;
c) Two (2) 600 seat theatres with a total GFA of 5,000m2;
d) 10,000m2 of retail, restaurants, bars and food and drink outlets;
e) An aquarium with a total GFA of 2,250m2 and a rainforest with a total GFA of
2,500m2 (architectural features of the site and not stand-alone uses);
f) A 12.4 hectare reef lagoon as a central feature;
g) A 25,000m2 convention and exhibition centre;
h) A cultural heritage centre;
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 10 7 OCTOBER 2014
i) Circulation, shared space, back-of-house and services, with a total GFA of
350,000m2;
j) Guest and staff parking for 1,400 vehicles, with a total GFA of 80,000m2; and
k) Landscaping, lagoons, pools and entry water features with a total GFA of
110,000m2.
5.3 Sports and Recreation Precinct Intent
(1) The Sports and Recreation Precinct will include both indoor and outdoor recreation
uses including an 18-hole golf course (including driving range and clubhouse), a
tennis centre, equestrian facilities and other outdoor sports and recreation activities
generally surrounding the Resort Complex Precinct. The Precinct also includes car
parking facilities.
(2) In recognition of the limited sports and recreation facilities currently available to the
community at Yorkeys Knob, the precinct will include the development of a
community sports and recreation facility on land north of Dunne Road and west of
Yorkeys Knob Road.
(3) Landscaping and vegetated buffers are to be provided to screen development in the
Precinct from Yorkeys Knob Road and to reduce impacts on, or from, adjacent
agricultural land and other uses.
5.4 Environment Management and Conservation Precinct Intent
(1) The Environment Management and Conservation Precinct includes the protection
and preservation of 53 ha of native vegetation and ecological restoration works
involving planting of natural vegetation around the perimeter of the site, along
Yorkeys Creek and adjacent to Yorkeys Knob Road. These restoration works provide
significant protection and enhancement of biodiversity values by:
• predominantly retaining and maintaining existing natural vegetation;
• providing restoration works as buffers to existing natural vegetation; and
• the removal of waterway barriers to improve connectivity of Yorkeys Creek
through to the Cattana Wetlands.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 11 7 OCTOBER 2014
(2) The remainder of the Precinct will provide opportunity for the interpretation and
appreciation of biological and cultural heritage values of the site through the
provision of walkways, viewing platforms and interpretative displays.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 12 7 OCTOBER 2014
6.0 TABLES OF ASSESSMENT
6.1 Interpretation
(1) The following table identifies the levels of assessment for material change of use,
operational works, and reconfiguring a lot development applications in the ALP
Precinct areas.
(2) Consistent with the definition of use in SPA, activities which are incidental to and
necessarily associated with a predominant use are considered to be part of that use
and will not require a separate development application. This includes maintenance
activities, but not incremental change in intensity or scale of the use.
6.2 Material Change of Use Table of Assessment
Resort Complex Precinct
Level of Assessment Use Assessment Criteria
Exempt Park NIL
Self-Assessment NIL Nil
Code Assessment Caretakers Accommodation
Parking Station
Resort Complex
Utility installation
• Aquis Local Plan Code
• Flood Management Code
• Operational Aspects of
the Cairns International
Airport Code
• Potential or Actual Acid
Sulfate material Code
• Vegetation Conservation
and Significant Waterway
Code
• Development Near Major
Transport Corridors and
Facilities Code
• Excavation and Filling
Code
• Landscaping Code
• Parking and Access code
Impact Assessment All other uses & undefined
uses
• Aquis Local Plan Code
• Cairns Regional Council
Planning Scheme
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 13 7 OCTOBER 2014
Sport & Recreation precinct
Level of Assessment Use Assessment Criteria
Exempt Park NIL
Self-Assessment NIL NIL
Code Assessment Caretakers Accommodation
Club
Food and Drink Outlet
Indoor Sport and Recreation
Outdoor Sport and Recreation
Parking Station
Resort Complex
Utility installation
• Aquis Local Plan Code
• Flood Management Code
• Operational Aspects of
the Cairns International
Airport Code
• Potential or Actual Acid
Sulfate material Code
• Vegetation Conservation
and Significant Waterway
Code
• Development Near Major
Transport Corridors and
Facilities Code
• Excavation and Filling
Code
• Landscaping Code
• Parking and Access
Code
Impact Assessment All other uses & undefined
uses
• Aquis Local Plan Code
• Cairns Regional Council
Planning Scheme
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 14 7 OCTOBER 2014
Environmental Management and Conservation Precinct
Level of Assessment Use Assessment Criteria
Exempt Park NIL
Self-Assessment NIL NIL
Code Assessment Environmental Facility • Aquis Local Plan Code
• Flood Management Code
• Operational Aspects of
the Cairns International
Airport Code
• Potential or Actual Acid
Sulfate material Code
• Vegetation Conservation
and Significant Waterway
Code
• Development Near Major
Transport Corridors and
Facilities Code
• Excavation and Filling
Code
• Landscaping Code
Parking and Access code
Impact Assessment All other uses & undefined
uses
• Aquis Local Plan Code
• Cairns Regional Council
Planning Scheme
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 15 7 OCTOBER 2014
6.3 Other Development Table of Assessment
Other Development
Level of Assessment Use Assessment Criteria
Exempt NIL NIL
Self-Assessment NIL NIL
Code Assessment Operational Work
Reconfiguring a Lot
• Aquis Local Plan Code
• Flood Management Code
• Operational Aspects of the
Cairns International Airport
Code
• Potential or Actual Acid
Sulfate material Code
• Vegetation Conservation
and Significant Waterway
Code
• Development Near Major
Transport Corridors and
Facilities Code
• Excavation and Filling Code
• Landscaping Code
• Parking and Access code
• Reconfiguring a lot Code(for
reconfiguring a lot only)
Impact Assessment NIL NIL
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 16 7 OCTOBER 2014
7.0 THE CODE
7.1 Applicability
(1) This code applies to assessing development in the Aquis Local Plan area.
(2) The criteria that will be used in assessment of any application pursuant to this code
are grouped as follows:
a) Assessment criteria applicable to all precincts (Section 7.3);
b) Assessment criteria applicable to the Resort Complex Precinct (Section 7.4);
c) Assessment criteria applicable to the Sport and Recreation Precinct (Section
7.5);
d) Assessment criteria applicable to the Environment Management and
Conservation Precinct (Section 7.6).
7.2 Purpose
7.2.1 All precincts
(1) The purpose of the Aquis Local Plan Code is to ensure development results in a
pre-eminent integrated resort and entertainment complex.
(2) The purpose of the Code will be achieved through the following overall outcomes:
Environmental Values and Attributes
a) Development footprint and setting achieves separation from nearby residential
communities and sensitive receiving environments, and a resort layout which
provides space between major use components, and the opportunity for
extensive deep landscaping;
b) Development facilitates the flow of water through the floodplain and does not
cause adverse impacts on neighbouring properties;
c) Development features best-practice ecological sustainability principles and does
not impact on coastal processes or nearby Great Barrier Reef World Heritage
Area values;
d) Areas having ecological significance, both on site and adjoining the site, are
protected and where practicable, enhanced;
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 17 7 OCTOBER 2014
e) Impacts from the development are managed to ensure the quality of the receiving
environments is maintained, enhanced or improved;
f) Finished floor levels are constructed to achieve immunity to extreme natural
hazard events and risk;
g) Works necessary to protect the function of development from natural processes
are undertaken where they result in no adverse impacts on matters of
environmental significance and water quality objectives; and
h) The quality of water entering and discharging from the site is maintained to the
standard necessary for the receiving environment to not cause an adverse impact
on ecological values and functions.
Built Form
i) Development results in a built form that:
i) has a distinct and iconic tropical design and articulation resulting in
recognisable architecture with unique attributes for each building;
ii) protects longer views to the site by a low and horizontal profile, particularly
when viewed from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park;
iii) protects the operations of the Cairns Airport;
iv) defines edges and gateways, using architectural and landscaping features,
to contribute to the quality of landmarks and entry points and experience of
the resort;
v) ensures separation between buildings achieve permeability for air flow,
solar benefits and view lines, and achieve substantial landscaping to
define ground floor and spaces between buildings;
vi) is oriented towards visitors and guests on the ground level with a focus on
pedestrian comfort, scale and amenity, and integrates with transport and
pedestrian connectivity;
vii) is dominated by a landscaped form, green walls, green roofs, vertical
gardens, atriums, deep planting areas and use of water features;
viii) ensures multi-functional spaces are provided within, between and external
to buildings for gathering and recreational events;
ix) incorporates best practice energy efficiency and sustainable design and construction techniques;
j) Walkways and connections are designed for visitor, guest and staff comfort
having regard to the climate of the region;
k) Development is defined by landscaping that:
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 18 7 OCTOBER 2014
i) responds to the tropical climate and natural features of the site and its
regional context;
ii) contributes to the appearance and experience of the built form;
iii) enhances the local environment, and assists in minimising the footprint
and visual impact of development.
Connectivity, Infrastructure and Development Sequencing
l) Entertainment and recreational facilities and activities are accessible to the
community, including workers and local residents;
m) Public access and use of entertainment and recreational facilities is encouraged;
n) Access points are clear, logical and well defined, providing for appropriate and
safe intersection treatments and pavement design having regard to the modes of
transport servicing development and shared environments;
o) Development provides necessary external infrastructure upgrades to connect to
trunk infrastructure networks and makes infrastructure contributions for the
capacity of trunk infrastructure required to cater for the demands imposed on
those networks; and
p) Construction of development is sequenced to ensure the timely and efficient
provision of external and necessary public infrastructure.
7.2.2 Resort Complex Precinct
In addition to the 7.2.1, the overall outcomes for the Resort Complex Precinct are:
a) The Resort Complex Precinct contains the most intensive built form and widest
range of land uses within the Aquis Local Plan area;
b) Development within this precinct is surrounded by an artificial lake with the built
form presented as a series of buildings, separated and having a low and
horizontal profile;
c) Development within this precinct comprises the following:
i) Accommodation for up to 12,000 guests (at peak occupancy) in 7,500
hotel rooms and suites configured in 8 towers, with a total GFA of
625,000m2;
ii) A casino with a total GFA of 40,000m2;
iii) Two (2) 600 seat theatres with a total GFA of 5,000m2;
iv) 10,000m2 of retail, restaurants, bars and food and drink outlets;
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 19 7 OCTOBER 2014
v) An aquarium with a total GFA of 2,250m2 and a rainforest with a total GFA
of 2,500m2 (architectural features of the site and not stand-alone uses);
vi) A 12.4 hectare reef lagoon as a central feature;
vii) A 25,000m2 convention and exhibition centre;
viii) A cultural heritage centre;
ix) Circulation, shared space, back-of-house and services, with a total GFA of
350,000m2;
x) Guest and staff parking for 1,400 vehicles, with a total GFA of 80,000m2;
and
xi) Landscaping, lagoons, pools and entry water features with a total GFA of
110,000m2.
7.2.3 Sport and Recreation Precinct
In addition to the 7.2.1, the overall outcomes for the Sport and Recreation Precinct are:
a) The Sport and Recreation Precinct surrounds and supports the Resort Complex
Precinct by providing indoor and outdoor sport and recreation uses including, but
not limited to, the following:
i) an 18-hole golf course (including a driving range and clubhouse);
ii) a tennis centre;
iii) equestrian facilities; and
iv) a community sports and recreation facility that is accessible to the Yorkeys
Knob community located on land North of Dunne Road and west of
Yorkeys Knob Road.
b) Public access and use of the recreational facilities within this precinct is
encouraged; and
c) Landscaping and vegetated buffers are provided to screen development in the
precinct from Yorkeys Knob Road and reduce impacts on, or from, adjacent land
uses (including agricultural uses).
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 20 7 OCTOBER 2014
7.2.4 Environment Management and Conservation Precinct
In addition to the 7.2.1, the overall outcomes for the Environment Management and
Conservation Precinct are:
a) The Environment Management and Conservation Precinct protects and
preserves areas of environmental significance and provides a vegetated buffer to
sensitive receiving environments surrounding the Resort Complex Precinct, Sport
and Recreation Precinct and the wider Aquis Local Plan Area;
b) Rehabilitation and restoration works are undertaken in this precinct to provide
significant protection and enhancement of biodiversity values and includes:
i) predominantly retaining and maintaining existing natural vegetation;
ii) restoration works as buffers to existing natural vegetation; and
iii) the removal of waterway barriers to improve connectivity of Yorkeys Creek
through to the Cattana Wetlands.
c) Development within this precinct is limited to facilities that provide for the
interpretation and appreciation of environmental, and cultural heritage values of
the site through the provision of walkways, viewing platforms and interpretative
displays.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 21 7 OCTOBER 2014
7.3 Assessment Criteria for all Precincts
The following outcomes apply to development in all precincts within the ALP area:
Performance outcome Acceptable outcomes
All Approvals
PO1
Development is consistent with all approvals,
environmental authorities, including their
conditions, and infrastructure agreements
AO1.1
All development located in the Aquis Local
Plan area must be carried out in accordance
with:
i) the recommendations and operational
framework of the site Environmental
Impact Statement for Aquis Resort at the
Great Barrier Reef Pty Ltd;
ii) The conditions attached to the Preliminary
Approval given under section 242 of the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009; and
iii) the approved Environmental Management
Plans for all activities in the:
o construction;
o operation; and
o maintenance;
phases of the development.
