referral supporting document - epa.wa.gov.au€¦ · town beach jetty (also referred to as mangrove...

na

AUGUST 2019

BROOME TOWN BEACH GROYNE UPGRADE AND JETTY PROJECT

REFERRAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT

PREPARED FOR:

Martinick Bosch Sell Pty Ltd 4 Cook Street West Perth WA 6005 Ph: (08) 9226 3166 Email: [email protected] Web: www.mbsenvironmental.com.au

PREPARED BY:

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.mbsenvironmental.com.au/

Broome Town Beach Groyne and Jetty Upgrade Project_Referral Supporting Document FINAL.docx

TOWN BEACH GROYNE UPGRADE AND JETTY PROJECT REFERRAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT

Distribution List:

Company Contact name Copies Date

Shire of Broome Peter Collins – Manager Engineering 01 14 August 2019 Shire of Broome Myles Mitchell – Asset Officer 01 14 August 2019

Document Control for Job Number: SBTBJS38

Document Status Prepared By Authorised By Date

Draft Report Arielle Fontaine Spencer Shute 7 August 2019 Final Draft Report Spencer Shute Spencer Shute 14 August 2019

Disclaimer, Confidentiality and Copyright Statement This report is copyright. Ownership of the copyright remains with Martinick Bosch Sell Pty Ltd (MBS Environmental). This report has been prepared for Shire of Broome on the basis of instructions and information provided by Shire of Broome and therefore may be subject to qualifications which are not expressed. No other person other than those authorised in the distribution list may use or rely on this report without confirmation in writing from MBS Environmental. MBS Environmental has no liability to any other person who acts or relies upon any information contained in this report without confirmation. This report has been checked and released for transmittal to Shire of Broome. These Technical Reports: • Enjoy copyright protection and the copyright vests in Martinick Bosch Sell Pty Ltd (MBS Environmental) and

Shire of Broome unless otherwise agreed in writing.

• May not be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means whatsoever to any person without the written permission of the Copyright holder.

SHIRE OF BROOME TOWN BEACH GROYNE UPGRADE AND JETTY PROJECT REFERRAL SUPPORTING DOCUMENT


TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE .................................................................................................................................1 1.2 THE PROPONENT .........................................................................................................................................1

2. THE PROPOSAL ...........................................................................................................................................2

2.1 LOCATION ....................................................................................................................................................2 2.2 OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................................................2 2.3 KEY PROPOSAL CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................................4 2.4 JUSTIFICATION .............................................................................................................................................4 2.5 TENURE .......................................................................................................................................................7 2.6 CONSTRUCTION METHODS AND MATERIALS ................................................................................................8 2.7 PROPOSED DISTURBANCE ...........................................................................................................................8 2.8 ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS ...............................................................................................................................8

3. KEY POLICY AND GUIDANCE .................................................................................................................... 10

4. STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ............................................................................................................... 11

4.1 OLD BROOME DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (2014) ..................................................................................... 11 4.2 BROOME TOWNSITE COASTAL HAZARD RISK MANAGEMENT AND ADAPTATION PLAN (2017) .................. 12 4.3 STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK ON THE PROPOSAL ......................................................................................... 13 4.4 EPA SERVICES ......................................................................................................................................... 15

5. PRINCIPLES OF THE EP ACT .................................................................................................................... 16

6. ASSESSMENT OF PRELIMINARY KEY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ............................................................ 18

6.1 PRELIMINARY KEY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS......................................................................................... 18 6.2 ASSESSMENT OF PRELIMINARY KEY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ............................................................. 19

7. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 32

8. REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................ 33

TABLES Table 1: Key Proposal Characteristics ............................................................................................................ 4

Table 2: Proposal Construction Methods ........................................................................................................ 8

Table 3: Consideration of EPA Policy and Guidance in Relation to Each EPA Factor ..............................10

Table 4: Selection of Respondents and Key Reasons Nominated for Support of the Proposal ...............13

Table 5: Principles of the EP Act ...................................................................................................................16

Table 6: Preliminary Key Environmental Factors .........................................................................................19

Table 7: Benthic Communities and Habitats ................................................................................................20

Table 8: Coastal Processes ...........................................................................................................................25

Table 9: Marine Environmental Quality .........................................................................................................26

Table 10: Marine Fauna ...................................................................................................................................27

Table 11: Social Surroundings ........................................................................................................................29



FIGURES Figure 1: Location of Town Beach Jetty ........................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2: Section of Concept Plan (from Cardno (WA) 2014) ........................................................................ 6

Figure 3: Proposal Development Envelope and Footprint .............................................................................. 9

Figure 4: Proposal Development Footprint and Envelope in Relation to Mangrove Habitat ......................23

Figure 5: Changes in Mangrove Cover Adjacent to Town Beach Jetty (1965 to 2016) ..............................24

Figure 6: Registered Aboriginal Heritage Sites in the Vicinity of the Development Envelope ....................31

PLATES Plate 1: Recently Constructed Town Beach Seawall (bottom) and Adjacent Town Beach Jetty (top)

(Roadline 2019) ................................................................................................................................. 7

Plate 2: Mangroves Adjacent to Town Beach Jetty (MBS Environmental 2019).......................................22


Broome Town Beach Groyne and Jetty Upgrade Project_Referral Supporting Document FINAL.docx 1

1. INTR ODUCTI ON

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The Shire of Broome is proposing to undertake an upgrade of the Town Beach Jetty as part of a set of upgrades to Broome’s Town Beach, in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. The Broome Town Beach Groyne Upgrade and Jetty Project (the Proposal) includes upgrades to the existing groyne and the construction of a new concrete jetty extending offshore from the groyne. This document has been prepared to support referral of the Proposal to the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act). This document:

• Presents the Key Characteristics of the Proposal.

• Identifies the preliminary key environmental factors and the EPA objectives relevant to those factors. • Outlines mitigation measures that are proposed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts.

• Provides a preliminary assessment of the potential residual impacts from the Proposal.

1.2 THE PROPO NENT The proponent for the Proposal is the Shire of Broome. The Shire of Broome is located in the south-west Kimberley, in the far north of Western Australia. The Shire covers approximately 56,000 km2, with a coastline of 900 km (Shire of Broome 2017a). Broome has experienced rapid and continued growth over the last decade to become one of the fastest growing towns in the State (Shire of Broome 2017a). Several major upgrades to Broome’s Town Beach are underway, including the development of precincts for heritage, youth and nature play areas, terraced viewing for the Staircase to the Moon, a look-out and memorial, and expansion of the existing water park. The improvements are part of a Town Beach Precinct Master Plan drawn from the Old Broome Development Strategy that was produced following extensive consultation and input from the community (Cardno (WA) 2014). In late 2018, following referral to the EPA and grant of a native vegetation clearing permit (CPS 8006/1), a revetment seawall was constructed immediately to the north of the Town Beach groyne as a defence against the severe erosion of the Pindan cliffs (Shire of Broome 2017b).



