Significant Impact Assessment Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta)

Transcription

1 The Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) is likely to be transient in the Project area, using it for foraging or resting, but highly unlikely for nesting. Surveys have found no nests in the Project area. The overall risk to the Loggerhead Turtle from restriction of food due to dredging activities availability is low. Boating and shipping activities are also predicted to pose a low risk to the Loggerhead Turtle. The use of turtle exclusion devices on self propelled trailing suction hopper dredges is now standard equipment on such dredgers and would minimise the potential to entrain marine turtles during dredging activities. The Loggerhead Turtle is unlikely to be impacted by the Project. Table 24 Significant Impact Assessment Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) Will the proposed works... lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population? reduce the area of occupancy of the species? fragment an existing population into two or more populations? adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species? disrupt the breeding cycle of a population? modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline? result in invasive species that are harmful to an endangered species becoming established in the endangered species' habitat? introduce disease that may cause the species to decline? interfere with the recovery of the species? Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta): Endangered It is likely that this species would be transient in the Project area, using it for foraging or resting, but highly unlikely for nesting. The impacting processes associated with the Project would not be of a sufficient scale or magnitude to lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population, particularly in an area where individuals would be transient. Globally, the Loggerhead Turtle is a circum-tropical species. The Project would not reduce the area of occupancy of the loggerhead turtle in any ecologically meaningful way. The Project development and operation would not create any barriers to movement for Loggerhead Turtles. While some feeding habitat would be disturbed as a result of proposed dredging of the port area, suitable feeding habitats are found throughout coastal areas of the Gulf of Carpentaria. Nesting is not known to occur in the vicinity of the Project area, being centred principally in Queensland's south-east. No disruption to breeding cycles would occur. While habitat would be disturbed as a result of dredging of the port area, the impact is not of a sufficient scale to affect the survival of any marine turtle species. It is considered unlikely that an invasive species that is harmful to Loggerhead Turtles would be introduced due to the development or operation of Project marine infrastructure. Disease is not known as a threat to this species. It is considered unlikely that a disease harmful to the Loggerhead Turtle would be introduced due to the development or operation of Project marine infrastructure. There is a recovery plan in place for all marine turtle species found in Australia. Use of turtle deflectors on suction hopper dredgers would minimise potential for entrainment of turtles during development and maintenance dredging for the port area. The Project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of the species. Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Green Turtles are likely to forage in the Project area, including the Embley and Hey Rivers where seagrass beds occur, but do not nest in the Project area. They feed principally on seagrass and seaweeds, although juveniles are also carnivorous. The overall risk to the Green Turtle from restriction of food availability due to dredging activities is low. Boating and shipping activities are also predicted to pose a low risk to the Green Turtle. The use of turtle exclusion devices on self propelled trailing suction hopper dredges is now standard equipment on such dredgers and would minimise the potential to entrain marine turtles during dredging activities. The Green Turtle is unlikely to be impacted by the Project. EPBC Assessment Report Page 85

2 Table 25 Significant Impact Assessment Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Will the proposed works lead to a long term decrease in the size of an important population of a species?... reduce the area of occupancy of an important population?...fragment an existing important population into two or more populations?...adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species?...disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population?...modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline?...result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species' habitat? introduce disease that may cause the species to decline?...interfere with the recovery of the species? Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas): Vulnerable Green Turtles occurring in the vicinity of the Project area do not constitute a geographically distinct regional population or local population that occurs within a particular bioregion. The Project aspect with the greatest potential for long-term impact and decrease in local Green Turtle activity is dredging. The use of turtle deflectors on trailing suction hopper dredgers would minimise the risk of any long term population decline. The removal of 0.1ha of seagrass from the Humbug barge terminal berth area would not impact Green Turtle feeding resources with more significant seagrass meadows occurring elsewhere in the Weipa region. The impacting processes would not be of a sufficient scale or magnitude to lead to a longterm decrease in an important population of this species. The Project development and operation would not reduce the area of occupancy of the Green Turtle in any ecologically meaningful way. The Project development and operation would not create any barriers to movement for Green Turtles. The Project area does not include any critical habitat areas for the species. Surveys have found no nests in the Project area. Disruption to the life cycle of marine turtles is not anticipated as a result of the Project. Very minor removal of seagrass from the Humbug barge terminal berth area would not impact Green Turtle feeding resources with more significant seagrass meadows occurring elsewhere in the Weipa region. It is considered unlikely that an invasive species that is harmful to Green Turtles would be introduced due to the development or operation of Project marine infrastructure. Disease is not known as a threat to this species. It is considered unlikely that a disease harmful to the Green Turtle would be introduced due to the development or operation of Project marine infrastructure. There is a recovery plan in place for all marine turtle species found in Australia. Use of turtle deflectors on trailing suction hopper dredgers would minimise potential for entrainment of turtles during development and maintenance dredging of the port area Proposed Mitigation Strategies Threatened Marine Turtles Altered Above-Water Night Time Light Regime Design and operational guidelines for mitigating lighting impacts on turtle hatchings associated with coastal development have been developed (Witherington and Martin 1996). These guidelines are designed more for residential developments and roads than the proposed development of the port, but some general principles are relevant and would be utilised where applicable. Australian examples exist where the impacts of artificial lighting on turtles have been mitigated in part. At Thevnard Island (North West Shelf), light impacts were mitigated from offshore petroleum production by minor shielding, re-positioning, and in some cases, time-switching of the lights. It is difficult however, to mitigate the impacts of a changed lighting regime in its entirety. A lighting plan for the port is considered an important part of both construction and operation environmental management. Turtle sensitive lighting approaches would also need to consider safety requirements, navigation requirements and the need to minimise light spill on turtle sensitive areas. A lighting plan has been developed with consideration of the following. EPBC Assessment Report Page 86

3 Ensuring overall lighting is minimised to that which is essential for safe and efficient operation of the facility. Ensuring non-essential lighting would be switched off or dimmed when there are no ships at berth or being piloted in the area. Shielding and/or recessing of lights to minimise light spill. Installation of long wavelength lights. Any other lighting options that further reduce impacts to marine turtles while allowing for the safe and efficient operation of the proposed port facility. The lighting plan is detailed in Table 26. Table 26 Lighting Plan Facility Description Mitigation measures Phase: Design Ship loader Wharf deck Jetty Dolphin walkway Tug berth Tug boat Bulk Carrier (decks) Lighting would only be in use when shiploading. Only equipment would be lit. Lighting would be required to enable a worker to enter cabin. When in use, light would be required for conveyor belts, transfer shoots and discharge point to the hull. Ship loader height would be approximately 8-10m above top of wharf level. The access walkway and conveyor bends would be illuminated as needed. The access walkway and roadway would be illuminated as needed. The access walkway would be illuminated as needed. The access berth and walkways would be illuminated as needed. Sufficient lighting would be allowed for in the design to ensure safe movement around deck of the tug. Sufficient lighting would be allowed for in the design to ensure safe movement around deck of bulk carrier. Long wave length lighting (low pressure sodium or equivalent) would be used in the design. Unnecessary lights would be able to be turned off when not in use and usage of lights would be minimised to that required for safe operation would be used in the design. Long wave length lighting (low pressure sodium or equivalent) would be included in the design. Unnecessary lights would be able to be turned off when not in use and usage of lights would be minimised to that required for safe operation would be included in the design. Shielding, height (keep low) and direction of lights would be designed to minimise light spill. Long wave length lighting (low pressure sodium or equivalent) would be included in the design. Unnecessary lights would be able to be turned off when not in use and usage of lights would be minimised to that required for safe operation would be included in the design. Shielding, height (keep low) and direction of lights would be designed to minimise light spill. Long wave length lighting (low pressure sodium or equivalent) would be included in the design. Unnecessary lights would be able to be turned off when not in use and usage of lights would be minimised to that required for safe operation would be included in the design. Shielding, height (keep low) and direction of lights would be designed to minimise light spill. Long wave length lighting (low pressure sodium or equivalent) would be included in the design. Unnecessary lights would be able to be turned off when not in use and usage of lights would be minimised to that required for safe operation would be used in the design. Shielding, height (keep low) and direction of lights would be designed to minimise light spill. The design would ensure that there would be limited usage of lights to that required for safe operation. The design would ensure that there would be limited usage of lights to that required for safe operation. EPBC Assessment Report Page 87

4 Facility Description Mitigation measures Navigation Lights Emergency lighting throughout wharf / tug berth area Stockpile area Stacker/ reclaimer Lighting design must meet the requirements of Queensland Department Transport and Main Roads, however RTA would work to implement mitigation measures wherever possible. Would be designed to be only used as needed. No lighting would be required, machine (stacker/reclaimer) lighting would be sufficient. Stacker would operate continuously machinery would be lit. Reclaimer would operate when ship loading machinery would be lit. Flashing lights would be included in the design. Unnecessary lights would be able to be turned off when not in use and usage of lights would be minimised to that required for safe operation would be included in the design. No tower flood lighting would be included in the design(stacker / reclaimer mounted lights are sufficient). Long wave length lighting (low pressure sodium or equivalent) would be included in the design. Unnecessary lights would be able to be turned off when not in use and usage of lights would be minimised to that required for safe operation would be included in the design. Shielding, height (keep low) and direction of lights would be designed to minimise light spill. Vegetation buffer of Eucalyptus tetrodonta forests estimated at up to 25 30m high at 200m width (between stacker/ reclaimer and port). Beneficiation plants Phase: Construction and Operation Would be operated continuously machinery and work area would be lit. Shielding, height (keep low) and direction of lights would be designed to minimise light spill. Vegetation buffer of Eucalyptus tetrodonta forests estimated at up to 25 30m high at 200m width (between beneficiation plant and port). All Administrative controls would be implemented to minimise the potential for impact. Standard ground clearing management procedures would be implemented to retain vegetation buffer. Training of the workforce would be conducted regarding potential impacts and management measures. Access would be limited to beach areas Standard incident reporting procedure for sea turtle incidents, hazards or near misses would be implemented. Lighting requirements as per design would be maintained. Reactive monitoring for deposition and light. Note: Embley River and Hey River are not nesting areas for marine turtles, so lighting impacts from barge/ferry terminals are not potential impacts. RTA proposes an adaptive approach to work with the Traditional Owners and DERM to minimise the impacts of changes to the light regime during both the construction and operation phases of the proposed port on marine turtles, while still allowing for a safe working environment. Overall, without mitigation, a changed light regime is predicted to pose a high risk to marine turtles; however programs designed to reduce the other primary threats (feral pigs and ghost nets) are described below to minimise negative impact on local marine turtle nesting activity. Threat Reduction RTA is committed to working with the DERM to reduce threats to marine turtles particularly in the proposed port area and assist with marine turtle research programs. RTA has placed sand temperature loggers near Boyd Point as part of a DERM research project to examine the potential impacts of climate change on marine turtle populations. RTA would document any strandings of marine turtles (e.g. animals entangled in ghost nets) and report these to DERM for inclusion in the Wildlife Stranding database and would remove any ghost nets found in the vicinity of the proposed port development. RTA would work with the Traditional Owners and DERM to develop and implement measures to reduce feral pig numbers in the Pera Head to Boyd Point area. Currently feral pigs are the primary EPBC Assessment Report Page 88

5 factor reducing the success of sea turtle reproduction (hatchling emergence). RTA would work with DERM to evaluate whether relocating nests is appropriate. A monitoring program would be developed in conjunction with the Traditional Owners and DERM with consideration of turtle nesting activities (number, type, predation, success), behaviour (hatchling activity) and incident reporting. Direct Impact from Dredging Activities The use of self propelled trailing suction hopper dredges has the potential to entrain marine turtles during dredging activities. The use of turtle exclusion devices on the suction heads is now standard equipment on such dredgers and would minimise the potential for entrainment. Any trailing suction hopper dredges contracted for the port area dredging (and future maintenance dredging) would be required to have turtle exclusion devices fitted. Turbid Plume Generation and Sediment Deposition/Resuspension on Feeding Habitat Monitoring of turbidity (expressed as Nephelometric Turbidity Units-equivalent, NTU-e), deposition and light (photo-synthetically active radiation, PAR) would be undertaken at Boyd Point, Pera Head and Thud Point reef areas and at a control location outside the extent of the modelled dredge plume during dredging activities associated with the Project. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) would be estimated based on the relationship between NTU-e and TSS. The objective of this monitoring is to validate the turbidity plume modelling and assist in identifying extended periods of high turbidity, high TSS and low PAR availability which can lead to coral stress. In-situ water quality loggers, like those used to collect background data for the present study, would continue to be used during the proposed monitoring program. Monitoring would begin a month prior to dredging and extend until two months after the completion of dredging. Loggers would be either downloaded fortnightly or telemetry linked to allow for remote download so that data can be regularly reviewed. Monitoring of hard corals is proposed at Boyd Point, Pera Head and reefs south to Thud Point. The objective of this is to identify when corals become stressed due to low light conditions or are being impacted by sediment deposition. Due to the presence of potentially dangerous marine life, the proposed monitoring would involve the use of fixed point photoquadrats that can be deployed from a boat rather than line transects. Fixed point quadrat sites would initially require manual establishment with star pickets driven into the reef and would be buoyed at the surface with a line that would enable a frame and camera assembly to be lowered down from a boat, subject to a safety risk review. Monitoring would be undertaken at two water depths at three locations at Thud Point, Pera Head and Boyd Bay reefs. Sites would be located based on the results of plume dispersion and deposition modelling, and the presence of representative coral cover. Fixed point quadrats would be photographed so a historical sequence of coral condition could be established and reviewed for indicators such as colour change, bleaching and tissue necrosis. Surveys would be undertaken on spring tides when water clarity is likely to be greatest, following tidal flushing of inshore sediment build-up during neap tidal periods. Should signs of unacceptable coral stress become apparent, opportunities for the manipulation of dredging operations would be reviewed to best allow corals a period of respite and a return to more favourable conditions. The final design of the reactive monitoring program would be prepared in consultation with DSEWPaC and DERM and incorporated into a Dredge Management Plan. The Dredge Management Plan would include: validation of plume dispersion modelling predictions (first 6-8 weeks); marine water quality monitoring (loggers coral health monitoring (fixed impact and control sites). TSS, light (PAR) and deposition); and A monitoring response protocol, including management triggers, would be developed as part of the Dredge Management Plan. Mitigation of Acoustic Impacts from Pile Driving Activities To minimise the potential underwater noise impacts on marine turtles during pile driving activities, it is proposed that a "soft start" approach be used to disperse marine fauna (including marine turtles) in the vicinity of these activities prior to normal pile driving. The "soft start" involves commencing pile driving with a partial capacity strike, prior to normal pile driving. It is proposed that an exclusion zone EPBC Assessment Report Page 89

6 surrounding pile driving activities be established and monitored prior to normal pile driving commencing and during normal pile driving. Normal pile driving activities would not commence or be temporarily suspended if turtles are observed within the exclusion zone. Pile driving activities would not recommence until turtles are considered to be outside the exclusion zone. The extent of the exclusion zone would be defined based on further literature review and quantitative analysis of the potential underwater noise impacts from pile driving relating to threatened marine fauna. The final extent of the exclusion zone would be defined in consultation with DSEWPaC Potential Impacts on Sharks and Sawfish The Green Sawfish (Pristis zijsron), Dwarf Sawfish (Pristis clavata), Freshwater Sawfish (Pristis microdon), and Speartooth Shark (Glyphis sp.) have not been recorded in surveys of the Project area but are considered likely to occur in the estuarine and lower brackish reaches of the Project area's main drainage systems. Although these species are likely to occur within the Project area, the extent of these habitats within the Project area that would be disturbed is limited to a small area. Refer to Table 5 for an assessment of the potential for these species to occur within Project related disturbance. If present, these species could potentially be affected by: physical disturbance of sedimentary habitats and fauna from dredging for the barge/ferry terminals in the Embley and Hey Rivers; and creation of a turbidity plume, spoil deposition and re-suspension of fine sediments. The fish assemblage is currently exposed to periodic but significant physical disturbance and elevated turbidity during extreme weather events. Fish species are also mobile and as such can move away from any local areas that are affected by a disturbance (e.g. dredging and dredge spoil deposition). Given the minor scale and short duration of dredging, at each of the barge/ferry terminal facilities it is unlikely that habitat in the Embley and Hey Rivers would be significantly affected. The Project is predicted to pose a low risk to the three sawfish and one shark species. An assessment of the significance of impacts on these species is provided in Tables 27, 28 and 29. Table 35 summarises the potential habitats within the Project area for each threatened and migratory estuarine and marine fauna species, including Sharks and Sawfish, and Table 36 summarises the amount of each habitat type to be impacted by Project activities. Dwarf Sawfish (Pristis clavata) Dwarf Sawfish (Pristis clavata) has not been recorded in surveys of the Project area but it is considered likely to occur in the estuarine and lower brackish reaches of the Project area's main drainage systems which include the proposed disturbance footprints of the barge/ferry terminals on the Hey and Embley Rivers. This species is considered unlikely to occur within or above the proposed footprint of Dam C on a freshwater tributary of Norman Creek. Any population within the Project area is likely to be locally important on the basis that individuals occupy restricted areas and travel only short distances. Relevant impacts on Dwarf Sawfish within the Project area are disturbance of relatively minor areas of habitat as a result of dredging and operation of barge/ferry terminal areas. While habitat would be disturbed as a result of dredging and operation of barge/ferry terminal areas, given the minor scale and short duration of dredging, the impact would not be of a sufficient scale to significantly decrease the availability or quality of shallow muddy habitat, as there is abundant similar habitat in elsewhere within the Project area. Barges and ferries docked within the terminal areas may present temporary blocks to movement but this would not likely result in fragmentation as vessels would move several times per day. These impacts are unlikely to significantly impact the local population or survival of the species as a whole. EPBC Assessment Report Page 90

