Balmoral South Project Area (Maunsell AECOM, 2006)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MINERALOGY PTY. LTD Balmoral South Iron Ore Project Response to Public Submissions Assessment No.1677 Mineralogy Pty Ltd Document BSP-780-EN-REP-0110.1 June 2009 Response to Public Submissions Document Title: Balmoral South Iron Ore Project Response to Public Submissions Document No: BSP-780-EN-REP-0110.1 Signatures Rev Revision Description & Issue Date Code Issued For Originator Checked Approved Josephine Wang Ian Zlatnik Joe Webb A 21 May 09 Initial Internal Review Josephine Wang Ian Zlatnik Joe Webb B 2 June 09 Initial Internal Review For Submissions to Josephine Wang Ian Zlatnik Joe Webb 0 5 June 09 EPASU Revised on EPASU Ian Zlatnik Sam Smith Joe Webb 1 23 June 09 comment Response to Public Submissions Page 2 of 79 TABLE OF CONTENTS BALMORAL SOUTH IRON ORE PROJECT ...................................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2. BALMORAL SOUTH IRON ORE PROJECT UPDATE ............................................................................ 5 3. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS ............................................................................................... 5 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-1: Public Submissions on the BSIOP PER ........................................................................................... 6 Table 3-2: The Numbers of Public Submission Items for the BSIOP PER ....................................................... 7 Table 3-3: Assessment of BPPH Loss from BSIOP .......................................................................................... 8 Table 3-4: Project Water Balance ...................................................................................................................... 9 Table 3-5: Assessment of BPPH Loss from BSIOP ........................................................................................ 13 Table 3-6: Assessment of BPPH Loss from BSIOP ........................................................................................ 14 Table 3-7: Summary of Floristic Survey Results within the BSIOP Area ........................................................ 23 Table 3-8: Area of Phreatophytic Vegetation Impacted by Groundwater Drawdown ...................................... 37 Table 3-9: Total Area of Each Land System to be Cleared by the BSIOP ...................................................... 39 Table 3-10: Assessment of BPPH Loss from BSIOP ...................................................................................... 42 Table 3-11: Configuration of the Proposed IM Diffuser Design ....................................................................... 52 Table 3-12: Mixing Zone Areas Required to Achieve 45 Dilutions 95, 99 and 100% of the Time .................. 53 Table 3-13: Mixing Zone Areas Required to Achieve 45 Dilutions 95, 99 and 100% of the Time .................. 54 Table 3-14: Monitoring and Corrective Actions for the Wastewater Outfall .................................................... 57 Table 3-15: Interim EVs, EQOs and EQC for Cape Preston Waters .............................................................. 59 Table 3-16: Levels of Ecological Protection for the Maintenance of Ecosystem Integrity ............................... 60 Table 3-17: Monitoring and Corrective Actions for Process Emissions .......................................................... 62 Table 3-18: Dust Emissions Estimation ........................................................................................................... 66 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3-1: Cape Preston Flora and Fauna Survey History ............................................................................ 22 Figure 3-2: Phreatophytic Vegetation Impacted by the Cumulative 3m Drawdown Contour .......................... 25 Figure 3-3: Bores Sampled in June 2007 by Bennelongia in the Robe Catchment ........................................ 29 Figure 3-4: Cape Preston Benthic Habitats ..................................................................................................... 33 Figure 3-5: DEC Agreed Conservation Area & CPPM Offset Areas ............................................................... 34 Figure 3-6: Proposed Ecological Protection Areas for the Proposal Area ...................................................... 61 Response to Public Submissions Page 3 of 79 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A Cape Preston Vegetation Communities & Disturbance Areas – Figures 5.01 to 5.13 - Maunsell/AECOM – May 2009 APPENDIX B Cape Preston Iron Ore Precinct Fauna Survey – Phoenix Draft Report – Nov 2008 APPENDIX C Cape Preston SRE Invertebrate Study – Phoenix – April 2009 APPENDIX D Cape Preston Desalination Plant Brine Discharge Modelling Study – GEMS May 2009 Response to Public Submissions Page 4 of 79 1. