Mod 4 - Cable Location & Protection

Section 4.1 Overview.
This view assumes that an anchor strike to these cables is the result of a direct downward impact from a ship dropping it anchor.
A more realistic scenario is that the anchor has been deployed from a vessel underway and that it drags across the seabed in an attempt to slow or stop the vessel's forward movement.
In this event it is highly likely that the anchor will foul one or more of the cables laying on or just under the seabed.
The proponent makes no mention of the new burial tools that have been developed in Europe for the burial of submarine electrical cables that run from the many offshore wind farms to coastal terminations.

I have dived this area for the past 28 years and have done more dives here than all but a couple of other people.

Once again Ausgrid is proposing changes to this ill thought out project. Back in 2006 they did not consult with scuba divers as they did not even realised that the La Perouse area is the most heavily dived site in NSW, if not Australia. The transition area at La Perouse has NEVER been completed as per any of the proposals.

In addition, a number of times Ausgrid has contacted recreational divers and dive clubs in order to get work done illegally (not using commercial divers) and for free or cheap.

As stated, the cables are above the sand in the most part. They have been like this since day one and were NEVER buried as proposed. In addition, the previous proposals to cover the cable transition with rocks was never carried out. This area is home to many rare species of marine life, not barren as indicated.

Once again they are proposing the cheap way out of the problem. They should and must be made to cover the cable exits with rocks so they are less likely to be uncovered in future.

My 28 year experience of diving in this area indicates that the sea can move even huge 10 tonne rocks at 15 m, so putting a few sand bags over the cables is not likely to last long. Make them do the right thing this time and actually make them do the work as proposed. I object to it as proposed.

I am a researcher, regular diver and photographer at several sites in Botany Bay, including Bare Island, Henry's Head, and several sites along Kurnell including The Steps and Monument. The proposed development is less than a kilometre from these sites. They are home to a wide range of rare, protected and locally endemic species including:
* Weedy seadragon - Phyllopteryx taeniolatus
* Sydney pygmy pipehorse - Idiotropiscis lumnitzeri
* Bare Island anglerfish - Porophryne erythrodactylus
* Red Indian Fish - Pataecus fronto
* Black cod - Epinephelus daemelii
* Eastern blue devil - Paraplesiops bleekeri
plus a wide variety of nudibranchs, soft and hard corals, and sensitive habitats including sponge gardens, seagrass and kelp beds.

For photographic evidence of the diversity of marine life and habitats see these two albums:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/johnwturnbull/39BS1h
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjzqYLYK

I have not been aware of the project to date, and it seems the proposal has not been sufficiently publicised among all stakeholder groups. The short time given for submissions is also inadequate. It is of great concern to me that the proposed development will have serious implications for the surrounding marine life, as the effects of dredging and trenching are well known including plume formation and transportation on currents, smothering, re-mobilisation of contaminants, reduced water quality and loss of light for photosynthetic organisms.

Even with a cursory reading of the EIS, there are many shortcomings:

* With the exception of recognised impact on one fish species (Black cod) and one sensitive habitat (seagrass), impacts on marine life appear to be downplayed. Most of the species listed above are not addressed at all.
* The general impact on sygnathids is mentioned but no strategies are proposed to mitigate the impact. Sygnathids cannot "move out of the area" as they have very high site fidelity and cannot survive wide-ranging loss of habitat resulting from smothering.
* Sediment plumes are mentioned, but deep water impacts, distribution of sediments and contaminants on currents and smothering of sensitive habitats such as kelp and sponge gardens are not addressed. There is no evidence provided for the assertion in the report that these plumes will not affect marine life.
* "Consultation" does not appear to have included key stakeholder groups such as dive clubs, dive shops and many environmental groups
* Sydney's largest known population of weedy seadragons resides at both north and south heads of Botany Bay - specifically Henry's Head and Kurnell (Leap to Steps). These sites will be heavily impacted by sediment plumes on outgoing tides, yet this is not addressed in the study. Recent work that I have been involved in with UTS has indicated the sensitivity and vulnerability of these populations.

In summary, these shortcomings in the study and the paucity of consultation with key stakeholder groups raise serious concerns about the project which must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

I am a regular diver and photographer around Sydney, and especially around Kurnell and Bare Island as they are close to my home. The proposed development is very close to these sites.

These sites are home to many rare and protected species, some of which are also locally endemic, such as:
· Weedy seadragon - Phyllopteryx taeniolatus
· Sydney pygmy pipehorse - Idiotropiscis lumnitzeri
· Bare Island anglerfish - Porophryne erythrodactylus
· Red Indian Fish - Pataecus fronto
· Black cod - Epinephelus daemelii
· Eastern blue devil - Paraplesiops bleekeri
As well as many other species of nudibranchs and corals, and many sensitive habitats.

