aquis resort environmental impact statement

AQUIS RESORT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION REPORT

REV 1 - OCTOBER 2014

Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact Statement Date: October 2014

Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page i

CONTENTS

1 COORDINATOR-GENERAL’S REQUIREMENTS 7

2 ISSUE 1: AQUIS LOCAL PLAN AND CODE 8

2.1 RESPONSE 8

3 ISSUE 2: TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 10

3.1 RESPONSE 10

4 ISSUE 3: POPULATION PROJECTIONS AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSAL 25

4.1 RESPONSE 26

5 ISSUE 4: LAKE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, WATER QUALITY LIMITS 30

5.1 RESPONSE TO LAKE MANAGEMENT 30 5.1.1 Background 30 5.1.2 Item 1.1 – Lake Monitoring and Response Regimes 30 5.1.3 Item 1.2 – Different Depth Scenarios 31 5.1.4 Item 1.3 – Flood Performance 34

5.2 RESPONSE TO WATER QUALITY RELEASE LIMITS 45 5.2.1 Background 45 5.2.2 Regulation and Lake Management 45 5.2.3 Water Quality Targets and Trigger Levels 47 5.2.4 Monitoring For Compliance 51 5.2.5 Trigger and Management Measures 52 5.2.6 Flooding Management During & After Flood Events 53

5.3 RESPONSE TO BASELINE WATER QUALITY DATA 55 5.3.1 Background 55 5.3.2 REMP Objectives 55 5.3.3 Proposed Releases and Characterisation 56 5.3.4 Receiving Environment Attributes 57 5.3.5 Monitoring Program Design 59 5.3.6 Sampling Site Selection and Frequency 61 5.3.7 Data Collected to Date 65

5.4 –RESPONSE TO INLET AND OUTLET PIPELINES 65 5.4.1 Background 65 5.4.2 Item 4.1 – Dredge Impact Mitigation Measures 65 5.4.3 Item 4.2 – Treatment of Excavated Material 72 5.4.4 Item 4.3 – Vulnerability of Inlet Pipeline at Richters Creek Mouth 72 5.4.5 Item 4.4 – Alternative Off-shore Outlet 74 5.4.6 Item 4.5 – Lake Monitoring Regimes 83


Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page ii

6 ISSUE 5: MATTERS OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE 84

6.1 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES 84 6.2 DESIGN DETAILS (ITEM 2) 89

6.2.1 Background 89 6.2.2 Discussion 89 6.2.3 Conclusions 90

6.3 LIGHTING DESIGN AND MITIGATION OF LIGHT EMISSIONS (ITEM 3 – PART) 91 6.3.1 Background 91 6.3.2 Lighting Design 91 6.3.3 Visibility Modelling 94

6.4 MITIGATION OF NOISE EMISSIONS (ITEM 3 – PART) 99 6.4.1 Background 99 6.4.2 Discussion 99 6.4.3 Conclusions 100

6.5 IMPACT OF LAKE FLOODING (ITEM 4) 100 6.5.1 Background 100 6.5.2 Discussion 100 6.5.3 Conclusions 102

6.6 CLIMATE AND FLOODING ISSUES (ITEM 5) 102 6.6.1 Background 102 6.6.2 Discussion 102 6.6.3 Conclusions 103

6.7 IMPACTS OF LIGHT ON AESTHETIC VALUES (ITEMS 6, 25, 27-30) 104 6.7.1 Background 104 6.7.2 Discussion 104 6.7.3 Conclusions 110

6.8 IMPACTS OF LIGHT ON TERRESTRIAL SPECIES (ITEM 6 – PART AND 25 – PART) 111 6.8.1 Background 111 6.8.2 Discussion 111 6.8.3 Conclusions 117

6.9 IMPACTS OF LIGHT ON TURTLES (ITEMS 6, 25, 26, AND 29 – PART) 118 6.9.1 Background 118 6.9.2 Discussion 118 6.9.3 Conclusions 119

6.10 SCREENING VEGETATION (ITEM 7 AND 32) 120 6.10.1 Background 120 6.10.2 Discussion 120 6.10.3 Conclusions 121

6.11 ON-SITE WATERBODIES (ITEM 8) 121 6.11.1 Background 121 6.11.2 Discussion 121 6.11.3 Conclusions 131

6.12 BASELINE SURVEYS (ITEM 9) 131 6.12.1 Background 131 6.12.2 EIS Surveys 132 6.12.3 Post EIS Surveys 132 6.12.4 Reporting 139

6.13 LOCATION OF SITE WITH RESPECT TO GBRMP PLANNING UNITS (ITEM 10) 139 6.13.1 Background 139 6.13.2 Discussion 139 6.13.3 Conclusions 140

6.14 LAKE HABITAT (ITEM 11) 141 6.14.1 Background 141 6.14.2 Discussion 141 6.14.3 Conclusion 141

6.15 PEST MANAGEMENT (ITEM 12) 141


Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page iii

6.15.1 Background 141 6.15.2 Discussion 142 6.15.3 Conclusions 142

6.16 SENSITIVE AREAS / IMPACTS FOR AQUATIC FAUNA (ITEMS 13, 14, 15, 21 AND 24) 143 6.16.1 Background 143 6.16.2 Discussion 143 6.16.3 Conclusions 204

6.17 SENSITIVE AREAS / IMPACTS FOR TERRESTRIAL FAUNA HABITAT (ITEM 14 AND 21 –

PART) 204 6.17.1 Background 204 6.17.2 Discussion – Values 204 6.17.3 Discussion – Impacts 209 6.17.4 Conclusions 224

6.18 WTWHA OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE (ITEM 35) 224 6.18.1 Background 224 6.18.2 Discussion 224 6.18.3 Conclusion 226

6.19 GBRWHA OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE/IMPACTS (ITEMS 16 TO 19, 30-31, 37-39)226 6.19.1 Background 226 6.19.2 Discussion 227 6.19.3 Conclusions 233

6.20 INDIGENOUS CULTURAL HERITAGE ARTIFACTS (ITEM 20) 233 6.20.1 Background 233 6.20.2 Discussion 233

6.21 BEACH ACCESS (ITEM 22) 234 6.21.1 Background 234 6.21.2 Discussion 234 6.21.3 Conclusion 234

6.22 IMPACT MITIGATION FOR INLET/OUTLET PIPELINES (ITEM 23) 234 6.22.1 Background 234 6.22.2 Discussion 234 6.22.3 Conclusion 235

6.23 SOCIAL ASPECTS OF AESTHETICS (ITEM 33) 235 6.23.1 Discussion 235 6.23.2 Conclusion 236

6.24 SHORE BIRDS (ITEM 34) 236 6.24.1 Background 236 6.24.2 Discussion 236 6.24.3 Conclusion 236

6.25 TOURISM IMPACTS (ITEM 36) 236 6.25.1 Background 236 6.25.2 Discussion 237 6.25.3 Conclusion 238

6.26 MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS (ITEM 40) 238 6.26.1 Background 238 6.26.2 Discussion 238 6.26.3 Conclusion 240

6.27 CORAL MAPPING (ITEM 41) 241 6.27.1 Background 241 6.27.2 Discussion 241 6.27.3 Conclusion 242

6.28 ROLE OF MANAGEMENT (ITEM 42) 242 6.28.1 Background 242 6.28.2 Management of the GBRWHA 243 6.28.3 Management of the WTWHA 244 6.28.4 Other Management Issues 246

6.29 CONCLUSIONS 248


Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page iv

7 ISSUE 6: ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL 249

7.1 RESPONSE TO CBD LOCATION 249 7.2 RESPONSE TO SCALE OF PROPOSAL 251 7.3 RESPONSE TO REQUIREMENT FOR A LAKE AND LAKE OPTIONS 254

7.3.1 Background 254 7.3.2 Flood Mitigation 254 7.3.3 Lake Solutions Considered 257 7.3.4 Lake Sustainability Issues 263 7.3.5 Detailed Assessment of Seasonal Lake Option 264 7.3.6 Comparison of Lake Options 272 7.3.7 Other Lake Issues – Discharge to GBRWHA 274

7.4 RESPONSE TO ALTERNATIVE OFF-SHORE DISCHARGE POINT 276 7.4.1 Background 276 7.4.2 Discussion 276 7.4.3 Conclusions 277

7.5 RESPONSE TO OPTION FOR MAINTAINING AQUACULTURE PONDS 278 7.5.1 Background 278 7.5.2 Overview of Existing Situation 278 7.5.3 Biodiversity Values 279 7.5.4 Potential Educational Values 283 7.5.5 Risks 284 7.5.6 EIS Proposal 293 7.5.7 Consideration of Alternatives to EIS Solution 299 7.5.8 Option 2 – Drain and Fill the Ponds with Excess Material 299 7.5.9 Option 3 – Retain the Ponds 301 7.5.10 Option 4 – Hybrid Scheme (Retain Some of the Ponds) 303 7.5.11 Comparison of Options 306 7.5.12 Conclusions 307

8 ISSUE 7: HOUSING AND ACCOMMODATION PLAN 308

8.1 RESPONSE 308

9 ISSUE 8: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN 316

9.1 RESPONSE 316

10 ISSUE 9: REGISTER OF PROPONENT COMMITMENTS 330

10.1 RESPONSE 330

11 ISSUE 10: RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY ISSUES 335

11.1 RESPONSE 335

12 REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES 337


Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page v

APPENDIX A COGS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

APPENDIX B DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN

APPENDIX C TRAFFIC MODELLING OUTPUTS

APPENDIX D POPULATION PROJECTIONS

APPENDIX E TABULATED WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS

APPENDIX F GRAPHS WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS

APPENDIX G CONTINUOUS YSI (IN-SITU) MONITORING DATA

APPENDIX H PROFILE MONITORING DATA

APPENDIX I TUFLOW-FV OFFSHORE DISCHARGE RESULTS

APPENDIX J VISUAL IMPACT FIGURES


Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page vi

TERM MEANING

AEP Annual Exceedance Probability

DAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

DoTE Department of the Environment (Commonwealth)

DSITIA Department of Science, Information Technology, Innovation and the Arts

DSM Digital Survey Model

EHP (Department of) Environment and Heritage Protection

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwlth)

LiDAR Light Detection And Ranging

NC Act Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld)

NQA North Queensland Airports

PMF Probable Maximum Flood

SDPWO Act State Development and Public Works Organisation Act 1971 (Qld)

WSUD Water Sensitive Urban Design

ZVI Zone of Visual Influence


Supplementary Information Report -R1 101014.docx Page 7

1 COORDINATOR-GENERAL’S REQUIREMENTS

By letter dated 16 September 2014 the Coordinator-General issued a request for additional information

required in order to complete the evaluation of the project. A copy of the request is included in

Appendix A. Attachment A set out details of the issues required to be addressed as follows:

Issue 1: Aquis Local Plan and Code

Issue 2: Transport and Infrastructure Impact Assessment

Issue 3: Population Projections

Issue 4: Lake Management Strategy and Water Quality

Issue 5: Matters of NES

Issue 6: Alternative Options for the Proposal

Issue 7: Housing and Accommodation Plan

Issue 8: Community Engagement Plan

Issue 9: Register of Proponent Commitments

Issue 10: Response to Community Issues.

This Supplementary Information Report addresses each of these issues in Chapter 2-11. In some

cases there is duplication and this is dealt with by cross references or summary information.

In most cases the findings of detailed studies undertaken for this report are integrated into the body of

the document. However, some material is considered to be excessively detailed and is retained in the

following appendices that accompany this report:

Appendix B – Draft Aquis Local Plan

Appendix C – Traffic Modelling Results

Appendix D - Population Projections

Appendix E to I– Water Quality Data

Appendix J – Landscape and Visual



2 ISSUE 1: AQUIS LOCAL PLAN AND CODE

The Aquis Local Plan and development code is proposed to form part of the preliminary approval

under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009. The draft Plan and code provided in the environmental

impact statement did not adequately define the acceptable outcomes and solutions needed to inform

and assess subsequent development applications. The proponent has continued to refine both

documents since the public notification period, but further work is required to ensure that the Plan and

code:

Clearly articulate the project's proposed land uses, built form and relationship to adjoining uses,

and the appropriate levels of assessment.

Integrate with the Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme and provide a robust basis for

assessing subsequent development applications.

Reflect key State interests particularly in the areas of water quality and impacts on State

transport infrastructure.

Assist in providing the basis for impact assessment in relation to the Outstanding Universal

Values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

Requirement: Further refine the Aquis Local Plan and code to achieve the objectives outlined above.

The Plan and code should also satisfy comments from Cairns Regional Council and key State

agencies set out in the submissions on the project.

2.1 RESPONSE

Since the receipt of community and Agency submissions on the EIS, the Aquis EIS team has been

working collaboratively with CRC and DSDIP officers to revise the draft Aquis Local Plan included in

the EIS to incorporate CRC and DSDIP suggestions and amendments and relevant state and

CairnsPlan Code provisions to ensure that it is a robust development control instrument for future

development applications.

A series of workshops (4 no) involving officers from Cairns Regional Council and the Department of

State Development and Infrastructure Planning have been convened to progressively revise and

develop a Draft Aquis Local Plan which :

articulates the project's proposed land uses, built form and relationship to adjoining uses, and

the appropriate levels of assessment.

integrates with the Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme and provide a robust basis for

assessing subsequent development applications.

reflects key State interests particularly in the areas of water quality and impacts on State

transport infrastructure.

assists in providing the basis for impact assessment in relation to the Outstanding Universal

Values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.



The outcomes of this collaborative process has been the development the Draft Aquis Local Plan

which provides a planning framework for assessing development within the Aquis Local Plan Area

including:-

(1) a Precinct Plan nominating the location of Precincts within the ALP Area;

(2) a Vision and Development Principles providing context for the implementation of this

Local Plan;

(3) a Table of Assessment identifying levels of assessment and assessment criteria for

development within each Precinct; and

(4) a Code containing performance criteria and acceptable outcomes for certain land

uses and infrastructure in the ALP area.

The Draft Aquis Local Plan (7 October 2014) is attached in Appendix B.

The Draft Aquis Local Plan (7 October 2014) addresses the concerns raised by both CRC and DSDIP

in their submissions on the EIS and represents a robust development control instrument to guide the

assessment of future development applications as part of the implementation of Aquis.

The Draft Aquis Local Plan (7 October 2014) is considered to achieve the right balance of clarity

/certainty regrading development outcomes with appropriate flexibility so as not to fetter design and

innovation in project implementation.



3 ISSUE 2: TRANSPORT AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT

ASSESSMENT

The Department of Transport and Main Roads have assessed the environmental impact statement

and have advised there is insufficient information to determine the direct and indirect impacts on the

transport network. In particular, the assumptions appear to be unjustified and result in an

understatement of the impacts. In addition, agencies responsible for infrastructure provision have also

outlined similar concerns for infrastructure.

Requirement: Transport and infrastructure impact assessment should be revised to identify impacts to

the current and future planned infrastructure. In relation to transport impacts, the AEIS should include

a detailed response to the Department of Transport and Main Roads submission on the environmental

impact statement.

3.1 RESPONSE

The Department of Transport and Main Roads has assessed the environmental impact statement does

not sufficiently determine the direct and indirect impacts on the transport network.

In undertaking their review, DTMR have reviewed the adequacy of the EIS relative to the Guidelines

for the Assessment of Road Impacts of Development (GARID). GARID is a guideline document that is

appropriate for the assessment of road impacts arising from development where the scale of the

development does not materially change the planning framework within which the impacts are

measured.

DTMR have sought further specific details as to the wide ranging impact on specific intersections and

links across the transport network of Cairns. The details as to the construction and operation of the

development (e.g. actual materials haul routes and methods of material haulage, and anticipated

spatial distribution of resident workers across Cairns), cannot be fully understood until such time as the

proposal is further advanced beyond the land use approval. As such the ability to provide definitive

and reliable responses to the detailed issues raised by DTMR is not achievable at this time, and can

be captured through “downstream” approvals processes.

Cairns Regional Council were generally satisfied with the assessment of transport network impacts on

Council roads adjacent to the development site but sought to understand broader impacts on their

road network.

Cairns Regional Council Water and Waste have indicated agreement with the philosophy of a first

principles approach to the derivation of water demands and waste water generation for the

development, but acknowledge that there is no precedence for determining the actual potable water

demands for a project of the size and scale in Australia. Hence Council retain some uncertainty as to

the efficacy of the water demands for Aquis.

Recognising that the concerns generated by the two primary infrastructure providers in DTMR and

CRC, the Proponent established a infrastructure working group to provide a forum for discussion and

resolution of issues raised by these agencies.

The objectives of the infrastructure workshops are to establish:

actions required to allow assessment of the direct and cumulative impact of Aquis on

infrastructure networks

‘principles’ on which future Infrastructure Agreements would be established



A key principal underpinning the philosophy of impacts arising from Aquis is the notion that the

development has not generated unplanned growth for Cairns, but rather has bought forward planned

growth for Cairns. In 2013 the State Government’s Office of Economic and Statistical Research

(OESR) produced population projections from 2011 to 2036 for the Cairns Regional Council area

which shows the population growing from 150,992 persons in 2011 to 244,088 in 2036.

Planning for such growth is set out the Far North Queensland Regional Plan 2009-2031 (FNQRP)

which includes a number of requirements for Cairns Regional Council to accommodate in the

preparation of future planning schemes. These include:

The achievement of higher average densities for residential development.

The achievement of minimum densities in the remaining ‘green field’ areas within the urban

development areas.

Planning for a Major Regional Activity Centre at Smithfield to achieve better employment ‘self-

containment’ on the Northern Beaches.

The current planning scheme – CairnsPlan was prepared and adopted in 2005 prior to the gazettal of

the FNQRP and consequently does not reflect the regional plan initiatives. This has translated to the

planning scheme for Cairns focusing on growth around the proposed Edmonton Town Centre and

associated urban development between Edmonton and Gordonvale the south of the city.

Population growth forecasts indicate that the 244,000 population threshold will occur by 2022.

Evidently the majority of the residential growth (and employment) is planned to be accommodated in

consolidated densification in the central suburbs and around Edmonton as well as in the urban

expansion area known as Mt Peter located between Edmonton and Gordonvale to the south. Hence

the context through which the impacts of Aquis can be measured is not relevant to current planning by

DTMR and CRC as the presence of Aquis will create a fundamental change to the spatial land use

planning for Cairns, and hence relieve some aspects of demand on planned infrastructure upgrades in

some parts of Cairns and create greater demands on others.

Recognising the above, DTMR and CRC agreed that a population threshold based land use and

associated infrastructure planning exercise is required to understand the impacts of Aquis as the

construction and operation of Aquis is rolled out over time.

a) Road Network

The road network planning and upgrade needs for Cairns is most sensitive to the spatial distribution of

traffic associated with growth and hence a suite of scenarios were agreed as a means of comparing

impacts and the opportunity to explore mitigating impacts through land use planning changes for

Cairns to a 244,000 population threshold. These scenarios are:

Case B1: Existing Business as Usual (BAU) Planning for Cairns

Case B2: Existing BAU Planning for Cairns with a 20,000 job generator at Yorkeys Knob (i.e.

Aquis)

Case P1: 20,000 job generator at Yorkeys Knob with 50% of the planned resident settlement

pattern redistributed from the southern suburbs to North Cairns and the Northern Beaches.

Scenario Case P1 represents an opportunity whereupon the land use planning is modified to respond

to constraints on infrastructure rather than the traditional response of infrastructure requiring upgrade

to respond to land use planning decisions. Cairns Regional Council Officers have presented an

overview of opportunities to densify urban development of the Northern Beaches and North Cairns.



Whilst the analysis was high level, the assessment supported the concept of Scenario Case P1, and

Council Officers have discussed providing incentives to increase densities being provided in existing

development approvals currently being implemented on the northern beaches.

Figure 3.1 shows the location of major development proposals in proximity to the Aquis site that could

support densification and higher yield.

Figure 3-1 Major development proposals in proximity to the Aquis site.

By way of a comparative assessment of impact on the DTMR and CRC road network of Cairns, the

Cairns Strategic Transport Model (CSTM) established by DTMR was utilised as the assessment tool.

DTMR initially undertook a review of the existing model to ensure the CSTM reflected the planning and

upgrade thresholds for a population of 244,000 and this was provided to the Proponent on 24

September 2014. The CSTM has been used to model the impacts of the B2 and P1 case scenarios.

The traffic modelling outputs are included in Appendix C.



Case B1: Business as Usual

The CSTM provided by DTMR identified business as usual network upgrades required by DTMR

through to the 244,000 population threshold as shown in Table 3-1

Bruce Highway – Kate St to Buchan St – Upgrade to 6 lanes

Sheridan St – Grove St to Aeroglen Dr – Upgrade to 6 lanes

CWAR - Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes

Panguna St - Extension to McGregor Rd

Foster Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)

Bentley interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)

Deppeler Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)

Closure of Robert Rd intersection with Bruce Highway (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)

Closure of Mill Rd intersection with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)

Closure of Peterson Rd intersections with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)

Pregno links (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) - Deppeler Rd to Thompson Rd - Thompson Rd to Bentley Interchange - Bentley Interchange to Swallows Rd

Mulgrave Rd – Brown St to Aumuller St – Upgrade to 6 lanes

Captain Cook Highway – Aeroglen Dr to Arnold St – Upgrade to 6 lanes

Captain Cook Highway – Poolwood Rd to Endeavour Rd – Upgrade to 4 lanes

Smithfield Bypass – Upgrade to 4 lanes & add connection to CWAR roundabout

CWAR 6 lanes Pease Street to Loridan Drive

Cairns Western Arterial Road - 6 lane upgrade - Redlynch Connection Rd to Loridan Dr

McCoombe St - Mulgrave Rd to Moody St - 6 lane upgrade

Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive - 6 lanes

Bruce Highway - Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange - 8 lanes

Bruce Highway - Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange - 6 lanes

Bruce Highway - Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge - 4 lanes



The BAU network upgrades identified by the CSTM for the Cairns Regional Council road network to

the 244,000 population threshold are shown in Table 3-2.

New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to

highway

Upgrade Kate Street intersection to 6 lanes

Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout to T

intersection

Smithfield Village Dr – Upgrade to 4 lanes

Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt Peter Rd

and Mill Rd

Reed Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to

Smithfield Village Dr

McGregor Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy

to Sidlaw St

Earlville Bypass - Upgrade to 4 lanes

Earlville Bypass - ramps to Mulgrave Rd right in, left out only

Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd - 4

lanes

Mt Peter Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided

Maitland Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided

Draper Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes - Dempsey St to Cairns Rd

Case B2: BAU with 20,000 jobs at Yorkeys Knob

The Proponent established an alternative CSTM that provided for the redistribution of 20,000 jobs from

the southern suburbs of Cairns to Yorkeys Knob. Case B2 demonstrates the road network

infrastructure upgrades need for the current town planning framework maintaining urban growth to the

south of the city and 20,000 jobs to the north. The forecast network upgrades required through to the

244,000 population threshold is summarised for the DTMR and CRC networks in Tables 3-3 and 3-4.



CWAR - Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes

Panguna St - Extension to McGregor Rd




Closure of Robert Rd intersection with Bruce Highway (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade

Master Plan)

Closure of Mill Rd intersection with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads (as per

Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)

Closure of Peterson Rd intersections with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads

(as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)



Pregno links (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) - Deppeler Rd to Thompson

Rd - Thompson Rd to Bentley Interchange - Bentley Interchange to Swallows Rd






Cairns Western Arterial Road - 6 lane upgrade - Redlynch Connection Rd to Loridan Dr


Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive - 6 lanes

Bruce Highway - Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange - 8 lanes

Bruce Highway - Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange - 6 lanes

Bruce Highway - Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge - 4 lanes

Kennedy Highway - Canopys Edge Blvd - intersection capacity improvement on the western

leg

CWAR, CCH Roundabout to Kamerunga Road - 6 lanes

New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to highway


Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout to T intersection

Bunda St – Spence St to Kenny St – Upgrade to 4 lanes

Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt Peter Rd and Mill Rd

Reed Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Smithfield

Village Dr

McGregor Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Sidlaw St



Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd - 4 lanes

Mt Peter Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided



Yorkeys Knob Road- Captain Cook Highway to Dunne Road - upgrade to 4 lanes

Dunne Road - Yorkeys Knob Rd. to McGregor Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes

Case P1: 20,000 Jobs at Yorkeys Knob and 50% Redistributed Settlement Pattern to Northern

Beaches

Case P1 reflects an opportunity to modify the planning scheme recognising the ability to mitigate

infrastructure impacts by redistributing the urban settlement pattern from the southern suburbs of

Cairns to the north of Cairns in proximity to where the jobs generator in Aquis would exist. The

redistribution of the urban settlement pattern in the CSTM has been undertaken as a coarse and high

level exercise and does not accurately reflect actual and specific densification opportunities across

North Cairns and the Northern Beaches. Hence Scenario Case P1 reflects a concept or opportunity to

mitigate road network upgrade needs by changing the planning framework rather than a specific

outcome.

The road network upgrades required for 20,000 jobs at Yorkeys Knob and redistribution of settlement

patterns to the northern beaches through to the 244,000 population threshold is summarised for the

DTMR and CRC networks in Tables 3-5 and 3-6





CWAR – Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes

Panguna St – Extension to McGregor Rd




Closure of Robert Rd intersection with Bruce Highway (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade

Master Plan)

Closure of Mill Rd intersection with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads (as per

Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)

Closure of Peterson Rd intersections with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads

(as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)

Pregno links (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) – Deppeler Rd to

Thompson Rd – Thompson Rd to Bentley Interchange – Bentley Interchange to Swallows Rd





Cairns Western Arterial Road – 6 lane upgrade – Redlynch Connection Rd to Loridan Dr

Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive – 6 lanes

Bruce Highway – Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange – 8 lanes

Bruce Highway – Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange – 6 lanes

Bruce Highway – Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge – 4 lanes

Kennedy Highway – Canopys Edge Blvd – intersection capacity improvement on the western

leg-

Captain Cook Highway – Arnold Street to Yorkeys Knob Road- 6 lanes

New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to highway


Reed Rd – 4 lane median divided upgrade – Captain Cook Hwy to Smithfield

Village Dr

McGregor Rd – 4 lane median divided upgrade – Captain Cook Hwy to Sidlaw St

Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd – 4 lanes

Mt Peter Rd – upgrade to 4 lanes median divided

Yorkeys Knob Road- Captain Cook Highway to Dunne Road – upgrade to 4 lanes

Dunne Road – Yorkeys Knob Rd. to McGregor Rd – upgrade to 4 lanes



Comparison of Scenario Cases

A comparison of the scenario cases will demonstrate the relative road infrastructure upgrade

requirements and the potential benefits that Case P1 can deliver in mitigating network impacts by

adopting a targeted land use planning response to Aquis. Tables 3-7 and 3-8 provide a direct

comparison of the B1, B2 and P1 case scenarios and the associated DTMR and CRC network

augmentation required for each to arrive at the 244,000 population threshold.

Network Element Upgrade Case B1 Case B2 Case P1

Bruce Highway – Kate St to Buchan St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes

Sheridan St – Grove St to Aeroglen Dr – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes

CWAR - Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes Yes Yes Yes

Panguna St - Extension to McGregor Rd Yes Yes Yes

Foster Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade

Master Plan)

Yes Yes Yes

Bentley interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade

Master Plan)

Yes Yes Yes

Deppeler Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade

Master Plan)

Yes Yes Yes

Closure of Robert Rd intersection with Bruce Highway (as per

Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes Yes

Closure of Mill Rd intersection with Bruce Highway and

construction of service roads (as per Cairns Bruce Highway

Upgrade Master Plan)

Yes Yes Yes

Closure of Peterson Rd intersections with Bruce Highway and

construction of service roads (as per Cairns Bruce Highway

Upgrade Master Plan)

Yes Yes Yes

Pregno links (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)

- Deppeler Rd to Thompson Rd - Thompson Rd to Bentley

Interchange - Bentley Interchange to Swallows Rd

Yes Yes Yes

Mulgrave Rd – Brown St to Aumuller St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes No

Captain Cook Highway – Aeroglen Dr to Arnold St – Upgrade to 6

lanes

Yes Yes Yes

Captain Cook Highway – Poolwood Rd to Endeavour Rd –

Upgrade to 4 lanes

Yes Yes Yes

Smithfield Bypass – Upgrade to 4 lanes & add connection to

CWAR roundabout

Yes Yes Yes

CWAR 6 lanes Pease Street to Loridan Drive Yes Yes Yes

Cairns Western Arterial Road - 6 lane upgrade - Redlynch

Connection Rd to Loridan Dr

Yes Yes Yes

McCoombe St - Mulgrave Rd to Moody St - 6 lane upgrade Yes Yes No

Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive - 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes

Bruce Highway - Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange - 8 lanes Yes Yes Yes

Bruce Highway - Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange - 6

lanes

Yes Yes Yes

Bruce Highway - Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge -

4 lanes

Yes Yes Yes

Kennedy Highway - Canopys Edge Blvd - intersection capacity

improvement on the western leg-

No Yes Yes

Captain Cook Highway - Arnold Street to Yorkeys Knob Road- 6

lanes

No No Yes

CWAR, CCH Roundabout to Kamerunga Road - 6 lanes No Yes No



Network Element Upgrade Case B1 Case B2 Case P1

New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to

highway

Yes Yes Yes

Upgrade Kate Street intersection to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes

Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout

to T intersection

Yes Yes No

Bunda St – Spence St to Kenny St – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes No

Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt

Peter Rd and Mill Rd

Yes Yes No

Reed Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy

to Smithfield Village Dr

Yes Yes Yes

McGregor Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook

Hwy to Sidlaw St

Yes Yes Yes

Earlville Bypass - Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes No

Earlville Bypass - ramps to Mulgrave Rd right in, left out only Yes Yes No

Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd

- 4 lanes

Yes Yes Yes

Mt Peter Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes Yes

Maitland Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes No

Draper Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes - Dempsey St to Cairns Rd Yes Yes No

Yorkeys Knob Road- Captain Cook Highway to Dunne Road -

upgrade to 4 lanes

No Yes Yes

Dunne Road - Yorkeys Knob Rd. to McGregor Rd - upgrade to

4 lanes

No Yes Yes

The comparison demonstrates that there are particular elements of the DTMR and CRC road networks

that may not require upgrade should the scenario case P1 be implemented and these include:



CWAR, CCH Roundabout to Kamerunga Road - 6 lanes

Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout to T intersection

Bunda St – Spence St to Kenny St – Upgrade to 4 lanes

Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt Peter Rd and Mill Rd





The comparison also illustrates there are additional elements of the DTMR and CRCC networks that

may require upgrade should the scenario case P1 be implemented and these include:

Kennedy Highway - Canopys Edge Blvd - intersection capacity improvement on the western

leg

Captain Cook Highway - Arnold Street to Yorkeys Knob Road- 6 lanes

Yorkeys Knob Road- Captain Cook Highway to Dunne Road - upgrade to 4 lanes

Dunne Road - Yorkeys Knob Rd. to McGregor Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes



Noting the coarse and nonspecific redistribution of the urban settlement pattern across North Cairns

and the Northern Beaches and the assumption as to the quantum of the redistribution from the south,

the above reflects a potential outcome and benefit of a scenario case P1 type town planning response

to Aquis. This needs to be further tested and refined in liaison with DTMR and Cairns Regional

Council.

In addition to the above, Table 3-9 provides network statistics which quantify the differences of the

network performance of each scenario.

Vehicle Kilometres Travelled 5,902,936 6,187,155 6,282,383 6,294,690 6,048,669 6,231,367

Vehicle Hours Travelled 145,798 121,119 126,169 122,913 142,070 129,429

Total Vehicle Trips 718,373 719,252 726,908 726,965 725,492 725,622

Average Trip Time (minutes) 12.2 10.1 10.4 10.1 11.7 10.7

Average Trip Distance (KMs) 8.2 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.3 8.6

Lane KM's Over Practical Capacity-Before Upgrade

247 134 228

Lane KM's Over Practical Capacity-After Upgrade

146 107 110

Lane KM's of Required Upgrades 179 37 161

The following commentary is made in relation to the comparison of the case scenarios and their

comparative network statistics.

When comparing B1 v P1, a lot of investment can be made upgrading the network to achieve a B1

(BAU) land use pattern or the infrastructure spend can be reduced by about 10% and achieve a better

network outcome (146km residual over capacity in B1 v 110km over capacity in P1) simply by

changing the land use pattern. Note that P1 has an assumed redistribution of 50% of population

growth to the north and this could be optimised further and more sensitively in a spatial sense to

further reduce network impacts. It should also be noted the network modelled as being required under

P1 is a coarse estimate and it is expected further savings can be identified with more detail in analysis

post the land use approval to significantly under-capacity upgrades and taking more of them out (i.e.

from those used under B1).

When comparing B1 v B2, there is obviously significant benefit in moving the jobs up to Aquis to

reduce trip lengths for those already in the northern beaches and the results are logical. Scenario B2

shows that diversifying employment to centres away from the CBD has benefits to the network

compared to B1 as a proportion of work trips can be of a shorter length. Further network benefits are

expected to be realised if a proportion of population growth is also sensitively dispersed to these

centres and particularly in areas closer to Aquis.



That is, even shorter trips would therefore be possible, significantly reducing VKT. The amount of

population (and even service employment) that should be re-allocated to the north of the city to

optimise the degree of infrastructure savings possible would need to consider land use and transport

in an integrated way; also considering public and active transport opportunities to further reduce

private vehicle usage. It may be that somewhere between 20% and 50% of future population growth

should be relocated to the north in specific "nodes" where possible and a transport network "designed"

to better facilitate and support this new demographic pattern. The benefits to road infrastructure

expenditure could potentially be significant rendering such an investigation worthy of further effort

following the land use approval.

The comparison of B2 v P1 appears counter-intuitive; however, this is more a consequence of both

model runs starting with a heavily upgraded B1 network (as provided by TMR). This means that the

trip length reductions for northern beaches residents for their trip to work under B2 are significant

under a primarily B1 network. However, when a significant population change is made (again still

mostly under a B1 network) then there are extra trips moving from the northern population areas to the

southern employment areas as well which are not catered for under the primarily B1 network.

When comparing B1 v B2 v P1 it is clear that moving jobs to Aquis reduces traffic infrastructure

needs. By how much will be a consequence on detailed network optimisation and land use

optimisation, preferably in an integrated way also considering potential public and active transport

discounts for a multi-nodal city.

SUMMARY

The following is noted in relation to DTMR and CRC comments on the Aquis EIS for the road network:

It is not proposed at this time to respond to the queries raised by DTMR in relation to

demonstrating specific direct and indirect impacts on intersections and links. In the absence

of a land use approval there is insufficient certainty on numerous aspects of the construction

and operational phases of the development that can reliably inform such an analysis. There

are several downstream approval processes in place that will require the Proponent to

demonstrate road network impact and mitigation measures. The MCU Code will be followed

by Operational Works and then Building works. Given the scale and duration of this project

there will be multiple approvals required and many of these will be carried out in parallel and

some will be done sequentially. All development downstream of the 242 will be code

assessable in accordance with the Aquis Local Plan which will be a condition of the 242

approval. For instance the Resort Complex will be built in stages over 10 years. There will

need to be a MCU (code) application of various stages of the works. There may be at least 2

(one for each stage) or even multiple applications for various elements of the Resort complex

i.e. the Hotels may be applied for individually. Similarly the casinos and Expo may also be

applied for separately.

The design of the resort complex is complicated and will take several years. Elements will be

progressively designed and individual applications will be sought. Given the period of time

required for design, the first application will likely be a MCU(earthworks) which will incorporate

an ERA 16.1.(b) for the excavation of the Lake and for site shaping works. In parallel with this

there is likely to be separate operational works applications for external works (road upgrades

and services connections as well as tidal works applications for the Lake plumbing. The detail

and of approvals will need to worked through with Cairns Regional Council and DTMR once

the Land Use and casino licence approvals are galvanised and a managing Contractor is

appointed.

The CSTM road network modelling undertaken for Scenario Cases B1, B2 and P1 shows the

road network infrastructure upgrades required for BAU Planning (B1), BAU Planning with

Aquis as an employment generator (B2), and Aquis as an employment generator with 50% of

future settlement redistributed to North Cairns and the Northern Beaches (P2).



The network modelling demonstrates the placement of Aquis at Yorkeys Knob and maintaining

planned residential settlement patterns to the south of the City will place further and significant

demands on the road network between Aquis and the southern suburbs of Cairns. (i.e. B1 v

B2). Scenario Case P1 illustrates the potential benefits of replanning the city in response to

Aquis to align the urban settlement pattern adjacent to the job generator (Aquis) and thereby

reducing trip demands on the road network and as a consequence mitigating the need for

upgrading of road infrastructure on other parts of the network.(i.e. P1 v B1 v B2).

Subsequent to securing the land use approval and Casino licence, several parallel processes

will be triggered by the Proponent including appointment of a managing contractor and

development of the civil works design, both of which will inform and have inputs to the

downstream approvals processes required to deliver the construction and operations of Aquis.

This will include further development of a CSTM aligned with the construction and operational

phases of the project, and will reflect a process of land use planning in concert with Cairns

Regional Council and DTMR that will optimise existing road network utilisation and minimise

the need to upgrade over time. This will allow the detailed analysis of intersection and link

performance and impacts to be undertaken.

As discussed in the EIS, Road Network Infrastructure Agreements will be formulated with

Cairns Regional Council and DTMR that will be underpinned by the land use planning,

network modelling and detailed analysis of intersections and links to establish upgrade

requirements directly attributable to Aquis. This process would also recognise the road

network upgrade needs deferred as a result of Aquis and replanning residential settlement

patterns to the north of Cairns.

b) Infrastructure

Cairns Regional Council Water and Waste (CRCWW) is the infrastructure agency responsible for the

trunk network servicing the demands for potable water and reuse water and the treatment of sewage.

Council’s response to the EIS is the first principles methodology for the derivation of water demands is

supported; however Council retained some concerns that the full quantum of water demands has not

been captured.

Through the infrastructure workshops, CRCWW was provided with an overview of the assumptions

supporting the first principles analysis of water demands. Council advised agreement with the

assumptions in relation to hotel room occupancy rates and seasonal variations, however considered

there was still some water uses understated or not captured.

A rigorous review of the hotel operations related to the potable water uses was further undertaken

which identified some gaps in the original EIS figures related to the following:

Top up from backwash water use from the swimming lagoons. (+1.2ML/d extrapolated from

the Cairns Esplanade Lagoon turnover)

Evaporation losses from the swimming lagoons (+0.6ML/day)

Increased water use for laundry (linen, pool towels, retail etc.) (+Double previous allowance)

Cleaning and wash down of back of house (+12KL/d)

Outdoor sports and recreation facilities (+30KL/d)

Network leakage (+7%)

Top Up of the Aquarium (+10KL/day)



In addition a sensitivity analysis was undertaken on the key water demand assumptions to establish a

band width of potable water demand. The sensitivity analysis was undertaken to demonstrate the

potential outcome on water demands should the use assumptions prove to be understated. The

sensitivity is demonstrated in Table 3-10.

Avg occupancy 80% +10% 88%

Visitor Proportion 25% +20% 31%

Staff per Room 1.5 +10% 1.65

Meals (L/day/guest) 105 +25% 132

Showers (L/day/guest) 180 +25% 225

Drinking (L/day/guest) 2 +50% 3

Hygiene (L/day/guest) 16 +25% 20

Laundry (Towels)(L/day/Guest) 1.5 +100% 3

Laundry (Clothes)(L/day/Guest) 20 +50% 30

Cleaning (L/day) 7,300 +100% 14600

General Losses due to leakage etc. 7% 50% 10.5%

Aquarium Top Up 10,000 100,000

The resultant potable water demand calculation derived based upon the additional water demands and

the sensitivity is summarised in Table 3-11

MDMM 8.88 7.67 4.45

Avg Day 7.90 6.97 3.88

Peak Day 8.64 7.66 4.37

Max Day 9.38 7.75 4.85

Table 3-11 demonstrates the original EIS submission had some omissions on the potable water

demands that have now been captured in the revised EIS figures. The sensitivity also illustrates that

the band width of outcomes in the event the assumptions have been understated. In the context of the

water demand quantum, the band width is not significant.

Notwithstanding the robustness of the above, CRCWW maintain some uncertainty as to the potable

water demands given the unprecedented scale and size of the development and have suggested a

third party review of the water demand calculations. It is likely that a third party will arrive at a third

opinion that will not necessarily arrive at a clear outcome on water demands for Aquis.



The reuse water demands were also recalculated as part of the review process with Council. The

review identified an additional re-use water demand for external wash down and is provided for the

revised EIS figures in Table 3-12

MDMM 1.02 0.92

Avg Day 0.90 0.81

Peak Day 1.01 0.91

Max Day 1.11 1.01

The waste water generation is a function of the first principles calculation of potable and reuse water

returned to the waste water system. The adjustment to the potable and reuse water demands

translates to an associated increase in waste water generation as summarised in Table 3-13

ADWF 7.42 5.64

Peak Flow 29.68 22.56

It is noted the waste water has not proportionally increased relative to the potable water demands.

This is because the backwash water will be returned to the waste water network but some other

potable water uses including top up of the lagoons due to evaporation will not.

SUMMARY

In relation to the potable water, reuse water and waste water generation the following is noted:

CRCWW retain some uncertainty as to the potable and reuse water demands to service

Aquis. Given Aquis will be delivered in two stages, it is proposed that the infrastructure

required to establish the connection to the trunk network will be installed for Stage 1 to cater

for the ultimate development. During the period of operation of Stage 1, the water use will be

monitored and measured to establish actual demands and if it should be established that the

network connection is marginally undersized, provision will be made for additional storage to

buffer the difference.

The re-use water demands for the development are largely unchanged from the original EIS.

The waste water generation has increased to reflect the revised potable water demands. The

need to upgrade the capacity of Marlin Coast Waste Water Treatment to meet the increased

flows from Aquis remains consistent with the findings of the EIS.



As discussed in the EIS, the Proponent intends to enter into an infrastructure agreement with

Cairns Regional Council for the cost of dedicated trunk infrastructure to connect to the existing

water and waste water networks, and will share its proportionate share of the cost for the

upgrades of trunk infrastructure. It is proposed that the fundamental elements of the IA will be:

Connection to the trunk infrastructure network will be funded by the Proponent.

Infrastructure will be sized based upon the ultimate development proposal and in place for the

commencement of operation of Stage 1. Demands and sizing will be based upon agreed

conservative assumptions underpinned by a demand based assessment utilising upon a risk

assessment regime.

Water (potable and reuse) and waste water utilisation and generation will be monitored and

measured over time during operation of Stage 1. This measurement will be used as the basis

for calibrating the design assumptions and adjustments to infrastructure sizing/capacity will be

implemented prior to Stage 2 of Aquis entering into operation.



4 ISSUE 3: POPULATION PROJECTIONS AS A RESULT OF THE

PROPOSAL

The impact of the project on the Cairns population has a direct bearing on a number of matters

requiring impact assessment that will be evaluated by the Coordinator-General. Agreed projections are

required to support the impact assessment presented in the environmental impact statement

documentation, including land-use planning, transport/infrastructure impact assessment and the

housing plan.

Following the public notification period, the proponent was asked to use the Office of the Government

Statistician's 2013 series population projections for the Cairns Local Government Area as the basis for

developing growth projections that reflect the potential impact of the project. Review of the draft

projections provided on 26 August 2014 and 10 September 2014 has revealed the following issues for

clarification:

There are technical errors in the way that the data and population projection graphs have been

constructed. For example, the construction workforce continues to be included in the cumulative

population total after construction ceases, and operational workforce projections accumulate

year-on-year rather than annually thus exaggerating potential population impacts.

The economic modelling undertaken for the environmental impact statement, and used to

support the population projections, does not appear to apply appropriate labour market

constraints.

International literature suggests that much tighter constraints should be applied, potentially

affecting the number of additional jobs (and the rate of population increase) that the project

might generate.

Furthermore, the modelling assumes no population movement from regions outside Cairns,

including for highly mobile construction workers. This means that there is no accounting for any

crowding out that might occur should the project result in workers moving to Cairns for new

employment opportunities.

The data analysis includes analysis of regions that are unlikely to provide labour pools the

project would draw from (such as remote indigenous communities).

Indirect job multipliers for the construction and operations workforces appear excessively high,

particularly for non-resident workers and those currently located in Cairns.

The dependency rate multiplier applied to the construction and operations workforces is applied

regardless of residency status - i.e. it appears to ignore the fact that non-resident workers won't

bring dependents, and that dependents of workers already residing in Cairns have been

factored into baseline projects resulting in double counting.

In summary, the modelled impacts of this project on the resident population of the area appear to be

over-exaggerated. The modelled population of 277,327 in year 2024 (under the "with Aquis" scenario)

is 79,256 (40%) higher than the OGS baseline projection of 198,071 for that year.

Requirement: Revise the population forecast as a result of the proposal to inform land-use planning,

transport/infrastructure impact assessment and the housing plan. The assumptions for the forecast

should be clearly outlined and information provided to demonstrate their suitability for the population projection.



4.1 RESPONSE

The proponent accepts that population and growth forecasts are important considerations for the Coordinator General in the evaluation of the project as the Evaluation Report will have multiple audiences i.e. the Proponent, The State Government (its infrastructure and services agencies) , the Council and the community. Population projections are an important consideration for Government’s and Council’s land use, infrastructure and community services planners and providers. The population projections referenced by OESR are attached in Appendix D. The projections were based on the following assumptions and inputs:

Business as Usual projections are the OESR 2013 mid-series with pro- rata (linear) distribution in the intermediate years

Construction workforce numbers are sourced from Ch. 4 (section 4.27) of the EIS

Operational workforce numbers are sourced from Ch. 4 (section 4.2.1) of the EIS

Dependency rate @ 1.5 ( i.e. 2 employed persons support 1 extra person not in the workforce)

Ratio of indirect jobs to direct jobs during construction from Deloitte Access Economics modelling (Ch. 13 of the EIS)

Proportion of construction jobs taken up by new residents 50%

Proportion of operational jobs taken up by new residents 80%

Occupancy rate for dwellings based on weighted average of units an detached dwellings i.e. (60%x2.1 +40%x 2.5) = 2.3

Proportion of dwelling stock comprising multiple dwellings units (60%)

Proportion of dwelling stock comprising detached dwellings (40%) Detached dwelling = 1 Equivalent demand unit (EDU) for Infrastructure Charges purposes

Multiple dwelling unit =0.6 EDU rate for Infrastructure Charges purposes

Infrastructure Charges Rate assumed at $25,000 ($2014) The forecast revealed a population increase of an additional 79,256 persons over and above the business as usual forecast resulting in a 2036 population of 323,330 persons compared to the business as usual forecast of 244,083 persons. The forecast population growth will result is a demand for 71,000 dwellings (43,000 units, 28,000 detached dwellings) by 2036. The construction of these dwellings is estimated to generate $1.35 Billion in infrastructure contributions to Cairns Regional Council at current rates. This estimate does not take in to account any “leakage” of indirect jobs and population to the surrounding Local Government areas. The “Business as Usual” (No Aquis scenario) estimated residential population of 244,000 by 2036 will be likely to be reached in 2022 in the “with Aquis” scenario. Council officers have reviewed the projections and advised as follows:

“..the assumptions are reasonable. Because it is forecasting it is based on the assumptions that make up the curve and with that in mind the only thing that varies, if the assumptions are too far off, is the time in which things happen. For infrastructure and housing delivery it is not timing alone that is the key, but also how much and whether it is able to be delivered. Time is the biggest risk if the delivery exceeds the capacity to meet demand.”

Conversely OESR rate the projections as too ambitious and resulting in overstated population growth.



Taking into account OESR’s criticism of the “double counting” of construction jobs in the population forecast, the forecast has been redone to exclude the Construction phase direct and indirect employment contribution to forecast population growth. The revised population projections excluding the construction phase employment is also attached in Appendix D. The revised forecast reveals a population increase of an additional 66,000 persons over and above the business as usual forecast resulting in a 2036 population of 310.083 persons compared to the business as usual forecast of 244,083 persons. The forecast population growth will result is a demand for 65,000 dwellings (39,000 units, 21,000 detached dwellings) by 2036. The construction of these dwellings is estimated to generate $1.24 Billion in infrastructure contributions to Cairns Regional Council at current rates. This estimate does not take in to account any “leakage” of indirect jobs and population to the surrounding Local Government areas. The “Business as Usual” (No Aquis scenario) estimated residential population of 244,000 by 2036 will be likely to be reached in 2023 in the “with Aquis” scenario. A key determinant in the population forecasts is the ratio of indirect to direct employment. Deloittes modelling indicates a ratio of 1.75 for long term operational employment. It is noted that OESR’s view is that this is too high. The labour market constraints applied in Deloitte’s modelling are a reflection of econometric estimation exercises undertaken on historical real world data, and as such Deloittes consider them to be appropriate. An alternate labour market specification sometimes used is to assume that employment changes in each region are entirely offset by changes in other regions of Australia – this is a highly conservative assumption that is likely to significantly underrepresent the economic impacts of project investments, particularly in regions that have comparatively high unemployment rates and are attractive for relocation. It is respectfully suggested that the OESR might not be considering the inclusion of tourism activity in the region and could be comparing Deloitte’s results to a more simple exercise where only the activity that occurs on-site is included. From the comments made it is a little difficult to determine the basis on which the criticism is levelled. In the light of this uncertainty the only guidepost can be OESR’s most recently published data on the topic (which unfortunately is from 96/96). When considering indirect multipliers both the numerator and denominator are important – casinos have a significantly higher output per FTE than other service providers in the cultural and recreational services sector – if reference is made to: http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/qld-reg-io-tables/qld-reg-io-tables-34-industries.pdf It can be seen that the most recent indirect employment per million dollars of output in the cultural and recreational services sector in the far north is 4.2 – the AQUIS financial model suggests approximately 1.6 direct FTEs per million dollars (very different to their number for the broad sector number of 9.4 – see page 109) of output implying an IO style indirect to direct ratio of approximately 2.6 would not be unreasonable. This compares very favourably with Deloitte’s generated numbers. Reference is made to following publication from the OESR: http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/overview-econ-impact-analysis/overview-econ-impact-analysis.pdf The summary of the impact analysis report is valuable – “that the analyst should exercise professional judgement when determining the economic environment appropriate for the analysis, and that the choice of methodology appropriate for the analysis varies on a case by case basis” – which is entirely consistent with the approach Deloitte’s have taken.

http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/qld-reg-io-tables/qld-reg-io-tables-34-industries.pdf

http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/overview-econ-impact-analysis/overview-econ-impact-analysis.pdf

http://www.qgso.qld.gov.au/products/reports/overview-econ-impact-analysis/overview-econ-impact-analysis.pdf



The other key issue is the dependency rate used to convert employment (both direct and indirect) forecasts to population forecasts. The forecast prepared adopted a conservative dependency rate of 1.5 based on advice from Deloittes regarding experiences in resource projects in WA. An extract of that advice follows:

“…a fixed dependency ratio could provide for a fairly high estimate of the consequential population impacts and you would anticipate the dependency ratio decreasing (at least in the short to medium term) in the face of a sharp labour market shock. To test that some quick numbers based on the 2001, 06 and 11 census in the East Pilbara LGA. Based on these numbers the proportion of the total population employed has risen from 60% to 71.8% to 79.6% (with some reasonable assumptions about the employment characteristics of people who didn’t state their employment). While Cairns and the Pilbara are pretty different regions the intuition is pretty consistent – if someone moves to one of these regions there is a good chance they relocate as a single person (lowering the dependency ratio), they might move as a childless adult couple (again, downward pressure), the could move with children (probably slight downward pressure on balance) but they are unlikely to move with elderly dependents, who are going to be a pretty important part of the denominator.”

Council officers have advised that they consider that adopted rate (1.5) is too low and would prefer that the current regional (and state) dependency rate of 2.0 be adopted Their concerns are that adoption of a low dependency factor will result in understating long term population growth and consequential housing (and infrastructure and services) demand. It is clear that bounds of this parameter will be somewhere between 1.0 and 2.0 (the current regional and Queensland rate). The Deloitte’s advice relates to remote resource areas in Northern WA which may not be attractive for family relocation but attractive for singles and childless couples. Cairns is not a remote “hardship posting” but rather well connected, high amenity location with attractive climate and environment, employment opportunities and with a relatively high level of social and community services and infrastructure. Aquis is not a resource project but an opportunity for sustainable employment in an attractive location and consequently attractive for family relocation as well as for singles to achieve sustainable employment, .partner up and choose to raise families (and possibly relocate aging parents). It is therefore considered that the 1.5 dependency factor adopted is conservative and likely to be low when considering long term population growth. Notwithstanding this a revised population projection has been prepared based on including a variable dependency factor over time (1.2 for construction jobs, 1.5 for Stage 1 jobs and 2.0 for Stage 2 Jobs). These adjustments tend to cancel each other out and result is a slightly larger population in the long term. The revised forecast with a variable dependency rate reveals a population increase of an additional 94,875 persons over and above the business as usual forecast resulting in a 2036 population of 338,958 persons compared to the business as usual forecast of 244,083 persons. The forecast population growth will result is a demand for 78,000 dwellings (47,000 units, 31,000 detached dwellings) by 2036. The construction of these dwellings is estimated to generate $1.24 Billion in infrastructure contributions to Cairns Regional Council at current rates. This estimate does not take in to account any “leakage” of indirect jobs and population to the surrounding Local Government areas.



The “Business as Usual” (No Aquis scenario) estimated residential population of 244,000 by 2036 will be likely to be reached in 2022 in the “with Aquis” scenario. As with all planning and projections it is highly unlikely that any of the above projections will be proved absolutely correct. There just has to be a “reasonable” basis on which to plan. An underlying theme in all planning strategies going forward will be continuous monitoring and re assessment. It is important for the Infrastructure and service providers to plan for threshold populations (say 300,000 persons). The timing for achieving that population is uncertain but threshold based planning (with appropriate increments of service provision triggered at identified population thresholds along the way) should mean that the slope of the curve is largely irrelevant and can be monitored over time and infrastructure and service upgrades timed accordingly. The concern for Aquis is that underestimating population growth may result in infrastructure or community services shortfall which will make relocating to Cairns less attractive resulting in difficulties for recruitment of operational workforce and likely competition for existing staff with consequential crowding out effects which are the identified negative economic impacts that need to be avoided. The population projections that land use planners, infrastructure and service providers will need to reach agreement on to base their planning on will be an important first task as part of the Strategic Growth Management Plan. These population forecasts will be an important input into the implementation of the Housing and Accommodation Plan and the Community Services and Facilities Plan.



5 ISSUE 4: LAKE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, WATER QUALITY

LIMITS

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) provided a detailed submission on a

number of matters that OCG requires the proponent to address. These are:

lake management

water quality release limits

baseline water quality data

inlet and outlet pipelines.

The overall requirement is that the proponent proposes a detailed lake management strategy to

support specific water quality standards to be achieved. The lake management strategy should

respond to the issues outlined above and detailed below.

It should be noted that there is some duplication in the Request for Further Information and some

consolidation of items has been required in the following discussion.

5.1 RESPONSE TO LAKE MANAGEMENT

5.1.1 Background

EHP indicated that the EIS does not provide:

Sufficient information regarding the design, construction and management of the proposed lake

to determine projected impacts or whether impacts could be adequately managed.

An investigation of hydrodynamic (and water quality) performance of the lake design at different

depths.

The EIS does not state how seawater intake, rate, retention time and the discharge regime has

been optimised to minimise associated environmental impacts.

EHP requested that the proponent:

1. Describe appropriate lake monitoring regimes, trigger levels of water quality and quantity and

response mechanisms to exceedances of trigger levels.

2. Provide additional hydrodynamic and water quality monitoring scenarios for the lake design at

different depths to determine whether different scenarios can achieve acceptable water quality

outcomes.

3. Provide detail on how lake water management would be optimised to ensure associated

environmental impacts are minimised whilst maintaining acceptable water quality effects and

incorporate this consideration into discussions about selecting flood mitigation options and

setting compliance limits.

5.1.2 Item 1.1 – Lake Monitoring and Response Regimes

Variations of this RFI occur under a number of EHP items and a consolidated response is included in

Section 5.2.



5.1.3 Item 1.2 – Different Depth Scenarios

In the Agency Submissions and Issues Report for the EHP submission (Issue 15) it was noted:

The lake depth as stated is the best solution based on the current level of design. While it is

likely to remain as proposed, there is to be a period of detailed design where this and other

parameters may be optimised.

Investigations in preparation regarding lake management and discharge strategies for all

conditions.

Findings of this work are discussed below.

a) Depth Optimisation

The issue of water depth was an important matter for concept design during the EIS. Considerations

were:

Maximum water level was set at 1.5 m AHD in order to provide some freeboard to the natural

surface / design ground levels for open space (typically at 2.0 m AHD). Lake could have a lower

water level than this required for other criteria.

Maximum bed level was set at 0.5 m AHD by flooding criteria. Bed could be deeper than this if

required for other criteria.

Minimum bed level (maximum depth) was influenced by:

- shallow lake:

o minimising volume of excavation (cost, quantity of ASS to manage)

o minimising revetment costs

o minimising lake volume and hence rate of pumping for 14 day turnover

- deep lake:

o minimising water quality problems (in particular stratification and algal growth)

o aesthetics.

Groundwater levels are relevant for an un-lined or non-quarantined lake but are otherwise not

an issue providing that the quarantining performance criteria can be met.

Detailed discussions on these matters were held at two multidisciplinary lake workshops:

25 November 2013 (EIS team, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Department of

National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing).

22 and 23 April 2014 (EIS team only).

All work has indicated that the critical lake criteria are flood performance and good water quality. All

other considerations are seen as secondary to these. A minimum water depth was taken as 4 m on the

basis of advice from BMT WBM and frc environmental derived from other projects. A detailed review of

hydrodynamic and water quality modelling results shows that this depth appears to be appropriate.

However, two examples of shallower lakes are as discussed below in support of this statement:

a shallow but ‘always wet’ lake (2.5 m deep).

a shallow (‘dry’ or ‘seasonal’) lake.



b) Shallow but ‘always wet’ lake (2.5 m deep)

This option was examined specially to address this RFI, with details as follows:

plan dimensions as per EIS lake

bed level = -1.0 m AHD

top water level = 1.5 m AHD (as per EIS lake)

depth = 2.5 m.

Full optimisation was not undertaken – rather, the behaviour of chlorophyll a was modelled as this has

been found to be the critical parameter for water quality. As for the EIS, the model was executed using

historic data from August 2012 to July 2013 to capture a suite of dry and wet conditions as follows (see

also Figure 5-27). The data covers the period:

Dry: October to December 2012 (i.e. daily flows are generally at or below the 20th percentile)

Wet: January to March 2013 (i.e. peak daily flows during events generally exceed 90th

percentile)

Extreme Wet (Australia Day 2013): 20 January 2013 to 14 February.

This period reflects the previous EIS lake analysis. However, for this shallow lake option the simulation

was only run for the first six months as this represents a period when chlorophyll a concentrations are

likely to be at their highest.

Figure 5-1 Model simulation period for dry and wet weather conditions – first six months used.

Source: EIS Figure 11-23. This is a sub-set of the annual data period described above.

A comparison of performance for chlorophyll a concentration is shown below. Note that the vertical

axis scale should read µg/L not mg/L.

Simulation period



Figure 5-2 Chlorophyll a comparison of shallow (2.5 m) and deep (4.0 m) lake.

As the above figure demonstrates, the shallow lake will experience increased phytoplankton growth.

While this is not desirable, discharge of such water is unlikely to cause any problems in the receiving

environment. Further optimisation will be undertaken during detailed design as there are significant

cost savings if lake depth can be reduced, such as:

reduced volume of excavation (a 0.5 m reduction will save 165,000 m3 of excavation and

associated treatment and handling)

reduced height and hence cost of retaining edge structures

reduced pumping volumes due to smaller lake volume (0.825 GL VS 1.32 GL (for a lake

turnover of 14 days, the smaller the volume the lower the rate of pumping) – this could save on

the size of pipes and pumps and running costs.

c) Shallow (‘dry’ or ‘seasonal’) Lake

An extreme limit of a lake depth is one that is dry most of the time while being deep enough to satisfy

flood conveyance criteria. Such an option (described as a ‘seasonal lake’) was discounted in the EIS.

Further information on this option is included in this information request response Issue 6 (see Section

7.3).

This assessment concludes that a shallow ‘seasonal lake’ is not feasible. Despite the suitable flood

behaviour and some beneficial features, it is considered that the poor water quality performance and

aesthetics rule out this option from further consideration. The presence of the large waterbody has

developed into an architectural theme for the Aquis Resort and the proponent does not wish to

jeopardise this feature.

d) Groundwater

The EIS discusses the issue of surface water / groundwater interaction and concludes that there is a

need to quarantine the groundwater from lake influences. As stated in s10.2.1e):

… the functional requirement to quarantine the lake from groundwater is to reduce the permeability of the system to minimise exchange of lake water and salinity horizontally out of the lake and into the shallow aquifer. Quarantining the lake from groundwater can be achieved in one of two ways:

lining the lake walls and floor with an impermeable membrane

using cut-off walls to create an impermeable barrier outside the lake walls that extends down into the more impermeable clays that exist at depth.

The consideration of salinity migration mechanisms was modelled and this shows that low permeabilities are required to minimise both horizontal and vertical migration of salt water. With the known high permeability of the shallow sandy sediments, a quarantining solution with a hydraulic conductivity of 0.001 m/d (~10-8 m/s) or lower is required. (p10-29 to 10-30)



It was noted that additional testing is required to refine the preliminary groundwater modelling

undertaken and that further design is necessary. In summary, the EIS concludes:

The consideration of salinity migration mechanisms shows that low permeabilities are required to minimise both horizontal and vertical migration of salt water. With the known high permeability of the shallow sandy sediments, a cut-off wall of 0.001 m/d (~10-8 m/s) or lower hydraulic conductivity is required.

In the vertical direction, the vertical permeability and continuity of the stiff clay unit needs to be confirmed to be 0.001 m/d (~10-8 m/s) or lower. If the unit is discontinuous, thin or has a higher permeability, then the lake will require lining or ground treatment measures to mitigate impacts on the deeper natural groundwater system. Feasible solutions such as soil mixing and grout injection exist for this treatment.

Provided that the quarantining layer is provided as recommended above, there will be no surface water / groundwater interaction. (p10-37)

The Register of Proponent Commitments includes a commitment that the proponent:

Investigate transmissivity of low permeability layer beneath lake as input to groundwater

quarantining solution. (In the vertical direction, the vertical permeability and continuity of the stiff

clay unit needs to be confirmed to be 0.001 m/d (~10-8 m/s) or lower.)

It is recognised that adjacent terrestrial, riparian, and freshwater habitats have come to depend on the

current groundwater regime and in particular the freshwater lakes in the woodland between the lake

and Richters Creek. It will be critical to ensure that an appropriate salinity regime is maintained.

5.1.4 Item 1.3 – Flood Performance

EHP and DSITIA have provided comment with regards to ‘inadequate information has been provided

on flood or emergency releases of lake water to determine what release would be necessary and the

conditions that would apply to protect the receiving environment’.

Consequently, further numerical water quality modelling was performed to assess how the water

quality within the lake would respond to a flood event that would inundate the lake (i.e. capable of

overtopping the 50% AEP bund). In addition, the modelling was also used to assess the potential

impacts to the natural environment related to the discharge of lake water post-flood and thereby inform

the release strategy.

a) Model Application

A new TUFLOW-FV model was extended to encompass the Barron River delta floodplain, connecting

the lake with the natural waterways. Boundary conditions were kept consistent with the previous EIS

numerical modelling works apart from the Barron River flow boundary.

The hydrograph from the March 2008 flood (peak flow of 3,200 m3/s) at Myola was applied at the

uppermost Barron River Flow boundary. The hydrograph was shifted in time so the peak in the flood

levels in Richters Creek coincided with a high Spring tide to maximise the flood height at the lake. A

flow of 3,200 m3/s represents a design flood of approximately 5% AEP.

The simulations were performed in 3D with coupled salinity, temperature, and water quality

parameters. A passive tracer was also used to aid the assessments.

Within the model, the Richters Creek Overflow Channel was simulated to allow the flooded lake to

drain back to its design level of 1.5 m AHD post-flood. Once flood waters within the lake had subsided

to below 2 m AHD, a simulation with water from off-shore being pumped into the lake at 2.15 m3/s (the

rate at which the full lake volume (i.e. 1.6 GL) could be turned over in seven days) was conducted. In

the simulation, water was pumped from the lake directly to Richters Creek at the EIS proposed

discharge location and was drawn from 1 m below the surface. After seven days the pumping rate was

reduced to 1.25 m3/s to represent normal operating conditions in the simulation.



b) Lake Discharge Assumptions

The EIS concept for lake discharge involves a piped outlet arrangement with a diffuser in the mouth of

Richters Creek, supplemented by two Lake Overflow channels. These overflows were provided to

release water stored above the normal top water level (e.g. following heavy rainfall or floods) at two

locations (see Figure 5-3 below):

one discharging to Richters Creek near the south-east corner of the lake at a location where

there is a natural clearing and where the creek bank is eroded (erosion protection integrated

with the outlet structure is proposed)

the other discharging to Yorkeys Creek at the north-west corner of the lake where the creek

runs through the Aquis Resort site and where floodwaters currently discharge.

Under flood conditions when the Barron River breaks its banks and floodwaters enter the site, the lake

will first fill and then surcharge, leaving the built form of the Hotel Complex well above the expected

flood levels. At this time, most of the rest of the site and the adjacent Yorkeys Knob area will be

inundated and flow through the lake will join the general overland flood flow and exit the site via the

existing creek system. As the flood falls, the lake level will be gradually lowered by the two lake

overflows (until the level falls below their inverts) and by pumping to the lake outlet.

In undertaking the modelling described below, it was found that the Yorkeys Creek overflow is not

necessary and that all flood overflow can be discharged into Richters Creek. This is highly desirable

from an ecological perspective. The modelling assumed for simplicity that floodwaters would be

discharged into the mouth of Richters Creek by pumping (i.e. a pipe solution), although gravity

discharge via the Richters Creek Lake Overflow would be functionally equivalent and be preferred for

a number of reasons. This would require that the inlet flow be split to ensure adequate

circulation/flushing of the lake once pumping resumes. The performances of the two options with

respect to the hydrodynamic and water quality modelling are considered identical.

c) Modelling

Flood Flow Volumes

An analysis of the flood flow volumes was undertaken to determine the quantum of the Barron River

flow that discharge down Richters Creek and through the lake. As noted in the EIS, the lake has a

stored volume of 1.3 GL.

Based on the numerical model, approximately 2.3 GL of Richters Creek flood water passes over the

lake at a peak rate of approximately 100 m3/s. This flux represents approximately 1.8 x the lake’s

volume. As demonstrated below (see Figure 5-5 to Figure 5-7), the lake volumes is largely displaced

by the floodwaters, resulting in a tracer concentration from the flooding of about 90% (i.e. 90%

Richters Creek water and 10% lake water remaining) and salinity reducing from 35 ppt to 7 ppt.

The total volume of flood water diverted along Richters Creek is approximately 115 GL, with a peak

flow through Richters Creek at the mouth of approximately 930 m3/s. It should be appreciated that the

tidal prims at Richters Creek mouth are in the order of 0.2 GL to 0.6 GL per tide cycle (refer to EIS)

and hence are insignificant.



Figure 5-3 Location of Yorkeys Creek and Richters Creek overflows (EIS concept).

Source: EIS Figure 11-18.

Flushing Time

As described in the EIS (s11.3), a key determinant of the lake’s water quality is the flushing time. To

analyse the impact that the inundation of flood waters could have on the lake’s ability to return to

normal operating conditions, the Barron River inflow boundary condition was dosed with a tracer at

100% concentration, whilst the offshore boundary was at 0%.



Table 5-1 shows the time taken between the lake reaching maximum concentrations and decreasing

below the e-folding limit for an initial concentration of 90%.

SITE LOCATION DEPTH LOCATION FLUSHING TIME (DAYS)

L1 - North (intake)

Top 1

Avg. <1

Bottom <0.5

L2 - West

Top 2

Avg. 2

Bottom 2

L3 - East

Top 6

Avg. 6

Bottom 6

L4 - North East (discharge)

Top 7

Avg. 8

Bottom 8

As shown in the table above:

Over three-quarters of the lake has a significantly reduced concentration of flood water (below

the e-folding limit) after a period of 8 days from when the lake water level / Richters Creek has

been reduced to below 2 m AHD.

The lake’s ability to flush is not affected by the further small creek flow events after the main

flood peak and discharge off-shore (see Section 5.4.5) could occur within 10 to 14 days with

negligible impact on offshore conditions.

The results are presented as time-series plots on Figure 5-5 to Figure 5-7 at four locations around the

lake as per the original EIS (see Figure 5-4).



Figure 5-4 Location

of four reporting sites within the lake model.

Source: EIS Figure

11-26.

Figure 5-5 Tracer

concentration (top metre).



Figure 5-6 Tracer

concentration (average).

Figure 5-7 Tracer

concentration (bottom metre).

2D plan views of tracer concentration are presented on Figure 5-8 and on Figure 5-9 in four day

increments.



Figure 5-8 Lake Flushing Predictions – 4 day increments.

Day 1 Day 4

Day 8 Day 12



Figure 5-9 Richters Creek tracer predictions – 4 day increments.

The results show that:

Flood water inundates the lake, reaching peak concentrations 18 hours after the flood peak on

31 January.

Tracer concentrations in the lake peak at around 90%, showing that floodwaters essentially

displace normal lake water.

The lake pumping rate commences when the lake level recedes below the to 50% AEP level

(i.e. approx. 2.0 m AHD) on 1 February and is sufficient to flush over three quarters of the lake

in its seven day period, leaving only the lake locations closest to the outlet with noticeable flood

water concentrations.

Approximately 8 days to 10 days are ultimately required to flush the fresh Barron River

floodwaters out of the lake system and reduce tracer concentrations to negligible levels. This

could be further reduced through optimisation with additional pumping, circulation devices etc.

Discharge Physico-Chemical Quality Comparison

The following graphs (Figure 5-10 to Figure 5-14) visually compare the water quality for various

parameters at three locations:

off-shore lake inlet

lake flood outlet (assumed at mouth of Richters Creek)

in situ conditions at the mouth of Richters Creek.

These plots are intended to assist with the Regulation and Compliance/Licensing requirements as

discussed in Section 5.2. Note that the vertical axis scale for chlorophyll a should read µg/L not mg/L.



Figure 5-10

Dissolved Oxygen predictions.

Figure 5-11

Chlorophyll-a predictions.

Figure 5-12

Total nitrogen predictions.



Figure 5-13

Total phosphorous predictions.

Figure 5-14 Salinity recovery.

Specific comments on the results are as follows:

DO levels decrease with the decrease in chlorophyll a, and do not return to normal until

chlorophyll a again begins growing in the lake. This suggests that there is the potential for

biodegradation within the lake, post-flood, that may consume oxygen. Chlorophyll a releases

oxygen with growth, and stabilises this, though removal of organic matter from the lake after a

major flood event will be important.

Chlorophyll a levels in the lake are drastically reduced by the flood event, but steadily return,

and begin to grow within the lake over a two week period.



TN and TP levels of the water being discharged by the lake are back to typical off-shore levels

within two weeks of the lake inundation.

The flushing ability of the lake is sufficient that the lake has no delayed water quality impacts

post-flood, and is able to return to normal operating conditions very quickly.

Overall the figures demonstrate that the lake stabilises and returns to within normal operating

conditions 8 to 10 days after a flood whilst the creek concentrations remain relatively high well after the

lake becomes well flushed.

d) Provision for Fish

The possibility of fish kill resulting from a flood was addressed in the EIS (s11.3.2c)). This concludes

that:

Whilst fish-kills are likely to be an inevitable consequence of significant flood events, preparedness and prompt action to remove dead fish will result in only a brief period of impact to both the amenity of the lake and its ecosystem health. The impact on downstream water quality and ecosystem health will be negligible in the context of the associated flood. (p11-92)

Fish kills of two types may eventuate:

saltwater fish trapped for an extended time when the lake becomes fresh (these may be able to

escape via the Lake Overflow structures)

freshwater fish carried into the lake by floodwaters and then at risk once seawater pumping is

resumed (the pumping system to the outfall could feature a mechanism to intercept and facilitate

the escape of freshwater biota to Richters Creek).

Both circumstances will need to be designed for under the Lake Management Strategy which is

covered by the Register of Proponent Commitments.

e) Summary

The lake discharge during a flood event is expected to have negligible influence on the receiving

environment of Richters Creek as essentially the flood waters are being returned back to the creek to

join similar water at that location. The off-shore water quality at the site of the lake inlet is largely

unaffected by a Barron River flood, particularly as the intake is located close the bed level in deep

water (6.5 m below lowest astronomical tide).

The tracer plots and the physico-chemical plots demonstrate that the lake water quality is likely to be

better than that of Richters Creek during a Barron River flood. The off-shore discharge option (see

Section 5.4.5) could commence within 10 to 14 days after a flood event (i.e. once lake water quality

returns to pre-flood conditions).



5.2 RESPONSE TO WATER QUALITY RELEASE LIMITS

5.2.1 Background

EHP indicated that:

The EIS does not adequately describe how water trigger values for water discharge will be

established.

There are difficulties in assessing the quality of floodwater prior to discharge.

It is unclear whether marine ecosystem trigger values should be used for the assessment of

discharges into fresh floodwaters.

The EIS does not provide a maximum total suspended solids (TSS) limit for the construction

phase.

EHP requested the proponent to:

1. Provide details of how locally relevant trigger levels for water quality values will be determined

for the proposed water discharges.

2. Re-analyse and re-report water quality data and to develop an appropriate set of discharge

criteria in consultation with EHP.

3. The quality of the waters sampled and reported in the EIS are reassessed and appropriate

comparisons are made with the available criteria.

4. Determine the relevant guideline to use in establishing trigger values for water quality discharge

in consultation with EHP.

5. Establish a relevant maximum TSS limit for incorporation in any approvals.

These issues are all interrelated and are dealt with below in an integrated manner.

5.2.2 Regulation and Lake Management

a) Overview

Regulation of the Aquis lake with regards to release to the lake has been based upon the Technical

Guideline Licensing – Wastewater Release to Queensland Water (EHP 2012) which applies the

philosophy of the ANZECC & ARMCANZ (2000) water quality guidelines and the intent of the

Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009.

The overall assessment flowchart included in EHP (2012) is provided in Figure 5-15 below for ease of

reference.



Figure 5-15 Assessment flow chart.

Source: EHP (2012).

With reference to the flowchart, the Aquis activity has previously been described in the EIS and

updates provided herein with regards to the potential for an off-shore discharge (Section 5.4.5) and

impacts from a flood event (Section 5.1.4). From these assessments, it has been demonstrated that

there is a low risk of adverse impacts on the receiving environment water quality, provided that the

quality in the lake is maintained and managed appropriately in a flood event.

The EIS assessment and this cover Step 2 – Describe the Existing Environment and Step 3 – Predict

Outcomes or Impacts of Proposed Discharge) in the flow chart. This section focusses upon the last

step, namely Step 4 – Set Circumstances, Limits and Monitoring Conditions.



b) Operating Conditions/Circumstances

Operating conditions / circumstance of the lake will vary based upon local climatic conditions in Cairns

and moreover Barron River flows. It is envisaged that there will be three operating conditions /

circumstance for the lake:

Dry Season (typically April to December): the lake will operate with the intake and discharge

without any notable influence of wet weather and / or flood conditions.

Wet Season (typically January to March): the lake will operate with intake as per normal

operation and a slightly modified discharge/overflow to maintain the desired lake level.

Flood: the lake will be inundated temporally suspending the intake and discharge. The lake will

then be returned to normal operating conditions through appropriate management measures.

Numerical modelling of the ‘Dry’ and ‘Wet’ season was previously presented in the EIS whilst further

numerical water quality modelling of a flood event was undertaken for this RFI and presented in

Section 5.1.4.

Compliance targets for the licensing of the Aquis lake discharge has been considered based on a

‘Normal’ and ‘Wet’ weather cycle with flood conditions presenting a separate temporary

condition/circumstance for the lake.

5.2.3 Water Quality Targets and Trigger Levels

The EHP (2012) guideline was used to assisting in deriving end-of-pipe limits for the Aquis lake

discharge. As noted in the document, limits should be derived from inputs used in the predictions and

guidance is provided for setting limits for indicators and indicator types.

a) End of Pipe Concentrations

Presented in Table 5-2 to Table 5-5 is the numerical water quality model predictions based upon the

August 2012 to July 2013 modelling period.

The end-of-pipe concentrations and loads presented are indicative only at this stage of the Aquis

proposal and are used for illustration of potential licensing conditions (i.e. water quality targets and

indicators etc. As previously noted in the EIS, the numerical modelling will require recalibration and

revalidation as the data collection campaigns progresses.

It is envisaged the numerical modelling period for recalibration and revalidation will ultimately include a

two year (i.e. minimum) simulation which will account for seasonality. Operational water quality targets

will need to be further refined.



PARAMETER LOCATION MIN 20% MEDIAN 80% MAX

TP (µg/L)

Discharge 34 36 39 44 62

Intake 44 47 47 48 69

TN (µg/L)

Discharge 256 267 290 312 358

Intake 291 294 295 295 374

Chl-a (µg/L)

Discharge 0.2 3.4 5.5 10.1 13.1

Intake 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.7 4.3

DO (mg/L)

Discharge 3.6 6.1 6.3 6.6 7.0

Intake 3.2 6.3 6.6 6.7 6.9

Salinity

Discharge 31 34 35 35 36

Discharge 32.7 34.8 35.2 35.3 35.5

Temp (oC)

Intake 23.5 26.0 28.6 31.5 34.5

Discharge 21.8 24.2 26.5 29.4 33.0

PARAMETER LOCATION MIN 20% MEDIAN 80% MAX

TP (µg/L) Discharge 34 36 38 42 62

Intake 44.2 46.5 47.3 47.6 55.8

TN (µg/L) Discharge 256 264 275 296 311

Intake 291 293 294 295 304

Chl-a (µg/L) Discharge 0.2 3.0 4.6 7.5 11.0

Intake 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.5 4.1

DO (mg/L) Discharge 3.6 6.2 6.4 6.6 7.0

Intake 3.2 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9

Salinity Discharge 33 35 35 35 36

Intake 33.1 35.1 35.2 35.3 35.5

Temp (oC) Discharge 23.5 26.0 28.6 31.5 34.5

Intake 21.9 24.1 25.8 28.0 31.1



TP LOCATION MIN 20% MEDIAN 80% MAX

TP (µg/L) Discharge 42 43 44 46 47

Intake 44 46 47 48 56

TN (µg/L) Discharge 309 313 325 336 358

Intake 294 295 296 298 374

Chl-a (µg/L) Discharge 0.2 3.4 5.5 10.1 13.1

Intake 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.7 2.5

DO (mg/L) Discharge 5.4 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.4

Intake 5.7 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.8

Salinity Discharge 30.9 32.8 33.7 34.3 35.2

Intake 29.9 33.9 34.6 34.8 35.1

Temp (oC) Discharge 23.5 25.4 27.6 29.8 32.4

Intake 28.0 29.0 30.3 31.2 33.5

TP INTAKE DISCHARGE % ∆

TP (kg/yr) 11,652 11,609 -0.4%

TN (kg/yr) 1852 1615 -13%

b) Indicative Limits for Discharge

With regards to developing indicative limits for discharge, it should be noted that the modelling to date

demonstrates:

no notable adverse impact to the receiving environment and no know toxicants are envisaged

from the development

tracer modelling results mixing indicate high dilution rates within the receiving environment for

both a Richters Creek discharge or an offshore discharge.

Consequently, indicative limits for discharge based upon both concentration and loads are proposed in

Table 5-6 as per the guidance provided in EHP (2012) Table 8 and referring to the Queensland Water

Quality Guidelines (QWQG) (DERM 2009). As noted in the following table, an indicative turbidity level

is provided (refer to Appendix G) based on the current monitoring program. Further numerical

modelling, calibration, and analysis are required to determine an appropriate TSS target.

The assessment process for measuring compliance of the lake water quality throughout the annual,

‘dry’ and ‘wet’ season is provided in Section 5.2.4. Monitoring of the receiving environment has also

been discussed in the REMP (Section 5.3.2).



RECEIVING ENVIRONMENT - WATER QUALITY TRIGGERS LAKE WATER DISCHARGE TARGETS4

QWQG Default Approach to assess compliance

Annual Enclosed Costal QWQG

REMP Compliance Target (wet/dry)

1

Dry Season Water Quality Target Wet Season Water Quality Target

Intake (modelled) End-of-Pipe2

(modelled/Target3)

Intake (modelled) End-of-Pipe2

(modelled/Target3)

Physico-Chemical Stressor

‘A trigger for further investigation will be deemed to have occurred when the median concentration of n independent samples taken at a test site exceeds the QWQG value.

The guideline value applicable will be based on the QWQG Enclosed Coastal or Offshore dependent upon final discharge location (i.e. Richters Creek or Offshore) and will ultimately be influenced by REMP.

DO 85 - 105 %sat

TN = 160µg/L

TP = 20 µg/L

Chl a = 2 µg/L

Turb = 10 NTU

pH = 7.5 to 8.4 /

NH4 = 15 µg/L

NOx = 135 µg/L

FiltR P = 5 µg/L

Data

Co

llatio

n O

n-G

oin

g

(re

fer

to A

pp

en

dix

E t

o H

fo

r cu

rre

nt

resu

lts)

DO

6.6mg/L (20th

%ile) &

6.8mg/L (80th

%ile)

TN

<310 µg/L (max) &

280 µg/L (median)

TP

<65 µg/L (max) &

40 µg/L (median)

Chl-a

<5 µg/L (max) &

1 µg/L (median)

Turbidity5

<320 NTU (max)

DO

>4mg/L

TN

<310 µg/L (max) &

< 280 µg/L (median)

TP

<65 µg/L (max) &

<40 µg/L (median)

Chl-a

<11 µg/L (max) &

5 µg/L (median)

Turbidity5

<Intake (max)

DO

6.6 (20th

%ile) &

6.8 (80th

%ile)

TN

<310 µg/L (max) &

280 µg/L (median)

TP

<65 µg/L (max) &

40 µg/L (median)

Chl-a

<3 µg/L (max) &

1 µg/L (median)

DO

>4mg/L

TN

<310 µg/L (max) &

< 280 µg/L (median)

TP

<65 µg/L (max) &

<40 µg/L (median)

Chl-a

<14 µg/L (max) &

6 µg/L (median)

Annual Loads

Intake

TP 12 000 kg/yr

TN: 1900 kg/yr

Lake Discharge (no Change Criteria)3

TP 12 000 kg/yr

TN: 1900 kg/yr

Notes: 1. Note current water quality data at Control Site 2 and / or 3 in Richters Creek and off-shore, but insufficient to present true comparisons and/or limits. Refer to Appendix E to H for latest monitoring data.

2. Modelled End-Of-Pipe discharge quality

3. Target defined from Intake quality

4. Additional calibration of the water quality numerical model including extended modelling periods is required to more accurately inform End-Of Pipe Targets

5. Indicative only (refer to Appendix G), based on current monitoring program. Further numerical modelling, calibration and analysis are required to determine an appropriate TSS target.



5.2.4 Monitoring For Compliance

a) Overview

Monitoring of the lake’s water quality is expected to occur indefinitely to demonstrate that water quality

targets are being met and to assess triggers for early detection of adverse water quality conditions. In

addition to the REMP discussed in Section 5.3.2, four monitoring points will consistently be monitored

throughout the life of the Aquis development; the two key monitoring points are as follows:

Intake Location: Monitoring at the point where the inlet pipeline discharges into the lake will

occur to provide baseline data of the off-shore inlet quality. This monitoring location will enable

inferences of water quality changes in the lake to be attributed to either anthropogenic activity or

natural variation.

Discharge Location: Monitoring at the discharge location (i.e. where lake water leaves the lake

on its way to the outlet) will provide an absolute data set that can be directly used for licensing

the discharge into the receiving environment. The data at this location will also enable absolute

changes from the intake quality to be compared to assist in measuring the quality change

throughout the lake.

The remaining two water quality monitoring sites are within the body of the lake and will be located at

equally spaced locations to assist with defining the in situ quality change.

b) Continuous Monitoring - Physico Parameters

The proposed monitoring program will consist of an in situ continuous system for an ‘early detection’

indicator. The continuous in situ system will typically use four instruments, with two placed within the

lake’s extents (inlet / outlet pipelines) and the remaining two within the lake. The instruments will relay

the data via real-time telemetry and can be appropriately powered from mains supply (i.e. noting that

Aquis will have back-up supply power) and reduced to 12 volts. The continuous in situ system will

provide the following physical parameters:

conductivity/salinity

temperature

turbidity

pH

water level.

These parameters will provide a rapid detection method to enable triggers for further investigation to

occur and management options to be implemented to meet water quality targets.

Vertical profiling will also occur within four locations or more as deemed necessary during the

sampling of chemical parameters (refer to Section 5.2.4c)) to determine if any stratification has

occurred. If stratification is observed, then monitoring of the chemical parameters will occur at both the

surface and depth.

c) Chemical Parameters

For chemical stressors it is envisaged that weekly sampling will be undertaken in the initial phase of

operational development then reduced to fortnightly and ultimately monthly sampling once the system

has stabilised. The chemical parameters to be assessed will consist of the following:

total N incl. NOx, TKN, organic N and ammonia

total P and filterable reactive P

TSS

chlorophyll a.



Four sampling locations are envisaged and will include directly at the inlet and outlet locations and two

further samples within the lake. Further sampling may also occur if trigger points are activated,

particularly with regards to the physico-chemical parameters described above.

d) Toxicants

Monitoring for toxicants will include the typical suite of metal and metalloids and non-metallic

inorganics, including hydrocarbons, pesticides, and herbicides that could be potentially introduced into

the lake. Monitoring of toxicants is likely to occur at three locations:

the inlet for control purposes

within the lake

directly at the discharge point.

Monitoring of toxicants is expected to initially occur on a monthly basis. Provided that triggers are not

activated, then monitoring as required by management based on platform operating conditions would

be considered acceptable, such as when herbicides may be used for example.