7 Table 27 Significant Impact Assessment Dwarf Sawfish (Pristis clavata) Will the proposed works... lead to a long term decrease in the size of an important population of a species? reduce the area of occupancy of an important population? fragment an existing important population into two or more populations? adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species? disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population? modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline? result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species' habitat? introduce disease that may cause the species to decline? interfere with the recovery of the species? Dwarf Sawfish (Pristis clavata): Vulnerable Dwarf Sawfish inhabit shallow (2-3m) coastal waters and estuarine habitat, moving into marine waters after the wet, and during the wet season enter estuarine or fresh waters to breed. The Dwarf Sawfish appears to move only small distances and occupy only a relatively restricted area and so reflect the definition of important populations at the local level. The Project is unlikely to result in a long term decrease in the size of a local Dwarf Sawfish population if it is present. The only shallow water (2-3m) development relates to the barge/ferry terminals where minor dredging would be required to a depth of approximately 2m. The proposed port area works in those shallow depths may relate only to piling as dredging starts at -11m LAT depth. The minor works proposed in the shallows of the Project area would not cause any significant reduction in the area of a local population. Barges and ferries docked within the terminal areas may present temporary blocks to movement but this would not likely result in fragmentation as vessels would move several times per day. The minor works proposed in the shallows of the Project area would not adversely affect habitat to the extent that it significantly impacts the local population or survival of the species as a whole. The development and operation of the port and barge/ferry terminal areas is unlikely to disrupt the breeding cycle of the Dwarf Sawfish which is thought to move into marine waters after the wet season, and during the wet season enter estuarine or fresh waters to breed. The infrastructure or activities associated with the Project are unlikely to present a significant barrier to movement. While some habitat would be disturbed as a result of dredging and operation of barge/ferry terminal areas, the impact is not of a sufficient scale to significantly decrease the availability or quality of shallow muddy habitat as there is abundant similar habitat elsewhere within the Project area. It is considered unlikely that an invasive species that is harmful to Dwarf Sawfish would be introduced due to the development or operation of Project marine infrastructure. It is considered unlikely that a disease harmful to the Dwarf Sawfish would be introduced due to the development or operation of Project marine infrastructure. Threats to the Dwarf Sawfish include fishing pressure, habitat degradation and Australian Indigenous harvesting. The low reproductive rate and late maturation common to sawfish likely limits the ability of the species to recover from these threats. The Project would not result in any substantial interference with the recovery of this species. Green Sawfish (Pristis zijsron) The Green Sawfish (Pristis zijsron) has not been recorded in surveys of the Project area but it has been recorded from Albatross Bay. The Project area, including the port development area and barge/ferry terminals in the Embley and Hey Rivers, contain suitable habitat for the species and it is considered likely to occur in these areas. This species is considered unlikely to occur within or above the proposed footprint of Dam C on a freshwater tributary of Norman Creek. The relevant impact on the Green Sawfish within the Project area is disturbance of relatively minor areas of habitat as a result of dredging and operation of barge/ferry terminal areas and proposed port area. While some local habitat would be impacted as a result of proposed dredging activities in the Embley and Hey Rivers, and proposed port area, abundant suitable habitats are found throughout coastal areas of the Gulf of Carpentaria and northern Australia. Therefore, the Project is unlikely to significantly impact the survival of the Green Sawfish. EPBC Assessment Report Page 91

8 Table 28 Significant Impact Assessment Green Sawfish (Pristiszijsron) Will the proposed works... lead to a long term decrease in the size of an important population of a species? reduce the area of occupancy of an important population? fragment an existing important population into two or more populations? adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species? disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population? modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline? result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species' habitat? introduce disease that may cause the species to decline? interfere with the recovery of the species? Green Sawfish (Pristiszijsron): Vulnerable The Australian population of the Green Sawfish is considered to be unfragmented and occurs throughout northern Australia (Stevens et al. 2005). The impacting processes associated with the Project are not of a sufficient scale or magnitude to lead to a longterm decrease in an important population of this species given that there is abundant suitable habitat available to it. Given the extent of suitable habitat in northern Australia, the Project development and operation would not reduce the area of occupancy of the Green Sawfish in any ecologically meaningful way. The Project development and operation would not create any barriers to movement for the Green Sawfish. While some local habitat would be impacted as a result of proposed dredging activities in the Embley and Hey Rivers, and proposed port area, suitable habitats are found throughout coastal areas of the Gulf of Carpentaria and northern Australia. Development and operation of the barge/ferry terminals would not be at a sufficient scale or magnitude to lead to significant disruption to the Green Sawfish population which is considered to occupy much of coastal northern Australia. Pupping is believed to occur in coastal or estuarine areas. While some habitat may be impacted as a result of dredging of the barge/ferry terminals, the impact associated with the Project is not of a sufficient scale to affect the survival of the Green Sawfish. It is considered unlikely that an invasive species that is harmful to the Green Sawfish would be introduced due to the development or operation of Project marine infrastructure. It is considered unlikely that a disease harmful to the Green Sawfish would be introduced due to the development or operation of Project marine infrastructure. Globally the threats to the Green Sawfish include fishing pressure, shark finning, habitat degradation and Australian Indigenous harvesting. The low reproductive rate and late maturation of the Green Sawfish limits the ability of the species to recover from these threats (Stevens et al. 2005). The Project would not result in any substantial interference with the recovery of this species. Freshwater Sawfish (Pristis microdon) This species may occur in estuarine and the lowermost freshwater reaches within the Project area. Suitable habitat is present in the brackish reaches of Norman Creek and the Ward River, though generally low abundance of all elasmobranchs species has been observed at these sites. It is considered that it is possible that this species occurs within the proposed disturbance areas of the barge/ferry terminals on the Hey and Embley Rivers, but is unlikely to occur within and above the proposed footprint of Dam C on a freshwater tributary of Norman Creek. Potential habitat for this species is unlikely to be significantly impacted by the Project and there is abundant habitat within the Project area. Therefore the Project is unlikely to impact this species. Speartooth Shark (Glyph& sp. A) This species may occur in estuarine and the lowermost freshwater reaches within the Project area. Records exist for the Wenlock River and similar habitat is present within the Project site, though generally low abundances of all elasmobranchs species have been observed in areas of potential habitat within the Project area. However, based on the assessment of likelihood in Table 5, it is considered that the Speartooth Shark is unlikely to occur in either the proposed disturbance areas of the barge/ferry terminals on the Hey and Embley Rivers or within and above the proposed footprint of Dam C on a freshwater tributary of Norman Creek. Potential habitat for this species is unlikely to be significantly impacted by the Project and there is abundant habitat within the Project area. Therefore the Project is unlikely to impact this species. EPBC Assessment Report Page 92

9 Table 29 Significant Impact Assessment Freshwater Sawfish and Speartooth Shark Will the proposed works... Freshwater Sawfish (Pristis microdon) and Speartooth Shark (Glyphis sp. A) lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population? reduce the area of occupancy of the species? fragment an existing population into two or more populations? adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species? disrupt the breeding cycle of a population? modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline? result in invasive species that are harmful to an endangered species becoming established in the endangered species' habitat? introduce disease that may cause the species to decline? interfere with the recovery of the species? A long term decrease in any population of these species if present is unlikely to occur. Sufficient habitat would remain to support these species, if present within the proposed disturbance areas, and the area of occupancy of any population of the species present would not be reduced. Any population present would not be fragmented. Evidence suggests that both species would not travel upstream of the proposed Dam C footprint on a freshwater tributary of Norman Creek (refer to Table 5). The Project area or areas that would be disturbed within the Project area does not include any critical habitat areas for these species. As summarised in Table 5, both species are unlikely to travel upstream of the proposed Dam C footprint on a freshwater tributary of Norman Creek. Therefore the freshwater environment in the freshwater tributary upstream of Dam C would not be considered critical breeding habitat for either species. The breeding cycle of these species (if present within proposed disturbance areas) would not be disrupted. As summarised in Table 5, both species are unlikely to travel upstream of the proposed Dam C footprint on a freshwater tributary of Norman Creek. Therefore the freshwater environment in the freshwater tributary upstream of Dam C would not be considered critical breeding habitat for either species. These species (if present) are unlikely to decline as a result of the Project related disturbance. Evidence suggests that both species would not travel upstream of the proposed Dam C footprint on a freshwater tributary of Norman Creek (refer to Table 5). The impacts on potential habitat associated with dredging activities and clearing of 400m2 of mangroves associated with the ferry/barge terminals on the Hey and Embley Rivers are considered minor and would not to be to the extent that would cause a decline of either of these species if they are present. The size of the vessels proposed to enter the Embley River as a result of the Project would actually decrease in number, which would result in a positive impact. There is no evidence to suggest that large vessels pose a threat to sawfish or the Speartooth Shark species or that large vessels would cause a decline in these species.. The Project is unlikely to lead to the introduction of any invasive fauna that could affect these species. RTA would conduct routine monitoring of the port for marine pests, similar to that currently undertaken for Port of Weipa high-risk areas. Disease is not known as a threat to these species. It is not anticipated that the Project would represent a threat with respect to the introduction of disease. The Project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of these species Proposed Mitigation Strategies Sharks and Sawfish No specific mitigation measures are required for sharks and sawfish, as the Project is predicted to pose a low risk to the three sawfish and one shark species. Mitigation measures for impacts to catchment hydrology, elevated sediment and contaminant loads, and loss of aquatic habitat connectivity are provided in Section , Section , and Section of the EIS, respectively. Mitigation of dredging impacts is discussed in Section of the EIS and monitoring in Section of the EIS. 4.6 Potential Impacts on EPBC Listed Migratory Species - Avian Overall, the migratory species possible, likely or confirmed as occurring within the Project area predominantly utilise habitats that would be located within environmental buffers and not directly affected by Project related activities. The relevant impact on avian migratory species within the EPBC Assessment Report Page 93

10 Project area is the disturbance of small areas of riparian habitat that provide potential habitat for species such as the Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiatus) within the footprint of the water supply dam. However, less than 10% of the area of this habitat type within the Project area would be affected, therefore, significant impacts on migratory avian fauna are unlikely. The migratory birds that are likely to occur or are confirmed as occurring in the Project area comprise a range of species including mainly trans-equatorial migratory waders, and wetland and woodland species that undergo more local migratory movements. Whilst the waders fly from the northern hemisphere in large flocks, and the Gulf of Carpentaria is a main flight path for their entry to Australia, the birds themselves make only limited use of the Project area as it does not provide the extensive productive mudflats required by these species for feeding. It is not anticipated that large flocks of these species would fly at low levels across the Project area, preferring instead to travel along the shoreline and out to sea. There is very little chance of these species colliding with infrastructure, including powerlines and port facilities. The remaining migratory species do not move through the Project area in mass movements but may utilise natural movement corridors such as riparian corridors and the coastline. Once again, the chance of large numbers of birds colliding with infrastructure is minimal given the high visibility of most project infrastructure and minimal suspended infrastructure across riparian corridors, wetlands and the shoreline (refer to Section of the EIS for description of powerlines). Disturbance to foreshore and beach strand habitats at the location of the proposed port would be very minor and is not expected to have any adverse direct affect on the usage of the area by migratory avian fauna. Most of the shorebirds confirmed as present, likely to occur or possibly occurring in the Project area utilise foreshore, tidal flat and beach habitats and/or mangrove and estuary habitats. Only 0.3 ha of foreshore habitats and only 400 square metres of mangrove habitat (0.008% of that mangrove community within the Project area) would be directly disturbed by the Project, which is a minor proportion of these habitats in the area. Indirect impacts on migratory shorebirds during the operational phase from lighting, noise or movement associated with the port facility and Hey Point ferry terminal are also unlikely to lead to significant impacts on migratory shorebirds given the very low incidence of these species within the Project area, and the capacity of most shorebirds to adapt to such disturbance. An assessment of the significance of impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory avian species assessed as possible, likely or confirmed inhabitants of the Project area is provided in Table 30. Migratory avian species have been grouped together for the purpose of the assessment. No specific mitigation measures are required for migratory avian fauna, as no significant impacts on migratory avian fauna are anticipated. However, the fauna impact mitigation strategies described in Section of the EIS would minimise impacts on migratory fauna and areas of potential habitat. Table 30 Significant Impact Assessment migratory avian species Will the proposed works substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species;... result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species;... seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a Refer to Table 6 for a list of the migratory avian species covered by this assessment The migratory species confirmed as present, likely or possible to occur within the Project area predominantly utilise habitats that would be located within environmental buffers and not directly affected by mining and only minimally affected by infrastructure development. The vast majority of habitats utilised by these species would be unaffected by the Project and substantial modification of any important habitats present is not expected to occur. The Project is unlikely to lead to the introduction of any invasive fauna that could affect migratory species. Proposed control measures for weeds would avoid the spread of invasive weeds within habitats of the migratory species. Serious disruption to the life cycle of any migratory species confirmed as present, likely or possibly occurring within the Project area is not anticipated. EPBC Assessment Report Page 94

11 Will the proposed works... migratory species. Refer to Table 6 for a list of the migratory avian species covered by this assessment 4.7 Potential Impacts on Non-Avian Migratory Fauna Potential Impacts on Estuarine Crocodile Estuarine Crocodiles are present in all freshwater and marine habitats in the Project area and surrounds including freshwater swamps and streams well inland. Overall, the species is widespread and numerous within the Project area. It occupies and feeds within the freshwater reaches of Norman Creek, Winda Winda Creek and the Ward River during the wet season, with nests also located in the reaches on all three systems. Field surveys located one nest within the footprint of the proposed water supply dam (Dam C), shown in Figure 7. Areas suitable for Estuarine Crocodile habitat in and around the Project area are shown in Figure 7-13 of the EIS, including the approximate extent of potential freshwater nesting habitat within the Project area. The potential freshwater nesting habitat totals 71.3km of stream reach on Winda Winda Creek, Norman Creek and tributaries, and Ward River and tributaries. The length of potential nesting habitat that would be disturbed by the proposed Dam C footprint comprises 6.7km, representing approximately 9% of the total extent of the freshwater nesting habitat within the Project area. Additional nesting habitat could occur on stream levees in estuary areas, and therefore the total occurrence of nesting habitat is likely to be greater. It is unclear whether the impoundment related to the proposed Dam C would affect access of breeding females to potential habitat upstream and whether juveniles potentially hatched upstream of the impoundment would be exposed to increased mortality rates in traversing to lower reaches as streamflows recede in the dry season. There is a possibility that the impoundment may provide a permanent aquatic habitat area that assists juvenile recruitment. Changes to hydrology downstream of Dam C may result in a localised reduction of water levels and flow rate during the breeding season. This may further alienate small reaches of breeding habitat for Estuarine Crocodiles immediately downstream of the Dam C due to less favourable (lower) water levels within the channel which may not provide sufficiently deep water to accommodate breeding females. Overall, the availability of potential freshwater nesting habitat for the Estuarine Crocodile would be reduced as a result of the development of Dam C. While this may have a localised effect on reproductive rates of the species, it is not anticipated that total breeding effort within the Project area would be significantly affected. Minor changes to streamflow would occur within the Ward River downstream of the proposed pump location between July and the following wet season. Pumping would only occur if streamflow is above 1000L/s and the extraction rate would not exceed 20% of flow at any time; therefore flows would be within the natural inter-annual variation, with natural streamflow re-established prior to the Estuarine Crocodile laying and hatching. Consequently, breeding effort of the Estuarine Crocodile within the area downstream of the pump location is not anticipated to be significantly affected. Further information on potential impacts on the Estuarine Crocodile is presented in Section and Section of the EIS. The only relevant impact on Estuarine Crocodiles within the Project area is reduction in availability of potential freshwater nesting habitat due to direct disturbance from the construction of Dam C and potential for changes to hydrology downstream of the proposed Dam C and downstream of the proposed pump on Ward River. An assessment of the significance of impacts on the Estuarine Crocodile is provided in Table 31. The proposed Project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of the species. EPBC Assessment Report Page 95

12 Table 31 Significant Impact Assessment Estuarine Crocodile Will the proposed works substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species;... result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species;... seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species. Estuarine Crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) The Estuarine Crocodile which has been confirmed as present within the Project area predominantly utilise habitats that would be located within riparian areas (environmental buffers) and not directly affected by mining and only minimally affected by infrastructure development. The vast majority of habitats utilised by this species would be unaffected by the Project and substantial modification of any important habitats present is not expected to occur. The Project is unlikely to lead to the introduction of any invasive fauna that could affect the Estuarine Crocodile. Habitat is predominantly riparian areas with the exception of migration to new areas. Serious disruption to the life cycle of this migratory species is not anticipated as primary habitat is located within environmental buffers with minimal infrastructure development. No specific mitigation measures are required for the Estuarine Crocodile, as no significant impacts are anticipated. Pumping from the Ward River would only occur if streamflow is above 1000L/s and the extraction rate would not exceed 20% of flow at any time. An environmental flow release from the proposed Dam C is proposed (refer to EIS Section 5.2.3). Estuarine Crocodile nest predation and habitat destruction by feral pigs is discussed in Section of the EIS. The implementation of the Project would provide an opportunity to implement a pig control program in targeted locations within the Project area, which would lead to improved conditions of wetland and riparian habitats. Table 32 summarises the areas of the potential habitat REs for the Estuarine Crocodile, to be directly disturbed by the Project, based on interaction with the 40-year mine plan, proposed Dam C, and the location of Project infrastructure. For each potential habitat RE that would be disturbed, Table 32 also indicates the areas of RE to be removed relative to the overall Project area, the Weipa Plateau subregion, and the wider Cape York Bioregion. EPBC Assessment Report Page 96

13 Table 32 Regional Ecosystem Habitat Disturbance for Estuarine Crocodile RE Description Approx. area to be disturbed (ha) Total mapped area in Project area (ha) Proportion to be disturbed in Project area Area in Weipa Plateau subregion# (ha) Proportion of area in subregion to be disturbed# Area in Cape York Bioregion# (ha) Proportion of area in bioregion to be disturbed # Projected remnant extent in bioregion as proportion of current extent# Mining area Dam C Infrastructure Total 3.1.1a 3.1.1c Closed forest of Rhizophora stylosa ± Brugu /era gymnorhiza. Occurs as outer mangroves. Rhizophora sty /osa (Red Mangrove) often completely dominates, forming a very even, closed canopy (5-30m tall). Tall, buttressed trees of Heribera littoralls (Looking Glass Mangrove) dominate a fairly even canopy (21-28m tall). Other tree species are frequently present in the canopy and a shrub layer ( m tall) is often present. In places, Melaleuca cajuputi (Cajuput Tree) is the most frequent canopy species. Cer /ops tagal ± Avicennia marina low closed forest. Extensive on intertidal areas <0.01% 30,293 <0.01% 68,381 <0.01% >99.99% % % Sporobolus virginicus closed tussock grassland. Occurs on coastal plains. Sparse herbland or bare saltpans. Associated with salt plains and saline flats % % Lophostemon suaveolens open forest. Occurs on streamlines, swamps and alluvial terraces , % 24, % 47, % 99.9% a Melaleuca saligna ± M % EPBC Assessment Report Page 97

14 RE Description Approx. area to be disturbed (ha) Total mapped area in Project area (ha) Proportion to be disturbed in Project area Area in Weipa Plateau subregion# (ha) Proportion of area in subregion to be disturbed# Area in Cape York Bioregion# (ha) Proportion of area in bioregion to be disturbed # Projected remnant extent in bioregion as proportion of current extent# viriditiora, Lophostemon suaveolens woodland on drainage swamps. Mining area Dam C Infrastructure Total a a c Melaleuca viathflora ± Petalostigma pubescens low open woodland on low plains. Themeda arguens, Dichanbhium seficeum closed tussock grassland on marine plains. Closed sedgeland dominated by Eleocharis dulcis. Occurs on seasonally flooded marine plains. Baloskion tetraphyllum subsp. meiostachyum open sedgeland in drainage swamps in dunefields Ephemeral lakes and lagoons on alluvial plains and depressions. Corymbia clarkson /ana + Erythrophleum chlorostachys + Corymbiaspp. + Eucalyptus spp. woodland on plains % % % % % , % 166, % 291,098 <0.1% >99.9% TOTAL # All RE spatial data based on analysis of V6 RE data and adjusted with ground-surveyed mapping by RTA within and adjacent to the Project area. EPBC Assessment Report Page 98