Integrated Resort Development
PO2
Development delivers an integrated resort that
consists of the following components:
a) Accommodation for up to 12,000 guests (at
peak occupancy) in 7,500 hotel rooms and
suites configured in 8 towers, with a total
GFA of 625,000m2;
b) A casino with a total GFA of 40,000m2;
c) Two (2) 600 seat theatres with total GFA of
5,000m2;
d) 10,000m2 of retail, restaurants, bars and
food and drink outlets;
AO2.1
Development is designed to correspond with
the layout of the concept master plan (refer
Schedule 4).
AO2.2
A detailed master plan is submitted to the
Cairns Regional Council for approval; this Plan
is to demonstrate staging of development and
achievement of the integrated resort.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 22 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcome Acceptable outcomes
e) An aquarium with a total GFA of 2,250m2
and a rainforest with a total GFA of 2,500m2
(architectural features of the site and not
stand-alone uses);
f) A 12.4 hectare reef lagoon as a central
feature;
g) A 25,000m2 convention and exhibition
centre;
h) A cultural heritage centre;
i) Circulation, shared space, back-of-house
and services, with a total GFA of
350,000m2;
j) Guest and staff parking for 1,400 vehicles,
with a total GFA of 80,000m2;
k) landscaping, lagoons, pools and entry water
features with a total GFA of 110,000m2;
l) an 18-hole golf course (including a driving
range and clubhouse);
m) a tennis centre;
n) equestrian facilities;
o) a community sports and recreation facility;
and
p) environment facilities.
PO3
The distribution of land use in all Precincts is to
be generally in accordance with the Precinct
Plan (Schedule 3).
AO3.1
The general dimensions and shape of the
precincts are to be in accordance with those
shown on Schedule 3.
AO3.2
The Resort Complex Precinct comprises the
built form of the resort complex surrounded by
an artificial lake (refer Figure a and Schedule
4).
AO3.3
The Sports and Recreation Precinct comprises
sport and recreation facilities including an 18
hole golf course (refer Figure a and Schedule
4)
.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 23 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcome Acceptable outcomes
AO3.4
The Environment Management and
Conservation Precinct comprises protection
and preservation of native vegetation and
ecological restoration works of natural
vegetation around the perimeter of the site,
along Yorkeys Creek, and adjacent to Yorkeys
Knob Road (refer Figure a and Schedule 4).
Operation of the Cairns International Airport
PO4
Development is designed and constructed to
protect the operations of the Cairns Airport,
including during construction by avoiding:
a) encouraging wildlife;
b) causing nuisance, turbulence, reduction of
visibility nor light nuisance;
c) incompatible intrusions which compromise
aircraft safety in operational airspace;
d) increasing public risk or reduced amenity;
and
e) creating or causing emissions into
operational airspace.
AO4.1
Building heights including structures in the
Resort Complex Precinct are limited to a
maximum of 65 metres above the existing
ground level (2.5 metres AHD) or below the
Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) for the
Cairns airport, whichever is the lesser (refer
Figure b).
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 24 7 OCTOBER 2014
Figure a
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 25 7 OCTOBER 2014
AO4.2
Building heights including structures in the
Sport and Recreation Precinct are limited to a
maximum of 15 metres.
Figure b
AO4.3
Building heights including structures in the
Environment Management and Conservation
Precinct are limited to a maximum of 15
metres.
AO4.4
Buildings and structures do not encroach into
the airport’s operational airspace.
AO4.5
Cranes or other equipment used during
construction do not encroach into the airport’s
operational airspace.
AO4.6
Landscaping does not include vegetation that
at maturity will encroach into the airport’s
operational airspace.
AO4.7
Development involving transient activities such
as parachuting, hot air ballooning and hang-
gliding will not occur within the airport’s
operational airspace.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 26 7 OCTOBER 2014
AO4.8
Development within the lighting buffer zone for
the Cairns airport does not include any of the
following types of outdoor lighting:
i) straight parallel lines of lighting 500m
to 1000m long
ii) flare plumes
iii) upward shining lights
iv) flashing lights
v) laser lights
vi) sodium lights
• reflective surfaces.
AO4.9
Development within the lighting buffer zone for
the Cairns airport does not emit light that will
exceed the maximum light intensity specified
for the area.
AO4.10
Development does not emit smoke, dust, ash
or steam into the airport’s operational
airspace.
Or
Development does not emit a gaseous plume
into the airport’s operational airspace at a
velocity exceeding 4.3m per second.
Or
Development emitting smoke, dust, ash,
steam or a gaseous plume exceeding 4.3m
per second is designed and constructed to
mitigate adverse impacts of emissions upon
operational airspace.
AO4.11
Development does not involve uses
associated with increases in wildlife strikes,
hazards and includes measures to reduce the
potential to attract birds or bats.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 27 7 OCTOBER 2014
AO4.12
Development does not create:
i) permanent or temporary physical
obstructions in the line of sight
between antennas;
ii) an electrical or electromagnetic field
that will interfere with signals
transmitted by the facility; and
iii) reflective surfaces that could deflect or
interfere with signals transmitted by
the facility.
Or
Development is designed and constructed to
mitigate adverse impacts on the function of
aviation facilities.
AO4.13
Development is designed and constructed to
attenuate aircraft noise by achieving the
indoor design sound levels specified in Table
E:Desirable indoor sound levels for sensitive
land uses of the SPP Guideline: Strategic
airports and aviation facilities as it applies to
short term accommodation.
AO4.14
Development does not include permanent
residential accommodation uses, except for
caretaker’s residence.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 28 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcome Acceptable outcomes
Landscape Design
PO5
The landscape should reflect and enhance the
tropical character of the region by:
a) respecting and celebrating the regional
context;
b) being appropriate for the climate, soil
conditions, water regime and other local
environmental conditions;
c) using local and locally appropriate
species and design approaches which
celebrate the tropical conditions; and
d) enhancing the local environment, and
assisting in minimising the
environmental footprint.
AO5.1
Landscaping:
i) celebrates the unique regional values
of reef and rainforest;
ii) reflects the coastal character of the
region;
iii) seamlessly integrates with the built
form and moderates the impact of
engineering structures;
iv) protects and enhances key vistas and
the regional visual character, including
at night and when viewed from the
sea; and
v) restores and protects the natural
values of existing water bodies.
AO5.2
A Landscaping Plan ensures landscaping is
designed and implemented to:
i) integrate landscaping into the built
form;
ii) integrate the built form into the
landscape;
iii) ensure landscape is viewed and
appreciated from locations off-site
including screening, where
appropriate, from sensitive viewing
locations;
iv) suit local climatic conditions and water
availability;
v) celebrates tropical plant material and
design opportunities which provide for
a tropical lifestyle;
vi) screen development from surrounding
areas;
vii) be appropriate for the local climate
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 29 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcome Acceptable outcomes
conditions and resilient to extremes of
weather;
viii) incorporate local native flora;
ix) provide a variety of habitat for local
fauna species;
x) incorporate integrated stormwater
management; and
xi) encourage exploration and be
accessible to all visitors including
those with disabilities.
Refer Figure c
PO6
The landscape design minimises risk to persons
and property.
AO6.1
The landscape design incorporates:
i) planting that does not restrict
opportunities for casual surveillance;
ii) lighting that is designed and installed
in accordance with the Australian
Standard AS1158 – Lighting for Roads
and Public Spaces;
iii) legible artwork and furniture
placements; and
iv) legible universal signage.
Figure c
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 30 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcome Acceptable outcomes
Energy Efficiency and Building Sustainability
PO7
Development incorporates best practice energy
efficiency and sustainable design and
construction techniques.
AO7.1
Buildings are to be designed to maximise the
use of natural lighting and ventilation.
AO7.2
Buildings are designed to 5-6 star rating
standards for energy conservation including:
i) light and motion sensors and timers to
switch on lighting (including external /
pathway lighting);
ii) energy efficient light bulbs;
iii) solar hot water;
iv) solar electric panels;
v) reticulated gas; and
vi) energy efficient and water efficient
appliances.
AO7.3
Golf Course operations :
i) minimise the need for irrigation by use
of salt water tolerant plant and grass
species; and
ii) use low energy lighting equipment for
any golf driving range or on-course
lighting.
Waste management
PO8
The collection, storage and disposal of waste
ensures the site, receiving waters and
surrounding land are protected from potential
environmental and amenity impacts.
AO8.1
Waste storage areas / collection facilities are
to be screened or enclosed within a service
yard or enclosed space.
AO8.2
Service facilities are not to be visible from
open space areas and any public road.
AO8.3
Waste management systems consistent with
the Draft Queensland Waste Avoidance and
Resource Productivity Strategy 2014-2024 are
to be employed during the construction and
operational stages of the development.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 31 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcome Acceptable outcomes
AO8.4
A Waste Management Strategy is to be
submitted to Council prior to the
commencement of onsite works and approved
prior to the commencement of use.
Infrastructure
PO9
The development is connected to a reticulated
water supply and provided with a potable water
supply including water supply for firefighting
purposes that is adequate for the needs of the
development.
AO9.1
Water supply infrastructure is to be designed
and constructed in accordance with the
FNQROC Regional Development Manual (or
equivalent).
PO10
The development is to be connected to a
wastewater system that is appropriate for the
level of demand generated by the development.
AO10.1
Wastewater supply infrastructure is to be
designed and constructed in accordance with
the FNQROC Regional Development Manual
(or equivalent).
PO11
The development is provided with an energy
supply.
AO11.1
Development is connected to a reticulated
electricity supply in accordance with the
standards of the relevant energy supply
authority.
PO12
The development is provided with an adequate
telecommunications supply that is appropriate
to the current and future demands of the
development.
AO12.1
Development is connected to
telecommunications infrastructure in
accordance with the standards of the relevant
telecommunications provider.
PO13
Surrounding local road networks are to be
capable of accommodating the traffic demand
generated by the development and existing
communities.
AO13.1
External road works are to be improved and
maintained to meet the demand and standards
of service required for the needs of local
communities and the Aquis Resort.
Connectivity and Movement
PO14
Pedestrian links and internal pathways achieve
a consistent high quality urban design and
pedestrian comfort.
AO14.1
Artwork, street furniture and functional
decorative footpath pavement features are
used throughout the development as approved
in the Landscaping Plan.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 32 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcome Acceptable outcomes
PO15
Pedestrian links and internal pathways include
appropriate access and mobility infrastructure.
AO15.1
Development is provided with pedestrian links
and internal pathways that:
i) are well defined;
ii) comply with CPTED principles;
iii) cater for mobility and visually impaired
persons; and
iv) accommodate the operations of
v) emergency vehicles and other service
vehicles as necessary.
Visual, Lighting and Noise Management
PO16
Development protects the amenity of
surrounding residential uses and is separated
from sensitive noise receptors.
AO16.1
Lighting is designed to restrict glare with all
lights above tree height to be shielded and
downwards directed.
AO16.2
The location of ventilation and mechanical
plant ensures that prevailing breezes do not
direct noise toward nearby residential uses.
AO16.3
Distance is to be maximised between
construction activities and sensitive noise
receptors, and vegetated buffers are
established between construction activities
and nearby sensitive noise receptors.
AO16.4
Noise and vibration emissions are to comply
with Australian Standard AS2436-2010 –
Guide to noise and vibration control on
construction, demolition and maintenance
sites.
Air Quality
PO17
Development is designed to avoid or otherwise
minimise adverse impacts from emissions on
surrounding residential land and other sensitive
receptors.
AO17.1
Construction / work areas are to be sprayed
with water during dry weather.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 33 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcome Acceptable outcomes
AO17.2
A vegetated buffer zone is to be established
between the golf course and the nearby
Yorkeys Knob residential area during
construction.
AO17.3
An Environmental Management Plan (EMP –
Construction) is to be submitted to and
approved by all relevant authorities prior to the
commencement of onsite works.
Construction Management
PO18
Site works are undertaken in a manner that
does not cause impacts on the amenity of the
surrounding area.
AO18.1
Construction is to be confined to the
development site.
AO18.2
Construction activities are undertaken to meet
the noise and air quality standards under the
Environmental Protection Act 1994; and
Acoustic and Air Quality objectives of
Appendix 6 State Planning Policy 2014.
AO18.3
Works to be carried out in accordance with a
An Environmental Management Plan (EMP –
Construction) approved by all relevant
authorities prior to the commencement of
onsite works.