5.2.5 Trigger and Management Measures

Based on a method similar to the ANZECC (2000), control charts as shown in Figure 5-16 will be

used for the monitoring of both the receiving environment and the lake to determine if trigger/limit

levels are being exceeded.

If an exceedance occurs this would warrant further investigation cause of the adverse water quality

conditions to determine if appropriate management actions are required and/or if this is a natural

perturbation. Management action may initial result in ensuring Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD)

features on the platform for example are appropriately performing or if direct management measures

are required in the lake to mitigate against adverse natural or anthropogenic influences in water quality

conditions. Management measures in the lake were previously presented in the EIS and would consist

of the following:

increased flushing

increase mixing via mechanical means (i.e. de-stratification)

aquatic plant harvesting

lake de-silting

containment and treat in-place.

It should be noted that with regards to the treat in-place option, the Resort Complex will have 12.5 ha

of saltwater pools with a typical volume of 0.16 GL which is about 10% of that of the lake. As a result,

the pool water filter hardware will be of a significant size and could be used in an emergency to filter

the lake water to some degree if required.



Figure 5-16 Example control chart for test site against default trigger values, time and recommended actions.

Source: ANZECC (2000).

5.2.6 Flooding Management During & After Flood Events

a) Flood Management

During the recession of a Barron River Delta flood event and once the level has fallen below the Aquis

lake bund level, appropriate management measures are required to discharge the waters received

from Richters Creek / Barron River delta back to the Richters Creek in a timely manner. Discharge of

the flood water will need to occur before cessation of the flood event while there is a large fluvial

outflow and while the lake and Richters Creek water quality will be of similar quality.

As noted in Section 5.1.4, no discernible impacts to the receiving waters of Richters Creek are

predicted during a flood from the Barron River based on the proposed flood management regime

which will consist of the following active measures:

1. Once the lake and flood level drops below 2 m AHD (i.e. flood bund height), the outlet pumps

will be run 24 hours a day on the falling limb of the flood and will occur jointly with the seawater

intake pump also running full-time.

2. The pump regime is expected to turn the lake over and reach the e-folding conditions within 7 to

8 days.



3. Pumping will continue until the lake has reached an in situ water quality considered to be similar

to that of normal operating conditions and/or until the receiving water has returned to ‘typical’

non-flood conditions.

4. When the lake system is flushed to an acceptable quality, then re-commencement of typical

turnover/flushing regime to either Richters Creek or the optional off-shore discharge will

recommence.

With respect to Point 3 above, the following monitoring system will assist in determining the

recommended point for returning to the typical turnover / flushing regime of Point 4.

b) Flood Monitoring Requirements

The proposed in situ water quality monitoring equipment will provide the first indication that the water

quality. As shown on Figure 5-14, salinity will be used as the first indicator to determine when the

discharge may return to the normal turnover / flushing regime.

Once salinity has recovered, parameters such as turbidity and dissolved oxygen will assist in

assessing the recovery of the lake. From the numerical assessments, it appears that once salinity has

recovered, it is expected that nutrients (TN & TP), chlorophyll a, and dissolved oxygen will have also

recovered.

Monitoring in Richters Creek will also occur when considered safe to do so to measure the in situ

salinity to confirm if the creek has recovered. From the results presented, provided pumping is

immediately commenced then recovery in the lake will occur at a rate much faster than the receiving

environment.

Use of the flow gauging at Myola may also provide additional information regarding the return of

Richters Creek back to typical base flow conditions. From the EIS and the data presented herein this

would typically below 100 m3/s at the gauge and more likely in the range of 10 m

3/s to 50 m

3/s.



5.3 RESPONSE TO BASELINE WATER QUALITY DATA

5.3.1 Background

The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) provided a detailed submission on the

assessment documentation and indicated that the:

Removal of the tidal gates would have significant implications for establishing baseline water

quality values.

Water quality data provided in the EIS does not suit requirements for comparison against water

quality guidelines or for baseline determinations.

EHP requested that

1. The proponent provide monitoring programs to establish local baseline values which would

accommodate changes due to tidal gate removal on aquatic biodiversity values.

These queries are addressed below and are in alignment with the recently released Receiving

Environment Monitoring Program Guideline (REMP) prepared by EHP in June 2014. It should be

noted that sediment and biological monitoring is being undertaken by frc environmental and is not

included in the REMP. However, the results will be integrated into the overall impact monitoring

program as the project develops.

The water quality REMP presented reflects the proposed and potential lake water releases to the

receiving environment and the potential for associated contaminants in that discharge. Furthermore

consideration of further monitoring has also been provided for the removal of the tide gates currently

located on Yorkeys Creek (see Section 5.3.6b)). Full details of the proposed Aquis development with

regards to the potential to release contaminants into the receiving environment and drainage works is

described in detail in the EIS and only summarised herein, where relevant.

5.3.2 REMP Objectives

The objectives of the Aquis water quality REMP are to:

1. Determine the ambient water quality characteristics (i.e. baseline) of the existing water

environment in the study area for the EIS with regards to the terms of reference (ToR 2.1, 2.3,

7.22) within Richters Creek, Yorkeys Creek and the Half Moon Bay (Marina area).

2. Provide a robust water quality baseline to support design, impact assessment, construction and

operational requirements to ensure the mitigation measures proposed are effective.

3. Provide supporting data for control sites, compliance activities including the identification and

prevention of environmental harm.

4. Provide supporting data to assess the suitability of limit and trigger values for specific water

quality indicators including the potential for compliance levels for the construction and

operational phases of the development.

The water quality REMP was also devised to assist with the calibration and verification of

hydrodynamic and water quality models presented in the EIS. The water quality models have enabled

impacts to be predicted and mitigation measures to be devised as required in the EIS ToR.

The REMP as presented herein has not aimed at determining in situ water quality objectives (WQOs),

as a reference site is not readily achievable due to the need to find an appropriate ‘undisturbed’ site.

The water bodies adjacent to Aquis are impacted as follows:

Richters Creek: impacted by the Ponderosa Prawn Farm discharges in addition to runoff from

adjacent farming, particularly cane.

Half Moon Creek: impacted by a WWTP discharge.



Yorkeys Creek: impacted by urban development including an influence from Richters Creek at

the confluence.

It should also be noted that the REMP has evolved with the Aquis development and as a result

monitoring in Half Moon Creek Marina is no longer a key consideration as an alternative water supply

is no longer deemed necessary.

5.3.3 Proposed Releases and Characterisation

a) Aquis Intake and Discharges

Development of the Aquis lake will result in the following discharges as shown on Figure 5-17 and

described as follows:

regular ebb tide discharge at the mouth of Richters Creek that may also partially circulate in

Yorkeys Creek naturally

overflow water from either extreme wet weather periods or from Barron River flood events at a

location approximately 2.5 km from the mouth and potentially into Yorkeys Creek.

Figure 5-17 Proposed discharge points.

* As discussed in Section 5.1.4b), while the ‘flood outlet’ was modelled as a pipe in the mouth of Richters Creek,

this is functionally identical to using a gravity solution at the Richters Creek Lake Overflow.

As described in the EIS, during normal operation exchange water for the lake will be delivered via a

combined gravity / pumping system from the inlet sump located some 2.2 km seaward of the Yorkeys

Knob beach via a 1.8 m diameter pipe. The pump system is intended to enable a 14 day lake turnover.

However, the system proposed will also allow the lake’s volume to be turned over within five to seven

days based on a 24 hours pumping regime to provide an emergency turnover rate if required.

Off-shore inlet

Off-shore outlet

Flood outlet*



The inlet located 2.2 km offshore can be relied upon to deliver good quality salt water free from local

fresh water conditions and any effects of a partial closure of Richters Creek. The option for an off-

shore discharge has also been considered and results are reported in Section 5.4.5.

b) Water Quality Characterisation

Lake discharge water quality was detailed in the EIS and this confirmed that, in general, the quality is

similar to the intake quality and consequently represents a low risk to the receiving environment.

However, should the lakes quality become less than optimal, then the Aquis development has the

potential to influence the receiving water quality environment of Richters Creek via the proposed

discharge at the mouth. As noted in the EIS, the lake’s biophysical processes, sediment-water column

exchanges and internal water quality cycling processes resolve around the key water quality indicators

of:

available nutrients

organic material / sediment fluxes

physical parameters such as temperature, oxygen, turbidity (i.e. light) etc. regarding their

cycling rates.

These water quality indicators represent the key monitoring requirements for the REMP for the Aquis

development.

5.3.4 Receiving Environment Attributes

a) Background

The receiving environment attributes and baseline water quality is detailed in the EIS based upon both

historical and current water quality monitoring data. The following is a brief summary of the receiving

environment attributes by way of background for the ensuing discussion. Refer to Figure 5-18.

b) Thomatis / Richters Creek

Thomatis / Richters Creek is located in the Barron River delta. Thomatis Creek is the tidal reach that

commences at the confluence of the Barron River and joins Richters Creek approximately 2.7 km

downstream (i.e. at the confluence of Thomatis Creek). For ease of reference, the main reach of the

two creeks is referred to as Thomatis / Richters Creek or simply Richters Creek at the downstream

extent.

Thomatis / Richters Creek locally receive runoff from a catchment area of 449 ha which is a

predominantly agricultural area with fringing residential development. Thomatis / Richters Creek is

essentially a double ended estuary which forms part of the Barron River delta, with a bifurcation from

the river at its upstream extent, where flow into the creek is received from the Barron River. Richters

Creek ultimately discharges into Trinity Bay (i.e. Coral Sea) approximately 5.6 km north of the Barron

River and adjacent to Yorkeys Creek mouth, immediately adjacent to the proposed Aquis development

site.

A notable feature on the Thomatis / Richters Creek are the abandoned aquaculture ponds on the

south-east of the Aquis site as shown on Figure 5-17. As discussed in Section 7.5, these ponds are

currently proposed to be drained and filled are assumed to have no impact to the receiving

environment during the operation of Aquis.

Thomatis / Richters Creek receives waters from the Barron River which is influenced by five major

dams and/or weir(s) that influence the freshwater flows to Richters Creek and an extensive irrigation

network that supports a significant area of agricultural use.



Figure 5-18 Receiving environment attributes.

The water quality in Thomatis / Richters Creek can be summarised as follows:

Water quality at the mouth is strongly influenced by oceanic influences. Mean salinity is higher

than the other sites within the creek, similarly with pH. Mean water clarity is marginally lower

than other sites, reflecting the influence of near shore sediments resuspended by wave action.



The creek exhibits a freshwater flow related ‘salt-wedge’ type phenomenon for the majority of

field surveys presented. During the high flow survey (refer to EIS) this salt wedge was distinct,

with turbid riverine waters overlying clearer oceanic waters. This salt wedge was observed to

move upstream with the flooding tide, and downstream with the ebbing tide.

Nutrient levels during high wet season are typically twice those levels recorded during the dry

season. Nutrient levels at times of lower wet season flows (i.e. Barron River base-flows) are

equivalent to dry season values. Estuarine water clarity during high wet season flows is

considerably less than that both during the dry season and at times of lower wet season flows.

Current monitoring indicates turbidity increase with notable inflows from the Barron River.

Occasional dissolved oxygen super-saturation was observed in the upper reaches of the

estuary. Current and continuous monitoring indicates DO saturation is low in the upper reach of

Richters Creek and only just above toxic levels for some fish.

Metal concentrations are generally below the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) toxicity trigger values

for 95% level of protection. Manganese and particularly Boron typically exceed guideline values.

During high wet season flows, upper estuarine reaches experience purely freshwater conditions

and elevated suspended sediment and nutrient concentrations.

Full details of the Baseline water quality of Richters Creek is provided in the EIS.

c) Yorkeys Creek

Yorkeys Creek has a limited catchment area of some 267 ha consisting of urban development in the

north and agricultural (i.e. cane farming) in the southern area of the Barron Delta. Yorkeys Creek

divides the project boundary with the main resort located to the south-east and the golf course areas

to the north-west and west.

Yorkeys Creeks would naturally be tidal to just upstream of Yorkeys Knob Road, although tide gates

have been installed approximately 300 m upstream of the mouth. As previously mentioned Yorkeys

Creek discharges into Trinity Bay (i.e. Coral Sea) at approximately the same location as Richters

Creek.

Available water quality data in Yorkeys Creek is limited by safe access but from the data available the

following is noted:

nutrient levels of TN and TP recorded from single grab samples were above the QWQG

recommended levels

the concentration of all other nutrients (i.e. ammonia, nitrate/nitrite, ortho-P, chlorophyll-a

organic carbon, BOD) were below the QWQG.

Full details of the baseline water quality of Yorkeys Creek is provided in the EIS.

5.3.5 Monitoring Program Design

a) Overview

The REMP was conceptually devised in late 2013 based on the REMP objectives previously

presented and to commensurate with initial planning / EIS requirements. Field works for the Aquis

development commenced on the 16 December 2013 and is planned to continue until at least February

2015, with the likelihood of extension through the construction phase

The REMP has evolved with the proposed planning and EIS requirements of development and is

constantly being reviewed and revised where necessary to inform each phase of planning, design,

construction and operational requirements.

As a result, the water quality monitoring data collection campaign has included continuous in situ

physical water quality monitoring data and monthly physico-chemical water quality sampling. The



monitoring program design is discussed further below, whilst the current set of monitoring data is

detailed in Appendix E to Appendix H.

It should be noted that if an off-shore discharge is considered to be of preference and acceptable to

government agencies, then the monitoring program will be further revised to account for this potential

change.

b) In situ Continuous Water Quality Monitoring

The key physical water quality indicators within the receiving environment are recorded by in situ

continuous monitoring equipment. The in situ monitoring capture physical parameters during the ebb,

flood, spring and neap tidal periods where grab sampling cannot.

Continuous in situ water quality data is currently being collected using BMT WBM’s submersible YSI

water quality logging instruments. The YSI loggers are self-cleaning and an anti-foulant applied to the

outer-casing and are bed mounted on a heavy duty frame. The instruments are configured to collect

the following continuous data:

turbidity

depth


temperature

dissolved oxygen

pH.

Further to the in situ monitoring, monthly vertical profile monitoring at each of the 4 YSI sites is also

included in the data suite to determine if vertical gradients exists.

c) Chemical Monitoring

Monthly physico-chemical monitoring has been undertaken for key chemical water quality indicators

that are expected to influence the receiving environment and the lake. Furthermore, metals have also

been undertaken on a bi-monthly regime to ensure there are no adverse toxicity issues in the

receiving environment.

Ten sites are typically sampled that includes the YSI sites and additional sites located in Thomatis /

Richters Creek and the enclosed coastal and offshore region. All sampling has been undertaken in

accordance with the Department of Environment and Resource Management - Monitoring and

Sampling Manual 2009 Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 - Version 2 September 2010.

Parameters sampled are:

total N incl. NOx, TKN and Ammonia

total P and reactive P

TSS

chlorophyll a

metals typically include the following: Sb, As, Be, B, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, Ag, Sn,

Zn, Hg.

All samples are analysed at Australian Laboratory Services (ALS) that are certified by National

Association of Testing Authorities (NATA).



NUTRIENTS LOR (µg/L) DISSOLVED METALS LOR (µg/L)

Organic Nitrogen as N 50 Selenium 2

Ammonia as N 5 Antimony 0.5

Nitrite as N 2 Arsenic 0.5

Nitrate as N 2 Beryllium 0.1

Nitrite + Nitrate as N 2 Boron 100

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N 50 Cadmium 0.2

Total Nitrogen as N 50 Chromium 0.5

Reactive Phosphorus as P 1 Cobalt 0.2

Total Phosphorus as P 5 Copper 1

Chlorophyll LOR (mg/m3)

Lead 0.2

Manganese 0.5

Chlorophyll a 1 Molybdenum 0.1

Suspended Solids LOR (mg/L)

Nickel 0.5

Silver 0.1

Suspended Solids 1

Tin 5

Zinc 5

Mercury 0.1

5.3.6 Sampling Site Selection and Frequency

Sampling sites have been dominated by the lake design and receiving environment attributes with

regards to the locations required for lake water supply and discharge whilst also cognisant of having

representative control sites. With regards to Richters Creek the three key receiving environmental

attributes are:

Ponderosa Prawn Farm

proposed Aquis lake pumped discharge location and overflow location

characteristics of the mouth water quality and hydrodynamics and that of the upper reaches of

Richters Creek.

With regards to Yorkeys Creek and the potential removal of the tide gate the two key receiving

environmental attributes are:

upstream freshwater quality above the tide gate

downstream quality below the tide gate.



a) Physical Monitoring Sites

Four in situ continuous monitoring instruments are presently located in Richters Creek with the

locations described below and shown on Figure 5-19.

1. Near shore - Offshore from the mouth of Richters Creek – represents the marine receiving

environment. This location has slightly moved further offshore from its initial position to the

location proposed for the lake intake.

2. Mouth - Mouth of Richters Creek – represents the mouth of Richters Creek receiving

environment and is generally located where the discharge is proposed (i.e. slightly upstream

due to physical limitation of placement). This site provides the following:

- Test site for proposed discharge

- hydrodynamic and water quality characteristics for numerical water quality monitoring.

3. Mid - Mid-way along Richters Creek – upstream of the proposed development, and downstream

of Ponderosa Prawn Farm. This site provide the following:

- Control Site for the proposed Aquis discharge (up-current)

- Test Site for the Ponderosa Prawn discharge (down current).

4. Upper/Richters Bridge/Barron - Upper Richters Creek – upstream of the proposed

development and upstream of the Ponderosa Prawn Farm. This site provide the following:

- control Site for the proposed Aquis discharge (up-current)

- control Site for the Ponderosa Prawn discharge (up-current).

The continuous in-situ monitoring will provide value long-term control and test site data for the Aquis

development and has also provided the necessary data for numerical modelling calibration and

verification.

b) Chemical Monitoring Sites

Monthly water quality grab samples have been taken at each monitoring location for laboratory

analysis of the water quality parameter suite previously noted. Ten sites are typically sampled as

shown on depicted Figure 5-19and include the continuous in situ sites and additional sites located in

Thomatis / Richters Creek and the enclosed coastal and offshore region.

The ten monitoring sites initially included Half Moon Creek and Yorkeys Creek, however due to

changes in the Aquis design and the physical limitation in accessing Yorkeys Creek, monitoring has

recently focussed upon Thomatis / Richters Creek. This creek and its near shore environment will

have the most potential to be influenced by Aquis if any influence were to be noted or perceived.



Figure 5-19 Water quality monitoring locations.

The monitoring locations are described as follows:

11. Off-shore Intake - 11 (2.2 km): Intake Point - represents the marine receiving environment

for the location proposed lake intake.

1A. Near-shore (YSI-1.0 km): Test site - represents the near shore location and the potential for

an offshore discharge location. The location was sampled to ensure a complete set of in situ

physical data and chemical data was available;



1. Near-shore GS 0.7 km): Test Site - same as above but closer to the mouth (no in situ

physical monitoring)

2. Richters (GS 0.0 km): Release Point - Within the mouth of Richters Creek at the proposed

discharge location.

2A Richters (YSI 0.5 km): Control Site - Within the mouth of Richters Creek, but approximately

400m upstream of the proposed discharge location.

3. Richters (GS 1.0 km): Control Site - 1.0 km upstream of Richters Creek,

4. Richters (GS 2.5 km): Control/Release Point - 2.5 km upstream of Richters Creek and

represent a control site during operation and a test site when overflows from the lake occur

during wet notable weather events.

5. Richters (YSI 3.3 km): Control/Test Site - 3.3 km upstream of Richters Creek mouth and

represents a control site for Aquis and a test site with regards to potential impact from the

Ponderosa Prawn farm.

6. Richters (GS 5.0 km): Control Site - 5.0 km upstream of Richters Creek mouth and

represents a control site for both Aquis and the Ponderosa Prawn farm.

7. Yorkeys (GS Mouth): Control Site - Located at the mouth of Yorkeys Creek due to restricted

safe access into the creek.

8. York Alt (GS): Control Site - Located on the downstream side of Yorkeys Knob Road. Access

further into the site (i.e. immediately upstream of tide gate) is not currently possible, but will

occur when approval is granted.

The above sites are considered sufficient to represent the water quality within the receiving

environment with regards to control, test and release/intake points.

c) Temporal Frequency

Based on the QWQG, a two year monthly monitoring campaign is ultimately required for defining the

base-line water quality at a particular location with the minimum number of data samples typically

consisting of 24. A sampling regime of this length enables a statistically suitable baseline data suite to

be compared to the QWQG that is not dominated by one season.

For the Aquis development, a significant wet and dry season distinction occurs within the receiving

environment. For water quality purposes the dry season and wet season is defined as follows:

Wet Season: January to March with the potential to extend to April

Dry Season: April to December with the potential to start in May.

Consequently, for compliance/license limits to be appropriately set, sampling more than the 2 years

(i.e. 24 samples) will be required to adequately define the baseline water quality for each season.

Provided in Table 5-8 is the ultimate sampling time-frames that will be needed for Aquis.

SAMPLING FREQUENCY DRY SEASON (8-9 MONTHS) WET SEASON (3-4 MONTHS)

Monthly 3 years (i.e. 3 seasons) 8 years for 3 month wet season, or 6 years for 4 month season.

Fortnightly 2 year (i.e. 2 seasons) 4 years for 3 month wet season, or 3 years for 4 month wet season.



Extension of the monitoring program including the potential to up-grade to fortnightly monitoring,

particularly for the wet season will accurately reflect the long term seasonal compliance/license limits

for operation.

5.3.7 Data Collected to Date

A summary of the water quality data is presented in Appendix E to Appendix H to assist with defining

the data outcomes from the current water quality REMP. No further interpretation of this data has been

provided within this document.

The data will ultimately be used for subsequent TUFLOW-FV water quality calibration and verification

and will also be appropriately analysed to provide control and test site statistics to commensurate with

the QWQG requirements.

5.4 –RESPONSE TO INLET AND OUTLET PIPELINES

5.4.1 Background

EHP indicated that:

The EIS does not describe the mitigation measures that would be used to mitigate impacts

associated with this disturbance or management options for the disposal or reuse of the dredge

material generated by this activity.

The vulnerability of the intake pipeline to changes in the river mouth and bar has not been

assessed.

The EIS does not provide sufficient justification for the proposed outlet pipeline.

EHP requested that the proponent to:

1. Describe mitigation measures likely to be implemented to minimise dredging associated

impacts.

2. Describe management options for disposal or reuse of dredge material.

3. Assess the vulnerability of the intake pipeline to changes in the river mouth and bar as per the

terms of reference.

4. Provide justification for the proposed outlet pipeline alignment to consider the alternative options

(e.g. off-shore outside of the active coastal zone).

5. Describe appropriate lake monitoring regimes, trigger levels of water quality and quantity and

response mechanisms to exceedances of trigger levels.

5.4.2 Item 4.1 – Dredge Impact Mitigation Measures

a) Existing Environment

The existing environment of the inlet pipeline route is described in the EIS (s7.1.5e)). In summary:

Sediments: The first 1.3 km of the proposed pipeline runs through the estuary and shallow bar

of Richters Creek, characterised by shifting coarse riverine sand deposits with mud. The

sediment transitioned to mud with fine sand approximately 1.3 km from the pipeline intake

sump, and remained relatively uniform to the seaward end of the pipe.

Benthos: The surface sediment at the mouth of the creek and on the sand bank was loosely

consolidated and there was no evidence of faunal activity or seagrass. Further off-shore, the

benthic communities were dominated by polychaete worms and bivalves. The benthic

macroinvertebrate communities were dominated by polychaetes and crustaceans, with some

molluscs. Based on recent experience of soft-sediment benthic communities in tropical

Queensland, the communities along the alignment are typical of much of the Trinity Bay area

and in-shore areas of the Great Barrier Reef.



Since the EIS was published, an additional dry season survey along the inlet pipeline route has been

completed (frc environmental 2014d). During this investigation, sub tidal benthic habitat was surveyed

using a towed video camera. Ten transects, each approximately 500 m long and perpendicular to the

proposed pipeline were surveyed (Figure 5-20). The track of each transect was mapped using GPS

and linked to depth and other key characteristics of the habitat. Video of benthic habitat was viewed

live on board the boat.

This survey (and the 2014 wet season work documented in the EIS (Appendix F – Aquatic

Biodiversity)) found no evidence of seagrass in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline alignment. Benthic

habitat consisted primarily of un-vegetated soft sediment.

Figure 5-20 Sub-tidal survey transects.

Source: FRC (2014a).



b) Construction Methodology – On-shore

Between the lake and the foreshore, the inlet / outlet pipelines consist of twin 1200 mm diameter

pipes. As noted in EIS Figure 11-15 (see Figure 5-21 below for an extract), the route is to follow the

existing clearing though the coastal vegetation. This clearing is shown on Photo 5-1 below. This

clearing is currently used for vehicular access to the clearing adjacent to the western bank of Richters

Creek and is varies between 4 and 8 m wide.

Photo 5-1 Existing clearing (proposed to be used for pipeline route).

Existing clearing



Photo 5-2 Existing clearing

– detail.

Prior to construction of the pipeline through this area, the lowest-impact route will be confirmed on site

and the path marked. Construction will preferably take place during the dry season and will involve a

simple open trench construction methodology. Should any particular values be identified, then there is

an option to utilise directional boring / thrust boring. Following construction, the cleared area will be

stabilised with groundcover (not trees in case there is a need to access the people in the future). Any

un-needed clearing at the side of the works, however, will be fully restored.

The above clearing goes right to the water’s edge as shown on Photo 5-3 below. This photo was

taken from the water’s edge looking landward.



Photo 5-3 Point of transition from on-shore to off-shore works (looking landward).

At a suitable location in this general area, a deep well will be excavated to install the works shown

schematically on Figure 5-22. It is likely that this infrastructure will be constructed well shoreward of

the creek edge to simplify the construction. Sheet-piling and dewatering will most likely be required.

c) Construction Methodology – Transitional Zone

Once the pipeline encounters sufficient depth, excavation and pipe-laying will be via a barge operation

as described below. In the transitional zone between this area and the land-based aspects, the works

are likely to be constructed ‘in the dry’ using a sheet pile coffer dam from which water is pumped out.

Following de-watering, the trench will be excavated to the necessary levels. Given the location of the

site and the potential for ASS / PASS, the excavated material will be stockpiled in a contained area, if

necessary, the material neutralised with lime in accordance with the ASSMP, which will be in place at

the time of construction.

Sediments will be contained by the use of a silt curtain installed around the work area. This is common practice and can be expected to adequately manage construction impacts.

Temporary and permanent navigational structures (markers / signage) will be installed in accordance

with the requirements of Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ).



d) Construction Methodology – Off-shore

It is assumed in this discussion that the alternative off-shore outlet pipeline is adopted as described in

Section 5.4.5.

The inlet and (alternative) outlet pipelines are expected to be in the order of 1.8 m and 1.5 m in

diameter respectively, are likely to utilise polyethylene piping, and are proposed to be buried to

minimise the risk of damage to the pipes and to ensure safety to boats. The inlet pipe will be

approximately 2.2 km in length while the outlet pipe will be in the order of 1.4 km in length as

described in Item 4.4 (Section 5.4.5). These are intended to share the same alignment and

consequently use the same trench. Since the completion of the EIS, a check was undertaken

regarding any obstacles to the pipelines and as a result the inlet has been moved 100 m shoreward to

be within the False Cape to Taylor Pt trawling exclusion zone as defined in the Fisheries Regulations

2008. This new location has been used for the revised modelling.

The depth of burial of the pipe is expected to be in the order of 1.0 m to obvert along the main route

with a deeper burial required at the mouth of Richters Creek to allow for creek mouth scouring which

can occur during Barron River flood events as described in Section 5.4.4 below.

Along the main pipe (i.e. off-shore region), the bottom width of the trench at placement would be in the

order of 4.0 m wide when a dual pipe line is required and would reduce to approximately 2.2 m wide

with a single pipe line. The depth of excavation along the main route would be in the order of 3.0 m

which allows for 1.2 m cover to a 1.8 m diam. pipe. With these dimensions, approximately 70,000 m3

of excavation will be required. This is a conservative estimate determined as follows:

1.4 km x 30 m2 cross sectional area (i.e. bottom width 4 m, top width 16 m, depth 3 m) = 42,000

m3

0.8 km x 24 m2 cross sectional area (bottom width 2 m, top width 14 m, depth 3m) = 19,000 m

3

Construction of the pipeline would typically be undertaken by a four spud pile barge. A spud pile barge

can be moored through the use of deck pilings to provide a stable work platform whilst a long reach

excavator will dredge the required trench for the pipeline to be laid in. Excavated material would be

transferred to a second barge for transport to the Aquis site. It is envisaged that either a third spud pile

barge would be used to weld and place the pipeline into the trench.

Suitable clean fill material comprising of sand and/or fine gravel mix material will be used to cover the

pipeline and to backfill the trench. This material will be placed over the pipe-line via a bottom dump

dredge or placed via an excavator from a barge.

A portion of the excavated material if considered suitable and complying with the NAGD guidelines

may also be used to cover the outer extents of the pipeline. Excess material will be taken on-shore,

treated as necessary and be including as part of the Aquis lake earthworks. See Item 4.2 (Section

5.4.3).

e) Sampling and Analysis Plan

Prior to commencement of construction activities a sediment quality assessment will be undertaken in

accordance with the National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009 (Commonwealth 2009;

henceforth NAGD).

A Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) will be developed addressing all requirements of sampling plans

as outlined in Appendix B of NAGD. The specific SAP objectives will be to:

provide a summary of proposed dredging and disposal operations for the project

identify a list of contaminants based on a review of existing data and potential contaminant

sources



determine the number of samples required to provide an adequate characterisation of the

physical and chemical sediment properties

develop procedures for adequate field collection and handling of sediment samples

outline adequate quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures for field sampling

and laboratory analysis

provide a description of statistical procedures used to determine the contaminant status of the

dredged material

describe procedures for validating the analytical data to assess whether the sample collection,

handling and laboratory analysis was undertaken to a standard allowing assessment of

sediment quality against the NAGD guidelines

outline the proposed reporting framework for the sediment quality results that will address the

requirements of the Determining Authority.

The draft SAP will be submitted to the Determining Agency (DSITIA) for comments and approval.

Sediment sampling will then be undertaken in accordance with the approved SAP. Based on a

conservative estimate of 70,000 m3 (refer to Section 5.4.2a)) of dredged material, it is expected that

15 sampling locations would need to be sampled as per NAGD. Based on the depth of dredging that is

likely required to bury the pipeline (ca. 3 m depth), it is expected that sampling will be undertaken by

coring down to dredge depth.

The sediment samples will be submitted to analytical laboratories that are fully accredited by the

National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) for the required analyses. Concentrations of

chemicals measured in the sediment samples will be compared to screening levels listed in Table 2 of

NAGD to determine whether the material is suitable for unconfined placement at sea (i.e. and/or

pipeline cover material), or if further analyses, such as elutriate, bioavailability or toxicity testing, are

required. Specifically, mean concentrations of chemical parameters at the upper 95% confidence level

(95% UCL) will be compared against NAGD guideline levels to assess suitability of the sediments for

placement at sea. The statistical analysis will follow the approach given in Appendix A of NAGD.

The reporting of sediment quality results will be undertaken in a SAP Implementation Report in

accordance with NAGD including the following components:

Summary of the SAP, or SAP appended to the report.

Outline of potential problems encountered and deviations from the SAP, including justification.

Description of the sampling carried out, along with the actual sampling locations, sample

numbers (including replicates and QA samples), completed Chain forms, field logs and

description of sediments.

Comparison of the 95% UCL of mean chemical concentrations of sediments in the Inner Port

and Outer Channel dredge subareas.

Assessment of QA/QC procedures for both field and laboratory data.

Data validation including comparison to data quality objectives.

Appendices including all laboratory and field data.

Conclusions as to the acceptability or otherwise of the dredge material for marine placement,

pipe cover, Aquis platform fill etc. and recommendations as to further work required will be

provided.



f) Other Impact Mitigation Measures

Detailed plans and construction management methodologies will need to be developed in support of

the necessary approvals (coastal works, works in a Marine Park, works in a FHA, any EPBC Act

conditions). This will involve:

use of clean backfill for underwater trench operations

use of silt curtains to reduce the spread of turbid waters

best-practice construction techniques to avoid impact on marine megafauna (e.g. use of

spotters to allow works to be stopped if target species are nearby, soft-start piling where

required, air curtains if practical, timing of start-up/shut-down operations to avoid important

feeding / breeding times)

management of all excavated material as described below

management of boating hazards as required by the Regional Harbourmaster.

Further details will be developed during the preparation of the EMP (Construction) which is a project

commitment under the Register of Proponent Commitments.

5.4.3 Item 4.2 – Treatment of Excavated Material

Excavated material exported to the Aquis site will be handled in accordance with the propose Soil and

Water Management Plan / Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan to be in place during the construction

phase. This is to be covered by the EMP (Planning) which is a project commitment under the Register

of Proponent Commitments.

5.4.4 Item 4.3 – Vulnerability of Inlet Pipeline at Richters Creek Mouth

The EIS proposes that exchange water will be delivered to the lake under a combined gravity /

pumping system from the inlet sump located some 2.2 km seaward of the Yorkeys Knob beach via a

1.8 m diameter pipe. This arrangement was selected in preference to an inlet within Richters Creek as

it can be relied upon to deliver good quality salt water free from local fresh water conditions and any

effects of a partial closure of Richters Creek.

Figure 5-21 below is an extract from the EIS and shows the general arrangement of infrastructure in

the mouth of Richters Creek while Figure 5-22 is a schematic cross section.



Figure 5-21 EIS inlet and outlet pipework proposal – mouth of Richters Creek (plan view).

Source: EIS Figure 11-15B (part).

Figure 5-22 EIS inlet proposal – mouth of Richters Creek (section).

Source: EIS Figure 11-16 (part).



This section is schematic only and shows that the pipeline is beneath the schematised bed level.

Further investigations undertaken for this report involved the assessment of historic data on erosion

and sedimentation extremes (the 1977 flood and the 1987 sedimentation maximum). Based on the

1977 post flood survey and the proposed vertical alignment, the inlet pipeline at this point is likely to

be in the order of -8 m AHD to invert (i.e. approximately 3 m below the 1977 scoured bed depth). See

Figure 5-23. This will ensure the pipeline remains well buried even following a major flood event.

Figure 5-23 1977 Survey and approximate location of inlet / outlet pipeline.

Detailed design will be required to confirm these levels.

5.4.5 Item 4.4 – Alternative Off-shore Outlet

The EIS proposes an outlet in the mouth of Richters Creek. This was selected as it is close to the

project and in an area where extensive dilution is available on ebb flows. The concept design is for an

outlet to consist of a diffuser located parallel to the bank with sufficient jets to adequately mix the

discharge. The initial mixing zone would be designed to be within 2 m of the jet so there will be no

discernible effect on the natural tidal velocities within 5 m of the outlet (assessment of these velocities

and appropriate design responses will be addressed during detailed design). Relevant details are

provided below based on extracts from EIS figures.



Figure 5-24 EIS outlet proposal – mouth of Richters Creek (section).


However, as discussed in Section 5.4.4 above, the mouth of Richters Creek is known to be mobile at

times and this can result in substantial erosion or siltation. Erosion could put the infrastructure at risk

while sedimentation could smother the outlet. As required by the Information Request, additional work

has been undertaken to investigate an off-shore outlet.

a) Alternative Location to Avoid Active Coastal Zone

A suitable location for dry season discharge has been found along the route of the inlet pipeline

approximately 1.4 km off-shore (refer to Figure 5-25 which is a copy of Figure 5-17) to ensure that the

outlet is:

deep enough so that it does not pose a risk to navigation

outside the active coastal zone (i.e. free from erosion and sedimentation)

sufficiently away from the intake location to ensure re-circulation of lake water does not occur

located along the alignment of the intake structure to limit dredging requirements during

construction.



Figure 5-25 Proposed discharge points.

* As discussed in Section 5.1.4b), while the ‘flood outlet’ was modelled as a pipe in the mouth of Richters Creek,

this is functionally identical to using a gravity solution at the Richters Creek Lake Overflow.

The optional off-shore outlet pipeline is proposed to follow the route of the inlet pipeline and, as

discussed in Section 5.4.4, will be free from the coastal process effects at the mouth of Richters

Creek.

b) Modelling

The performance of this alternative off-shore outlet during non-flood conditions was assessed using

the existing TUFLOW-FV model (refer to Figure 5-26), re-configured as appropriate. The discharge

rate to the receiving off-shore location was changed to a continuous pumping regime rather than the

EIS ebb tide only discharge) at a rate to commensurate with the intake rate of 1.09 m3/s and varied as

required to maintain lake level (i.e. for evaporation and rainfall).

Off-shore inlet

Off-shore outlet

Flood outlet*



Figure 5-26 Revised TUFLOW model incorporating off-shore outlet.

As for the EIS, the model was executed using a full 12 months data from August 2012 to July 2013 to

capture a suite of dry and wet conditions as follows (see also Figure 5-27):

Dry: October to December 2012 (i.e. daily flows are generally at or below the 20th percentile)

Wet: January to March 2013 (i.e. peak daily flows during events generally exceed 90th

percentile)

Extreme Wet (Australia Day 2013): 20 January 2013 to 14 February.



Effectively this period reflects the previous EIS analysis with the only change being the new location of

the outlet.

Figure 5-27 Model simulation period for dry and wet weather conditions.

Source: EIS Figure 11-23 (this shows the first seven months of the available 12 month hydrograph).

c) Water Quality (Physico-Chemical) Results

Detailed tabulated and graphed water quality results for the proposed offshore discharge are

presented in a similar manner to the EIS with the reporting points shown on Figure 5-26 and

discussed further in Appendix I.

Summary Graphs

The Appendix I data is summarised below via the following graphs (Figure 5-28 to Figure 5-32

visually compare the water quality for various parameters at three locations:

off-shore lake inlet

lake flood outlet (assumed at mouth of Richters Creek)

in situ conditions at the mouth of Richters Creek.



Figure 5-28

Salinity.

Figure 5-29

Dissolved oxygen.

Figure 5-30

Total nitrogen.



Figure 5-31

Total phosphorous.

Figure 5-32

Chlorophyll a.

The results depicted in the above figures show that the intake quality is:

similar to the discharge quality from the lake (i.e. end of pipe) for salinity, total nitrogen, total

phosphorous and dissolved oxygen

similar to Richters Creek for chlorophyll a.

These findings are consistent with results presented in the EIS. Consistent with the results quoted in

the EIS, the lake has a propensity for phytoplankton growth, though the numerical modelling has not

represented the proposed mechanical mixing devices and aerators that will assist in limiting their

growth.

Summary

In summary:

there is limited change in nutrient concentrations at the entrance of Richters Creek and the off-

shore region due to the proposed discharge from the lake

no notable changes in DO levels



chlorophyll a:

- there is a slight increase to chlorophyll a levels at the outlet location, but less than 1 µ/L

- at the mouth of Richters Creek, there is a negligible decrease in the higher percentiles

- there are no notable changes to chlorophyll a in other adjacent locations, with percentile

changes being less than 0.1 µ/L

- overall there is limited to no change in chlorophyll a concentrations in Richters Creek and

the near-shore region.

Overall there is no notable physico-chemical change to the off-shore receiving environment from the

off-shore outlet.

d) Dilution Rates

As for the EIS, an assessment of dilution was undertaken using a conservative tracer. The purpose of

this was to simulate the available dilution in the event that lake water quality is poor.

Similar to the EIS, to ensure the impact assessment is rigorous, an assessment of how the proposed

lake discharge could affect water quality levels in the near and offshore environment was undertaken

as if adverse conditions in the lake resulted. In order to inform such, the TUFLOW FV model was

interrogated to determine what levels of dilution of lake waters will be present in the receiving waters

using a conservative tracer assessment.

The results of the assessments are presented in Table 5-9 at the locations shown on Figure 5-26.

SITE LOCATION VERTICAL LOCATION

10TH PERCENTILE

20TH PERCENTILE

MEDIAN 80TH

PERCENTILE 90TH

PERCENTILE

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

R1 - Outlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.24 0.35

Avg. 1.52 1.77 3.84 7.41 9.26

Bottom 0.74 0.85 1.41 2.58 3.07

R2 - Inlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

R3 - Near Shore (330m)

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.14 0.38

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.21

R4 – Creek Mouth

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

GBRMP Boundary

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

R5 – NW of Outlet

Top 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.12 0.17

Avg. 0.05 0.11 0.29 0.74 1.04

Bottom 0.04 0.08 0.19 0.33 0.45

R6 – S of Outlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.07

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02



SITE LOCATION VERTICAL LOCATION

10TH PERCENTILE

20TH PERCENTILE

MEDIAN 80TH

PERCENTILE 90TH

PERCENTILE

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

R7 – E of Outlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.25

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.08

R8 – Far N of Outlet

Top 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.10 0.13

Avg. 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.20 0.27

Bottom 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.14 0.17

R9 - Far S of Outlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

R10 – N of Outlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03

Concentrations are shown on Figure 5-33 as a 2D tracer plot. The 2D tracer plot is provided at two

different scales with the inset portion at the normal 100% to 0% scale while the main figure is at the

enlarged 2% to 0% scale. At the 100% to 0% scale the plume is not detectable.

Figure 5-33 Tracer Plots for Offshore Discharge Location (%).



Modelling shows that dilutions are generally high (i.e. low tracer concentrations), including in the

immediate vicinity of the lake water discharge point. The following conclusions can be drawn from the

results presented:

There is minimal change in the off-shore conditions, with the depth averaged profile being

generally greater than 99% diluted in the 90th percentile.

Slightly north-west of the outlet (along the lines of typical currents) shows concentrations slightly

above this at just better than 98.9% dilution.

Only the location directly over the outlet shows any mentionable impact, but this presents

dilution rates in excess of 90% at the 90th percentile.

The outlet al.so shows median dilution rates of 96% for depth averaged profile. For all the other

areas, both the chronic and acute percentiles show better than 99% dilution rates of lake water.

In general the lake discharge will have limited impact to the receiving environment with an off-shore

discharge under adverse water quality conditions in the lake.

e) Summary and Conclusions

Locating the lake discharge seaward of the active mouth of Richters Creek will provide a solution to

risks of erosion and sedimentation in the active coastal zone at the mouth of Richters Creek.

Modelling shows that the influence of lake discharge at this point will have a negligible influence on the

receiving environment. Furthermore, if lake water quality is maintained in a similar condition to the

intake quality, then no discernible reduction in water quality is expected. Even if lake water quality is

poor, the available dilution rates are very high.

It should also be noted that detailed near-field mixing of the discharged lake water has not been

assessed in the regional model. Additional detailed modelling assessments and optimisation will be

required and are recommended to estimate the degree of near-field and far-field dilution associated

with the outlet diffuser operation; however the diffuser can be designed to achieve full mixing within a

few metres of the discharge point if required.

5.4.6 Item 4.5 – Lake Monitoring Regimes

See Item 1 (Section 5.1).



6 ISSUE 5: MATTERS OF NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

SIGNIFICANCE

6.1 OVERVIEW OF ISSUES

In its submission (212), the Department of the Environment (Commonwealth) (DoTE) raised a number

of issues regarding Matters of National Environmental Significance (matters of NES). These issues

are addressed below as shown in Table 6-1.

As recognised in Item 1 of the DoTE submission, there is some duplication in the issues raised as they

are separated into values and impacts. These are treated together in the following discussion where

the flow of the discussion can be improved. In addition, some issues involve aesthetic issues and

terrestrial and aquatic species and these are separated because they have involved different

methodologies appropriate to the species in question, their habitats, and the types of impacts to which

they may be subjected.

ID DOTE COMMENT / SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS WHERE DISCUSSED

1 There are some issues that may seem to be repeated throughout these comments. This is because some issues need to be addressed in a number of sections in the EIS

N/A

2 The final design of the project has not been provided. This will influence impacts relating to Outstanding Universal Value. In particular:

height of buildings

colour of buildings

lighting on site

design of lake relating to water quality and bird (and other fauna) habitat.

Section 6.2

3 Please provide further details regarding the commitments to implement best practice lighting and noise.

Section 6.3

Section 6.15

4 The EIS states that flooding overflow will drop the lake salinity (undesirable) and the management response will be to reduce water level as soon as possible and raise the salinity by pumping seawater at an enhanced rate. However, the EIS does not address the fact that this will in-turn result in additional freshwater being pumped into the receiving waters and impacts this may have. Further information is required on the impacts of flooding on matters of national environmental significance (MNES).

Section 6.5

5 The Terms of Reference specify that the proponent should provide information on climate in regards to both long term averages and extreme values, including consideration of rainfall patterns and storm events. Chapter 3 of the draft EIS provides information on rainfall data for the area, including monthly averages, highs and lows. However, the number of years over which this data has been collected has not been provided, and a description of the area’s flood history and probability of future flood events has not been discussed. As run-off from storm events, other extreme rainfall or flood events may potentially impact MNES, further information relating to the probability of flood events (of varying levels) is required.

Section 6.6

6 Further information is required on the potential impacts of artificial lighting on MNES, for example turtles, birds and visual impacts from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA), avoidance and mitigation measures.

Section 6.7

Section 6.8

Section 6.9




7 Please provide additional information on the proposed vegetated screen including the type of vegetation to be used, the management of the vegetated screen and the likely effectiveness of the vegetated screen for this project.

Section 6.10

8 It is important to note that the aquaculture ponds and artificial drainage networks currently on site provide habitat for fauna including MNES. Although they are not considered to be natural, they still provide habitat that will be removed by the Aquis development. Further information is required as to how the impacts of removing this habitat will be fully considered and mitigated.

Section 6.11

9 The surveys summarised in Appendix F were designed to provide input into the design of the proposed development, rather than as baseline surveys for a known development. Please provide baseline data to ensure that changes to water quality can be monitored during the construction and operation of the proposed development.

Section 6.12

10 There is some lack of clarity (pp. 22-108-109) as to where the site is located in terms of the North/South, Inshore/Off-shore, and Inland/Coastal zones described in the draft GBRMPA strategic assessment. The EIS claims that the Aquis site is within the ‘Southern in-shore and southern off-shore’ areas, despite also stating that the inshore/off-shore dividing line is generally about 20 km off-shore. It appears that the text intends to indicate that the Aquis site (particularly the pipeline) is within the southern inshore area, since the pipeline extends only 2.2 km off-shore; however the confusion raises doubts about the potential area of influence of the Aquis site (are its impacts likely to be observable 20+ km out to sea?). Likewise, in terms of onshore habitats, the text states that the Aquis site was in the Southern Inland area, while in the next sentence quotes GBRMPA’s definition of coastal areas as being those areas less than 5 km from the coast or where the land reached 10 m AHD, whichever was furthest (with the inland area being the remainder of the catchment), and indicates that the project site is within the coastal zone. Please provide a clear description of the location of the project in regard to the coastal areas.

Section 6.13

11 As mentioned above [Item 8], further discussion is required regarding the impacts associated with the loss of the aquaculture ponds. The EIS states that the proposed artificial lake will result in an overall increase in habitat as it will provide habitat for birds (including MNES). However the lake is being designed to minimise attracting waders and crocodiles by designing the lake with steep sides. Further information is required to clarify what habitat the lake is providing for which species.

Section 6.14

12 Appendix F lists colonisation of lake by pest species as a potential negative outcome. Further information is required as to the impacts of potential pest species on MNES and how this potential threat will be avoided including mitigation measures.

Section 6.15

13 While the EIS addresses cetaceans, turtles and dugong it is difficult to understand how conclusions were reached regarding the importance of habitat present and the severity of impacts. There is no information on sensitive areas. This needs to be provided and set in context for all species. For example, while some of the more important habitats for marine turtles occur elsewhere in the GBRWHA, the EIS needs to discuss the regional importance of habitat present and provide maps of these habitats adjacent to the site and within the region.

Section 6.15

14 Statements that this area is not considered to be core habitat for a species and not considered to support important populations or offer habitat critical to the survival of the species need to be supported by evidence. This is also the case when describing the area may be low or moderately likely to provide habitat for a species. Further justification is required when attributing low or moderate score to habitat features for the species.

Section 6.15

Section 6.15




15 The proposal could potentially result in adverse impacts to Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) and Australian snubfin dolphins (Orcaella heinsohni), which generally occur in waters less than 15 metres deep that are close to river and creek beds within the proximity of seagrass beds. The EIS concludes that significant impacts on the inshore dolphin species are not likely as there are only small numbers present. The Australian snubfin and the Indo-pacific humpback dolphin occur in small and isolated populations. Further evidence is required to demonstrate that these species or their habitat will not be significantly impacted by the proposed development.

Section 6.15

16 Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Outstanding Universal Value

Criterion vii - contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance.

Justification needs to be made as to why the mangroves on site are not considered representative of the attribute of Outstanding Universal Value (page 22-94).

Section 6.18

17 Low visibility and turbid waters are not sufficient explanation as to why marine flora and fauna are not considered to be a significant contribution to Outstanding Universal Value. Please justify this statement.

Section 6.18

18 Please justify why the beaches south of Yorkeys Knob, the Richters Ck mouth and the northern part of Holloways Beach are not considered spectacular sandy beaches contributing to the Outstanding Universal Value of GBRWHA.

Section 6.18

19 Claiming that the mainland (and development site) is an area that visitors leave behind to visit the GBRWHA and that it is not part of the GBRWHA experience itself does not recognise the full extent of the GBRWHA. The aesthetic values of the GBRWHA need to be considered as broader than the actual reef and include a broad landscape experience.

Section 6.18

20 Examples of indigenous use of land and sea resources were found on site in 1991 although not in 2013 surveys. The EIS states they are outside the development footprint and therefore not an issue. The EIS needs to substantiate why these values no longer exist.

Section 6.18

21 Potential impacts to listed species or their potential habitat have been discussed in the EIS, however further information is required to outline which impacts are relevant to which listed species.

Section 6.15

Section 6.15

22 Of the potential impacts to MNES identified (table 22-12), wildlife disturbance was stated to be not relevant as there is no beach access provided and all resort activities will take place onsite. How is access to the beach going to be restricted? Not providing access may mean that guest/staff/people wanting to gain access from the resort to the beach make their own, resulting in multiple and not maintained paths to the beach or creek. This may have a greater impact than providing maintained access to the beach. As discussed above, further information is required relating to wildlife disturbance including; how access to the beach and creek will be restricted, all disturbance impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project and how these impacts will be mitigated.

Section 6.21

23 Please specify mitigation measures for the construction of the inlet/outlet pipes. These should include measures for noise impacts to marine fauna such as soft start-up of machinery/drilling equipment, start up and shutdown times to avoid important feeding/movement times of fauna such as turtles.

Section 6.22

24 Impacts to shorebirds and turtles need to be addressed under the relevant controlling provisions, for example listed threatened species, listed migratory species and World Heritage Area (Outstanding Universal Value of the GBRWHA).

Section 6.15

Section 6.19

25 Light Section 6.7




The EIS acknowledges numerous impacts of artificial light but concludes that light from the proposed development will not impact on any matters of national environmental significance.

Section 6.8

Section 6.9

26 The EIS list mitigation measures that will reduce the impact of light on turtles however there is no evidence provided to suggest that this is the case. Evidence is required to justify these statements.

Section 6.9

27 The EIS claims that the night time light of the Aquis resort will be perceived as part of the Cairns node of intensive development. There is significant distance between the proposed development and Cairns particularly relating to night time glow. Further justification is required relating to the perceived single node of intensive development.

Section 6.7

28 Further consideration needs to be given to how all lighting onsite will be managed to mitigate impacts to fauna (including turtles), and to minimise the night time glow from the resort as seen from onshore and off-shore sites.

Section 6.7

29 Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

Criterion vii - contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance

As discussed above, further justification is required regarding the impacts of light on the aesthetic values of the GBRWHA and fauna such as marine turtles.

Section 6.7

Section 6.9

30 The EIS states that the development won't impose a visual change to the connectivity between GBRWHA and Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA) (this occurs further north). However, there will be a visual impact when looking from the WTWHA towards the GBRWHA. Further justification is required regarding visual impacts to GBRWHA and WTWHA.

Section 6.7

Section 6.18

31 There is inconsistency in the EIS as to whether or not the resort (tall buildings) will be seen from Green Island. Clarification needs to be provided on this issue.

Section 6.18

32 As discussed above, further information is required on the adequacy of vegetation screens. For example, where vegetation has been used to successfully screen similar developments from light impacts to aesthetics of an undeveloped area.

Section 6.10

33 There is no evidence of consultation on aesthetic impacts with either residents or existing visitors to the Cairns region. The EIS makes assumptions about their ‘likely’ views. Social research on the opinions of residents and visitors on the development’s likely impacts on their aesthetic enjoyment of the area could assist to address this.

Section 6.23

34 Criterion x - contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation

shore birds – as discussed above further information is required on the impacts of the project on migratory birds and /or their habitats and the impact on Outstanding Universal Value of GBRWHA.

Section 6.24

35 Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area Outstanding Universal Value

Criterion vii - contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance.

Insufficient consideration of the impacts on WTWHA is provided in the EIS. Further justification is required regarding the impact the project will have on the aesthetic values of WTWHA and its links to GBRWHA.

Section 6.18

36 Criterion x - contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation.

Further consideration needs to be given to the impacts of increased tourism to the WTWHA.

Section 6.25




37 Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

Criterion vii - contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance

The EIS relies on the property having been a sugar cane property as evidence of diminished World Heritage Value. The fact that there is cropping on the site does not mean that the attributes of the world heritage area do not exist. For example, the visual connectivity between GBRWHA and WTWHA. Although agricultural land is not natural vegetation, the change from agricultural landscape to an urban landscape will impact on both WHAs. Further discussion regarding the impact of changing landscape should be provided.

Section 6.18

38 As discussed above, the department considers it likely that there would be a noticeable increase in artificial lighting and noise and in turn impacts on wildlife and aesthetics. The impact of artificial light and noise requires further investigation.

Section 6.18

39 As well as discussing the visual impacts of the development from Green Island and other off-shore points, the visual impact of the development in the more immediate vicinity needs to be discussed. It is likely that the resort will be visible from a broad sweep of the adjacent coastline, coastal waters and hinterland, and from the WTQWHA.

Section 6.18

40 Criterion x - contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation.

Further discussion is needed on the impacts to migratory shorebirds including:

What are the impacts to shorebird habitat including water quality?

What are the likely impacts of introduced species (weeds) on migratory shorebirds?

What are the likely impacts of noise on migratory shorebirds?

Section 6.26

41 In Table 22-27 on page 22-130, the text indicates that there are coral reefs at Haycock Reef and Double Island Reef, approximately 10 km north of Richters Creek mouth. Earlier in the document, it is stated that the ‘nearest mapped coral is approximately 25 km north-east of the site’ (p22-121, p 22-123) and ‘there are no reef structures within 25 km of the investigation area (p 22-142). This inconsistency should be corrected.

Section 6.27

42 In relation to the discussion of the concept of Outstanding Universal Value on pages 22-87 to 22-89, the proponent includes discussion of the criteria and integrity as components of Outstanding Universal Value; however the third element of Outstanding Universal Value, protection and management is not discussed and must also be included.

Section 6.28



The listing criteria referred to above (i.e. vii to x) have been amended and renumbered since the Reef

was inscribed. For the reasons described in the EIS, these original numbering is preserved. Table 6-2

below shows the relationship between original and current criteria.

SHORT TITLE CRITERIA AT TIME OF LISTING (1981)

CURRENT CRITERIA (2008)

Major stages of the Earth’s evolutionary history

(i) outstanding examples representing the major stages of the earth's evolutionary history

(viii) be outstanding examples representing major stages of earth's history, including the record of life, significant on-going geological processes in the development of landforms, or significant geomorphic or physiographic features;

Ecological and biological processes

(ii) outstanding examples representing significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man's interaction with his natural environment

(ix) be outstanding examples representing significant ongoing ecological and biological processes in the evolution and development of terrestrial, fresh water, coastal and marine ecosystems and communities of plants and animals;

Natural beauty and phenomena

(iii) unique, rare or superlative natural phenomena, formations or features or areas of exceptional natural beauty, such as superlative examples of the most important ecosystems to man

(vii) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance;

Habitats for conservation of biodiversity

(iv) habitats where populations of rare or endangered species of plants and animals still survive

(x) contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation.

Source: GBRMPA (2013e) Table 4.1.

6.2 DESIGN DETAILS (ITEM 2)

6.2.1 Background

The DoTE submission (212) Item 2 states:

(2) The final design of the project has not been provided. This will influence impacts relating to Outstanding Universal Value. In particular:

height of buildings

colour of buildings

lighting on site

design of lake relating to water quality and bird (and other fauna) habitat.

6.2.2 Discussion

Design of the development has not progressed substantially since the completion of the EIS on the

basis that at this stage only land use approval is being sought. However, progress has been made as

outlined below.



ITEM PROGRESS COMMENTS

Height of buildings No change has been made. The current proposal remains i.e. that building heights are limited to a maximum of 65 m above the existing ground level (2.5 m AHD) or below the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) for the Cairns airport, whichever is the lesser.

Zone of Visual Influence (broad scale and local) is based on of the top of resort buildings (61.5 m AHD) and a midpoint on the buildings (36.5 m AHD). Reference is also made to ‘tall buildings of 60 m height’. These are sufficiently consistent for the purposes of this assessment.

Colour of buildings No further details are available. The architectural concept is likely to retain the current ‘light and breezy’ colours. Given the height and bulk of buildings, it is not proposed to attempt any form of camouflaging (other than by screening using natural vegetation).

Details are provided in Section 6.10 on

vegetation screening.

Lighting on site Further assessment has been made for this report on lighting. Light modelling has been based on a ‘worst-case’ scenario of illumination calculated at 1 x 100 watt halogen bulb at 3 m intervals on each balcony of every floor, (but representing a combination of interior and exterior lights) totalling approximately 7000 lights. All lights are shown as being simultaneously ‘on’, and unshielded.

This is the basis of the visualisations and impact assessment covered by this report.

Design of lake relating to water quality and bird (and other fauna) habitat.

Further assessments detailed in this report have been made regarding:

performance of lake during a Barron River flood

lake management strategy.

Refer to many aspects of lake design and management under Issue 4 (Chapter 5).

a) Lighting Design

Refer to Section 6.7.

b) Lake Design

Refer to Chapter 5 and Section7.3 .

6.2.3 Conclusions

Sufficient additional design details have been provided to allow assessments of impacts required by

the request for further information covered by this report. Substantial detailed design effort is required

to advance this concept level work and will be undertaken progressively in line with the approvals

program.



6.3 LIGHTING DESIGN AND MITIGATION OF LIGHT EMISSIONS (ITEM 3 –

PART)

6.3.1 Background

The DoTE submission (212) includes a number of items related to light emissions and then to impacts

from both aesthetic and ecological perspectives. For clarity these are collected together as follows

this section:

- lighting design and assumed design-phase mitigation

- visibility (i.e. where Aquis lights can be seen from)

impact on light on aesthetic values of the GBRWHA and WTWHA (Section 6.7)

impact on terrestrial species (Section 6.8)

impact on aquatic species (Section 6.9).

6.3.2 Lighting Design

The DoTE submission includes the following requirement:

(3) Please provide further details regarding the commitments to implement best practice lighting and noise.

Issues associated with lighting design are discussed below.

a) Airport Requirements

As noted in the EIS, Aquis will need to comply with CairnsPlan with respect to lighting design. The

following is an extract from EIS Appendix W – Airport and Aircraft Issues.

Figure 6-1 Extract from CairnsPlan.

Source: CairnsPlan (see EIS Appendix W – Airport and Aircraft Issues Figure 2-1).



The map above shows that the southern part of the project area is within Zone D. Performance

Criteria and Acceptable Measures for light under the CairnsPlan for Zone D are as follows.

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ACCEPTABLE MEASURES

Lighting

P2: Development does not impact on the operational aspects of the Cairns Airport with regard to light emissions.

A2.1: Lighting does not exceed the maximum intensity of illumination, within the respective zone, as identified on the Overlay Maps.

For Zone D (see above), maximum Intensity of Light Sources is 450 Candela measured at 3 degrees above the horizontal.

Primary Light Control

P6: Development does not impact on the operational aspects of the Cairns Airport with regard to light emissions.

A6.1 Development does not involve external lighting or road layout that creates straight parallel lines of lighting that is 500 m to 1000 m long.

A6.2 Buildings and structures do not contain reflective cladding, upwards shining lights or flashing or sodium lights.

Source: CairnsPlan (see EIS Appendix W – Airport and Aircraft Issues Table 2-1).

Lighting will be designed to comply with these criteria (see Register of Proponent Commitments).

b) Best-practice Lighting Design (General)

In addition to the above, measures to mitigate the visibility and glare of resort lighting, as it may affect

places beyond the project site boundaries, will be adopted. These include:

design of lighting, particularly for upper stories of buildings, so it is downward-directed, part-

shielded and of low intensity to reduce light spillage

external lighting (including security lights) mounted at a level which is below the nearby tree

canopy height

shields, louvres, screens and/or window tinting on east-facing windows and balconies, and

those above the fourth storey or the height of nearby tree canopies

automatic light switches to turn off when not in use, especially on the upper VIP level

siting of any recreational facilities which require night-time lighting behind (west of) one or other

of the buildings, which can thereby act as a light shield for the beach and ocean

screening initiatives (see Section 6.10) involving:

- off-site planting of additional Casuarina (Beach Oak) trees in dunes between the project

site and the adjacent beach

- on-site planting of tall-growing Norfolk Island Pines and Hoop Pines along eastern edge

of golf course.



General guidelines for ‘best practice’ design, installation and operation of external lighting for Aquis

Resort to minimise potential adverse impacts arising from external lighting, consistent with AS 4282-

1997 (Control of the obtrusive effects of outdoor lighting) also include:

limiting the use of external lighting after a specified time at night, to only that required for safety

and security

automatic controls on external lighting (incorporate occupancy sensor control & automatic

control to switch on/off or dim the lights state when a high illumination level is not essential

position and aim lighting properly to avoid overspill of light to outside the area needed, direct the

beam(s) just to the target structures. and avoid over-illumination of signs, facades, vertical

structures or trees, shop fronts and facilities

use lower intensity lamps , and/or lighting with appropriate shields, baffles, louvres and cut-off

features to prevent light overspill into the sky, and glare from the light source

switch off the lighting when it is not operationally required or dim down the lighting

minimise the upward spread of light near to and above the horizontal. The most critical zone for

minimising sky glow is between 90° to 100°. To keep glare to minimum, the main beam angle of

all lights directed to any potential observer is not more than 70°

use luminaires with double asymmetric beams as appropriate so that the front glazing is kept

nearly parallel to the surface being lit to minimise overspill light

lighting of pathways by bollards, if necessary spaced closely together for a more even spread of

light, rather than pole-mounted lighting

solar shades, tint and interior reflectors are effective to reduce spill light from the building’s

glass envelope. Green-tinted glass reduces glare and provides shade for occupants

design interior lighting so that angle of maximum candela from each luminaire intersects opaque

surfaces and does not exit through the windows.

Figure 6-2 Types of intrusive light – to be avoided (general information only).

It is considered that all of these matters can only be dealt with during the detailed design phase.

Attention to minimum impact design is included in the Register of Proponent Commitments.

http://support.groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=220





c) Best-practice Lighting Design (Biological Aspects)

Lighting has a biological dimension, for example to minimise impacts on nesting and hatching marine

turtles. Visibility modelling (see Section 6.3.3 and in particular Figure 6-5) shows that there is only a

very limited section of beach (at PP05) likely to be affected by night-time lights from the resort hotel

buildings. The closest building will be set back 800 m from the beach to the north, and the lighting

impact mitigation measure outlined below are capable of appropriately mitigating any such impacts.

The beach is sufficiently close to towns that any nest would probably be noticed, and the length of

beach potentially affected by direct lights from the upper storeys of Hotel B is so small that any nesting

could be screened by site-specific measures.

Specific design features for fauna include:

reviewing the need for each light source

keeping lights off when not needed

mounting lights low

shielding lights to stop escaping upwards and outwards

using long wave length lights (500 – 700 nanometres, orange to red)

reducing the wattage and brightness of lights

using natural topography to shield nesting areas from light

screening interior lights with blinds, screens and / or window tinting.

These are similar to the architecturally-based measures previously listed. It is considered that all of

these matters can only be dealt with during the detailed design phase. Attention to minimum impact

design is included in the Register of Proponent Commitments.

6.3.3 Visibility Modelling

a) Assumptions

In order to assess the impacts of lighting it is necessary to determine where Aquis Resort lights can be

seen from. The following assumptions have been made in undertaking assessment of the zone of

visual influence (ZVI):

Light modelling has been based on a ‘worst-case’ scenario of illumination calculated at 1 x 100

watt halogen bulb at 3 m intervals on each balcony of every floor (but representing a

combination of interior and exterior lights), totalling approximately 7000 lights. All lights are

shown as being simultaneously ‘on’, and unshielded.

While Yorkeys Knob Road and the surrounding area are currently mainly dark at night, the

resort access roads and entry signage will probably be brightly lit, and the upgrade may have

street lighting, all of which will reduce the contrast between the building lights and their rural

surrounds. However, this has not been modelled.

Light effects may be visible over distance, even from viewpoints which are outside the ZVI of

buildings, because of night time ‘glow’ from beyond the horizon or visible skyline. However it is

difficult to model night-time glow, as it is likely to depend on contrast (for example, more

noticeable on moonless nights) and on clouds, haze and other variable atmospheric factors.

This modelling has been facilitated by the availability of 2010 LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging)

data that has been used to:

model natural ground levels

model what is called the ‘first echo’ which is the top of the canopy in the case of natural areas

and the top of buildings elsewhere.



These surfaces were used to more accurately model the height of nearby vegetation and its screening

potential as a Digital Surface Model (DSM) (Appendix J Figure 8). Previous assessments had

adopted conservative assumptions in order to model visibility of the proposed resort, but the LiDAR-

based DSM has helped to more accurately model the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI) in the area

immediately surrounding the project site and along the nearby beaches.

In order to analyse and predict night time visual impacts, the height of beach front vegetation was

modelled as a DSM as described above.

b) Modelling Results

ZVI and selected night-time photomontages were prepared. The material is presented in the attached

figures included in Appendix J:

Figures 1 – 2: Zone of Visual Influence (broad scale and local) of the top of resort buildings

(RL61.5 m AHD - 59m above ground level at RL 2.5m AHD) and a midpoint on the buildings

(RL 34.5m AHD 29m above podium level at RL 7.5m AHDabove ) using a LiDAR-based DSM

indicating that the built form will be visible from off-shore, but only the top floors will be seen

(depending on haze and weather) from Green Island; and that the existing coastal vegetation

will almost completely screen buildings from mainland beaches and coastal towns.

Figures 3 – 7: ‘Zoomed in’ ZVIs of proposed resort hotel buildings (again at two levels) in the

areas of Yorkeys Knob hill and Half Moon Bay marina (Fig 3), Yorkeys Knob town and beach

(Fig 4), southern YK beach and Richters Creek mouth (Fig 5), Holloways Beach (Fig 6) and

Machans Beach (Fig 7). These indicate that the resort buildings will be completely screened

from the adjacent beaches, except for a small area near the creek mouth. This spot was

selected as Photo point PP05 in order to test ‘worst case’ lighting impacts on the beach.

Figures 8 & 9: The vegetation heights derived from LiDAR data were used to prepare cross

section through the resort buildings and existing vegetation to the beach at PP05, and to

indicate the long term potential for supplementary screen planting.

Figure 10: For comparison of built form scale, one of the proposed resort buildings (Hotel B) is

shown beside and at the same scale as the cruise ship Pacific Dawn which currently visits

Cairns regularly and anchors off Yorkeys Knob, and the larger cruise ship QE 2 which is

planned to visit Cairns and anchor off-shore in the near future.

Figure 11: Night-time photographs (taken on the clear moonless night of 26/8/14) from Yorkeys

Knob Beach PP05, with photomontage of resort building lights, modelled as per methodology

and assumptions below.

Figure 12: Night-time photographs (taken on the moonless night of 26/8/14) from Green Island

jetty, with photomontage of resort building lights.

Figure 13: Night-time photographs (taken on the moonless night of 27/8/14) from Henry Ross

Lookout, with photomontage of resort building lights.

c) ZVI Modelling

Additional work has been undertaken on the likely propagation of light from the Aquis resort and the

visibility of these emissions from inshore and near-shore locations. The built form of the Aquis Resort

is proposed to be located 500 m shoreward of the mouth of Richters Creek, with the lower levels

screened from the ocean by coastal vegetation. A visual assessment has been undertaken involving

modelling the likely propagation of light from the Aquis Resort and visibility of these emissions from

inshore and near shore locations (Appendix J).

Overall ZVI

Figure 6-3 is an extract from Appendix J (Figure 1) and shows the overall ZVI of the Aquis Resort

(see Figure 6-4 below for a zoom of the beaches area surrounding the Aquis site).



Figure 6-3 Overall zone of visual influence (ZVI) of the Aquis Resort.

Source: Appendix J (Figure 1).

This modelling shows that lights from the higher levels of buildings will not be visible along most of

Yorkeys Knob Beach and Holloways Beach, but that they will be visible from near-shore and off-shore

waters. See Figure 6-4 and various zoomed images in Appendix J (Figures 3 to 7). In general, the

lights will not be visible closer than 240 m to shore where the coastal vegetation extends to 20 m in

height. Although some buildings will be visible from near-shore areas, at the closest point the highest

buildings will be approximately 740 m shoreward, meaning that the light will be diffused.



Figure 6-4 Zone of visual influence – beaches area.

Source: Appendix J (Figure 2). See also Figures 3 to 7 for detailed (zoomed) images.

The modelling indicates that direct light spill from the upper storeys of buildings is likely to be visible

only at the mouth of Richters Creek. In this area, gaps in the coastal vegetation may allow some light

spill to reach the beach / inshore area (Appendix J). Photomontages prepared for this area show that

while there will likely be some direct light visible from the beach, it is unlikely that there will be any

night-time glow. It is suggested that any direct light spill in this location could be screened by planting

additional casuarina trees, mitigating any potential impacts on nesting marine turtles (see Section

6.9). Figure 6-5 shows a detail of the mouth of Richters Creek from where some of the resort will be

visible.



Figure 6-5 Zone of visual influence - Richters Creek.


This work also included preparation of photomontages from a location on Yorkeys Knob Beach (refer

Figure 6-6). The modelling undertaken on site has shown that it is only at the mouth of Richters Creek

that there will be any direct light spill from the upper storeys of buildings, although there is also likely to

be some additional night-time ‘glow’. However it should be noted that even on a moonless night,

Yorkeys Knob Beach is not completely dark due to:

the southern end of Yorkeys Knob Beach has some light glow from Cairns CBD and the airport

the northern half of Yorkeys Knob Beach is within view of house lights on the inland hills

there are off-shore flashing lights of the harbour channel leads

there are planes landing and taking off on a regular basis, even late at night

the stinger enclosure has floodlights during summer periods.



Figure 6-6 PP05 Richters Ck mouth/beach – night view.


Further discussion is provided in Section 6.7.

6.4 MITIGATION OF NOISE EMISSIONS (ITEM 3 – PART)

6.4.1 Background


(3) Please provide further details regarding the commitments to implement best practice lighting and noise.

Issues associated with noise emissions are discussed below.

6.4.2 Discussion

The need for utilisation of best-practice noise mitigation measures is recognised in the EIS, from the

perspectives of both human nuisance and potential impacts on fauna. Regarding fauna, the EIS

(s7.3.9b)) notes that:

Impacts on marine fauna as a result of noise can be reduced where a marine fauna exclusion zone (nominally 500 m from the noise source) is established prior to the commencement of a noise-intensive activity (e.g. dredging). Impacts to marine fauna can be reduced if noise intensive activities are suspended when listed threatened species, such as marine turtles, are sighted within the exclusion zone, until 30 minutes of observations have passed until the last sighting.

Noise is likely to be mainly a construction issue (pile driving) and this requires management via the EMP (Construction).

It is recommended that further assessment of this issue take place in the context of the EMP (Planning) and in the design of the proposed Fauna Management Strategy. (p7-80)



As noted in the EIS, the Aquis site is currently subjected to considerable noise impacts arising from, in

particular, airport traffic, road traffic, and agricultural machinery. The main new activities likely to

produce noise are piling, earthworks, concrete batching and placement, and the construction of the

lake water exchange pipework.

Specific mitigation initiatives will involve:

‘soft-start’ piling

consideration of timing (i.e. to minimise noise emissions at times when specific fauna are likely

to be sensitive to noise)

other initiatives as developed during detailed design.

The Register of Proponent Commitments includes commitments to noise mitigation by design and

management.

6.4.3 Conclusions

Overall, the project covers a large site and so while there will be noise emissions from its construction

and operation, it is expected that these will be controllable due to the opportunity for reasonable buffer

distances through appropriate design layout and construction management. However if there are

multiple plant items in the area closest to Richters Creek mouth and the construction of pipework in

Richters Creek, there may be short periods when noise levels may be increased. Shorebirds can be

expected will naturally respond to noise and movement by avoiding the immediate area of disturbance

and/or moving to a safe distance if noise or movement occurs whilst birds are foraging near the

disturbance site. However unless the noise disturbance occurs during the migration period for

migratory shorebirds (September – April), these species will not be impacted.

The Register of Proponent Commitments includes commitments to noise mitigation by design and

management.

6.5 IMPACT OF LAKE FLOODING (ITEM 4)

6.5.1 Background


(4) The EIS states that flooding overflow will drop the lake salinity (undesirable) and the management response will be to reduce water level as soon as possible and raise the salinity by pumping seawater at an enhanced rate. However, the EIS does not address the fact that this will in-turn result in additional freshwater being pumped into the receiving waters and impacts this may have. Further information is required on the impacts of flooding on matters of national environmental significance (MNES).

6.5.2 Discussion

In response to this issue, additional work has been undertaken to model the response of the lake to a

Barron River flood. This is discussed in detail in Section 5.1.4. The findings of this work are best

demonstrated by Figure 6-7 (a duplicate of Figure 5-9) which shows 2D plan views of tracer

concentrations in four day increments. The results show that (referring to dates of the actual Barron

River flood hydrograph):

Flood water inundates the lake reaching peak concentrations 18 hours after the flood peak on

31st January.

Tracer concentrations in the lake peak at around 90%, showing the influence of flood water to

displace normal lake water.



The lake pumping rate commences when the lake level recedes below the to 50% AEP level

(i.e. approx. 2.0 m AHD) on 1 February and is sufficient to flush over three quarters of the lake

in its seven day period, leaving only the lake locations closest to the outlet with noticeable

floodwater concentrations.

Approximately 8 days to 10 days are ultimately required to flush the fresh Barron Delta

floodwaters out of the lake system to reduce tracer concentrations to negligible levels (bottom

right image below). This could be further reduced through optimisation with additional pumping,

circulation devices etc.

Figure 6-7 Richters Creek tracer predictions – 4 day interval.

In summary:

The influence of the lake discharge during a flood event is expected to have negligible influence

on the receiving environment of Richters Creek as essentially the flood waters are being

returned back to the creek normally. The off-shore water quality is largely unaffected from a

Barron River flood, particularly as the intake is located close the bed level in deep water (6.5 m

below lowest astronomical tide).

The tracer plots and the physico-chemical plots demonstrate the lake water quality is likely to be

better than that of Richters Creek through a Barron River flood. The off-shore discharge option

could commence within 10 to 14 days after a flood event, long before Richters Creek itself

recovers to its pre-flood condition.

Over three-quarters of the lake has a significantly reduced concentration of flood water (below

the e-folding limit) after a period of 8 days from when the lake water level/Richters Creek has

been reduced to below 2 m AHD.

The lake’s ability to flush is not affected by the further small creek flow events after the main

flood peak and that discharge to an off-shore region could occur within 10 to 14 days with

negligible impact on off-shore conditions.

It should be noted that in the absence of the development, fresh floodwaters inundate the site and flow

directly to Richters Creek, Yorkeys Creek, and Half Moon Creek. An analysis of the flood flow volumes



was undertaken to determine the quantum of the Barron River flow that discharge down Richters

Creek and through the lake. As noted in the EIS, the lake has a stored volume of 1.3 GL. Modelling

shows that for the 20% AEP event assessed in Section 5.1.4:

Approximately 2.3 GL of Richters Creek flood water passes over the lake at a peak rate of

approximately 100 m3/s. This flux represents approximately 1.8 x the lake’s volume. As

demonstrated in Figure 5-5 to Figure 5-7, the lake volumes is largely displaced by the

floodwaters, resulting in a tracer concentration from the flooding of about 90% (i.e. 90%

Richters Creek water and 10% lake water remaining) and salinity reducing from 35 ppt to 7 ppt.

The total volume of flood water diverted along Richters Creek is approximately 115 GL, with a

peak flow through Richters Creek at the mouth of approximately 930 m3/s. It should be

appreciated that the tidal prims at Richters Creek mouth are in the order of 0.2 GL to 0.6 GL per

tide cycle (refer to EIS) and hence are insignificant.

6.5.3 Conclusions

The effect of the lake under these circumstances is totally insignificant and if anything will (very

slightly) raise salinity of floodwaters due to mixing with the initially saline lake water. The new

modelling demonstrates that the lake stabilises and returns to within normal operating conditions 8 to

10 days after a flood, while the Richters Creek concentrations remain relatively high well after the lake

becomes well flushed.

6.6 CLIMATE AND FLOODING ISSUES (ITEM 5)

6.6.1 Background


(5) The Terms of Reference specify that the proponent should provide information on climate in regards to both long term averages and extreme values, including consideration of rainfall patterns and storm events. Chapter 3 of the draft EIS provides information on rainfall data for the area, including monthly averages, highs and lows. However, the number of years over which this data has been collected has not been provided, and a description of the area’s flood history and probability of future flood events has not been discussed. As run-off from storm events, other extreme rainfall or flood events may potentially impact MNES, further information relating to the probability of flood events (of varying levels) is required.

6.6.2 Discussion

a) Climate Statistics

Data provided in EIS s3.6 is described as having been derived from climate statistics from the Bureau

of Meteorology (BoM) station, Cairns Aero (Station 031011). It is noted that ‘This rainfall station … has

records from 1942 to the present. It has the most accumulated data and least amount of missing data

and is therefore the most reliable gauge in the area.’ As noted, the records commenced in 1942 and

therefore the number of years over which the data has been collected is 73 (missing records not

known).

The discussion on Climate Change in s3.6.6 is based on the best current advice that is that:

… annual rainfall is projected to decrease by two per cent (-25 mm) and three per cent (-38 mm) under low and high emissions scenarios respectively. The largest seasonal decrease under a high emissions scenario of 16 per cent (-21 mm) is projected for spring. (DERM 2009b). For Queensland in general it is predicted that there will be a stronger but shorter rainfall season during January and February thus resulting in drier autumns. It is generally anticipated that the number of rainy days will decrease but the amount of rain falling on wet days may increase by up to 20%. Extreme rainfall events are predicted to also become more frequent during the summer months (Office of Climate Change 2012). (p3-18)



b) Flood History and Future

The flood history was not stated in detail in the EIS (although two historic floods were referred to as

they were within reasonably recent living memory). However, the modelling described in EIS Chapter

9 uses CRC’s Barron Delta Flood Model which is based on industry-standard hydrologic and hydraulic

techniques. The frequency analysis of rainfall and floods included in the model was based on peer

reviewed consideration of all historic data and current best-practice. The flood model has been used

on over 50 separate development assessments to date, including for setting urban development levels

across the delta, for Cook Highway upgrades and for major tourist developments such as Skyrail. It

has standing in the Queensland’s P&E Court.

Current practice in flood prediction is to generate synthetic floods based on statistical techniques.

These were used in the EIS to generate floods with AEPs of 20%, 10%, 5%, and 1% (Figures 9-5 to 9-

9) as well as the Probable Maximum Flood. A velocity profile for the 1% AEP was also included.

c) Effect of Extreme Rainfall

Regarding the likely effect of extreme rainfall or flood events on MNES, it needs to be acknowledged

that the Aquis site at 343 ha represents just 0.16% of the area of the Barron River catchment. The

proportion of sediment and other nutrient loads is set out in Table 11-10 and this shows that the Aquis

export of pollutants is 0.15% of the Barron catchment. For the untreated condition (i.e. existing cane

farm), the figure is 0.25%. These figures apply to the whole Aquis site – when the Environmental

Management and Conservation precinct (113 ha) and much of the Sport & Recreation Facilities

Precinct (155 ha in total) are excluded on the basis that they are largely natural areas, the role of the

Aquis site in generating contaminants diminishes further. In any case, modelling shows that the effect

of WSUD is to reduce the contribution of the site to pollution compared with the cane farm. Under

flood conditions when the Barron River breaks its banks and floodwaters enter the site, the lake will

first fill and then surcharge, leaving the built form of the Hotel Complex well above the expected flood

levels (i.e. even above the PMF). At this time, most of the rest of the site and the adjacent Yorkeys

Knob area will be inundated by floodwaters and flow through the lake will join the general overland

flood flow and exit the site via the existing creek system. As the flood falls, the lake level will be

gradually lowered by the lake overflow system (until the level falls below their inverts) and by pumping

to the lake outlet. This is described in detail in Section 5.1.4.

Under these extreme conditions, the effect of any discharge from Aquis is totally insignificant. The

plume of the Barron River discharge under high flows is known to extend up to 1 km off-shore, totally

swamping any local effect on Matters of NES.

d) Probability of Future floods

Regarding the assessment of the probability of future floods, the AEP approach provides just this

assessment. Should climatic circumstances change in the future, then adjustments need to be made

to either the probability of events of a certain magnitude, or conversely, adjustment made to the

magnitude for a given probability. If future rainfall intensity is to increase, then floods of a certain AEP

will be bigger. Conversely, floods of a certain magnitude will be more common (i.e. numerically larger

AEP). These future circumstances are unknowable.

Given that these future circumstances will apply to the whole Barron River catchment (and the whole

GBR), the impact of the small Aquis catchment and lake will remain insignificant.

6.6.3 Conclusions

The presence of the Aquis Resort will have a totally insignificant effect on impacts on matters of NES

arising from Barron River flooding, now or in the future.



6.7 IMPACTS OF LIGHT ON AESTHETIC VALUES (ITEMS 6, 25, 27-30)

6.7.1 Background

The DoTE submission (212) includes a number to items relevant to this issue, namely:

(6) Further information is required on the potential impacts of artificial lighting on MNES, for example turtles, birds and visual impacts from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA), avoidance and mitigation measures.

(25) The EIS acknowledges numerous impacts of artificial light but concludes that light from the proposed development will not impact on any matters of national environmental significance.

(27) The EIS claims that the night time light of the Aquis resort will be perceived as part of the Cairns node of intensive development. There is significant distance between the proposed development and Cairns particularly relating to night time glow. Further justification is required relating to the perceived single node of intensive development.

(28) Further consideration needs to be given to how all lighting onsite will be managed to mitigate impacts to fauna (including turtles), and to minimise the night time glow from the resort as seen from onshore and off-shore sites.

(29) As discussed above, further justification is required regarding the impacts of light on the aesthetic values of the GBRWHA and fauna such as marine turtles.

(30) The EIS states that the development won't impose a visual change to the connectivity between GBRWHA and Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA) (this occurs further north). However, there will be a visual impact when looking from the WTWHA towards the GBRWHA. Further justification is required regarding visual impacts to GBRWHA and WTWHA.

This section discusses light emissions and impacts on the landscape values component of OUV.

Refer also to:

impact on terrestrial species (Section 6.8)

impact on aquatic species (Section 6.9).

6.7.2 Discussion

a) Visibility of the Proposed Development

Yorkeys Knob/Richters Creek Foreshore

ZVI modelling has been discussed in Section 6.3.3c). As shown on Figure 6-6, existing night-time

views from PP05 on Yorkeys Knob Beach are relatively dark (on a moonless night) with some glow

from the city of Cairns and the airport, although the ‘static’ photographs do not show the flashing lights

of off-shore channel markers nor the regular overhead lights of aircraft approaching or leaving the

nearby Cairns Airport. As shown on EIS Figure 6-11 (which is reproduced below), PP05 is a ‘worst

case’ viewpoint in that it is close to the mouth of Richters Creek, without much screening from the

dense foreshore band of casuarina trees along most of the Yorkeys Knob Beach, and out of sight of

house lights from the Yorkeys Knob hill. It is likely that PP05 is out of sight of any summer time lights

from the swimming enclosure on the Yorkeys Knob Beach.



Figure 6-8 View from Photo point 05 – Yorkeys Knob Beach.

Source: EIS Figure 6-11 – see also Appendix J (Figure 11).

Figure 6-9 (see Appendix J Figure 9) shows the 800 m wide buffer between the beach and closest

proposed resort building, and supports the day-time photomontage in the EIS Figure 6-11 above. The

upper level penthouse and roof of a proposed 60 m tall building will be just visible above or between

existing coastal vegetation. The night-time photomontage in Figure 6-6 is consistent with this,

showing just a ‘sliver’ of top floor lights visible. At night, the light from the penthouse level of proposed

Hotel B will be seen from Yorkeys Knob Beach and will be the only direct source of illumination apart

from the flashing channel markers off-shore, or the occasional plane. However, the upper level of

Hotel B is proposed as a IP area, with opportunities for reduced lighting when not in use, so visual

impacts can be mitigated through a combination of design and operational controls and screening by

supplementary planting (see Figure 6-9).



Figure 6-9 Typical cross section.


However, this modelling does not represent the night-time glow from a brightly-lit resort complex,

which is likely to be more apparent than the direct view of lights per se, although it will be seen in

context of the glow from Cairns CBD and the Airport.

b) Views from the Wet Tropics WHA

There is little night-time use of the WTWHA, and very few observers will have the opportunity to see

the Barron River floodplain from elevated viewpoints at night. Skyrail does not operate at night, and

the only observers will be an occasional motorist who stops at night at Henry Ross Lookout. Existing

night time views from the lookout over the coastal plain (Figure 6-10) are dominated by lights of the

highway and road networks, the airport, and clusters of urban settlements, including the city of Cairns

in the background, beyond the dark void of Mt Whitfield. At night, narrow strips of lighting in the

coastal settlements (Machans and Holloways Beaches, and Yorkeys Knob), define the edge between

land and water.



