Cape Lambert Port B Development

PUBLIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND DRAFT PUBLIC ENVIRONMENT REPORT

17 March 2009

EPBC Referral Number 2008/4032

Sinclair Knight Merz 7th Floor, Durack Centre 263 Adelaide Terrace PO Box H615 Perth WA 6001 Australia

Tel: +61 8 9268 4400 Fax: +61 8 9268 4488 Web: www.skmconsulting.com

LIMITATION: This report has been prepared on behalf of and for the exclusive use of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd’s Client, and is subject to and issued in connection with the provisions of the agreement between Sinclair Knight Merz and its Client. Sinclair Knight Merz accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for or in respect of any use of or reliance upon this report by any third party.

The SKM logo is a trade mark of Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd. © Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd, 2006

Cape Lambert Port B Development

Invitation to Make a Submission

The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) invite people to make a submission on this proposal. Both electronic and hard copy submissions are welcome.

In accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (EP Act) and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth) (EPBC Act) a Public Environmental Review and draft Public Environment Report (PER) has been prepared which describes the proposal by Pilbara Iron Pty Ltd (Pilbara Iron) to construct and operate the Port B development at Cape Lambert, and its likely effects on the environment. The PER is available for a public review period of eight weeks from Monday 13 April 2009, closing on Tuesday 9 June 2009. Comments from government agencies and the public will assist the EPA to prepare an assessment report in which it will make recommendations to government. Comments will also assist with the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth) (EPBC Act) and Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Cwth) assessments.

Where to get copies of this document A CD-ROM version of the PER will be provided by the Proponent on request. An electronic copy of the PER and appendices are available from the website: http://www.riotintoironore.com/ENG/media/337.asp.

Why write a submission? A submission is a way to provide information, express your opinion and put forward your suggested course of action–including any alternative approach. It is useful if you indicate any suggestions you have to improve the proposal. All submissions received by the EPA will be acknowledged and will also be provided to the DEWHA. Submissions will be treated as public documents unless provided and received in confidence subject to the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (WA) and the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cwth) and may be quoted in full or in part in each report.

Why not join a group? If you prefer not to write your own comments, it may be worthwhile joining with a group or other groups interested in making a submission on similar issues. Joint submissions may help to reduce the workload for an individual or group, as well as increase the pool of ideas and information. If you form a small group (up to 10 people) please indicate all the names of the participants. If your group is larger, please indicate how many people your submission represents.

Developing a submission You may agree or disagree with, or comment on, the general issues discussed in the PER or the specific proposal. It helps if you give reasons for your conclusions, supported by relevant data. You may make an important contribution by suggesting ways to make the proposal environmentally more acceptable. When making comments on specific elements of the PER:

clearly state your point of view

indicate the source of your information or argument if this is applicable

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE i

suggest recommendations, safeguards or alternatives.

Points to keep in mind By keeping the following points in mind, you will make it easier for your submission to be analysed:

Attempt to list points so that issues raised are clear. A summary of your submission is helpful.

Refer each point to the appropriate section, chapter or recommendation in the PER.

If you discuss different sections of the PER, keep them distinct and separate, so there is no confusion as to which section you are considering.

Attach any factual information you may wish to provide and give details of the source.

Make sure your information is accurate.

Remember to include your name, address, the date and whether you want your submission to be confidential in any submission. Information in submissions will be deemed public information unless a request for confidentiality of the submission is made in writing and accepted by the EPA. As a result, a copy of each submission will be provided to the Proponent but the identity of private individuals will remain confidential to the EPA.

The closing date for submissions is: Tuesday 9 June 2009.

The EPA prefers submissions to be made electronically using one of the following:

the submission form on the EPA’s website: www.epa.wa.gov.au/submissions.asp

by email to [email protected]

by email to the officer [email protected].

Alternatively, submissions can be

posted to: Attention: Dr. Sue Osborne Environmental Protection Authority Locked Bag 33, CLOISTERS SQUARE WA 6850.

delivered to: Attention: Dr. Sue Osborne Environmental Protection Authority Level 4, The Atrium 168 St Georges Terrace, Perth.

faxed, attention Dr. Sue Osborne, to: (08) 6467 5562.

If you have any questions on how to make a submission, please ring the EPA assessment officer, Dr. Sue Osborne on (08) 6467 5441.

PAGE ii SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Executive Summary

Introduction

This Public Environmental Review and draft Public Environment Report (PER) assesses the environmental impacts of a proposed iron ore handling, processing and ship loading facility at Cape Lambert (the Cape Lambert Port B development), located near Wickham and Point Samson in the Pilbara region of Western Australia.

The Proponent for the Cape Lambert Port B development is Pilbara Iron Pty Limited, a management arm for the Rio Tinto Iron Ore product group (Rio Tinto).

The Proposal is subject to a co-ordinated parallel environmental assessment process which requires assessment by both the Western Australian and Commonwealth governments in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) (EP Act), the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth) (EPBC Act) and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Cwth). The PER has been prepared to fulfil the requirements of the approved Environmental Scoping Document and Guidelines by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA).

The Proposal

The existing Cape Lambert operation (Port A) has recently been upgraded, increasing the Port A approved capacity from 55 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) to 85 Mtpa. With the global demand for iron ore predicted to continue in the long term, a second port facility with a throughput capacity up to 130 Mtpa is proposed to be developed at Cape Lambert. In combination with Port A, the Port B development will increase the Cape Lambert throughput capacity to nominally 215 Mtpa.

The Port B development is effectively a green-field development located within an area associated with Port A. Development of a second port facility at Cape Lambert encompasses both onshore and marine works (Figure ES-1-1) and includes:

ore handling facilities (incorporating rail tracks, car dumpers, conveyors, stackers, stockpiles, reclaimers and screenhouses)

supporting operational infrastructure (including offices, warehouses and workshops)

marine facilities (incorporating jetty and wharf, and shiploaders)

dredging for berth pockets, turning basins, departure channel, service wharf and tug harbour

supporting construction infrastructure (including laydown and storage areas).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE iii

Figure ES-1-1 Indicative location and key components of the Port B development

PAGE iv SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

The key project characteristics for the Port B development are provided in Table ES-1-1.

Table ES-1-1 Preliminary key project characteristics

Project Characteristic Cape Lambert Port B Development * Nominal Cape Lambert Port B Up to 130 Mtpa capacity Access jetty and wharf Up to 2700 m (from conveyor junction on land to end of wharf) Number of ship loading berths Up to 4 Dredging Dredging for berth pockets, turning basins, departure channel, Service Wharf B and tug harbour extension. Placement of spoil at existing spoil grounds. Estimated dredge volume up to 16 Mm3. Stockyard Stockpiles to accommodate nominal 130 Mtpa throughput Bulk stockpile capacity No separate or dedicated bulking stockyards Facility footprint Approximately 340 ha land based Major plant components 3 car dumpers 2 screenhouses (lump rescreening plants) 2 sample systems 3–4 stackers 3 reclaimers 2 ship loaders Conveyors and transfer stations

*Characteristics refer to the Port B development only and do not include Port A operations

Community Consultation

The Proponent has engaged in a public consultation process since 2007 for the Port B development. This consultation is ongoing and will continue with regard to this current proposal.

Key issues raised through the consultation program for the Port B development were:

identification and assessment of the environmental impacts from dredging and dredge spoil disposal activities

impacts and management measures for nesting turtles

risks to marine mammals

water supply and use over life of project

dust management

workforce strategy.

Environmental Impacts and Management

The Proponent identified marine biodiversity, terrestrial fauna, water resources, air quality (particulate dust), ambient noise as key factors relevant to the assessment of the Port B proposal.

Marine Biodiversity: Marine biodiversity encompasses the following key aspects:

intertidal and subtidal benthic primary producer habitats (BPPH) and associated biota

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE v

marine water and sediment quality

protected marine biota (whales, turtles etc.)

invasive marine species (marine pests).

Intertidal and subtidal habitats including BPPH: three primary producers (turf algae, macroalgae and corals) form a mosaic on the intertidal hard substratum of the Cape Lambert area (Figure ES-1-2). Turf algae is the most dominant in terms of the area of seafloor covered.

Most areas surveyed, particularly in the intertidal zone, showed rapid transitions between adjacent areas dominated by different kinds of benthic primary producers (BPP), sometimes only metres in diameter and ranging from high levels of cover to virtual absence. The conclusion is that hard intertidal and subtidal substrata could be best described as Mosaic BPPH, with a complex association of a variety of BPP, each of which is present in proportions that reflect subtle differences in microhabitats and also the recent history of disturbance.

During the construction period for the Port B development, the BPPH at risk from direct and indirect impacts are hard coral assemblages, patchy seagrass meadows, macroalgae and turf algae assemblages. Unvegetated subtidal sand, sponges and soft coral communities may also be impacted. Of all BPPs in the Cape Lambert area, hard corals are considered most sensitive to anomalous increases in turbidity and sedimentation. Sedimentation associated with dredging can lead to abrasion and smothering and widespread physical stress reactions and mortality in hard corals.

Construction of the new access jetty will result in the direct loss of some intertidal habitat including 0.4 ha of BPPH. This BPPH will be smothered where the new access jetty departs from the headland the near Cooling Water Beach. Dredging of the turning areas and channel, Service Wharf B and disposal of spoil will cause direct physical disturbance to the affected seabed, but will not result in direct loss to BPPH because the impacted areas do not support BPPH. Instead, they are characterised by unvegetated seafloor sediment.

A small area of mangrove habitat (0.3 ha) on the mainland at Cooling Water Beach will be directly impacted as a result of construction activities. Ecologically significant mangrove stands are located well outside the area predicted to be influenced by the dredging program or other development activities and anomalous levels of sedimentation or turbidity are not expected to affect the mangrove habitat in the area. No indirect loss of mangroves is therefore predicted.

No direct impacts to seagrasses are predicted as there are no significant seagrass resources in the Cape Lambert area and none in the dredge footprint. Any indirect impacts to seagrasses from the dredging and spoil disposal will be localised and short term.

PAGE vi SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure ES-1-2 Benthic primary producer habitats at Cape Lambert

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE vii

Predicted turbidity and sedimentation impacts: impacts are predicted to occur at BPPH fringing the mainland from just north of the Cape Lambert West site (Managment Unit 2) to the existing Port A wharf in Cooling Water Bay (Management Unit 3). A small area of BPPH may also be impacted southeast of Bezout Island which also falls into Managment Unit 3. Bezout Island is characterised by moderate development of coral communities with a range of 20–30% cover, and where the dominant BPP in terms of per cent cover is turf algae. At Cooling Water Bay there are corals on the BPPH, but the dominant component of the mosaic of BPP is the macroalgae Halimeda sp. This macroalgae is considered unlikely to be significantly affected by the plume because sediment accumulation by macroalgae is widely observed and does not appear to have long term impacts. In the unlikely event that macroalgae assemblages were impacted, the macroalgae is likely to recover quickly after the cessation of dredging. As such no long term loss of this BPP is anticipated.

Table ES-1-2 summarises best case and worst case cumulative losses, including estimates of historical losses of BPP and BPPH within each of the Management Units 1–5. The table contains the current estimates of BPPH (including mangroves) in each management unit, which allow a percentage loss to be calculated per management unit as per the EPA Guidance Statement No. 29 (EPA 2004). The cumulative loss threshold to be applied in each management zone is also provided. Cape Lambert is considered a development area and falls within Category E with a 10% threshold loss, while the proposed Dampier Archipelago-Cape Preston Marine Conservation Reserves surrounding Delambre Island and Dixon Island fall into Category A.

Cumulative losses are only predicted for Managements Units 2, 3 and 5, with no predicted losses for Management Units 1A, 1B and 4 (Table ES-1-2). The historical loss in Management Unit 2 has been 0.58 ha (0.1%), while Management unit 5 has lost 0.45 % of Mangroves. Management Unit 3 has suffered the greatest historical loss with 0.82 % of subtidal BPPH. The predicted cumulative losses under the ‘most-likely’ scenario in all management units lie below the EPA Loss Threshold for a Category E Management Zone. Predicted cumulative losses are 4.3%, 8.4% and 0.4% for Management Units 2, 3 and 5, respectively. The most-likely scenario is defined as the average cumulative loss value based on the best and worst case scenario estimates. This approach is considered the most realistic impact scenario given the great uncertainty in estimating cumulative impact assessments as shown by the two extreme estimates defined as best and worst cases. Further, the predicted cumulative losses for Management Unit 2 (4.3%) and Unit 3 (8.4%) are likely to be over estimates because these impact predictions are based on highly conservative thresholds. During the previous Cape Lambert Port A Upgrade, exceedences of these same thresholds did not result in impacts to corals or other BPP. In addition, indirect impacts are unlikely to be permanent because the habitat will not be altered.

The benthic primary producer habitat (coral cover, growth forms and algal assemblages) with Management Units 2 and 3 (Cooling Water Bay and Bezout Rock) are well represented at the other sites sampled. The dominant growth form types are well represented elsewhere in the Cape Lambert region. There were some differences among sites in terms of macroalgae but there is also significant variability among times sampled. Analyses of the data to date indicate that neither of these sites appears to have disproportionate occurrences of benthic primary producer habitats that would render them special or outstanding because they are under-represented elsewhere.

PAGE viii SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table ES-1-2 Predicted cumulative coral losses in proposed management units 1–5

Predicted/indirect (non-permanent) impact Type of (ha (%)) Cumulative EPA benthic Current Predicted loss Category habitat Size of Current historical permanent Best-case Worst-case and loss Mgmt occurring in mgmt area of loss direct loss (most likely- threshold Zone mgmt zone zone (ha) BPPH (ha) (ha (%)) (ha (%)) Turbidity Sediment Turbidity Sediment case) (2004b) 1 A Mosaic BPPH 11 185.1 56.4 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 0% A 0% 1 B Mosaic BPPH 64 606.9 1 473.9 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 0% A 0% 2 Mosaic BPPH 17 115.2 632.12 0.58 (0.1) Nil 6.3 (1) 16.01 14.6 17.4 4.36% E 10% 3 Mosaic BPPH 28 310.4 625.34 5.2 (0.8) 0.4 (0.06) 3.3 5.2 25.9 59.5 8.4% E 10% 4 Mosaic BPPH 8 995.8 95.51 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 0% E 10% 5 Mangroves 7 448.9 1 118.8 5 (0.45) 0.3 (0.01) Nil Nil Nil Nil 0.46% E 10% Source: EPA 2004b

Notes:

* Mosaic BPPH–Hard substrate occupied by a mosaic of corals, turf and macroalgae

# Predicted Permanent direct loss–habitat loss permanently due to construction of infrastructure

Δ Non-permanent impact–indirect loss due to increased turbidity and sedimentation. Unlikely to be permanent

^ EPA Category and threshold is a cumulative loss threshold to be applied in each management zone as prescribed by the EPA (2004b). Cape Lambert is considered a development area and falls within Category E with a 10% threshold loss, while the proposed Dampier Archipelago–Cape Preston Marine Conservation Reserves surrounding Delambre Island and Dixon Island fall into Category A where 0% loss is acceptable.

Most likely case – the average of the best and worst case scenarios values.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE ix

The proposed Dampier Archipelago Marine Park (DAMP) adjacent to the Port B development requires consideration of both short-term and long-term impacts due to the area’s high conservation importance related to its high marine biodiversity. No impact to the proposed DAMP is likely to occur. Modelling of the estimated extent of the dredge plume indicates that the Cape Lambert Port B dredge operations will not impact or influence any area of the proposed DAMP at Delambre Island which is located approximately 20 km away. It is estimated that the coral assemblages and other benthic organisms within the proposed DAMP will not be altered, damaged or killed by the dredge plume.

The model estimates that suspended sediment at concentrations of 1 milligram per litre (mg L-1) will at some time during the dredge operations reach the area designated as a proposed sanctuary zone to the east of Delambre Island. The value of 1 mg L-1 is an arbitrary concentration utilised as a level of theoretical detection to signify visual plume detection. Due to the high tidal fluxes within the Archipelago, these suspended sediments are expected to be quickly dispersed throughout a tidal cycle. Evidence from the scientific literature, together with comparisons to background water quality at Delambre Island, indicates that such concentrations will not cause any stress to coral assemblages or other benthic fauna organisms.

The dredge plume model also predicts that there may be some influence to water quality just offshore from Point Samson. However, while this plume may be visible, it is unlikely to cause any impacts to the benthic marine habitats including corals. The model estimates that any dredge induced turbidity will be quickly dispersed over a matter of hours by the strong tidal fluxes around Cape Lambert. In addition, this area is exposed to large natural variations in water quality due to the shallow water environment. As such the local BPPH are resilient to increases in turbidity and sedimentation. A water quality and coral health monitoring program will record any changes to water quality and coral health. If any impacts are detected, reactive management measures will be implemented in accordance with the Dredge and Spoil Disposal Management Plan (DSDMP) (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1).

Predicted water quality impacts: In the coastal regions of the Pilbara, tidal and wind generated currents re-suspend fine sediments resulting in naturally elevated levels of turbidity. The water and sediment quality of the Cape Lambert region may be affected by temporary and localised increases in turbidity and sedimentation rates generated by dredging and disposal activities. There is also the potential that hydrocarbon spills and the inappropriate disposal of waste and storm water drainage, could contaminate marine waters. By implementing management and monitoring measures outlined in the DSDMP including appropriate oil spill response procedures, it is predicted that there will be no long term detrimental impact to the water quality of the Cape Lambert region resulting from the Port B development.

Protected marine biota: The number of turtles that nest at Bell’s Beach is about 200 per annum, while less than 50 nest on Cooling Water Beach per annum (Biota 2008d; Appendix A5). In contrast, some nesting beaches on islands in the Dampier Archipelago receive these numbers in a single night. Consequently, Bell’s and Cooling Water beaches are not recognised as nationally or regionally significant turtle nesting beaches.

The three species of marine turtles that nest at Cape Lambert were considered potentially at risk from light pollution originating from the Port B development. An assessment of light spill based on numerical

PAGE x SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

modelling, demonstrated there will not be a significant impact to the population of marine turtles that forage, nest or migrate in the Cape Lambert area. There will be no direct light spill from the Cape Lambert Port B development on important nesting beaches on islands off Cape Lambert because the distances are too large.

There is potential for behavioural changes to turtle hatchlings or nesting adults as a result of increased light spill onto Cooling Water Beach (which is already affected by light spill from Port A), but this risk will be minimised at the design stage through targeted actions to minimise light spill such as increased use of directional lighting, the use of shielded lighting and the use of high pressure sodium vapour or other long wavelength lighting, where feasible. With the proposed management and monitoring measures detailed in the Marine Turtle Management Plan (MTMP) (Biota 2008e; Appendix B2) there will be no long term detrimental effect to the marine turtles as a result of light spill from the Port B development

Low numbers of dolphins and whales are known to migrate through the Cape Lambert area. The area is not a known calving area and generally only frequented during their northern and southern migration. During the migration season marine mammals are normally observed in deeper waters, well beyond the proposed wharf site; however, less frequently they are seen within sight of Port A. Marine turtles and mammals, such as whales and dolphins, are known to be sensitive to underwater noises which are louder (greater intensity) and higher frequency (pitch) than normal background levels. Noise generated by vessels during the construction and operational phases of the Port B development is predicted to have negligible impacts to local marine mammals. The acoustic intensity produced by the dredge and bulk carriers may result in some avoidance, but is unlikely to result in hearing damage typically associated with high intensities or frequencies. Management and mitigation measures to address risks associated with underwater noise will be implemented through the MTMP to ensure no significant impact to the population of marine turtles that forage, nest or migrate in the Cape Lambert area as a result of underwater noise or ground vibrations. These measures include the use of an initial ‘starter’ warning prior to commencing pile driving, use of acoustic controls on the pile drivers to reduce noise at source, and pile driving will only be conducted during daylight hours during turtle nesting seasons (November to March).

Turtle behaviour monitoring including adult nesting activity and hatchling dispersal as well as long-term population monitoring will be undertaken. If monitoring indicates a significant decline in nest success relative to other beaches, a nest relocation programme for Cooling Water Beach will be implemented in consultation with Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC).

The potential for collisions between marine mammals (for example, dolphins and whales) and vessels is considered slight given that these species are likely to exhibit behavioural and avoidance responses and the majority of vessels will be moving at restricted speeds (<12 knots) within port limits, in accordance with port operations and safety requirements.

Invasive marine species: Potential impacts from invasive marine species to the ecological balance of existing marine communities include competition for food and space with native species, predation of native species and possible hybridisation between native and invasive species. The Department of Fisheries has recorded 92 invasive species in the waters of Western Australia but no known invasive species have been recorded within the Cape Lambert area. Due to the proposed management measures

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xi

outlined in the DSDMP, including if invasive marine species are detected during any vessel inspections the vessel will be transferred from the port to an area with a water depth of at least 200 m and will be required to be cleaned and re-subjected to the Vessel Clearance Procedure before remobilisation to site, and also the commitment that no work will be undertaken with any vessel not classified as low risk there is a negligible risk that an invasive marine species will establish in the Cape Lambert region as a result of construction and operational activities.

Consequently, there will be no long term detrimental effect to the marine biodiversity as a result of dredging or additional shipping activity.

Terrestrial fauna: In addition to identifying three priority fauna and six terrestrial Schedule or Priority fauna species, recent surveys also recorded specimens of the fossorial skink Lerista nevinae at six locations within the Port B survey area. Though not formally listed as threatened, this skink is currently only known from the general vicinity of Cape Lambert. Similar to other Lerista species, Lerista nevinae is likely to be restricted to sand dunes. As the Port B development will utilise 32.1 ha, less than 9% of the documented habitat for the species, it is anticipated that this habitat loss will not lead to significant impacts on the population or distribution of L. nevinae. Additional targeted searches identified specimens in areas outside the Port B development, including on Dixon Island.