2. THE PROP OSAL

2.1 LOCATION The Proposal site is located approximately 1 km south of the centre of Broome, facing south east into Roebuck Bay (Figure 1). Town Beach is a significant location for Broome people and for visitors to the town, with an important role in recreation, culture and heritage. Viewing of the Staircase to the Moon draws thousands of visitors each year, the children’s water park and playground is highly popular and night markets attract large crowds. Town Beach is also the home of Indigenous heritage values; the Pioneer Cemetery, the Catalina Flying Boat wrecks and the Broome Historical Society Museum (Shire of Broome 2017b).

2.2 OVERVIEW Town Beach Jetty (also referred to as Mangrove Point Jetty or Old Broome Jetty) was constructed in 1897 as the town jetty. The jetty was connected to the town and to Streeter's Jetty in Chinatown, by a tramway. The jetty closed in the late 1960s, when a new deepwater port jetty was built further south. The site of the Town Beach Jetty is an important historical site representing the shipping and pearling industries that were the foundation and sustenance of settlement and development in Broome. The site of the jetty remains a tourist look-out, a viewing site and a popular fishing spot (Shire of Broome 2017c). The Proposal will build on these existing strengths and attractions, enhancing the experience for both the Broome community and visitors (Shire of Broome 2017b).

Martinick Bosch Sell Pty Ltd4 Cook StWest Perth WA 6005Australiat: +61 8 9226 [email protected]

8004

000

8004

000

8008

000

8008

000

1052000

1052000

1056000

1056000

1060000

1060000

1064000

1064000

Figure 1

Location Plan

Shire of BroomeTown Beach Jetty

Scale: 1:50000Original Size: A4Image: Copernicus Sentinel Data 2019Grid: GDA 94 MGA Zone 51

W:\Shire of Broome\Town Beach\GIS\Maps\LocationPlan.qgz 13/08/2019

Development Envelope (1.28 ha)

State Road

Legend

Development Envelope

Overview



2.3 KEY PROP OSAL CHARACTER IST I CS The Proposal involves upgrades to the Town Beach Jetty. These upgrades will include modifications to the slopes and reinforcement of the existing groyne as well as the provision of improved pedestrian access through pathways and decking. The upgrades will also involve the construction of a new reinforced concrete jetty extending offshore (east) from the groyne, to provide fishing and small boating facilities for the Broome community. The key Proposal characteristics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Key Proposal Character ist ics

Summary of the Proposal

Proposal Title Broome Town Beach Groyne Upgrade and Jetty Project Proponent Name Shire of Broome Short Description The groyne upgrade involves modifying the slopes and reinforcing the

existing groyne and providing improved pedestrian access through pathways and decking. A concrete jetty with steel piles will be constructed extending from the groyne.

Physical Elements

Element Location Proposed Extent Groyne footpath and rock armour slopes

Within and adjacent to existing groyne footprint Footprint of 0.72 ha within a

Development Envelope of 1.28 ha Jetty Offshore of existing groyne

Operational Elements

Element Location Proposed Extent

Lighting Jetty Spaced, downward facing, LED pole lights

2.4 JUSTIF ICATIO N The Local Planning Strategy for the Shire of Broome (Shire of Broome 2014) identifies precincts within the Broome townsite and anticipates the preparation of development strategies and/or design guidelines for the precincts in which substantial development or redevelopment is anticipated. Old Broome (Precinct 2) contains the oldest parts of the Broome settlement along the shore of Roebuck Bay and includes Town Beach. The objective for Precinct 2, as stated in the Local Planning Strategy, is to establish it as a mixed-use area with an open form of development that recognises the historic character of the area. It is intended that there be diversity in the land uses provided within the precinct to include residential, offices, community services, tourist development and limited retail and that the cultural heritage, recreational and tourism values of the area be maintained (Shire of Broome 2014). The Old Broome Development Strategy was adopted by Council in November 2014. The Old Broome Development Strategy sets out medium to long-term planning directions for Old Broome over the next 10 - 15 years (Cardno (WA) 2014). Included in the strategy is a concept plan for Town Beach and the Conti Foreshore, including a rebuilding of Town Beach Jetty (Cardno (WA) 2014) (refer point 22 in Figure 2). The rebuild of Town Beach Jetty is described (Cardno (WA) 2014, 31) as: “a new jetty from the Old Jetty groyne will allow people to fish from a jetty at Town Beach once again. It will be supplemented by floating pontoons to allow for boats launched from the boat ramp to be tied up while trailers are



parked. Recreation of the very long Old Jetty would neither be a practical nor a necessary option due to the expense and the fact that the Port now caters for large ships.” The Town Beach Project, drawn from the Old Broome Development Strategy, includes a number of proposed development stages (Shire of Broome 2017b):

• Stage 1A - Pindan Cliff Revetment Seawall (completed, refer Plate 1), Terraces and Coastal Walkway (underway, refer Plate 1).

• Stage 1B - Green Space and Playground Enhancements (underway).

• Stage 1C - Internal Road (extension of Hamersley St), Boat Trailer Parking and Internal Parking (underway).

• Stage 2 - Town Beach Groyne All-Access Fishing Jetty (the Proposal). The Proposal (Stage 2 above) was noted as likely to deliver (Shire of Broome 2017b):

• A ‘historic nod’ to the early days of Broome when the town’s main port was located at Town Beach. • An exciting new option for land-based fishing for the community and visitors.

• A scenic walkway into Roebuck Bay for non-fishers and a Staircase to the Moon viewing point.

• Temporary small boat mooring for loading/unloading passengers and luggage when launching/retrieving at Town Beach Boat Ramp.

• Access for all abilities.



Figure 2: Sect ion of Concept P lan ( f rom Cardno (WA) 2014)

Legend 2 Conti Foreshore to Town Beach 4 Demco Beach Foreshore Path 11 Vehicle and boat trailer parking 12 Catalina Plane Hangar and Museum 13 Infill Development 14 Extension of Hamersley and Hopton St 15 Seaview Road Reserve 16 Vehicle and boat trailer parking 17 Boat Ramp Upgrade 19 Water Park Extension 20 Develop Safe Swimming Area 21 Preservation of Pioneer Cemetery 22 Rebuild Town Beach Jetty 23 Expand Caravan Park 25 Intersection Improvements 26 Coastline Stability and Revetment 27 Rehabilitation and Stabilisation of Dunes 28 Events Space 31 Car Parking



Plate 1: Recent ly Constructed Town Beach Seawal l (bo t tom) and Adjacent Town Beach Jet ty ( top) (Roadl ine 2019)

2.5 TENURE The Proposal is located on Reserve 31340 (Lot 556 on Plan 77711 and Lot 600 on Plan 410010). The Shire of Broome has a land management order over Reserve 31340 for the purpose of Drainage, Recreation, Historical and Cultural Display, Caravan Park and Café. Land below the low water mark comes under the management of the Kimberley Ports Authority.