Figure 6-10 Night-time view from Henry Ross Lookout.


The lights of the proposed development will be seen in this context, similar in extent to the lights of

Yorkeys Knob, and reinforcing the pattern associated with coastal settlements and separated by a

dark void of rural land from the highway and Smithfield lights. However this photomontage does

include any additional street lighting which may be associated with an upgrade of Yorkeys Knob Road.

It is usual practice for only intersections to be lit and route lighting is minimal.

c) Views from the GBRWHA

In order to assess the visibility of the Aquis Resort at night from the GBRWHA, a photographic study

was undertaken on the night of 26 August where conditions were perfect (fine weather, little haze, no

moon). This involved a trip to and from Green Island and a number of observations over the period

5.30 pm to 9.30 pm.

Night-time views from the Green Island jetty towards the mainland are of a distant cluster of lights and

night-time glow associated with Cairns and the Airport (including red beacons on Mt Whitfield), and a

scattered linear pattern of lights from Machans Beach to the Half Moon Bay marina (Figure 6-11A,

zoomed in to focus on this section of coastline) with distant lights at Trinity Beach further to the north.

Houses on Yorkeys Knob hill are apparent at a slightly higher elevation than those of Machans Beach

and Holloways Beach suburbs, and a very bright set of two lights south of Yorkeys Knob is associated

with recreational facilities (Go Kart Track or Golf Driving Range) until about 9.30 pm each night.

However this ‘static’ snapshot of existing lights does not show flashing lights associated with markers

for the Green Island jetty and channel, and those of the Cairns Harbour channel in the distance; nor

does it show the lights of beach swimming enclosures which may be apparent in summer time, nor

those of cruise ships which anchor off Yorkeys Knob from time to time.



Figure 6-11 Night-time view from Green Island.


As shown on Figure 6-10A, there are few voids or expansive areas of darkness visible along the

coastline between Cairns and the Northern Beaches. The lights of the proposed development (Figure

6-10B) will be visible as part of other coastline lighting as seen from off-shore waters, and will not

create a significant new node of light in a previously dark section of coastline. Although this

photomontage does not represent the extent to which resort lights might create a night-time glow, the

design of lighting on the resort buildings will ensure the glow is not as great as that of the existing

recreational facilities near Yorkeys Knob. The extent of light of the proposed development potentially

visible from Green Island will not significantly increase the intensity of coastal lighting, nor alter the

aesthetic experience of the GBRWHA currently enjoyed by tourists.

On the night when the observations were made, no tourists were present on the jetty. However, it is

known that there is occasional use of the jetty for star gazing. The following image is extracted from

the Green Island website, which includes the caption:

Green Island’s distance from the big city lights makes it an excellent spot for some amateur astronomy. On a clear night the skies above Green Island are perfect for star gazing.



Figure 6-12 Stargazing promotional image.

Source: http://www.greenislandresort.com.au/star-gazing/ accessed 2 October 2014.

It is of interest that the attraction as promoted is framed by the bright lights of the Green Island resort

itself and not the darker view back to Cairns. The existence of Aquis will not affect the view as

promoted.

d) Impacts of Lighting on Night-time Views

The ZVI modelling described above indicates that:

1. No houses or roads will be within view of the Aquis resort buildings in either Machans or

Holloways Beach suburbs, nor from roads or houses on the ‘flat’ low-lying parts of Yorkeys

Knob, nor from boats or roads in the vicinity of the Half Moon Bay marina. Only the tree

canopies and roof tops show up as visible on the ZVI model (i.e., Aquis would only be visible

from on top of the canopy at those locations).

2. The nearby mainland beaches will be fully screened from view of the Aquis resort buildings,

except for a very limited section of the southern end of Yorkeys Knob beach (PP05) where there

is a gap in the existing vegetation. As seen from PP05, lights from the top floor (proposed VIP

level) are likely to be visible at a distance of approximately 800 m (to the closest hotel building),

but this will be no more intrusive than the Airport red beacons on Mt Whitfield, the flashing lights

on navigation channel markers off-shore, overhead planes, houses on the Yorkeys Knob hill,

and the summertime swimming enclosure at Yorkeys Knob. While the night-time glow from a

brightly lit resort is likely to be visible beyond the places affected by direct lines of sight to the

hotel lights, this will be similar to the existing night-time glow from Cairns and the Airport. For

the few people likely to use the isolated sections of these beaches at night (including those

fishing in the estuary), the presence of lights and night-time glow from the top floor of a resort

800 m away are unlikely to detract significantly from their experience which would be regularly

interrupted by aircraft movements.

http://www.greenislandresort.com.au/star-gazing/



3. As seen from off-shore at night, the hotel buildings will be visible over the tree tops of

beachfront vegetation as a node of brightly lit hotels, within a radius of approximately 25 km,

and the top floor of a 20 storey / 60 m building may be visible from up to 27 km away at Green

Island (Figure 6-3). However, the section of coastline between Cairns and Trinity Beach is not

currently dark at night, and a node of visible lights associated with the resort will not detract

from any dark patches within the discontinuous string of constant lights (Cairns City, Airport and

the Northern Beaches suburbs), flashing lights (channel navigation markers and Airport

beacons), and other lights (recreational facilities, swimmer enclosures and regular aircraft

movements). The proposed resort lights will be consistent with the existing pattern of coastline

lights. Although the buildings will be higher (with lights up to 60 m above ground) they will set

back more than 800 m behind the beach and will be designed and operated to minimise glare

and light spillage. Tourist cruise ships anchored off-shore from time to time are of similar scale

to the resort buildings (Figure 6-13) and will not be screened by vegetation.

4. Near the Richters Creek mouth (PP05) where the tops of some buildings will be visible, existing

trees in a wide band behind the beach will provide some screening of the bottom two-thirds of

the closest building (Figure 6-9). Additional planting is suggested as described in Section 6.10.

Figure 6-13 Proposed development size comparison with cruise ships.


6.7.3 Conclusions

It is concluded that, although the lights from the Aquis Resort will be visible from many viewpoints

including the two world heritage areas, the section of coastline between Cairns and Trinity Beach is

not currently dark at night, and a node of visible lights associated with the resort will not detract

significantly from World Heritage values.

The Yorkeys Knob Beach will remain essentially dark and marine megafauna are most unlikely to be

visible. In fact, any additional lighting would make this more likely, not less. See also Section 6.9.



6.8 IMPACTS OF LIGHT ON TERRESTRIAL SPECIES (ITEM 6 – PART AND 25

– PART)

6.8.1 Background

The DoTE submission (212) covers two items relevant of impact of light on terrestrial species, namely:



This section discusses impacts on terrestrial species. Refer also to:

light spill (Section 6.3)

impacts on turtles (Section 6.9).

6.8.2 Discussion

a) Potential Impacts of Artificial Lighting

Information regarding the potential impacts of lighting is provided in the EIS (p7-73 and p22-66). The

EIS concludes that (with respect to terrestrial fauna):

Although some buildings will be visible from near-shore areas, at the closest point the highest

buildings will be approximately 740 m away, meaning that the light will be diffused. However,

gaps in coastal vegetation will most likely allow some light spill to reach the beach / inshore

area.

Artificial light sources are likely to have differential effects on wildlife depending on a range of

factors including the foraging strategy employed by each nocturnal species, and the effect of

artificial light on this strategy, including secondary effects of artificial light on the prey items of

active hunters, and changes in food consumption and foraging behaviours, as well as alteration

to reproduction and communication (see Gaston et al. 2013). While slower flying, insectivorous

microbat species are known to avoid artificially lit areas (Stone et al. 2012), there are also

beneficial impacts to faster-flying insectivorous microbat species that can exploit insects

attracted to artificial light sources. Behavioural changes associated with illumination in small

mammals may include avoidance of well-lit areas as an anti-predator response, because of the

perceived risk of predation increases with increasing light.

Artificial lighting may impact on birds by disrupting nesting patterns, disrupting roost sites and

changed timing of dawn calling. Birds have been known to be disoriented by lighting. They may

become ‘trapped’ and be unable to leave a lit area (see Gaston et al. 2013). Conversely, the

impacts of lighting on shorebirds foraging at night can be positive as they may increase foraging

activity and success due to increased invertebrate activity and visibility.

Further information is on specific matters of NES is provided below.

b) Potential Specific Impacts on Matters of NES (Terrestrial Species)

Confirmed listed threatened species

Pteropus conspicillatus (Spectacled flying-fox) (V) is the only MNES fauna species that has been

confirmed on the site. This species has been recorded foraging on but not roosting at the site. The

small potential increase in light as a result of the development is highly unlikely to have any impact on

this species. Pteropus conspicillatus regularly use urban areas with intense artificial lighting, including

the Cairns CBD area where a large colony roosts and forages. This suggests that artificial lighting

does not deter the use of an area by this species.



Listed threatened species with potential to occur on-site

As for the EIS, the balance of this report incorporates the following terminology:

Confirmed: The species has been definitively recorded using one or more of the survey

techniques described.

Likely: The species is known to occur within the project area and/or there is core habitat in the

project area.

Unlikely: The species is considered to have a low likelihood of occurring in the project area, or

occurrence is infrequent and transient. There may be habitat for the species; however, it is

marginal or not considered core habitat. Existing database records are considered historic,

invalid or based on predictive habitat modelling. Despite a low likelihood based on the above

criteria, the species is known from the wider region and could potentially occur.

Table 6-5 sets out criteria used to assess the likelihood of occurrence of species.

LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE

DEFINITION FURTHER ASSESSMENT REQUIRED?

Low The species is considered to have a low likelihood of occurring in the study area, or occurrence is infrequent and transient. Existing database records are considered historic, invalid or based on predictive habitat modelling. The habitat does not exist for the species or the species is considered locally extinct. Despite a low likelihood based on the above criteria, the species cannot be totally ruled out of occurring within the study area.

No

Moderate There is habitat for the species; however, it is either marginal or not particularly abundant. The species is known from the wider region and could potentially occur in the study area.

Yes

High The species is known to occur within the study area and there is core habitat in the study area.

Yes

Source: EIS (Table 22-7).

Potential terrestrial species are as follows.

Erythrotriorchis radiatus (Red goshawk) (V) is a listed bird that may overfly the site. The species

is unlikely to be impacted by artificial lighting as this species is diurnal, therefore the impact on

their foraging regime will be negligible. There are no nests recorded on site so it seems highly

unlikely there would be any impact on breeding activities.

Dasyurus hallucatus (Northern Quoll) (E) and Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus (Bare-

rumped sheathtail bat) (CE) are listed species that have the potential to occur on site. These

are both nocturnal species. The potential impact of artificial lighting on nocturnal species

depends on the foraging strategy employed by the species, and the effect of artificial light on

this strategy, including secondary effects of artificial light on the prey items of active hunters,

and changes in food consumption (Rydell and Baagoe 1996, Gaston et al. 2013).



- The vegetation within the project area that could be utilised by Dasyurus hallucatus

(Eucalyptus / Melaleuca woodland) is likely to receive additional light as a result of the

proposed development. This species occasionally occurs around human dwellings and

campgrounds (DoTE 2014a), suggesting that artificial light is not a repellent to the

species. The additional illumination may reduce presence and activity of prey species

(such as some invertebrates and reptiles) and thereby potentially impact on foraging

success. However they are an opportunistic predator and scavenger (Curtis et al. 2012)

and will be able to continue to use food sources that will be unaffected by the artificial

light such as fruit in addition to invertebrates, mammals, reptiles and birds. Light

emissions are likely to attenuate within a short distance into the woodland and there is

limited habitat on site that can support foraging of this species (approximately 13 ha). The

impact of artificial light on any Dasyurus hallucatus that may utilise the site as a small part

of their range (approximately 35 ha for both sexes) (Curtis et al. 2012) is likely to be

insignificant.

- Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus forages in the open air above the forest canopy.

It has long narrow wings and a rapid, straight flight although it is also known to be

reasonably manoeuvrable in flight (Curtis et al. 2012). The vegetation within the project

area that could be utilised by this species (Eucalyptus / Melaleuca woodland) is likely to

receive additional light as a result of the proposed development, although the light is

likely to attenuate within a short distance into the woodland. Increased light may attract

insects which are a food source for this species; however Australian studies have shown

that different bat species react differently to artificial lighting (Scanlon & Petit 2008) with

some species advantaged by such lighting. Due to the relative rarity of S. saccolaimus,

research on the effect of artificial light on this species has not been undertaken. However,

the presence of S. saccolaimus has been confirmed immediately next to the Bruce

Highway south of Townsville, suggesting some resilience and ability within this species in

living and foraging safely, adjacent to a high level of artificial lighting (DTMR 2013).

Migratory Species

The site is known to provide habitat for five widespread terrestrial migratory birds, another is likely to

overfly the site, and one additional species seems unlikely to utilise the site (refer Table 6-6). The

effects of project lighting on these birds are difficult to quantify and may be species-specific. While a

study undertaken by Poot et al. (2008) describes the influence of lighting on nocturnal migrating

species, none of the species likely to occur on the site are nocturnal, hence there is unlikely to be any

impact on these species as a result of increased lighting.

Two aerial foraging migratory species (Apus pacificus (Fork-tailed swift)) and Hirundapus caudacutus

(White-throated needle tail)) regularly occur over highly impacted landscapes and will not be impacted

by an increase in light as a result of the Aquis development.

The remainder are wetland birds of which ten are confirmed, 12 are likely to occur, two may overfly

site, and four are unlikely to occur.



SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS GROWTH FORM SITE OCCURRENCE

Actitis hypoleucos Common sandpiper MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur

Apus pacificus Fork-tailed swift MMB Aerial bird Confirmed

Ardea ibis Cattle egret MWS Wetland bird Confirmed

Ardea modesta (syn. Ardea alba)

Great egret / White egret MWS Wetland bird Confirmed

Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone MWS Wetland bird Unlikely

Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed sandpiper MWS, SIG Wetland bird Confirmed

Calidris alba Sanderling MWS Wetland bird May overfly site

Calidris canutus Red knot / Knot MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur

Calidris ferruginea Curlew sandpiper MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur

Calidris ruficollis Red-necked stint MWS, SIG Wetland bird Confirmed

Calidris tenuirostris Great knot MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur

Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded plover MWS Wetland bird Unlikely

Charadrius leschenaultii Greater sand plover / Large sand plover

MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur

Charadrius mongolus Lesser sand plover / Mongolian plover


Charadrius veredus Oriental dotterel MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur

Crocodylus porosus Estuarine crocodile MMS Marine reptile Confirmed

Egretta sacra Eastern Reef Egret MMB Marine bird Confirmed

Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s snipe / Japanese snipe

MWS, SIG Wetland bird Confirmed

Haliaeetus leucogaster White-bellied sea-eagle MTS Terrestrial bird Confirmed

Hirundapus caudacutus White-throated needle tail

MTS Aerial bird Confirmed




Hirundo rustica Barn swallow MTS Terrestrial bird May overfly site

Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed sandpiper MWS Wetland bird Unlikely

Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed godwit MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur

Limosa limosa Black-tailed godwit MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur

Merops ornatus Rainbow bee-eater MTS Terrestrial bird Confirmed

Monarcha melanopsis Black-faced monarch MTS Terrestrial bird Confirmed

Monarcha trivirgatus (syn Symposiarchus trivirgatus)

Spectacled monarch MTS Terrestrial bird Confirmed

Myiagra cyanoleuca Satin flycatcher MTS Terrestrial bird Confirmed

Numenius madagascariensis

Eastern Curlew MWS, SIG Wetland Bird Confirmed

Numenius minutus Little curlew / Little whimbrel


Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel MWS, SIG Wetland bird Confirmed

Pandion cristatus (syn Pandion haliaetus)

Eastern Osprey

PMST result: Other: Marine Species (breeding),

Listed in online EPBC Migratory Species and Marine Species

Marine bird Confirmed

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis

Listed in online EPBC Migratory Species and Marine Species

Wetland bird Confirmed

Pluvialis squatarola Grey plover MWS Wetland bird May overfly site

Rhipidura rufifrons Rufous fantail MTS Terrestrial bird Unlikely




Rostratula australis (syn. Rostratula benghalensis (sensu lato))

Painted Snipe E, MWS Wetland bird Unlikely

Sterna albifrons sinensis Little Tern MMB Marine bird Likely to occur

Tringa brevipes (syn. Heteroscelus brevipes)

Grey-tailed tattler MWS, SIG Wetland bird Confirmed

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank

Listed in online EPBC Migratory species and Marine Species,

SIG

Wetland bird Confirmed

Tringa stagnatilis Marsh sandpiper / Little greenshank


Xenus cinereus Terek sandpiper MWS Wetland bird Likely to occur

Abbreviations: MMB – Migratory Marine Birds, MMS – Migratory Marine Species, MTS – Migratory Terrestrial Species, MWS –

Migratory Wetlands Species, SIG – listed in Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species (DEWHA 2009)

A number of migratory species that were not considered in detail with regards to impacts from

increased lighting before are listed in Table 6-7 and impacts assessed.

SPECIES COMMON NAME ACTIVITY MODALITY POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM INCREASED LIGHTING


Great egret / White egret

Diurnal species The species is diurnal and would not be affected by light.

Egretta sacra Eastern Reef Egret

Forages diurnally and nocturnally.

The species is mostly diurnal, although it may occasionally forage at night.

Gallinago hardwickii Latham’s snipe / Japanese snipe

Active at dusk and dawn The species is not active during night hours.

Pandion cristatus Eastern Osprey Mostly a diurnal species

The species is mostly diurnal although it may occasionally forage at night. Light may assist in finding and capturing prey which are mostly fish.



SPECIES COMMON NAME ACTIVITY MODALITY POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM INCREASED LIGHTING

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis Diurnal species The species is diurnal and would not be affected by light.

Tringa brevipes (syn Heteroscelus brevipes)

Grey-tailed Tattler


Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank


Migratory shorebird habitat is already limited on the site and will be further reduced by the removal of

the aquaculture ponds as currently proposed. Shorebird habitat will be restricted largely to the mouth

of Richters Creek. The site is at best only likely to be used temporarily by most species during

migration as there is more suitable habitat such as the Cairns foreshore within 10 km of the Aquis site.

The Cairns foreshore is a well-known area for migratory shorebirds and has been designated as an

internationally important site for some species of migratory bird (Bamford et al. 2008). It has been

noted (Rojas et al. 1999) that some shorebird species employ visual foraging diurnally but use tactile

foraging during hours of darkness. Artificial light may extend nocturnal visual foraging for longer

periods, although the extent and effect of this is unknown. The Cairns foreshore is directly adjacent to

Cairns CBD with significant associated levels of artificial light. This level of light does not appear to

affect the significant number of migratory species that continue to utilise this site. Given the reduction

in minor habitat available for migratory shorebird / wetland species, and that the actual disruptive

influence of artificial light on these species remains somewhat conjectural, the impact of lighting on

these species is expected to be negligible.

c) Mitigation

Best-practice lighting methods will be used on-site to minimise the amount of light spill from the site.

These methods are outlined in Section 6.3.2. This may be further augmented by choices to the type

of lighting used at the Aquis site. In a UK study, Stone et al. (2012) reported that LED street lights

caused a reduction in activity of slow-flying bats in light levels as low as 3.6 LUX, but found no similar

effect on the relatively fast-flying species. Despite their low-emission qualities, LED lights may

fragment commuting routes for bats with negative outcomes for some species. Studies show that

there are significant differences in the nature and intensity of effects on wildlife from the use of

different artificial lighting types (see Gaston et al. 2013). Such factors need further investigation.

The project design incorporates a vegetation regeneration program surrounding the site which in the

long-term can be expected to provide additional screening from project lighting for the extant

Eucalyptus / Melaleuca habitat for Dasyurus hallucatus and Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus in

the unlikely event that they appear on the site.

6.8.3 Conclusions

Overall, the expected project impacts to migratory birds and threatened species is considered neutral.

The site’s current contribution to OUV under the GBRWHA under Criterion (x) – Habitats for

conservation of biodiversity (formerly Criterion (iv)) is minor at best.



6.9 IMPACTS OF LIGHT ON TURTLES (ITEMS 6, 25, 26, AND 29 – PART)

6.9.1 Background

The DoTE submission (212) covers several items relevant to impact of light on aquatic species,

namely:



(26) The EIS lists mitigation measures that will reduce the impact of light on turtles; however, there is no evidence provided to support that this is the case. Evidence is required to justify these statements.

(29) As discussed above, further justification is required regarding the impacts of light on the aesthetic values of the GBRWHA and fauna such as marine turtles.

The issues raised under these items with respect to turtles are related and are responded to below in

an integrated manner. This section discusses impacts on aquatic species. Refer also to:

light spill (Section 6.3)

impacts of light on terrestrial species (Section 6.8).

6.9.2 Discussion

a) Light spill

Details of predicted light spill have been provided in Section 6.3. This information is relied on in the

following discussion.

b) Potential Impacts of Artificial Light on Marine Turtles

Marine turtles require sandy beaches to nest, and indirect impacts to marine turtles can arise from

lights generated by coastal developments. The life stages most at risk from impacts from light include

nesting adult turtles and hatchlings. Marine turtles are predominantly nocturnal nesters; artificial

lighting near nesting beaches can disrupt visual cues and alter behaviour in reproductively active

females. This includes:

potentially deterring females from nesting (Salmon 2003)

reducing nesting productivity when compared to turtles nesting on unlit beaches (Pike 2008)

a tendency for adult females to nest in darker, shaded areas of the beach (Salmon 2003)

selection of alternative nesting beaches, which may provide less suitable nesting habitat resulting in reduced nesting success (Salmon 2003).

Hatchlings also emerge from nests at night. Studies have shown that post-emergence, sea-finding in

marine turtles is directed by several cues, and can be affected by the presence of artificial lighting on

beaches (Salmon 2003, Tuxbury and Salmon 2005, Verheijn 1985, Witherington and Martin 1996).

Turtle hatchlings appear to integrate light over a broad area and crawl away from a tall dark horizon

(dunes) and towards a lower and lighter seaward horizon (Limpus 1971, Mrosovsky and Carr 1967,

Salmon et al. 1992, Tuxbury and Salmon 2005, Van Rhijn and Van Gorkom 1983, Witherington 1992).

Artificial lights from coastal developments can impact hatchling sea-finding behaviour in two ways:

disorientation, where hatchlings crawl on circuitous paths or

misorientation, where they move landward, possibly attracted to artificial lights (Witherington

and Martin 1996).



Delayed arrival at the water due to disorientation or misorientation increases their exposure to

predation (Salmon 2005, Salmon and Witherington 1995).

Field studies of flatback turtle hatchlings on Barrow Island (Western Australia) have shown that

hatchlings respond primarily to light stimuli at eye level (Pendoley Environmental 2007, cited in

Chevron Australia 2014). When the light source was elevated to 12° behind a tall dune, the hatchlings

ignored the light cues and responded by moving away from the tall dark horizon created by the dune

towards the ocean (Pendoley Environmental 2007, cited in Chevron Australia 2014). They also

showed that when relative differences in light intensity are low, hatchlings did not show significant

orientation to these light cues (Pendoley 1997, cited in Chevron Australia 2014). Further studies

investigating the effects of different light wavelengths on flatback turtle and loggerhead turtle

hatchlings found that they select and orient towards short wavelengths over long wavelengths

(Pendoley 2005, and Pendoley Environmental 2008 cited in Chevron Australia 2014, Witherington

1992).

c) Likely Impacts of Artificial Lighting from the Aquis Resort on Marine Turtles

The coastal area in the vicinity of the Aquis Resort comprises two extended sandy beaches at Yorkeys

Knob and Holloways Beach, which are separated by the mouth of Richters Creek (which is lined with

mangroves and does not provide suitable nesting habitat for marine turtles). The EIS (Chapter 22)

documents a detailed desktop assessment of the likelihood of marine turtles occurring within 5 km of

Aquis Resort. This assessment found that in the context of the greater region, marine turtles are likely

to have a limited dependency on the inshore and near shore habitats adjacent to the proposed Aquis

site. Yorkeys Knob and Holloways beaches are not key nesting areas for any species of marine turtle,

and there are currently no definitive records of turtles nesting on these beaches, although marine

turtles may nest on these beaches in low densities (Bunce 2013 pers. comm., Trenerry 2013 pers.

comm.). Aquis has committed to surveys scheduled for the 2014 / 2015 nesting season to determine

whether these beaches are used as a nesting area by marine turtles (see Section 6.12.3 and the

Register of Proponent Commitments).

Given the abundance of artificial light in the Cairns area (including light from the adjacent beach-side

suburbs of Yorkeys Knob and Holloways Beach), the actual disruptive influence of artificial light on

marine turtles in the local area is conjectural. As noted in Section 6.3, the beaches of Yorkeys Knob

and Holloways Beach are currently not completely dark, even on a moonless night, because:

the southern end of the Yorkeys Knob Beach has some light glow from Cairns CBD and the

airport (and the northern half of Yorkeys Knob beach is within view of house lights on the hill)

there are off-shore flashing lights of the harbour channel leads

there are planes [displaying navigation lights] landing on a regular basis, even late at night

the stinger enclosure during summer has floodlights.

6.9.3 Conclusions

The risk of impact on nesting marine turtles and turtle hatchlings due to changes to the current light

climate is considered low, because:

a limited number of marine turtles are likely to utilise Yorkeys Knob Beach and Holloways

Beach for nesting

the light shed modelling undertaken for this report indicates that lights from the Aquis Resort

would not be seen along the vast majority of beach in the vicinity of the development

Yorkeys Knob Beach and Holloways Beach are currently subject to light impacts from other

sources (including residential lights and the floodlights at the stinger enclosure at Yorkeys

Beach, which operate during the turtle nesting season).



It is possible that reproductively active female turtles sighting the Aquis Resort lights from off-shore

could be deterred from nesting on Yorkeys or Holloways Beaches. However, it is considered more

likely that any avoidance behaviour would be associated with the current sources of lighting, which are

lower on the horizon. Hatchlings are also unlikely to be affected by lighting from the Aquis Resort as

they would be unable to see any sources of light from the Aquis Resort along most of Yorkeys Knob

Beach or Holloways Beach. Where lights may be visible at Richters Creek mouth, the relative

differences in natural and artificial light intensity have been shown to be low, and are thus unlikely to

disorientate hatchlings.

6.10 SCREENING VEGETATION (ITEM 7 AND 32)

6.10.1 Background

The DoTE submission includes two items relevant to the use of screening vegetation, namely:

(7) Please provide additional information on the proposed vegetated screen including the type of vegetation to be used, the management of the vegetated screen and the likely effectiveness of the vegetated screen for this project.

(32) As discussed above, further information is required on the adequacy of vegetation screens. For example, where vegetation has been used to successfully screen similar developments from light impacts to aesthetics of an undeveloped area.

6.10.2 Discussion

Figure 6-14 below shows a LiDAR map of vegetation heights in the vicinity of the development as

discussed in Section 6.3.3, while Figure 6-9 shows a typical cross section through the area of

interest.

Figure 6-14 Vegetation heights.




These figures reveal that, near the Richters Creek mouth (PP05) where the tops of some buildings will

be visible, existing trees in a wide band behind the beach will provide some screening of the bottom

two-thirds of the closest building (Figure 6-9). Additional planting of Casuarina spp. along the frontal

dunes within 60 – 120 m of the high water mark would be capable of filling in any sightline gaps within

about 10 years of planting (when the trees reach about 15 m height). Taller growing trees (such as

Norfolk Island Pines or Hoop Pines) will be planted on the eastern boundary of the golf course, and

these could reach 30 – 40 m at maturity (over approximately 20 – 30 years) at which stage they would

provide additional screening of the buildings. Planting on the subject land will be part of a 30 year

plan. It is also recommended that planting be undertaken on and behind the dunes, as part of

revegetation works in collaboration with Council and/or local Landcare groups so as ensure that the

vegetated screen is permanent.

Such plantings are practical and effective as evidenced by many examples in the region. The Aquis

team includes specialists with the necessary skills and experience to ensure that these will be

sustainable. Such plantings will be incorporated into the restoration strategy described in the Register

of Proponent Commitments.

6.10.3 Conclusions

This assessment confirms that with some strategic plantings of appropriate trees, natural vegetation

will be capable of filling in any sightline gaps within about 10 years of planting (when the trees reach

about 15 m height).

Such plantings are considered to be practical and will be incorporated into the restoration strategy

described in the Register of Proponent Commitments.

6.11 ON-SITE WATERBODIES (ITEM 8)

6.11.1 Background


(8) It is important to note that the aquaculture ponds and artificial drainage networks currently on site provide habitat for fauna including MNES. Although they are not considered to be natural, they still provide habitat that will be removed by the Aquis development. Further information is required as to how the impacts of removing this habitat will be fully considered and mitigated.

6.11.2 Discussion

a) Waterbodies On-site

The EIS notes that the site contains minor water resource features consisting of four different types:

Type 1: the abandoned aquaculture ponds on Lot 1 RP800898

Type 2: natural freshwater ponds in the melaleuca wetlands on Lot 100 NR3818

Type 3: small man-made dams, principally on Lot 100 NR3818

Type 4: agricultural drains constructed for stormwater drainage purposes throughout the farm.

A representative photo of each of these is included below. See Figure 6-15 for locational details.



Photo 6-1 Largest of the disused aquaculture ponds on

Lot 1 RP800898 (July 2013).

Source: EIS Appendix G (Plate 10).

Photo 6-2 Residual freshwater pond on north-east

corner of Lot 100 NR3818 (July 2013).

Source: EIS Appendix G (Plate 4).

Photo 6-3 Man-made dam on Lot 100 NR3818 (July

2013).

Source: EIS Appendix F (p76 – Site 7a).

Photo 6-4 Cane drainage waterway on Lot 100

NR3818 (July 2013).

Source: EIS Appendix F (p76 – Site 7).



Figure 6-15 Land use plan showing aquaculture ponds and other waterbodies.



b) Type 1: Aquaculture Ponds

Details

Table 6-8 provides details of the five abandoned aquaculture ponds on Lot 1 RP800898.

LOCATION AREA (HA)

Pond 1 (adjacent to Richters Ck/Intensive Study Site 5) 0.35





TOTAL 5.59

Values

A number of the waterbirds recorded in the EIS at the aquaculture ponds are listed under both the

Nature Conservation Act 1992 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999, and/or are protected under conventions to which the Commonwealth is a signatory (e.g.,

JAMBA and the Bonn Convention). These species are listed below in Table 6-9.

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC ACT EPBC ACT

FORM SITE OCCURRENCE

Ardea ibis Cattle egret S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed

Ardea modesta (syn Ardea alba)


S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed

Calidris ruficollis Red-necked stint S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed

Egretta sacra Eastern reef egret S MMB Marine bird Confirmed

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater S - Wetland bird Confirmed

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy ibis S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed


Grey-tailed tattler S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed



SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC ACT EPBC ACT


Tringa nebularia Common greenshank S SIG Marine bird Confirmed

Abbreviations: MMB – Migratory Marine Birds, MMS – Migratory Marine Species, MTS – Migratory Terrestrial Species,

MWS – Migratory Wetlands Species, SIG – listed in Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird

species (DEWHA 2009).

The terrestrial biodiversity component of the EIS included dedicated survey of the freshwater

aquaculture ponds on the Aquis site, particularly for avifauna and amphibians. The total number of all

bird species recorded within the aquaculture ponds environment up to July 2014 is 52. The following

details are relevant.

During dry season surveys in July / August 2013, water levels within the ponds were low and

there were large numbers of waterbirds present in response to the optimal foraging conditions

at substrate level, and the sparse vegetation on the bank margins. Diversity and abundance

were high and for many species there was a range of age classes present. The July / August

dry season survey of 2013 recorded 27 bird species at the aquaculture ponds. At the time of an

additional dry season survey in October 2013, water levels were around 30% lower than the

preceding July. This significantly increased habitat availability and bird numbers had increased

to 40 species.

The wet season survey of March 2014 demonstrated the effect of increased water depth on

reducing diversity and abundance. Water depth had increased by as much as 2.5 m in some

ponds, and the steepness of the banks provided little suitable habitat at the margin of the

ponds. The margins were dominated by dense stands of Persicaria orientalis that provided few

foraging opportunities (Note: An incidental visit to the site in January 2014 showed water levels

had reached a high level by that time.) As a result, the total number of bird species present

declined to 34, with only three of those species being associated with wetland habitats, and the

remaining 31 being terrestrial birds that were either over-flying the water or foraging within the

vegetation surrounding and adjacent to the ponds.

Rainfall between March and August 2014 was sufficiently high to maintain elevated water levels

within the ponds. The pond margins were clear of tall vegetation, but the August 2014

monitoring survey showed that the resulting habitat supported only 20 faunal species. When

water levels are high and pond edges are steeply-sloping the diversity and abundance of birds

is much reduced. In the 2014 year, water levels between January and August remained

sufficiently high to keep bird numbers low throughout this period. Survey effort late in August

2014 (Northcote pers. comm. 28.08.2014) revealed further increases in both diversity and

abundance, associated with a rapid decline in water levels with the onset of dry conditions in

August.

These four surveys have shown that there is a degree of seasonal variation in waterbird utilisation of

the existing ponds. There is an optimal water depth which attracts large numbers of species, and

dense flocks of a sub-set of these species. This water depth appears to vary between 150 mm and

1500 mm. The timing of this depth is dependent on seasonal rainfall, but it appears likely to persist for

three months between August and October.

Data from the four surveys suggests that the ponds are providing an important local habitat resource

during the annual dry season. The diversity and abundance of species present is high, as in similar

habitats close by (e.g. Cattana Wetlands) during some periods of the year. In addition to the variety of

water depths present, the Aquis ponds also display habitat heterogeneity. The main pond contains a

variety of wetland plants including relatively dense stands of Typha orientalis and a dense community

of reeds and sedges which develops seasonally along the southern and northern margins of the pond.

Shallower ponds contain large stands of T. orientalis which supported flocks of Anseranas

semipalmata in August 2014. Other ponds are ringed by woody vegetation including mangroves, and

terrestrial birds are more commonly encountered within this vegetation.



The diversity of water depths and the variety of different habitats across the pond network are the key

reasons for the attractiveness of the ponds on the Aquis site during the peak seasonal use period, as

was suggested in the Aquis EIS.

Adverse Impacts of Development

The key impact associated with draining and filling the aquaculture ponds as proposed in the EIS will

be the loss of habitat. As noted, the existing ponds display a variety of water depths and there is a

variety of vegetation associated with the different ponds. This habitat is especially favoured as a dry

season refuge when there are fewer other freshwater bodies available. However, all other freshwater

resources on site (other than farm drains) will be retained as part of the development as described in

the following sections.

The loss of this pond habitat would only affect those species which are dependent on freshwater

habitats.

Beneficial Impacts of Development (Birdstrike)

As noted in the EIS, Cairns Airport has a very high level of bird-strike incidents, and this was the main

drawback associated with the ecological values of the existing ponds. The ponds provide habitat for

many birds, some of which are flocking species, and the position of the lakes in relation to the northern

airport approach path increases the likelihood of collisions. Filling the ponds would alleviate this issue.

In addition, other species such as Milvus migrans often forms flocks of 20-30 birds during cane

harvesting events when small mammal prey is abundant. The conversion of the existing land-use

away from sugar cane production will significantly alleviate the potential for strikes caused by this

species.

Unfortunately there are no records available which provide precise locations of bird-strike at Cairns

Airport, so there are no indications of the actual strike numbers that may be positively attributed to the

Aquis ponds. In the absence of reliable data, a precautionary approach was adopted in the EIS and

filling of the existing ponds was canvassed. See the more detailed discussion of this issue in Section

7.5.

Beneficial Impacts of Development (Other)

Other reasons for draining and filling the ponds are protection of lake water quality and reduction in

the risk of river migration. These matters are expanded upon in Section 7.5.

c) Types 2 and 3: Other Freshwater Resources (On-Site)

Details

Other freshwater resources on the Aquis site (other than farm drains) are detailed in Table 6-10

below. All of these resources will remain as part of the development. These resources will be available

for fauna displaced by the loss of the aquaculture ponds. See Photo 6-2 and Photo 6-3 in Section

6.11.2a).

Sites described as ‘Intensive Study Sites’ above are shown on Figure 6-16 below.



FRESHWATER RESOURCE TYPE

LOCATION AREA

Ephemeral Freshwater Pond NE boundary of Lot 100 NR3818; adjacent E to Intensive Study Site 3 165 m2



Artificial Water Storage Lot 100 NR3818; next to track to Richters Ck mouth/beach; west of/near Intensive Study Site 4

0.19 ha

Clay Pan Lot 60 RP835486; Dunne Rd; adjacent to Half Moon Ck Estuary 3.42 ha

Clay Pan Lot 60 RP835486; Dunne Rd; adjacent to Half Moon Ck Estuary 3.67 ha

Clay Pan/Seasonal Swamp/Wetland

Lot 100 NR3818; adjacent to Yorkeys Ck Estuary; between Intensive Study Site 2 & 3

1.95 ha

TOTAL 9.26 ha

Figure 6-16 Intensive study sites referred to above.

Source: EIS Appendix G (Terrestrial Biodiversity) Map 1.



Values

Within the stands of Melaleuca on the north-eastern side of Lot 100 NR3818, a number of small

freshwater pools persist in deeper swales during the dry season, following the more widespread

inundation of the wet season. With the exception of the aquaculture ponds, these were the only

sources of freshwater found in the project area during ground survey in July 2013.

Observations revealed that these are high value areas at that time of the year, being visited by a large

number of woodland birds. In the wet season these Melaleuca-dominated forests form a continuous

chain of freshwater pools flanked by woodlands on raised, relict dunes and anthropogenic grasslands.

The pools surveyed were physically similar (relatively small, shallow, with a sandy substrate and high

detritus load), although floral and faunal communities differed significantly. Various aquatic plants

augmented fallen brush and root mats to provide habitat complexity. A number of pools supported

abundant invertebrate life together with native rainbowfish and gudgeons.

Each farm dam supports a variety of aquatic plants. The dam on Lot 100 supports both native and

exotic fishes. Waterfowl were abundant at each site.

Impacts of Development

With the exception of the ‘artificial water storage’ (next to the track to Richters Creek mouth / beach),

all on-site freshwater resources/habitats are proposed to be retained.

d) Type 4: Farm Drains

Description

Various channels constructed to drain stormwater from the cane fields cross all lots (see Photo 6-4) in

Section 6.11.2a). These are typically 2–3 m wide and 1 m deep. Due to the low-lying nature of the site

and its proximity to the coast, these drains are often brackish to saline and this is reflected in their

floral and faunal assemblages.

Most of the drains have been extensively colonised by marine plants and freshwater plants that are

relevantly tolerant of brackish waters

Values

Although these drains are artificial features, they provide some habitat value for aquatic and terrestrial

species. Water quality typically reflects distance from the (tidal) outfall and recent rainfall. Abundant

algal mats result in a daily cycle of hyperoxia and hypoxia. Estuarine flora colonises drains (in

patches) between clearing events. Crabs are common in sections subject to brackish waters. Fish of

various species are likely to be present when conditions are suitable.

Artificial drains within the sugar cane environment have been colonised by a range of marine plants,

so a number have been recorded from the anthropogenic grasslands/disturbed area environments.

There were also some artificial drains where marine plants have reached 75-100% cover. One of

these drains extends from one side to the other of Lot 100 NR3818.

Plant distribution is determined by drain depth, salinity, and length of inundation. Shallow drains in the

most saline areas are dominated by Cyperaceae, Acrostichum speciosum and Sporobolus virginicus,

whereas Typha orientalis, Persicaria orientalis and Eleocharis equisetina dominate drains which are

deep and where salinity is lowest.

At the time of the July 2013 survey, only drains nearest Richters Creek contained water, and in these

areas Acrostichum speciosum and various Cyperaceae were common. In March 2014, all drains were

full but generally the same plant species were present.



Impacts of Development

All farm drains will be drained and filled during construction of the development. While this will involve

the loss of a small amount of habitat, such features are ubiquitous in the Barron River delta and the

significance of the Aquis Resort will be very small. It is not expected to involve a significant impact on

a matter of NES.

The loss of any aquatic fauna could be mitigated by salvage operations (currently considered ‘best

practice’ for industrial and urban developments). During salvage operations, native fauna (fish and

crabs) would be relocated, while any exotics would be humanely destroyed. Any mangrove seedlings

that are present will be salvaged.

Mitigation

No mitigation is proposed other than salvage of native fauna and any mangrove seedlings that are

present.

e) Alternative Habitats (Off-site)

There are a number of alternative off-site habitats within the local area (within 3 km of the proposed

development) as shown on Figure 6-17. This includes former sand mines (e.g. Cattana Wetlands),

artificial dams and lakes, dammed drainages, estuary pools, aquaculture ponds (active) and claypans

with seasonally variable inundation regimes as detailed below. All of these provide alternative habitat

for birds likely to currently utilise the Aquis aquaculture ponds.

Figure 6-17 Water resources within 3 km of Aquis.

Details of these resources are shown in Table 6-11 below.



WATER RESOURCE TYPE

LOCATION AREA (ha)

Clay Pan SL Lot 27 AP13734 - Lot3/USL9661; Half Moon Ck estuary; 150m south-east of (new) Bluewater Marina, Yorkeys Knob

7.84

Clay Pan SL Lot 34 SP113641; Wattle St. Yorkeys Knob; opposite Golf Course 4.16

Dammed Drainage LL Lot 227 SP122860; adjacent south of old Yorkeys Knob Marina, Golf Course Infrastructure

1.14

Artificial Lake Lot 167 SP122860; Wattle St. Yorkeys Knob; Golf Course Infrastructure

1.77

Artificial Lake Lot 2 RP715316; Wattle St. Yorkeys Knob; Golf Course Infrastructure 0.46

Estuary Pool Lot2 RP715316; Cunningham St. Yorkeys Knob; adjacent Golf Course 0.18

Aquaculture (active) Lot2 RP894172; Walkers Rd 25.48

Artificial Dam Lot1 SP256273; Yorkeys Knob Rd/Robinson Rd 4.80

Claypan Lot 1 SP256273; Yorkeys Knob Rd/Robinson Rd 6.06

Claypan RE Lot 126 NR5009; Yorkeys Knob Rd/Dunne Rd; Council Reserve 10.74

Claypan Lot 61 RP867132; Dunne Rd 0.27

Cattana Wetlands (Former Sand Mine)

Lot 2 SP268644; Dunne Rd 0.91


Lot2 SP268644; Dunne Rd 7.57













WATER RESOURCE TYPE

LOCATION AREA (ha)

Artificial Lake Lot1 SP207020; Skyrail Terminal 1.67

Artificial Lake Lot 2 RP894173; Skyrail Terminal 0.63

Former Sand Mine Lot 1 RP713843; Wistaria St, Holloways Beach 2.72

Artificial Lake Lot 26 RP742501; Caribbean St, Holloways Beach; dwelling on centre island

0.99

Clay Pan Lot 147 NR4789; Machans Beach Access Road 3.34

TOTAL 83.77

This assessment reveals that there is approximately 84 ha of similar habitats to those proposed to be

removed within 3 km of the proposed development. This is 14 times the area of the aquaculture

ponds.

6.11.3 Conclusions

In conclusion

Aquaculture ponds on the Aquis site provide habitat for a wide range of waterbirds, some of

which are EPBC-listed Migratory species. Their principal use appears to be as a dry season

refuge. As the Aquis site is one of a number of artificial water bodies in the local area that are

similarly utilised, the loss of the habitat is not considered significant. There is approximately 84

ha of similar habitats to those proposed to be removed within 3 km of the proposed

development. However, the option remains to retain the ponds should the risk of birdstrike, lake

water quality and river migration be found to be acceptable (see Section 7.5).

With the exception of the ‘artificial water storage’ (next to the track to Richters Creek mouth /

beach), all onsite freshwater resources/habitats are proposed to be retained. The loss of this

single storage is not considered significant.

All farm drains will be drained and filled during construction of the development. While this will

involve the loss of habitat, this impact is not considered significant. No mitigation is proposed

other than salvage of native fauna and mangroves.

6.12 BASELINE SURVEYS (ITEM 9)

6.12.1 Background


(9) The surveys summarised in Appendix F [Aquatic Biodiversity] were designed to provide input into the design of the proposed development, rather than as baseline surveys for a known development. Please provide baseline data to ensure that changes to water quality can be monitored during the construction and operation of the proposed development.

The first sentence of this statement is true in that the material supplied in Appendix F (Aquatic

Ecology) was prepared in support of the EIS. Since the preparation of the EIS, additional work

relevant to this comment has been undertaken and is planned. This is discussed in s23.6 of the EIS

under the heading Future Investigations and Monitoring. This is discussed below, referring to the

material in s23.6 as updated to October 2014.



This covers:

aquatic ecology, water quality / sediment analysis

terrestrial ecology

water quality / sediment analysis

groundwater.

6.12.2 EIS Surveys

The EIS was based on ecological, water quality, groundwater, and sediment analysis obtained during

the following periods:

Dry season 2013 (July 2013):

- terrestrial ecology

- aquatic ecology

- water quality

- groundwater.

Dry season 2013 extra (October 2013)

- terrestrial ecology

- aquatic ecology

- water quality

- groundwater.

Monthly monitoring 2013/14 (December 2013 to March 2014):

- water quality

- flows, tides, water quality (for calibration of water quality model)

- groundwater

Wet season 2013/14 (February to April 2014):

- terrestrial ecology (including first two quarterly mangrove monitoring surveys)

- aquatic ecology

- inlet pipeline route.

6.12.3 Post EIS Surveys

a) Scope

The post-EIS surveys are designed to extend the EIS work as appropriate but with a revised focus on

baseline monitoring rather than impact assessment. Topics covered are:

terrestrial ecology

aquatic ecology

water quality

groundwater.

An on-going program is committed to run until February 2015 at least. The committed program to

February 2015 is as shown on Table 6-12 below. Documents completed detailing findings are

indicated where appropriate.



TIMING TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY

AQUATIC ECOLOGY

WATER QUALITY GROUNDWATER

Dry season 2013 EIS Appendix G EIS Appendix F EIS Appendix M EIS Appendix L

Wet season 2013/14

EIS Appendix G EIS Appendix F EIS Appendix M EIS Appendix L

Dry season 2014 Biotropica Australia (2014d)

frc environmental (2014b)

EIS Appendix M and Appendix E to this

report

N/A

Wet season 2014/15

Planned Planned N/A N/A

Dec-2013 N/A N/A Appendix E to this

report Golder Associates (2014)

Jan-2014 Mangroves: Biotropica Australia (2014a)

Appendix E to this


Feb-2014 N/A BMT WBM (2014A) Golder Associates

(2014)

Mar-2014 N/A Appendix E to this


Apr-2014 Mangroves - Biotropica Australia (2014b)

Appendix E to this


May-2014 N/A N/A Appendix E to this


Jun-2014 N/A N/A Appendix E to this


Jul-2014 Mangroves Biotropica Australia (2014c)

N/A Appendix E to this


Aug-2014 N/A N/A Appendix E to this


Sep-2014 N/A N/A Planned Planned

Oct-2014 Mangroves - Planned N/A Planned Planned

Nov-2014 N/A N/A Planned Planned

Dec-2014 N/A N/A Planned Planned

Jan-2015 Mangroves - Planned N/A Planned Planned

Feb-2015 N/A N/A Planned Planned



b) Details: Aquatic Ecology Surveys

Two surveys are involved:

a 2014 dry season survey was completed in August 2014 and is documented in frc

environmental (2014d)

a 2014/15 wet season survey will be undertaken when conditions are appropriate (most likely in

February 2015).

These surveys involve a repeat of the survey aspects of the work documented in Appendix H –

Aquatic Ecology (dry season and wet season) as well as an assessment of:

macroinvertebrates in the sediment of the receiving environment at three sites in Thomatis /

Richters Creek and at a comparative site

macroinvertebrates in mangrove ecosystems of Richters Creek (to be coordinated with the

terrestrial ecology mangrove survey) and to include a sediment sampling program

estuarine fish surveys at five locations in Richters Creek and elsewhere

water quality (samples to be taken from all sites where biota are sampled) with testing of:

- TN, TP, ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, reactive phosphorous

- chlorophyll a

- total organic carbon

- biological oxygen demand

sediment quality (samples to be taken from all sites where biota are sampled) including testing

of grain size, moisture content, total organic carbon, total nitrogen and total phosphorous

follow-up benthic survey of the off-shore pipeline route.

The purpose of this work is to create a baseline for future impact monitoring and inform detailed

design where relevant.

c) Details: Terrestrial Ecology Surveys

Two surveys are involved:

a 2014 dry season survey was undertaken in August 2014 and is documented in (Biotropica

Australia (2014d)

a 2014/15 wet season survey will be undertaken when conditions are appropriate (most likely in

February 2015).

These surveys will involve a repeat of the survey aspects of the work documented in Appendix G –

Terrestrial Biodiversity (dry season and wet season) as well as an assessment of:

terrestrial flora (species composition in three forest strata, foliage projective cover, leaf litter

cover, presence absence of coarse woody debris, presence absence of epiphytic life forms,

overall vegetation health)

terrestrial fauna (avifauna (nocturnal, diurnal), microbats (nocturnal), small mammals

(nocturnal), aquatic invertebrates (diurnal), terrestrial invertebrates (nocturnal, diurnal), crab

mounds/m2 (diurnal), amphibians (nocturnal, diurnal).



In addition, a program of quarterly baseline surveys commenced in January 2014 and will continue

until January 2015). These involve regular mangrove surveys to record:

species composition and density

tree growth

canopy cover

seedling density, species richness and growth

soil salinity (conductivity)

soil pH

sediment levels.

The purpose of this work is to create a baseline for future impact monitoring and inform detailed

design where relevant.

Figure 6-18 Typical mangrove survey

pro forma.

Source: Biotropica Australia (2014c)

d) Surface Water

Purpose

A detailed water quality baseline program is included in EIS Appendix M (Water Quality). This was

developed specifically to characterise existing water quality within Richters Creek, Yorkeys Creek and

Half Moon Bay (marina area). These three water bodies are regarded as ‘project-related’ and have the

potential to be impacted upon by the proposed development.



The primary objective of the water quality monitoring campaign is to collect data with which to:

develop a robust and defensible water quality baseline dataset

ensure availability of sufficient and up to date information with which to calibrate and verify the

numerical water quality modelling tools

determine creek trigger and compliance levels for the construction and operational phases of

the development.

Ultimately, the program will be converted to require two years of monthly monitoring data to enable

long-term compliance limits to be set.

Details

In Situ Monitoring

Twelve months of continuous in situ water quality data is being collected using submersible YSI water

quality logging instruments and this work commenced in December 2013. The instruments are being

configured to collect the following continuous data:

turbidity

depth


temperature

dissolved oxygen

pH.

Four YSI monitors were initially placed exclusively in Richters Creek during an intensive wet weather

(i.e. 3 month) monthly monitoring campaign during the months of January, February and March at the

following general locations within Richters Creek:

off-shore from the mouth of Richters Creek – representing the marine receiving environment

just inside the mouth of Richters Creek – downstream of the proposed development

mid-way along Richters Creek – upstream of the proposed development, and downstream of

Ponderosa Prawn Farm

upper reach of Richters Creek – upstream of the proposed development and upstream of the

Ponderosa Prawn Farm.

Further to the intensive wet weather monitoring campaign recently completed, an intensive dry

weather monitoring campaign of three months’ duration will also be undertaken. Following the wet and

dry weather intensive monitoring campaigns, a normal dry weather monitoring campaign is planned in

Half Moon and Yorkeys Creek to collect a minimum of six months of data within these watercourses.

This data, in addition to any historic water quality data, will be used to confirm baseline conditions in

the local receiving waters.

Grab Sample Monitoring

During the proposed monthly YSI equipment servicing period, water quality grab samples are being

taken at each monitoring location for laboratory analysis of the following water quality parameter suite:

Total N incl. NOx, TKN and ammonia

Total P and Reactive P

TSS

Chlorophyll a



Metals typically include the following: Sb, As, Be, B, Cd, Cr, Co, Cu, Pb, Mn, Mo, Ni, Se, Ag, Sn,

Zn, Hg.

Hydrodynamic Data

Monitoring has also been completed to provide the hydraulic and hydrographic data needed within

Richters Creek with has been used to refine, calibrate, and validate the numerical hydraulic and water

quality models. This has involved collecting the following data:

flow profiles during a full spring and neap tide cycle in both dry and wet seasons to provide data

with which to respectively calibrate and validate the tidal hydraulic model

echo sounding work to supplement and detail the bathymetry of the creek along its full length.

Ultimately, the full water quality data set (e.g. nutrients, DO, SS etc.) as described in the data

collection campaign above will be used to further calibrate and verify the full water quality model to

represent in situ conditions within Richters Creek, Yorkeys Creek, and in the receiving waters of trinity

Bay. This water quality model will be used in detailed design and in the development of appropriate

water quality parameters for discharge.

Variations

The program has been varied to suit changes to the project concept and this is discussed in detail in

Section 5.3.

e) Groundwater

It is known that the water quality of the upper aquifer on the site varies considerably, both spatially and

temporally. Baseline water quality monitoring is required to quantify these fluctuations.

The baseline groundwater monitoring program started in December 2013 and is planned to continue

until January 2015 at least in order to capture a full cycle of seasonal variation. Eight existing shallow

aquifer wells are being monitored – these have been selected in areas where groundwater

disturbance is expected to be greatest (in the lake footprint), as well as locations providing broad

coverage of the site.

A monitoring schedule detailing the parameters for analysis is presented below. The suite of

parameters will also provide a sufficient baseline for acid sulfate soil related groundwater conditions.

MONITORING LOCATION FREQUENCY PARAMETER

YK1

YK2

YK3

YK4

YK7

YK8

YK9

YK10

Monthly

Groundwater Depth*

pH

EC

Total Acidity

Total Alkalinity

Sulfate

Chloride

Aluminium (filtered)

Iron (filtered)

Redox (field)

Dissolved oxygen (field)

* continuous for selected bores.



Chart 6-1 Sample groundwater level and salimity plots.



6.12.4 Reporting

As all future monitoring is being undertaken outside the EIS process, results will be reported on within

the framework of the EMP (Planning) and will be focused on setting design and construction standards

and establishing a future impact and compliance monitoring framework.

6.13 LOCATION OF SITE WITH RESPECT TO GBRMP PLANNING UNITS (ITEM

10)

6.13.1 Background


(10) There is some lack of clarity (pp. 22-108-109) as to where the site is located in terms of the North/South, Inshore/Off-shore, and Inland/Coastal zones described in the draft GBRMPA strategic assessment. The EIS claims that the Aquis site is within the ‘Southern in-shore and southern off-shore’ areas, despite also stating that the inshore/off-shore dividing line is generally about 20 km off-shore. It appears that the text intends to indicate that the Aquis site (particularly the pipeline) is within the southern inshore area, since the pipeline extends only 2.2 km off-shore; however the confusion raises doubts about the potential area of influence of the Aquis site (are its impacts likely to be observable 20+ km out to sea?). Likewise, in terms of onshore habitats, the text states that the Aquis site was in the Southern Inland area, while in the next sentence quotes GBRMPA’s definition of coastal areas as being those areas less than 5 km from the coast or where the land reached 10 m AHD, whichever was furthest (with the inland area being the remainder of the catchment), and indicates that the project site is within the coastal zone. Please provide a clear description of the location of the project in regard to the coastal areas.

6.13.2 Discussion

The Aquis Resort lies within the following areas defined in GBRMPA (2013e, 2014):

GBR Region – within the southern in-shore (S.I.) area:

- the north/south dividing line is around Port Douglas

- within 18 km of the southern off-shore (S.O.) area as the dividing line is 20 km off-shore.

GBR catchment – within the southern coastal (S.C.) area.



Figure 6-19 Location of the Aquis Resort site relative to GBRMPA’s regionalisation.

Source: GBRMPA (2014).

However, because the EIS assessment aimed to be conservative, values and impacts beyond this

location were also considered (hence the reference to the S.O. area). With respect to the issue raised

in the submission:

impacts of the development on the GBR Region are likely to restricted to the coast (i.e. within

the 20 km boundary) although they are not expected to extend beyond the project site to any

significant extent)

impacts of the development on the GBR Catchment are likely to be restricted to the coastal area

(defined as being a minimum of five kilometres landward from the coastline or where land

reaches the height of 10 metres AHD, whichever is furthest from the coast).

6.13.3 Conclusions

The EIS descriptions were correct but a conservative approach was taken with respect to assessing

possible impacts arising in the inshore area on off-shore values.



6.14 LAKE HABITAT (ITEM 11)

6.14.1 Background


(11) As mentioned above [Item 8], further discussion is required regarding the impacts associated with the loss of the aquaculture ponds. The EIS states that the proposed artificial lake will result in an overall increase in habitat as it will provide habitat for birds (including MNES). However the lake is being designed to minimise attracting waders and crocodiles by designing the lake with steep sides. Further information is required to clarify what habitat the lake is providing for which species.

6.14.2 Discussion

Based on learnings associated with investigations into the potential for aircraft birdstrike arising from

the ponds, a strategy was developed to reduce the attractiveness of the proposed artificial lake. In

addition to being saline, a deep (4-5 m) water column, steep banks, no islands providing habitat, and

no fringing (aquatic) vegetation, are all key design features postulated to reduce attractiveness to

birds. The potential for the lake to support birds remains, although the change in resource availability

is likely to result in a change in species composition. Moreover, the lack of any shallow water or

surface resting features will deter many birds and beneficially affect the nature and duration of

utilisation by different species, depending on such features as diet and social behaviour.

There are no such analogous (natural) habitats in North Queensland that allow stronger

presence/absence inferences to be made. Lake design would be likely to preclude utilisation by other

listed species. Pelecanus conspicillatus is considered to be one species that may find the artificial lake

surface attractive and thereby pose a bird-strike risk.

Some lake features will deter (but probably not eliminate) bird usage:

vertical sides

fountains

aerators

circulation propellers.

The lake may, but is not intended to, provide habitat for Crocodylus porosus which is the only listed

reptile recorded on the site.

6.14.3 Conclusion

The artificial lake is not intended to function as a replacement for the aquaculture ponds and its role in

contributing to bird-strike potential should be minimised in preference to enhancing habitat value.

Neither the MNES chapter (22) nor the terrestrial biodiversity (Chapter 7) component of the EIS

proposes to use the artificial lake to increase bird habitat.

6.15 PEST MANAGEMENT (ITEM 12)

6.15.1 Background


(12) Appendix F [Aquatic Biodiversity] lists colonisation of lake by pest species as a potential negative outcome. Further information is required as to the impacts of potential pest species on MNES and how this potential threat will be avoided including mitigation measures.



6.15.2 Discussion

a) OUV

The lake is not expected to have any OUV.

b) Listed Species

The lake will be an artificial environment that, by virtue of its expected high water quality, will provide

habitat for a range of marine species and birds that may colonise or use this resource. It is not

possible to speculate on what listed species will inhabit it, although the proposed screening of the inlet

can be expected to exclude any aquatic megafauna. Crocodiles, should they colonise the lake, are

unlikely to be affected by aquatic pests.

The proposed mitigation as envisaged in the EIS involves (Table 22-50 which is a duplicate of Table

23-2):

A lake management strategy including a major commitment to lake management and maintenance

measures including clean-up after floods, de-silting through periodic dredging, aquatic plant

harvesting, and weed and pest fish management.

A specific Tilapia Management Plan.

As described in the EIS (s19.2.3), the required response for pest animals is management. A Weed

and Pest Management Strategy is incorporated into the EMP (Planning) and implemented in the

project’s EMP (Construction). With respect to tilapia, there are a number of control measures to

manage colonisation of the proposed lake by the two possible tilapia species. These include:

biological controls

physical removal

poisoning

environmental management.

Management options are summarised in EIS Table 19-5. The above management initiatives form

aspects of the Register of Proponent Commitments.

6.15.3 Conclusions

Mitigation of impacts of lake pests on matters of NES requires the preparation of specific management

plans and these form aspects of the Register of Proponent Commitments.



6.16 SENSITIVE AREAS / IMPACTS FOR AQUATIC FAUNA (ITEMS 13, 14, 15,

21 AND 24)

6.16.1 Background

There are a number of inter-related issues raised in the DoTE submission (212) regarding habitats for

aquatic fauna and subsequent impacts, namely:

(13) While the EIS addresses cetaceans, turtles and dugong it is difficult to understand how conclusions were reached regarding the importance of habitat present and the severity of impacts. There is no information on sensitive areas. This needs to be provided and set in context for all species. For example, while some of the more important habitats for marine turtles occur elsewhere in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA), the EIS needs to discuss the regional importance of habitat present and provide maps of these habitats adjacent to the site and within the region.

(14) Statements that this area is not considered to be core habitat for a species and not considered to support important populations or offer habitat critical to the survival of the species need to be supported by evidence. This is also the case when describing the area may be low or moderately likely to provide habitat for a species. Further justification is required when attributing low or moderate scores to habitat features for the species.

(15) The proposal could potentially result in adverse impacts to Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) and Australian snubfin dolphins (Orcaella heinsohni), which generally occur in waters less than 15 metres deep that are close to river and creek beds within the proximity of seagrass beds. The EIS concludes that significant impacts on the inshore dolphin species are not likely as there are only small numbers present. The Australian snubfin and the Indo-pacific humpback dolphin occur in small and isolated populations. Further evidence is required to demonstrate that these species or their habitat will not be significantly impacted by the proposed development.

(21) Potential impacts to listed species or their potential habitat have been discussed in the EIS; however, further information is required to outline which impacts are relevant to which listed species.’

(24) Impacts to shorebirds and turtles need to be addressed under the relevant controlling provisions, for example listed threatened species, listed migratory species and World Heritage Area (Outstanding Universal Value of the GBRWHA).

The issues raised under these five items are related and are responded to in this report in an

integrated manner. Related terrestrial ecology aspects are dealt with in Section 6.17.

6.16.2 Discussion

a) Marine and Estuarine Habitats of Importance to Listed Marine Species

The Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) is one of the richest and most complex

natural ecosystems on Earth, and one of the most significant for biodiversity conservation. The

diversity of habitats supports tens of thousands of marine and terrestrial species, many of which are of

national and global conservation significance (GBRMPA 2013b). Critical habitats are defined in the

EPBC Act as ‘habitats that are critical to the survival of the species or community concerned and the

actions needed to protect those habitats’ (Section 270(d) of the EPBC Act), where survival means the

long term security or persistence of the species. That is, that it recovers to the point where it is no

longer endangered or threatened with extinction.

Habitats of particular importance to Commonwealth listed marine and estuarine species (i.e. critical

habitats) include their preferred / key:

nesting / breeding areas

feeding habitats, and

migration corridors (Reeves 2008; Stern 2009).



They also include areas where the species may not presently occur, which are critical if the species is

to recover from its currently threatened state (Gibson & Wellbelove 2010). A knowledge of the

presence and condition of these key areas / habitats (and other habitats that are vital for the day-to-

day survival of listed species) can assist in determining whether a species is likely to occur within a

particular area. The likelihood of occurrence of a species within an area will in turn influence the extent

of likely impacts on the population from any proposed development.

b) Marine and Estuarine Habitats Adjacent to the Aquis Site

The waters adjacent to, and off-shore of, the Aquis site are within the Southern Inland and Southern

Inshore areas of the GBRWHA, respectively (Figure 6-20) (GBRMPA 2013b). The in-shore / off-shore

dividing line is approximately 20 km off-shore. It corresponds to enclosed coastal and open coastal

water bodies described in the Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

(GBRMPA 2010), but also includes areas further off-shore that are habitats for recognised inshore

specialist species such as dugongs.

An assessment of the marine and estuarine habitats of the GBRWHA near to the Aquis site is

documented in Table 6-14. Of these, seagrass meadows, coral reefs, and mangrove forests provide

feeding and breeding habitats for a number of species of conservation significance, and are

considered particularly sensitive to the known impacts of coastal development in general. The location

of known sensitive habitats in proximity to the proposed development site is shown on Figure 6-21.

Figure 6-20 Indicative broad assessment areas for the Great Barrier Reef Region and catchment.

Source: GBRMPA (2013e).



Figure 6-21 Sensitive marine and estuarine habitats in the vicinity of the proposed Aquis site.



HABITAT DESCRIPTION

Estuaries of Richters, Thomatis, Yorkeys and Half Moon creeks

Mangroves dominate the estuarine riparian zones of rivers and creeks in the Barron River catchment (Figure 6-21), while there are

coastal dunes and beach systems at the mouths of each waterway (Connolly et al. 1996). The mangrove forests of the Barron River catchment are typical of similar areas along the Great Barrier Reef coastline. Mangroves constitute 41% of the natural vegetation on the Aquis site and cover 22 ha; there are 14 mangrove species present. Most mangrove areas are in good condition and represent a viable and healthy assemblage of mangrove species. There is also a small area (1.9 ha) of saltpan / saltmarsh in the north-west corner of the Aquis site.

Extensive urban development and sugar cane plantations have impacted estuarine habitats in the Barron River catchment, including Richters, Thomatis, Yorkeys and Half Moon creeks adjacent to the Aquis site. Despite this, the creeks of the Barron River Catchment (DEHP 2013a), including those surrounding the proposed development site, provide valuable habitat for a range of estuarine and marine fish species, and provide connectivity between marine and freshwater habitats (frc environmental 2014c). They are important nursery grounds for a range of commercially and recreationally important species, as evidenced by an influx of juvenile fish in summer (Doherty & Sheaves 1994). In recognition of their role in sustaining local fisheries, the reaches of two creeks adjacent to the proposed Aquis development are protected under state legislation: the Yorkeys Creek Fish Habitat Area (FHA-034) – Area B and the Half Moon Creek Fish Habitat Area (FHA-033) – Area B.

Seagrass meadows The closest recorded seagrass bed is at the mouth of Trinity Inlet, approximately 8 km south-east of the proposed Aquis site (DAFF 2013). Seagrass has also been recorded at Green Island (approximately 25 km east of the Aquis site) (Figure 6-21) and within intertidal

areas around Double Island (approximately 10 km north of the Aquis site) (R. Coles, pers. comm. 24 Sept. 2014).

The seagrass beds in Trinity Inlet are a small portion of the total area of seagrass along the tropical Queensland coast; however, their localised relative abundance, provides a disproportionately important nursery ground for prawns and other commercially and recreationally important species (Lee Long et al. 1993; Rasheed et al. 2013). In the past four years, above average rainfall, the 2010 / 11 La Niña and tropical cyclone Yasi, have resulted in major decreases in the distribution and abundance of seagrass along the north-eastern coast of Queensland (including the seagrass beds in Trinity Inlet). Historical lows in seagrass area, and biomass were recorded in Cairns Harbour and Trinity Inlet in 2012 (Figure 6-22); however, the most recent survey suggests that these seagrass meadows may be

recovering slowly (Jarvis et al. 2014) (Rasheed et al. 2013).

Thirteen seagrass species have been recorded from the wider region, with seagrass meadows around Cairns Harbour usually dominated by Zostera meulleri subsp. capricorni (Seagrass Watch 2013). Seagrass meadows typically have a greater distribution and are denser in the dry season (October to November) when light and temperature conditions are most favourable.

There are no known records of seagrass in Half Moon, Yorkeys, Thomatis or Richters Creek, nor in the waters off-shore of these creeks, despite a number of surveys being undertaken by Queensland Fisheries and James Cook University pre-2007 (Rob Coles pers. comm.) and frc environmental in 2007, 2013 and 2014 (frc environmental 2007; frc environmental 2013). The detailed surveys by frc environmental in March 2014 and July 2014 confirmed the absence of seagrass along the proposed Aquis inlet pipeline alignment (frc environmental 2014b) – see Section 5.4.2a).



HABITAT DESCRIPTION

Coral reefs The nearest mapped coral reefs to the proposed development site are the mid-shelf fringing reef at Green Island (approximately 25 km east of Richters Creek mouth) and the coastal fringing reef of Double Island and Haycock Island (approximately 10 km north of Richters Creek mouth) (Figure 6-21). Of these reefs, the Green Island reef has been the most studied to date. The reef at Green Island has an

area of 7.1 km2

(AIMS 2014b). Hard coral cover is low (0–5%) and has declined in recent years due to outbreaks of crown of thorns starfish (AIMS 2014a). The coral communities are dominated by massive growth forms, with some plate and branching growth forms (AIMS 2014a). The western side of the reef closest to the proposed Aquis site has a low level of reef structure (AIMS 2014a). Algae is the dominant growth form on the reef but there is a moderate cover of soft corals (AIMS 2014a). Fish abundance on Green Island reef is moderate with reef fish such as parrotfish, butterflyfish and damselfish present (AIMS 2014a).

The closest known reef is approximately 7 km to the north-west at Taylor Point (north of Trinity Beach). This reef covers a small area (approx. 0.0075 km

2) on the western side of the headland, and is likely to provide habitat for a variety of flora and fauna that are usually

found on inshore reefs (Flanagan Consulting Group 2014a).

Submission 51 to the EIS notes that at Double Island there are quite a large number of scleractinian hard coral species, particularly of the family Acroporidae and Favidae, as well as encrusting and branching soft coral species on all the reefs around Double Island, on both the

exposed and protected reef sides. There are other live coral formations, for example micro-atolls of the Poritidae family of stony corals, present on the reef flats at some time in the recent past.

Rocky reefs There is limited information available regarding intertidal rocky shores of the region.

Rocky headlands such as those found at Yorkeys Knob (2.7 km north of the mouth of Richters Creek) provide hard surfaces for sessile marine communities. The habitat diversity (including rock pools, gullies and ledges) of these environments often supports diverse ecological communities that include fishes, reptiles (such as sea snakes and turtles), echinoderms, polychaetes and crustaceans. These habitat types are of importance to many species that require hard substrate for colonisation.

Artificial structures in the local area, such as jetties, seawalls and pipes, are also likely to provide hard surfaces for sessile marine communities.

Non-vegetated soft substrate of inshore waters (including creek systems)

Non-vegetated soft substrate is found in the creek systems adjacent to the proposed Aquis site, and off-shore of the Aquis site. These habitats typically have few bathymetric features.

Soft substrate provides habitat for benthic marine invertebrates such as polychaetes and crustaceans, which can provide food for a number of Commonwealth listed species. Benthic invertebrate species richness and abundance are typically lowest in the fine muddy substrates of intertidal areas, and highest in coarse sandy sediments further off-shore (Currie & Small 2005; 2006). The abundance of macroinvertebrate infauna typically increases with regional rainfall and freshwater inflow (Currie & Small 2005; 2006).

The waters overlying the soft substrate are typically turbid in the creek systems and inshore waters off the mouth of Richters Creek. The epifaunal communities in this area are typical of other river mouths along the coast, being influenced by high turbid flows from the catchment during summer (frc environmental in prep). During the March 2014 field survey, a low density of burrows over the sediment surface and low numbers of crustaceans and other invertebrates were recorded (frc environmental 2014c).



Figure 6-22 Seagrass distribution in Trinity Bay, 2012.



c) Sensitive Marine and Estuarine Habitats of the Wider Region

The coastal waters near the Aquis site are described as being within the ‘high nutrient coastal strip’

bioregion of the Great Barrier Reef. This bioregion is characterised by terrigenous mud, high levels of

nutrients from the adjoining land, seagrass in sheltered waters and a wet tropic climate. Within this

area, there are scattered coastal fringing reefs that generally develop around the mainland and high

continental islands that have high coverage of hard coral, soft coral and macroalgae, but low coral

diversity (Kerrigan et al. 2010). Inshore habitats (i.e. within 20 km of the coastline) of the wider region

include:

islands

beaches and coastlines (including rocky headlands)

mangrove forests

seagrass meadows

lagoon floor (soft substrate)

coral reefs

shoals (GBRMPA 2013b).

Off-shore habitats (i.e. >20 km from the coastline) of the region include the mid-shelf and outer coral

reefs and deeper, open waters off the continental shelf.

The location of known sensitive habitats of the wider region is shown in Figure 6-23. These sensitive

habitats are presented in context of the Commonwealth Marine Area, which extends from 3 to 200

nautical miles (i.e. approximately 5.6 to 370.4 km) from the coastline (but excludes the national park

areas around Green Island, Upolu Cay, Michaelmas Cay and associated reefs).



Figure 6-23 Sensitive marine and estuarine habitats of the wider region.



d) Regional Importance of Local Marine and Estuarine Habitats

In the context of the greater region, species of conservation significance may have a limited

dependency on marine and estuarine habitats adjacent to the proposed Aquis site. Key feeding and

breeding habitat such as seagrass meadows (>8 km away) and coral reefs (>7 km away) are beyond

the likely geographical extent of impact from the construction and operation of the Aquis resort. The

beaches of Trinity Bay are not recognised as major nesting areas for any marine turtle species

(Worley Parsons 2010).

Nevertheless, the coastal zone around Yorkeys Knob contributes to the biodiversity and functioning of

the GBRWHA ecosystem, providing a range of ecological services that support the reef, including

water distribution, food and habitat, and nutrient and chemical cycling. For example, mangrove forests

along Half Moon, Yorkeys, Thomatis and Richters Creeks provide habitat value and contribute to the

biodiversity of the local region by supporting a number of fish and macroinvertebrate species that are

consumed by Commonwealth listed marine species such as dolphins. Such resources will remain and

be enhanced by the development.

The seagrass meadows of Cairns Harbour and Trinity Inlet have significantly diminished over the past

five years. However, should the seagrass meadows recover substantially, they are likely to again

become an important food source for a number of listed species, including marine turtles and dugong.

James Cook University ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies has modelled the likelihood

of seagrass occurring in the inshore waters of the GBRWHA, based on metadata of historical

seagrass distribution (JCU 2014). Whilst there is a low to moderate probability that seagrass occurs in

the waters around the Aquis site, there is a much higher probability that seagrass meadows occur in

waters >100 km to the north and south of the Aquis site (Figure 6-24).



Figure 6-24 Probability of seagrass distribution in the GBRWHA.

Source: JCU 2014. Insets show high probability of seagrass occurrence in coastal areas north and south of

the Aquis site.

Aquis site



e) Likelihood of Occurrence of Listed Species in Local Marine and Estuarine Areas

Listed aquatic species that may be present in the project area (i.e. site an immediate surrounds), and

in areas that may be impacted by the Aquis Project, were identified by generating an EPBC Act

Protected Matters Report for a 5 km area around the project footprint, with a 5 km buffer. The EPBC

Act Protected Matters Report was originally generated on 30 July 2013, with subsequent revisions

generated on 19 February 2014 and 26 May 2014 (i.e. included as Appendix I of the EIS). The

following listed aquatic species were identified on the Protected Matters Report:

13 nationally threatened species

17 migratory species

65 listed marine species (including fish, sharks, mammals and reptiles)

13 whales and other cetaceans.

The likelihood of listed threatened and migratory aquatic species being present in the estuarine areas

adjacent to the site (i.e. Richters, Thomatis, Yorkeys and Half Moon Creeks) and in marine areas off-

shore of the proposed development (within the Protected Matters search area) was assessed using

the criteria presented Table 6-5. The likelihood of other listed species (i.e. ‘listed marine species’ and

‘whales and other cetaceans’) that are protected only in Commonwealth Marine Areas (i.e. from 3 to

200 nautical miles from the coastline) were assessed using the same criteria, but for Commonwealth

Marine Areas only.

Ecological information used in the assessment of the likelihood of occurrence of each aquatic species

listed in the EPBC Act Protected Matters Report included:

the results of literature searches (including five databases, 150 source documents and

community / government agency consultations)

the results of three field surveys

professional experience.

The results of the literature review showed that the proposed development site, the surrounding

creeks, and near-shore areas were not likely to contain important populations of, nor provide important

nesting / breeding areas for, any listed threatened and migratory aquatic species (including cetaceans,

marine turtles and dugong). The beaches of Trinity Bay were also not recognised as major nesting

areas for any marine turtle species (Worley Parsons 2010). At the time of the baseline EIS studies,

technical staff from the Queensland Government were not aware of the results of any surveys of

marine turtles nesting in the vicinity of the proposed development.

No listed species were recorded during any of the field surveys undertaken by frc environmental prior

to the submission of the EIS. However, in July 2014, a humpback whale was sighted within 2 km of

the pipeline alignment (frc environmental, in prep). No habitats critical to the survival of populations of

listed species (e.g. key areas for feeding, breeding and migration) were recorded within the potential

area of impact of the Aquis development (see Figure 6-21). The relatively shallow waterways adjacent

to the proposed development site were deemed unlikely to provide significant habitat for listed

threatened and migratory aquatic species, although some species, including Australian snubfin

dolphin, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin and green turtle, may forage in these creeks on occasion.

Although turtle nesting surveys are yet to be conducted, it is also likely that some (limited) turtle

nesting occurs on the beaches in the vicinity of the proposed development (Bunce pers. comm. 2013,

Trenerry pers. comm. 2013).



Table 6-15 and Table 6-16 provide a summary of the likelihood of occurrence of each threatened and

migratory species in areas that may be impacted by the proposed development. Table 6-17 and Table

6-18 provide a summary of the likelihood of occurrence of listed marine species and cetaceans within

the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the proposed development. The likelihood of

occurrence of each species is supported by evidence of their habitat preferences, and the distribution

of sensitive habitats in proximity to the proposed development (Figure 6-21), and the wider region

(Figure 6-23).



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS

HABITAT PREFERENCES KEY FEEDING (F) AND BREEDING (B) HABITAT, AND MIGRATION (M) AREAS OF GBR


Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Mammals

Balaenoptera musculus

Blue whale E, M, C Blue whale sightings in Australian waters have been widespread, and it is likely that the whales occur right around the continent at various times of the year (DoTE 2013c). Most sightings have been in the waters off Australia’s Antarctic Territory, and along the southern parts of the Australian coast including Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, New South Wales through to southern Queensland (DEH 2005a).

Habitat boundaries are not fixed, especially in terms of hunting and feeding areas; they are dependent on upwellings and other changing oceanographic conditions (Hoyt 2005). Much of the Australian continental shelf and coastal waters have no particular significance to blue whales and are used only for migration and opportunistic feeding. They can occur both in deeper waters and relatively close to the coast (Bannister et al. 1996); however, they are rarely sighted in the GBR Region (GBRMPA 2013b).

Feeding Areas

The only known areas of significance to blue whales are feeding areas around the southern continental shelf, notably the Perth Canyon in Western Australia and the Bonney Upwelling and adjacent upwelling areas of South Australia and Victoria (Figure 6-25) (DEH 2005a).

Breeding Areas

Blue whales calve in tropical open oceans. Although specific areas have not been identified (Bannister et al. 1996) it is likely that calving occurs in tropical areas of high localised biological production (DoTE 2013c).

Migration Routes

Migration paths of blue whales are widespread, not obviously following coastlines or oceanographic features. Blue Whales are thought to migrate to Antarctic waters in early summer and to leave in autumn (Mackintosh 1965).

Summary

The likelihood of blue whales occurring within 5 km of the Aquis site is low.

– – – – – M M, F, B L L



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Megaptera novaeangliae

Humpback whale

V, M, C Humpback whales are among the most commonly sighted and reported whale species on the Great Barrier Reef (GBRMPA 2011f). Humpback whales use habitat seasonally and are typically found along various parts of the Australian coastline for up to nine months of the year (April to December). The Australian east coast population of humpback whales migrate from summer cold-water feeding grounds in sub-Antarctic waters; to warm water winter breeding grounds in the Great Barrier Reef. They are regularly observed in Queensland waters in June and July, during the northward migration, and October and November, during the southward migration (Figure 6-26 (DoTE 2013h).

Feeding Areas

Feeding occurs primarily on Antarctic krill around the Antarctic continental shelf break and productive, transitional ice-edge zones (DEH 2005b).

Breeding Areas

Humpback whales utilising Australian waters have tropical calving grounds along the mid and northern parts of the east and west coasts of Australia (DEH 2005b). Known calving areas in Queensland include the Great Barrier Reef Complex between 14°S and 27°S (DEH 2005b).

Migration Routes

Along parts of the migratory route there are narrow corridors and bottlenecks resulting from physical and other barriers where the majority of the population passes close to shore (i.e. within 30 km of the coastline). These habitat areas are important during the time of migration. In Queensland they include areas east of Stradbroke Island and east of Moreton Bay (DEH 2005b).

Resting areas are used by cow-calf pairs and attendant males during the southern migration. Humpback whales appear to use sheltered bays to opportunistically rest during migration to the feeding grounds. In Queensland, resting areas include the Whitsundays, Hervey Bay, Moreton Bay, the Swain Reefs complex of the Great Barrier Reef, Bell Cay and the Palm Island Group (DEH 2005b).

Summary

Humpback whales, including calves, have been observed migrating along the coast near Cairns; however, the area is not considered to be core habitat for this species and would not be considered to support important populations or offer habitat critical to the survival of this species. The likelihood of humpback whales occurring within 5 km of the Aquis site is moderate.

– – – – – B, M B, M L M



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Reptiles

Caretta caretta

Loggerhead Turtle

E, M, O Feeding Areas

The loggerhead turtle forages on molluscs and crabs in a wide range of intertidal and subtidal habitats, including coral and rocky reefs, seagrass meadows, and non-vegetated sand or mud areas (Error! Reference source not found.Figure 6-27 (Limpus 2008c). In eastern Australia,

there is evidence that they spend their first 15 years or more in the open ocean (M. Chaloupka pers. comm. cited in Bjorndal et al. 2000), with much of their feeding in the top 5 m of water (Spotila 2004), before recruiting to their chosen inshore or neritic feeding area.

Breeding / Nesting Areas

Loggerhead turtles nest on open, sandy beaches (Spotila 2004). In Queensland, breeding and nesting occurs mainly in the southern Great Barrier Reef (Capricorn/Bunker group) and adjacent mainland near Bundaberg (Figure 6-27A and Figure 6-28Error! Reference source not found.) (GBRMPA 2011c). The islands of the Swain Reefs, especially Pryce Island and Frigate, Bylund, Thomas and Bacchi cays support lower density nesting activity (Dobbs 2007; Limpus 2008b). During the nesting months, females generally remain within 10 km of the rookery (Tucker et al. 1995).

Migration Routes

Loggerhead turtles show fidelity to both their feeding and breeding areas, and can make reproductive migrations between foraging and nesting areas of over 2600 km (Limpus et al. 1992). Loggerhead turtles that nest and forage in the GBRWHA migrate along the Queensland coast, and to the Gulf of Carpentaria, Arnhem Land, Torres Strait, and Papua New Guinea (GBRMPA 2011c).

Summary

Loggerhead turtles may feed in, or traverse, coastal areas near Yorkeys Knob and they are moderately likely to occur in waters off-shore of the study area

3. They are unlikely to occur

in the estuaries surrounding the Aquis site.

– F F – B F, B, M F, M L M



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Chelonia mydas

Green turtle V, M, O The green turtle is globally distributed in tropical and sub-tropical waters, and is usually associated with shallow marine habitats that support seagrass and algal communities (DoTE 2013e). Green turtles spend their first five to ten years drifting on ocean currents (DoTE 2013e). During this pelagic phase, they are often found in association with rafts of Sargassum (Robins et al. 2002). Juvenile green turtles swim against the current to get back to their coastal habitats where they live as adults (Luschi et al. 2003).

Feeding Areas

Immature green turtles are carnivorous (Brand-Gardner et al. 1999), while adults are generally herbivorous, feeding mostly on algae and seagrass. Adults will occasionally eat other items such as mangrove fruit, sponges and jellyfish (Forbes 1994; Pendoley & Fitzpatrick 1999). Adult green turtles typically forage in shallow benthic habitats such as tidal and subtidal coral and rocky reefs and inshore seagrass beds and algae mats (Figure 6-28Error! Reference source not found.) (Poiner & Harris 1996; Musick & Limpus 1997; Robins et al. 2002).


Green turtles nest on sandy beaches. In Queensland, northern green turtle populations typically nest around Raine Island and Moulter Cay (Limpus et al. 2003), but also nest on islands of the outer edge of the reef (Figure 6-27B and Figure 6-28) (DoTE 2013e). Mainland rookeries can

occur on the mainland, and inner and outer shelf islands from Cape Grenville north to the Torres Strait (DoTE 2013e). Green turtle mating occurs in October, with nesting peaking in January until the end of March (DoTE 2013e).

Migration Routes

Green turtles can migrate more than 2600 km between their feeding and nesting grounds. Green turtles that nest and forage in the GBRWHA migrate to Indonesia, Gulf of Carpentaria, Arnhem Land, Torres Strait, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and New Caledonia (GBRMPA 2011a).

Summary

Green turtles may feed in, or traverse, coastal areas near Yorkeys Knob and they are moderately likely to occur in waters within 5 km of the Aquis site

3. They may also forage

on occasion in the estuaries adjacent to the Aquis site.

F F F F B F, B, M F, M M M



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Dermochelys coriacea

Leatherback turtle

E, M, O

The leatherback turtle is a pelagic species known to occur in tropical, subtropical and temperate waters. On the Australian east coast, leatherback turtles typically occur from south-east Queensland to central New South Wales. As the most pelagic of all marine turtles, the leatherback turtle spends much of its time in the open ocean and venturing close to shore mainly during the nesting season (Lutz & Musick 1996; Benson et al. 2007), (GBRMPA 2011b). They are uncommon on the Great Barrier Reef (GBRMPA 2011b).

Feeding Areas

The leatherback turtle is a pelagic feeder, primarily consuming gelatinous organisms such as jellyfish and salps (Kaplan 1995; Bjorndal 1997). Their distribution reflects the distribution of their food, and can be explained by ‘hot spots’ of jellyfish abundance (Leary 1957; Lazell 1980). Foraging leatherbacks have been recorded as far south as Bass Strait and through the Gulf of Carpentaria (GBRMPA 2011b).


Leatherback turtles require sandy beaches to nest. There are no large leatherback turtle rookeries in Australia; however, leatherback turtles occasionally nest within the GBRWHA with nesting recorded at Wreck Rock and adjacent beaches near Bundaberg (one to three nests per annum) (Figure 6-27C) (GBRMPA 2011b). Sporadic nesting has been recorded at other widely

scattered sites in Queensland; however, there is a strong likelihood that leatherback turtles have not nested in Queensland since 1996 (Hamman et al. 2006), (GBRMPA 2011b).