Water resources: The operating water use of the Port B development is expected to be 2.6 gigalitres (GL) per annum (in addition to 1.8 GL per annum at Port A). The majority of water consumption will be for dust suppression. Port A and the town of Wickham are supplied potable water by Water Corporation which sources water from the West Pilbara Water Supply Scheme (WPWSS) (Harding Dam and the Millstream aquifer) under a conjunctive licence.

As a result of the work undertaken during the development of the Proponent’s Water Strategy, it has been recognised that the WPWSS requires water source augmentation to improve supply reliability. The Proponent, working with Water Corporation, has studied alternatives to augment supply. The Proponent plans to apply an adaptive approach to water supply, to provide maximum flexibility and reliability to meet business requirements and the needs of the communities supported by the Proponent.

The water supply study considered:

a 20 GL desalination plant situated in the general locality of either Cape Lambert or Dampier to meet local water requirements and supplement the WPWSS

a borefield and associated delivery infrastructure located on a tenement owned by the Proponent, delivering water to the WPWSS (nominally in the Bungaroo area)

a transfer pipeline with the capacity to deliver water to the coast from inland mining operations (with associated dewatering)

a desalination plant (up to 5 GL production capacity) situated at Cape Lambert to meet specific water demand and reduce pressure on the existing potable water scheme.

PAGE xii SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

The conclusion to date of a Pre-Feasibility Study indicated that a borefield at Bungaroo, potentially in conjunction with mining operations, connected to the existing water reticulation system would be the most appropriate source to augment primarily based on environmental impact and cost.

The Proponent is committed to continuously improving water efficiency through reduced water consumption, recycling and reusing water wherever feasible. Whilst water consumption will increase, the water use efficiency will be higher than that for Port A.

Air quality (particulate dust): Operations at the Port B development have the potential to generate dust that, combined with naturally occurring background levels, could impact on the local environment and cause community concerns within Point Samson and Wickham.

An air quality dispersion model has been used to predict the impact of the Port B development on dust levels within local residential areas. The dispersion modelling predicted a small contribution from the Port B development to the ground level concentrations resulting from the operation of Port A. The -3 maximum PM10 concentration at Point Samson is predicted to increase by 3 µg m , while an additional 0.2 mg m-2 of particulate dust is estimated to be deposited annually. Increases in particle concentrations and dust deposition rate at Wickham were predicted to be more minor. These are small increments in the context of background concentrations and the air quality standards.

Comparison of predicted ground level concentrations at Point Samson due to emissions from Port A and the Port B development with the relevant criteria, shows that concentrations represent 42% of the PM10 and 20% of the TSP maximum 24 hour average air quality standard.

The operation of Port B is not expected to have a significant impact on Point Samson or Wickham, as all reasonable and practicable measures are being taken to minimise dust emissions.

Ambient Noise: Background noise levels at Point Samson (wave action and insect noise from mangrove areas) exceed the assigned noise levels by 7 dB(A). A noise modelling assessment was undertaken to predict the Proponent’s contribution to ambient noise levels in areas adjacent to the development as well as the towns of Point Samson and Wickham under the current and proposed operating conditions. The modelling results indicate that operational noise impacts at Wickham and Boat Beach are not expected to exceed noise criteria. However, the combined noise emissions from Port A and Port B are likely to exceed noise criteria at Point Samson by up to 5.3 dB(A) under worst case meteorological conditions. With the application of noise mitigation measures that have been applied to the design of the Port B development and the proposed retrofitting of noise control measures to Port A, noise impacts at Point Samson are expected to marginally improve by 0.3 dB(A). The Port B development in isolation and with maximum plant utilisation and worst-case meteorological conditions taken into account, is expected to be 35.6 dB(A) at Point Samson, which exceeds the noise criteria by only 0.6 dB(A). A variation to the assigned noise levels at Point Samson has been sought under Regulation 17 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA).

Rail noise at Wickham will remain within guideline levels.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xiii

Conclusions

Potential environmental impacts associated with the Port B development are summarised in Table ES-1-3 along with proposed mitigation and management measures. Table ES-1-3 demonstrates how the EPA’s principles of environmental protection have been considered in the design and environmental assessment of the Port B development. The impact assessment determined that it is likely that the project can be implemented with only short-term or insignificant consequences on the environment, which can be effectively managed through the implementation of routine mitigation and management measures. For all factors assessed, it is considered that with the implementation of the proposed management and mitigation, the EPA and project environmental objectives can be met.

PAGE xiv SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table ES-1-3 Environmental management summary table

Environmental Objective Applicable Standards, Existing Environment Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Outcome Significance Factor Guidelines and Policies Marine Environment

Marine To minimise adverse EPA Guidance 29: Benthic The proposed Dampier Cumulative loss of marine BPPH within Avoidance of critical habitat during project design. There will be no significant Key biodiversity impacts on biological Primary Producer Habitat Archipelago Marine Park region. Implementation of a Dredging and Spoil Disposal impacts to the marine

diversity, comprising Protection for Western (DAMP) occurs west and north- Reduced species and ecosystem diversity. Management Plan (DSDMP) (SKM 2008b; Appendix biodiversity of the Cape

the different plants and Australia's Marine west of Cape Lambert. Both The proposed DAMP adjacent to the Port B1). Lambert region due to the

animals and the Environment. Dixon and Delambre islands are B development is a sensitive environment Implementation of a Construction Environmental Port B development. ecosystem they form, EPA Guidance 1: included in the proposed DAMP. that requires consideration from both Management Plan (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3). Modelling of the estimated at the levels of genetic Protection of Tropical Arid The area of the DAMP has high short-term and long-term impacts. Implementation of Marine Turtle Management Plan extent of the dredge plume diversity, species Zone Mangroves along the conservation importance related (Biota 2008e; Appendix B2). concludes that no impact to diversity and Pilbara Coastline. to its high marine biodiversity. Implementation of environmental monitoring the proposed DAMP will ecosystem diversity. Dixon Island is about 8 km west programmes during construction and operation. occur. of Cape Lambert, while the Delambre Island Sanctuary Zone is about 20 km to the north-west.

Protected marine To maintain the Perth Coastal Waters The Cape Lambert region is not In the Cape Lambert area, marine turtles During the turtle nesting period, management There will be no significant Key biota (whales, abundance, Environmental Values and a known breeding, feeding or have been identified as taxa at greatest risk measures to address risks associated with underwater long term impact to the turtles etc.) biodiversity, Objectives (EPA 2000d). aggregation area for marine from underwater noise associated with piling noise associated with piling will include: population of marine productivity and mammals. However, whales, activities. Hatchlings and nesting adults are turtles that forage, nest or Pile driving conducted during daylight hours only. geographic distribution dolphins, dugongs migrate at greatest risk to piling noise because of the However, outside of the turtle nesting period the migrate in the Cape of marine biota. through the area seasonally or proximity of the proposed access jetty and Proponent may apply to pile drive at night if required. Lambert area as a result of periodically. wharf to Cooling Water Beach. underwater noise or Any requirement for piling outside of daylight hours is ground vibrations. Humpback whales are Noise from the proposed works has the to be staged so that areas closest to Cooling Water infrequent seasonal visitors to potential to cause: Beach are preferentially completed outside of the There will be no long term Cape Lambert and dugongs are nesting season. impacts to regionally Temporary behavioural changes in important nesting beaches uncommon. Acoustic controls on the pile drivers will be individuals in the Cape Lambert area implemented to reduce noise at source. At least four species of marine Physiological damage to hearing of as a result of light spill turtles are known to forage in individuals Pile driving to be commenced with a partial capacity associated with Port B. and migrate through the region, strike or warning with an airgun to disperse any Displacement of EPBC listed species. There will be no long term turtles in the vicinity prior to normal driving. and three species nest at Cape detrimental effects to If humpback whales or dolphins are observed within Lambert. As Cooling Water Beach is a minor nesting protected marine biota as 1 km of the new wharf then pile driving will The number of turtles that nest beach only a relatively small number of adult a result of dredging. The commence with a partial capacity strike or warning at Bell’s Beach is about 200 per turtles and hatchlings are likely to be at risk EPA objective to maintain with an airgun to disperse any animals in the vicinity annum, while less than 50 nest from exposure to noise generated by the the abundance, prior to normal pile driving. on Cooling Water Beach per piling activity. Bell’s Beach will be unaffected biodiversity, productivity annum. In contrast, some by this activity. and geographic distribution of marine biota nesting beaches on islands in Potential impacts from light spill during If underwater drill and blast is required, a blasting will be achieved. the Dampier Archipelago construction and operation of Port B include: management plan will be developed prior to receive these numbers in a commencement which will include: Disorientation of adult turtles nesting on single night. Consequently, A description of the drill and blast methodology, Bell’s and Cooling Water Bell’s and Cooling Water beaches developed according to detailed site characteristics beaches are not recognised as Disorientation of hatchlings as they move not available to date (i.e. area and depth to be nationally or regionally seaward from the nest blasted, rock hardness and proximity of other significant turtle nesting Aggregation of hatchlings at areas of lit infrastructure) and environmental protection beaches. water, potentially increasing their risk to requirements predation. The significance of Bell’s Beach Environmental Management including:

and Cooling Water Beach as identification of potential impacts to the marine turtle rookeries is low but Bell’s Light modelling indicates that: environment Beach retains value for nomination of target blast pressures to afford the majority of Cooling Water Beach will be community education purposes. affected by direct light with the highest suitable protection to the environment values being towards the west end of the area inspection immediately prior to the blast to beach identify if large marine fauna are present in the immediate area some direct light is expected at the south- western end of Bell’s Beach with less than confirmation that large marine fauna have cleared 5% of the beach being affected by direct the area before the blast is initiated (have not been light spill provided the large back dune is sighted for at least 20 minutes or are more than maintained. However no known nesting 500 m from the blast site) areas are in the area predicted to receive post blast inspection for injured or dead fauna direct light spill. management of injured fauna SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xv

Environmental Objective Applicable Standards, Existing Environment Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Outcome Significance Factor Guidelines and Policies

stakeholder communication

There will be no direct light spill from the reporting requirements. Cape Lambert Port B development on important nesting beaches on islands off The management approach is based on that Cape Lambert because the distances are too undertaken for the recent Dampier Port upgrade at large. Parker Point, and no reports of injured or deceased Increased vessel movement and activity marine mammals or cetaceans were recorded during generated by the dredging program may that drill and blast program. cause injuries or death to whales and turtles from vessel strikes. Field measurements of vibration levels will be conducted at a selection of representative locations at both Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach during pile driving.

In the event that monitoring indicates a significant decline in nesting success relative to other beaches due to noise or vibration a possible nest relocation programme for Cooling Water Beach will be developed and implemented.

Field measurements of incident light levels will be conducted at a selection of representative locations at both Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach throughout the project to:

Identify sections of the beaches that are subject to elevated light levels from artificial sources. Additional design modifications to address these light sources (including shrouding, introduction of timed lighting or other methods) will be considered.

Undertake Turtle Behaviour Monitoring including adult nesting activity and hatchling dispersal and long term population monitoring. If monitoring indicates a significant decline in nest success relative to other beaches a nest relocation programme for Cooling Water Beach will be implemented in consultation with DEC.

The DSDMP includes the following strategies for protecting marine biota:

Prior to commencement of dredging activities, all crew will receive training from a qualified person with respect to the management of marine biota.

Marine mammals and turtles (except dolphins) observation and response procedures including the application of a 300 m exclusion zone will be implemented during dredging and spoil disposal works.

Turtle exclusion devices will be used on the TSHD when dredging in areas with an under keel clearance in excess of 5 m.

When dredging operations allow the use of the water jetting system, the jets will be used to direct sea turtles away from the drag head thus avoiding direct contact.

Intertidal and To maintain ecological EPA Guidance 1: Cape Lambert supports areas Dredging and spoil disposal activities related Management Units will be used to assist in the Impacts to BPPH Key subtidal habitats function, abundance, Protection of Tropical Arid of turf algae, macroalgae and to the construction of Port B have the management of the dredging and spoil disposal Direct loss of 0.4 ha (BPPH) and productivity and Zone Mangroves along the corals. These BPP have been potential to generate: activities. Proposed management targets that intertidal Mosaic BPPH associated biota biodiversity inter tidal Pilbara Coastline. combined to form a single encompass the percentage estimates of impact are due to construction of the Temporary and localised increase in and sub tidal species. EPA Guidance 29: Benthic habitat type, which is highly turbidity (above natural levels), which can utilised. new access jetty in correlated with the distribution Primary Producer Habitat reduce the amount of light available to Potential impacts to BPPH from dredging and spoil Management Unit 3. of intertidal and subtidal hard Protection for Western corals, turf algae and other BPP for disposal will be managed in accordance with the Direct loss 0.3 ha of substratum. These three Australia's Marine photosynthetic activity. DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1). The following mangroves on the PAGE xvi SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Environmental Objective Applicable Standards, Existing Environment Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Outcome Significance Factor Guidelines and Policies

Environment. primary producers form a Temporary and highly localised increase in management measures will be implemented throughout mainland at Cooling Water

National Ocean Disposal mosaic on the intertidal and sedimentation rates (above natural levels) the dredging and spoil disposal program: Beach in Management subtidal hard substratum, with Unit 5. Guidelines for Dredged which can stress or even smother sessile Monitoring coral health and water quality during Material (DEWHA). turf algae as the most benthic organisms, including BPP. dredging. dominant in terms of the Environment Protection Surface water contamination through spills A three tiered approach to coral monitoring will be Indirect Loss amount of seafloor covered. (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. of hydrocarbons or wastewater. applied using comparative methods to determine Dredge modelling Most areas surveyed, coral mortality within management units. predicted: particularly in the intertidal Four levels of reactive management will be applied Cumulative losses are only zone, showed rapid transitions based on net coral mortality trigger levels. These predicted for between adjacent areas trigger levels will be calculated from baseline data Managements Units 2, 3 dominated by different kinds and based on exceedances of natural rates of and 5, with no predicted of BPP, sometimes only change. Management measures will be applied losses for Management metres in diameter and should coral mortality trigger levels be exceeded. Units 1A, 1B and 4 (Table ranging from high levels of ES-1-2). Predicted cover to virtual absence. The Water quality triggers will be used in conjunction with the coral health triggers. These triggers will be used cumulative losses are conclusion is that hard 4.3%, 8.4% and 0.4% for intertidal and subtidal to provide early warning of potential coral stress associated with water quality deterioration at the Management Units 2, 3 substrata could be best and 5, respectively described as Mosaic BPPH. coral monitoring sites. Stop dredging during mass coral spawning periods. The predicted cumulative There are no significant losses under the ‘most- seagrass resources in the Undertake detailed baseline monitoring of BPP and BPPH. likely’ scenario in all Cape Lambert area and none management units lie in the dredge footprint. A turbidity reducing valve will be used within the overflow pipe of each TSHD. below the EPA Loss There are no ecologically Threshold for a Category Overflow levels will be raised to the highest point significant mangroves situated E Management Zone. close to the dredge and spoil during spoil transport to ensure minimum spillage of sediment. The historical loss in footprints. Management Unit 2 has Hopper de-watering is to be confined to the dredging A small number of mangrove been 0.58 ha (.1%), while and spoil disposal areas. trees are present at Cooling Management unit 5 has Water Beach. Well maintained and properly calibrated dredging lost 0.45 % of Mangroves. vessels will be used. There is no sponge or soft Management Unit 3 has coral habitat in or immediately Vessels will include features such as on-line suffered the greatest adjacent to the dredge visualisation of bathymetric charts, loading diagrams, historical loss with 0.82 % footprint, but a small area of production statistics and vessel movement. of subtidal BPPH. sponge habitat overlaps the Localised and short term south east corner of Spoil indirect impacts to Ground. seagrasses.

Historical Loss: Other impacts or influence

Construction of the Port A Insignificant dredging wharf and other infrastructure impacts to plankton had a minor impact on BPPH. populations, fishes, marine

The total historical loss of mammals, turtles and mosaic BPPH is 5.78 ha, and other invertebrates.

5 ha of mangroves. Compliance with EPA Guidance 29.

The application of management measures will ensure the EPA objective is met. Invasive marine To maintain the Australian Ballast Water No known invasive marine Potential impacts from invasive species to The DSDMP includes the following strategies for There will be no long term Key species abundance, Management Requirements species have been recorded the ecological balance of existing marine Marine Pest Management: detrimental effect to the biodiversity, Version 3, 1 June 2007. within the Cape Lambert area. communities include: marine environment as a Implementation of Marine Pest Clearance Procedure. productivity and (AQIS). result of dredging or Competition for food and space with native Marine Pest Response Plan. geographic distribution operations. As such the EPA species. Vessel Clearance Procedures. of marine fauna. objective to maintain the Predation of native species (including Risk Assessment for all dredging construction related commercial species). abundance, biodiversity, vessels (excluding transport/delivery vessels and productivity and geographic Hybridisation between native and invasive local vessels that have not sailed outside of the local distribution of marine fauna species. marine ecological area). will be achieved. Monitoring of target areas at Cape Lambert at least every three years. Monitoring will be done in SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xvii

Environmental Objective Applicable Standards, Existing Environment Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Outcome Significance Factor Guidelines and Policies accordance with the Marine Pest Monitoring Manual (Australian and New Zealand Governments) as part of the Cape Lambert Marine Quality Operations Plan.

Marine water and Minimise impacts on Australian and New The coastal regions of the Potential impacts from dredging and disposal Potential impacts to marine water and sediment quality Impacts from TBT as a result Key sediment quality sediment, water quality, Zealand Guidelines for Pilbara are characterised by activities include: from dredging and spoil disposal will be managed in of the Port B development marine habitat and Fresh and Marine Water turbid waters, especially accordance with the DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix are predicted to be Increase in turbidity and sedimentation. marine flora and fauna. Quality; during summer months and B1). The following key management measures will be negligible. Marine gastropods may be at risk from ANZECC/ARMCANZ periods of spring tides. imposex and other deformities due to implemented throughout the dredging and spoil Waste and stormwater 2000. The LEP protection level for tributlytin (TBT) in dredged sediments. disposal program: drainage are considered to Pilbara Coastal Water Cape Lambert is High, with Reduction in water quality due to A turbidity reducing valve will be used within the have low risk to the Cape Quality Consultation the exception of the existing hydrocarbon spills and inappropriate overflow pipe of each Trailing Suction Hopper Lambert marine Outcomes: Environmental Cape Lambert Port A wharf disposal of waste leading to contamination Dredge. environment. Values and Environmental which is classified as and mortality of the exposed benthic Overflow levels will be raised to the highest point Quality Objectives (DoE Moderate and the coastal organisms. during spoil transport to ensure minimum spillage of 2006a). waters east of Cossack which Accidental loss of solid waste (material sediment. State Water Quality are classified as Maximum. used to construct the jetty and wharf) into Hopper de-watering to be confined to the dredging Management Strategy The coastal waters in the the marine environment could result in the and spoil disposal areas. Document No. 6 (DoE region generally have low localised smothering of seafloor habitat. Well maintained and properly calibrated dredging 2004e). levels of trace metal Stormwater drainage off Port B land vessels will be used. ANZECC National Ocean concentrations. Most trace infrastructure could potentially transfer Dredge vessels will include features such as on-line Disposal Guidelines for metals did not exceed the contaminants deposited on land to the visualisation of bathymetric charts, loading diagrams, Dredged Material (2002). 99% species protection level, with the exception of copper, sea. production statistics and vessel movement. lead, zinc and tributlytin. Vessel movement To maintain the There is no specific In the Cape Lambert marine Vessel collisions can contribute to the Management actions are described fully in the Cape There is a low risk of Minor abundance, guidance relating to vessel environment, the fauna of most mortality of several marine taxa including Lambert Port B Development DSDMP (SKM 2008b; collision between vessels biodiversity, collisions with marine fauna. concern in regards to vessel turtles, dugongs and whales. Large whale Appendix B1), Section 4.3 Strategy 3–Sea Turtle and and marine turtles and productivity and movement are marine turtles, deaths and serious injuries that result from Marine Management, and summarised here: mammals as a result of the geographic distribution cetaceans and dugongs. ship strikes are of increasing concern Port B development. Marine turtle and marine mammal activity will be of marine fauna. The mean number of ore worldwide. monitored throughout the dredging and spoil disposal This outcome will be carriers visiting Cape Lambert is All sizes and types of vessels can hit whales. works. consistent with the 2007

currently 48 ships per month. However, the most lethal or severe injuries Prior to commencement of dredging activities, all Port A upgrade where there The speed of ore carriers in the are caused by ships 80 m or longer; whales crew will receive an induction which will include were no recorded injuries to channel ranges from 8 to 12 kn usually are not seen beforehand or are seen details of procedures to be followed in the event of marine fauna associated slowing to less than 4 kn as they too late to be avoided; and most lethal or sea turtle, marine mammal or injury or death. with the dredging activity or

near the wharf. severe injuries involve ships travelling 14 kn Marine turtle and marine mammal (except dolphin) shipping movement. The TSHD will operate at a or faster. observation and response procedures including the Consequently, the EPA speed of 1–3 kn while dredging application of a 300 m exclusion zone will be objective will be met. and 12–16 kn when travelling implemented during dredging and spoil disposal between the spoil grounds and activities works. the dredge area. Support and Turtle exclusion devices will be used on the TSHD fuel vessels will operate at a when dredging in areas with an under keel clearance similar range of speeds in excess of 5 m. depending on their proximity to the wharf and dredge, and the activities they are performing (transit versus refuelling).

