Section 3.13 Noise and Vibration - Amazon S3s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/adani/pdf/82... · Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0 EIS • Adani Terminal 0 Environmental Impact Statement

Section 3.13 Noise and Vibration

Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0 EIS • Adani

Terminal 0 Environmental Impact Statement


Terminal 0 Environmental Impact Statement 3-424

3.13 Noise and Vibration The purpose of this section is to assess the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with construction, operation and (where applicable) decommissioning of the Project based on the findings of the technical study (Appendix E5a and Appendix E5c). This section describes:

The existing acoustic environment and values to be maintained at nearby sensitive receptors;

Existing noise and ground vibration conditions from T1 coal Terminal activities;

Impact of the Project using standard gauge rail and narrow gauge rail;

Assessment of LAmax noise levels;

Potential additional noise and vibration from the Project and its potential impacts on the surrounding environmental and matters of National Environmental Significance (MNES); and

Mitigation and management measures required to minimise the noise and vibration.

In addition to terrestrial noise and vibration matters, this section also summarises potential underwater noise and vibration impacts, based on the findings of the studies undertaken for the Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment (Abbot Point CIA) by the Centre for Marine Science and Technology (CMST) at Curtin University (McCauley et al. 2012). This study assessed the potential impacts of underwater noise on marine fauna generated during berth and trestle jetty construction activities as part of the Abbot Point CIA studies for all prospective developments at Abbot Point.

3.13.1 Land-based Noise and Ground Vibration Legislation, Policies and Guidelines

A full description of legislation is contained within Section 3.1 Legislation, Land Use and Planning. For the purposes of noise and vibration and its impacts on the terrestrial and marine environments, the following Acts are applicable.

The relevant legislation and guidelines (specifically for Queensland) are:

Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act);

Environmental Protection Regulation 2008;

Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 (EPP (Noise));

Ecoaccess Guideline: Planning for Noise Control; and

Ecoaccess Guideline: Assessment of Low Frequency Noise.

International criteria are outlined in the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for sleep disturbance. The enHealth Council criteria developed by the Australian Department of Hearing and Aging supplements the need to control noise for health reasons.

The EP Act and its subordinate legislation including the EPP (Noise) govern environmental noise and vibration levels in Queensland. Additionally, the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP, formerly DERM) Planning for Noise Control (PNC) Guideline (EPA 2004a) sets conditions relating to noise emitted from industrial premises and mining operations.



3.13.1.1 Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008

The EPP (Noise) identifies environmental values to be enhanced or protected and also provides acoustic quality objectives for protecting environmental and human health values. It provides a framework for making consistent, equitable and informed decisions about the acoustic environment. The EPP (Noise) identifies that the environmental values to be enhanced or protected include the qualities of the acoustic environment that are conducive to:

Protecting the health and biodiversity of ecosystems;

Human health and wellbeing, including by ensuring a suitable acoustic environment for individuals to do any of the following:

- Sleep

- Study or learn

- Be involved in recreation, including relaxation and conversation

Protecting the amenity of the community.

Schedule 1 of the EPP (Noise) provides acoustic quality objectives for a variety of sensitive receptors (listed below). An acoustic quality objective stated in Schedule 1 is expressed as a measurement of an acoustic descriptor. It is intended that the acoustic quality objectives be progressively achieved as part of achieving the purpose of the policy over the long term. The EPP (Noise) defines noise sensitive receivers as:

Dwellings (both indoors and outdoors);

Library and educational institution (indoors);

Childcare centre or kindergarten (indoors);

School or playground (outdoors);

Hospital, surgery or other medical institution (indoors);

Commercial and retail activity (indoors);

Protected areas, or an area identified under a conservation plan under the Nature Conservation Act 1992 (NC Act) as a critical habitat or an area of major interest;

Marine park under the Marine Parks Act 2004; and

Park or garden that is open to the public for use other than for sport or organised entertainment.

3.13.1.2 World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines for Community Noise

The LAmax noise criterion was derived from the World Health Organisation’s 2009 publication ‘Night Time Noise Guidelines for Europe’. Comments received from the Department for Environmental Heritage and Protection (EHP) have determined that the LAmax criterion applicable to the Project is outlined in two papers:

Passchier-Vermeer, W. et al. (2002). Sleep Disturbance and Aircraft Noise Exposure – Exposure-Effect Relationships. TNO Prevention and Health; The Netherlands; and



Basner, M. et al. (2004). Effects of Nocturnal Aircraft Noise – Volume 1. Institute of Aerospace Medicine; Cologne.

Reviewing these papers, the LAmax criteria is 33 dB(A) indoors. As discussed in Appendix E5a, a seven decibel transmission loss factor will be applied, therefore the LAmax criterion is 40 dB(A) outdoors.

Lnight

The Lnight, outside is the LAeq23:00-7:00 measured outside the most exposed facade, with a threshold of 42 dB. This threshold is based on European building construction; in Queensland, the typical construction provides a conservative 7 dB transmission loss with windows open. Taking this into account, the adjusted external threshold for Lnight is recommended to be 28 dB(A).

LAmax

For intermittent noise sources, the most important descriptor is the LAmax, inside; the threshold for the LAmax is 42 dB with no exceedences of LAmax during any one night. In order to achieve this internal noise level, the external level should be adjusted taking into consideration typical building construction in Queensland. The adjusted LAmax outside is 49 dB (7 dB for transmission loss).

It should be noted that these thresholds are not absolute but the noise levels at which the increase in movement during sleep have been observed in the population. For the Lnight, the threshold corresponds to the increase in sleep disturbance in <3% of the population.

3.13.1.3 EnHealth Council 2004

The enHealth document ‘The Health Effects of Environmental Noise- Other than Hearing Loss’, published in May 2004 presents a review of the health effects, other than hearing loss. The document also reviews both national and international measures directed at management of environmental noise, and makes recommendations on management.

3.13.1.4 Noise from Construction Activities

The EPP (Noise) does not include construction noise limits (other than those which apply to blasting). In lieu of construction guidelines for Queensland, ‘best practice’ is considered to apply the noise criteria contained within the WHO ‘Night-time Noise Guidelines for Europe’ during the evening and night-time periods (WHO, 2009). Table 3-74 outlines noise threshold levels for the observed health effects as determined by WHO.

Table 3-74 Threshold Levels for Night Time Noise (WHO)

Effect Description Indicator Threshold (dB(A))

Sleep Quality

Waking up during the night and/or too early in the morning LAmax Inside property 42 Increased average movement when sleeping LAnight Outside property 42

* dB(A)= A-weighted decibels LAnight refers to the equivalent outdoor pressure level during night-time (23:00-07:00) LAmax refers to the maximum outdoor sound pressure level associated with an individual noise event 3.13.1.5 Noise from Operational Activities

The EPP (Noise) is designed to protect the acoustic environment for health and well-being. Schedule 1 of the EPP (Noise) defines acoustic quality objectives for each sensitive receptor. Objectives listed for sensitive receptors (to the Project) are presented below in Table 3-75.



Table 3-75 Schedule 1 EPP (Noise) acoustic quality objectives for sensitive receptors

Sensitive Receptor Time of Day

Acoustic quality objectives, (measured at the receptor)

dB(A) Environmental Value Day Evening Night

LAeq,adj, 1hr LA10,adj, 1hr LA1,adj, 1hr

Dwelling (outdoors) Daytime

and evening

50 55 65 Health and wellbeing

Dwelling (indoors)

Daytime and

evening 35 40 45 Health and

wellbeing

Night-time 30 35 40

Health and wellbeing, in

relation to the ability to sleep

Protected areas, or an area identified under a conservation plan under the NC Act as a critical habitat or an area of major interest

Anytime The level of noise that preserves

the amenity of the existing area or place

Health and biodiversity of

ecosystems

Marine park under the Marine Parks Act 2004 Anytime

The level or noise that preserves the amenity of the existing marine

park

Health and biodiversity of

ecosystems 3.13.1.6 Rail Noise Criteria

Queensland Rail’s ‘Code of Practice- Railway Noise Management’ details the different noise levels for ‘beneficial assets’ as follows:

65 dB Laeq, 24 hour; and

87 dB LAmax (QR 2007).

These levels are applicable one metre in front of the facade of a sensitive receptor.

3.13.1.7 Planning for Noise Control (PNC)

The PNC provides a framework for setting conditions relating to noise emitted from a variety of sources, including industrial premises and mining operations. Importantly, the PNC addresses which steady state noise from continually operating machinery and transient noises (such as heavy trucks or rail operations). The guideline is applicable to sounds from all sources, individually and in combination, which contribute to the total noise at a sensitive receptor.

Two criteria need to be satisfied for noise emission including:

Specific noise level; and

The maximum planning noise level.