Migration Routes

Leatherback turtles migrate from Australia to rookeries in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands (Limpus 1995; Hamman et al. 2006).

Summary

Leatherback turtles are rarely found close to shore in Australia, and are unlikely to be present in the estuarine areas adjacent to the Aquis site, or within 5 km of the Aquis site

3.

– – – – B F, B, M F, M L L



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Eretmochelys imbricata

Hawksbill turtle

V, M, O The hawksbill turtle is globally distributed in tropical, sub-tropical and temperate waters (GBRMPA 2013c). Hawksbill turtles spend their first five to ten years drifting on ocean currents (Limpus et al. 1994b). During this pelagic phase, they are often found in association with rafts of Sargassum (Carr 1987).

Feeding Areas

Hawksbill turtles are heavily reliant on coral reef and rocky habitats, where they forage mainly on sponges but also seagrass, algae, squid, gastropods, sea cucumbers, soft corals and jellyfish (Figure 6-28) (GBRMPA 2013c). As juveniles, they eat plankton (Meylan 1984).


Hawksbill turtles breed in the northern Great Barrier Reef and the Torres Strait. They tend to nest in low numbers in the GBRWHA (GBRMPA 2013c). In Australia, the key nesting and inter-nesting areas (where females live between laying successive clutches in the same season) are: Milman

Island and the inner Great Barrier Reef Cays north from Cape GrenvilleCentral; Torres Strait

islands; Crab Island; Murray Islands; Darnley Island; Woody Island; Red Wallis and Woody Wallis Islands; Bramble Cay and Johnson Islet (Torres Strait); and, Western Cape York Peninsula (Figure 6-27D and Figure 6-28) (DEHP 2005). Woody Island is the closest key nesting area to

the proposed development area, being approximately 54 km north north-west of the study area.

Migration Routes

Hawksbill turtles that nest or forage in the GBRWHA migrate to Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu (GBRMPA 2013c).

Summary

Hawksbill turtles may feed in, or traverse, coastal areas near Yorkeys Knob, and they are moderately likely to occur off-shore of the Aquis site

3. Their likelihood of occurring in the

estuaries around the Aquis site is low.

– F F F B F, M, B F, M L M



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Lepidochelys olivacea

Olive Ridley turtle

E, M, O Olive Ridley turtles occur in tropical and sub-tropical regions of the Pacific and Indian oceans. In Australia, they are found in soft-bottomed, shallow, protected waters from southern Queensland, around northern Australia to Joseph Bonaparte Gulf in Western Australia (GBRMPA 2013d). They are uncommon in the GBRWHA (GBRMPA 2013d).

Feeding Areas

Olive Ridley turtles feed in continental shelf waters on crabs, echinoderms, shellfish and gastropods (GBRMPA 2013d). A substantial part of the immature and adult population forage over shallow benthic habitats from northern Western Australia to south-east Queensland (Harris 1994 cited in Limpus 2008a) though large juvenile and adult olive Ridley turtles have been recorded in both benthic and pelagic foraging habitats (Musick & Limpus 1997). Foraging habitat can range from depths of several metres (Conway 1994) to over 100 m (Whiting et al. 2005).


There are two main breeding areas for olive Ridley turtles in Australia, one in the Northern Territory with about 1000 nesting females per year, and the other in the Gulf of Carpentaria with less than 100 nesting females per year. No nesting by the species has been recorded in the GBRWHA (GBRMPA 2013).

Migration Routes

Studies in the eastern Pacific and Atlantic Ocean show long distance reproductive migratory behaviour for olive Ridley turtles, which is similar to other sea turtle species (Meylan 1982).

Summary

Olive Ridley turtles are uncommon in the Great Barrier Reef, and are unlikely to be present in the estuarine areas adjacent to the Aquis site, or within 5 km of the Aquis site

3.

– F F F B F, B, M F, M L L



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Natator depressus

Flatback turtle V, M, O Adult flatback turtles inhabit soft bottom habitat over the continental shelf of northern Australia, extending into Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya (Spring 1982) although the extent of their range is not fully known (Zangerl et al. 1988). Hatchling flatback turtles are unique in that they do not have an oceanic pelagic phase, rather they are believed to inhabit inshore areas of clear reefal waters (Walker & C.J. 1990).

Feeding Areas

The flatback turtle tends to forage in shallow continental shelf waters with soft substrates (Figure 6-28) feeding on a variety of soft-bodied animals, including soft corals, sea pens, sea cucumbers and jellyfish (Limpus 2007). Catch records from trawlers (as bycatch) indicate that the flatback turtle also feeds in turbid, shallow (depth of 10 m to 40 m) inshore waters (Robins 1995).


Flatback turtle nesting habitat includes sandy beaches in the tropics and subtropics, with all recorded nesting beaches in Australia (Limpus et al. 1989). In eastern Queensland, flatback turtles nest between Bundaberg in the south to the Torres Strait in the north. The main nesting sites in the southern Great Barrier Reef are Curtis Island, Peak Island, Facing Island, Hummock Hill Island, and Wild Duck islands (Figure 6-27E and Figure 6-28 (Limpus 1971; Limpus et al. 1983). Scattered aperiodic nesting occurs along the mainland and on inshore islands between Townsville and the Torres Strait (Limpus et al. 1994a).

Migration Routes

Flatback Turtles make long reproductive migrations similar to other species of sea turtles, although most of these movements are restricted to the continental shelf (DoTE 2013i). Migrations have been recorded between Australia and Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu (GBRMPA 2013a).

Summary

Flatback turtles are unlikely to occur in the estuaries surrounding the Aquis site, and are moderately likely to occur within 5 km of the Aquis site

3.

– – F – B F, B, M M L M



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Sharks

Carcharodon carcharias

great white shark

V, M Great white sharks are found throughout temperate and sub-tropical regions in the northern and southern hemispheres (Last & Stevens 2009). In Australia, great white sharks have been recorded from the central Queensland coast, around the south coast to north-west Western Australia. In Queensland, they are primarily found south of Mackay (Figure 6-29Error! Reference source not found.) (Paterson 1990; Last & Stevens 2009; DoTE 2013d). The white shark is primarily an inhabitant of continental and insular shelf waters but is also known to inhabit the open ocean. It often occurs close inshore near the surf-line, and may move into shallow bays (DSEWPC 2013a).

Determining trends in the Australian white shark population is difficult because the speciesis a

widely dispersed, low density, highly mobile apex predator (DSEWPC 2013a).

Feeding Areas

Great white sharks can be found around inshore rocky reefs, surf beaches and shallow coastal bays and on the outer continental shelf and slope (DoTE 2013d). Great white sharks are often found around islands, in regions with high prey density, such as near seal colonies (Figure 6-29) (DEWHA 2009) (Malcolm et al. 2001). The white shark is a versatile predator. As juveniles (< 3 m), they feed primarily on finfish, rays and shark species prior to adding larger prey items to their diet (DEWHA 2009).

Breeding Areas

Pupping and mating locations for white sharks in Australia remain unknown (DEWHA 2009). Recent genetic studies have supported the theory that white sharks are philopatric — that is, they return to their birth place for biological purposes such as breeding (Blower et al. 2012).

Migration Routes

The white shark is known to travel widely over distances of thousands of kilometres, which can include travel associated with shelf waters and off-shore excursions. Great white sharks tend to move seasonally along the east Australian coast, moving northerly during autumn and winter and returning to southern Australian waters by early summer (Bruce et al. 2006).

Summary

The study area is unlikely to provide significant habitat for the great white shark. Their likelihood of occurring in the estuaries around the Aquis site or in the off-shore study area is low.

– – – – – F, B, M F, B, M L L



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Pristis clavata Dwarf sawfish V The dwarf sawfish historically ranges from Cairns and along the northern coastline to Eighty Mile Beach, the southern-most point of its Western Australia range (Stevens et al. 2008; Last & Stevens 2009). Although there is record of dwarf sawfish from the Pine River in north-western Cape York Peninsula, there are no recent records of the species from the eastern coast of the Cape York Peninsula (Peverell 2005)

The dwarf sawfish usually inhabits shallow coastal waters (2–3 m) and estuarine habitats (GBRMPA 2012b). They have limited, tidally influenced movements and occupy a restricted range of only a few square kilometres within the coastal fringe (GBRMPA 2012b). In mangrove areas, data showed they often spend high tide resting within the inundated vegetation, relatively protected from fishing activities (GBRMPA 2012b).

Feeding Areas

Sawfish feed on fishes and benthic invertebrates. They are relatively active on the mud and sand flats on a moving tide, presumably feeding (GBRMPA 2012b).

Breeding Areas

Estuarine habitats are used as nurseries with juveniles migrating into marine waters (Thorburn et al. 2007).

Summary

Yorkeys Knob is at the edge of the range for dwarf sawfish. Dwarf sawfish have not been recorded within the local area, despite the estuarine waterways and near-shore marine areas being popular with recreational fisherman. Their likelihood of occurring in the estuaries around the Aquis site or in the off-shore study area is low.

F, B – – – – F F L L



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Pristis zijsron Green sawfish V In Australian waters, green sawfish are distributed from about Cairns north and around to Shark Bay in Western Australia (Stevens et al. 2005). They are most commonly known from the Gulf of Carpentaria, Queensland (Stevens et al. 2005). There has been no record of the species south of Cairns since the 1960s (Stevens et al. 2005).

The green sawfish inhabits inshore marine waters, estuaries and river mouths with both sandy and muddy bottom habitats (Allen 1997; Peverell et al. 2004; Stevens et al. 2005). It has been recorded in very shallow water (<1 m) to off-shore trawl grounds in over 70 m of water (Stevens et al. 2005)

Feeding Areas

Sawfish feed on fishes and benthic invertebrates. They are relatively active on the mud and sand flats on a moving tide, presumably feeding (GBRMPA 2012b).

Breeding Areas

Estuarine habitats are used as nurseries with juveniles migrating into marine waters (Thorburn et al. 2007).

Summary

Yorkeys Knob is at the edge of the range for green sawfish. Green sawfish have not been recorded within the local area, despite the estuarine waterways and near-shore marine areas being popular with recreational fisherman. Their likelihood of occurring in the estuaries around the Aquis site or in the off-shore study area is low.

F, B – – – – F F L L

Rhincodon typus

Whale shark V, M The whale shark occurs in both warm-temperate and tropical waters, oceanic and inshore, usually between latitudes 30°N and 35°S (Compagno 1984). In Australia, the whale shark is known from NSW, Queensland, Northern Territory, Western Australia and occasionally Victoria and South Australia, but it is most commonly seen in waters off northern Western Australia, Northern Territory and Queensland (Compagno 1984; Last & Stevens 1994). They are often seen far off-shore, but also come close inshore and sometime enter lagoons of coral atolls (DoTE 2013l).

Feeding Areas

They are filter-feeders that are typically encountered close to the surface, either individually or occasionally in schools (Compagno 1984). Ningaloo Reef, off the Western Australian coast, is the main known aggregation site of whale sharks in Australian waters, with smaller aggregations in the Coral Sea (DoTE 2013l). Seasonal aggregations, are thought to be linked to localised seasonal 'pulses' of food productivity (DEH 2005c).

Breeding Areas

Data on the breeding habitats of this species is largely unknown (DEH 2005c).

– – F – – F F, B L L



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Migration Routes

Whale Sharks are known to be highly migratory, with studies demonstrating migrations of at least 13,000 km over 37 months (Eckert & Stewart 2001). They tend to be philopatric, returning regularly to the same seasonal feeding locations (DEH 2005c).

Summary

The study area does not provide important habitat for whale sharks. The likelihood of whale sharks occurring in the estuaries around the Aquis site or in the off-shore study area is low.

Fish

Melanotaenia eachamensis

Lake Eacham rainbowfish

E The freshwater Lake Eacham rainbowfish is only found in Lake Eacham in the Atherton Tablelands and several other moderately flowing streams in the upper reaches of the Tully Catchment and is highly unlikely to occur in the project area (Pusey et al. 1997). The rainbowfish is an opportunistic feeder and feeds on algae, aquatic invertebrates and terrestrial insects (Tappin 1991).

– – – – – – – L L

Source: DoTE 2014b

E endangered

V vulnerable

M migratory species

O marine species

C whales and other cetaceans

– not known as key habitat

1 <20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per (GBRMPA 2013b)

2 >20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per (GBRMPA 2013b)

3 turtle nesting surveys of the beaches around Yorkeys Knob are planned for the 2014 / 2015 nesting season

L Low likelihood of occurrence

M Moderate likelihood of occurrence



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Mammals

Balaenoptera edeni

Bryde’s whale M, C Bryde's whales occur in both temperate and tropical waters, oceanic and inshore, bounded by latitudes 40°N and 40°S (Bannister et al. 1996), mostly swimming alone or in pairs. They have been found in all Australian states, except the Northern Territory. Insufficient information exists as to how Australian Bryde's Whales use their habitat, as no specific feeding or breeding grounds have been discovered off Australia. Both an inshore and off-shore form have been identified (DoTE 2013b).

Feeding Areas

They are considered to be a fairly opportunistic feeders, readily consuming whatever shoaling prey is available (DSEWPC 2011). The coastal from of Bryde's whale appears to be limited to the 200 m depth isobar, moving along the coast in response to availability of suitable prey (Best et al. 1984). The off-shore form is found in deeper water (500 m to 1000 m) (DoTE 2013b).

Breeding Areas

Limited data suggest that breeding and calving occur in lower latitudes (Kato 2002).

Migration Routes

It appears that the off-shore form of Bryde's Whale may migrate seasonally, heading towards warmer tropical waters during the winter (DoTE 2013b).

Summary

The study area does not provide important habitat for Bryde’s whales. The likelihood of Bryde’s whales occurring in the estuaries around the Aquis site or in the off-shore study area is low.

– – – – – F, B F, B, M L L


Blue whale E, M, C See Table 6-15. – – – – – M M, F, B low low



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Dugong dugon

Dugong M, O A significant proportion of the world's dugongs are found in north Australian waters from Shark Bay, Western Australia, in the west to Moreton Bay, Queensland, in the east (Marsh & Lefebvre 1994). On the urban coast of Queensland, dugongs range from Cooktown to the Queensland / NSW border. The most important areas are around Hinchinbrook Island, Cleveland Bay and Shoalwater Bay in the Great Barrier Reef, and Hervey Bay and Moreton Bay further south (Marsh et al. 2002b).

Dugongs prefer shallow and protected areas with seagrass meadows. While dugongs frequent coastal waters, they also use estuarine creeks and streams and have been tracked travelling within creeks upstream for several kilometres (Lawler et al. 2002).

Feeding Areas

Dugongs feed almost exclusively on seagrass, particularly H. uninervis, H. ovalis and H. spinulosa, and principally inhabit seagrass meadows (Preen 1992; Preen et al. 1995; Lanyon & Morris 1997). Their dependence on seagrass for food generally limits them to waters within 20 km of the coast, although individuals have been sighted further from the coast during aerial surveys (e.g. Marsh & Lawler 2002) and they have been observed feeding in deep-water (water depth of more than 20 m) seagrass (Lee Long et al. 1997). Feeding aggregations tend to occur in wide, shallow protected bays; wide, shallow mangrove channels; and in the lee of large inshore islands (Heinsohn et al. 1979). Dugong feeding trails were recorded at Double Island by researchers at James Cook University in 2013 (R. Coles, pers. comm., 24 September 2014).

Breeding Areas

Shallow waters, such as on tidal sandbanks (Marsh et al. 1984) and estuaries (Hughes & Oxley-Oxland 1971), have been reported as sites for calving.

Migration Routes

Dugongs can be highly migratory due to their search for suitable seagrass or warmer waters (Marsh et al. 2002a) and are known to travel several hundreds of kilometres.

Summary

Given the absence of seagrass in areas off-shore of Yorkeys Knob, dugong are unlikely to feed in areas close to the proposed development. They have a low likelihood of occurring in the estuaries surrounding the Aquis site. However, they are moderately likely to traverse areas off-shore of the Aquis site.

– F – – – F, B, M F, M L M


Humpback whale

V, M, C See Table 6-15. – – – – – B, M B, M L M



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Orcaella brevirostris

3

Australian snubfin dolphin

M, C The Australian snubfin dolphin is Australia’s only endemic dolphin and was described as a separate species from the Irrawaddy dolphin (Orcaella brevirostris) in 2005 (Beasley et al. 2005). Little is known about the ecology and population status of this species throughout its range (Parra et al. 2006a; Ross 2006).

Australian snubfin dolphins occur only in waters off the northern half of Australia, from approximately Broome on the west coast to the Brisbane River on the east coast (Parra et al. 2002). There appears to be 'hotspots' of higher Australian snubfin dolphin densities along the Queensland coast (Parra et al. 2002a) and preliminary data suggest that they occur in small, localized populations (Stacey & Arnold 1999).

Coastal, estuarine and riverine areas are important for Orcaella species in other regions; however, only marine populations are evident in Australia. They appear to inhabit shallow waters <15 m deep within 10 km of the coast and 20 km of a river mouth, often in proximity to seagrass meadows (GBRMPA 2013b). It is doubtful that they venture very far upstream in river systems, although occasional vagrants may venture upstream (Parra et al. 2002).

Feeding Areas

The Australian snubfin dolphin is an opportunistic-generalist feeder, taking food from the bottom and water column. Its diet consists primarily of fish, but includes cephalopods (squid and octopus) and crustaceans (prawns and crabs). Feeding may occur in a variety of habitats, from mangroves to sandy bottom estuaries and embayments, to rock and / or coral reefs. Feeding primarily occurs in shallow waters (less than 20 m) close to river mouths and creeks (DoTE 2013j).

Breeding Areas

There is limited information on the breeding and calving areas of the Australian snubfin dolphin. No calving areas are known in Australian waters (DoTE 2013j).

Migration Routes

Limited information exists on their migration routes; however, home ranges and territories for Australian snubfin dolphin appear to be large (DoTE 2013j).

Summary

Given their preference for inshore coastal and estuarine areas, the Australian snubfin dolphin is moderately likely to feed in or traverse both the estuarine areas adjacent to the Aquis site, and off-shore areas within 5 km of the Aquis site.

F F F F – F, B, M – M M



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Orcinus orca Killer whale M, C Killer whales occur in all oceans and contiguous seas from equatorial regions to polar pack ice zones and may even ascend rivers (DoTE 2013k). In Australia, Killer Whales are recorded from all states, and are most commonly reported around Tasmania (DoTE 2013k). Their preferred habitat includes oceanic, pelagic and neritic (relatively shallow waters over the continental shelf) regions (DoTE 2013k).

Feeding Areas

Killer whales are top-level carnivores with a seasonally and regionally variable diet (DoTE 2013k). In Australia, they are most numerous in coastal waters and cooler regions where productivity is high (Dalhlheim & Heyning 1999), and more commonly found around seal colonies.

Breeding Areas

No calving areas are known in Australian waters (DoTE 2013k).

Migration Routes

Killer whales are known to make seasonal movements, and probably follow regular migratory routes (DoTE 2013k). However, there is no information on migration routes in Australian waters (DoTE 2013k).

Summary

The study area does not provide important habitat for killer whales. The likelihood of killer whales occurring in the estuaries around the Aquis site or in the off-shore study area is low.

– – – – – F, B F, B, M L L



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Sousa chinensis

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin

M, C The distribution of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins appears to be continuous along the east coast of Queensland (Corkeron et al. 1997). Similar to the Australian snubfin dolphin, the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin usually inhabits shallow coastal waters in association with rivers or creeks, estuaries, enclosed bays and coastal lagoons (Hale et al. 1998; Parra 2006). Recent surveys conducted in the far northern section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park showed that most sightings of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins occurred in waters less than 5 km from land, 20 km from the nearest river mouth, and in waters less than 15 m deep (Parra et al. 2006b).

Feeding Areas

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins have only been recorded feeding in shallow waters. They feed in a variety of habitats, from mangroves to sandy bottom estuaries and emban kments to rock and / or coral reefs (DEHP 2013; DSEWPC 2013b). They are opportunist-generalist feeders, consuming a wide variety of coastal and estuarine fishes, but also reef, littoral and demersal fishes, and some cephalopods and crustaceans (Parra 2005).

Breeding Areas

No key calving areas are known in Australian waters (Bannister et al. 1996).

Migration Routes

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins are considered to be migratory, with evidence of migration across international boundaries (Culik 2003). In Queensland they have not been recorded as migrating, although at the northern and southern limits of their range they may move closer to the tropics in the colder winter months (DEHP 2013b).

Summary

Given their preference for shallow coastal and estuarine areas, the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin is moderately likely to feed in or traverse both the estuarine areas adjacent to the Aquis site, and off-shore areas within 5 km of the Aquis site.

F F F F – F, B, M – M M

Reptiles

Caretta caretta

Loggerhead turtle

E, M, O See Table 6-15. – F F – B F, B, M F, M L M

Chelonia mydas

Green turtle V, M, O See Table 6-15. F F F F B F, B, M F, M M M

Dermochelys coriacea

Leatherback turtle

E, M, O See Table 6-15. – – – – B F, B, M F, M L L



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Eretmochelys imbricata

Hawksbill turtle

V, M, O See Table 6-15. – F F F B F, M, B F, M low moderate

Lepidochelys olivacea

Olive Ridley turtle

E, M, O See Table 6-15. – F F F B F, B, M F, M low low

Natator depressus

Flatback turtle V, M, O See Table 6-15. – – F – B F, B, M M low moderate

Sharks and Rays

Carcharodon carcharias

Great white shark

V, M See Table 6-15. – – – – – F, B, M F, B, M low low

Lamna nasus Mackerel shark

M The mackerel shark is a wide ranging coastal and oceanic species found in temperate and cold-temperate waters worldwide, preferring water temperatures below 18°C (Stevens et al. 2006). In Australia, the species occurs from southern Queensland to south-west Australia (Last & Stevens 2009). They typically occur in oceanic waters off the continental shelf, although they occasionally enter coastal waters (Francis et al. 2002).

Feeding Areas

Mackerel sharks are thought to be reasonably flexible in the types of habitat used for foraging (Pade et al. 2009). The mackerel shark feeds on pelagic fish and cephalopods, with elasmobranchs forming a small part of their diet (Joyce et al. 2002).

Breeding Areas

Mackeral sharks in the Southern Hemisphere are thought to give birth off New Zealand and Australia in winter (Francis & Stevens 2000); however, little is known of their key pupping areas.

Migration Routes

The mackerel shark is known to undertake seasonal migrations, although the timing and details of these migratory movements are not well-understood (Saunders et al. 2011).

Summary

Mackerel shark typically occur in waters off the continental shelf are unlikely to occur in the estuaries surrounding the Aquis site or in waters within 5 km of the Aquis site.

– – – – – F F, B, M low low



SPECIES COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Es

tua

ry /

Man

gro

ve

Se

ag

ras

s

Co

ral

Ree

f

Ro

ck

y R

eef

Co

as

tal

Be

ac

h

Ins

ho

re O

pen

Wa

ters

1

Off

-sh

ore

Op

en

Wa

ters

2

Ad

jac

en

t E

stu

ari

ne

Are

as

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

f S

ite

Manta birostris

Giant manta ray

M The Manta genus was recently re-evaluated and split into two species based on genetic evidence; the reef manta ray (Manta alfredi) and the giant manta ray (Manta birostris) (Kashiwagi et al. 2008; Marshall et al. 2009; Ito & Kashiwagi 2010). The giant manta ray has a widespread distribution, being found in both tropical and temperate waters of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Oceans. The giant manta ray is likely to be a more oceanic and more migratory species than the reef manta ray (A. Marshall et al. unpubl. data from IUCN 2013).

Feeding Areas

The giant manta ray feeds on plankton, and can be encountered in large numbers along productive coastlines with regular upwelling, oceanic island groups and particularly off-shore pinnacles and seamounts (Marshall et al. 2011). They can also be encountered on shallow reefs while being cleaned or feeding at the surface inshore and off-shore. In inshore areas, they can occasionally be observed in sandy bottom areas and seagrass beds (Marshall et al. 2011).

Breeding Areas

There is little information on the reproductive biology of the giant manta ray (Marshall et al. 2011).

Migration Routes

While the giant manta ray is widely distributed and appears to be a migratory species, regional populations appear to be small considering the scale of their habitat (Marshall et al. 2011).

Summary

The study area does not provide significant habitat for giant manta rays. Giant manta rays typically occur in waters off the continental shelf are unlikely to occur in the estuaries surrounding the Aquis site or in waters within 5 km of the Aquis site.

– – F – – F F, M, B L L

Rhincodon typus

Whale shark V, M See Table 6-15. – – F – – F F, B L L

Source: DoTE 2014b

E endangered

V vulnerable

M migratory species

O marine species



1 <20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per (GBRMPA 2013b)

2 >20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per (GBRMPA 2013b)

3 previously considered to be Orcaella brevirostris (Irrawaddy dolphin); the Australian snubfin dolphin was formally recognised as a separate species in 2005 (GBRMPA 2012a)

L Low likelihood of occurrence M Moderate likelihood of occurrence



Species Common Name

EPBC Act Listing Status

Habitat Preferences

Key Breeding (B) and Feeding (F) Habitat, and Migration Areas (M) in Commonwealth Marine Areas of GBR

1 Likelihood of

Occurrence in the Commonwealth Marine Area Off-shore of the project Site Seagrass

Coral Reef

Rocky Reef

Inshore Open Waters

2

Off-shore Open Waters

3

Mammals

Dugong dugon Dugong M, O See Table 6-16. F – – F, B, M F, M Moderate

Sea snakes and Kraits F, B F, B F, B F, B F, B Moderate

Acalyptophis peroneii Horned seasnake O Sea snakes and sea kraits are predatory marine reptiles that inhabit shallow, tropical waters over reef, inter-reef or sandy habitats throughout the Indo-Pacific region (Stokes 2004). The highest diversity occurs in northern Australia and south-east Asia. There are approximately 54 species within approximately 13 genera, and each genus is represented by both widespread and endemic species (Lukoschek 2008 and references cited within).

Basic biological, distributional, and ecological information is limited for most seasnakes (Lukoschek 2008); they have been described from sandy, muddy, seagrass, estuaries and coral reef habitats. The diet of sea snakes is often species specific, with a variety of species being recorded, including small fish, eels, fish eggs and a variety of small invertebrates (Limpus 1975; Fry et al. 2001; Ineich & Laboute 2002).

The olive seasnake is one of the most studied species. The olive seasnake typically occurs at discrete reefs, with habitat preference related to reef location, exposure and area; distribution did not appear to be related to the protection status of reefs (GBRMP zoning). Factors driving spatial and temporal changes are poorly understood (Lukoschek 2008 and references cited within). Studies of the olive seasnake in the Keppel Island region found that this species maintains small home ranges over short time periods, and that females have larger home ranges than males (Burns & Heatwole 1998; Lynch 2000). Males also appear to move off reefs in the summer, returning to the same or a nearby reef to mate in winter (Lynch 2000). Despite their ability to expand into new marine habitats, local populations appear to be relatively isolated and, if subject to extinction, are unlikely to re- establish by dispersal (Lukoschek 2008 and references cited within).

Summary

There is limited ecological information on the habitat preferences of most species of sea snakes. However, it is moderately likely that they occur within the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site.

Aipysurus duboisii Dubois’ seasnake O

Aipysurus eydouxii Spine-tailed seasnake

O

Aipysurus laevis Olive seasnake O

Astrotia stokesii Stoke’s seasnake O

Disteira kingii Spectacled seasnake

O

Disteira major Olive-headed seasnake

O

Enhydrina schistosa Beaked seasnake O

Hydrophis elegans Elegant seasnake O

Hydrophis mcdowelli Small-headed seasnake

O

Hydrophis ornatus (a seasnake) O

Lapemis hardwickii Spine-bellied seasnake

O

Laticauda colubrina (a sea krait) O



Species Common Name


Habitat Preferences


1 Likelihood of


Coral Reef

Rocky Reef

Inshore Open Waters

2


3

Marine Turtles

Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle E, M, O See Table 6-15. F F – F, B, M F, M Moderate

Chelonia mydas Green turtle V, M, O See Table 6-15. F F F F, B, M F, M Moderate

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle E, M, O See Table 6-15. – – – F, B, M F, M Low

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill turtle V, M, O See Table 6-15. F F F F, B, M F, M Moderate

Lepidochelys olivacea Olive Ridley turtle E, M, O See Table 6-15. F F F F, B, M F, M Low

Natator depressus Flatback turtle V, M, O See Table 6-15. – F – F, B, M M Moderate

Pipefish, Pipehorse and Seahorse

Halicampus nitidus glittering pipefish O Very little is known about the biology of pipefish, pipehorse and seahorse species in Queensland waters. About half of the world’s Syngnathid species live in Australian waters, and there are approximately 49 species of pipefish / pipehorse, and nine seahorse species known from the GBRWHA (Stokes 2004). Species from the families Syngnathidae and Solenostomidae have been found attached to seagrass, gorgonians, drifting debris (after storms or floods), live coral, mangrove roots, floating Sargassum, or swimming freely in mid-water (Lightowler 1998 and Vincent 1996 from Stokes 2004). Foster and Vincent (2004) found that the most commonly reported seahorse habitat was seagrass, while mangroves were the least reported. Tropical species are primarily found among coral reefs (Foster & Vincent 2004; Scales 2010).

Syngnathids have low mobility, and small home ranges, and are typically found in water 1–15 m deep; however, some species occur at 45–60 m depth (Stokes 2004). Some seahorse species change habitat and depth choice as they grow (Foster & Vincent 2004).

Summary

Given the absence of seagrass beds in the off-shore study area, pipefish, pipehorse and seahorse are unlikely to be common in Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site. While they are likely to found in coral reefs of the region, the coral reefs off-shore of the Aquis site are not part of the local Commonwealth Marine Area (see Figure 6-23).

F, B F, B – F, B – Low

Halicampus spinirostris spiny-snout pipefish O

Hippichthys cyanospilos Blue-speckled pipefish

O

Hippichthys heptagonus Madura pipefish O

Hippichthys penicillus Beady pipefish O

Hippichthys spicifer Belly-barred pipefish

O

Hippocampus bargibanti Pygmy seahorse O

Hippocampus histrix Spiny seahorse O

Hippocampus kuda Spotted seahorse O

Hippocampus planifrons Flat-faced seahorse O

Hippocampus zebra Zebra seahorse O



Species Common Name


Habitat Preferences


1 Likelihood of


Coral Reef

Rocky Reef

Inshore Open Waters

2


3

Micrognathus andersonii Anderson’s pipefish O

Micrognathus brevirostris Thorntail pipefish O

Microphis brachyurus Short-tail pipefish O

Nannocampus pictus Painted pipefish O

Phoxocampus diacanthus Pale-blotched pipefish

O

Siokunichthys breviceps Soft coral pipefish O

Solegnathus hardwickii Pallid pipehorse O

Solenostomus cyanopterus

Robust ghost pipefish

O

Solenostomus paegnius 4 Rough-snout ghost

pipefish O

Solenostomus paradoxus Ornate ghost pipefish

O

Syngnathoides biaculeatus

Double-end pipehorse

O

Trachyrhamphus bicoarctatus

Bentstick pipefish O

Trachyrhamphus longirostris

Straightstick pipefish

O

Source: DoTE 2014b

E endangered

V vulnerable

M migratory species

O marine species


– not known as key habitat; 1 estuarine / mangrove areas and sandy beaches do not occur in the Commonwealth Marine Area directly off-shore of the project site;

2 <20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per (GBRMPA 2013b);

3 >20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per (GBRMPA 2013b);

4 listed under Solenostomus cyanopterus in Species Profile and Threats (SPRAT) Database



Species Common Name EPBC Act Listing Status

Habitat Preferences Key Breeding (B) and Feeding (F) Habitat, and Migration Areas (M) in Commonwealth Marine Areas of GBR

1

Likelihood of Occurrence in the Commonwealth Marine Area Off-shore of the project Site Seagrass Coral

Reef Rocky Reef

Inshore Open Waters

2


3

Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Minke whale C Until recently, there was thought to be only one species of minke whale, referred to as Balaenoptera acutorostrata. There are now two generally accepted species, the common

minke whale(B. acutorostrata) and the Antarctic minke whale (B. bonaerensis) — a listed

migratory species. The dwarf minke whale, which is regularly sighted in the Region, is currently regarded as an undescribed subspecies of B. acutorostrata and is, therefore, not a listed migratory species.

Minke whales prefer temperate to boreal waters, but are also found in tropical and subtropical areas (NOAA Fisheries 2014). They can be found in both coastal / inshore and oceanic / off-shore areas (NOAA Fisheries 2014). There are several forms of minke whales in east Australian waters (Arnold et al. 1987). While little is known about the habits of the dwarf minke sub-species, they form a well known winter aggregation in the northern Great Barrier Reef, especially in the Ribbon Reefs between Port Douglas and Lizard Island (GBRMPA 2011e).

Feeding Areas

Minke whales feed most often in cooler waters at higher latitudes (NOAA Fisheries 2014). They feed predominantly on krill (Bannister et al. 1996). Whilst dwarf minke whales have never been seen feeding in the northern Great Barrier Reef (Birtles et al. 2002) there are direct and indirect signs that feeding does occur in waters in or adjacent to the Marine Park (M. Curnock, pers. comm. 2012, cited in GBRMPA 2011).

Breeding Areas

Small calves of dwarf minkes are recorded in Australian waters from May to July. Usually, only one or two cow and calf pairs are seen per season in northern Great Barrier Reef waters. This suggests either that these waters are not a major nursing area or that cows with calves do not regularly approach vessels there (Dunstan et al. 2007; Sobtzick 2011).

Migration Routes

Minke whales undertake extensive migrations between cold water feeding grounds and warmer water breeding grounds (NOAA Fisheries 2014). Migration paths are presumably

widespread (approximately 12 to 65 S), although they are less predictable than most other Balaenopterids, such as the humpback whale (GBRMPA 2011e).

Summary

The study area is unlikely to be an important habitat for minke whales and they are unlikely to feed in the area, however they may traverse open waters of the Commonwealth Marine Area during their annual migration.

– – – F, B, M F, B, M Moderate

Balaenoptera edeni

Bryde’s whale M, C See Table 6-15. – – – F, B F, B, M Low


Blue whale E, M, C See Table 6-15. – – – M M, F, B Low





1


Reef Rocky Reef

Inshore Open Waters

2


3

Delphinus delphis

Common dolphin C Common dolphins are found in off-shore waters. They have been recorded in waters off all Australian states and territories, but are rarely seen in northern Australian waters (Jefferson & Van Waerebeek 2002; Ross 2006). Common dolphins appear to occur in two main locations around Australia, with one cluster in the southern south-eastern Indian Ocean and another in the Tasman Sea (DoTE 2013f). The species is not known to be migratory (Bannister et al. 1996) although they are highly mobile and capable of moving long distances (Ross 2006).

Feeding Areas

The common dolphin is an opportunistic feeder that may move inshore or off-shore following food (Ross 2006). It is known to feed on mesopelagic fish and cephalopods (Bannister et al. 1996) to a depth of 280 m but also at the surface and in association with tuna (Ross 2006).

Breeding Areas

Information on reproduction is only available for populations outside of Australia. No specific calving areas in Australia are known (Bannister et al. 1996).

Summary

Common dolphins are primarily found in off-shore waters, however they may move to inshore areas following food. They are moderately likely to occur in the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site.

– – – F F Moderate

Grampus griseus Risso’s dolphin C Risso’s dolphins are considered to be pelagic and oceanic species to latitudes of ~55 (Ross 2006). They are most frequently seen over the continental slope, usually in waters deeper than 1000 m (Ross 1984). Off-shore waters of Fraser Island have the only known ‘resident’ population in Australia (Bannister et al. 1996)

Feeding Areas

Risso’s dolphins feed primarily on squid, some octopus and possibly fish (Bannister et al. 1996). In South Africa, Risso's dolphins appear to forage in both coastal and off-shore waters (Peddemors 1999) and it is likely that similar foraging behaviour would occur in Australian waters (DoTE 2013g).

Breeding Areas

No calving areas are known in Australia (Perrin & Reilly 1984; Bannister et al. 1996).

Summary

Risso’s dolphins are primarily found in off-shore waters, however they may move to inshore areas following food. They are moderately likely to occur in the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site.



humpback whale V, M, C See Table 6-15. – – – B, M B, M Moderate

Orcaella brevirostris

Australian snubfin dolphin

M, C See Table 6-16. F F F F, B, M – Moderate

Orcinus orca killer whale M, C See Table 6-16. – – – F, B F, B, M Low





1


Reef Rocky Reef

Inshore Open Waters

2


3

Sousa chinensis Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin

M, C See Table 6-16. F F F F, B, M – Moderate

Stenella attenuata

Spotted dolphin C Spotted dolphins are mostly found in oceanic tropical zones between about 40°N and 40°S, inhabiting both near-shore and oceanic habitats (DoTE 2013m). They have been recorded off all northern Australian states.

Feeding Areas

Spotted dolphins feed mainly on small epipelagic and mesopelagic fish, and squid. Nemertean worms and crab larvae are also consumed on occasion (Sekiguchi et al. 1992; Würtz et al. 1992).

Breeding Areas

No calving areas are known in Australian waters (Bannister et al. 1996).

Summary

The is limited information on the habitat preferences of spotted dolphins; however, they are considered moderately likely to occur in the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site.


Tursiops aduncus

Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin

C The taxonomy of the genus Tursiops is controversial. Tursiops aduncus, the current taxon of the Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin, occurs widely around Australia in large groups (Hale et al. 2000 in Ross 2006). The species is highly visible and relatively common in

coastal, estuarine, pelagic and oceanic waters between about 65 N and 55 S; it is found slightly further off-shore where sympatric with the Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Bannister et al. 1996). In Australia, the Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin is restricted to inshore areas such as bays and estuaries, near-shore waters, open coast environments, and shallow off-shore waters including coastal areas around oceanic islands (Hale et al. 2000; Kogi et al. 2004).

Feeding Areas

This species is generally considered an opportunistic feeder on items such as fish, cephalopods and crustaceans (DoTE 1997) and often feeds in association with trawlers (Bannister et al. 1996).

Breeding Areas


Summary

Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphins can occur in both inshore and off-shore waters. They are moderately likely to occur in the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site (and are also moderately likely to occur in estuarine areas adjacent to the Aquis site – however; under Commonwealth legislation, this species is only protected in Commonwealth Marine Areas).

F F – F F Moderate





1


Reef Rocky Reef

Inshore Open Waters

2


3

Tursiops truncatus

Bottlenose dolphin C Tursiops truncatus is currently considered the more poorly known species of the Tursiops genus in Australian waters. They are usually found off-shore in waters deeper than 30 m (Hale et al. 2000; Ross 2006) but also appear be found in some coastal waters (Hale et al. 2000; Kemper 2004). The bottlenose dolphin tends to inhabit cooler, deeper off-shore waters than the Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphin (Bannister et al. 1996). They are associated with many types of substrate and habitats, including mud, sand, seagrasses, mangroves and reefs (Hanson & Defran 1993; Barros & Wells 1998).

Feeding Areas

Inshore bottlenose dolphins feed mainly on a variety of fish and invertebrates from both the littoral and sub-littoral zones, while off-shore animals feed primarily on mesopelagic fish and oceanic squids (Reyes 1991).

Breeding Areas


Summary

Bottlenose dolphins are primarily found in off-shore waters, however they may move to inshore areas following food. They are moderately likely to occur in the Commonwealth Marine Areas off-shore of the Aquis site.


Source: DoTE 2014b.

E endangered

V vulnerable

M migratory species



1 estuarine / mangrove areas and sandy beaches do not occur in the Commonwealth Marine Area directly off-shore of the project site.

2 <20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per GBRMPA 2013b

3 >20 km (~10.8 nm) from coastline as per GBRMPA 2013b



Figure 6-25 Recognised aggregation areas of the blue whale.

Source: DEH (2005a).



Figure 6-26 Distribution, migration and recognised aggregation areas of the humpback whale.

Source: DEH (2005b).



Figure 6-27 Significant known nesting areas along the Queensland coast for: a) loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), b) green turtles (Chelonia mydas), c) leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), d) hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imricata), and, e) flatback turtles (Natator depressus).

Source: GBRMPA (2011d).



Figure 6-28 Identified important feeding and breeding areas for loggerhead turtles, green turtles, hawksbill turtles

and flatback turtles within the region.

Source: GBRMPA (2013b).



Figure 6-29 Distribution, foraging and aggregation sites for the great white shark.

Source: DSEWPC (2013a).



This analysis shows that of the threatened and migratory aquatic species listed as potentially

occurring in the study area in the Protected Matters Report, no species were deemed highly likely to

occur. The following species were deemed moderately likely to occur:

five threatened species – loggerhead turtle, green turtle, hawksbill turtle, flatback turtle and

humpback whale

eight migratory species – loggerhead turtle, green turtle, hawksbill turtle, flatback turtle, dugong,

humpback whale, Australian snubfin dolphin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin.

f) Potential Impacts to Listed Species or Their Habitat

In the absence of effective mitigation, development in the coastal environment can have a variety of

impacts on coastal processes and coastal habitats, and the aquatic organisms that depend on those

habitats. Direct impacts (such as the disturbance, removal or burial of marine plants and soft sediment

aquatic habitats) may occur during construction of some projects. A number of indirect impacts may

also occur during both construction and operation. Potential indirect impacts to listed species in

coastal waterways and in off-shore coastal areas may occur through:

changes to water quality of the surrounding environment, including:

- increases in the concentration of suspended sediments, and consequent sediment

deposition

- releases of nutrients and potential contaminants from disturbed sediments

- acidic leachate from disturbed acid sulfate or potential acid sulfate soils

- spills of hydrocarbons and other contaminants

- increased litter and waste

changes to local hydrology (i.e. both increased and decreased flows and creek diversions)

changes to the light climate

increased recreational boating activities

increased noise.

These impacts, and measures to avoid, minimise and mitigate these impacts are described in detail in

Chapters 7 and 22 of the EIS and in frc environmental (2014a). The EIS concludes that overall, the

development design features and construction methodologies, proposed habitat

protection / restoration, enhancements to connectivity, and improvements to water quality are such

that no significant impacts on Commonwealth listed species are considered likely.

Potential impacts relevant to each listed marine and estuarine species based on their habitat

preferences and the likelihood of impact after mitigation measures is discussed in Table 6-19.



Species Common Name

Relevant Controlling Provision/s

Likelihood of Occurrence

Potential Impacts Likelihood of Impact after Mitigation

Ad

jac

en

t

Es

tua

rie

s

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

ff-

sh

ore

Dir

ec

t H

ab

ita

t

Dis

turb

an

ce

1

Inc

rea

sed

Tu

rbid

ity

&

Se

dim

en

t

Su

sp

en

sio

n1

Nu

trie

nt

En

ric

hm

en

t1

Dis

turb

an

ce

of

Acid

Su

lfate

So

ils

1

Sp

ills

of

Co

nta

min

an

ts1

Inc

rea

sed

Lit

ter

&

Wa

ste

Ch

an

ge

s t

o L

oc

al

Hyd

rolo

gy

1

Ch

an

ge

s t

o L

igh

t

Clim

ate

1

Inc

rea

sed

Bo

ati

ng

Ac

tiv

itie

s

Inc

rea

sed

No

ise

Mammals

Balaenoptera acutorostrata Minke whale C* Low Low ✓ ✓ Low

Balaenoptera edeni Bryde’s whale

M, C Low Low ✓ ✓ Low

Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale E, M, C Low Low ✓ ✓ Low

Delphinus delphis Common dolphin

C* Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Dugong dugon Dugong M, O Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Grampus griseus Risso’s dolphin

C* Low Low ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale

V, M, C Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Orcaella brevirostris Australian snubfin dolphin

M, C Moderate Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Orcinus orca Killer whale M, C Low Low ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Sousa chinensis Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin

M, C Moderate Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Stenella attenuata Spotted dolphin

C* Low Low ✓ ✓ ✓ Low



Species Common Name




Ad

jac

en

t

Es

tua

rie

s

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

ff-

sh

ore

Dir

ec

t H

ab

ita

t

Dis

turb

an

ce

1

Inc

rea

sed

Tu

rbid

ity

&

Se

dim

en

t

Su

sp

en

sio

n1

Nu

trie

nt

En

ric

hm

en

t1

Dis

turb

an

ce

of

Acid

Su

lfate

So

ils

1

Sp

ills

of

Co

nta

min

an

ts1

Inc

rea

sed

Lit

ter

&

Wa

ste

Ch

an

ge

s t

o L

oc

al

Hyd

rolo

gy

1

Ch

an

ge

s t

o L

igh

t

Clim

ate

1

Inc

rea

sed

Bo

ati

ng

Ac

tiv

itie

s

Inc

rea

sed

No

ise

Tursiops aduncus Indian Ocean bottlenose dolphin

C* Moderate Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin

C* Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Sharks and Rays

Carcharodon carcharias Great white shark

V, M Low Low Low

Lamna nasus Mackerel shark

M Low Low Low

Manta birostris Giant manta ray

M Low Low Low

Pristis clavata Dwarf sawfish

V Low Low Low

Pristis zijsron Green sawfish

V Low Low Low

Rhincodon typus Whale shark V, M Low Low Low

Turtles Low

Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle

E, M, O Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Chelonia mydas Green turtle V, M, O Moderate Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback turtle

E, M, O Low Low ✓ ✓ ✓ Low



Species Common Name




Ad

jac

en

t

Es

tua

rie

s

Wit

hin

5 k

m o

ff-

sh

ore

Dir

ec

t H

ab

ita

t

Dis

turb

an

ce

1

Inc

rea

sed

Tu

rbid

ity

&

Se

dim

en

t

Su

sp

en

sio

n1

Nu

trie

nt

En

ric

hm

en

t1

Dis

turb

an

ce

of

Acid

Su

lfate

So

ils

1

Sp

ills

of

Co

nta

min

an

ts1

Inc

rea

sed

Lit

ter

&

Wa

ste

Ch

an

ge

s t

o L

oc

al

Hyd

rolo

gy

1

Ch

an

ge

s t

o L

igh

t

Clim

ate

1

Inc

rea

sed

Bo

ati

ng

Ac

tiv

itie

s

Inc

rea

sed

No

ise

Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill turtle

V, M, O Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Lepidochelys olivacea Olive Ridley turtle

E, M, O Low Low ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Natator depressus Flatback turtle

V, M, O Low Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Low

Seasnakes and Kraits O* Low to Moderate

Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Pipefish, Pipehorse and Seahorse O* Low to Moderate

Moderate ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

E endangered

V vulnerable

M migratory species


* protected under Commonwealth legislation only within Commonwealth Marine Areas (i.e. between 5.6 to 370.4 km off-shore) 1

only likely to impact listed species that have a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence in estuaries adjacent to the Aquis site, or in waters within 5 km off-shore of the

Aquis site.



This further assessment confirms the findings of the EIS that the likelihood of significant impact after

mitigation is low.

g) Impacts on Marine Turtles

Impacts on marine turtles that are moderately likely to occur either within the estuarine areas adjacent

to the Aquis site, or within 5 km off-shore of the Aquis site, are addressed under the relevant

controlling provisions in the sections following.

h) Likely Impact on Listed Endangered Species

Of the three marine turtles species listed as endangered, the loggerhead turtle is considered

moderately likely to occur within 5 km of the Aquis site. No endangered marine turtles are considered

likely to occur in the estuaries adjacent to the Aquis site. The significant impact assessment for the

loggerhead turtle is presented in Table 6-20.

SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION LOGGERHEAD TURTLE (CARETTA CARETTA)

Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population

Populations of loggerhead turtles in the region are low and are likely to represent only migratory and foraging individuals along the coast.

Reduce the area of occupancy of the species The area downstream of the Aquis site is not a known breeding or aggregating area for loggerhead turtles.

Fragment an existing population into two or more populations

Loggerhead turtles of the study area are likely to be transient. The Project will not fragment habitat for this species.

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

The study area is not considered to be near any habitat recognised as critical to loggerhead turtle populations.

Disrupt the breeding cycle of a population The study area is not a known loggerhead turtle breeding ground and should not impact on the breeding cycle.

Modify, destroy, remove, isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

Direct disturbance to bare (non-vegetated) substrates will occur at the mouth of Richters Creek and off-shore, along the inlet pipeline footprint. This habitat is not essential to the survival or reproduction of loggerhead turtles and thus no long-term impacts to the species are predicted to occur.

Result in invasive species that are harmful to a critically endangered or endangered species Becoming established in the endangered or critically endangered species’ habitat

It is unlikely that a harmful invasive species will be introduced during any stage of the project.

Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline

There is limited potential for disease to be introduced to loggerhead turtle populations, through introduced pests or other means.




Interfere with the recovery of the species The Aquis Project is not located near breeding or nesting sites. Low numbers of loggerhead turtles may forage in Trinity Inlet south of the project area, but they are unlikely to occur in sufficient numbers immediately downstream of the Aquis site. The Project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of this species.

Overall impact assessment result The study area does not support an important population of loggerhead turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species.

The Project will not result in a significant impact on loggerhead turtles.

It is concluded that the study area does not support an important population of loggerhead turtles and

does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species. The project will not result in a significant

impact on loggerhead turtles.

i) Likely Impact on Listed Vulnerable Species

Of the three marine turtles species listed as vulnerable, three species are considered moderately likely

to occur within 5 km of the Aquis site. The green turtle, hawksbill turtle and flatback turtle are

moderately likely to occur off-shore of the Aquis site. The green turtle is also moderately likely to occur

in the estuaries adjacent to the Aquis site. The significant impact assessment for these species is

presented in Table 6-21.

j) Likely Impact on Listed Migratory Species

All six species of marine turtles are considered migratory. The significant impact assessment for the

four species that are considered moderately likely to occur within 5 km of the Aquis site is presented in

Table 6-21.



SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION

GREEN TURTLE (CHELONIA MYDAS) HAWKSBILL TURTLE (ERETMOCHELYS IMBRICATA)

FLATBACK TURTLE (NATATOR DEPRESSUS)

Lead to a long-term decrease in the size of an important population of a species

The study area does not represent a unique habitat type that the green turtle would depend on. No significant impacts to green turtle populations are expected to occur.

The presence of hawksbill turtles in the region is not known, but there are only likely to be migratory populations along the coast near the proposed development.

The presence of flatback turtles in the region is not known, but there are only likely to be migratory populations along the coast near the proposed development.

Reduce the area of occupancy of an important population

The area downstream of the Aquis site is not a known breeding or aggregating area for green turtles.

The area downstream of the Aquis site is not a known breeding or aggregating area for hawksbill turtles.

The area downstream of the Aquis site is not a known breeding or aggregating area for flatback turtles.

Fragment an existing important population into two or more populations

The occurrence of green turtles downstream of the Aquis site is likely to be limited. A relatively small area of mangroves will be cleared during construction of the pipelines. These mangroves will be rehabilitated once construction is complete, and the temporary loss of this small area of mangroves is unlikely to affect green turtles that may forage on occasion in the creek.

The occurrence of hawksbill turtles downstream of the project area is transient and most likely seasonal. The Project will not fragment any marine habitats that are critical to the survival of hawksbill turtles.

The occurrence of flatback turtles downstream of the Aquis site is transient and most likely seasonal. The Project will not fragment any marine habitats.

Adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of a species

The Aquis site is not considered to be near any habitat recognised as critical to green turtle populations.

The study area is not considered to be near habitats recognised as critical to hawksbill turtle populations.

The Aquis site is not considered to be near any habitat recognised as critical to flatback turtle populations.

Disrupt the breeding cycle of an important population

The study area is not a known green turtle breeding ground and the proposed development is unlikely to impact on the breeding cycle.

The study area is not a known hawksbill turtle breeding ground and the proposed development is unlikely to impact on the breeding cycle.

The study area is not a known flatback turtle breeding ground and the proposed development is unlikely to impact on the breeding cycle.






Modify, destroy, remove or isolate or decrease the availability or quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline

Direct disturbance to bare (non-vegetated) substrates will occur at the mouth of Richters Creek and off-shore, along the inlet pipeline footprint. A relatively small area of mangroves will also be cleared during construction of the pipelines. These mangroves will be rehabilitated once construction is complete, and the temporary loss of this small area of mangroves is unlikely to affect green turtles that may forage on occasion in the creek. These habitats are not essential to the survival or reproduction of the green turtle and thus no long-term impacts to the species are likely to occur.

Direct disturbance to bare (non-vegetated) substrates will occur at the mouth of Richters Creek and off-shore, along the inlet pipeline footprint. This habitat is not essential to the survival or reproduction of the hawksbill turtle and thus no long-term impacts to the species are likely to occur.

Direct disturbance to bare (non-vegetated) substrates will occur at the mouth of Richters Creek and off-shore, along the inlet pipeline footprint. This habitat is not essential to the survival or reproduction of the flatback turtle and thus no long-term impacts to the species are likely to occur.

Result in invasive species that are harmful to a vulnerable species becoming established in the vulnerable species’ habitat

It is unlikely that invasive species may be introduced during any stages of the project.



Introduce disease that may cause the species to decline

There is limited potential for disease to be introduced to green turtle populations, through introduced pests or other means.

There is limited potential for disease to be introduced to hawksbill turtle populations, through introduced pests or other means.

There is limited potential for disease to be introduced to flatback turtle populations, through introduced pests or other means.

Interfere substantially with the recovery of the species

The Project is not located near key breeding or nesting sites. Low numbers of green turtles may forage in Trinity Inlet south of the project area, and green turtles may forage in the estuarine areas adjacent to the development on occasion. However, habitats critical to the survival of the species are found in greater abundance, and often in better condition, elsewhere in the region. The Project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of this species.

The Project is not located near breeding or nesting sites. Low numbers of hawksbill turtles may forage in nearby coral and rocky reefs, and in Trinity Inlet south of the project area, but they are unlikely to occur in marine areas directly off-shore of the Aquis site. The Project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of this species.

The Project is not located near breeding or nesting sites. Low numbers of flatback turtles may forage in Trinity Inlet south of the Aquis site, or other nearby rocky and coral reefs. The Project is not expected to interfere with the recovery of this species.






Overall impact assessment result

The study area does not support an important population of green turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species that is not available elsewhere in the local and regional area. The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on green turtles.

The study area does not support an important population of hawksbill turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species. The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on hawksbill turtles.

The study area does not support an important population of flatback turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species. The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on flatback turtles.




GREEN TURTLE (CHELONIA MYDAS)

HAWKSBILL TURTLE (ERETMOCHELYS IMBRICATA)


Substantially modify (including by fragmenting, altering fire regimes, altering nutrient cycles or altering hydrological cycles), destroy or isolate an area of important habitat for a migratory species

Populations of loggerhead turtles in the region are low and are likely to represent migratory populations only. Coral and rocky reefs or seagrass beds are not likely to be disturbed during the project construction or during operations. Loggerhead turtle populations are highly unlikely to be modified, destroyed or isolated.

Populations of green turtles in the region are moderate and are likely to represent resident and migratory populations. Coral reefs or seagrass beds are not likely to be disturbed during the project construction or during operations. Green turtle populations are highly unlikely to be modified, destroyed or isolated.

Populations of hawksbill turtles in the region are low are likely to represent migratory populations only. Coral and rocky reefs or seagrass beds are not likely to be disturbed during the project construction or during operations. Hawksbill turtle populations are highly unlikely to be modified, destroyed or isolated.

Populations of flatback turtles in the region are low are likely to represent migratory populations only. Coral reefs or seagrass beds are not likely to be disturbed during the project construction or during operations. Hawksbill turtle populations are highly unlikely to be modified, destroyed or isolated.

Result in an invasive species that is harmful to the migratory species becoming established in an area of important habitat for the migratory species, or

It is highly unlikely that invasive species will be introduced during any stage of the project.




Seriously disrupt the lifecycle (breeding, feeding, migration or resting behaviour) of an ecologically significant proportion of the population of a migratory species.

The study area is not a known key loggerhead turtle breeding ground and the project is unlikely to affect the breeding cycles of any populations.

The study area is not a known key green turtle breeding ground and the project is unlikely to affect the breeding cycles of any populations.

The study area is not a known key hawksbill turtle breeding ground and the project is unlikely to affect the breeding cycles of any populations.

The study area is not a known key flatback turtle breeding ground and the project is unlikely to affect the breeding cycles of any populations.



Overall impact assessment result

The study area does not support an important population of loggerhead turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species.

The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on loggerhead turtles.

The study area does not support an important population of green turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species that is not available elsewhere in the local and regional area.

The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on green turtles.

The study area does not support an important population of hawksbill turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species.

The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on hawksbill turtles.

The study area does not support an important population of flatback turtles and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species.

The project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on flatback turtles.



It is concluded that the project is unlikely to result in a significant impact on any species of turtles.

k) Likely Impact on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area

An action is likely to have a significant impact on the World Heritage values of a declared World

Heritage property if there is a real chance or possibility that it will cause one or more of the World

Heritage Values to be lost, degraded, damaged, notably altered, modified, obscured or diminished

(DoTE 2013a). The likelihood of significant impacts to the GBRWHA and its Outstanding Universal

Values as a consequence of any impacts to marine turtles and their habitats is presented in Table

6-23 and Table 6-24 .



SIGNIFICANCE CRITERION ASSESSMENT

Values associated with geology or landscape

NA

Biological and ecological values

Reduce the diversity or modify the composition of plant and animal species in all or part of a World Heritage property

The project is unlikely to affect the diversity of marine turtle species in the local or regional area. The project is also not expected to significantly modify the composition of any plant or animal species that are consumed by marine turtles.

There are no known seagrass communities in the study area, and the nearest coral reef is beyond the likely extent of impact from the construction and operation of the resort and pipelines.

A relatively small area of mangroves will be cleared during construction of the pipelines. These mangroves will be rehabilitated once construction is complete, and the temporary loss of this small area of mangroves is unlikely to affect green turtles that may forage on occasion in the creek.

Direct impacts to soft sediment benthic fauna are likely to be temporary, and unlikely to have a measurable impact beyond the project footprint.

Fragment, isolate or substantially damage habitat important for the conservation of biological diversity in a World Heritage property

The proposed development is unlikely to result in a significant loss or degradation of habitats required for maintaining the diverse fauna and flora of the region, including marine turtles.

There are no known seagrass communities in the study area, and the project is unlikely to interfere with the recovery of seagrass beds in Trinity Inlet and Cairns Harbour.

The nearest coral reef is beyond the predicted extent of impact from the construction and operation of the project.

A relatively small area of mangroves will be cleared during construction of the pipelines. These mangroves will be rehabilitated once construction is complete. Mangroves surrounding the proposed development are extensive, and are mostly connected along Richter, Thomatis, Yorkeys and Half Moon creeks. Construction or operation of the resort is not expected to fragment, isolate or substantially damage these aquatic habitats.

Areas of non-vegetated soft substrate will also be disturbed during construction of the pipeline. Given that the bare substrates are typical of the region, the loss of this habitat is not likely to have a measurable ecological impact beyond the project footprint and is unlikely to affect marine turtles. Any impact is likely to be temporary.




Cause a long-term reduction in rare, endemic or unique plant or animal populations or species in a World Heritage property

The project is highly unlikely to cause a long-term reduction in any marine turtle populations. The study area does not support an important populations of any species of marine turtle and does not provide habitat critical to the survival of the species. Low numbers of green turtles may forage in Trinity Inlet south of the project area, and green turtles may forage in the estuarine areas adjacent to the development on occasion. However, the species is found in greater numbers elsewhere in the region.

Fragment, isolate or substantially damage habitat for rare, endemic or unique animal populations or species in a World Heritage property.

The proposed development is unlikely to result in the loss or degradation of habitats required for maintaining the diverse fauna and flora of the region, including marine turtles.

There are no known seagrass communities in the study area.


Areas of non-vegetated soft substrate will also be disturbed during construction of the pipeline. Given that the bare substrates are typical of the region, the loss of this habitat is not likely to have a measurable ecological impact beyond the project footprint and is unlikely to affect marine turtles. This impact is likely to be temporary.

Wilderness, natural beauty or rare or unique environment values

Involve construction of buildings, roads, or other structures, vegetation clearance, or other actions with substantial, long-term or permanent impacts on relevant values

NA



NA not applicable


Introduce noise, odours, pollutants or other intrusive elements with substantial, long-term or permanent impacts on relevant values.

The construction of the pipelines will cause noise that may disturb marine turtles in Richters Creek mouth, and in the adjacent off-shore areas, causing them to move away from the area temporarily; however, marine turtles are likely to return to the area once construction is complete. Changes to water quality associated with the construction and operation of the resort and pipeline may also affect marine turtles. For example, if contaminated sediments or acid sulfate soils (which are toxic to marine fauna) are disturbed during the construction of the pipelines, or if spills of hydrocarbons or other contaminants occur. With appropriate mitigation measures in place, these potential impacts to marine turtles are unlikely to occur.

Indirect impacts to marine turtles may also be caused by increased illumination in the local area. However, there are no definitive records of turtles nesting on the beaches in the vicinity of the Aquis site and the area is not recognised as a key nesting area for any species of marine turtle. Where appropriate design features are incorporated into the Aquis development, any impacts to nesting and hatching marine turtles are likely to be minimised.

It is unlikely that there will be a substantial, long-term or permanent impact on the values of the GBRWHA, including marine turtles and their habitats.

Historic heritage values NA

Other cultural heritage values including Indigenous heritage values

Permanently diminish the cultural value of a World Heritage property for a community or group to which its values relate

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have hunted marine turtles for traditional food and medicines for thousands of years. Traditional hunting and the consumption of turtles, especially green turtles, serve important economic, cultural and social functions and forms part of the cultural and heritage values associated with the GBRWHA.

The project is not likely to significantly affect marine turtle populations in the local or regional areas, and will not affect the cultural heritage values for Indigenous communities.

Overall impact assessment result The project is highly unlikely to significant impact the values of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area as a consequence of any impacts to marine turtles and their habitats.



OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE AND ASSOCIATED AQUATIC ECOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES

POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT

ASSESSMENT

Criterion (i) an outstanding example representing the major stages of the earth's evolutionary history

Reefal Systems The nearest mapped coral reefs to the Aquis site are the inshore fringing reefs around Green Island (approximately 25 km east of Richters Creek mouth), and Haycock Reef and Double Island Reef (approximately 10 km north of Richters Creek mouth). The closest known reef is a very small reef approximately 7 km to the north-west at Taylor Point (north of Trinity Beach). Coral cover at these reefs is low, and has declined in recent years. Despite this, new coral growth and old massive corals are likely to exist.

Water quality data collected to date indicate that the waters off-shore of Richters Creek are subject to natural fluctuations in turbidity and total suspended solids as result of plumes from Richters Creek and the Barron River (particularly during the wet season). Modelling of potential impacts of water quality from the proposed lake has assessed that the water quality will be in similar or better condition than the receiving environment (Flanagan Consulting Group 2014a). Further, negligible changes in water quality concentrations are expected off-shore near any reef systems, with 90th percentile changes indicating over 99% dilution.

If the models are not accurate, then there may be some impacts to water quality in the GBRWHA. If appropriate mitigations measures are not employed during dredging operations, then turbid plumes may reach nearby coral reefs, temporarily affecting feeding, respiration and growth of corals and epibenthos (some of which are consumed by marine turtles) during the construction period.

Construction and operation of the proposed development is unlikely to impact on the key interrelated and interdependent elements of coral reefs. The proposed development is unlikely to affect the Great Barrier Reef as an outstanding example representing the major stages of the earth’s evolutionary history.

coral cays Low

new phases of coral growth Low

old massive corals Low

coral reef ecosystem Low

inshore fringing reefs, mid-shelf reefs, and exposed outer reefs, including examples of all stages of reef development

Low





ASSESSMENT

Criterion (ii) an outstanding example representing significant ongoing geological processes, biological evolution and man's interaction with his natural environment

Marine Attributes Construction of the proposed inlet and outlet pipes at Richters Creek mouth will result in the direct loss of non-vegetated soft sediments, and the associated micro- and macrobenthos. Given that the estuarine and marine areas adjacent to the areas of disturbance are typical of the region, the loss of this micro- and macrobenthos (including molluscs, marine worms and crustaceans) is not likely to have a measurable ecological impact beyond the project footprint.

It is unlikely that any Halimeda beds that may be associated with the nearest reefs would be impacted, as they are 7–25 km away, and water quality in these areas is unlikely to be impacted during construction and operation of the Aquis Resort. Likewise, sand banks around coral cays are unlikely to be affected.

Construction and operation of the proposed development is unlikely to result in the loss of necessary elements that are essential for the long-term conservation of the area’s ecosystems and biodiversity. The proposed development is unlikely to affect ongoing geological processes, biological evolution or man’s interaction with the natural environment.

coral reefs, sand banks and coral cays Low

beds of Halimeda algae Low

evolution of hard corals Low

4000 species of molluscs, over 1500 species of fish, plus a great diversity of sponges, anemones, marine worms, crustaceans and many others

Low

other marine fauna including microfauna NA

Criterion (iii) contains unique, rare or superlative natural phenomena, formations or features or areas of exceptional natural beauty, such as superlative examples of the most important ecosystems to man

Marine Attributes The proposed development is unlikely to impact on the aesthetic value of coral reefs, including hard and soft corals, in the GBRWHA. Provided that appropriate mitigation measures are employed during dredging, it is also unlikely that coral spawning will be affected.

There are no key turtle nesting areas in the vicinity of the proposed development, and thus it is unlikely that there are significant breeding colonies of the marine turtles nearby.

Construction and operation of the proposed development is unlikely to result in the loss or degradation of areas that are essential for maintaining the beauty of the aquatic ecosystems of the GBRWHA.

string of reef structures Low

coral assemblages of hard and soft corals Low

thousands of species of reef fish NA

coral spawning NA

migrating whales NA

significant spawning aggregations of many fish species NA

breeding colonies of marine turtles Low





ASSESSMENT

Criterion (iv) contains habitats where populations of rare or endangered species of plants and animals still survive.

Marine Habitat Diversity The proposed development is unlikely to result in the loss or degradation of habitats required for maintaining the diverse fauna and flora of the region, including marine turtles.

There are no known seagrass communities in the study area, and the project is unlikely to interfere with the recovery of seagrass beds in Trinity Inlet and Cairns Harbour.


Areas of non-vegetated soft substrate will also be disturbed during construction of the pipeline. Given that the bare substrates are typical of the region, the loss of this habitat is not likely to have a measurable ecological impact beyond the project footprint and is unlikely to affect marine turtles. This impact is likely to be temporary.

The likelihood of marine turtles occurring the study area is low to moderate. Some turtles may feed in mangroves areas in the estuarine reaches of the creeks; however, these areas are not ideal or preferred foraging habitat. The riverbanks adjacent to the Aquis site are lined with mangroves and are not suitable for turtle breeding; there are no major breeding grounds known to occur in the study area. If appropriate mitigation measures are not employed, then marine turtles may be impacted by changes to water quality, changes to light regimes or by underwater noise through resort operations (e.g. water pumps and generators) and during construction. Where appropriate mitigation measures are employed, the risk of these impacts is low.

coral reefs (400 species of corals in 60 genera) Low

coral cays Low

diversity of mangroves Low

diversity of seagrass Low

Marine Species

dugong NA

species of whale NA

species of dolphins NA

humpback whale calving NA

marine turtles Low

Overall Assessment The project is highly unlikely to significant impact on the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area as a consequence of any impacts to marine turtles and their habitats.

NA not applicable



6.16.3 Conclusions

The above assessment confirms statements made in the EIS that the development of the Aquis Resort

is not likely to result in a significant impact on any matters of NES related to the marine environment

and its species. The main potential impacts of land-based development (deterioration in water quality

and loss of terrestrial habitats and associated ecological processes) have been addressed by design

initiatives (WSUD, lake water quality, and restoration of habitats) and further mitigation and

management are commitments of the construction and operation phases. There are practical and

effective mitigation techniques available and these will be applied to the project.

6.17 SENSITIVE AREAS / IMPACTS FOR TERRESTRIAL FAUNA HABITAT (ITEM

14 AND 21 – PART)

6.17.1 Background

There are a three inter-related issues raised in the DoTE submission (212) regarding habitats for

terrestrial fauna and subsequent impacts, namely:

(14) Statements that this area is not considered to be core habitat for a species and not considered to support important populations or offer habitat critical to the survival of the species need to be supported by evidence. This is also the case when describing the area may be low or moderately likely to provide habitat for a species. Further justification is required when attributing low or moderate score to habitat features for the species.

(21) Potential impacts to listed species or their potential habitat have been discussed in the EIS, however further information is required to outline which impacts are relevant to which listed species.

(24) Impacts to shorebirds and turtles need to be addressed under the relevant controlling provisions, for example listed threatened species, listed migratory species and World Heritage Area (Outstanding Universal Value of the GBRWHA).

This section discusses values and impacts on terrestrial species. Refer also to the similar discussion

on aquatic species in Section 6.16.

6.17.2 Discussion – Values

a) Listed Threatened Flora

The assessment concludes that there are 16 listed flora species in the protected matters search, of

which:

one species (Myrmecodia beccarii (Vulnerable – V) was confirmed on the site

one species (Durabaculum mirbelianum (Endangered – E) is considered likely to or may

possibly occur

remaining species (14) are unlikely to occur, based on knowledge of the habitats present and a

targeted search.

Confirmed Listed Species

Only one listed species (Myrmecodia beccarii (V)) was located on the Aquis site. Commonly known as

the Ant plant because of its mutualistic relationship with ants, this epiphytic species is found

throughout the Cairns City area where there are mangrove and/or Melaleuca-dominated habitats. The

plant can be seen in range of age and size classes across the project area within these plant

communities. It is readily seen using Ceriops australis and Xylocarpus moluccensis as hosts within

mangroves, similarly on mature Melaleuca leucadendra and M. quinquenervia in wetland ecosystems.

The epiphyte is also occasionally seen in the small patches of residual woodlands, hosted on

Corymbia intermedia and Acacia crassicarpa. Because of its reliance on canopy level vegetation,

Myrmecodia beccarii was not found outside well-developed forest habitats.



On the basis of the Ant plant population present on site and its habitat, the site exhibits some value,

but this cannot be described as unique, outstanding, or of universal importance.

In relation to M. beccarii, the following analysis is relevant.

There will be no decrease in the size of a population or a long-term adverse effect on an

ecological community given that all individuals and their habitat will be protected. All plants

occur within well-developed habitats that are planned for retention.

There will be no reduction in the area of occupancy of the species given that habitat will be

protected, and expanded in the longer term. An additional 29.8 ha (plus 11.4 ha outside the

project boundary) of mangrove ecosystem is proposed for restoration. The total M. beccarii

population on-site has not been quantified but based on mangrove surveys on the site, the

density is estimated at around 30 plants/ha, suggesting that an additional 40 ha of mature

restored mangroves could support a large number of additional M. beccarii.

Fragmentation of the existing population will not occur as habitat will be protected and existing

levels of connectivity potentially enhanced through restoration. Because continuity of habitat will

not be affected, existing populations should not become ecologically isolated. Moreover,

attendant ants and pollinating butterflies should be similarly free of fragmentation impacts.

No disturbance or destruction of habitat critical to the survival of the species is proposed. The

mangrove and Melaleuca communities in which M. beccarii occurs are outside the proposed

construction zone. The species occurs in similar habitats in the local area and greater Cairns

City environs.

No disruption of the breeding cycle of a population would occur and in the longer term increased

habitat and enhanced connectivity may lead to population increases. As noted, there should be

minimal/no disturbance to mutualistic species that are important to the long term persistence of

M. beccarii.

There will be no modification, destruction, removal, isolation or reduction of the availability or

quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline and net habitat area is

proposed to increase. The project is unlikely to exacerbate edge effects or generate other

biotic/abiotic effects that may impact habitat quality or integrity.

Modification or destruction of abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients or soil)

necessary for the ecological community's survival (Not Applicable).

The introduction of invasive species that are harmful to the species or ecological community

becoming established (Not Applicable).

Interference with the recovery of the species or ecological community (Not Applicable).

Action that may be inconsistent with a recovery plan (Not Applicable – there is no recovery plan

or threat abatement plan for M. beccarii).

The project should not adversely impact on the population of M. beccarii on-site and is

consistent with the Conservation Advice.

Generally, the most significant impact on this species is an ongoing loss of habitat, with edge effects,

loss of mutualistic relationships, and illegal collecting likely to be key secondary impacts. These threats

are not impacts that are now present on the site, and the development is unlikely to give rise to such

impacts.

The species and its habitat will be protected, with no clearing of its habitat as a result of the

development. Additional habitat will become available as Melaleuca wetlands are restored during the

habitat restoration process. The existing population will not be fragmented, and genetic exchange

within the local population may be enhanced by facilitating improved habitat connectivity through

riparian restoration.



Listed Species with Potential to Occur On-site

Targeted searches were conducted for the two listed orchids Durabaculum mirbelianum (E) and

Durabaculum nindii (E), which were both considered to be potentially present on-site. Both species are

known to occur within mangroves, coastal swamps and associated habitats. Mangrove habitats on the

Aquis site provide suitable habitat for both these species. These habitats were extensively sampled

during the recent surveys, and while other epiphytes and mistletoe have been recorded during various

surveys, neither D. mirbelianum nor D. nindii were seen. Detectability is relatively straightforward in

this instance, so the chance of having missed species is unlikely.

In addition, Eleocharis retroflexa (V), although not listed in the results of the protected matters search

for the site, was also considered to be potentially present. This species is known from seasonally

inundated habitats around the Cairns area (Environment North 1998). The species is not known from

saline habitats, but sections of Yorkeys Creek, some internal cane drains, and the aquaculture ponds,

do provide some suitable niche habitats. However, targeted surveys in these areas failed to locate any

individuals of E. retroflexa.

b) Listed Threatened Fauna

There were 20 listed fauna species in the protected matters search, of which:

one species (Pteropus conspicillatus (V)) was confirmed on the site

one species (Erythrotriorchis radiatus (V)) may overfly the site

two species (Dasyurus hallucatus (E) and Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus (CE)) are

likely to occur

remaining species (16) are unlikely to occur, based on knowledge of the habitats present and a

targeted search.

Confirmed Listed Threatened Species

Individuals and small groups of Pteropus conspicillatus (Spectacled flying-fox) were seen and heard

during nocturnal surveys. This species occurs between Ingham and Cooktown, and between the

McIlwraith and Iron Ranges of Cape York Peninsula. In the greater Cairns region there are known

roosting colonies in Yorkeys Knob, Cairns City, Cairns Central Swamp, Anderson Park, Edmonton and

Gordonvale (Freeman 2003). This species is associated primarily with rainforest and sometimes with

mangroves, and large roosts are always found within 6 km of rainforests. There are no camps of P.

conspicillatus within the Aquis site, however all the natural habitats in the area provide suitable

foraging and temporary resources for this species.

In relation to P. conspicillatus, the following analysis is relevant to the MNES guidelines:

There will be no habitat loss associated with the project that may lead to a decrease in the size

of a population, given that all habitats will be protected. All habitat utilised by this species is

marked for retention.

There will be no reduction in the area of occupancy of the species, given that habitat will be

protected and expanded in the longer term. In excess of 55 ha of degraded agricultural lands is

proposed for some form of ecological restoration, and all local biota are likely to benefit from the

provision of extra habitat.

Fragmentation of the existing population will not occur, given that habitat will be protected and

existing levels of connectivity enhanced. The species mobility would not be expected to decline

as a direct result of the proposed development.

No disturbance or destruction of habitat critical to the survival of the species is proposed. The

species occurs in similar habitats in the local area and greater Cairns City, with a number of

camps known between Yorkeys Knob and Gordonvale.



No disruption of the breeding cycle of the population is envisaged and, in the longer term,

increased habitat and enhanced connectivity may lead to population increases. The

development will not impinge on any existing camp.

There will be no modification, destruction, removal, isolation or reduction of the availability or

quality of habitat to the extent that the species is likely to decline and net habitat area is

proposed to increase. The project is unlikely to impact on habitat quality or integrity.

Modification or destruction of abiotic (non-living) factors (such as water, nutrients or soil)

necessary for the ecological community's survival (not applicable).

The introduction of invasive species that are harmful to the species or ecological community

becoming established (not applicable).

Interference with the recovery of the species or ecological community (not applicable).

Listed Threatened Species with Potential to Occur On-site

Dasyurus hallucatus (Northern quoll) (E) is the smallest of the quoll species and the most

arboreal. Although found in a variety of habitats, it is most common in rocky eucalypt woodland

and open forest within 200 km of the coast. They are opportunistic omnivores feeding on

invertebrates, small birds and mammals, frogs, reptiles, fruits and nectar. Northern quolls will

den in tree hollows, termite mounds, fallen logs and rock crevices and will use a number of dens

across their territory (Oakwood 2002). Suitable habitat on the site for this species is very limited

in extent but potential prey is abundant. Nonetheless, the species has been recorded in and

around the Cairns area in recent years (Wildlife Protection Society of Queensland (WPSQ)

2012) and therefore, has potential to occur in the area. As the usual home range for both sexes

is approximately 35ha (although this increases to nearly 100 km for a male during mating

season) (DoTE, 2014), the small amount of potentially suitable habitat on site will at best only

form part of a home range.

Erythrotriorchis radiatus (Red goshawk) (V) occurs in woodlands and forests of tropical and

warm temperate Australia. It prefers mosaic habitats that hold a large population of birds and

permanent water. Riparian areas are heavily favoured and nests are restricted to trees taller

than 20 metres and within one kilometre of a watercourse or wetland (Garnett and Crowley

2000). The species may occur and forage in the area, although there is no nesting habitat on

the project site. There are large tracts of more suitable habitat in the area surrounding the site.

Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus (Bare-rumped sheathtail bat) (CE) is a large microbat

that occurs in coastal tropical woodland/open forest from Bowen north to the Lockhart River

area as well as the Top End in the Northern Territory, but is a rarely recorded species in

Australia. It is known to roost in large tree hollows in a variety of Eucalyptus species (Dennis

2012). There is habitat on the project site including some large trees which may contain suitable

roost hollows. A roost site was recently known to occur relatively nearby at Centenary Lakes in

Cairns (pers. comm. T. Reis). The subspecies has potential to occur on the project site. Anabat

recordings confirmed a species of Saccolaimus on-site however the call could only be identified

to genus level so it remains conjectural as to whether Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus is

present on the site. The presence of S. saccolaimus has been confirmed immediately next to

the Bruce Highway south of Townsville, suggesting some resilience and ability within this

species in living and foraging safely, adjacent to a high level of anthropogenic disturbance

(DTMR 2013).



Listed Threatened Fauna Summary

Based on the protected matters search, knowledge of the habitats present, and detailed, targeted fieldwork:

One species (Pteropus conspicillatus (V)) was confirmed on the site

One species (Erythrotriorchis radiatus (V)) may overfly the site

Two species (Dasyurus hallucatus (E) and Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus (CE)) are

likely to occur.

No camps of P. conspicillatus were found within the Aquis site, although all the natural habitats in the

greater Cairns area provide suitable foraging and temporary resources for this species. The preferred

habitats for some of the other species are present on the site and at many other locations nearby. Two

Crocodylus porosus have been recorded utilising the man-made aquaculture ponds on the southern

margin of the site abutting Richters Creek. This is also a highly mobile species which is known from a

variety of similar habitats in the Cairns area.

The Aquis site is not considered critical for the survival of any of the confirmed or likely species due to

the abundance of suitable habitat of similar or great quality outside of the site boundary.

Migratory Species Summary

Based on the migratory species protected matters search, knowledge of the habitats present, and

detailed, targeted fieldwork:

14 species were confirmed on the site

4 species may overfly the site

15 species are likely to occur.

Of the 14 confirmed species one (C. porosus) is a reptile and the remainder are birds. Five are

considered terrestrial migrants to/within the Australian mainland and all are relatively common species

that occur over a wide area (refer Table 6-6).

Suitable habitat for all of these species exists within the project site, mainly utilising the seasonal

abandoned aquaculture ponds, although some species may also forage on the clay pans following

tidal inundation. Mangrove habitats are also valuable.

Migratory bird fauna contribute to OUV because of their international distribution and the need to

protect habitats which support annual migration, breeding habitats, and seasonal resource utilisation.

A number of migratory fauna have been recorded on-site, and both resident and ‘obligate’ migratory

species have been encountered. Two ‘obligate migratory’ fauna, Numenius phaeopus and N.

madagascariensis, are relatively widespread on the Australian coast-line, although they are less

abundant in the south (Higgins and Davies 1996). Both migrate annually from the northern hemisphere

(Higgins and Davies 1996) and on the site occupy similar habitats to the more sedentary Esacus

magnirostris. Both Numenius species are mobile and likely to move in response to local resource

availability. The migratory species habitat values available on-site are not unique or outstanding in a

local context, nor are they proposed to be disturbed by the development.

There were three other EPBC-listed migratory wetland birds observed on the property. These species

were only seen on the (man-made) aquaculture ponds and on the farms artificial drainage network.

These species are present on a seasonal basis, and have only been recorded during the dry season

when water levels provide suitable wading habitat.

The shoreline at Richters Creek is unlikely to form core habitat for any of the discussed species due to

its small size and disturbed nature (kite surfers, dog walkers, fishers and swimmers were all observed

during the site surveys). The Aquis site is at best only likely to be used temporarily by most species



during migration as there is more suitable habitat such as the Cairns foreshore within 10 km of the

Aquis site. The Cairns foreshore is a well-known area for migratory shorebirds and has been

designated as an internationally important site for some species of migratory bird due to the number of

migratory birds that use the site annually (Bamford et. al, 2008).

The aquaculture ponds are unlikely to provide core habitat for any of the discussed species due to

their small size and transient water levels. Permanent freshwater bodies such as the Cattana

Wetlands (80 ha), and ephemeral freshwater in nearby Melaleuca-dominated habitats, are habitat

resources that are used seasonally by a number of birds, including migratory shore-birds and waders.

Cattana Wetlands recorded over 150 species of bird during 2013 (Birdlife Northern Queensland 2013)

including most migratory species positively identified on the Aquis site.

The site’s listed migratory fauna are largely dependent on the presence of man-made habitats. Such

habitat also exists adjacent to the site. Values relating to those migratory fauna which occur in natural

habitats should not be affected, given that these habitats are not proposed to be disturbed.

6.17.3 Discussion – Impacts

Within the MNES chapter (22) of the EIS, refer to s22.11.2, 22.12.2 and 22.14.2 for the potential

impacts specific to threatened species which have been identified as a result of the project. Table 6-25

summarises the potential impacts on each MNES-listed species recorded on the Aquis site.



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS

SITE OCCURRENCE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SPECIES/HABITAT POTENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION

Threatened Species (Flora)

Myrmecodia beccarii

Ant plant V Recorded

Generally, the most significant threat to this species is an ongoing loss of habitat, with edge effects, loss of mutualistic relationships, and illegal collecting likely to be key secondary impacts. The risk of these threatening processes will not be increased as a result of the development as there will be no loss of suitable habitat for this species.

The species and its habitat will be protected, with no clearing of its habitat as a result of the development. Additional habitat will become available as Melaleuca wetlands and mangroves are restored during the habitat restoration process. The existing population will not be fragmented, and genetic exchange within the local population may be enhanced by facilitating improved habitat connectivity through riparian restoration.

Durabaculum mirbelianum (syn. Dendrobium mirbelianum)

Dark-stemmed antler orchid or Mangrove orchid

E Potentially occurring

Generally, the most significant threats to this species are loss of habitat and over-collection by orchid enthusiasts. The risk of these threatening processes will not be increased as a result of the development.

With a projected net-increase of suitable habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration, the development is not expected to impose impacts on this species that would adversely affect potentially occurring populations or relevant habitat.

Durabaculum nindii (syn. Dendrobium nindii)

Blue antler orchid

E Potentially occurring

Generally the main identified threats to Dendrobium nindii are clearing of coastal habitats and illegal collection The risk of these threatening processes will not be increased as a result of the development.

With a projected net-increase of suitable habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration, the development is not expected to impose impacts on this species that would adversely affect potentially occurring populations or relevant habitat.



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS


Eleocharis retroflexa

n/a V Potentially occurring

In Queensland, where the species grows near habitation, it is potentially affected by weed ingress, urban development, and changed drainage conditions. Despite targeted searches this species was not recorded on site and is therefore unlikely to be impacted by the development.

Marginal niche habitat may be present on site in sections of Yorkeys Creek, some internal cane drains, and the aquaculture ponds. However, as targeted searches did not detect the species the development is not expected to have any direct impacts on populations or suitable critical habitat.

Threatened Species (Fauna)

Pteropus conspicillatus

Spectacled flying-fox

V Recorded

Known threats to the Spectacled flying-fox include loss of habitat, conflict with humans and/or man-made obstacles, entanglement in nets, illegal shooting, electrocution on power-lines, entanglement in barbed wire fencing and backyard drape netting, tick paralysis, genetic disorders (e.g. cleft palate syndrome), agricultural pesticide residue poisoning and vehicle-related mortality. None of these threats are significantly relevant with regards to the proposed development.

No camps of P. conspicillatus were found within

the Aquis site, although it was recorded foraging on the site. All the natural habitats in the greater Cairns area provide suitable foraging and temporary resources for this species and the species

P. conspicillatus is often found occurring in urban areas with significant artificial lighting and noise (such as Cairns CBD); hence the small increase in these factors as a result of the development is not expected to significantly influence their behaviour.

The development will provide a net increase of suitable habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration.

Best practice lighting and noise reduction methods will be used on-site during construction and operation to minimise the amount of light and noise that may potentially impact on this species.



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS


Dasyurus hallucatus

Northern quoll E Potentially occurring

Known threats to D. hallucatus are habitat

degradation/clearing, introduction of invasive species, pastoralism/inappropriate fire regimes and traffic.

There may be some temporary diminution of habitat quality during construction (increased noise / vibration / heavy machinery activity). During operation there will be an increase in light and noise that may impact on this species and its prey in small areas of the site. However the small amount of suitable habitat on site is likely to form only a small part of an individual’s home range. Hence any potential impact on this species is unlikely to be significant.

As woodland habitats are protected and not degraded, and projected to be expanded through post-construction restoration, the proposed development is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on this species.