AO18.4
Any traffic associated with construction
including haulage off site of excavated
material, which may be required to occur
outside normal work hours, is to have regard
to the relevant noise standards under the
Environmental Protection Act 1994 and
Acoustic and Air Quality objectives of
Appendix 6 State Planning Policy 2014.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 34 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcome Acceptable outcomes
Environment Management
PO19 Impacts from development on
surrounding sensitive receptors during
construction and operation are to be minimised.
AO19.1
The following Environmental Management
Plans are to be submitted to and approved by
Council prior to the commencement of onsite
works:
• Disaster and Natural Hazard Strategy;
• Environmental Management Plan (EMP –
Construction);
• Landscape and Habitat Strategy;
• Restoration and Rehabilitation Strategy;
• Sustainability Strategy;
• Waste Management Strategy.
AO19.2
All construction and on-going management is
to be in accordance with the approved EMP.
Water Quality
PO20 Development does not discharge
wastewater to a waterway or off-site unless
demonstrated to be best practice environmental
management.
AO20.1
Development meets the stormwater
management design objectives of Appendix 2
Table A Construction Phase - State Planning
Policy 2014.
AO20.2
Development meets the stormwater
management design objectives of Appendix 2
Table B Post Construction Phase - State
Planning Policy 2014.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 35 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcome Acceptable outcomes
Reconfiguring of a Lot
PO21 The reconfiguration of lots, including long
term lease arrangements, ensures that:
a) the areas and dimensions of lots can
accommodate land uses that are consistent
with the overall outcomes;
b) the Aquis Resort continues to operate as a
single integrated resort complex;
c) appropriate separation between
development and adjoining land uses and
sensitive receiving environments can be
achieved;
d) the conditions of the Coordinator General’s
Evaluation Report can be met; and
e) the conditions attached to the Preliminary
Approval given under section 242 of the
Sustainable Planning Act 2009 can be met.
AO21.1
No acceptable outcomes are provided.
7.4 Assessment Criteria for Resort Complex Precinct
The following outcomes apply to development in the Resort Complex Precinct.
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes
Built Form
PO1
Development has a built form that:
a) has a distinct and iconic tropical design and
articulation resulting in recognisable
architecture with unique attributes for each
building;
b) protects longer views to the site by a low
and horizontal emphasis, particularly when
viewed from the Great Barrier Reef Marine
Park;
c) defines edges and gateways, using
architectural and landscaping features, to
contribute to the quality of landmarks and
entry points and experience of the resort;
AO1.1
No acceptable outcomes are specified.
Note:
Figures d, e, f, g, and h provide guidance on design
that assists in interpreting and complying with the
performance outcome.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 36 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes
d) ensures separations between buildings
achieve permeability for air flow, solar
benefits and view lines, and achieve
substantial landscaping to define ground
floor and spaces between buildings;
e) is oriented towards visitors and guests on
the ground level with a focus on pedestrian
comfort, scale and amenity, and integrates
with transport and pedestrian connectivity;
f) is dominated by a landscaped form,
including green walls green walls, green
roofs, vertical gardens, atriums, deep
planting areas and use of water features;
and
g) ensures multi-functional spaces are
provided within, between and externally for
gathering and recreational events.
Figure d
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 37 7 OCTOBER 2014
Figure e
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 38 7 OCTOBER 2014
Figure f
Figure g
Figure h
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 39 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes
PO2
Development provides immunity to and safe
refuge from extreme natural hazard events
and risk.
AO2.1
The ground floor level is on a podium level
established at a level of 7.5 metres AHD which
is above the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)
for the Barron River Delta Floodplain, storm
tide inundation PMF and tsunami level. Refer
Figure i
AO2.2
The Resort Complex is constructed over a
flood secure basement which incorporates
back-of-house support facilities. Refer Figure i
AO2.3
Safe refuge is provided for guests and staff
based on a ‘shelter-in-place’ strategy,
supported by emergency power, stores,
medical facilities, water supplies, waste
storage, and access for emergency vehicles
where practicable. Refer Figure i
AO2.4
One (1) heliport is accessible above the safe
refuge level (6.5m AHD). Refer Figure i
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 40 7 OCTOBER 2014
Figure i
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes
Accommodation Density and Type
PO3
The accommodation density of the
development reflects an integrated resort
catering for short stay tourists.
AO3.1
The development does not include any
permanent residents other than a caretaker
residence or residences.
AO3.2
The maximum accommodation density is
33pph (at 1.5 persons / bedroom).
AO3.3
Accommodation is available for a maximum of
12,000 guests in a maximum of 7,500 rooms
and does not exceed 625,000m2 GFA.
Commercial Density and Function
PO4
The Resort Complex supports the role and
hierarchy of Activity centres in the Cairns
region, as described in the Cairns Regional
Planning Scheme.
AO4.1
The scale of resort complex commercial uses
does not exceed:
Casino floors – 40,000m2 GFA
Convention and Exhibition – 23,000m2 GFA
Theatres – 5,000m2 GFA
Retail & hospitality – 10,000m2 GFA
AO4.2
Retail and theatre uses are to be designed and
operated to optimise use by resort visitors.
AO4.3
No single use or mix of uses is in a form
commonly described as a supermarket,
discount department store or department
store.
Other Uses Density
PO5
The Resort Complex complements the role of
existing tourist attractions in the greater Cairns
area.
AO5.1
The resort includes an aquarium and rainforest
as architectural features of the.
AO5.2
The scale of aquarium and rainforest features
is approximately:
Aquarium – 2,250m2 GFA
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 41 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes
Rainforest – 2,500m2 GFA
Flood Management
PO6
Development facilitates the flow of water
through the floodplain such that there is a no
worsening of flood events or velocities caused
on adjoining land upstream, downstream or
adjacent to the site.
AO6.1
The artificial lake provides increased flood
conveyance capacity to compensate for the
raised resort complex.
AO6.2
The lake is ‘quarantined’ from adjacent
groundwater through the use of a cut-off
barrier of low permeability, to limit interference
with groundwater level and quality.
Vehicle and Cycle Parking Accessibility and Servicing
PO7
Provision is made for on-site vehicle parking to
meet the demand generated by the
development.
AO7.1
Car parking is provided to cater for day guests,
visitors and staff.
AO7.2
Car parking is available in the basement of the
Resort Complex for a maximum of 1,400
spaces.
AO7.3
Car parking is provided in stages at 1 space
per 6 rooms accommodation.
AO7.4
Bus set down and parking is available within
the built form and basements.
AO7.5
High quality end-of-trip bicycle facilities are
provided for patrons and staff of the resort in
accordance with Austroads Guide to Traffic
Management Part 11 Parking including
Queensland Transport Cycle Note C4 End-of-
Trip Facilities.
PO8
Loading facilities and storage areas cater for
the demand generated by the development
and protect the amenity of the site and
adjoining premises.
AO8.1
Hall spaces in the Convention and Exhibition
Centre can be directly accessed by service
vehicles to allow for the direct and efficient
loading/unloading of goods.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 42 7 OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes
AO8.2
Back-of-house facilities are separated from
front-of-house facilities.
AO8.3
Storage is available in back-of-house areas for
Expo booths and all ancillary components
required for the operation of the Expo facility,
without a need for open air storage.
AO8.4
All meeting spaces and ballrooms are serviced
via adjacent back-of-house storage facilities.
Environmental Management
PO9
The artificial lake is designed, constructed and
maintained to achieve high water quality
standards and objectives.
AO9.1
The lake incorporates a tidal exchange system
connected to the Coral Sea via an inlet located
2.2km off-shore, remote from the turbid zone
of the near-shore waters with a diffused outlet
discharge.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 43 7 OCTOBER 2014
7.5 Assessment Criteria for Sports and Recreation Precinct
The following outcomes apply to development in the Sports and Recreation Precinct.
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes
Built Form
PO1
The built form of the development reflects the
unique location of the site and responds
sympathetically to the tropical climate.
AO1.1
The facilities are orientated and shaped to
create a gateway to the Resort Complex and
the Yorkeys Knob community.
AO1.2
The golf club house is located a minimum of
200 metres from the nearest residential area of
Yorkeys Knob (Refer Figure j).
AO1.3
The distribution of sport and recreation uses is
to be generally in accordance with Figure b.
AO1.4
Public access and use of the sport and
recreation facilities is encouraged.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 44 7 OCTOBER 2014
Figure j
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 45 7 - OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes
Parking Accessibility and Servicing
PO2
The development provides sufficient parking
spaces to cater for the likely demand to be
generated by the development.
AO2.1
A total of 3,000 staff car parking spaces are
provided in stages in the Sport and Recreation
Precinct.
AO2.2
Where parking is provided at grade the surface
area is to be surrounded by deep landscaping
and inter-spaced with large areas of open
space and planting to create the impression of
a series of separate car parks not one mass.
Refer Figure k
AO2.3
Where parking is provided over a number of
levels, the number of levels should not exceed
two (2) aboveground, and each level of the
parking structure is edged with planting that
forms a green edge to the structure.
Refer Figure l
Community Facilities
PO3
Community sport and recreation facilities are
provided at Yorkeys Knob to meets the needs
of the Yorkeys Knob community.
AO3.1
Land to the north of Dunne Road and west of
Yorkeys Knob Road is to be developed for
sport and recreation purposes open to the
public.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 46 7 - OCTOBER 2014
Figure k
Figure l
7.6 Assessment Criteria for Environment Management and Conservation Precinct
The following outcomes apply to development in the Environment Management and
Conservation Precinct.
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes
Environmental Management
PO1
Development is sympathetic to the native
vegetation and ecological values of the site.
AO1.1
Environment facilities, including boardwalks,
viewing platforms, and interpretative facilities,
established in the Precinct provide an
experience for guests and visitors.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 47 7 - OCTOBER 2014
Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes
AO1.2
Connectivity of Yorkeys Creek through to the
Cattana Wetlands is to be improved by the
removal of existing waterway barriers on
Yorkeys Creek.
PO2
Rehabilitation and restoration works are
maintained to ensure ecological values are
retained and enhanced.
AO2.1
Maintenance and weed control is to be carried
out on a regular basis, and in accordance with
the Environmental Management Plan
(Operation and Maintenance).
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 48 7 - OCTOBER 2014
SCHEDULE 1
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 49 7 - OCTOBER 2014
LOT AND PLAN DETAILS AREA
Lot 100 on NR3818
Title Ref: 20983091 121.001ha
Lot 1 on RP800898
Title Ref: 21449027 40.835ha
Lot 2 on RP800898
Title Ref: 21449028 46.35ha
Lot 2 on RP745120
Title Ref: 21343157 26.7596ha
Lot 60 on RP835486
Title Ref: 21027116 43.24ha
Lot 4 on RP713690
Title Ref: 20503245 3.88ha
Lot 1 on RP724792
Title Ref: 20864025 2173m2
Lot 2 on RP746114
Title Ref: 21360116 2515m2
Lot 3 on RP746114
Title Ref: 21360117 2000m2
Lot 4 on RP746114
Title Ref: 21360118 28.266ha
Lot 4 on RP749342
Title Ref: 21418082 30.74ha
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 50 7 - OCTOBER 2014
SCHEDULE 2
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 51 7 - OCTOBER 2014
USE DEFINITIONS Column 1 Use
Column 2 Definition
Column 3 Examples Include
Column 4 Does not include the following examples
Caretaker’s accommodation
A dwelling provided for a caretaker of a non-residential use on the same premises
Dwelling house
Environment Facility Facilities used for the conservation, interpretation and appreciation of areas of environmental, cultural or heritage value.
Nature based attractions, walking tracks, seating, shelters, boardwalks, observation decks, bird hides.
Food and drink outlet Premises used for preparation and sale of food and drink to the public for consumption on or off the site. The use may include the ancillary sale of liquor for consumption on site/
Bistro, café, coffee shop, drive-through facility, kiosk, milk bar, restaurant, snack bar, take-away, team room
Bar, club, hotel, shop, theatre, nightclub entertainment facility.
Indoor sport and recreation
Premises used for leisure, sport or recreation conducted wholly or mainly indoors.
Amusement parlour, bowling alley, gymnasium, squash courts, enclosed tennis court.
Cinema, hotel, nightclub, entertainment facility, theatre.
Major sport, recreation and entertainment
Premises with large scale built facilities designed to cater for large scale events including major sporting, recreation, conference and entertainment events.
Convention and exhibition centres, entertainment centres,
Indoor sport and recreation, local sporting field, motor sport park, outdoor sport and recreation.
Nightclub entertainment facility
Premises used to provide entertainment, which may include cabaret, dancing and music. The use generally includes the sale of liquor and food for consumption on site.
Club, hotel, tavern, pub, indoor sport and recreation, theatre, concert hall.
Temporary workforce accommodation
Premises used to provide accommodation for construction workers. The use may include provision of recreational and entertainment facilities for the exclusive use of residents and their visitors.
Contractor’s camp or, construction camp,
Relocatable home park, short term accommodation, tourist park.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 52 7 - OCTOBER 2014
Outdoor sport and recreation
Premises used for a recreation or sport activity that is carried on outside a building and requires areas of open space and may include ancillary works necessary for safety and sustainability.