The Specific Noise Level (SNL) is based on the existing background noise and is summarised by the following equation:

LAeq, 1 hour ≤ minLA90, 1 hour + 3 dB1

1 minLA90, 1 hour is the adjusted Rating Background Level (RBL), which is defined as the median value of the measured Assessment Background Levels) for each period (day/evening/night). ABL is the tenth



The design criterion for the Project is then taken to be the lower of the SNL and maximum Planning Noise Level (PNL) for each period (day, evening, night). The design criterion is as follows:

LAeq, 1 hour - K1 - K22

Under the PNC, a threshold background noise level of 25 dB(A) is applicable if measured rating background level (RBL) is below 25 dB(A); on the basis that it is not possible to maintain background levels below 25 dB(A) as development occurs. The recommended outdoor background PLN is shown in Table 3-76 for the proposed land use.

Table 3-76 Recommended outdoor background noise planning levels (minLA90, 1 hour)

Receiver Land Use Receiver Area Dominant Land Use

Background Noise Level, minLA90, 1 hour (dB(A))

Day Evening Night

Purely residential Very rural 35 30 25

Rural residential 40 35 30

The PNL is based on the measured ambient noise level (LAeq, 1 hour) at the receptor. Maximum noise levels from industrial noise sources for noise receptor areas surrounding the proposed Project are shown in Table 3-77.

The PNL from Table 3-77 is then adjusted based on the measured ambient noise level from which the maximum PNL is determined by a set of conditions as outlined in the guideline.

Table 3-77 Estimated maximum values of planning noise levels for proposed noise sources Noise Area

Category Description of Neighbourhood

Maximum Hourly Sound Pressure Level, LAeq, 1

hour (PNL)* Day Evening Night

Z1 Very rural, purely residential. <40 veh/hr 40 35 30 Z2 Negligible transportation. < 80 veh/hr 50 45 40 Z3 Low-density transportation. <200 veh/hr 55 50 45

Z4 Medium density transportation (<600 veh/hr) or some commerce or industry 60 55 50

Z5 Dense transportation (<1400 veh/hr) or some commerce or industry) 65 60 55

Z6 Very dense transportation (<3000 veh/hr)

or in commercial or bordering industrial districts

70 65 60

Z7 Extremely dense transportation (>3000

veh/hr) or within predominantly industrial districts

75 70 65

*Daytime: 0700 and 1800 hours, Evening: 1800 and 2200 hours. Night-time: 2200 and 0700 hours and Sundays and public holidays, daytime is defined from 0900 to 1800 hours.

A comparison of the PNC and the EPP (Noise) have identified that both policies produce low criteria for rural environments with very low existing background noise level. The EPP (Noise) does not provide a threshold background level, instead it recommends a night-time internal criteria for dwellings of 30 dB(A). Without a threshold background noise level or criterion, unreasonable criterion could result. In contrast, the Ecoaccess Guideline provides a threshold background noise level of 25 dB(A), and therefore prescribes a minimum criterion of Leq 29 dB(A).

percentile measured background noise level (LA90, T) during each measurement period (day/evening/night) for each 24 hours. 2 K1- tonal adjustment, K2- impulse adjustment



3.13.1.8 Draft Guideline- Low Frequency Assessment

The draft Assessment of Low Frequency Noise Guideline (EPA 2004b) is applicable to low frequency noise (frequency less than 200 Hz) emitted from industrial premises, commercial premises, mining and extractive operations. The intent of the guideline is to accurately assess annoyance and discomfort caused by low frequency noise within sensitive receptor locations such as within dwellings.

3.13.1.9 Noise Criteria Summary

Based on the findings in the previous section, the applicable noise criteria for this Project are summarised in Table 3-78.

Table 3-78 Noise and vibration criteria summary

Noise Source Time Frame Noise Limit Noise Criteria

T0 Night 28 dB LAeq, 1 hour ‘Planning for Noise Control’ steady state noise limit

T0 Night 28 dB(A) Lnight, outside* WHO Sleep Disturbance Threshold Train Movement Day/Night 65 dB LAeq,24 hours Queensland Rail Code of Practice

Train unloading Night 28 dB LAeq, 1hour ‘Planning for Noise Control steady state noise limit’

Low Frequency Noise (any other

sources) Day/Night 50 dB (lin) Draft ‘Assessment of Low Frequency Noise

Guideline’

*Adjusted for Queensland Construction (see Section 3.13.4.4) 3.13.1.10 Ground Vibration Criteria

Ground vibration can be caused by many different external sources, including industrial, construction, and transportation activities. Vibration and its associated effects are usually classified according to time duration as follows:

Continuous vibration continues uninterrupted for a prolonged period (usually throughout daytime and/or night-time);

Impulsive vibration is an instantaneous build up to a peak followed by a damped decay that may not involve several cycles of vibration. It can also consist of a sudden application of several cycles at approximately the same amplitude, providing that the duration is less than two seconds; and

Intermittent vibration can be defined as interrupted periods of continuous (e.g. drill) or repeated periods of impulsive vibration (e.g. a pile driver), or continuous vibration that varies significantly in magnitude.

In terms of impact, ground vibration levels during construction and operation can be summarised into two categories:

1. Human comfort and annoyance; and

2. Damage to buildings.

The description of criteria contained within the individual standards for ground vibration are not provided within this document, as the potential impacts from ground vibration from the Project are not a cause for concern. In the event that ground vibration impacts are identified as a result of



human annoyance or structural damage, the appropriate standards and guidelines as outlined in Section 2.7 of Appendix E5a will be used.



3.13.2 Underwater Noise Legislation, Policies and Guidelines

3.13.2.1 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 (GBRMP Act) does not provide guidelines for the protection of marine life and biodiversity against noise impacts however Adani must ensure that the Project can operate whilst still providing the long term protection and conservation of the environment, biodiversity and heritage values of the GBR region.

3.13.2.2 Other Underwater Noise Policies and Guidelines

Presently, there are no quantitative Commonwealth and/or Queensland guidelines on acceptable exposure levels for megafauna to underwater noise as a result of construction activities. However, there are guidelines (EPBC Policy Statement 2.1) that have been developed for the oil and gas industry in relation to the operation of seismic air-gun arrays, in time, it is anticipated that similar guidelines will also be applied to marine piling operations.

The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are in the process of developing acoustic guidelines for assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on marine mammal species under its jurisdiction. These are currently undergoing scientific peer review.

3.13.2.3 EPP (Noise)

Schedule 1 of the EPP (Noise) outlines acoustic quality objectives for various sensitive receptors and their environmental value. A marine park protected under the Marine Parks Act 2004 has an acoustic quality objective of “the level of noise that preserves the amenity of the existing marine park” at anytime in order to protect the health and biodiversity of ecosystems.

3.13.3 Assessment Method

3.13.3.1 Noise and Vibration Assessment

The Project’s noise and vibration assessment involved monitoring and modelling of the noise impacts, based on both narrow and standard gauge rail lines. The flow diagram in Figure 3-80 shows the main stages and inputs required to carry out the assessment for the fieldwork and desktop study.



Figure 3-80 Stages of Noise Assessment (see Appendix E5a) 3.13.3.2 Fieldwork

The fieldwork was carried out in compliance with the following standards and guidance documents:

Australian Standard AS 1055-1997 Acoustics – Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise. Parts 103, Standards Australia, NSW;

Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Noise Measurement Manual – For Use in Testing Compliance with the Environment Protection Act 1994; and

The noise monitoring results have been processed and the resulting planning noise levels have been determined using the PNC.

The existing noise environment was determined through attended and unattended ambient noise monitoring undertaken between 25 July and 2 August 2012 at four locations close to Abbot Point.

The closest sensitive receptor was located 11 km from the proposed Project area. In order to obtain an understanding of the background noise levels in and around Abbot Point, monitoring was carried out at locations not considered to be sensitive (see Figure 3-81). The noise monitoring locations were identified as:

Fieldwork

Desktop

Noise Monitoring

Sensitive Receptor Identification

Noise Monitoring

Noise Model Development

Noise Sources

Meteorology

Mapping including topography Prediction Scenarios

Map Contours and Predictions at

Sensitive Receptors

Comparison with Criteria

Determination of Impacts

Noise Control/ Mitigation



Salisbury Plains Homestead (this is the only occupied sensitive receptor near the Project area);

Former Colinta Homestead;

Caley Valley Wetland (Wetland); and

The road/rail bridge adjacent to both the railway line and Abbot Point Road (to capture the noise levels of trains).

The monitoring location on the road/rail line is not a sensitive receptor and baseline noise monitoring was only undertaken for assessing existing train noise levels. Therefore, noise-modelling predictions will not be carried out for this location. All monitoring locations are displayed in Figure 3-81. The equipment used and the equipment setup for each monitoring location is presented in Appendix E5a.

Since noise monitoring was undertaken, the design has progressed and further verification will be required when standard gauge design has progressed. The purpose of the further work will be to confirm there are no material changes regarding noise impacts identified in this EIS.

3.13.3.3 Desktop Method

Noise Prediction Software

The prediction of noise in the environment requires the definition of noise sources including associated directivity for each source. The noise propagation is calculated for a number of environmental parameters including:

Geometric spreading;

Obstacles such as enclosures, barriers, and buildings;

Meteorological conditions such as air absorption, wind effects, and temperature gradient effects; and

Ground effects.