Saccolaimus saccolaimus nudicluniatus

Bare-rumped sheathtail bat

CE Potentially occurring

The distribution, habitat preferences and biology of the bare-rumped sheathtail bat have not been comprehensively investigated, making the identification of all known and likely threats facing this species difficult to determine. The known primary threat is habitat loss. There will be no habitat loss for this species on site as a result of the development.

There may be some temporary diminution of habitat quality during construction (increased noise / vibration / heavy machinery activity). During operation there will be an increase in light and noise that may impact on this species and its prey in small areas of the site. However the presence of S nudicluniatus has been recorded adjacent to the Bruce Highway in Townsville, proving the resilience and ability of this species to live and forage safely adjacent to a high level of artificial lighting.

As habitat suitable for this species (woodland bearing long deep tree hollows) will not be cleared, the proposed development would not be expected to adversely affect this species.




SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS


Erythrotriorchis radiatus

Red goshawk V May overfly site

The primary threat to this species is considered to be widespread deforestation, particularly of lowland and riverine forests.

The site is not considered critical for the survival of the species due to the abundance of suitable habitat of similar or great quality outside of the site boundary. E. radiatus is not likely to nest on site due to lack of suitable habitat.

There will be no net reduction of habitat for this species on site as a result of the development and there is likely to be neutral impact on this species.

With a projected net-increase of habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration, the development is not expected to impose impacts that would adversely affect this species.



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS


Migratory Species (EPBC-listed)

Reptiles

Crocodylus porosus

Estuarine crocodile

MMS Recorded

A variety of habitats suitable for C. porosus such as freshwater rivers and lakes, mangroves and brackish water are available in the area surrounding the proposed development site. C. porosus are known to disperse from areas in search of resources such as food or habitat. The individual(s) seen within the development envelope are likely to utilise different areas depending on seasonal resource availability.

The removal of the aquaculture ponds and the design of the lake to make it unsuitable for use by crocodiles may result in a small net reduction of habitat on site. Suitable habitat for this species (including the mangroves and wet woodland areas) will be retained on site, and given the current population size and distribution in Queensland; there are many more suitable habitats available in the closer and wider proximity. The very small reduction in available sub-optimal water habitat is unlikely to have a significant impact on this species.

The development has a projected net-increase of habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS


Aerial Birds

Apus pacificus Fork-tailed swift MMB Recorded

A widespread summer migrant from the northern hemisphere this species forages over a wide range of natural and manmade habitats and likely utilises the site’s habitat resources only vagrantly. No impacts on the migratory habits of this species are expected.

The site contains some habitat that is suitable for the species, but the proposed development is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on this species’ migratory habits.

Hirundapus caudacutus

White-throated needle tail

MTS Recorded

A widespread summer migrant from the northern hemisphere this species forages over a wide range of natural and manmade habitats and likely utilises the site’s habitat resources only vagrantly. No impacts on the migratory habits of this species are expected.


Marine Birds

Egretta sacra Eastern Reef Egret

MMB Recorded

This species is widespread, occurring in all mainland states and Tasmania, and especially common in Great Barrier Reef environments. It is restricted to coastal environments where it takes a variety of prey.

The species may be impacted by the disturbance at the Richters Ck mouth, although this should only be a temporary effect.

The species may occasionally forage at night, but is mostly diurnal.

Because it is mostly marine-based the loss of the aquaculture ponds should not affect habitat availability.

The species is known to nest in mangroves and restored habitat would be expected to offset any loss of habitat.



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS


Terrestrial Birds

Haliaeetus leucogaster

White bellied sea-eagle

MTS Recorded

The main threats to the species are the loss of habitat due to land development, and the disturbance of nesting pairs by human activity.

H. leucogaster was recorded foraging in the mangroves and Eucalyptus / Melaleuca woodland on site. No nesting sites were detected on site during surveys and there are abundant suitable habitat resources available in the closer and wider proximity.

The development has a projected net-increase of habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration.

The proposed lake may provide a habitat resource which would benefit the species, but also increase the risk of bird-strike. Management to deter lake use by this species will be required in the interest of public safety.

Overall the proposed development is likely to be neutral in terms of its effect on this species.

Merops ornatus Rainbow bee-eater

MTS Recorded

This species is especially abundant in mangrove areas on the development site where it has been recorded during all systematic and incidental surveys.

Given that mangroves will be protected and in some areas expanded, the proposed development would be expected to have a neutral to beneficial effect on this species

Monarcha melanopsis

Black-faced monarch

MTS Recorded

A widespread summer migrant from PNG, the species likely utilises the site’s habitat resources only vagrantly. No impacts on the migratory habits of this species are expected.


The site contains habitat that supports the species, but the project is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on this species’ migratory habits.



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS


Monarcha trivirgatus (syn. Symposiarchus trivirgatus)

Spectacled monarch

MTS Recorded

Generally confined to closed forest environments (e.g., rainforest, mangroves) this species migrates from SE Australia but is a common resident in NE QLD. Given the highly mobile nature of migratory species and with abundant suitable habitat available locally and regionally no impact is expected from the proposed development.


The site contains some habitat that is suitable for the species, but the project is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on migratory habits of this species.

Myiagra cyanoleuca

Satin fly-catcher MTS Recorded

A winter migrant from Tasmania/SE Australia this species was recorded in the eucalypt woodland on site. No nest sites were recorded.

The species likely utilises the site’s habitat resources only vagrantly. No impacts on the migratory habits of this species are expected.

The development has a projected net-increase of eucalypt woodland habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration.


Wetland Birds

Ardea ibis Cattle egret MWS Recorded

Ardea ibis is widespread and common according to migration movements and breeding localities surveys. Non-breeding birds may remain in breeding areas, but most migrate elsewhere. Its association with livestock added to its habitat adaptability which assisted species spread.

This species is widespread and common and is known to occur in areas of human habitation and disturbed areas. The development is unlikely to impact on this species.



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Eastern Great

Egret MWS Recorded

Occurring in all mainland states and Tasmania, this species may occur in large breeding flocks of over a thousand pairs (Marchant and Higgins 1990). The species uses a wide variety of habitats, both natural and man-made, and is known to breed in mangroves. They occur in both freshwater and saline habitats.

Loss of the aquaculture ponds would represent

some loss of habitat.

Significant areas of mangroves and Melaleuca wetland will be restored as part of the development process.

There will be a net gain in habitat for this species.


Calidris acuminata

Sharp-tailed sandpiper

MWS, SIG Recorded

A widespread summer migrant from the northern hemisphere, the species occupies a range of habitats including brackish and freshwater wetlands, lagoons, swamps, littoral zone environments, and man-made habitats. It was recorded on site utilising the aquaculture ponds.

The loss of the aquaculture ponds and design of the lake may reduce the amount of habitat suitable for this species on the site. However the aquaculture ponds are likely to be a small part of the local resources used by this species with the Cattana Wetlands representing a much larger and less transient habitat resource. The loss of the aquaculture ponds as a result of the development will not have a significant impact on this species.



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS


Calidris ruficollis Red-necked stint

MWS, SIG Recorded

Observed at the aquaculture ponds or occasionally on ephemeral drainages across the property, this species forages on a range of wetland habitats and may occur well inland of the project site.

The loss of the aquaculture ponds and design of the lake may reduce the amount of habitat suitable for this species on the site. However the aquaculture ponds are likely to be a small part of the local resources used by this species with the Cattana Wetlands representing a much larger and less transient habitat resource. The loss of the aquaculture ponds as a result of the development will not have a significant impact on this species.

Gallinago

hardwickii Latham’s snipe MWS, SIG Recorded

Observed at the aquaculture ponds or occasionally on ephemeral drainages across the property, this species forages on a range of wetland habitats and may occur well inland of the project site.

The loss of the aquaculture ponds and design of the lake may reduce the amount of habitat suitable for this species on the site. However the aquaculture ponds are likely to be a small part of the local resources used by this species with the Cattana Wetlands representing a much larger and less transient habitat resource.

The loss of the aquaculture ponds as a result of the development will not have a significant impact on this species.



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS


Numenius madagascariensis

Eastern Curlew MWS Recorded

This species occurs on sheltered coasts, especially estuaries, harbours and coastal lagoons, and are often recorded in saltmarsh and on mudflats within mangroves. The mouth of Richters Creek provides the only likely habitat for this species on the site.

The habitat for this species may be temporarily affected during lake-outfall construction.

Consideration of N. madagascariensis breeding

regime when planning the construction works in the immediate vicinity of Richters’ Creek mouth.

Providing shoreline/mudflat habitat is not degraded, the project is likely to be neutral in terms of its long term effects on the migratory habits of this species.

Numenius phaeopus

Whimbrel MWS Recorded

This species was regularly observed foraging next to mangroves at the mouth of Richters’ Creek; this is a largely coastal species and one of the few waders that regularly roost on the branches of mangroves.

The habitat for this species may be temporarily affected during lake-outfall construction.

Consideration of N. phaeopus breeding regime when planning the construction works in the immediate vicinity of Richters’ Creek mouth.

The development has a projected net-increase of mangrove habitat through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration.

Providing shoreline/mudflat habitat is not degraded, the project is likely to be neutral in terms of its effects on the migratory habits of this species.



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS


Pandion cristatus (syn Pandion haliaetus)

Eastern Osprey

PMST result: Other: Marine Species

(breeding).

Listed in

online

EPBC

Migratory

Species

and

Marine

Species

Recorded

This is a widespread species occurring across Australia, and occasionally in Tasmania. The species is almost entirely coastal and uses a variety of saline and freshwater habitats within large territories. They are mostly diurnal although they may also occasionally forage at night.

Loss of the aquaculture ponds would represent some loss of habitat.

Changes in light availability should not negatively affect this species as most foraging is diurnal and extra night-time light may increase foraging success. Potential loss of the aquaculture ponds should be offset by the extra habitat available through the restoration process.

Plegadis falcinellus

Glossy Ibis

Listed in online EPBC

Migratory Species

and Marine Species

Recorded

Most common in the eastern states, this diurnal species is restricted to shallow water bodies where it feeds on a wide range of prey in addition to plant parts. It migrates within Australia, and may migrate internationally (Marchant and Higgins 1990).

Because of its dependence on shallow water, the species would use the aquaculture ponds as a dry season refuge, and their loss would represent diminution of habitat. Other parts of the property would also provide seasonal habitat resources.

Significant areas of Melaleuca wetland will be restored as part of the development process.

There should be a net gain in habitat for this species as a result of this restoration.



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS



Grey-tailed

Tattler MWS, SIG Recorded

Occurring in all mainland states, as well as Tasmania, this species also has a widespread global distribution. It feeds mostly in coastal, littoral zone habitats but has also been recorded in inland areas. It is a northern hemisphere breeder, which also migrates seasonally across Australia (Marchant and Higgins 1990).

The species may be impacted by the disturbance at the Richters Ck mouth, although this should only be a temporary effect.


Tringa nebularia Common

Greenshank

Listed in online EPBC

Migratory species

and Marine

Species, SIG

Recorded

The species is widespread, occurring in all mainland states of Australia, and occurs in a wide variety of wetland habitats. It is found mainly in coastal areas using both saline and freshwater habitats, as well as mangroves. Breeding takes place in the northern hemisphere.

Loss of the aquaculture ponds would represent loss of habitat.


Significant areas of mangroves and Melaleuca wetland will be restored as part of the development process. There will be a net gain in habitat for this species.



SCIENTIFIC NAME

COMMON NAME

EPBC ACT STATUS


Remaining EPBC-listed migratory species that are considered likely to occur or may overfly site

n/a n/a likely to occur or may overfly site

The aquaculture ponds, woodland, wetland and shore habitats on the site are habitat resources that are used seasonally by a number of birds, including migratory shore-birds and waders.

Although it is recognised that these habitats have some transient value to these species, there are other larger and more suitable freshwater habitats (such as the Cattana Wetlands and other freshwater reservoirs (e.g. abandoned sandmine at Holloways Beach)), ephemeral freshwater habitat (nearby Melaleuca-dominated habitats) and shore / mudflat habitats (Cairns foreshores is a nationally important area for migratory species) in the local area.

Short term noise and light impacts during construction may cause a temporary movement of some species to the other suitable resources in the area.

The loss of the aquaculture ponds may cause a small loss of habitat for some species although this is not likely to be significant on a local or regional level due to the presence of similar habitats in the immediate and wider surrounding areas.

Any long-term increase in light or noise as a result of the development is likely to be negligible in the habitats used by these species due to attenuation over distance, and shielding by vegetation.

Due to an overall net increase in habitat for some species, the overall impact on migratory species is likely to be neutral.

The development has a projected net-increase of eucalypt woodland, Melaleuca wetland and mangrove habitats through avoidance of clearing and additional post-construction restoration.

Best practise noise and light management guidelines will be implemented for the duration of the construction and operation phases of the development.

Abbreviations: CE – Critically Endangered; E – Endangered, V – Vulnerable, MMB – Migratory Marine Birds, MMS – Migratory Marine Species, MTS – Migratory Terrestrial

Species, MWS – Migratory Wetlands Species. SIG – listed in Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species.



6.17.4 Conclusions

The observed and potential listed flora species will not be at risk from the development as their

habitats will be protected and enhanced. The existing population will not be fragmented, and genetic

exchange within the local population may be enhanced by facilitating improved habitat connectivity

through riparian restoration.

The Aquis site is not considered critical for the survival of any of the confirmed or likely listed fauna

species due to the abundance of suitable habitat of similar or great quality outside of the site

boundary.

The site’s listed migratory fauna are largely dependent on the presence of man-made habitats. Such

habitat also exists adjacent to the site. Values relating to those migratory fauna which occur in natural

habitats should not be affected, given that these habitats are not proposed to be disturbed.

With respect to migratory species, the Aquis site does not meet the draft Significant Impact Guidelines

for 36 migratory shorebird species (DEWHA 2009) for being recognised as either a nationally or

internationally important site for the 36 migratory shorebird species covered by the EPBC Act policy

statement 3.21. The proposed development is unlikely to have a significant impact on these species.

6.18 WTWHA OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE (ITEM 35)

6.18.1 Background

The DoTE submission (212) Item 35 refers to Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area

Outstanding Universal Value Criterion vii (formerly (iii)) - contain superlative natural phenomena or

areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance and states:

(35) Insufficient consideration of the impacts on WTWHA is provided in the EIS. Further justification is required regarding the impact the project will have on the aesthetic values of WTWHA and its links to GBRWHA.

6.18.2 Discussion

The subject land is visible from parts of the WTWHA, in particular from Skyrail and from the Henry

Ross Lookout, and from these places the proposed development will be prominently visible (albeit at a

distance) as a contrast to the surrounding part of the Barron River floodplain. The view from Skyrail

(with the Aquis Resort superimposed) is documented in the EIS and reproduced below.



Figure 6-30 View from Skyrail.

Source: EIS Figure 6-12.

A broader view of the Barron River delta from the Henry Ross Lookout is included as part of Appendix

J Figure 13A, reproduced below as Figure 6-31.

Figure 6-31 View from Henry Ross Lookout.

These images show that the coastal plain (with extensive rural and urban land uses, linear transport

infrastructure, and the Cairns Airport) separates the two WHAs along this part of the coastline. The

proposed development will be viewed in the context of these mixed land uses, rather than as an

intrusion into an otherwise natural or highly scenic landscape. The visual connectivity between parts of

the GBRWHA and the WTWHA is strengthened where the two WHAs are in close proximity to each

other and the rainforested landscapes of the WTWHA can be seen to extend right down to the waters

of the GBRWHA. This occurs variously along the coastline, and in the Cairns region extends almost



continuously from Yarrabah down to Innisfail, and from Palm Cove north (Photo 6-5 ) but not where

the coastal plain is wider around Cairns (Figure 6-31).

Photo 6-5 View of WTWHA and the coastal waters of the GBRWHA near Rocky Point.

6.18.3 Conclusion

It is concluded that in the Cairns area, the two world heritage areas are separated by the coastal plain

that, in the vicinity of the Aquis site, is characterised by extensive urban and industrial development.

Although the forested backdrop of the WTWHA is visible from the GBRWHA, so is the linear

development of Cairns. Modelling shows that the Aquis Resort will be visible as another man-made

feature in this viewshed but not one of any particular significance.

Similarly, the views of the GBRWHA are visible from some vantage points within the WTWHA but this

view is interrupted by extensive development of the coastal plain. It is concluded that although the

Aquis Resort will be clearly visible from two such vantage points (Skyrail and the Henry Ross

Lookout), it will not be detract from World Heritage values.

6.19 GBRWHA OUTSTANDING UNIVERSAL VALUE/IMPACTS (ITEMS 16 TO 19,

30-31, 37-39)

6.19.1 Background

The DoTE submission (212) Items 16 to 19 and 30 and 31 all deal with Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Area Outstanding Universal Value Criterion vii - contain superlative natural phenomena or

areas of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic importance and state:

(16) Justification needs to be made as to why the mangroves on site are not considered representative of the attribute of Outstanding Universal Value (page 22-94).



(17) Low visibility and turbid waters are not sufficient explanation as to why marine flora and fauna are not considered to be a significant contribution to Outstanding Universal Value. Please justify this statement.

(18) Please justify why the beaches south of Yorkeys Knob, the Richters Ck mouth and the northern part of Holloways Beach are not considered spectacular sandy beaches contributing to the Outstanding Universal Value of GBRWHA.

(19) Claiming that the mainland (and development site) is an area that visitors leave behind to visit the GBRWHA and that it is not part of the GBRWHA experience itself does not recognise the full extent of the GBRWHA. The aesthetic values of the GBRWHA need to be considered as broader than the actual reef and include a broad landscape experience.

(30) The EIS states that the development won't impose a visual change to the connectivity between GBRWHA and Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA) (this occurs further north). However, there will be a visual impact when looking from the WTWHA towards the GBRWHA. Further justification is required regarding visual impacts to GBRWHA and WTWHA.

(31) There is inconsistency in the EIS as to whether or not the resort (tall buildings) will be seen from Green Island. Clarification needs to be provided on this issue.

Also relevant are Items 37 to 39 refer to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Criterion vii –

(formerly (iii)) contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty and

aesthetic importance and state:

(37) The EIS relies on the property having been a sugar cane property as evidence of diminished World Heritage Value. The fact that there is cropping on the site does not mean that the attributes of the world heritage area do not exist. For example, the visual connectivity between GBRWHA and WTWHA. Although agricultural land is not natural vegetation, the change from agricultural landscape to an urban landscape will impact on both WHAs. Further discussion regarding the impact of changing landscape should be provided.

(38) As discussed above, the department considers it likely that there would be a noticeable increase in artificial lighting and noise and in turn impacts on wildlife and aesthetics. The impact of artificial light and noise requires further investigation.

(39) As well as discussing the visual impacts of the development from Green Island and other off-shore points, the visual impact of the development in the more immediate vicinity needs to be discussed. It is likely that the resort will be visible from a broad sweep of the adjacent coastline, coastal waters and hinterland, and from the WTQWHA.

These are discussed together in an integrated manner.

6.19.2 Discussion

a) GBRWHA Outstanding Universal Value – Aesthetic Attributes

As discussed in the EIS, the project site is not within the GBRWHA. However, resort buildings will be

visible from GBRWHA waters, by day and by night, hence the visual impacts on the aesthetic values of

the GBRWHA require consideration. Assessment of potential impacts on GBRWHA aesthetic values

was based on the seven Criterion (vii) attributes recorded in the World Heritage citation and the

Statement of Outstanding Universal Values (GBRMPA 2011), plus consideration of the more holistic

and experiential ‘response to place’ as adapted from the 2013 Context Report (Defining the Aesthetic

Values of the Great Barrier Reef).

Although the Great Barrier Reef is an exceptionally large-scale feature, and many of its aesthetic

attributes are holistic in nature, the contribution of adjoining mainland sites is appropriately addressed

in a reductionist manner (does this site contribute aesthetically to any of the RSoOUV attributes?).

Accordingly, EIS Table 22-22 tabulated the GBRWHA attributes represented near Yorkeys Knob.

Additional assessment now clarifies the contribution of the subject land and the Yorkeys Knob

coastline to the GBR World Heritage Values and their contribution to the seven attributes listed in the

Retrospective Statement of Outstanding Universal Value (2012) (RSoOUV) which express the extent



to which the GBRWHA ‘contains superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional natural beauty

and aesthetic importance’.



One way of assessing the terms ‘superlative’ and ‘exceptional’ is by comparison to other parts of the

Far North Queensland coastline which border the GBRWHA, and to nearby places which contribute in

different ways to coastal, island and Great Barrier Reef scenery. Three such places (Green Island,

Cape Tribulation and Hinchinbrook Island) have been selected in order to compare their RSoOUV

attributes with those of Yorkeys Knob (Table 2-1 below), in order to identify and describe their relative

contributions to OUV. This ‘relative contribution’ approach assumes that some aesthetic attributes,

although attractive and significant locally or regionally, may vary in their contribution to “exceptional

natural beauty and aesthetic importance” and hence to the OUV of the GBRWHA, notwithstanding that

they may be adjacent to or visible from GBRWHA waters1.

This assessment is therefore guided by the definition and meaning of OUV as coined by which follows

the common sense interpretation of the words2:

Outstanding: For properties to be of outstanding universal value they should be exceptional, or

superlative - they should be the most remarkable places on earth.

Universal: Properties need to be outstanding from a global perspective. World heritage does not

aim to recognise properties that are remarkable from solely a national or regional perspective.

Countries are encouraged to develop other approaches to recognise these places. Australia

does this through the national heritage listing process.

Table 6-25 below summarises the relative expression or representation of the seven aesthetic

attributes of OUV (Criterion vii) at Yorkeys Knob, Green Island, Cape Tribulation, and Hinchinbrook

Island.

1

2 http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/understanding-world-heritage-what-outstanding-universal-value

http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/understanding-world-heritage-what-outstanding-universal-value



ATTRIBUTE

World Heritage Criterion

(vii) Aesthetic attributes3

EXPRESSION OF VALUE

Degree or extent to which values are expressed or represented

1.Absent or Rare

2. Uncommon or Poorly Expressed

3. Regular or Representative

4. Frequent or Uniquely Expressed

5. Superlative, world’s best

Hinchinbrook

Island Green Island Cape Tribulation Yorkeys Knob

Vast extent of reef and island systems and unparalleled aerial vistas

3.

Reefs associated with small islands to the north and north-east

5.

Distinctive circular reef and lagoon surrounding a coral cay, typical but so well known as to be ’emblematic’ of the GBR

Other reefs extend northwards to Batt Reef, visible in aerial vistas, including Arlington, Oyster and Thetford Reefs and Upolu Cay

1.

Reef system and islands are at least 20 kms off-shore

1.

Main coral reef systems occur 25 - 30 km off-shore; Closest reefs are at Double Island (8 kms north)

Forested continental islands and coral cays

4.

One of the largest and most densely forested islands off the Queensland coast, close to and visible from the mainland, and of very high landscape significance

5.

One of Queensland’s most famous and distinctive coral cays

1.

No islands within 20 kms

1.

Double Island is 8 kms north

Coastal and adjacent islands with mangrove systems of exceptional beauty:

5.

One of Queensland’s largest and most scenically attractive mangrove systems

1.

No mangroves

2.

Limited area of mangroves at Myall Beach

3.

The Richters Creek estuarine mangroves are typical of creek mouths in tropical North Queensland, but are also part of the Barron Delta estuarine system

3 From (www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/world/great-barrier-reef/values.html)

http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/world/great-barrier-reef/values.html



ATTRIBUTE

World Heritage Criterion

(vii) Aesthetic attributes3

EXPRESSION OF VALUE

Degree or extent to which values are expressed or represented

1.Absent or Rare

2. Uncommon or Poorly Expressed

3. Regular or Representative

4. Frequent or Uniquely Expressed

5. Superlative, world’s best

Hinchinbrook

Island Green Island Cape Tribulation Yorkeys Knob

The rich variety of landscapes and seascapes including rugged vegetated mountains and adjacent fringing reefs

4.

Exceptionally rugged and diverse landscape

3.

Coral cays have limited landscape / seascape diversity

3.

Forest-clad mountains meeting a tropical sandy beach – distinctive imagery of the GBRWHA / WTWHA interface

2.

Yorkeys Knob Beach has attractive landscape variety, with canefields, a modest cape and mountains visible behind the creek mouth, but this combination is not characteristic of the GBRWHA

Marine fauna and flora in the coral reefs (an “... abundance and diversity of shape, size and colour...”)

3.

4.

1.

No coral reefs nor clear reef lagoon waters for underwater viewing

1.

No coral reefs nor clear reef lagoon waters for underwater viewing

Breeding colonies of seabirds and aggregations of butterflies

3.

4. 2. 1.

Migrating whales, dolphins, dugong, whale sharks, sea turtles, seabirds and concentrations of large fish

3.

4.

2.

2.

The above comparison with three places which contribute to coastal, island and Great Barrier Reef

scenery in different ways:

Yorkeys Knob does not express or represent GBRWHA aesthetic values except inasmuch as

the Richters Creek mouth mangroves are part of the larger Barron River delta system.

Nor do landscape and aesthetic attributes of the subject land, nearby creek mouth and beach

contribute significantly to scenic and experiential diversity, relative to comparable places.

This assessment supports that in EIS Table 22-22, in that the project site is not part of the GBRWHA

experience for observers. While the Yorkeys Knob Beach near Richters Creek is an attractive beach

which offers a view eastward to GBRWHA waters:

no islands or reefs are visible

the visual impression is of a quiet sandy beach and broad bay framed by mainland mountains,

near a major coastal city and port

these scenic amenity and landscape attributes are not spectacular or outstanding, and are

similar to many other parts of the North Queensland coastline.



b) The Importance of the Surrounds to the Experience of the GBRWHA

The Mainland

The geographic boundary of the GBRWHA does not include the mainland, but there are parts of the

mainland where forested mountains slope to the coastline, framing and contributing to the scenic

values of the GBRWHA, and/or offering lookout opportunities over GBRWHA waters and islands. In

several places (for example in the Whitsunday Passage), the natural mountain ranges of both the

mainland and the islands contain and partly enclose the attractive scenery of GBRWHA waters. This

close association of mountains and coastline contributes to GBRWHA aesthetic values where seen

from boats, from the air and from some coastline viewpoints. The role of forested mountain ranges as

a scenic backdrop to GBRWHA waters, with little or no intervening coastal plain, is apparent to the

north of Palm Cove (where the MacAllister Range forms a forested frame) and to a lesser extent from

Cape Grafton south to Innisfail, but is not apparent in the Cairns – Northern Beaches area where a

rural or urbanised coastal plain separates the beaches from the mountains.

In this regard, the mainland forms part of the World Heritage visitor experience, when seen in transit

from off-shore waters and the ferry routes or aircraft to the island tourist attractions or reefs, as a point

of departure or arrival. In this context, the visual elements of the Cairns region such as the forested

background mountain range of the MacAllister Range, and the coastline contributes to the broad

landscape experience and the ‘genus loci’ of the northern Australian tropics. However, these visual

elements do not contribute to the aesthetic experience of the GBRWHA per se. The project site is

similarly not part of an explicit World Heritage experience for GBRWHA visitors, apart from being

within the viewshed of both the GBRWHA and the Wet Tropics World Heritage Area (WTWHA). As

seen from off-shore, the mountains of the WTWHA form a visually prominent background element

behind the coastline, but are separated by visible evidence of a developed coastal plain in the Cairns –

Trinity Beach section of coastline, including the development site.

c) Green Island

Regarding Item 31, visitors to Green Island and adjacent off-shore reefs may have views of the

mainland approximately 27 kilometres away, although the degree of discernible detail depends on the

weather conditions and visibility, time of day and sea haze. ZVI modelling (Figure 6-3) identifies the

extent of visibility of the proposed resort buildings4 and indicates that the built form may be just visible

from the beach and jetty on Green Island, depending on weather conditions and sea haze, although at

this distance the buildings will be barely discernible. This is supported by the Night Photomontage from

Green Island (Figure 6-11) which shows that, at night, in a worst-case scenario of maximum light glow

(and assuming a clear night) the lights from the top levels of the resort buildings can be seen from the

Green Island jetty.

d) Impact on World Heritage Values

As shown in Photo 6-5 above, the project site and Yorkeys Knob locality do not express, represent or

contribute to the scenic or aesthetic attributes of the GBRWHA, relative to other Far North Queensland

places which contribute to these values in various ways, although the Richters Creek mouth

mangroves are part of the wider Barron River delta system. Previous assessment of impacts on

GBRWHA aesthetic values in the EIS Visual Report (including consideration of experiential ‘response

to place’) indicated that the proposed development will have only minor impact, and the comparison

with Green island, Cape Tribulation, and Hinchinbrook Island confirms this assessment.

Although the proposed resort will be visible from parts of the WTWHA (in particular from Skyrail and

from the Henry Ross Lookout), the scenic values and opportunities of the WTWHA will not be

4 The ZVI of the roofline at 60 m above ground (61.5 m AHD) is modelled, as well as the middle of the built form at 35 m

above ground (36.5 m AHD)



significantly affected. The close physical relationship between the WTWHA and GBRWHA, which

characterises the coastline north of Palm Cove, is not present in the Smithfield - .Yorkeys Knob area

where a wide band of urban and rural coastal plain separates the two World Heritage Areas. Views

eastward from Skyrail or Henry Ross Lookout towards the coastline and the Northern Beaches

suburbs are across a mixture of uses, with the Coral Sea in the background. In this context, and as

seen from elevated viewpoints, the proposed resort will be prominently visible and a marked contrast

with the surrounding canefields and coastal vegetation, but will not affect WTWHA values.

The scenic and aesthetic values of both the GBRWHA and WTWHA are almost entirely associated

with daylight, and any night-time use of these areas (by boaters or motorists) is incidental and related

to travel, not to scenic appreciation. However, even if World Heritage Area visitors took the opportunity

to view the Cairns – Trinity Beach coastline at night (e.g. from the Green Island jetty or from Henry

Ross Lookout), the impacts of resort lighting on aesthetic values will be minor.

6.19.3 Conclusions

It is concluded that while Yorkeys Knob Beach is an attractive, locally significant area, it does not

express or represent GBRWHA aesthetic values nor contribute significantly to scenic and experiential

diversity, relative to comparable places.

The project site itself is similarly not part of an explicit World Heritage experience for GBRWHA

visitors, apart from being within the viewshed of both the GBRWHA and the WTWHA as explained in

Section 6.18.3 above.

Although the Aquis Resort will be visible from Green Island (indistinctly by day, and as another light

source by night) in both circumstances it will be just another piece of urban infrastructure in the context

of the developed coastal plain which is dominated by the Cairns CBD, the airport, transport

infrastructure, urban nodes, and a host of development.

6.20 INDIGENOUS CULTURAL HERITAGE ARTIFACTS (ITEM 20)

6.20.1 Background


(20) Examples of indigenous use of land and sea resources were found on the site in 1991 although not in 2013 surveys. The EIS states they are outside the development footprint and therefore not an issue. The EIS needs to substantiate why these values no longer exist.

6.20.2 Discussion

In summary:

A 1991 survey located three items of ICH and coordinates were submitted to the Queensland

Government. These sites were all within the current wooded area.

Despite a targeted search for these in 2013 (i.e. knowing the coordinates and what to look for),

the archaeologists were unable to locate the sites. This means that they were either not present

or not visible.

The project footprint was selected partly to avoid these sites should they still exist (and also to

maximise the retention of existing natural vegetation for biodiversity conservation and other

reasons).

Thus, whether or not the sites still exist they will not be impacted. Further, Aquis has signed off on a

Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) with the Yirrganydji (Irukandji) people following

procedures set out in the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act 2003 (Qld) (ACH Act). This ensures a high

level of care during construction and the appointment of monitors.



In addition to the CHMP process, Aquis proposes to include all Indigenous groups in planning for the

Interpretive Centre under the Interpretation Strategy (see EIS Table 23-2).

6.21 BEACH ACCESS (ITEM 22)

6.21.1 Background


(22) Of the potential impacts to MNES identified (table 22-12), wildlife disturbance was stated to be not relevant as there is no beach access provided and all resort activities will take place onsite. How is access to the beach going to be restricted? Not providing access may mean that guest/staff/people wanting to gain access from the resort to the beach make their own, resulting in multiple and not maintained paths to the beach or creek. This may have a greater impact than providing maintained access to the beach. As discussed above, further information is required relating to wildlife disturbance including; how access to the beach and creek will be restricted, all disturbance impacts associated with the construction and operation of the project and how these impacts will be mitigated.

6.21.2 Discussion

As shown on EIS Figures 11-14 and 11-15 and further in Section 5.4.2 above, lake inlet and outlet

pipework will be installed between the lake and the Richters Creek area. The route of this pipeline is

shown to utilise an existing clearing and minimal-impact techniques will be used in finalising route

selection and construction. It is proposed to provide hardened access along this route for small

vehicles and foot traffic for regular or emergency maintenance. This will for official use only and will be

fenced with locked gates and appropriate signage.

Regarding public access, the EIS (s4.2) states:

There is no plan to install infrastructure to facilitate Aquis Resort guests access the public foreshore. (p4-38)

6.21.3 Conclusion

Prevention of public access to the foreshore will be achieved by:

providing no public infrastructure that facilitates formal access

fencing and appropriate signage to prevent access of the maintenance track described above

fencing off the boundary of the site to prevent any informal access

appropriate signage along the boundary

guest education.

6.22 IMPACT MITIGATION FOR INLET/OUTLET PIPELINES (ITEM 23)

6.22.1 Background


(23) Please specify mitigation measures for the construction of the inlet/outlet pipes. These should include measures for noise impacts to marine fauna such as soft startup of machinery/drilling equipment, start up and shutdown times to avoid important feeding/movement times of fauna such as turtles.

6.22.2 Discussion

Details of the construction of the inlet and outlet pipelines has been discussed in Section 5.4.2. This

involves a detailed Sampling and Analysis Plan developed in accordance with Appendix B of the

National Assessment Guidelines for Dredging 2009 (Commonwealth 2009). This will identify any risks

associated with the dredging operation. The recent marine survey (frc environmental 2014d) confirms



that there is no seagrass or coral present along the route and that the substrates to be encountered

will be sands in the near-shore area and silts and muds further off-shore.

Detailed plans and construction management methodologies will need to be developed in support of

the necessary approvals (coastal works, works in a Marine Park, works in a FHA, any EPBC Act

conditions). This will involve:

use of clean backfill for underwater trench operations

use of silt curtains to reduce the spread of turbid waters

best-practice construction techniques to avoid impact on marine megafauna (e.g. use of

spotters to allow works to be stopped if target species are nearby, soft-start piling where

required, air curtains if practical, timing of start-up/shut-down operations to avoid important

feeding / breeding times)

management of all excavated material as described below

management of boating hazards as required by the Regional Harbourmaster.

Further details will be developed during the preparation of the EMP (Construction) which is a project


6.22.3 Conclusion

The proposed works are straightforward and are routinely carried out in marine areas. Specific

methodologies will be developed during the preparation of the EMP (Construction) which is a project


6.23 SOCIAL ASPECTS OF AESTHETICS (ITEM 33)

The DoTE submission (212) Items 33 states:

(33) There is no evidence of consultation on aesthetic impacts with either residents or existing visitors to the Cairns region. The EIS makes assumptions about their ‘likely’ views. Social research on the opinions of residents and visitors on the development’s likely impacts on their aesthetic enjoyment of the area could assist to address this.

6.23.1 Discussion

The reference to ‘likely views’ in the EIS assessment of landscape and visual issues was to ‘views’ in a

visibility sense, and did not purport to be an assessment of opinions. The EIS assessment was clearly

focused on what a viewer could see from a number of locations and not whether or not viewers liked

what they saw. This matter was addressed in the post-EIS assessment of community submissions

(Flanagan Consulting Group 2014b) where it was stated that:

The EIS recognises that one of the unavoidable impacts of the development will be on rural character and visual amenity. It clearly states that ‘tall buildings on the site will also be seen from off-shore, from some elevated houses at Yorkeys Knob and Smithfield, and will be glimpsed above the mangroves as seen from the Cairns Esplanade’ and that the ‘existing quiet beach at the mouth of Richters Creek may lose its perceived naturalness and seclusion, although development is quite distant from the beach and the screening effectiveness of coastal vegetation will be enhanced.’ These facts are accepted by the submitters, many of whom (but not all) see this as negative.

Not unusually, some find the architecture pleasing while to others it is abhorrent. This is a matter of opinion.

In response to concerns, Aquis is undertaking additional work (Cat 3) to determine:

further assessment of impacts on OUV of the GBRWHA and WTWHA

opportunities for enhanced screening when viewed from the mouth of Richters Creek

opportunities for reducing light emissions (p75).



This additional work has since been completed and is documented in this report.

6.23.2 Conclusion

The EIS reported on the visibility of the resort from a number of relevant vantage points and used

photomontage techniques to demonstrate what a viewer at these locations could see. No attempt was

made to determine how such views could affect the aesthetic enjoyment of the area.

6.24 SHORE BIRDS (ITEM 34)

6.24.1 Background

The DoTE submission (212) Item 34 refers to Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Criterion x -

contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of biological

diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding Universal Value from the point

of view of science or conservation and states:

(34) Shore birds – as discussed above further information is required on the impacts of the project on migratory birds and /or their habitats and the impact on Outstanding Universal Value of GBRWHA.

6.24.2 Discussion

A total of 13 listed migratory bird species are known from the site. These species occur in an area that

is dominated by a highly modified agricultural landscape and is already subject to regular noise

impacts due to the overhead presence of the northern flight path for aircraft using the Cairns airport.

Migratory shorebirds occurred in low diversity and low numbers (<15 individuals/species observed

across the site in October 2013 during peak utilisation). The site provides only minor value to migratory

shorebirds and this is largely restricted to the aquaculture ponds which may be removed. Most

migratory shorebird species prefer shallow mudflats and there is more suitable habitat elsewhere in

the region (e.g. Cairns foreshore which is designated as an area of international importance to some

migratory bird species).

6.24.3 Conclusion

The sites current contribution to OUV of the GBRWHA for listed migratory birds under Criterion 10

(Habitats for conservation of biodiversity) is minor at best. The removal of the aquaculture ponds will

result in the reduction of minor habitat for migratory wetland/shorebird species which may offset the

potential for bird-strike from overhead planes using the northern flight path to and from Cairns airport.

The project design incorporates a vegetation regeneration program surrounding the site which in the

long-term should increase the value of the area for migratory terrestrial birds.

6.25 TOURISM IMPACTS (ITEM 36)

6.25.1 Background

The DoTE submission (212) Item 36 refers to Wet Tropics of Queensland World Heritage Area

Outstanding Universal Value Criterion x - contain the most important and significant natural habitats

for in-situ conservation of biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of

Outstanding Universal Value from the point of view of science or conservation and states:

(36) Further consideration needs to be given to the impacts of increased tourism to the WTWHA.



6.25.2 Discussion

As discussed under Item 42 (Role of Management) in Section 6.28, tourism impacts were addressed

in s22.7.2) to the extent that this is possible for the proponent. It is stated:

It is likely that any Aquis guests will add to already high demand for an off-site rainforest experience. Tourism can also involve a range of impacts and these are managed by the WTMA and the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) through a comprehensive management system. Aquis-based tourists are most likely to experience the rainforest as commercial passengers, thereby falling under the commercial permit management system.

While it is inevitable that Aquis will add to tourism demand, Aquis visitors on commercial tours will be subject to the laws and management arrangements in place at the time and will be part of the ultimate carrying capacity deemed suitable. This is not within Aquis’ ability to influence.’ (p22-162).

Relevant aspects of tourism management in the WTWHA were described in the subsequent EIS

discussion on tourism use in s22.17.8f) and some of this material is repeated in Section 6.28.3c)

below. In summary:

According to the strategic review of the GBR coastal zone (DSDIP 2013a), visitor use is not

listed as one of the major threats to the values of the WTWHA.

Management of tourism use of the WHA is via a zoning system (that establishes which activities

in the Area are prohibited, allowed under permit, or allowed without a permit) and via the

associated permit system as appropriate. In general, tourism infrastructure is located within

Zone D of the WHA and this zone is managed to minimise any adverse impacts of activities and

facilities, and to protect and rehabilitate the land. Between them, the zoning and permit system

ensure the likely impact of the proposed activity on the WTWHA’s World Heritage values is

minimised. Decision-making principles and criteria also include the precautionary principle and

consideration of prudent and feasible alternatives, carrying capacity, and community aspects

(DSDIP 2013a).

Specific consultation was been undertaken with WTMA and documented in the EIS and this can

be summarised as follows:

- WTMA believes that tourism is being managed and undertaken sustainably.

- The best way to present and promote discovery, understanding and connection with the

World Heritage Area and its rich natural and cultural values is via tourism and WTMA’s

partnership with the tourism industry. WTMA has extremely positive and constructive

relationships with the nature-based tourism sector and cooperate with the like of Skyrail,

Daintree Discovery Centre, and Jungle Surfing in presenting the World Heritage Area.

- There have not been any management issues or concerns relating to the operation for the

tourism sector over the past five years. Most of WTMA’s activities involve partnering and

supporting the nature-based tourism sector rather than managing or constraining their

operations in any way. WTMA does have a role when there are major infrastructure

projects such as erecting the Skyrail cable towers – in this case WTMA places stringent

conditions on the construction and erection to ensure they had little negative impact.

- There have been issues present from time to time about non-permitted operators

detracting from best standard practices but the new QuEST policy will help ensure that

only the best standard operators can operate in our high value and visitation sites.

The Queensland Government’s strategic assessment of the coastal zone (DSDIP 2013a) covers

management of the WTWHA as one of the demonstration projects. This work concludes that

current management of this use is ‘effective’.



6.25.3 Conclusion

While it is inevitable that Aquis will add to tourism demand, Aquis visitors on commercial tours will be

subject to the laws and management arrangements in place at the time and will be part of the ultimate

carrying capacity deemed suitable by the WTMA.

The Queensland Government’s strategic assessment of the coastal zone (DSDIP 2013a) concludes

that current management of the WTWHA is ‘effective’. The WTMA also believes that it is adequately

managing tourism and that the Aquis Resort will not create unacceptable impacts.

6.26 MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS (ITEM 40)

6.26.1 Background

The DoTE submission (212) Item 40 refers to Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area Criterion x –

(formerly (iv)) contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of

biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding Universal Value from

the point of view of science or conservation and states:

(40) Further discussion is needed on the impacts to migratory shorebirds including:

What are the impacts to shorebird habitat including water quality?

What are the likely impacts of introduced species (weeds) on migratory shorebirds?

What are the likely impacts of noise on migratory shorebirds?

6.26.2 Discussion

Migratory shorebird habitat is already limited on the Aquis site and will be further reduced by the

removal of the aquaculture ponds. Shorebird habitat will be restricted largely to the mouth of Richters

Creek. Although several other listed species are considered ‘likely to occur’ (refer Table 6-6) the

habitat on the site is only likely to support small numbers of migratory species due to the lack of

suitable habitat on site and more suitable and widely used habitat available in the vicinity (e.g. Cairns

foreshore which has been designated as a site of international importance to some migratory bird

species). The Aquis site is only likely to be used temporarily by a small number of individuals of

migratory shorebirds during the migratory period.

a) Water Quality

Potential Impacts on Migratory Shorebirds

Without the appropriate management, construction and operation of the proposed development may

mobilise various chemicals in on-site or estuarine soils and result in an increase in nutrients to the

estuaries and downstream coastal waters via a number of processes including:

disturbance and excavation of soil and sediment

release of treated effluent.

Nutrient enrichment of coastal waters can impact the health, composition and resilience of local flora

and fauna communities including migratory shorebirds. Impacts to biota that relate to nutrient

enrichment include:

Aquatic plants:

- Changes to community composition and distribution of the mangrove and saltmarsh

communities

- An initial increase in biomass of mangroves followed by longer-term degeneration of

mangrove communities as nutrient saturation levels are reached, and as species

composition changes



- Increased uptake of other toxic chemicals as a consequence of enhanced growth due to

increased nutrient supply

- Increased biomass of algae such as Ulva and Enteromorpha within the mangrove

habitats, blocking drainage lines and preventing / retarding the establishment and growth

of young seedlings.

Benthic invertebrates:

- A reduction in community diversity and species richness

- Trophic shifts toward deposit feeding taxa and the dominance of polychaetes in soft

sediment communities

Marine vertebrates:

- Reduced habitat availability due to the deterioration of mangrove communities

- Reduction in the species diversity and production of crustaceans and molluscs can affect

fish populations, that are important prey for many vertebrate species

Proposed Mitigation

The remediation / management of contamination associated with historical cane farming activities is

not a complex task. A large number of former cane farming properties in the Cairns region have been

successfully remediated and redeveloped for residential and other sensitive land uses. Management of

soils is an element of the proposed EMP (Construction) described in Section 22.18.3. The net impacts

are likely to be very minor.

Risks to the receiving environment through the release of operation phase nutrient-rich water will be

minimised through design of the proposed development, and in particular of the lake, stormwater, and

sewage effluent management regimes. Changes to water quality and hydrology are addressed in

Chapter 11 (Water Quality). Modelling indicates that the water quality of the lake discharge is expected

to be superior to that of Richters Creek into which it will be discharged.

The design of the project includes a commitment to the adoption of WSUD features as part of the

stormwater drainage strategy. Modelling of stormwater indicates that, compared to current conditions

(a functioning cane farm), the development will reduce export of the modelled pollutants by 131.6 t/a

(45%). Effluent re-use (including importing of class ‘A’ treated effluent from nearby WWTP) will further

reduce discharges to the estuaries and ultimately the Coral Sea (this effluent is licensed to be

discharged to Half Moon Creek – by importing it to the Aquis site all remnant nutrients will be used

onsite).

Where these measures are implemented, the risk of impact due to nutrient enrichment or disturbance

of contaminated sediment to low number of migratory bird species that utilise the site during the

migratory period is low.

b) Potential Impact of Weed Species on Migratory Shorebirds

Active weed management will be included as part of the project's overall Environmental Management

Plan and will ensure no detrimental impacts to any migratory shorebird habitat occurring on the site.

Habitat for the Eastern curlew and Whimbrel (recorded in low numbers at Richters Creek mouth)

includes mangroves and tidal sands. The potential for unmanaged weed species to invade this habitat

is minor. Habitat availability for other migratory shorebird species will be reduced by the removal of the

aquaculture ponds as part of the project design and therefore weed impacts will not be a factor.



c) Potential Impact of Noise On Migratory Shorebirds

GBRMPA (2013e) lists increased noise amongst local-scale impacts from urban development. Chapter 7 of the EIS (Flora and Fauna) includes a detailed discussion of the effects of noise and concludes that:

There are no specific standards for the range of noise pollution affecting Great Barrier Reef

species. Given the increases in man-made underwater noise and the observed effects on

marine life around the world, there is an urgent need for a greater understanding of the

ecological impacts of noise within the region and for guidance on measures to avoid or mitigate

these impacts.

There is also little data available relating to the effects of artificial noise, apart from the literature

regarding the effects of road noise. Studies show that noise can disrupt predator-prey

interactions leading to enhanced reproductive success in noisy areas, as well as interfere with

mating calls.

Noise is a factor leading to expanded populations of disturbance-tolerant species, and a

corresponding decline of birds less tolerant of noise.

The construction of the seawater inlet and Richters Creek outlet pipes will result in increased

noise and a change in the characteristics of ambient background noise. Increased noise may

also arise from construction-related boating traffic, additional human activities and resort

operations (e.g. water pumps and generators). This may temporarily disturb fauna such as

dolphins, dugongs and turtles, and they may move away from the area. However, this is likely to

be a short-term response, and they are expected to return once construction is completed.

The site experiences occasionally high levels of noise, the sources of which have been in place

for some time. By implication, fauna on the site has been subjected to this artificial noise for a

long period of time from:

Monitoring of the ambient noise environment near the mouth of Richters Creek has shown background

noise levels related to insect noise, bird calls and wind whilst being significantly affected by aircraft

passing overhead (Chapter 17 – Noise).

The project covers a large site and so whilst there will be noise emissions from its construction and

operation, it is expected that these will be controllable due to the opportunity for reasonable buffer

distances through appropriate design layout and construction management. However if there are

multiple plant items in the area closest to Richters Creek mouth and the construction of the inlet pipe in

Richters Creek, there may be short periods when noise levels may be increased. Shorebirds will

naturally respond to noise and movement by avoiding the immediate area of disturbance and/or

moving to a safe distance if noise or movement occurs whilst birds are foraging near the disturbance

site. However unless the noise disturbance occurs during the migration period for migratory shorebirds

(September – April), these species will not be impacted.

Habitat availability for other migratory shorebird species will be reduced by the removal of the

aquaculture ponds as part of the project design and therefore noise impacts will not be a factor.

6.26.3 Conclusion

Given the low numbers of migratory shorebirds likely to be using the area the expected project impacts

to migratory shorebirds and their contribution to OUV of the GBRWHA under Criterion 10 (Habitats for

conservation of biodiversity) is considered minor at worst.



6.27 CORAL MAPPING (ITEM 41)

6.27.1 Background


(41) In Table 22-27 on page 22-130, the text indicates that there are coral reefs at Haycock Reef and Double Island Reef, approximately 10 km north of Richters Creek mouth. Earlier in the document, it is stated that the ‘nearest mapped coral is approximately 25 km north-east of the site’ (p22-121, p 22-123) and ‘there are no reef structures within 25 km of the investigation area (p 22-142). This inconsistency should be corrected.

6.27.2 Discussion

The EIS does say in a number of places that that the nearest mapped coral is approximately 25 km

north-east of the site. This is incorrect as noted in the submission. The best available information is

contained in the following EIS references:

p7-28: ‘The field survey confirmed that no rocky or coral reefs are present in the survey area. It

is also known that there are no rocky or coral reefs in the vicinity of the proposed pipeline

alignment. The closest known reef is approximately 7 km to the north-west at Taylor Point. This

reef covers a small area (approx. 0.0075 km2) on the western side of the headland, and is likely

to provide habitat for a variety of flora and fauna that are usually found on inshore reefs.’

p22-25: ‘No listed species were recorded during any of the field surveys undertaken by frc

environmental [and this includes the survey of the pipeline route]. In addition, no habitats critical

to the survival of listed species (e.g. seagrass meadows, rocky reefs, coral reefs) were recorded

within the potential area of impact of the Aquis development.’

p22-128: ‘The nearest coral reefs to the project site are Green Island (approximately 25 km east of

Richters Creek mouth), Haycock Reef and Double Island Reef (approximately 10 km north of

Richters Creek mouth).’

The additional assessment of sensitive areas (Section 6.16) confirms that (Table 6-14):

The nearest mapped coral reefs to the proposed development site are the mid-shelf fringing reef

at Green Island (approximately 25 km east of Richters Creek mouth) and the coastal fringing

reef of Double Island and Haycock Island (approximately 10 km north of Richters Creek mouth)

(Figure 6-21). Of these reefs, the Green Island reef has been the most studied to date. The reef

at Green Island has an area of 7.1 km2. Hard coral cover is low (0–5%) and has declined in

recent years due to outbreaks of crown of thorns starfish. The coral communities are dominated

by massive growth forms, with some plate and branching growth forms. The western side of the

reef closest to the proposed Aquis site has a low level of reef structure. Algae is the dominant

growth form on the reef but there is a moderate cover of soft corals. Fish abundance on Green

Island reef is moderate with reef fish such as parrotfish, butterflyfish and damselfish present.

The closest known reef (i.e. not mapped) is approximately 7 km to the north-west at Taylor Point

(north of Trinity Beach). This reef covers a small area (approx. 0.0075 km2) on the western side

of the headland, and is likely to provide habitat for a variety of flora and fauna that are usually

found on inshore reefs.

Submission 51 to the EIS notes that at Double Island, there are quite a large number of scleractinian

hard coral species, particularly of the family Acroporidae and Favidae, as well as encrusting and

branching soft coral species on all the reefs around Double Island, on both the exposed and protected

reef sides. There are other live coral formations, for example micro-atolls of the Poritidae family of

stony corals, present on the reef flats at some time in the recent past.



No impacts are expected on these distant communities. Although the water quality assessment model

does not extend north of Trinity Beach and therefore does not cover the Double Island area which is

greater than 10 km from the mouth of Richters Creek, the model results show that there is ‘negligible

change in water quality concentrations off-shore with 90th percentile changes indicating over 99.9%

dilution’. The EIS notes that dilution need only be considered if the discharge is of a worse quality than

the receiving water body – all work done to date suggests that discharge will be of a better standard

than the receiving waters.

6.27.3 Conclusion

There was an error in the EIS statement as noted and the correct situation is described above. No

impacts are expected on these distant communities.

6.28 ROLE OF MANAGEMENT (ITEM 42)

6.28.1 Background


In relation to the discussion of the concept of Outstanding Universal Value on pages 22-87 to 22-89, the proponent includes discussion of the criteria and integrity as components of Outstanding Universal Value; however the third element of Outstanding Universal Value, protection and management is not discussed and must also be included.

The issue of management of the Great Barrier Reef and Wet Tropics WHAs was addressed in various

parts of the EIS as outlined below. Some key material has been extracted from the EIS and this is

supplemented by additional explanation derived from the statements of OUV for the Great Barrier Reef

and Wet Tropics WHAs. EIS references to the two strategic assessments necessarily refer to the 2013

drafts. New material refers to the 2014 final versions as noted.

As noted in the EIS in s22.5.1:

The strategic assessments (i.e. GBRMPA (2013a [now 2013e]) and DSDIP (2013a)) provide for review and assessment of the effectiveness of management arrangements at protecting the GBR’s World Heritage values as well as all other matters of NES which are afforded protection under the EPBC Act. The goal is to help identify, plan for and manage existing and emerging risks to the unique environmental values of the matters of NES relevant to the GBR coastal zone. The GBRMP document also provides a comprehensive statement of the values of the GBRWHA and current threats to these values. The study area includes the Queensland coastal zone (defined as Queensland Coastal Waters, islands, and inland areas to a distance of five kilometres or the 10 metre AHD contour, whichever is further) and Commonwealth waters to the edge of the continental shelf. (p22-76)

The EIS contains other references to management as described below. In particular:

s22.5.2 (Strategic Assessment of GBR region) – management of International visitation to the

Great Barrier Reef catchment. Reference to s22.16.2b). This is discussed in Section 6.28.2c)

and Section 6.28.3c) for the GBRWHA and WTWHA respectively.

s22.5.3 (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone):

- s22.5.3a (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) – management of the WTWHA

(Demonstration Case 3)

- s22.5.3b) (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) – management of water quality

(Demonstration Case 7)

- s22.5.3c (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) – Ella Bay Resort

(Demonstration Case 5).

Relevant comments are repeated / expanded on as appropriate in the following discussion.



6.28.2 Management of the GBRWHA

a) Statement of the Outstanding Universal Value

An extract from the Statement of the Outstanding Universal Value of the Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Area (SOUV) is included as Appendix 3 of the strategic assessment of the GBR (GBRMPA

2014a). The SOUV describes the following aspects of management of the GBRWHA:

The GBRMP covers 99% of the WHA and therefore is under the control of the Great Barrier

Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (Cwlth) administered by the GBRMPA. According to the SOUV: The

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 was amended in 2007 and 2008, and now provides for

the long term protection and conservation of the Great Barrier Reef Region ”with specific

mention of meeting "... Australia's responsibilities under the World Heritage Convention."

Other areas (i.e. state waters) are included in the GBR Coast Marine Park managed under the

Marine Parks Act 2004 (Qld).

The overlapping jurisdictional arrangements mean that the importance of complementary

legislation and complementary management of islands and the surrounding waters IS well

recognised by both governments strong cooperative partnerships and forma l agreements exist

between the Australian Government and the Queensland Government.

Development and land use activities in coastal and water catchments adjacent to the property is

managed by the Queensland Government under natural resource management, land use

planning, and biodiversity conservation legislation, while the EPBC Act manages designated

Commonwealth biodiversity values (species, World Heritage properties, and the GBRMP).

The SOUV goes on to discuss some aspects of management arrangements including zoning,

designated Management Areas, and non-statutory tools such as Codes of Practice. These are

described in the EIS in s22.17.8e).

b) Strategic Assessment

EIS s22.5.2 describes the Strategic Assessment of GBR region and refers specifically to management

of International visitation to the Great Barrier Reef catchment, together with a reference to EIS

s22.16.2b). Other aspects of management were not specifically mentioned in the EIS and this issue is

addressed below. Specifically, the strategic assessment of the GBR (GBRMPA 2014a) discusses

management and states:

Through an intergovernmental agreement, the Australian and Queensland governments have been working together for the long-term protection and conservation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park since its inception in 1975.

Management of the Region relies upon a number of Australian and Queensland government agencies to regulate access and to control or mitigate impacts associated with activities. These agencies use a combination of management tools, including zoning plans, plans of management, permits, policies and the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan (Reef Plan). They employ various

management approaches including education, planning, environmental impact assessment, monitoring, stewardship and enforcement.

In this strategic assessment, the management arrangements under the jurisdiction of the Authority are considered. They include, but are not limited to:

statutory instruments, including Regulations, zoning plans, plans of management and permits

non-statutory mechanisms including policies, position statements and guidelines

partnership and collaborative arrangements with other Australian and Queensland government agencies

partnerships with Traditional Owners in the management of marine resources

partnership and stewardship programs, including education programs and engagement with local governments, communities, Indigenous persons and industry

research and monitoring programs.



Based on the Authority’s statutory functions as set out in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (the GBRMP Act), the Authority’s management focus is the protection and conservation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (the Marine Park). The Authority also assists in meeting Australia’s international responsibilities in relation to the environment and protection of the world heritage properties of the Region. (p3-3)

These statements outline the broad management arrangements for the GBRWHA. With respect to the Aquis

Resort and the GBRWHA and WTWHA:

land use, natural resources, and on-site biodiversity values are protected via the EIS and the

provisions of the SDPWO Act and associated legislation for operational works (identified in the

EIS)

external protected areas (i.e. the Fish Habitat Areas and the GBR Coast) are protected by other

Queensland legislation (identified in the EIS)

matters of NES are protected by the EPBC Act

the project does not involve any need for approvals under the GBRMP Act.

However, as identified in the EIS (s22.17.8) the management of tourism use consequential to the

development is of relevance and this is discussed in detail in that section.

c) Tourism Management

The following conclusions regarding management of tourism are relevant (s22.17.8e)):

Of importance is the fact that it is not practical for Resort guests to visit the GBR unless on a commercial tour. All commercial tours are covered by the permit system and permits are only issued in accordance with the relevant plan of management and ultimately the zoning plan. Therefore, Aquis Resort guests will add (slightly) to the overall visitation demand and will be subject to current management arrangements.

According to GBRMPA (2013a) [now 2013e], the permit conditions seek to limit cumulative impacts. The potential problems arising from significant latent capacity within the permit system have been recognised and, at least, partially addressed through GBRMPA’s plans of management, capping permits, and a booking system for sensitive sites. The permitting system is thought to manage tourism well, although the system is complex and its effectiveness in informing and educating tourism operators ‘… about what they can and can’t do — while delivering required outcomes for the environment, social, cultural and heritage values — requires evaluation’ (GBRMPA 2013e). (p22-266)

6.28.3 Management of the WTWHA

a) Statement of the Outstanding Universal Value

The Statement of the Outstanding Universal Value of the WTWHA (WTMA 2014) does not address

management specifically, although under Integrity (quoted in EIS s22.7.1b)) it is stated:

Since inscription, the Australian and Queensland governments have worked cooperatively to put in place a comprehensive management regime for the property, outlined in the following section. Logging has been prohibited since 1987 with the infrastructure associated with this activity removed and the impacted forests allowed to recover. Maintenance activities associated with the provision of community infrastructure are now regulated under a statutory management plan and guided by environmental codes of practice. (EIS p22-159).



b) Strategic Assessment

EIS s22.5.3a (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) – management of the WTWHA

(Demonstration Case 3) notes the following:

The Aquis Resort site is 2.5 km from the WTWHA (line-of-site) although in terms of ecological

connections it is 8.4 km downstream. This EIS concludes that there will be no direct impact of

the Aquis Resort on the WHA’s values and that presentation values could be enhanced by on-

site interpretation and education. The relevance of the WTMP to the project lies in the

management of off-site consequential impacts of possible extra visitation of the WHA by Aquis

Resort guests. This is discussed in Section 22.17.8.

The WTMP is relevant to the Aquis Resort to the extent that it is the principal means by which

tourism infrastructure and use is managed in the WTWHA. Commercial tours are managed by

the QPWS’ Commercial Activity Permits. Under this regime, day visits to the WTWHA via

commercial tours are highly regulated and management has been shown to be effective.

It is concluded that there are sufficient controls in place to ensure that tourism use of the

WTWHA by Aquis Resort guests is managed sustainably. (p22-79).

Table 22-18 – Effectiveness:

- Effective

- The Wet Tropics Management Plan and supporting Program components provide specific

planning and operational arrangements to avoid and mitigate impacts from development

activity within the Wet Tropics WHA.

c) Tourism Management

The EIS concludes (s22.7.2) that ‘The WTWHA is considered to be sufficiently distant and

unconnected to the site that it can be expected to be little impacted by the development.’ (22-161). The

assessment discusses certain off-site impacts and in particular tourism use of the WHA where it is

stated: ‘While it is inevitable that Aquis will add to tourism demand, Aquis visitors on commercial tours

will be subject to the laws and management arrangements in place at the time and will be part of the

ultimate carrying capacity deemed suitable. This is not within Aquis’ ability to influence.’ (p22-162).

Relevant aspects Management of the WTWHA are described in the subsequent EIS discussion on

tourism use in s22.17.8f) as per the following extracts:

According to the strategic review of the GBR coastal zone (DSDIP 2013a), visitor use is not listed as one of the major threats to the values of the WTWHA.

Management of the WHA is via a zoning system (that establishes which activities in the Area are prohibited, allowed under permit, or allowed without a permit) and via the associated permit system as appropriate. In general, tourism infrastructure is located within Zone D of the WHA and this zone is managed to minimise any adverse impacts of activities and facilities, and to protect and rehabilitate the land. Between them, the zoning and permit system ensure the likely impact of the proposed activity on the WTWHA’s World Heritage values is minimised. Decision-making principles and criteria also include the precautionary principle and consideration of prudent and feasible alternatives, carrying capacity, and community aspects (DSDIP 2013a).

The strategic assessment also notes that promoting presentation of the Wet Tropics WHA to visitors is a key function of the WTMA under the World Heritage Convention and the Wet Tropics Act. The WTMA works with QPWS, community conservation groups, and the tourism industry, to inform and educate residents and visitors about the wonders of the WTWHA, its unique plants and animals, and its scenic beauty. Specifically, the WTMA recognises that properly managed, nature based tourism provides a valuable opportunity to present the Wet Tropics WHA and promote regional, national, and international recognition, understanding, and appreciation of the OUV of the WHA. Such recognition and appreciation has resulted in enhanced support for the protection of the WHA and its OUV (DSDIP 2013a). (p22-267)

As noted in Section 6.28.4a) below, the Queensland Government’s strategic assessment of the

coastal zone (DSDIP 2013a) covers management of the WTWHA as one of the demonstration

projects. This demonstrates that current management of this use is ‘effective’.



6.28.4 Other Management Issues

EIS s22.5.3 (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) also deals with two import non-tourism

aspects of management as repeated below:

a) Management of Water Quality

EIS s22.5.3b (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) – management of water quality

(Demonstration Case 7) notes the following:

This demonstration case explores how the Queensland and Australian governments are working

to halt and reverse the decline in water quality entering the Great Barrier Reef. Specifically, it

highlights some of the work being done to improve water quality flowing to the GBR from the

Mackay Whitsundays region, including work through Reef Plan. It demonstrates development of

best management practices supported by the Queensland Government and the Reef Rescue

Program delivered by the Australian Government.

Although the study area is remote from the Aquis Resort site, the issues of runoff to the GBR is

relevant. Referring to the discussion on urban runoff, the case study notes that the management

of urban stormwater, sewage and trade waste are key local government water quality policy,

planning and investment areas. The EPP Water requires specific local governments to

undertake this responsibility within a total water cycle management (TWCM) context that

addresses the different elements of the water cycle within an urban area and its catchment,

advancing a whole system approach to the management of water, while enhancing and

protecting the environmental values of receiving waters.

To support TWCM, Queensland Government produced the Urban Stormwater Quality Planning

Guidelines in 2010 which provides direction on the development of strategies for improved

environmental management of urban catchments and waterways. This includes the preparation

of urban stormwater quality management plans as part of the total water cycle management

plans required under the EPP Water taking into account any EVs and WQOs in waterways

where discharges may occur. Guidelines also exist to support the implementation of Australia’s

National Water Quality Management Strategy for a range of issues including sewage,

stormwater management, groundwater management, effluent from intensive animal production

systems and designing monitoring programs. (p22-79)

The Scientific Consensus Statement (DSDIP (2013a) Appendix I p I-7 to I-8) found that:

- Improved land and agricultural management practices are proven to reduce the runoff of

suspended sediment, nutrients and pesticides at the paddock scale. (p22-89)


- Effective.

In addition, the Reef Water quality Protection Plan (Reef Plan) prepared by GBRMPA (2013f) sets land

and catchment management targets for the year 2018. The extent to which the Aquis Resort complies

is indicated in the following table.



TARGET Aquis RESORT COMPLIANCE

90 per cent of sugarcane, horticulture, cropping and grazing lands are managed using best management practice systems (soil, nutrient and pesticides) in priority areas.

All sugarcane use will cease, to be replaced with a more benign land use incorporating water sensitive urban design principles.

Minimum 70 per cent late dry season groundcover on grazing lands.

Not applicable

The extent of riparian vegetation is increased. The extent of riparian vegetation will be increased due to restoration works on Richters Creek, Yorkeys Creek and Half Moon Creek.

There is no net loss of the extent, and an improvement in the ecological processes and environmental values, of natural wetlands.

There will be a net doubling of the extent, and an improvement in the ecological processes and environmental values, of natural wetlands.

Source: Column 1 – GBRMPA (2013e); Column 2 – study team compilation.

b) Ella Bay Resort

EIS s22.5.3c (Strategic Assessment of GBR Coastal Zone) – Ella Bay Resort (Demonstration Case

5) notes the following:

The review focused on two aspects of the EIS process:

- Impact assessment. The SDPWO Act:

o requires development proponents to undertake detailed investigations on the impacts of proposals

o requires the evaluation of proposed management responses to those impacts

o provides a rigorous and transparent process to avoid impacts to MNES including OUV, or mitigate and offset impacts where they cannot be avoided.

- Conditions and Environmental Management. The Coordinator-General can set binding

conditions of approval. In the case of the Ella Bay Resort, the proponent is required to

implement a variety of management strategies to mitigate potential construction and

operational related impacts on fauna, flora and communities. These include an offsets

strategy, EMPs, protected area management and species-specific management sub-

plans. Management sub-plans have been developed for the cassowary, stream-dwelling

rainforest frogs, spectacled flying-fox, marine turtles and significant flora. These sub-plans

identify impacts of the development on these fauna and flora and provide a number of

strategies to manage or mitigate these impacts.

The assessment concluded that the process was a thorough and very effective process for

managing potential impacts to MNES including OUV. Critical to this effectiveness is the suite of

post-approval environmental management strategies that are to be developed and implemented

prior to construction and that are intended to mitigate those impacts that were not able to be

avoided or minimised by design.

The relevance to Aquis is considered to be as follows:

- The ability of the Coordinator-General to set conditions requiring, amongst other things,

post-approval attention to impact mitigation and management strategies is an essential

component of the Aquis Resort and is especially relevant to the current situation where

only land use approval is being sought initially. However, all subsequent approvals will be

subject to Queensland legislation and this can be expected to adequately regulate

construction and operation phase activities and minimise impacts. (p22-82)




- Very effective

- The EIS process is considered to be a thorough and very effective process for managing

potential impacts to MNES including OUV.

6.29 CONCLUSIONS

The conclusions of the above references with respect to relevant management issues (quotes are from

various DSDIP Strategic Assessment case studies) are:

WTWHA:

- the Aquis Resort is unlikely to result in any management issues other than consequential

tourism use

- tourism use of the WTWHA is likely to be ‘effectively’ managed via the WTMP.

GBRWHA:

- water quality associated with stormwater drainage from the development is likely to be

‘effectively’ managed via state processes (e.g. TWCM) to be given effect via expected

conditions of approval and will meet Reef Plan 2018 targets.

- general land development issues are likely to be to be ‘very effectively’ managed via

expected conditions of approval

- the permitting system tourism use of the GBRWHA / GBRMP ‘is thought to manage

tourism well’.



7 ISSUE 6: ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS FOR THE PROPOSAL

A number of community and agency submissions outlined concern with various aspects of the project

description and evaluation of alternative options. These project aspects requiring additional information

and consideration include:

1. Location of the proposal in comparison with the option identified within Cairns CBD in a number

of community submissions.

2. Scale of the proposal with respect to changes required of land-use planning, transport networks

and housing.

3. The requirement for the lake (or a seasonal lake) surrounding the development considering the

potential impact of lake management (e.g. discharge to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage

Area).

4. The location of the discharge point in the mouth of Richters Creek vs. a discharge point in the

Coral Sea.

5. Investigate risks and benefits of maintaining the aquaculture ponds containing high biodiversity

values (including MNES species) which are proposed to be removed.

Requirement: Clarify the options considered for the project and consider the alternatives identified in

the community and agency submissions. Provide an assessment of the project alternatives. The

assessment should include information demonstrating the final project description to be evaluated

through the environmental impact statement process.

7.1 RESPONSE TO CBD LOCATION

Section 2.2, 3.2 of the EIS sets out the site selection process undertaken which gave consideration to

alternate locations available in the Cairns region for the siting of an Integrated Resort. The Cairns

CBD was given consideration; however the conclusion was that the CBD is not able to accommodate

a development of the scale required on any one site or likely combination of sites. Suitable land is not

available in the CBD.

The content of some community submissions went to considerable effort to demonstrate that a project

of the scale of Aquis could be developed in a significant proportion of the CBD. The main difficulty

with that proposal is that the land is in multiple ownerships and not all readily available for

development or to be incorporated within an integrated resort development. A key issue in considering

suitable sites is not only the capability of the land to accept the development but also its availability.

Suitable land within the CBD was not available for the purpose of establishing an integrated resort

project.

An integrated resort by its very nature involves multiple activities on a single facility site (rather than a

locale) which can accommodate multiple components which generally do not straddle inner city lots

and public roads. Multiple facilities distributed over city blocks would not form an integrated resort.

CBD based Casino projects, such as the Crown in Melbourne, Star Casino, Bangaroo and indeed the

proposed Queens Wharf involve establishment of integrated facilities on a single site.

The community submissions indicated that Marina Bay Sands is an appropriate comparison to a

Cairns CBD location. It not clear whether the authors of the submission have an understanding of

Marina Bay Sands and the concept of an integrated resort.

Marina Bay Sands is an integrated resort located on a single site in a large metropolitan area. It is an

urban integrated resort located in a large modern busy city centre which relies heavily on the

infrastructure of the existing city including existing five star hotel rooms and business and convention

infrastructure.



Such resorts also rely heavily on the local city population to visit to IR, meaning reduced need for hotel

rooms to support the casino and entertainment facility customers. Aquis is proposed to be a

“Destination Integrated Resort” which are generally not located in city centres. Resorts such as

Resorts World Sentosa project in Singapore, is located near but not within the l city.

A destination integrated resort should be located in a non-metropolitan environment. The Cairns CBD

tourist area is not a city comparable to Melbourne, Brisbane, Sydney or Singapore. Cairns lacks

significant tourism infrastructure and the lodging, retail, food and beverage and entertainment sectors.

There are no six or five star hotels in Cairns or nearby. There is no boutique premium luxury shopping

locations (except for a small duty free sector located near the current Reef Hotel Casino in Cairns).

There are very limited high quality restaurants in Cairns and no regular shows or theatre productions in

Cairns. Cairns has never had the capital investment in tourism that occurred for example in Port

Douglas and the Gold Coast with the Sheraton Mirage Hotel and Shopping Centre projects over 30

years ago (primary to support the then Japanese tourism influx).

Cairns has an abundance of natural attractions – the reef, rainforest and tablelands etc., an existing

casino and airport with significant underutilised capacity. Cairns has 5,000 four star and below rooms

for lodging, however Chinese and other international tourists in Cairns is not increasing commensurate

with the growth being experienced in Japan, South Korea, Philippines and Singapore.

Notwithstanding the practical ability to achieve a similar sized development in the Cairns CBD, the

practical reality is that the land is not available and a destination integrated resort could not be

achieved within the Cairns CBD.

A further consideration would be the impacts on the CBD as a result of concentrating such a high

employment generator as an integrated resort in the CBD location. Marina Bay Sands for instance

has excellent public transport connections into the CBD established through very large volumes of

passenger usage. Cairns CBD does not have public transport connections. The existing road

transport connections to the CBD have limited existing capacity and very limited capacity for upgrade

to handle the likely transport demands for 20,000 employees located within the Cairns CBD.

The location of an intensity of development that an integrated resort requires distributed around the

CBD streets, even concentrated in the Wharf Street / City Port area would accentuate existing

transport and access problems within the Cairns CBD.

The location of an integrated resort style facility within the CBD would not necessary lead to the

revitalisation of the CBD, CBD’s tend to be revitalised through permanent accommodation rather than

tourism accommodation and the evolution of CBD’s into residential hubs. This is evident in the major

capital cities within Australia , in particular Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. The alienation of land

from residential use to short term tourism accommodation and the concentration of an integrated

resort may lead to the degradation of the CBD and reduce its attractiveness as a central business

district for the community of Cairns.

A destination integrated resort requires a large parcel of land to incorporate all of the features that are

required resort most particularly outdoor recreation, golf courses etc. Redevelopment of the inner

CBD in a series of built forms simply to accommodate the floor plans proposed for Aquis would not

result in an integrated high value, high end integrated resort that would be competitive in the

international market. The location of Aquis on a large site, allows the development to offer a full suite

of facilities remote from the CBD on a site which features good access from north, north-west, south-

west and south. It provides the opportunity for a major employment and activity node north of the CBD

leading to the potential for more self-containment for employment trips and leading to better transport

network outcomes in the city.



Whilst the EIS notes the constraints on the Yorkeys Knob site, the scale of the site and the scale of the

development provides the opportunity for those hazards and constraints to be dealt with. It is noted

that locating the facility in the CBD would not be able to achieve the flood immunity and protection

from coastal processes (wave action etc.) that are a feature of the current Aquis proposal on the

Yorkeys Knob site.

7.2 RESPONSE TO SCALE OF PROPOSAL

As is identified in Section 2.3.1 of the EIS the Aquis proposal is for the development of an Integrated

Resort representing an opportunity for Cairns and Queensland to participate in an emerging Asian

Integrated Resort market.

Integrated Resorts fall into two distinct categories:

Urban IRs such as Crown Melbourne, the proposed Baranagroo resort in Sydney and the proposed Queen’s Wharf Resort in Brisbane and the example cited in community submissions Marina Bay Sands in Singapore and the initial casinos developed in Macau are located in large modern busy cities and rely heavily on the infrastructure of the existing city - including existing 5 star hotel rooms and business and convention infrastructure. These developments also rely heavily on the local city population (and in the case of Macau day visitors) to visit the IR meaning a reduced need for hotel rooms to support all custom.

Destination IRs are not located in cities. Resorts World Sentosa in Singapore is an example of a Destination IR located near but not in a city centre. Recent IR development in Macau are not located in the city centre but are located on large site remote from the city centre such that the full comprehensive range of accommodation, entertainment and recreation facilities can be located on a single site.

AQUIS is a “Destination IR “ to be located in a non city environment - Cairns, the closest business and

tourist area is not itself a city comparable to Melbourne, Sydney , Brisbane or Singapore.

Cairns lacks significant new developed tourism infrastructure in the lodging, retail, food and beverage

and entertainment sectors. There are no 6 or 5 star hotels in Cairns or nearby. There is no boutique or

premium or luxury shopping locations (except for the small duty free sector near the current REEF

Hotel and Casino) in Cairns. There are very limited (less than four) high quality restaurants in Cairns.

There are no regular (daily) shows or theatre productions in Cairns. Cairns has not had the capital

investment in tourism that occurred , for example , in Port Douglas and the Gold Coast with the

Sheraton Mirage Hotel and Shopping Centre projects 30 odd years ago (primarily to support the then

Japanese tourism influx)

Cairns has abundant natural attractions (the REEF; the Rainforest; the Tablelands etc. etc.) and a

Casino (REEF Hotel and Casino) and an airport with significant under-utilised capacity and circa 5000

4 star and below rooms for lodging however Chinese and other international tourism to Cairns is not

increasing commensurate with other locations such Japan, South Korea, The Phillipines, Singapore

etc. which have or are about to enter the IR market.

Cairns is a city in the Asia Pacific hub competing for international tourists with cities and countries like

South Korea , Singapore , The Phillipines and the Maldives which feature modern innovative iconic 6

and 5 star accommodation, significant premium and luxury and boutique shopping offerings ; world

class restaurant offerings often featuring celebrity chefs and world class convention, expo and

entertainment options.



For Cairns to attract more international tourism (particularly Asian tourism) its offering needs to be

competitive (if not better) than what else is available or which will become available in the Asia Pacific

region. As Cairns is a longer flight distance from the major Chinese markets than other Asian

destinations, the offering in Australia needs to be compelling and second to none. It has to be good

enough to make people want to come to Cairns.

A Destination IRD needs:

to be iconic - it cannot be iconic if it is sub scale when measured against other Asian Pacific offerings

6 and 5 star modern best of breed hotel rooms and such offering cannot be less than is available in other Asian Pacific offerings

a large amount of high quality luxury premium and boutique shopping to compete with other Asian offerings ( all within walking distance of the hotel rooms )

a large and varied number of first class restaurant and other food and beverage locations ( all within walking distances of the hotel rooms)

regular world class professional entertainment ( indoors and outside ) on a daily basis ( within walking distance of the hotel rooms )

world class modern varied gaming facilities to provide a service to its customers who want to game ( within walking distance of the hotel rooms )

A project of a reduced scale to the current proposal to be will not be of a scale to compete with the

other Asia Pacific options ; nor will it have sufficient area to provide all the facilities such as golf

courses ; outdoor leisure activities etc. The project needs to be big enough and iconic enough to

change Asian tourism behaviour and compete with Singapore, Macau ,South Korea and the

Philippines etc.

A smaller hotel /casino project in the Cairns CBD as mooted in a number of community submissions -

would indeed provide a higher and better gaming experience and a better small hotel than that

currently provided by the REEF Hotel and Casino but such proposal would NOT increase tourism

numbers to Cairns as it would not be iconic nor have sufficient scale to make people travel large

distances past easier to get to locations like Singapore.

The significant scale of the AQUIS project is vital to create the iconic reputation and “game changing”

outcome that will be a pre requisite to increasing tourism to Cairns.

An urban IR in a capital city is supported and supplemented by the existing infrastructure of the city

e.g. Melbourne has multiple 6 and 5 star hotel rooms in the city beyond those at the Crown Resort ;

multiple retail and shopping offerings in the city and nearby ; multiple world class restaurants in the

city; and attractions like Museums and Aquariums etc. in the city as well as first class surrounding golf

courses etc. - Cairns has no such supporting network.- For AQUIS to compete even with Crown

Melbourne it needs to provide all its own such infrastructure. If it does not then it will fail. As such the

AQUIS project needs to be of substantial scale to provide all such needed supporting infrastructure.

AQUIS will not open until late 2019 /early 2020. AQUIS needs to be competitive with what will be in the

Asian Pacific tourism market in 2019/2020 and beyond; not what is in the market today. With new

projects in Macau and Japan and South Korea and the Philippines and Vietnam and Cambodia and

Saipan all coming on stream between now and 2021 the AQUIS project needs to be so iconic and

compelling an offering so as to be highly competitive with such projects for it to be and remain

successful. A proposal any less in size substance and scale than that proposed for AQUIS will be

uncompetitive internationally come 2020 and beyond.



Some core facts (all sourced from CLSA Research Hong Kong 2014)

Chinese GDP per capita has increased 10 fold between 2001 and today and is expected to at least double again by 2018.

320 million Chinese (which is equivalent to the whole USA population) will join “the middle class” by 2020 taking the total to above 600 million Chinese in the middle class.

Outbound Chinese tourism is expected to be at a minimum annual rate of 200 million plus by 2020 up from circa 100 million presently

Of those planning to travel more than 64% wish to travel internationally and Australia is a top 10 desired destination beyond for example

AQUIS will have a maximum of 4000 hotel rooms by 2020 even on current scale proposal plans ; with

an assumed absolute maximum of 1 460 000 room nights per annum. If just 5% of Chinese outbound

tourists visit Australia in 2020, 10 million visitors will come to Australia. If just one third of those visitors

visit Cairns for 3 nights to stay at AQUIS (as a family group - assumed maximum of 3 ) then that would

produce a need for 3 333 333 room nights per annum

AQUIS needs its current proposed scale to even begin to service the likely needs of just Chinese

tourism to Cairns in 2020.

This analysis does not even contemplate tourism domestically nor tourism from any other Asian

destinations (Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan etc. ) nor tourism from non-Asian destinations

around the world nor does this analysis contemplate any locals staying in rooms

AQUIS needs, as an absolute minimum to be of its proposed scale.



7.3 RESPONSE TO REQUIREMENT FOR A LAKE AND LAKE OPTIONS

7.3.1 Background

OCG requirement (Issue 6 Item 3 is) as follows:

(3) The requirement for the lake (or a seasonal lake) surrounding the development considering the potential impact of lake management (e.g. discharge to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area)

This section also provides further information on options that were considered in selecting the current

(EIS) flood mitigation solution, namely the 4 m deep saltwater lake with seawater exchange. This issue

is included in the EHP submission (as ‘comments for consideration’ by DSITIA) and by a private

submitter (247 / BHLF-W377-M7BZ-R). The EHP / DSITIA submission states:

Section 4.1.2, Operations and Section 4.1.4, Environmentally Sustainable Development (Pages 4-13 through to 4-19). Issue: Justification for the inclusion of a 4m deep “lake”:

Section 4.1.3a, paragraphs 1 and 2 states that through the EIS process, the initial concept was refined as a result of detailed considerations and investigations; however no justification is provided for the inclusion of a lake, nor for the specific depth proposed. In Chapter 9, design considerations for the lake are presented but they do not appear to represent the full range of considerations.

Recommendation: The proponent should investigate (or at least present) any alternative inclusions or solutions that would make the ‘always dry’ flood conveyance structure workable, in terms of addressing the reasons why the option was rejected (i.e. aesthetics, maintenance, disease vector control, crocodiles and the potential for bird strike).

Submitter (247 / BHLF-W377-M7BZ-R) provides substantial detail on the issue and this is referred to

below where relevant.

There is some unavoidable overlap with other issues raised in Issue 4 (Lake management and water

quality limits) (see Chapter 5).

7.3.2 Flood Mitigation

a) Nature of Constraints and Design Solutions

The best available advice based on BMT WBM’s extensive experience of Barron River flooding and

use of CRC’s Barron Delta Flood Model documented in s9.1 of the EIS shows that Barron River

flooding impacts on the whole site for floods with an Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) of less than

20%. Habitable floors are based on the 1% AEP and Figure 7-1 below shows the depths of floodwater

for this event. This is characterised by the following:

east of the Yorkeys Knob Road depths are typically 2.0 m

west of the Yorkeys Knob Road, depths are greater due to lower elevation of the land and are

typically over 3.0 m.

As explained in the EIS (s9.2.1), the design-related mitigation options to deal with site flooding are one

or more of the following:

adopting flood-tolerant land uses (e.g. golf courses) involving minimal earthworks that could

affect external properties (see below), and accepting frequent inundation

building habitable floors and important infrastructure above (at least) the 1% AEP level (plus

freeboard) on piers such that floodwaters can pass beneath the development with no effect on

external properties



building habitable floors and important infrastructure above (at least) the 1% AEP level (plus

freeboard) – this could be achieved by either filling to constructing structures to the necessary

levels and for ease of description both are described below as ‘fill’ options.



Figure 7-1 Flood depths for undeveloped site (1% AEP flood).

For all flood mitigation solutions, CairnsPlan (the Flooding Code) requires that development should not

result in adverse flooding impacts on off-site areas, namely:

afflux (a rise in water level upstream of an obstruction due to damming effect) outside the

property boundaries

higher velocities or adverse flow paths outside the property boundaries.

Therefore, for a mitigation solution to be acceptable, it must include a drainage element that has

sufficient hydraulic capacity to convey the floodwaters around any floodplain obstruction without

creating unacceptable afflux and velocity impacts as noted above. Both open channels or closed lakes

would achieve this – for ease of description both are described below as ‘lake’ options.

b) Options Considered for Dealing With Floods

A review of site flooding history and other details revealed the following:

a fill / lake solution is suitable for the eastern lots (subject to coastal erosion and ecological

considerations)

a fill / lake solution is not suitable for the western lots due to excessive distance from

waterbodies suitable for water exchange

pier solutions are suitable on all lots (subject to cost criteria)

flood-tolerant uses are suitable on all lots.

Fill / lake solutions require attention to water quality and groundwater interaction criteria. This requires

turnover of lake water typically every 14 days (normal conditions) and seven days (emergency

conditions). This needs:

access to a suitable clean (saline) water source

access to suitable saline water outlet

in-lake infrastructure such as propellers, agitators, aerators etc.

c) Design Fill Levels

In designing the Aquis Resort, the following minimum standards were adopted:

habitable floors: 1% AEP + freeboard

structural integrity and human safety: PMF (for a ‘shelter in place’ sty such as has been adopted

for Aquis).

These are minimum standards. Based on all design criteria, the Resort Complex is to be built on a

raised podium (i.e. fill platform) set at 7.5 m AHD. This level:

is approximately 5 m above natural ground level

is above the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) for all parts of the site

provides 2 m freeboard to the 0.01% AEP storm tide (allowing for 0.8 m sea level rise)

is also well above the 6 m AHD refuge level set by CRC for tsunami

provides adequate allowance to any conceivable extreme event, even with sea level rise.