Contaminant To maintain the EPA Guidance 29: Benthic During the 2007 Port A upgrade Physical effects commonly associated with Key management measures and actions to combat an A significant environmental Minor spills abundance, Primary Producer Habitat only a single small (20 L) oil spill hydrocarbon spills are smothering leading to oil spill during construction and operations include: impact from an oil spill is biodiversity, Protection for Western was recorded and which did not contamination and mortality of the exposed considered to be of low risk Spill response will be undertaken in accordance with productivity and Australia's Marine result in any measurable impact. benthic organisms. Severe coating of oil can the existing Cape Lambert oil spill contingency plan. due to the high level of geographic distribution Environment. restrict vital life functions including the ability response planning described Each vessel will maintain a Ship Board Oil Pollution of marine fauna. to feed, and to maintain insulation, Emergency Plan in accordance with Australia in the OSCP. This is respiration and movement/migration. Sub- Government requirements and the MARPOL 73/78 consistent with observations lethal effects limiting organisms’ capacity to convention. made during the 2007 Port A feed, grow and reproduce, and chronic upgrade. If, in the unlikely Suitable and sufficient oil spill response equipment exposure to hydrocarbons at varying event of a small spill (spill response kits) including oil absorbent booms concentrations can lead to mortality. reaching the mainland, the and pads will be available and easily accessible in impact would be localised case of a hydrocarbon spill. and short lived. Only approved dispersants will be used at any time.

PAGE xviii SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Environmental Objective Applicable Standards, Existing Environment Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Outcome Significance Factor Guidelines and Policies

Waste and To maintain the EPA Guidance 1: Currently no wastes or Marine impacts from solid and liquid wastes Waste management measures will include: Waste and stormwater Minor stormwater abundance, Protection of Tropical Arid stormwater flows are generated and hazardous wastes are expected to be drainage are considered to Solid waste will be placed in suitable containers and drainage biodiversity, Zone Mangroves along the from Port B footprint into the negligible. The accidental loss of solid waste recycled or disposed of via a licensed contractor. have low risk to the Cape productivity and Pilbara Coastline (EPA marine receiving environment. (material used to construct the jetty and Lambert marine Inert waste material will be taken to the new 7 kp 2001). geographic distribution wharf) into the marine environment could landfill being developed. environment. In the unlikely of marine fauna. EPA Guidance 29: Benthic result in the localised smothering of seafloor event of accidental loss of Hazardous waste will be stored in an appropriate Primary Producer Habitat habitat. Benthic organisms would quickly solid or hazardous wastes manner prior to disposal. Protection for Western colonise large pieces of metal waste in the into the marine environment, Australia's Marine event they were not found during retrieval Empty oil and chemical containers will be returned to environmental impacts will Environment (EPA 2004b). attempts. the supplier for recycling where appropriate. be highly localised. Controlled wastes will be disposed of via a licensed National Ocean Disposal Stormwater drainage off the Port B contractor to a licensed controlled waste facility. Stormwater discharge is Guidelines for Dredged development land infrastructure could predicted to have highly Records of disposal of controlled wastes will be kept. Material (NODGDM). potentially transfer contaminants deposited localised impacts on marine on land to the sea. At the Port B fauna and habitats after development land site, there is potential for Stormwater drainage management measures will significant rainfall events. iron ore dust, sediment, hydrocarbons and include: Recovery should be rapid some heavy metals to accumulate. after the disturbance event. Sediment sump system will be used to capture coarse grain sediments during discharge. The EPA objectives will be met. Discharge will be licensed and volumes and water quality monitored. Terrestrial Environment

Terrestrial fauna To maintain the EPA Guidance Statement Three species identified as The following potential threats to terrestrial The design of the Port B development has minimised Disturbance of up to 9% of Key abundance, diversity, No. 56: Terrestrial Fauna priority fauna were recorded fauna resulting from the Port B development clearing and disturbance of coastal dune vegetation the documented habitat for geographic distribution Surveys for Environmental within or adjacent to the Port have been identified as: types known to be significant fauna habitat within the Lerista nevinae (not and productivity of Impact Assessment in B development study area: area surveyed. including the recent findings Disturbance or stress to significant fauna Western Australia (EPA fauna at species and Little northern freetail bat due to habitat loss and fragmentation from During construction, impacts on fauna will be managed of L. nevinae on Dixon 2004e). ecosystem levels (Mormopterus loriae land clearing. through the implementation of Environmental Island) is not considered through the avoidance EPA Position Statement cobourgiana) Priority One. likely to lead to significant Loss, disturbance or stress to Lerista Management Procedure 007 (Fauna) as detailed in the or management of No. 3: Terrestrial Eastern curlew (Numenius nevinae through loss of portions of sand CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3). Key management impacts on its population or adverse impacts and Biological Surveys as an madagascariensis) Priority dune habitat. measures specific to the Port B development include: distribution, or a change in improvement in Element of Biodiversity Four. its potential conservation Direct loss of individual fauna. Additional targeted searches for Lerista nevinae will knowledge. Protection (EPA 2002c). Star finch (Neochmia listing. Disturbance or stress due to noise and be conducted outside the Cape Lambert area during EPA Guidance Statement ruficauda subclarescens) associated vibrations. the optimal season to better determine the The EPA objective of No. 51: Terrestrial Flora Priority Four. maintaining the abundance, Disturbance or stress due to the spread of distribution of this species. and Vegetation Surveys diversity, geographic for Environmental Impact introduced (feral) species. Site inductions will provide details on terrestrial fauna A further six terrestrial distribution and productivity Assessment in Western requirements and will incorporate information on Schedule or Priority fauna significant terrestrial fauna. of terrestrial fauna at species Australia (EPA 2004d). species may potentially occur and ecosystem levels will be

EPA Guidance Statement within the study area: met through designing, No. 56: Terrestrial Fauna Operational impacts will be managed through the Schedule One species constructing and operating Surveys for Environmental Dasyurus hallucatus Wildlife Interaction Guidelines (RTIO 2007b; Appendix the development to minimise Impact Assessment in (northern quoll), Liasis B4). Key management measures specific to the Port B the clearing footprint and Western Australia (EPA olivaceus barroni (pilbara development include: managing potentially 2004e). olive python), and Falco Additional targeted searches for Lerista nevinae have adverse impacts as per the peregrines (peregrine been conducted outside the Cape Lambert area terrestrial fauna falcon). during the optimal season to better determine the management measures. distribution of this species–further specimens of l. Priority Four species Ardeotis australis nevinae have been recorded on Dixon Island in (Australian bustard), January 2009. Burhinus grallarius (bush Primary and secondary dune habitat outside the stone-curlew), and Phaps Port B development footprint will be left undisturbed. histrionic (flock Support reasonable initiatives to secure areas of bronzewing). known suitable coastal dune habitat for Lerista nevinae outside the Port B development area

Though not formally listed as Site inductions will include reference to Lerista threatened, the fossorial skink nevinae and other significant terrestrial fauna and the Lerista nevinae is currently need to avoid disturbance to coastal habitats. only known from the general vicinity of Cape Lambert.

Potential short range endemic invertebrate species, specifically mygalomorph SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xix

Water resources To maintain the Environmental Water There are no large supplies of Potential impacts generated by increased Through its Water Strategy, the Proponent is: Once operational, the Port B Key quantity of water so Provisions Policy for fresh water readily available in water demand by the Proponent include: development will use adopting long term time horizons in planning for that existing and Western Australia: the Cape Lambert area. approximately 2.6 GL of Additional strain on water resources. water management potential environmental Statewide Policy No. 5 The Port B development water per annum. The EPA Reduction of regional water availability. recognising the true value of water to the business values, including (WRC 2000). operating water requirements objective of maintaining the considering management over the whole of water ecosystem Transferable (Tradeable) in isolation are estimated to quantity of water so that cycle maintenance are Water Entitlements for be 2.6 GL per annum existing and potential protected. Western Australia: (compared to 1.8 GL per being transparent and engaging with stakeholders environmental values, Statewide Policy No. 6 annum for Port A) (CyMod working cooperatively and adaptively with suppliers including ecosystem (WRC 2001). Systems 2008). and regulators maintenance are protected, ongoing work (water use efficiency projects cover a Australian and New The Port B development will be met through Zealand Guidelines for potable water requirements wide range of areas). managing potentially Fresh and Marine Water will be met by the existing adverse construction and Quality (ANZECC & Water Corporation scheme, Water Efficiency Improvements: operational impacts as per the water resources ARMCANZ 2000). however in the event that the The Proponent has commissioned and undertaken a management measures. Water Corporation is unable number of studies aiming to identify and implement to meet this demand, water efficiency projects. This includes: temporary water sources may be required. risk reviews water management plans The Proponent is currently evaluating various additional water balances water supply options, in recycling opportunities at ports (reduces demands on liaison with the Water fresh water) Corporation. Given the lack of environmental improvement plans. local borefields, transfer pipelines, desalination and Protection of water resources has been incorporated remote borefield options have into the design of the Port B development. This been considered. The current includes: preferred option is the water recycling at the car dumpers and screenhouses development of a Bungaroo borefiled, 50 km from water re-use in the process water system. Pannawonica, potentially in conjunction with mining During construction, water resources will be managed operations, to connect into the through the implementation of Environmental existing Water Corporation Management Procedure 013 (Water Management) as reticulation system. detailed in the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3). Key measures specific to the Port B development include:

initiate water reuse and saving initiatives

use sea water for dust control purposes during bulk earthworks and other construction activities that are sited well away from active iron ore stockpiles (to reduce the demand on potable water supplies during construction)

consider alternative options for water supply (for example a temporary desalination plant) for construction purposes

utilise water dewatered/extracted from car dumper and any other areas during construction.

During construction, water re-use (e.g. use of effluent from the construction camp waste water treatment plant for stockyard dust suppression) will also be implemented.

During operations, water resources will be managed through the implementation of the Cape Lambert Water Management Plan (RTIO 2008b; Appendix B7) which will be extended to incorporate the Port B development. PAGE xx SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

support implementation of feasible options to augment existing water scheme in liaison with the Water Corporation

use of chemical agents on some dusty/problematic ores to reduce dust emissions and reduce water usage.

In addition to the water efficiency initiatives, the Proponent has demonstrated a commitment to investigating alternatives to water and reduction in water use for dust suppression. An outcome of this commitment is the creation of a business-wide Cleaner Air Community is an integral part of process of continuous improvement. This collaborative forum acts as a driver for change and also provides an effective way to collate and disseminate technical information throughout the business. Information presented within the Community provides the Proponent’s employees with new solutions for dust suppression and ways to reduce water use on site. The Proponent is committed to reduce water used for dust suppression, and investigate engineering solutions including (but not limited to) dust collection systems and chemical additives currently being trialled for use on roads, stockpiles and product piles.

Air quality To ensure that National Environment Analysis of data from Point Dispersion modelling predicts that Dust mitigation has been incorporated into the design The Port B development will Key (particulate dust) emissions do not Protection Goals as Samson, Rocky Ridge and of the Port B development. This includes: result in an additional 3 µg Suspended particle concentrations at Point adversely affect defined in the National Wickham suggests that m-3 to maximum 24-hour Samson as a result of emissions from a Enclosure of car dumper cells. environmental values Environment Protection regional sources dominate PM10 concentrations, an combination of the Port A and Port B Dust extraction for each new car dumper and -3 or the health, welfare (Ambient Air Quality) measured PM10 additional 0.6 µg m to developments represent 42% of the PM10 screenhouse. and amenity of peoples Measure (NEPM) (EPHC concentrations or that the maximum 24-hour PM2.5 air quality standard and 20% of the TSP air An extensive system of stockyard water cannons at and land uses by 2003). climatic conditions that concentrations, an extra 4 µg quality standard. approximately 50 m spacing to allow for direct water meeting statutory EPA Guidance Statement generate dust at the sites are to maximum 24-hour TSP The predicted increase in concentrations addition to stockpiles. requirements and No. 18 Prevention of Air similar. concentrations and an extra as a result of emissions from Port B to Application of the chemical surfactant PDX at some -2 acceptable standards. Quality Impacts from Land A higher proportion of 0.2 g m to the monthly concentrations from Port A is small. An mines (to ensure that ore arrives at the port with the Development Sites (EPA exceedences in the summer -3 deposition rate at Point additional 3 µg m is added to maximum right moisture content). 2000b). months indicates a seasonal -3 Samson. The air quality PM10 concentrations, an extra 4 µg m is Water sprays on all stackers, reclaimers and influence in PM10 criteria for PM10, PM2.5, TSP added to TSP concentrations and an extra shiploaders. concentrations and that 0.2 mg m-2 is added to the deposition rate. and deposition at Point regional influences may be Enclosure of screens and feeders within the Samson will not be exerting a significant screenhouse. exceeded solely by contribution. Moisture addition points and spray booths on cumulative emissions from

Under certain conditions, selected conveyors. the Port A and Port B Port A is known to contribute Primary and secondary scrapers on all conveyors for operations. the reduction of ore carry-back, spillage and to elevated PM10 The EPA objective of concentrations at Point consequential dust generation. ensuring that emissions do Samson and periodic Sealing of roads to reduce dust generation from not adversely affect exceedences of the NEPM vehicular movements. environment values or the limits. Installation of additional dust monitoring during health, welfare and amenity The PM2.5 and TSP monitoring construction and operation linked to an alarm system of people and land uses will results do not show any that alerts construction manager and operations be met through managing exceedences of the air quality manager of high dust levels. potentially adverse impact assessment criteria. Dust monitoring of construction works using mobile construction and operational DustTrak monitors (or similar). impacts as per the air quality management measures. Additional air quality controls are also being implemented at Port A:

Installation of roll out covers on the CD1 pit and car dumper cell.

Installation of a baghouse at the Car Dumper 1 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xxi

Environmental Objective Applicable Standards, Existing Environment Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Outcome Significance Factor Guidelines and Policies facility.

Installation of baghouses at the crusher/screening, sinter fines and rubble facilities .

Installation of spray bar systems at transfer stations at the out-feed of the pisolite plant.

Sealing of selected roads.

Installation of water cannons on the coarse ore stockpile.

Air quality modelling undertaken for the Port B development is based on the incorporation of these design elements. During construction, dust will be managed through the implementation of Environmental Management Procedure 009 (Dust) as detailed in the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3). Key measures specific to the Port B development include:

Dust suppression applications and/or watering of unsealed roads, access routes, exposed ground surfaces and stockpiles will be implemented.

Consideration of the prevailing weather conditions when undertaking dust generating activities.

During operations, dust will be managed through the implementation of the DMP (RTIO 2008c; Appendix B5) which will be reviewed and revised to incorporate the Port B development. Key measures specific to the Port B development will include:

Development of an updated dust arc, encompassing the Port B development infrastructure, in consultation with the DEC.

Continued dust measurement and monitoring on site and at Point Samson, Rocky Ridge, Wickham and Karratha with some enhancement of dust monitoring between Port B and Point Samson.

Further model validation with actual measured data.

Predictive forecasting and early warning systems that trigger management actions. This will include two additional fixed monitors along a transect between the Port B development and Point Samson.

Ambient noise To protect the amenity Draft Statement of Noise recording indicates that Potential noise impacts arising from the Port Noise mitigation has been incorporated into the design Even if the noise Key and vibration of nearby residents Planning Policy: Road and the night-time LA10 B development include: of the Port B development. This includes: management measures are from noise emissions Rail Transport Noise background noise levels at implemented, it is unlikely Construction noise impacts at Point Low noise idlers will be installed on all conveyors. resulting from activities (WAPC 2005). Point Samson range between that the EPA objectives for Samson and Boat Beach generated by pile Large 178 mm diameter idlers to reduce the 32 dB(A) and 69 dB(A) with a associated with the Preliminary Draft driving during the wharf construction (18- rotational speed of the idlers and hence noise and noise will be fully met, as 15 minute average LA noise proposal by ensuring Guidance Statement No. 10 24 month period), blasting activities and dust generation while maximising belt capacity. modelling results indicate the that noise levels meet 14: Road and Rail level of 42 dB(A) (SVT 2008a; combined noise emissions heavy earthmoving machinery. Low noise gearboxes. statutory requirements Transport Noise (EPA Appendix A9). Port A and Port B operations Operational noise criteria exceedences Orientation of the screenhouse directing noise away and acceptable 2000a). The assigned noise level for are likely to exceed noise from fixed plant at Point Samson, from receptors at Point Samson and Wickham. standards. Environmental Protection Point Samson is predicted to Wickham and Boat Beach. criteria at Point Samson by (Noise) Regulations 1997 be exceeded by up to 5.6 Acoustic panelling/barrier on one side of the up to 5.3 dB(A) under worst Operational noise criteria exceedences (WA). dB(A) when Port A operates screenhouse, acoustic lagging to screen covers, case meteorological from rail noise at Wickham. rubbadex liners within the product chutes and Guide to Noise Control on at a throughput capacity of conditions and under a Based on worst-case meteorological acoustic panelling on the rear of the screenhouse. Construction, Maintenance 85 Mtpa. 100% plant utilisation conditions and all plant running (not a and Demolition Sites–AS Enclosure of car dumpers. scenario. However, noise feasible scenario), predicted noise levels 2436-1981. Dust extraction with silencers on exhaust stack impacts at Point Samson are from the Port B development in isolation discharges. expected to marginally include: improve by 0.3 dB(A) 39.2 dB(A) at Point Samson (an Additional Noise controls will also be implemented at compared with levels as a exceedence of 4.2 dB(A) of the assigned Port A, as part of the Port B development: result of noise mitigation noise levels) applied to the design of the Low noise idlers will be installed on jetty conveyors. PAGE xxii SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Environmental Objective Applicable Standards, Existing Environment Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Outcome Significance Factor Guidelines and Policies

32.4 dB(A) at Wickham (within assigned Low noise idlers will be installed on stockyard Port B development, and noise levels) conveyors. retro-fitted to Port A (SVT

59.9 dB(A) at Boat Beach (within assigned 2008a; Appendix A9). noise levels) (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9). During construction, noise will be managed through the Background noise levels implementation of Environmental Management from natural sources were found to be high at Point Based on worst-case meteorological Procedure 011 (Noise) as detailed in the CEMP (SKM Samson, exceeding the conditions and average plant utilisation, 2008o; Appendix B3). Key measures specific to the assigned noise levels. A noise levels at Point Samson are predicted Port B development include: variation to the assigned to be 35.6 dB(A) (0.6 dB(A) above the A community complaints line will be available for noise levels at Point Samson assigned noise levels). community feedback and concern regarding noise will be sought under The maximum cumulative noise level at emissions. Regulation 17 of the Point Samson as a result of Port A and the Noise levels at Point Samson and Boat Beach will be Environmental Protection Port B development is 40.3 dB(A), based on monitored to verify noise emissions during (Noise) Regulations 1997 average plant utilisation (SVT 2008a; construction. (WA). Appendix A9). Noise impacts at Wickham An initial application has been made to the Minister and Boat Beach during under Regulation 17 of the Environmental Protection operations are not expected (Noise) Regulations 1997 to vary the assigned noise to exceed noise criteria levels applicable to Point Samson. (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9). Operational noise at the Port B development will be managed through the standard management measures currently employed across the Proponent’s operations.

Landforms and To maintain the General Guidance on Port B development is located Potential impacts: Further investigations into the presence of ASS at the The EPA and DEC Minor soils integrity, ecological Managing Acid Sulfate on the coastal plain which is site will be conducted. Prior to construction, site testing objectives for soil and disturbance of acid sulfate soils during functions and Soils, Department of relatively flat, with a large basalt construction activities will confirm the extent of ASS within the Port B landforms and ASS will be environmental values Environment (DoE 2003). ridge to the east and the development and will enable specific management met by undertaking further erosion and sedimentation due to of the soil and Draft Identification and coastline to the west. construction activities. measures to be prescribed. site inspections works, as landform. Investigation of Acid per the CEMP (SKM 2008o; There is the potential for acid If significant ASS is likely to be encountered, The DEC objective Sulfate Soils - Acid Sulfate sulphate soils (ASS) to occur in management of the ASS will be carried out, in Appendix B3), and, if for ASS is that Soils Guideline Series, some areas of the development accordance with the relevant state legislation and required, implementing an potentially ASS Land and Water Quality site. guidelines and through the preparation of an Acid Acid Sulfate Soils disturbing activities Branch, Department of Management Plan. Sulfate Soils Management Plan. are managed to Environment, May 2006. avoid adverse effects (DoE 2006b). The CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) contains provisional ASS management measures, detailed on all aspects of the Contaminated Sites surrounding Management Series: within EMP 013 (Groundwater and Surface Water). environment (DoE Assessment Levels for Measures specific to the Port B development include: 2003). Soil, Sediment and Water, Should detailed geotechnical investigations and Draft for Public Comment, further desktop assessment indicate that ASS are Version 3, November 2003 likely to be present within the Port B development (DEC 2003). footprint, a site testing and management plan will be

Western Australian developed to manage the specific location or Planning Commission locations of disturbance, which will include measures Planning Bulletin BO, 64: to eliminate the potential impacts of ASS. Acid Sulphate Soils (WAPC 2003). Erosion and sedimentation will be managed as detailed within EMP 014 (Erosion and Sediment Control) in the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3).