15 Table 35 summarises the potential habitats within the Project area for each threatened and migratory estuarine and marine fauna species, including the Estuarine Crocodile, and Table 36 also summarises the amount of each habitat type to be impacted by Project activities Potential Impacts on Dugong Dugongs have the potential to be affected by: loss of foraging habitat from dredging activities; creation of a turbidity plume from dredging activities, and subsequent deposition and resuspension of fine sediments; boat strike; direct impact from dredging activities; disturbance from boating and shipping activities including alienation from habitat; and acoustic impacts. The Hornibrook Terminal and Hey River Terminal dredge footprints do not contain seagrass, however, it may occur in the wider vicinity as isolated patches. Isolated patches of seagrass have been identified within or immediately adjacent to the proposed dredge footprint at the Humbug barge terminal. The area of seagrass within the Humbug barge terminal dredge footprint is conservatively estimated to be 1,250m2 which represents about 0.003% of the seagrass meadows within the Weipa region and is not significant in terms of a Dugong foraging resource. Given the minor scale and short duration of dredging, at each of the barge/ferry terminal facilities it is unlikely that Dugong foraging areas would be significantly affected by turbidity plumes. Seagrass is absent from both the proposed port site and proposed new spoil ground location. Therefore Dugong foraging habitat would not be directly disturbed by port dredging and spoil disposal nor affected by turbidity plumes from port dredging. It is commonly accepted that vessel speed and water depth are the main factor affecting the risk of boat strikes. The risk of boat strike is higher in shallower water. The operation of the ferry from Hornibrook Terminal to Hey River Terminal is predicted to pose a moderate risk to Dugongs in the Embley estuary. Slow moving displacement vessels such as bulk carriers, barges and tugs do not pose a boat strike risk and as such are not considered a risk in the operational phase of either the port area or in the Embley and Hey Rivers. Dredgers are similarly slow moving, however, mitigation strategies would be employed during dredging to prevent direct impact on Dugong from dredging activities (refer Section 5.7.3). As well as direct impacts from boat strike, boating activities have been implicated in the disturbance and alienation of Dugongs from their feeding habitats along the Queensland east coast (Hodgson and Marsh 2007). There is no Dugong feeding habitat in the vicinity of the proposed wharf and shipping channel so the risk of strike by bulk carriers at the port and the risk of alienation from habitat is low. While Dugongs may move through the proposed Port area when periodically migrating between feeding areas, the proposed port and port activities do not represent a barrier to migration that is likely to result in any meaningful impact on Dugong populations in the region. Overall, Project-related vessel movements are likely to have a low risk of impact on Dugong in the vicinity of proposed port. Dugong are potentially sensitive to underwater noise, and construction activities such as pile driving have the potential to temporarily drive Dugongs from the area or cause physical damage to their auditory systems (refer to Section of the EIS). The proposed port area is not suitable Dugong habitat, and as such, it is predicted that an avoidance response to underwater construction activities would pose a low risk of impact to Dugongs at this site. Seagrass beds are typically present in the lower reaches of the Embley River (refer to Section of the EIS), therefore, an avoidance response to construction activities in the Embley estuary pose a moderate risk of impact to Dugongs. However, pile driving would be a one-time event of short duration (approximately 15 days). Risk from physical damage to the auditory system from pile-driving activities would be minimised where possible through a "soft-start" approach and the use of exclusion zones. "Soft-start" refers to the increasing of pile energy gradually over a period of time. EPBC Assessment Report Page 99

16 The relevant impacts to Dugongs within the Project area are boat strike from operation of the ferry from Hornibrook Terminal to Hey River Terminal in the Embley River, and temporary avoidance of habitat due to construction activities in the Embley River. These impacts pose a moderate risk to Dugongs in the Project area. Mitigation measures to reduce the risk of these impacts are described in Section Impacts from loss of foraging habitat, and alienation from habitat due to underwater construction activities in the proposed port area are unlikely. An assessment of the significance of impacts on the Dugong is provided in Table 33. Table 35 summarises the potential habitats within the Project area for each threatened and migratory estuarine and marine fauna species, including Dugong, and Table 36 summarises the amount of each habitat type to be impacted by Project activities. Table 33 Significant Impact Assessment Dugong (Dugong dugon) Will the proposed works substantially modify, destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species;... result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species;... seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species. Dugong (Dugong dugon) The construction of the wharf would involve pile driving. The underwater noise that would be generated by the hammer hitting the top of the pile would be of short term duration and therefore can be described as impulsive noise. The time taken to drive each pile would depend on the hardness of the seabed in each location. There is potential for marine animals in an area close to the piling to incur hearing damage as a result of the piling. It is anticipated that the construction activity would deter most marine mammals from the immediate area, however for precautionary purposes, it is proposed that a "soft-start" approach would be used to disperse animals in the vicinity prior to normal pile driving. The "soft-start" involves commencing pile driving with a partial capacity strike, or giving a warning with an underwater airgun prior to normal pile driving. The minor area of seagrass that may be impacted by dredging at the Humbug Terminal is not significant in terms of a Dugong foraging resource and is not considered to be an area of important Dugong habitat. It is considered unlikely that an invasive species that is harmful to Dugong would be introduced due to the development or operation of the Project. RTA would conduct routine monitoring of the port for marine pests, similar to that currently undertaken for Port of Weipa high-risk areas. Refer to the above for management of potential acoustic impacts during construction. Of all potential impacts, boat strike from operation of the ferry from Hornibrook Terminal to Hey River Terminal is anticipated to represent the highest risk. RTA would operate the ferry in a manner that would minimise the impacts to Dugong. Transit lanes would be defined and implemented to reduce the overall area of disturbance from vessel activities. Serious disruption to the life cycle of an ecologically significant population of Dugong within the Project area is not anticipated Proposed Mitigation Strategies Dugong The key potential impacts on Dugong are boat strike from operation of the ferry from Hornibrook Terminal to Hey River Terminal and acoustic impacts from construction activities. Transit lanes would be defined along the ferry route from Hornibrook Terminal to Hey River Terminal to reduce the overall area of disturbance from vessel activities. Where possible, these transit lanes would follow the deepest water and avoid significant meadows of seagrasses. RTA would ensure that before beginning TSHD dredging and dumping activities during daylight hours, a check would be undertaken using binoculars from a high observation platform, for Dugongs and whales within a monitoring zone (approximately 300 metres of any point on the dredging/dumping run about to be commenced). If any Dugong or whales are sighted in the monitoring zone, dredging/dumping activities would not commence until after the last Dugong or whale is observed to leave the monitoring zone; or alternatively the dredge would to move to another area of the dredge or disposal site to maintain a minimum distance of 300 metres between the vessel and any Dugong or whale. CSDs are essentially stationary during dredging, and do not pose a risk to Dugong or whales. EPBC Assessment Report Page 100

17 Any injury or death of a Dugong or cetacean from dredging would be documented and reported within 24 hours of the incident to DERM and DSEWPaC and further monitoring and/or management requirements discussed. It is anticipated that the construction activity would deter most marine mammals from the immediate area, however for precautionary purposes, it is proposed that a "soft-start" approach would be used to disperse animals in the vicinity prior to normal pile driving. The "soft-start" involves commencing pile driving with a partial capacity strike, prior to normal pile driving. It is proposed that an exclusion zone surrounding pile driving activities be established and monitored prior to normal pile driving commencing and during normal pile driving. Normal pile driving activities would not commence or be temporarily suspended if threatened marine fauna are observed within the exclusion zone. Pile driving activities would not recommence until threatened marine fauna are considered to be outside the exclusion zone. The extent of the exclusion zone would be defined based on further literature review and quantitative analysis of the potential underwater noise impacts from pile driving relating to threatened marine fauna. The final extent of the exclusion zone would be defined in consultation with DSEWPaC Potential Impacts on Migratory Cetaceans This section addresses impacts on migratory cetaceans namely the Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis), Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohnt), and Bryde's Whale (Ba /aenoptera edeni). The following aspects of the Project may affect migratory cetaceans: acoustic impacts; boat strike; direct impact from dredging activities; and disturbance from boating and shipping activities including alienation from habitat. A number of human caused marine noises can be highly intensive and detectable to cetaceans at ranges of several kilometres (Gordon and Moscrop 1996). Cetaceans have been found to avoid some human sound sources for ranges of several kilometres, temporarily abandoning valuable habitat in the process (Tyack 2008). Jefferson et al. (2009) identified that Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins avoid areas during pile driving but return once construction ceases. Such short-term responses by dolphins to pile driving and other construction activities would be expected from the Project, but no significant long-term impacts are predicted. In Australia, dolphin species co-exist with coastal development including extensive port facilities (Hale et al. 1998). The most important area for Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins in Moreton Bay is the Port of Brisbane (Hale et al. 1998). Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphins and Australian Snubfin Dolphins are also associated with port infrastructure at Cleveland Bay, Townsville (Parra 2006). Bottlenose Dolphins also inhabit inshore areas where significant amounts of recreational vessel and commercial waterbased activities occur including Moreton Bay (Chilvers et al. 2005), Richmond and Clarence Rivers (NSW) (Fury and Harrison 2008), and Port Stephens and Jervis Bay (NSW) (Moller et a /. 2002). The potential for boat strike on whales would be similar for Dugong in the coastal waters of the Gulf of Carpentaria, given their size and similar mobility. Whales do not inhabit the estuarine areas of the Embley and Hey Rivers. The slow moving displacement vessels that would operate in the proposed port area do not pose a boat strike risk to whales. Similarly to Dugong, despite dredgers being slow moving displacement vessels, mitigation strategies would be employed during dredging to prevent direct impact on cetaceans from dredging activities (refer Section 5.7.5). The potential for boat strike on dolphins would be less than for Dugongs. Similar to Dugongs, strike by slow moving displacement vessels operating in the proposed port area and Embley and Hey Rivers does not pose a risk. The ferry that would operate in the Embley and Hey Rivers presents a low risk of strike, compared to the moderate risk for Dugong, on the basis that dolphins are more agile and able to better react to and avoid approaching vessels. The potential impacts of disturbance from boating and shipping activities and possible alienation from EPBC Assessment Report Page 101

18 habitat are considered minor, particularly given that preferred pelagic foraging habitats are not located in the Embley and Hey Rivers where the ferry would provide transportation services. The only relevant impact to migratory cetaceans within the Project area would be the temporary avoidance of areas due to pile driving. Impacts from boat strike and alienation from habitat due to boating and shipping activities are unlikely. An assessment of the significance of impacts on all EPBC Act listed migratory cetaceans that are known or likely to occur within the Project area are considered together in Table 34 as the impacting processes are the same and the likely responses are similar. Table 35 summarises the potential habitats within the Project area for each threatened and migratory estuarine and marine fauna species, including migratory cetaceans, and Table 36 summarises the amount of each habitat type to be impacted by Project activities. Table 34 Significant Impact Assessment Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin, Australian Snubfin Dolphin and Bryde's Whale Will the proposed works substantially modify, destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species;... result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species;... seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behavior) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species. Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis), Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni) and Bryde's Whale (Balaenoptera edeni) Cetaceans may be impacted by: disturbance from boating and shipping activities including alienation from habitat, acoustic impacts, boat strike and creation of an offshore turbidity plume during dredging. The construction of the wharf would involve pile driving. The underwater noise generated by the hammer hitting the top of the pile would be of short term duration and therefore can be described as impulsive noise. The time taken to drive each pile would depend on the hardness of the seabed in each location. There is potential for marine animals in an area close to the piling to incur hearing damage as a result of the piling. It is anticipated the construction activity would deter most marine mammals from the immediate area, however for precautionary purposes, it is proposed that a "soft-start" approach would be used to disperse animals in the vicinity prior to normal pile driving. The "soft-start" involves commencing pile driving with a partial capacity strike, or giving a warning with an underwater airgun prior to normal pile driving. Construction of the proposed port, operation and spoil disposal are not anticipated to substantially modify important habitat for the migratory species confirmed as known or possible to occur within the Project area. The Project is unlikely to lead to the introduction of any invasive fauna that could affect migratory species. RTA would conduct routine monitoring of the port for marine pests, similar to that currently undertaken for Port of Weipa high-risk areas. Dolphins present within the Project area are not identified as representing a significant proportion of the population of their respective species. The Project area is not preferred habitat for Bryde's Whale and any occurrence would be sporadic. They are highly unlikely to occur in the Embley and Hey Rivers. There is the potential for alienation of cetaceans in the immediate vicinity of the port and barge/ferry terminal areas primarily during construction activities, particularly during pile driving for the bulk loading wharf. Soft-start pile driving procedures are proposed to limit disturbance during pile driving activities. Disturbance in estuarine areas would be minor and not represent any substantial barrier to the movement of dolphins. Dolphins and whales would not be restricted in their movement around port area wharf construction. No significant impact to the lifecycle of dolphins is likely. No meaningful disruption to the lifecycle of Bryde's Whale would occur as a result of the Project given that the Project area is not preferred habitat and any occurrence would be sporadic Proposed Mitigation Strategies Migratory Cetaceans RTA would ensure that before beginning trailing suction hopper dredging and dumping activities during daylight hours, a check would be undertaken using binoculars from a high observation platform, for Dugongs and whales within a monitoring zone (approximately 300 metres of any point on the dredging/dumping run about to be commenced). If any Dugong or whales are sighted in the EPBC Assessment Report Page 102

19 monitoring zone, dredging/dumping activities would not commence until after the last Dugong or whale is observed to leave the monitoring zone; or alternatively the dredge would to move to another area of the dredge or disposal site to maintain a minimum distance of 300 metres between the vessel and any Dugong or whale. Cutter suction dredges are essentially stationary during dredging, and do not pose a risk to Dugong or whales. Any injury or death of a Dugong or cetacean from dredging would be documented and reported within 24 hours of the incident to DERM and DSEWPaC and further monitoring and/or management requirements discussed. It is anticipated that the construction activity would deter most marine mammals from the immediate area, however for precautionary purposes it is proposed that a "soft-start" approach would be used to disperse animals in the vicinity prior to normal pile driving. The "soft-start" involves commencing pile driving with a partial capacity strike, prior to normal pile driving. It is proposed that an exclusion zone surrounding pile driving activities be established and monitored prior to normal pile driving commencing and during normal pile driving. Normal pile driving activities would not commence or be temporarily suspended if threatened marine fauna are observed within the exclusion zone. Pile driving activities would not recommence until threatened marine fauna are considered to be outside the exclusion zone. The extent of the exclusion zone would be defined based on further literature review and quantitative analysis of the potential underwater noise impacts from pile driving relating to threatened marine fauna. The final extent of the exclusion zone would be defined in consultation with DSEWPaC Summary of Threatened and Migratory Estuarine and Marine Fauna Habitat Impacts Table 35 summarises the potential habitats within the Project area for each threatened and migratory estuarine and marine fauna species, and Table 36 summarises the amount of each habitat type to be impacted by Project activities. Table 35 Habitat Species Summary of Threatened and Migratory Estuarine and Marine Species' Habitat Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus) Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Dwarf Sawfish (Prisds clavata) Foraging habitat: Rocky reef and coral reef habitats. Feeds on algae, seagrass and sponges (Limpus 2009a). Foraging habitat: Shallow coastal environments including rocky reef and sedimentary habitats. Feeds on a wide variety of soft-bodied animals including soft corals, sea pens, sea cucumbers, jellyfish and other large plankton (Limpus 2007). Principally shallow unvegetated coastal environments. Principally feeds on gastropod molluscs and crabs (Limpus 2008b). Oceanic environments from the sea surface to the seabed. Principally feeds on colonial ascidians such as Pyrosoma spp., jellyfish such as Catostylus spp. and other soft-bodied invertebrates (Limpus 2009b). A wide range of intertidal and subtidal habitats including coral and rocky reefs, seagrass meadows, and unvegetated sand or mud areas. Although their diet is diverse, typical items include bivalve and gastropod molluscs and crabs (Limpus 2008a). Foraging habitat: Shallow coastal area, in particular seagrass beds including the Embley and Hey Rivers. Feeds on seagrass and seaweeds, although juveniles are also carnivorous (Brand-Gardner et al. 1999). Dwarf Sawfish inhabit shallow (2-3m) coastal waters and estuarine habitat, moving into marine waters after the wet season, and during the wet season enter estuarine or fresh waters to breed. They feed principally on schooling fish, particularly mullet. This species has not been recorded in surveys of the Project area but is considered likely to occur in the estuarine and lower brackish reaches of the Project area's main drainage systems. Preferred habitat identified on the basis of capture locations include open estuarine EPBC Assessment Report Page 103

20 Species Green Sawfish (Pristis zijsron) Freshwater Sawfish (Pristis microdon) Speartooth Shark (Glyphis sp. A) Estuarine Crocodile (Crocody /us porosus) Dugong (Dugong dugon) Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis) Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohm). Bryde's Whale (Ba/aenoptera edem) Habitat channels and silty sand flats lacking structure with fine substrates (mainly silt), high turbidity and often with low dissolved oxygen. Green Sawfish inhabit estuaries, river mouths, embayments and along muddy and sandy beaches. They feed primarily on shoaling fish, baitfish, prawns, molluscs and small crustaceans. Sawfish may move into marine waters after the wet, and during the wet season enter estuarine or more fresh waters to breed (Peverell 2005). This species has not been recorded in surveys of the Project area but it has been recorded from Albatross Bay. The Project area, including the port development area and barge/ferry terminals in the Embley and Hey Rivers, contain suitable habitat for the species. Preferred habitat is mud bottoms of river embayments and estuaries, but they are also found well upstream (Allen 1997). They are usually found in turbid channels of large rivers over soft mud bottoms (Allen 1991) more than lm deep, but they will move into shallow waters when traveling upstream or while hunting prey (Wilson 1999). This species may occur in estuarine and the lowermost freshwater reaches within the Project area. Suitable habitat is present in the brackish reaches of Norman Creek and the Ward River. Relatively shallow, upper freshwater, and possibly brackish, reaches of rivers and associated floodplains. Seem to be particularly adapted to low oxygen environments. This species may occur in estuarine and the lowermost freshwater reaches within the Project area. Mangrove and estuaries provide year round foraging and shelter habitat. Foraging and nesting habitat for the Estuarine Crocodile occurs within freshwater reaches of Norman Creek, Winda Winda Creek and the Ward River during the wet season, including within the footprint of Dam C and on the Ward River downstream of the proposed pump location. Dugong almost solely consume seagrass, however, Dugongs prefer seagrasses that are early or "pioneer" species, particularly species of the genera Halophila and Ha /odule (DEWHA 2010d). The long, strap-like seagrass Enhalus acoroides that dominates the seagrass beds of the Embley and Hey Rivers, is not a preferred species in the Dugong diet. The Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin and Australian Snubfin Dolphin usually inhabit shallow coastal waters less than 20m deep and are often associated with tidal riverine and estuarine systems, enclosed bays and coastal lagoons (Corkeron et al 1997; Hale et al. 1998; Jefferson 2000; Parra 2006). The coastal form of Bryde's whale appears to be limited to the 200m depth contour, moving along the coast in response to availability of suitable prey (Best et al 1984). The offshore form is found in deeper water (500 to 1000m). It is highly unlikely they would venture into estuarine habitats of the Embley and Hey Rivers. Table 36 Summary of Estuarine and Marine Habitat Disturbance Habitat Type Seagrass Reefs Sponge/soft coral Mangrove and estuary Habitat Area to be disturbed Within or immediately adjacent to the proposed dredge footprint at Humbug Wharf a conservative estimate of less than 1.84kg dry weight seagrass biomass may be directly extracted during dredging, based on seagrass area of 1250m2 within the dredge area. The 1250m2 area represents about 0.003% of the seagrass meadows within the Weipa region based, on 2008 and 2009 data (Chartrand and Rasheed 2009; McKenna and Rasheed 2010). No reefs within the proposed port development footprint would need to be removed for dredging or wharf construction. Overall, dredging is predicted to reduce the area of favourable light conditions over hard coral habitat by approximately 32ha (14% of the 230ha of hard coral from Boyd Point to Thud point) in the short term. Approximately 71ha of sponge/soft coral habitat occurs between Boyd Point and Pera Head (inclusive). Sediment deposition would be at its greatest between these two locations during dredging operations. An estimated 117ha of similar habitat occurs between Pera Head and Thud Point with more likely to occur at inshore reef areas south of Thud Point and north of Boyd Point. The only Project related disturbance to estuary habitat would be the construction of the barge and ferry terminals on the Embley and Hey rivers. Construction would involve some EPBC Assessment Report Page 104