This is the design response for safety of Aquis infrastructure and guests. In essence it involves

building an island above the level of the natural surface to a level of 7.5 m AHD with buildings above

this level.



7.3.3 Lake Solutions Considered

Three broad mitigation options (i.e. a lake to mitigate the effect of building the Resort Complex above

the flood level) were considered during the development of the concept design for the EIS and these

comprised:

open flood conveyance zones (i.e. the IAS solution – see Figure 7-2)

a closed ‘mostly dry’ (seasonal) lake (considered during concept development phase post-IAS

and pre-EIS)

a closed ‘always wet’ lake (i.e. EIS solution – see Figure 7-3).

Figure 7-2 Concept

buffer design.

Source: Figure 9 of

IAS.

Filling

Conveyance channels



Figure 7-3 EIS

solution (deep ‘always wet’ lake).

a) Previous Consideration of a ‘Mostly Dry’ Lake

The ‘always dry’ (described in the EIS as the ‘mostly dry’) option was considered in the preparation of

the EIS although the full documentation was not provided in the interests of brevity and to avoid the

confusion inherent with discussing an abandoned option. However, the issue was discussed briefly in

s9.2.1e) as follows:

A bed level of about 0.5 m AHD is close to that of the dry season groundwater level

(approximately 0.3 m AHD although this is seasonally variable). Thus there is an option to have

a ‘dry’ channel that is perched above this level and that would only contain water during the wet

season and especially during a flood. Modelling was undertaken to check the performance of

such a channel and it was found to be acceptable in terms of flood mitigation. However, it was

determined that such a waterway would have maintenance problems as it would be so close to

local groundwater that it would be boggy and difficult to maintain in a healthy and aesthetically

pleasing state. In the wet season, groundwater rises as high as RL 1.5 m AHD which could fill

the lake. In particular:

- lined options (e.g. concrete) were considered to be impractical and aesthetically undesirable

and were therefore rejected

- any natural vegetation established on the bed and banks would need to be tolerant to

waterlogging – the end result would be an ephemeral wetland that would be predominantly

fresh to brackish and that would pond shallow water for extended periods of time, leading to

algal growth and die-off issues, periodic rotting vegetation, and a generally unacceptable

aesthetic outcome

- such vegetation would be difficult to mow and otherwise maintain as a waterway with

acceptably low flood plain roughness such that it could convey the design flow

- there would be health risks associated with standing water (mosquitos and midges) and the

resulting environment would encourage birdlife, with associated additional bird strike risk.

(p9-11)



The DSITIA and private submissions state that this explanation is inadequate and that the option was

‘quickly dismissed’. The discussion in Section 7.3.5 provides additional detail to address this issue. It

is also relevant to note that better information on groundwater levels is now available and this has a

profound effect on the performance of the seasonal lake option.

b) Lake Solution: EIS Optimisation

Designing and managing the lake involves multiple objectives. These include:

flooding (normal, extreme) and associated post-flood management

water quality (dry season, wet season, flood)

hazard management (especially birdstrike, crocodiles, and vector control)

ecological function (shore and aquatic habitat, fish stocking)

pest plant and animal management

interaction with groundwater

slope stability, bank erosion

aesthetics

interpretive values

maintenance.

The ‘always wet’ lake is just one solution to the need to provide a compensatory waterway and

floodplain conveyance. During the development of the EIS, a process of optioneering was undertaken

in arriving at the design as submitted. Table 7-1 below summarises the findings of this work and is

provided to demonstrate the consideration of prudent and feasible alternatives. Although further

assessment of the seasonal lake is provided in Section 7.3.5, this table reports on decisions made

during the preparation of the EIS which was to proceed with the 4 m deep saltwater lake.

ASPECT PRIMARY INFLUENCE(S) SECONDARY INFLUENCE(S)

EIS PROJECT

Location, orientation, and plan dimensions

Proximity to appropriate water body for lake solution

Available land area, lots, location

Flooding (conveyance, floodplain storage)

Avoid coastal bite

Protect natural vegetation

Implement recommended buffers

As per current Concept Land Use Plan.

Lake form Flood mitigation Sustainability

Aesthetics

‘Always wet’ solution adopted. See Section 7.3.3a) for details of

previous assessment of ‘seasonal lake’ option and Section 7.3.4 for further

discussion.

Filling details – islands

Flooding and storm tide Aesthetics

Cost

Northern part of Resort Complex 5.0 m AHD.

Southern part of Resort Complex 5.5 m AHD.




EIS PROJECT

Filling details – outer edge

Flooding and storm tide Golf course design

Stormwater drainage and runoff quality

Aesthetics

Cost

2.0 m AHD minimum (approximately natural surface)

Bund at this level to contain lake water, drainage to flow away from lake.

Top water level (TWL)

Flood performance – e.g. conveyance, floodplain storage

Groundwater level / soil porosity / proximity to tidal water (if connected to groundwater)

Aesthetics

Cost

TWL = 1.5 m AHD.

Prior to adoption of cut-off option a lower figure of 0.3 m AHD was selected as this was the average groundwater level. Could be optimised as lake will be quarantined from groundwater influences.

Little seasonal variation (quarantined from groundwater, maintained by pumping).

Bed level Flooding

Water quality – sufficient depth to avoid stratification

Aquatic ecology – sufficient depth to avoid bottom rooted water plants, photosynthesis issues

Edge details -1.5 m AHD.

May include 0.5 m over-dredge for sediment storage. Limit over-dredge as much as possible.

Note provision of Lake Management Plan.

Residence time Water quality– need to continually refresh contents

Infrastructure (short residence time means large pipes and pumps and vice versa). Pipe location and size constrained by other criteria (e.g. hydraulic, environmental, aesthetic)

Infrastructure (need for backup supply and possibly discharge?)

Influenced by lake volume

14 days (normal).

7 days (emergency, using greater pump rate). Backup supply from Half Moon Bay was considered but ruled out as described below.

Lining / quarantining from groundwater

Groundwater (level and quality)

Avoid impact on external bores and groundwater use

Avoid impact on adjacent vegetation (i.e. salinity and depth regime)

Preferred ecology (see below)

Soil chemistry (need to isolate from water body?)

“Edge details” (see below)

Aesthetics

Cost

Assumed quarantined from adjacent groundwater (either lined or isolated via sheet pile, impervious membrane etc.).




EIS PROJECT

(Continued over)

Edge details Hydraulic capacity

Erosion (flood, wind)

Slope stability

Edge ecology

Habitat adversely contributing to birdstrike risk

Vector habitat and control

Crocodile management

Weed management

Aesthetics

Cost

Inner edges – vertical walls (combined with structure).

Outer edges assume vertical (could have sections of 1V:2H sloping batter. Erosion protection provided where needed, assume mangrove forest along most of outer edge.

Preferred environment

Groundwater (depth, salinity) unless lined

Edge details as above

Birdstrike issues (i.e. discourage problem birds – pelicans)

Soil/water/groundwater chemistry and other water quality influences

Light effects (e.g. turbid water could reduce eutrophication)

Pest control (e.g. introduce predators for mosquitos)

Pest fish management (e.g. mosquitofish, tilapia)

Recreational needs

Aesthetics

Cost

“Harsh environment” – brackish to saline. Will approximate or improve on conditions in Richters Creek.

Will develop into a normal aquatic environment similar to Richters Creek (with fish etc. either stocked or natural). Inlet will be screened to limit fish intake but fish will undoubtedly become established.

Management required for pest fish, algae, vectors, crocodiles, birds.

Will experience wet season and flooding influences and will become fresh on occasions for short periods.

Stormwater drainage inflows

Water quality – affected by inflow of pollutants

Stormwater drainage design details (catchments, piping, available sites for SQIDs, WSUD features)

Landscape / circulation plans for islands (architect / civil designer)

Site grading (architect / civil designer)

Management of fertiliser, herbicides etc.

Divert all flows away from lake where possible and treat with SQIDs.

Resort Complex flows treated with SQIDs prior to discharge to lake.

Harvest and store roof water.

Wet season (not flood) performance

Placement of lake overflow infrastructure – flooding

Suitability of receiving environment (western overflow) – ecological

Suitability of receiving environment (eastern overflow) – ecological, bank erosion of Richters Creek

Effect on lake ecology and therefore water exchange

Environmental design details

Structural design / erosion protection

Mobility (pedestrian and buggy passage)

Aesthetics

Cost

Two lake overflows provided as per current Concept Land Use Plan – western (Yorkeys Creek), eastern (Richters Creek).




EIS PROJECT

Normal maintenance

Overall lake ecology

Expected aquatic pest plant and animal management needs

Expected terrestrial pest plant and animal management needs

Silt deposition rate – possible over-dredge bed?

Availability / design of spoil and vegetation disposal areas

Cost

Recommendation for 0.5 m over-dredge for sediment storage and associated sediment removal.

Limit over-dredge as much as possible

Flood (1% AEP) performance

Performance of lake overflows during high discharge

Preferred secondary flow paths

Silt deposition

Effect on lake ecology and therefore water exchange

Treatment options (to bring water quality back quickly)

Safety against river migration

See ‘Filling Details’

Availability / design of spoil and vegetation disposal areas

Cost

Floor levels etc. as recommended by flooding assessment.

Note structural design requirements.

Flood (PMF) performance

As above but more extreme. Availability / design of spoil and vegetation disposal areas

Cost

Floor levels etc. as recommended in flooding assessment.

Note structural design requirements.

Lake inlet (main) Water quality (dry conditions)

Water quality (flood conditions)

Creek stability

Boating safety

Aesthetics

Cost

Initial option considered involved main inlet in mouth of Richters Creek.

Ruled out on water quality and reliability grounds. Off-shore inlet selected.

Lake inlet (standby)

Water quality (flood conditions)

Right of way

Cost Initial option considered involved emergency supply from Half Moon Bay. Ruled out on cost and right of way grounds.

Lake outlet Water quality of receiving environment (dry conditions)

Water quality receiving environment (flood conditions)

Creek stability / erosion and sedimentation

Boating safety

Aesthetics

Cost

EIS option involves outlet in mouth of Richters Creek with armouring and diffuser.

Additional option (see Section 7.4) is for an off-

shore outlet.

The above assessment resulted in the following design decisions:

Site flooding requires an appropriate flood mitigation solution that protects the Aquis assets and

does not cause unacceptable impacts on neighbouring lands. Consideration of possible

mitigation solutions led to a lake option.



Consideration of alternative lake options led to assessment of groundwater and water quality

issues. This led to a lake solution involving a 4 m deep saltwater lake with seawater exchange.

Seawater exchange options were considered and this led to a preferred off-shore inlet and

outlet in the mouth of Richters Creek. Further assessment has since been made of an option for

an off-shore outlet to Richters Creek mobility risks (see Section 7.4).

It is recognised that the main design criteria requiring optimisation post-EIS are:

edge details

lake biology.

In addition, detailed work is required on a number of management strategies as recommended in the

EIS, especially on issues including:

sediment

lake water quality

pests and weeds

crocodiles and vector control.

These will be addressed as part of the site’s Environmental Management Plan (Planning) which is

covered by the Register of Proponent Commitments (see Chapter ).

7.3.4 Lake Sustainability Issues

As noted previously, the lake as described in the EIS is just one solution to the need for compensatory

waterway area. While the EIS reveals that this is a feasible solution, it has some complexities. These

are succinctly set out in submission 247 as quoted below:

Source off-shore seawater, involving 2.2 km of dredging.

Install a seawater intake structure, and the associated 2.2 km of 1.8 m diameter pipeline.

Dispose approximately one-third of the dredge spoil (being excessive to the trench-filling

requirements), proposed to be disposed of in situ, with associated sediment plume impacts.

Install a seawater receiving pit with associated pumps and an ongoing power demand and

associated greenhouse gas emission load.

Steel sheet-pile kilometres of lake boundary with associated supply and transport demands.

Excavate a 4 m-deep lake, and possibly needing to treat a vast quantity of Actual Acid Sulfate

Soil (AASS) or Potentially Acid Sulfate Soil (PASS) with vast quantities of lime prior to soil

reuse, with associated lime-supply, transport and on-site storage demands and hazards.

Manage significant transportation demands for transporting treated soil to re-use sites.

Manage dry and wet excavation including AASS-PASS stockpiles, construction-phase lake

water treatment, disposal, and monitoring issues.

Install a lake water discharge (diffuser) structure, with associated dredging-related disposal and

sediment plume management and impacts.

Have a continuous life-of-project lake seawater release and an ongoing power demand and

associated greenhouse gas emission load.

Have a continuous life-of-project:

- lake marine biota entrainment impact

- lake water quality management demands



- lake biology management demands, including crocodile-inhabitable waters, pest species,

perceived removal and disposal of flood-related fish kills, etc.

It could probably be regarded as strongly debatable whether all of these implications could be

justifiable as ecologically sustainable development to solve a wet season mowing and aesthetics

issue. (Submission 274).

As noted above, DSITIA suggests that:

The proponent should investigate (or at least present) any alternative inclusions or solutions that would make the ‘always dry’ flood conveyance structure workable, in terms of addressing the reasons why the option was rejected (i.e. aesthetics, maintenance, disease vector control, crocodiles and the potential for bird strike).

Further details on this issue are included below.

7.3.5 Detailed Assessment of Seasonal Lake Option

a) Description

This seasonal lake option investigated in the development of the EIS involved a shallow channel

broadly duplicating the footprint of the lake but much shallower (as shallow as possible based on

achieving the desired flood performance). Such a channel was expected to be dry during most

conditions, and would only contain water following rainfall, Barron River flooding, or when groundwater

is high. Key features of what the seasonal lake option are:

footprint essentially identical to the 55 ha lake (as proposed when this option was considered)

bed level of 0.5 m AHD (as high as possible to limit groundwater impacts) – flood modelling

revealed that a higher bed level would not provide sufficient conveyance capacity

high level discharge points similar to the current Lake Outlets to allow the channel to be drained

following rainfall and Barron River flooding

no seawater exchange.

Submission 247 provides some alternative suggestions and these are assessed below where relevant.

b) Flood Performance

Flood modelling not published in the EIS but reported separately (BMT WBM 2013d) includes an

assessment of the performance of the seasonal lake option as described above. During Barron River

flooding, this solution will perform essentially identically to the lake solution in that over-bank flow will

enter the void and pass around the central island and discharge over the dunes at the north of the site.

Preliminary modelling was undertaken and Figure 7-4 below shows the results.

It should be noted that this modelling was based on the then configuration of the Resort Complex

which involved two ‘islands’ (actually concrete structures with deep basements). Many modelling runs

on this and the final EIS lake configuration reveal that their hydraulic performance is essentially

identical.

Discussion

Figure 7-4 shows that the results are generally acceptable but as anticipated, the overall flood level

reductions are less than for the full lake depth.



Figure 7-4 ARI 100 year (1% AEP) flood levels for seasonal lake option (bed at 0.5 m AHD).



Of note, afflux occurs upstream of the then-proposed stadium and to a lesser degree at Holloways

Beach. It is possible that the proposed bunds to the north would not be required for this option or could

perhaps be reduced in level. This could help reduce impacts in the Holloways Beach area. Although

not optimised, the configuration as modelled performs sufficiently well to be considered as a viable

flood mitigation solution.

Conclusion

The performance of the seasonal lake as described above in mitigating flooding impacts is likely to be

adequate.

c) Effect of Groundwater

Groundwater monitoring was undertaken for the EIS and this has continued to the present. This has

consisted of continuous water level monitoring at some bores and monthly chemical monitoring at

others as shown on Figure 7-5. The location of the lake is shown on this figure.

Figure 7-5 Location of monitoring bores in relation to lake footprint.

This figure shows that:

bore YK4 will be directly intersected by the western part of the lake

bore YK3 is very close to the eastern part of the lake

YK7 and YK10 are close to the southern part of the lake.



Water Levels

The following graph shows the temporal variation in level for bores YK3 and YK4 located in the vicinity

of the lake over the period July 2013 to August 2014. Water level measurements in

September/October 2013 indicated groundwater levels in YK9 and YK10 similar to those at YK3. The

graph also shows the proposed lake bed level (0.5 m AHD) of the seasonal lake.

Chart 7-1 Time series of typical groundwater levels at site of lake.

This data shows that:

YK3 levels are almost entirely greater than 0.5 m AHD

YK4 levels are above 0.5 m AHD for five months of the year (February to June).

Groundwater Quality

The following graph shows the variation in salinity levels for bores YK3, 4, 7 and 10 located in the

vicinity of the lake over the period July 2013 to August 2014. Also plotted is YK2 which lies near the

mouth of Richters Creek.

Proposed lake bed level (0.5 m AHD)



Chart 7-2 Time series of typical salinity levels at site of lake.

This data shows that boreholes located near the lake exhibit very low salinity levels – never exceeding

5 ppt (seawater is 35 ppt). That is, they contain freshwater at all times. YK2 reveals elevated salinity

(nearly that of seawater) during the wet season and when tides are high, while remaining fresh for

most of the year.

Discussion

The groundwater levels show that excavating a lake to a bed level of 0.5 m AHD would therefore

intersect the eastern part of the groundwater (YK3) for all of the year. This may also occur in the

southern end of the lake (YK10). This would result in inflow to the lake excavation, with water filling it

to a level that varies between 0.5 m and 2.2 m AHD. This latter level is approximately that of the

natural ground. This is a very simplistic interpretation and ignores recharge, evaporation, and rainfall

effects and the likelihood that such works could actually drain the aquifer in the vicinity of YK3 and

YK10. However, it is evident that groundwater levels can be expected to be above the lake bed level

for much of the year and could be depressed from their natural level due to draw-down caused by lake

interactions.

If this draw-down was to happen, it would have serious implications for the melaleuca wetlands in the

area (YK3 is immediately beside such a wetland) and the woodland vegetation in general. Saltwater

intrusion of this freshwater aquifer could ensue, but this requires additional work to assess its

likelihood. The balance between recharge and evaporation would need further study and it may be that

recharge from the south could help offset the saline intrusion to some extent.

The lowering of groundwater as a result of drainage into the open lake could lead to acid sulfate soil

issues although this has not been investigated.

The submission 247 design makes allowance for groundwater and suggests that pressure relief valves

be included in a lined base of the lake as shown on Figure 7-6 below.



Figure 7-6 Schematic showing flow of rainwater and groundwater to lateral gutters.

Source: Submission 247.

Water thus collected (rainfall and groundwater) is proposed to drain to gutters and carried to ‘treatment

units’. See Section 7.3.5e).

The above data suggests that a seasonal lake with a bed level of 0.5 m AHD would be wet for most if

not all of the year and that it would most likely change the groundwater balance and reduce

groundwater levels on the eastern and northern part of the site. Under these circumstances, it would

probably be necessary to construct a cut-off wall as proposed for the EIS lake solution. With this

solution, it may be possible to control the water level to some extent. Alternatively, it would be

necessary to continuously pump the water entering through the relief valves. This would constitute

groundwater extraction and would require an NRM licence for this. It would be a waste of a valuable

resource if the water was discharged. It is would also most likely depress surround groundwater levels

as noted above.

d) Effect of Rainfall

The EIS lake is designed to receive runoff from the Resort Complex after collection and treatment

under the stormwater drainage strategy documented in s11.2 of the EIS. It is likely that the seasonal

lake would also receive this runoff, along with rainfall falling on its own catchment. As for the EIS

solution, external catchments would be drained away from the seasonal lake to minimise water quality

problems. It is assumed at this stage therefore that the catchment of the seasonal lake would mimic

that of the EIS lake, i.e. would be 40 ha of Resort Complex plus 33 ha of direct catchment.

No design work has been undertaken on the hydraulic and water quality components of the

stormwater drainage. However, it is clear that during heavy rain substantial volumes of water would be

involved. For 10 mm of runoff over this catchment, a volume of 7300 m3 would be produced and this

would need to be drained somewhere. Although runoff from the Resort Complex will be treated by the

WSUD features, that falling on the lake will not be and will mobilise any pollutants lying on the 33 ha of

lined floor or in the shallow water.

This will require treatment prior to discharge. Given that the Resort Complex runoff will already be

treated, it would be prudent to discharge this separately to reduce the volume of lake treatment. Two

ocean outfalls (or a combined one handling both runoff sources following treatment) would most likely

be required due to the risk of introducing polluted water to Richters Creek where it could be ingested

into the Ponderosa Prawn farm upstream.

While there will be sufficient head available to discharge the Resort Complex stormwater drainage, the

lake bed is only 0.5 m above mean sea level, meaning that drainage could only occur on a low tide

unless pumping is utilised. If a gravity system is used then it will need to be fitted with tide gates to

prevent the lake filling with salt water via the outlet.



e) Likely Water Quality Issues

Under the scenario suggested in Submission 247, the following conditions are likely to apply:

During the dry season, water in the lake will be fresh and, without drainage, be of the order of

0.5 to 1.0 m deep due to groundwater effects. During the wet season this could rise to 2.0 m

although this could be reduced by drainage.

Irrespective of lining, there will be extended periods of up to months where the shallow drains

pond water, and would become super-heated and prone to algal blooms and excessive aquatic

weed growth. Such water could not be discharged to Richters Creek without treatment. A

shallow and warm freshwater system will form a favourable environment for plants and algae

when compared with a saltwater system.

Many of the same water quality issues as were addressed for the EIS lake will be involved although

the conditions will be vastly different. A preliminary assessment reveals that the following likely water

quality conditions could be adversely affected in the absence of treatment:

Temperature. Likely to be elevated due to shallow depth and large surface area. Will be too

shallow for stratification to be an issue.

Salinity. Likely to be fresh and certainly of much lower salinity than receiving waters during the

dry season.

pH. Could be low due to acid drainage from inflowing groundwater.

Nutrients. Likely to be significant due to pollutants falling on 33 ha surface. Also there is a likely

issue of plant growth and decay affected water quality.

Chlorophyll a. Likely to be elevated due to growth of algae

Lake water will need to be treated prior to discharge to:

reduce temperature

remove nutrients and Chlorophyll a and possibly pollutants

raise pH.

Some in-situ treatment could be provided by:

circulation by propeller pumps

heat removal by evaporative processes coupled with pumps.

Submission 247 discusses treatment options as involving the following:

This type of water-handling mechanism could be used, possibly in conjunction with pre-dosed pH controlling fountain water to minimise staining-effects by potentially iron-aluminium enriched groundwater intrusion.

Other treatment approaches could be used to control algal growth concerns, such as shock or continuous chlorine dosing, either from a central location or delivered in a more targeted fashion using solid-form pool chlorine in cages or wells distributed across the structure, as required. Spot issues could be managed by adopting a routine high-pressure water removal maintenance regime. (Submission 247 p3).

These and other treatment options have not been investigated but the proposed high dosage of

chlorine for algal control is extremely dangerous environmentally. A large rainfall event early in the wet

season would mobilise poor quality water (‘first flush’) and this would cause challenges to any

treatment system. Similarly, a flood would transport large volumes of algae and other plants from the

site.



Overall, it is expected that the maintenance of water quality in a shallow freshwater environment will

be problematic. Such as situation is the complete opposite of that selected for the EIS which seeks a

deep, well mixed saltwater environment.

Should a cut-off wall be constructed, it may be possible to keep the dry season water level artificially

depressed in which case the lake may be able to be kept dry for more of the year.

f) Birdstrike

As noted above, it is likely that the seasonal lake will contain shallow water for much (if not all) of the

year and that algae and other plants are likely to be present. Such a large area of shallow freshwater

will be attractive to wading birds that are undesirable so close to the airport.

This problem would be worse with an un-lined lake as the vegetation would be largely uncontrolled.

Maintenance would be difficult if not impossible as land-based plant would not be able to traverse the

boggy or most likely permanently wet ground.

Should a cut-off wall be constructed and the lake kept dry for more of the year, it may be possible to

mow the base and reduce this impact. However, it will still be a wet season issue.

g) Insect Vectors

Similarly, a large area of shallow freshwater will be attractive to mosquitos and biting midges that are

undesirable for health and amenity reasons.

This would be not as much of an issue should a cut-off wall be constructed and the lake kept dry for

more of the year. However, it will still be a wet season issue.

h) Aesthetics

The comments made in the EIS are still considered valid. In particular:

The seasonal lake a waterway would have maintenance problems as it would be so close to

local groundwater that it would be boggy and difficult to maintain in a healthy and aesthetically

pleasing state.

Lined options (e.g. concrete and polyethylene) are considered aesthetically undesirable.

Any natural vegetation established on the bed and banks would need to be tolerant to

waterlogging – the end result would be an ephemeral wetland that would be predominantly fresh

and that would pond shallow water for extended periods of time, leading to algal growth and die-

off issues, periodic rotting vegetation, and a generally unacceptable aesthetic outcome.

Such vegetation would be difficult to mow and otherwise maintain as a waterway with

acceptably low flood plain roughness such that it could convey the design flow.

The ‘art-scape’ features suggested in Submission 247 are unlikely to remain visible for long and will

most likely be under water for most of the time. Should a cut-off wall be constructed and the lake kept

dry for more of the year, the artwork would be visible for some time. However, it will still be a wet

season issue.

Finally, the presence of the large waterbody has developed into an architectural theme for the Aquis

Resort and the proponent does not wish to jeopardise this feature.



7.3.6 Comparison of Lake Options

Table 7-2 below is a summary of the likely performance of the EIS lake and the seasonal lake

described in the previous discussion. For ease of interpretation, the preferred option for each criterion

is shaded. When these are equal, both are shaded

CRITERION EIS LAKE SEASONAL LAKE COMMENTS

Flooding Suitable. Suitable. No significant difference.

Water quality Excellent (at least comparable to Richters Creek).

Requires circulation system and seawater exchange.

Likely to be poor, especially with respect to temperature, nutrients, plant growth and decay, and algae.

Requires circulation / treatment system – will be problematic with freshwater.

Seasonal lake will be difficult to manage as water will be fresh and shallow.

Groundwater interaction

Suitable (with quarantining option). Unsustainable without.

Unsustainable without a quarantining solution (could deplete resource, contaminate groundwater).

Even with a cut-off wall containment system, the seasonal lake has direct connection to the shallow groundwater system within the cut-off wall perimeter. This groundwater will still vary over the time with at or above existing surface levels in the wet for prolonged periods.

Similar quarantining works required. Seasonal lake

Birdstrike risk Present – expected to be manageable.

Expected to be significant due to large area of shallow freshwater habitat with likely algal growth and other plant life, even with liner.

Seasonal lake will be a higher risk for birdstrike.

Insect vectors Negligible due to seawater and limited beach area.

Considerable due to large area of shallow freshwater habitat.

Vector control for seasonal lake would reduce risk but would involve extensive use of poisons.

Maintenance Necessary, especially removal of silt and dead fish post-flood.

Dredging and floating plant will be needed.

Necessary, especially removal of silt and dead fish post-flood.

Land-based plant will be needed and access will be very difficult (land likely to be boggy or mostly submerged).

Regular maintenance of liner will be required.

Seasonal lake is expected to require a more complex maintenance regime due to fluctuating water levels and occasional drying out.



CRITERION EIS LAKE SEASONAL LAKE COMMENTS

Aesthetics Excellent (deep water with high expected water quality). Architectural treatment of edges to be confirmed.

Poor (shallow with expected poor water quality, perhaps empty at times). No solutions apparent (‘art-scape’ features are unlikely to remain visible for long and will most likely be under water for most of the time).

Presentation of Resort/Lake will vary seasonally for the non-permanent (seasonal lake) solution.

Energy use Significant (continuous pumping of large volumes of water to achieve 14 day turnover). In-lake circulation also needed (aerators, fans)

Significantly less than EIS lake due to no need for pumping.

For the seasonal lake, energy will still be needed for circulation, treatment, and probably discharge pumping activities.

Off-shore works Ocean inlet and either ocean or near-shore outlet required.

May need ocean outfall for stormwater drainage, particularly when lake water quality is poor and discharge to the creek is therefore not allowable

Seasonal lake ‘plumbing’ not considered in detail but likely to be of lesser scale.

Construction Approximately 1.5 million m3

required, together with treatment of ASS and off-site transport of surplus material.

Approximately 0.5 million m3

required and proportionally less treatment of ASS and off-site transport.

Seasonal lake likely to result in savings in energy and off-site impacts during construction; however long term operational energy requirements could be higher than for the EIS lake.

Cost High. Moderate. Seasonal lake likely to be substantially cheaper in capital and operating costs.

Cost High. Moderate. Seasonal lake likely to be substantially cheaper in terms of capital costs. However, operating costs could be excessive when all the additional maintenance requirements are taken into account.

Environmental Risk Low. High. The shallow lake inherently has a significantly greater risk of environmental harm than the EIS lake.



Overall, the seasonal lake is expected to:

perform adequately as a flood mitigation solution

have acceptable impacts on groundwater if it is quarantined as proposed for the EIS solution,

although there are likely to be some sustainability issues with groundwater depletion and

contamination

have serious water quality issues

have serious maintenance problems including those related to birdstrike and insect vectors

be aesthetically unappealing

require less (but not no) off-shore works

involve lower construction costs and energy consumption

likely to involve high operating costs due to maintenance needs.

Despite the suitable flood behaviour and some beneficial features, it is considered that the poor water

quality performance and aesthetics rule out this option from further consideration. The presence of the

large waterbody has developed into an architectural theme for the Aquis Resort and the proponent

does not wish to jeopardise this feature.

7.3.7 Other Lake Issues – Discharge to GBRWHA

The above discussion has confirmed the need for the lake as a flood mitigation solution and has

demonstrated that the seasonal lake option is not viable. It (and the detailed work included in s11.3 of

the EIS) has also demonstrated the maintenance of lake water quality requires seawater exchange in

the form of an off-shore inlet and therefore an ocean outlet. The EIS proposes that this be in the mouth

of Richters Creek. The option of an off-shore outlet is canvassed in Section 7.4.

The remaining component of this Information Request issue is to demonstrate that discharge to the

GBRWHA is necessary and by implication, sustainable.

a) Need for an Ocean Discharge

Lake water exchange is essential for the maintenance of water quality. This involves pumping clean

seawater into the lake and then out again to preserve lake volume. Modelling suggests that a target

flushing time of 14 days is optimal. In terms of lake water quality, an outlet to anywhere would be

adequate, so the issue is to find the best location for such an outlet.

A minimum-cost solution requires that the discharge pipeline be as short as possible but other criteria

must be considered, namely:

integrity of infrastructure (i.e. free from erosion and sedimentation, both under normal and

extreme conditions)

acceptable environmental impacts in constructing the infrastructure (i.e. considering the need to

minimise clearing of natural vegetation and disturbing important substrates such as coral)

acceptable environmental impacts in operating the infrastructure (water quality, hydrodynamic

effects)

acceptable community impacts in operating the infrastructure (avoid boating hazards, minimise

visual intrusion).

For the Aquis site, the only feasible discharge points for the volume of water to be discharged are:

Richters Creek (in theory, anywhere along the eastern boundary of the site but preferably near

the mouth where transport to the ocean is more direct (and away from other users such as the

Ponderosa Prawn Farm) and the tidal prism is greatest)



off-shore of Richters Creek.

Both of these involve works in and discharge to the waters of the GBRWHA as the boundary follows

low water.

b) Impacts on the GBRWHA

Water quality

The EIS solution involves an outlet fitted with a diffuser in the mouth of Richters Creek. Modelling (EIS

s11.3) confirms that this is likely to perform satisfactorily and that the water quality values of the

GBRWHA will not be at risk. In particular:

water quality modelling suggest that lake discharge will be as good as or better than the

receiving waters

even if this were not the case, the available dilution is such that lake discharge would very

quickly become indistinguishable from the surrounding waters.

Additional modelling has been undertaken for the off-shore outlet (Section 5.4.5) and this has similar

results. Also, modelling has been undertaken of a possible flood scenario (Section 5.1.4) and this

reveals that:

lake water can be safely discharged into Richters Creek itself until the lake recovers its desired

salinity

this occurs several days before Richters Creek also returns to normal.

The EIS work and the additional modelling described in this report confirms that there will be little if

any impact from the lake discharge under all circumstances.

Pipeline construction

Details of constructing the off-shore pipeline are provided in Section 5.4, along with proposed

mitigation measures. These are all considered to be industry best-practice. The assessment of

impacts of this work on OUV and matters of NES (various parts of Chapter 6) conclude that no

significant impacts are likely to occur.



7.4 RESPONSE TO ALTERNATIVE OFF-SHORE DISCHARGE POINT

7.4.1 Background


(4) The location of the discharge point in the mouth of Richters Creek vs. a discharge point in the Coral Sea.

Another OCG requirement (Issue 4 Item 4.4) also touches on this topic, namely:

(4.4) Provide justification for the proposed outlet pipeline alignment to consider the alternative options (e.g. off-shore outside of the active coastal zone).

This latter point has been discussed in detail in Section 5.4.5.

7.4.2 Discussion

To avoid repetition, a summary is provided of the detailed findings of the assessment detailed in

Section 5.4.5, namely:

While the EIS discharge solution in the mouth of Richters Creek performs adequately in terms of

water quality and hydrodynamic performance, there is a risk of erosion and sedimentation due

to costal processes in the shallow waters of the creek mouth.

Investigations into historic erosion and sedimentation effects provide details of likely minimum

and maximum bed levels and these have been used to select a vertical alignment for inlet and

outlet pipelines. The levels selected are likely to be suitable although further investigations

during detailed design will be required.

Water quality results are excellent,

The following table provides a comparative analysis of the EIS solution and the off-shore option

discussed in this report.

ISSUE IN-SHORE (EIS SOLUTION) OFF-SHORE (THIS REPORT)

Coastal processes (erosion and sedimentation)

Vulnerable to excessive erosion during floods and cyclones and sedimentation after extended quiet periods.

Outlet free from coastal processes due to depth and distance from active coastal zone.

Pipeline can be built below likely minimum bed level in Richters Creek mouth (proposed to be invert of -8 m AHD invert (i.e. approximately 3 m below the 1977 scoured bed depth).

Water quality performance at discharge point (beyond mixing zone)

Excellent. The influence of the lake discharge is expected to have only a small influence on the receiving environment of Richters Creek including the near-shore environment with no likely effect at all remote from the outlet.

Excellent. The influence of the lake discharge is expected to have only a small influence on the receiving environment of Richters Creek including the near-shore environment.

Hydrodynamic performance

Adequate – maximum flow will constitute 20% of the tidal prism at neap tides and 7% at spring tides.

Excellent. No issues as discharge is at depth in open water.



ISSUE IN-SHORE (EIS SOLUTION) OFF-SHORE (THIS REPORT)

Bed shear calculations show that even under the most adverse conditions, additional erosion caused by lake discharge is not likely to occur.

Construction Complex, involving coffer dams, dewatering, silt curtains and possible treatment of acid sulfate soils.

Cheaper due to shorter length of pipeline although inclusion with inlet pipeline reduces marginal cost.

Not an issue as little extra work is required to allow the outlet pipeline to share the inlet pipeline’s trench and construction process.

Maintenance needs Likely to be required in vicinity of outlet.

Removal of algal growth in short pipeline will be required.

Unlikely to be required in vicinity of outlet.

Removal of algal growth in long pipeline will be more significant than for the Richters Creek outlet.

Safety for boating Can be made safe but depends on signage.

Unlikely to be an issue due to depth of outlet.

Visual impacts Works and signage would be visible which would involve some adverse visual impact.

Nil.

7.4.3 Conclusions

This assessment shows that both options can be expected to perform well in terms of water quality

and hydrodynamics. However, the off-shore option is superior in that:

it is less prone to erosion and sedimentation in the active coastal zone

will not be visible to users of the Yorkeys Knob beach and Richters Creek mouth.

The off-shore option is likely to be more expensive to build and will require more maintenance in terms

of removal of marine plant growth.



7.5 RESPONSE TO OPTION FOR MAINTAINING AQUACULTURE PONDS

7.5.1 Background


(5) Investigate risks and benefits of maintaining the aquaculture ponds containing high biodiversity values (including MNES species) which are proposed to be removed.

7.5.2 Overview of Existing Situation

The site contains 5 artificial ponds on Lot 1 RP800898 constructed by excavation and creation of

elevated bunds using the excavated material. The following table (which is a copy of Table 6-8)

provides details of the five abandoned aquaculture ponds.

LOCATION AREA (HA)






TOTAL 5.59

The ponds (which comprise just under 6 ha of seasonal freshwater habitat) were formerly used for

farming barramundi. This activity was abandoned many years ago and these ponds have been

colonised by a range of native and exotic plants and animals. Water levels vary considerably over the

year and the ponds are seasonally used by many species of birds and other fauna initially described in

Chapter 7 of the EIS. Some salient points regarding these ponds are as summarised below:

The abandoned aquaculture ponds (see Figure 7-7 below) are mapped as a lacustrine (lake)

wetland (see Figure 7-8) and support a distinctive native plant community that has developed

since their construction in the 1980s.

These ponds constitute the on-site ecological community with the second highest species

diversity, mainly due to a high prevalence of wetland birds observed during the July and October

2013 surveys. Further records have resulted from the 2014 dry season survey.

This habitat also recorded the highest number of threatened species of any on-site community.

Notwithstanding these values, the ponds are proposed to be drained and filled to reduce birdstrike risk,

water quality concerns, and possible river migration as described in Section 7.5.4.



Figure 7-7 Abandoned aquaculture ponds.


Photo 7-1 The largest of the abandoned aquaculture

ponds.

Source: EIS Photo 7-9.

Photo 7-2 Bund separating cane land from one of the

abandoned aquaculture ponds.

Source: EIS Photo 21-2.

7.5.3 Biodiversity Values

Much of this text is repeated from Section 6.11.2b) where the DoTE required further information on

the impacts on matters of NES of filling the ponds. Relevant material is repeated or summarised in the

following discussion.



a) Overview

According to the EIS (s7.1.5), around 6 ha of aquaculture ponds (five ponds in total) in the south of the

project area support a distinctive (native) plant community that has developed since their construction

which was completed in the 1980s.

The terrestrial biodiversity component of the EIS included dedicated survey of the freshwater

aquaculture ponds on the Aquis site, particularly for avifauna and amphibians. The total number of all

bird species recorded within the aquaculture ponds environment up to July 2014 is 52.

During dry season surveys in July/August 2013, water levels within the ponds were low and there were

large numbers of waterbirds present in response to the optimal foraging conditions at substrate level,

and the sparse vegetation on the bank margins. Diversity and abundance were high and for many

species there was a range of age classes present. The July/August dry season survey of 2013

recorded 27 bird species at the aquaculture ponds. At the time of an additional dry season survey in

October 2013, water levels were around 30% lower than the preceding July. This significantly

increased habitat availability and bird numbers had increased to 40 species.

The wet season survey of March 2014 demonstrated the effect of increased water depth on diversity

and abundance. Water depth had increased by as much as 2.5 m in some ponds, and the steepness

of the banks provided little suitable habitat at the margin of the ponds. The margins were dominated by

dense stands of Persicaria orientalis that provided few foraging opportunities (Note: An incidental visit

to the site in January 2014 showed that water levels had reached a high level by that time.). As a

result, the total number of bird species present declined to 34, with only three of those species being

associated with wetland habitats, and the remaining 31 being terrestrial birds that were either over-

flying the water or foraging within the vegetation surrounding and adjacent to the ponds.

Rainfall between March and August 2014 was sufficiently high to maintain water levels within the

ponds. The pond margins were clear of tall vegetation, but the August 2014 monitoring survey showed

that the resulting habitat supported only 20 species. When water levels are high and pond edges are

steeply-sloping the diversity and abundance of birds is much reduced. In the 2014 year, water levels

between January and August remained sufficiently high to keep bird numbers low throughout this

period. Survey effort late in August (Northcote pers. comm. 28.08.2014) revealed further increases in

both diversity and abundance, water levels declining more rapidly with the onset of dry conditions in

August.

These four surveys have shown that there is a degree of seasonal variation in waterbird utilisation of

the existing aquaculture ponds. There is an optimal water depth which attracts large numbers of

species, and dense flocks of a sub-set of these species. This water depth appears to vary between

150 mm and 1500 mm. The timing of this depth is dependent on seasonal rainfall, but it appears likely

to persist for three months between August and October.

Data from the four surveys suggests the aquaculture ponds are providing an important local habitat

resource during the annual dry season. The diversity and abundance of species present is high, as in

similar habitats close by (especially the Cattana Wetlands but many other smaller areas exist) during

some periods of the year. In addition to the variety of water depths present, the Aquis ponds also

display habitat heterogeneity. The main pond contains a variety of wetland plants including relatively

dense stands of Typha orientalis and a dense community of reeds and sedges which develops

seasonally along the southern and northern margins of the pond. Shallower ponds contain large

stands of T. orientalis which supported flocks of Anseranas semipalmata in August 2014. Other ponds

are ringed by woody vegetation including mangroves, and terrestrial birds are more commonly

encountered within this vegetation.

Apart from its actual presence, the diversity of water depths and the variety of different habitats across

the pond network are the key reasons for the attractiveness of the ponds on the Aquis site during the

peak seasonal use period, as was suggested in the EIS.



b) Flora

Standing water within these ponds support dense, monospecific patches of Typha orientalis,

Persicaria orientalis and Eleocharis equisetina, present as large clumps on pond edges and as islands

surrounded by water. These are the main aquatic species present with the exception of Nymphaea

spp., but were most abundant during the July 2013 survey when low water levels facilitated

establishment. Regrowth Melaleuca leucadendra, Acacia auriculiformis, A. crassicarpa and Nauclea

orientalis have partially colonised the margins of these ponds. Exotic and native palms have been

used to landscape the ponds, but none of these are known to invade natural areas in the Wet Tropics,

with the exception of Ptychosperma elegans which is regenerating in the Melaleuca wetlands.

c) Fauna

The aquaculture ponds form an ecological community that showed the second highest faunal species

diversity of the on-site communities (89 species VS 100 for the woodland / vine forest community),

mainly due to a high prevalence of wetland birds during the July and October 2013 surveys, with this

habitat also recording the highest number of threatened species (4). These are (V = Vulnerable; NT =

Near Threatened, M – Migratory):

Crocodylus porosus (Saltwater crocodile) – V (NC Act), M (EPBC Act)

Aerodramus terraereginae (Australian swiftlet) – NT (NC Act)

Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus (Black-necked stork) – NT (NC Act)

Tadorna radjah (Radjah shelduck) – NT (NC Act).

A number of the waterbirds recorded in the EIS at the aquaculture ponds are listed under both the

Nature Conservation Act 1992 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act

1999, and/or are protected under conventions to which the Commonwealth is a signatory (e.g., JAMBA

and the Bonn Convention). These species are shown below (this is a copy of Table 6-9).

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC Act EPBC ACT


Ardea ibis Cattle egret S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed

Ardea modesta (syn Ardea alba)


S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed

Calidris ruficollis Red-necked stint S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed

Egretta sacra Eastern reef egret S MMB Marine bird Confirmed

Merops ornatus Rainbow Bee-eater S - Wetland bird Confirmed

Plegadis falcinellus Glossy ibis S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed


Grey-tailed tattler S MWS Wetland bird Confirmed



SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME NC Act EPBC ACT


Tringa nebularia Common greenshank S SIG Marine bird Confirmed

Abbreviations: MMB – Migratory Marine Birds, MMS – Migratory Marine Species, MTS – Migratory Terrestrial Species,

MWS – Migratory Wetlands Species, SIG – listed in Significant Impact Guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird

species (DEWHA 2009).

d) Wetlands

Figure 7-8 shows that the abandoned aquaculture ponds are mapped as a lacustrine waterbody.

Lacustrine (lake) wetlands are designated as high conservation value wetlands under the Environment

Protection Act 1994. These constitute Matters of SES as described in the EIS.

Figure 7-8 Mapped

wetlands.

Source: EIS Figure

22-34.

Abandoned

aquaculture ponds

Section 6.11.2e) details the findings of a survey of all waterbodies within 3 km of the ponds. This

(Table 6-11) reveals that there is 84 ha of similar habitat varying in size between 0.1 and 25.5 ha (the

latter figure is the Ponderosa Prawn Farm on the opposite side of Richters Creek and which is also

mapped as a lacustrine waterbody).

Regardless of their anthropogenic origin, the site’s aquaculture ponds provide the values of a seasonal

waterbody, especially in the dry season when many other nearby areas are depleted.

Under CairnsPlan (see EIS s5.2.1 Module 11 (p5-26):



PO1 Development is not carried out in a wetland protection area unless there is an overriding need in the public interest or the development is a development commitment or the development is for community infrastructure.

The EIS position is that there is an overriding need in the public interest based on birdstrike, water

quality and river migration as discussed below in Section 7.5.5 in more detail.

e) Condition and Seasonality

During the 2013 dry season survey documented in the EIS, these ponds were very shallow and both

the water surface and the margins provided optimal foraging depth for a wide range of water birds (52

species recorded). During the 2014 dry season survey (Biotropica Australia 2014d), water depths

across the ponds were much deeper and birds were uncommon (ten species). Eight native frogs were

recorded, again reflecting the relative abundance of water across the survey area when compared to

the dry season survey in 2013. Biotropica Australia (2014d) conclude that this shows the inherent

natural variability of coastal ecosystems in the tropics, including the variation in seasonal intensity.

These differences are most clearly seen in bird assemblages between years and seasons, and are

particularly noticeable in the declines in diversity and abundance of water birds associated with the

aquaculture ponds. The persistence of many frogs in the 2014 dry season is also at variance with the

2013 dry season when water resources/levels were much reduced.

7.5.4 Potential Educational Values

The abandoned aquaculture ponds have some potential value for education and interpretation as at

most times of the year they are attractive and interesting. The following images (taken in September

2013) show some typical views. Should the ponds remain, they would be able to be incorporated into

the proposed walking track network. However, as noted above, the bird populations are seasonal and

birds are largely absent when water levels are high and beach habitat minimal.



Photo 7-3 Images of aquaculture ponds.

7.5.5 Risks

a) Birdstrike Risk

Statutory Issues

CairnsPlan contains an Operational Aspects of the Cairns International Airport Code whose purpose is

to:

Ensure that the Cairns International Airport and State significant aviation facilities within the City are protected from the adverse impacts of development.

This is relevant as the Aquis Material Change of Use application will be assessed under CairnsPlan.

Appendix W to the EIS (Airport and Aircraft Issues) notes that the Primary Light Control Plans/Bird and

Bat Strike Hazards Overlay and the Overlay Code 4.6.7 in CairnsPlan together document the

requirements for development. Performance Criteria and Acceptable Measures for bird and bat hazard

under the CairnsPlan and the relevant map are as follows (extracted from Appendix W).

PERFORMANCE CRITERIA ACCEPTABLE MEASURES

Managing Bird and Bat Hazard to Aircraft

P3: Development and the design of facilities and landscaping in the immediate environs of the airport does not compound the potentially serious hazard from wildlife (bird or bat) strike.

A3.1: N/A (Public Utility (refuse collection and disposal)).

A3.2: N/A (Aquaculture (major), Industry Class B uses involving food handling or processing, Primary industries involving fruit or turf production, and Intensive animal husbandry including the keeping or protection of wildlife outside enclosures).

A3.3: For a Restaurant or Outdoor Sport and Recreation:

a) There (sic) the use is located within the 3 km radius shown on the overlay map potential food



and waste sources are covered and collected so that they are not accessible to wildlife; or

b) The use is located outside the 3 km radius.

Source: Appendix W Table 2-3 based on CairnsPlan.

Figure 7-9 Primary Light Control Plans / Bird and Bat Strike Hazards (Bird & Bat Strike)*.

Source: Appendix W Figure 2-2 based on CairnsPlan. The Aquis project site (marked in green) is within Area 2 (3

km to 8 km radius).

The Overlay Code specifies that land uses listed in Table 7-6 above (A3.1 and A3.2) are not permitted

within specified distances of the airport and documents acceptable measures to manage the potential

to encourage wildlife that pose a risk to aircraft. Of relevance to the Aquis Resort is the fact that there

are no relevant acceptable measures. However, CairnsPlan requires that Aquis comply with the

performance criterion that requires that the development does not compound the potentially serious

hazard from wildlife. This will be assessed as part of the Aquis MCU process.

Consultation – Pre-EIS

Consultation was undertaken with Cairns Airport Pty Ltd (North Queensland Airports) and CASA

during the preparation of the EIS and this is documented in Appendix W of the EIS (Airport and Aircraft

Issues). This is repeated below.



Figure 7-10 CAPL and CASA advice re birdstrike.

Source: EIS Appendix W (s2.3.3 and s2.3.43).



Consultation – Post EIS

North Queensland Airports made a submission on the EIS (221) where it was stated in their first item

(see Table 7-8):

Cairns Airport has been consulted during the preparation of the Aquis EIS and Is satisfied that the development will be designed to conform with the purpose and performance criteria of the ‘Operational Aspects of the Cairns International Airport Code’ in the Cairns Regional Council’s Planning Scheme, CairnsPlan which includes performance criteria and acceptable measures to minimise the effect a development will have on airport operation and the effect activities associated with the airport will have on a development. We accept that the key operational issues have been noted in the document and adequately addressed for the design, construction and operational phase. (Agency Submissions and Issues Report p113)

As noted above, the EIS proposal was for the aquaculture ponds to be drained and filled and the

submission must be read in this context. NQA will be consulted further should this decision be

reversed.

Re-assessment of Risk

As noted in the EIS, Cairns Airport has a very high level of bird-strike incidents, and this was the main

drawback associated with the ecological values of the existing ponds. The following is based on

material included in Appendix G of the EIS (Terrestrial Biodiversity).

Due to the proximity of the project area to Cairns International Airport (less than 5 km distant), the

effect of the development on the risk of avifauna strikes (including flying birds and mammals) on

airplanes should be considered.

Historically, over 90% of reported strikes have occurred on or in close proximity to airports

(International Civil Aviation Organisation 1999). Consequently, the primary focus of management

programs is directed on-airport with the responsibility resting on airport owners and operators. It is

however important that the whole airport community and surrounding land managers are aware of bird

strike as an issue and are included in the process of reducing the hazard birds represent to aircraft

operations. It is imperative that the risk presented from bird-attracting land use on and adjacent to the

airport is managed appropriately and effectively (Ecosure 2008).

In 2006/07, Cairns International Airport recorded the fifth highest bird strike rate per aircraft movement

for all major airfields in Australia (Australian Transport Safety Bureau 2007; Airservices Australia

2007), down from the second highest in 2004. Whilst this crude measure of risk does not differentiate

between confirmed strikes or possible strikes, and also gives no consideration to the species involved

and the probability of damage, it does indicate that bird and other wildlife strike is an important issue

for Cairns Airport (Ecosure 2008).

The main factors determining the consequences of a strike are the number and size of bird(s) which

are struck, the phase of flight when struck, and the part of the aircraft hit. Generally, the larger the bird

the greater the damage caused. Large birds have the ability to destroy engines and windshields and

cause significant damage to airframe components and leading edge devices. Strike events involving

more than one bird (multiple strikes), including those comprised of relatively small birds, can be

serious and potentially disable engines and/or result in major accidents (Ecosure 2008).

At present, the project area supports the majority of species known to be implicated in bird strike.

Once the project is completed, the new artificial lake surface and the landscaped surrounds are likely

to be new habitats that will be colonised and/or exploited by birds that may impact approaching

aircraft. Equally, conversion of the site from cane production should reduce the risk of bird-strike from

flocks (i.e., >80 individuals) of Milvus migrans which are common in the northern approach path during

cane harvest season.



There will be differences in the types of wildlife using the artificial lake and lagoons depending on

water quality, salinity, depth, food resources, and the level of anthropogenic disturbance on and

adjacent to water surfaces. In considering the management of bird strike, these and other factors

should be considered during the planning stage to minimise the potential for bird strike to occur. A

range of mitigation measures is likely to be required to ameliorate the risk that may be incurred by this

species in relation to potential bird strike by aircraft from Cairns International Airport. This mitigation

will be the subject of a detailed management plan which will be prepared in consultation with a local

steering group consisting of relevant Government departments, experts in the field of study, and local

interest groups.

Figure 7-11 Cairns Airport Bird Strike Rates.

Source: EIS Appendix G (Figure 6) derived from Ecosure (2008).

Bird-strike is the term given to all collisions between avifauna (flying birds and mammals) and aircraft.

The issue of bird-strike has arisen largely as a result of the artificial water-bodies that are planned for

the development. The artificial lake and lagoons area may provide suitable habitat for waterbirds,

particularly those birds which are likely to use open-water habitats rather than species that are

confined to the shallow water margins of water bodies. The presence of the lake and lagoons may

then increase the diversity and abundance of water birds at the site, with a concomitant increase in the

risk of bird-strike. The planned habitat restoration on site would also be expected to generate changes

in the diversity and/or abundance of avifauna in the project area.

Ecosure’s (2008) review of bird-strike at Cairns Airport nominated a number of species that are

implicated in aircraft bird-strike incidents, and the majority of the species implicated in aircraft collisions

have been recorded from the project area. This includes a number of forest birds and waterbirds, and

‘unknown flying-fox’, (probably Pteropus conspicillatus) – a nocturnal flying mammal that is considered

responsible for the largest number of strikes (Ecosure 2008). There are also water birds that are

currently considered low-risk which may pose an elevated risk once the lake has been constructed.



Birds

To better understand risk, all birds involved in aircraft collisions in Cairns between 1983 and 2007, a

summary of the Ecosure (2008) data was produced reflecting the three categories of ‘bird-strike’ data

cited:

species involved in more than 10 strikes between 1983-2007

species known to have caused aircraft damage

species involved in multiple (e.g., flock) strikes.

If any species in any category was also recorded on site during the July 2013 survey, this has been

included.

BIRD SPECIES MORE THAN 10 STRIKES BETWEEN

1983-2007

BIRD STRIKE CAUSED DAMAGE

STRIKES INVOLVING MORE

THAN ONE ANIMAL

RECORDED ON SITE DURING

SURVEY

Australian pratincole

Black kite

Black-fronted dotterel

Unknown dotterel

Black-tailed gull

Bush stone-curlew

Common sandpiper

Fairy martin

Martin / swallow

House sparrow

Magpie goose

Magpie lark

Masked lapwing

Metallic starling

Nankeen kestrel



BIRD SPECIES MORE THAN 10 STRIKES BETWEEN

1983-2007

BIRD STRIKE CAUSED DAMAGE

STRIKES INVOLVING MORE

THAN ONE ANIMAL

RECORDED ON SITE DURING

SURVEY

Pacific black duck

Unknown duck

Pied imperial pigeon

Rainbow lorikeet

Welcome swallow

Wood duck

White tern

Unknown tern

White-faced heron

Unknown heron

Unknown ibis

Unknown owl

Unknown sandpiper

Unknown swift

Source: EIS Appendix G (Table 18).

The project area contains suitable habitat for all these species, and it seems likely they may be

occasionally or regularly present on-site at some time. However, the development is not intending to

create habitat that favours these species above any others, or habitat that would be especially

attractive to these species. On this basis, it seems unlikely that the development will significantly

elevate population density although the development does intend to restore areas of native forest. This

would be expected to have the effect of increasing the abundance of some birds, although those that

might be attracted in the longer term would be biased towards the type of habitat that was being

restored (e.g. wetlands vs. woodlands).

Apart from ‘species unknown’ categories (Ecosure 2008), the species most commonly implicated in

bird-strike and multiple bird-strike (>50 strikes 1983-2007), and known to be present in the project

area, are the black kite Milvus migrans, masked lapwing Vanellus miles, and bush stone-curlew

Burhinus grallarius (Ecosure 2008). The magpie-goose (Anseranas semipalmata) and swallows

(Hirundinidae) were recorded on site in July and are the other species known to be implicated in

>2strikes - 1983-2007 (Ecosure 2008). These species are all considered in greater detail in EIS

Appendix G. The following chart shows additional information produced by Lamont (2010).



Chart 7-3 Birdstrike records Cairns airport 1983 to 2009.

Source: Lamont (2010).

In summary, the ponds provide habitat for many birds, some of which are flocking species, and the

position of the lakes in relation to the northern approach path increases the likelihood of collisions.

Filling the ponds would alleviate this issue. In addition, other species such as Milvus migrans often

forms flocks of 20-30 birds during cane harvesting events when small mammal prey is abundant. The

conversion of the existing land-use away from sugar cane production will significantly alleviate the

potential for strikes caused by this species.

Unfortunately, there are no records available which provide precise locations of bird-strike at Cairns

Airport, so there are no indications of the actual strike numbers that may be positively attributed to the

Aquis ponds. In the absence of reliable data, a precautionary approach was adopted in the EIS and

filling of the existing ponds was proposed.

b) Lake Water Quality Risks

The EIS (Chapter 9 – Flooding) reveals that the walls of the aquaculture ponds are at about the 10%

AEP flood level. This means, for floods higher than this, it is likely that floodwaters could flush these

ponds and mix sediments and organic matter with the lake to the detriment of water quality. The EIS

notes that this was considered to be highly undesirable and that, although no modelling or detailed

analysis has been undertaken of this issue, the removal of the ponds would reduce this risk.

Should the ponds be retained, then this risk remains and would need to be incorporated into the Lake

Management Plan.

c) Possible River Migration

The EIS (Chapter 8 – Coastal Processes) addresses the issue of river migration and in particular the

risk of erosion in Richters Creek. The EIS notes (s8.3.1):

In addition, there is evidence of erosion on the banks of Richters Creek just opposite Lot 2 RP8000898. As this point is quite close to the abandoned aquaculture ponds, the ponds could make the area vulnerable to river erosion to the detriment of safety and project infrastructure. (p8-19)



The following is a snapshot of an aerial photo of this part of the site with spot levels and contours

superimposed. The possible ‘line of weakness’ is indicated. The south-eastern pond is particularly

close to Richters Creek.

Figure 7-12 Possible ‘line of weakness’.

The EIS (s8.3.2) recommends that the preferred approach for managing erosion of Richters Creek

involves:

ensuring that the lake and Resort Complex Precinct are structurally secure against erosion

provision of rock protection of the banks of Richters Creek just opposite Lot 2 RP8000898 – this

is to be integrated with erosion protection works associated with the lake overflow at that

location

draining and filling the disused aquaculture ponds to reduce the risk of river migration along this

‘line of weakness’

Although no modelling or detailed analysis has been undertaken of this issue, the removal of the

ponds would reduce this risk. Should the ponds be retained, armouring may be necessary.

Richters Creek (bend eroding)

Possible ‘line of weakness’



Alternatively, consideration could be given to filling just the south-east pond. This is discussed in

Section 7.5.10.

7.5.6 EIS Proposal

a) Overview

The EIS proposes that the ponds would be drained and filled during the construction process. Figure

7-14 is an extract from EIS Figure 7-18 (Ecological restoration priorities). This figure shows that:

some of the ponds (3.7 ha) are proposed to be drained and filled but will receive no ecological

restoration (i.e. to be incorporated into the Sport & Recreation Precinct)

the remaining ponds (2.3 ha) are proposed to be drained and restored as a mangrove

community (i.e. to be incorporated into the Environment Conservation and Management

Precinct).

Figure 7-13 shows schematically that this will involve:

draining the ponds after removing fish in accordance with Department of Agriculture, Fisheries

and Forestry (DAFF) procedures (Table 7-8)

filling by demolishing the outer bunds and spreading this material in the existing voids

covering with topsoil

restoring either as open space or mangroves as shown on Figure 7-14.

Figure 7-13 EIS proposal – drain and fill ponds with bund material.

As noted in Section 7.5.6b), DAFF advise that draining aquaculture ponds will require the removal of

fish species prior to filling. They also advise that any fish removal will need to be undertaken either by

a commercial fisher or by a contractor with a General Fisheries Permit, depending on methods used.

DAFF also advise that the proponent refer to Fisheries Queensland for advice regarding approvals

required or methodologies involved in the removal of fish stocks from the aquaculture ponds.

The EIS (s11.3.2a)) observes that the voids provide an opportunity during construction as they are

large ponds with high bunds that may be suitable for a range of soil and water management activities

should they be drained. Essentially, the bunds provide an immunity or about 10% AEP, meaning that

they could be used as dykes to protect the enclosed area from floods during construction. Possible

uses include storage of soil as part of the Soil and Water Management Plan (and possibly Acid Sulfate

Soil Management Plan). Such use would provide an economical and practical solution to management

of the works during the wet season. Management will be required while the bunds remain to ensure

that they are protected against construction phase flooding. In addition, any use of the voids as part of



the Soil and Water Management Plan and / or the Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan would need to

be detailed under those plans.

Once the voids are no longer needed they would be filled by demolishing the surrounding bunds,

covered with topsoil, and then used for golf course / park or restoration as defined by the ALP. The

current proposal involves a mixture of use in the Sport and Recreation Precinct (purple) and the

Environment Conservation and Management Precinct (purple lines) as detailed below.

Figure 7-14 EIS proposal for aquaculture ponds (drain and fill).

Source: EIS Figure 7-18 (extract).



b) Agency and Community Response to Proposal to Remove

Agency Submissions

Several agency submissions noted the dilemma involved in deciding the fate to the ponds. The

relevant comments are included below.

AGENCY (SUBMISSION NO) ITEM AGENCY COMMENT

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (104)

6 s7.1.13, p?-69. Draining aquaculture ponds will require the removal of fish species prior to filling.

Suggested Solution:

Any fish removal will need to be undertaken either by a commercial fisher or by a contractor with a General Fisheries Permit depending on methods used. Refer to Fisheries Queensland for advice regarding approvals required or methodologies involved in the removal of fish stocks from the aquaculture ponds.

North Queensland Airports (221)

1 Cairns Airport has been consulted during the preparation of the Aquis EIS and Is satisfied that the development will be designed to conform with the purpose and performance criteria of the ‘Operational Aspects of the Cairns International Airport Code’ in the Cairns Regional Council’s Planning Scheme, CairnsPlan which includes performance criteria and acceptable measures to minimise the effect a development will have on airport operation and the effect activities associated with the airport will have on a development. We accept that the key operational issues have been noted in the document and adequately addressed for the design, construction and operational phase.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (254)

9 There is a recommendation in the specialist report to survey and translocate native fish from ‘onsite waterbodies’ prior to the water body’s removal. This mitigation approach may address some of the concerns surrounding habitat loss and environmental harm, e.g. from the loss of the disused aquaculture ponds. However, the proposed recommendation from the specialist report was not transferred into the EIS, leaving it unclear if the recommendation would be implemented.

Suggested Solution:

It is recommended that the proponent clearly indicate which recommendations and commitments will be adopted as part of the project proposal.

Department of the Environment (212)

8 It is important to note that the aquaculture ponds and artificial drainage networks currently on site provide habitat for fauna including MNES. Although they are not considered to be natural, they still provide habitat that will be removed by the Aquis development. Further information is required as to how the impacts of removing this habitat will be fully considered and mitigated.



AGENCY (SUBMISSION NO) ITEM AGENCY COMMENT

11 As mentioned above, further discussion is required regarding the impacts associated with the loss of the aquaculture ponds. The EIS states that the proposed artificial lake will result in an overall increase in habitat as it will provide habitat for birds (including MNES). However the lake is being designed to minimise attracting waders and crocodiles by designing the lake with steep sides. Further information is required to clarify what habitat the lake is providing for which species.

Source: Agency Submissions and Issues Report.

The implications of these submissions are:

DAFF – consult with DAFF and obtain an appropriate permit to remove fish. Native fish would

be conserved as appropriate and pest fish humanely destroyed prior to disposal.

NQA – this submission was prepared on the EIS concept which involved the draining and filling

of the ponds. Further consultation with NQA (and Airservices Australia) is required should

consideration be given to retaining the ponds. This will occur in any event as part of CRC’s

assessment of the development under CairnsPlan.

EHP – the EHP comment is addressed in this discussion.

DoTE – the DoTE comment is addressed in this discussion and in Section 6.11.2b) and

Section 6.14.

Community Submissions

Eleven unique community submissions concerned the ponds, making two main points:

most submitters recognised the value of these as habitat, in which case it was suggested that

the decision to drain and fill them be reviewed / reversed

a contrary point was raised by one submitter who believed that ponds ‘are a nuisance to

Yorkeys residents and any future change to these, by any development, would be a benefit to

locals’.

The points raised in these submissions are covered in this discussion.

c) Adverse Impacts of Draining and Filling

Overview

Draining and filling the ponds will involve:

loss of biodiversity values

loss of potential educational and interpretive values

removed risk of birdstrike, loss of lake water quality, and river migration

use of void during construction for deploying certain plant and equipment and as part of Soil and

Water Management Plan

provision of approximately 3.7 ha of golf course / park and 2.3 ha of mangrove restoration.

Loss of Biodiversity Values

Draining and filling the aquaculture ponds would involve the loss of wetland habitat and that adds

significantly to the diversity of habitat available on the Aquis site. However, it is likely that many of the

birds recorded in the environs of the aquaculture ponds also utilise similar habitats at the Cattana



Wetlands and other waterbodies in the local area. Ecologically, the project area and the Cattana

wetlands are only loosely connected although this is expected to be improved by the site restoration

works. This is of little consequence to birds. The EIS (Chapter 7) concludes that although other

species may be affected by the filling of the aquaculture ponds on the southern end of Lot 100

NR3818, the nearby Cattana Wetlands offers a similar, protected habitat resource, in addition to other

ephemeral habitats on the adjacent coastal plain. Other alternative freshwater bodies are listed in

Table 6-10 (on-site resources) and Table 6-11 (off-site resources). Off-site resources are shown on

Figure 6-17.

In summary and referring to the discussion in Section 6.11.2b), the loss of 6 ha of aquaculture ponds

would occur in the context of:

9.3 ha of on-site freshwater wetlands that are to remain

83.8 ha of off-site freshwater wetlands that are to remain.

These resources provide similar habitat to that of the aquaculture ponds.

In terms of species covered by the EPBC Act, a detailed assessment is included in Section 6.11.2b).

In summary:

The key impact associated with draining and filling the aquaculture ponds will be the loss of

habitat. As noted, the existing ponds display a variety of water depths and there is a variety of

vegetation associated with the different ponds. This habitat is especially favoured as a dry

season refuge when there are fewer freshwater bodies available.

The loss of this habitat would only affect those species which are dependent on freshwater

habitats. Listed threatened species are shown in Table 7-5, namely:

- Ardea ibis (Cattle egret)

- Ardea modesta (syn Ardea alba) (Great egret / White egret)

- Calidris ruficollis (Red-necked stint)

- Egretta sacra (Eastern reef egret)

- Merops ornatus (Rainbow Bee-eater)

- Plegadis falcinellus (Glossy ibis)

- Tringa brevipes (syn Heteroscelus brevipes) (Grey-tailed tattler)

- Tringa nebularia (Common greenshank)

Impacts on listed species are assessed in Table 6-25. This assessment concludes that:

- The Aquis site is not considered critical for the survival of any of the confirmed or likely

listed fauna species due to the abundance of suitable habitat of similar or great quality

outside of the site boundary.

- The site’s listed migratory fauna are largely dependent on the presence of man-made

habitats. Such habitat also exists adjacent to the site. Values relating to those migratory

fauna which occur in natural habitats should not be affected, given that these habitats are

not proposed to be disturbed.

- With respect to migratory species, the Aquis site does not meet the draft Significant

Impact Guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species (DEWHA 2009) for being

recognised as either a nationally or internationally important site for the 36 migratory

shorebird species covered by the EPBC Act policy statement 3.21. The proposed

development is unlikely to have a significant impact on these species.

Loss of Potential Educational and Interpretive Values



The potential educational and interpretive values would be lost should the ponds be drained and filled.

While this would be unfortunate, it does not involve a critical loss as there are many other habitats of

interest around the site in areas to be protected. Two examples of other wetlands are shown below.

Photo 7-4 Examples of other wetlands on site with educational and interpretive values.

d) Beneficial Impacts of Draining and Filling

Additional Biodiversity Values

The EIS solution involves the use of 2.3 ha of the current pond area for mangrove restoration. This

would provide compensatory habitat but of a different type and of benefit to different species.

However, many of the EPBC Act listed birds also utilise mangrove habitats.

Mitigation of Risks

Whether or not the removal of the ponds will make a significant change in the risk of birdstrike cannot

be definitely stated. One reason is that the other on-site and off-site freshwater resources identified

above are also in close proximity to the airport and as previously discussed, there are no records

available which provide precise locations of bird-strike at Cairns Airport and therefore no indications of

the actual strike numbers that may be positively attributed to the Aquis ponds.

Without further investigations, all that can be said is that NQA prefers that the ponds be removed.

NQA’s Cairns Airport Bird and Wildlife Management Strategy (Ecosure 2008) is the principal means of

management. While this does not provide any specific recommendations for sites other than within

Cairns Airport, there are many management actions that could be taken to minimise risk and these will

be considered should the ponds remain.

Appendix W of the EIS concludes that the following actions are required for birdstrike:

Use design elements that reduce the risk of attracting wildlife.

Develop a concept level wildlife management strategy to implement during operation to

minimise the potential to attract high risk birds.

Consider the acceptability of retaining the aquaculture ponds that are currently used as bird

habitat.

The EIS (Table 23-2) lists an Airport Safety Strategy as one of the many strategies to be detailed as

design proceeds. It contains two relevant actions:



Remove (drain and fill) aquaculture ponds to reduce bird strike risk.

Use design elements that reduce the risk of attracting wildlife.

These apply to the site as a whole (i.e. whether or not the ponds remain).

Filling the lakes to create a stable grassed or vegetated surface will remove this risk to lake water

quality during floods.

Filling the lakes to create a stable grassed or vegetated surface will dramatically reduce the risk of

river migration at the eroding bend of Richters Creek.

Construction Phase Utility

As noted above, the aquaculture pond voids provide an opportunity during construction as part of the

Soil and Water Management Plan (and possibly Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan).

Not mentioned in the EIS is the recent finding that this area is ideally suited by topography and

location to the propagation of mangrove seedlings for the restoration works.

7.5.7 Consideration of Alternatives to EIS Solution

In order to explore this issue further, three possible options to the above (Option 1) have been

developed, namely:

Option 2 – Drain ponds and retain the bunds at full height and fill the voids to top of bunds with

surplus material from site and utilise as golf course and restoration.

Option 3 – Retain the ponds.

Option 4 – Hybrid solution (retain major ponds, drain and fill others to mitigate river migration

threat).

These are discussed below.

7.5.8 Option 2 – Drain and Fill the Ponds with Excess Material

a) Overview


draining the ponds after removing fish in accordance with DAFF procedures (Table 7-8)

filling with excess material arising from other site activities (the outer bunds would remain)

covering with topsoil

restoring final surface either as open space or woodland.

As noted below, this would involve impacts as per Option 1, namely:

loss of biodiversity values

loss of potential educational and interpretive values

removed risk of birdstrike, loss of lake water quality, and river migration

use of void during construction for deploying certain plant and equipment and as part of Soil and

Water Management Plan



provision of approximately 3.7 ha of golf course / park and 2.3 ha of restoration (but in this case

woodland rather than mangroves).

In addition, Option 2 would involve use of void to spoil up to 200 000 m3of construction waste (not

possible in Option 1).

Figure 7-15 Option 2 – Drain and fill ponds with excess material.

b) Adverse Impacts of Option 2

As for Option 1, draining and filling the aquaculture ponds would involve the loss of a habitat that is

uncommon in the local area and adds significantly to the diversity of habitat available.

It would also involve the loss of potential educational and interpretive values.

c) Beneficial Impacts of Option 2


Unlike Option 1, Option 2 will be filled to a level of approximately 3.5 m AHD which will be too high for

the proposed 2.3 ha of mangrove restoration. In this case, a woodland habitat of this area would be

created that would provide compensatory habitat but of a different type and of benefit to different

species.

Mitigation of Risks

As for Option 1, filling and draining the ponds would reduce the risk of birdstrike.

Lake Water Quality

As for Option 1, filling the lakes to create a stable grassed or vegetated surface will remove the risk to

lake water quality during floods.

River Migration

As for Option 1, filling the lakes to create a stable grassed or vegetated surface will dramatically

reduce the risk of river migration at the eroding bend of Richters Creek.




As for Option 1, the aquaculture pond voids provide an opportunity during construction as part of the

Soil and Water Management Plan (and possibly Acid Sulfate Soil Management Plan).

In addition, in this option the pond voids will also be able to be filled with a range of construction waste

materials once the ponds are no longer needed for the other construction uses described above. An

approximate volume of 200 000 m3 is available for this purpose.

Material that could be placed here could include:

inert construction waste (e.g. concrete rubble)

contaminated soils (if placed in the lower levels with suitable attention to seepage and

remediation)

topsoil.

Further investigations regarding suitability of materials will be undertaken during detailed design. By

storing this material on site, the number of off-site truck movements will be reduced as will the need to

find a suitable disposal location off-site.

Once filled with the above material, the area would be covered with topsoil, and then used for golf

course / park or restoration as allowed for in the ALP but at a higher level. It should be noted that flood

modelling has assumed that these bunds will remain so there is no un-assessed flooding impact.

7.5.9 Option 3 – Retain the Ponds

a) Overview


retaining the ponds

managing current risks

ongoing management of pest plants and animals.

Figure 7-16 Option 3 – retain the ponds.

As noted below, this option would involve:

maintenance of biodiversity values

development of potential educational and interpretive values

unmitigated risk of birdstrike, loss of lake water quality, and river migration



no opportunity to use the void during construction

no opportunity for the provision of approximately 3.7 ha of golf course / park and 2.3 ha of

mangrove restoration

on-going management needs.



Retaining the ponds would remove the opportunity to create 2.3 ha of mangroves as part of the

restoration plan.

Mitigation of Risks

Retaining the ponds would mean that the existing risk of birdstrike would remain. Should this option be

adopted, actions would be taken to mitigate risk as recommended by further investigations in

consultation with NQA and Airservices Australia.

Lake Water Quality

Retaining the ponds would mean that the existing risk to lake water quality would remain. Should this

option be adopted, actions would be taken to mitigate risk as recommended by further investigations

into lake management.

River Migration

Retaining the ponds would mean that the existing risk of river migration would remain. Should this

option be adopted, actions would be taken to mitigate risk as recommended by further investigations

into stream geomorphology. It may be that structural works are required in the area between Richters

Creek and the ponds.


Unlike Options 1 and 2, there will be no opportunity to use the pond voids during construction.

Management Needs

The 2014 dry season terrestrial ecology survey (Biotropica Australia 2014d) notes that there are clear

comparisons in the timing, frequency and intensity of aquaculture pond utilisation by birds, depending

on water depth. Relatively high water levels between December and August correspond to low levels

of bird use, because diet items are either not present or are too deep to be accessible. Reduced bird

diversity and abundance may continue through seasons when water levels remain high, but

conversely bird populations appear likely to remain abundant whilst water is at an ideal foraging depth.

Diversity and abundance is then likely to decline until water is no longer present and birds move on in

search of alternative resources. This suggests that the risk of birdstrike could be substantially

alleviated by maintaining high water levels within the ponds if they were to be retained. This may not

be a simple matter as it would require a large supply of fresh water to offset seepage and evaporation.

Should the ponds be retained, additional management will be required as follows:

control of weeds and pest animals:

- Mangifera indica (Mango)



- Ptychosperma elegans (Solitaire palm)

- Emilia sonchifolia (Emilia)

- Sphagneticola trilobata (Singapore daisy)

- Passiflora foetida (Stinking passionfruit)

- Rhinella marina (Cane toad)

- Hemidactylus frenatus (Asian house gecko)

- Sturnus tristis (Common mynah)

stabilisation of banks to protect against erosion and river migration

development of a lake management regime to deal with occasional inflow of sediment, organics,

and turbid water.

This management would be practical but would involve significant cost and effort.


Retaining the ponds would mean that the existing biodiversity and potential educational and

interpretive values would remain.

7.5.10 Option 4 – Hybrid Scheme (Retain Some of the Ponds)

a) Overview

This is a hybrid option that would involve:

retaining some of the ponds (3.7 ha as shown in purple below (60% of ponds) and the western

area shown with purple lines (1.1 ha or 20% of pond area)

draining and filling the eastern pond area and restoring with 1.2 ha (20% of pond area) of

mangroves in the Environment Conservation and Management Precinct (purple lines)

managing current risks

ongoing management of pest plants and animals.



Figure 7-17 Option 4 – hybrid scheme involving partial filling only.

Source: EIS Figure 7-18 (extract, marked up for this option).

As noted below, this would involve:

maintenance of 80% of the area with high biodiversity values

development of potential educational and interpretive values

partially mitigated risk of birdstrike, loss of lake water quality, and river migration

opportunity to use 20% of the voids during construction

no opportunity for the provision of approximately 3.7 ha of golf course / park

opportunity for 1.2 ha of mangrove restoration

on-going (but reduced) management needs.


Loss of Biodiversity Values

Draining and filling 20% of the aquaculture ponds would involve the loss of a small area of habitat that

is uncommon in the local area and adds significantly to the diversity of habitat available. However, the

impact is substantially less than for the EIS solution (Option 1).

Retain ponds in this area

Fill ponds in this area, rehabilitate with mangroves.



Mitigation of Risks

Retaining 80% of the ponds would mean that the existing risk of birdstrike would remain but would be

reduced to some extent. Should this option be adopted, actions would be taken to mitigate risk as

recommended by further investigations in consultation with NQA and Airservices Australia as per

Option 1.

Lake Water Quality

Retaining 80% of the ponds would mean that the existing risk to lake water quality would remain but

would be reduced to some extent. Should this option be adopted, actions would be taken to mitigate

risk as recommended by further investigations into lake management as per Option 1.

River Migration

Draining and filling the eastern ponds would help stabilise the area and largely mitigate the risk of river

migration. It may be that this filling could remove the need to consider structural works.


There will be a reduced opportunity to use the pond voids during construction (i.e. 20% of the Option 2

/ Option 3 area) as well as for mangrove propagation.

Management Needs

Draining and filling 20% of the ponds would reduce the quantum of the required management.


Existing Biodiversity Values

Retaining the western ponds would mean that the majority (80%) of the existing biodiversity values

would remain.

Potential Educational and Interpretive Values

Retaining the western ponds would mean that essentially all of the potential educational and

interpretive values would remain


Half of the proposed 2.3 ha of mangrove restoration (i.e. 1.2 ha) can proceed.


As for Option 1 but to a lesser extent, the eastern aquaculture pond void provides an opportunity

during construction as part of the Soil and Water Management Plan (and possibly Acid Sulfate Soil

Management Plan).



7.5.11 Comparison of Options

The pros and cons of the above options as described above are assessed below in a simple ‘traffic

lights’ analysis. Colour coding is used as follows. It should be noted that the terms ‘major’ and ‘minor’

are used in their relative sense, i.e. this is a comparative evaluation.

- Very little or no impact ▄ Major adverse impact

▄ Minor adverse impact ▄ Major beneficial impact

▄ Minor beneficial impact

OF POND OPTIONS

VALUE / ISSUE OPTION 1 (DRAIN AND FILL WITH

BUND MATERIAL)

OPTION 2 (DRAIN AND FILL WITH

EXCESS MATERIAL)

OPTION 3 (RETAIN)

HYBRID SCHEME

(OPTION 1 / OPTION 3)

Habitat / biodiversity values ▄ ▄ - ▄

Educational / interpretive values

- - ▄ ▄

Birdstrike threat ▄ ▄ - ▄

Water quality threat ▄ ▄ - -

River migration threat ▄ ▄ ▄

Use in Soil and Water Management Plan

▄ ▄ - ▄

Storage of construction waste

- ▄ - -

Additional area for golf course / park

▄ ▄ - -

Additional area for restoration

▄ ▄ - ▄

Operation management (i.e. water levels, weeds and pests)

- - ▄ ▄

Source: Study team compilation.



This simple analysis shows that:

In terms of biodiversity values:

- Option 3 is the best option as it retains all of the current biodiversity values

- Option 4 is marginally worse, although the area of ponds to be filled (20%) is offset by an

equivalent area of mangroves

- Options 1 and 2 are equally worst (although there are some positives in terms of the

restoration of mangroves or woodlands).

In terms of risk mitigation:

- Options 1 and 2 are equally the best options

- Option 4 is next best in that the risk of river migration is mitigated and birdstrike and water

quality risks are partly mitigated

- Option 3 is the worst as all three risks are not mitigated (but could be managed to some

extent).

In terms of project utility values:

- Option 2 is the best option as it allows for use of the voids for soil and water management

and disposal of excess material

- Option 1 is of less benefit as it allows for use of the voids for soil and water management

and mangrove propagation but not disposal of excess material

- Option 4 is of less benefit as it allows for use of the 40% of the voids for soil and water

management and mangrove propagation (but not disposal of excess material)

- Option 3 is worst as it has no construction utility.

7.5.12 Conclusions

In terms of risks and benefits of retaining the ponds:

It is concluded that the real issue is the significance of the (mitigated) birdstrike risk and it

recommended that further assessment of this issue take place during detailed design. This is

likely to arise during the MCU process as the proposal will need to be assessed against the

airport overlay code which has a bird and bat strike aspect. Whether or not this constitutes an

‘overriding need in the public interest’ to clear the mapped wetlands based on birdstrike, water

quality and river migration under CairnsPlan (see EIS s5.2.1 Module 11 (p5-26) can also be

determined at that time.

It is also concluded that there is significant value in using the aquaculture bunds during

construction to ‘flood-proof’ part of the site and to form part of the SWMP. The ability of Option 2

to contain approximately 200 000 m3 of construction waste that would otherwise need to be

taken off-site is considered a significant distinctive between Options 1 and 2. Both are clearly

superior to Option 4 and even more so to Option 3.

Overall, at the current state of knowledge, the habitat and interpretive values are not considered

sufficiently significant to warrant the risks associated with retaining the ponds.



8 ISSUE 7: HOUSING AND ACCOMMODATION PLAN

The environmental impact statement identified potential impacts on housing affordability and the cost

of living in the Cairns region as a result of the project. The submission from Cairns Regional Council

stated that the issue of accommodating the project's construction and operational workforces was not

adequately addressed in the environmental impact statement. The Department of Housing and Public

Works identified the potential for the project to contribute to increased housing stress in local and regional housing markets, and the need for strategies to mitigate these impacts. The outline of a draft Housing and Accommodation Plan included in the environmental impact statement:

Lacked sufficient detail about the proponent's management and mitigation strategies for

responding to these impacts.

Proposed but did not expand upon a monitoring and reporting framework that will be required to

identify impacts in local and regional housing markets at different stages of the project's

development.

Identified key stakeholders for the Plan's implementation but did not consider how this might be

achieved.

Requirement: Further refine the Housing and Accommodation Plan to achieve the objectives outlined

above. The Housing and Accommodation Plan should also satisfy comments from Cairns Regional

Council and the Department of Housing and Public Works.

8.1 RESPONSE

Housing markets in urban and regional areas consist of a series of sub-markets with different

characteristics that determine how housing is developed and consumed. Sub-markets are typically

determined on the basis of location and spatial attributes (such as proximity to services, transport,

employment, amenity features), dwelling supply attributes (such as dwelling type, tenure, price) and

household attributes (such as income, household size and type, employment status). These factors

influence the price and shape of the communities that form in those areas. The spectrum of a

community’s housing needs is represented in Table 8.1.

Table 8-1 The Housing Spectrum

Social Housing Affordable Housing Private Market Housing

Short Term / Tourist Accommodation.

Housing Type:

Crisis & Transitional

housing

Long Term Housing:

Public & Community

rental

Sub-market rental

Sub-market

purchase

Private rental and ownership

Commercial

Target Group:

Homeless / Households

in Crisis

High social needs

Very low income /

ATSI

High social needs

Low-Moderate income

High self sufficiency

Low-Moderate income


Middle – high

income workers


Tourists / short-stay workers



Aquis has the potential to significantly impact local and regional housing markets, both prior to and

during the peak construction and following commencement of operations An influx of workers from

beyond Cairns may require housing within a reasonable commuting distance of Aquis.

Accommodating this additional demand for housing may impact on the available supply of tourist

accommodation, or require consolidation and renewal in adjacent suburbs at the expense of older

stock that may represent an important source of lower cost housing for members of the community.

Speculation and redevelopment ahead of increased demand arising from the project could affect

housing supply and affordability in other sub-markets throughout Cairns. Both scenarios could lead to

increased housing stress5 and the displacement of vulnerable households.

The Department of Housing and Public Works (DHPW) considers housing to be affordable when:

the dwelling is appropriate to the needs of low-income households in terms of design, location and

access to services and facilities; and

as a guide, the out-of-pocket rent (i.e. total rent less any applicable Australian Government Rent

Assistance) paid by households, in the lowest 40% of the income distribution, does not exceed

30% of gross household income.

Benchmark rents includes only the rental component of an ‘affordable housing’ outcome and provides

indicative rents for different sized dwellings and possible tenant profiles, within income bands.

Very low-income benchmarks are derived from the income levels of persons or households receiving

the basic income support payment (New Start plus Family Tax Benefit where applicable) without any

additional income. The very low-income category provides a better understanding of the range of

households likely to be facing affordability problems.

Low-income benchmarks are based on aged pension payments (plus Family Tax Benefit where

applicable) plus the maximum amount of additional income that a person or household may earn

without losing any entitlements.

The Benchmark Rent ranges are summarised in Table 8.2 with details in the attached schedules.

While the very low-income and low-income categories and the associated Benchmark Rents are

based on the entitlements of households receiving benefits, other households derive similar incomes

from other sources including:

full-time, part-time and casual employment;

other Centrelink benefits; or

a combination of the above.

The benchmark rents are arranged by dwelling size and gross household income to provide indicative

affordable rent ranges for households who rely on similar incomes to meet their housing needs. The

rents are updated annually and published by DHPW.

5 Housing stress is a widely used term used to describe the circumstances where the lowest 40% of households spend more than 30% of their income to meet their housing costs. Exceeding this threshold, can reduce the availability of income for other essential household expenditure such as food, health care and education).



Table 8-2 Benchmark Rents

Very low-income Low-income

Dwelling size Gross household income range ($/week)

Benchmark Affordable Rent Range ($/week)

Gross household income range ($/week)

Benchmark Affordable Rent Range ($/week)

1 bedroom 250.50 – 452.30 137 – 194 453.85 – 704.60 198 – 270

2 bedrooms 357.15 – 624.50 180 – 260 552.25 – 901.40 238 – 343

3 bedrooms 443.25 – 710.60 206 – 295 650.65 – 999.80 268 – 382

4 bedrooms 615.45 – 796.70 267 – 321 847.45 – 1,098.20 336 – 412

The Benchmark Rents may be used as a performance indicator for establishing and monitoring the

proportion of affordable rental housing in an area. This can be achieved by measuring the proportion

of rental stock falling above and below the Benchmark Rents for each dwelling size category, using

actual rent levels and stock numbers for an area.