2.6 CONSTRUCT ION METH ODS A ND MATER IALS The modification of the slopes and reinforcement of the existing groyne will be completed through the installation of rock armour, rock filter and geotextile materials. Works will be undertaken during daylight hours only and during low tide periods when the construction site is not inundated. The works are anticipated to commence in November 2019 and would be completed in 12 to 16 weeks. The piling works associated with the construction of the new concrete jetty and fishing platform would occur following the completion of the rock armour works, and potentially as a separate construction campaign. The works would be undertaken during daylight hours only, and would be completed in 2 to 4 months, depending upon the approach (i.e. all piles installed prior to installation of platform/decking, or piles and platform/decking installed concurrently). An outline of the proposed construction methods and controls are presented in Table 2.

Table 2: Proposal Construct ion Methods

Aspect Summary of Construction Methods

Slope modification and reinforcement of the existing groyne

The works will involve the installation of rock armour, rock filter and geotextile materials. Some removal and/or reuse of material from the offshore end of the existing groyne is likely to be required.

Piling Steel piles will be installed to support the new concrete jetty.

Concreting The majority of the concrete work will involve the installation of precast concrete headstocks and deck panels.

Steelwork The steelwork associated with the Proposal will include the installation of piles, a low level landing, ramps, ladders and handrails.

Decking The Proposal will involve the installation of Fibre-Reinforced Polymer decking.

Management All works will be carried out in accordance with procedures for the control of Noise and Vibration, Dust, Traffic, Workplace Health and Safety, Public Safety.

2.7 PROPOSED DISTUR BANCE The Development Envelope for the Proposal, defining the potential maximum extent of physical disturbance, covers approximately 1.28 ha (Figure 3). The Development Footprint, defining the extent of proposed infrastructure, covers 0.72 ha (Figure 3).

2.8 ALTERNATIVE OPT IONS The only viable alternative is to not undertake the works. This would see the vision behind the Local Planning Strategy and the Town Beach Precinct Master Plan not being realised, and would result in a continued lack of fishing and small boating facilities in the area.


8012

800

8012

800

8013

000

8013

000

8013

200

8013

200

418800

418800

419000

419000

419200

419200

419400

419400

419600

419600

419800

419800

420000

420000

Figure 3

Proposal Development Envelope andFootprint


Scale: 1:5000Original Size: A4Grid: GDA 94 MGA Zone 51

W:\Shire of Broome\Town Beach\GIS\Maps\Development Envelope.qgz 14/08/2019

Development Footprint (0.72 ha)


Legend



3. KEY POLICY AND GUIDANCE Table 3 provides an overview of the policy and guidance that has been considered in relation to each EPA factor.

Table 3: Considerat ion of EPA Pol icy and Guidance in Relat ion to Each EPA Factor

EPA Factor Policy/Guidance

Benthic Communities and Habitats

• Environmental Factor Guideline - Benthic Communities and Habitats (EPA 2016a). This guidance was consulted in the consideration of potential direct and indirect impacts to Benthic Communities and Habitats (BCH) as a result of the Proposal.

• Technical Guidance - Protection of Benthic Communities and Habitats (EPA 2016b). This guidance was consulted in the characterisation of the BCH present, and in the assessment of impacts.

Coastal Processes • Environmental Factor Guideline - Coastal Processes (EPA 2016c). This guidance was consulted in the consideration of potential impacts to geophysical processes and how these may impact natural coastal dynamics causing an impact to coastal ecosystems and associated values such as landforms, recreation and tourism.

• State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy Guidelines (WAPC 2013). These guidelines were considered in the development of the Town Beach Project and the completion of coastal hazard risk management and adaptation planning for Broome.

Marine Environmental Quality

• Environmental Factor Guideline - Marine Environmental Quality (EPA 2016d). This guidance was consulted in the consideration of potential direct and indirect impacts to the quality of water, sediment and biota as a result of the Proposal.

Marine Fauna • Environmental Factor Guideline - Marine Fauna (EPA 2016e). This guidance was consulted in the consideration of potential direct and indirect impacts on marine fauna as a result of the Proposal.

• Environmental Assessment Guideline (No. 5) for Protecting Marine Turtles from Light Impacts (EPA 2010). General guidance on light design (wavelength, height, direction, shielding) referred to in the consideration of potential impacts to marine fauna (noting that turtle nesting does not occur at Town Beach).

Social Surroundings • Environmental Factor Guideline - Social Surroundings (EPA 2016f). This guidance was consulted in the consideration of potential impacts from the Proposal to the social surroundings.

• Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors - Assessment of Aboriginal Heritage (EPA 2004). Provides guidance on the process of environmental impact assessment for Aboriginal Heritage values.



4. STAKEH OLDER CON SU LTATI ON A summary of the stakeholder consultation undertaken to date is outlined below.

4.1 OLD BR OOME DEVEL OPMENT STRATEGY (2014) The Old Broome Development Strategy was adopted in November 2014 (Cardno (WA) 2014). This sets out medium to long term planning directions for Old Broome over the next 10 - 15 years, a similar timeframe to that contemplated in the Local Planning Strategy. Included in the strategy is a concept plan for Town Beach and the Conti Foreshore. The concept plan outlines improvements to infrastructure and facilities within the public realm, with a particular focus on the area surrounding Town Beach and the Conti Foreshore. It includes a rebuilding of Town Beach Jetty (Cardno (WA) 2014) (refer point 22 in Figure 2). A Community Engagement Plan was prepared for the Old Broome Development Strategy and was adopted by Council at its March 2014 Ordinary Meeting. A 42-day consultation period, which concluded on 15 May 2014, included a variety of engagement activities including:

• Letters posted to stakeholder groups, such as:

− 700 landowners (approximately). − Relevant government agencies and local businesses.

− Community groups situated within Old Broome.

• Online survey via ‘Survey Monkey’.

• Public Notice on Shire of Broome website and in the Broome Advertiser. • Static public displays in the Shire Administration Office and Library.

• Fact sheets.

• Workshops with Broome residents, community groups, government departments and Nyamba Buru Yawuru Ltd representatives.

• Pop-up public displays at the Court House Markets and Broome Boulevard Shopping Centre.

• Advertising through media. • Interviews on ABC and Goolari Radio with the Shire’s Director Development Services.

• Public enquiries (phone, e-mail and in-person) addressed by Shire planning staff. The few submissions related to environmental considerations relevant to the Proposal were as follows:

• Department of Water - Foreshore enhancement is identified as a key aspiration through this strategy, as well as stabilisation of eroded banks and better formalised public access. The strategy strongly recognises the existing values of the Ramsar listed Roebuck Bay and a desire to maintain these values. All new infrastructure of enhancement work should be undertaken with best practice foreshore management principles (refer to Operational Policy 4.3: Identifying and establishing waterways foreshore areas, Department of Water 2012).

• Environs Kimberley - Protection of mangroves: Some reference to the removal of mangroves has been made. Mangroves should not be removed due to their biological and aesthetic values.

• Private stakeholder - Plant mangroves.



