Eden Breakwater Wharf

Extension

Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 Referral

28 November 2016

www.advisian.com

Level 17, 141 Walker Street

North Sydney NSW 2060

Australia

Disclaimer

Advisian operates as an independent business line of the WorleyParsons Group. This referral has been prepared on

behalf of and for the exclusive use of NSW Department of Industry – Lands (the Department), and is subject to and

issued in accordance with the agreement between the Department and WorleyParsons.

Advisian accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for it in respect of any use of or reliance upon this referral

by any third party.

Copying this referral without the permission of the Department and Advisian is not permitted.

Project No: 301311-13734 - Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension – EPBC Referral

Rev Description Author Review

Advisian

Approval Date

A Internal Review

C Steele

H Houridis

N/A

11.11.2016

B Issued to Client for review

C Steele

H Houridis

S Mason-Jones

17.11.2016

0 Final

C Jones

S Mason-Jones

S Mason-Jones

28.11.2016

1

Referral of proposed action

Proposed action title:

Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension

1 Summary of proposed action NOTE: In addition to completing the fields below, you must also attach a map of the area affected by the action that includes the following features (if relevant): the location of the action; the approximate boundary of the areas and habitat mentioned in items 3.1 and 3.2; and to the extent practicable and relevant, the tenure of the project area of the proposed action (e.g. freehold, leasehold etc.). It is the Department’s preference that maps are provided in A4 size and that the geographic information system (GIS) vector (shapefile) dataset associated with the maps is also provided.

1.1 Short description The Department of Industry – Lands (“the Department”) has identified the need to extend the existing Breakwater Wharf and to deepen and extend the existing berth pocket within Snug Cove, within the Port of Eden in southern NSW. The Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension (“the Project”) will enable cruise ships up to 325m in length to berth so that passengers can embark/disembark via a gangway onto the wharf. Key features of the Project include:

Extension of the existing wharf by approximately 95m, Installation of three mooring dolphins and two berthing dolphins. Installation of new landside bollards to restrain the ship’s bow. Dredging of approximately 231,500m3 of in-situ material (including overdredging allowance). Transport and placement of the dredge material at an offshore disposal site. Installation of minor services (lighting, potable water and emergency water). Installation of navigation aids.

1.2 Latitude and longitude

Latitude Longitude Marine degrees minutes seconds degrees minutes seconds

Construction Zone 37 4 41.12594 149 54 6.67288

37 4 40.49405 149 54 32.44655

37 4 31.25081 149 54 23.59404

37 4 20.95993 149 54 28.87092

37 4 20.52148 149 54 20.89833

37 4 32.23946 149 53 58.28517

Onshore degrees minutes seconds degrees minutes seconds

Construction Zone 37 4 26.35 149 54 27.26

37 4 22.72 149 54 34.74

37 4 24.04 149 54 32.95

37 4 27.18 149 54 33.19

Offshore

Disposal Area degrees minutes seconds degrees minutes seconds 37 4 43.3272 150 1 39.4788

37 5 15.7056 150 1 39.4788

37 5 15.7056 150 1 59.7684

37 4 43.3272 150 1 59.7684

Note: the coordinates for the Offshore Disposal Area are in accordance with Sea Dumping Permit No. SD2015/3102.

2

The Marine Construction Zone which includes the location of the wharf extension and dredge footprint is shown in Figure 4 of Appendix B. The Onshore Construction Zone is shown in Figure 4 of Appendix B. The location of the Offshore Disposal Area is shown in Figure 1 of Appendix B.

1.3 Locality and property description The Breakwater Wharf extension and dredging works footprint in Snug Cove and Twofold Bay are partly located within Lot 111 DP 839683 (Crown Reserve 180072) and vacant Crown Land (Figure 1 and 2 in Appendix B). Snug Cove is situated adjacent to the town of Eden and comprises a Breakwater Wharf and two jetties; a Multipurpose Jetty and Mooring Jetty. The Offshore Disposal Area is located approximately 6 nautical miles east of Twofold Bay, in open waters of the Tasman Sea at a depth of approximately 60m.

1.4 Size of the development footprint or work area (hectares) The area of the marine construction zone is approximately 327,227m2 of which 116,500m2 is the actual dredge footprint. An additional 97,722m2 comprises the construction vessel mooring zone. Refer to Figure 4, Appendix B. The offshore disposal area is rectangular with dimensions 500m by 1000m, totalling 500,000m2. It is located within a previously used and much larger dredge material and disposal ground by the Department of Defence Twofold Bay Project.

1.5 Street address of the site Port of Eden (Weecon St, Eden NSW 2551)

1.6 Lot description The Breakwater Wharf Extension and dredging works footprint in Snug Cove and Twofold Bay are partly located within Lot 111 DP 839683 and vacant Crown Land (Figure 1, Appendix B). The wharf is part of Crown Reserve 180072 and the seabed of Twofold Bay is Crown Land. The Crown is the landowner for the works at the wharf and for the dredging footprint. The Department manages the estate on behalf of the Crown. The Offshore Disposal Area is situated approximately 6nm east of Twofold Bay, in approximately 60m depth in the Tasman Sea within Commonwealth Waters, owned by the Australian Government.

1.7 Local Government Area and Council contact (if known) The proposed dredge area and wharf extension are both located on Crown Land and the proposed Offshore Disposal Area is located in Commonwealth waters. The NSW Department of Industry – Lands are the proponent of the works. Relevant contact details: Mr Andrew Dooley Senior Project Manager – Coastal Infrastructure NSW Department of Industry – Lands Ground Floor, 5 O’Keefe Avenue, Nowra NSW 2541 P: 0402 725 625 E: andrew.dooley@crownland.nsw.gov.au The local government area is Bega Valley Shire Council (BVSC). Relevant contact details: Ms Leanne Barnes General Manager Bega Valley Shire Council PO Box 492 Bega NSW 2550 P: 02 6499 2222 E: council@begavalley.nsw.gov.au

3

1.8 Time frame The construction of the Project consists of two main stages:

The first stage consists of dredging works and involves mobilisation of the dredging contractor during the second half of 2017 and a period of up to five months to carry out the dredging works. All material will be disposed offshore 6nm east of the site.

The second stage is the construction of marine structures and onshore works including pilings, mooring

dolphins and wharf deck. The second stage is proposed over a 1-year period between 2018-2019. It is proposed that the wharf extension would become operational in the first quarter of 2019.

1.9 Alternatives to proposed action Were any feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action (including not taking the action) considered which are not proposed?

No

X Yes, please also complete section 2.2

1.10 Alternative time frames, locations or activities Does the proposed action include alternative time frames, locations or activities?

No

X Yes, you must also complete Section 2.3. For each alternative, location, time frame, or activity identified, you must also complete details in Sections 1.2-1.9, 2.4-2.7 and 3 and 5 (where relevant).

1.11 Commonwealth, State or Territory assessment Is the action subject to other a Commonwealth, State or Territory environmental impact assessment?

No

X Yes, please also complete section 2.5

1.12 Component of larger action Is the proposed action a component of a larger action?

X No

Yes, please also complete section 2.7

1.13 Related actions/proposals Is the proposed action related to other actions or proposals in the region?

X No

Yes, provide details:

1.14 Australian Government funding Has the person proposing to take the action received any Australian Government grant funding to undertake the proposed action?

No

X Yes, $10 million in project funding is being provided by the Commonwealth’s Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development under the Community Development Grants Programme.

1.15 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Is the proposed action inside the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?

X No

Yes, please also complete section 3.1 (h), 3.2 (e)

4

2 Detailed description of proposed action NOTE: You must complete each of the sections below. Please ensure that the description is complete and includes all components and activities associated with the action. If relevant, each of the matters below need to be addressed in respect of each alternative location, time frame, or activity that is identified as part of the description. If certain related components are not intended to be included within the scope of the referral, this should be clearly explained in section 2.7.

2.1 Description of proposed action In recent years, the Port of Eden (the Port) has seen increased visitation by cruise ships. However, restricted by draft and length, cruise ships are currently unable to berth alongside land-based infrastructure in Snug Cove and land access for cruise ship passengers is via tender, which is contingent on favourable weather conditions. This has the effect of limiting the number of passengers that can disembark and inhibits the attraction of Eden as a tourist destination to cruise ship operators. The port does not currently provide appropriate and adequate infrastructure to take advantage of the growth in the cruise ship industry in terms of greater numbers of visits, larger vessel sizes and ability for direct embark and disembarkation. Given Eden is between Sydney and Melbourne the Port of Eden is ideally placed to take advantage of the growth in the cruise industry by attracting cruise vessels in transit between the two state capitals.

A plan to extend the Breakwater Wharf has been in the course of development for some time. Funding has been secured from Commonwealth, State and Local Governments to help grow the far NSW South Coast economy by allowing the Port of Eden to benefit from the trend towards larger cruise ships. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under Part 5.1 of the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act) has been prepared for the Project which describes and details the effects the Project may have on the environment and advises on how best to manage environmental impacts arising from construction and operation. Key features of the Project include:

Extension of the existing wharf by approximately 95m. Installation of three mooring dolphins and two berthing dolphins. Installation of new landside bollards to restrain the ship’s bow. Dredging of approximately 231,500m³ of in-situ material (including overdredging allowance). Transport and placement of the dredge material at an offshore disposal site. Installation of minor services (lighting, potable water and emergency water). Installation of navigation aids.

The design drawings for the proposed construction works are illustrated in Figure 5-7 to Figure 5-11 of the EIS (Attachment 2). Capital Dredging Works Capital dredging is proposed adjacent to the Breakwater Wharf and in Snug Cove to remove in-situ material as shown on Figure 1 (Appendix B). The total volume of the capital dredging is 231,500m³ including an overdredging allowance. The dredging works will be undertaken by a specialist dredging contractor. The final dredge basin design comprises two zones (Figure 4, Appendix B): (i) Zone 1 contains rock and rock-like materials underlying a shallow bed of sediments; and (ii) Zone 2 is expected to comprise of sediments only. The dredging quantities for these materials are based on the following final design criteria:

Dredge basin level (clearance depth) -10.5m chart datum (CD). Dredge basin at scour protection mattress -11.5mCD. Dredge basin at sediment trap -12.5mCD. Overdredge allowance (average) 0.5m.

The final design maintains a design dredge level of -10.5mCD and accommodates a vessel length of 325m. This includes the Norwegian Breakaway Class vessels which have a draft of 8.6m. Further dynamic mooring analyses in 2016 by WorleyParsons have confirmed that there is sufficient under-keel clearance for both Voyager Class and the Norwegian Breakaway Class vessels during all states of tide. These are some of the largest vessels able to use the berth. The available geotechnical information indicates the other than rock (OTR) material removed within the dredging footprint will be predominantly sand with some silt and clay (maximum of 11%) and in some instances a high proportion of gravels (up to 32%). The sand is generally loose to very loose, with some areas that are medium dense. A maximum slope of 1V in 10H (vertical to horizontal) is adopted in the final design dredge batters in sandy materials. Where scour protection is necessary a typical batter slope of 1 in 3 has been adopted.