21 Habitat Type Freshwater stream banks Soft sediments Habitat Area to be disturbed dredging, reclamation and piling at the barge and ferry terminals. The respective dredge footprint areas for the Hornibrook, Hey River and Humbug barge and ferry terminals are approximately 10,450m2, 8,250m2, and 5,420m2. The only disturbance to mangroves would be at the Hey River barge/ferry terminal, where removal of a relatively thin band of mangroves (approximately 400m2 which represents 0.008% of this mangrove community within the Project area) would be required. The length of potential Estuarine Crocodile nesting habitat reach that would be disturbed by the proposed Dam C footprint is 6.7km, representing approximately 9% of the total extent of the potential freshwater nesting habitat for Estuarine Crocodiles within the Project area. The total potential freshwater nesting habitat available for Estuarine Crocodiles totals 71.3km of stream reach on Winda Winda Creek, Norman Creek and tributaries, and Ward River and tributaries. Additional nesting habitat could occur on stream levees in estuary areas, and therefore the total occurrence of nesting habitat is likely to be greater. The development footprints for all marine infrastructure components of the Project (port area, proposed spoil ground, Albatross Bay spoil ground, Hornibrook ferry terminal, Humbug barge terminal and Hey River barge/ferry terminal) have been confirmed by field inspection as consisting primarily of soft sediment habitats. The development footprint for the port is approximately 1,460,062m2. The proposed new spoil ground would have a deposition area of approximately 1 km radius from the centre of disposal. The respective dredge footprint areas for the Hornibrook, Hey River and Humbug barge and ferry terminals are approximately 10,450m2, 8,250m2, and 5,420m2. All dredge areas would be required to be dredged to a target depth of 2.0mLAT, corresponding to 0-2m of material being removed. 4.8 Impacts on the Commonwealth Marine Area The following subsections address significant impact criteria relating to the Commonwealth Marine Environment, as indicated in the EPBC Act Policy Statement 1.1 (Significant Impact Guidelines), and describe the impacts of the Project Marine Pest Establishment The effect of the Project would be to shift vessel activity associated with bauxite shipments from the Port of Weipa to the proposed port between Boyd Point and Pera Head. Bauxite has been shipped from the Port of Weipa since The risk of introduction of marine pests is likely to be similar to the current risks associated with Port of Weipa operations. No pest species have become established at the Port of Weipa (PCQ 2007) and the risk of establishment at the proposed port is low. All vessels owned and contracted by Rio Tinto would manage ballast water through a Ballast Water Management Plan which would comply with Australian mandatory requirements (the Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements (DAFF 2008)), and the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments (IMO 2004). There would be no hull cleaning at the proposed port, however pests may still be present on ships hulls. Monitoring would be undertaken to provide a means of early detection of introduced pests. RTA would complete baseline monitoring followed by three-monthly mussel larval monitoring in the vicinity the new port at such time when overseas ships are utilised. If an abnormal growth of organisms is detected, an appropriate response would be developed in consultation with relevant regulatory authorities. Monitoring procedures would follow methodology adopted by the Port of Weipa. Vessels used for port area dredging would be inspected for introduced marine pest species and cleaned if necessary prior to establishment. It is likely that construction dredging for the port area would require the services of internationally sourced dredgers. RTA's proposes to manage the potential for introduced marine pest incursions from this source based on a risk-based approach. Initially, this would be based on a review of the ships work and maintenance history. Where operations or duration since last maintenance period are extended or the information not provided, certification from the dredging contractor by way of hull inspection clearance would be requested. Clearance of the vessel for fouling prior to its mobilisation to Australia would be considered as an item for contract, including diver or dry dock inspection. This approach is consistent with the biofouling risk assessment framework outlined within the National EPBC Assessment Report Page 105

22 Biofouling Guidance for Non-trading Vessels (Commonwealth of Australia, 2008) Ecosystem Function or Integrity The infaunal benthic assemblages in sub-tidal areas of the Gulf of Carpentaria consist primarily of overlapping species distributions rather than highly structured, discrete communities with well defined characteristics of the community (Long and Poiner 1994). The development footprint for the port and proposed new spoil ground consist primarily of soft sediments. It is anticipated that the spoil ground would receive 3-4m thickness of dredge spoil from capital dredging, and an annual maintenance dredging load of about 0.4m, therefore localised smothering of sediments would be significant. These soft sediment habitats are common throughout the Gulf of Carpentaria and are not considered to be sensitive marine habitats and are therefore not areas of high importance. Any areas affected would be extremely small relative to the area of unvegetated sedimentary habitats in the region. Despite the potentially significant local impact on the infauna assemblage through smothering during capital dredging spoil disposal, physical disturbance of the dredge sites, deposition of spoil, and the re-suspension of disturbed and deposited sediment poses a low risk on a regional scale. The Project would not disturb an important or substantial area of habitat in causing adverse impacts on ecosystem functioning or integrity in a Commonwealth marine area Affects on Marine Species Near shore fringing reef communities in the vicinity of the proposed port area occur approximately 2km to the north-east at Boyd Point, approximately 2km to the south-west at Pera Head, and also between Pera Head and Thud Point, all within State waters. These comprise both reefs containing hard corals and low profile reefs containing soft coral/sponge assemblages. Hard corals over the reef areas include species from the following genera: Porites, branching Acropora, Turbinaria, Monitipora, Lobophyllia, Platygyra, Pavona and Favia. Satellite imagery indicates there may be numerous small reef outcrops between Thud Point and Aurukun; however their presence and characteristics were not verified via bathymetric survey or site inspection. Nine Mile Reef is located approximately 6km to the south-south-west of the proposed disposal ground in the Commonwealth marine area. The diverse reef assemblages provide a food source for marine turtles. The creation of a turbidity plume from proposed dredging activities, and subsequent deposition and re-suspension of fine sediments, would potentially impact reef assemblages. Three light regimes related to coral sustainability were developed based on the relationship between TSS and light: "favourable", "light limited" and "unsustainable". Using TSS values from plume dispersion modelling and reef habitat depth profiles, a prediction of impact based on benthic light availability was made for reef habitats of the study area between Boyd Point and Thud Point during inshore and offshore dredging. Modelling indicates that 86-89% of the hard coral reef habitat area mapped around Boyd Point, Pera Head and Thud Point would maintain a "favourable" light regime throughout the dredging program and is not considered to be at risk. The remaining reefs, during the peak plume period, would experience periods of reduced light availability for durations similar to ambient light reduction events recorded at Boyd Point during field investigations. However, the predicted plume TSS concentrations would remain well below reported maximum ambient concentrations. Whilst the change in light availability is not considered sufficient to initiate an acute response, the rate at which these corals can acclimatise is not well defined, and they may remain at risk of developing sub-lethal responses to reduced light regimes. Modelling results indicate that, following the peak plume period, the receiving habitats enter a period of respite, where TSS reductions result in substantial improvements to the light climate. Given the relatively short duration of light attenuation, and general respite provided to coral reef systems after the peak plume period, these predicted light reductions are not thought to be a driver of acute impact associated with the dredging process. The analysis did not identify any coral habitats entering "unsustainable" light regimes. Sediment deposition modelling was used to predict sediment deposition rates over key reef habitat areas for seven different dredging periods representing different dredging activities. Sediment deposition has been plotted over key habitat areas (refer Figure 9). During Period 2, reefs at Pera EPBC Assessment Report Page 106

23 PTDIED Propose Proposed /-- Pera Head Pera Head. after Cul80o Reef d- Thud Point Reef Thud Point O 0 O O Towns Unconfirmed reef locations Seagrass locations Roads and tracks Dredge area LEGEND indicative Proposed new spoil ground Indicative Reef Classes Hard coral Soft coral or sponge Mean daily deposition (mg/cm2/day) 0.25 to to to to to and above Source Information Indicative Seagrass Locations Queensland Seagrass M eadows Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries 2002 Coastal Habitat Resources Information System dpi.gld.gov.au/chris/ Pers Comm. Michael Rasheed, 2010 Modeled dredge plume point data provided by WorleyParsons fiffil410fikilfiarb41161fitegicagmilch is: WorleyParsons Services Pty Ltd While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this data, WoHeyParsons makes no representations or warrantiesabout itsaccuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all retonability and all liability (including without limitation liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages(including indirect or conmguential damage) and costs which might be incurred asa result of the data being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and foram/ reason. 0 10km SCALE 1 : 350,000 (at A4) Latitude / Longitude Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 WE B 29/03/2011 A 01/12/2010 Re-issued for review Issued for review Rev Date Revision Description ORIG CHK ENG APPD LI WorleyParsons resources & energy DH JC MM DH RIO TINTO ALCAN SOUTH OF THE EMBLEY PROJECT Figure 9 - Dredge plume deposition model for port area dredging and disposal at proposed spoil ground (Periods 2-4) Project No: Figure: GM-EN-0030 Rev: B K: \ RTA\ \GIADAL \ GM-EN-0030-B(Deposition Contours).wor

24 Head are predicted by the model to receive a median deposition rate of mg/cm2/day, while reef systems south of Pera Head to Thud Point are predicted to experience median daily exposure of mg/cm2/day for the duration of the Period 2 dredging (approximately 4 weeks). These levels are higher than the recommended mean annual concentration of 3mg/cm2/day to guard against excessive coral recruit mortality (De'ath and Fabricius 2008), but lower than the recommended daily maximum of about 15mg/cm2/day. Similar distributions would be experienced during Period 3, though the extent of affect is markedly reduced. During Period 4, the footprint of deposition would remain relatively localised around the dredge channel. Deposition during Period 2 therefore represents a potential risk of mortality to coral recruits, however corals already established on the reef are likely to be more resilient than recruits as demonstrated by colony survival following natural events where deposition rates can be significantly higher than the recommended daily maximum level. Approximately 71ha of sponge/soft coral habitat occurs between Boyd Point and Pera Head (inclusive) It is predicted that deposition would be at its greatest between these two locations and may locally affect feeding preferences in marine turtles. It is estimated that 117ha of similar habitat occurs between Pera Head and Thud Point, with more likely to occur at inshore reef areas south of Thud Point and north of Boyd Point, so regional impacts to feeding habitats are not predicted. Modelling indicates that there would be negligible increase in turbidity or sediment deposition at Nine Mile Reef, and therefore habitat at Nine Mile Reef would not likely be impacted by dredging or spoil disposal. The placement of dredged material at the proposed new offshore spoil ground has minimal potential for substantial adverse effect on marine species. The proposed spoil ground is located in an area of essentially bare soft sediments, a dominant substrate type in the Gulf of Carpentaria, which has relatively low habitat value to listed marine species or cetaceans. The proposed spoil disposal would not likely have any significant impact on fish assemblages due to their wide distribution through tropical regions. Similarly, the Project is not likely to have any significant impact on prawn species that are the key target species for the Northern Prawn Fishery as the proposed location is not suitable juvenile prawn habitat, although it may be utilised by adult prawns. The proposed barge and ferry terminals are in State waters. The Hornibrook Terminal and Hey River Terminal dredge footprints do not contain seagrass, however, patches of seagrass may occur in the vicinity. Isolated patches of seagrass have been identified at the spring low tide level within or immediately adjacent to the proposed dredge footprint at the Humbug barge terminal. The area of seagrass within the Humbug barge terminal dredge footprint is conservatively estimated to be 1250m2 which represents about 0.003% of the seagrass meadows within the Weipa region. Given the minor scale and short duration of dredging, it is unlikely that sediment loads would be generated over the adjacent E. acroides beds at a thickness that would approach critical levels. Direct and indirect impacts on seagrass from barge/ferry terminal capital dredging are unlikely to have a substantial adverse effect on a marine species or cetacean. The disposal of dredged spoil at the existing Albatross Bay spoil ground in Commonwealth waters is unlikely to adversely affect marine species and cetaceans. Potential impacts of the Project on EPBC Act listed marine threatened and endangered species, and EPBC Act listed marine migratory species (including cetaceans) are described in Section 5.5 and 5.7 respectively. The Project is not expected to have a substantial adverse impact on marine species or cetaceans in the Commonwealth marine area Changes in Water Quality The only potential sources of air emissions that could affect the airspace over Commonwealth waters are vessel exhausts and fugitive dust from land-based mining and product handling activities. These would not cause a significant impact on biodiversity, ecological integrity, social amenity or human health in the Commonwealth marine area due to the minor extent of vessel exhausts and remoteness from land activities. The key potential impacts of dredging and spoil disposal on water quality in Commonwealth marine waters are: possible mobilisation of contaminants into the water column; and generation and migration of turbid plumes. EPBC Assessment Report Page 108

25 Sampling and analysis of the sediment material at the proposed port and barge/ferry terminals was undertaken to determine background concentrations of trace metals, nutrients and organotin concentrations. Sediment sampling, analysis and results are discussed in the following sub-sections on sediment quality. There are no chemical impediments to unconfined sea disposal of dredge spoil. Therefore no significant impact on the water quality of the Commonwealth marine area due to the mobilisation of contaminants into the water column is expected. Background concentrations of turbidity and suspended sediment at the proposed port, new spoil ground and proposed ferry and barge facilities vary considerably over daily and seasonal timescales, which is a typical feature of inshore habitats in silty environments. The extent of this natural variation would buffer water quality impacts associated with dredging, disposal, construction and operation to some extent. Generally, habitats at the proposed port, new spoil ground and proposed ferry and barge facilities may be described as being more resilient to short-term water quality changes. During dredging activities some sediment would become mobilised from the dredge head into the water column and disperse from the point of disturbance subject to prevailing hydrodynamic conditions. Turbidity generated by the proposed dredging within the Embley River and Hey River would likely fall within the natural range for variability (refer Section of the EIS). However, turbidity generated by dredging within the proposed Port Area between Boyd Point and Pera Head would likely exceed naturally occurring perturbations, particularly with respect to event duration. The migration and dispersion of turbid plumes during dredging at the proposed port area and disposal at the proposed new spoil ground has been predicted through modelling. Modelled Total Suspended Solid (TSS) time series data for plume dispersion modelling from Pera Head and Boyd Point have been divided into seven distinct dredging periods. Period 1 represents an initial phase of inshore and offshore dredging of layer 1 using just a CSD and as a result TSS concentrations remain relatively low throughout this period. Period 2 represents dredging of layer 1 in the inshore area by the TSHD, while period 3 represents dredging of layer 2 in the inshore area by the TSHD. Periods 4 and 5 represent dredging of layer 3 by the TSHD in the offshore and inshore areas respectively, while periods 6 and 7 represent dredging of layer 4 by the TSHD in the offshore and inshore areas respectively. The median and 80th percentile TSS concentrations from the dredge plume dispersion model have been plotted spatially for Periods 2, 3, and 4 as representing inshore dredging (layer 1), inshore dredging (layer 2), and respite periods (offshore dredging, layer 3) respectively (refer Figure 10a (Period 2), Figure 10b (Period 3) and Figure 10c (Period 4)). Periods 5-7 are not shown to avoid duplication as their TSS concentrations are suitably represented by periods 3 and 4. Modelling results indicate that Commonwealth marine waters south of Thud Point would experience an increase in TSS concentrations above background during both inshore and offshore dredge operations. Under ambient conditions, Boyd Point and Pera Head reef areas demonstrate a high variation in turbidity, driven primarily by local wind and associated wave events. For example, Pera Head data loggers deployed during recorded turbidity event periods of 9 and 24 days duration at median event concentrations of 248mg/L and 127mg/L respectively. Modelled median plume concentrations from all periods remain below these event-based ambient ranges reported from reef habitats, including locations south of Pera Head. Modelling of turbid plumes at the proposed new spoil ground, located in Commonwealth waters, identified a median TSS concentration of less than 0.5mg/L above background and a maximum of 13mg/L above background over the dredging and disposal period of 36 weeks. These concentrations at the proposed new disposal ground are relatively low due to an increased dilution within the water column (i.e. depth averaged concentration), low duration (disposal approximately every four hours) and prevailing southerly currents providing dispersion. Ambient median (background) TSS has been measured at inshore locations as 15mg/L. The durations of TSS plume concentrations at or above 5mg/L, 10mg/L and 15mg/L above background have been extracted from the model for plume Period 2 and Period 3 (refer Figure 11). This is a duration based plot based on percentage occurrence of concentrations for plume Period 2 and 3. The 5mg/L case extends to 1-2km north of Thud Point during Period 2, while Period 3 it remains local to the dredge. EPBC Assessment Report Page 109