4.2 BROOME TOW NSIT E COASTAL HAZARD R IS K MANAGEME NT AND ADAPTATI ON PLAN (2017)

The purpose of the Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan (CHRMAP) was to systematically identify coastal inundation and erosion hazards across the Broome townsite, and put in place controls to manage and mitigate the risk in association with the community and stakeholders (Baird 2017). Consultation for the CHRMAP included stakeholder workshops, community information days, as well as a formal advertising period for the draft CHRMAP: • Two Information Forums held in July 2016, which provided an overview of coastal planning policies in WA,

the Broome Townsite Coastal Vulnerability Study and the process for the Broome Townsite CHRMAP. The level of engagement for the Information Forums was set at ‘Inform’.

• Two Workshops held in August 2016, in which participants identified key coastal infrastructure and assets that hold economic, social and environmental value, discussed consequence scales for the identified coastal hazards, defined risk tolerances to the identified hazards and discussed adaptation options that could address the risks. The level of engagement for the Information Forums was set at ‘Involve’; and Interested parties who could not attend the Information Forums and/or Workshops were encouraged to make contact with Shire officers to seek information and share their thoughts.

• To publicise the Information Forums and Workshops, the Shire employed the following methods:

− Establishment of a dedicated CHRMAP webpage on the Shire’s website and CHRMAP email for project enquiries.

− Additional promotion through the ‘Latest News’ and ‘Have My Say’ sections of the website.

− Posts on the Shire’s Facebook page. − Media Release and promotion in the ‘Shire News’ column (newspaper and email distribution).

− Interview with the Shire’s Director Development Services on ABC Radio.

− A poster displayed in the Shire Administration Office and Broome Public Library.

− Letters of invitation including a FAQ Sheet sent to all landowners with property that will be affected by the CHRMAP and key stakeholder organisations.

• The draft CHRMAP was adopted for the purposes of advertising on 30 March 2017. The extent of advertising included: − Letters sent to affected landowners and key stakeholder organisations.

− Updating the CHRMAP webpage with a summary of the process so far, a link to the draft CHRMAP, submission form, and links to an online feedback form.

− Display of the draft CHRMAP at Shire Administration Office with submission and feedback forms.

− Advert in the local paper.

− Media release. − Social media posts via the Shire’s Facebook Page.



4.3 STAKEHOLDER FE EDBACK ON TH E PROP OS AL Significant consultation has been undertaken for the Proposal. A number of local organisations, businesses and State and Federal government representatives were contacted in relation to the Shire of Broome’s Building Better Regions Fund application for the Proposal. A total of 30 letters of support were received, outlining the social and/or economic benefits that the Proposal would create. Table 4 provides a selection of the reasons given for support of the Proposal.

Table 4: Select ion of Respondents and Key Reasons Nominated for Support of the Proposa l

Respondent Reasons for Support

Australia’s Northwest Tourism

The Town Beach Jetty will add to the unique tourism opportunities that Broome and the Kimberley already offer by providing: • A land-based fishing experience. • A drop off and pick up point for water-based tours. • A viewing spot for the Staircase to the Moon phenomenon. • Access to view and enjoy Roebuck Bay for people of all abilities. ‘This is an exciting project for the Broome community and important for Broome’s tourism economy. Helping to ensure Broome remains a world class tourist destination’.

Broome Adventure Company

The Proposal would: • Provide a viewing place for the Staircase to the Moon phenomenon. • Allow new opportunities for locally-based tour operators. • Create a community hub and tourist destination point. ‘The project will greatly improve the amenity and attractiveness of the precinct for locals and tourists creating a community hub and tourist destination point’.

Broome Fishing Club

The Proposal would: • Allow access for people of all abilities and ages to fish Roebuck Bay. • Ensure locals and tourists without boat access still have access to high quality land-based

fishing opportunities. • Allow small boats to moor and people to safely get on and off boats. • Provide a facility which is not available elsewhere in Broome. ‘This is an important project for the Broome community and economy. Helping to make Broome a more attractive place to live and visit’.

Broome Historical Society

The Proposal would: • Attract more people to the area. • Potentially result in higher visitor numbers, equating to increased revenue. ‘This is an exciting and transformational project for the Broome community that will attract local and visitors to the area’.

Broome Stallholders Association

The Proposal would: • Allow more stallholders to trade from the site. • Allow more visitors to the site. • Enhance visitors experience. • Encourage visitors to stay longer during a market event. ‘This is a significant project for the community of Broome that will enhance the area as a community meeting place’.




Broome Tackle World

The Proposal would provide: • Economic and social benefits. • An accessible land-based fishing opportunity for everyone. • A beautiful place to enjoy the views of Roebuck Bay. ‘This is an important project for the Broome community and economy. Helping to make Broome a more attractive place to live and visit’.

Broome Tramway Company

The Proposal would: • Provide opportunities for recreational land-based fishing. • Allow small boats to temporarily moor for loading and unloading of passengers. • Provide facilities that are not available elsewhere in Broome. • Allow more people to comfortably enjoy Staircase to the Moon. ‘The Town Beach project will help to make Broome a more attractive place to live and visit. Helping Broome to remain a world class tourist destination’.

Broome Visitor Centre

The Town Beach Jetty will add to the unique tourism opportunities that Broome and the Kimberley already offer by providing: • A land-based fishing experience. • A drop off and pick up point for water-based tours. • A viewing spot for the Staircase to the Moon phenomenon. • Access to view and enjoy Roebuck Bay for people of all abilities. ‘This is an exciting project for the Broome community and important for Broome’s tourism economy. Helping to ensure Broome remains a world class tourist destination’.

Broome Whale Watching

The Proposal would: • Greatly improve the amenity and attractiveness of the precinct for locals and tourists. • Create a community hub and tourist destination point. • Provide a viewing place for the Staircase to the Moon phenomenon. • Allow new opportunities for ocean-based tours. • Provide facilities that are not available elsewhere in Broome. • Likely draw more business opportunities to the Town Beach area. ‘The Town Beach project will help to make Broome a more attractive place to live and visit. Helping Broome to remain a world class tourist destination’.

Kimberley Development Commission Hon. Melissa Price MP Josie Farrer MLA

The Proposal would: • Allow land-based fishing of Roebuck Bay. • Provide a drop off and pick up point for water-based tours. • Provide a viewing spot for the Staircase to the Moon phenomenon. • Provide access to view and enjoy Roebuck Bay for people of all abilities. • Bring a range of economic and social benefits to the Broome community such as:

− The creation of jobs during the construction phase. − The potential for increased trade to local businesses. − The creation of a community hub. − The potential reduction of anti-social behaviour in the Town Beach area.

‘This will become a significant focal point for visitors and residents alike’.




Kimberley Ports Authority (KPA)

The Proposal would: • Provide a safe and accessible land-based fishing opportunity in the heart of Broome. • Likely reduce demand for the walkway on the Port of Broome wharf and allow KPA to

better manage the interaction between recreational and commercial users of KPA facilities.

• Create a vibrant community hub at Town Beach.