5

Scour Protection Scour protection will be required in one location (across Zones 1 and 2) as shown on Figure 4 (Appendix B) of the berth pocket to protect existing and new structures from undermining or loss of structural integrity from scouring forces associated with ship propulsion systems, and tug operations. Installation of articulated concrete block scour mattresses requires localised deepening of 1.0m below the dredge design level to allow for thickness of the mattress and tolerances for future maintenance dredging, if required. A continuous, durable, woven, polypropylene fabric, (also known as loopmatting) will be used to prevent washout of seabed materials beneath the concrete block units. Scour protection will not be required to protect rock batters or other areas of the dredge basin where scouring will not impact on existing structures. It is envisaged that scour protection will be installed immediately following dredging works and by the dredging contractor. Sediment Trap The proposed dredge plant (see Dredging Methodology below) will not be able to safely access the seabed below the seaward end of the Multipurpose Jetty. Therefore, a 1 in 10 batter slope above the toe line cannot be formed near the seaward end of the Multipurpose Jetty. A natural slope which is steeper than 1 in 10 is expected to form following dredging. To allow for gradual infilling over the years following dredging, the installation of a sediment trap has been incorporated into the final design with area proposed near the Multipurpose Jetty as shown in Figure 4 (Appendix B). Sediment Screening All sediments have been screened and tested in accordance with the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (2009) (see Attachment 10). Key findings of the geochemical characteristics of the sediments are:

The 95% upper confidence limit (UCL) concentrations of the mean for potential contaminants of concern were below their respective National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (NAGD 2009) Screening Levels, with the exception of tributyltin (TBT).

The 95% UCL of the mean concentration for TBT (normalised for 1% Total Organic Carbon) was above the NADG Screening Level, but below the Sediment Quality High Value.

This was due to several elevated TBT concentrations in the surface sediments at few sites. The highest normalised TBT concentration of 113.5µg/kg was reported from Site 5, approximately 100m from the existing multipurpose jetty and approximately 500m from the slipway. The other sites were located closer to the existing multi-purpose jetty and greater than 100m from the slipway.

Elutriate tests for sites with elevated TBT concentrations, returned elutriate concentrations below the detection limit of the analytical equipment (<2µg/L). These results confirm that the bioavailability of TBT is low and that the TBT is likely to be tightly bound to the organic material present in the sediment. One round of samples were collected and tested for TBT in October 2016. The samples were taken from 1m above the sea bed at all 6 locations as per the NSW EPA’s request. The results returned values below detection limits. As such the EPA has advised that no further testing for TBT was required.

All samples had organochlorine pesticide concentrations below the limit of reporting (LOR). On individual concentration of silver exceeded the NAGD Screening Level however the 95% UCL of the mean

concentration for silver was below the NAGD Screening Level. The 95% UCL of the mean concentrations for the potential contaminants of concern were below the General Solid

Waste CT1 (contaminant threshold) and National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) Health-based Investigation Level (HIL) A (for low density residential including a sizeable garden which represents the land-use category with the most exposure).

All of the sediment samples returned a net acidity of less than 0.02% oxidisable sulfur and thus, it was concluded that the acid production potential of the sediments is low.

Dredging Methodology Three dredging methodology options have been considered in the EIS. These include the use of a Backhoe Dredge (BHD) working independently over the entire dredge footprint or in combination with a Trailing Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) as summarised in the options below. Option 1 BHD – medium BHD excavates material and places it into the accompanying hopper barge(s). The material is then transported and disposed of by bottom dumping in the offshore disposal site. This method generally requires two barges to facilitate continuous dredging. The BHD is an essential component of the dredge campaign as it will be the only effective means of removing rock. The approximate dredging execution time is 15 weeks. Option 2 BHD + TSHD (Single handling method) – this involves bulk dredging of other than rock (OTR) materials using the TSHD and use of the medium BHD and hopper barges to remove rock and sediments near existing structures and in areas where the TSHD cannot manoeuvre. The approximate dredging execution time is 10 weeks. Option 3 BHD + TSHD (Partial double-handling method) – this method uses the TSHD to deliver most (if not all dredged materials to the offshore disposal site). Most of the material would be bulked out direct by the TSHD. Material in areas inaccessible or containing material too hard for a TSHD would be dredged by the medium BHD and loaded into hopper barge(s) for dumping in deep water inside the dredge footprint. The approximate dredging execution time is 6 weeks.

6

Breakwater Wharf Extension The new 95m long wharf extension will consist of a composite concrete deck suspended on steel tubular piles. The new wharf deck height will be at RL +3.2mCD which is 0.276m higher than the existing wharf coping beam. The steel piles will be driven to a design toe level (level into the seabed) by a piling hammer lifted by a crane mounted either on a barge or from the existing wharf. Rock anchors may be installed in some piles, depending on pile refusal level by drilling down through the preinstalled steel tubular pile with a drill rig, installing steel reinforcement and then pouring in-situ concrete within the pile, to ensure there is a strong connection between the pile and the bedrock. Prefabricated headstocks shall then be installed by crane onto the piles. Three to four piles will support each of the headstocks (or bents). Prefabricated concrete deck panels will then be lifted into place, spanning across two adjacent headstocks (or bents). Once all deck panels have been installed, gaps will be filled with a gap filler product, before an in-situ concrete topping slab is installed and minor services are fitted to the deck. The majority of the piles are likely to be too long for transportation to the site via road (turning circles too tight for pile length) and are likely to be delivered via water by bulk barge delivery. As the land side construction area may not be sufficient in area to accommodate the bulk delivery of piles and other required activities, an alternative storage location may be required. This may be on floating dumb barges and/or at an alternative storage location with waterside load out facilities such as the PANSW laydown area behind the multi-user wharf on the south side of Twofold Bay. The piles would be offloaded using the ships crane and/or a crane positioned on the multi-user wharf, transported to the laydown area and offloaded using a laydown yard crane. The piles would then be transferred back to the multi-user wharf when required and transported via dumb barge from the load out facility to Site. New bollards will be required to restrain the bow of the ship and these will be situated on the existing wharf and will require independent foundations. This shall require sections of the existing wharf to be cut away, to enable new piled foundations to be installed including the use of rock anchors. Once the new foundations have been installed, the deck of the existing wharf shall be reinstated and the new bollards installed to the wharf deck. New wharf furniture includes traffic barriers, bollards, fenders and emergency access ladders. Three mooring dolphins and two berthing dolphins will be installed along the fender line (berthing face). Each dolphin will consist of 6 steel tubular piles driven into the seabed by a piling hammer suspended from a crane mounted on a barge. Once the piles are established, the pre-fabricated dolphin modules will be installed with bollards on each of the decks, access platform, safety ladders and hand railings fitted. Panel fenders will be installed on the berthing dolphins.

2.2 Feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action

Four alternatives to the Project were considered:

The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario. Use of an alternative wharf within the Port of Eden for berthing cruise ships. Improved tendering alternatives. Feasible options for a shorter wharf extension and less dredging works.

The ‘Do Nothing’ Scenario This scenario assumes that there is no upgrade to the existing Breakwater Wharf or increase in depth of the dredge pocket. Under this scenario, vessels up to 60m in length (all weather) would remain the only vessels that can be accommodated at the berth. Further, the current method of cruise passenger transfer via tendering would continue which is not considered to be an acceptable situation to cruise ship operators to ensure the safety of passengers and crew and facilitate access to Snug Cove. Only one of the two major cruise operators, Carnival, currently visits the port, but even this operator is required to anchor offshore and ferry passengers to land via tender vessels. This practice, in itself, is contingent on favourable weather conditions to ensure safe access. The other major cruise operator RCCL will not use the existing infrastructure. As previously stated, this would result in the reduced opportunity for larger cruise ship vessels to berth at the Breakwater Wharf over time, with subsequent expected loss of revenue and employment opportunities in the regional economy that would be generated under Project. This would be contrary to realising the objectives of the Commonwealth Government, NSW Government and Local Government Policies referred to in Section 3.1 of the EIS (Attachment 2) to promote the visitor economy. Further, the current growth in ship numbers booked to visit Eden in the next three years is attributed to product development being implemented by the cruise industry in anticipation of better port facilities following completion of the Project. It would be expected that if the Project was not to proceed then the industry would slow down/stop its product development and cruise ship numbers would be expected to decrease from that currently being experienced. The Use of an Alternative Wharf within the Port of Eden The Multi-user Wharf, located on the south side of Twofold Bay at East Boyd Bay could be used to berth medium sized cruise ships up to a maximum length overall (LOA) of 185m and draft of 10.5m when not in use by other users. It is a multi-purpose wharf which is mainly used by the Department of Defence for its navy vessels with the balance used for cargoes, timber exports

7

and general trading vessels. There would be potential for cruise ships to use this wharf when other vessels are not scheduled to use it. Given the size restriction of the wharf, it would not be possible to accommodate most current and future cruise ship visits that are greater than 185m LOA. Further, the travel time (about 35 minutes one way) by road from the Multi-user Wharf to Eden is considered less attractive to the cruise ship industry. This is because Eden is used as a transit port only, whereby the ship arrives in the morning and departs late afternoon on the same day. Consequently, use of the Multi-user Wharf would not allow sufficient time ashore for passengers to explore Eden and surrounding areas. Given the current use of the Multi-user Wharf by several user groups (which dictates availability) and the length and distance of the road trip to Eden and back, it is therefore not considered to be a viable alternative. Improved Tendering Alternatives Improvements in the capacity and time taken to tender and transfer passengers will still limit the time available for tours and other onshore activities. There will also still remain about 5% of passengers who would not be willing to disembark via tendering based on information supplied by Cruise Eden. During inclement weather conditions, it is currently not possible to safely transfer passengers to shore. The ability of crew to disembark would also remain very limited. This option does not support the long term growth of the cruise industry as cruise ship operators prefer to have established berthing facilities. Accordingly, this is not considered to be a viable alternative. Feasible Options for a shorter wharf extension and less dredging works To assist with developing and evaluating options for the wharf extension, a Value Optimisation Study (VOS) was conducted with a range of stakeholders in July 2015 by the principal design consultant, WorleyParsons (2015b). An iterative options analysis process was adopted to refine five options as follows:

Option 1 – the ‘original’ design, which would accommodate 220- 260m long vessels (weather dependent) and vessels up to 60m vessels (all weather).

Option 2 – a ‘revised’ design, which would accommodate a full range of vessels between 70m to 260m in length (all weather).

Option 3 – a ‘Future Proof’ design, which would accommodate vessels between 70m to 260m in length (all weather) and vessels 260-325m in length (weather dependent).

Option 4 – this option comprises Option 3 and incorporates the addition of a cruise terminal building on the land adjoining the wharf.