26 I I I O ol cs, 50TH PERGENTIP a MED 5V6 Proposed Ground CASE Boyd Point F.,'..,..., *. 1 /---- I.. Ṗera Head 'c' Rage + Thud Point 577 o "O,.vi t ± \ i I.77 '. o TH PERGENTI Proposed Ground + CASE Boyd Point f-- 0 Pera Head gikg IM F.,' --!; I.77 b o 7 Rage + Thud Point '8ėi t ± + / a LEGEND Towns Median TSS above ambient mg/l Unconfirmed reef to 0.5 locations to 1 Seagrass locations - 1 to 2 indicative = 2 to 3 Roads and tracks = 3 to 4 Dredge area = 4 to 5 Proposed new spoil - 5 to 6 ground = 6 to 7 Indicative Reef Classes = 7 to 8 VA A Hard coral - 8 to 9-9 to 10 M:M Soft coral or sponge 10t011 = 11 to to 13 = 13 to 14 = 14 to 15 = 15 to 16 This map incorporates data which is: WorleyParsons Services Pty Ltd While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this data, WorleyParsons makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims responsibility all cludingindirectorconseuen1 liabil ityti n cludingwitbrutimitationli abil it yi nnegligence) for all incurred as a result of the data being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. Indicative Seagrass Locations Queensland Seagrass Meadows Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries 2002 Coastal Habitat Resources Information System Pers. Comm. Michael Rasheed, 2010 Modeled d edge plume poin data provided by WorleyParsons Newcastle office on 19/07/ ± e lis, cs, vi. + + is, D 28/04/2011 Re-issued for information KM DH Rev Date Revision Description ORIG CHK ENG APPD... WorleyParsons resources & energy N W+E S km, RIO TINTO ALCAN SOUTH OF THE EMBLEY PROJECT Figure 10a - Dredge plume dispersion model (median and 80th percentile cases) for port area dredging and disposal at proposed new spoil ground (Period 2) "O, c, vi km A _. SCALE 1:300,000 (at A4) SCALE 1:300,000 (at A4) Latitude /Longitude Latitude /Longitude 0 Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Geocentric Datum of Australia Project No: Figure: GM-EN-0010 Rev: D Compiled by BRISBANE GEOMATICS KARTA \ \GM \ DAL \ GM-EN-0010-D(TSS Period 2).wor

27 57 7 I TH PERC P CASE Proposed 6,gtrilli round 01 Boyd Point + ;i2 6,vi..,, Pera Head + A- Thud Point + + /... F., TH PERCENTIE CASE Proposed 6 Spoil 12[Kmafl.1 cs,. ± 6,vi, I Mb 12 V F Boyd RIM / F I Pera Head + Thud Point 0. + ± "--"" i i R.,' 4, e7 o P 8 LEGEND Towns Median TSS above ambient mg/l Unconfirmed reef to 0.5 locations to 1 Seagrass locations = 1 to 2 indicative = 2 to 3 Roads and tracks = 3 to 4 Dredge area _ 4 to 5 Proposed new spoil - 5 to 6 M ground = 6 to 7 Indicative Reef Classes - 7 to 8 r A Hard coral = 8 to 9 :::::::::::::: Soft coral or sponge = 9 to 10 = 10 to to to 13 = 13 to 14 = 14 to 15 = 15 to 16 This map incorporates data which is: WorleyParsons Services Pty Ltd While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this data, WorleyParsons makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibility and all liability (including without limitation liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which might be incurred as a result of the data being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. Indicative Seagrass Locations Queensland Seagrass Meadows Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries 2002 Coastal Habitat Resources Information System Pers. Comm. Michael Rasheed, 2010 Modeled dredge plume point data provided by WorleyParsons Newcastle office on 19/07/ oi D 28/04/2011 Re-issued for information DH MM + + A /,,,P3 b ce, ± + e..3 is,. Rev Date Revision Description ORIG CHK ENG APPD ral WorleyParsons resources & energy N W+E S 6 cl c, km = SCALE 1:300,000 (at A4) km + A _. SCALE 1:300,000 (at A4) 0 Latitude /Longitude Latitude /Longitude Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994 Geocentric Datum of Australia I Project No: RIO TINTO ALCAN South of the Embley Project Figure 10b - Dredge plume dispersion model (median and 80th percentile cases) for port area dredging and disposal at the proposed news poil ground (Period 3) Figure: GM-EN-0011 Rev: D Compiled by BRISBANE GEOMATICS KARTA \ \ GM \ DAL \ GM-EN-0011-D(TSS Period 3).wor

28 I L3 50TH PEROENTIP 1 CASE Proposed i Spoil round oi + I() Boyd Point F., o, f. / r- I ' 1- Pera Head am KIII:a 't * Thud Point O vi., + /...-- C.77 b o i oi TH PERC-ENTI CASE Proposed Spoil Ground IC) Oka ETIg + 2:D20 + O vi.., 0 Boyd Point, /- Pera Head Thud Point f..---,... / + + t F., o 0 LEGEND Towns Median TSS above ambient mg/l Unconfirmed reef to 0.5 locations 0.5 o 1 Sea rass locations = 1 to indicative = 2 to 3 Roads and tracks = 3 to 4 Dredge area _ 4 to 5 Proposed new spoil - 5 to 6 ground = 6 to 7 Indicative Reef Classes = 7 to 8 VA Hard coral = 8 to 9 **1 Soft coral or sponge = 9 to 10 = 11 to 12 = 12 to 13 = 13 to 14 = 14 to 15 = 15 to 16 M = 1 0 to 11 This map incorporates data which is: WorleyParsons Services Pty Ltd While every care is taken to ensure the accuracy of this data, WorleyParsons makes no representations or warranties about its accuracy, reliability, completeness or suitability for any particular purpose and disclaims all responsibility and all liability (including without limitation liability in negligence) for all expenses, losses, damages (including indirect or consequential damage) and costs which might be incurred as a result of the data being inaccurate or incomplete in any way and for any reason. 80 Indicative Seagrass Locations Queensland Seagrass Meadows Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries 2002 Coastal Habitat Resources Information System Pers. Comm. Michael Rasheed, 2010 Modeled d edge plume poin data provided by WorleyParsons Newcastle office on 19/07/ /-', i r., o 6 ci c,. + + /- ( 9 B A 28/04/2011 Re-issued for information 02/11/2010 Issued for information KM JMM Rev Date Revision Description ORIG CHK ENG APPD WorleyParsons resources & energy DH DH N W+E S km SCALE 1:300,000 (at A4) Latitude / Longitude Geocentric Datum of Australia A km SCALE 1:300,000 (at A4) Latitude / Longitude Geocentric Datum of Australia RIO TINTO ALCAN SOUTH OF THE EMBLEY PROJECT Figure 10c - Dredge plume dispersion model (median and 80th percentile cases) for port area dredging and disposal at the proposed new spoil ground (Period 4) I I Project No: Figure: GM-EN-0028 Rev: B Compiled by BRISBANE GEOMATICS KARTA \ \GM \DAL \ GM-EN-0028-B(TSS Period 4).wor

29 The 10mg/L case during Period 2 extends from Pera Head to Boyd Point, while during Period 3 it is restricted to within the immediate location of the area to be dredged. Results show that concentrations in excess of 15 mg/l are not predicted to occur beyond Pera Head or Boyd Point for any of the periods for over 5% of the time. It is only during Period 2 that TSS concentrations in excess of 15mg/L would occur for more than 5% of the time, and these concentrations would not occur for more than 20% of the time. Period 4 TSS concentrations would not exceed 5mg/L, so an exceedance figure is not presented. Given a predicted peak plume period of approximately 25 days (approximately the same as natural event durations of 30 days), only areas identified as having a duration exceedance approaching 100% may be described as approaching the currently understood limits of natural conditions (see Figure 11). Given this comparison, plume duration effects at the 15mg/L concentration beyond that encountered during ambient events would not experienced throughout any of the dredge periods. The disposal plumes would tend to disperse along a south-southeast trajectory due to tidal currents and would not adversely affect Nine Mile reef, which is located approximately 6km south-south-west of the spoil ground. Modelling has predicted that a median TSS of less than 0.2mg/L and maximum of 1.2mg/L above background would occur over Nine Mile reef habitat. These increases are negligible given background TSS characteristics at offshore areas, as represented by existing conditions at the proposed spoil ground where TSS recorded a median of 33mg/L, mean of 135mg/L and maximum of 1056mg/L during the Project's in-situ logger program. The material that would be dredged from the barge/ferry terminals has physical characteristics similar to Weipa shipping channel (South Channel) sediments. GHD (2005) has previously carried out an impact assessment study in relation to capital dredging of the shipping channel and placement of the material at the Albatross Bay spoil ground. The study examined impacts from capital dredging campaign involving a much larger volume (greater than 3,000,000m3) of maintenance and capital material. It concluded that the impacts to sensitive areas, such as seagrass meadows to the northeast, from migration of material would be low because the material is predicted to migrate south towards the South Channel. Modelling of turbidity plumes identified that turbidity generated at the Albatross Bay spoil ground following release would travel a maximum of 3km within 11 hours of placement and that this would not extend to sensitive areas. The combined volume of material that would be dredged from the Embley and Hey River dredge areas is very small compared to routine maintenance dredging at the Port of Weipa. Since the material that would be placed at the Albatross Bay spoil ground would likely migrate towards the existing shipping channel and plumes not extend to sensitive habitats, it is concluded that the potential for impact on sensitive habitats is very low. Consequently, modelling was not undertaken as part of the present study. EPBC Assessment Report Page 113

30 8.585[ soeoeua 85$0000 Period 3 Smg/t E ) Period 2 lorrvirl Period 3 lorng/l 85E : Woo Li D Fxesederoe [96] Above IWO 50.7o 70- so go- 70 so- Igo WOW :70 Exceeiience N.] A e so so oot Period 3 15mg/L : :10C* aoseeco 85550E WOOD &SNOW Figure 11 Percentage exceedence plots: 5mg/L (top), 10mg/L (middle) and 15mg/L (bottom) for dredge Period 2 (left) and dredge Period 3 (right) EPBC Assessment Report Page 114

31 4.8.5 Impacts of Turbid Plumes on Marine Habitat and Marine Fauna in Commonwealth Marine Areas The creation of a turbidity plume, and subsequent deposition and re-suspension of fine sediments would likely to affect macrobenthic infaunal assemblages in Commonwealth marine areas at the site of the proposed port facility, new spoil ground and the Albatross Bay spoil ground. Despite the potentially significant local impact on the infauna assemblage the impacts would pose a low risk on a regional scale. Macrobenthic infaunal assemblages can recover over time from the impacts of dredging and spoil disposal. Recovery of the macrobenthic assemblage from spoil deposition at the current Weipa spoil ground in Albatross Bay is considered to be rapid (GHD 2005). Macrobenthic infaunal assemblages in the region are exposed to periodic but significant physical disturbance and elevated turbidity occurring during extreme weather events. The creation of a turbidity plume from dredging activities, and subsequent deposition and resuspension of fine sediments would potentially impact on the foraging habitat of marine turtles and Dugong. However potential foraging habitat for these species (sea grass and inshore reef assemblages) does not occur in Commonwealth waters in the vicinity of the Project area. The fish assemblage is exposed to periodic but significant physical disturbance and elevated turbidity during extreme weather events. Fish species are also mobile and as such can move away from any local areas that are affected by a disturbance (e.g. dredging and dredge spoil deposition). Physical disturbance to the proposed dredged site, deposition of spoil, and the re-suspension of disturbed and deposited sediment probably would have impacts of a minor magnitude at the proposed port facility, the proposed new spoil ground, and the ferry/barge terminals. The Project is predicted to pose a low risk to bony fishes and sharks and rays, including sawfishes. Port site sediment quality Sampling and analysis of the sediment material at the proposed port was undertaken in accordance with the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging (NAGD) (Commonwealth of Australia 2009) to determine background concentrations of trace metals, particle size distribution, nutrients and organotin concentrations. The assessment of dredged material for the Project is also consistent with the assessment guidance described in Annex 2 of the 1996 Protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (now known as the London Protocol) and the Waste Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Dredged Material (IMO 2000). Sediment sampling has been undertaken in accordance with Sampling and Analysis Plans (SAPs) approved by DSEWPaC (formerly DEWHA). All sampling locations and results of analyses for the proposed port area are presented in Section 6 of the EIS. Results from inshore surveys in 2007 and 2009 were pooled for the purposes of assessment against the NAGD Table 2 screening levels at the 95% confidence level of the mean (95%UCL; i.e. the upper limit of the sample mean, with 95% confidence). Results from a predominately offshore 2010 survey were assessed separately to the 2007 and 2009 sampling due to the significantly different dredge footprint areas assessed. Assessments for metal toxicity in water (via Elutriate analysis) and metals bioavailability (via dilute acid extraction (DAE)) for trace elements were undertaken in accordance with NAGD requirements. In accordance with the potential contaminant assessment framework in the NAGD, there would be no chemical impediments to unconfined sea disposal of dredge spoil from the proposed port development site on the basis of the following. Despite some samples of antimony and nickel marginally exceeding respective screening levels in 2007, all contaminant substances were below respective NAGD screening levels at the 95%UCL of the mean. Organotins were not detected in the sediments. DAE metal concentrations were not above screening levels. Allowing for minimal dilution following disposal at the spoil ground for copper, cobalt and zinc, the dredge material would readily achieve the respective ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) 95% species protection level toxicant guideline values. EPBC Assessment Report Page 115

32 Periodic alterations in chemical water quality are currently experienced during event based elevations in ambient turbidity. These alterations include natural increases in nutrient and metal concentrations as fine sediments are mobilised throughout the water column. Seasonal alterations in chemical water quality are also experienced during the monsoon and cyclone periods. Impacts on chemical water quality attributable to the proposed dredging and disposal are expected to be minor in duration and extent, and well below those natural variations experienced during the wet season. No significant impact on the water quality of the Commonwealth marine area is expected. Barge/ferry terminal dredge site sediment quality Sediment sampling and analysis were undertaken in accordance with SAPs approved by DSEWPaC (formerly DEWHA) on sediments that would be dredged from the Hornibrook, Humbug and Hey River terminals to determine suitability for unconfined ocean disposal at the Albatross Bay spoil ground. The proposed dredge footprint, all sampling locations and results of analyses for the barge/ferry terminals are presented in Section 6 of the EIS and summarised below. At Humbug Terminal, no contaminants in sediments exceeded NAGD screening levels for any samples, however one sample contained mercury at the screening level. Despite this, the mean and 95% UCL of the mean for all contaminants were below respective NAGD screening levels. Based on this assessment it is considered that dredge material from the Humbug Terminal area would be suitable for unconfined ocean disposal at the Albatross Bay spoil ground. Analyses of sediment samples collected from the Hey River Terminal location, demonstrated that all but one contaminant, if present, were below respective NAGD screening level criteria. Arsenic is the exception, with three of the seven sites exceeding the NAGD screening level of 20mg/kg. The mean and the 95% UCL of the mean were also above the NAGD screening levels. Further testing of sediments identified that the arsenic had low bioavailability, with concentrations well below the NAGD screening level and minimal dilution during disposal would result in elutriate water arsenic concentrations meeting ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) low reliability water quality guidelines. Accordingly, the sediments that would be dredged from the Hey River Terminal area would be suitable for unconfined ocean disposal at the Albatross Bay spoil ground. Chemical analyses of sediments that would be dredged from Hornibrook Terminal area demonstrate that potential contaminants, if present, would be below respective NAGD screening level criteria for individual samples, the mean and 95% UCL of the mean. Based on this assessment it is considered that dredge material from Hornibrook Terminal area would be suitable for unconfined ocean disposal at the Albatross Bay spoil ground. The material that would be dredged from the barge/ferry terminals has physical characteristics similar to Weipa shipping channel (South Channel) sediments. GHD (2005) has previously carried out an impact assessment study in relation to capital dredging of the shipping channel and placement of the material at the Albatross Bay spoil ground. Based on this report, it is concluded that the potential for impact on sensitive habitats is very low. Therefore, no impact on the water quality of the Commonwealth marine area from barge/ferry terminal spoil disposal is expected. Maintenance Dredging Future maintenance dredging and disposal for the port site, and Embley and Hey River terminals would follow testing and reporting procedures outlined within the NAGD (Commonwealth of Australia 2009). Volumes and duration of dredging would be significantly reduced compared to the proposed capital works, and hence, the impacts anticipated would be substantially reduced. Maintenance dredging material from the Port of Weipa inner harbour routinely passes sediment testing requirements and is suitable for unconfined sea disposal at the approved spoil ground. It is similarly expected that sediments from SoE port and barge/ferry terminal maintenance dredging would also be suitable for sea disposal. Any future maintenance dredging at either the port site or the ferry/barge terminals would require a separate Sea Dumping Permit Accumulation of Potentially Harmful Chemicals It is unlikely that persistent organic chemicals, heavy metals, or other potentially harmful chemicals would accumulate in the Commonwealth marine area to the extent that they impact on biodiversity, EPBC Assessment Report Page 116

33 ecological integrity, social amenity or human health as these chemicals are absent from the natural sediments. The only contaminants that could potentially be introduced due to the Project might be antifouling paints from vessels using the proposed port for loading and these contaminants would be unlikely to be present in concentrations sufficient to cause environmental harm. Future disposal of maintenance dredging materials from the proposed port and ferry and barge terminals would require approval under a Sea Dumping Permit. The Project is unlikely to increase the risk of accumulation of potentially harmful chemicals in Commonwealth marine areas Substantial Adverse Impact on Heritage Values of Commonwealth Marine Area A search of the Australian Heritage Database centred around Boyd Point found no places of heritage value in the Commonwealth marine area, such as historic shipwrecks Risk of Accidental Spills in the Commonwealth Marine Area The Port of Weipa is currently limited to vessels up to 90,000dwt. Cape Size vessels (185,000dwt) rather than panamax or post-panamax vessels (approx 70,000dwt and 90,000kt) would be used for the transport of bauxite from the proposed port site. Therefore, the probability of vessel incidents occurring resulting in accidental fuel, oil or chemicals into the Commonwealth Marine Area would be lower than if the proposed port was restricted to the smaller vessels. The risk of such spills associated with the Project is considered to be low for the following reasons. The proposed port would be remote from other shipping routes. There would be no bulk fuel deliveries to the proposed port. There would be no refuelling of bulk carriers at the proposed port Mitigation Strategies for the Commonwealth Marine Area The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts of dredging and spoil disposal on the Commonwealth Marine Area. Future maintenance dredging and disposal for the port site, and Embley and Hey River terminals, would follow testing and reporting procedures outlined within the NAGD. Maintenance dredging operational procedures, monitoring and reporting requirements for the port facility would be developed under Long Term Dredge Management Plans that would be required under a Sea Dumping Permit issued for maintenance dredging under the Commonwealth Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act The proposed method of undertaking capital dredging works for the proposed port area, using a self propelled CSD that deposits cuttings on the cut seabed area followed up by a TSHD, was selected to minimise the turbidity that would be generated through overflow, particularly for large dredging projects compared with loading straight from the CSD to hopper barges. The selected method almost halves the potential overflow period, and fines generation. Overflow would be reduced from approximately 100 hours per week to 60 hours per week. Furthermore, the hopper of the TSHD would be significantly larger than a hopper barge and would provide a greater opportunity for fines to settle during loading. Alternative methods such as bucket dredgers loading into hopper barges would result in an impractically long dredging campaign as their rate of dredging is significantly slower than CSD or TSHD. Water entrained and subsequently overflowed during suction of pre-cut and deposited dredge material would be significantly less than that entrained during cutting and pumping of sediments to a waiting hopper barge. To minimise potential turbidity impacts at the dredge spoil disposal sites, the following practical measures to reduce loss of bulk material into the marine environment during dredging operations would be considered: o o ensure barge door seals are in good condition; taking loaded barges to the spoil disposal area and discharging as soon as possible to minimise clays settling and adhering to the barge lining. Removing the settled clays within the barge lining generally requires sailing the barge at full speed across the spoil grounds when disposing, causing unwarranted turbidity; EPBC Assessment Report Page 117