‘Importantly the project will ensure Broome remains a world class tourist destination’.

Narlijia Culture Tours

The Proposal would allow tour operators to increase visitor experiences and have a more accessible option to share Roebuck Bay and the cultural and historical significance of the Town Beach Area.

Nyamba Buru Yawuru Ltd.

The Proposal would: • Enable land-based fishing allowing access for seniors, families and people with a

disability. • Allow fishing for longer periods of time at the turning of the tide. • Allow small boats to moor and for passengers to safely get on and off boats.

Recfishwest

The Proposal would: • Provide more fishing opportunities and access to the bay. • Enable fishing for all abilities. • Ensure access to foreshore areas for people with all abilities. • Provide land-based fishing opportunities for locals and tourists without access to boats. • Allow small boat mooring and enable safe access on and off boats for all abilities.

‘This is an important project for the Broome community and economy. Helping to make Broome a more attractive place to live and visit’.

4.4 EPA SERVIC ES The proposal key characteristics and a pre-referral table were submitted to the EPA on 24 May 2019.



5. PRINCIPLE S OF THE EP AC T Section 4A of the EP Act outlines the principles of environmental protection. Table 5 describes how the five principles have been addressed by the Shire of Broome in the consideration and design of the Proposal.

Table 5: Pr inciples of the EP Act

Principle Consideration of Principle in Proposal

1. The precautionary principle Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the precautionary principle, decisions should be guided by: • Careful evaluation to avoid, where practicable, serious or irreversible

damage to the environment. • An assessment of the risk-weighted consequences of various options.

The Proposal design has taken into account the existing environment and aims to minimise impacts to mangroves and coastal processes.

2. The principle of intergenerational equity The present generation should ensure that the health, diversity and productivity of the environment is maintained or enhanced for the benefit of future generations.

The proposal will enhance the value of the area for future generations

3. The principle of the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity should be a fundamental consideration.

Impacts to mangroves or marine fauna are not expected to result in a loss of biological diversity and ecological integrity.

4. Principles relating to improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms • Environmental factors should be included in the valuation of assets and

services. • The polluter pays principle - those who generate pollution and waste

should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement. • The users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life

cycle costs of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any wastes.

• Environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structures, including market mechanisms, which enable those best placed to maximise benefits and/or minimise costs to develop their own solutions and responses to environmental problems.

• Where possible, the Shire of Broome will employ appropriately trained local personnel and source local goods and services.

• The Shire of Broome will ensure leading best practice standards during construction to minimise emissions and discharges as far as reasonably possible and ensure no negative legacies are created.

• Where possible, the Shire of Broome will source goods and services that have the least environmental impact.



Principle Consideration of Principle in Proposal

5. The principle of waste minimisation All reasonable and practicable measures should be taken to minimise the generation of waste and its discharge into the environment.

Waste generated from the Proposal will be minimised through the implementation of the hierarchy of waste controls: avoid, re-use, recycle, recover and dispose.



6. ASSE SS MENT OF PRE LIMINA RY KEY ENVIR ON MEN TAL FACTORS

The referral form and this supporting document have been prepared in accordance with the EPA’s Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) Procedures Manual 2018 (EPA 2018a) and take into account the guidance provided in the:

• Instructions for the referral of a Proposal to the Environmental Protection Authority under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EPA 2018b).

• Instructions on how to define the key characteristics of a proposal (EPA 2016g).

• Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives for the identification and assessment of preliminary key environmental factors (EPA 2018c).

All other relevant EPA guidance material consulted in the development of the Proposal, and in undertaking the environmental impact assessment, are summarised in Table 3 in Section 3.

6.1 PRELIMINA RY KEY ENV IRONM ENTAL FA CT ORS On the basis of the EPA’s ‘Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives’ guidance (EPA 2018c) the following preliminary key environmental factors have been identified for the Proposal:

• Benthic Communities and Habitats (BCH).

• Coastal Processes. • Marine Environmental Quality.

• Marine Fauna.

• Social Surroundings. The preliminary key environmental factors, and aspects of the Proposal with the potential to have an impact on these factors, are summarised in Table 6.



Table 6: Preliminary Key Environmental Factors

EPA Factor Aspect of Proposal Potential Impact

Benthic Communities and Habitats Groyne upgrade and jetty construction

• Potential direct loss of mangroves within Development Envelope.

• Potential indirect impacts to mangroves.

Coastal Processes Presence of new concrete jetty Potential changes to local sediment transport.

Marine Environmental Quality Groyne upgrade and jetty construction

• Potential minor impacts to water quality (turbidity) during construction works.

• Potential leak or spill of hydrocarbons.

Marine Fauna Groyne upgrade and jetty construction

Potential indirect impacts to marine fauna from: • Potential minor impacts to water quality

(turbidity) during construction works. • Potential noise disturbance during

construction works (including piling).

Social Surroundings Groyne upgrade and jetty construction Potential minor impacts to amenity due to noise or visual disturbance during construction works.

6.2 ASSESSMENT OF PREL IM INARY KEY ENVIR ONMENTAL FACTORS The following tables (Table 7 to Table 11) provide information specific to these preliminary key environmental factors, including:

• The EPA Objective. • An overview of relevant EPA policy and guidance.

• An overview of the existing environment.

• A summary of the activities potentially leading to environmental impacts. • A summary of the proposed mitigation measures.

• The anticipated residual impacts.

• Any assumptions made during the impact assessment.



Table 7: Benthic Communit ies and Hab itats

Proposal Activities Mitigation Measures Impacts Assumptions

EPA Objective To protect benthic communities and habitats so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained. EPA Policy and Guidance Environmental Factor Guideline - Benthic Communities and Habitats (EPA 2016a). Technical Guidance - Protection of Benthic Communities and Habitats (EPA 2016b). Receiving Environment Mangroves (Avicennia marina) occur adjacent to the existing Town Beach Jetty (Plate 1, Plate 2). Mapping of mangroves in relation to the Development Envelope is presented in Figure 4). The local mangrove extent adjacent to Town Beach Jetty has gradually increased since 1965 (Figure 5). No other vegetated BCH occurs within or immediately adjacent to the Development Envelope. No seagrass has been mapped adjacent to the Proposal area. The Broome Community Seagrass Monitoring Project (Environs Kimberley) has established sites at Town Beach, Demco and Port to monitor the condition and status of Roebuck Bay’s seagrass meadows within the Kimberley Ports Authority waters. The description of the Town Beach sites is ‘Intertidal sand/mud flat’ and ‘approximately 640 m from Town Beach boat ramp’ (McKenzie et al. 2017). Seagrass abundance is seasonal, with higher percent cover in late dry to early monsoon (October - December) and lower in late monsoon to dry (April - July). Seagrass abundance has varied markedly between years, with very low cover (<5%) in 2007 across all sites, and a mean across all surveys of ~20% (Site RO1) (McKenzie et al. 2017). Construction of groyne upgrades

• Minimise direct loss of mangroves within Development Envelope.