Aquis acknowledges these and other potential impacts on local and regional housing markets, and

commits to developing a Housing and Accommodation Plan prior to the commencement of

construction of the project that addresses the project’s planning and development, construction and

operational phases.

Purpose

The Plan will be guided by the following principles:

1. Project impacts will be managed through strategies and actions designed to enable local and

regional housing markets to operate effectively and efficiently in delivering timely supply across the

housing spectrum (including meeting the needs of vulnerable people and households).

2. Implementation of the Plan will be a shared responsibility between the relevant private, community

and public sector agencies in partnership with the project proponent.

3. The actions of the proponent and other stakeholders in responding to housing impacts will be

timely, evidence-based and threshold driven (where practical).

4. The effectiveness of the Plan in managing housing impacts will be regularly monitored and

reviewed, and supported by adaptive management responses.

5. Effective engagement will occur with a range of stakeholders to develop, implement, monitor and

adapt the Plan as needed.

Housing markets may be influenced by a range of factors (such as fiscal and monetary policies of

government, investor confidence, demographic trends) that are largely external to any one project or

initiative. As such, the primary focus of the Housing and Accommodation Plan will be on responding to

any impacts that are directly linked to the project. The involvement of a range of stakeholders with the

monitoring and reporting mechanisms identified in the Plan will provide a basis for identifying broader

market trends.



Objectives

The Housing and Accommodation Plan will be to provide a framework for managing the impacts of

Aquis on local and regional housing markets so that they can operate effectively and efficiently in

meeting resident, visitor and short-term worker populations housing and affordability needs.

The Plan will articulate the proponent’s commitment to the following objectives:

1. Assess the likely impacts of Aquis on the Cairns and regional housing markets taking into account

cumulative impacts associated with other major projects, impacts on potential supply constraints

(including land capacity and construction workforce considerations) and housing affordability.

2. Provide a collaborative planning and implementation framework for mitigating and / or managing

the project’s housing impacts through strategies for action by the relevant project partners (such

as Council, State Government, private sector and community sector agencies, in partnership with

the project proponent), including identifying roles, responsibilities and timing.

3. Establish a robust baseline from which to predict and monitor project impacts on local and regional

housing markets.

4. Establish a regular monitoring and reporting framework to:

a) support implementation of the Plan in relation to any threshold actions;

b) review the Plan’s effectiveness in addressing housing impacts (including the identification of

associated remedial strategies).

5. Identify opportunities for collaboration and innovation in responding to identified housing impacts,

including drawing on local and regional resources, capabilities and related planning and

development processes.

6. Establish an independent governance arrangement for the development, implementation,

monitoring and reviewing of the Plan.

Governance Arrangements

The Housing and Accommodation Plan will be developed by Aquis under the guidance of a Housing

Steering Group with membership from potential partner agencies and key stakeholders. Membership,

terms of reference and meeting frequency will be subject to approval by the CRC and the Co-ordinator

General.

As the Housing and Accommodation Plan is likely to have significant implications for Council as well

as State Government agencies, the final Plan will also require the approval of both the CRC and Co-

ordinator General.

The Plan will be developed in consultation with the key stakeholders), while general information about

the process will be communicated to the wider community through the Aquis Community Engagement

Plan. Engagement with the general public is not otherwise envisaged.



Findings of the Plan will inform and be informed by the development of the Workforce Development

and Management Plan in investigating and responding to the potential impacts of Aquis on labour

force availability. This will be achieved through internal project team mechanisms as well as by

reporting to the Housing Steering Group and the relevant reference group(s) established through the

Aquis Community Engagement Plan.

Baseline monitoring of existing local and regional housing market conditions would begin immediately

following release of the Co-ordinator General’s Evaluation Report (assuming approval), with an initial

monitoring report provided to CRC and the DPWH within 8 weeks.

The Final Draft Housing and Accommodation Plan will be submitted for approval prior to issue of a

development permit for MCU, Operational works or ERA (whichever comes first).

Key Stakeholders and Potential Partner Agencies

Partner agencies are those agencies that would take a lead role in helping to implement the Housing

and Accommodation Plan and will be determined in consultation with CRC and the Office of the Co-

ordinator General upon project commencement.

The Housing and Accommodation Plan will be developed in consultation with key stakeholder and

partner agencies, including the following:

Aquis

Cairns Regional Council

Department of Housing and Public Works

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning

Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services

Department of Education, Training and Employment

TAFE

JCU

Development and construction sector (including peak bodies: UDIA, HIA, MBA)

Real estate sector (including peak body: REIQ)

Tourism industry sector (including peak body: Queensland Tourism Industry Council)

Community and Indigenous housing providers

Human service providers (housing and homelessness support agencies).



Housing and Accommodation Plan Development

PLAN ELEMENT TIMING / EXTERNAL INPUTS

Project Description and Context

Details about project staging, projected workforce size and composition at each stage, and other relevant information that could impact on housing (such as inward migration of workers, shift patterns and tenure of employment).

Identify other major projects that might generate cumulative impacts on local and regional housing markets

Investigate comparative projects to inform the understanding of likely housing market impacts

Confirmation of stakeholder engagement strategy and formation of Housing Steering Group

Initial engagement with key stakeholders to help ascertain up to date information, identify market opportunities and constraints and capture stakeholder buy-in to the process

Timing:

Formation of Housing Steering Group: prior to lodgement of MCU Development Permit

Inputs:

CRC and CG confirmation of Housing Steering Group membership and Terms of Reference and Stakeholder Engagement Strategy

Preliminary stakeholder engagement

Local and Regional Housing Market Baseline Reporting

Define measures and document supply and demand baselines for key local and broader regional housing markets at project commencement, including:

Demographic profile (Census augmented by CRC community profiles and other relevant information)

Dwelling mix, building completions, development approval rates over the previous year and supply constraints

Government and NGO-funded affordable housing agency presence

Social and community housing supply, waitlist and trends

Tourist accommodation (short term accommodation) supply

Median weekly rent and household purchase prices

Private market rental vacancy and new bond lodgement rates

House sale volumes and clearance rates

Rental affordability, and the amount and proportion of affordable housing stock in an area (using the DHPW Benchmark Affordable

Timing: Completion of first

monitoring report within 6 weeks of OCG’s Evaluation Report

Input:

CRC and DHPW endorsement of proposed baseline data for reporting

DPWH assistance with baseline monitoring




Housing Rents 1)

Homelessness data (based on Counting the Homeless Census)

Construction labour force supply

Other relevant industry trends and drivers impacting on housing supply and demand (such as tourism industry movements)

Assess Housing Impacts

Develop population projection scenarios based on likely direct and indirect workforce projections for: 1) baseline trend growth; 2) trend plus Aquis (low and high growth scenarios); 3) Aquis and other major projects (if relevant).

Conduct land capability analysis and assess likely future housing supply across the housing spectrum (including affordable housing, social and community housing, private market housing and short term accommodation).

Generate housing projections for baseline trend and Aquis-related housing demand (and Aquis and other major projects if relevant), reporting housing demand across the housing spectrum.

Conduct demand and supply gap analysis and determine indicative housing impacts, opportunities and / or issues (including any relevant constraints on supply such as construction labour availability, Council development assessment capacity and other constraint).

Identify critical thresholds to trigger housing impact mitigation and/or management strategies (as point in time and/or trend-based thresholds).

Input:

OESR population projections

Stakeholder and Housing Steering Group validation of gap analysis findings and proposed critical thresholds

Strategies and Actions Input:

In consultation with key stakeholders and potential partner agencies, develop and evaluate preferred options, strategies and actions for responding to identified impacts (addressing impacts across the housing spectrum as well as industry impacts and/or Council capacity impacts as relevant).

Define and agree partner agency roles, responsibilities and indicative timing for actions, including actions by the proponent (which may involve monitoring actions as well as workforce accommodation or other mitigation actions as relevant).

Stakeholder and Housing Steering Group engagement in options, and development of strategies and actions development

Housing Steering Group endorsement of roles, responsibilities and indicative timing

Monitoring and Reporting




Develop key performance indicators to monitor:

- Plan implementation: monitoring to identify when threshold actions need to be triggered

- Impact mitigation: the effectiveness of strategies outlined in the Plan (including defining corrective action to be taken if the strategies are found to not be effective)

Reporting frequency:

- Impact mitigation monitoring during construction phase and first two years of operation phase (Stage 1 & Stage 2): Quarterly reporting

- Implementation of housing strategies (Stages 1 & 2): half yearly reporting during construction phase; annual reporting in first 5 years of operation

Input:

Housing Steering Group endorsement of roles, responsibilities and indicative timing

DPWH assistance with monitoring

Plan Documentation and Adoption

Document the outcomes from the process described above in a Housing and Accommodation Plan for approval by CRC. Documentation, including:

Identification of a lead agency with responsibility for carriage of the Plan

Strategies and actions, responsibilities and indicative timing

The monitoring and reporting framework

An implementation strategy outlining commitments, roles and timeframes for implementation by the prospective partner agencies (including provision for annual review and adjustment of the Plan as required to respond to changed circumstances).

Input: Housing Steering Group

review of Draft Plan

Timing: Lodgement of Final Plan

with CRC & CG for approval prior to issue of a development permit for MCU, Operational works or ERA.



9 ISSUE 8: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PLAN

The environmental impact statement noted that the project will impact on a number of communities

during the construction and operation stages, and identified the need for ongoing engagement with

these communities. The outline of a draft Community Engagement Plan included in the environmental

impact statement:

1. Lacked sufficient detail about the proponent's management and mitigation strategies for

responding to these impacts.

2. Proposed but did not expand upon a monitoring and reporting framework that will be required to

identify impacts on local communities and the broader Cairns community at different stages of

the project's development.

3. Identified key stakeholders for the completion and implementation of the Plan but did not

consider how this might be achieved.

Requirement: Further refine the Community Engagement Plan to achieve the objectives outlined

above.

9.1 RESPONSE

Aquis notes that some community submissions raised issues about the representativeness,

inclusiveness and transparency of the community engagement process employed during the

preparation of the EIS. In response, Aquis commits to conduct community engagement during project

implementation and operation consistent with best practice and in accordance with the IAP2’s Code of

Ethics6..

The Aquis Resort is a significant and complex project to be developed over a period of up to 10 years.

The Social Impact Assessment conducted as part of the EIS identified the need for the development of

a series of mitigation and management plans to address potential social impacts. The EIS also

identified the requirements for the preparation of additional management plans including a Cultural

Heritage Management Plan and Environmental Management Plans for the planning, construction,

operation and management of the resort project.

The design of the Aquis Community Engagement Plan is influenced by the scope and nature of these

plans which fall into two groups:

Project Plans for which Aquis would have full responsibility for implementation which plans specifically related to the planning, design, construction, operation and ,maintenance of the Resort and its facilities.. Community engagement for these elements will be conducted by Aquis for the duration.

66 The IAP2 is the pre-eminent international organisation promoting best practice in community engagement. Its Code of Ethics

is available at: http://www.iap2.org.au/documents/item/83

http://www.iap2.org.au/documents/item/83



Community Plans with where responsibility for implementation rests largely with community

agencies (including Local and State governments, private and non-government agencies) - In the first instance, engagement during the preparation of the plans will be conducted by Aquis; responsibility for ongoing engagement and plan implementation will then rest with the relevant lead agency (with the exception of the Strategic Change Management Plan where Aquis proposes to have a preliminary role only).

Table 9-1 indicates the Project and Community Plans, the likely lead agency , possible stakeholders

and Issues/Objectives for each Plan

Table 9.1 – Mitigation and Management Plans

The development and implementation of all of these plans will involve engagement with a number of

different communities of interest and other stakeholders across an extended time frame (commencing

immediately at project approval and continuing into the operations of Stage 2, in 2024 and beyond).

Community Engagement for these plans will need to occur across the project’s three key stages:

project planning, project construction and project operations.



Table 9-2indicates the stakeholders and agencies likely to be engaged with in the preparation and

implementation each project and community plan.

Table 9.2 Stakeholder and Agency Engagement

Should project approval be achieved, detailed engagement processes involved in each plan will be

developed for approval by the relevant approving authority.

The Aquis Community Engagement Plan will provide the vehicle for engagement with the general

community, which will complement the targeted stakeholder engagement involved in each of the

mitigation and management plans. The Aquis Community Engagement Plan will provide information to

the general public about each of these plans as they are developed, with appropriate engagement as

relevant.



Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the Aquis Community Engagement Plan is to facilitate a process through which the

interests and concerns of all affected stakeholders can be understood and taken into account, as part

of decision making associated with project implementation. As the project’s overarching engagement

with the community, that the targeted engagement associated with the development of each of the

mitigation and management plans will be integrated with and co-ordinated through the Aquis

Community Engagement Plan.

The community engagement framework will be guided by the following objectives and principles:

Community Engagement Objectives

1. To build confidence and trust with the community.

2. To provide accurate information to the community about the project and its progress, including

project impacts and how they are being responded to.

3. To provide the opportunity for dialogue with the Cairns community about the Aquis project,

enabling issues and impacts to be understood and responded to where appropriate.

4. To be accountable by reporting outcomes from consultation processes to participants.

5. To adopt inclusive consultation processes that recognise and involve the multiple publics and

groups affected.

6. To respect and maximise efficient use of participants’ time by ensuring community engagement

processes are integrated and co-ordinated.

Community Engagement Principles

1. The people, communities and other relevant stakeholders that are affected by Aquis have the right

to be informed and to contribute to the decision making process.

2. Community engagement will commence early in the planning and decision making processes and

will be adequately resourced.

3. Sufficient and accurate information will be provided to participants so that they can contribute in a

meaningful way.

4. The purpose of community engagement and the extent of participants’ influence in the decision

making process will be clearly communicated to all parties participating.

5. Engaging with the community represents a commitment to take action and to inform participants

how their input has influenced the outcome.

6. Community engagement will be inclusive, providing an opportunity for all relevant stakeholders to

be involved.

7. The level of engagement will be commensurate to the level of anticipated impact or concern.



Scope of Community Engagement

The Aquis Community Engagement Plan is informed by the IAP27 Public Participation Spectrum

shown in Figure 9.1 which has been used as a basis for representing how the general public will be

engaged in the project’s implementation.

Figure 9-1 IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum

Source: http://www.iap2.org.au/documents/item/84

http://www.iap2.org.au/documents/item/84



Engagement for the Aquis project will involve a broad community of interest. To help provide advisory

input on decision making, Aquis proposes to establish a series of thematic (environment, social and

economic) and locality based (Yorkeys Knob) reference groups. These groups will be determined in

consultation with the community and would have an advisory role, providing input to the formulation of

solutions and recommendations within the defined scope of interest for each group.

Because of the transformative nature of the impact of Aquis on the social, economic and built form of

Cairns and its region, Aquis considers that it is important for the community to have an independent

mechanism for project overview in the form of a regional community consultative committee or other

appropriate body. The role of this body would be to advise on overall project performance and

accountability, for community engagement. Such a body may be established and have the potential

to play a role in the Strategic Change Management Strategy. It is highly desirable that representation

on such a body include local, city-wide and regional groups, across a range of social, economic and

environment stakeholder interests, including vulnerable groups. This should be a wholly independent

body, neither established nor led by Aquis. Aquis would report regularly to the body on project

progress and performance.



Table 9-3 provides an overview of how Aquis intends to engage with the community in the development of the project

Project Element /

Project

Phase

Inform

(one way information flow)

Consult

(two way information flow)

Involve

(active involvement)

Collaborate

(partnership)

Empower

(their decision)

PLANNING PHASE

Construction works (external and site) - Stage 1 & 2

Provide information about the construction management planning process and how to get involved, likely construction impacts and how they will be responded to.

Identify community concerns about construction and seek feedback about proposed strategies to minimise disturbance.

Work closely with the affected local community to seek feedback and advisory input to inform decisions.

Nil Nil

Resort - Stage 1

Provide regular information about the project, its progress, impact management, reporting and how to get involved.

Seek feedback from the community on proposed solutions for addressing issues of significance. Seek periodic feedback on the effectiveness of the community engagement process.

Work closely with the community through structured processes to understand issues, seek feedback and invite advisory input to inform decisions.

Nil Nil

Resort - Stage 2


Seek feedback on the effectiveness of the community engagement process for Stage 1 and review the process for Stage 2 accordingly.

Seek feedback from the community on proposed solutions for addressing issues of significance, including periodic feedback


Nil Nil



Project Element /

Project

Phase

Inform


Consult


Involve


Collaborate

(partnership)

Empower

(their decision)

on the community engagement process.

Yorkeys Knob Community Facility -

Provide regular information about the proposed community facility, the engagement process and how to get involved.

Identify community aspirations and preferences for the facility.

Work together to determine an appropriate purpose and design for the facility; manage any impacts associated with the facility’s operation; and determine workable governance and asset management arrangements. (Note the CRC will be a key stakeholder in this process)

Nil

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Construction works (external and site) – Stage 1 & 2

Inform affected communities of forthcoming disturbances (such as road closures, movement of large equipment, other); about complaints mechanisms; and how complaints have been responded to.

Seek feedback on community experience during construction and proposed solutions (if relevant).

Work closely with the local community to seek feedback and advisory input to inform decisions.

Nil Nil

Resort - Stage 1




Nil Nil

Resort - Stage 2

Provide regular information about the project, its progress, impact management, reporting

Seek feedback on the effectiveness of the community engagement

Work closely with the community through structured processes to

Nil Nil



Project Element /

Project

Phase

Inform


Consult


Involve


Collaborate

(partnership)

Empower

(their decision)

and how to get involved. process for Stage 1 and review the process for Stage 2 accordingly.

Seek feedback from the community on proposed solutions for addressing issues of significance, including periodic feedback on the community engagement process.

understand issues, seek feedback and invite advisory input to inform decisions.

Yorkeys Knob Community Facility-

Provide regular information about the construction program for the facility and how to access further information or lodge any complaints.

Work together to oversee facility construction and related impact management.

Nil

OPERATION PHASE

Resort - Stage 1

Provide regular project monitoring and performance reporting.

Provide information on how to participate, make an enquiry or register a complaint.



Nil Nil

Resort - Stage 2

Provide regular project monitoring and performance reporting.

Provide information on how to participate, make an enquiry

Seek feedback on the effectiveness of the community engagement process for Stage 1 and review the process for

Work closely with the community through structured processes to understand issues, seek feedback and invite advisory input to inform

Nil Nil



Project Element /

Project

Phase

Inform


Consult


Involve


Collaborate

(partnership)

Empower

(their decision)

or register a complaint. Stage 2 accordingly.

Seek feedback from the community on proposed solutions for addressing issues of significance, including periodic feedback on the community engagement process.

decisions.

Yorkeys Knob Community Facility

Establishment, in conjunction with CRC a Yorkeys Knob Community Sorts and Recreation Association

WHO: All project elements:

Yorkeys Knob and Holloway Beach communities, Cairns urban area and regional communities.

Resort:

Communities of interest impacted by the issues being addressed.

Construction Works:

Yorkeys Knob and Holloways Beach communities.

Construction Works & Community Facility:

Yorkeys Knob and Holloway Beach communities

Community Facility:

Yorkeys Knob community

Community Facility Operations

Management Committee

HOW: All project elements:

Newsletters, information displays, website, telephone hotline, local media,

Resort:

Public comment, public displays, focus groups, surveys

Issues and locality based community reference groups, workshops, search conference, local community polling.

Community Facility:

Locality based community reference group



Project Element /

Project

Phase

Inform


Consult


Involve


Collaborate

(partnership)

Empower

(their decision)

advertisements, social media Construction works:

Community meetings, public displays and public comment with Yorkeys Knob and Holloways Beach communities.



Community Engagement Performance Management

Table 9.4 provides details on performance management for community engagement in relation to the

overall resort project.

Table 9-4 Project Engagement

Objective To ensure the Cairns local and regional communities are well informed about and have the opportunity to be engaged in the implementation of the Aquis project.

To ensure the interests and concerns of affected stakeholders are understood and taken into account as part of decision making associated with project implementation.

To adopt engagement processes which are inclusive, accountable and transparent.

Performance Criteria Submission of half yearly community engagement performance reports to CRC.

Establishment of community reference groups (as ultimately determined in the final community engagement strategy with the CRC) including defining clear and agreed terms of reference and balanced and representative membership.

Development of a Grievance and Dispute Resolution Policy setting out the process for resolving a dispute, grievance or complaint directly associated with the project’s implementation. Establishment of a Complaints Register.

Employment of a range of engagement methods targeting a diversity of stakeholders, supported by responses that are appropriate and clearly communicated to participants.

Responsiveness to changing project and community needs in line with performance review findings.

Scope of Issues Overall project development and impact management

Natural environment impact management

Social, economic and cultural impact management

Regional impact management

Effectiveness of community engagement processes

Monitoring and Auditing Half yearly performance review of the Aquis Community Engagement y based on feedback from the general community, stakeholder groups and agencies and CRC.

Reporting and Corrective Action

Implement the mechanism for grievance and dispute resolution (the Grievance and Dispute Resolution Policy referenced above), including the recording grievances and related corrective responses in a Complaints Register.

Submit half yearly performance monitoring reporting on community engagement to CRC including a summary of activities conducted, feedback received and responses made.

Following half yearly performance monitoring, renegotiate the community engagement strategy with CRC as required.

Timing Approval of the Aquis Community Engagement Strategy within 3 months of receipt of the S242 Preliminary Approval.

Approving Authority CRC and OCG to approve the Aquis Community Engagement Strategy (including the Grievance and Dispute Resolution Policy).



Table 9.5 provides details on performance management for community engagement in relation to

construction works.

Table 9-5 Construction

Objective To minimise disturbance during project construction to and promote positive relationships with surrounding communities (including communities on haulage routes) and users of impacted road networks.

Performance Criteria Consultation with Yorkeys Knob and Holloways Beach communities, Cairns Regional Council (CRC) and Dept. of Transport and Main Roads in developing the Construction Management Plan (including complaints management plan).

Approval of detailed community engagement strategy as part of the draft Construction Management Plan by CRC prior to each Operational Works Permit approval.

Scope of Issues Noise and dust

Light spill

Traffic and transport disruption

Visual impacts

Flood Mitigation

Ground Water Quality

Environmental concerns

Monitoring and Auditing Complaints, non-compliance and reported incidents and related corrective actions and timing will be recorded in the Complaints Register.


The Complaints Register will be monitored and reported to CRC on a monthly basis.



, Table 9.6 provides details on performance management for community engagement in relation to the

Yorkeys Knob Community Facility.

Table 9-6 Yorkeys Knob Community Facility

Objective To work with the community to determine the type of facility most appropriate to meet the community’s needs; its design; and its governance and use arrangements. (Note: if CRC is determined to be the owner of the facility, the ultimate decision about the type of facility and its governance and use arrangements will rest with CRC).

Performance Criteria Community support for the facility determined to be needed.

Scope of Issues Ensuring the facility is relevant to the social, cultural and / or recreational needs of the Yorkeys Knob community

Resolution of facility ownership and asset maintenance

Resolution of governance arrangements for the management and operation of the facility

Potential impacts of the facility on the local community (including near



neighbours)

Monitoring and Auditing Public display of the options proposed (including nomination of the preferred option) for feedback from the local community, followed by a community polling process.

Overview of the community engagement process by the Yorkeys Knob Community Reference Group.


Reporting grievances received (through the Aquis Community Engagement grievance procedures) and responses taken to the Yorkeys Knob Community Reference Group





10 ISSUE 9: REGISTER OF PROPONENT COMMITMENTS

While the environmental impact statement included commitments project-wide and for specific issues,

a specific register or schedule was not included.

Requirement: Develop a comprehensive register of proponent commitments for the project. The

register should include the stated commitments found throughout the EIS (e.g. commitments to provide specific information for subsequent applications, specific project actions identified to avoid or

reduce environmental impacts).

10.1 RESPONSE

A draft Register of Proponent Commitments is shown in Table 10.1. This includes all commitments

documented in the EIS and identified in this report.

Table 10.1 Register of Proponent Commitments

ITEM REFERENCE DETAILS

General

1. Proponent Commitments – Environment

EIS 2.4.2a) Adopt best practice solutions to site drainage and water quality.

Adopt best practice solutions for the environmental management of:

Ecosystems

Airport operations

Birds and bats (to avoid interfering with aircraft)

Crocodiles and insect vectors

Dust

Lighting

Noise (including helicopter operations)

Visual screening.

Establish environmental management system to accord with AS14001.

Adopt sustainable development practices, including:

Green building design

Water harvesting and re-use including of treated wastewater and rainwater

Energy efficiency

Waste minimisation, re-use, and recycling.

Develop interpretive and educational programs to protect and present natural and cultural values and engender a high level of environmental awareness for guests and staff.

Adopt and develop an environmental management plan for both construction and operations. The management plan will include traffic management plans for construction and events which attract significant external patronage. The site based management plan will include consideration of erosion and sediment control, management of acid sulfate soils, protection of water quality, and waste minimisation, re-use, and recycling




2. Proponent Commitments – Community

EIS 2.4.2b) Work closely with government and the community in developing and implementing the following community plans:

Community Engagement Plan

Workforce Development and Management Plan Local Content Plan

Construction Management Plan Strategic Change Management Housing and Accommodation Plan

Community Services and Facilities Plan Community Health and Safety Plan Cultural Development Plan Responsible Gaming Plan.

Implement the CHMP with the Yirrganydji (Irukandji) People (and any additional signatories from time to time).

Engage with all Indigenous groups in the region for the development and operation of ICH aspects of the Interpretive Centre).

3. Proponent Commitments – Infrastructure

EIS 2.4.2c) Design and construct services connections and upgrades to external infrastructure to a capacity to meet the demands imposed by Aquis.

Design and construct services connections and infrastructure in accordance with the service standards and design standards adopted by the service provider.

Contribute infrastructure charges in accordance with CRC’s ‘Trunk Infrastructure Contribution Policy’ to reflect the capacity of trunk infrastructure networks consumed by the development.

Undertake external works upgrades to the local and state controlled road network to ensure that the safety and efficiency of the networks is maintained.

Provide High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV – buses/coaches) transport solutions for the transfer of:

guests of the resort to/from Cairns Airport guests to/from attractions and features in the region

4. Proponent Commitments – Infrastructure

EIS 2.4.2c) Manage the site during construction and the project operations to ensure that there is no major direct environmental disturbance.

Meet any reasonable requirement for environmental management, repairs and rehabilitation in the event of extreme weather events, accident, calamity or financial distress.

Put in place the necessary policies of insurance to underwrite its commitment to repair and rehabilitate the landscape in these circumstances. Where reasonably required, the proponent will negotiate with the Government in good faith to settle the terms upon which additional security/financial guarantees may be provided to better secure the proponent’s commitment to meet these (subject to further clarification).




Construction

5. Beneficial re-use of surplus excavation material

EIS 4.2.5 Following treatment of sands under the ASSMP, any excavated sands not needed on site will be made available free of charge for the following beneficial reuse activities (subject to the practicalities of construction and the development of necessary agreements and approvals):

beach replenishment (if required by CRC)

filling and surcharging areas earmarked for future development under the Cairns Airport Land Use Plan (if required by NQA)

embankment filling for external connections

filling voids in the Barron delta.

6. Worker transport

EIS 4.3.1 Operate a staff reward programme to encourage car-pooling, higher private vehicle occupancy and active transport.

provide purpose built end-trip facilities for staff to secure bicycles, and to shower and change as a means of encouraging active transport.

7. Construction water

EIS 4.1.1 Minimise demands on the potable water supply through targeted utilisation of non-potable water sources.

Public Land

8. Public use of foreshore

EIS 4.4.2 The development of the project will not impede public access to the foreshore.

Access to the public foreshore by Aquis Resort guests will not be provided and will be prevented by fencing, signage, and education.

River Migration

9. Sinking fund 8.3.4 Aquis will contribute to a sinking fund to stabilise the Thomatis Creek bifurcation should the Queensland Government and CRC decide that such a project is warranted.

Flooding

10. Increase flood immunity

EIS 9.2 Upgrade Yorkeys Knob Road.

Water Quality

11. Adopt Water Sensitive Urban Design

EIS 11.2 All stormwater drainage will adopt Water Sensitive Urban Design (WSUD) principles to limit the export of sediments and nutrients. This will include appropriate stormwater quality improvement devices (SQIDs).

Hazards

12. Hazard Management

EIS 12.5.2 Develop and implement an Integrated Emergency Management Plan, specific to the project and tailored to the cultural background and demographic of the visitors.

Examine opportunities to provide shelter facilities for Yorkeys Knob residents.




Environmental Management

13. EMP (Planning)

EIS 23.4 Develop EMP (Planning) based on expanding the details on environmental management strategies (Table 23-2), namely:

Acid Sulfate Soil Management Strategy

Airport Safety Strategy

Contingency Strategy

Crocodile Management Strategy

Fauna Management Strategy

Indigenous Cultural Heritage Strategy

Integrated Water Management Strategy

Interpretation Strategy

Lake Management Strategy

Landscape and Habitat Strategy

Non-Indigenous Cultural Heritage Strategy

Restoration and Rehabilitation Strategy

Social Strategies

Sustainability Strategy

Waste Management Strategy

Water Quality Management and Stormwater Management Strategy

Weed and Pest Management Strategy

Identify detailed tasks to be undertaken during:

planning

detailed design

construction

operation and maintenance.

14. EMP (Construction)

EIS 23.4 Develop EMP (Construction) based on recommendations of EMP (Planning) for the construction phase and contractor input.

Require all contractors to develop suitable detailed Contractor’s Environmental Management Plans.

15. EMP (Operation & Maintenance)

EIS 23.4 Develop EMP (Operation & Maintenance) based on recommendations of EMP (Planning) for the operation phase and operator input.

Require all operators to develop suitable detailed Operational Management Plans.

Transport

16. Infrastructure Agreement – Transport

EIS 24.1.3 Enter into an Infrastructure Agreement (Transport) with the DTMR and CRC on the basis that:

the cost of works required to maintain the safety and efficiency of the State and Local Controlled Road network as a direct consequence of the Aquis development will be met by the proponent

the proponent will contribute its proportionate share of the cost of the upgrades to the State and Local Controlled Road Network taking into account existing thresholds for upgrades required to meet planned future growth in Cairns

cost sharing arrangements would be identified for shared trunk infrastructure and for accelerated deterioration of pavement assets.




Infrastructure

17. Infrastructure Agreement – Services

EIS 25.1.3c) Enter into an Infrastructure Agreement (services) with the CRC for water and wastewater on the basis that:

the development is considered as separate to and

independent of the Council Trunk Infrastructure Contribution Policy

the cost of dedicated trunk infrastructure to connect the development to the existing water supply network where it has capacity is met by the proponent

the proponent will contribute its proportionate share of the cost of the upgrades to local road network

cost sharing arrangements would be identified for shared trunk infrastructure

Enter into an agreement with CRC for the purchase of Class A (or A+) recycled water (if Class A then treat to Class A+) and reticulate throughout site as a potable water substitute.

Monitoring

18. Ecological monitoring

EIS 23.6.2 Undertake 2015 wet season terrestrial ecology survey.

Undertake 2015 wet season aquatic ecology survey (including turtles).

19. Mangrove monitoring

EIS 23.6.2 Undertake quarterly monitoring (October 2014, January 2015 (extend as warranted).

20. Groundwater monitoring

EIS 23.6.3 Undertake monthly monitoring until February 2015 (extend as warranted).

21. Bore monitoring

EIS 10.2 Undertake monitoring of surrounding (off-site) bores during construction and following lake operation until a pattern emerges.

22. Transmissivity (groundwater quarantining solution

EIS 10.2 Investigate transmissivity of low permeability layer beneath lake as input to groundwater quarantining solution. (In the vertical direction, the vertical permeability and continuity of the stiff clay unit needs to be confirmed to be 0.001 m/d (~10-8 m/s) or lower.)

23. Water quality monitoring (A)

EIS 23.6.3 Undertake monthly monitoring until February 2015 (extend as warranted).

24. Water quality monitoring (B)

N/A Undertake on-going monitoring as required by Lake Management Plan (see Commitment 27).

Environmental Design and Management

25. Lake Management Plan

SIR 5.2.4 Expand on Lake Management Strategy to create a detailed Lake Management Plan.

26. Best-practice lighting design

SIR 6.3.2 Design project lighting to:

comply with CairnsPlan and any additional NQA / ASA requirements

best-practice lighting design (general)

best-practice lighting design (biological aspects).

27. Best-practice noise mitigation

SIR 6.4.2 Limit noise emissions that could affect native fauna (design).

Limit noise emissions that could affect native fauna (construction management).



11 ISSUE 10: RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY ISSUES

The Response to Community Issues received 4 September 2014 appears to accurately identify the

relevant issues raised by the community. While the issues are identified it is difficult to assess the

responses as a result of:

Each submission issue should have a response including the ones that are out of scope.

Cross-referencing is not detailed enough to identify where issues are addressed in the report.

An example: issue ID number 99.20 is not responded to in discussion following the table (page

80) containing the issues early in the document. It is not readily apparent where these issues

are addressed and in fact they are addressed in multiple later sections of the report. Page 125

provides a cross reference and the issue is addressed at page 203. These issues are repeated

throughout the document. This is required to clearly show how Aquis has addressed the

relevant community issues.

Requirement: Revise the Community Submissions and Issues document to clearly respond to each

relevant issue raised in the community submissions on the environmental impact statement,

particularly by addressing cross-referencing issues. The Community Submissions and Issues

document should replicated the format used for the Response to Agency Issues i.e. include columns

'Aquis response' and 'Action'.

11.1 RESPONSE

Prior to the preparation of the Response to Community Submissions and Issues Report it was agreed

with officers of the OCG that it would deal with the issues raised in the submissions rather than

addressing individual submissions. This is in contrast to the Response to Agency Submissions Report

which addresses the individual submissions made by each agency. The two reports which respond to

the submissions are fundamentally different in their approach.

The roles of community and agency submissions in the approvals process are different. It is

necessary for submitters to remain anonymous so each submitter has been allocated a unique ID (e.g.

101).. All points raised by a submitter can be tracked by this number (e.g. 101.1, 101.19).

However, all points raised by all submitters are included in one or more of the tables in Chapter 3 and,

even though not referenced specifically in the discussion following each table, nonetheless contribute

to the definition of the relevant theme and actions arising from it.

When submissions are broken down into discrete points, they often contain more than one theme. In

these cases, the point is listed in each relevant table but only included in the subsequent discussion if

it is considered to reflect a clear expression of the issue raised. By way of example, point 99.20 is as

listed below:

99.20 The cumulative impacts on the Fish Habitat Reserve and Estuarine Protection Zone of

the GBR Coast Marine Park associated with the Richters and Yorkeys Creek estuary and on

the GBRWHA from nutrients and pollutants delivered via the direct discharge from the Aquis

lake into Richter's Creek and run-off from the 'flood tolerant' golf course into the marine

environment of GBRWHA remain undescribed. As quoted from The Scientific Consensus

Statement (DSDIP (2013) in the report: "The decline of marine water quality associated with

terrestrial runoff from the adjacent catchments is a major cause of the current poor state of

many of the key marine ecosystems of the Great Barrier Reef." Instead Aquis has chosen to

describe such impacts as "negligible" without addressing the cumulative impacts that will

result over the years of operations in such a large development with an estimated 1,000,000

users per year. There needs to be much caution in this assessment.



The thematic analysis assigns this text to three themes, namely:

• Theme 7.1 Matters of NES and SES

• Theme 11.3 Receiving Environment Water Quality

• Theme 22.2 Integrity / Ecological Processes

However, it is only discussed in detail in the latter two themes on the basis that although Theme 7.1

deals with matters of NES and SES, it is in Chapter 22 where the more detailed matters of NES work

is documented. In this case, the discussion on integrity relies on water quality which is the reason for

the additional Theme 11.3 reference.

The Community Submissions and Issues Report has been updated with a new Appendix A containing

a print-out of the Aquis Schedule of Submissions, colour coded to show references to Table 2-1 of the

original report where the relationship between EIS chapters and issue categories is set out. Figure

11-1 below is an extract.

Figure 11-1 Extract from Appendix A of the revised Community Submissions and Issues Report

The Community Submissions Issues Report –R1 dated October 2014 was issued to the Coordinator

Generals Office on 7 October 2014



12 REFERENCES AND DATA SOURCES

Airservices Australia. 2007. Website accessed 15 November 2005

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/reports/movement/calytd2004.pdf

Allen, G.R. 1997. Marine fishes of tropical Australia and South-East Asia – A field guide for anglers

and divers. Third Revised Edition, Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia.

ANZECC & ARMCANZ. 2000. Australian Guidelines for Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting,

National Water Quality Management Strategy, Australian and New Zealand Environment and

Conservation Council & Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New

Zealand.

Arnold, P., Marsh, H. & Heinsohn, G. 1987. The occurrence of two forms of Minke Whales in east

Australian waters with a description of external characters and skeleton of the diminutive or

dwarf form, report prepared for Reports of the Whales Research Institute.

Australian Institute of Marine Science. 2014a. Green Island Reef second flank,

http://data.aims.gov.au/waAesthetics/servaesthetics?fullReefID=16049S&zone=4 accessed

September 2014.

Australian Institute of Marine Science. 2014b. Report on surveys of reefs in the Cairns sector of the

Great Barrier Reef, http://www.aims.gov.au/reef-monitoring/cairns-and-innisfail-sector-2013,

accessed September 2014.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau. 2005. Website accessed 15 November 2005

http://www.atsb.gov.au/pdfs/statistics/2004_birdstrikes.pdf

Aviation & Airspace Design Solutions. 2014. Aquis Great Barrier Reef Redden Creek Radar Shadow

Assessment. Prepared for Flanagan Consulting Group, 25 April 2014.

Bamford, M, D. Watkins, W. Bancroft, G. Tischler and J. Wahl. 2008. Migratory Shorebirds of the East

Asian - Australasian Flyway; Population Estimates and Internationally Important Sites. Wetlands

International - Oceania. Canberra, Australia.

Bannister, J.L., Kemper, C.M. & Warneke, R.M. 1996. The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans.

Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra.

Barros, N.B. & Wells, R.S. 1998. 'Prey and feeding patterns of resident bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops

truncatus) in Sarasota Bay, Florida', Journal of Mammalogy 79: 1045-1059.

Beasley, I., Robertson, K. & Arnold, P. 2005. 'Description of a new dolphin, the Australian snubfin

dolphin Orcaella heinsohni sp. n.(Cetacea, Delphinidae)', Marine Mammal Science 21: 365-400.

Benson, S.R., Dutton, P.H., Hitipeuw, C., Samer, B., Bakarbessy, J. & Parker, D. 2007. 'Post-Nesting

Migrations of Leatherback Turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) from Jamursba-Medi, Bird's Head

Peninsula, Indonesia', Chelonian Conservation and Biology 6: 150-154 [Online]. Chelonian

Research Foundation.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/reports/movement/calytd2004.pdf

http://www.atsb.gov.au/pdfs/statistics/2004_birdstrikes.pdf



Best, P.B., Butterworth, D.S. & Rickett, L.H. 1984. An assessment cruise for the South African inshore

stock of Bryde's Whales (Balaenoptera edeni), report prepared for Report of the International

Whaling Commission.

Biotropica Australia. 2014a. Monitoring Mangrove Health on the proposed Aquis at the Great Barrier

Reef Resort Development February 2014.

Biotropica Australia. 2014b. Monitoring Mangrove Health on the proposed Aquis at the Great Barrier

Reef Resort Development Audit 1 April 2014.

Biotropica Australia. 2014c. Monitoring Mangrove Health on the proposed Aquis at the Great Barrier

Reef Resort Development Audit 2 August 2014.

Biotropica Australia. 2014d. Aquis Resort at the Great Barrier Reef Seasonal Monitoring Dry Season

August 2014.

Birdlife Northern Queensland. 2013. Cattana Wetlands Bird Checklist. Available from

http://birdlifenq.org/pdfs/new_checklist/33-Cattana-Wetlands-Bird-checklist.pdf. Accessed

16/9/2014.

Birtles, R.A., Arnold, P.W. & Dunstan, A. 2002. 'Commercial swim programs with dwarf minke whales

on the northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia: some characteristics of the encounters with

management implications', Australian Mammalogy 24: 23-38.

Bjorndal, K.A. 1997. 'Foraging ecology and nutrition of sea turtles', In: The Biology of Sea Turtles,

Lutz, P. & Musick, J. A. (Eds.), pp. 199-231 Boca Raton: CRC Press Inc.

Bjorndal, K.A., Bolten, A.B. & Martins, H.R. 2000. 'Somatic growth model of juvenile loggerhead sea

turtles Caretta caretta: duration of pelagic stage', Marine Ecology Progress Series 202: 265-272.

Blower, D.C., Pandolfi, J.M., Bruce, B.D., Gomez-Cabrera, M.C. & Ovenden, J.R. 2012. 'Population

genetics of Australian white sharks reveals fine-scale spatial structure, transoceanic dispersal

events and low effective population sizes', Marine Ecology Progress Series 455: 229-244.

Brand-Gardner, S.J., Lanyon, J.M. & Limpus, C.J. 1999. 'Diet selection by immature green turtles,

Chelonia mydas, in subtropical Moreton Bay, South-East Queensland', Australian Journal of

Zoology 47: 181-191.

Bruce, G.D., Stevens, J.D. & Malcolm, H. 2006. 'Movements and swimming behaviour of white sharks

(Carcharodon carcharias) in Australian waters', Marine Biology 150: 161-172.

Burns, G. & Heatwole, H. 1998. 'Home range and habitat use of the olive sea snake, Aipysurus laevis,

on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia', Journal of Herpetology: 350-358.

Carr, A. 1987. 'Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea

turtles', Marine Pollution Bulletin 18: 352-356.

Chevron Australia. 2014. Gorgon Gas Development and Jansz Feed Gas Pipeline: Long-term Marine

Turtle Management Plan. Available online: <http://www.chevronaustralia.com/docs/default-

http://birdlifenq.org/pdfs/new_checklist/33-Cattana-Wetlands-Bird-checklist.pdf.%20Accessed%2016/9/2014

http://birdlifenq.org/pdfs/new_checklist/33-Cattana-Wetlands-Bird-checklist.pdf.%20Accessed%2016/9/2014

http://www.chevronaustralia.com/docs/default-source/default-document-library/gorgon-emp-long-term-marine-turtle-management-plan.pdf?sfvrsn=4



source/default-document-library/gorgon-emp-long-term-marine-turtle-management-

plan.pdf?sfvrsn=4> Accessed September 2014.

Compagno, L.J.V. 1984. 'Part 1 - Hexanchiformes to Lamniformes. FAO Species Catalogue, Vol. 4.,

Sharks of the World. An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Sharks Known to Date', FAO

Fisheries Synopsis 4: 1-249.

Connolly, N., Doak, N. & Pearson, R. 1996. Environmental Literature Scan of the Barron River

Catchment ACTFR. 96: 20.

Conway, S. 1994. Diets and feeding biology of adult olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) and

loggerhead (Caretta caretta) sea turtles in Fog Bay, Northern Territory, Hons. Northern Territory

Unviversity, Darwin.

Corkeron, P.J., Morisette, N.M., Porter, L.J. & Marsh, H. 1997. 'Distribution and status of humpback

dolphin, Sousa chinensis, in Australian waters', Asian Marine Biology 14: 49-59.

Culik, B. 2003. Sousa chinensis. Review on Small Cetaceans: Distribution, Behaviour, Migration and

Threats. [Online], report prepared for Compiled for the Convention on Migratory species (CMS).

Currie, D.R. & Small, K.J. 2005. 'Macrobenthic community responses to long-term environmental

change in a east Australian sub-tropical estuary', Estuarine Coastal and Shelf Science 63: 315-

331.

Currie, D.R. & Small, K.J. 2006. 'The influence of dry-season conditions on bottom dwelling fauna of

an east Australian sub-tropical estuary', Hydrobiologia 560: 345-361.

Curtis, L.K., Dennis, A.J., McDonald, K.R., Kyne, P.M. and Debus, S.J.S. 2012. Queensland’s

Threatened Animals. CSIRO, Victoria.

Dalhlheim, M.E. & Heyning, J.E. 1999. 'Killer whale – Orcinus orca', In: Handbook of Marine Mammals

The second book of dolphins and porpoises, Ridgway, S. H. & Harrison, S. R. (Eds.), pp. 281-

322.

Dennis, A.J. 2012. Bare-rumped Sheathtail bat. In: L.K. Curtis, A.J. Dennis, K.R. McDonald, P.M. Kyne

and S.J. Debus (eds.), Queensland’s Threatened Animals, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood.

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 2013. CHRIS web,

http://chrisweb.dpi.qld.gov.au/chris/, accessed September 2014.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 2005. Issues paper for six species of marine

turtles found in Australian waters that are listed as threatened under the Environment Protection

and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Commonwealth Department of Environment and

Heritage, Canberra.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 2012. Technical Guideline Licensing –

Wastewater Release to Queensland Water.





Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 2013a. Barron Drainage Basin Wetland statistics,

http://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/wetlands/facts-maps/basin-barron/, accessed September

2014.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. 2013b. Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin,

https://http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/wildlife/animals-az/indopacific_humpback_dolphin.html


Department of Environment and Heritage. 2005a. Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan 2005 -

2010. [Online]. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Canberra, Commonwealth of

Australia,

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/balaenoptera-

sp/index.html., accessed September 2014.

Department of Environment and Heritage. 2005b. Humpback Whale Recovery Plan 2005 - 2010.

[Online]. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia,

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/m-

novaeangliae/index.html., accessed September 2014.

Department of Environment and Heritage. 2005c. Whale Shark (Rhincodon typus) Recovery Plan:

Issues Paper DEH, Canberra: 26.

Department of Environment and Resource Management. 2009. Queensland Water Quality Guidelines

Version 1, Sept 2009.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. 2011. Environment

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/index.html,


Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. 2013a. Recovery

Plan for the Great White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias). Australian Government, Canberra,

ACT.

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. 2013b, Species

Profile and Threats Database: Sousa chinensis – Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin,

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=50 accessed

September 2014.

Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 1997. Conservation and Management of Whales

and Dolphins in Queensland 1997–2001. Department of Environment, Brisbane.

Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013a. Matters of Environmental Significance:

Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1. Australian Government, Canberra.

Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013b. Species Profile and Threats Database:

Balaenoptera edeni – Bryde’s Whale, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-

bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=35. accessed September 2014.



Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013c. Species Profile and Threats Database:

Balaenoptera musculus – Blue Whale, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-


Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013d. Species Profile and Threats Database:

Carcharodon carcharias – Great White Shark, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-


Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013e. Species Profile and Threats Database:

Chelonia mydas – Green Turtle, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-


Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013f. Species Profile and Threats Database:

Delphinus delphis — Common Dolphin, Short-beaked Common Dolphin,

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=60. accessed

September 2014.

Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013g. Species Profile and Threats Database:

Grampus griseus – Risso’s Dolphin, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-

bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=64 accessed September 2014.

Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013h. Species Profile and Threats Database:

Megaptera novaeangliae — Humpback Whale, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-


Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013i. Species Profile and Threats Database:

Natator depressus – Flatback turtle, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-


Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013j. Species Profile and Threats Database:

Orcaella heinsohni – Australian Snubfin Dolphin, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-


Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013k. Species Profile and Threats Database:

Orchinus orca – Killer Whale, Orca, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-


Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013l. Species Profile and Threats Database:

Rhincodon typus — Whale Shark, http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-


Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2013m. Species Profile and Threats Database:

Stenella attenuata — Spotted Dolphin, Pantropical Spotted Dolphin,

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=51. accessed

September 2014.

Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2014a. Dasyurus hallucatus in Species Profile and

Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from:

http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Tue, 16 Sep 2014 08:51:53



Department of the Environment (Commonwealth). 2014b. EPBC Protected Matters Search Tool,

http://www.environment.gov.au/arcgis-framework/apps/pmst/pmst-coordinate.jsf, accessed

September 2014.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2009. Significant impact guidelines for

36 migratory shorebird species. EPBC Act policy statement 3.21. Canberra.

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. 2009. White Shark Issues Paper

[Online}. Department of the Environment Water Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, ACT.

Department of Transport and Main Roads. 2013. Townsville Ring Road Stage 4. Assessment of Bare

rumped Sheathtail Bat. http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/T/Townsville-Ring-Road-

Section-4.aspx. Accessed 15/09/2014.

Dobbs, K.A. 2007. Marine turtle and dugong habitats in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park used to

implement biophysical operational principles for the Representative Areas Program.

Unpublished Report of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.

Doherty, P.J. & Sheaves, M.J. 1994. Fish surveys in Half Moon Creek. Consultancy undertaken by the

Australian Institute of Marine Sciences for TNN Cairns Pty.

Dunstan, A., Sobtzick, S., Birtles, R.A. & Arnold, P.W. 2007. 'Use of videogrammetry to estimate

length to provide population demographics of dwarf minke whales in the northern Great Barrier

Reef', Journal Cetacean Research and Management 9: 215-223.

Eckert, S.A. & Stewart, B.S. 2001. 'Telemetry and satellite tracking of Whale Sharks, Rhincodon typus,

in the Sea of Cortez, Mexico, and the north Pacific Ocean', Environmental Biology of Fishes 60:

299-308.

Ecosure. 2008. Cairns International Airport Bird and Wildlife Strategy. Consultancy report to Cairns

Airport P/L.

Environment North. 1998. Blackfellows Creek Drainage Management Plan – Botanical survey for

Eleocharis retroflexa (Version 2) Report to Cairns City Council, Cairns

Flanagan Consulting Group. 2014a. Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef Environmental Impact

Statement. June 2014.

Flanagan Consulting Group. 2014b. Aquis Resort Environmental Impact Statement: Community

Submissions and Issues. Revision 1 October 2014.

Flanagan Consulting Group. 2014c. Aquis Resort Environmental Impact Statement: Agency

Submissions and Issues. September 2014.

Forbes, G.A. 1994. 'The diet of the green turtle in an algal-based coral reef community-Heron Island,

Australia', In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea turtle on Biology and

Conservation, Schroeder, B. A. & Witherington, B. E. (Eds.): 57-59.

Foster, S.J. & Vincent, A.C.J. 2004. 'Life history and ecology of seahorses: implications for

conservation and management', Journal of Fish Biology 65: 1-61.

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/T/Townsville-Ring-Road-Section-4.aspx

http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/T/Townsville-Ring-Road-Section-4.aspx



Francis, M., Natanson, L. & Campana, S. 2002. 'The Biology and Ecology of the Porbeagle Shark,

Lamna nasus', In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation, Camhi, M.,

Pikitch, E. & E., B. (Eds.), Blackwell Publishing, United Kingdom.

Francis, M.P. & Stevens, J.D. 2000. 'Reproduction, embryonic development, and growth of the

porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus, in the southwest Pacific Ocean', Fisheries Bulletin 98: 41-63.

frc environmental. 2007. Half Moon Bay Masterplan; Coastal Ecology, report prepared for CLT.

frc environmental. 2013. Aquis Resort Technical Study: Aquatic Ecology. Stage 1 and 2 Reports:

Existing Situation, Preliminary Impact Assessment and Mitigation, report prepared for prepared

for Flanagan Consulting Group.

frc environmental. 2014a. Aquis Resort EPBC Act Issues: Aquatic Ecology, report prepared for

Flanagan Consulting Group.

frc environmental. 2014b. Aquis Resort Proposed Off-shore Intake: Aquatic Ecology Assessment,

report prepared for Prepared for Flanagan Consulting Group.

frc environmental. 2014c. Aquis Resort Technical Study: Aquatic Ecology Addendum: Wet Season

Survey, report prepared for Flanagan Consulting Group.

frc environmental. 2014d. Aquis Resort Technical Study: Aquatic Ecology: Dry Season Baseline

Survey 2014. report prepared for Prepared for Flanagan Consulting Group.

Freeman. 2003. Monitoring Report on the Annual Spectacled Flying Fox Census 2003. Queensland

Parks and Wildlife Service Atherton, Queensland.

Fry, G.C., Milton, A. & Wassenberg, T.J. 2001. 'The reproductive biology and diet of sea snake

bycatch of prawn trawling in northern Australia: characteristics important for assessing the

impacts on populations', Pacific Conservation Biology 7: 55-73.

Garnett, S.T. and Crowley, G.M. 2000. The Action Plan for Australian Birds, Environment Australia,

Canberra.

Gaston, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T. W., and Hopkins, J. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime

light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal Biological Reviews 88. 912–927.

Gibson, L. & Wellbelove, A. 2010. 'Protecting critical marine habitats: The key to conserving our

threatened marine species', WWF-Australia, Ultimo, NSW.

Golder Associates. 2014. Aquis Baseline Groundwater Monitoring September 2014. Prepared for

Flanagan Consulting Group October 2014.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2010. Water Quality Guidelines for the Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park: Revised Edition 2010. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Townsville.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2011a. Green turtle, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-

reef/animals/marine-turtles/green-turtle accessed September 2014.



Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2011b. Leatherback turtle, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-

the-reef/animals/marine-turtles/leatherback accessed September 2014.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2011c. Loggerhead turtle, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-

the-reef/animals/marine-turtles/loggerhead accessed September 2014.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2011d. Marine turtles, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-

reef/animals/marine-turtles, accessed September 2014.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2011e. A Vulnerability Assessment for the Great Barrier

Reef: Dwarf minke whales, report prepared for Australian Government; Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2011f. Whales and Dolphins,

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-reef/animals/whales-and-dolphins accessed September

2014.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2012a. A vulnerability assessment for the Great Barrier

Reef: Indo-Pacific humpback and Australian snubfin dolphins, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2012b. A Vulnerability Assessment for the Great Barrier

Reef: Sawfish, report prepared for Australian Government, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Authority.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2013a. Flatback turtle, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-the-

reef/animals/marine-turtles/flatback accessed September 2014.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2013b. Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment:

Strategic Assessment Report, report prepared for Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Townsville.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2013c. Hawksbill turtle, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-

the-reef/animals/marine-turtles/hawksbill accessed September 2014.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2013d. Olive Ridley turtle, http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/about-

the-reef/animals/marine-turtles/olive-Ridley accessed September 2014.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2013e. Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment:

Strategic Assessment Report. Draft for public comment. GBRMPA, Townsville.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2013f. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan (Reef Plan).

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. 2014. Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic Assessment:

Strategic Assessment Report. GBRMPA, Townsville.

Hale, P., Long, S. & Tapsall, A. 1998. 'Distribution and conservation of Delphinids in Moreton Bay', In:

Moreton Bay and its Catchments, Tibbets, I. R., Hall, N. J. & Dennison, W. C. (Eds.), School of

Marine Science, The University of Queensland.



Hale, P.T., Barreto, A.S. & Ross, G.J.B. 2000. 'Comparative Morphology and Distribution of the

aduncus and truncatus forms of Bottlenose Dolphin Tursiops in the Indian and Western Pacific

Oceans', Aquatic Mammals 26: 101-110.

Hamman, M., Limpus, C., Hughes, G., Mortimer, J. & Pilcher, N. 2006. Assessment of the

conservation status of the leatherback turtle in the Indian Ocean and South East Asia, Bangkok:

IOSEA Marine Turtle MoU Secretariat.

Hanson, M.T. & Defran, R.H. 1993. 'The behaviour and feeding ecology of the Pacific coast bottlenose

dolphin, Tursiops truncatus', Aquatic Mammals 19: 127-142.

Heinsohn, G.E., Marsh, H., Gardner, B.R., Spain, A.V. & Anderson, P.K. 1979. Aerial Surveys of

Dugongs. In: Proceedings of Workshop held in Canberra February 1977. ANPWS, Canberra:

85-96.

Higgins, P.J. and Davies, S.J.J.F. (eds). 1996. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic

birds, Vol. 3: Snipe to Pigeons. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Hoyt, E. 2005. Marine Protected Areas for Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises: A worldwide handbook for

cetacean habitat conservation and planning, London, Earthscan, pp. 516pp.

Hughes, G.R. & Oxley-Oxland, R. 1971. 'A survey of Dugong (Dugong dugon) in and around Antonio

Enes, Northern Mozambique', Biological Conservation 3: 299-301.

Ineich, I. & Laboute, P. 2002. Sea Snakes of New Caledonia, I.R.D. and National Museum of Natural

History, Paris.

Ito, T. & Kashiwagi, T. 2010. 'Morphological and genetic identification of two species of manta ray

occuring in Japanese waters: Manta birostris and M. alfredi', Reports of Japanese Society for

Elasmobranch Studies 46: 8-10.

International Civil Aviation Organisation. 1999. The need to strengthen the provisions of ICAO annex

14, Volume 1, relating to bird control on and in the vicinity of Airports. Proceedings of Bird Strike

’99, Vancouver, Canada.

IUCN. 2013. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Manta birostris,

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/biblio/198921/0 accessed September 2014.

James Cook University. 2014. Modelling seagrass distribution and risks to seagrass,

http://research.jcu.edu.au/research/tropwater/research-programs/seagrass-ecology-1/modeling-

seagrass-distribution-and-risks-to-seagrass accessed September 2014.

Jarvis, J.C., Rasheed, M.A., McKenna, S.A. & Sankey, T. 2014. Seagrass Habitat of Cairns Harbour

and Trinity Inlet: Annual and Quarterly Monitoring Report 2013. Report No. 14/09 report

prepared for prepared for Far North Queensland Ports Corporation Limited.

Jefferson, T.A. & Van Waerebeek, K. 2002. 'The taxonomic status of the nominal dolphin species

Delphinus tropicais Van Bree. 1971', Marine Mammal Science 18: 787-818.

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/biblio/198921/0

http://research.jcu.edu.au/research/tropwater/research-programs/seagrass-ecology-1/modeling-seagrass-distribution-and-risks-to-seagrass

http://research.jcu.edu.au/research/tropwater/research-programs/seagrass-ecology-1/modeling-seagrass-distribution-and-risks-to-seagrass



Joyce, W., Campana, S., Natanson, L., Kohler, N., Pratt Jr., H. & Jensen, C. 2002. 'Analysis of

stomach contents of the porbeagle shark (Lamna nasus Bonnaterre) in the northwest Atlantic',

ICES Journal of Marine Science 53: 1263-1269.

Kaplan, I.C. 1995. 'A risk assessment for Pacific leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea)',

Canadian Journal Fishery and Aquatic Sciencies 62: 1710-1719.

Kashiwagi, T., Marshall, A., Bennett, M. & Ovenden, J. 2008. 'DNA evidence for cryptic species

boundaries within Manta birostris?', In: Abstracts of Joint Meeting of Ichthyologists and

Herpetologists, Montreal, Quebec: 236.

Kato, H. 2002. 'Bryde's Whale Balaenoptera edeni and B. brydei', In: Encyclopedia of Marine

Mammals, Perrin, W. F., Wrsig, B. & Thewissen, H. G. M. (Eds.), Academic Press, pp. 171-117.

Kemper, C.M. 2004. 'Osteological variation and taxonomic affinities of bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops

spp., from South Australia', Australian Journal of Zoology 52: 29-48.

Kerrigan, B., Breen, D., De'ath, G., Day, J., Fernandes, L., Tobin (nee Partridge), R. & Dobbs, K. 2010.

'Classifying the Biodiversity of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area', Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park Authority Research Publication No. 104.

Kogi, K., Toru, H., Imamura, A., Iwatani, T. & Dudzinski, K.M. 2004. 'Demographic parameters of Indo-

Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) around Mikura Island, Japan', Marine Mammal

Science 20: 510-526.

Lamont, P. 2010. Flying Fox and Cairns Airport. Unpublished. Viewed 25 September 2014 at

https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=mZwjVKbIOefC8gfbmoHQCQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=Flying

+Fox+and+Cairns+Airport.

Lanyon, J.M. & Morris, M.G. 1997. The Distribution and Abundance of Dugongs in Moreton Bay,

South-east Queensland, report prepared for Queensland Department of Environment.

Last, P.R. & Stevens, J.D. 1994. Sharks and Rays of Australia, CSIRO, Australia.

Last, P.R. & Stevens, J.D. 2009. Sharks and Rays of Australia, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood,

Victoria.

Lawler, I., Marsh, H., McDonald, B. & Stokes, T. 2002. Current State of Knowledge: Dugongs in the

Great Barrier Reef, report prepared for CRC Reef Research Centre.

Lazell, J.D. 1980. 'New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles', Copeia 1980: 290-295.

Leary, T.R. 1957. 'A schooling of leatherback turtles Dermochelys coriacea, on the Texas Coast',

Copeia 3: 232.

Lee Long, W.J., Coles, R.G. & McKenzie, L.J. 1997. 'Issues for seagrass conservation management in

Queensland', Pacific Conservation Biology 5: 321-328.

https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=mZwjVKbIOefC8gfbmoHQCQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=Flying+Fox+and+Cairns+Airport

https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=mZwjVKbIOefC8gfbmoHQCQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=Flying+Fox+and+Cairns+Airport



Lee Long, W.J., Mellors, J.E. & Coles, R.G. 1993. 'Seagrass between Cape York and Hervey Bay,

Queensland, Australia', Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44: 19-31.

Limpus, C.J. 1971. Sea turtle ocean finding behaviour. Search, 2: 385–387.

Limpus, C.J. 1971. 'The flatback turtle, Chelonia depressa Garman, in southeast Queensland,

Australia', Herpetologica 27: 431-436.

Limpus, C.J. 1975. Coastal sea snakes of subtropical Queensland waters (23° to 28° South Latitude),

The Biology of Sea Snakes, University Park Press, Baltimore.

Limpus, C.J. 1995. Global overview of the status of marine turtles: a 1995 viewpoint. In: Bjorndal, KA,.

ed. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Revised edition. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington.

Limpus, C.J. 2007. A Biological Review of Australian Marine Turtles. 5. Flatback Turtle Natator

depressus (Garman). Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.

Limpus, C.J. 2008a. A biological review of Australian marine turtle species. 6. Olive Ridley Turtle,

Lepidochelys olivacea (Eschscholtz), Queensland Environmental Protection Agency available

from

http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications/p02836aa.pdf/A_Biological_Review_Of_Australian_Mari

ne_Turtles_4_Olive_Ridley_Turtle_emLepidochelys_olivacea/em_Escholtz.pdf.

Limpus, C.J. 2008b. A biological review of Australian Marine Turtles. 1. Loggerhead Turtle Caretta

caretta (Linneaus). Queensland Environment Protection Agency.

Limpus, C.J. 2008c. A Biological Review of Australian Marine Turtles. 2. Green Turtle Chelonia mydas

(Linnaeus). Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.

Limpus, C.J., Couper, P.J. & Read, M.A. 1994a. 'The loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta, in

Queensland: population structure in a warm temperate feeding area', Memoirs of the

Queensland Museum 37: 195-204.

Limpus, C.J., Miller, J.D., Parmenter, C.J. & Limpus, D.J. 2003. 'The green turtle, Chelonia mydas,

population of Raine Island and the northern Great Barrier Reef: 1843–2001', Memoirs

Queensland Museum 49: 349-440.

Limpus, C.J., Miller, J.D., Parmenter, C.J., Reimer, D., McLachlan, N. & Webb, R. 1992. 'Migration of

green (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead (Caretta caretta) turtles to and from eastern Australian

rookeries', Wildlife Research 19: 347-358.

Limpus, C.J., Parmenter, C.J., Baker, V. & Fleay, A. 1983. 'The Crab Island sea turtle rookery in north

eastern Gulf of Carpentaria', Australian Wildlife Research 10: 173-184.

Limpus, C.J., Walker, T.A. & West, J. 1994b. 'Post-hatchling sea turtle specimens and records from

the Australian region', In: Proceedings of the Australian Marine Turtle Conservation Workshop,

James, R. (Ed.), Canberra, ANCA, Gold Coast 17-17 November 1990: 95-100.



Limpus, C.J., Zeller, D., Kwan, D. & Macfarlane, W. 1989. 'Sea-turtle rookeries in northwestern Torres

Strait (Australia)', Australian Wildlife Research 16: 517-526.

Lukoschek, V., (2008), Molecular ecology, evolution and conservation of hydrophiine sea snakes, PhD

Thesis. James Cook University, Townsville.

Luschi, P., Hays, G.C. & Papi, F. 2003. 'A review of long-distance movements by marine turtles, and

the possible role of ocean currents', Oikos 103: 293-302.

Lutz, P.L. & Musick, J.A. 1996. The Biology of Sea Turtles, CRC Press, United States of America.

Lynch. 2000. The Olive Brown seasnake (Aipysurus laevis), JCUNQ and the Australian Lions Club,

Townsville.

Mackintosh, N.A. 1965. The stocks of whales. London: Fishing News (Books) Ltd.

Malcolm, H., Bruce, B.D. & Stevens, J.D. 2001. A Review of the Biology and Status of White Sharks in

Australian Waters, report prepared for Report to Environment Australia, Marine Species

Protection Program, CSIRO Marine Research.

Marsh, H. & Lawler, I. 2002. Dugong distribution and abundance in the northern Great Barrier Reef

Marine Park November 2000. School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James

Cook University.

Marsh, H. & Lefebvre, L.W. 1994. 'Sirenian Status and Conservation Efforts', Aquatic Mammals 20:

767-788.

Marsh, H., Heinsohn, G.E. & Marsh, L.M. 1984. 'Breeding cycle, life history and population dynamics

of the dugong, Dugong dugon (Sirenia: Dugongidae)', Australian Journal of Zoology 32: 767-

788.

Marsh, H., Penrose, H., Eros, C. & Hughes, J. 2002a. Dugong status report and action plans for

countries and territories. UNEP Early Warning and Assessment Report Series, Keya.

Marsh, H., Penrose, H., Eros, C. & Hugues, J. 2002b. Dugong Status Report and Action Plans for

Countries and Territories, report prepared for United Nations Environment Program.

Marshall, A., Bennett, M.B., Kodja, G., Hinojosa-Alvarez, S., Galvan-Magana, F., Harding, M.,

Stevens, G. & Kashiwagi, T. 2011. Manta birostris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Version 2014.2.

Marshall, A.D., Compagno, L.J.V. & Bennett, M.B. 2009. 'Redescription of the genus Manta with

resurrection of Manta alfredi (Hrefft, 1868) (Chondrichthyes; Myliobatoidei; Mobulidae)', Zootaxa

2301: 1-28.

Meylan, A. 1982. Report to the Department of the Environment and Water Resources., ed. Biology and

Conservation of Sea Turtles. 1st ed., report prepared for Smithsonian Institute Press.



Meylan, A.B. 1984. Feeding ecology of the Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata): spongivory as a

feeding niche in the Coral Reef Community University of Florida, Gainsville.

Mrosovsky, N. and Carr, A. 1967. Preference for light of short wavelengths in hatchling green sea

turtles, Chelonia mydas, tested in their natural nesting beaches. Behaviour, 28: 217– 231.

Musick, J.A. & Limpus, C.J. 1997. 'Habitat utilisation and migration in juvenile sea turtles', In: The

Biology of Sea Turtles, Lutz, L. & Musick, J. A. (Eds.), CRC Press, pp. 137-164.

NOAA Fisheries. 2014. Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata),

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/cetaceans/minkewhale.htm, accessed

September 2014.

Oakwood, M. 2002. Spatial and social organisation of a carnivorous marsupial, Dasyurus hallucatus

(Marsupiala: Dasyuridae). Journal of Zoology, 257: 237-248

Pade, N., Queiroz, N., Humphries, N., Witt, M., Jones, C., Noble, L. & Sims, D. 2009. 'First results from

satellite-linked archival tagging of Porbeagle shark, Lamna nasus: area fidelity, wider-scale

movements and plasticity in diel depth changes', Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and

Ecology 370: 64-74.

Parra, G., Corkeron, P. & Marsh, H. 2006a. 'Population sizes, site fidelity and residence patterns of

Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins: Implications for conservation', Biological

Conservation 129: 167-180.

Parra, G.J. 2006. 'Resource partitioning in sympatric delphinids: Space use and habitat preferences of

Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins', Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 862-874.

Parra, G.J., 2005. Behavioural ecology of Irrawaddy, Orcaella brevirostris (Owen in Gray, 1866), and

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, Sousa chinensis (Osbeck, 1765), in northeast Queensland,

Australia: a comparative study, Ph.D. James Cook University, Townsville.

Parra, G.J., Preen, A.R., Corkeron, P.J., Azuma, C. & Marsh, H. 2002. 'Distribution of Irrawaddy

dolphins, Orcaella brevirostris in Australian waters', Raffles Bulletin of Zoology 10: 141-154.

Parra, G.J., Schick, P. & Corkeron, P.J. 2006b. 'Spatial distribution and environmental correlates of

Australian snubfin and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins', Ecography 29: 496-506.

Paterson, R.A. 1990. 'Effects of long-term anti-shark measures on target and non-target species in

Queensland, Australia', Biological Conservation 52: 147-159.

Peddemors, V.M. 1999. 'Delphinids of southern Africa: a review of their distribution, status and life

history', Journal of Cetacean Research 1: 157-165.

Pendoley Environmental. 2007. Gorgon Project: Sea Turtle Light Glow Arena Experiments, February

2007. Unpublished report for Chevron Australia, Perth, Western Australia.

Pendoley Environmental. 2008. Gorgon Project: Barrow Island Sea Turtle Nesting Beach Sediment

Characteristics December 2007–February 2008. Unpublished report for Chevron Australia,

Perth, Western Australia.



Pendoley, K. & Fitzpatrick, J. 1999. Browsing of mangroves by green turtles in Western Australia.

Marine Turtle Newsletter.

Pendoley, K. 1997. Impact of Artificial Lighting on Sea Turtles: A Review. Unpublished report for

Apache Energy, Perth, Western Australia.

Pendoley, K. 2005. Sea Turtles and Industrial Activity on the North West Shelf, Western Australia. PhD

thesis, Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia.

Perrin, W.F. & Reilly, S.B. 1984. Reproductive parameters of dolphins and small whales of the family

Delphinidae, report prepared for Reports of the International Whaling Commission (Special

Issue 6).

Peverell, S.C. 2005. 'Distribution of sawfishes (Pristidae) in the Queensland Gulf of Carpentaria,

Australia, with notes on sawfish ecology', Environmental Biology of Fishes 73: 391-402.

Peverell, S.N., Gribble, N. & Larson, H. 2004. 'Sawfish', In: National Oceans Office, Description of Key

Species Groups in the Northern Planning Area, Commonwealth of Australia, Hobart, Tasmania.

Pike, D.A. 2008. Natural Beaches confer fitness benefits to nesting marine turtles. Biology Letters, 1–

3.

Poiner, I.R. & Harris, A.N.M. 1996. 'Incidental capture, direct mortality and delayed mortality of sea

turtles in Australia's northern prawn fishery', Marine Biology 125: 813-825.

Poot, H., Ens, B.J., de Vries, H., Donners, M.A.H., Wernard, M.R. and Marquenie, J.M. 2008. Green

Light for Nocturnally Migrating Birds. Ecology and Society, 13. 47.

Preen, A.R. 1992. Interactions between dugongs and seagrasses in a subtropical environment,

(unpublished) Ph.D. Thesis. James Cook University of North Queensland

Preen, A.R., Lee Long, W.J. & Coles, R.G. 1995. 'Flood and cyclone related loss, and partial recovery

of more than 1000 km2 of seagrass in Hervey Bay, Queensland, Australia', Aquatic Botany 52:

3-17.

Pusey, B.J., Bird, J., Kennard, M.J. & Arthington, A.H. 1997. 'Distribution of the Lake Eacham

Rainbowfish in the Wet Tropics region', Australian Journal of Zoology 45: 75-84.

Rasheed, M.A., McKenna, S.A. & Tol, S. 2013. Seagrass Habitat of Cairns Harbour and Trinity Inlet:

Annual Monitoring and Updated Baseline Survey – 2012. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic

Ecosystem Research, Cairns.

Reeves, R.R. 2008 'Critical or important habitats for cetaceans: what to protect', In: First International

Conference on Marine Mammal Protected Areas, March 30 - April 3. 2009. Maui, Hawaii, USA

(In Press).

Reyes, J.C. 1991. The conservation of small cetaceans: a review, report prepared for Report prepared

for the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.



Robins, C.M., Goodspeed, A.M., Poiner , I. & B.D., H. 2002. Monitoring the catch of turtles in the

Northern Prawn Fishery, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Department of

Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry: Canberra.

Robins, J.B. 1995. 'Estimated catch and mortality of sea turtles from the East Coast Otter Trawl

Fishery of Queensland, Australia', Biological Conservation 74: 157-167.

Ross, G.J.B. 1984. 'The smaller cetaceans of the south-east coast of southern Africa', Annals of the

Cape Provincial Museums (Natural History) 15: 173-411.

Ross, G.J.B. 2006. Review of the Conservation Status of Australia's Smaller Whales and Dolphins,

report prepared for Report to the Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage.

Rydell, J. and Baagoe, H.J. 1996. Bats and streetlamps. Bats, (Bat Conservation International)

14(4):11-13

Salmon, M. 2003. Artificial night lighting and sea turtles. Biologist, 50: 163–168.

Salmon, M. and Witherington, B.E. 1995. Artificial lighting and sea finding by Loggerhead hatchlings:

evidence for lunar modulation. Copeia. 1995: 931–938.

Salmon, M., Wyneken, J., Fritz, E. and Lucas, M. 1992. Ocean-finding by hatchling sea turtles: role of

brightness, silhouette and beach slope orientation cues. Behaviour, 122(1–2): 55– 77.

Saunders, R., Royer, F. & Clarke, M. 2011. 'Winter migration and diving behaviour of Porbeagle shark,

Lamna nasus, in the Northeast Atlantic', ICES Journal of Marine Science 68: 166-174.

Scales, H. 2010. 'Advances in the ecology, biogeography and conservation of seahorses (genus

Hippocampus)', Progress in Physical Geography 34: 443.

Scanlon, A.T. and Petit, S. 2008. Effects of site, time, weather and light on urban bat activity and

richness: considerations for survey effort. Wildlife Research 35(8) 821-834.

Seagrass Watch. 2013. Seagrass Watch, http://www.seagrasswatch.org/, accessed September 2014.

Sekiguchi, K., Klages, N.T.W. & Best, P.B. 1992. 'Comparative analysis of the diets of smaller

odontocete cetaceans along the coast of southern Africa', South African Journal of Marine

Science 12: 843-861.

Sobtzick, S. 2011. Dwarf minke whales in the northern Great Barrier Reef and implications for the

sustainable management of the swim-with whales industry James Cook University, Townsville.

Spotila, J.R. 2004. Sea turtles: a complete guide to their biology, behavior, and conservation, The

Johns Hopkins University Press and Oakwood Arts, Baltimore, Maryland.

Spring, C.S. 1982. Status of marine turtle populations in Papua New Guinea. In: Bjorndal, K. A., ed.

Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles, Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington D.C., pp.

281-289.



Stacey, P.J. & Arnold, P.W. 1999. 'Orcaella brevirostris', Mammalian Species 616: 1-8.

Stern, J.S. 2009. 'Migration and Movement Patterns', In: Encyclopaedia of Marine Mammals, Perrin,

W., Wursig, B. & Thewissen, J. G. M. (Eds.), Elsevier, L London.

Stevens, J., Fowler, S.L., Soldo, A., McCord, M., Baum, J., Acuna, E., Domingo, A. & Francis, M.

2006. Lamna nasus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2013.2. ,

http://www.iucnredlist.org, accessed September 2014.

Stevens, J.D., McAuley, R.B., Simpfendorfer, C.A. & Pillans, R.D. 2008. Spatial distribution and habitat

utilisation of sawfish (Pristis spp) in relation to fishing in northern Australia, report prepared for a

report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, CSIRO.

Stevens, J.D., Pillans, R.D. & Salini, J. 2005. Conservation assessment of Glyphis sp. A (speartooth

shark), Glyphis sp. C (northern river shark), Pristis microdon (freshwater sawfish) and Pristis

zijsron (green sawfish). CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart.

Stokes, T., Dobbs, K., Mantel, P. & Pierce, S. 2004. Fauna and Flora of the Great Barrier Reef World

Heritage Area, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority.

Stone, E. L., Jones, G., and Harris, S. 2012. Conserving energy at a cost to biodiversity? Impacts of

LED lighting on bats Global Change Biology 18. 2458–2465.

Tappin, A.R. 1991. 'Keeping and breeding the "extinct" rainbowfish Melanotaenia eachamensis',

ANGFA Bulletin (Bulletin of the Australia New Guinea Fishes Association) 10: 3-4.

Thorburn, D.C., Morgan, D.L., Rowland, A.J. & Gill, H.S. 2007. 'Freshwater sawfish Pristis microdon

Latham, 1794 (Chondrichthyes: Pristidae) in the Kimberley region of Western Australia', Zootaxa

1471: 27-41.

Tucker, A.D., Fitzsimmons, N.N. & Limpus, C.J. 1995. 'Conservation implications of internesting

habitat use by loggerhead turtles Caretta caretta in Woongarra Marine Park, Queensland,

Australia', Pacific Conservation Biology 2: 157-166.

Tuxbury, S.M. and Salmon, M. 2005. Competitive interactions between artificial lighting and natural

cues during seafinding by hatchling marine turtles. Biological Conservation, 121: 311–316.

Van Rhijn, F.A. and Van Gorkom, J.C. 1983. Optic orientation in hatchlings of the sea turtle, Chelonia

mydas. III Sea-finding behaviour: the role of photic and visual orientation in animals walking on

the spot under laboratory conditions. Marine Behaviour and Physiology, 9: 105–121.

Verheijn, F.J. 1985. Photopollution: Artificial light optic spatial control systems fail to cope with.

Incidents, causations, remedies. Experimental Biology, 44: 1–18.

Walker, T.A. & C.J., P. 1990. 'Absence of a pelagic phase in the life cycle of the flatback turtle, Natator

depressa (Garman)', Journal of Biogeography 17: 275-278.



Whiting, S.D., Long, J., Hadden, K. & Lauder, A. 2005. Identifying the links between nesting and

foraging grounds for the Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea) sea turtles in northern Australia,

report prepared for Report to the Department of the Environment and Water Resources.

Wildlife Protection Society of Queensland. 2012. Spot Tales Newsletter #8: Far North Quoll Seekers

Network (FNQSN)-2012 Half Year Report, Wildlife Preservation Society of Queensland,

Queensland.

Witherington, B.E. 1992. Behavioural response of nesting sea turtles to artificial lighting.

Herpetologica, 48: 31–39.

Witherington, B.E. and Martin, R.E. 1996. Understanding, Assessing, and Resolving Light – Pollution

Problems on Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches, Rep. No. FMRI Technical Report TR- 2. Florida

Department of Environmental Protection.

Worley Parsons. 2010. Cairns Port Long Term Management Plan 2010. Worley Parsons.

Würtz, M., Poggi, R. & Clarke, M.R. 1992. 'Cephalopods from the Stomachs of a Risso's Dolphin

(Grampus griseus) from the Mediterranean', Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the

United Kingdom 72: 861-867.

Zangerl, R., Hendrickson, L.P. & Hendrickson, J.R. 1988. 'A redistribution of the Australian flatback

sea turtle Natator depressus', Bishop Museum Bulletins in Zoology 1: 69.

APPENDIX A

COORDINATOR GENERAL’S REQUEST

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

APPENDIX B

DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________

DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 1 7 OCTOBER 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 THE AQUIS LOCAL PLAN (ALP) 3

1.1 Short Title 3

1.2 Land to which the Aquis Local Plan applies 3

1.3 Purpose of the ALP 3

1.4 Vision 3

1.5 Relationship to Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme 4

2.0 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL 5

2.1 Preliminary Approval 5

2.2 Relevant Period 5

2.3 Effect of Preliminary Approval 5

3.0 INTERPRETATION 7

3.1 Terms defined in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 7

3.2 Terms defined in the ALP 7

3.3 Terms defined in the Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme 7

4.0 COMPLIANCE 8

4.1 Assessment Generally 8

4.2 Code Assessment 8

4.3 Impact Assessment 8

5.0 PRECINCTS 9

5.1 Precinct Plan 9

5.2 Resort Complex Precinct Intent 9

5.3 Sports and Recreation Precinct Intent 10

5.4 Environment Management and Conservation Precinct Intent 10

6.0 TABLES OF ASSESSMENT 12

6.1 Interpretation 12

6.2 Material Change of Use Table of Assessment 12

6.3 Other Development Table of Assessment 15

7.0 THE CODE 16

7.1 Applicability 16

7.2 Purpose 16

7.3 Assessment Criteria for all Precincts 21

7.4 Assessment Criteria for Resort Complex Precinct 35

7.5 Assessment Criteria for Sports and Recreation Precinct 43

7.6 Assessment Criteria for Environment Management and Conservation Precinct 46

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


SCHEDULE 1 Aquis Local Plan (ALP) Area

SCHEDULE 2 Dictionary

SCHEDULE 3 Precinct Plan

SCHEDULE 4 Concept Master Plan

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


1.0 THE AQUIS LOCAL PLAN (ALP)

1.1 Short Title

This document may be cited as the Aquis Local Plan (ALP).

1.2 Land to which the Aquis Local Plan applies

The ALP applies to that part of the Cairns Regional Council Local Government Area

which is subject to the Preliminary Approval to vary the effect of the Planning Scheme,

identified on the land described in Schedule 1 (Aquis Local Plan “ALP” Area).

1.3 Purpose of the ALP

The purpose of the ALP is to provide a planning framework for assessing development

within the Aquis Local Plan Area including:-

(1) a Precinct Plan nominating the location of Precincts within the ALP Area;

(2) a Vision and Development Principles providing context for the implementation of this

Local Plan;

(3) a Table of Assessment identifying levels of assessment and assessment criteria for

development within each Precinct; and

(4) a Code containing performance criteria and acceptable outcomes for certain land

uses and infrastructure in the ALP area.

1.4 Vision

Aquis Resort will be the pre-eminent integrated resort and entertainment complex in

Queensland.

The built form and setting of the Aquis Resort, including its landscaping and protected

natural areas, will be distinctive, readily recognisable and develop a strong international

identity.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


To be built in stages, the development will provide the accommodation needs of visitors

to the FNQ region, and provide integrated entertainment, recreational and support

facilities on site. The resort will provide infrastructure and all services to support the

approved uses across the whole site in a manner that promotes self-containment.

Development of the site will be in a form and scale, and of a design, that is responsive to

its setting and natural context. The design, construction and management of all

components of the integrated resort will promote ecologically sustainable development.

Development will be designed, constructed and maintained to Australian best practice

standards.

1.5 Relationship to Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme

(1) The ALP varies the effect of the Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme.

(2) Where there is conflict between the ALP and the Cairns Regional Council Planning

Scheme, the ALP prevails to the extent of any inconsistency.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


2.0 PRELIMINARY APPROVAL

2.1 Preliminary Approval

(1) This ALP functions as part of the Preliminary Approval, varying the effect of the

Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme as it relates to a development known as

the Aquis Resort at The Great Barrier Reef (Aquis Resort), pursuant to section 242

of the Sustainable Planning Act (SPA) 2009, by:-

(a) stating levels of assessment for development in the ALP Area that are different

to the levels of assessment stated for the land in the Cairns Regional Council

Planning Scheme;

(b) identifying applicable Codes that are different to Codes included in the Cairns

Regional Council Planning Scheme;

(c) in all other respects relying on the applicable codes included in the Cairns

Regional Council Planning Scheme. , Where there is a different, or amended

planning scheme in effect after the preliminary approval takes effect, the

relevant codes applicable to uses apply to the development as outlined in the

tables of assessment. To remove doubt, section 1.6(2) applies in any case; and

(d) identifying definitions that are applicable to the ALP.

2.2 Relevant Period

(1) In accordance with section 341(1) (b) of the SPA, the relevant period for the

Approval is ten (10) years from the date the approval takes effect.

2.3 Effect of Preliminary Approval

(1) To remove any doubt:

a) the ALP does not vary the effect of the SPA 2009 or the SPR 2009 in any way,

including in relation to type of assessment, or to referral agencies or their

jurisdiction1;

1 Including in relation to tidal works, prescribed tidal works or native vegetation clearing.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


b) assessment of any development applications should give weight to the

evaluation of the Declared Coordinated Project under the State Development

and Public Works Organisation Act 1971;

c) the assessment and approval of the preliminary approval varying the effect of

the Planning Scheme and the Coordinator General’s published evaluation

report, considered all relevant Commonwealth and State Assessment criteria,

including the State Planning Policy July 2014 (SPP 2014) and its relevant

assessment requirements (Interim Development Assessment Requirements &

State Development Assessment Provisions); and

d) this ALP includes relevant SPP (July 2014) assessment criteria for uses

contemplated in each precinct where requiring code or impact assessment. The

State Planning Policy will be amended from time to time. In line with the planning

act, the State Planning Policy in effect prevails to the extent of any

inconsistency.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


3.0 INTERPRETATION

3.1 Terms defined in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009

(1) Terms defined in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 which are used in the ALP have

the meaning given in the Sustainable Planning Act 2009.

3.2 Terms defined in the ALP

(1) The dictionary at Schedule 2 defines the additional terms and use definitions

applicable to the ALP.

3.3 Terms defined in the Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme

(1) Terms defined in the Planning Scheme which are used in the ALP have the meaning

given in the Planning Scheme, other than the use definitions in Schedule 2 or unless

identified otherwise.

(2) As per 1.6 (2) of this ALP, where there is conflict between the ALP and the Cairns

Regional Council Planning Scheme, the ALP prevails to the extent of any

inconsistency.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


4.0 COMPLIANCE

4.1 Assessment Generally

(1) Every use facilitated by this local plan is attributed a level of assessment (see

Section 6).

(2) In general, development may only proceed where an application is made to and

approved by the Cairns Regional Council for code or impact assessable

development.

(3) To remove any doubt, no development the subject of this ALP is self-assessable.