This proposal has not been well publicised amongst all stakeholder groups as neither I nor any diver friends I spoke to, had heard of this.

I am very concerned about the impacts from this project, especially the effects of dredging and trenching,

Given the fact that this hasn't been advertised, I haven't been able to read the EIS in detail, however, I can already see a lack of investigation into the impacts and/or a lack of acknowledgement of them. Apart from mentioning one sensitive habitat (seagrass) and one species (Black cod).

Whilst impacts on sygnathids are mentioned, no strategies are proposed to mitigate this impact. These creatures are not able to move to another location. They occur in more and more restricted locations and will not survive loss of habitat. Sydney's largest known population of weedy seadragons resides at both north and south heads of Botany Bay - specifically Henry's Head and Kurnell (Leap to Steps). These sites will be heavily impacted by sediment plumes on outgoing tides

There is no mention of deep water impacts, such as redistributing sediments and contaminants. The report says these plumes will not affect marine life. On what was this based? What research shows that?

Dive clubs and dive shops are key stakeholders and have not been consulted. Neither have local environmental groups.

In summary, these shortcomings in the study and the paucity of consultation with key stakeholder groups raise serious concerns about the project which must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Even though I have only been diving in Sydney for a short time, I've been to Bare Island and been astounded by the beauty even at a shallow depth. If this dredging and trenching occurs, I am certain that the beauty of this dive site will be impaired, and I hope that you won't proceed with this environmental destruction. This project's "consultation" is so inadequate it can be compared to that in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. There should have been a greater effort to inform divers and environmental groups about this and at least let us have some input. In addition, the dredging will impact sedimentation around the area which will have a huge impact on the survival of the vulnerable weedy seadragons, which have critical habitats around botany bay. I hope that the power cable trench does not come to fruition as the species and sites around the area will be impacted, and although we may not see the effects immediately, they will be felt in all communities.

I am a scuba diver who regularly dives in the bay either around Bare Island and Kurnell. This proposals concerns me not only because of the impact on my ability to dive the area, but mostly the impact on the beautiful marine life that lives below the surface. Only recently new species of marine life was found at bare island. More and more species are making bare island their home such as angler fish. Kurnell is renowned for their weedy seadragon population and the leap to steps is one of the most colourful and diverse dive sites in Sydney.

To fully meet your obligations it would be expected that you consult all community groups you will affect not just those you choose to.

I completely oppose any proposal that will have any impact on the marine life of this city

I am outraged at proposal modifications to the Botany Bay Cable Project in the Kurnell/Bare Island area, involving dredging and trenching through critical marine habitat. As a marine ecological research who has published studies on Botany Bay ecosystems, especially seagrass pipefishes, weedy seadragons and general seagrass fishes, I feel well qualified to point out the shortcomings of the proposal. We have been monitoring Botany Bay seadragons since 2002, and have shown that dragons can move from Kurnell across to Bare Island and as such would be disturbed by the dredging proposed.

With the exception of potential impact on one fish species (Black cod) and one sensitive habitat (seagrass), impacts on marine life appear to be downplayed. In my professional opinion, the prosed development could well interfere with weedy seadragons, several pipefish species all of which cannot be relocated successfully.

The potential devastating effects of the inevitable sediment/ contaminant output on sensitive habitats such as kelp and sponge gardens are not addressed and the assertion in the report that these plumes will not affect marine life is incorrect.

"Consultation" does not appear to have included key stakeholder groups such as dive clubs, dive shops and many environmental groups

In summary, these shortcomings in the study and the paucity of consultation with key stakeholder groups raise serious concerns about the project, which must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

I am a regular diver and photographer at several sites in Botany Bay, including Bare Island, Henry's Head, and several sites along Kurnell including The Steps and Monument. The proposed development is less than a kilometre from these sites. They are home to a wide range of rare, protected and locally endemic species including:
* Weedy seadragon - Phyllopteryx taeniolatus
* Sydney pygmy pipehorse - Idiotropiscis lumnitzeri
* Bare Island anglerfish - Porophryne erythrodactylus
* Red Indian Fish - Pataecus fronto
* Black cod - Epinephelus daemelii
* Eastern blue devil - Paraplesiops bleekeri
plus a wide variety of nudibranchs, soft and hard corals, and sensitive habitats including sponge gardens, seagrass and kelp beds.

For photographic evidence of the diversity of marine life and habitats see these two albums:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10208294277346285.1073741904.1584281185&type=1&l=10165a9432

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10207294483232057.1073741897.1584281185&type=1&l=23ba6fc241

Not to mention the many photographic evidences of many colleagues and friends.