34 o o where possible, placing a sandy silt lining (from dredge material) on the bottom of the barge before loading clays to facilitate clay discharge; and developing a spoil dumping plan to aid the even distribution of material over the spoil dumping grounds. To mitigate potential impacts on hard corals, monitoring of turbidity, deposition and photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) is proposed to be undertaken at Boyd Point, Pera Head and Thud Point reef areas using in-situ water quality loggers. The objective of this monitoring would be to assist in identifying extended periods of high turbidity and low PAR, which could lead to coral stress. Monitoring of hard corals is proposed at Boyd Point, Pera Head and reefs south to Thud Point. The proposed monitoring would involve establishing fixed point quadrats which would be photographed so that a historical sequence of coral condition could be established and reviewed for indicators such as colour change, bleaching and tissue necrosis. The objective of this would be to identify when corals become stressed due to low light conditions or are being adversely affected by sediment deposition. Should signs of unacceptable coral stress become apparent, then dredging operations would be located to offshore in the departure channel to allow corals a period of respite and return to more favourable light conditions. The final design of the reactive monitoring program would be prepared in consultation with DSEWPaC and DERM. All vessels owned and contracted by RTA would be required to manage ballast water through a Ballast Water Management Plan which would comply with Australian mandatory requirements (The Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements (DAFF 2008)), and the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships Ballast Water and Sediments (IMO 2004). Monitoring would be undertaken to provide a means of early detection of introduced pests. RTA would complete baseline monitoring followed by three-monthly mussel larval monitoring in the vicinity the new port at such time that overseas ships are utilised. If an abnormal growth of organisms is detected, an appropriate response would be developed in consultation with relevant regulatory authorities. Monitoring procedures would follow methodology adopted by the Port of Weipa. Vessels used for port area dredging would be inspected for introduced marine pest species and cleaned if necessary prior to establishment. Monitoring of infauna is proposed be undertaken at the new spoil ground location following capital dredging and at the proposed port to identify the extent of smothering impact, spoil migration and recovery over time. Collection of infauna was undertaken in June 2010 from 15 sites within and adjacent to the proposed new spoil ground. Identification and enumeration of these samples would provide a baseline for post-dredging impact assessment. Monitoring is also proposed for the ongoing maintenance dredging campaigns at a frequency of five years, consistent with that required for long term maintenance dredging for the Port of Weipa. Monitoring at the Albatross Bay spoil ground is not proposed due to the minor dredge volumes involved, particularly in comparison to far larger volumes disposed there regularly from routine maintenance dredging of the Port of Weipa. RTA would provide written notification to the DSEWPaC's Maritime Heritage Section of the discovery of any suspected shipwreck or shipwreck relics identified during the course of dredging and construction. Appropriate risk mitigation strategies would be developed with the Department if required. Monitoring of the progress of the turbidity plume would be undertaken. Should dredgingrelated turbidity be identified at Nine Mile Reef an investigation would be undertaken and appropriate mitigation measures implemented. EPBC Assessment Report Page 118

35 5 CONCLUSIONS Threatened Terrestrial Flora and Fauna The threatened flora species are likely to be encountered in non-eucalyptus tetrodonta vegetation communities which would not be directly affected by bauxite mining operations. The disturbance of sensitive non-eucalyptus tetrodonta vegetation by mining would be avoided by the development of an environmental buffer system and the exclusion of mining from within the designated buffers and the non-eucalyptus tetrodonta communities themselves. Impacts of habitat removal on the overall habitat landscape for fauna, and in particular faunal movement patterns, would be mitigated by retention of the coastal margin vegetation buffer and remnant vegetation not disturbed by the mine plan. Given the limited disturbance by infrastructure of non-eucalyptus tetrodonta vegetation, the proposed environmental buffer system together with the retention of remnant vegetation means that significant impacts on threatened flora and fauna species are unlikely. Threatened Marine Fauna The turtle species that utilise beaches in the vicinity of the proposed port for nesting (mainly Flatback Turtles) could potentially be affected by the construction and operation of the port and associated infrastructure. An altered above-water night time light regime is anticipated to cause the largest potential impact on marine turtles as it could affect adult female turtles and hatchlings. A lighting plan would be implemented to minimise long-term adverse impacts from hatchling disorientation. Feral pig predation of nests is a significant problem in the vicinity of the proposed port. A feral pig control program would be implemented between Pera Head and Boyd Point to reduce nest predation and enhance turtle population survivorship. It is considered that this measure is capable of producing an overall increase in hatchling numbers. This is discussed in detail in Section of the EIS. A monitoring program would be developed in conjunction with Traditional Owners and DERM with consideration of turtle nesting activities (number, type, predation, success), behaviour (hatchling activity) and incident reporting. The creation of a turbidity plume (refer Section of EIS) from dredging activities, and subsequent deposition and re-suspension of fine sediments, could potentially affect reef assemblages. These areas would be monitored and dredging adapted if required to minimise impact. Small patches of sponge reef nearest the proposed Port facility may experience significant deposition during the dredging process. Some loss of habitat at these locations may be expected which may locally affect feeding preferences in marine turtles. Similar habitat also occurs between Pera Head and Thud Point, with more likely to occur at inshore reef areas south of Thud Point and north of Boyd Point, so regional impacts to feeding habitats are not predicted. It is anticipated that the noise from wharf and jetty construction activity would deter most marine mammals from the immediate area, however for precautionary purposes a 'soft start' approach would be used to disperse animals in the vicinity prior to normal pile driving. The 'soft start' involves commencing pile driving with a partial capacity strike, prior to normal pile driving. An exclusion zone would also be monitored prior to pile driving commencing and during pile driving. Pile driving activities would not commence or be temporarily suspended if threatened marine fauna is observed within the exclusion zone. Pile driving activities would not recommence until threatened marine fauna are considered to be outside the exclusion zone. The Project is unlikely to have a significant impact on marine turtles given the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. Migratory Avian Species The migratory bird species that are known to occur or which may occur in the Project area predominantly utilise habitats that would be located within environmental buffers and not directly affected by mining. Given the proposed environmental buffer system and the retention of remnant vegetation, significant impacts on migratory avian species are unlikely. Non-Avian Migratory Species EPBC Assessment Report Page 119

36 Estuarine Crocodiles are widespread and numerous in the Project area and predominantly utilise habitats that would be located within environmental buffers and not directly affected by mining. The length of potential nesting habitat reach to be disturbed by the proposed water supply dam footprint comprises approximately 9% of the total extent of freshwater nesting habitat within the Project area. While this could have a local effect on reproductive rates of the species, it is not anticipated that total breeding effort within the Project area would be significantly affected. The main potential impact on Dugong would be boat strike from operation of the ferry from Hornibrook Terminal to Hey River Terminal. Transit lanes would be defined away from seagrass beds and in the deeper water. Short term piling activities would be carried out in the Embley and Hey River estuaries Dugongs would be expected to exhibit avoidance behaviour and impacts would be mitigated using a "soft-start" piling approach and the implementation of exclusion zones. The Project is unlikely to have a significant impact on Dugong. The key potential impact to the Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin, Australian Snubfin Dolphin and Bryde's Whale (all migratory cetacean species), would be the acoustic impact from construction activities at the proposed port. A "soft-start" approach to piling would be used to disperse animals in the vicinity prior to normal pile driving as well as the implementation of exclusion zones.. The Project is unlikely to have a significant impact on migratory cetacean species. Commonwealth Marine environment Turbidity plumes would be present in the Commonwealth marine area during port dredging and spoil disposal at the new spoil ground and the Albatross Bay spoil ground. Total suspended solid concentrations in Commonwealth waters in the vicinity of the proposed port and spoil grounds are predicted to increase slightly above background levels during dredging. Peak plume duration during dredging is predicted to be similar to recorded natural periods of elevated turbidity. Whilst turbidity plumes and the subsequent deposition and re-suspension of fine sediments would likely have minor impacts on macobenthic infauna and fish assemblages in Commonwealth waters in the vicinity of the Project area, significant impacts are unlikely. Important habitat such as reef assemblages and seagrass do not occur in Commonwealth marine waters in locations where Project activities could cause adverse impacts. The Project is unlikely to have a significant impact on the Commonwealth marine environment. 6 SUMMARY OF RELEVANT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION/OFFSET MEASURES A summary of relevant impacts on the MNES and associated mitigation/offset measures described in this report is presented in Table 37. A description of the types of costs associated with each mitigation/offset is also provided. Under the Queensland environmental offsets policy, the Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets (NRW 2007) (refer to the Regional Vegetation Management Code for Western Bioregions), no offsets are required under either of these Policies for clearing associated with the Project. The Project would not have a significant impact on the terrestrial MNES; therefore, offsets for terrestrial impacts are not required under the EPBC Act. A feral pig control program is proposed as an offset for potential impacts on marine turtles. A condition of approval under the Fisheries Act 1994 for removal of mangroves (approximately 400m2) in the area of the Hey River barge/ferry terminal may include a requirement to provide a compensatory measure as an offset (refer EIS Section for further discussion). A cross reference table which links the requirements of Commonwealth Tailored EIS Guidelines with the corresponding section of the EIS where those requirements have been addressed is provided in Table 38. EPBC Assessment Report Page 120

37 Table 37 Summary of Relevant Impacts and Mitigation/Offset Measures Relevant impact Potentially Affected MNES Mitigation measure/offset Cost Disturbance of suitable riparian Red Goshawk (Bythrotriorchis radiatus) note Water management design -reduction of number of water supply habitat from construction of the this species was not found during EIS surveys dams from two dams to one (Dam C) (refer Section of EIS) proposed Dam C (minor impact) Disturbance of suitable riparian habitat from construction of linear infrastructure (minor impact) Disturbance of 400m2 of mangrove habitat for Hey River ferry terminal (minor impact) Isolated localised minor effects in habitat areas adjacent to mining areas due to changes in hydrology associated with removal of bauxite (minor impact) Masked Owl ( Tyto Novaehollandiae) note this species was not found during EIS surveys Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) note this species was not found during EIS surveys Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus) note this species was not found during EIS surveys Cooktown Orchid (Dendrobium bigibbum) Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid (Dendrobium johannis) Spathoglottis plicate note this species was not found during EIS surveys Avian migratory species that inhabit riparian areas Cooktown Orchid (Dendrobium bigibbum) Chocolate Tea Tree Orchid (Dendrobium johannis) Spathoglottis plicate note this species was not found during EIS surveys Cooktown Orchid (Dendrobium bigibbum) Ant Plant Myrmecodia beccani Dwarf Sawfish (Pristis clavata) Green Sawfish (Pristis zijsron) Freshwater Sawfish (Pristis microdon) Dugong (Dugong dugon) Spathoglottis plicate note this species was not found during EIS surveys Vegetation buffer protecting other suitable habitat (refer Section of EIS) Fire management program (refer Section of EIS) Progressive rehabilitation (refer Section 3.10 of EIS) and Mine Closure Plan Vegetation buffer protecting other suitable habitat (refer Section of EIS) Fire management program (refer Section of EIS) Progressive rehabilitation (refer Section 3.10 of EIS) Closure Plan and Mine Implement any relevant conditions of approval under the Fisheries Act 1994 (refer Section of EIS) Vegetation buffer protecting other suitable habitat (refer Section of EIS) Progressive rehabilitation (refer Section 3.10 of EIS) Closure Plan and Mine Reduction in water reliability (potential loss of production) Loss of production (resource) Operational cost Operational cost Loss of production (resource) Operational cost Operational cost Capital cost Loss of production (resource) Operational cost EPBC Assessment Report Page 121

38 Relevant impact Potentially Affected MNES Mitigation measure/offset Cost Reduction of potential foraging habitat through clearing of Darwin Stringybark open forest for mining (minor impact) Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiates) note this species was not found during EIS surveys Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudiclumatus) note this species was not found during EIS surveys Progressive rehabilitation (refer Section 3.10 of EIS) and Mine Closure Plan Operational cost Disturbance of nest tree (low probability) Disturbance of roosting tree in Dam C footprint (low probability) Hatchling disorientation due to lighting from the port and associated infrastructure (high risk of impact prior to mitigation. Proposed feral pig control offset program likely to offset this impact.) (low risk of regional impact) Red Goshawk (Erythrotriorchis radiates) note this species was not found during EIS surveys Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat (Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudiclumatus) note this species was not found during EIS surveys Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus) Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) Sediment deposition on sponge/soft Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) coral habitat between Boyd Point Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus) and Pera Head which may locally affect feeding preferences in marine Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) turtles Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas) Disturbance of minor areas of habitat as a result of dredging and the re-suspension of disturbed and deposited sediment and operation of barge/ferry terminal areas (minor impact on habitat) Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Dwarf Sawfish (Pristis clavata) Green Sawfish (Pristis zijsron) Freshwater Sawfish (Pristis microdon) To avoid disturbance of nests, undertake pre-clearance survey in likely habitat. For identified nests, establish buffer and maintain to end of breeding season. (refer Section of EIS) Targeted pre-clearing surveys would be undertaken to determine the presence of the species within the Dam C footprint. If present, disturbance of habitat trees would be avoided until after the breeding season (i.e. clearing to commence no earlier than May and be completed by end of November). If the species is present, all potential roost trees would also be identified within the Dam C disturbance area and pushed over in a manner that would allow any bats present to leave the roosts unharmed (refer Section of EIS). Lighting plan (refer Table 6.49 of EIS) Feral pig control offset program (refer Section of EIS) Removal of ghost nets (refer Section of EIS) Monitoring program (refer Section of EIS) Continuation of assistance with DERM research program to monitor sand temperature near Boyd Point Lighting plan (refer Table 6.49 of EIS) Monitoring program (refer Section of EIS) Feral pig control program (refer Section of EIS) Removal of ghost nets (refer Section of EIS) Continuation of assistance with DERM research program to monitor sand temperature near Boyd Point Minor impact only on habitat, very low probability of impact on species. No mitigation required. Disturbance of minor areas of Green Sawfish (Pristis zijsron) Minor impact only on habitat, very low probability of impact on Loss of production Operational cost Capital cost Operational cost Operational cost Operational cost Operational cost Capital cost Operational cost Operational cost Operational cost Operational cost EPBC Assessment Report Page 122

39 Relevant impact Potentially Affected MNES Mitigation measure/offset Cost habitat as a result of dredging and operation of proposed port area (minor impact on habitat) Minor increase (above background) in Total Suspended Solid concentrations and turbidity in Commonwealth marine area due to dredging and spoil disposal (minor impact) Macrobenthic infaunal assemblages at the new spoil ground are likely to be impacted through smothering during capital dredging spoil disposal, and the re-suspension of disturbed and deposited sediment (low risk of regional impacts) Reduction in availability of potential freshwater nesting habitat as a result of construction of Dam C (minor impact) Reduction in availability of potential freshwater nesting habitat downstream of Ward River pump due to altered hydrology (low probability of impact) Commonwealth marine area Commonwealth marine area Estuarine Crocodile Estuarine Crocodile species. No mitigation required At the proposed port location, species richness and overall abundance of the fish assemblage is predicted to increase in response to the addition of piles. To minimise potential turbidity impacts at the dredge spoil disposal sites, the following practical measures to reduce loss of bulk material into the marine environment during dredging operations would be considered as part of the Dredge Management Plan. (refer Section 6.10 of EIS) o Ensuring barge door seals are in good condition. o Taking loaded barges to spoil disposal area and discharging as soon as possible to minimise clays settling and adhering to the barge lining. Removing the settled clays within the barge lining generally requires sailing the barge at full speed across the spoil grounds when disposing, causing unwarranted turbidity. o Where possible, placing a sandy silt lining (from dredge material) on the bottom of the barge before loading clays to facilitate clay discharge. o Developing a spoil dumping plan to aid the even distribution of material over the spoil dumping grounds. Monitoring of infauna at the new spoil ground location following capital dredging to identify the extent of smothering impact, spoil migration and recovery over time. (refer Section 6.10 of EIS) Thereafter, monitoring would be undertaken every five years to monitor the effects of the maintenance dredging program. (refer Section 6.10 of EIS) Feral pig control program (refer Section of EIS) Water management design reduction of number of water supply dams from two dams to one (Dam C) (refer Section of EIS) Outlet pipe for environmental flows Monitoring Water management criteria: Annual volume capped at 1% of mean annual flow No pumping when Ward River flow <1000L/s Rate of pumping <20% of river flow rate Environmental monitoring Capital costs Operational costs Operational costs Operational cost Loss of reliability (potential loss of production) Capital cost Operational cost Limited water supply (potential loss of production) Operational cost EPBC Assessment Report Page 123

40 Relevant impact Potentially Affected MNES Mitigation measure/offset Cost Boat strike from operation of ferry from Hornibrook Terminal to Hey River Terminal in the Embley River (moderate risk of impact) Temporary avoidance of area/ habitat due to construction activities in the Embley River (minor impact) Temporary avoidance of port area due to pile driving (short term/minor impact) Dugong (Dugong dugon) Dugong (Dugong dugon) Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis) Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni) Dugong (Dugong dugon) Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis) Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni) Bryde's Whale (Ba /aenoptera edeni). Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate) Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus) Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) Green Turtle (Chelon /a mydas) Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta) Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) Transit lane for ferry Report any incidents to DSEWPaC and DERM "Soft-start" approach would be used to disperse animals in the vicinity prior to normal pile driving (refer Section 10.5 of EIS) An exclusion zone would be monitored prior to and during pile driving activities (Refer Section 10.5 of EIS) "Soft-start" approach would be used to disperse animals in the vicinity prior to normal pile driving (refer Section 10.5 of EIS) An exclusion zone would be monitored prior to and during pile driving activities (refer Section 10.5 of EIS) Delay to Construction activities Delay to construction activities EPBC Assessment Report Page 124

