Chapter 4Potential impacts of offshore wind projects on the marine environment
Overview
4.1Throughout the offshore wind consultation process for Stage 1—initial consultation and regional zoning—undertaken by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW), community members and industry stakeholders expressed a range of views about potential impacts on the marine environment and shared use of the proposed declared areas.
4.2These included the potential impacts of offshore wind projects on the marine environment in general, on the fishing and tourism industries, and issues relating to potential noise and light pollution and visual amenity.
4.3This chapter firstly sets out the requirements of the consultation process to consider environmental impacts and strategies to mitigate and manage impacts on marine life and the marine environment. The chapter then outlines the various concerns raised by inquiry participants on these issues.
4.4The next chapter examines the recognition of the principles of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) within the consultation process, and views of First Nations and other submitters.
Requirements to consider and mitigate potential impacts of offshore wind projects
4.5As outlined in Chapter 2, under the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021 (OEI Act), when making a decision to declare an area as being suitable for offshore renewable energy infrastructure, the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (the minister) must consider:
the potential impacts of the project's lifecycle (including from construction to decommissioning) on other marine users and interests;
submissions received as part of the public consultation process; and
international obligations in relation to the area.
4.6During Stage 2 of the offshore wind project process, any offshore renewable energy activity that is likely to have a significant impact on a nationally protected matter must also undergo an environmental assessment under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The EPBC Act requires proponents to undertake public consultation, with separate requirements to those in the OEI Act and Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Regulations 2022.
4.7Additional environmental factors identified during public consultation may also be considered by the minister prior to the final declaration decision being made.
4.8DCCEEW stated that the Australian Government consults with state departments and agencies regarding matters of environmental significance to ensure that the proposed area avoids known areas of environmental significance to the greatest extent possible. Offshore wind areas must avoid Australian marine parks which help conserve marine habitats and the species that live within and rely on these habitats.
4.9Under the EPBC Act process, DCCEEW stated that 'projects must demonstrate how they will ensure impacts to protected matters will not be unacceptable’, and that:
Individual proposals will need to detail how they have avoided impacts to nationally protected matters and demonstrate how they will manage any residual impacts to an acceptable level to obtain an approval under the EPBC Act.
4.10DCCEEW has published guidance for industry to identify key environmental factors associated with offshore wind projects. The guidance contains an overview of the regulatory framework and legislative requirements as well as the environmental matters relevant to offshore wind. According to DCCEEW, this guidance has been developed in line with international best practice and includes information on:
collision risk for birds;
underwater noise and seabed disturbance;
electromagnetic fields;
underwater vessel collisions;
light emissions; and
invasive marine species, among others.
The role of Geoscience Australia in supporting community consultation
4.11Geoscience Australia has a role to contribute to the scientific evidence base needed to underpin decision-making and ensure offshore developments are socially and ecologically sustainable.
4.12Geoscience Australia provides information and advice to DCCEEW as part of the Australian Government’s consultation process, including by mapping the seabed and sub-seabed environment to determine the potential environmental impacts from offshore wind infrastructure. Geoscience Australia also plays an ongoing role by supporting the effective assessment, monitoring and management of potential impacts.
4.13Geoscience Australia makes marine geoscience data publicly available via online portals, including the Australian Marine Spatial Information System (AMSIS), thereby enabling members of the public to access ‘timely, relevant and accurate marine information to aid decision making about the potential impacts of offshore wind developments’.
4.14Geoscience Australia submitted that interactive mapping and visualisation tools like AMSIS helped to address some of the challenges that arose during DCCEEW’s public consultation process, such as public confusion over the rationale for the proposed offshore wind areas, negative public perception of the process, and mis- and dis-information.
Potential impacts on the marine environment
4.15The potential impacts on the marine environment which could result from the development of an offshore wind industry vary throughout the project's lifecycle. Climate Action Newcastle, for example, considered that the main impact on the marine environment would occur during the construction phase.
4.16Sea Shepherd Australia stated that it had had a positive experience during the public consultation period led by DCCEEW when raising environmental concerns, and noted that issues such as whale migration had been raised at the public forums Sea Shepherd representatives had attended. At a forum held in Bunbury, concerns over whale migration paths and mitigation strategies had led to discussion of increasing the spaces between turbines in order to address these concerns.