I have not been aware of the process to date, and it seems the proposal has not been well publicised amongst all stakeholder groups. It is of great concern to me that the proposed development will have serious implications for the surrounding marine life, as the effects of dredging and trenching are well known including plume formation and transportation on currents, smothering, re-mobilisation of contaminants, reduced water quality and loss of light for photosynthetic organisms.

Even with a cursory reading of the EIS, there are many shortcomings:

* With the exception of recognised impact on one fish species (Black cod) and one sensitive habitat (seagrass), impacts on marine life appear to be downplayed. Most of the species listed above are not addressed at all.

* The general impact on sygnathids is mentioned but no strategies are proposed to mitigate the impact. Sygnathids cannot "move out of the area" as they have very high site fidelity and cannot survive wide-ranging loss of habitat resulting from smothering.

* Sediment plumes are mentioned, but deep water impacts, distribution of sediments and contaminants on currents and smothering of sensitive habitats such as kelp and sponge gardens are not addressed. There is no evidence provided for the assertion in the report that these plumes will not affect marine life.

*"Consultation" does not appear to have included key stakeholder groups such as dive clubs, dive shops and many environmental groups

* Sydney's largest known population of weedy seadragons resides at both north and south heads of Botany Bay - specifically Henry's Head and Kurnell (Leap to Steps). These sites will be heavily impacted by sediment plumes on outgoing tides, yet this is not addressed in the study. Recent work that I have been involved in with UTS has indicated the sensitivity and vulnerability of these populations.

In summary, these shortcomings in the study and the paucity of consultation with key stakeholder groups raise serious concerns about the project which must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

I am a regular diver and photographer at several sites in Botany Bay, including Bare Island, Henry's Head, and several sites along Kurnell including The Steps and Monument. The proposed development is less than a kilometre from these sites. They are home to a wide range of rare, protected and locally endemic species including:
* Weedy seadragon - Phyllopteryx taeniolatus
* Sydney pygmy pipehorse - Idiotropiscis lumnitzeri
* Bare Island anglerfish - Porophryne erythrodactylus
* Red Indian Fish - Pataecus fronto
* Black cod - Epinephelus daemelii
* Eastern blue devil - Paraplesiops bleekeri
plus a wide variety of nudibranchs, soft and hard corals, and sensitive habitats including sponge gardens, seagrass and kelp beds.

For photographic evidence of the diversity of marine life and habitats see these two albums:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/johnwturnbull/39BS1h
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjzqYLYK

I have not been aware of the process to date, and it seems the proposal has not been well publicised amongst all stakeholder groups. It is of great concern to me that the proposed development will have serious implications for the surrounding marine life, as the effects of dredging and trenching are well known including plume formation and transportation on currents, smothering, re-mobilisation of contaminants, reduced water quality and loss of light for photosynthetic organisms.

Even with a cursory reading of the EIS, there are many shortcomings:

* With the exception of recognised impact on one fish species (Black cod) and one sensitive habitat (seagrass), impacts on marine life appear to be downplayed. Most of the species listed above are not addressed at all.
* The general impact on sygnathids is mentioned but no strategies are proposed to mitigate the impact. Sygnathids cannot "move out of the area" as they have very high site fidelity and cannot survive wide-ranging loss of habitat resulting from smothering.
* Sediment plumes are mentioned, but deep water impacts, distribution of sediments and contaminants on currents and smothering of sensitive habitats such as kelp and sponge gardens are not addressed. There is no evidence provided for the assertion in the report that these plumes will not affect marine life.
* "Consultation" does not appear to have included key stakeholder groups such as dive clubs, dive shops and many environmental groups
* Sydney's largest known population of weedy seadragons resides at both north and south heads of Botany Bay - specifically Henry's Head and Kurnell (Leap to Steps). These sites will be heavily impacted by sediment plumes on outgoing tides, yet this is not addressed in the study. Recent work that I have been involved in with UTS has indicated the sensitivity and vulnerability of these populations.

In summary, these shortcomings in the study and the paucity of consultation with key stakeholder groups raise serious concerns about the project which must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

I am a regular diver and photographer at several sites in Botany Bay, including Bare Island, Henry's Head, and several sites along Kurnell including The Steps and Monument. The proposed development is less than a kilometre from these sites. They are home to a wide range of rare, protected and locally endemic species including:
* Weedy seadragon - Phyllopteryx taeniolatus
* Sydney pygmy pipehorse - Idiotropiscis lumnitzeri
* Bare Island anglerfish - Porophryne erythrodactylus
* Red Indian Fish - Pataecus fronto
* Black cod - Epinephelus daemelii
* Eastern blue devil - Paraplesiops bleekeri
plus a wide variety of nudibranchs, soft and hard corals, and sensitive habitats including sponge gardens, seagrass and kelp beds.