SoundPLAN noise modelling software was used for this analysis. For the assessment, the method from the International Standard ISO 9613 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound during Propagation Outdoors’ was used. The ISO 9613 method ensured accurate prediction while taking into account meteorological effects in barrier and ground attenuation calculations.

Meteorological Conditions at Site

Noise propagation can be affected by weather conditions, which can either increase or decrease noise levels. The PNC identifies that “when predicting the noise level from a planned new source, due consideration must be given to the possible side effects of weather conditions and ground conditions on the sound propagation in the planned location. The prevailing and worst-case meteorological conditions (wind, temperature, humidity and temperature inversions) at the planned and receiver locations must be determined”.

For the Project, the frequency of temperature inversions has been determined by obtaining the weather conditions at the proposed Project site from The Air Prediction Model (TAPM). The comparison of wind direction and wind speed using the EPA approved data for Townsville between 1965 and 1975, confirmed the output of the TAPM generated data.



The weather conditions for the site at night-time (18:00 – 07:00 hours) during the winter months and annual conditions were also analysed. It was determined that the worst-case conditions (Stability Class F or worse) occur for 19.7% of the time during the night-time winter months at the site. In comparison, adverse conditions (Stability Class E) are more common at night (59%). Consequently, temperature inversions do not occur for 30% of the night-time hours during the winter months and therefore inversions were not considered for worst-case weather for the noise predictions.

Additional analysis of the wind speed was undertaken to determine if wind was a feature of the local area. The wind roses for each season and for the whole year that were used for the noise assessment can be found in Appendix E5a. The wind roses show that wind speeds do not occur at or below 3 m/s for 30% of any season or full year between any source to receiver.

3.13.3.4 Modelling Details for Noise and Vibration

This section outlines the Project phases, assumptions and noise sources used in the modelling and the impacts of these upon the sensitive receptors.

3.13.3.5 Assumptions

It is important to note that the modelling results are provisional and are based on the project specifications at the time of assessment for narrow gauge lines. Project specifications may change over time, and the models will require subsequent validation.

As the throughput of coal increases as the Project progresses, characteristics such as train arrivals per day and ship loading will also increase. The noise and vibration generating components of these activities that were included as assumptions in the model and their likely duration are described in the following sections.

3.13.3.6 Train Arrival and Unloading

Development of the Project will potentially require up to 20 trains per day to deliver a throughput of 35 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) for Phase 1 and doubling to achieve 70 Mtpa upon completion of Phase 2 works. Coal trains servicing the port will range from 120 wagons to 240 wagons with a capacity of 10,000 to 23,500 tonnes (t) of coal per train. Verification of noise impacts is being completed to confirm there is no material difference in noise impacts.

The bottom dumping trains will drop the coal into the dump-station, located underground. The unloading will occur in a partially enclosed building, with doorway openings to allow for access. If the coal is ‘sticky’ and does not immediately drop from the wagon, a wagon vibrator automatically shakes the wagon until the coal is removed. This shaking can last up to 30 seconds per wagon. The typical period for unloading a narrow gauge train consisting of 120 wagons is approximately 2 hours and 3 hours for a 164 wagon train. A standard gauge 240 wagon train will take approximately 4 hours to unload, however the period can increase to 150 minutes per train if the wagon vibrator is used on each train wagon.

#

#

#

#

Existing Jettyand Wharf

Proposed T0 Stockpiles

Exis

ting

T1

Proposed T0 Berth

Proposed T0 Jetty

Proposed T0 MOF

Caley Valley Wetland

Wetland

Salisbury Plains

Road/ Rail BridgeFormer Colinta Homestead

BRUCE HIGHWAY

148°6'0"E

148°6'0"E

148°4'0"E

148°4'0"E

148°2'0"E

148°2'0"E

148°0'0"E

148°0'0"E19

°52'

0"S

19°5

2'0"

S

19°5

4'0"

S

19°5

4'0"

S

19°5

6'0"

S

19°5

6'0"

S

19°5

8'0"

S

19°5

8'0"

S

µLegend

#Noise Monitoring Location/Sensitive Receptor

# Noise Monitoring LocationProposed Road EasementProposed CommonRail Corridor

Road

Existing Rail

APSDA Boundary

Abbot Point - Caley Valley

GBRMP Boundary

Project Area

0 1,000 2,000500

Metres

"

CAIRNS

BRISBANE

MOUNT ISA

TOWNSVILLE

ROCKHAMPTON

Data source:Survey by Vipac, 2012; Roads by Geoscience Australia; Terminaldata by Adani; Aerial Image by NQBP, 2011; GBRMPA 2011; Allother data by DERM.

Job: B12705_079-R1_noiseDate: 23/01/2013

DISCLAIMERCDM Smith has endeavoured to ensure accuracy andcompleteness of the data. CDM Smith assumes no legal liabilityor responsibility for any decisions or actions resulting from theinformation contained within this map.

Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0 (T0) ProjectFigure 3-81 Noise monitoring and sensitive receptor locations



3.13.3.7 Conveyors and Coal Bunds

A 5.7 km network of conveyors will transport the coal from the dump-station to the coal bunds and from the bunds to the ship. Occasionally, the coal will bypass the bunds and is transported directly to an awaiting ship. The capacity of the inloading conveyor stream is rated at 9,000 tonnes per hour (tph), but conveyor speeds will be minimised as far as practical without compromising materials handling and operational considerations, in order to reduce noise levels. The Project will comprise of three coal bunds serviced by three conveyors with stackers/reclaimers. The Project is described in detail in Section 2 Project Details.

3.13.3.8 Ship Loading

Two offshore berths are located at the end of a 2.75 km long trestle jetty, which is serviced by a conveyor and ship loader. The period to load a ship of 104,000 t capacity at a rate of 10,000 tph is approximately 11 hours.

During the modelling process, a number of other assumptions were made including:

The train line alignment provided shows the train line passing through Salisbury Plains. Current design has removed the requirement for this alignment;

The conveyors from the train unloading facility will only operate for the duration it takes to unload the train (70-150 minutes per train);

Road traffic associated with the Project is not deemed to be significant, therefore it has not been modelled. However, additional modelling work will be required to determine impacts associated with the haulage of fill required for the stockpiles; and

The speed of the train is 40 km/h on entry and exit of the spur line and 10 km/h within the rail loop. Train speed will increase incrementally on approaches to the dump station and upon departure from the rail loop.

3.13.3.9 Meteorology

The noise modelling was carried out using ISO 9613 propagation method, calculating the correction for meteorology (Cmet) from wind statistics for the winter season as shown in Appendix E5a. The meteorological parameters for modelling are shown in Table 3-79. The temperature and humidity data were obtained from Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) long-term statistics at Bowen Airport (station # 033257).

Table 3-79 Model meteorology (Worst-Case)

Parameter Summer Winter

Temperature (night) 20°C 10°C Relative humidity 70% 70%

Wind statistics Summer wind rose Winter wind rose Calm winds 0.02% 0.09%

For this assessment, noise levels during the winter and summer months will be predicted as the attenuation of noise due to atmospheric absorption (temperature and relative humidity of the air) differs between seasons.



3.13.3.10 Phases

The life of the Project can be categorised into broad phases, as shown in Table 3-80. Due to the time-based criteria, the train movements were modelled separately as assessed to a LAeq, 24-hour criterion whereas the Terminal activities was assessed to LAeq, 1 hour criteria.

Table 3-80 Modelling scenarios

Phases Variants Time based assessment for comparison with criteria

Construction Trestle 1 hour

Construction of Terminal 1 hour Track laying 1 hour

Operation Operation of Terminal activities 1 hour

Train movements Terminal capacity at 100% (35 Mtpa) 24 hours Terminal capacity at 200% (70 Mtpa) 24 hours

Note that these are not taking into consideration the operations of T1, T2, T3 or other projects.

3.13.3.11 Seasonality of Wetland and Ground Attenuation

Ground attenuation is mainly the result of sound reflected by the ground surface interfering with it propagating directly from source to receptor. This attenuation is determined primarily by the ground surfaces near the source and receptor. Whilst the size of the Caley Valley Wetland varies significantly between wet and dry periods, the difference in noise levels is not expected to be of significance, as the ground between the source and receptor will not provide much ground attenuation. This is in accordance with the ISO 9613 method.

For the model, ground attenuations (G) are as follows:

Sea/Wetland: G=0;

Earth: G=1;

Railways: G=1;

Road: G=0; and

Coal bunds: G=0.73.

3.13.3.12 Modelled Sounds Power Levels

The significant construction and operational noise sources used for the assessment are identified in Table 3-81. The noise sources have been obtained from the following sources:

Proprietary database, which includes noise measurements of plant measured at the existing T1 facility;

Australian Standard AS 2436 (2010) ‘Guide to Noise and Vibration Control on Construction, Demolition and Maintenance Site’; and

British Standards BS 5228:1 (2009) ‘Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites- Part 1: Noise’ which provides a comprehensive list and associated noise emissions data of equipment used in construction-sites globally.