4.17Sea Shepherd Australia acknowledged that future stages of the development process for offshore wind projects would allow for more specific detail to be given on environmental impacts.
4.18Responsible Renewables Committee Port Stephens Myall Coast summarised its environmental concerns for:
…large populations of various migratory whale species, fertile fishing grounds due to upwellings/incursions of nutrient-rich water from the deep ocean, endangered and protected bird life (Gould’s petrel), Ramsar wetlands, shark nurseries, sea turtles, and largely unmapped benthic habitats/communities across the outer shelf (rocky reefs) and within the shelf edge canyon systems.
Potential impacts on migratory species
4.19Many submitters raised concerns about the potential impacts on migratory species, including whales and sea bird species.
4.20The potential impact on migratory species resulting from the displacement of shipping lanes by offshore wind projects was raised by Imagine Cruises, which stated that ships using the 'busiest shipping lane in Australia', including coal and bauxite carriers to and from Newcastle Harbour and container and passenger ships, would have to navigate around the area and may transit closer to the shore to avoid difficult conditions.
4.21Imagine Cruises outlined the potential impact on species including humpback and other whales, dolphins and large pelagic fish that would consequently be ‘exposed to shipstrike both from passaging vessels and construction vessels’.
4.22Various submitters expressed concern about offshore wind farms being proposed in areas that overlap with, and have the potential to disrupt, the migratory paths of marine life and birds. For instance, the Victorian National Parks Association observed that the impacts of offshore wind farms can include ‘turbines and subsea cables blocking the routes of migratory threatened species such as albatross, southern right whales, and important fishery species such as snapper’.
4.23Likewise, the Hunter Community Environment Centre explained that offshore wind farms could impact marine and migratory birds through collision, displacement, barrier effect and habitat change and loss.
4.24Former councillor Mark Croxford of the Kiama Municipal Council claimed that DCCEEW’s consultation process ‘failed to adequately address the potential environmental impacts…posed by the offshore wind industry’ and ‘downplayed or ignored’ threats to marine and migratory bird life.
4.25DCCEEW pointed out that, in response to concerns raised during the consultation period about impacts to migratory species, the minister declared an offshore wind area off Gippsland, Victoria that excluded areas nearest the shore to reduce potential impacts on migrating whales, and declared an area off Illawarra, NSW that avoided the southern right whale migration and reproduction area.
4.26DCCEEW also noted that the Australian Government is investing in research into the potential environmental impacts of offshore wind, for example the National Environmental Science Program’s projects on southern right whales, blue whales and migratory shorebirds. DCCEEW outlined several strategies that are commonly used internationally to mitigate the environmental impacts of offshore wind technology, including careful site selection to avoid high biodiversity areas and major migratory routes and restricting turbine operation during migratory seasons for birds.
4.27In this regard DCCEEW submitted that:
The research being funded by the government will consider international best practice approaches to avoid, mitigate and manage potential impacts and inform an understanding of which measures are suitable for application in the Australian context, and what changes to others may be required to develop leading practice approaches for Australian waters.
Potential for positive marine environmental effects
4.28The potential for positive impacts on marine life due to the existence of offshore renewable electricity infrastructure was noted by the Gippsland Climate Change Network, which highlighted international examples of the structures creating artificial reefs which offer shelter for species.
The fishing and tourism industries
4.29Representatives of the fishing and tourism industries raised various concerns about the development of offshore wind projects, including the potential for negative impacts on their operations, the environment and the social wellbeing of communities.
4.30Local operators where there are proposed declared offshore wind project areas told the committee about their concerns directly, and their experience of raising these issues during the consultation process led by DCCEEW.
Potential impact on commercial and recreational fishing
4.31The inquiry heard concerns about the challenges that could be posed by offshore wind projects for those involved in commercial and recreational fishing. These included potential access restrictions and exclusion zones of wind farms across key fishing areas, impact on fishing grounds, environmental impacts on marine life, and economic consequences for communities and industries that depend on recreational and commercial fishing.
4.32For example, the Commercial Fishermen’s Co-operative identified a range of direct industry impacts associated with offshore wind projects within the proposed location off the Hunter, citing disruptions for ocean trawl, ocean trap, lobster and ocean line fisheries. It argued that removing these fishing grounds that supply neighbouring cooperatives would lead to their shut down and ‘significantly impact the Sydney Fish Market and seafood supply into NSW and Australia’.