Driving range, golf course, swimming pool, tennis courts, football grounds, cricket oval Equestrian facilities (stables and arenas)
Major sport, recreation and entertainment facility, motor sport park,
Resort Complex Premises used for tourist and visitor short-term accommodation that includes integrated leisure facilities including: • air services • child care centre • club • community use • educational
establishment • emergency services • food and drink outlet • health care services • indoor sport and
recreation • nightclub
entertainment facility • non-resident
workforce accommodation
• place of worship • restaurants and bars • meeting and function
facilities • service industry • shop • shopping centre • substation • sporting and fitness
facilities • staff accommodation • theatre • transport facilities
directly associated with the tourist facility such as ferry terminal and air service
helipad crèche cultural centre gallery training facilities evacuation centre in-house medical centre chapel laundry
Telecommunications facility
Premises used for the provision of telecommunications services.
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 53 7 - OCTOBER 2014
Theatre Premises used for providing on-site entertainment, recreation or similar facilities for the general public.
Hotel, major sport, recreation and entertainment facility, nightclub entertainment facility.
TERMS Horizontal elevation and scale
Means a combined profile and building mass that is wider than it is high.
Preliminary Approval Means the approval issued pursuant to S.242 SPA dated….for Application No…..
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 54 7 - OCTOBER 2014
SCHEDULE 3
CATTAN
A RO
AD
YORKEYS KNOB ROAD
DUNNE ROAD
VAR
LEY
STR
EET
A1 Full Size
30 April 2014Acad No. 3528-ALP1A.DWG
3528-ALP1 NTS
PRECINCTS
0 200 400100 300 500 m
AQUIS LOCAL PLANPRECINCT PLAN
AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________
DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 55 7 - OCTOBER 2014
SCHEDULE 4
sports and recreation
environmental areas
park
landscape areas
parking
lake
LEGEND
Aquis- Concept Master Plan October 2014
active area
casino and convention facilities
lake over�ow
road
RITCHERS CREEK
YORKEYS KNOB ROAD
DUNNE ROAD
VARLEY ROAD
CREEKYORKEYS
resort accommodation
pedestrian / cycle
arrival node / gateway
APPENDIX C
TRAFFIC MODELLING OUTPUTS
2036 CSTM Aquis ModellingNetwork Upgrades-Scenario B1 and Scenario B3
Item 1 Upgrade Description Scenario B1 Scenario B3 Road Authority1 New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to highway Yes Yes Local Road2 Upgrade Kate Street intersection to 6 lanes Yes Yes Local Road3 Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout to T intersection Yes Yes Local Road4 Bruce Highway – Kate St to Buchan St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road5 Sheridan St – Grove St to Aeroglen Dr – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road6 CWAR - Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road7 Bunda St – Spence St to Kenny St – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road8 Panguna St - Extension to McGregor Rd Yes Yes State Controlled Road9 Foster Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes State Controlled Road
10 Bentley interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes State Controlled Road11 Deppeler Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes State Controlled Road
12Closure of Robert Rd intersection with Bruce Highway (as per Cairns Bruce Highway UpgradeMaster Plan)
Yes Yes State Controlled Road
13Closure of Mill Rd intersection with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads (as perCairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Yes Yes State Controlled Road
14Closure of Peterson Rd intersections with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads(as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Yes Yes State Controlled Road
15
Pregno links (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)- Deppeler Rd to Thompson Rd- Thompson Rd to Bentley Interchange- Bentley Interchange to Swallows Rd
Yes Yes State Controlled Road
16 Mulgrave Rd – Brown St to Aumuller St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road17 Captain Cook Highway – Aeroglen Dr to Arnold St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road18 Captain Cook Highway – Poolwood Rd to Endeavour Rd – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road19 Smithfield Bypass – Upgrade to 4 lanes & add connection to CWAR roundabout Yes Yes State Controlled Road20 Smithfield Village Dr – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road21 CWAR 6 lanes Pease Street to Loridan Drive Yes Yes State Controlled Road22 Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt Peter Rd and Mill Rd Yes Yes Local Road23 Cairns Western Arterial Road - 6 lane upgrade - Redlynch Connection Rd to Loridan Dr Yes Yes State Controlled Road24 Reed Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Smithfield Village Dr Yes Yes Local Road25 McGregor Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Sidlaw St Yes Yes Local Road26 McCoombe St - Mulgrave Rd to Moody St - 6 lane upgrade Yes Yes State Controlled Road27 Earlville Bypass - Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road28 Earlville Bypass - ramps to Mulgrave Rd right in, left out only Yes Yes Local Road29 Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive - 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road30 Bruce Highway - Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange - 8 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road31 Bruce Highway - Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange - 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road32 Bruce Highway - Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge - 4 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road33 Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd - 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road34 Mt Peter Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes Local Road35 Maitland Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes Local Road36 Draper Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes - Dempsey St to Cairns Rd Yes Yes Local Road
38 Wharf Street, Sheridan Street to Lake street - 4 lanes No Yes Local Road39 Kennedy Highway - Canopys Edge Blvd - intersection capacity improvement on the western leg- 4 lanNo Yes State Controlled Road40 Captain Cook Highway - Arnold Street to Yorkeys Knob Road- 6 lanes (Southbound only) No Yes State Controlled Road41 Maconachie St/Jackson Dr/Walters Street upto Golf Course-4 lanes No Yes Local Road
Scenario B3 additional upgrade
P1498.001S AQUIS Modelling 2036 Scenario B1 & P1 Network Upgrades.xlsx
2036 CSTM Aquis ModellingNetwork Upgrades-Scenario B1 and Scenario P1
Item 1 Upgrade Description Scenario B1 Scenario B2 Scenario P1 Road Authority1 New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to highway Yes Yes Yes Local Road2 Upgrade Kate Street intersection to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes Local Road3 Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout to T intersection Yes Yes No Local Road4 Bruce Highway – Kate St to Buchan St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road5 Sheridan St – Grove St to Aeroglen Dr – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road6 CWAR - Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road7 Bunda St – Spence St to Kenny St – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes No Local Road8 Panguna St - Extension to McGregor Rd Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road9 Foster Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road
10 Bentley interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road11 Deppeler Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road
12Closure of Robert Rd intersection with Bruce Highway (as per Cairns Bruce Highway UpgradeMaster Plan)
Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road
13Closure of Mill Rd intersection with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads (as perCairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road
14Closure of Peterson Rd intersections with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads(as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road
15
Pregno links (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)- Deppeler Rd to Thompson Rd- Thompson Rd to Bentley Interchange- Bentley Interchange to Swallows Rd
Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road
16 Mulgrave Rd – Brown St to Aumuller St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes No State Controlled Road17 Captain Cook Highway – Aeroglen Dr to Arnold St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road18 Captain Cook Highway – Poolwood Rd to Endeavour Rd – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road19 Smithfield Bypass – Upgrade to 4 lanes & add connection to CWAR roundabout Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road20 Smithfield Village Dr – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes No Local Road21 CWAR 6 lanes Pease Street to Loridan Drive Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road22 Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt Peter Rd and Mill Rd Yes Yes No Local Road23 Cairns Western Arterial Road - 6 lane upgrade - Redlynch Connection Rd to Loridan Dr Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road24 Reed Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Smithfield Village Dr Yes Yes Yes Local Road25 McGregor Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Sidlaw St Yes Yes Yes Local Road26 McCoombe St - Mulgrave Rd to Moody St - 6 lane upgrade Yes Yes No State Controlled Road27 Earlville Bypass - Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes No Local Road28 Earlville Bypass - ramps to Mulgrave Rd right in, left out only Yes Yes No Local Road29 Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive - 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road30 Bruce Highway - Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange - 8 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road31 Bruce Highway - Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange - 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road32 Bruce Highway - Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge - 4 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road33 Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd - 4 lanes Yes Yes Yes Local Road34 Mt Peter Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes Yes Local Road35 Maitland Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes No Local Road36 Draper Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes - Dempsey St to Cairns Rd Yes Yes No Local Road
37 Yorkeys Knob Road- Captain Cook Highway to Dunne Road - upgrade to 4 lanes No Yes Yes Local Road38 Dunne Road - Yoreys Knob Rd. to McGregor Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes No Yes Yes Local Road39 Kennedy Highway - Canopys Edge Blvd - intersection capacity improvement on the western leg- No Yes Yes State Controlled Road40 Captain Cook Highway - Arnold Street to Yorkeys Knob Road- 6 lanes No No Yes State Controlled Road41 CWAR, CCH Roaundabout to Kamerunga Road - 6 lanes No Yes No State Controlled Road
Scenario B2 & P1 additional upgrade
P1498.001S AQUIS Modelling 2036 Scenario B1 & P1 Network Upgrades.xlsx
2036 CSTM Aquis ModellingNetwork Upgrades-Scenario B2 and Scenario B3
Item 1 Upgrade Description Scenario B2 Scenario B3 Road Authority1 New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to highway Yes Yes Local Road2 Upgrade Kate Street intersection to 6 lanes Yes Yes Local Road3 Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout to T intersection Yes Yes Local Road4 Bruce Highway – Kate St to Buchan St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road5 Sheridan St – Grove St to Aeroglen Dr – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road6 CWAR - Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road7 Bunda St – Spence St to Kenny St – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road8 Panguna St - Extension to McGregor Rd Yes Yes State Controlled Road9 Foster Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes State Controlled Road
10 Bentley interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes State Controlled Road11 Deppeler Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes State Controlled Road
12Closure of Robert Rd intersection with Bruce Highway (as per Cairns Bruce Highway UpgradeMaster Plan)
Yes Yes State Controlled Road
13Closure of Mill Rd intersection with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads (as perCairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Yes Yes State Controlled Road
14Closure of Peterson Rd intersections with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads(as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)
Yes Yes State Controlled Road
15
Pregno links (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)- Deppeler Rd to Thompson Rd- Thompson Rd to Bentley Interchange- Bentley Interchange to Swallows Rd
Yes Yes State Controlled Road
16 Mulgrave Rd – Brown St to Aumuller St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road17 Captain Cook Highway – Aeroglen Dr to Arnold St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road18 Captain Cook Highway – Poolwood Rd to Endeavour Rd – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road19 Smithfield Bypass – Upgrade to 4 lanes & add connection to CWAR roundabout Yes Yes State Controlled Road20 Smithfield Village Dr – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road21 CWAR 6 lanes Pease Street to Loridan Drive Yes Yes State Controlled Road22 Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt Peter Rd and Mill Rd Yes Yes Local Road23 Cairns Western Arterial Road - 6 lane upgrade - Redlynch Connection Rd to Loridan Dr Yes Yes State Controlled Road24 Reed Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Smithfield Village Dr Yes Yes Local Road25 McGregor Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Sidlaw St Yes Yes Local Road26 McCoombe St - Mulgrave Rd to Moody St - 6 lane upgrade Yes Yes State Controlled Road27 Earlville Bypass - Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road28 Earlville Bypass - ramps to Mulgrave Rd right in, left out only Yes Yes Local Road29 Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive - 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road30 Bruce Highway - Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange - 8 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road31 Bruce Highway - Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange - 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road32 Bruce Highway - Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge - 4 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road33 Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd - 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road34 Mt Peter Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes Local Road35 Maitland Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes Local Road36 Draper Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes - Dempsey St to Cairns Rd Yes Yes Local Road
37 Yorkeys Knob Road- Captain Cook Highway to Dunne Road - upgrade to 4 lanes Yes No Local Road38 Dunne Road - Yoreys Knob Rd. to McGregor Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes Yes No Local Road