Option 5 – a staged delivery of Options 1-3. Option 3, which will future proof the extension by enabling berthing of larger vessels is the preferred option that has been selected by the Department. This selection has especially been informed by extensive consultation with the cruise ship industry and the Port Authority of NSW where it was revealed that there will likely be an increasing number of longer vessels (300m+) operating in the domestic and international marketplace within the next 5-10 years. The analysis found that Option 3 incorporates design solutions, which overcome the significant ‘ship-size’ limitations of Option 2, for the lowest possible additional capital cost. Option 3 is able to accommodate a 325m sized cruise ship alongside an extended Breakwater Wharf. In relation to dredging, the Concept Dredging Plan compared the use of a Backhoe Dredge (BHD), a Cutter Suction Dredge (CSD) or Trailer Suction Hopper Dredger (TSHD) working independently over the entire dredge footprint. A final design workshop was held on 4 August 2016 to optimise the dredge methodology. The Final Dredging Plan (Attachment 7) provides a description of three dredge methodology options under consideration of which are also briefly described above in Section 2.1

2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action It is common practice that dredged material be beneficially used (onsite or offsite), or disposed of offshore or on land. What happens to the material is dependent on the resources and requirements of the area, as well as the type of dredging used. The Concept Dredging Plan contained a comprehensive assessment of options for disposal or beneficial use of dredged materials. Disposal options (as shown in Figure 1 below) considered were:

Location 1 – Part use onsite as fill for the proposed berth extension on the leeward side of existing breakwater. Location 2 – Part use offsite as fill at the northern end of Snug Cove to increase the land area within the port precinct. Location 3 – Cocora Beach nourishment. Location 4 – Disposal at old Mobil tank farm site and stockpile for future use. Location 5 – Disposal site at the low lying area located at Imlay Street and stockpile for future use and sea disposal at

Yallumgo Cove. Land disposal – unlikely given the quantity and cost of transport/disposal. Offshore disposal – located within eastern section of the disposal ground previously used for Department of Defence’s

Twofold Bay project.

8

Figure 1 – Disposal Options Locations

Onshore disposal of the dredge material on land was not considered feasible for the following reasons:

Location 1 was not considered a viable option as the source volume was significantly greater than that potentially needed in the wharf construction works.

There is no locally recognised NSW Office of Environment and Heritage beach erosion ‘hot spot’ for beach nourishment. Locations 2, 3 and 5 all introduce the potential for impacting the intertidal and subtidal habitats. In addition, Location 3

would introduce the potential to impact on local mussel leases based on its current location. Land based stock piling and dewatering at nearby sites (Locations 4 and 5) has the potential to impact on local

nearshore habitats, land values and community values. Furthermore, these options are not economically viable because the cost associated with triple handling the material, dewatering and transporting the material is disproportionate to the scale of the proposed dredging works and the likely demand for the material in the local region. Additionally, there is not sufficient capacity at either site to receive all of the dredge material.

The Concept Dredging Plan concluded that, in the absence of a suitable large onshore disposal site, offshore disposal was the only feasible option. This situation remains unchanged as reported in the Final Dredging Plan (Attachment 7).

2.4 Context, including any relevant planning framework and state/local government requirements The Snug Cove precinct has been the focus of a broader Master Plan for Snug Cove (adopted by BVSC in 2005 and amended in December 2013) that includes facilities for safe berthage of cruise vessels, support vessels for the offshore gas and oilfields, super yachts and ocean racing and recreation craft. The EIS (Attachment 2) provides a detailed description of the statutory requirements for the proposed action. The table below contains a summary of the permits, approvals and licenses required to proceed with the proposed action for the Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension.

Legislation Permit, Approval or Licence Comment

Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act 1999

Decision of whether the Project is a Controlled Action

Required to determine if the Project is deemed to be a Controlled Action.

Commonwealth Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (the Sea Dumping Act)

Sea Dumping Permit Required to allow lawful disposal of dredge material within an approved offshore disposal location.

NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act)

State Significant Infrastructure Approval Part 5.1 of the EP&A Act requires consideration of the likely environmental impacts of the activity and to consider the appropriate level of environmental assessment that is required prior to

9

approving the activity.

NSW Protection of the Environment Operations Act 1997 (POEO Act)

Environment Protection Licence (EPL) Required as a scheduled activity (‘water-based extractive activity’)

NSW Management of Waters and Waterside Lands Regulations

Application to PANSW for approval prior to disturbance.

Regulation 67 Harbour Master approval for disturbance of bed of port.

2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, State or Territory legislation Where possible, provide contact details for the relevant assessment contact officer. Further, please describe or summarise any public consultation undertaken, or to be undertaken, during the assessment. Attach copies of relevant assessment documentation and outcomes of public consultations (if available).

The NSW State Environmental Planning Policy (Infrastructure) 2007 (ISEPP) identifies development that is State Significant Infrastructure (SSI). The parameters for the declaration of SSI, being:

Development is declared, pursuant to section 115U (2) of the Act, to be State significant infrastructure for the purposes of the Act if: (a) the development on the land concerned is, by the operation of a State environmental planning policy, permissible without development consent under Part 4 of the Act, and (b) the development is specified in Schedule 3.

Clause 2 Schedule 3 of the State and Regional Development SEPP (SRD SEPP) includes a definition for “Port facilities and wharf or boating facilities”, being “Development for the purpose of port and wharf facilities or boating facilities (not including marinas) by or on behalf of a public authority that has a capital investment value (CIV) of more than $30 million”. As the Capital Investment Value (CIV) for the Project exceeds the $30million threshold, the Project is SSI and therefore falls under Part 5.1 of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act (EP&A Act), requiring approval from the NSW Minister for Planning. An EIS for the SSI Project has been completed for the whole of the proposed action and lodged with the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E). The EIS is currently on public exhibition from 16 November 2016 to 16 December 2016. The relevant DP&E assessment contact officer is: Ms Alix Carpenter Team Leader – Infrastructure Projects NSW Department of Planning and Environment GPO Box 39 Sydney NSW 2001 P: 02 9274 6472 E: Alix.Carpenter@planning.nsw.gov.au

In 2014, the Department developed a Communication and Community Engagement Strategy and Communications Management Plan. It has been effective in identifying the key stakeholders and implementing the appropriate channels and forums for two-way consultation for the Project. Further details regarding public consultation is described in Section 2.6 below.

2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders) Keeping the community informed of the status of the Project and implementing a number of community engagement activities has been integral to identifying the key community concerns and issues for assessment in the EIS (Attachment 2). In accordance with Part 5.1 of the EP&A Act, consultation for SSI projects is required to occur at the following stages:

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

Preparing the EIS – the SEARs for the Project included specific consultation requirements. Consultation carried out for the Project is outlined below.

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

Significant consultation has occurred to date, and will continue to occur throughout the assessment and construction phases of the Project. Stakeholder consultation is being carried out by the Department via the following:

Port of Eden Project Control Group – the group meets quarterly and comprises a number of State Government Agencies. Community Liaison Group – formed in January 2015 and meets monthly to provide a forum for regular updates on the

Project, gathers community feedback and raises concerns as they arrive. Port of Eden Harbour User Group (HUG) meetings – meets quarterly to assist the Department in resolving operational

matters and identifies emerging issues.

10

Meeting with Eden LALC and Twofold Aboriginal Corporation – biannual meetings to provide Project updates. Regular Project Update meetings – with two major cruise operators. Potential Users Workshops (by invitation) – to provide existing users of the Port with the opportunity to contribute to

the design of the wharf. Letters – to RMS regarding the relocation of swing moorings, to Native Title Services Corp regarding Native Title Claim

and to Eden Sea Farms regarding temporary relocation of their mussel farm. Website: www.crownland.nsw.gov.au and follow the links to the project website. The website includes updates, posters

and fact sheets of the status of the project elements, including contact information. Community Information Sessions (open invite) – held on a bi-annual basis and includes information stalls. Agency Comment - Referral of the draft REF (2015) to BVSC, EPA, OEH and DPI – Fisheries for comment; Public Exhibition of the REF – the REF was publicly exhibited in September 2015 and received four agency submissions

and two public submissions. Bega Valley Shire Councilor Updates – quarterly or as required. Planning Focus Group meeting and teleconferences – with regulatory agencies as required. Specific Working Group Meetings – includes workshops. Industry Surveys. Design Workshops. Briefings – with the Commonwealth DOEE. Regular communication – with the Department and all funding partners via monthly reports.

Detailed information relating to Stakeholder Engagement, including a summary of consultation activities and key issues raised is contained within Section 7 of Attachment 2.

2.7 A staged development or component of a larger action N/A

2.8 Related actions N/A

11

3 Description of environment & likely impacts Note: If you have identified alternatives in relation to location, time frames or activities as part of the proposed action at section 1.10 and 2.3, please complete this section in relation to each of the alternatives identified.

3.1 Matters of national environmental significance Describe the affected area and the likely impacts of the proposed action on the relevant matters protected by the EPBC Act. Refer to relevant maps as appropriate. The interactive map tool can help determine whether matters of national environmental significance or other matters protected by the EPBC Act are likely to occur in your area of interest. For each matter protected by the EPBC Act, provide a description of the matter including, as appropriate: a brief description of the matter (for example, for threatened species, the population size, habitat, breeding, diet and life

cycle etc); the status, extent and condition of the matter within the affected area and also more broadly in the region; and the key threats and threatening processes and beneficial actions and processes for the Protected Matter(s) excluding those

from the proposed action, for example, under relevant approved conservation advices, recovery plans or threat abatement plans, management plans or other strategic plans, management principles or obligations under International Conventions.

Having identified the relevant matters protected under the EPBC Act, identify the impacts the proposed action will or is likely

to have on these matters (e.g. light, noise, biodiversity loss, water quality etc). For each type of impact, provide a concise

description of the likely nature, scope and consequences of the impact on the Protected Matter(s). In doing so, consider factors such as, as appropriate: whether the impact is a direct or indirect impact - note that, even if your proposed action will not be taken in a World Heritage area, Ramsar wetland, Commonwealth marine area, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park or on Commonwealth land, it could still impact upon these areas (for example, through downstream impacts) by its indirect impacts;

the timing and duration of the likely impact, for example, one-off, re-occurring or ongoing, short term or long term; the extent of the impact, for example, uncertain or certain, permanent/irreversible or temporary/ reversible, and localised or

broad-scale; the likely consequence of the impact on the Protected Matter(s), including both adverse and beneficial impacts and any

related social and economic impacts; the likelihood of the impact affecting the Protected Matter(s); and whether there are any measures available to prevent and avoid, or mitigate and repair the consequences of, the impact. Your assessment of likely impacts should refer to the following resources (available from the Department’s web site): specific values of individual World Heritage properties and National Heritage places and the ecological character of Ramsar

wetlands; profiles of relevant species/communities (where available), that will assist in the identification of whether there is likely to be

a significant impact on them if the proposal proceeds; Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1 – Matters of National Environmental Significance; and Associated sectoral and species policy statements available on the web site, as relevant. Your assessment of likely impacts should also consider whether a bioregional plan is relevant to your proposed action. The Minister has prepared four marine bioregional plans (MBP) in accordance with section 176 of the EPBC Act. It is likely that the MBPs will be more commonly relevant where listed threatened species, listed migratory species or a Commonwealth marine area is considered.