4.2 Code Assessment

(1) The following provisions apply in determining compliance with the applicable code:

(a) where acceptable outcomes are identified for performance outcomes,

development which complies with the acceptable outcomes complies with the

performance outcomes and Code overall outcomes;

(b) development which complies with the performance outcomes of the ALP Code

complies with the Code overall outcomes and the purpose of the Code; and

(c) development which complies with the overall outcomes of the ALP Code

complies with the purpose of the Code.

4.3 Impact Assessment

(1) For Impact assessable development, any such application is to be assessed against

the entire ALP and the Cairns Regional Council Planning Scheme, as deemed

relevant by the assessment manager.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


5.0 PRECINCTS

5.1 Precinct Plan

(1) The Precinct Plan is attached at Schedule 3. This plan shows precincts within which

use rights and potential development criteria apply.

(2) The Precincts are:

• Resort Complex;

• Sport and Recreation; and

• Environmental Management and Conservation.

5.2 Resort Complex Precinct Intent

(1) The Resort Complex Precinct is the main feature of the Aquis Resort at The Great

Barrier Reef and comprises the built form of the resort complex surrounded by an

artificial lake. The intent for this precinct is to operate as the main ‘hub’ of activity.

Development will be clustered within the precinct and have a built form presented as

a series of buildings, separated and having a horizontal elevation and scale.

Landscaping is integrated throughout the precinct and its buildings. Standards for

water quality, flood management, mobility, and all environmental operations are to

be best practice. Development in this precinct is a substantial built environment, off-

set by the extensive open space and landscaped areas in the balance precincts of

the Aquis site.

(2) The Precinct will feature:

a) Accommodation for up to 12,000 guests (at peak occupancy) in 7,500 hotel

rooms and suites configured in 8 towers, with a total GFA of 625,000m2;

b) A casino with a total GFA of 40,000m2;

c) Two (2) 600 seat theatres with a total GFA of 5,000m2;

d) 10,000m2 of retail, restaurants, bars and food and drink outlets;

e) An aquarium with a total GFA of 2,250m2 and a rainforest with a total GFA of

2,500m2 (architectural features of the site and not stand-alone uses);

f) A 12.4 hectare reef lagoon as a central feature;

g) A 25,000m2 convention and exhibition centre;

h) A cultural heritage centre;

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


i) Circulation, shared space, back-of-house and services, with a total GFA of

350,000m2;

j) Guest and staff parking for 1,400 vehicles, with a total GFA of 80,000m2; and

k) Landscaping, lagoons, pools and entry water features with a total GFA of

110,000m2.

5.3 Sports and Recreation Precinct Intent

(1) The Sports and Recreation Precinct will include both indoor and outdoor recreation

uses including an 18-hole golf course (including driving range and clubhouse), a

tennis centre, equestrian facilities and other outdoor sports and recreation activities

generally surrounding the Resort Complex Precinct. The Precinct also includes car

parking facilities.

(2) In recognition of the limited sports and recreation facilities currently available to the

community at Yorkeys Knob, the precinct will include the development of a

community sports and recreation facility on land north of Dunne Road and west of

Yorkeys Knob Road.

(3) Landscaping and vegetated buffers are to be provided to screen development in the

Precinct from Yorkeys Knob Road and to reduce impacts on, or from, adjacent

agricultural land and other uses.

5.4 Environment Management and Conservation Precinct Intent

(1) The Environment Management and Conservation Precinct includes the protection

and preservation of 53 ha of native vegetation and ecological restoration works

involving planting of natural vegetation around the perimeter of the site, along

Yorkeys Creek and adjacent to Yorkeys Knob Road. These restoration works provide

significant protection and enhancement of biodiversity values by:

• predominantly retaining and maintaining existing natural vegetation;

• providing restoration works as buffers to existing natural vegetation; and

• the removal of waterway barriers to improve connectivity of Yorkeys Creek

through to the Cattana Wetlands.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


(2) The remainder of the Precinct will provide opportunity for the interpretation and

appreciation of biological and cultural heritage values of the site through the

provision of walkways, viewing platforms and interpretative displays.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


6.0 TABLES OF ASSESSMENT

6.1 Interpretation

(1) The following table identifies the levels of assessment for material change of use,

operational works, and reconfiguring a lot development applications in the ALP

Precinct areas.

(2) Consistent with the definition of use in SPA, activities which are incidental to and

necessarily associated with a predominant use are considered to be part of that use

and will not require a separate development application. This includes maintenance

activities, but not incremental change in intensity or scale of the use.

6.2 Material Change of Use Table of Assessment

Resort Complex Precinct

Level of Assessment Use Assessment Criteria

Exempt Park NIL

Self-Assessment NIL Nil

Code Assessment Caretakers Accommodation

Parking Station

Resort Complex

Utility installation

• Aquis Local Plan Code

• Flood Management Code

• Operational Aspects of

the Cairns International

Airport Code

• Potential or Actual Acid

Sulfate material Code

• Vegetation Conservation

and Significant Waterway

Code

• Development Near Major

Transport Corridors and

Facilities Code

• Excavation and Filling

Code

• Landscaping Code

• Parking and Access code

Impact Assessment All other uses & undefined

uses


• Cairns Regional Council

Planning Scheme

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


Sport & Recreation precinct


Exempt Park NIL

Self-Assessment NIL NIL

Code Assessment Caretakers Accommodation

Club

Food and Drink Outlet

Indoor Sport and Recreation

Outdoor Sport and Recreation

Parking Station

Resort Complex

Utility installation





Airport Code





Code



Facilities Code


Code


• Parking and Access

Code


uses



Planning Scheme

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


Environmental Management and Conservation Precinct


Exempt Park NIL


Code Assessment Environmental Facility • Aquis Local Plan Code




Airport Code





Code



Facilities Code


Code


Parking and Access code


uses



Planning Scheme

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


6.3 Other Development Table of Assessment

Other Development


Exempt NIL NIL


Code Assessment Operational Work

Reconfiguring a Lot



• Operational Aspects of the

Cairns International Airport

Code





Code



Facilities Code

• Excavation and Filling Code


• Parking and Access code

• Reconfiguring a lot Code(for

reconfiguring a lot only)

Impact Assessment NIL NIL

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


7.0 THE CODE

7.1 Applicability

(1) This code applies to assessing development in the Aquis Local Plan area.

(2) The criteria that will be used in assessment of any application pursuant to this code

are grouped as follows:

a) Assessment criteria applicable to all precincts (Section 7.3);

b) Assessment criteria applicable to the Resort Complex Precinct (Section 7.4);

c) Assessment criteria applicable to the Sport and Recreation Precinct (Section

7.5);

d) Assessment criteria applicable to the Environment Management and

Conservation Precinct (Section 7.6).

7.2 Purpose

7.2.1 All precincts

(1) The purpose of the Aquis Local Plan Code is to ensure development results in a

pre-eminent integrated resort and entertainment complex.

(2) The purpose of the Code will be achieved through the following overall outcomes:

Environmental Values and Attributes

a) Development footprint and setting achieves separation from nearby residential

communities and sensitive receiving environments, and a resort layout which

provides space between major use components, and the opportunity for

extensive deep landscaping;

b) Development facilitates the flow of water through the floodplain and does not

cause adverse impacts on neighbouring properties;

c) Development features best-practice ecological sustainability principles and does

not impact on coastal processes or nearby Great Barrier Reef World Heritage

Area values;

d) Areas having ecological significance, both on site and adjoining the site, are

protected and where practicable, enhanced;

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


e) Impacts from the development are managed to ensure the quality of the receiving

environments is maintained, enhanced or improved;

f) Finished floor levels are constructed to achieve immunity to extreme natural

hazard events and risk;

g) Works necessary to protect the function of development from natural processes

are undertaken where they result in no adverse impacts on matters of

environmental significance and water quality objectives; and

h) The quality of water entering and discharging from the site is maintained to the

standard necessary for the receiving environment to not cause an adverse impact

on ecological values and functions.

Built Form

i) Development results in a built form that:

i) has a distinct and iconic tropical design and articulation resulting in

recognisable architecture with unique attributes for each building;

ii) protects longer views to the site by a low and horizontal profile, particularly

when viewed from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park;

iii) protects the operations of the Cairns Airport;

iv) defines edges and gateways, using architectural and landscaping features,

to contribute to the quality of landmarks and entry points and experience of

the resort;

v) ensures separation between buildings achieve permeability for air flow,

solar benefits and view lines, and achieve substantial landscaping to

define ground floor and spaces between buildings;

vi) is oriented towards visitors and guests on the ground level with a focus on

pedestrian comfort, scale and amenity, and integrates with transport and

pedestrian connectivity;

vii) is dominated by a landscaped form, green walls, green roofs, vertical

gardens, atriums, deep planting areas and use of water features;

viii) ensures multi-functional spaces are provided within, between and external

to buildings for gathering and recreational events;

ix) incorporates best practice energy efficiency and sustainable design and construction techniques;

j) Walkways and connections are designed for visitor, guest and staff comfort

having regard to the climate of the region;

k) Development is defined by landscaping that:

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


i) responds to the tropical climate and natural features of the site and its

regional context;

ii) contributes to the appearance and experience of the built form;

iii) enhances the local environment, and assists in minimising the footprint

and visual impact of development.

Connectivity, Infrastructure and Development Sequencing

l) Entertainment and recreational facilities and activities are accessible to the

community, including workers and local residents;

m) Public access and use of entertainment and recreational facilities is encouraged;

n) Access points are clear, logical and well defined, providing for appropriate and

safe intersection treatments and pavement design having regard to the modes of

transport servicing development and shared environments;

o) Development provides necessary external infrastructure upgrades to connect to

trunk infrastructure networks and makes infrastructure contributions for the

capacity of trunk infrastructure required to cater for the demands imposed on

those networks; and

p) Construction of development is sequenced to ensure the timely and efficient

provision of external and necessary public infrastructure.

7.2.2 Resort Complex Precinct

In addition to the 7.2.1, the overall outcomes for the Resort Complex Precinct are:

a) The Resort Complex Precinct contains the most intensive built form and widest

range of land uses within the Aquis Local Plan area;

b) Development within this precinct is surrounded by an artificial lake with the built

form presented as a series of buildings, separated and having a low and

horizontal profile;

c) Development within this precinct comprises the following:

i) Accommodation for up to 12,000 guests (at peak occupancy) in 7,500

hotel rooms and suites configured in 8 towers, with a total GFA of

625,000m2;

ii) A casino with a total GFA of 40,000m2;

iii) Two (2) 600 seat theatres with a total GFA of 5,000m2;

iv) 10,000m2 of retail, restaurants, bars and food and drink outlets;

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


v) An aquarium with a total GFA of 2,250m2 and a rainforest with a total GFA

of 2,500m2 (architectural features of the site and not stand-alone uses);

vi) A 12.4 hectare reef lagoon as a central feature;

vii) A 25,000m2 convention and exhibition centre;

viii) A cultural heritage centre;

ix) Circulation, shared space, back-of-house and services, with a total GFA of

350,000m2;

x) Guest and staff parking for 1,400 vehicles, with a total GFA of 80,000m2;

and

xi) Landscaping, lagoons, pools and entry water features with a total GFA of

110,000m2.

7.2.3 Sport and Recreation Precinct

In addition to the 7.2.1, the overall outcomes for the Sport and Recreation Precinct are:

a) The Sport and Recreation Precinct surrounds and supports the Resort Complex

Precinct by providing indoor and outdoor sport and recreation uses including, but

not limited to, the following:

i) an 18-hole golf course (including a driving range and clubhouse);

ii) a tennis centre;

iii) equestrian facilities; and

iv) a community sports and recreation facility that is accessible to the Yorkeys

Knob community located on land North of Dunne Road and west of

Yorkeys Knob Road.

b) Public access and use of the recreational facilities within this precinct is

encouraged; and

c) Landscaping and vegetated buffers are provided to screen development in the

precinct from Yorkeys Knob Road and reduce impacts on, or from, adjacent land

uses (including agricultural uses).

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


7.2.4 Environment Management and Conservation Precinct

In addition to the 7.2.1, the overall outcomes for the Environment Management and

Conservation Precinct are:

a) The Environment Management and Conservation Precinct protects and

preserves areas of environmental significance and provides a vegetated buffer to

sensitive receiving environments surrounding the Resort Complex Precinct, Sport

and Recreation Precinct and the wider Aquis Local Plan Area;

b) Rehabilitation and restoration works are undertaken in this precinct to provide

significant protection and enhancement of biodiversity values and includes:

i) predominantly retaining and maintaining existing natural vegetation;

ii) restoration works as buffers to existing natural vegetation; and

iii) the removal of waterway barriers to improve connectivity of Yorkeys Creek

through to the Cattana Wetlands.

c) Development within this precinct is limited to facilities that provide for the

interpretation and appreciation of environmental, and cultural heritage values of

the site through the provision of walkways, viewing platforms and interpretative

displays.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


7.3 Assessment Criteria for all Precincts

The following outcomes apply to development in all precincts within the ALP area:

Performance outcome Acceptable outcomes

All Approvals

PO1

Development is consistent with all approvals,

environmental authorities, including their

conditions, and infrastructure agreements

AO1.1

All development located in the Aquis Local

Plan area must be carried out in accordance

with:

i) the recommendations and operational

framework of the site Environmental

Impact Statement for Aquis Resort at the

Great Barrier Reef Pty Ltd;

ii) The conditions attached to the Preliminary

Approval given under section 242 of the

Sustainable Planning Act 2009; and

iii) the approved Environmental Management

Plans for all activities in the:

o construction;

o operation; and

o maintenance;

phases of the development.

Integrated Resort Development

PO2

Development delivers an integrated resort that

consists of the following components:

a) Accommodation for up to 12,000 guests (at

peak occupancy) in 7,500 hotel rooms and

suites configured in 8 towers, with a total

GFA of 625,000m2;

b) A casino with a total GFA of 40,000m2;

c) Two (2) 600 seat theatres with total GFA of

5,000m2;

d) 10,000m2 of retail, restaurants, bars and

food and drink outlets;

AO2.1

Development is designed to correspond with

the layout of the concept master plan (refer

Schedule 4).

AO2.2

A detailed master plan is submitted to the

Cairns Regional Council for approval; this Plan

is to demonstrate staging of development and

achievement of the integrated resort.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



e) An aquarium with a total GFA of 2,250m2

and a rainforest with a total GFA of 2,500m2

(architectural features of the site and not

stand-alone uses);

f) A 12.4 hectare reef lagoon as a central

feature;

g) A 25,000m2 convention and exhibition

centre;

h) A cultural heritage centre;

i) Circulation, shared space, back-of-house

and services, with a total GFA of

350,000m2;

j) Guest and staff parking for 1,400 vehicles,

with a total GFA of 80,000m2;

k) landscaping, lagoons, pools and entry water

features with a total GFA of 110,000m2;

l) an 18-hole golf course (including a driving

range and clubhouse);

m) a tennis centre;

n) equestrian facilities;

o) a community sports and recreation facility;

and

p) environment facilities.

PO3

The distribution of land use in all Precincts is to

be generally in accordance with the Precinct

Plan (Schedule 3).

AO3.1

The general dimensions and shape of the

precincts are to be in accordance with those

shown on Schedule 3.

AO3.2

The Resort Complex Precinct comprises the

built form of the resort complex surrounded by

an artificial lake (refer Figure a and Schedule

4).

AO3.3

The Sports and Recreation Precinct comprises

sport and recreation facilities including an 18

hole golf course (refer Figure a and Schedule

4)

.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



AO3.4

The Environment Management and

Conservation Precinct comprises protection

and preservation of native vegetation and

ecological restoration works of natural

vegetation around the perimeter of the site,

along Yorkeys Creek, and adjacent to Yorkeys

Knob Road (refer Figure a and Schedule 4).

Operation of the Cairns International Airport

PO4

Development is designed and constructed to

protect the operations of the Cairns Airport,

including during construction by avoiding:

a) encouraging wildlife;

b) causing nuisance, turbulence, reduction of

visibility nor light nuisance;

c) incompatible intrusions which compromise

aircraft safety in operational airspace;

d) increasing public risk or reduced amenity;

and

e) creating or causing emissions into

operational airspace.

AO4.1

Building heights including structures in the

Resort Complex Precinct are limited to a

maximum of 65 metres above the existing

ground level (2.5 metres AHD) or below the

Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) for the

Cairns airport, whichever is the lesser (refer

Figure b).

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


Figure a

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


AO4.2


Sport and Recreation Precinct are limited to a

maximum of 15 metres.

Figure b

AO4.3


Environment Management and Conservation

Precinct are limited to a maximum of 15

metres.

AO4.4

Buildings and structures do not encroach into

the airport’s operational airspace.

AO4.5

Cranes or other equipment used during

construction do not encroach into the airport’s


AO4.6

Landscaping does not include vegetation that

at maturity will encroach into the airport’s


AO4.7

Development involving transient activities such

as parachuting, hot air ballooning and hang-

gliding will not occur within the airport’s


AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


AO4.8

Development within the lighting buffer zone for

the Cairns airport does not include any of the

following types of outdoor lighting:

i) straight parallel lines of lighting 500m

to 1000m long

ii) flare plumes

iii) upward shining lights

iv) flashing lights

v) laser lights

vi) sodium lights

• reflective surfaces.

AO4.9

Development within the lighting buffer zone for

the Cairns airport does not emit light that will

exceed the maximum light intensity specified

for the area.

AO4.10

Development does not emit smoke, dust, ash

or steam into the airport’s operational

airspace.

Or

Development does not emit a gaseous plume

into the airport’s operational airspace at a

velocity exceeding 4.3m per second.

Or

Development emitting smoke, dust, ash,

steam or a gaseous plume exceeding 4.3m

per second is designed and constructed to

mitigate adverse impacts of emissions upon


AO4.11

Development does not involve uses

associated with increases in wildlife strikes,

hazards and includes measures to reduce the

potential to attract birds or bats.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


AO4.12

Development does not create:

i) permanent or temporary physical

obstructions in the line of sight

between antennas;

ii) an electrical or electromagnetic field

that will interfere with signals

transmitted by the facility; and

iii) reflective surfaces that could deflect or

interfere with signals transmitted by

the facility.

Or


mitigate adverse impacts on the function of

aviation facilities.

AO4.13


attenuate aircraft noise by achieving the

indoor design sound levels specified in Table

E:Desirable indoor sound levels for sensitive

land uses of the SPP Guideline: Strategic

airports and aviation facilities as it applies to

short term accommodation.

AO4.14

Development does not include permanent

residential accommodation uses, except for

caretaker’s residence.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



Landscape Design

PO5

The landscape should reflect and enhance the

tropical character of the region by:

a) respecting and celebrating the regional

context;

b) being appropriate for the climate, soil

conditions, water regime and other local

environmental conditions;

c) using local and locally appropriate

species and design approaches which

celebrate the tropical conditions; and

d) enhancing the local environment, and

assisting in minimising the

environmental footprint.

AO5.1

Landscaping:

i) celebrates the unique regional values

of reef and rainforest;

ii) reflects the coastal character of the

region;

iii) seamlessly integrates with the built

form and moderates the impact of

engineering structures;

iv) protects and enhances key vistas and

the regional visual character, including

at night and when viewed from the

sea; and

v) restores and protects the natural

values of existing water bodies.

AO5.2

A Landscaping Plan ensures landscaping is

designed and implemented to:

i) integrate landscaping into the built

form;

ii) integrate the built form into the

landscape;

iii) ensure landscape is viewed and

appreciated from locations off-site

including screening, where

appropriate, from sensitive viewing

locations;

iv) suit local climatic conditions and water

availability;

v) celebrates tropical plant material and

design opportunities which provide for

a tropical lifestyle;

vi) screen development from surrounding

areas;

vii) be appropriate for the local climate

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



conditions and resilient to extremes of

weather;

viii) incorporate local native flora;

ix) provide a variety of habitat for local

fauna species;

x) incorporate integrated stormwater

management; and

xi) encourage exploration and be

accessible to all visitors including

those with disabilities.

Refer Figure c

PO6

The landscape design minimises risk to persons

and property.

AO6.1

The landscape design incorporates:

i) planting that does not restrict

opportunities for casual surveillance;

ii) lighting that is designed and installed

in accordance with the Australian

Standard AS1158 – Lighting for Roads

and Public Spaces;

iii) legible artwork and furniture

placements; and

iv) legible universal signage.

Figure c

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



Energy Efficiency and Building Sustainability

PO7

Development incorporates best practice energy

efficiency and sustainable design and

construction techniques.

AO7.1

Buildings are to be designed to maximise the

use of natural lighting and ventilation.

AO7.2

Buildings are designed to 5-6 star rating

standards for energy conservation including:

i) light and motion sensors and timers to

switch on lighting (including external /

pathway lighting);

ii) energy efficient light bulbs;

iii) solar hot water;

iv) solar electric panels;

v) reticulated gas; and

vi) energy efficient and water efficient

appliances.

AO7.3

Golf Course operations :

i) minimise the need for irrigation by use

of salt water tolerant plant and grass

species; and

ii) use low energy lighting equipment for

any golf driving range or on-course

lighting.

Waste management

PO8

The collection, storage and disposal of waste

ensures the site, receiving waters and

surrounding land are protected from potential

environmental and amenity impacts.

AO8.1

Waste storage areas / collection facilities are

to be screened or enclosed within a service

yard or enclosed space.

AO8.2

Service facilities are not to be visible from

open space areas and any public road.

AO8.3

Waste management systems consistent with

the Draft Queensland Waste Avoidance and

Resource Productivity Strategy 2014-2024 are

to be employed during the construction and

operational stages of the development.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



AO8.4

A Waste Management Strategy is to be

submitted to Council prior to the

commencement of onsite works and approved

prior to the commencement of use.

Infrastructure

PO9

The development is connected to a reticulated

water supply and provided with a potable water

supply including water supply for firefighting

purposes that is adequate for the needs of the

development.

AO9.1

Water supply infrastructure is to be designed

and constructed in accordance with the

FNQROC Regional Development Manual (or

equivalent).

PO10

The development is to be connected to a

wastewater system that is appropriate for the

level of demand generated by the development.

AO10.1

Wastewater supply infrastructure is to be

designed and constructed in accordance with

the FNQROC Regional Development Manual

(or equivalent).

PO11

The development is provided with an energy

supply.

AO11.1

Development is connected to a reticulated

electricity supply in accordance with the

standards of the relevant energy supply

authority.

PO12

The development is provided with an adequate

telecommunications supply that is appropriate

to the current and future demands of the

development.

AO12.1

Development is connected to

telecommunications infrastructure in

accordance with the standards of the relevant

telecommunications provider.

PO13

Surrounding local road networks are to be

capable of accommodating the traffic demand

generated by the development and existing

communities.

AO13.1

External road works are to be improved and

maintained to meet the demand and standards

of service required for the needs of local

communities and the Aquis Resort.

Connectivity and Movement

PO14

Pedestrian links and internal pathways achieve

a consistent high quality urban design and

pedestrian comfort.

AO14.1

Artwork, street furniture and functional

decorative footpath pavement features are

used throughout the development as approved

in the Landscaping Plan.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



PO15

Pedestrian links and internal pathways include

appropriate access and mobility infrastructure.

AO15.1

Development is provided with pedestrian links

and internal pathways that:

i) are well defined;

ii) comply with CPTED principles;

iii) cater for mobility and visually impaired

persons; and

iv) accommodate the operations of

v) emergency vehicles and other service

vehicles as necessary.

Visual, Lighting and Noise Management

PO16

Development protects the amenity of

surrounding residential uses and is separated

from sensitive noise receptors.

AO16.1

Lighting is designed to restrict glare with all

lights above tree height to be shielded and

downwards directed.

AO16.2

The location of ventilation and mechanical

plant ensures that prevailing breezes do not

direct noise toward nearby residential uses.

AO16.3

Distance is to be maximised between

construction activities and sensitive noise

receptors, and vegetated buffers are

established between construction activities

and nearby sensitive noise receptors.

AO16.4

Noise and vibration emissions are to comply

with Australian Standard AS2436-2010 –

Guide to noise and vibration control on

construction, demolition and maintenance

sites.

Air Quality

PO17

Development is designed to avoid or otherwise

minimise adverse impacts from emissions on

surrounding residential land and other sensitive

receptors.

AO17.1

Construction / work areas are to be sprayed

with water during dry weather.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



AO17.2

A vegetated buffer zone is to be established

between the golf course and the nearby

Yorkeys Knob residential area during

construction.

AO17.3

An Environmental Management Plan (EMP –

Construction) is to be submitted to and

approved by all relevant authorities prior to the

commencement of onsite works.

Construction Management

PO18

Site works are undertaken in a manner that

does not cause impacts on the amenity of the

surrounding area.

AO18.1

Construction is to be confined to the

development site.

AO18.2

Construction activities are undertaken to meet

the noise and air quality standards under the

Environmental Protection Act 1994; and

Acoustic and Air Quality objectives of

Appendix 6 State Planning Policy 2014.

AO18.3

Works to be carried out in accordance with a

An Environmental Management Plan (EMP –

Construction) approved by all relevant

authorities prior to the commencement of

onsite works.

AO18.4

Any traffic associated with construction

including haulage off site of excavated

material, which may be required to occur

outside normal work hours, is to have regard

to the relevant noise standards under the

Environmental Protection Act 1994 and

Acoustic and Air Quality objectives of

Appendix 6 State Planning Policy 2014.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



Environment Management

PO19 Impacts from development on

surrounding sensitive receptors during

construction and operation are to be minimised.

AO19.1

The following Environmental Management

Plans are to be submitted to and approved by

Council prior to the commencement of onsite

works:

• Disaster and Natural Hazard Strategy;

• Environmental Management Plan (EMP –

Construction);

• Landscape and Habitat Strategy;

• Restoration and Rehabilitation Strategy;

• Sustainability Strategy;

• Waste Management Strategy.

AO19.2

All construction and on-going management is

to be in accordance with the approved EMP.

Water Quality

PO20 Development does not discharge

wastewater to a waterway or off-site unless

demonstrated to be best practice environmental

management.

AO20.1

Development meets the stormwater

management design objectives of Appendix 2

Table A Construction Phase - State Planning

Policy 2014.

AO20.2

Development meets the stormwater

management design objectives of Appendix 2

Table B Post Construction Phase - State

Planning Policy 2014.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



Reconfiguring of a Lot

PO21 The reconfiguration of lots, including long

term lease arrangements, ensures that:

a) the areas and dimensions of lots can

accommodate land uses that are consistent

with the overall outcomes;

b) the Aquis Resort continues to operate as a

single integrated resort complex;

c) appropriate separation between

development and adjoining land uses and

sensitive receiving environments can be

achieved;

d) the conditions of the Coordinator General’s

Evaluation Report can be met; and

e) the conditions attached to the Preliminary

Approval given under section 242 of the

Sustainable Planning Act 2009 can be met.

AO21.1

No acceptable outcomes are provided.

7.4 Assessment Criteria for Resort Complex Precinct

The following outcomes apply to development in the Resort Complex Precinct.

Performance outcomes Acceptable outcomes

Built Form

PO1

Development has a built form that:

a) has a distinct and iconic tropical design and

articulation resulting in recognisable

architecture with unique attributes for each

building;

b) protects longer views to the site by a low

and horizontal emphasis, particularly when

viewed from the Great Barrier Reef Marine

Park;

c) defines edges and gateways, using

architectural and landscaping features, to

contribute to the quality of landmarks and

entry points and experience of the resort;

AO1.1

No acceptable outcomes are specified.

Note:

Figures d, e, f, g, and h provide guidance on design

that assists in interpreting and complying with the

performance outcome.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



d) ensures separations between buildings

achieve permeability for air flow, solar

benefits and view lines, and achieve

substantial landscaping to define ground

floor and spaces between buildings;

e) is oriented towards visitors and guests on

the ground level with a focus on pedestrian

comfort, scale and amenity, and integrates

with transport and pedestrian connectivity;

f) is dominated by a landscaped form,

including green walls green walls, green

roofs, vertical gardens, atriums, deep

planting areas and use of water features;

and

g) ensures multi-functional spaces are

provided within, between and externally for

gathering and recreational events.

Figure d

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


Figure e

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


Figure f

Figure g

Figure h

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



PO2

Development provides immunity to and safe

refuge from extreme natural hazard events

and risk.

AO2.1

The ground floor level is on a podium level

established at a level of 7.5 metres AHD which

is above the Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)

for the Barron River Delta Floodplain, storm

tide inundation PMF and tsunami level. Refer

Figure i

AO2.2

The Resort Complex is constructed over a

flood secure basement which incorporates

back-of-house support facilities. Refer Figure i

AO2.3

Safe refuge is provided for guests and staff

based on a ‘shelter-in-place’ strategy,

supported by emergency power, stores,

medical facilities, water supplies, waste

storage, and access for emergency vehicles

where practicable. Refer Figure i

AO2.4

One (1) heliport is accessible above the safe

refuge level (6.5m AHD). Refer Figure i

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


Figure i


Accommodation Density and Type

PO3

The accommodation density of the

development reflects an integrated resort

catering for short stay tourists.

AO3.1

The development does not include any

permanent residents other than a caretaker

residence or residences.

AO3.2

The maximum accommodation density is

33pph (at 1.5 persons / bedroom).

AO3.3

Accommodation is available for a maximum of

12,000 guests in a maximum of 7,500 rooms

and does not exceed 625,000m2 GFA.

Commercial Density and Function

PO4

The Resort Complex supports the role and

hierarchy of Activity centres in the Cairns

region, as described in the Cairns Regional

Planning Scheme.

AO4.1

The scale of resort complex commercial uses

does not exceed:

Casino floors – 40,000m2 GFA

Convention and Exhibition – 23,000m2 GFA

Theatres – 5,000m2 GFA

Retail & hospitality – 10,000m2 GFA

AO4.2

Retail and theatre uses are to be designed and

operated to optimise use by resort visitors.

AO4.3

No single use or mix of uses is in a form

commonly described as a supermarket,

discount department store or department

store.

Other Uses Density

PO5

The Resort Complex complements the role of

existing tourist attractions in the greater Cairns

area.

AO5.1

The resort includes an aquarium and rainforest

as architectural features of the.

AO5.2

The scale of aquarium and rainforest features

is approximately:

Aquarium – 2,250m2 GFA

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



Rainforest – 2,500m2 GFA

Flood Management

PO6

Development facilitates the flow of water

through the floodplain such that there is a no

worsening of flood events or velocities caused

on adjoining land upstream, downstream or

adjacent to the site.

AO6.1

The artificial lake provides increased flood

conveyance capacity to compensate for the

raised resort complex.

AO6.2

The lake is ‘quarantined’ from adjacent

groundwater through the use of a cut-off

barrier of low permeability, to limit interference

with groundwater level and quality.

Vehicle and Cycle Parking Accessibility and Servicing

PO7

Provision is made for on-site vehicle parking to

meet the demand generated by the

development.

AO7.1

Car parking is provided to cater for day guests,

visitors and staff.

AO7.2

Car parking is available in the basement of the

Resort Complex for a maximum of 1,400

spaces.

AO7.3

Car parking is provided in stages at 1 space

per 6 rooms accommodation.

AO7.4

Bus set down and parking is available within

the built form and basements.

AO7.5

High quality end-of-trip bicycle facilities are

provided for patrons and staff of the resort in

accordance with Austroads Guide to Traffic

Management Part 11 Parking including

Queensland Transport Cycle Note C4 End-of-

Trip Facilities.

PO8

Loading facilities and storage areas cater for

the demand generated by the development

and protect the amenity of the site and

adjoining premises.

AO8.1

Hall spaces in the Convention and Exhibition

Centre can be directly accessed by service

vehicles to allow for the direct and efficient

loading/unloading of goods.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________



AO8.2

Back-of-house facilities are separated from

front-of-house facilities.

AO8.3

Storage is available in back-of-house areas for

Expo booths and all ancillary components

required for the operation of the Expo facility,

without a need for open air storage.

AO8.4

All meeting spaces and ballrooms are serviced

via adjacent back-of-house storage facilities.


PO9

The artificial lake is designed, constructed and

maintained to achieve high water quality

standards and objectives.

AO9.1

The lake incorporates a tidal exchange system

connected to the Coral Sea via an inlet located

2.2km off-shore, remote from the turbid zone

of the near-shore waters with a diffused outlet

discharge.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


7.5 Assessment Criteria for Sports and Recreation Precinct

The following outcomes apply to development in the Sports and Recreation Precinct.


Built Form

PO1

The built form of the development reflects the

unique location of the site and responds

sympathetically to the tropical climate.

AO1.1

The facilities are orientated and shaped to

create a gateway to the Resort Complex and

the Yorkeys Knob community.

AO1.2

The golf club house is located a minimum of

200 metres from the nearest residential area of

Yorkeys Knob (Refer Figure j).

AO1.3

The distribution of sport and recreation uses is

to be generally in accordance with Figure b.

AO1.4

Public access and use of the sport and

recreation facilities is encouraged.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN _________________________________________________________________________


Figure j

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________

DRAFT AQUIS LOCAL PLAN 45 7 - OCTOBER 2014


Parking Accessibility and Servicing

PO2

The development provides sufficient parking

spaces to cater for the likely demand to be

generated by the development.

AO2.1

A total of 3,000 staff car parking spaces are

provided in stages in the Sport and Recreation

Precinct.

AO2.2

Where parking is provided at grade the surface

area is to be surrounded by deep landscaping

and inter-spaced with large areas of open

space and planting to create the impression of

a series of separate car parks not one mass.

Refer Figure k

AO2.3

Where parking is provided over a number of

levels, the number of levels should not exceed

two (2) aboveground, and each level of the

parking structure is edged with planting that

forms a green edge to the structure.

Refer Figure l

Community Facilities

PO3

Community sport and recreation facilities are

provided at Yorkeys Knob to meets the needs

of the Yorkeys Knob community.

AO3.1

Land to the north of Dunne Road and west of

Yorkeys Knob Road is to be developed for

sport and recreation purposes open to the

public.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________


Figure k

Figure l

7.6 Assessment Criteria for Environment Management and Conservation Precinct

The following outcomes apply to development in the Environment Management and

Conservation Precinct.



PO1

Development is sympathetic to the native

vegetation and ecological values of the site.

AO1.1

Environment facilities, including boardwalks,

viewing platforms, and interpretative facilities,

established in the Precinct provide an

experience for guests and visitors.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________



AO1.2

Connectivity of Yorkeys Creek through to the

Cattana Wetlands is to be improved by the

removal of existing waterway barriers on

Yorkeys Creek.

PO2

Rehabilitation and restoration works are

maintained to ensure ecological values are

retained and enhanced.

AO2.1

Maintenance and weed control is to be carried

out on a regular basis, and in accordance with

the Environmental Management Plan

(Operation and Maintenance).

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________


SCHEDULE 1

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________


LOT AND PLAN DETAILS AREA

Lot 100 on NR3818

Title Ref: 20983091 121.001ha

Lot 1 on RP800898

Title Ref: 21449027 40.835ha

Lot 2 on RP800898

Title Ref: 21449028 46.35ha

Lot 2 on RP745120

Title Ref: 21343157 26.7596ha

Lot 60 on RP835486

Title Ref: 21027116 43.24ha

Lot 4 on RP713690

Title Ref: 20503245 3.88ha

Lot 1 on RP724792

Title Ref: 20864025 2173m2

Lot 2 on RP746114

Title Ref: 21360116 2515m2

Lot 3 on RP746114

Title Ref: 21360117 2000m2

Lot 4 on RP746114

Title Ref: 21360118 28.266ha

Lot 4 on RP749342

Title Ref: 21418082 30.74ha

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________


SCHEDULE 2

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________


USE DEFINITIONS Column 1 Use

Column 2 Definition

Column 3 Examples Include

Column 4 Does not include the following examples

Caretaker’s accommodation

A dwelling provided for a caretaker of a non-residential use on the same premises

Dwelling house

Environment Facility Facilities used for the conservation, interpretation and appreciation of areas of environmental, cultural or heritage value.

Nature based attractions, walking tracks, seating, shelters, boardwalks, observation decks, bird hides.

Food and drink outlet Premises used for preparation and sale of food and drink to the public for consumption on or off the site. The use may include the ancillary sale of liquor for consumption on site/

Bistro, café, coffee shop, drive-through facility, kiosk, milk bar, restaurant, snack bar, take-away, team room

Bar, club, hotel, shop, theatre, nightclub entertainment facility.

Indoor sport and recreation

Premises used for leisure, sport or recreation conducted wholly or mainly indoors.

Amusement parlour, bowling alley, gymnasium, squash courts, enclosed tennis court.

Cinema, hotel, nightclub, entertainment facility, theatre.

Major sport, recreation and entertainment

Premises with large scale built facilities designed to cater for large scale events including major sporting, recreation, conference and entertainment events.

Convention and exhibition centres, entertainment centres,

Indoor sport and recreation, local sporting field, motor sport park, outdoor sport and recreation.

Nightclub entertainment facility

Premises used to provide entertainment, which may include cabaret, dancing and music. The use generally includes the sale of liquor and food for consumption on site.

Club, hotel, tavern, pub, indoor sport and recreation, theatre, concert hall.

Temporary workforce accommodation

Premises used to provide accommodation for construction workers. The use may include provision of recreational and entertainment facilities for the exclusive use of residents and their visitors.

Contractor’s camp or, construction camp,

Relocatable home park, short term accommodation, tourist park.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________


Outdoor sport and recreation

Premises used for a recreation or sport activity that is carried on outside a building and requires areas of open space and may include ancillary works necessary for safety and sustainability.

Driving range, golf course, swimming pool, tennis courts, football grounds, cricket oval Equestrian facilities (stables and arenas)

Major sport, recreation and entertainment facility, motor sport park,

Resort Complex Premises used for tourist and visitor short-term accommodation that includes integrated leisure facilities including: • air services • child care centre • club • community use • educational

establishment • emergency services • food and drink outlet • health care services • indoor sport and

recreation • nightclub

entertainment facility • non-resident

workforce accommodation

• place of worship • restaurants and bars • meeting and function

facilities • service industry • shop • shopping centre • substation • sporting and fitness

facilities • staff accommodation • theatre • transport facilities

directly associated with the tourist facility such as ferry terminal and air service

helipad crèche cultural centre gallery training facilities evacuation centre in-house medical centre chapel laundry

Telecommunications facility

Premises used for the provision of telecommunications services.

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________


Theatre Premises used for providing on-site entertainment, recreation or similar facilities for the general public.

Hotel, major sport, recreation and entertainment facility, nightclub entertainment facility.

TERMS Horizontal elevation and scale

Means a combined profile and building mass that is wider than it is high.

Preliminary Approval Means the approval issued pursuant to S.242 SPA dated….for Application No…..

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________


SCHEDULE 3

CATTAN

A RO

AD

YORKEYS KNOB ROAD

DUNNE ROAD

VAR

LEY

STR

EET

A1 Full Size

30 April 2014Acad No. 3528-ALP1A.DWG

3528-ALP1 NTS

PRECINCTS

0 200 400100 300 500 m

AQUIS LOCAL PLANPRECINCT PLAN

AQUIS LOCAL PLAN ______________________________________________________________________________


SCHEDULE 4

sports and recreation

environmental areas

park

landscape areas

parking

lake

LEGEND

Aquis- Concept Master Plan October 2014

active area

casino and convention facilities

lake over�ow

road

RITCHERS CREEK

YORKEYS KNOB ROAD

DUNNE ROAD

VARLEY ROAD

CREEKYORKEYS

resort accommodation

pedestrian / cycle

arrival node / gateway

APPENDIX C

TRAFFIC MODELLING OUTPUTS

2036 CSTM Aquis ModellingNetwork Upgrades-Scenario B1 and Scenario B3

Item 1 Upgrade Description Scenario B1 Scenario B3 Road Authority1 New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to highway Yes Yes Local Road2 Upgrade Kate Street intersection to 6 lanes Yes Yes Local Road3 Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout to T intersection Yes Yes Local Road4 Bruce Highway – Kate St to Buchan St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road5 Sheridan St – Grove St to Aeroglen Dr – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road6 CWAR - Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road7 Bunda St – Spence St to Kenny St – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road8 Panguna St - Extension to McGregor Rd Yes Yes State Controlled Road9 Foster Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes State Controlled Road

10 Bentley interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes State Controlled Road11 Deppeler Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes State Controlled Road

12Closure of Robert Rd intersection with Bruce Highway (as per Cairns Bruce Highway UpgradeMaster Plan)

Yes Yes State Controlled Road

13Closure of Mill Rd intersection with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads (as perCairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)


14Closure of Peterson Rd intersections with Bruce Highway and construction of service roads(as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)


15

Pregno links (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan)- Deppeler Rd to Thompson Rd- Thompson Rd to Bentley Interchange- Bentley Interchange to Swallows Rd


16 Mulgrave Rd – Brown St to Aumuller St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road17 Captain Cook Highway – Aeroglen Dr to Arnold St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road18 Captain Cook Highway – Poolwood Rd to Endeavour Rd – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road19 Smithfield Bypass – Upgrade to 4 lanes & add connection to CWAR roundabout Yes Yes State Controlled Road20 Smithfield Village Dr – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road21 CWAR 6 lanes Pease Street to Loridan Drive Yes Yes State Controlled Road22 Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt Peter Rd and Mill Rd Yes Yes Local Road23 Cairns Western Arterial Road - 6 lane upgrade - Redlynch Connection Rd to Loridan Dr Yes Yes State Controlled Road24 Reed Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Smithfield Village Dr Yes Yes Local Road25 McGregor Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Sidlaw St Yes Yes Local Road26 McCoombe St - Mulgrave Rd to Moody St - 6 lane upgrade Yes Yes State Controlled Road27 Earlville Bypass - Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road28 Earlville Bypass - ramps to Mulgrave Rd right in, left out only Yes Yes Local Road29 Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive - 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road30 Bruce Highway - Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange - 8 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road31 Bruce Highway - Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange - 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road32 Bruce Highway - Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge - 4 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road33 Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd - 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road34 Mt Peter Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes Local Road35 Maitland Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes Local Road36 Draper Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes - Dempsey St to Cairns Rd Yes Yes Local Road

38 Wharf Street, Sheridan Street to Lake street - 4 lanes No Yes Local Road39 Kennedy Highway - Canopys Edge Blvd - intersection capacity improvement on the western leg- 4 lanNo Yes State Controlled Road40 Captain Cook Highway - Arnold Street to Yorkeys Knob Road- 6 lanes (Southbound only) No Yes State Controlled Road41 Maconachie St/Jackson Dr/Walters Street upto Golf Course-4 lanes No Yes Local Road

Scenario B3 additional upgrade

P1498.001S AQUIS Modelling 2036 Scenario B1 & P1 Network Upgrades.xlsx

2036 CSTM Aquis ModellingNetwork Upgrades-Scenario B1 and Scenario P1

Item 1 Upgrade Description Scenario B1 Scenario B2 Scenario P1 Road Authority1 New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to highway Yes Yes Yes Local Road2 Upgrade Kate Street intersection to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes Local Road3 Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout to T intersection Yes Yes No Local Road4 Bruce Highway – Kate St to Buchan St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road5 Sheridan St – Grove St to Aeroglen Dr – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road6 CWAR - Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road7 Bunda St – Spence St to Kenny St – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes No Local Road8 Panguna St - Extension to McGregor Rd Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road9 Foster Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road

10 Bentley interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road11 Deppeler Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road


Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road





15



16 Mulgrave Rd – Brown St to Aumuller St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes No State Controlled Road17 Captain Cook Highway – Aeroglen Dr to Arnold St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road18 Captain Cook Highway – Poolwood Rd to Endeavour Rd – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road19 Smithfield Bypass – Upgrade to 4 lanes & add connection to CWAR roundabout Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road20 Smithfield Village Dr – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes No Local Road21 CWAR 6 lanes Pease Street to Loridan Drive Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road22 Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt Peter Rd and Mill Rd Yes Yes No Local Road23 Cairns Western Arterial Road - 6 lane upgrade - Redlynch Connection Rd to Loridan Dr Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road24 Reed Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Smithfield Village Dr Yes Yes Yes Local Road25 McGregor Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Sidlaw St Yes Yes Yes Local Road26 McCoombe St - Mulgrave Rd to Moody St - 6 lane upgrade Yes Yes No State Controlled Road27 Earlville Bypass - Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes No Local Road28 Earlville Bypass - ramps to Mulgrave Rd right in, left out only Yes Yes No Local Road29 Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive - 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road30 Bruce Highway - Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange - 8 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road31 Bruce Highway - Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange - 6 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road32 Bruce Highway - Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge - 4 lanes Yes Yes Yes State Controlled Road33 Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd - 4 lanes Yes Yes Yes Local Road34 Mt Peter Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes Yes Local Road35 Maitland Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes No Local Road36 Draper Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes - Dempsey St to Cairns Rd Yes Yes No Local Road

37 Yorkeys Knob Road- Captain Cook Highway to Dunne Road - upgrade to 4 lanes No Yes Yes Local Road38 Dunne Road - Yoreys Knob Rd. to McGregor Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes No Yes Yes Local Road39 Kennedy Highway - Canopys Edge Blvd - intersection capacity improvement on the western leg- No Yes Yes State Controlled Road40 Captain Cook Highway - Arnold Street to Yorkeys Knob Road- 6 lanes No No Yes State Controlled Road41 CWAR, CCH Roaundabout to Kamerunga Road - 6 lanes No Yes No State Controlled Road

Scenario B2 & P1 additional upgrade

P1498.001S AQUIS Modelling 2036 Scenario B1 & P1 Network Upgrades.xlsx

2036 CSTM Aquis ModellingNetwork Upgrades-Scenario B2 and Scenario B3

Item 1 Upgrade Description Scenario B2 Scenario B3 Road Authority1 New road link across Skeleton Ck & closure of Progress Rd to highway Yes Yes Local Road2 Upgrade Kate Street intersection to 6 lanes Yes Yes Local Road3 Anderson St/Pease St intersection – Upgrade from roundabout to T intersection Yes Yes Local Road4 Bruce Highway – Kate St to Buchan St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road5 Sheridan St – Grove St to Aeroglen Dr – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road6 CWAR - Upgrade Kamerunga Bridge to 4 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road7 Bunda St – Spence St to Kenny St – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road8 Panguna St - Extension to McGregor Rd Yes Yes State Controlled Road9 Foster Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes State Controlled Road

10 Bentley interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes State Controlled Road11 Deppeler Rd interchange (as per Cairns Bruce Highway Upgrade Master Plan) Yes Yes State Controlled Road







15



16 Mulgrave Rd – Brown St to Aumuller St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road17 Captain Cook Highway – Aeroglen Dr to Arnold St – Upgrade to 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road18 Captain Cook Highway – Poolwood Rd to Endeavour Rd – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road19 Smithfield Bypass – Upgrade to 4 lanes & add connection to CWAR roundabout Yes Yes State Controlled Road20 Smithfield Village Dr – Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road21 CWAR 6 lanes Pease Street to Loridan Drive Yes Yes State Controlled Road22 Mt Peter Links – sub-arterial type - 4 lanes - connecting Mt Peter Rd and Mill Rd Yes Yes Local Road23 Cairns Western Arterial Road - 6 lane upgrade - Redlynch Connection Rd to Loridan Dr Yes Yes State Controlled Road24 Reed Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Smithfield Village Dr Yes Yes Local Road25 McGregor Rd - 4 lane median divided upgrade - Captain Cook Hwy to Sidlaw St Yes Yes Local Road26 McCoombe St - Mulgrave Rd to Moody St - 6 lane upgrade Yes Yes State Controlled Road27 Earlville Bypass - Upgrade to 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road28 Earlville Bypass - ramps to Mulgrave Rd right in, left out only Yes Yes Local Road29 Bruce Highway ramps to Ray Jones Drive - 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road30 Bruce Highway - Ray Jones Drive to Sheehy Interchange - 8 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road31 Bruce Highway - Sheehy Interchange to Deppeler Interchange - 6 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road32 Bruce Highway - Deppeler Interchange to Mulgrave River bridge - 4 lanes Yes Yes State Controlled Road33 Edmonton Town Centre link between Mill Rd & Bicentennial Rd - 4 lanes Yes Yes Local Road34 Mt Peter Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes Local Road35 Maitland Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes median divided Yes Yes Local Road36 Draper Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes - Dempsey St to Cairns Rd Yes Yes Local Road

37 Yorkeys Knob Road- Captain Cook Highway to Dunne Road - upgrade to 4 lanes Yes No Local Road38 Dunne Road - Yoreys Knob Rd. to McGregor Rd - upgrade to 4 lanes Yes No Local Road

39Kennedy Highway - Canopys Edge Blvd - intersection capacity improvement on the western leg- 4 lanes


40 Captain Cook Highway - Arnold Street to Yorkeys Knob Road- 6 lanes No Yes State Controlled Road41 CWAR, CCH Roaundabout to Kamerunga Road - 6 lanes Yes No State Controlled Road42 Wharf Street, Sheridan Street to Lake street - 4 lanes No Yes Local Road43 Maconachie St/Jackson Dr/Walters Street upto Golf Course-4 lanes No Yes Local Road

Scenario B2 & B3 additional upgrade

P1498.001S AQUIS Modelling 2036 Scenario B1,B2, B3 & P1 Network Upgrades.xlsx

2036 CSTM Aquis ModellingNetwork Statistcs

Before Upgrade After TMR Upgrade Before Upgrade After Upgrade

Vehicle Kilometers Travelled 5,902,936 6,187,155 6,270,922 6,272,133

Vehicle Hours Travelled 145,798 121,119 123,621 123,147

Total Vehicle Trips 718,373 719,252 725,798 725,818

Average Trip Time (minutes) 12.2 10.1 10.2 10.2

Average Trip Distance (KMs) 8.2 8.6 8.6 8.6

Lane KM's



Lane KM's of Required Upgrades 179 26

247 143

146 126

Scenario B1 Scenario B3

StatisticsScenario B1 Scenario B3

P1498.003S AQUIS Modelling Network Statistics.xlsx


Before Upgrade After TMR Upgrade Before Upgrade After Upgrade Do Nothing After Upgrade

Vehicle Kilometers Travelled 5,902,936 6,187,155 6,282,383 6,294,690 6,048,669 6,231,367

Vehicle Hours Travelled 145,798 121,119 126,169 122,913 142,070 129,429

Total Vehicle Trips 718,373 719,252 726,908 726,965 725,492 725,622

Average Trip Time (minutes) 12.2 10.1 10.4 10.1 11.7 10.7

Average Trip Distance (KMs) 8.2 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.3 8.6

Lane KM's



Lane KM's of Required Upgrades 179 37 161

247 134 228

146 107 110

Scenario B1 Scenario B2 Scenario P1

StatisticsScenario B1 Scenario B2 Scenario P1



Before Upgrade After Upgrade Do Nothing After Upgrade

Vehicle Kilometers Travelled 6,282,383 6,294,690 6,270,922 6,272,133

Vehicle Hours Travelled 126,169 122,913 123,621 123,147

Total Vehicle Trips 726,908 726,965 725,798 725,818

Average Trip Time (minutes) 10.4 10.1 10.2 10.2

Average Trip Distance (KMs) 8.6 8.7 8.6 8.6

Lane KM's



Lane KM's of Required Upgrades 37 26

134 143

107 126

StatisticsScenario B2 Scenario B3

Scenario B2 Scenario B3


APPENDIX D

POPULATION PROJECTIONS

Population Projections Fixed dependency factor = 1.5 (Including construction phase)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036OESR Mid Series Projections 160,000 163,300 167,794 171,550 175,306 179,063 182,819 186,575 190,407 194,239 198,071 201,903 205,735 209,589 213,443 217,298 221,152 225,006 228,821 232,637 236,452 240,268 244,083

Construction workforce 700 1,250 3,000 2,500 1,750 0 900 1,500 2,750 1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Indirect Jobs 0.75 525 938 2,250 1,875 1,313 0 675 1,125 2,063 938 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Population Increase 1.5 0.5 919 1,641 3,938 0 0 0 1,181 1,969 3,609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Operations Workforce 4,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Indirect jobs 1.75 7,000 7,000 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250Total Employment 11,000 11,000 8,250 0 8,250 8,250 8,250Population Increase 1.5 0.8 13,200 13,200 9,900 0 9,900 9,900 9,900Population Increase 919 1,641 3,938 13,200 13,200 9,900 1,181 11,869 13,509 9,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cummulative 919 2,559 6,497 19,697 32,897 42,797 43,978 55,847 69,356 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256 79,256Projected Population 160000 164,219 170,353 178,047 195,003 211,959 225,616 230,553 246,254 263,595 277,327 281,159 284,991 288,845 292,700 296,554 300,408 304,262 308,078 311,893 315,708 319,524 323,339

TotalsAdditional Dwellings 2.3 1,834 2,667 3,345 7,372 7,372 5,937 2,147 6,826 7,540 5,970 1,666 1,666 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 71,017

Units 0.6 $15 1,101 1,600 2,007 4,423 4,423 3,562 1,288 4,096 4,524 3,582 1,000 1,000 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 995 995 995 995 995 42,610Detached 0.4 $25 734 1,067 1,338 2,949 2,949 2,375 859 2,731 3,016 2,388 666 666 670 670 670 670 670 664 664 664 664 664 28,407

Infrastructure charges ($,000) $34,851 $50,677 $63,557 $140,073 $140,073 $112,812 $40,788 $129,702 $143,255 $113,438 $31,656 $31,656 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $1,349,324IC /EDU $25

Barron Rv Stg 2

167,794171,550

175,306179,063

182,819186,575

190,407194,239

198,071201,903

205,735209,589

213,443217,298

221,152225,006

228,821232,637

236,452240,268

244,083

170,353

178,047

195,003

211,959

225,616230,553

246,254

263,595

277,327281,159

284,991288,845

292,700296,554

300,408304,262

308,078311,893

315,708319,524

323,339

150,000

170,000

190,000

210,000

230,000

250,000

270,000

290,000

310,000

330,000

350,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035

OESR Mid Series BAU

Projected Population

Population Projections Fixed Dependency Factor 1.5 (excluding Construction phase jobs)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036OESR Mid Series Projections 160,000 163,300 167,794 171,550 175,306 179,063 182,819 186,575 190,407 194,239 198,071 201,903 205,735 209,589 213,443 217,298 221,152 225,006 228,821 232,637 236,452 240,268 244,083

Construction workforce 700 1,250 3,000 2,500 1,750 0 900 1,500 2,750 1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Indirect Jobs 0.75 525 938 2,250 1,875 1,313 0 675 1,125 2,063 938 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Population Increase 1.5 0.5 919 1,641 3,938 0 0 0 1,181 1,969 3,609 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Operations Workforce 4,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Indirect jobs 1.75 7,000 7,000 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250Total Employment 11,000 11,000 8,250 0 8,250 8,250 8,250Population Increase 1.5 0.8 13,200 13,200 9,900 0 9,900 9,900 9,900Population Increase 13,200 13,200 9,900 9,900 13,509 9,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Cummulative 0 0 0 13,200 26,400 36,300 36,300 46,200 56,100 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000Projected Population 160000 163,300 167,794 171,550 188,506 205,463 219,119 222,875 236,607 250,339 264,071 267,903 271,735 275,589 279,443 283,298 287,152 291,006 294,821 298,637 302,452 306,268 310,083

TotalsAdditional Dwellings 2.3 1,435 1,954 1,633 7,372 7,372 5,937 1,633 5,970 5,970 5,970 1,666 1,666 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 65,253

Units 0.6 $15 861 1,172 980 4,423 4,423 3,562 980 3,582 3,582 3,582 1,000 1,000 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 995 995 995 995 995 39,152Detached 0.4 $25 574 782 653 2,949 2,949 2,375 653 2,388 2,388 2,388 666 666 670 670 670 670 670 664 664 664 664 664 26,101

Infrastructure charges ($,000) $27,261 $37,124 $31,029 $140,073 $140,073 $112,812 $31,029 $113,438 $113,438 $113,438 $31,656 $31,656 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $1,239,816IC /EDU $25

Barron Rv Stg 2

163,300167,794

171,550175,306

179,063182,819

186,575190,407

194,239198,071

201,903205,735

209,589213,443

217,298221,152

225,006228,821

232,637236,452

240,268244,083

163,300167,794

171,550

188,506

205,463

219,119222,875

236,607

250,339

264,071267,903

271,735275,589

279,443283,298

287,152291,006

294,821298,637

302,452306,268

310,083

150,000

170,000

190,000

210,000

230,000

250,000

270,000

290,000

310,000

330,000

350,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

OESR Mid Series BAU

Projected Population

Population Projections with variable Dependency Factor (excluding ConstructionPhase jobs)2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

OESR Mid Series Projections 160,000 163,300 167,794 171,550 175,306 179,063 182,819 186,575 190,407 194,239 198,071 201,903 205,735 209,589 213,443 217,298 221,152 225,006 228,821 232,637 236,452 240,268 244,083Construction workforce 700 1,250 3,000 2,500 1,750 0 900 1,500 2,750 1,250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Indirect Jobs 0.75 525 938 2,250 1,875 1,313 0 675 1,125 2,063 938 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Dependency Factor 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2Population Increase Direct only 840 1,500 3,600 3,000 2,100 0 1,080 1,800 3,300 1,500Population Increase Indirect 0.5 630 1,125 2,700 2,250 1,575 0 810 1,350 2,475 1,125 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Total Population (construction) 1,470 2,625 6,300 5,250 3,675 0 1,890 3,150 5,775 2,625Operations Workforce 4,000 4,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000Indirect jobs 1.75 7,000 7,000 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250Total Employment 11,000 11,000 8,250 8,250 8,250 8,250Dependency Factor 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0Population Increase Direct only 6,000 6,000 4,500 6,000 6,000 6,000Population Increase Indirect 0.8 10,500 10,500 7,875 0 10,500 10,500 10,500Population Increase (Operations) 16,500 16,500 12,375 0 16,500 16,500 16,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Population Increase (excluding contruction jobs) 16,500 16,500 12,375 0 16,500 16,500 16,500Cummulative (excluding contsruction jobs) 16,500 33,000 45,375 45,375 61,875 78,375 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875 94,875Projected Population (excluding constrution jobs) 160,000 163,300 167,794 171,550 191,806 212,063 228,194 231,950 252,282 272,614 292,946 296,778 300,610 304,464 308,318 312,173 316,027 319,881 323,696 327,512 331,327 335,143 338,958 Totals

Additional Dwellings 2.3 1,435 1,954 1,633 8,807 8,807 7,014 1,633 8,840 8,840 8,840 1,666 1,666 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,676 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 1,659 77,808Units 0.6 $15 861 1,172 980 5,284 5,284 4,208 980 5,304 5,304 5,304 1,000 1,000 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 1,005 995 995 995 995 995 46,685

Detached 0.4 $25 574 782 653 3,523 3,523 2,805 653 3,536 3,536 3,536 666 666 670 670 670 670 670 664 664 664 664 664 31,123Infrastructure charges ($,000) $27,261 $37,124 $31,029 $167,334 $167,334 $133,258 $31,029 $167,960 $167,960 $167,960 $31,656 $31,656 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,839 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $31,519 $1,478,349

IC /EDU $25

Barron Rv Stg 2

160,000163,300

167,794171,550

175,306179,063

182,819186,575

190,407194,239

198,071201,903

205,735209,589

213,443217,298

221,152225,006

228,821232,637

236,452240,268

244,083

160,000163,300

167,794171,550

191,806

212,063

228,194231,950

252,282

272,614

292,946296,778

300,610304,464

308,318312,173

316,027319,881

323,696327,512

331,327335,143

338,958

150,000

170,000

190,000

210,000

230,000

250,000

270,000

290,000

310,000

330,000

350,000

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036

OESR Mid Series BAU

ProjectedPopulation

APPENDIX E

TABULATED WATER QUALITY

MONITORING RESULTS

AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI A-2Tabulated Water Quality Monitoring Results

G:\Admin\B20270_g_nc_Yorkeys Knob Development\EIS_RFI\R.B20270.007.00.WQPIII_EIS_RFI.docx

Table A-1 Site 1 Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis

# Marine guideline is of low reliability

a. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (% protection level not specified, usually because of limited data available for

accurate calculations)

b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on the 99% protection level to protect against chronic toxicity to related

species and bioaccumulation)

c. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) Toxicant Trigger Values (Based on 95% protection level as recommended for slightly to moderately

disturbed)

d. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009) - Annual median values (open coastal)

e. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (enclosed coastal)

f. QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)- Annual median values (mid estuary)

Note 1. Chlorophyll values are ~40% higher in summer (0.63µg/L) and ~30% lower in winter (0.32µg/L) than mean annual values. Both the

annual mean and these seasonal mean values should be regarded equally as guideline values for assessment purposes.

Note 2. Seasonal (winter/summer) adjustments for TSS, PN and PP guidelines are approximately ±20% of the annual mean values.

Note 3. LOR raised for Dec 2013 Total Metals and Dissolved Metals due to interference from saline sample matrix.

N.B. Where analyte concentrations were less than the Laboratory Level of Reporting (LOR) the value is assumed to be half the LOR value

as per ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). For some samples, the LOR was raised due to matrix interference.

N.B. Total Metals values are compared against a dissolved guideline, so are indicative only

nd = no data; NA = no applicable guideline

Dec‐13 Feb‐14 Apr‐14 May‐14 Jun‐14 Jul‐14

Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L 2d 2 2.5 102 18 21 5 12

Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 0.45d 1 0.5 4 0.5 1 0.5 0.5

Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.07 0.025 0.08 0.025

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.002d(0.91

c) 0.13 0 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025

Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.001

Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0.057 0.001 0.001 0.012 0.001

Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.002d 0.005 0.061 0.001 0.001 0.012 0.001

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0.18 0.07 0.025 0.08 0.025

Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.14d 0.25 0.24 0.07 0.025 0.09 0.025

Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.004d 0.005 0.01 0.0005 0.002 0.004 0.0005

Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02d 0.93 0.03 0.0025 0.01 0.0025 0.017

Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0 0 0 0

Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0 0 0 0 0

Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0 0 0 0 0

Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 4450 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 5 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0

Nutrients

Dissolved Metals

Total Metals 3

Parameter Units GuidelineSite 1

Physical



Table A-2 Site 2 - Results of Laboratory Water Quality Analysis







disturbed)













Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L nde 19 12 23 22 0.5 4

Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 2e 5 1 3 1 0.5 2

Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.135e 0 0 0.13 0.06 0.07 0.08

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.015e(0.91

c) 0.12 0 0.005 0.013 0.006 0.0025



Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01e 0.02 0.077 0.095 0.205 0.065 0.045


Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.16e 0.25 0.27 0.23 0.28 0.14 0.12

Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005e 0.005 0.014 0.02 0.01 0.005 0.003

Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02e 0.025 0.021 0.024 0.011 0.006 0.007


Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0.1 0.1 0 0.25 0.25

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0.9 1.1 0 0.7 0.8

Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0.05 0.05 0 0.05 0.05

Boron µg/L 5100a # 3060 767 956 0 1500 2120

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 5 0.025 0.025 0 0.1 0.1

Chromium µg/L 4.4c 10 0.2 0.1 0 0.25 0.25

Cobalt µg/L 1c 10 0.3 0.3 0 0.1 0.1

Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0.7 0.25 0 0.5 8

Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0.1 0.05 0 0.1 0.1

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 37 104 98.2 0 19.8 13.7

Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 5 2.2 2.9 0 3.2 4.6

Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0.6 0.9 0 0.25 0.6

Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0.2 0.3 0 1 1

Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0.05 0.05 0 0.05 0.05

Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0.1 0.1 0 2.5 2.5

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 6 38 0 2.5 25

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0.00005 0.00005 0 0.00005 0.00005

Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0.1 0.4 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 1.5 1.4 0 0 0

Beryllium µg/L ID 5 0.05 0.05 0 0 0

Boron µg/L 5100a # 4100 786 900 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0.025 0.025 0 0 0

Chromium µg/L 4.4c 5 0.8 0.4 0 0 0

Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0.6 0.3 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 4.5 2.1 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0.6 0.2 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 62 123 102 0 0 0

Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 10 2 2.7 0 0 0

Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 1 0.5 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0.2 0.1 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0.05 0.05 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0.1 0.1 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 3 1 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0.00005 0.00005 0 0 0

Total Metals 3

Site 2GuidelineUnitsParameter

Physical

Nutrients

Dissolved Metals 3










disturbed)













Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L ndf 2.5 2 29 16 0.5 5

Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 3f 5 1 3 1 0.5 2

Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.2f 0 0 0.18 0.025 0.08 0.025

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.015f (0.91

c) 0.12 0 0.007 0.01 0.006 0.0025



Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.03f 0.02 0.082 0.11 0.171 0.068 0.053


Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.25f 0.25 0.42 0.3 0.19 0.15 0.1

Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005f 0.005 0.014 0.022 0.007 0.005 0.003

Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02f 0.31 0.027 0.023 0.016 0.006 0.009


Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.25 0.25

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0.9 1 0 0.5 0.8

Beryllium µg/L ID 0 0.05 0.05 0 0.05 0.05

Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 651 677 0 1450 2150

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0.025 0.025 0 0.1 0.1

Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.25 0.25

Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0.4 0.3 0 0.1 0.1

Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 1.1 1.5 0 0.5 0.5

Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.1 0.1

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 104 102 0 21.8 11

Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 1.9 2.6 0 3.1 4.5

Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0.6 1.4 0 0.25 0.25

Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0.1 0.2 0 1 1

Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0.05 0.05 0 0.05 0.05

Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 2.5 2.5

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 8 50 0 2.5 24

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0.00005 0.00005 0 0.00005 0.0001

Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 3710 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 71 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0

GuidelineSite 3

Paramater

Total Metals 3

Units

Physical

Nutrients

Dissolved Metals










disturbed)













Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L ndf 2.5 12 12 17 2 9

Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 3f 3 2 3 1 1 2



c) 0.15 0 0.01 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025









Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0.8 1 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 363 467 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0.025 0.025 0 0 0

Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0.1 0.2 0 0 0

Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0.3 0.2 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0.8 0.25 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0.2 0.05 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 90.1 93.7 0 0 0

Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 1 1.4 0 0 0

Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0.7 1.1 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0.05 0.05 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 11 44 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0.00005 0.00005 0 0 0

Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 3150 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 109 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0

GuidelineSite 4

Parameter

Total Metals 3

Units

Physical

Nutrients

Dissolved Metals










disturbed)













Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L ndf 5 8 22 12 7 8

Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 3f 4 1 4 1 1 2



c) 0.15 0 0.013 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025









Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0.8 1 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 294 420 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0.025 0.025 0 0 0

Chromium µg/L 4.4c 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0

Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0.3 0.2 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 1.4 0.6 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0.2 0.05 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 79.2 88.8 0 0 0

Molybdenum µg/L 23a # 0 1 1.1 0 0 0

Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0.7 0.9 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0.05 0.05 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 11 43 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0.00005 0.00005 0 0 0

Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 2800 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 110 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0

Total Metals 3

Parameter GuidelineSite 5

Physical

Nutrients

Units

Dissolved Metals










disturbed)













Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L ndf 17 4 1 10 1 62

Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 3f

4 0.5 3 0.5 0.5 0.5



c) 0.17 0 0.0025 0.0025 0.005 0.0025









Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0 0 0 0 0

Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 2140 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 152 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0

GuidelineSite 6

Parameter

Total Metals 3

Units

Physical

Nutrients

Dissolved Metals










disturbed)













Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L nde 76 0 11 33 4 0.5

Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 2e 2 0 3 2 0.5 1

Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.135e 0 0 0.25 0.23 0.09 0.1


c) 0.09 0 0.0025 0.018 0.009 0.0025

Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.01 0.103 0.061 0.074

Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01e 0.02 0 0.01 0.103 0.061 0.074

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 0.1 0.1

Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.16e 0.25 0 0.26 0.35 0.16 0.17

Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005e 0.005 0 0.004 0.014 0.003 0.003

Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02e 1.08 0 0.022 0.035 0.005 0.012


Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0 0 0 0 0

Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 4610 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 58 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0

GuidelineSite 7

Parameter

Total Metals 3

Units

Physical

Nutrients

Dissolved Metals










disturbed)













Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L nde 30 12 0 0 0 0

Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 2e

2 6 0 0 0 0

Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.135e 0 0 0 0 0 0


c) 0.06 0 0 0 0 0

Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0.011 0 0 0 0

Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0.001 0 0 0 0

Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.01e 0.005 0.001 0 0 0 0

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0.25 0.55 0 0 0 0

Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.16e 0.25 0.55 0 0 0 0

Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.005e 0.005 0.014 0 0 0 0

Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02e 1.03 0.086 0 0 0 0


Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b

0 0 0 0 0 0

Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 4540 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 47 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0

GuidelineSite 8

Parameter

Total Metals 3

Units

Physical

Nutrients

Dissolved Metals










disturbed)














Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 2e 3 2 0 0 0 0



c) 0.09 0 0 0 0 0









Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0 0 0 0 0

Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 4380 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 34 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0

GuidelineSite 9

Parameter

Total Metals 3

Units

Physical

Nutrients

Dissolved Metals










disturbed)














Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 2e

6 3 0 0 0 0



c) 0.05 0 0 0 0 0









Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b

0 0 0 0 0 0

Antimony µg/L 270a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 25 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 4270 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 2.5 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 37 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 25 0 0 0 0 0

Selenium µg/L 3a # 50 0 0 0 0 0

Silver µg/L 1.4c 5 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 5 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 25 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0.05 0 0 0 0 0

GuidelineSite 10

Parameter

Total Metals 3

Units

Physical

Nutrients

Dissolved Metals










disturbed)













Suspended Solids (SS) mg/L 2d 2 0 0 21 24 4 0.5

Chlorophyll a mg/m³ 0.45d 1 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

Organic Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.025

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.002d(0.91

c) 0 0 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025

Nitrite as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001

Nitrate as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.045

Nitrite + Nitrate as N mg/L 0.002d 0 0 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.045

Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen as N mg/L NA 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.025

Total Nitrogen as N mg/L 0.14d 0 0 0.05 0.05 0.025 0.025

Reactive Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.004d 0 0 0.004 0.003 0.0005 0.0005

Total Phosphorus as P mg/L 0.02d 0 0 0.0025 0.008 0.0025 0.007

Dissolved TKN as N mg/L NA 0 0 0 0 0 0

Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0 0 0 0 0

Antimony µg/L 270a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arsenic µg/L 2.3a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Boron µg/L 5100a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cadmium µg/L 0.7b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Cobalt µg/L 1c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Copper µg/L 1.3c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lead µg/L 4.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Manganese µg/L 80.0a # 0 0 0 0 0 0


Nickel µg/L 7.0b 0 0 0 0 0 0


Silver µg/L 1.4c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tin µg/L 10a # 0 0 0 0 0 0

Zinc µg/L 15.0c 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mercury µg/L 0.1b 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dissolved Metals

Total Metals

Units GuidelineSite 11

Parameter

Physical

Nutrients

APPENDIX F

GRAPHS WATER QUALITY

MONITORING RESULTS

AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI B-2Graphs Water Quality Monitoring Results


Figure B-1 Suspended Solids against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)

Figure B-2 Chlorophyll-a plotted against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)



Figure B-3 Organic Nitrogen against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)

Figure B-4 Ammonia against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)



Figure B-5 Nitrite (no applicable guideline values are available for this parameter)

Figure B-6 Nitrate (no applicable guideline values are available for this parameter)



Figure B-7 Total Oxidised Nitrogen plotted against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)

Figure B-8 Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen (no applicable guideline values are available for this parameter)



Figure B-9 Total Nitrogen plotted against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)

Figure B-10 Reactive Phosphorus plotted against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)



Figure B-11 Total Phosphorus plotted against QLD Water Quality Guidelines (DEHP 2009)

APPENDIX G

CONTINUOUS YSI (IN-SITU)

MONITORING DATA

AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI C-2 Continuous YSI (in-situ) Monitoring Data


Parameter Site Guideline Lower

(QLDWQG)

Guideline Upper

(QLDWQG)

Minimum 20th

percentile

Median Mean 80th

percentile

Maximum

Temperature (oC)

Offshore Intake

20th percentile 80th percentile 20.91 21.75 22.19 22.17 22.58 22.93

Nearshore 20th percentile 80th percentile 19.08 23.46 27.46 26.40 28.53 30.74

Mouth 20th percentile 80th percentile 21.79 23.72 27.86 27.07 29.38 31.96

Mid 20th percentile 80th percentile 20.41 24.35 27.17 26.54 28.54 31.02

Upper 20th percentile 80th percentile 23.69 27.50 28.16 28.15 29.37 31.06

Richters Bridge


Barron River


Salinity (ppt)

Offshore Intake

N/A N/A 36.04 36.28 36.93 36.90 37.55 37.98

Nearshore N/A N/A 23.06 33.47 34.68 34.12 36.06 38.18

Mouth N/A N/A 0.52 22.96 27.91 26.49 32.04 35.94

Mid N/A N/A 0.02 24.23 27.89 25.60 31.13 35.78

Upper N/A N/A 0.05 22.86 25.96 24.08 30.11 31.97

Richters Bridge

N/A N/A 7.73 21.92 25.69 24.98 28.41 32.03

Barron River

N/A N/A 0.09 1.77 14.15 14.83 27.62 32.04

pH

Offshore Intake

8.15 8.4 8.13 8.16 8.18 8.18 8.19 8.22

Nearshore 8.15 8.4 7.76 8.07 8.19 8.15 8.25 8.35

Mouth 6.5 8.4 7.20 7.93 8.04 7.95 8.18 9.03



Parameter Site Guideline Lower

(QLDWQG)

Guideline Upper

(QLDWQG)

Minimum 20th

percentile

Median Mean 80th

percentile

Maximum

Mid 6.5 8.4 6.03 7.71 7.91 7.54 8.11 8.71

Upper 6.5 8.4 6.43 7.23 7.59 7.36 7.73 8.18

Richters Bridge

6.5 8.4 7.17 7.49 7.61 7.61 7.88 8.17

Barron River

6.5 8.4 6.92 7.18 7.59 7.41 7.74 7.85

Daytime dissolved oxygen (%)

Offshore Intake

95 105 95.01 97.31 98.43 98.64 99.69 102.59

Nearshore 95 105 46.98 90.93 94.11 94.22 98.36 111.64

Mouth 80 105 7.37 81.88 88.46 86.36 92.89 96.10

Mid 80 105 4.65 63.74 75.53 71.44 81.84 103.48

Upper 80 105 20.24 44.94 54.14 55.78 63.06 103.24

Richters Bridge

80 105 12.98 56.22 64.39 61.83 72.22 79.02

Barron River

80 105 63.19 74.76 90.18 84.91 92.50 96.81

Turbidity (NTU)

Offshore Intake

N/A 1 -0.10 11.40 26.80 33.63 51.00 320.60

Nearshore N/A 1 0.40 11.20 38.20 87.69 89.20 1325.20

Mouth N/A 10 2.50 9.50 17.20 36.37 40.10 1338.20

Mid N/A 10 -0.80 11.70 20.20 59.45 53.50 1232.70

Upper N/A 10 5.40 13.80 19.50 29.25 29.90 502.10

Richters Bridge

N/A 10 2.80 10.00 17.00 23.62 27.30 616.70

Barron River

N/A 10 1.80 3.60 4.70 5.37 6.30 83.50



Figure C-1 Mean Daytime Dissolved Oxygen



Figure C1 (continued) - Mean Daytime Dissolved Oxygen



Figure C-2 Mean Daily pH



Figure C2 (continued) - Mean Daily pH



Figure C-3 Mean Daily Salinity



Figure C3 (continued) - Mean Daily Salinity



Figure C-4 Mean Daily Temperature



Figure C4 (continued) - Mean Daily Temperature



Figure C-5 Mean Daily Turbidity



Figure C5 (Continued) - Mean Daily Turbidity

APPENDIX H

PROFILE MONITORING DATA

AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI D-2 Profile Monitoring Data


Figure D-1 YSI profiling data for December 2013



Figure D-2 YSI profiling data for January 2014



Figure D-3 YSI profiling data for February 2014



Figure D-4 YSI profiling data for April 2014



Figure D-5 YSI profiling data for May 2014



Figure D-6 YSI profiling data for July 2014



Figure D-7 YSI profiling data for September 2014

APPENDIX I

TUFLOW-FV OFFSHORE DISCHARGE

RESULTS

AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-1TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results


Appendix E TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results

Nutrients

Presented in Tables E1 and E2 and Figures E1 and E2 are the changes in modelled nutrients (TN

and TP respectively) at the mouth of Richters Creek and the near/off shore region. From the tables

below and figures presented the following conclusions can be drawn:

There is negligible decrease in TP at the outlet location, with TN showing a slight increase in the

higher percentiles and a slight decrease in the lower percentiles for the bottom levels.

Slight increases in TN can be seen at the Creek Mouth though less than 0.5 µg/L.

All the other locations show negligible changes in TN and TP typically less than 0.5 µg/L.

Overall there is limited change in nutrient concentrations at the entrance of Richters Creek and the

offshore region due to the proposed discharge from the lake.

Dissolved Oxygen

Presented in Table E3 and Figure E3 are the changes in modelled DO along Richters Creek and the

near/off shore region. These results, there are no notable changes in DO levels.

Chlorophyll a

Presented in Table E4 and Figure E4 are the changes in modelled chlorophyll a predicted along

Richters Creek and the near/off shore region. From the results the following conclusions can be

drawn:

There is a slight increase to chlorophyll a levels at the outlet location, but less than 1 µ/L

At the mouth of Richters Creek, there is a negligible decrease in the higher percentiles.

No notable change to chlorophyll a is predicted in the other locations, with all other percentile

changes being less than 0.1 µ/L.

Overall there is limited to no change in chlorophyll a concentrations in Richters Creek and the near-

shore region due to the proposed offshore discharge.



Table E-1 Change in Total Nitrogen Distribution due to Lake Discharge

Site Location Vertical Location

10th Percentile 20th Percentile Median 80th Percentile 90th Percentile

(µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L) (µg/L)

R1 - Outlet

Top -0.18 -0.16 -0.11 -0.01 -0.09

Bottom -1.41 -0.88 -0.18 0.46 0.99

Avg. -0.61 -0.52 -0.18 0.11 0.40

R2 - Inlet

Top -0.12 -0.11 -0.08 -0.06 -0.09

Bottom -0.09 -0.09 -0.08 -0.06 -0.09

Avg. -0.11 -0.09 -0.08 -0.07 -0.10


Top -0.15 -0.17 -0.21 -0.09 -0.19

Bottom -0.17 -0.17 -0.17 -0.13 -0.23

Avg. -0.18 -0.17 -0.21 -0.14 -0.30

R4 – Creek Mouth

Top 0.06 -0.02 0.13 0.17 0.40

Bottom 0.13 0.04 -0.24 0.43 0.15

Avg. 0.09 0.01 -0.01 0.23 0.09

R5 – NW of Outlet

Top -0.16 -0.13 -0.12 -0.09 -0.12

Bottom -0.25 -0.17 -0.16 -0.06 -0.08

Avg. -0.20 -0.16 -0.13 -0.09 -0.08

R6 – S of Outlet

Top -0.17 -0.14 -0.10 -0.12 -0.11

Bottom -0.13 -0.14 -0.11 -0.04 -0.10

Avg. -0.16 -0.11 -0.09 -0.09 -0.06

R7 – E of Outlet

Top -0.15 -0.12 -0.09 -0.14 -0.04

Bottom -0.15 -0.09 -0.12 -0.05 -0.10

Avg. -0.15 -0.12 -0.11 -0.11 -0.05


Top -0.15 -0.11 -0.11 -0.11 -0.15

Bottom -0.17 -0.13 -0.13 -0.12 -0.09

Avg. -0.16 -0.14 -0.14 -0.12 -0.13


Top -0.11 -0.12 -0.09 -0.07 -0.03

Bottom -0.19 -0.13 -0.09 -0.09 -0.13

Avg. -0.13 -0.13 -0.10 -0.07 -0.14

R10 – N of Outlet

Top -0.09 -0.10 -0.06 -0.06 -0.04

Bottom -0.11 -0.10 -0.08 -0.07 -0.08

Avg. -0.11 -0.12 -0.07 -0.05 -0.05



Table E-2 Change in Total Phosphorus Distribution due to Lake Discharge


10th Percentile

20th Percentile

Median 80th Percentile

90th Percentile


R1 - Outlet

Top -0.03 -0.03 -0.03 -0.04 -0.03

Bottom -0.44 -0.31 -0.10 -0.07 -0.04

Avg. -0.22 -0.17 -0.09 -0.07 -0.05

R2 - Inlet

Top -0.05 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Bottom 0.02 0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00

Avg. 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00


Top -0.04 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01

Bottom -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.03

Avg. -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.03 -0.01

R4 – Creek Mouth

Top -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 0.04 -0.04

Bottom -0.01 -0.03 -0.03 0.17 0.09

Avg. -0.03 -0.03 -0.01 -0.06 0.07

R5 – NW of Outlet

Top -0.03 -0.02 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01

Bottom -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01

Avg. -0.04 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01

R6 – S of Outlet

Top -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01

Bottom -0.05 -0.04 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Avg. -0.02 -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01

R7 – E of Outlet

Top -0.06 -0.05 -0.02 -0.01 0.00

Bottom -0.04 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00

Avg. -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01


Top -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01

Bottom -0.03 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01

Avg. -0.02 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01


Top -0.05 -0.03 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01

Bottom -0.06 -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01

Avg. -0.06 -0.04 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01

R10 – N of Outlet

Top -0.04 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Bottom -0.01 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01

Avg. -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01



Table E-3 Change in Dissolved Oxygen Distribution due to Lake Discharge


10th Percentile 20th Percentile Median 80th Percentile 90th Percentile

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

R1 - Outlet

Top -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00

Avg. -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

R2 - Inlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

R4 – Creek Mouth

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

R5 – NW of Outlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

R6 – S of Outlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

R7 – E of Outlet

Top -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Top -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Top -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00

R10 – N of Outlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00



Table E-4 Change in Chlorophyll a Distribution due to Lake Discharge


10th Percentile

20th Percentile

Median 80th Percentile

90th Percentile


R1 - Outlet

Top 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00

Bottom 0.07 0.09 0.17 0.44 0.58

Avg. 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.21

R2 - Inlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02


Top 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.01 0.02

Bottom 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03

R4 – Creek Mouth

Top 0.00 -0.02 0.01 -0.01 -0.05

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.02 -0.03 -0.12

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.06

R5 – NW of Outlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04

Bottom 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04

Avg. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02

R6 – S of Outlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02

R7 – E of Outlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.02

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02


Top 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01


Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02

R10 – N of Outlet

Top 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Bottom 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01

AQUIS Resort at Great Barrier Reef Water Quality RFI E-6 TUFLOW-FV Offshore Discharge Results


Figure E-1 TN Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek



Figure E1 (Continued) TN Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek



Figure E-2 TP Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek



Figure E2 (Continued) TP Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek



Figure E-3 DO Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek



Figure E3 (Continued) DO Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek



Figure E-4 Chlorophyll-a Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek



Figure E4 (Continued) Chlorophyll-a Impacts Offshore from Richters Creek

APPENDIX J

VISUAL IMPACT FIGURES

Brisbane l Address Level 11, 40 Creek Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000 Australia l T +61 7 3831 8582 F +61 7 3831 8587 l www.chenoweth.com.au

Scale : As Shown | Date: 25 September 2014 | Job no: 780331 | Issue: Supplementary VIA

aquis resort supplementary visual impact assessment

LEGEND

Modelling Visibility Points

60m Built Form Level ZVI


Subject Land

Zoom In views

Night-time offshore photopoints (GPS waypoints)

Zone of Visual Influence | FIGURE 1

Note: Modelled based on 2010 Cairns LiDAR for limited area surrounding subject land including existing vegetation and built-form heights

Extents of LiDAR - Refer Figure 2 for Zoomed-In View

Beach




Zone of Visual Influence | FIGURE 2

Builtform Levels

36.5 AHD

1.5m AHDNGL

61.5 AHD


Refer Figure 3 for Zoomed-In View




Refer

Figu

re 4

for Z

oome

d-In

View

LEGEND




Subject Land

Zoom In views




Zone of Visual Influence- Zoom in View- Yorkeys Knob Hill | FIGURE 3


Half Moon Bay Marina

LEGEND




Subject Land




Zone of Visual Influence- Zoomed-in View- Yorkeys Knob Township & Beach | FIGURE 4

LEGEND




Subject Land




Zone of Visual Influence- Zoomed-in View- Richters Creek Mouth | FIGURE 5

LEGEND




Subject Land




Zone of Visual Influence- Zoomed-in View- Holloways Beach| FIGURE 6

LEGEND




Subject Land




Zone of Visual Influence- Zoomed-in View- Machans Beach | FIGURE 7

LEGEND




Subject Land




Vegetation Heights| FIGURE 8




Cros

s sec

tion

Cross Section from Yorkeys Knob Beach (PP05) | FIGURE 9

800m (Minimum distance from development to beach)

400m

Proposed Golf Course

Existing Vegetation

PP05

Supplementary Dune Planting

Supplementary Taller growing trees (such as Norfolk Island Pines or Hoop Pines)

Pro

perty

Bou

ndar

y

Viewline from PP05_YK Beach




60m

55m

56.5

~200m

245m

295m

Pacific Dawn

Pacific Dawns photographed off Yorkeys Knob 26.08.2014)

Queen Elizabeth 2

Proposed Built Form (Hotel B)

Existing beach front vegetation (as seen from off-shore)

Proposed Development Size Comparison with Cruise Ships| FIGURE 10




A: PP05 - Superimposed Proposed Development Stage 2 on Existing Photo (12.08.2013)

B: PP 05 - Night view (transformed in Photoshop) C: Validation with night photo from similar location (26.08.2014)

PP 05 - Night view (ghosted view)

Note:Night lighting is based on approx 7000 x 100w exposed halogen lamps located along towers balconies.

PP 05 - Night view (transformed in Photoshop)

Night Photomontage from Beach PP05 | FIGURE 11




Night Photomontage from Green Island | FIGURE 12

Cairns CBD AirportAirport Beacons on Mt Whitfield

Machans Beach Hollowways Beach ??? in Yorkeys Knob Yorkeys Knob Marina

Aircraft

AQUIS Resort

A: Existing Photo

B: Existing Photo with Aquis Resort




Night Photomontage from Henry Ross Lookout | FIGURE 13

A: Existing Photo - Henry Ross Lookout - Day

B: Existing Photo - Henry Ross Lookout - Night Time (source: Cardno 26.08.2014)

C: Henry Ross Lookout - Photomontage with Proposed Development

Note:Night lighting is based on approx 7000 x 100w exposed halogen lamps located along towers balconies.

AQUIS Resort