41 Table 38 EIS Guideline Requirement 1) General information Commonwealth Tailored Guidelines Cross-Reference Table Provide a description of the background of the action including: i) the title of the action; ii) iii) iv) the full name and postal address of the designated proponent; a clear outline of the objective of the action; the location of the action; v) the background to the development of the action; vi) vii) how the action relates to any other actions (of which the proponent should reasonably be aware) that have been, or are being, taken or that have been approved or proposed in the region affected by the action; the current status of the action; viii) the consequences of not proceeding with the action. ix) legislative background for the proposal, including the NES matters protected under Part 3 of the EPBC Act, and any other requirements and approvals needed under the EPBC Act, including s.160 of the Act; x) legislative background for the proposal of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act EIS Section EIS Section 1 EIS Section 1.1 EIS Sectionl.3 EIS Figure 1-1, Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4, Section 1.2 EIS Section 1 EIS Section 1.4 EIS Section 1 EIS Section 1.6 EIS Section 1.9 (legislative background) (EPBC Act requirements) EIS Section ) Description of the action The Draft EIS must contain enough information about the action and its relevant impacts to allow the Minister to make an informed decision whether or not to approve under Part 9 of the EPBC Act (for the purposes of each controlling provision) the taking of the action. Provide a description of the action, including: i) all the components of the action; ii) iii) iv) the precise location of any works to be undertaken, structures to be built or elements of the action that may have relevant impacts; including illustrations or maps; how the works are to be undertaken and design parameters for those aspects of the structures or elements of the action that may have relevant impacts; to the extent reasonably practicable, any feasible alternatives to the action, including: a) if relevant, the alternative of taking no action; b) a comparative description of the impacts of each alternative on the matters protected by the controlling provisions for the action; including alternatives to ocean disposal; c) sufficient detail to make clear why any alternative is preferred to another; EIS Section 2 EIS Figure 1-3 and Figure 1-4, and Section 2 The location of works is described and shown in the Section 2 of the draft EIS. The mine plan extends 40 years in the future and there may be changes to some precise locations of works. This is accounted for in the draft EIS. EIS Section 2 EIS Section 1.6 EIS Section 1.6 EIS Section 1.6. Alternatives to sea disposal are addressed in Section of the EIS EIS Section 1.6 v) any consultation about the action, including: EIS Section 15 EPBC Assessment Report Page 125

42 EIS Guideline Requirement vi) a) any consultation that has already taken place; b) proposed consultation about relevant impacts of the action; c) if there has been consultation about the proposed action any documented response to, or result of, the consultation; identification of potentially affected parties, including a discussion of any communities that may be affected and a description of their views. 3) Matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) Identify EPBC Act listed threatened species and ecological communities, listed migratory species and components of the Commonwealth marine environment potentially present on or off-site that are likely to be impacted, directly or indirectly, as a consequence of the proposal. For each of these matters of NES, the following information must be provided: i) information on the distribution, ecology, and habitat preferences of the species or community; ii) a detailed discussion of known threats; EIS Section EIS Section 15 EIS sections 1.8 and 15.4 EIS sections 15.2 and 16.3 EIS Section and EPBC Report Section 2. The definition of "affected parties" under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 encompasses those who have suffered loss or damage as a result of a contravention of the Act and therefore there no potentially "affected parties" with respect to the SoE Project. EPBC Assessment Report Section 4, and EIS sections 6.3, 6.6, 6.9.5, 7.6.2, , , and 8.10 A updated search by Qld Herbarium did not identify any more records of EPBC threatened flora species within the Project site. Threats addressed in EPBC Assessment Report Section 4 and also in EIS sections (Whales and Dolphins), (Dugong), (Sharks and Sawfish), (Turtles), (impacts of weeds), (significance assessment tables for threatened flora species describe threat of rubber vine to threatened plants), (introduced fauna impacts of pigs), (threats to migratory birds), 8.10 (threats to Sawfish), (threats to EPBC flora), (threats to EPBC fauna), (Crocodile). EPBC Assessment Report Page 126

43 EIS Guideline Requirement EIS Section iii) information on the conservation value of each habitat type on the site from a local and regional EIS Section 6.3 describes marine habitats in the vicinity of Project infrastructure and perspective, including the percentage representation of each habitat type on site in relation to its local Project activities, and their conservation values. and regional extent; There are no reefs within footprint of Project infrastructure. EIS Section describes the areas of reef habitat in the local region of the Project, and occurrence and areas of reef habitats in the wider region. The area of reefs potentially impacted by dredge plume relative to areas of reef habitat in the local region are described in EIS Section The area of seagrass within the footprint of Project infrastructure relative to its extent in the Weipa region is described in EIS Section The value of different habitat types on site (in terms of REs) is described in EIS Section 7.7. The REs that represent potential habitat for threatened flora and fauna species are provided in EIS Table 7-7 and Table 7-15 respectively. The REs that represent potential habitat for migratory bird species are provided in EIS Table The REs that represent potential habitat for the Estuarine Crocodile are provided in EIS section Refer to Figure 6, Figure 6a, Figure 6b, Figure 6c and Figure 6d for the location and distribution of these REs within the Project area. Refer to Table 7-10 for data on the area of each these REs within the Project area compared to the Weipa Plateau subregion and Cape York Bioregion. The conservation value of different habitat types within the Project area and potential habitats for all MNES are summarised in Section 4 of the EPBC Assessment Report. Areas of conservation significance with respect to aquatic habitats, within and adjacent to the Project area, are described in Section 8.2 iv) if a population is present on the site, its size and the importance of that population from a local and The importance of each population or potential population, of threatened marine fauna is regional perspective; described in EIS Section and EPBC assessment Report Section 5. EIS Figures 6-50, 6-51 and 6-52 show maps of known nesting locations and densities of marine turtle species in northern and eastern Australia, from literature. EIS Section describes crocodile population importance and size. Scale of impacts on regional populations of threatened flora, and threatened and migratory fauna, are outlined in EIS Sections , 7.20 respectively, and also EPBC Assessment Report Section 5, including those species that are likely or possible to occur. EPBC Assessment Report Page 127

44 EIS Guideline Requirement EIS Section v) maps showing the location of known records (including those from databases and all surveys previously EIS Figure 7-7, Figure 7-7a and Figure 7-7b detail the location of threatened flora conducted for the proposal); recorded during surveys conducted for the Project EIS Figure 7-7a, Figure 7-7b and Figure 7-11 detail the location of threatened terrestrial fauna and crocodiles recorded during surveys conducted for the Project. EIS Figures 6-50, 6-51 and 6-52 show maps of known nesting locations of marine turtle species in northern and eastern Australia, from literature. EIS Figure 6-53 shows location of turtle nesting activity from field surveys conducted for this Project and an earlier field survey. Locations of Dolphins sightings during field work for this Project described in EIS Section Species known occurrence described in EIS sections 6.6, 7.6.2, , and The Queensland Herbarium and Queensland Museum records (December 2010) do not have any specimens of EPBC-listed species recorded from the Project area (as at December 2010). The Commonwealth Protected Matters search tool and the Queensland Wild Net database do not provide point source data for species records. vi) maps showing the potential habitat within the proposed site. These maps must highlight habitat EIS Section 6.6 describes potential habitat for marine threatened and migratory fauna. components important for each relevant species, such as breeding habitat, wetlands, vine forests, rock There is no reef habitat within footprint of Project infrastructure and very small amount outcrops, etc; of seagrass within footprint of Project infrastructure. EIS Figure 6-53 shows location of turtle nesting activity in the port area, from May July 2007 and April 2008 surveys Potential habitat for threatened flora, terrestrial fauna and terrestrial migratory species and Crocodile, in terms of REs, is described in EIS sections 7.6.2, , and respectively. Refer to Figure 6, Figure 6a, Figure 6b, Figure 6c and Figure 6d for the location and distribution of these REs within the Project area. vii) maps showing the potential habitat within the region; EIS Figure 6-20 shows seagrass distribution in the local region. EIS Figures 6-50, 6-51 and 6-52 show maps of known nesting locations of marine turtle species in northern and eastern Australia, from literature. EIS figures 6-18, 6-19 and 6-20 show reef habitat, hard and soft coral habitat and seagrass habitats respectively, in the local region. Figure 10 shows reef habitats in the wider local region. EIS Section describes the areas of reef habitats in the wider region, which are poorly mapped. Potential habitat for threatened flora, threatened terrestrial fauna and terrestrial migratory species and crocodile, in terms of REs, is discussed in EIS sections 7.6.2, , and respectively, and also EPBC Assessment Report Section 4. Refer to Figure 6, Figure 6a, Figure 6b, Figure 6c and Figure 6d for the location and distribution of these REs within the Project area. EIS Table 7-5 describes the locations of each RE in reserves in the Cape York Bioregion and locations of reserves are shown in EIS Figure 7-1. Potential habitat of estuarine species is described in EIS Section 8.10 and and also EPBC Assessment Report Section 4. EPBC Assessment Report Page 128

45 EIS Guideline Requirement viii) maps detailing regional migration pathways; EIS Section EIS Section discusses migration pathway of migratory birds and Crocodile A conceptual representation of the migratory pathway for waders is provided in EIS Figure EIS Figure 7-13 illustrates the likely movement pattern of individuals of the Estuarine Crocodile between stream systems within the Project area and illustrates notional wet season movement paths within the Project area. EIS sections 6.6.2, and discuss migration pathways of marine fauna in the vicinity of the port area. ix) information on the survey methodology used, including any limitations of the methodology and data EIS Sections 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, 6.6.5, 7.4 and 7.13, Appendices 7A and 7E, Figure 7-3 collected for each matter of NES, as well as a justification for the survey methodology and survey sites and Figure 7-10, Section 8.3 and Figure 8-2 employed; x) survey methodology must follow all relevant state and Commonwealth survey guidelines (e.g. the There are no relevant survey guidelines for marine fauna. Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Birds (DSEWPaC)) and demonstrate how this has been Benthic habitat survey methods described in EIS section achieved; Survey and assessment of sediment characteristics is described in EIS Section and Guidelines used for sediment characterisation are described in EIS Section The methodology for the turtle nesting activity survey is described in EIS section There were no other specific studies of the distribution and abundance of marine fauna in the study region, however, incidental observations were made while undertaking habitat mapping. EIS Sections 7.4 and 7.13 discuss flora and fauna survey methodology respectively, including relevant survey guidelines used xi) information on the scientific reliability of survey investigations and conclusions, including the degree of The assumptions and inputs for modelling the turbid plume generation, spoil certainty or statistical confidence where appropriate; resuspension, sediment deposition, and siltation depth are described in EIS section Inputs to modelling include long term monitoring data and are described in EIS Sections 6.1 and 6.4. Monitoring to validate the turbid plume modelling is described in EIS Section xii) for all listed threatened, migratory or marine species that are believed not likely to be impacted by the Potential impacts on all species for which suitable habitat is present on site, regardless action, but for which suitable habitat is present and could be impacted by the action, detailed information of whether presence was confirmed during surveys, have been assessed. must be included to demonstrate that a likely impact on the species will not occur. EIS Sections 6.6, 7.6.2, , and 8.10 describe listed species, their likelihood of occurrence (confirmed, possible, likely or unlikely based on habitat availability), and reasoning for likelihood of occurrence. EIS Sections 6.9.4, 6.9.5, , , and 7.20 and EPBC Assessment Report Section 5 describe potential impacts on all listed species that are confirmed, possible or likely to occur. 4)Relevant impacts EPBC Assessment Report Page 129

46 EIS Guideline Requirement Provide a description of the relevant impacts, including: i) a detailed assessment of the nature and extent of the likely long-term and short-term relevant impacts, including a summary table detailing the amount of habitat impacted for each matter of NES; EIS Section EIS Sections 6.9, , , and 7.20, and EPBC Assessment Report section 5, describe potential impacts on all listed species that are confirmed, possible or likely to occur, as well as the Commonwealth Marine Area. Sections 20.6, 20.7 and 20.8 discuss relevant cumulative impacts. EIS Section describes facilitated impacts related to increased shipping rates. Summary tables detailing amount of habitat to be impacted are presented in EPBC Assessment Report Tables 14, 18, 31, 34 and 35. EIS Table 7-10 describes REs to be disturbed by Project. ii) the assessment must detail direct, indirect, cumulative and facilitated impacts; As above iii) a statement whether any relevant impacts are likely to be unknown, unpredictable or irreversible; The EIS discusses impacts to threatened and migratory marine fauna that may be unknown or unpredictable (Section 6.9.1, 6.9.2, 6.9.3, and 6.9.5). However, no relevant impacts to migratory and threatened marine fauna are likely to be unknown, unpredictable or irreversible (refer EPBC Assessment Report Section 5.5 and 5.7, or EIS Section 6.9.5). The EIS discusses impacts to terrestrial flora and fauna that may be unknown or unpredictable (Sections 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11, 7.16, 7.17, 7.18, 7.19 and 7.20). However, no relevant impacts to threatened terrestrial flora and fauna are likely to be unknown, unpredictable or irreversible (refer EPBC Assessment Report Section 5.2 and 5.3). The EIS discusses impacts to aquatic ecology that may be unknown or unpredictable (Sections 8.14 and 8.15). However, no relevant impacts to threatened aquatic fauna are likely to be unknown, unpredictable or irreversible (refer EPBC Assessment Report Section 5.5). No relevant impacts on Commonwealth Marine Areas are likely to be unknown, unpredictable or irreversible (refer EPBC Assessment Report Section 5.8). iv) analysis of the significance of the relevant impacts; EIS Sections 6.9, and 7.20 include EPBC significance assessments- EPBC Assessment Report Section 5 includes EPBC significance assessments v) any technical data and other information used or needed to make a detailed assessment of the relevant All technical data and other information used to make impact assessment are included in impacts; the relevant sections of the EIS (EIS sections 6, 7 and 8). vi) information on the scientific reliability of investigations and conclusions drawn, including the degree of The assumptions and inputs for modelling the turbid plume generation, spoil certainty or statistical confidence where appropriate. This must include any assumptions or limitations of resuspension, sediment deposition, and siltation depth are described in EIS section any models used to make predictions Inputs to modelling include long term monitoring data and are described in EIS Section 6.1 and 6.4. Monitoring to validate the turbid plume modelling is described in EIS section EIS Section discusses the resolution of the hydrological model. Monitoring to validate the model is described in EIS Section 5.5. EPBC Assessment Report Page 130

47 EIS Guideline Requirement Indirect impacts refers to impacts which are not a direct result of the project, and may include off-site or downstream impacts, such as impacts on migratory species from changes to the hydrology of wetlands or estuarine areas located off-site. Facilitated impacts refers to impacts resulting from the actions of third parties that are facilitated by proposed action, such as increased shipping or road traffic facilitated through the construction of a port or road. Cumulative impacts refers to the incremental impacts of the action when combined with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions (both related and unrelated). 5) Proposed safeguards and mitigation measures Provide a description of the proposed safeguards and mitigation measures to deal with relevant impacts of the action, including: i) a description, and an assessment of the expected or predicted effectiveness of, the mitigation measures; EIS Section Indirect impacts are addressed in each of the relevant sections referred to above. EIS Section EIS Section 20 Mitigation measures, and their expected or predicted effectiveness, are described in EIS sections and (marine fauna), 7.11 (threatened flora), (threatened terrestrial fauna), (migratory fauna) and 8.14 to 8.16 (aquatic fauna). ii) iii) iv) any statutory or policy basis for the mitigation measures; the cost of the mitigation measures; an outline of an environmental management plan (or plans) that set out the framework for continuing management, mitigation and monitoring programs for the relevant impacts of the action (both on and off-site), including any provisions for independent environmental auditing; v) the plan(s) must allow for the collection of baseline environmental data, and ongoing monitoring, management and mitigation for the duration of the action and subsequent mine rehabilitation, so impacts on matters of NES can be adequately measured; EIS Section (describes TAP for turtles), (describes vegetation management code basis for vegetation buffer) EPBC Assessment Report Section 7 provides the types of costs associated with the mitigation measures. Actual costs cannot be provided due to the significant variables involved (e.g. the extent to which the mitigation measure is required to be implemented, negotiations with stakeholders regarding how the proposed mitigation measures will be implemented, when the proposed mitigation measures will be required over the nominal 40 year Project, and so on). Draft Environmental Management Plan (sections 3.8 and 4), EPBC Assessment Report Section 5, EIS Sections 6.9, 7.11, and , and 8.14 to Draft Environmental Management Plan (sections 3.8 and 4), EPBC Assessment Report Section 5, EIS Sections 6.9, 7.11, and , and 8.14 to vi) the plan(s) must also detail how any management strategy or monitoring program would influence environmental practices on site, including trigger values and response measures where appropriate; Draft Environmental Management Plan (sections 3.8 and 4), EPBC Assessment Report Section 5, EIS Sections 6.9, 7.11, and , and 8.14 to EPBC Assessment Report Page 131

48 EIS Guideline Requirement vii) the name of the agency responsible for endorsing or approving each mitigation measure or monitoring program; viii) a consolidated summary list of mitigation measures proposed to be undertaken to prevent, minimise or compensate for the relevant impacts of the action, including mitigation measures proposed to be taken by State governments, local governments or the proponent. 6) Proposed offset measures Where relevant impacts cannot be avoided or managed, provide a description of the proposed offset measures, including a proposed strategy to offset any impacts of the proposed action on matters of NES. The proposed strategy must: EIS Section EIS Table 1-9 provides a summary of Project approvals, permits and licences with the responsible authority. Draft EM Plan and Environmental Authority conditions to be approved by DERM which includes vegetation buffers, vegetation monitoring, environmental flow management, weed management, fire management, feral animal management and rehabilitation. Long Term Management Plan for dredging and spoil disposal approved under the Environmental Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Cwlth) or Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld) (refer EIS Section ). Reef monitoring would be designed in consultation with DSEWPC and DERM (refer EIS section ).- DERM to be consulted about Lighting Plan and marine turtle threat reduction (refer EIS Section ). Waterway barrier permit would be required for the water supply dam under the Fisheries Act 1994 (DEEDI).- Removal of mangroves in the Hey River would require a permit under the Fisheries Act 1994 (DEEDI). Management of any Red Goshawk nests found within 1km of water prior to vegetation clearing would be approved through the referral to DSEWPaC. Summary of Commitments list provided in EIS Appendix 1F EIS Sections 6.9 (marine fauna and Commonwealth marine areas), 7.11 (flora), (threatened terrestrial fauna), (migratory fauna) describe mitigation measures for relevant impacts. EPBC Assessment Report Section 5 also describes mitigation measures for relevant impacts. Proposed mitigation and offset measures are summarised in Section 7 of the EPBC Assessment Report. Details of mitigation and offset measures and expected conservation outcomes are described in the relevant sections of the EIS and in Section 5 of the EPBC Assessment Report. i) demonstrate how it will achieve long-term conservation outcomes; ii) have regard to the scale and intensity of impact from the development on the site; iii) contain long-term and certain conservation outcomes; iv) consider the approach of the relevant State or Territory. Section 5 of the EPBC Assessment Report Section 5 of the EPBC Assessment Report Section 5 of the EPBC Assessment Report Queensland government offset requirements are described in Section 7 of the EPBC Assessment Report. 7) Other approvals and conditions Provide information on any other requirements for approval or conditions that apply, or that the proponent reasonably believes are likely to apply, to the proposed action. This must include: EPBC Assessment Report Page 132