3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties

Description N/A

Nature and extent of likely impact

N/A

12

3.1 (b) National Heritage Places

Description N/A

Nature and extent of likely impact

N/A

3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands)

Description N/A

Nature and extent of likely impact

N/A

3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities

Description A search using the Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) on 23 November 2016 identified 78 listed marine species, 12 whales and other cetaceans, 58 threatened species and 46 listed migratory species with the potential to occur in the study area (i.e. within a 5km radius of the study site) as shown below.

The potential for these species to occur (likelihood of occurrence) in is defined as follows: “Known” the species has been observed within the proposed action area “Likely” the species is known to occur in the broader Eden area and potential suitable habitat exists within

the proposed action area “Potential” suitable habitat for a species occurs within the proposed action area, but there is insufficient

information to categorise the species as likely to occur or unlikely to occur “Unlikely” a very low to low probability that a species uses the proposed action area

13

“No” habitat within the proposed action area and in the vicinity is unsuitable for the species The identified threatened species are listed in the table below. The information contained in the justification column has been sourced from the Department of the Environment and Energy’s Species Profile and Threats Database (http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl).

Scientific name Common name EPBC Listing Status

Likelihood of Occurrence

Justification

Birds

Anthochaera phrygia

Regent Honeyeater

Critically Endangered

No

Patchy distribution between south-east Queensland and central Victoria and primarily occurs in box-ironbark woodland and other forest types which does not occur at the site.

Botaurus poiciloptilus

Australasian Bittern

Endangered Unlikely

The species occurs from south–east Queensland to south–east South Australia, Tasmania and in the south–west of Western Australia. Its preferred habitat is wetlands with tall dense vegetation.

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper Critically Endangered

Potential

The Curlew Sandpiper is a migratory species and occurs mainly around the coasts of Australia on intertidal flats in sheltered coastal areas.

Dasyornis brachypterus

Eastern Bristlebird Endangered Unlikely

It occurs in a variety of habitat, however, it is relatively rare and occurs in three distinct, localised coastal populations are known: one in the Queensland/NSW border area; one in the Illawarra and Jervis Bay; and one in the NSW/Victoria border area.

Diomedea antipodensis

Antipodean Albatross

Vulnerable Potential

The Antipodean Albatross is endemic to New Zealand, however forages widely in open water in the south-west Pacific Ocean, Southern Ocean and the Tasman Sea, notably off the coast of NSW.

Diomedea antipodensis gibsoni

Gibson's Albatross

Vulnerable Potential

Gibson's Albatross has been recorded foraging between Coffs Harbour, NSW, and Wilson's Promontory, Victoria. However, no specific observations have been recorded off Eden, NSW.

Diomedea Epomophora (sensu stricto)

Southern Royal Albatross

Vulnerable Potential

During the non-breeding season, the Southern Royal Albatross has a wide and possibly circumpolar distribution, ranging north to about 35°S. The proposed action area is at 37°S.

Diomedea exulans (sensu lato)

Wandering Albatross

Vulnerable Likely Feeding concentrations near eastern NSW has shown that birds of all age groups from all southern breeding colonies visit this area.

Diomedea sanfordi

Northern Royal Albatross

Endangered Potential

The Northern Royal Albatross ranges widely over the Southern Ocean, with individuals seen in Australian waters off south-eastern Australia. The Northern Royal Albatross feeds regularly in Tasmanian and South Australian waters, and less frequently in NSW waters.

Fregetta grallaria grallaria

White-bellied Storm-Petrel (Tasman Sea), Whitebellied Storm-Petrel (Australasian)

Vulnerable Potential

Its pelagic distribution is poorly understood, but it has been recorded north and east of its breeding islands to the tropics, in the Tasman Sea, Coral Sea, and north of New Zealand.

Grantiella picta Painted Honeyeater

Vulnerable No

The Painted Honeyeater is endemic to mainland in Australia and in NSW is found mainly west of the Great Dividing Ranges in dry open forests and woodlands which does not occur at the site.

Halobaena caerulea

Blue Petrel Vulnerable Unlikely The Blue Petrel is rarely recorded north of 37° south on the east coast of Australia.

14

Lathamus discolor Swift Parrot Critically Endangered

Unlikely

The Swift Parrot breeds in Tasmania and migrates to mainland Australia for winter mostly on inland slopes but occasionally on the coast.

Limosa lapponica baueri

Bar-tailed Godwit (baueri), Western Alaskan Bar-tailed Godwit

Vulnerable Unlikely

Bar-tailed Godwits arrive in Australia each year in August from breeding grounds in the northern hemisphere. The birds are more numerous in northern Australia and common to coastal areas.

Limosa lapponica menzbieri

Northern Siberian Bar-tailed Godwit, Bar-tailed Godwit (menzbieri)

Critically Endangered

Unlikely

Breeds in north Siberia east to the Kolyma Delta, and winters in South-East Asia and northern Australia. Non-breeding birds occur along the coasts of Australia especially the north of Western Australia.

Macronectes giganteus

Southern Giant Petrel

Endangered Potential The Southern Giant-Petrel is widespread throughout the Southern Ocean.

Macronectes halli

Northern Giant Petrel

Vulnerable Potential

Immature and some adult birds are commonly seen during this period in offshore and inshore waters from around Fremantle (WA) to around Sydney (NSW).

Neophema chrysogaster

Orange-bellied Parrot

Critically Endangered

Unlikely Breeding occurs in south-west Tasmania in summer, and the birds overwinter on the coast of south-east mainland Australia.

Numenius madagascariensis

Eastern Curlew, Far Eastern Curlew

Critically Endangered

Unlikely

The eastern curlew takes an annual migratory flight to Russia and north-eastern China to breed, arriving back home to Australia in August and inhabits intertidal mudflats.

Pachyptila turtur subantarctica

Fairy Prion (southern)

Vulnerable Potential

Breeds on subantarctic and cool temperate islands. Beachcast birds are found along the whole coast of NSW, and the species is common offshore along the entire Victorian coast.

Phoebetria fusca

Sooty Albatross

Vulnerable Unlikely

The Sooty Albatross is a rare, but probably regular migrant to Australia, mostly in the autumn-winter months, occurring north to south-east Queensland, NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia.

Pterodroma leucoptera leucoptera

Gould's Petrel Endangered Potential

There are known breeding locations in NSW, one as close as Narooma in NSW. However, no specific sightings have been recorded in Eden.

Rostratula australis

Australian Painted Snipe

Endangered Potential The Australian Painted Snipe has been recorded at wetlands in all states of Australia and is most common in eastern Australia.

Sternula nereis nereis

Australian Fairy Tern

Vulnerable Unlikely This species does not commonly frequent the southern NSW coastline.

Thalassarche bulleri

Buller's Albatross, Pacific Albatross

Vulnerable Potential They are frequently seen off the coast from Coffs Harbour, south to Tasmania and west to Eyre Peninsula.

Thalassarche bulleri platei

Northern Buller's Albatross, Pacific Albatross

Vulnerable Potential

The Pacific Albatross is a non-breeding visitor to Australian waters. Foraging birds are mostly limited to the Pacific Ocean and the Tasman Sea, although birds do reach the east coast of the Australian mainland.

Thalassarche cauta cauta

Shy Albatross, Tasmanian Shy Albatross

Vulnerable Potential

Shy Albatrosses appear to occur over all Australian coastal waters below 25° S. It is most commonly observed over the shelf waters around Tasmania and south eastern Australia.

Thalassarche cauta steadi

White-capped Albatross

Vulnerable Potential The White-capped Albatross is probably common off the coast of south-east Australia throughout the year.

Thalassarche eremita

Chatham Albatross

Endangered Unlikely The principal foraging range for this species is in coastal waters off eastern and southern New Zealand and Tasmania.

15

Thalassarche impavida

Campbell Albatross, Campbell Black-browed Albatross

Vulnerable Potential

Non-breeding birds are most commonly seen foraging over the oceanic continental slopes off Tasmania, Victoria and New South Wales.

Thalassarche melanophris

Black-browed Albatross

Vulnerable Unlikely Eden is not within the known distribution range of this species.

Thalassarche salvini

Salvin's Albatross

Vulnerable Potential

Salvin's Albatross is a non-breeding visitor to Australian waters, however it is possible that it frequents the Eden area during nonbreeding periods. However, no sightings have been recorded.

Thinornis rubricollis rubricollis

Hooded Plover (eastern)

Vulnerable Potential

It mainly occurs on the coasts of southern Australia and Tasmania on wide beaches backed by dunes with large amounts of seaweed and jetsam, creek mouths and inlet entrances.

Fish Epinephelus daemelii

Black Rockcod, Black Cod, Saddled Rockcod

Vulnerable Unlikely Found on coastal reefs, estuaries or in deep water offshore.

Prototroctes maraena

Australian Grayling

Vulnerable Unlikely

The species is found in fresh and brackish waters of coastal lagoons. The area for the proposed action is not Australian Grayling habitat and there are no coastal lagoons nearby.

Frogs

Heleioporus australiacus

Giant Burrowing Frog

Vulnerable Unlikely It is found mainly on the eastern slopes of the Great Dividing Range and coastal regions in the southern half of NSW and eastern Victoria.

Litoria aurea Green and Golden Bell Frog

Vulnerable Unlikely It occurs mainly along coastal lowland areas of eastern NSW and Victoria but has not been recorded near Eden.

Litoria littlejohni Littlejohn's Tree Frog, Heath Frog

Vulnerable Unlikely

Littlejohn's Tree Frog is confined to eastern New South Wales and north-east Victoria and has very few records across scattered locations.

Mammals

Balaenoptera musculus

Blue Whale Endangered

Potential

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. There are no known aggregation areas near Eden.

Dasyurus maculatus maculatus (SE mainland population)

Spot-tailed Quoll, Spotted-tail Quoll, Tiger Quoll (southeastern mainland population)

Endangered No

Spot-tailed Quoll records are generally confined to within 200 km of the coast and range from the Queensland border to Kosciuszko NP with preference for wet forest habitat which does not occur at the site.

Eubalaena australis

Southern Right Whale

Endangered

Known The Southern Right Whale is known to occur within Twofold Bay and Offshore.

Isoodon obesulus obesulus

Southern Brown Bandicoot (eastern), Southern Brown Bandicoot (south-eastern)

Endangered Potential

It is found in NSW, Victoria and South Australia inhabiting a variety of habitats. One of its primary locations is near Eden including the Ben Boyd National Park and East Boyd State Forest.

Megaptera novaeangliae

Humpback Whale Vulnerable

Known The Humpback Whale is known to occur within Twofold Bay and Offshore.

Petauroides volans

Greater Glider Vulnerable No It is restricted to eastern Australia and mainly inhabits eucalypt forests and woodlands which do not occur at the site.

Phascolarctos cinereus (combined populations of

Koala (combined populations of Queensland, New South Wales and

Vulnerable No

The Koala is endemic to eastern Australia with some population in the coastal forests north-east of Bega. The site does not contain habitat for Koalas.