Vegetation and To maintain the EPA Position Statement No threatened ecological Direct loss of vegetation and flora due to During construction, impacts on vegetation and flora Impacts associated with Minor flora abundance, diversity, No. 2: Environmental communities or ecosystems of land clearing. will be managed through the implementation of clearing and disturbance to

geographic distribution Protection of Native state significance occur within Disturbance or stress to vegetation outside Environmental Management Procedures 002 (Ground vegetation and flora are not and productivity of flora Vegetation in Western the footprint of the Port B but immediately adjacent to the Disturbance), 005 (Vegetation and Flora) and 006 considered ecologically at species and Australia (EPA 2000c). development. development. (Weeds) as detailed in the CEMP (SKM 2008o; significant. Up to 40 ha of

ecosystem levels EPA Position Statement Vegetation associated with Loss of regionally significant vegetation. Appendix B3). Key management measures specific to poorly-reserved low lying

through the avoidance No. 3: Terrestrial the poorly-reserved low lying Disturbance or stress to native flora due to Port B include: saline drainage areas will be or management of Biological Surveys as an saline drainage areas may be cleared, which is considered the spread of existing weed species. Position infrastructure, such as laydown areas and adverse impacts and Element of Biodiversity considered regionally to be a minor area of that Disturbance or stress to native flora due to temporary offices, away from coastal vegetation. improvement in Protection (EPA 2002c). significant due to its ‘high vegetation type when the introduction of new weed species. Minimise the disturbance of low-lying saline drainage knowledge. reservation priority’. compared with the local and EPA Guidance Statement areas. No. 51: Terrestrial Flora No vegetation types found regional representation. Implement weed control methods on any new weed and Vegetation Surveys within the Port B development infestations during construction so that they are The EPA objective of SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xxiii

Assessment in Western locally significant. Inspect all mobile equipment, including earthmoving diversity, geographic

Australia (EPA 2004d). No threatened, declared rare and construction equipment, for weeds, seeds, distribution and productivity or priority flora have been vegetation, mud and contaminated soil prior to entry of flora at species and identified within the Port B to site. ecosystem levels will be met

development. Clean all mobile equipment that is found to contain through designing the

Seven introduced flora weeds, seeds, vegetation, mud or contaminated soil development to minimise the species were recorded within following inspections. clearing footprint and the Port B development area. managing potentially adverse construction and The small population of Tamarix aphylla adjacent to a operational impacts as per roadside and a low lying saline drainage area the CEMP (SKM 2008o; (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2) will be removed early in Appendix B3) and the the construction phase. procedures outlined above. During operations, impacts will be managed through the Proponent’s Weed Management Plan (RTIO 2007d).

Surface and To maintain the Environmental Water The groundwater at Cape The Port B development may impact on Design: Construction and operation Minor groundwater quantity of water so Provisions Policy for Lambert is not suitable for ephemeral drainage lines and areas subject of the Port B development Locate infrastructure away from significant seasonal that existing and Western Australia: potable requirements due to to occasional inundation. Impacts may drainage lines and areas subject to inundation. will not significantly impact potential environmental Statewide Policy No. 5. high salinity and total dissolved include alteration of natural flow, increased surface and groundwater at Construction: values, including Water and Rivers solids. erosion and sediment deposition. Cape Lambert as no ecosystem Commission (2000). Undertake dewatering at the car dumpers using significant drainage lines are A limited amount of dewatering Dewatering for the construction of the car sump wells within the excavation and obtain the maintenance, are will be required for the dumpers will impact the water table in the impacted and only very protected. necessary licences and permits for dewatering, as minor abstraction will occur construction and operation of immediate area. No groundwater dependent required from the DEC and DoW. the car dumpers. The Port B vegetation types are located within the from the underlying saline Use water sourced from car dumper dewatering for development footprint will not Port B development footprint, thus impacts aquifer due to dewatering construction purposes, subject to water quality directly impact any significant are expected to be negligible. during construction of the car parameters. drainage lines. dumpers. Contain runoff from watering of work areas and roads The EPA objective for water by water trucks. is predicted to be met for the Operations: Port B development.

Update Cape Lambert Water Management Plan to include new discharge points and monitoring locations.

Manage long-term groundwater inflows at the car dumpers by the installation of permanent sumps.

Use water sourced from car dumper dewatering for dust control or as process water, subject to water quality parameters.

Ensure that no contaminated surface runoff is discharged via the two discharge points to Sam’s Creek and the ocean west of the existing quarry by:

Installation of an oily water separator at the car dumper.

Installation of sediment retention ponds at discharge locations.

Greenhouse To minimise emissions EPA Guidance Statement Currently no emissions from The annual greenhouse gas emissions Minimise greenhouse gas emissions in design Despite anticipated Minor gases to levels as low as No. 12: Minimising Port B footprint. during construction of the Port B through equipment selection. greenhouse gas emissions

practicable on an on- Greenhouse Gas Port A, operating at maximum development have been estimated at Improve efficiency of energy use through the during construction and going basis and Emissions (EPA 2002b). throughput of 85 Mtpa has the approximately 44 kt CO2-e. development of a new power station * km south of operation of the Port B

consider offsets to DCC National Greenhouse potential to result in During the operational phase of the Port B Dampier (outside the scope of the Port B development, emissions are further reduce Accounts (NGA) Factors approximately 133 kt CO2-e of development, annual emissions have been development) to supply electricity to the Cape not expected to be cumulative. (DCC 2008). greenhouse gas emissions estimated at approximately 105 kt CO2-e. Lambert and Dampier operations by 2012. The significant. 2006 IPCC Guidelines for annually (SKM 2006). At maximum throughput of 130 Mtpa, this existing Cape Lambert Power Station will be The EPA objective for National Greenhouse Gas is equivalent to 0.8 kg CO2-e per tonne of decommissioned. greenhouse gas emissions is Inventories (IPCC 2006). product throughput. Report emissions under the National Greenhouse predicted to be met for the and Energy Reporting Scheme. Port B development through the implementation of existing Port A operating procedures.

PAGE xxiv SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Environmental Objective Applicable Standards, Existing Environment Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Outcome Significance Factor Guidelines and Policies

Solid and liquid To ensure that Landfill Waste Currently no solid or liquid During the construction and operations During construction, waste will be managed through Although additional waste Minor waste emissions do not Classification and Waste wastes generated from Port B phases of the Port B development, waste EMP 010, the Environmental Management Procedure will be generated by the Port adversely affect Definitions 1996 (DoE footprint. products likely to be produced include: for Waste within the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B development, no environment values or 1996). B3). significant increase is inert solid waste (such as general office the health, welfare and waste, packaging materials and scrap During operations, inert waste will be managed expected. The EPA objective amenity of people and steel) through the existing Non-mineral Waste Management of ensuring that emissions land uses by meeting Plan (RTIO 2007e). do not adversely affect hydrocarbon waste (oily rags, oil filters, statutory requirements waste oil and waste grease) The amount of waste reporting to landfill will be environment values or the and acceptable minimised, through a combination of waste health, welfare and amenity building and demolition wastes (packaging standards. of people and land will be materials, steel off-cuts, concrete, minimisation, reuse and recycling. met through managing electrical off-cuts) A new inert waste landfill will be established at Cape potentially adverse food waste Lambert and will operate under strict licence construction and operational sewage waste requirements to ensure inert waste is adequately impacts as per the CEMP managed. The environmental approvals for this landfill rubber (conveyor belts). and existing Port A operating are separate to the Port B development. procedures. Potential impacts include the contamination of air, land or water with a waste material in the event of inappropriate disposal, leading to health impacts to humans and animals.

Hydrocarbons To ensure that No. 1 Guideline for There are no hydrocarbons or During the construction and operation During construction, hazardous waste will be managed The EPA objective of Minor and hazardous emissions do not Controlled Waste hazardous materials generated phases of the Port B development, through EMP 001 (Hazardous Materials) within the ensuring that emissions do materials adversely affect Generators March 2004 from within the project footprint. hazardous wastes likely to be produced CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3). During operations, not adversely affect environment values or (DEC 2004a). include: waste management will be undertaken as per the Non- environmental values or the

the health, welfare and No. 2 Guideline for Mineral Waste Management Plan (RTIO 2007e) and health, welfare and amenity hydrocarbon waste (oily rags, oil filters, amenity of people and Controlled Waste Carriers waste oil and waste grease) the Controlled Waste Guidelines (RTIO 2007f). of people and land will be land uses by meeting March 2004 (DEC 2004b). met through managing explosives statutory requirements No. 3 Guideline for potentially adverse water treatment chemicals and acceptable Controlled Waste construction and operational sewage waste. standards. Treatment or Disposal impacts as per the CEMP Sites March 2004 (DEC (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) 2004c). Potential impacts associated with the storage and existing operating

No. 4 User Guide: and handling of hazardous materials include procedures. Controlled Waste Tracking the contamination of air, land or water with a System October 2007 hazardous material in the event of a leak or (DEC 2007). spill. This can result in health impacts to

No. 5 User Guide: Paper humans and animals, as well as a potential Tracking Forms March reduction in environmental values. 2004 (DEC 2004d).

Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions 1996 (DoE 1996).

Rehabilitation, To ensure that Guidelines for Mine The Port B development is Poor rehabilitation and decommissioning The existing closure statement for Port A will be Decommissioning and Minor decommissioning infrastructure and Closure and Completion being designed for an may result in long-term adverse impacts updated in 2009 to cover the Port B development and closure of Port B will not and closure facilities are (DoITR 2006) economic life of at least 50 on flora, fauna, soil and water quality, will be consistent with the Proponent’s Closure significantly impact on flora, decommissioned years. visual amenity and economic and social Standard. The plan will be submitted to the appropriate fauna, soil and water quality,

and/or the site The Proponent has developed impacts. regulatory authority (currently the Department of Mines visual amenity and the

rehabilitated in a fully comprehensive Closure Poor closure planning may result in and Petroleum) and actioned in accordance with the economic and social accordance with Plan for Port A. insufficient allocation of funds and regulations in force at the time of closure. environment, thus achieving accepted guidelines at resources for closure, particularly in the the EPA objective of the time of event of unforeseen closure. ensuring that infrastructure decommissioning. and facilities are decommissioned and/or the site rehabilitated in accordance with accepted guidelines at the time of decommissioning. Social Environment

Aboriginal To ensure that changes EPA Guidance Statement Sixty-five known Aboriginal Potential impacts to Aboriginal heritage Potential impacts to Aboriginal heritage sites will be By implementing the Minor heritage to the biophysical No. 41: Assessment of heritage sites are located arising as a result of the Port B development managed through the Cultural Heritage Management Aboriginal heritage environment do not Aboriginal Heritage (EPA close to or within leases held are damage or loss to Aboriginal heritage Procedure (008) within the CEMP and the Cultural management measures SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xxv

Environmental Objective Applicable Standards, Existing Environment Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Outcome Significance Factor Guidelines and Policies adversely affect 2004c). by the proponent within the sites. Heritage Management Plan (RTIO 2008d; Appendix described, it is considered historical and cultural Wickham and Cape Lambert B6). Key measures specific to the Port B development that Port B will not result in a associations and area. include: significant detrimental effect

comply with relevant on historical and cultural The nature of the heritage Continue regular and ongoing involvement of the heritage legislation. sites comprise; shell middens Traditional Owners in heritage management associations and will comply within the coastal sand dunes throughout the life of the Port B development. with relevant heritage and adjacent to the tidal legislation. Complete the heritage surveys of the Port B mudflats, several stone development area in conjunction with the Ngarluma quarries and numerous Aboriginal Corporation. petroglyphs (rock art) sites Apply for Section 18 approval under the Aboriginal within the rocky outcrops and Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (in consultation with the ridges, and flaked stone Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation) to disturb those artefact scatters throughout sites within the Port B development area that cannot the area. be avoided.

Inspect on a regular basis all known heritage sites using qualified Proponent personnel and/or others by agreement with Traditional Owners.

The known heritage site near the power station will remain undisturbed throughout construction and operations. Entry to this heritage site will remain restricted.

European To uphold heritage and No applicable guidance. Items of European significance Some visitations by the construction None required. No European heritage items Minor heritage conservation values have been identified in the workforce during days off will be anticipated, will be directly affected by within and adjacent to Pilbara coastal region within the and similarly operations personnel and their the proposed Port B the project area. locality of the Cape Lambert families may participate in day visits to local development. Port B proposal. These attractions in the future. In this regard, significant heritage items are visitations to these European heritage items mostly located in the townships by the construction and operations workforce of Cossack and Roebourne. during their days off will be unavoidable and will be undertaken as general members of the public.

Population To minimise the No applicable guidance. Port B will require a peak Pressure on social infrastructure with The Proponent will continue to provide support to local By the Proponent continuing Minor change and impacts on the local construction workforce of increased population. service providers, including the: to support local communities service provision community, social approximately 2500. The Reduction in availability of key services through local authorities and Pilbara Partnerships Program that provides profile and service Proponent intends to house such as child care, education, health and sponsorship and support for childcare services in the community groups and provision. construction personnel on-site policing. Pilbara. partnerships, the objective at accommodation camps. Generation of local employment for population change and Karratha Pathways Partnership (secondary education Port B will require an opportunities. and training at the Karratha Senior High School) and service provision will be met. operations workforce of 600. Increased pressure on local the Roebourne Pathways Partnership (employment Various scenarios are under accommodation, housing, community for indigenous youth) and training for community consideration for operations services and facilities. organisations at Pilbara TAFE. including local Medical Services Incentives Package that seeks to accommodation based in attract and retain medical staff. Wickham combined with FIFO employees using accommodation camps provided by the company.

Traffic and To minimise Transport Assessment The proposed access route to The proposal has the potential to increase The existing road network has already supported recent A detailed assessment Minor infrastructure disturbance to local Guidelines for Port B is on the North West traffic volumes and percentages of heavy port upgrades and is well suited to accommodate based on road traffic traffic and ensure road Developments (WAPC Coastal Highway and the Point truck traffic (during construction) and further traffic. As the impacts on road networks are not modelling for both the safety is not comprised 2006). Samson to Roebourne Road. increased train movements (during expected to be significant, no additional management construction and operational by the Port B proposal. These roads currently provide operation) resulting in a decrease in the measures are required in this area. phases of the proposal the only access route to the Port existing level of service for intersections and predicted that the EPA B development and are the road network in general. objective can met. approved for road train use by MRWA.

Tourism and To ensure that existing The Pilbara Coastal Water Tourist and recreational features The Port B development may affect: Construction personnel will be housed in It is considered that the Port Minor recreation and planned Quality Consultation located in the Cape Lambert accommodation camps so demand on existing B development will not result The recreational values of local beaches recreational uses are Outcomes: Environmental region in the vicinity of Port B accommodation facilities will be reduced. in a significant long term PAGE xxvi SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Environmental Objective Applicable Standards, Existing Environment Potential Impacts Mitigation and Management Measures Outcome Significance Factor Guidelines and Policies

not compromised. Values and Environmental development include: (Bell’s Beach and Boat Beach) both The accommodation camps will be high quality and detrimental effect on tourism Quality Objectives (DoE located to the west of the development or recreational activities. A number of recreational will provide sufficient facilities to minimise off-site 2006b). beaches and lookout points Access to the Port Walcott Yacht Club and excursions. There will be some which are utilised by both Boat Beach. Workforce inductions will include matters of social increased demand on travelling tourists and responsibilities. existing infrastructure and attractions as a residents Options for access to Boat Beach remain under consequence of the Nearshore environment widely evaluation. used by recreational fishers, construction workforce and divers and boaters increased operations workforces. Boat launching access at John’s Creek

Port Walcott Yacht Club.

Fisheries To ensure that existing The Pilbara Coastal Water No commercial fishery areas are Short-term indirect impacts associated with The dredging works will be undertaken in a manner that The short-term residual Minor and planned fisheries Quality Consultation within the footprint of Port B dredging may occur to the aquaculture lease minimises turbidity and turbid plumes through the impacts concerning fisheries are not compromised. Outcomes: Environmental infrastructure, dredging or spoil located 1 km to the south-east of the DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1). are not expected to be Values and Environmental disposal activities. proposed wharf and dredge area; however, significant. The EPA Quality Objectives (DoE there are no aquaculture activities occurring objective for fisheries will be 2006b). within the lease area. met.

Visual amenity To ensure that Guidelines for Landscape Visual impacts of Port A from The physical presence of Port B and The Port B development has been designed to utilise The EPA objective for visual Minor aesthetic values are and Visual Impact local towns are significantly associated infrastructure has the potential to the natural screening effects of surrounding amenity will be met. considered and Assessment (LI & IEMA curtailed by existing sand dunes affect public visual amenity of the Cape topography.

measures are adopted 2002). and the topography of Rocky Lambert area. Permanent buildings and infrastructure will be to reduce visual Western Australian Visual Ridge. Effects at Wickham will be neutral while coloured to blend in with the surrounding terrain impacts on the Landscape Planning effects at Point Samson, Reader Head where possible. landscape to as low as Guidelines (DPI 2007). Lookout, Settlers Beach, the Solveg Wreck reasonably practicable. Lookout, Point Samson-Roebourne Road and Walcott Drive will be neutral–slightly adverse. Effects at Bell’s Beach are considered to be slight–moderately adverse while effects at the Port Walcott Yacht Club will be moderate–substantially adverse. Land use and To protect current and Port B development is mostly No social impacts associated with land use None required. Port B is consistent with Minor land tenure future land uses. situated on land currently held or land tenure. current and future land uses by the Proponent but some and therefore the EPA additional tenure will be objective will be met. required. Protected areas To protect the The Pilbara Coastal Water The proposed Dampier Potential short term impacts to water quality The dredging works will be undertaken in a manner that The EPA objective for Minor environmental values Quality Consultation Archipelago Marine Park is as a result of dredging and spoil disposal minimises turbidity and plumes through the Protected Areas will be met. of areas identified as Outcomes: Environmental within 10 km of proposed Port B activities. implementation of the DSDMP, so that water quality having significant Values and Environmental marine works. A study area for No dredging related impacts will occur in the impacts during and following dredging will be very low. environmental Quality Objectives (DoE future marine conservation proposed DAMP. The Proponent will continue to be involved in the study attributes. 2006a). exists directly east of Cape into the possible future marine conservation area Lambert and at Bell’s Beach around Bell’s Beach and will continue to liaise with the (DEC 2008). study team in this process.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xxvii

Cape Lambert Port B Development

Contents

1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Rationale 1-1 1.2 Project Proponent 1-1 1.3 Project Background 1-2 1.4 Purpose of the PER 1-5 1.5 Scope of the PER 1-5 1.6 Early Works 1-5 1.7 Environmental Assessment Process 1-6 1.7.1 Overview 1-6 1.7.2 State Assessment Process 1-6 1.7.3 Commonwealth Assessment Process 1-7 1.7.4 Principles of Environmental Protection 1-10 1.7.5 Environmental Legislation 1-10 1.7.6 Guidelines and Standards 1-11

2. Stakeholder Engagement 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Port B Development Stakeholder Engagement 2-1 2.3 Issues Raised and Responses in PER 2-4

3. Development Justification and Alternatives 3-1 3.1 Development Justification 3-1 3.2 Evaluation of Alternative Sites 3-1 3.3 Design Alternatives 3-4 3.4 Water Supply Options 3-11 3.5 No Development Option 3-13

4. Project Description 4-1 4.1 Port B Proposal 4-1 4.2 Land Based Ore Handling Infrastructure 4-5 4.2.1 Drainage Design 4-7 4.2.2 Land Clearing 4-8 4.3 Marine Facilities 4-8 4.3.1 Dredging and Spoil Disposal 4-10 4.4 Services and Utilities 4-13 4.4.1 Support Services and Infrastructure 4-13 4.4.2 Power Supply 4-14 4.4.3 Water Supply 4-14 4.4.4 Workforce 4-15 4.4.5 Hours of Operation 4-15 4.5 Project Schedule 4-15 4.6 Project Staging 4-16

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xxix

5. Existing Terrestrial Environment 5-1 5.1 Environmental Factors 5-1 5.2 Terrestrial Studies and Surveys 5-3 5.3 Physical Terrestrial Environment 5-3 5.3.1 Regional Physical Setting 5-3 5.3.2 Climate and Meteorology 5-3 5.3.3 Geology 5-8 5.3.4 Land Systems 5-10 5.3.5 Landforms and Soils 5-12 5.3.6 Acid Sulfate Soils 5-14 5.3.7 Surface and Groundwater 5-16 5.3.8 Water Resources 5-17 5.4 Ecological Terrestrial Environment 5-18 5.4.1 Regional Ecological Setting 5-18 5.4.2 Vegetation and Flora 5-18 5.4.3 Vegetation and Flora of Conservation Significance 5-26 5.4.4 Weeds 5-27 5.4.5 Terrestrial Fauna Habitats and Species 5-27 5.4.6 Terrestrial Fauna of Conservation Significance 5-28 5.5 Atmospheric Environment 5-32 5.5.1 Greenhouse Gases 5-32 5.5.2 Air Quality (Particulate Matter) 5-33 5.5.3 Light Spill 5-42 5.5.4 Ambient Noise and Vibration 5-46

6. Existing Marine Environment 6-1 6.1 Marine Environmental Factors 6-1 6.2 Marine Studies and Surveys 6-1 6.3 Pilbara - Ecological Levels of Marine Protection 6-2 6.4 Physical Marine Environment 6-5 6.4.1 Climate 6-5 6.4.2 Oceanography 6-5 6.4.3 Water Quality 6-6 6.4.4 Seabed Morphology 6-12 6.4.5 Sediment Chemistry and Composition of Dredge and Spoil Disposal Areas 6-14 6.5 Ecological Marine Environment 6-19 6.5.1 Marine Habitats 6-19 6.5.2 Benthic Primary Producer Habitats 6-24 6.5.3 Fish 6-42 6.5.4 Plankton 6-45 6.5.5 Marine Invertebrates 6-45 6.5.6 Marine Reptiles 6-46 6.5.7 Marine Mammals 6-49 6.5.8 Birds 6-50 6.5.9 Marine Fauna of Conservation Significance 6-50