39Kennedy Highway - Canopys Edge Blvd - intersection capacity improvement on the western leg- 4 lanes
Yes Yes State Controlled Road
40 Captain Cook Highway - Arnold Street to Yorkeys Knob Road- 6 lanes No Yes State Controlled Road41 CWAR, CCH Roaundabout to Kamerunga Road - 6 lanes Yes No State Controlled Road42 Wharf Street, Sheridan Street to Lake street - 4 lanes No Yes Local Road43 Maconachie St/Jackson Dr/Walters Street upto Golf Course-4 lanes No Yes Local Road
Scenario B2 & B3 additional upgrade
P1498.001S AQUIS Modelling 2036 Scenario B1,B2, B3 & P1 Network Upgrades.xlsx
2036 CSTM Aquis ModellingNetwork Statistcs
Before Upgrade After TMR Upgrade Before Upgrade After Upgrade
Vehicle Kilometers Travelled 5,902,936 6,187,155 6,270,922 6,272,133
Vehicle Hours Travelled 145,798 121,119 123,621 123,147
Total Vehicle Trips 718,373 719,252 725,798 725,818
Average Trip Time (minutes) 12.2 10.1 10.2 10.2
Average Trip Distance (KMs) 8.2 8.6 8.6 8.6
Lane KM's
Lane KM's Over Practical Capacity-Before Upgrade
Lane KM's Over Practical Capacity-After Upgrade
Lane KM's of Required Upgrades 179 26
247 143
146 126
Scenario B1 Scenario B3
StatisticsScenario B1 Scenario B3
P1498.003S AQUIS Modelling Network Statistics.xlsx
2036 CSTM Aquis ModellingNetwork Statistcs
Before Upgrade After TMR Upgrade Before Upgrade After Upgrade Do Nothing After Upgrade
Vehicle Kilometers Travelled 5,902,936 6,187,155 6,282,383 6,294,690 6,048,669 6,231,367
Vehicle Hours Travelled 145,798 121,119 126,169 122,913 142,070 129,429
Total Vehicle Trips 718,373 719,252 726,908 726,965 725,492 725,622
Average Trip Time (minutes) 12.2 10.1 10.4 10.1 11.7 10.7
Average Trip Distance (KMs) 8.2 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.3 8.6
Lane KM's
Lane KM's Over Practical Capacity-Before Upgrade
Lane KM's Over Practical Capacity-After Upgrade
Lane KM's of Required Upgrades 179 37 161
247 134 228
146 107 110
Scenario B1 Scenario B2 Scenario P1
StatisticsScenario B1 Scenario B2 Scenario P1
P1498.003S AQUIS Modelling Network Statistics.xlsx
2036 CSTM Aquis ModellingNetwork Statistcs
Before Upgrade After Upgrade Do Nothing After Upgrade
Vehicle Kilometers Travelled 6,282,383 6,294,690 6,270,922 6,272,133
Vehicle Hours Travelled 126,169 122,913 123,621 123,147
Total Vehicle Trips 726,908 726,965 725,798 725,818
Average Trip Time (minutes) 10.4 10.1 10.2 10.2
Average Trip Distance (KMs) 8.6 8.7 8.6 8.6
Lane KM's
Lane KM's Over Practical Capacity-Before Upgrade
Lane KM's Over Practical Capacity-After Upgrade
Lane KM's of Required Upgrades 37 26
134 143
107 126
StatisticsScenario B2 Scenario B3
Scenario B2 Scenario B3
P1498.003S AQUIS Modelling Network Statistics.xlsx
APPENDIX D
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Population Projections Fixed dependency factor = 1.5 (Including construction phase)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036OESR Mid Series Projections 160,000 163,300 167,794 171,550 175,306 179,063 182,819 186,575 190,407 194,239 198,071 201,903 205,735 209,589 213,443 217,298 221,152 225,006 228,821 232,637 236,452 240,268 244,083
Construction workforce 700 1,250 3,000 2,500 1,750 0 900 1,500 2,750 1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Indirect Jobs 0.75 525 938 2,250 1,875 1,313 0 675 1,125 2,063 938 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Population Increase 1.5 0.5 919 1,641 3,938 0 0 0 1,181 1,969 3,609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Operations Workforce 4,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Indirect jobs 1.75 7,000 7,000 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250Total Employment 11,000 11,000 8,250 0 8,250 8,250 8,250Population Increase 1.5 0.8 13,200 13,200 9,900 0 9,900 9,900 9,900Population Increase 919 1,641 3,938 13,200 13,200 9,900 1,181 11,869 13,509 9,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cummulative 919 2,559 6,497 19,697 32,897 42,797 43,978 55,847 69,356 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256Projected Population 160000 164,219 170,353 178,047 195,003 211,959 225,616 230,553 246,254 263,595 277,327 281,159 284,991 288,845 292,700 296,554 300,408 304,262 308,078 311,893 315,708 319,524 323,339
TotalsAdditional Dwellings 2.3 1,834 2,667 3,345 7,372 7,372 5,937 2,147 6,826 7,540 5,970 1,666 1,666 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 71,017
Units 0.6 $15 1,101 1,600 2,007 4,423 4,423 3,562 1,288 4,096 4,524 3,582 1,000 1,000 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 995 995 995 995 995 42,610Detached 0.4 $25 734 1,067 1,338 2,949 2,949 2,375 859 2,731 3,016 2,388 666 666 670 670 670 670 670 664 664 664 664 664 28,407
Infrastructure charges ($,000) $34,851 $50,677 $63,557 $140,073 $140,073 $112,812 $40,788 $129,702 $143,255 $113,438 $31,656 $31,656 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $1,349,324IC /EDU $25
Barron Rv Stg 2
167,794171,550
175,306179,063
182,819186,575
190,407194,239
198,071201,903
205,735209,589
213,443217,298
221,152225,006
228,821232,637
236,452240,268
244,083
170,353
178,047
195,003
211,959
225,616230,553
246,254
263,595
277,327281,159
284,991288,845
292,700296,554
300,408304,262
308,078311,893
315,708319,524
323,339
150,000
170,000
190,000
210,000
230,000
250,000
270,000
290,000
310,000
330,000
350,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035
OESR Mid Series BAU
Projected Population
Population Projections Fixed Dependency Factor 1.5 (excluding Construction phase jobs)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036OESR Mid Series Projections 160,000 163,300 167,794 171,550 175,306 179,063 182,819 186,575 190,407 194,239 198,071 201,903 205,735 209,589 213,443 217,298 221,152 225,006 228,821 232,637 236,452 240,268 244,083
Construction workforce 700 1,250 3,000 2,500 1,750 0 900 1,500 2,750 1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Indirect Jobs 0.75 525 938 2,250 1,875 1,313 0 675 1,125 2,063 938 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Population Increase 1.5 0.5 919 1,641 3,938 0 0 0 1,181 1,969 3,609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Operations Workforce 4,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Indirect jobs 1.75 7,000 7,000 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250Total Employment 11,000 11,000 8,250 0 8,250 8,250 8,250Population Increase 1.5 0.8 13,200 13,200 9,900 0 9,900 9,900 9,900Population Increase 13,200 13,200 9,900 9,900 13,509 9,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cummulative 0 0 0 13,200 26,400 36,300 36,300 46,200 56,100 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000Projected Population 160000 163,300 167,794 171,550 188,506 205,463 219,119 222,875 236,607 250,339 264,071 267,903 271,735 275,589 279,443 283,298 287,152 291,006 294,821 298,637 302,452 306,268 310,083
TotalsAdditional Dwellings 2.3 1,435 1,954 1,633 7,372 7,372 5,937 1,633 5,970 5,970 5,970 1,666 1,666 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 65,253
Units 0.6 $15 861 1,172 980 4,423 4,423 3,562 980 3,582 3,582 3,582 1,000 1,000 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 995 995 995 995 995 39,152Detached 0.4 $25 574 782 653 2,949 2,949 2,375 653 2,388 2,388 2,388 666 666 670 670 670 670 670 664 664 664 664 664 26,101
Infrastructure charges ($,000) $27,261 $37,124 $31,029 $140,073 $140,073 $112,812 $31,029 $113,438 $113,438 $113,438 $31,656 $31,656 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $1,239,816IC /EDU $25
Barron Rv Stg 2
163,300167,794
171,550175,306
179,063182,819
186,575190,407
194,239198,071
201,903205,735
209,589213,443
217,298221,152
225,006228,821
232,637236,452
240,268244,083
163,300167,794
171,550
188,506
205,463
219,119222,875
236,607
250,339
264,071267,903
271,735275,589
279,443283,298
287,152291,006
294,821298,637
302,452306,268
310,083
150,000
170,000
190,000
210,000
230,000
250,000
270,000
290,000
310,000
330,000
350,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
OESR Mid Series BAU
Projected Population
Population Projections with variable Dependency Factor (excluding ConstructionPhase jobs)2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
OESR Mid Series Projections 160,000 163,300 167,794 171,550 175,306 179,063 182,819 186,575 190,407 194,239 198,071 201,903 205,735 209,589 213,443 217,298 221,152 225,006 228,821 232,637 236,452 240,268 244,083Construction workforce 700 1,250 3,000 2,500 1,750 0 900 1,500 2,750 1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Indirect Jobs 0.75 525 938 2,250 1,875 1,313 0 675 1,125 2,063 938 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Dependency Factor 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2Population Increase Direct only 840 1,500 3,600 3,000 2,100 0 1,080 1,800 3,300 1,500Population Increase Indirect 0.5 630 1,125 2,700 2,250 1,575 0 810 1,350 2,475 1,125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Population (construction) 1,470 2,625 6,300 5,250 3,675 0 1,890 3,150 5,775 2,625Operations Workforce 4,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Indirect jobs 1.75 7,000 7,000 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250Total Employment 11,000 11,000 8,250 8,250 8,250 8,250Dependency Factor 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0Population Increase Direct only 6,000 6,000 4,500 6,000 6,000 6,000Population Increase Indirect 0.8 10,500 10,500 7,875 0 10,500 10,500 10,500Population Increase (Operations) 16,500 16,500 12,375 0 16,500 16,500 16,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Population Increase (excluding contruction jobs) 16,500 16,500 12,375 0 16,500 16,500 16,500Cummulative (excluding contsruction jobs) 16,500 33,000 45,375 45,375 61,875 78,375 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875Projected Population (excluding constrution jobs) 160,000 163,300 167,794 171,550 191,806 212,063 228,194 231,950 252,282 272,614 292,946 296,778 300,610 304,464 308,318 312,173 316,027 319,881 323,696 327,512 331,327 335,143 338,958 Totals
Additional Dwellings 2.3 1,435 1,954 1,633 8,807 8,807 7,014 1,633 8,840 8,840 8,840 1,666 1,666 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 77,808Units 0.6 $15 861 1,172 980 5,284 5,284 4,208 980 5,304 5,304 5,304 1,000 1,000 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 995 995 995 995 995 46,685
Detached 0.4 $25 574 782 653 3,523 3,523 2,805 653 3,536 3,536 3,536 666 666 670 670 670 670 670 664 664 664 664 664 31,123Infrastructure charges ($,000) $27,261 $37,124 $31,029 $167,334 $167,334 $133,258 $31,029 $167,960 $167,960 $167,960 $31,656 $31,656 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $1,478,349
IC /EDU $25
Barron Rv Stg 2
160,000163,300
167,794171,550
175,306179,063
182,819186,575
190,407194,239
198,071201,903
205,735209,589
213,443217,298
221,152225,006
228,821232,637
236,452240,268
244,083
160,000163,300
167,794171,550
191,806
212,063
228,194231,950
252,282
272,614
292,946296,778
300,610304,464
308,318312,173
316,027319,881
323,696327,512
331,327335,143
338,958
150,000
170,000
190,000
210,000
230,000
250,000
270,000
290,000
310,000
330,000
350,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036
OESR Mid Series BAU
ProjectedPopulation
APPENDIX E
TABULATED WATER QUALITY
MONITORING RESULTS
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI A-2Tabulated Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table A-1 Site 1 Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis
# Marine guideline is of low reliability
a. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (% protection level not specified, usually because of limited data available for
accurate calculations)
b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on the 99% protection level to protect against chronic toxicity to related
species and bioaccumulation)
c. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on 95% protection level as recommended for slightly to moderately
disturbed)
d. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009) - Annual median values (open coastal)
e. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (enclosed coastal)
f. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (mid estuary)
Note 1. Chlorophyll values are ~40% higher in summer (0.63µg/L) and ~30% lower in winter (0.32µg/L) than mean annual values. Both the
annual mean and these seasonal mean values should be regarded equally as guideline values for assessment purposes.
Note 2. Seasonal (winter/summer) adjustments for TSS, PN and PP guidelines are approximately ±20% of the annual mean values.
Note 3. LOR raised for Dec 2013 Total Metals and Dissolved Metals due to interference from saline sample matrix.
N.B. Where analyte concentrations were less than the Laboratory Level of Reporting (LOR) the value is assumed to be half the LOR value
as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). For some samples, the LOR was raised due to matrix interference.
N.B. Total Metals values are compared against a dissolved guideline, so are indicative only
nd = no data; NA = no applicable guideline
Dec‐13 Feb‐14 Apr‐14 May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐14
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L 2d 2 2.5 102 18 21 5 12
Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 0.45d 1 0.5 4 0.5 1 0.5 0.5
Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.07 0.025 0.08 0.025
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.002d(0.91
c) 0.13 0 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001
Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0.057 0.001 0.001 0.012 0.001
Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.002d 0.005 0.061 0.001 0.001 0.012 0.001
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0.18 0.07 0.025 0.08 0.025
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.14d 0.25 0.24 0.07 0.025 0.09 0.025
Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.004d 0.005 0.01 0.0005 0.002 0.004 0.0005
Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02d 0.93 0.03 0.0025 0.01 0.0025 0.017
Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 4450 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 12 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0
Nutrients
Dissolved Metals
Total Metals 3
Parameter Units GuidelineSite 1
Physical
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI A-1Tabulated Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table A-2 Site 2 - Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis
# Marine guideline is of low reliability
a. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (% protection level not specified, usually because of limited data available for
accurate calculations)
b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on the 99% protection level to protect against chronic toxicity to related
species and bioaccumulation)
c. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on 95% protection level as recommended for slightly to moderately
disturbed)
d. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009) - Annual median values (open coastal)
e. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (enclosed coastal)
f. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (mid estuary)
Note 1. Chlorophyll values are ~40% higher in summer (0.63µg/L) and ~30% lower in winter (0.32µg/L) than mean annual values. Both the
annual mean and these seasonal mean values should be regarded equally as guideline values for assessment purposes.