16

Qld, NSW and the ACT)

the Australian Capital Territory) [85104]

Potorous longipes Long-footed Potoroo

Endangered No It occurs in distinct forest locations in south-eastern NSW and Victoria. The site does not contain habitat for Potoroos.

Potorous tridactylus tridactylus

Long-nosed Potoroo (SE mainland)

Vulnerable No. It has scattered populations between southern Queensland and Victoria. The site does not contain habitat for Potoroos.

Pseudomys fumeus

Smoky Mouse, Konoom

Endangered No

The Konoom occurs in Victoria, NSW and the ACT, over a wide but disjunct distribution with small and fragmented populations in mainly forests. The site does not contain habitat for Konooms.

Pteropus poliocephalus

Grey-headed Flying-fox

Vulnerable Unlikely

The Grey-headed Flying-fox is Australia's only endemic flying-fox and occurs in the coastal belt from Rockhampton in central Queensland to Melbourne in Victoria requiring suitable foraging resources and roosting sites.

Reptiles

Caretta caretta Loggerhead Turtle

Endangered

Unlikely

Loggerhead Turtles nest, forage and migrate across tropical northern Australia. They are unlikely to frequent the water where the proposed action will occur.

Chelonia mydas Green Turtle Vulnerable

Unlikely

Green Turtles nest, forage and migrate across tropical northern Australia. They are unlikely to frequent the water where the proposed action will occur.

Dermochelys coriacea

Leatherback Turtle

Endangered Potential This species has a broader distribution and is known to frequent temperate water in southern Australia.

Eretmochelys imbricate

Hawksbill Turtle Vulnerable Unlikely

Hawksbill Turtles nest, forage and migrate across tropical northern Australia. They are unlikely to frequent the water where the proposed action will occur.

Sharks

Carcharias taurus (east coast Population)

Grey Nurse Shark (east coast population)

Critically Endangered

Unlikely

The closest know aggregation is off Narooma at Montague Island (~80km north east of Eden). The habitat within the proposed action area is not suitable for this species, and there have been no specific sighting of this species. It is therefore considered highly unlikely to occur within the near shore Eden.

Carcharodon Carcharias

Great White Shark

Vulnerable Potential

Great White Sharks are widely, but not evenly, distributed in Australian waters. The area for the proposed action does offer suitable habitat for this species.

Rhincodon typus Whale Shark Vulnerable

No

The Whale Shark is most commonly found in WA, NT and QLD, with the main aggregation site at Ningaloo Reef (WA) and prefers waters between 21-25 degrees C.

The PMST Report also lists three threatened ecological communities as “likely to occur” within 5km of the proposed action:

• Littoral Rainforest and Coastal Vine Thickets of Eastern Australia;

• Lowland Grassy Woodland in the South East Corner Bioregion; and

• Subtropical and Temperate Coastal Saltmarsh.

The above threatened ecological communities are not impacted by the proposed action.

17

Nature and extent of likely impact In this referral, potential impacts to listed species that are known, likely or have the potential to occur within the proposed action area have been considered further within the context of two key concepts commonly applied under the EPBC Act for threatened species (DEWHA 2009):

1. Important populations; and 2. Habitat critical to the survival of the species.

Given neither of these two features of a threatened species are present (DEWHA 2009a), significant impacts are generally not considered likely to occur. This is discussed further below. In order to minimise the risk to fauna and flora to as low as reasonably practical, appropriate mitigation and management measures have been incorporated into the Project’s Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (Attachment 6).

Shorebirds, marine and/or migratory birds Ocean Environmental (2015a, 2015b) received correspondence from the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage (OEH) indicating that incidental sightings of the following marine and migratory bird species have been observed within Twofold Bay over the last 20 years: wandering albatross, shy albatross, black-browed albatross, flesh-footed shearwater, northern giant petrel, providence petrel, eastern osprey, sooty oystercatcher, pied oystercatcher and hooded plover. An assessment of the potential of occurrence for each species was made, taking into account their individual habitat requirements and the aquatic habitats present in the local area (i.e. sandy beaches, shallow intertidal sands, inshore and offshore subtidal sands (vegetated and unvegetated), intertidal rocky shores, subtidal rocky reef and artificial habitats (jetty support piles, mooring tackle and pipelines) – refer to Table 1.1 of Ocean Environmental 2015a). It was concluded that the antipodean albatross, wandering albatross, Buller’s albatross, shy albatross, Campbell albatross, black-browed albatross, white-capped albatross, southern giant petrel, northern giant petrel, flesh-footed shearwater, osprey, hooded plover and eastern hooded plover all have the potential to forage in the study area. Many of these species are scavengers that are known to follow fishing vessels into bays and harbours. Behavioural data suggested that if any of these species was to occasionally occur in the study area that they would only occur as individuals or in pairs (Ocean Environmental 2015a).

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

• Disturbance to foraging habitat: Potential habitat disturbances associated with construction which may impact on the

foraging activities of shorebirds or marine birds includes direct removal of subtidal soft sediment substrate within the dredge footprint or via indirect short-term reduction in food availability (ie seagrass beds and subtidal reefs) or avoidance of nearshore foraging habitat. Removal of bottom sediments from the site via dredging may result in a localised but temporary decline in food availability for some bird species (i.e. until recolonisation of bottom sediments within the dredge footprint occurs). However, there is an abundance of similar benthic substrate available for foraging within Cattle Bay, Snug Cove and Twofold Bay, so this impact is not expected to be significant. The presence of dredge or other construction equipment on/near the Breakwater Wharf may result in birds avoiding potential foraging areas during construction activities. Areas of habitat in the vicinity of the breakwater most likely to be avoided include intertidal and subtidal rocky areas of the breakwater and soft sediment habitats within the dredge footprint.

• Disturbance to roosting habitat: There may be minor and short term impacts on bird roosting areas (i.e. resting areas) within the study area. Shorebirds, marine and migratory birds are known to roost on artificial structures (e.g. the breakwater, pontoons and piles), boats and natural sandy / rocky shorelines within Cattle Bay and Snug Cove (South Coast Birdwatchers Group Inc. 2015 as reported in Ocean Environmental 2015b). The presence of construction machinery and associated noise or lighting impacts may deter birds from some of these roosting areas in the short term. This impact is not considered to be significant given the mobility of birds and the high availability of similar natural and man-made roosting areas within Twofold Bay which will not be impacted by the Project. No known nesting habitat occurs within the vicinity of the study area.

• Entanglement in or ingestion of marine debris: Entanglement of fauna in marine debris can cause restricted mobility, starvation, infection, amputation, drowning and smothering. Shorebirds or marine birds may be severely injured or die if they become entangled in fishing lines, fragments of trawl netting or plastic packing straps. Marine birds caught up in marine debris may lose their ability to move quickly through the water, reducing their ability to catch prey and avoid predators; or they may suffer constricted circulation, leading to asphyxiation and death (DEH 2003). While the potential impacts of marine debris on birds can be fatal, this potential impact can also be easily managed / mitigated. In addition, while many of the bird species listed have the potential to occur or are known to occur at the site, the regularity of occurrence and number of birds likely to occur at any time is not high. Given appropriate waste management measures are in place during construction works, the potential impact of marine debris on birds is not considered to be significant.

• Noise impacts: As Snug Cove, Cattle Bay and Twofold Bay are already used regularly by recreational and commercial vessels the impacts of construction vessel engine noise or engine noise from other construction plant are likely to be minor. Pulse impact noises from activities such as piling are more likely to impact on birds and are most likely to

18

result in either startle responses, with birds either leaving the affected area, or avoidance of the area for the duration of the activity. Management methods to be implemented during the project, along with the high mobility of birds, means that overall the impact of noise on shorebirds or marine birds occasionally using the area to forage or roost is considered negligible.

• Impacts of lighting: Light emissions relating to the Project will predominantly relate to the use of artificial lighting during night-time construction, in addition to permanent operational lighting that will be installed on the wharf. Background lighting in the vicinity of the Project area includes lighting along the existing wharf in addition to lighting from nearby onshore industrial buildings and vessels. Lit residential areas also occur nearby. Lighting will likely be visible, particularly during the evening and night from the coastline. Artificial lighting has the potential to influence the behaviour of avifauna, including avoidance, disorientation or interruption to reproductive processes. As many shorebirds and marine birds are nocturnal, actively foraging at night, feeding behaviour may also be impacted by artificial lighting. For example, birds have been known to forage at night on insects which are attracted to artificial lights. Considering the current background light sources and levels within the study area, nearby Eden township and residential areas, along with measures that will be adopted in the CEMP to reduce the impacts of artificial lighting during construction, lighting impacts on shorebirds, marine and migratory birds are not expected to be significant.

• Impacts of water pollution: Water pollution has the potential to cause harm to shorebirds and marine birds via ingestion and/or substances such as oils, adhering to their bodies and/or feathers. Ingestion of fuels, oils or other harmful substances may occur inadvertently as a result of slicks on the waterway. Oil if ingested can result in poisoning, interference with breeding, skin/throat irritation, damage to and suppression of the immune system, organ damage/failure, stress etc. (AMSA 2016). When adhered to the body/feathers, it can lead to hypothermia, drowning, dehydration or starvation (AMSA 2016). While the potential impacts of water pollution on birds can be very harmful, it is through that they can be mitigated effectively through appropriate water quality management. Sufficient measures will be adopted by the Project, and where this is so, the potential impacts of water pollution are considered rare, and subsequently are not considered significant.

• Vessel and vehicle strike: Vessel strike during construction is most likely to occur if birds are attracted to lights on vessels during evening or night time construction works. However, any vessels undertaking construction works at night are likely to be sedentary or moving very slowly so the potential impact of vessel strike from construction vessel is considered to be extremely minor. The potential for vehicle strike on land is considered to be very low considering that most work will be undertaken over water and that vehicle strike with slow moving vehicles at the construction site (as they would be for this Project) and birds is not common.

Marine Fauna (Fish, Mammals, Sharks and Reptiles listed above) An Aquatic Ecology Assessment undertaken as part of the EIS (Attachment 15) provides an in-full discussion of impacts on marine fauna. These impacts can be summarised as follows (with the residual risk ranking after mitigation measures are implemented in brackets):

• Entanglement/ingestion of marine debris (unlikely, moderate severity). • Impacts of floating plant and cable strike (unlikely, low severity). • Vessel strike (rare, moderate severity). • Lighting impacts (unlikely, low severity). • Noise impacts (unlikely, moderate severity).

Impacts to marine fauna are not expected to affect important populations or habitat that is critical to the survival of the species, and therefore, overall significant impacts are not considered likely to occur. Threatened Ecological Communities The land area of the Project site is highly modified (i.e. the existing Breakwater Wharf wall and associated wharf access areas) and no native terrestrial vegetation occurs here. In addition, no riparian aquatic vegetation (i.e. mangroves or saltmarsh) which may be impacted by Project based activities occur at the site. Therefore, the construction and operational activities of the Project are not expected to have any direct or indirect impacts on areas of native vegetation or aquatic riparian vegetation.