PAGE xxx SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

6.5.10 Key Marine Environmental Sensitivities 6-54

7. Existing Socio-Economic Environment 7-1 7.1 Socio-economic Studies and Surveys 7-1 7.2 Social Profile 7-1 7.2.1 Overview 7-1 7.2.2 Wickham 7-1 7.2.3 Roebourne 7-2 7.2.4 Point Samson 7-2 7.2.5 Cossack 7-2 7.2.6 Other Regional Centres 7-2 7.3 Economic Profile 7-3 7.4 Housing and Accommodation 7-3 7.5 Regional Infrastructure and Social Services 7-4 7.5.1 Water 7-4 7.5.2 Power 7-4 7.5.3 Roads 7-4 7.5.4 Rail 7-4 7.5.5 Air Transport 7-4 7.5.6 Communication 7-4 7.5.7 Ports 7-5 7.5.8 Education and Training 7-5 7.5.9 Health 7-5 7.5.10 Recreational Services 7-5 7.6 Land Use and Land Tenure 7-5 7.6.1 Land Use Planning 7-5 7.6.2 Shire of Roebourne Town Planning Scheme 7-6 7.6.3 Land Tenure 7-6 7.7 Visual Amenity 7-8 7.7.1 Visual Amenity Assessment 7-8 7.7.2 Visual Baseline 7-8 7.8 Protected Areas 7-11 7.8.1 Terrestrial Protected Areas 7-11 7.8.2 Marine Protected Areas 7-11 7.9 Fisheries 7-13 7.9.1 Recreational Fishing 7-13 7.9.2 Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture 7-13 7.10 Tourism and Recreation 7-14 7.11 Native Title 7-16 7.12 Heritage 7-16 7.12.1 Aboriginal Heritage 7-16 7.12.2 European Heritage 7-17 7.13 Traffic 7-18

8. Terrestrial Environment Impacts and Management 8-1

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xxxi

8.1 Introduction 8-1 8.2 Impacts and Ecological Significance 8-1 8.3 Potential Threats and Impacts to Terrestrial Factors 8-1 8.3.1 Background 8-1 8.3.2 Terrestrial Fauna 8-2 8.3.3 Water Resources 8-6 8.3.4 Air Quality 8-9 8.3.5 Ambient Noise 8-17 8.4 Minor Factors 8-24 8.4.1 Overview 8-24 8.4.2 Landforms and Soils 8-24 8.4.3 Vegetation and Flora 8-26 8.4.4 Surface and Groundwater 8-29 8.4.5 Greenhouse Gases 8-30 8.4.6 Solid and Liquid Waste 8-33 8.4.7 Hydrocarbons and Hazardous Waste 8-34 8.4.8 Rehabilitation, Decommissioning and Closure 8-35

9. Marine Environment Impacts and Management 9-1 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.1.1 Impacts and Ecological Significance 9-1 9.1.2 Previous Experience at Cape Lambert 9-2 9.2 Potential Threats and Impacts to Marine Factors 9-7 9.2.1 Background 9-7 9.2.2 Dredging and Spoil Disposal and Direct Habitat Removal Related Disturbances 9-8 9.2.3 Light Spill 9-40 9.2.4 Underwater Noise 9-53 9.2.5 Invasive Marine Species 9-65 9.3 Minor Threats 9-68 9.3.1 Background 9-68 9.3.2 Vessel Movement 9-68 9.3.3 Contaminant Spills 9-70 9.3.4 Waste and Stormwater Drainage 9-72

10. Socio-Economic Impacts and Management 10-1 10.1 Introduction 10-1 10.2 Impacts and Socio-Economic Significance 10-1 10.3 Potential Threats and Impacts to Socio-Economic Values 10-1 10.4 Minor Factors 10-2 10.4.1 Overview 10-2 10.4.2 Aboriginal Heritage 10-2 10.4.3 European Heritage 10-3 10.4.4 Population Change and Service Provision 10-3 10.4.5 Traffic and Infrastructure 10-9 10.4.6 Tourism and Recreation 10-10 10.4.7 Fisheries 10-12

PAGE xxxii SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

10.4.8 Visual Amenity 10-14 10.4.9 Land Use and Land Tenure 10-21 10.4.10 Protected Areas 10-21

11. Environmental Management 11-1 11.1 Overview 11-1 11.2 Environmental Management Plans 11-3 11.3 Environmental Monitoring 11-4 11.4 Environmental Management Summary 11-4 11.5 Environmental Management Commitments/Proposed Conditions 11-5

12. Glossary 12-1

13. Acronyms and Units 13-1 13.1 Acronyms 13-1 13.2 Units 13-5

14. References 14-1

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xxxiii

Appendices

Technical Appendices

A1 Rio Tinto Cape Lambert Port B Development: Sediment Sampling and Analysis Implementation Report

A2 Cape Lambert Port B Development: Flora and Vegetation Survey

A3 Cape Lambert Port B Development Seasonal Fauna Survey

A4 A Survey of Coastal Dunes between Cossack and Karratha for Lerista Nevinae

A5 Cape Lambert Port B Development Marine Turtle Assessment

A6 Cape Lambert Port B Development Greenhouse Gas Assessment

A7 Cape Lambert Port B Development Air Quality Impact Assessment

A8 Cape Lambert Port B development: Assessment of Lighting Effects on Turtles

A9 Cape Lambert Port B Development: Noise Assessment

A10 Cape Lambert Port B Development Abundance and Distribution of Inter & Subtidal Benthic Habitats in the Cape Lambert Area: 2008 Survey

A11 Dredging and Dredge Spoil Assessment: Including Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Assessment

A12 Cape Lambert Port B: Oceanographic Studies & Dredging Program Simulations

A13 Cape Lambert Port B: Report on Verification of Environmental Modelling

A14 Review of GEMS Report: ‘Review of Data Requirements and Availability for Cape Lambert Dredge Modelling’

A15 Range of Metal Contaminants Measured at Cape Lambert

A16 Cape Lambert Port B Development: EPBC Listed Marine Species

A17 Cape Lambert Port B Development: Visual Assessment

A18 Estimated Water Use for Cape Lambert Port B

A19 Application to Vary Assigned Noise Levels at Point Samson – Initial Application

A20 Dredging Program for the Cape Lambert Upgrade – 85 Mtpa – Marine Final Summary Report

A21 Cape Lambert Port B Development Underwater Noise Assessment

A22 Vibration Assessment Report for Pile Driving Operations at Cape Lambert

PAGE xxxiv SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Management Plans

B1 Cape Lambert Port B Development: Dredging and Spoil Disposal Management Plan

B2 Cape Lambert Port B Development Marine Turtle Management Plan

B3 Construction Environmental Management Plan for Cape Lambert Port B Project

B4 Rio Tinto Iron Ore Wildlife Interaction Guidelines

B5 Cape Lambert Operations: Dust Management Plan

B6 Cape Lambert Port B Development Cultural Heritage Management Plan

B7 Rio Tinto Iron Ore Water Management Plan: Cape Lambert

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xxxv

Table Of Figures

Figure ES-1-1 Indicative location and key components of the Port B development iv

Figure ES-1-2 Benthic primary producer habitats at Cape Lambert vii

Figure 1-1 Regional location of Cape Lambert 1-3

Figure 1-2 Location of the Port B development 1-4

Figure 1-3 The EP Act and EPBC Act co-ordinated PER assessment process 1-8

Figure 3-1 Alternative sites for the port facilities 3-3

Figure 3-2 Water supply options analysis framework 3-12

Figure 4-1 Onshore infrastructure – indicative layout 4-2

Figure 4-2 Marine infrastructure – indicative layout 4-3

Figure 4-3 Overview of marine infrastructure and spoil grounds 4-4

Figure 4-4 Process flow diagram for the Port B development 4-5

Figure 4-5 Approved and proposed vegetation clearing polygons in relation to the Port B development footprint 4-9

Figure 5-1 Annual wind rose at Cape Lambert July 2006 to June 2007 (Source of wind roses: anemometer located at Cape Lambert) 5-5

Figure 5-2 2006 wind rose for July, August and September at Cape Lambert 5-6

Figure 5-3 2006 wind rose for October, November and December at Cape Lambert 5-6

Figure 5-4 2007 wind rose for January, February and March at Cape Lambert 5-7

Figure 5-5 2007 wind rose for April, May and June at Cape Lambert 5-7

Figure 5-6 Geology of the Cape Lambert area 5-9

Figure 5-7 Land systems of the Cape Lambert area 5-11

Figure 5-8 Soils and landforms of the Port B development area 5-13

Figure 5-9 Potential acid sulfate soil risks at Cape Lambert 5-15

Figure 5-10 Surface hydrology of the Cape Lambert area 5-19

Figure 5-11 Cape Lambert vegetation types 5-21

Figure 5-12 Process for determining whether Port A made a significant contribution to an exceedence of the dust target level as recorded at the Point Samson TEOM station 5-36

PAGE xxxvi SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 5-13 Location of Point Samson, Rocky Ridge and Wickham ambient dust monitors and the wind arc through which operations at Cape Lambert Port A may potentially impact on sensitive receptors at Point Samson 5-37

-3 Figure 5-14 24-hour PM10 concentrations (µg m ) at the Point Samson, Rocky Ridge and Wickham monitoring stations (2004 – 2007) 5-38

-3 Figure 5-15 Number of exceedences of the NEPM PM10 24-hour standard of 50 µg m at the Point Samson monitoring station 5-39

Figure 5-16 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at the Point Samson monitoring site – 29 January 2007 to 2 April 2008 5-40

Figure 5-17 24-hour TSP concentrations (µg m-3) measured at the Point Samson monitoring station, 29 January 2007 to 31 December 2007 5-41

Figure 5-18 Bell’s Beach measurement locations 5-43

Figure 5-19 Cooling Water Beach measurement locations 5-43

Figure 6-1 Pilbara Ecological Protection Levels in the Cape Lambert area 6-3

Figure 6-2 Wave heights at Cape Lambert wharf recorded from February 2004 to October 2004 6-6

Figure 6-3 Cape Lambert region with water quality monitoring locations used during the Port A development 6-7

Figure 6-4 Median water temperature from February 2007 to January 2008 from 8 monitoring locations 6-8

Figure 6-5 Median turbidity (NTU) results - February 2007 to January 2008 6-11

Figure 6-6 Median surface TSS results - May 2007 to December 2007 6-11

Figure 6-7 Median seabed TSS results - May 2007 to December 2007 6-12

Figure 6-8 Cape Lambert area showing details of bathymetry and spoil grounds 6-13

Figure 6-9 Dredging Area A and Area B 6-18

Figure 6-10 Benthic primary producers and their distribution in the Cape Lambert area 6-26

Figure 6-11 Distribution of mangroves in the Cape Lambert area 6-29

Figure 6-12 Distribution and abundance of hard corals in the Cape Lambert area 6-35

Figure 6-13 Distribution and abundance of seagrasses in the Cape Lambert area 6-40

Figure 6-14 Macroalgae distribution and abundance in the Cape Lambert area 6-43

Figure 6-15 Turf algae distribution and abundance in the Cape Lambert area 6-44

Figure 6-16 Location of turtle nesting beaches in the vicinity of the Port B development 6-47

Figure 7-1 Production values of industrial activities in the Pilbara region 7-3

Figure 7-2 Land tenure in the Cape Lambert area 7-7

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xxxvii

Figure 7-3 Sensitive receptors and photomontage locations 7-9

Figure 7-4 Future marine protected areas 7-12

Figure 7-5 Aquaculture zones near Cape Lambert 7-15

Figure 7-6 Road network around Cape Lambert 7-20

Figure 8-1 Predicted maximum 24-hour PM10 concentrations for Port A and B operations 8-11

Figure 8-2 Proposed locations for additional permanent dust monitoring at Cape Lambert 8-16

Figure 8-3 Modelled noise levels from the Port B development in isolation under worst case meteorological conditions 8-19

Figure 8-4 Modelled cumulative noise levels from Port A and Port B under worst case meteorological conditions 8-20

Figure 9-1 Location of ADCP and the two wireless surface drifters deployed during June 2006 9-14

Figure 9-2 Potential zones of impact, and influence from turbidity (best case scenario) 9-18

Figure 9-3 Potential zones of impact, and influence from turbidity (worst case scenario) 9-19

Figure 9-4 Potential zones of impact, and influence from sedimentation (best case scenario) 9-20

Figure 9-5 Potential zones of impact, and influence from sedimentation (worst case scenario) 9-21

Figure 9-6 Position of BPPH in relation to management units 9-29

Figure 9-7 Cumulative loss of BPPH including mangroves in management units including predicted direct and indirect losses due to the Port B development (best case) 9-30

Figure 9-8 Cumulative loss of BPPH including mangroves in management units including predicted direct and indirect losses due to the Port B development (worst-case) 9-31

Figure 9-9 Light spill prediction at Bell’s Beach 9-45

Figure 9-10 Light spill prediction at Cooling Water Beach 9-46

Figure 9-11 Cumulative illuminance predictions at Bell’s Beach 9-50

Figure 9-12 Predicted zones of avoidance and physical injury and the hatchling predicted zone of injury 9-58

Figure 9-13 Whale resting areas and migration routes in relation to the Port B development 9-62

Figure 10-1 Original view from Solveg Wreck Lookout (north-west of Point Samson) looking north- west towards Cape Lambert 10-18

Figure 10-2 Photomontage from Solveg Wreck Lookout (north-west of Point Samson) looking north-west towards the Port B development 10-18

Figure 10-3 Original image of the view from Port Walcott Yacht Club looking south-east 10-19

Figure 10-4 Photomontage showing the view from Port Walcott Yacht Club looking south-east following completion of Port B (assuming maximum stockpiles) 10-19

PAGE xxxviii SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 10-5 Original image of the view from Bell’s Beach looking north-east 10-20

Figure 10-6 Photomontage showing the view from Bell’s Beach looking north-east following completion of Port B (power station assumed to be present, but will be decommissioned) 10-20

Figure 11-1 Proponent’s environmental policy 11-1

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xxxix

List of Tables

Table ES-1-1 Preliminary key project characteristics v

Table ES-1-2 Predicted cumulative coral losses in proposed management units 1–5 ix

Table ES-1-3 Environmental management summary table xv

Table 1-1 Matters of national environmental significance 1-9

Table 1-2 Key environmental legislation 1-10

Table 1-3 Applicable guidelines, standards and publications 1-11

Table 2-1 Summary of the community and stakeholder consultation to date 2-2

Table 2-2 Summary of the community and stakeholder engagement program 2-4

Table 3-1 Berth configuration options analysis 3-6

Table 3-2 Spoil ground capacity 3-11

Table 4-1 Preliminary key project characteristics 4-1

Table 4-2 Native vegetation clearing permits and applications at Cape Lambert 4-8

Table 4-3 Coordinates of existing offshore spoil grounds 4-12

Table 4-4 Staged water requirements during construction 4-15

Table 5-1 Temperature and rainfall data from Cossack (1881–2008) 5-4

Table 5-2 Distribution of land systems within the Port B Development survey area and wider Pilbara region 5-10

Table 5-3 Potential for ASS at the Port B development 5-16

Table 5-4 Background water quality at Cape Lambert 5-17

Table 5-5 Vegetation types within the Port B development survey area 5-20

Table 5-6 Most species rich families within the Cape Lambert survey area 5-25

Table 5-7 Most species rich genera within the Cape Lambert survey area 5-26

Table 5-8 Categories of conservation significance for flora species 5-26

Table 5-9 Number of species recorded in the Port B development survey area 5-28

Table 5-10 State and Commonwealth conservation classifications 5-28

Table 5-11 Schedule and Priority terrestrial fauna listed at state and Commonwealth levels recorded or potentially occurring in the Port B development search area 5-29

Table 5-12 Global Warming Potential of different gases relative to CO2 5-32

PAGE xl SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 5-13 Historical operational greenhouse gas emissions at Port A (2002–2007) 5-33

Table 5-14 Current continuous airborne particle monitoring around Cape Lambert 5-35

Table 5-15 Luminance measurements at Port A 5-44

Table 5-16 Illuminance measurements at Port A 5-45

Table 5-17 Predicted noise levels for Port A operating at 85 Mtpa throughput 5-47

Table 6-1 Environmental water quality objectives 6-2

Table 6-2 Levels of Ecological Protection for the Pilbara coastal waters 6-2

Table 6-3 Tidal ranges for Cape Lambert 6-5

Table 6-4 Water quality monitoring locations used during the Port A development 6-8

Table 6-5 95% upper confidence limit of trace metal levels in marine sediments from the Port B development footprint 6-16

Table 6-6 Primary productivities of BPP in tropical marine environments 6-25

Table 6-7 Mangrove species in the Cape Lambert area 6-27

Table 6-8 Hard cover coral estimates in the Cape Lambert area 6-34

Table 6-9 Species of marine turtles known from the Cape Lambert area 6-46

Table 6-10 Predictable occurrence periods for sensitive marine fauna in the Cape Lambert area6-50

Table 6-11 Threatened marine fauna protected under the EPBC Act 6-51

Table 7-1 Wickham key characteristics 7-1

Table 7-2 Roebourne key characteristics 7-2

Table 7-3 Visual amenity with respect to Port A 7-10

Table 7-4 Historical places near Cape Lambert 7-18

Table 7-5 Average weekday traffic volumes 7-19

Table 8-1 Classification of terrestrial environmental factors 8-1

Table 8-2 Terrestrial fauna management measures 8-5

Table 8-3 Water resources management measures 8-8

Table 8-4 Contribution of Cape Lambert operations to ground level concentrations and deposition rates at Point Samson and Wickham 8-10

Table 8-5 Air quality management measures 8-14

Table 8-6 Predicted noise levels from the Port B development in isolation 8-18

Table 8-7 Modelled rail noise in Wickham 8-21

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xli

Table 8-8 Noise management measures 8-23

Table 8-9 Summary of construction and operational emissions for the Port B Development 8-31

Table 9-1 Summary of the studies completed/parameters measured during Port A 9-5

Table 9-2 Summary of potential threats to key marine environmental factors 9-8

Table 9-3 Summary of model inputs and data available for verification studies 9-15

Table 9-4 Predicted cumulative coral losses in proposed management units 1–5 9-28

Table 9-5 Benthic cover types recorded at the Power Station and Bezout Rock sites that might be impacted by dredging activities. 9-33

Table 9-6 BPPH mitigation and management measures 9-38

Table 9-7 Nesting activity by flatback turtles on Cooling Water Beach 9-48

Table 9-8 Direct Illuminance from cumulative light sources 9-49

Table 9-9 Light spill mitigation and management measures 9-52

Table 9-10 Intensity and frequency of anthropogenic marine noise sources 9-54

Table 9-11 Frequency and source range for the bottlenose dolphin and humpback whale 9-57

Table 9-12 Fish Lethality as a result of underwater blast detonation 9-59

Table 9-13 Marine turtle and marine mammal mitigation and management measures 9-64

Table 9-14 Invasive marine species mitigation and management measures 9-67

Table 10-1 Classification of social and economic factors 10-1

Table 10-2 Workforce residential locations 10-4

Table 10-3 Predicted increases in required childcare places 10-5

Table 10-4 Primary school predicted increases in students 10-6

Table 10-5 Health service impacts 10-7

Table 10-6 Police staffing requirements 10-8

Table 10-7 Summary visual impact significance table 10-17

Table 11-1 Principles of environmental protection 11-2

Table 11-2 Summary of management and controls for environmental factors 11-5

Table 11-3 Proposed environmental conditions for the Port B development 11-8

PAGE xlii SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

List of Plates

Plate 6-1 Rocky intertidal shores occur on offshore reefs and islands (Hat Rock foreground and Picard Island middleground and mainland in the background) 6-20

Plate 6-2 Intertidal reef pavement at Point Samson (east of Cape Lambert) 6-20

Plate 6-3 Intertidal reef pavement at Mangrove Point (west of Cape Lambert) 6-21

Plate 6-4 Subtidal rocky reef at Point Samson with low cover of hard coral 6-22

Plate 6-5 Featherstar on sediment south-east of Jarman Island (7 m deep) 6-24

Plate 6-6 Mature stand of A.marina with some R.stylosa showing signs of natural erosion where trees have been uprooted (cyclone) 6-30

Plate 6-7 The small stand of mangroves of A. marina at Cooling Water Beach 6-30

Plate 6-8 Left: large Porites hard coral south-west of Cape Lambert; right: Merulina hard coral colony on a reef near Point Samson 6-33

Plate 6-9 Left: high cover of hard corals (mainly Lobophyllia) near Boat Rock; right: Hard corals (cf. Platygyra), macroalgae (large green Halimeda and the brown Padina) and turf algae are three benthic primary producers found on Middle Reef 6-33

Plate 6-10 Favia is a common type of hard coral in the area 6-37

Plate 6-11 Turbinaria coral is very common in the Cape Lambert area 6-37

Plate 6-12 Large Porites hard coral colonies are found at some sites 6-38

Plate 6-13 Seagrasses such as Halophila ovalis are not abundant in the Cape Lambert area 6-39

Plate 6-14 Left: Caulerpa is a common green macroalgae off Cape Lambert; right: Halimeda is a common green algae 6-42

Plate 6-15 Left: Cystoseira sp. (central) with Hormophysa cuneiformis (large brown to the right) and Sargassum (background), Neomeris vanbosseae and Padina sp.; right: a mixture of turf algae species with Gelidiopsis variabilis 6-42

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE xliii

Cape Lambert Port B Development

1. Introduction

1.1 Rationale This document assesses the environmental impacts of a proposed iron ore handling, processing and ship loading facility at Cape Lambert (the Cape Lambert Port B development), located near Wickham and Point Samson in the Pilbara region of Western Australia (Figure 1-1).