• Clear demarcation of ‘no disturbance’ zone around groyne to prevent impacts beyond Development Envelope.

• No readily mobilised construction materials deposited or stockpiled adjacent to mangroves on rising (flood) tide.

• The contractor’s scope of works will require the development of a Construction and Environmental Management Plan that will include management and mitigation strategies to minimise impacts to

• Potential direct loss of mangroves within Development Footprint of 0.10 ha.

• Potential additional direct and/or indirect impacts to mangroves within Development Envelope (but beyond the Development Footprint) of 0.18 ha.

• Potential cumulative impacts to mangroves, taking into account the approximately 0.02 ha of mangroves lost as a result of the development of the Town Beach Seawall, will be minimal at 0.3 ha.

N/A



Proposal Activities Mitigation Measures Impacts Assumptions mangroves. The Management Plan will be reviewed and approved by the Shire of Broome.

• The potential cumulative impacts to mangroves will be minor at a local scale (7.7% of the locally mapped extent, refer Figure 4).

• Potential indirect impacts to mangroves (e.g. from sedimentation or erosion) beyond Development Envelope will be negligible.

• No impacts to seagrass are predicted.



Plate 2: Mangroves Ad jacent to Town Beach Jet ty (MBS Env ironmental 2019)


8012

600

8012

600

8012

800

8012

800

8013

000

8013

000

8013

200

8013

200

418800

418800

419000

419000

419200

419200

419400

419400

419600

419600

419800

419800

420000

420000

Figure 4

Proposal Development Envelope inRelation to Mangrove Habitat






Approximate Mangrove Extent

Legend



Table 8: Coastal Processes


EPA Objective To maintain the geophysical processes that shape coastal morphology so that the environmental values of the coast are protected. EPA Policy and Guidance Environmental Factor Guideline - Coastal Processes (EPA 2016c). State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy Guidelines (WAPC 2013). Receiving Environment The Proposal site faces Roebuck Bay and is largely protected from significant wave action during ambient conditions, but can be subject to erosion in cyclone events (Baird 2017). Beaches south of the Town Beach Jetty are noted as being comprised coarse sand (increasing their resilience to erosion) as opposed to the beaches north of the groyne which are composed of finer sediment and silt (Baird 2017). The coastal foreshore area has undergone significant modification in the past 50 years. Photos of the section of Town Beach south of the Town Beach Jetty area to Demco Street in the period 1965 to 1995 show the expansion of the caravan park over the foreshore dune system. This section of coast which once acted as a coastal dune buffer has now been incorporated into the expanded caravan park site (Baird 2017). Advice from the Caravan Park stated that the Park operators have been using selective fill and vegetation to control erosion along this section of the shoreline since 1990 which had proved effective for stabilisation of the coast (Baird 2017). The shoreline is noted as currently stable based on historical record, and monitoring of the shoreline position is ongoing (Baird 2017). Future adaptation responses in 2070 and beyond will likely need to consider whether to protect this section of the foreshore from the erosion risk associated with sea level rise (Baird 2017). Presence of upgraded groyne

The Shire plans to undertake geotechnical and coastal erosion studies at Town Beach (in front of the Roebuck Bay Caravan Park). Shoreline position monitoring around the Broome townsite is ongoing.

Negligible impact on the local shoreline given the sheltered nature of the site, the existing Town Beach Jetty, adjacent mangroves and rocky geology.

N/A



Table 9: Mar ine Env ironmental Qua lity


EPA Objective To maintain the quality of water, sediment and biota so that environmental values are protected. EPA Policy and Guidance Environmental Factor Guideline - Marine Environmental Quality (EPA 2016d). Receiving Environment Nearshore water movements and mixing are thought to be driven primarily by the large tidal ranges, seabed topography and winds (Wallace 2000). The waters of Roebuck Bay are relatively turbid due to the local shallow seabed, strong tides, wave action and fine carbonate sediments (Department of Parks and Wildlife 2016). Nutrient concentrations have been recorded substantially exceeding water quality guidelines (Bennelongia 2009). Potential sources of nutrients were identified as urban run-off, seepage from the Broome South Wastewater Treatment Plant and the use of treated wastewater for irrigation (Gunaratne 2015). A Western Australian Marine Science Institution (WAMSI) study, reconstructing water quality using sediment records, determined that nutrient concentrations in sediments have increased, and that the increase is likely to be related to urban growth (Keesing 2014). Construction of groyne upgrades

• The use of clean rock armour and fill material (low ‘fines’ content) and geotextile material to minimise turbidity.

• Deployment of a silt curtain during groyne upgrade works (when possible).

• The implementation of appropriate hydrocarbon management procedures.

• Access to adequate spill/clean-up equipment on site during upgrade and construction works.

Potential impacts to water quality (elevated turbidity) will be limited to the immediate vicinity of the groyne and would be expected to rapidly dissipate as the tide floods around the construction area then recedes. It is noted that the local waters are naturally turbid (refer Plate 1). The risk of impacts associated with the leak or spill of hydrocarbons is considered low given the proposed management measures.

N/A



Table 10: Mar ine Fauna


EPA Objective To protect marine fauna so that biological diversity and ecological integrity are maintained. EPA Policy and Guidance

Environmental Factor Guideline - Marine Fauna (EPA 2016e). Environmental Assessment Guideline (No. 5) for Protecting Marine Turtles from Light Impacts (EPA 2010). Receiving Environment The Roebuck Bay Ramsar site is an internationally important staging site for shorebirds migrating within the East-Asian Australasian Flyway. Many shorebirds also spend the austral summer there (i.e. October to March) and a significant proportion of young birds that remain in Australia during their first year use it in winter (i.e. April to September). A known shorebird roost site, ‘Western Open Mangroves’, is located approximately 2 km north east of the Development Envelope (Bennelongia 2009). The shoreline in the vicinity of the Development Envelope is not identified as a key feeding or roosting site. Five species of turtle frequent Roebuck Bay, including the Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), Green turtle (Chelonia mydas), Flatback turtle (Natator depressus), Olive Ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) and Hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) (McFarlane 2013). The Flatback turtle regularly nests in summer months around Cape Villaret near the southern end of Roebuck Bay (over 40 km from Town Beach), and at Cable Beach (over 15 km from Town Beach (by water)). There are no published data on turtle populations within Roebuck Bay or their movements within the Ramsar site (Bennelongia 2009). The shoreline in the vicinity of the Development Envelope is not identified as a nesting site (Department of the Environment and Energy 2015). A 1984 report on numbers of Dugong (Dugong dugon) of the northern waters of Western Australia estimated that 50-100 Dugong was a likely population for Roebuck Bay, with the animals occurring in groups of six to eight (Prince 1986). The population in Roebuck Bay was recorded feeding on seagrass beds in the northern areas of Roebuck Bay, often within the intertidal zone close to the township of Broome (Bennelongia 2009). However, the waters surrounding Broome were not identified as an ‘important Dugong place’ during surveys for the WAMSI Dugong Project (2014-2017), with an abundance ‘hotspot’ recorded 25 km to the south of Broome (Bayliss and Hutton 2017). The intertidal area in the vicinity of the Development Envelope is not expected to be important to Dugong, though individuals may occasionally forage within the offshore seagrass beds (Department of the Environment and Energy 2015). Australian snubfin dolphins (Orcaella heinsohni), Australian humpback dolphins (Sousa sahulensis) and Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) have been reported to occur in Roebuck Bay (Bennelongia 2009; Brown et al. 2016a; 2016b). A total of 16 vessel surveys were conducted in Roebuck Bay, during which a total of 375 individual dolphins were sighted in 111 groups. Of these, 342 were snubfin, 16 were humpback, and 17 were bottlenose dolphins. Sightings in the vicinity of Town Beach were limited to Bottlenose dolphins (Brown et al. 2016a).