Note 2. Seasonal (winter/summer) adjustments for TSS, PN and PP guidelines are approximately ±20% of the annual mean values.
Note 3. LOR raised for Dec 2013 Total Metals and Dissolved Metals due to interference from saline sample matrix.
N.B. Where analyte concentrations were less than the Laboratory Level of Reporting (LOR) the value is assumed to be half the LOR value
as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). For some samples, the LOR was raised due to matrix interference.
N.B. Total Metals values are compared against a dissolved guideline, so are indicative only
nd = no data; NA = no applicable guideline
Dec‐13 Feb‐14 Apr‐14 May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐14
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L nde 19 12 23 22 0.5 4
Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 2e 5 1 3 1 0.5 2
Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.135e 0 0 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.08
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.015e(0.91
c) 0.12 0 0.005 0.013 0.006 0.0025
Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.001 0.001
Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0.074 0.091 0.2 0.065 0.045
Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01e 0.02 0.077 0.095 0.205 0.065 0.045
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0.19 0.14 0.08 0.08 0.08
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.16e 0.25 0.27 0.23 0.28 0.14 0.12
Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005e 0.005 0.014 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.003
Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02e 0.025 0.021 0.024 0.011 0.006 0.007
Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0.1 0.1 0 0.25 0.25
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0.9 1.1 0 0.7 0.8
Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0.05 0.05 0 0.05 0.05
Boron µg/L 5100a # 3060 767 956 0 1500 2120
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 5 0.025 0.025 0 0.1 0.1
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 10 0.2 0.1 0 0.25 0.25
Cobalt µg/L 1c 10 0.3 0.3 0 0.1 0.1
Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0.7 0.25 0 0.5 8
Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0.1 0.05 0 0.1 0.1
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 37 104 98.2 0 19.8 13.7
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 5 2.2 2.9 0 3.2 4.6
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0.6 0.9 0 0.25 0.6
Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0.2 0.3 0 1 1
Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0.05 0.05 0 0.05 0.05
Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0.1 0.1 0 2.5 2.5
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 6 38 0 2.5 25
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0.00005 0.00005 0 0.00005 0.00005
Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0.1 0.4 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 1.5 1.4 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0.05 0.05 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 4100 786 900 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0.025 0.025 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 5 0.8 0.4 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0.6 0.3 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 4.5 2.1 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0.6 0.2 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 62 123 102 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 10 2 2.7 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 1 0.5 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0.2 0.1 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0.05 0.05 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0.1 0.1 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 3 1 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0.00005 0.00005 0 0 0
Total Metals 3
Site 2GuidelineUnitsParameter
Physical
Nutrients
Dissolved Metals 3
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI A-2Tabulated Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table A-3 Site 3 - Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis
# Marine guideline is of low reliability
a. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (% protection level not specified, usually because of limited data available for
accurate calculations)
b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on the 99% protection level to protect against chronic toxicity to related
species and bioaccumulation)
c. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on 95% protection level as recommended for slightly to moderately
disturbed)
d. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009) - Annual median values (open coastal)
e. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (enclosed coastal)
f. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (mid estuary)
Note 1. Chlorophyll values are ~40% higher in summer (0.63µg/L) and ~30% lower in winter (0.32µg/L) than mean annual values. Both the
annual mean and these seasonal mean values should be regarded equally as guideline values for assessment purposes.
Note 2. Seasonal (winter/summer) adjustments for TSS, PN and PP guidelines are approximately ±20% of the annual mean values.
Note 3. LOR raised for Dec 2013 Total Metals and Dissolved Metals due to interference from saline sample matrix.
N.B. Where analyte concentrations were less than the Laboratory Level of Reporting (LOR) the value is assumed to be half the LOR value
as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). For some samples, the LOR was raised due to matrix interference.
N.B. Total Metals values are compared against a dissolved guideline, so are indicative only
nd = no data; NA = no applicable guideline
Dec‐13 Feb‐14 Apr‐14 May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐14
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L ndf 2.5 2 29 16 0.5 5
Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 3f 5 1 3 1 0.5 2
Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.2f 0 0 0.18 0.025 0.08 0.025
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.015f (0.91
c) 0.12 0 0.007 0.01 0.006 0.0025
Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.001 0.001
Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0.079 0.106 0.167 0.068 0.053
Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.03f 0.02 0.082 0.11 0.171 0.068 0.053
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0.34 0.19 0.025 0.08 0.025
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.25f 0.25 0.42 0.3 0.19 0.15 0.1
Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005f 0.005 0.014 0.022 0.007 0.005 0.003
Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02f 0.31 0.027 0.023 0.016 0.006 0.009
Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.25 0.25
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0.9 1 0 0.5 0.8
Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0.05 0.05 0 0.05 0.05
Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 651 677 0 1450 2150
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0.025 0.025 0 0.1 0.1
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.25 0.25
Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0.4 0.3 0 0.1 0.1
Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 1.1 1.5 0 0.5 0.5
Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.1
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 104 102 0 21.8 11
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 1.9 2.6 0 3.1 4.5
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0.6 1.4 0 0.25 0.25
Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0.1 0.2 0 1 1
Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0.05 0.05 0 0.05 0.05
Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 2.5 2.5
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 8 50 0 2.5 24
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0.00005 0.00005 0 0.00005 0.0001
Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 3710 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 71 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0
GuidelineSite 3
Paramater
Total Metals 3
Units
Physical
Nutrients
Dissolved Metals
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI A-3Tabulated Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table A-4 Site 4 - Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis
# Marine guideline is of low reliability
a. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (% protection level not specified, usually because of limited data available for
accurate calculations)
b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on the 99% protection level to protect against chronic toxicity to related
species and bioaccumulation)
c. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on 95% protection level as recommended for slightly to moderately
disturbed)
d. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009) - Annual median values (open coastal)
e. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (enclosed coastal)
f. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (mid estuary)
Note 1. Chlorophyll values are ~40% higher in summer (0.63µg/L) and ~30% lower in winter (0.32µg/L) than mean annual values. Both the
annual mean and these seasonal mean values should be regarded equally as guideline values for assessment purposes.
Note 2. Seasonal (winter/summer) adjustments for TSS, PN and PP guidelines are approximately ±20% of the annual mean values.
Note 3. LOR raised for Dec 2013 Total Metals and Dissolved Metals due to interference from saline sample matrix.
N.B. Where analyte concentrations were less than the Laboratory Level of Reporting (LOR) the value is assumed to be half the LOR value
as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). For some samples, the LOR was raised due to matrix interference.
N.B. Total Metals values are compared against a dissolved guideline, so are indicative only
nd = no data; NA = no applicable guideline
Dec‐13 Feb‐14 Apr‐14 May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐14
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L ndf 2.5 12 12 17 2 9
Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 3f 3 2 3 1 1 2
Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.2f 0 0 0.2 0.08 0.11 0.025
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.015f (0.91
c) 0.15 0 0.01 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001
Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0.086 0.112 0.118 0.062 0.179
Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.03f 0.04 0.089 0.115 0.118 0.062 0.179
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0.46 0.22 0.08 0.11 0.025
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.25f 0.25 0.55 0.33 0.2 0.17 0.19
Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005f 0.005 0.014 0.024 0.015 0.01 0.004
Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02f 0.025 0.013 0.025 0.023 0.014 0.014
Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0.8 1 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0.05 0.05 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 363 467 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0.025 0.025 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0.1 0.2 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0.3 0.2 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0.8 0.25 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0.2 0.05 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 90.1 93.7 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 1 1.4 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0.7 1.1 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0.05 0.05 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 11 44 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0.00005 0.00005 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 3150 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 109 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0
GuidelineSite 4
Parameter
Total Metals 3
Units
Physical
Nutrients
Dissolved Metals
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI A-4Tabulated Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table A-5 Site 5 - Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis
# Marine guideline is of low reliability
a. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (% protection level not specified, usually because of limited data available for
accurate calculations)
b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on the 99% protection level to protect against chronic toxicity to related
species and bioaccumulation)
c. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on 95% protection level as recommended for slightly to moderately
disturbed)
d. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009) - Annual median values (open coastal)
e. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (enclosed coastal)
f. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (mid estuary)
Note 1. Chlorophyll values are ~40% higher in summer (0.63µg/L) and ~30% lower in winter (0.32µg/L) than mean annual values. Both the
annual mean and these seasonal mean values should be regarded equally as guideline values for assessment purposes.
Note 2. Seasonal (winter/summer) adjustments for TSS, PN and PP guidelines are approximately ±20% of the annual mean values.
Note 3. LOR raised for Dec 2013 Total Metals and Dissolved Metals due to interference from saline sample matrix.
N.B. Where analyte concentrations were less than the Laboratory Level of Reporting (LOR) the value is assumed to be half the LOR value
as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). For some samples, the LOR was raised due to matrix interference.
N.B. Total Metals values are compared against a dissolved guideline, so are indicative only
nd = no data; NA = no applicable guideline
Dec‐13 Feb‐14 Apr‐14 May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐14
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L ndf 5 8 22 12 7 8
Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 3f 4 1 4 1 1 2
Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.2f 0 0 0.25 0.2 0.1 0.14
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.015f (0.91
c) 0.15 0 0.013 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.001 0.001
Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0.088 0.113 0.103 0.054 0.056
Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.03f 0.04 0.091 0.116 0.106 0.054 0.056
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0.36 0.26 0.2 0.1 0.14
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.25f 0.25 0.45 0.38 0.31 0.15 0.2
Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005f 0.005 0.016 0.025 0.005 0.008 0.005
Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02f 0.025 0.033 0.028 0.018 0.011 0.012
Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0.8 1 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0.05 0.05 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 294 420 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0.025 0.025 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0.3 0.2 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 1.4 0.6 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0.2 0.05 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 79.2 88.8 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 1 1.1 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0.7 0.9 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0.05 0.05 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 11 43 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0.00005 0.00005 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 2800 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 110 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0
Total Metals 3
Parameter GuidelineSite 5
Physical
Nutrients
Units
Dissolved Metals
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI A-5Tabulated Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table A-6 Site 6 - Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis
# Marine guideline is of low reliability
a. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (% protection level not specified, usually because of limited data available for
accurate calculations)
b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on the 99% protection level to protect against chronic toxicity to related
species and bioaccumulation)
c. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on 95% protection level as recommended for slightly to moderately
disturbed)
d. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009) - Annual median values (open coastal)
e. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (enclosed coastal)
f. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (mid estuary)
Note 1. Chlorophyll values are ~40% higher in summer (0.63µg/L) and ~30% lower in winter (0.32µg/L) than mean annual values. Both the
annual mean and these seasonal mean values should be regarded equally as guideline values for assessment purposes.
Note 2. Seasonal (winter/summer) adjustments for TSS, PN and PP guidelines are approximately ±20% of the annual mean values.
Note 3. LOR raised for Dec 2013 Total Metals and Dissolved Metals due to interference from saline sample matrix.
N.B. Where analyte concentrations were less than the Laboratory Level of Reporting (LOR) the value is assumed to be half the LOR value
as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). For some samples, the LOR was raised due to matrix interference.
N.B. Total Metals values are compared against a dissolved guideline, so are indicative only
nd = no data; NA = no applicable guideline
Dec‐13 Feb‐14 Apr‐14 May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐14
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L ndf 17 4 1 10 1 62
Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 3f
4 0.5 3 0.5 0.5 0.5
Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.2f 0 0 0.44 0.12 0.025 0.13
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.015f (0.91
c) 0.17 0 0.0025 0.0025 0.005 0.0025
Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0.003 0.003 0.005 0.001 0.001
Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0.103 0.122 0.311 0.106 0.06
Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.03f 0.06 0.106 0.125 0.316 0.106 0.06
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0.26 0.44 0.12 0.025 0.13
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.25f 0.25 0.37 0.56 0.44 0.11 0.19
Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005f 0.005 0.012 0.024 0.016 0.006 0.005
Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02f 0.025 0.026 0.029 0.022 0.007 0.01
Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 2140 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 152 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0
GuidelineSite 6
Parameter
Total Metals 3
Units
Physical
Nutrients
Dissolved Metals
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI A-6Tabulated Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table A-7 Site 7 - Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis
# Marine guideline is of low reliability
a. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (% protection level not specified, usually because of limited data available for
accurate calculations)
b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on the 99% protection level to protect against chronic toxicity to related
species and bioaccumulation)
c. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on 95% protection level as recommended for slightly to moderately
disturbed)
d. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009) - Annual median values (open coastal)
e. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (enclosed coastal)
f. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (mid estuary)
Note 1. Chlorophyll values are ~40% higher in summer (0.63µg/L) and ~30% lower in winter (0.32µg/L) than mean annual values. Both the
annual mean and these seasonal mean values should be regarded equally as guideline values for assessment purposes.
Note 2. Seasonal (winter/summer) adjustments for TSS, PN and PP guidelines are approximately ±20% of the annual mean values.