3 Obtained through spectral data published by Savery and Associates Pty Ltd, Galilee Coal Project EIS



Table 3-81 Sound power levels for significant noise sources

Plant Frequency (Hz) Sound Power

Level 63 Hz

125 Hz

250 Hz

500 Hz 1 kHz 2 kHz 4 kHz 8 kHz dB dB(A)

Grader 108 113 116 111 109 106 100 94 120 114 Dozer (D7) 120 121 112 104 105 101 99 95 124 111 Dozer (D9) 117 123 119 111 107 101 91 83 125 115

Excavator (20 t) 108 111 104 101 100 98 97 94 114 106 Vibrating Rollers 99 98 103 102 98 93 87 79 114 108

Backhoe 95 90 86 85 86 79 87 74 111 110 Mobile crane 108 100 99 95 93 90 85 77 109 98

Concrete batching plant 101 101 105 104 100 98 93 90 110 106

Piling 131 139 128 127 125 123 115 108 141 131 Sleeper/ Track

layer 108 111 104 101 100 98 97 94 114 106

Ballast regulator 103 107 105 105 102 99 93 85 112 107 Field conveyor

(per metre) 86 80 80 71 71 70 75 75 88 81

Conveyor drives 89 89 91 93 93 93 84 74 107 103 Stacker/

Reclaimer 91 91 92 93 92 86 83 77 105 101

Coal Wagon Vibrator 120 123 116 116 110 105 101 89 140 124

Train (includes 2 locomotives) 113 115 111 114 118 111 107 102 122 120

3.13.3.13 Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment

The Abbot Point CIA (ELA and OpenLines 2012) assessed the cumulative noise emissions and impacts associated with all existing and proposed projects at Abbot Point, namely the existing T1 coal Terminal and the proposed Project, T2 and T3 coal terminals. When comparing the two technical noise and vibration studies (Appendix E5a and Appendix E5b) it is important to consider the relative scale and focus, namely:

The mapping contours for noise level for the Abbot Point CIA do not show contours below 50 dB(A), while the mapping contours for the Project assessment are lower by comparison. Consequently, the mapping contours appear different;

The Abbot Point CIA is primarily concerned with the potential noise impacts on the Wetland and associated fauna whilst the Project’s assessment considers human impacts in addition to Wetland and fauna impacts;

Results in the Abbot Point CIA assess potential noise and ground vibrations from T1, T2, T3 and the Project’s operations. The Project’s assessment provides noise levels as a standalone impact (single project); and

The Abbot Point CIA has been developed showing all of the projects together (in mapping), whereas the Project provides staged impact mapping for this project in isolation (construction, operation and decommissioning).

The underwater noise study also involved a desktop analysis and modelling based on the predicted noise impacts provided in the Abbot Point CIA and was not assessed independently for the Project. Subsequently, specific underwater noise levels cannot be identified for the Project alone, and



potential impacts have been developed based on the methodologies and results provided in the Abbot Point CIA. The potential impacts on the GBRMP (identified as a MNES) has been assessed in the underwater noise study, as potential impacts are likely to be a result of piling, and the construction of off-shore infrastructure.

3.13.3.14 Underwater Noise

The assessment method undertaken by McCauley et al. (2012) as part of the Abbot Point CIA for underwater noise involved:

Reviewing the literature and databases on noise signatures from construction activities;

Modelling noise footprints of pile driving at Abbot Point using appropriate noise signatures;

Mapping single and cumulative sound exposures;

Reviewing the literature on related bioacoustic effects on MNES near Abbot Point;

Estimating the size of impact zones; and

Designed field work protocols for in situ model validation, noise measurement and animal monitoring (McCauley et al. 2012).

The model parameters and assumptions (e.g. total number of pile drivers to be used) that were included in this assessment differ to the Project details. However, this method ensured that the range and severity of underwater noise impacts on MNES were appropriately identified and could be properly managed.

The transmission of underwater noise from single pile driving plant was modelled from 12 locations accounting for the local environment. Four of a possible six pile drivers were considered (as part of the Abbot Point CIA) to be operating along the wharf front at any time. To account for the spatial spread of pile drivers, the sound fields out to 40 km around multiple pile drivers spaced along the wharf front were mapped on a common spatial grid and the maximum level at any point in the common grid was retrieved (i.e., the closest pile driver). To account for the chance of multiple pile driving signals either overlapping (hence summing energy) or arriving as closely spaced signals in a short time period (hence summing energy at the receiver ear which averages across time periods), typical work-day scenarios of pile operations were established using strike rates measured previously.

Bounds were set for strike rate, number of strikes per piling bout and time between piling bouts. Random number generators were used to fix parameters on a daily basis for each plant. The result for multiple plants was summed at the daily level and the process iterated for multiple runs of 100 days, to give statistics of average numbers of strikes across a day and numbers of simultaneously operating pile drivers in 30 second windows across the day (McCauley et al. 2012).



3.13.4 Existing Environment

The main land uses at monitoring locations of Salisbury Plains and former Colinta Homestead are described as ‘purely residential’ (a residence) and ‘very rural’ whereas the Wetland site is classified as ‘passive recreation area’ and ‘very rural’ as defined by PNC (see Table 3-76).

3.13.4.1 Existing Infrastructure

The existing noise levels experienced at site were determined through monitoring at sensitive receptors including the nearest homesteads and the adjacent Wetland. Documents provided by Adani have indicated that currently there are no more than 10 trains per day delivering coal to Abbot Point. The existing infrastructure of T1 consists:

Rail loop;

37 Conveyor units and 39 conveyor drives;

1 wagon vibrator;

6 stackers and reclaimers;

Trestle and 2 ship loaders; and

2 surge bins.

3.13.4.2 Weather Conditions

Daily weather observations during the monitoring period were obtained from BoM’s weather monitoring station at Bowen Airport for most days with the exception of 3 pm data on 29 July and 30 July 2012. The data for these days were obtained from Proserpine Airport (station # 033247). Information for the Bowen region will be included in the next modelling run. Data used for the July 2012 model is shown in Table 3-82 below.

Table 3-82 Weather observations during monitoring period

Date

9:00 am 3:00 pm Daily

Temp (°C)

Wind Directio

n

Wind Speed

Temp (°C)

Wind Directio

n

Wind Speed

Temp (°C) Range

Rainfall (mm)

25/07/2012 18.8 SE 20 22.3 ESE 19 14.2 - 23.7 0 26/07/2012 19.8 SE 19 23.5 NE 15 11.8 - 24.2 0 27/07/2012 18.2 SW 13 22.9 N 19 11.4 - 25.0 0 28/07/2012 18 SE 11 20.8 NE 9 9.5 - 22.8 0 29/07/2012 16.7 SE 30 20.1 E 17 5.3 - 20.8 0 30/07/2012 14 Calm 21.1 ESE 20 8.1 - 23.0 0 31/07/2012 18.7 SE 35 22.1 E 19 6.7 - 23.4 0 01/08/2012 15.6 SW 7 22 SE 22 7.7 - 22.9 0 02/08/2012 18.6 SSE 19 22.6 SE 15 8.1 - 23.4 0

The Pasquil stability classes during the monitoring period could not be accurately determined, as cloud cover data is not collected during the night-time period.

3.13.4.3 Summary of Noise Monitoring Results

Table 3-83 below provides a summary of the noise monitoring results for all of the day captures at each location. It should be noted that all of the monitoring locations are free-field positions. The



noise monitoring data for individual days is shown in tabulated and graphical form in Appendix D of Appendix E5a.

Table 3-83 Summary of noise monitoring results

Noise Descriptor Time Period

Noise Level (dB(A))

Salisbury Plains Former Colinta Homestead Wetland

LAmax Night (10pm to 7am) 70.2 73.2 70.8

LAeq, T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 43.7 45.8 37.7 Evening (6pm to

10pm) 45.9 56.3 37.6

Night (10pm to 7am) 42.1 51.4 34.9

LA90, T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 34.9 36.8 27.0 Evening (6pm to

10pm) 35.0 45.0 31.0

Night (10pm to 7am) 28.7 44.6 27.8

The primary noise source observed included:

Salisbury Plains- distant traffic from the Bruce Highway;

Former Colinta Homestead- wind blowing through trees and grass; and

Wetland- bird and insect noises.

It should be noted that site personnel verified that at all monitoring locations, the activities of the existing T1 were not discernible above the ambient noise environment.

The Project area is in proximity to the Wetland and during the winter months, the population of fauna (birds, insects, and amphibians) inhabiting the Wetland is at its lowest. The 2012 season was atypical in that the wet season progressed beyond the annual average. The noise monitoring was carried out mid-winter to obtain the lowest background noise levels for the sensitive receptors in order to determine the worst-case Planning Noise Levels. Due to the seasonal nature of the Wetland, the criteria determined from the monitoring period are considered conservative. No excessive noise levels from existing operational activities associated with T1, which may potentially impact the Wetland, were evident.