4.33Submissions from the Game Fishing Association of Australia and the NSW Game Fishing Association highlighted the potential adverse impact on communities and industries that depend on recreational fishing including charter boats, retail and maintenance.
4.34The NSW Game Fishing Association warned that offshore wind turbines generate significant underwater noise and electromagnetic disturbances which would impact marine life in areas that are ‘hotspots for game/sport/recreational fishers as well as charter and commercial fishers’. Accordingly, the association identified there would be a ‘triple bottom line’ impact of offshore wind projects:
Impacts on fishing whether it is the commercial, charter or recreational/game fishing sector, will be significantly impacted by the introduction of offshore wind farms… With the exclusion of fishing activity, both recreational/game, charter and commercial in the affected areas by the offshore wind farms will have a triple-bottom-line effect. The economic, social, and environmental consequences for the recreational fishermen, the commercial fishing industry, the coastal communities that depend on these sectors, and society in general, will be negatively impacted.
4.35Access to areas currently used for fishing for commercial or recreational purposes was raised throughout submissions from fishing stakeholders. For example, the Commonwealth Fisheries Association stated that:
The most fundamental challenge for the fishing industry is to the security and value of fishing access rights. Many aspects of fishing access rights remain relatively tenuous and subject to erosion or encroachment through shifts in government policy or the expansion of activities by other marine resource user groups.
Potential impact on the tourism industry
4.36Tourism operators, including nature-based tourism charters for whale and dolphin watching, highlighted the potential impacts on their sector due to potential habitat disruption arising from underwater noise, collision risks, and displacement of marine life.
4.37Moonshadow—TQC Cruises, a tourism charter vessel company based in Port Stephens, expressed concern that the location of the offshore wind farms has the potential to disrupt marine habitats and affect the feeding, breeding and migration patterns of marine species including multiple whale and dolphin species.
4.38It also highlighted that the visual impact of wind turbines could detract from the natural beauty of coastal areas, potentially leading to a decline in tourism:
An area such as ours that relies on its natural beauty may see a decline in tourism if visitors perceive wind farms as detracting from the area’s appeal.
4.39Broader perspectives on the visual amenity impacts of offshore wind projects are set out below.
4.40Other submitters also raised the potential economic impact of offshore wind turbines on major tourist destinations. For example, No Offshore Turbines Port Stephens outlined that tourism injects over $800 million into the local economy annually and that the proposed development could ‘potentially destroy its major industry of tourism with consequent flow on effects of severe economic downturn and social decline’.
4.41In contrast to these views, Business Hunter argued that the presence of offshore wind farms could attract eco-tourists and lead to the development of new tourism ventures such as boat tours or educational centres.
Calls for a national policy for all marine users
4.42Several submitters, including commercial and recreational fishers, called for a national framework to manage the various interests of marine users. The Commonwealth Fisheries Association recommended a national policy and framework for all marine users and noted the 'fragmented governance' for offshore planning. A more coordinated approach to marine planning was recommended, with 'access to compensation mechanisms or pathways for fishers to challenge marine planning decisions or seek arbitration'.
Noise and light pollution
4.43Some submitters expressed concerns regarding both the potential noise and light pollution caused by offshore wind projects, as well as DCCEEW’s consultation regarding these impacts.
Underwater noise
4.44A community group, Responsible Future (Illawarra Chapter), criticised DCCEEW for not being forthcoming during the consultation process about the key environmental risk factors associated with offshore wind projects, including underwater noise:
DCCEEW outlines 13 key risk areas that could have negative impacts relating to OSW [offshore wind] projects…However, during the consultation process, none of the DCCEEW representatives shared that the government had already identified these 13 critical risk factors. Instead, the community had to uncover this information through independent research. Why was such vital information not presented to the community during consultation sessions? What does this omission say about the transparency and integrity of the consultation process?