1.2 Project Proponent The Proponent for the Cape Lambert Port B development (hereafter referred to as the Port B development) is Pilbara Iron Pty Limited (Pilbara Iron), a management arm for the Rio Tinto Iron Ore product group. The Proponent operates and maintains all mining, rail, power and port facilities in the Pilbara on behalf of Hamersley Iron Pty Limited (Hamersley Iron) and Robe River Iron Associates (Robe). Further information on the Proponent and Rio Tinto Iron Ore product group can be sourced from the Rio Tinto website (www.riotintoironore.com).

The contact person for the environmental assessment component of the Port B development is:

Mr Peter Royce Principal Advisor–Environmental Approvals Rio Tinto Iron Ore Expansion Projects Level 24, 152–158 St Georges Terrace, Perth, WA 6000 GPO Box A42, Perth, WA 6837 Telephone: +61 8 9327 2351 Facsimile: +61 8 9327 2696 Email: [email protected]

Rio Tinto’s iron ore business is a leading global supplier of iron ore products and directly employs over 8000 people across five continents in addition to several thousand contractors. Rio Tinto is involved in sourcing, mining and processing iron ore to supply products to the global steel market.

The Proponent has a positive environmental record, and has been recognised with numerous awards for environmental excellence:

2008 Golden Gecko award for environmental excellence for HIsmelt technology and 2008 Certificate of Merit for the Lang Hancock Railway construction project

2007 Golden Gecko award for environmental excellence for management of water resources at Yandicoogina

2003 Australian Export Awards winner of the minerals and energy exporter of the year

2003 Banksia environmental award for sustainable development leadership (Hamersley Iron)

1995 Golden Gecko award for environmental excellence in rehabilitation undertaken by Hamersley Iron.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 1-1

The Proponent prepares and makes publically available annual Sustainable Development reports, and also prepares Annual Environmental Reports demonstrating compliance with Ministerial Conditions at its operations. The Proponent has also contributed substantial amounts toward research and development. In addition, the Proponent has received ISO14001 accreditation and has maintained certification since it was received.

No legal proceedings are currently being taken out against the Proponent (or any person taking the action, or for an action for which a person has applied for a permit, the person making the application) under relevant Commonwealth or state law for the protection of the environment or the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.

1.3 Project Background The Proponent is proposing to construct a second ore handling, processing and ship loading facility adjacent to the existing Cape Lambert operation (hereafter referred to as Port A). The Cape Lambert operation is located 5 km west of Point Samson and 6 km north-north-east of Wickham (Figure 1-1).

Port A has recently been upgraded through extending the wharf to accommodate up to four vessels at a time, replacing the existing shiploader, upgrading the car dumpers and conveyor and stockyard systems and implementing various environmental initiatives. Prior to the upgrade, the Port A capacity was approximately 55 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa). Once completed, the upgrade will provide a total Port A capacity of 85 Mtpa.

With global demand for iron ore expected to continue in the long term, a second port facility with a throughput capacity up to 130 Mtpa is proposed to be developed at Cape Lambert. In combination with Port A, the Port B development will increase the Cape Lambert throughput capacity up to nominally 215 Mtpa.

Development of a second port facility at Cape Lambert will involve both onshore and marine works (Figure 1-2). The Port B development is effectively a green-field development located within an area associated with Port A. Onshore works will include construction of new car dumping, stacking, stockpiling, reclaiming, screening, sampling and ship loading facilities. Other new facilities will include railway modifications to service the car dumpers, some new road construction and road re-alignments and associated port infrastructure facilities. Marine works will include dredging, spoil disposal and the construction of an access jetty and wharf with berth pockets to simultaneously accommodate up to four vessels.

PAGE 1-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 1-1 Regional location of Cape Lambert

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 1-3

Figure 1-2 Location of the Port B development

PAGE 1-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

1.4 Purpose of the PER This document is the Public Environmental Review and draft Public Environment Report (PER) for the Port B development, and is a requirement for the co-ordinated parallel environmental assessment of the proposal under Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act) administered by the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth) (EPBC Act) and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Cwth), administered by the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA).

The purpose of this PER document is to:

place the proposal in the context of the local and regional environments

provide sufficient information on the proposal to allow Decision Making Authorities (DMAs), interested parties, the community and Ministers to review and assess a well-defined proposal

provide the basis of management measures and commitments, outlining how potential environmental and socio-economic impacts will be minimised and acceptably managed

provide for clear communication with stakeholders so that the EPA and DEWHA can obtain informed comment to assist in providing advice to their governments

demonstrate the reasons why the Port B development should be judged by the EPA, DEWHA and their Ministers and other stakeholders to be environmentally acceptable (EPA 2006).

1.5 Scope of the PER This PER covers the construction, commissioning, operation and closure phases of the Port B development. The scope of the proposal includes the following key components:

rail track system

ore stockyards

ore delivery systems

access jetty and wharf

shiploading facilities

dredging and spoil disposal for berth pockets, turning basins and departure channel

ancillary onshore and marine facilities.

A detailed outline of the scope of the proposal is provided in Section 4.

1.6 Early Works A number of other tasks will be completed at Cape Lambert prior to construction of the Port B development. Environmental assessment of these tasks will be or have been progressed outside the scope of the Port B development environmental assessment process. These early works include:

gas pipeline relocation (to move existing infrastructure outside the proposed Port B footprint)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 1-5

Service Wharf B/tug harbour extension (rationale: allow for off-loading of large items of equipment for the Port B development and any future developments)

quarry extension (to provide a source of construction material for Service Wharf B/tug harbour extension)

landfill relocation (to move existing infrastructure outside proposed Port B footprint)

transmission line relocation (to move existing infrastructure outside proposed Port B footprint)

expansion/new accommodation premises (to provide additional rooms for construction workforce).

Where appropriate, these works will be or have been referred to the EPA and/or an application for a Native Vegetation Clearing Permit under Part V of the EP Act (WA) will be or have been made to the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) (previously the Department of Industry and Resources (DoIR)).

1.7 Environmental Assessment Process 1.7.1 Overview Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a formalised process designed to provide information to the EPA, DEHWA, other regulatory authorities and the broad community on proposed developments with the potential to impact natural and social environments.

The EP Act is the principal statute relevant to environmental protection in Western Australia. Part IV of the EP Act (specifically the Administrative Procedures for Environmental Impact Assessment 2003) provides the primary mechanism for the EPA to conduct an EIA of development proposals that it considers are likely to have significant effects on the surrounding environment (Section 1.7.2). The EPA states that:

Where a proposal is subject to a formal EIA process, the Proponent holds all responsibility to demonstrate through the EIA process that:

Best practicable measures have been taken in planning and designing the proposal to avoid, and where this is not possible, to minimise impacts on the environment.

The unavoidable impacts of the proposal should be found to be environmentally acceptable, taking into account cumulative impacts, which have already occurred in the region and encompass the principles of sustainability (EPA 2002a).

In addition to the assessment by the EPA, the proposal also constitutes a ‘controlled action’ under the EPBC Act and requires assessment by the DEWHA (Section 1.7.3). The DEWHA will also assess the proposal under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Cwth).

1.7.2 State Assessment Process To initiate the EIA process, a referral document was submitted to the EPA on 8 November 2007 (SKM 2007a). The EPA determined the level of assessment for the Port B development to be a PER. This

PAGE 1-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

is a formal approval process that requires a period of public review for the PER and also the preparation and approval of an Environmental Scoping Document (ESD). The ESD (SKM 2008a) was submitted to the EPA on 21 January 2008 and approved by the EPA on 1 July 2008. This PER has been prepared in accordance with the scope of works outlined in the approved ESD.

The EPA has stated that for this proposal, it requires information contained in the PER to be made publicly available for review and comment through a formal public review period of eight weeks. Following completion of the PER public review, issues raised in submissions received by the EPA will be provided to and then addressed by the Proponent. The EPA will consider the PER, issues raised in submissions received and the Proponent responses in its assessment of the proposal. Upon completion of its assessment, the EPA provides its report and recommendations to the Minister for the Environment on the environmental acceptability of the proposal and the environmental conditions which should apply, should the proposal be recommended to proceed. The EPA’s report is published by the Minister and an opportunity is provided for appeals against the content of the EPA report or its recommendations. The final decision as to whether the proposal should proceed is made by the Minister with consideration of any appeals.

The environmental assessment process and indicative timelines for key stages is shown in Figure 1-3.

Following the Minister’s approval under Part IV of EP Act, approval is also required to commence construction of prescribed premises or activities under Part V of the EP Act (works approval/licensing), administered by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC).

1.7.3 Commonwealth Assessment Process The DEWHA is the Commonwealth agency that administers the EPBC Act and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 (Cwth). The EPBC Act focuses on matters of ‘national environmental significance’ and establishes streamlined environmental assessment and approval processes.

Matters of national environmental significance identified in the EPBC Act where controlled actions can trigger the Commonwealth assessment and approval regime are:

world heritage properties

national heritage places

wetlands of international importance (Ramsar wetlands)

listed threatened species and ecological communities

listed migratory species

nuclear actions

Commonwealth marine areas.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 1-7

Figure 1-3 The EP Act and EPBC Act co-ordinated PER assessment process

PAGE 1-8 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

The Port B development was referred to the DEWHA under the provisions of the EPBC Act on 12 February 2008 (RTIO 2008a). On 25 March 2008, the DEWHA determined that the proposal was a ‘controlled action’ based on potential impacts on the following matters of national environmental significance (NES) protected by the EPBC Act (as detailed within Table 1-1):

listed threatened species and communities (Section 18)

listed migratory species (Section 20, 20A and18A)

Commonwealth marine areas (Section 23 and 24A).

Table 1-1 Matters of national environmental significance

Matter of NES Comments Reference in PER Listed threatened species and communities EPBC listed flora No listed species known or likely to occur within the Port B Section 5.4.3 development footprint. EPBC listed threatened One endangered species and one vulnerable species could Sections 5.4.6 terrestrial fauna potentially occur within the Port B development footprint, but this is and 8.3.2 considered unlikely. The RTIO Wildlife Interaction Guide provides additional information to that presented within the PER. EPBC listed threatened One vulnerable fish species, four vulnerable and one endangered Sections 6.5.9 marine fauna marine reptile species, one endangered and one vulnerable marine and 9.2 mammal species and one endangered bird species may occur within the area. A Dredge Spoil Disposal Management Plan (DSDMP) (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1) and Marine Turtle Management Plan (MTMP) (Biota 2008e; Appendix B2) have been developed in addition to the information presented within the PER. EPBC listed threatened No threatened ecological communities known or likely to occur Section 5.4.3 communities within the Port B development footprint. Listed migratory species EPBC listed migratory One bird species known to occur within the Port B development Sections 5.4.6 terrestrial fauna footprint. and 8.3.2 EPBC listed migratory One migratory fish species, five migratory marine reptile species, Sections 6.5.9 marine fauna seven marine mammal species, one endangered and eight and 9.2 migratory bird species may occur within the area. Commonwealth marine areas Location of spoil Two spoil grounds are located within Commonwealth waters. All Section 4.1 grounds other marine infrastructure and works will be located within state waters.

In accordance with the requirements of Section 19 of the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, an application for a Sea Dumping Permit was lodged with the DEWHA on 19 March 2008. Disposal of dredge material is a prescribed action under the EPBC Act and as such assessment of dredge spoil disposal is required under the Act before a Sea Dumping Permit can be issued. The PER provides the information required for the DEWHA to assess the proposal for granting of the Sea Dumping Permit. The DEWHA approved a set of Guidelines (the same ESD approved by the EPA) and advised the Proponent on 22 July 2008 that a Public Environment Report would be required. The DEWHA stated that

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 1-9

the proposal should be assessed for the purposes of the EPBC Act through a coordinated PER process led by the state. This PER has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of both the state and Commonwealth assessment processes.

The environmental assessment process and some indicative timelines are shown in Figure 1-3.

1.7.4 Principles of Environmental Protection In 2003, the EP Act was amended to include the following principles of environmental protection (EPA 2004a):

the precautionary principle

the principle of intergenerational equity

the principle of the conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity

principles relating to improved valuation, pricing and incentive mechanisms

the principle of waste minimisation.

The application of these principles to the Port B development is described in Section 11.1.

1.7.5 Environmental Legislation The Port B development is required to comply with environmental legislation and regulations. A summary of key Western Australian and Commonwealth environmental and related legislation and regulations is listed in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2 Key environmental legislation

Western Australian Legislation Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 Fish Resources Management Act 1994 Aboriginal Heritage Regulations 1974 Health Act 1911 Agriculture and Related Resources Protection Act 1976 Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990 Agricultural and Related Resources (Declared Plants Iron Ore (Robe River) Agreement Act 1964 and Restricted Animals) Regulations 1982 Bush Fires Act 1954 Land Administration Act 1997 Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 Litter Act 1979 Conservation and Land Management Regulations 2002 Local Government Act 1995 Contaminated Sites Act 2003 Main Roads Act 1930 Contaminated Sites Regulations 2002 Marine and Harbours Act 1981 Country Areas Water Supply Act 1947 Mining Act 1978 Dangerous Goods Safety Act 2004 Native Title (State Provisions) Act 1999 Dangerous Goods (Transport) Act 1998 Planning and Development Act 2005 Dangerous Goods Safety (Storage and Handling of Pollution of Waters by Oil and Noxious Substances Act Non-explosives) Regulations 2007 1987 Electricity Act 1945 Rail Safety Act 1998 Environmental Protection Act 1986 Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 Environmental Protection Regulations 1987 Shipping and Pilotage Act 1987

PAGE 1-10 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Western Australian Legislation Environmental Protection (Controlled Waste) Soil and Land Conservation Act 1945 Regulations 2004 Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 Soil and Land Conservation Regulations 1992 Explosives and Dangerous Goods Act 1961 Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 Commonwealth Legislation Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Native Title Act 1993 Protection Act 1984 Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation National Environmental Protection Council Act 1994 Act 1999 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 Regulations 2000

1.7.6 Guidelines and Standards Guidelines and standards have been developed by the EPA and other key regulatory and advisory bodies to assist Proponents and the community to understand the minimum requirements to be met for the protection of elements of the environment and society. Accordingly, the following guidelines, standards and other relevant publications included in Table 1-3 have been considered and applied where appropriate in the preparation of this PER.

Table 1-3 Applicable guidelines, standards and publications

EPA Guidance Statements EPA Draft Guidance Statement No. 8: Environmental Noise (EPA 2007) EPA Guidance Statement No. 1: Protection of Tropical Arid Zone Mangroves along the Pilbara Coastline (EPA 2001) EPA Guidance Statement No. 12: Minimising Greenhouse Gas Emissions (EPA 2002b) EPA Guidance Statement No. 14: Road and Rail Transport Noise (EPA 2000a) EPA Guidance Statement No. 18: Prevention of Air Quality Impacts from Land Development Sites (EPA 2000b) EPA Guidance Statement No. 29: Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Protection for Western Australia’s Marine Environment (EPA 2004b) EPA Guidance Statement No. 41: Assessment of Aboriginal Heritage (EPA 2004c) EPA Guidance Statement No. 51: Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia (EPA 2004d) EPA Guidance Statement No. 56: Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia (EPA 2004e) EPA Position Statements EPA Position Statement No. 2: Environmental Protection of Native Vegetation in Western Australia (EPA 2000c) EPA Position Statement No. 3: Terrestrial Biological Surveys as an Element of Biodiversity Protection (EPA 2002c) EPA Position Statement No. 7. Principles of Environmental Protection (EPA 2004a) Miscellaneous Publications 2006 Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC 2006) Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements (AQIS 2008) Contaminated Sites Management Series: Assessment Levels for Soil, Sediment and Water (DEC 2003) Draft Statement of Planning Policy (Road and Rail Transport Noise) (WAPC 2005) General Guidance on Managing Acid Sulfate Soils (DoE 2006a)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 1-11

Guideline No. 1: Controlled Waste Generators March 2004 (DEC 2004a) Guideline No. 2: Controlled Waste Carriers March 2004 (DEC 2004b) Guideline No. 3: Controlled Waste Treatment or Disposal Sites March 2004 (DEC 2004c) Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LI & IEMA 2002) Guidelines for Mine Closure and Completion (DoITR 2006) Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions 1996 (DoE 1996) National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (EPHC 2003) National Greenhouse Accounts Factors – Updating and Replacing the AGO Factors and Methods Workbook (DCC 2008) National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material (NODGDM) (NODGDM 2002) National Water Quality Management Strategy No. 4: Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000) Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes: Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives (DoE 2006b) Planning Bulletin, 64: Acid Sulphate Soils (WAPC 2003) Statewide Policy No. 5: Environmental Water Provisions Policy for Western Australia (WRC 2000) Statewide Policy No. 6: Transferable (Tradeable) Water Entitlements for Western Australia (WRC 2001) Transport Assessment Guidelines for Developments (WAPC 2006) User Guide No. 4 Controlled Waste tracking System October 2007 (DEC 2007) User Guide No. 5: Paper Tracking Forms March 2004 (DEC 2004d) Visual Landscape Planning In Western Australia: A Manual for Evaluation, Assessment, Siting and Design (WAPC 2007)

The Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes: Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives was released in June 2006 (DoE 2006b). It presents the EPA’s interim set of environmental goals (Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives) and spatially allocates these goals (levels of ecological protection) for state waters off the Pilbara Coast. A detailed description of this document and its relevance to the Port B development is included in Section 6.3.

PAGE 1-12 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

2. Stakeholder Engagement

2.1 Introduction The Proponent recognises that the Port B development has the potential to cause impacts on the environment and community. It is recognised that stakeholders from the community and government agencies require sufficient information to enable them to make an informed assessment of the potential effects resulting from the proposal. Furthermore, the Proponent is cognisant of stakeholders’ concerns and takes their views into account during the assessment. The stakeholder and community engagement program undertaken for the Port B development has been designed and implemented to facilitate these outcomes.

The stakeholder engagement program was developed to provide:

sufficient information to enable stakeholders to make an informed assessment of the nature and extent of the potential impacts from and benefits of the proposal

opportunities for stakeholders to raise any particular concerns regarding the proposal

an indication of the nature and distribution of community concerns both in the local (Wickham and Point Samson) context and in the more regional (Karratha) context

the opportunity to give appropriate consideration to the issues raised by stakeholders, and to provide feedback to stakeholders.

2.2 Port B Development Stakeholder Engagement The key stakeholders for the Port B development were identified from the Proponent’s ongoing consultation program. The Proponent has been engaged in a consultation process for the Port B development since early 2007. The consultation program focuses on delivering detailed information and seeking feedback from those key stakeholders either participating in the environmental assessment process or likely to be affected by the project. These stakeholders are provided with project information using technical presentations, briefings and site visits.

Each consultation method is selected as appropriate to the interests, knowledge base, needs and likely level of impact upon the particular stakeholders, in the context of the ongoing consultation program. These methods include:

structured committees including issue based information sessions

meetings or briefings

telephone conversations

formal presentations

shopping centre displays.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 2-1

Consultation undertaken to date is summarised in Table 2-1. The consultation program is scheduled to continue through the public review period and during the environmental assessment of the proposal through mechanisms already established.

Table 2-1 Summary of the community and stakeholder consultation to date

Date Stakeholder representation Nature of consultation Monthly DoIR (now Department of State Monthly meeting regarding State Agreement approvals, Development (DSD) or DMP–Perth including discussion of the Port B development. 06/03/07 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 23/04/07 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 21/05/07 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 01/06/07 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 19/07/07 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 02/08/07 Point Samson Community Association Meeting to discuss future use of John’s Creek Marina for Cape Lambert projects. 09/08/07 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 10/09/07 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 25/09/07 Shire of Roebourne Briefing on 320 Mtpa program, including Port B, rail, power and water projects. 27/09/07 EPA Briefing on 320 Mtpa and general discussion on aspects of Port B and environmental assessment approach. 17/10/07 DSD/DMP–Perth Presentation outlining the 320 Mtpa program covering port, Department of Primary Industry (DPI)– rail, mine and associated infrastructure options. Perth DEC–Environmental Management Branch 25/10/07 DEC–Pilbara Meeting to identify potential issues arising from the Port B development. 31/10/07 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 14/11/07 DPI–Perth Meeting to discuss tenure issues associated with the Port B development. 14/11/07 Cape Lambert Community Advisory Briefing and discussion to outline the Port B development Group and an opportunity for CLCAG to provide feedback. 19/11/07 Shire of Roebourne Presentation provided on a broad overview of immediate and future development plans including an update on projects currently under construction (Port A). 30/11/07 Water Corporation Meeting to discuss water supply approach. 13/12/07 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 10/01/08 Water Corporation Meeting to discuss water supply to the coastal region i.e. West Pilbara Water Supply Scheme. 16/01/08 DEC–Marine Ecosystems Branch Briefing on project and discussion on habitat mapping methodology.