3.13.4.4 Determining the Planning Noise Levels

In order to determine the planning and noise levels, the noise monitoring data has been adjusted as defined in the PNC based on the land uses, as detailed in Appendix E5a. The resultant planning noise levels are shown below in Table 3-84.

Table 3-84 Planning noise levels at monitoring locations

Time Period Planning Noise Levels (dB(A)) (RBL,adj)

Salisbury Plains Former Colinta Homestead

Wetland*

Day 33 30 34 Evening 29 30 35

Night 28 28 35 *At monitoring location only



3.13.4.5 Description of Proposed Project

The construction and operation of the Project will include a number of components that will contribute to noise and vibration generation in the Abbot Point area. It is anticipated that noise levels will be greatest during the construction phases of the Project, when there will be a larger number of noise generating activities compared to during the operational phase.

The Project will be operational 24 hours a day, seven days a week once constructed. The construction and operational phases are discussed in Section 2 Project Details; however a summary of noise generating activities based on the Project specifications provided at the time of assessment is provided below.

3.13.4.6 Construction

The components of the construction phases that may potentially cause noise and vibration impacts include construction of the following infrastructure:

Rail loops;

Rail inloading facilities;

Coal handling facilities and stockpiles;

Outloading facilities to offshore infrastructure;

Stockyard machines, which will be stackers;

Reclaimers or combined stacker/reclaimers;

Transfer towers, surge bins and sampling plant;

Fuel facilities;

Additional water settlement pondage;

Roads;

Power supply;

Water supply and storage;

Sewage treatment facility and storage;

Wastewater treatment facility; and

Construction of the trestle jetty and berths.

The heavy machinery that will likely be used during the construction phases is listed in Table 3-81.

Construction of the trestle jetty and the berth will be done by cantilever traveller which will drive piles and install headstocks, modules, crane rails and concrete deck structure. Erection of piles and headstock for the berth widening alongside the existing berth will be by jack-up barges. Marine construction will be supported by miscellaneous marine plant as required. The predominant noise and vibration source from piling will be due to the periodic hammering.



3.13.4.7 Piling

Piling will be used to erect the jetty and berths. The piling plant will be located on a marine vessel or cantilever traveller which will progressively move along the construction footprint. The predominant noise and vibration source from piling will be due to the hammering.

3.13.4.8 Operational Phase

The components that may potentially generate noise and vibration during the operation phase of the Project include:

Train arrival and unloading;

Train inloading;

Coal handling facilities;

Outloading facilities to offshore infrastructure;

Stockyard machines, which will be stackers;

Reclaimers or combined stacker/reclaimers;

Transfer towers, surge bins and sampling plant;

Conveyor operation and coal bund maintenance; and

Ship loading.

3.13.5 Potential Impacts

3.13.5.1 Land-based Noise Impacts

The closest sensitive receptor to the Project is located 11 km from the Project site. For the purpose of the noise and vibration assessment, predictions were made for all of the monitoring locations with the exception of the location referred to as ‘rail/road bridge’ (as this location was to capture train movements only).

The ISO 9613 method takes into consideration the attenuation of noise over distance from atmospheric absorption (temperature and relative humidity of the air). Noise levels during the winter and summer months are predictions.

The predicted noise levels contained within the following section are at the same locations where ambient noise monitoring was conducted, as shown in Appendix E5a.

3.13.5.2 Construction Phase Impacts

Construction has been split into two phases, including:

Phase 1

An upgrade of the existing MOF to accommodate logistics vessels and vehicles for the delivery of materials and modular infrastructure during construction (Q2-Q4 – 2013);

Earthworks and contribution of fill material to support rail loops and infrastructure within the common rail corridor within the existing T1 loop (Q2-Q4 – 2013);



Inloading and outloading stream of conveyors, stacker/reclaimers, transfer towers, surge bin, sample plant and shiploader (Q2 2014 – Q4 2015); and

Trestle jetty and wharf construction (Q3 2013 – Q3 2015).

Phase 2

The development of the second inloading conveyor stream to the coal stockyard (Q3 2016 – Q3 2018);

Earthworks and contribution of stockyard fill material to support two additional bunds with two stockpile rows and two stacker/reclaimers on each bund (Q3 2015 – Q3 2017);

The construction of a second berth (Q3 2015 – Q3 2017).

The detailed construction Phases are described in Section 2 Project Details.

Construction is expected to occur primarily during daylight hours however may on occasion be required to extend beyond daylight hours and some components may be constructed concurrently. For modelling purposes, construction was assumed to be 24 hours per day to assess worst-case. The maximum levels were calculated by applying the upper noise level for the highest noise source in each calculation scenario. For each receiver, the modelling software analysed the noise source which produced the highest predicted LAmax. The software did not combine the LAmax levels from a number of sources; therefore the maximum level at each receptor was the highest LAmax level and hence, produced a worst case scenario. It should be noted that modelling the LAmax for lower level noise sources would result in the same output as if they were not modelled, unless they were closer to the receiver than the highest level noise source, which does not occur for this Project.

Table 3-85 shows that during the construction period, the highest noise levels will occur at the former Colinta Homestead in winter period and during the construction of the inner rail loop, whereas the construction of the Terminal and trestle will result in higher noise levels at the Wetlands site. The noise levels detailed in Table 3-85 identifies that the noise levels are well below the LAmax criteria of 40 dB, even considering worst case noise scenarios.

Table 3-85 Predicted noise levels during the night-time period for the construction phase in winter

Sensitive Receptor Noise Criteria (Section 3.13.1)

Predicted Noise Levels (dB LAeq, 1hour) Inner Rail

Loop Terminal 0 Trestle

Salisbury Plains Homestead 40 0 6 7 Former Colinta Homestead 40 14 20 15

Wetland* 40 12 20 17 *At monitoring location only The construction activities in the summer months are shown in Table 3-86 and outline that noise levels will generally be lower, with the exception of the Terminal and trestle construction noise as received by Salisbury Plains Homestead, which is 1 dB(A) higher than in winter. These small variations in environmental noise levels are not perceptible to the human ear.

Table 3-86 Predicted noise levels during night-time period for construction in summer


Predicted Noise Levels (dB LAeq, 1hour) Inner Rail Loop Terminal 0 Trestle

Salisbury Plains Homestead 40 0 7 8 Former Colinta Homestead 40 11 18 16

Wetland* 40 10 18 16 *At monitoring location only



The LAmax levels of the unloading and conveyor options comply with the night time maximum criteria as determined by research identified by EHP. The highest noise level is 26.4 dB LAmax at the former Colinta Homestead and the Wetland in the winter time. This level is well below the 40 dB LAmax criteria. Refer to Appendix E5c for predicted noise levels during winter and summer.

To summarise, the LAmax noise levels during the construction and operation of the T0 Project complies with the LAmax night time criteria of 40 dB(A), a level which corresponds to sleep disturbance as detailed by Passchier-Vermeer and Basner. Overall, the construction and operational activities are well within desired noise levels so, would not negatively impact the sensitive receptors due to the large distances between the Project and the receptors.

3.13.5.3 Land-based Operational Phase Impacts

During the operational phase, which is expected to commence for Phase 1 of the Project in 2016, the potential noise impacts will arise from various activities (as outlined in section 3.13.4.8). The noise assessment has identified two main activities that will potentially generate the most noise and vibration including:

Train movements; and

Trains unloading (includes wagon vibrator) and noise directly related to the unloading (conveyors and stack/reclaimer).

The noise levels from the existing infrastructure have been determined from the Abbot Point Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA). For current operations, T1, train noise was assessed based on ten trains per day, with four locomotives and a train length of 2,027 m. The Terminal noise sources modelled included:

37 conveyor units and 39 conveyor drives;

1 dump station;

6 stacker/reclaimers;

10 transfer towers;

2 surge bins; and

2 ship loaders.

The CIA was written to define the noise impact on the adjacent wetlands and as such, the noise contour cut-off is 50 dB LAeq. For human impacts the criteria concerned with is below this, as 28 dB LAeq. In addition, the noise contours provided are for all the terminals operating at the same time, rather than individually and no values of the noise levels are provided. As such, the current noise level from the existing infrastructure can only be determined from on-site observations and measurements.

On-site observations at the closest residential receptor (the Salisbury Plains Homestead) indicated that the Terminal was barely audible without wind whereas, at the Wetland site, no noises from the T1 activities were audible. The noise monitoring data from the Wetland site indicates that the ambient levels were approximately 10 dB(A) lower at the Wetland site than at the Salisbury Plains Homestead.