3.1 (e) Listed migratory species

Description

A number of the species listed as occurring within the vicinity of the project area are migratory species, listed under the Commonwealth’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, the Japan – Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and the China - Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA). A total of 47 migratory species were previously reported within 5km of the dredge area.

19

Albatross Fourteen species of Albatross have been previously recorded within the vicinity of the dredge area, including the Antipodean Albatross, Diomedea dabbenena, Shy Albatross, Thalassarche cauta and Black-browed Albatross, Thalassarche melanophris. These seabirds spend most of their time at sea. Construction and operational activities will not impact on important populations or critical habitat frequented by albatross. Cetaceans Twofold Bay and the immediate coastal offshore waters provide migration corridors and staging plus feeding resources for whales, particularly Humpback and Southern Right whales. The Humpback Whale Recovery Plan (DEH 2005) identifies habitat for Humpback whales, some of which is considered critically important to the survival of humpback whales and is defined as those areas known to seasonally support significant aggregations and also those areas which are relied upon for calving, resting and feeding, as well as sections of the migratory pathways. The distribution, indicative migratory pathways and recognised aggregation areas for humpback whales in Australian waters is presented in Figure 5, Appendix B. The majority of humpbacks in Australian waters migrate north to tropical calving grounds from June to August and south, to the Southern Ocean feeding areas from September to November. Twofold Bay is a known resting area, which is used by cow-calf pairs and attendant males during the southern migration. These whales appear to use sheltered bays to opportunistically rest during migration to the feeding grounds (DEH, 2005a). Twofold Bay is also recognized as an aggregation area for Southern right whales (DSEWPC, 2012) and Eden is recognized as an area used intermittently (DEH, 2005b). DEH (2005a) calls for the protection of habitat important to the survival of the Humpback whale and this includes assessing and managing physical disturbance and development activities (such as ship-strike). Vessels currently enter Twofold Bay on their way to the Port of Eden and the Naval Wharf via the Pilot Boarding Ground. The Passage Plan used by pilots when piloting a ship into and out of the Port of Eden is provided in Figure 6, Appendix B. The plan enables mariners to comply with SOLAS Chapter V Reg 34 (berth to berth voyage plan) and IMO Resolution A893(21) – Guidelines for voyage planning. Whales have been previously recorded within the area between the Pilot Boarding Ground and the two routes frequented by vessels entering the Port of Eden. The local whale watching business (Cat Balou Cruises), have been operating in Eden since 1990. Seasonal marine mammal sighting records are kept by Cat Balou Cruises and data records are available from 2012 - 2014 on their website. http://www.catbalou.com.au/sightings.htm. Analysis of whale data by ‘pod type’ (i.e. occurrence of adults, sub-adults and mother / calf pairs over time) illustrates a peak in juvenile / sub-adult whales in September and mother / calf pods in October and November (see Figure 7, Appendix B). A bubble plot, which illustrates the frequency and locations of whale sightings in 2012 - 2014 around Twofold Bay and the Port of Eden is provided in Figure 8, Appendix B. There is unlikely to be any interaction (vessel strikes) between whales and the cruise ships entering Snug Cove from Two Fold Bay, as these vessels move into the area at slow speeds (8-12 knots), enabling the cetaceans sufficient time to avoid vessels. There is however, the potential for the noise generated from construction activities, namely pile driving to influence the species, given that they have been sighted offshore from the Port of Eden. Sound levels generated by piling activities will depend on the size of the pile as well as type of piling, where impact driving is an impulsive noise source, while vibro-driving is a continuous noise source. For impact driving, peak levels are 190-245 dB mostly at 100 Hz and 1kHz. For vibro-driving, the average noise level over the time of measurement (called the sound pressure level – SPL) is 160-200 dB mostly at 100 Hz and 2 kHz (Government of South Australia, 2012, as reported in Ocean Environmental Consulting 2015). There are a number of EPBC listed marine mammals present in either Snug Cove or in Twofold Bay throughout the year and these species are sensitive to underwater noise at the following frequencies (Government of South Australia 2012):

• Baleen whales including humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) and southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) may be sensitive to sound in the range of 7 Hz to 22 kHz.

• Toothed whales, including dolphins (e.g. Delphinus sp., Tursiops sp.) and killer whales (Orcinus orca), may be sensitive to sound in the range of 150 Hz to 160 kHz.

• Pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) may be sensitive to higher frequencies in the range of 75 Hz to 30 kHz.

The scale and short temporal timeframe of piling activities are unlikely to impact upon these cetaceans and pinnipeds. They have the ability to move away from the area during these activities and there are mitigation measures that can be employed to warn any nearby animals of increased noise, enabling them to swim away from the noise source (i.e. slow/soft start warning noises). An underwater noise risk assessment has been completed and is provided in the EIS. Refer to Section 4 for underwater noise mitigation measures.

Nature and extent of likely impact

See description above.

20

3.1 (f) Commonwealth marine area (If the action is in the Commonwealth marine area, please complete 3.2(c) instead. This section is for actions taken outside the Commonwealth marine area that may have impacts on that area.)

Description The proposed dredging campaign is within Snug Cove at the Port of Eden, and the proposed dredge material disposal activities are offshore of Twofold Bay, in Commonwealth waters (Figure 1, Appendix B). To characterise the contaminations status of the proposed dredge material and in accordance with NAGD (Commonwealth of Australia 2009), a sediment sampling and analysis plan (SAP) was approved and implemented by the Department. Australasian Marine Associates (Attachment 10) reported that sediments were clean and suitable for dredging and either offshore or onshore disposal. A survey of the offshore disposal area was undertaken in July 2015 using towed video survey and infauna sampling confirming the seabed consists primarily of bare sand, with evidence of bioturbation and occasional sponges and bryozoans (see Figure 9, Appendix B). The infauna communities in the offshore disposal ground were examined to gain an understanding about species composition prior to dredge material disposal (Attachment 10). The species composition in samples from sites along each of the transect lines displayed little similarity. There was however, an association reported in species composition between the West-North (0.2) transects, which may suggest some spatial similarities in this part of the dredge material ground. The families observed to be dominant across all sites were polychaetes (Spionidae, Orbiniidae) and crustaceans (Gammaridea and Apseudida). The particle size distribution analyses revealed that the composition of the sediment was predominantly sand and similar among all disposal location samples. In addition, the analysis also concluded that the overall sediment composition observed is also similar to the proposed dredge area (Attachment 10). The infauna community present within the disposal footprint will be smothered by disposal of dredge material, however recolonisation is likely to occur rapidly following the cessation of dredging. A similar community of infauna to that already present is likely to recolonize the seabed. The invasive marine fan worm of the family Sabellidae was identified at the northern site of the soil ground. Future sampling has been recommended to be undertaken following completion of the Project, to examine recolonisation of the disposal location and document any potential changes in this pest species distribution.

3.1 (g) Commonwealth land (If the action is on Commonwealth land, please complete 3.2(d) instead. This section is for actions taken outside Commonwealth land that may have impacts on that land). N/A.

3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Description

N/A

3.1 (i) A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development or large coal mining development

Description

N/A

3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on

Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

You must describe the nature and extent of likely impacts (both direct & indirect) on the whole environment if the proposed action: is a nuclear action; will be taken by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency; will be taken in a Commonwealth marine area; will be taken on Commonwealth land; or will be taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

21

Your assessment of impacts should refer to the Significant Impact Guidelines 1.2 - Actions on, or impacting upon, Commonwealth land, and actions by Commonwealth agencies and specifically address impacts on: ecosystems and their constituent parts, including people and communities; natural and physical resources; the qualities and characteristics of locations, places and areas; the heritage values of places; and the social, economic and cultural aspects of the above things.

3.2 (a) Is the proposed action a nuclear action? X No

Yes (provide details below)

If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment

3.2 (b) Is the proposed action to be taken by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth agency?

X No

Yes (provide details below)

If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment

3.2 (c) Is the proposed action to be taken in a Commonwealth marine area?

No

X Yes (provide details below)

If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(f))

Only the offshore disposal area is located in the Commonwealth marine area.

3.2 (d) Is the proposed action to be taken on Commonwealth land?

X No

Yes (provide details below)

If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(g))

3.2 (e) Is the proposed action to be taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?

X No

Yes (provide details below)

If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(h))

3.3 Description of the project area and affected area for the proposed action Provide a description of the project area and the affected area, including information about the following features (where relevant to the project area and/or affected area, and to the extent not otherwise addressed above). If at Section 2.3 you identified any alternative locations, time frames or activities for your proposed action, please also complete each of the details below (where relevant) for each alternative identified.

3.3 (a) Flora and fauna See EIS (Attachment 2) – Sections 9.3 and 9.4.

3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows See EIS (Attachment 2) – Section 9.13.

3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics See EIS (Attachment 2) – Sections 9.4 and 9.16

3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features There are no outstanding natural features near the proposed dredging area or the disposal area. The proposed works are predominantly marine based excavation within an existing disturbed area of an existing operational Port and disposal of dredge material is occurring in an existing disposal area. Land based works are relatively minor and will not affect any natural features.

22

3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation There is no native vegetation that is likely to be affected by the proposed action (see Attachment 2, Section 9.4 of the EIS).

3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area) The area in which the proposed action will occur is Snug Cove, which is already a modified existing and operational wharf that is part of the Port of Eden. The current bathymetry of Snug Cove is generally between -8.5 and -10.5m. Dredging will deepen the seabed to the following depths (see Figure3,Appendix B):

• Dredge basin level (clearance depth) -10.5mCD. • Dredge basin at scour protection mattress -11.5mCD. • Dredge basin at sediment trap -12.5mCD.

The final design adopts a 1 in 1 slope in bedrock and a nominal 3m bench in front of the existing sheet pile cells for rock and rock-like materials. Where scour protection is necessary a typical batter slope of 1 in 3 has been adopted.

3.3 (g) Current state of the environment The footprint of the proposed action is contained within an existing Port area where the current state of the Port’s marine environment is very good. Snug Cove does not sit near the mouth of any rivers and the surrounding catchments are largely undeveloped by urban or industrial activities. The offshore disposal site marine environment is very good.

3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values See EIS (Attachment 2) – Section 9.15.

3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values See EIS (Attachment 2) – Section 9.14.

3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment Twofold Bay is a Nationally Important Wetland – See EIS (Attachment 2) for detail on Twofold Bay. The flora and fauna and processes that may be affected by the Project including a description of the nature and likelihood of the impacts are described in Chapter 9 of the EIS (Attachment 2).

3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (e.g. freehold, leasehold) The Breakwater Wharf extension and dredging works footprint in Snug Cove and Twofold Bay are partly located within Lot 111 DP 839683 and vacant Crown Land (Figure 2, Appendix B). The wharf is part of Crown Reserve 180072 and the bed of Twofold Bay is Crown Land. The Crown is the landowner for the works at the wharf and for the dredging footprint. The Department manages the estate on behalf of the Crown. The offshore disposal site is rectangular with dimensions 500m by 1000m (Figure 1, Appendix B). It is located within a previously used and much larger disposal ground by the Department of Defence Twofold Bay Project. The disposal site is situated approximately 6nm east of Twofold Bay, in approximately 60m depth in the Tasman Sea within Commonwealth Waters, owned by the Australian Government.