PAGE 2-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Date Stakeholder representation Nature of consultation 16/01/08 Shire of Roebourne Meeting to outline information needs for traffic study and identify Shire concerns regarding traffic in local area. 31/01/08 EPA Service Unit (EPASU) Presentation on the scope of the Port B development and DEC–Air Quality Branch, Marine content of the Environmental Scoping Document, providing Ecosystems Branch an opportunity for decision making authorities to raise issues. DSD/DMP Department of Indigenous Affairs (DIA) 04– Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land 05/02/08 Use Agreement. 07/02/08 DEC–Pilbara Briefing to provide an overview of the Port B development Department of Water–Pilbara and identify issues. 18/02/08 Water Corporation Meeting to discuss water supply to the coastal region, for example the West Pilbara Water Supply Scheme. 27/02/08 DEC–Marine Ecosystems Branch Meeting to discuss habitat mapping. 28/02/08 Cape Lambert Iron Ore Phone contact to discuss dredging schedule for any future works. 28/02/08 Aquila Resources Phone contact to discuss dredging schedule for any future works. 13/03/08 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 19/03/08 Karratha Community Open day and display at the Centro Karratha shopping centre to provide information on the Port B development along with general information regarding community investment, advisory groups, sponsorships and donations, and other projects. 19/03/08 Coastal Community Environmental Briefing on the scope of the Port B development and options Forum being evaluated as part of the PFS. Outline schedule of the assessment process and the studies being undertaken and key environmental factors. 08/04/08 EPA / EPASU Discussion on the separation from the PER process of some components of the referred proposal. 16/04/08 Shire of Roebourne Briefing on 320 Mtpa program including Cape Lambert Port B development plans. 23/04/08 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 26/04/08 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 14/05/08 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 16/05/08 Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Meeting to discuss negotiations towards an Indigenous Land Use Agreement. 19/05/08 Shire of Roebourne Presentation briefing on the regional water strategy and future water supply options. 27/05/08 Wickham Community–Public Meeting Community open forum at Wickham Community Hall providing an opportunity for issues to be raised by the community on pertinent matters. 05/06/08 DSD/DMP–Perth Site visit and presentation to provide an overview of the Port DPI–Perth B development and the tenure approvals required. 17/06/08 Shire of Roebourne Monthly meeting in which Port B development issues relating to or relevant to the Shire were discussed. 19/06/08 DPI Meeting to discuss tenure and general approvals

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 2-3

Date Stakeholder representation Nature of consultation requirements. 26/06/08 DEC–Marine Ecosystems Branch Meeting to obtain feedback on benthic primary producer habitats impact thresholds prior to modelling. 30/06/08 Coastal Community Environment Briefing on the 320 Mtpa program, with emphasis on the Port Forum, Cape Lambert B development and railway projects and site tour to provide opportunities to discuss key issues. 08/07/08 DEC–Environmental Management Briefing on 320 Mtpa program, including the Port B Branch and Corporate development plans and issues 25/08/08 DEWHA Briefing on dredging program and environmental studies completed. 27/08/08 DEWHA Site visit to Cape Lambert. 29/08/08 EPA Board members, EPASU and DEC Briefing on the 320 Mtpa program, the environmental Regional office representatives management issues at Cape Lambert and the Port B development. Site visit of Port A and the Port B development area and surrounds.

2.3 Issues Raised and Responses in PER A summary of the stakeholder engagement program, showing the key issues raised by stakeholders and the relevant section in the PER addressing these issues is provided in Table 2-2, and summarised below:

identification and assessment of the environmental impacts from dredging and dredge spoil disposal activities

impacts and management measures for nesting turtles

risks to marine mammals

water supply and use over life of project

dust management

workforce strategy.

Table 2-2 Summary of the community and stakeholder engagement program

Summary of Key Communications Reference in PER Department of Environment and Conservation Proximity of laydown area to Boat Beach Section 4.2 Public access to Boat Beach Section 10.4.6 Environmental impacts from dredging Section 9.2.2 Local Cape Lambert wind data to be used for dredge modelling Sections 5.5.2 and 8.3.4 Spoil ground locations Section 4.1 Winnowing effects at spoil grounds Section 9.2.2 Habitat boundary representation Section 6.5.2 Dredge modelling input data validity Section 9.2.2 Site specific metocean and meteorological data to be used Section 9.2.2 Thresholds for BPPH Section 9.2.2 Zones of influence for BPPH Section 9.2.2 Reference sites for marine monitoring Section 9.2.2

PAGE 2-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Summary of Key Communications Reference in PER Dust management strategies Section 8.3.4 Construction noise impacts and management Section 8.3.5 Timing and duration of pile driving with respect to turtle nesting Section 9.2.4 Impacts of lighting on turtles Section 9.2.3 Management of nesting turtles Section 9.2 Impacts on whales Section 9.2 Marine discharges Sections 9.3.3 and 9.3.4 Runoff and stormwater management Sections 8.4.4 and 9.3.4 Water requirements and supply Sections 5.3.8 and 8.3.3 Assessment approach for marine and land-based works Section 1.7 Construction workforce peaks and duration Section 4.4.4 Contextual studies for turtles Section 6.2 Liaison with other industry organisations on data sharing – turtles and dredging Section 6.2 Population of nearest towns–Point Samson and Wickham Section 7.2 Workforce arrangements–fly-in/ fly-out or residential Section 10.4.4 Constructions workforce recreational demands on natural assets and existing Section 10.4.4 facilities Accommodation needs Section 10.4.4 Social impacts for construction workforce in local communities Section 10.4.4 Recycling of water/ water minimisation Section 8.3.3 Department for Planning and Infrastructure Terrestrial tenure Section 7.6 Marine tenure Section 7.6 Department of Water Water supply requirements Section 8.3.3 Water plan for life of project Section 8.3.3 Environmental Protection Authority Service Unit/EPA Evaluation of alternative sites Section 3.2 Noise impacts on whales Section 9.2.4 Noise emissions from pile driving Section 9.2.4 Light impacts on turtles Section 9.2.3 Implications of proposed marine reserves and study areas for possible future Section 10.4.10 reserves Dredge plume modelling inputs (duration periods) Section 9.2.2 Buffer zones around Cape Lambert Section 7.6 Dust impacts on surrounding residents and dust monitoring regime Section 8.3.4 Cumulative and indirect impacts on heritage sites Section 10.4.2 and 10.4.3 Water supply Sections 5.3.8 and 8.3.3 Water supply for dust control Sections 5.3.8 and 8.3.3 Main Roads WA Scope of traffic assessment for PER Section 10.4.5 Baseline traffic flows on existing roads for impact assessment Section 7.13 Water Corporation Water supply requirements Sections 5.3.8 and 8.3.3

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 2-5

Summary of Key Communications Reference in PER Water quality requirements Sections 5.3.8 and 8.3.3 Shire of Roebourne Validation of dredge plume modelling Section 9.2.2 Use of John’s Creek for dredging and/or support vessels Section 10.4.6 Workforce strategy–Fly in / Fly out or residential Section 10.4.4 Workforce numbers Section 4.4.4 Extent of dredging Section 4.1 Water supply for dust suppression (potable water use) Sections 4.4.3 and 8.3.3 Consultation required with MRWA for MRWA roads Section 2.3 Development within existing infrastructure corridor Section 4.1 Indigenous Organisations – Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation Issues relating to acceptance and sign off of offer to Ngarluma for a comprehensive Sections 7.12.1 and 10.4.2 Indigenous Land Use Agreement Heritage matters Sections 7.12 and 10.4.3 Business expansion, including infrastructure proposals and land access Sections 1, 4 and 10 Commercial aspects for an agreement Sections 7.12.1 and 10.4.2 General Public and Community Organisations Access to Boat Beach Boat Ramp and Yacht Club Section 10.4.6 Use of John’s Creek by harbour support craft for dredging programs Section 10.4.6 Dust management associated with Port B Section 8.3.4 Likely employment arrangements at Port B–residential or fly-in, fly-out Section 10.4.4 Risks to marine mammals (whales and turtles) during dredging Section 9.2 Continued use of spoil grounds contributing to changing coastline Section 9.2 Impacts of dredging Section 9.2.2 Support for the Wickham community arising from the Port B development Section 10.4.4 Stockpile design Section 4.2 Water supply and continued use of potable water for dust suppression Section 8.3.3 Regional turtle management Section 9.2 Traffic congestion on North West Coastal Hwy Section 10.4.5 Miscellaneous Stakeholders Timing for possible future dredging program and option for data sharing Section 4.5

PAGE 2-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

3. Development Justification and Alternatives

3.1 Development Justification Driven largely by the strength of the Chinese market in recent times, growth in the global iron ore market has resulted in demand continuing to exceed current supply. Even with the current global economic situation, it is predicted that good demand for iron ore will continue in the foreseeable future. The Port B development will ensure that the Proponent remains a major iron ore producer in the Pilbara and in the world, maintains its market share and continues to be a local employer and export earner in the long term.

The Port B development will provide benefits to the state and nation including:

increased contribution towards the nation’s annual income through the export sale of iron ore

increased revenue to the state and Commonwealth Governments from taxes, levies and royalties from the export of iron ore and from taxation income from company profits

direct creation of additional employment opportunities through the provision of services and supplies such as contracts for ongoing maintenance and repairs

ongoing contribution to the local economy and community through employee expenditure, company subsidies and contributions.

3.2 Evaluation of Alternative Sites Planned expansions of current resources and operations have driven the need for increased handling capacity at port facilities. To address this future growth, an evaluation of options for expanding port facilities was undertaken through the development of a Strategic Port Siting Study.

In addition to considering further development at Cape Lambert and Dampier (Parker Point or East Intercourse Island), several alternative coastal locations were identified as potential sites for a new port facility. The Study considered 11 alternative sites, comprising of the following options:

Sholl Island

Cape Preston

West Intercourse Island

East Intercourse Island (Dampier)

Parker Point (Quarry Flats) Dampier

Legendre Island

Dixon Island

Cape Lambert

Depuch Island

Cape Thouin

Port Hedland (Harriet or Stanley Point).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 3-1

Mistaken Island and Ronsard Island were also initially evaluated but were not considered viable for shipment of large tonnages. The locations of the 13 sites initially evaluated are presented in Figure 3-1.

The following criteria were considered during and initial site selection screening process:

ship access–dredging requirements for vessels

site conditions (land, sea and ship handling)

site development costs

synergies with existing facilities and infrastructure

environmental assessment timeframes and complexity

stakeholder considerations.

Four sites were short-listed as options for future port facilities and associated support infrastructure:

East Intercourse Island (at Dampier)

Parker Point East (at Dampier)

Cape Lambert (around the existing operations)

Dixon Island (near Cape Lambert).

The other locations were discounted due to the high costs associated with lack of existing infrastructure and a human resources base. The practical benefits of developing a green-field port were considered limited from a social, economic and environmental perspective. The footprint associated with an entirely new green-fields port development (compared with a green-fields development in a brown-fields location, as is proposed for the Port B development) is significantly greater as there is minimal use of existing infrastructure.

A review of the potential port locations was conducted with the objective of determining the expansion capabilities at each port without any engineering considerations. This process identified the preferred site adjacent to Port A. This was based on several key factors that made the Port B development site more preferred than the other sites considered. These factors included:

an effective brown-field development was determined to have manageable environmental and heritage issues

the increased distance from sensitive noise and dust receptors represented a better community outcome (than other options around Cape Lambert)

access to existing tenure, support infrastructure and services

reduced congestion with a range of shipping activities associated with other port users (as is the case at Dampier)

capacity to accommodate possible future incremental developments

a better economic outcome with an efficient development cost.

PAGE 3-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 3-1 Alternative sites for the port facilities

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 3-3

3.3 Design Alternatives During the Pre Feasibility Study (PFS), several expansion and material handling configurations have been considered. The various elements considered were:

Capacity of Port: Chosen on the basis of projections of future throughput and engineering constraints. Options considered included 95 Mtpa, 100 Mtpa, 115 Mtpa and 130 Mtpa. The latter was considered appropriate as it ensured conservative (or worst case) modelling scenarios to be presented (should actual throughput not attain 130 Mtpa), and it negated the need for more frequent smaller incremental capacity increases. This allows for increased flexibility in operational capacity. Due to the recent changes in the world economy, implementation of the Port B development might be progressively undertaken to match the demand profiles.

Stockyard Design and Location: The design was recommended based upon considerations of layout, plant capacity, capital costs and footprint size. To optimise the design, the stockyard and associated dumper/conveyor footprints were initially overlaid onto the aerial photographs of the selected port site and positioned to maximise avoidance of any known ‘no go’ or areas of high environmental significance. The topography of the site was also taken into account prior to final positioning, in order to conceptually optimise the potential earthwork requirements (RTIO 2007a).

The Port B development arrangement for slewing, luffing and travelling reclaimers in a single long stockyard (as proposed) was concluded to be superior to other options on the basis that it:

allows for possible future increases in capacity requirements (without precluding future expansion)

has a smaller footprint and environmental impact

allows the construction schedule to meet delivery time frames

provides for ultimate stockyard flexibility

incorporates the most efficient total capital cost development

allows progressive stockyard automation.

The stockyard closest to the coast will be developed first primarily to allow for possible future expansions. Assuming future expansions do occur at Cape Lambert, positioning the stockyards in the proposed location would have the following advantages:

Conveyors are positioned for the final location and will not require relocation or modification at a later date, thus avoiding higher costs and more disturbance.

The return conveyor (the conveyor that comes back to the stockyard from the screenhouse) has been positioned at the edge of the yard so as to avoid the need to relocate it in the future. Although it is possible to divert this conveyor to avoid the dunes for this phase of development, this would involve construction of six additional conveyors and hence would involve additional disturbance and cost.

If the inland stockyard (closest to the railway line) was developed first, this would restrict access to a future yard as it would be bound on four sides by conveyors. Large earthmoving and construction

PAGE 3-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

equipment that are necessary to construct a stockyard and install stackers and reclaimers, would not be able to access the yard without affecting production from the existing stockyard (ie possibly breaking the conveyor to allow access) thereby driving significant increases in capital cost. Whilst not impossible to implement the stockyard closest to the railway line first, by constructing the westernmost yard first, any 'future' stockyard would be far more open to allow access for construction and would not therefore be precluded.

In addition to these advantages, development of the western stockyard area as part of the Port B development means that the area with potentially higher environmental impacts is assessed first. Impacts and management of disturbance to this area have been presented in the PER, resulting in the application of more stringent management measures to be implemented during construction and operation to minimise impacts to the dune area.

As engineering of the proposed port facilities progresses, further refinement of the port, including stockyard design and layout may occur.

Wharf Design and Alignment: Numerous design options were considered incorporating berth location, ship loading techniques, conveyor configuration and module sizes. The preference for the final recommended design was based on factors relating to material requirements, safety factors, environmental constraints and interaction with Port A facilities.

Wharf location was constrained by various factors. Locating the wharf further south-west along the coastline would potentially have a greater impact on some marine and coastal areas such as the marine turtle nesting habitat at Bell’s Beach and recreational areas at Boat Beach. Locations further to the south- east are not suitable due to bathymetry, the presence of islands, impacts on recreational boat users and commercial aquaculture operators and the close proximity to Point Samson. The preferred location also centralises or consolidates the new wharf infrastructure as close as possible to the existing Port A wharf, thereby minimising the overall impact area and reducing dredging footprints through, for example, utilisation of the existing shipping channel.

The ability to have the wharf extend further seaward was constrained by the identification of BIF (banded ironstone formation) during the geotechnical investigation. The BIF is a very dense strong rock with a high unconfined compressive strength. The extension of the wharf further north-east (0 to 800 m) would result in a drilling and blasting operation for dredging on a scale that is rarely used over a prolonged period (probably 12 months or more). A prolonged period of drilling and blasting would result in associated prolonged impacts to the marine environment. Impacts to marine fauna as a result of underwater blasting are discussed in Section 9.2.4. Cost increases as a result of drilling and blasting activities have been estimated to be in the order of $150 million. The option of extending the approach jetty out past the BIF location would be prohibitive in regards to project cost and would increase the construction period by approximately one year, resulting in prolonged social and environmental impacts. Options incorporating extending the access jetty to allow the wharf to be constructed further seaward did not significantly reduce the amount of dredging required, as the seabed is relatively flat once the 1.5 km offshore distance is reached. An additional 400 m of access jetty is estimated to be in the order of

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 3-5

$80 million in capital costs. Increasing the overall length of the wharf is also likely to result in increased interaction with migratory species such as whales.

Berth configuration options analysis considered the number of berths required and the location of the berths on either side of the wharf. Options considered included:

two berths on either side (base case and selected option)

three berths on either side (option 1)

three berths on one side (option 2)

four berths on one side (option 3)

six berths on one side (option 4).

Table 3-1 presents details on the four options considered, as compared with the base case. None of these four options included scope for possible future expansion or additional throughput, whereas the base case does allow for future extension of the wharf to provide eight berths. The dredging for all eight berth pockets is incorporated into the base case dredging design and is included in the dredge volumes presented in Section 4 of the PER.

Table 3-1 Berth configuration options analysis

Option Max Dredging Drill and Time Environment Cost throughput Blast Option 1 100 Mtpa Reduced Unlikely Additional Additional piling Overall additional $524 by 1.3 to be 12 months for longer wharf million. Three 3 berths on Mm .* required. results in Increases due to: either side prolonged underwater noise 400 m of additional duration on wharf length marine animals. conveyor configuration.

Savings due to:

reduced dredging. Option 2 100 Mtpa Reduced Unlikely Additional Additional piling Overall additional $100 3 Three by 5 Mm to be 8–9 for longer wharf million. berths on as no required. months results in Increases due to: one side dredging prolonged required on underwater noise 400 m additional wharf western duration on length. side of marine animals. wharf.* Savings due to: reduced dredging reduced number of dolphins. Option 3 100 Mtpa Reduced Possibly Additional Additional piling Overall additional $564 3 Four by 4.8 Mm required. 20–24 for longer wharf million. berths on as no months results in Increases due to: one side dredging prolonged required on underwater noise 800 m additional wharf western duration on length side of marine animals. conveyor configuration additional shiploader. wharf.*

PAGE 3-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Option Max Dredging Drill and Time Environment Cost throughput Blast Savings due to:

reduced dredging. Option 4 200 Mtpa Reduced Most Additional Additional piling Overall additional $410 3 Six berths by 3.4 Mm likely 20–24 for longer wharf million. on one as no required. months results in Increases due to: side dredging prolonged required on underwater noise 800 m additional wharf western duration on length side of marine animals. drilling and blasting operations wharf.* Higher likelihood additional shiploader. of drilling and blasting operations Savings due to:

increases the reduced dredging. likelihood of impacts to marine animals as a result of that activity. *Note: Base case dredging incorporates dredging for eight berth pockets.

The options analysis indicated that the base case is the preferred case in terms of construction duration, piling impacts, cost and potential for future expansion. All four non-preferred options would result in additional underwater noise impacts due to extended piling when compared with the base case. When compared with the base case, all non-preferred options will require less dredging, thus resulting in reduced direct and indirect impacts associated with dredging. Impacts as a result of dredging activities are discussed in Section 9.2.2. Option 4 has an increased likelihood of significant areas of underwater drilling and blasting being required. None of the four non-preferred options allow for future expansion and only the base case incorporates additional dredging to allow for future developments to proceed with less environmental and technical delays. Options 1, 2 and 3 are limited to a maximum throughput capacity of 100 Mtpa.

The options analysis determined that the base case was the preferred and is the case presented and considered within this PER.

Dredging and Spoil Disposal Alternatives

Dredging Methodologies: Two main dredging methodologies were considered:

Scenario 1: one jumbo-sized trailer suction hopper dredge (TSHD), two medium sized cutter suction dredges (CSDs), one backhoe dredge (BHD) with associated hopper barge and one drill and blast (D&B) spread (if required).

Scenario 2: one large-sized TSHD, one medium sized TSHD, one large CSD, one BHD with associated hopper barges and one D&B spread (if required).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 3-7

Both of the dredging methodology scenarios use medium to large/jumbo sized TSHDs and CSDs combined with a BHD. These dredge types have been selected as they are the most suitable selection in terms of environmental performance, technical feasibility and economic feasibility of the project.

Plume modelling was conducted on both scenarios to determine which had the largest potential negative footprint. The two proposed model footprints based on preliminary turbidity water quality thresholds provided two potential estimates of the dredge plume.

The dredging scenario created by Scenario 2 has a much smaller turbidity footprint than the alternative Scenario 1. Preliminary model outputs of a 1 mg L-1 zone of theoretical detection for Scenario 1 found that suspended sediment would reach much further out towards the proposed Dampier Archipelago Marine Park (DAMP). The preliminary zones of impact and influence were also much larger for Scenario 1 and had a zone of influence extending much further along the eastern coastline than Scenario 2.

Scenario 2 was selected as the preferred dredging methodology based on environmental performance, as well as technical and economic factors.

Key advantages with regards to the environmental performance of the selected dredging methodology and justification for selection of Scenario 2 over Scenario 1 include the following:

The utilisation of large and medium sized TSHDs will limit the volume of material that will be required to be cut and placed on the seabed by the CSD prior to dredging by the TSHD. This will limit double handling of the material and the associated turbidity generation.

The utilisation of medium to large CSDs will limit and ideally eliminate the amount of pre-treatment via drilling and blasting required during the project.

The utilisation of large capacity TSHDs will minimise the duration of the works thus minimising the temporal extent of water quality, light and noise related impacts.

The utilisation of large capacity TSHDs during the bulk dredging will limit the number of shipping movements between the dredging area and disposal grounds by as much as 20 times when compared to other potential methods such as loading barges using BHDs or a grab dredge. This will also minimise greenhouse gas emissions and fuel usage.

Modern TSHDs and CSDs provide the best solution for dredging projects in terms of the accuracy of dredging thus minimising the amount of over-dredging that may occur. The TSHDs are also conducive to the accurate placement of the dredging spoil at the disposal location.

Modern TSHDs and CSDs are owned and operated by world leading dredging contractors and are designed and operated with environmental performance in mind. As such they are equipped with online production/dredging visualisation and environmental devices (for example, turbidity reducing overflow valves) all designed to improve the efficiency and environmental performance of the vessel.

Spoil Disposal: The options for spoil disposal are either onshore or offshore disposal. Offshore disposal is generally at designated spoil grounds (within state and/or Commonwealth waters) whereas onshore

PAGE 3-8 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

disposal offers an opportunity to re-use spoil material. This addresses a key requirement of the Commonwealth’s National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material (NODGDM) (NODGDM 2002) whereby proponents are to consider alternatives to offshore disposal. It is also consistent with the dredging program’s hierarchy of environmental considerations to avoid, minimise, re- use and dispose.