For photographic evidence of the diversity of marine life and habitats see these two albums:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/johnwturnbull/39BS1h
https://flic.kr/s/aHsjzqYLYK

I have not been aware of the process to date, and it seems the proposal has not been well publicised amongst all stakeholder groups. It is of great concern to me that the proposed development will have serious implications for the surrounding marine life, as the effects of dredging and trenching are well known including plume formation and transportation on currents, smothering, re-mobilisation of contaminants, reduced water quality and loss of light for photosynthetic organisms.

Even with a cursory reading of the EIS, there are many shortcomings:

* With the exception of recognised impact on one fish species (Black cod) and one sensitive habitat (seagrass), impacts on marine life appear to be downplayed. Most of the species listed above are not addressed at all.
* The general impact on sygnathids is mentioned but no strategies are proposed to mitigate the impact. Sygnathids cannot "move out of the area" as they have very high site fidelity and cannot survive wide-ranging loss of habitat resulting from smothering.
* Sediment plumes are mentioned, but deep water impacts, distribution of sediments and contaminants on currents and smothering of sensitive habitats such as kelp and sponge gardens are not addressed. There is no evidence provided for the assertion in the report that these plumes will not affect marine life.
* "Consultation" does not appear to have included key stakeholder groups such as dive clubs, dive shops and many environmental groups
* Sydney's largest known population of weedy seadragons resides at both north and south heads of Botany Bay - specifically Henry's Head and Kurnell (Leap to Steps). These sites will be heavily impacted by sediment plumes on outgoing tides, yet this is not addressed in the study. Recent work that I have been involved in with UTS has indicated the sensitivity and vulnerability of these populations.

In summary, these shortcomings in the study and the paucity of consultation with key stakeholder groups raise serious concerns about the project which must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

There is a paucity of research published on the environmental impact of undersea cables in the southern hemisphere . Further the impact of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields is little studied on elasmobranchs, other fish species, marine mammals and invertebrates. Our Club has been unable to locate any published papers in the southern hemisphere on marine cables
Our submission is that we would like the authority to consider funding citizen science research in conjunction with university funded projects at the Honors level to begin with

I am a diver and I regularly dive at both Bare Island and Kurnell. I am also a marine biologist. I have read through the proposal for the Botany Bay Cable Project MOD 4 EA and I have some issues with the document and project.

While it appears that the preferred options of "Do nothing" for the Shipping Channel and "Regular inspections and application of concrete filled hessian bags" for the HDD transition point will have very little impact on the area, I feel that there has been little to no consultation with the diving community and the Environmental Impact Assessment is grossly inadequate with respect to the species present and potential impact to them.

The report acknowledges the use of Botany Bay by recreational divers but I am not aware of any dive centres or shops that use Bare Island or Kurnell being contacted to inform them of the project or request input. Divers are the people most impacted by any disturbances to the seabed even up to a kilometre away. Each time there has been dredging in the bay (e.g. the deal plant, or the airport) there has been a significant impact to visibility to the various dive sites. I think it is important that dive groups be consulted and provide input.

Bare Island, Kurnell and their surrounds are home to populations of weedy seadragons, 2 species of seahorses, a species of pygmy pipehorse (which are pretty much only found around Botany Bay), and at least 4 species of pipefish. Additionally, there are two species of ghostpipefish which can be found in the area. Additionally, there is a newly described species of anglerfish, which has only been found in Botany Bay and surrounds. All of these can be impacted by any disturbance to the seabed. It is interesting to note that there was a healthy population of weedy seadragons on the north western corner of Bare Island up to around the time of the original cable project (2009) They are no longer seen. While this may only be a coincidence it is quite possible that the original cable project was responsible for their demise. I have only seen 2 weedy seadragons in the area since 2009.

With more dredging work coming up in the next few years it is important that proper consultation is undertaken and thorough listing of species and potential impact is considered.

RMS has reviewed the modified proposal and raises no objections to it. It has formed the view that it will not pose a risk to navigation or affect the normal use of the waterway but requests that adequate signage warning of the cables is placed on the foreshore.

OEH has reviewed this proposed modification and have no comments to make.

Please be advised that Sutherland Shire Council sees no issues with the proposal contained within this particular Application.

Submission is attached

Please see attached formal DPI response for the above project.

The EPA's comments are attached.

Council's submission attached.