3.3 (l) Existing uses of area of proposed action See EIS (Attachment 2) – Section 9.8.

3.3 (m) Any proposed uses of area of proposed action The proposed action will enable the Port of Eden’s Breakwater Wharf at Snug Cove to receive cruise ship vessels of up to 325m in length to berth alongside wharf infrastructure so that passengers can embark/disembark directly to the wharf. This will make the port an attractive and accessible stop over for an increasing number of cruise ships, resulting in a growth in tourism in Eden and surrounding areas and provide a boost to the local and regional economy.

23

4 Environmental outcomes The following two specific environmental outcomes are provided of which are relevant to identified matters of National Environmental Significance:

• No permanent loss of habitat for threatened marine species and migratory marine species is expected to occur. The

proposed dredging and material disposal activities shall be undertaken within existing disturbed areas of an existing and operational port. Dredge plume modelling (Attachment 8) of worst-case-scenario impact (i.e. dredging methodology Option 3 – partial double handling, Summer energetic NE wind scenario) shows that some minor elevations in turbidity at nearby sensitive receptors (i.e. seagrass meadows of Cattle Bay) may experience up to 2mg/l above ambient TSS for up to 20% of the dredging period, however following cessation of dredging are expected to completely dissipate from all measurement sites within 12 hours.

• No permanent impact on the Commonwealth marine environment:

o The offshore disposal area is an approved existing site of which has previously been used to dispose of dredge material. The seabed at the disposal location has been characterised primarily of bare sand, with much bioturbation and occasional sponges and bryozoans. The composition of the sediment at the disposal location is very similar to that of the dredge material in Snug Cove (see Attachment 10 and 11) and subsequently any affected macrofauna are expected to recolonise the area.

o Modelled turbidity of the predicted dredge plume (Attachment 9) indicate that the area where silt concentrations greater than 1 mg/L above ambient conditions are expected to remain confined to within 2 km of the spoil ground. Generally in an offshore environment, turbidity plumes are short-lived with larger grain sizes settling and the remainder of the plume dispersing to the wider environment within a few tidal cycles. Therefore, any plumes generated are not likely to persist and subsequently are not expected to be of significance.

o Lastly, the dredge material to be disposed is uncontaminated and thus suitable for unconfined ocean disposal (in accordance with the NAGD 2009 requirements).

5 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts

Note: If you have identified alternatives in relation to location, time frames or activities as part of the proposed action at sections 1.10 and 2.3 please complete this section in relation to each of the alternatives identified. Provide a description of measures that will be implemented to avoid, reduce, manage or offset any relevant impacts of the action. Include, if appropriate, any relevant reports or technical advice relating to the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed measures. For each proposed measure, specify: a concise description of the nature, scope, work plan and consequence of the measure for the relevant impact and any

statutory or policy basis for the measure; in doing so, include analysis and findings on whether each measure is likely to achieve the environmental outcomes for the

matters protected by the EPBC Act which are likely to be affected by the proposed action, including noting: o the likely effectiveness of the measure in avoiding or mitigating the relevant impact on the matters protected by the

EPBC Act; o the level of commitment by the person proposing to take the action to achieve the proposed environmental outcomes

and implement the proposed mitigation measures. For example, identify if the measures are preliminary suggestions only that have not been fully researched, or are dependent on a third party’s agreement (e.g. council or landowner);

o any likely residual impacts (being, impacts likely to occur having implemented mitigation and/or avoidance measures) and, if such impacts will or are likely to occur, the measure available to compensate or offset these residual impacts. Please consider the Department’s EPBC Act, the EPBC Environmental Offsets Policy (October 2012) (and How to use the Offsets Assessment Guide) and the draft Policy Statement on EPBC Act Advanced Environmental Offsets;

o the likely consequences for the matters protected by the EPBC Act should the measure not be effective; and o any other likely consequences of the measure including both adverse and beneficial, such as efficiency, cost and cost-

effectiveness and public acceptability (noting however, beneficial consequences of the measure will not be considered in deciding whether or not the proposed action is likely to have a significant impact on the matters protected by the EPBC Act).

Examples of relevant measures to avoid or reduce impacts may include the timing of works, avoidance of important habitat, specific design measures, or adoption of specific work practices. Note, the Minister may decide that a proposed action is not likely to have significant impacts on a protected matter, as long as the action is taken in a particular manner (section 77A of the EPBC Act). The particular manner of taking the action may avoid or reduce certain impacts, in such a way that those impacts will not be ‘significant’. More detail is provided on the Department’s web site.

24

For the Minister to make such a decision (under section 77A), the proposed measures to avoid or reduce impacts must: clearly form part of the referred action (e.g. be identified in the referral and fall within the responsibility of the person

proposing to take the action); be must be clear, unambiguous, and provide certainty in relation to reducing or avoiding impacts on the matters protected;

and must be realistic and practical in terms of reporting, auditing and enforcement. The Concept Dredging Plan concluded that, in the absence of a suitable large onshore disposal site, offshore disposal was the only feasible option. This situation remains unchanged as reported in the Final Dredging Plan (Attachment 7). In order to minimise the risk to fauna and flora to as low as reasonably practical, appropriate mitigation and management measures have been incorporated into the Project’s Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) (Attachment 6).

25

6 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts Identify whether or not you believe the action is a controlled action (i.e. whether you think that significant impacts on the matters protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act are likely) and the reasons why.

6.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action?

X No, complete section 5.2

Yes, complete section 5.3

6.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action. The following is a summary of the key reasons that this Project is not a controlled action:

• The proposed action is within an existing operational port area. • The dredge material within the footprint is suitable for unconfined offshore disposal and is similar in particle size to

those at the disposal site. • The dredge material will be placed at an existing approved disposal site. • The Project is not located within or adjacent to World Heritage Areas, National Heritage Places, Wetlands of

International Importance, Threatened Ecological Communities, Commonwealth Land, nor is it a nuclear action. • The Project will not significantly impact upon any threatened or migratory species identified by the EPBC Protected

Matters Search. • The Project will not significantly impact upon the Commonwealth marine environment. • Explicit environmental management measures will be enforced and are contained within the Project’s CEMP which will

ensure that impacts to State and Commonwealth listed marine species (including avifauna, fish, whales, turtles, dugongs, seals and dolphins) are avoided.

6.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action Type ‘x’ in the box for the matter(s) protected under the EPBC Act that you think are likely to be significantly impacted. (The ‘sections’ identified below are the relevant sections of the EPBC Act.)

Matters likely to be significantly impacted

World Heritage values (sections 12 and 15A)

National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C)

Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B)

Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A)

Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A)

Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A)

Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A)

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C)

A water resource, in relation to coal seam gas development and large coal mining development (sections 24D and 24E)

Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A)

Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions (section 28)

Commonwealth Heritage places overseas (sections 27B and 27C)

Specify the key reasons why you think the proposed action is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the matters identified above by reference to each matter protected by the EBPC Act identified in section 3 above.

26

7 Environmental record of the person proposing to take the action

Yes No

7.1 Does the party taking the action have a satisfactory record of responsible environmental management?

X

Provide details The party taking the action is the NSW Department of Industry - Lands (the Department). The Department is responsible for the management of approximately half of the land in NSW, encompassing the dry and submerged lands, up to 5.5 km offshore from the NSW coastline. The Department manages a range of built maritime assets, including 25 coastal harbors and 21 river entrances, and maintains access to these assets, where appropriate. Prior to every project, the Department undertakes an environmental impact assessment and detailed stakeholder consultation, to ensure that the appropriate environmental management measures are identified and implemented for every project undertaken.

7.2 Provide details of any proceedings under a Commonwealth, State or Territory law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources against:

(a) the person proposing to take the action, or

(b) if a permit has been applied for in relation to the action - the person making the application.

X

If yes, provide details

7.3 If the person taking the action is a corporation, please provide details of the corporation’s environmental policy and planning framework and if and how the framework applies to the action.

X

7.4 Has the party taking the action previously referred an action under the EPBC Act, or been responsible for undertaking an action referred under the EPBC Act?

X

Provide name of proposal and EPBC reference number (if known)

2015/7582 – Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension. This referral was submitted in October 2015. DoEE determined on 7 December 2015 that the proposal as defined at the time of submission was not a controlled action if carried out in a particular manner (Attachment 1).

27

8 Information sources and attachments (For the information provided above)

8.1 References Advisian (2016). Eden Wharf Extension – Preliminary Dredge Plume Modelling. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. Australia and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. Canberra. Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) (2016). The Effects of Oil on Wildlife. https://www.amsa.gov.au/community/kids-and-teachers-resources/kids/teachers/Wildlife_Oil_Effects/index.html Australasian Marine Associates (2015). Review of Environmental Factors (REF) – Eden Harbour Breakwater Wharf Extension. Prepared for NSW Trade and Investment (Crown Lands). Australasian Marine Associates (2016a). Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan and Implementation Report. Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension. Prepared for NSW Department of Primary Industries - Lands. NSW. Australasian Marine Associates (2016b). Infauna Survey Offshore Material Ground. Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension. Prepared for NSW Department of Primary Industries - Lands. NSW. Australasian Marine Associates (2016c). Preliminary Offshore Disposal Monitoring. Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension. Prepared for NSW Department of Primary Industries - Lands. NSW. Commonwealth of Australia (2009). National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging. Canberra. ACT. Government of South Australia (2012). Underwater Piling Noise Guidelines. Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. Adelaide, SA. NEPC (1999). National Environment Protection (Assessment of Site Contamination) Measure. National Environment Protection Council. Canberra, ACT. Ocean Environmental Consulting (2014). Cattle Bay Marina - Hydrographic Mapping & Marine Mammal Risk Profiles. Prepared on behalf of Eden Resort Hotel Pty Ltd. July 2014. NSW. Ocean Environmental Consulting (2015a). Cattle Bay Marina. Responses to Agency Submissions Relating to Aquatic Ecology. FINAL REPORT. Prepared on behalf of Eden Resort Hotel Pty Ltd. 30 March 2015. NSW. Ocean Environmental Consulting (OEC) (2015b). Cattle Bay Marina: Water Quality Management Plan. Version #2. Final Report prepared on behalf of Eden Resort Hotel Pty Ltd. 23 June 2015.

8.2 Reliability and date of information The information contained within this referral is based upon the current information supplied by the Department, environmental surveys completed by Australasian Marine Associates and information within the Project’s EIS and CEMP.

8.3 Attachments Indicate the documents you have attached. All attachments must be less than three megabytes (3mb) so they can be published on the Department’s website. Attachments larger than three megabytes (3mb) may delay the processing of your referral.