Taking into account standard gauge rail, four scenarios were modelled:

30 Mtpa with three locomotives (five trains per day to deliver this throughput);



60 Mtpa with three locomotives (nine trains per day to deliver this throughput);

70 Mtpa with three locomotives (11trains per day to deliver this throughput); and

70 Mtpa with four locomotives (11 trains per day to deliver this throughput).

The maximum noise level of a train pass-by is driven by the locomotives, not the wagons. Unlike the LAeq noise level which is time relevant, the maximum noise level from the trains does not vary as it is not affected by the number of noise events or the length of the train, but rather the number of locomotives.

To determine the worst-case impact, scenario four was modelled (70 Mtpa with four locomotives); this scenario assumes four locomotives instead of three. The results for the maximum noise level for the sensitive receptor produced by trains are shown in Table 3-87.

Table 3-87 Predicted maximum noise level from the trains (four locomotives)


Predicted Noise Levels (dB) Winter Summer

Salisbury Plains Homestead 40 22 19 Former Colinta Homestead 40 17 13

Wetland* 40 14 <10 *At monitoring location only

Table 3-87 shows that the highest maximum noise level will be 22 dB LAmax at the Salisbury Plains Homestead during the winter months. This noise level is considerably lower than the 40 dB LAmax noise criteria level. As such, the maximum predicted noise levels would not disturb sleep during the night time period. The predicted noise levels are between 4 dB(A) and 4 dB(A) lower in the summer months, depending on the sensitive receptor. Throughput with three locomotives and noise contours are shown in Appendix E5c.

To summarise, the change in rail operation of the rail loop from narrow gauge to standard gauge will not result in an audible impact at the sensitive receptors. It should be noted that this assessment only considered the rail loop at Abbot Point, not the entire length of the proposed rail line, consistent with the defined boundaries for the Project.

3.13.5.4 Marine Environment Impacts

Abbot Point is within the GBRWHA and in proximity to the GBRMP. The most significant terrestrial noise impacts on the marine environment will occur during piling for the construction of the trestle extension and wharf. The modelling has predicted that during this phase the noise level will be 39 dB LAeq, 1 hour. The construction of the trestle will be temporary and as such, it is recommended that noise controls be implemented to control noise at the source (see 3.13.6).

Throughout the operational phase of the Project, the noise level from train movements when the trains operate at 100% capacity have been calculated to be less than 29 dB LAeq, 24 hour. This noise level has been calculated for the closest distance from the train line to the boundary of the marine environment and is not considered to be at a level to have any noticeable impact.

The terminal component of the Project will be located approximately 2.75 km into the marine environment boundary, and at this distance the noise level is predicted to be 34 dB LAeq, 1 hour. In addition, the noise from the conveyors loading the ships is predicted to be 35 dBLAeq, 1 hour. These noise levels are not expected to have a significant impact on the marine environment.



3.13.5.5 Low Frequency Assessment

For compliance with the ‘Draft Ecoaccess Guidelines- Assessment of Low Frequency Noise’, a low frequency screening assessment has been carried out to determine the compliance of the noise levels with the criteria of 50 dB(lin). The assessment determined the highest predicted noise level is 14.6 dB LAeq, 1 hour at the Salisbury Plains Homestead during the combined operational activities of train movements (200%), train unloading and conveyors noise. When this noise level is calculated as linear for comparison with the low frequency criteria, the highest value is 34.9 dB(lin), which complies with the criteria of 50 dB(lin).

3.13.5.6 Audibility of Noise Sources

Figure 3-82 provides a pictorial representation of the frequency and sound pressure level boundaries of the audible range for the average human adult without hearing impairment. Analysis of the frequency spectra of the noise levels predicted at Salisbury Plains during the construction and operational phases of the Project in winter has been plotted. The ambient frequency noise spectrum for Salisbury Plains as monitored has also been plotted for comparison.

The plotted lines clearly identify that the existing ambient noise at Salisbury Plains is higher than the predicted noise levels for all operational activities (train movements, unloading and conveyor noise). Further, Figure 3-82 shows that the unloading of trains and conveyors noise will be just above the audibility curve at 100 Hz, however, the noise produced by the operations at Abbot Point is 10 dB below the existing ambient noise levels and is unlikely to be audible at the nearest sensitive receptor. Additionally, the noise from the construction activities are unlikely to be audible by the residents of Salisbury Plains, therefore it can be concluded that the operational and construction noise of the Project will not have a negative impact on the residents of the only occupied property, Salisbury Plains.



Figure 3-82 Audibility of Noise at Salisbury Plains (LAeq, 1 hour)

3.13.5.7 Summary of Land-based Noise Level Criteria Compliance

Table 3-88 below shows the compliance for the sensitive receptors with the specific criteria. It can be seen from Table 3-88 that all criteria are met at all sensitive receptors during each phase of the proposed Project.

Table 3-88 Summary of criteria compliance for land-based noise

Sensitive Receptor Construction (all scenarios) Operation- T0 Operation-

Trains Low Frequency

Criteria Ecoaccess/ WHO Ecoaccess/ WHO EPP/ QR Ecoaccess Salisbury Plains

Former Colinta Homestead Wetland

A Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) was undertaken by SLR Consulting in 2012 to determine the overall noise impact upon the Wetland fauna from all the projects at Abbot Point (T0, T1, T2 and T3). The report identifies the noise levels at which terrestrial fauna are alerted (50-65 LAeq,15min), alarmed (65-85 LAeq,15min) and where areas are avoided by fauna (>85 LAeq,15min).

The CIA report identified that the percentage of the Wetland where noise levels from only T0 construction would exceed the criteria are as follows:

Alert level (50 dB LAeq) – exceedance of this level would occur for three to seven percent of the Wetland area; and

Alert / flight level (65 dB LAeq) – exceedance of this level would occur for <0.5 percent of the Wetland area.



The combined noise modelling results of the T0 construction activities contained within this report show that the 50 dB LAeq contour does not encroach in to the Wetland outline (Appendix E5a).

Whilst the CIA has used a different prediction methodology and included the operational activities of the T1 rail corridor, when comparing the noise modelling contours of this assessment to the CIA, the contours are very similar with the main differences arising from the inclusion of the T1 rail corridor.

3.13.5.8 Noise Impacts on Fauna

There is limited understanding of the effects of noise on wildlife and there are no current government policies or other widely accepted guidelines as to noise levels or thresholds relevant to terrestrial fauna. The effect of noise on terrestrial fauna is poorly understood, in part due to the following (ELA and OpenLines 2012):

Responses to noise disturbance cannot be generalised across species or genera;

Studies of one species cannot be extended to other species;

Responses even of individuals within a single species may vary;

Hearing characteristics are species-specific;

When studying the effects of noise on animals, it can be difficult to separate noise effects from other sensory disturbing effects (e.g. visual or olfactory cues); and

Experimental research in a laboratory is not always applicable in a natural setting.

Presently, audiograms for individual fauna species that inhabit the Wetland are unknown and therefore any negative noise impacts on fauna cannot be determined accurately. However, various studies have assessed some threshold levels for noise on certain animals. A summary of the findings of these studies are discussed below.

3.13.5.9 Birds

Noise pollution can affect birds in many ways (Ortega 2012), including:

Stress responses;

Fright-flight responses;

Avoidance responses;

Changes in behaviour; and

Interference in the ability to hear predators.

Measures of absolute auditory sensitivity in a wide variety of bird species show a region of maximum sensitivity between 1 kHz to 5 kHz, with a rapid decrease in sensitivity at higher frequencies (Ortega 2012). Small birds tend to hear better at high frequencies, whereas large birds hear better at low frequencies.

Colonial birds, such as the migratory wetland and shorebird species, are particularly sensitive to noise because many birds will react when one bird reacts, whether the group are responding directly to the noise or not (Ortega 2012). Avoidance is the most common response, although many species are tolerant of or will become habituated to human and industrial noises. Most studies on



noise impacts have failed to separate noise from the confounding effects of other disturbances, leaving the conclusion that some aspects of human disturbance can negatively affect birds (Ortega 2012).

Ortega (2012) notes that bird coexistence with anthropogenic noise pollution depends on factors such as:

The degree of sound spectrum overlap between noise and important acoustic cues; and

The degree to which other sensory forms can compensate for reduced hearing.

Research needs identified by the US EPA in 1980 to guide mitigation are still current, given the lack of research subsequently over the past 30 years (Ortega 2012). These research needs are:

Effects of long term exposure to moderate noise levels;

Whether wild populations experience the same adverse reaction to noise as laboratory animals; and

The ecological consequences of masking and altered behaviour patterns.

3.13.5.10 Invertebrates

Research has been undertaken to assess the potential for noise to control pest insects such as meal-moths and flour beetles, with some success in reducing hatching from the larval stage. Other studies have indicated reduced lifespan in insects exposed to noise, and reduced number of eggs produced by females (Manci et al. 1988).

Some insects (including bees) stop moving when exposed to high noise levels. Honey bees ceased moving for up to 20 minutes in response to frequencies of approximately 200 Hz – 2,000 Hz with intensities varying from 10 – 119 dB, and did not appear to habituate to the sound (Manci et al. 1988).