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to respond to public, stakeholder and government submissions of the BSIOP Iron Ore Project (BSIOP) Public Environmental Review (PER). The draft PER was published by International Minerals Pty Ltd (IM), as the previous proponent of the proposed BSIOP, for public review from 9 March 2009 to 4 May 2009. 2. BALMORAL SOUTH IRON ORE PROJECT UPDATE On 24th April 2009, Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) has approved the change of proponent from IM to Mineralogy Pty Ltd under Section 38(a) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986. This change was to reduce the confusion on the status of Proponency for all proposed Projects in the Cape Preston Region. IM remains the Project Operator for BSIOP. 3. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS A total of 12 submissions were received, with 10 being from Government Agencies, and two being from non-Government organisations (Table 3-1). Each comment or issue has been given a unique identifier that denotes the submission number given in and the comment or issue number within that submission. The comments and issues raised in each submission have been grouped into categories according to the contents of the BSIOP draft PER and responses to each are. Submissions were received in the following categories: • Project Description • Existing Environment • Biophysical Issues • Pollution Issues • Social Issues • Cumulative Assessment • Future Approvals Response to Public Submissions Page 5 of 79 Table 3-2 outlines the number of submissions made on each of the categories, and the organisation who made submission for that category. Table 3-1: Public Submissions on the BSIOP PER Submission Submissions from No. 1(a) Department of Environment and Conservation – Environmental Management Branch (DEC - EMB) 1(b) Department of Environment and Conservation – Office of Climate Change (DEC - OCC) 1(c) Department of Environment and Conservation – Pilbara Industry Regulation (DEC - PIR) 2 Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) 3 Pilbara Native Title Service (PNTS) 4 Department of Health (DoH) 5 Department of Water (DoW) 6 Wildflower Society (WS) 7 Environmental Protection Authority Service Unit (EPASU) 8 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 9 Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) 10 Department of Fisheries (DoF) 11 Department of Main Road (DMR) 12 Marine Parks and Reserves Authority (MPRA) Response to Public Submissions Page 6 of 79 Table 3-2: The Numbers of Public Submission Items for the BSIOP PER Issue Number of Submitters Submission Items Project Description 32 DEC-EMB, DoH, DoW, EPASU, DMP, Existing Environment (12) Terrestrial Flora and 4 DEC-EMB, EPASU Vegetation Terrestrial Fauna 2 EPASU, DEWHA Subterranean Fauna 4 DEC-EMB, EPASU Marine Ecology 1 DEC-EMB Land Use 1 DEC-EMB Biophysical Issues (33) Terrestrial Flora and 8 DEC-EMB, EPASU Vegetation Terrestrial Fauna 3 DEC-EMB, EPASU Mangroves 3 DEC-EMB, DoF Marine Ecology 11 DEC-EMB, DEC-PIR, EPASU, DEWHA, MPRA Surface Water 3 DEC-EMB, DoW Groundwater 5 DoE, EPASU Pollution Issues (15) Marine water quality 8 DEC-EMB, DoH, EPASU, DEWHA, MPRA Process Emissions 3 DoH, EPASU Greenhouse Gas 2 DEC-OCC Emissions Dust 2 DoH, EPASU Social Issues (11) General 7 EPASU, DoF Indigenous Heritage 4 DIA, PNTS, DoF Cumulative Assessment 3 WS, EPASU, MPRA Future Approvals 19 DEC-PIR, DoH, DoW, DMP, DoF, DMR 125 Response to Public Submissions Page 7 of 79 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1(a).1 That the proponent clarifies the purpose, design and construction details of the western infrastructure corridor and the need for two infrastructure corridors, the second of which would be located in the middle of an important area of mangroves. Consultation has been held with DEC EMB (27 Nov 2008) on the impacts of the proposed project on mangroves and these responses have been generated based upon this consultation. Mineralogy has highlighted the requirement for a Western Corridor to allow for the construction of additional infrastructure that may be required for BSIOP based on detailed engineering review, and following construction activity from the Central Block Project (also name as Sino Iron Project). The Corridors proposed in the BSIOP PER allow for all current projects and potentially future third party access to the port (as required by the Iron Ore Procesing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002). Current Central Block Project construction activities have highlighted many difficulties in maintaining alignments proposed in initial environmental approvals, due to physical, heritage and environmental constraints. This has resulted in the need to submit further proposals