Attachment 1 – EPBC Referral Decision 2015/7582 Attachment 2 – Advisian (2016). Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension. State Significant Infrastructure – Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for NSW Department of Industry – Lands. 3 November 2016. Attachment 3 – EIS SEARS (Appendix A to the EIS) Attachment 4 – DI-Lands Correspondence (Appendix B to the EIS) Attachment 5 – Environmental Risk Analysis and Environmental Health Risk Assessment (Appendix C to the EIS) Attachment 6 – Construction Environmental Management Plan (Appendix D to the EIS)

28

Attachment 7 – Final Dredging Plan (Appendix E to the EIS) Attachment 8 – Dredge Plume Modelling (Appendix F to the EIS) Attachment 9 – Offshore Dredge Material Disposal Plume Modelling (Appendix G to the EIS) Attachment 10 – Sediment Sampling and Analysis Plan and Implementation Report (Appendix H to the EIS) Attachment 11 – Infauna Survey: Offshore Disposal Location (Appendix I to the EIS) Attachment 12 – Traffic, Parking and Pedestrian Impact Assessment (Appendix J to the EIS) Attachment 13 – Noise, Vibration and Air Quality Assessment and Addendum Report (Appendix K to the EIS) Attachment 14 – Geotechnical Investigation Interpretive Report (Appendix L to the EIS) Attachment 15 – Aquatic Ecology Assessment (Appendix M to the EIS)

attached Title of attachment(s)

You must attach

figures, maps or aerial photographs showing the locality of the proposed action (section 1)

Figure 1 and 2 GIS file GIS file delineating the boundary of the referral

area (section 1)

figures, maps or aerial photographs showing the location of the proposed action in respect to any matters of national environmental significance or important features of the environments (section 3)

Figure 1, 2 and 3

If relevant, attach

copies of any state or local government approvals and consent conditions (section 2.5)

N/A

copies of any completed assessments to meet state or local government approvals and outcomes of public consultations, if available (section 2.6)

EIS

copies of any flora and fauna investigations and surveys (section 3)

EIS Infauna survey Aquatic Ecology Assessment

technical reports relevant to the assessment of impacts on protected matters that support the arguments and conclusions in the referral (section 3) conclusions in the referral (section 3 and 4)

Infauna survey, SAP and SAP Implementation Report, CEMP

report(s) on any public consultations undertaken, including with Indigenous stakeholders (section 3)

EIS

29

9 Contacts, signatures and declarations NOTE: Providing false or misleading information in response to a requirement under Part 7 of the EPBC Act is an offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment and/or fine (section 489 of the EPBC Act). Under the EPBC Act a referral can only be made by: the person proposing to take the action (which can include a person acting on their behalf); or a Commonwealth, state or territory government, or agency that is aware of a proposal by a person to take an action, and

that has administrative responsibilities relating to the action.

Proposed action title:

9.1 Person proposing to take action This is the individual, government agency or company that will be principally responsible for, or who will carry out, the proposed action. It may be a trustee (either being an individual or a body corporate) acting on behalf of the trust for which they have responsibility (but not the trust). If the proposed action will be taken under a contract or other arrangement, this is:

the person for whose benefit the action will be taken; or the person who procured the contract or other arrangement and who will have principal control and

responsibility for the taking of the proposed action.

If the proposed action requires a permit under the GBRMP Act1, this is the person requiring the grant of a GBRMP permission. The Minister may also request relevant additional information from this person. If further assessment and approval for the action is required, any approval which may be granted will be issued to the person proposing to take the action. This person will be responsible for complying with any conditions attached to the approval.

Name and Title:

Mr Andrew Dooley, Senior Project Manager – Coastal Infrastructure

Organisation: ( if if applicable):

Trust deed: (if applicable):

NSW Department of Industry - Lands

□ attached; OR

not applicable

ACN / ABN: (if applicable):

72 189 919 072

Postal address:

PO Box 2185 Dangar NSW 2309

Telephone:

0402 725 627

Email: andrew.dooley@crownland.nsw.gov.au

1 If your referred action, or a component of it, is to be taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park the Minister is required to provide a copy of your referral to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) (see section 73A, EPBC Act). For information about how the GBRMPA may use your information, see http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/privacy/privacy_notice_for_permits.

30

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ONLY IF YOU QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION

FROM THE FEE(S) THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE PAYABLE

I qualify for exemption from fees under section

520(4C)(e)(v) of the EPBC Act because I am:

□ an individual; OR

□ a small business entity – aggregated turnover is less than $2million for the previous income year (as prescribed within section 328-110 (other than subsection 328-119 (4)) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997); OR □ a small business entity – aggregated turnover for the current financial year is likely to be less than $2million (note that aggregated turnover for one of the previous two income years must also be less than $2million) (as prescribed within section 328-110 (other than subsection 328-119 (4)) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997) (Cth)).

not applicable.

If you are small business entity you must provide

the Date/Income Year that you became a small

business entity:

Note 1: Please retain evidence (i.e. tax statements) displaying aggregated turnover for the relevant income year. The Department may request this evidence at any stage of the assessment process. Aggregated turnover, for the purposes of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 (Cth)), means:

(1) a company annual turnover for the income year and

(11) the annual turnover for the income year of any entity that is connected or affiliated with the company at any time during the income year (see section 328-155 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth)).

Note 2: You must advise the Department within 10 business days if you cease to be a small business entity. Failure to notify the Secretary of this is an offence punishable on conviction by a fine (regulation 5.23B(3) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations 2000 (Cth)).

COMPLETE THIS SECTION ONLY IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO APPLY FOR A

WAIVER

Note: Applications for a waiver must be supported by information in writing setting out the grounds on which the applicant considers that a waiver should be made and the reasons why it should be made. The Minister may, at his or her discretion, waive all or part of a fee that would otherwise be payable in the following circumstances:

the action’s primary objective is to protect the environment, or protect and conserve heritage, in a way that is consistent with the objects of the EPBC Act;

it is in the public interest to do so; or

there are other exceptional circumstances justifying the waiver.

The Minister will consider the application within 20 business days.

I would like to apply for a waiver of full or partial fees under regulation

5.21A of the EPBC Regulations. Under

regulation 5.21A(5), you must include information

about the applicant (if not you) the grounds on

not applicable.

31

which the waiver is sought and the reasons why it should be made:

Declaration: I declare that to the best of my knowledge the information I have given on, or attached to this form is complete, current and correct. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence. I declare that I am not taking the action on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person or entity.

Signature:

Date: 28/11/2016

9.2

Designated proponent Individual or organisation who is proposed to be designated as the proponent if the Minister decides that the action is a controlled action and further assessment and approval is required. The proponent is responsible for meeting the requirements of the EPBC Act during the assessment process. The proponent may or may not be the person proposing to take the action.

Name of proposed proponent:

As above

If the name of the proposed proponent is not the same person as named at item 1 of section 9.1 above, please complete all of the below fields in section 9.2.

ACN / ABN (if applicable):

Postal address:

Telephone:

Email:

Declaration by the proposed proponent:

Signature : Declaration by the person proposing to take the action:

I .........................................., the proposed proponent, consent to the proposed

designation of myself as the proponent for the purposes of the action described in this

referral.

Date:

I ................................................, the person proposing to take the action, consent to

the proposed designation of.......................................... as proponent for the purposes

of the action described in this referral.

Signature : Date:

32

9.3

Person preparing the referral information (if different from section 9.1) Individual or organisation who has prepared the information contained in this referral form.

Name: Sofie Mason-Jones

Title: Principal Environmental Planner

Organisation: Advisian Pty Ltd

ACN / ABN (if applicable): 50 098 008 818

Postal address: Level 17, 141 Walker Street North Sydney NSW 2060

Telephone: 02 8456 7385

Email: sofie.mason-jones@advisian.com

Declaration: I declare that to the best of my knowledge the information I have given on, or attached to

this form is complete, current and correct. I understand that giving false or misleading information is a serious offence.

Signature:

Date: 28/11/2016

33

REFERRAL CHECKLIST NOTE: This checklist is to help ensure that all the relevant referral information has been provided. It is not a part of the referral form and does not need to be sent to the Department.

HAVE YOU:

Completed all required sections of the referral form?

Included accurate coordinates (to allow the location of the proposed action to be mapped)?

Provided a map showing the location and approximate boundaries of the project area for the proposed action?

Provided a map/plan showing the location of the action in relation to any matters of NES?

Provided a digital file (preferably ArcGIS shapefile, refer to guidelines at Attachment A) delineating the boundaries of the referral area?

Provided complete contact details and signed the form?

Provided copies of any documents referenced in the referral form?

Ensured that all attachments are less than three megabytes (3mb)?

Sent the referral to the Department (electronic and hard copy preferred)

34

Attachment A Geographic Information System (GIS) data supply guidelines If the area is less than 5 hectares, provide the location as a point layer. If the area greater than 5 hectares, please provide as a polygon layer. If the proposed action is linear (eg. a road or pipeline) please provide a polyline layer. GIS data needs to be provided to the Department in the following manner:

Point, Line or Polygon data types: ESRI file geodatabase feature class (preferred) or as an ESRI shapefile (.shp) zipped and attached with appropriate title

Raster data types: Raw satellite imagery should be supplied in the vendor specific format. Projection as GDA94 coordinate system.

Processed products should be provided as follows:

For data, uncompressed or lossless compressed formats is required - GeoTIFF or Imagine IMG is the first preference, then JPEG2000 lossless and other simple binary+header formats (ERS, ENVI or BIL).

For natural/false/pseudo colour RGB imagery: o If the imagery is already mosaiced and is ready for display then lossy compression is suitable (JPEG2000

lossy/ECW/MrSID). Prefer 10% compression, up to 20% is acceptable. o If the imagery requires any sort of processing prior to display (i.e. mosaicing/colour balancing/etc) then an

uncompressed or lossless compressed format is required. Metadata or ‘information about data’ will be produced for all spatial data and will be compliant with ANZLIC Metadata Profile. (http://www.anzlic.org.au/policies_guidelines#guidelines). The Department’s preferred method is using ANZMet Lite, however the Department’s Service Provider may use any compliant system to generate metadata.

1

Appendix B – Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension Project Figures

Figure 1 – Eden Breakwater Wharf Extension Project and Offshore Disposal Area Location Plan

2

Figure 2 – Proposed Dredge Basin and Wharf Extension Plan

3

Figure 3 – Proposed Dredge Area General Arrangement and Setout Details

4

Figure 4 – General Contractors Work Area and Construction Zones

5

Figure 5 – The Distribution, Migration and Recognised Migration Areas of the Humpback Whale (DEH 2010)

6

Figure 6 – Twofold Bay Passage Plan (PANSW 2015)

7

Figure 7 – Mean Relative Frequency of Whale Sightings by Pod Type between 2012-2014 (Ocean Environmental Consulting 2014)

8

Figure 8 – Relative Frequency of Whale Sightings at Locations around Eden between July 2012 to July 2014 (Ocean Environmental Consulting 2014)

9

Figure 9 – Towed Video Survey of the Offshore Disposal Area