Construction of groyne upgrades Piling associated with jetty construction

• The use of clean rock armour and fill material (low ‘fines’ content) and geotextile material to minimise turbidity.

• Deployment of a silt curtain during groyne upgrade works (when possible).

• Management of marine piling as follows: • Marine Fauna Observer (MFO) makes

observations for 20 minutes before piling commences (observation zone of 1,000 m).

• If no marine fauna (marine turtles, dolphins, whales, Dugong) recorded within observation zone then ‘soft start’ to piling activities (≥15 min).

• MFO continues to make observations during piling works.

• Piling suspended if marine fauna recorded within exclusion zone (500 m).

• Potential impacts to water quality (elevated turbidity) will be limited to the immediate vicinity of the groyne and would be expected to rapidly dissipate as the tide floods then recedes.

• Significant physical or behavioural impacts to marine fauna are not expected given the proposed management measures.

N/A



Table 11: Socia l Surroundings


EPA Objective To protect social surroundings from significant harm. EPA Policy and Guidance

Environmental Factor Guideline - Social Surroundings (EPA 2016f). Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors - Assessment of Aboriginal Heritage (EPA 2004). Receiving Environment Discussions at community and stakeholder workshops highlighted the importance of Town Beach to the community. Town Beach attracts significant tourist numbers particularly during viewing of the ‘Staircase to the Moon’ phenomenon. The large local residential population adjoining the Town Beach shoreline, coupled with the mix of short-term accommodation options in the area including the Roebuck Bay caravan park, place a high value on the beach and its foreshore areas (Baird 2017). On 25 February 2010 agreements recognising the connection of the Yawuru People with land in and around Broome were signed. These Indigenous Land Use Agreements (ILUAs) were registered by the National Native Title Tribunal on 6 August 2010. Various lands were transferred to Yawuru ownership, enabling the traditional owners to actively participate in the development of Broome. These ILUAs also set aside land as conservation estate to be jointly managed by the Yawuru, the Department of Parks and Wildlife, and the Shire of Broome. Within and adjacent to the Old Broome precinct, including Town Beach, there are several sites that are under the tenure of the Yawuru. The entire foreshore is significant to the Yawuru, with Roebuck Bay being a traditional foraging area. Four registered sites occur in the vicinity of the Development Envelope (refer Figure 6): • Broome Old Jetty; #12591 (Artefacts, Scatter). • Red Bank; #12590 (Fish trap, Midden). • Reserve 21801; #13729 (Artefacts, Scatter). • INTAPITJIN/LOT 2065 PORT Dr; # 12410 (Artefacts, Scatter). A raised fishing platform extending out from the old jetty was cleared by the Yawuru survey team. It was noted that the design footprint should be within the existing groyne while on land (Greenfeld et al. 2017). The Town Beach Jetty is an important historical site representing the shipping and pearling industries that were the foundation and sustenance of settlement and development in Broome (Shire of Broome 2017c). Town Beach Jetty is listed (as the ‘Mangrove Point Jetty’) by the State Heritage Office as ‘Other Heritage Listings and Surveys - Municipal Inventory’ (#04860).



Proposal Activities Mitigation Measures Impacts Assumptions It is categorised as Grading B, with the following description:

“A place of considerable cultural heritage significance to Shire of Broome that is worthy of recognition and protection through provisions of the Shire of Broome‘s Town Planning Scheme. Planning application needs to be submitted to Shire of Broome for any proposed development. Recommend: Retain and conserve the place. Undertake photo record of the place prior to any development.”

Groyne upgrade and jetty construction

• The Shire will continue to work with the Yawuru and Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage to ensure compliance with Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.

• The contractor’s scope of works will require the contractor to: − Ensure that all work is carried out in

accordance with Regulation 13 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

− Ensure the construction work is carried out in accordance with control of noise and vibration practices set out in Section 6 of Australian Standard 2436-2010 “Guide to Noise & Vibration Control on Construction, Demolition and Maintenance Sites”.

− Control dust emissions in accordance with “A Guideline for Prevention of Dust and Smoke Pollution from Land Development Sites in Western Australia” (Department of Environmental Protection 1996).

− Develop a Construction and Environmental Management Plan. The Management Plan will be reviewed and approved by the Shire of Broome.

• No impact to values of Aboriginal heritage site(s).

• The Proposal will promote the recognition of the original Town Beach Jetty while improving the present day values of the jetty and surrounds.

• Minor impacts to the amenity of local residents and businesses during the construction phase.

N/A


8012

600

8012

600

8012

800

8012

800

8013

000

8013

000

8013

200

8013

200

418800

418800

419000

419000

419200

419200

419400

419400

419600

419600

419800

419800

420000

420000

Figure 6

Registered Aboriginal Heritage Sites in theVicinity of the Development Envelope






Aboriginal Heritage Places#12591 BROOME OLD JETTY

#13729 RESERVE 21801 BROOME

#12410 LINTAPITJIN/LOT 2065PORT DR

#12590 RED BANK

Legend



7. CONC LUSI ON The Proposal is to upgrade the existing groyne and construct a new concrete jetty. The upgrades to the existing groyne will provide improved pedestrian access through pathways and decking. The construction of a new concrete jetty extending from the groyne will provide fishing and small boating facilities for the Broome community. On the basis of the EPA’s ‘Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives’ guidance the following preliminary key environmental factors have been identified for the Proposal:

• Benthic Communities and Habitats. • Coastal Processes.

• Marine Environmental Quality.

• Marine Fauna.

• Social Surroundings. The preliminary key environmental factors have been assessed against the EPA objectives and guidelines and it is considered that the EPA’s objectives for these factors will be met given the following:

• Impacts to BCH will be limited to a small area of isolated mangroves of up to 0.28 ha. • Potential cumulative impacts to mangroves from the Proposal, and the recently completed Town Beach Seawall

project, represent 7.7% of the local mangrove extent. Significant additional mangroves are present within 500 m of the Development Envelope.

• There will be negligible impacts on coastal processes and the local shoreline.

• Any impacts to water quality during construction will be limited to local, short-term impacts, with impacts to BCH unlikely.