4.45A range of submitters also highlighted that underwater noise generated by the construction and operation of offshore wind turbines can seriously disrupt marine animals’ behaviours such as communication, navigation, feeding and reproduction. The Australian Marine Conservation Society noted that it was particularly concerned about:
…the risk of impacts to endangered and protected whales species where offshore wind areas are proposed in biologically important areas for reproduction, foraging and migration, or habitat critical to the survival of the species, and where these impacts potentially cannot be avoided or sufficiently mitigated…
4.46Rainforest Reserves Australia observed that several overseas studies have demonstrated that noise from offshore wind farms poses ‘significant threats’ to marine mammals:
The construction of offshore wind farms, particularly the pile driving required to install turbine foundations, generates intense underwater noise …capable of causing auditory damage and inducing behavioural changes in marine mammals…Once operational, offshore wind farms continue to produce noise, albeit at lower levels than during construction. However, the continuous and pervasive nature of this noise can result in chronic stress for marine mammals, affecting their behaviour, health, and survival.
4.47Although Doctors for the Environment Australia acknowledged that there are environmental impacts associated with securing wind turbine foundations to the seabed, it asserted that the sonar mapping technology used in the development of offshore wind farms is ‘much “quieter”, and has a significantly reduced risk of harming marine life’ compared to seismic blasting used in offshore oil and gas exploration.
Light pollution
4.48Several submitters also raised concerns about the potential impacts of light pollution. For example, No Offshore Turbines Port Stephens submitted:
…light pollution at night from wind turbines places birds and other species such as turtles at risk due to confusion. Studies show that light pollution is also impacting animal behaviours, such as migration patterns, wake-sleep habits, and habitat formation. Because of light pollution, sea turtles and birds guided by moonlight during migration get confused, lose their way, and often die.
4.49DCCEEW acknowledged that artificial light emissions around offshore wind farm development sites can disrupt biological behaviours, particularly for birds and marine turtles. However, it suggested these risks can be minimised through techniques such as:
Reducing light emitted to the minimum required to meet standards for safety and navigation.
Careful lighting design that is tailored to manage spectral sensitivities of receptors, and considering factors such as wavelength, orientation/shielding, intensity and timing.
Limiting reflective surfaces in infrastructure design.
Visual amenity
4.50Various submitters commented on the visual amenity impacts of offshore wind projects as well as the adequacy of DCCEEW’s consultation on these impacts. As outlined earlier, a number of local businesses in the areas near proposed offshore wind projects expressed concerns about the visual impact of large turbines on the natural landscape, including for tourism.
4.51Further, a group of researchers from the University of Wollongong and Deakin University who monitored DCCEEW’s community consultation process in the Illawarra observed that ‘many people expressed frustration that there was insufficient information available’ about the visual impacts of offshore wind projects.
4.52There was some concern that the visualisation of wind turbines that DCCEEW presented during the consultation process was ‘misleading and factually incorrect’ as it showed ‘fewer, shorter turbines that were located further out to sea than the proposed Illawarra project’. Two examples of the visualisations are at Figures 4.1 and 4.2.
4.53The Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation and Recfishwest submitted that, when questioned, DCCEEW was ‘unable to explain why the visualisations had omitted the presence of substations’ which would have had a greater impact on visual amenity than turbines.
Figure 4.1Digital rendering of wind turbines off Mount Keira (Illawarra, NSW)
Source: DCCEEW, Illawarra, NSW declared offshore wind area (accessed 30 January 2025).
Figure 4.2Digital rendering of wind turbines off Low Head, George Town (Bass Strait, northern Tas)
Source: DCCEEW, Bass Strait, Northern Tasmania declared offshore wind area (accessed 30 January 2025).
4.54On the other hand, some submitters stated that they were pleased with DCCEEW’s use of visualisations to improve the community’s understanding of visual impacts, with the Maritime Union of Australia and the Electrical Trades Union saying, ‘it was useful that the government took steps to increase the public information and produce accurate visualisations in 2023’.
4.55DCCEEW submitted that, in response to stakeholder concerns about visual amenity that were raised throughout the consultation period, in all regions the minister declared smaller areas. In two regions, the Hunter and west coast Victoria, the zone boundaries were moved further away from the shoreline than originally proposed (20 km offshore as opposed to 10 or 15 km offshore). Several submitters viewed these changes as a ‘genuine attempt by the government to incorporate community views and manage potential environmental and social impacts as part of the public consultation process’.
Next chapter
4.56The next chapter addresses views on the consultation process' adherence to principles of FPIC.