There are no known MNES invertebrates at the site.

3.13.5.11 Amphibians

Sound influences the activities of most amphibians and plays a significant role in the reproductive behaviour of many, but not all, species (Manci et al. 1988). In a report on nocturnal noise and amphibians in tropical rainforests of the Kuranda Range in Northern Queensland, Dawe and Goosem (2007) identify a decline in population densities of at least one frog species was attributed to road noise, with impacts up to 200 m from the road. Noise levels near the road were approximately 60 dB.

Whilst specific noise levels, which may result in amphibians abandoning habitats or being injured, are not available in the literature, observations from experts and experience indicate that amphibians are very sensitive to noise. Even the minor noises of researchers approaching habitats where amphibians are calling can cause cessation of calling by individuals in close proximity. Conversely, it is common to find some frog species calling in ponds immediately adjacent to roads or railway lines (SLR Consulting 2012).

There are no known MNES amphibian species at the site.



3.13.5.12 Reptiles

Sound perception appears to be subordinate in importance to vision and chemoreception in the activities of most reptiles. However research has shown that certain desert reptiles are sensitive to low-intensity sound (Manci et al. 1988). Noise may be of more adaptive significance for nocturnal species because full use cannot be made of vision. Critical environmental sounds are often of relatively low intensity (for example, the movement of insect prey and predators such as snakes and owls) (SLR Consulting 2012).

Studies reviewed by Manci et al. 1988 indicate hearing damage to some lizard species after exposure to steady noise levels above 95 dB.

There are known MNES reptile species at the site, both terrestrial and marine. However, there are no published records of impacts from noise for these species.

3.13.5.13 Mammals

Manci et al. (1988) states that “Sound levels above about 90 dB are likely to be aversive to mammals and are associated with a number of behaviours such as retreat from the sound source, freezing, or a strong startle response. Sound levels below about 90 dB usually cause much less aversive behaviour. Laboratory studies of domestic mammals have indicated that behavioural responses vary with noise types and levels, and that domestic animals appear to acclimate to some sound disturbances.”

The US FHA review notes that some mammals avoid roads and that in some cases this avoidance behaviour has been attributed to noise (SLR Consulting 2012).

There are known MNES mammal species associated with the site, though these are primarily marine species.

3.13.5.14 Ground Vibration Impacts

Due to the distances between source and receptors, the vibration levels associated with the construction equipment are not high enough to cause any disturbance to any of the sensitive receptors.

There is minimal scientific literature available on the impact of vibration on wildlife, particularly Australian wildlife. It is known that some animals will use vibration through the ground to communicate (Hill 2001) therefore it is conceivable that chronic or acute vibration may affect animal behaviour and communication.

3.13.5.15 Underwater Noise Impacts

The potential effects of underwater noise on marine animals depend on the acoustic characteristics of the source, the pathway to the receiver and the receiver. CMST undertook underwater noise assessments at the Port of Abbot Point as part of the Abbot Point CIA (McCauley et al. 2012). The assessment focused on the potential noise effects on significant species likely to occur in proximity to the Project, including:

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae);

Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Oracaella heinsoni);

Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis);

Dugong (Dugong dugon);



Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta);

Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas);

Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate);

Olive Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea); and

Flatback Turtle (Natator depressus) (McCauley et al. 2012).

Operational impacts may potentially include:

Increased noise disturbance from increased shipping; and

Maintenance activities on the jetty facilities.

Multiple, simultaneous pile drivers are proposed to be used to extend construct the Project’s wharf and trestle. The pile driving plant may be spaced anywhere along the almost 2.75 km trestle jetty and wharf structure.

McCauley et al. (2012) assumed that for four pile driving plants operating on the outer wharf: no pile drivers would be present 35% of the time; one pile driver would be present 13% of the time; two pile drivers would be present 26% of the time; three pile drivers would be present 26% of the time; and that it is unlikely that four pile drivers will operate simultaneously. Thus two sets of zones of biological influence were established for ‘key’ species: 1) for single pile driver strikes located anywhere along the outer wharf; and 2) for four pile driving plants operating and located anywhere along the outer wharf and which added 5 dB to the single operating plant sound field to account for the possibility of up to three sets of pile driving signals arriving either simultaneously or in a short space of time (McCauley et al. 2012).

3.13.5.16 Audibility

The potential effects of noise on marine animals depend on the acoustic characteristics of the source, the pathway to the receiver and the receiver. At long ranges from a source, noise might merely be audible. Closer to the source, noise might induce a behavioural response of the animal or interfere with animal communication (masking). Even closer to the source, noise might induce a temporary loss of hearing (temporary threshold shift, TTS) (McCauley et al. 2012). Under extreme conditions, some sources might induce a permanent loss of hearing (permanent threshold shift, PTS) and at high enough levels physiological injury. Stress can be a direct result of noise (e.g. the detection of an unknown sound can be stressful) or a second-degree response (e.g. masking of communication causing stress) (McCauley et al. 2012).

In order to determine whether an animal can detect underwater noise from operations at Abbot Point, the literature on hearing abilities was reviewed by McCauley et al. 2012. The likelihood of sound detection depends on what frequencies an animal can hear at and what sensitivity it has at these frequencies, plus a number of factors related to the ability to hear in noise and to localise signals. These features are defined by the species’ audiogram, directional hearing capabilities, frequency and time resolution, as well as additional factors such as masking by other noise (McCauley et al. 2012). An audiogram represents the subject’s absolute hearing threshold as a function of frequency. It is measured either behaviourally which gives an absolute measure of hearing sensitivity or electrophysiologically which gives a measure of at what level the electrophysiological equipment can detect a response. Behavioural methods require that the animal be trained to indicate behaviourally (e.g. by pressing a paddle) whether a sound was detected. Electrophysiological methods involve the placing of electrodes onto the skin of the head to measure



auditory evoked potentials emitted by the brain in response to sound and then discriminating when a response can be detected via brain or nerve activity (McCauley et al. 2012).

Response levels used in impact assessment for pile driving activities are outlined below in Table 3-89. Most of these values were derived from studies with air gun signals rather than pile driving signals (McCauley et al. 2012).

Table 3-89 Response levels used in impact assessment of pile driving

Species group Response type Level (SEL, dB re 1µPa².s) Reference

Humpback whale Avoidance resting cow-calf pairs in enclosed embayment

126-129 McCauley et al. (2000)

Humpback whale Avoidance migrating whales 140-151 McCauley et al. (2000) Humpback whale TTS onset 183 Southall et al. (2007) Dolphins Behavioural avoidance 183 Southall et al. (2007) Dolphins TTS onset 183 Southall et al. (2007) Sea turtles Behavioural response ≥155 McCauley et al. (2000) Sea turtles Avoidance ≥164 McCauley et al. (2000) Dugong Behavioural response ≥155 Based on McCauley et al.

(2000) for sea turtles Dugong Avoidance ≥164 Based on McCauley et al.

(2000) for sea turtles Fish Onset of behavioural response 145 McCauley et al. (2000) Fish Avoidance 150 McCauley et al. (2000) Fish Onset of physical damage Cumulative sum of

210 Halvorsen et al. (2012)

Underwater noise levels produced from single strike pile driving at multiple locations were also modelled. The area and equivalent radius of the zones for single pile strikes are listed in Table 3-90 (McCauley et al. 2012). The table clearly outlines the radius that different species of marine megafauna will distance themselves from underwater noise impacts as a result of single strike piling. Further information on method can be found in Appendix E6.

Humpback Whales will begin to show a detectable behavioural response to continual piling noise at received levels of 128 dB re 1μPa2.s (SEL) although a few whales may respond at lower levels (McCauley et al. 2012) (Table 3-90). Most baleen whales will tolerate piling levels up to 144-151 dB re 1μPa2.s (SEL), and some Humpback Whales (possibly males) may voluntarily approach piling operations to received levels of 165 dB re 1μPa2.s (SEL) (McCauley et al. 2012). While some avoidance may occur, it is considered unlikely that whales migrating through the waters near Abbot Point will be unduly affected by pile driving activities, especially if management and mitigation measures such as ensuring exclusion zones are in place.

Table 3-90 Areas of impact, and equivalent radii, for the different types of biological impacts in response to single strikes potentially located at multiple spacing’s along the wharf (from McCauley et al. 2012)

Impact SELmax (dB re 1μPa2.s) Area (km2) Equivalent Radius

(km) Outer edge of possible disturbance humpbacks 129 156 11.6 Humpbacks begin showing avoidance 128 77.4 5.0 Onset noticeable behavioural changes in fish 145 40.0 3.6 Some pelagic fish avoidance 150 21.5 2.6 Normal closest approach range by humpbacks 151 19.1 2.5 Sea turtles / dugong begin to show avoidance 155 11.4 1.9 Normal closest approach range sea turtles / dugong 164 0.7 0.47 – 0.48



Impact SELmax (dB re 1μPa2.s) Area (km2) Equivalent Radius

(km) TTS onset whales and dolphins, dolphin approach piles 183 0.0004 0.12

3.13.6 Mitigation and Management

3.13.6.1 Mitigation and Management Measures for Land-based Noise

It should be noted that no mitigation measures were implemented in the noise modelling process and therefore use of mitigation measures represents improved outcomes and are being considered in design, construction and operation phases.