Note 3. LOR raised for Dec 2013 Total Metals and Dissolved Metals due to interference from saline sample matrix.
N.B. Where analyte concentrations were less than the Laboratory Level of Reporting (LOR) the value is assumed to be half the LOR value
as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). For some samples, the LOR was raised due to matrix interference.
N.B. Total Metals values are compared against a dissolved guideline, so are indicative only
nd = no data; NA = no applicable guideline
Dec‐13 Feb‐14 Apr‐14 May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐14
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L nde 76 0 11 33 4 0.5
Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 2e 2 0 3 2 0.5 1
Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.135e 0 0 0.25 0.23 0.09 0.1
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.015e(0.91
c) 0.09 0 0.0025 0.018 0.009 0.0025
Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.01 0.103 0.061 0.074
Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01e 0.02 0 0.01 0.103 0.061 0.074
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.1
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.16e 0.25 0 0.26 0.35 0.16 0.17
Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005e 0.005 0 0.004 0.014 0.003 0.003
Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02e 1.08 0 0.022 0.035 0.005 0.012
Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 4610 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 58 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0
GuidelineSite 7
Parameter
Total Metals 3
Units
Physical
Nutrients
Dissolved Metals
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI A-7Tabulated Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table A-8 Site 8 - Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis
# Marine guideline is of low reliability
a. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (% protection level not specified, usually because of limited data available for
accurate calculations)
b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on the 99% protection level to protect against chronic toxicity to related
species and bioaccumulation)
c. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on 95% protection level as recommended for slightly to moderately
disturbed)
d. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009) - Annual median values (open coastal)
e. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (enclosed coastal)
f. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (mid estuary)
Note 1. Chlorophyll values are ~40% higher in summer (0.63µg/L) and ~30% lower in winter (0.32µg/L) than mean annual values. Both the
annual mean and these seasonal mean values should be regarded equally as guideline values for assessment purposes.
Note 2. Seasonal (winter/summer) adjustments for TSS, PN and PP guidelines are approximately ±20% of the annual mean values.
Note 3. LOR raised for Dec 2013 Total Metals and Dissolved Metals due to interference from saline sample matrix.
N.B. Where analyte concentrations were less than the Laboratory Level of Reporting (LOR) the value is assumed to be half the LOR value
as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). For some samples, the LOR was raised due to matrix interference.
N.B. Total Metals values are compared against a dissolved guideline, so are indicative only
nd = no data; NA = no applicable guideline
Dec‐13 Feb‐14 Apr‐14 May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐14
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L nde 30 12 0 0 0 0
Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 2e
2 6 0 0 0 0
Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.135e 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.015e(0.91
c) 0.06 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0.011 0 0 0 0
Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0.001 0 0 0 0
Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01e 0.005 0.001 0 0 0 0
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0.55 0 0 0 0
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.16e 0.25 0.55 0 0 0 0
Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005e 0.005 0.014 0 0 0 0
Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02e 1.03 0.086 0 0 0 0
Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b
0 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 4540 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 47 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 10 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0
GuidelineSite 8
Parameter
Total Metals 3
Units
Physical
Nutrients
Dissolved Metals
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI A-8Tabulated Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table A-9 Site 9 - Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis
# Marine guideline is of low reliability
a. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (% protection level not specified, usually because of limited data available for
accurate calculations)
b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on the 99% protection level to protect against chronic toxicity to related
species and bioaccumulation)
c. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on 95% protection level as recommended for slightly to moderately
disturbed)
d. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009) - Annual median values (open coastal)
e. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (enclosed coastal)
f. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (mid estuary)
Note 1. Chlorophyll values are ~40% higher in summer (0.63µg/L) and ~30% lower in winter (0.32µg/L) than mean annual values. Both the
annual mean and these seasonal mean values should be regarded equally as guideline values for assessment purposes.
Note 2. Seasonal (winter/summer) adjustments for TSS, PN and PP guidelines are approximately ±20% of the annual mean values.
Note 3. LOR raised for Dec 2013 Total Metals and Dissolved Metals due to interference from saline sample matrix.
N.B. Where analyte concentrations were less than the Laboratory Level of Reporting (LOR) the value is assumed to be half the LOR value
as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). For some samples, the LOR was raised due to matrix interference.
N.B. Total Metals values are compared against a dissolved guideline, so are indicative only
nd = no data; NA = no applicable guideline
Dec‐13 Feb‐14 Apr‐14 May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐14
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L nde 8 6 0 0 0 0
Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 2e 3 2 0 0 0 0
Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.135e 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.015e(0.91
c) 0.09 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0.003 0 0 0 0
Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0.006 0 0 0 0
Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01e 0.005 0.009 0 0 0 0
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0.025 0 0 0 0
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.16e 0.25 0.025 0 0 0 0
Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005e 0.005 0.003 0 0 0 0
Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02e 1.11 0.012 0 0 0 0
Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 4380 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 34 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 11 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0
GuidelineSite 9
Parameter
Total Metals 3
Units
Physical
Nutrients
Dissolved Metals
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI A-9Tabulated Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table A-10 Site 10 - Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis
# Marine guideline is of low reliability
a. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (% protection level not specified, usually because of limited data available for
accurate calculations)
b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on the 99% protection level to protect against chronic toxicity to related
species and bioaccumulation)
c. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on 95% protection level as recommended for slightly to moderately
disturbed)
d. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009) - Annual median values (open coastal)
e. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (enclosed coastal)
f. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (mid estuary)
Note 1. Chlorophyll values are ~40% higher in summer (0.63µg/L) and ~30% lower in winter (0.32µg/L) than mean annual values. Both the
annual mean and these seasonal mean values should be regarded equally as guideline values for assessment purposes.
Note 2. Seasonal (winter/summer) adjustments for TSS, PN and PP guidelines are approximately ±20% of the annual mean values.
Note 3. LOR raised for Dec 2013 Total Metals and Dissolved Metals due to interference from saline sample matrix.
N.B. Where analyte concentrations were less than the Laboratory Level of Reporting (LOR) the value is assumed to be half the LOR value
as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). For some samples, the LOR was raised due to matrix interference.
N.B. Total Metals values are compared against a dissolved guideline, so are indicative only
nd = no data; NA = no applicable guideline
Dec‐13 Feb‐14 Apr‐14 May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐14
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L nde 13 8 0 0 0 0
Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 2e
6 3 0 0 0 0
Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.135e 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.015e(0.91
c) 0.05 0 0 0 0 0
Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0.001 0 0 0 0
Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0.021 0 0 0 0
Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01e 0.005 0.021 0 0 0 0
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0.18 0 0 0 0
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.16e 0.25 0.2 0 0 0 0
Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005e 0.005 0.006 0 0 0 0
Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02e 1.28 0.036 0 0 0 0
Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b
0 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 4270 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 37 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 10 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0
GuidelineSite 10
Parameter
Total Metals 3
Units
Physical
Nutrients
Dissolved Metals
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI A-10Tabulated Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table A-11 Site 11 - Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis
# Marine guideline is of low reliability
a. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (% protection level not specified, usually because of limited data available for
accurate calculations)
b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on the 99% protection level to protect against chronic toxicity to related
species and bioaccumulation)
c. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on 95% protection level as recommended for slightly to moderately
disturbed)
d. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009) - Annual median values (open coastal)
e. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (enclosed coastal)
f. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (mid estuary)
Note 1. Chlorophyll values are ~40% higher in summer (0.63µg/L) and ~30% lower in winter (0.32µg/L) than mean annual values. Both the
annual mean and these seasonal mean values should be regarded equally as guideline values for assessment purposes.
Note 2. Seasonal (winter/summer) adjustments for TSS, PN and PP guidelines are approximately ±20% of the annual mean values.
Note 3. LOR raised for Dec 2013 Total Metals and Dissolved Metals due to interference from saline sample matrix.
N.B. Where analyte concentrations were less than the Laboratory Level of Reporting (LOR) the value is assumed to be half the LOR value
as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). For some samples, the LOR was raised due to matrix interference.
N.B. Total Metals values are compared against a dissolved guideline, so are indicative only
nd = no data; NA = no applicable guideline
Dec‐13 Feb‐14 Apr‐14 May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐14
Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L 2d 2 0 0 21 24 4 0.5
Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 0.45d 1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.025
Ammonia as N mg/L 0.002d(0.91
c) 0 0 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.045
Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.002d 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.045
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.025
Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.14d 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.025
Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.004d 0 0 0.004 0.003 0.0005 0.0005
Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02d 0 0 0.0025 0.008 0.0025 0.007
Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0 0 0 0 0
Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0
Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dissolved Metals
Total Metals
Units GuidelineSite 11
Parameter
Physical
Nutrients
APPENDIX F
GRAPHS WATER QUALITY
MONITORING RESULTS
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI B-2Graphs Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure B-1 Suspended Solids against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)
Figure B-2 Chlorophyll-a plotted against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI B-3Graphs Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure B-3 Organic Nitrogen against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)
Figure B-4 Ammonia against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI B-4Graphs Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure B-5 Nitrite (no applicable guideline values are available for this parameter)
Figure B-6 Nitrate (no applicable guideline values are available for this parameter)
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI B-5Graphs Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure B-7 Total Oxidised Nitrogen plotted against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)
Figure B-8 Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen (no applicable guideline values are available for this parameter)
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI B-6Graphs Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure B-9 Total Nitrogen plotted against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)
Figure B-10 Reactive Phosphorus plotted against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI B-7Graphs Water Quality Monitoring Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure B-11 Total Phosphorus plotted against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)
APPENDIX G
CONTINUOUS YSI (IN-SITU)
MONITORING DATA
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-2 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Parameter Site Guideline Lower
(QLDWQG)
Guideline Upper
(QLDWQG)
Minimum 20th
percentile
Median Mean 80th
percentile
Maximum
Temperature (oC)
Offshore Intake
20th percentile 80th percentile 20.91 21.75 22.19 22.17 22.58 22.93
Nearshore 20th percentile 80th percentile 19.08 23.46 27.46 26.40 28.53 30.74
Mouth 20th percentile 80th percentile 21.79 23.72 27.86 27.07 29.38 31.96
Mid 20th percentile 80th percentile 20.41 24.35 27.17 26.54 28.54 31.02
Upper 20th percentile 80th percentile 23.69 27.50 28.16 28.15 29.37 31.06
Richters Bridge
20th percentile 80th percentile 21.49 22.36 23.04 23.05 23.80 24.44
Barron River
20th percentile 80th percentile 20.06 21.53 22.55 22.52 23.43 24.61
Salinity (ppt)
Offshore Intake
N/A N/A 36.04 36.28 36.93 36.90 37.55 37.98
Nearshore N/A N/A 23.06 33.47 34.68 34.12 36.06 38.18
Mouth N/A N/A 0.52 22.96 27.91 26.49 32.04 35.94
Mid N/A N/A 0.02 24.23 27.89 25.60 31.13 35.78
Upper N/A N/A 0.05 22.86 25.96 24.08 30.11 31.97
Richters Bridge
N/A N/A 7.73 21.92 25.69 24.98 28.41 32.03
Barron River
N/A N/A 0.09 1.77 14.15 14.83 27.62 32.04
pH
Offshore Intake
8.15 8.4 8.13 8.16 8.18 8.18 8.19 8.22
Nearshore 8.15 8.4 7.76 8.07 8.19 8.15 8.25 8.35
Mouth 6.5 8.4 7.20 7.93 8.04 7.95 8.18 9.03
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-3 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Parameter Site Guideline Lower
(QLDWQG)
Guideline Upper
(QLDWQG)
Minimum 20th
percentile
Median Mean 80th
percentile
Maximum
Mid 6.5 8.4 6.03 7.71 7.91 7.54 8.11 8.71
Upper 6.5 8.4 6.43 7.23 7.59 7.36 7.73 8.18
Richters Bridge
6.5 8.4 7.17 7.49 7.61 7.61 7.88 8.17
Barron River
6.5 8.4 6.92 7.18 7.59 7.41 7.74 7.85
Daytime dissolved oxygen (%)
Offshore Intake
95 105 95.01 97.31 98.43 98.64 99.69 102.59
Nearshore 95 105 46.98 90.93 94.11 94.22 98.36 111.64
Mouth 80 105 7.37 81.88 88.46 86.36 92.89 96.10
Mid 80 105 4.65 63.74 75.53 71.44 81.84 103.48
Upper 80 105 20.24 44.94 54.14 55.78 63.06 103.24
Richters Bridge
80 105 12.98 56.22 64.39 61.83 72.22 79.02
Barron River
80 105 63.19 74.76 90.18 84.91 92.50 96.81
Turbidity (NTU)
Offshore Intake
N/A 1 -0.10 11.40 26.80 33.63 51.00 320.60
Nearshore N/A 1 0.40 11.20 38.20 87.69 89.20 1325.20
Mouth N/A 10 2.50 9.50 17.20 36.37 40.10 1338.20
Mid N/A 10 -0.80 11.70 20.20 59.45 53.50 1232.70
Upper N/A 10 5.40 13.80 19.50 29.25 29.90 502.10
Richters Bridge
N/A 10 2.80 10.00 17.00 23.62 27.30 616.70
Barron River
N/A 10 1.80 3.60 4.70 5.37 6.30 83.50
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-4 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure C-1 Mean Daytime Dissolved Oxygen
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-5 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure C1 (continued) - Mean Daytime Dissolved Oxygen
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-6 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure C-2 Mean Daily pH
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-7 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure C2 (continued) - Mean Daily pH
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-8 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure C-3 Mean Daily Salinity
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-9 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure C3 (continued) - Mean Daily Salinity
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-10 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure C-4 Mean Daily Temperature
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-11 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure C4 (continued) - Mean Daily Temperature
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-12 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure C-5 Mean Daily Turbidity
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-13 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure C5 (Continued) - Mean Daily Turbidity
APPENDIX H
PROFILE MONITORING DATA
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI D-2 Profile Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure D-1 YSI profiling data for December 2013
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI D-3 Profile Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure D-2 YSI profiling data for January 2014
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI D-4 Profile Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure D-3 YSI profiling data for February 2014
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI D-5 Profile Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure D-4 YSI profiling data for April 2014
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI D-6 Profile Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure D-5 YSI profiling data for May 2014
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI D-7 Profile Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure D-6 YSI profiling data for July 2014
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI D-8 Profile Monitoring Data
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure D-7 YSI profiling data for September 2014
APPENDIX I
TUFLOW-FV OFFSHORE DISCHARGE
RESULTS
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-1TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Appendix E TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
Nutrients
Presented in Tables E1 and E2 and Figures E1 and E2 are the changes in modelled nutrients (TN
and TP respectively) at the mouth of Richters Creek and the near/off shore region. From the tables
below and figures presented the following conclusions can be drawn:
There is negligible decrease in TP at the outlet location, with TN showing a slight increase in the
higher percentiles and a slight decrease in the lower percentiles for the bottom levels.