• Marine fauna (including migratory birds) are known to be widespread and abundant within the wider Roebuck Bay area. The Development Envelope and surrounds does not represent key habitat. Potential impacts during piling will be managed by the implementation of proven management approaches.

• No Aboriginal heritage sites will be significantly impacted, and consultation with the Yawuru will be ongoing.



8. REF ERENCE S Baird. 2017. Broome Townsite Coastal Hazard Risk Management and Adaptation Plan. Bayliss, P. and Hutton, M. 2017. Integrating Indigenous knowledge and survey techniques to develop a baseline for dugong (Dugong dugon) management in the Kimberley: Final Report of project 1.2.5 of the Kimberley Marine Research Program Node of the Western Australian Marine Science Institution, WAMSI, Perth, Western Australia. Bennelongia. 2009. Ecological Character Description for Roebuck Bay. Report to the Department of Environment and Conservation. Bennelongia Pty Ltd, Jolimont. Brown, A.M., Bejder, L., Pollock, K.H. and Allen, S.J. 2016a. “Site-Specific Assessments of the Abundance of Three Inshore Dolphin Species to Inform Conservation and Management.” Frontiers in Marine Science. Vol. 3. Article 4. Brown, A.M., Smith, J., Salgado-Kent, C., Marley, S., Allen, S.J., Thiele, D., Bejder, L., Erbe, C. and Chabanne, D. 2016b. Relative abundance, population genetic structure and acoustic monitoring of Australian snubfin and humpback dolphins in regions within the Kimberley. Report of Project 1.2.4 prepared for the Kimberley Marine Research Program, Western Australian Marine Science Institution, Perth, Western Australia. Cardno (WA). 2015. Broome Coastal Vulnerability Study. Final Report. 59914800. Cardno (WA). 2014. Old Broome Development Strategy and Concept Plan for Town Beach and Conti Foreshore. Department of Environmental Protection. 1996. A Guideline for Prevention of Dust and Smoke Pollution from Land Development Sites in Western Australia. Department of Parks and Wildlife (DPaW). 2016. Yawuru Nagulagun/Roebuck Bay Marine Park Joint Management Plan 2016. Management Plan 86. Department of the Environment and Energy. 2015. Biologically Important Areas of Regionally Significant Marine Species. Available at: http://environment.gov.au/marine/marine species/bias. Department of Water. 2012. Operational Policy 4.3: Identifying and establishing waterways foreshore areas, Government of Western Australia. EPA. 2018a. Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Divisions 1 and 2) Procedures Manual - Requirements under the Environmental Protection Act 1986, EPA, Western Australia. EPA. 2018b. Instructions for the referral of a Proposal to the Environmental Protection Authority under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, EPA, Western Australia. EPA. 2018c. Statement of Environmental Principles, Factors and Objectives, EPA, Western Australia EPA. 2016a. Environmental Factor Guideline - Benthic Communities and Habitats, EPA, Western Australia. EPA. 2016b. Technical Guidance - Protection of Benthic Communities and Habitats, EPA, Western Australia. EPA. 2016c. Environmental Factor Guideline - Coastal Processes, EPA, Western Australia. EPA. 2016d. Environmental Factor Guideline - Marine Environmental Quality, EPA, Western Australia. EPA. 2016e. Environmental Factor Guideline - Marine Fauna, EPA, Western Australia. EPA. 2016f. Environmental Factor Guideline - Social Surroundings, EPA, Western Australia.



EPA. 2016g. Instructions on how to define the key characteristics of a proposal, EPA, Western Australia. EPA. 2010. Environmental Assessment Guideline for Protecting Marine Turtles from Light Impacts, Environmental Assessment Guidelines No.5, EPA, Western Australia. EPA. 2004. Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors - Assessment of Aboriginal Heritage, No. 41, EPA, Western Australia. Greenfeld, P. and the Nyamba Buru Yawuru. 2017. Open Report of a Work Program Survey, Town Beach, Broome, Western Australia. Gunaratne, G. 2015. Characterising the response of inter-tidal zone ecohydrology to coastal hydrodynamics and anthropogenic nutrient loads. PhD, University of Western Australia. Keesing, J. 2014. WAMSI 2 - Kimberley Node: Project 2.2.9 Historical reconstructions of water quality in the Kimberley using sediment records. McFarlane, G. 2013. Eco Beach Sea Turtle Monitoring Program: Report of the 2012 nesting activity for the Flatback turtle (Natator depressus) at Eco Beach Wilderness Retreat. Conservation Volunteers, Ballarat. McKenzie, L.J., Yoshida, R.L., Langlois, L., Rau, J., Weatherall, K., Bishop, F., Bain, D., Ferguson, S. and Lindsay, M. 2017. Long-term seagrass monitoring in Roebuck Bay, Broome: Report on the first 10 years. A report for the Broome Community Seagrass Monitoring Project, Environs Kimberley. Centre for Tropical Water & Aquatic Ecosystem Research (TropWATER) report 17/35, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia. Prince, R.I.T. 1986. Dugong in northern waters of Western Australia 1984. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth, Western Australia. Shire of Broome. 2017a. About the Shire. Available at: http://www.broome.wa.gov.au/About-Council/Our-Shire/About-the-Shire (accessed August 1, 2019). Shire of Broome. 2017b. Town Beach Project. Available at: http://www.broome.wa.gov.au/Building-Development/Major-Projects/Town-Beach-Project (accessed August 1, 2019) Shire of Broome. 2017c. Old Broome Jetty site, now known as the Groyne Area. Heritage Council, State Heritage Office, Western Australia. Available at: http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Inventory/Details/dfeb0cdb-1d78-4dcc-952d-b56836e48f5a (accessed August 1, 2019). Shire of Broome. 2014. Local Planning Strategy, Parts 1 & 2. Available at: http://www.broome.wa.gov.au/files/assets/public/planning/lps/local-planning-strategy-parts-1-2.pdf (accessed August 1, 2019). Wallace, R.M. 2000. Foraminiferal Contribution to Modern Carbonate Sediments in Roebuck Bay and Roebuck Deeps, Western Australia. Honours dissertation, Curtin University of Technology, Perth. WAPC. 2013. State Planning Policy 2.6 - State Coastal Planning Policy Guidelines.

http://www.broome.wa.gov.au/About-Council/Our-Shire/About-the-Shire

http://www.broome.wa.gov.au/About-Council/Our-Shire/About-the-Shire

http://www.broome.wa.gov.au/Building-Development/Major-Projects/Town-Beach-Project

http://www.broome.wa.gov.au/Building-Development/Major-Projects/Town-Beach-Project

http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Inventory/Details/dfeb0cdb-1d78-4dcc-952d-b56836e48f5a

http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Inventory/Details/dfeb0cdb-1d78-4dcc-952d-b56836e48f5a

http://www.broome.wa.gov.au/files/assets/public/planning/lps/local-planning-strategy-parts-1-2.pdf

referral supporting document - epa.wa.gov.au€¦ · town beach jetty (also referred to as mangrove...

Documents