Section 9 of the EPP (Noise) describes the hierarchy preference in which noise should be dealt with. As a first preference, the Policy recommends that:

Noise be avoided, however if this is not possible;

The minimisation of noise through either:

- Reorientation of an activity or

- Use of Best Available Technology (BAT)

Management of noise.

The predicted noise results concluded that noise levels will not exceed the applicable criteria. This section outlines general noise control principles to manage noise emissions to ensure noise complaints are not received.

3.13.6.2 Mitigation Measure Options

A range of general measures can reduce noise levels at the source including, but not limited to:

Training staff to operate the equipment in order to minimise unnecessary noise emissions. This could be achieved during site inductions and regular training programs;

Avoiding unnecessary revving of engines and switch off equipment when not required;

Keeping internal roads well maintained;

Using rubber linings in, or a constrained layer damping on, for example, chutes and dumpers to reduce impacts from noise;

Minimise the drop heights of materials;

Use ultra-low noise idlers on the conveyors; the noise reduction associated with these area generally 5-10 dB(A);

Start up plant and vehicles sequentially rather than all together. The movement of plant onto and around the site should have regard to the normal operating hours of the site and the location of any sensitive receptors as far as is reasonable practicable;

Audible reversing warning systems on mobile plant and vehicles should be of a type which, whilst ensuring that they give proper warning, has a minimum noise impact on persons outside sites. When reversing, mobile plant and vehicles should travel in a direction away from sensitive receptors whenever possible;



As far as reasonable practicable, sources of significant noise should be enclosed. The extent to which this can be done depends on the nature of the machine or process to be enclosed and their ventilation requirements. A typical enclosure can provide 10-20 dB(A) depending on the material;

Plant should always be used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions. Care should be taken to site equipment away from noise sensitive areas. Where possible, loading and unloading should also be carried out away from such areas;

Machines such as cranes that might have intermittent use should be shut down between work periods or should be throttles down to a minimum. Machines should not be left running unnecessarily, as this can be noisy and wastes energy;

Plant from which the noise generated is known to be particularly directional should, wherever practicable, be orientated so that the noise is directed away from noise-sensitive areas; and

Acoustic covers to engines should be kept closed when the engines are in use and idling. If compressors are used, they should have effective acoustic enclosures and be designed to operate only when their access panels are closed.

3.13.6.3 Management and Monitoring Measures for Underwater Noise

Appropriate mitigation and management strategies for pile driving activities and their impacts on key marine fauna species have been outlined in the Abbot Point CIA Synthesis Report – Appendix B (ELA and OpenLines 2012) and are summarised here. Key marine fauna species that were included:

Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaengliae);

Australian Snubfin Dolphin (Orcaella henisoni);

Indo-Pacific Humpback Dolphin (Sousa chinensis);

Dugong (Dugong dugon); and

Five species of marine turtles.

Port wide requirements recommended by ELA and OpenLines (2012) for impacts relating to underwater noise included:

Development of a port-wide management program for the key marine fauna species. The management program should:

- Establish suitable exclusion zones and observation areas based on the zones of impact identified in the underwater noise assessment technical report by McCauley et al. (2012) for relevant species, impact types and scenarios

- Outline the requirements for monitoring marine fauna species including the monitoring method and timing in relation to operations (especially night time considerations)

- Define appropriate conditions to undertake work, triggers for reactive management and the necessary mitigation or management measures to monitor results

- Be developed and implemented under the Marine Environment Management Plan



Proponents should undertake the necessary measures to minimise underwater noise impacts on marine megafauna.

3.13.6.4 Management Measures

The following measures were outlined in the ELA and OpenLines (2012) report to minimise underwater noise impacts on key marine fauna species:

No pile driving activities will commence, resume or continue if key marine species are observed within the zones of estimated physiological impacts (defined in McCauley et al. 2012);

Use of soft start procedures;

Pile driving plants will be spaced as far apart as practicable during construction; and

Simultaneous pile driving and the operation of multiple pile driving plants on the outer wharf will be minimised where possible.

3.13.6.5 Monitoring Requirements

As outlined in the ELA and OpenLines (2012) report, acoustic monitoring should be undertaken in order to verify the sound transmission modelling and form the basis for estimating zones of impacts. Key marine fauna species must be monitored within the exclusion zones and observation areas.



3.13.6.6 Significance of Impacts

The modelling study conducted by SLR (2012) as part of the Abbot Point CIA identified that under both neutral and worst case weather conditions, terrestrial fauna inhabiting large areas of the Wetland are likely to experience steady or continuous noise emissions that trigger minor alert responses. Similar response patterns are also likely to arise due to single event or short-term noise emissions from the project, at least prior to habituation. Small areas of the Wetland are likely to experience moderate impacts as follows:

Under neutral and worst case weather conditions, terrestrial fauna located within an area covering approximately 2% of the Wetland are likely to experience moderate alarm or flight responses as a result of steady or continuous noise emissions from the project, at least prior to habituation.

Under neutral and worst case weather conditions, terrestrial fauna located within an area covering approximately 7% of the Wetland are likely to experience moderate alarm or flight responses as a result of single event or short-term noise emissions from the project, at least prior to habituation.

Given the distance from the Project to the Wetland, and intervening structures, noise from the Project is unlikely to be an issue for Wetland birds.

Marine wildlife will be exposed to periodic above background noise and consistent low level background noise throughout construction and operation. It is anticipated that the noise of pile driving in particular will initiate a range of behavioural responses including startle responses, avoidance and, in some cases, attraction.

3.13.6.7 Conclusion

The purpose of this section was to evaluate the impacts of environmental noise, ground vibration and underwater noise generated from various construction and operational activities associated with the Project.

The predicted noise levels at sensitive receptors for land-based noise and ground vibration were all below the recommended criteria as outlined by Ecoaccess and WHO. Underwater noise impacts may potentially occur as a result of piling and increased shipping, and these noises could potentially impact species on MNES.

Best practice noise control mitigation and management measures have been recommended to reduce the noise emissions from the site, as no specific mitigation measures are required for compliance. Overall, the assessment has identified that there will be no exceedence of the relevant criteria.

The impact of noise on terrestrial and marine wildlife is likely to be variable, and will depend on frequency and audibility, species characteristics, individual characteristics, and proximity to noise. The area is a working port and operational noise is already a feature of the site. The most significant potential noise impact is likely to be caused by pile driving, and this is likely to cause startle or avoidance behaviour, but many species may also habituate to the noise.

Mitigation and management activities will seek to reduce the emission of acute or chronic noise above background levels.



3.13.7 Commitments

Adani commit to undertaking the following actions to protect and enhance the environmental values at the Project:

Plant and equipment will be switched off when not required. Machines such as cranes that might have intermittent use should be shut down between work periods or should be throttles down to a minimum. Plant and equipment noise attenuation will be adopted and maintained;

An internal roads maintenance program will be developed and implemented;

Transfer chutes will be designed to minimise product impact and associated noise;

Minimise the drop heights of materials;

Low noise idlers usage on the conveyors;

Sequential starting up of plant and vehicles rather than all together;

Excessively loud reversing warning systems on mobile plant and vehicles will be avoided;

Sources of significant noise will be enclosed when practicable;

Plant to be used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions;

Plant noise will be directed away from noise-sensitive areas, as far as practicable;

Acoustic covers will be used on engines where available;

A real-time monitoring program designed to collect ambient noise data throughout the construction and operational phases will be implemented;

Operations will be notified when monitoring system alerts that a noise criterion has been exceeded. An investigation into the cause will be undertaken and mitigation measures adopted accordingly;

Development of an underwater piling noise management program for the key marine fauna species, which includes:

- Suitable exclusion zones and observation areas based on the zones of impact identified in McCauley et al. (2012) for relevant species, impact types and scenarios

- Requirements for monitoring marine fauna species including the monitoring method and timing in relation to operations

- Identification of appropriate conditions to undertake work, triggers for reactive management and the necessary mitigation or management measures to monitoring results

No pile driving activities will commence, resume or continue if key marine species are observed within the zones of estimated physiological impacts (defined in McCauley et al. 2012)

Soft start procedures will be used for piling activities with pile driving plants spaced as far apart as practicable during construction. Simultaneous pile driving and the operation of multiple pile driving plants on the outer wharf will be minimised. Adaptive management



techniques will be employed and zones modified accordingly in consultation with regulators; and

In support of permit to use exclusion zone based on radius of physiological impact, acoustic monitoring will be undertaken in order to verify the sound transmission modelling and form the basis for confirming zones of impacts. Key marine fauna species must be monitored within the exclusion zones and observation areas.


Terminal 0 Environmental Impact Statement