Slight increases in TN can be seen at the Creek Mouth though less than 0.5 µg/L.
All the other locations show negligible changes in TN and TP typically less than 0.5 µg/L.
Overall there is limited change in nutrient concentrations at the entrance of Richters Creek and the
offshore region due to the proposed discharge from the lake.
Dissolved Oxygen
Presented in Table E3 and Figure E3 are the changes in modelled DO along Richters Creek and the
near/off shore region. These results, there are no notable changes in DO levels.
Chlorophyll a
Presented in Table E4 and Figure E4 are the changes in modelled chlorophyll a predicted along
Richters Creek and the near/off shore region. From the results the following conclusions can be
drawn:
There is a slight increase to chlorophyll a levels at the outlet location, but less than 1 µ/L
At the mouth of Richters Creek, there is a negligible decrease in the higher percentiles.
No notable change to chlorophyll a is predicted in the other locations, with all other percentile
changes being less than 0.1 µ/L.
Overall there is limited to no change in chlorophyll a concentrations in Richters Creek and the near-
shore region due to the proposed offshore discharge.
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-2TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table E-1 Change in Total Nitrogen Distribution due to Lake Discharge
Site Location Vertical Location
10th Percentile 20th Percentile Median 80th Percentile 90th Percentile
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
R1 - Outlet
Top -0.18 -0.16 -0.11 -0.01 -0.09
Bottom -1.41 -0.88 -0.18 0.46 0.99
Avg. -0.61 -0.52 -0.18 0.11 0.40
R2 - Inlet
Top -0.12 -0.11 -0.08 -0.06 -0.09
Bottom -0.09 -0.09 -0.08 -0.06 -0.09
Avg. -0.11 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07 -0.10
R3 - Near Shore (330m)
Top -0.15 -0.17 -0.21 -0.09 -0.19
Bottom -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.13 -0.23
Avg. -0.18 -0.17 -0.21 -0.14 -0.30
R4 – Creek Mouth
Top 0.06 -0.02 0.13 0.17 0.40
Bottom 0.13 0.04 -0.24 0.43 0.15
Avg. 0.09 0.01 -0.01 0.23 0.09
R5 – NW of Outlet
Top -0.16 -0.13 -0.12 -0.09 -0.12
Bottom -0.25 -0.17 -0.16 -0.06 -0.08
Avg. -0.20 -0.16 -0.13 -0.09 -0.08
R6 – S of Outlet
Top -0.17 -0.14 -0.10 -0.12 -0.11
Bottom -0.13 -0.14 -0.11 -0.04 -0.10
Avg. -0.16 -0.11 -0.09 -0.09 -0.06
R7 – E of Outlet
Top -0.15 -0.12 -0.09 -0.14 -0.04
Bottom -0.15 -0.09 -0.12 -0.05 -0.10
Avg. -0.15 -0.12 -0.11 -0.11 -0.05
R8 – Far N of Outlet
Top -0.15 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.15
Bottom -0.17 -0.13 -0.13 -0.12 -0.09
Avg. -0.16 -0.14 -0.14 -0.12 -0.13
R9 - Far S of Outlet
Top -0.11 -0.12 -0.09 -0.07 -0.03
Bottom -0.19 -0.13 -0.09 -0.09 -0.13
Avg. -0.13 -0.13 -0.10 -0.07 -0.14
R10 – N of Outlet
Top -0.09 -0.10 -0.06 -0.06 -0.04
Bottom -0.11 -0.10 -0.08 -0.07 -0.08
Avg. -0.11 -0.12 -0.07 -0.05 -0.05
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-3TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table E-2 Change in Total Phosphorus Distribution due to Lake Discharge
Site Location Vertical Location
10th Percentile
20th Percentile
Median 80th Percentile
90th Percentile
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
R1 - Outlet
Top -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.04 -0.03
Bottom -0.44 -0.31 -0.10 -0.07 -0.04
Avg. -0.22 -0.17 -0.09 -0.07 -0.05
R2 - Inlet
Top -0.05 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
Bottom 0.02 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00
Avg. 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00
R3 - Near Shore (330m)
Top -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01
Bottom -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03
Avg. -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.01
R4 – Creek Mouth
Top -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 0.04 -0.04
Bottom -0.01 -0.03 -0.03 0.17 0.09
Avg. -0.03 -0.03 -0.01 -0.06 0.07
R5 – NW of Outlet
Top -0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01
Bottom -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01
Avg. -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01
R6 – S of Outlet
Top -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01
Bottom -0.05 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
Avg. -0.02 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01
R7 – E of Outlet
Top -0.06 -0.05 -0.02 -0.01 0.00
Bottom -0.04 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00
Avg. -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01
R8 – Far N of Outlet
Top -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01
Bottom -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01
Avg. -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01
R9 - Far S of Outlet
Top -0.05 -0.03 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01
Bottom -0.06 -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01
Avg. -0.06 -0.04 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01
R10 – N of Outlet
Top -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
Bottom -0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
Avg. -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-4TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table E-3 Change in Dissolved Oxygen Distribution due to Lake Discharge
Site Location Vertical Location
10th Percentile 20th Percentile Median 80th Percentile 90th Percentile
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
R1 - Outlet
Top -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00
Avg. -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R2 - Inlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R3 - Near Shore (330m)
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R4 – Creek Mouth
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R5 – NW of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R6 – S of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R7 – E of Outlet
Top -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R8 – Far N of Outlet
Top -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R9 - Far S of Outlet
Top -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00
R10 – N of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-5TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Table E-4 Change in Chlorophyll a Distribution due to Lake Discharge
Site Location Vertical Location
10th Percentile
20th Percentile
Median 80th Percentile
90th Percentile
(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)
R1 - Outlet
Top 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00
Bottom 0.07 0.09 0.17 0.44 0.58
Avg. 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.21
R2 - Inlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02
R3 - Near Shore (330m)
Top 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.02
Bottom 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
R4 – Creek Mouth
Top 0.00 -0.02 0.01 -0.01 -0.05
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.02 -0.03 -0.12
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.06
R5 – NW of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04
Bottom 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04
Avg. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02
R6 – S of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02
R7 – E of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02
R8 – Far N of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01
R9 - Far S of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02
R10 – N of Outlet
Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-6 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure E-1 TN Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-7 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure E1 (Continued) TN Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-8 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure E1 (Continued) TN Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-9 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure E-2 TP Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-10 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure E2 (Continued) TP Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-11 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure E2 (Continued) TP Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-12 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure E-3 DO Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-13 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure E3 (Continued) DO Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-14 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure E3 (Continued) DO Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-15 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure E-4 Chlorophyll-a Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-16 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure E4 (Continued) Chlorophyll-a Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek
AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-17 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results
G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx
Figure E4 (Continued) Chlorophyll-a Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek
APPENDIX J
VISUAL IMPACT FIGURES
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
LEGEND
Modelling Visibility Points
60m Built Form Level ZVI
35m Built Form Level ZVI
Subject Land
Zoom In views
Night-time offshore photopoints (GPS waypoints)
Zone of Visual Influence | FIGURE 1
Note: Modelled based on 2010 Cairns LiDAR for limited area surrounding subject land including existing vegetation and built-form heights
Extents of LiDAR - Refer Figure 2 for Zoomed-In View
Beach
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
Zone of Visual Influence | FIGURE 2
Builtform Levels
36.5 AHD
1.5m AHDNGL
61.5 AHD
Note: Modelled based on 2010 Cairns LiDAR for limited area surrounding subject land including existing vegetation and built-form heights
Refer Figure 3 for Zoomed-In View
Refer Figure 5 for Zoomed-In View
Refer Figure 6 for Zoomed-In View
Refer Figure 7 for Zoomed-In View
Refer
Figu
re 4
for Z
oome
d-In
View
LEGEND
Modelling Visibility Points
60m Built Form Level ZVI
35m Built Form Level ZVI
Subject Land
Zoom In views
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
Zone of Visual Influence- Zoom in View- Yorkeys Knob Hill | FIGURE 3
Note: Modelled based on 2010 Cairns LiDAR for limited area surrounding subject land including existing vegetation and built-form heights
Half Moon Bay Marina
LEGEND
Modelling Visibility Points
60m Built Form Level ZVI
35m Built Form Level ZVI
Subject Land
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
Zone of Visual Influence- Zoomed-in View- Yorkeys Knob Township & Beach | FIGURE 4
LEGEND
Modelling Visibility Points
60m Built Form Level ZVI
35m Built Form Level ZVI
Subject Land
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
Zone of Visual Influence- Zoomed-in View- Richters Creek Mouth | FIGURE 5
LEGEND
Modelling Visibility Points
60m Built Form Level ZVI
35m Built Form Level ZVI
Subject Land
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
Zone of Visual Influence- Zoomed-in View- Holloways Beach| FIGURE 6
LEGEND
Modelling Visibility Points
60m Built Form Level ZVI
35m Built Form Level ZVI
Subject Land
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
Zone of Visual Influence- Zoomed-in View- Machans Beach | FIGURE 7
LEGEND
Modelling Visibility Points
60m Built Form Level ZVI
35m Built Form Level ZVI
Subject Land
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
Vegetation Heights| FIGURE 8
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
Cros
s sec
tion
Cross Section from Yorkeys Knob Beach (PP05) | FIGURE 9
800m (Minimum distance from development to beach)
400m
Proposed Golf Course
Existing Vegetation
PP05
Supplementary Dune Planting
Supplementary Taller growing trees (such as Norfolk Island Pines or Hoop Pines)
Pro
perty
Bou
ndar
y
Viewline from PP05_YK Beach
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
60m
55m
56.5
~200m
245m
295m
Pacific Dawn
Pacific Dawns photographed off Yorkeys Knob 26.08.2014)
Queen Elizabeth 2
Proposed Built Form (Hotel B)
Existing beach front vegetation (as seen from off-shore)
Proposed Development Size Comparison with Cruise Ships| FIGURE 10
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
A: PP05 - Superimposed Proposed Development Stage 2 on Existing Photo (12.08.2013)
B: PP 05 - Night view (transformed in Photoshop) C: Validation with night photo from similar location (26.08.2014)
PP 05 - Night view (ghosted view)
Note:Night lighting is based on approx 7000 x 100w exposed halogen lamps located along towers balconies.
PP 05 - Night view (transformed in Photoshop)
Night Photomontage from Beach PP05 | FIGURE 11
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
Night Photomontage from Green Island | FIGURE 12
Cairns CBD AirportAirport Beacons on Mt Whitfield
Machans Beach Hollowways Beach ??? in Yorkeys Knob Yorkeys Knob Marina
Aircraft
AQUIS Resort
A: Existing Photo
B: Existing Photo with Aquis Resort
Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au
Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA
aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment
Night Photomontage from Henry Ross Lookout | FIGURE 13
A: Existing Photo - Henry Ross Lookout - Day
B: Existing Photo - Henry Ross Lookout - Night Time (source: Cardno 26.08.2014)
C: Henry Ross Lookout - Photomontage with Proposed Development
Note:Night lighting is based on approx 7000 x 100w exposed halogen lamps located along towers balconies.
AQUIS Resort
top related