49 EIS Guideline Requirement i) details of any local or State government planning scheme, or plan or policy under any local or State government planning system that deals with the proposed action, including: ii) iii) a) what environmental assessment of the proposed action has been, or is being, carried out under the scheme, plan or policy; b) how the scheme provides for the prevention, minimisation and management of any relevant impacts; a description of any approval that has been obtained from a State, Territory or Commonwealth agency or authority (other than an approval under the Act), including any conditions that apply to the action; a statement identifying any additional approval that is required; EIS Section State government planning policies are described in relevant sections of EIS, however, there are no planning schemes, plans or policies relevant to MNES. NA NA The Commonwealth Aluminium Corporation Pty Limited Agreement Act /957authorises mining and associated activities on ML7024. ML6024 was also granted under this Act for the purposes of providing transport access to ML7024. EIS Section EIS Section 1.9 iv) a description of the monitoring, enforcement and review procedures that apply, or are proposed to apply, to the action. 8) Environmental record of person proposing to take the action 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: i) the person proposing to take the action; ii) for an action for which a person has applied for a permit, the person making the application. If the person proposing to take the action is a corporation, provide details of the corporation's environmental policy and planning framework. Proposed monitoring is described in EIS sections 6.9.1, , , , , , , , Table 6-49, Table 6-50, , , , , , , , , Table Monitoring and review are described in the Draft EM Plan, sections 3 and 4. Approvals, permits and licences, which would be enforceable, and relevant authorities for each, are described in EIS Table 1-2. Proposed conditions for undertaking environmental activities on ML7024 and ML6024, such that DERM may issue the required amended environmental authority, are described in the Draft EM Plan Section 3. EIS Section 1.1 RTA has not been the subject to any proceedings under a Commonwealth or State law for the protection of the environment EIS Section 1.1 RTA has not been the subject to any proceedings under a Commonwealth or State law for the protection of the environment RTA has a Health, Safety and Environment Policy that includes commitments to minimise environmental impact and continually monitor and improve the way the company works (refer EIS Appendix 1A). 9) Information sources For information given in a draft EIS, the draft must state: EPBC Assessment Report Page 133

50 EIS Guideline Requirement EIS Section i) the source of the information; References to source information are provided throughout the EIS and provided in the Reference list at the back of the document. Relevant references are also provided in the stand alone EPBC Assessment Report. ii) how recent the information is; As above iii) how the reliability of the information was tested; Details of survey methods and modelling are provided in the relevant sections and Appendices of the EIS iv) what uncertainties (if any) are in the information; As above v) the qualifications and experience of the study team and any specialist consultants; Appendix 1E of EIS vi) the parts of the EIS each individual was responsible for, or had input into. Appendix 1E of EIS 10) Guidelines that must be utilised in the EIS Legislative background to Sea Dumping Act EIS Section i) National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009 Reference to Guidelines used in assessment EIS Section Monitoring undertaken and description of material to be dumped EIS Section 6.5 ii) Annex Protocol to the Convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes Waste management EIS Section and other matter 1972 (the London Protocol) Minimisation of volume to be dredged EIS Section iii) Waste Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Dredged Material. International Maritime Organisation Alternatives to sea disposal EIS Section Dredging or loading procedures EIS Section Description of benthic habitat at proposed disposal site EIS Section and Position fixing EIS Section Marine habitats EIS Section 6.3 Water quality EIS Section 6.4 Disposal sites sediment characteristics EIS Section and Marine fauna EIS Section 6.6 Projected impacts and mitigation measures EIS Section 6.9 Monitoring EIS Section (inshore reef habitat) and EIS Section (spoil ground benthic infauna) Consultation EIS Section 15 EPBC Assessment Report Page 134

51 7 REFERENCES Abrahams, H., Mulvaney, M., Glasco, D., and Bugg, A. (1995). Cape York Peninsula Land Use Strategy. Office of the Coordinator-General of Queensland, Australian Heritage Commission, March Allen, G.R. (1991). Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of New Guinea.:268. Madang: Christensen Research Institute. Allen, G R. (1997) Marine Fishes of Tropical Australia and S.E. Asia, Western Australian Museum ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. National Water Quality Strategy. Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council and Agricultural Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. Aumann, T. and Baker-Gabb, D. (1991). A Management Plan for the Red Goshawk. RAOU Report 75. Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne. Beasley, I., Robertson, K.M. and Arnold P. (2005) Description of a new dolphin, the Australian Snubfin dolphin Orcaella heinsohnisp. n. (Cetacea, Delphinidae). Marine Mammal Science 21: Bell, I. (2004) Weipa Coast Turtle Foraging, Nesting and Threats Survey Best, P.B., D.S. Butterworth & L.H. Rickett (1984). An assessment cruise for the South African inshore stock of Bryde's Whales (Ba /aenoptera edeni). Report of the International Whaling Commission. 34: Blackman, J.G., Perry, T.W., Ford, G.I., Craven, S.A., Gardiner, S.J. and De Lai R.J. (1999). Characteristics of Important Wetlands in Queensland. Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland. Blandford and Associates. (1994). for the Skardon Kaolin Project. Prepared by Connell Wagner, Brisbane. Brand-Gardner, S., Lanyon, J.M. and Limpus. C.J. (1999) Diet selection by immature Green Turtles, Chelonia mydas, in subtropical Moreton Bay, south-east Queensland. Australian Journal of Zoology 47(2): Chartrand, K.M. and Rasheed, M. A. (2009). Port of Weipa Long term seagrass monitoring, DPI&F Publication PRO (DPI&F, Cairns), 26 pp. Chilvers, B.L., Lawler, I.R., Macknight, F., Marsh, H., Noad, M. and Paterson, R. (2005) Moreton Bay, Queensland, Australia: an example of the co-existence of significant marine mammal populations and large-scale coastal development. Biological Conservation 122: Commonwealth of Australia (2008). National Biofouling Guidance for Non-trading Vessels. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia (2009). National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Corkeron, Morisette, N.M., Porter, L. and Marsh, H. (1997) Distribution and status of Humpback Dolphins, Sousa chinensis, in Australian waters. Asian Marine Biology 14: Czechura, G. and Hobson, R. (2000). The Red Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus in northern Queensland: status and distribution. Report to Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service. DAFF (2008). Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Australian Government. Dames and Moore. (1996). Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Study to Alcan South Pacific. Ely Mining Lease, Report De'ath, G. and Fabricius,K.E. (2008).Water quality of the Great Barrier Reef: distributions, effects on reef biota and trigger values for the protection of ecosystem health. Final Report to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville. Debus, S.J.S. and Czechura, G.V. (1988). The red goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus a review, Aust. Bird Watcher 12: EPBC Assessment Report Page 135

52 DEEDI (2009). Dwarf Sawfish. Photo Guide to Sharks. Queensland Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation. Available online at: (accessed 25/8/2010). DERM (2010). Wetland Info Rare or Threatened Plants of Cape York NRM Region. Available online at: Id.gov.a u/wetla nd info/site/ma ppi ng Fa nd D/Wetla nd Ma psand Data/Summa ryinfo/ Wild lifespecieslist.jsp?areaid = N RM6&Area Na me=ca pe%20york&areatypedescription = N RM%20 Reg ion&kingdom= plants&speciesfilter=rareorthreatened (accessed 5/9/2010). Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management. DEWHA (2005). The North Marine Bioregional Plan. Bioregional Profile: Appendix D1 North Marine Region Protected Species Group Report Cards: Cartilaginous Fish. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. DEWHA (2008a). Dendrobium bigibbum Conservation Advice. Approved Conservation Advice for Dendrobium bigibbum. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. DEWHA (2008b). Dendrobium johannis Conservation Advice. Approved Conservation Advice for Dendrobium johannis. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. DEWHA (2008c). Myrmecodia beccarii Conservation Advice. Approved Conservation Advice for Myrmecodia beccarii. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. DEWHA (2008d). Solanum dunalianum Conservation Advice. Approved Conservation Advice for Solanum dunalianum. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. DEWHA (2008e). Spathoglottis plicata Conservation Advice. Approved Conservation Advice for Spathoglottis plicata. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. DEWHA (2009a). Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1, Matters of National Environmental Significance. DEWHA (2009b). Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts website. id=942 (Date accessed 24 August 2009). DEWHA (2009c). Draft EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21 Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 Migratory Shorebird Species. Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth Government. DEWHA (2010a). Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Birds. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth Government. DEWHA (2010b). Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Bats. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth Government. DEWHA (2010c). Survey Guidelines for Australia's Threatened Frogs. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Commonwealth Government. DEWHA (2010d). Dugong dugon in Species Profile and Threats Database. Available online at: (accessed 7/9/2010). Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra. Dockrill, A.W. (1992). Australian Indigenous Orchids, revised edition, SGAP NSW Region, Sydney. Driscoll P. (2001). Gulf of Carpentaria Wader Surveys Prepared on behalf of the Queensland Wader Study Group of Birds Queensland with assistance from the Australasian Wader Studies Group for the Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. DSEWPaC (2010). Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Commonwealth Government. Available from: (accessed 10/12/2010 and 25/03/2011). EPA (2006). Conservation Management profile for the Red Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus. Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. EPA (2007). Nature Conservation (Estuarine Crocodile) Conservation Plan 2007 and Management EPBC Assessment Report Page 136

53 Program Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. Fury, C.A. and Harrison, P.L. (2008). Abundance, site fidelity and range patterns of Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) in two Australian subtropical estuaries. Marine and Freshwater Research 59: Garnett, S. and Crowley, G. (2000). The Action Plan for Australian Birds Environment Australia, Canberra. GHD (2005). Port of Weipa Capital Dredging: Draft. Report prepared by GHD for Ports Corporation Queensland. March GHD (2007). Report for Aurukun Bauxite Project Turtle Nest Monitoring Report July pp. Gordon, J. and Moscrop, A. (1996) Underwater noise pollution and its significance for whales and dolphins. In MP Simmonds and JD Hutchinson (eds). The Conservation of Whales and Dolphins: Science and Practice, John Wiley and Sons Ltd, West Sussex. Greenland, J.A., Limpus, C.J. and Currie, K.J. (2002). Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Report, III Marine Turtles. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Greenland, J.A. and Limpus, C.J. (2003). Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Report, III Marine Turtles. Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, Greenland, J.A. and Limpus, C.J. (2004). Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Report, III Marine Turtles. Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, Haines, J.A., Limpus, C.J. and Flakus, S. (1999). Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Report, III Marine Turtles. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Haines, J.A. and Limpus, C.J. (2000). Marine Wildlife Stranding and Mortality Database Annual Report, III Marine Turtles. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Hale, P., Long, S. and Tapsall, A. (1998) Distribution and conservation of delphinids in Moreton Bay. In: Tibbetts, I.R., Hall, N.J. and Dennison, W.C. (eds) Moreton Bay and Catchment. School of Marine Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane. Herbert B. (1995) Swamp Ecology of the Weipa Region. Report prepared for Comalco Aluminium Limited. Department of Primary Industries. Regeneration Library Holmes, G. (1998). A review of the distribution, status and ecology of the Star Finch Neochmia ruficauda in Queensland. Aust. Bird Watcher 17: Hodgson, A. J. and Marsh, H. (2007). Response of dugongs to boat traffic: the risk of disturbance and displacement. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 340: Jefferson, T.A. (2000). Population biology of the Indo-Pacific hump-backed dolphin in Hong Kong waters. Wildlife Monographs, 144, Jefferson, T.A., Hung, S.K. and Wursig, B. (2009). Protecting small cetaceans from coastal development: Impact assessment and mitigation experience in Hong Kong. Marine Policy, 33: Jones, D.L. (1988). Native Orchids of Australia, Reed Books, Frenchs Forest. Kato, H. (2002). Bryde's Whales Balaenoptera edeni and B. brydei. In: Perrin W.F., B. Wursig & H.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Page(s) Academic Press. IMO (2000) Specific Guidelines for Assessment of Dredged Material. Adopted by the 22nd Consultative Meeting of Contracting Parties to the London Convention 1972 by resolution LC.22/5 (2000)18-22 September International Maritime Organisation. IMO (2004). International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments. International Maritime Organisation. Kato, H. (2002). Bryde's Whales Balaenoptera edeni and B. brydei. In: Perrin W.F., B. Wrsig & H.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Pp Academic Press. Landsberg, J. and Clarkson, J. (2004). Threatened Plants of the Cape York Peninsula: A report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Queensland Parks and Wildlife EPBC Assessment Report Page 137

54 Service. Limpus, C.J. (2007) A Biological Review of Australian Marine Turtles. 5. Fatback Turtle Natator depressus (Garman), Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. Limpus, C.J. (2008a) A Biological Review of Australian Marine Turtles. 1. Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta (Linnaeus), Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. Limpus, C.J. (2008b) A Biological Review of Australian Marine Turtles. 4. Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz), Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. Limpus, C.J. (2009a) A Biological Review of Australian Marine Turtles. 3. Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricate (Linnaeus), Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. Limpus, C.J. (2009b) A Biological Review of Australian Marine Turtles. 6. Leatherback Turtle, Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli) Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. Limpus, Fleay, A. and Baker, V. (1984) The flatback turtle, Chelonia depressa, in Queensland: reproductive periodicity, philopatry and recruitment. Australian Journal of Wildlife Research, 11: Long, B.G. and Poiner, I.R. (1994). Infaunal benthic community structure and function in the Gulf of Carpentaria, Northern Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 45: Magnusson W.E., Grigg G.C. and Taylor J.A. (1980) An aerial survey of potential nesting areas of Crocodylus porosus on the west coast of Cape York Peninsula. In: Australian Wildlife Research 7: Marchant, S. and Higgins, P. (eds) (1993). Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Vol. 2 Raptors to Lapwings. Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Martin, A.R. (1990). Whales and Dolphins. London, UK: Salamander Books Ltd. McKenna, S.A. and Rasheed, M.A. (2010). Port of Weipa Long Term Seagrass Monitoring, September DEEDI Publication. Fisheries Queensland. Cairns, 25 pp.menkhorst, P. and Knight, F. (2004). A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia. Miller, J.D. (1996) Reproduction in sea turtles. In: The Biology of Sea Turtles (Eds: P.L. Lutz and J.A. Musick). CRC Press. p Moller, L.M., Allen, S.J. and Harcourt, R.G. (2002) Group characteristics, site fidelity and seasonal abundance of bottlenose dolphins Tursiops aduncus in Jervis Bay and Port Stephens, southeastern Australia. Australian Mammalogy. 24: NPWS (2002). Recovery Plan for the Red Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service Hurstville NSW. NRW (2007). Policy for Vegetation Management Offsets. Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water. Oakwood, M. (2008). Northern Quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus), pp in Strahan, R, The Mammals of Australia, 3rd ed, New Holland Publishers Pty Ltd, Sydney. O'Malley, C. (2006). National Recovery Plan for the Gouldian Finch (Erythrura gouldiae). WWF- Australia, Sydney and Parks and Wildlife NT, Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, NT Government, Palmerston. O'Malley, C. (2006a). Appendix to the National Recovery Plan for the Gouldian Finch (Erythrura gouldiae) Background Information. WWF-Australia, Sydney and Parks and Wildlife NT, Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, NT Government, Palmerston. Parra, G.J. (2006) Resource partitioning in sympatric delphinids: space use and habitat preferences of Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins. Journal of Animal Ecology. 75: PCQ (2007). Ten Ports, Countless Opportunities: Sustainability Report: Ports Corporation of Queensland. Peverell, S.C. (2005) Distribution of sawfishes (Pristidae) in the Queensland Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia, with notes on sawfish ecology. Environmental Biology of Fishes 73, EPBC Assessment Report Page 138

55 Peverell, S.C., McPherson, G.R., Garrett, R.N. and Gribble, N.A. (2006) New records of the River Shark Glyphis (Carcharhinidae) reported from Cape York Peninsula, northern Australia. Zootaxa (1233). pp Saalfeld, K. and Marsh, H. (2004). Dugong. In, National Oceans Office. Key Species A Description of key Species Groups in the Northern Planning Area. National Oceans Office, Hobart. Pp Sattler, P. and Williams, R. (1999). The Conservation Status of Queensland's Bioregional Ecosystems. Queensland EPA, Brisbane. Schulz, M. & B. Thomson (2007). Recovery plan for the Bare-rumped Sheathtail Bat Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus Report to Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, Brisbane. Sea Turtle Conservancy (2010a). Species Fact Sheet: Flatback Sea Turtle. Available online at: Sea Turtle Conservancy Accessed: 06/12/2010. Sea Turtle Conservancy (2010b). Species Fact Sheet: Green Sea Turtle. Available online at: Sea Turtle Conservancy p?page=g reen. Accessed: 06/12/2010. Stevens, J.D., R.D. Pillans & J. Salini (2005). Conservation Assessment of Glyphis sp. A (Speartooth Shark), Glyphis sp. C(Northern River Shark), Pristis microdon (Freshwater Sawfish) and Pristis zijsron (Green Sawfish). [Online]. Hobart, Tasmania: CSIRO Marine Research. Available from: SVT (2009). Cape Lambert Port B Development Underwater Noise Assessment. Prepared by SVT Engineering Consultants for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, 9 February Taplin, L. Bayliss, P. and Kreiger, G. (1988). Crocodile Distribution and Abundance, Cape York Peninsula Report on a Helicopter Survey of Eastern, Northern and North-western Cape York Summary Report, QPWS. Thorburn, D.C, Peverell, S, Stevens, J.D, Last, P.R, Rowland, A.3 (2003). Status of Freshwater and Estuarine Elasmobranchs in Northern Australia. Tidemann, S.C. (1993). Management of a threatened species the Gouldian Finch example. In: Catterall, C.P., P.V. Driscoll, K. Hulsman, D. Muir, and A. Taplin, eds. Birds and Their Habitats: Status and Conservation in Queensland. Page(s) Queensland Ornithological Society, St Lucia, Queensland. Tidemann, S.C. (1996). Causes of the decline of the Gouldian Finch Erythrura gouldiae. Biological Conservation International. 6: Tyack, P.T. (2008) Implications for marine mammals of large-scale changes in the marine acoustic environment. Journal of Mammalogy 89: Wilson, D. (1999). Freshwater sawfish Pristis microdon. Australia New Guinea Fishes Association A-Z Notebook of Native Freshwater Fish (Australia New Guinea Fishes Association Bulletin). 41. Winter, J. and Atherton, R. (1985). Survey of Mammals and other Vertebrates of the Weipa Region, Cape York Peninsula. Winter, J. and Lethbridge, P. (1994). Terrestrial Vertebrate Fauna, Central Rainforest Patches Field Survey 28/8/ /9/1993; Department of Environment and Heritage Report. Woinarski, J. (2004). National Multi-species Recovery plan for the Partridge Pigeon (eastern subspecies) Geophaps smithll smithii, Crested Shrike-tit (northern (sub)species) Falcunculus (frontatus) whitei, Masked Owl (north Australian mainland subspecies) Tyto novaehollandiae kimberli; and Masked Owl (Tiwi Islands subspecies) Tyto novaehollandiae melvillensis, A Recovery Plan prepared under the Commonwealth EPBC Act, EPBC Assessment Report Page 139