Options for onshore disposal include re-use by the Proponent as a construction material in land reclamation (a foundation for the Port B development stockyard) and re-use by third parties for future construction projects.

The principal advantages of onshore disposal are the potential re-use of the material and possible reductions in cost and duration of offshore disposal activities. Onshore spoil disposal would also reduce the volume dumped in offshore spoil grounds, thereby reducing the risk of exceeding sediment and water quality thresholds for sea dumping. This is particularly relevant to the revised NODGDM which will include an expanded emphasis on all elements of spoil assessment. Similarly, onshore spoil disposal would also reduce dredge vessel travel time between dredging areas and spoil grounds. This would reduce cost and duration of dredging operations as well as reducing risk of indirect impacts such as fuel leakages from the dredge vessel and reduce the risk of vessel collisions.

Any advantages from the utilisation of spoil material for construction activities may, however, be outweighed by the area required for land-based settlement and treatment of spoil material and return water. Currently there is limited space available in the Port B development area for spoil disposal and treatment, and there would be storage and dust risk issues if spoil had to be stored on site awaiting re-use. In the event that stockpiled spoil material could not be utilised for future construction or operational activities, or had to be stockpiled for long periods prior to re-use by the Proponent or a third party, the Proponent would remain liable for ensuring its continued containment and both environmental and engineering stability. Furthermore, the process of stockpiling spoil material may interfere with other operational activities at the Port B development. If any level of contamination is detected in the spoil material, this would invoke additional responsibilities as outlined by the Contaminated Sites Act 2003 (WA), and/or the need for a detailed site investigation. These measures would increase project costs and lead to scheduling delays.

Another major disadvantage of onshore spoil disposal is the range of issues associated with settling pond return water being discharged to the marine environment. Return water would need to be released to the ocean, and the potential for localised increases in turbidity may lead to impacts upon sensitive marine environments as well as social issues considering its proximity to the coast and visibility to local communities. Return water release would require modelling to predict areas of potential impact, which would require monitoring before, during and after discharge.

A number of terrestrial environmental risks are also associated with onshore spoil disposal. The long distance between the onshore spoil disposal area and possible return water discharge point presents a risk in the event of a pipeline rupture, which could potentially result in marine spoil and seawater being released on land. Stored, dried and stacked spoil material could also become a source of dust, which could

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 3-9

impact on nearby flora and fauna as well as the Point Samson community and operational workforce. This would necessitate increased dust management controls and greater water consumption/costs.

In relation to this onshore disposal for this project, two areas were considered.

the actual area of the new development (i.e. under the stockyard)

the north east corner of Port A which is currently within tenure.

These two options were discounted for onshore disposal of dredge spoil for the following reasons:

In the case of deposition in the proposed new stockyard area, the timing for settlement of the hydraulically placed spoil would be significant. This area would need to consolidate and would require pre-loading given the materials handling equipment which will be founded on the finished base of stockyard. A typical timeframe for consolidation of this material is generally 9–12 months. During this period the area would be generally inaccessible as a result of moisture content in material or overlying pre-load. This would represent a direct delay to the construction schedule by the same period.

For the case of disposal to the proposed new onshore stockyard, the spoil disposal distance is approximately 7 km. Advice from two dredging contractors has indicated that this is an impractical distance to pump dredge spoil. The mass of material to be pumped and length of pipeline could not be pumped by the equipment on an ordinary TSHD or CSD.

In the case of the material to be disposed of in the north-east corner of Port A, this area is a relatively small area which can only hold a limited volume of material. In order to contain this material, a new seawall would need to be constructed with appropriate lining and adequately sized armour to suit wave loads on the exposed sides. The capital cost involved, plus the pumping infrastructure would drive the placement costs to an unfeasible level for such a small volume of dredge material.

In the case that a new seawall was built, the supernatant waters would need to be decanted off the placed material. This would need to go through a weir box and silt curtains. Even given careful planning and execution there would be fines loss through return water from both the outlets and around the silt curtain as well as loss through fines migration from the seawall. This would generate a plume which would be closer to onshore local community facilities than from offshore disposal.

The actual surface area of the disposal ground in the north east corner of Port A is too small to allow effective placement of material. At the rate of placement of a typical dredge, the rate of disposal would be greater than the rate of dissipation of runoff water. In such case the dredging operations will have to regularly cease to allow adequate volume gain in the spoil ground for material to be placed again.

For the above reasons, the placement onshore was considered not feasible and offshore disposal was considered the most appropriate disposal method. Three existing spoil grounds were selected for use.

PAGE 3-10 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Spoil Ground Capacity: The Proponent has undertaken an extensive assessment to determine the capacity of the proposed spoil grounds to accommodate the spoil generated during dredging. A summary of the results of this assessment are shown below. The capacity of Spoil Grounds 1 and 2 will receive their full capacity potential, whereas Spoil Ground 3 will receive less than half of its potential capacity (Table 3-2). The survey of each spoil ground was based on the Port A 85 Mtpa upgrade post dredge clearance surveys using swathe bathymetry and was based on a maximum fill depth on -12 m CD (chart datum).

Table 3-2 Spoil ground capacity

Spoil Ground Spoil Ground Capacity (m3) Volume to be Disposed (m3) Spoil Ground 1 6 057 000 6 057 000 Spoil Ground 2 6 700 000 6 700 000 Spoil Ground 3 7 562 000 3 150 005 Total Dredge Volume 15 907 005

3.4 Water Supply Options Water is currently supplied to Port A through the WPWSS. A separate water supply study to augment and improve reliability of the WPWSS considered:

a 20 GL desalination plant situated in the general locale of either Cape Lambert or Dampier to meet local water requirements and supplement the WPWSS

a borefield and associated delivery infrastructure located on a tenement owned by the Proponent (nominally in the Bungaroo area)

a transfer pipeline with the capacity to deliver water to the coast from inland mining operations (with associated dewatering)

a desalination plant (up to 5 GL production capacity) situated at Cape Lambert to meet specific water demand and reduce pressure on the existing potable water scheme.

The conclusion to date of a PFS indicated that a borefield at Bungaroo (50 km south-east of the town of Pannawonica), potentially in conjunction with mining operations, connected to the existing water reticulation system would be the most appropriate source to augment the existing water supply scheme primarily based on environmental impact and cost. Figure 3-2 provides a summary of the option assessment undertaken.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 3-11

Figure 3-2 Water supply options analysis framework

Supply Option Delivery Capital Project Risk Sustainable Business Fit (incorporating Expenditure (Incorporating Development (Incorporating approvals (incorporating water (Incorporating internal Proponent requirements, scale of accessibility, water requirements timeliness) infrastructure timeliness, accessibility, considering other requirement) risks to project social, development and economic and initiatives) environmental issues and Rio Tinto Standards) Borefield Water Supply

RTIO Desalination Plant

Supply from Water Corporation Desalination Plant Supply via Inland Mines

A green circle indicates no critical issues identified. An amber circle indicates there is potential for an issue to have an impact on the schedule (and therefore approvability) of the project. A red circle indicates the issue is a showstopper with potential to cause extensive delays to the schedule.

The preferred option was the Bungaroo borefield option (along with associated infrastructure). This option was selected on the basis of:

lowest implementation time and based on tenure and approvals

minimal requirement for new infrastructure

good availability, storage and water quality

flexibility to meet RTIO augmentation

low capital cost and cost competitive in comparison to other options

low technology, low implementation and operational risk (rainfall excluded)

potential synergies with mining and regional water vision.

The following options were not considered favourable on the basis of:

Desalination

limited suitable sites

smaller production capacity may not meet future requirements or community need.

lower likelihood of meeting Rio Tinto sustainable development principles

approvals may prove to be difficult to obtain and result in delay to project schedule.

PAGE 3-12 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Inland Mines

supply uncertainties (aquifer, mine plans) and demand uncertainties

significant infrastructure required, unlikely to be delivered in required time

approvals may prove to be difficult to obtain and result in delay to project schedule

high capital cost, resulting in high unit cost of water.

A full assessment of the environmental impacts for the life of the preferred option has not been undertaken at this stage. This is planned for 2009/2010. It is anticipated that the preferred option will be formally assessed by the EPA. An initial desktop review was undertaken and the results of this review were incorporated into the pre-feasibility study.

3.5 No Development Option If the Proponent is unable to expand its port operations, a significant opportunity to maintain its market share and increase its export earnings will be lost. Potentially, the increased market demand would be met by increased production elsewhere in Australia or overseas. In this case, the economic benefits presented in Section 3.1 would be lost to the local area, Western Australia and Australia.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 3-13

Cape Lambert Port B

4. Project Description

4.1 Port B Proposal

The Proponent is evaluating the development of a second terminal at Cape Lambert that will have a nominal throughput capacity of up to 130 Mtpa. The development encompasses both onshore and marine works as shown in Figure 4-1, Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 and includes:

ore handling facilities (incorporating rail tracks, car dumpers, conveyors, stackers, stockpiles, reclaimers and screenhouses)

supporting operational infrastructure (including offices, warehouses and workshops)

marine facilities (incorporating access jetty and wharf, and shiploaders)

dredging and spoil disposal for berth pockets, turning basins, departure channel and tug harbour/ Service Wharf B

supporting construction infrastructure (including laydown and storage areas).

The key project characteristics for the Port B development are provided in Table 4-1. A process flow diagram is presented in Figure 4-4.

Table 4-1 Preliminary key project characteristics

Project characteristic Cape Lambert Port B development* Nominal Cape Lambert Port B Up to 130 Mtpa capacity Access jetty and wharf Up to 2700 m (from conveyor junction on land to end of wharf) Number of ship loading berths Up to 4 Dredging Dredging for berth pockets, turning basins, departure channel, Service Wharf B and tug harbour extension. Placement of spoil at existing spoil grounds. Estimated dredge volume up to 16 Mm3. Stockyard Stockpiles to accommodate nominal 130 Mtpa throughput Bulk stockpile capacity No separate or dedicated bulking stockyards Facility footprint Approximately 340 ha land based Major plant components 3 car dumpers 2 screenhouses (lump rescreening plants) 2 sample systems 3–4 stackers 3 reclaimers 2 shiploaders Conveyors and transfer stations *Characteristics refer to the Port B development only and do not include Port A operations

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 4-1

Figure 4-1 Onshore infrastructure – indicative layout

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 4-2

Figure 4-2 Marine infrastructure – indicative layout

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 4-3

Figure 4-3 Overview of marine infrastructure and spoil grounds

PAGE 4-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Pilbara Mine Operations

Outside Port B development Rail Operations

Car Dumpers

Stackers

Cape Lambert Stockyard Port B development

Reclaimers

Screenhouse

Sampling

Shiploaders

Export to Customer by Ship

Figure 4-4 Process flow diagram for the Port B development

4.2 Land Based Ore Handling Infrastructure The Port B development will require materials handling infrastructure including the construction of a new stockyard. The stockyard and port facilities are to be located to the west of the Port A operation. Figure 4-1 depicts the concept configuration of the stockyard as at the PFS phase.

Ore delivered from Pilbara mines will be unloaded from rail wagons using one of the Port B car dumpers. New rail tracks will be required on the approaches and exit sides of the car dumpers. Conveyors will move ore from the car dumpers to appropriate stockpiles via stackers. New conveyors and transfer stations will be constructed to service the stacking, reclaiming and ship loading facilities. Lump

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 4-5

rescreening will be undertaken to separate fines from lump product, with fines returned to the stockyard and lump conveyed onward to the shiploaders on the wharf. Fines will be reclaimed from stockpiles and conveyed straight to shiploaders on the wharf without passing through screenhouses.

The Port A rail system may require some minor modifications to accommodate the operation of the three new car dumpers required for the Port B development. Modifications to existing signalling equipment will be required in conjunction with additional track and signalling infrastructure for the six new railway tracks between the 0 kilometre point (kp) and 7.1 kp. Based on the proposed throughput capacity (130 Mtpa), it is likely that there will be up to 18–21 train arrivals per day at the Port B development.

The car dumper facility comprises three separate car dumpers such that each receives trains and unloads ore cars onto a network of conveyors for transfer to stockpiles. The car dumper facility is modelled on the recently installed car dumpers at the Proponent’s Parker Point port facility at Dampier. The Port B development car dumpers will unload two rail cars each tip cycle. The car dumpers will use dry dust extraction systems to minimise dust emissions.

Construction of the car dumpers will require drilling, blasting and excavation of approximately 1.2 million cubic metres (Mm3) of rock and soil (stockyard excavation will require approximately 2.6 Mm3 and the rail works approximately 1.2 Mm3). All blasting will be controlled to limit fly rock. All car dumper excavation material will be used as an additional fill material source for the construction of the stockyard facility.

Dewatering of up to 250 ML per annum is also likely to be required during excavations and construction of the car dumpers. Appropriate disposal or reuse options for this water will be implemented depending on the quality and volume of water removed. If the quality of the water is appropriate, it will be used for dust suppression during construction works. Dewatering of the car dumper excavation will continue following completion of construction as water tables deplete and/or stabilise. The ongoing dewatering required after construction is expected to be less than 200 kL per annum; much less than that expected during construction.

The stockyard will have a capacity to match received ore and reclaim requirements and will incorporate the following equipment:

three or four stackers

three reclaimers

conveyors and transfer stations

stockpile areas

two screenhouses (also known as lump rescreening plants)

as-shipped sample stations

process water tank and associated piping.

The stockyard is located between the car dumpers and the wharf. It is designed for blending of products from individual mines to allow for a consistent product that meets market specifications. Port B will

PAGE 4-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

handle products from all mines managed by the Proponent, with the exception of Robe Valley products which need to be crushed and screened through existing dedicated facilities at Port A. Should crushing of Robe Valley product occur at the mines in future, it would be possible for the Port B development to receive this product.

Three or four stackers will be required for Port B, allowing for return fines from the screenhouse and fines from the car dumper to be combined. Three slewing, luffing and travelling reclaimers will also be required.

The design of the conveyor system for Port B builds on recent innovations and developments incorporated into the Dampier Port Upgrade and recent upgrades at Port A. Conveyor widths and roller diameters have been selected for reduction of conveyor noise and drive selection has also been based on the use of the quietest available gearboxes. Conveyor belts will be mostly 2 m and 1.8 m wide and only the fines return conveyor belts will be 1.2 m wide.

Stockpile layout and capacities will be dependent on final design, yard machine selection, stacking profiles and a number of other factors. Two screenhouses will be required and will be sized for an optimum screening capacity to correspond with the reclaimer nominal throughput. The screen building has been based on utilising screens and feeders similar to those installed as part of the Dampier Port Upgrade.

Basic offices and administration facilities will be provided either at Port A or Port B to service the Port B operations. A workshop will be located towards the southern end of the stockyard in an area that is required for borrow and laydown.

4.2.1 Drainage Design Drainage was designed in the stockyard to provide protection to the following levels:

stockyard drainage: 100 year average rainfall recurrence interval (ARI) immunity plus 300 mm freeboard

local plant (minor catchments): 5 year ARI immunity

local plant (major catchments): 20 year ARI immunity.

Surface run-off is currently accommodated through a combination of open drains and culvert systems to channel water to two designated discharge points. Water is collected in a detention basin prior to discharge to allow for settling of suspended solids, and alternative treatment or disposal in the event of contamination.

The two discharge points are:

a new outlet to ocean (south of the proposed stockyard, west of the existing quarry)

the existing outlet to Sam’s Creek (north of car dumper 2 at Port A, east of Port A rail), incorporating twin culverts to channel water under the Port A rail system.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 4-7

4.2.2 Land Clearing The footprint of land-based activities for the Port B development is approximately 340 ha. This footprint is partially disturbed and includes an existing landfill, a gas pipeline and part of a rock quarry. Permission to relocate the pipeline and extend the quarry has been granted separately to the Port B development. Approval will also be sought for relocating the existing landfill. Undertaking these activities prior to commencement of works for the Port B development will involve clearing of native vegetation both from within and outside of the footprint for the Port B development. Table 4-2 provides details of native vegetation clearing permits held by the Proponent and native vegetation clearing applications currently being assessed in the Cape Lambert area.

Table 4-2 Native vegetation clearing permits and applications at Cape Lambert

Clearing Details Polygon Area Clearing Area Permit (ha) within Polygon (ha) Approved Clearing Permits CPS 2485/1 Relocation of existing gas pipeline and laydown areas 28.7 28.7 for gas pipeline construction. CPS 2054/1 Contaminated sites drilling and geotechnical 87 12 investigations near the existing quarry. Excavation and removal of existing landfill facility. CPS 2502/1 Quarry extension. 27.3 16 CPS 2485/1 Quarry extension additional area. 0.3 0.3 Proposed Clearing (not approved to date) CPS 2817/1 Expansion of existing waste water treatment plant 14.8 4 irrigation area. CPS 2950/1 Landfill sorting area and excavation and removal of 14.7 10.1 existing landfill.

The clearing polygons associated with these permits and applications are shown in relation to the Port B development footprint in Figure 4-5. It should be noted that the polygons shown do not necessarily represent the actual areas to be cleared (quantified in Table 4-2); the areas to be cleared from within the polygons are significantly smaller for a number of the clearing permits.

4.3 Marine Facilities New ship loading facilities will be built to the west of the Port A wharf. These will comprise an access jetty and wharf approximately 2.7 km in length. Two shiploaders will be constructed, along with wharf conveyors, to service the four ship loading berths. The wharf and approaches are likely to be a piled structure to support equipment and provide road access to the wharf.

Dredging is required to establish berth pockets and turning basins around the proposed Port B wharf and to connect a new departure channel to the existing shipping channel. Additional dredging is required to enable vessel access to the tug harbour extension and Service Wharf B (Figure 4-2).

Two new shiploaders capable of loading ships in all berths with a peak loading rate of 7300 m3 hr-1 and with the capacity to load up to 57 m beam ships on either side of the wharf will be installed.

PAGE 4-8 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 4-5 Approved and proposed vegetation clearing polygons in relation to the Port B development footprint

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 4-9

An abutment (maximum 230 m long by 50 m wide) will be constructed linking the access jetty to the existing shoreline. The abutment will support a roadway, two conveyors (with provision for four conveyors should future expansion be progressed) and gatehouse facilities. The abutment will tie in with the existing shoreline and will be constructed of quarried materials from an existing quarry. Material will be placed from shore. Machinery will then shape the material to the required height before rock armour is placed on the exterior of the mound. Piles to support a concrete beam deck will be driven through the quarried material from a land-based piling rig. The reinforced deck on which wharf machinery will be placed will be cast in situ, securing all the piles into a rigid structure.

The 1.6 km access jetty will include a conveyor structure (fabricated off-site in modules), supported by 1200 mm and 1500 mm diameter piles and a wharf access road. The access jetty will be constructed using a piling hammer supported by a crane in combination with a jack-up barge for pile installation. Pre- fabricated jetty modules will be assembled behind the abutment. Installation of the modules will be a combination of launching from the abutment and loading by heavy lift vessel. Modules will be fitted out with a conveyor support structure and walkways. After installation of the steel access jetty, the precast concrete roadway will be installed.

Extending from the jetty, the wharf will provide four berths to accommodate four 250 000 dryweight tonnage (DWT) ships. The wharf deck structure which will be supported by 1500 mm to 1800 mm diameter piles will be fabricated off-site in modules. Berthing and mooring dolphins will be constructed along the length of the wharf.

The wharf will be constructed using a jack-up platform for pile installation and the off-site fabrication and assembly of the structure that will be delivered in modular form by heavy lift ship.

It is anticipated that between 600 and 800 ships will load iron ore at Port B annually.

4.3.1 Dredging and Spoil Disposal The dredging program will consist of capital dredging involving the removal of up to 16 Mm3 of mostly previously undisturbed sediment material. All dredging work will be within state waters; however, two of the three existing spoil grounds to be used are located within Commonwealth waters (Figure 4-3).

Dredging will be undertaken mostly using a combination of a TSHD, CSD and a BHD. A D&B spread may be used if required. Multiple dredges will operate simultaneously. The dredging method will be similar to that recently completed for the Port A upgrade.

The nature of the material to be dredged is expected to be similar to that encountered during the 2007 Port A dredging program. A surface layer of marine sediments is generally underlain by layers of consolidated and unconsolidated material primarily comprising sands, with isolated areas of clay and gravel material above basement rock.

PAGE 4-10 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Surface Conditions

The near-seabed soils encountered during the investigation fieldwork comprise sediments, generally silty sand, deposited by tidal movements and ocean currents and possibly material eroded from the nearby shoreline (SKM 2007b). Some areas of this surface deposit may have become lithified through the seepage of water containing natural cementation agents (commonly calcium carbonate: CaCO3).

The existing seabed near the berth pocket is estimated to vary from -19.6 m chart datum (CD) close to existing wharf, to -16.5 m CD in the existing departure basins and -13 m CD in the proposed extensions to the departure basins. The existing departure channel is at approximately -16.5 m CD in the vicinity of the wharf and remains at approximately that level for some distance out into the open sea.

Subsurface Conditions

The geological sequence at Cape Lambert can be generally summarised as:

unit 1 uncemented to weakly cemented marine sediments

unit 2 variably cemented soils/weak sedimentary rock such as calcareous sandstone, siliceous calcarenite and calcareous conglomerate

unit 3 Chert, encountered in one borehole only

unit 4 Mount Roe Basalt of Proterozoic age.

Section 6.4.5 and Oceanica 2008 (Appendix A1) provide detailed information regarding sediment composition and chemistry in the areas to be dredged. Unconsolidated material will be dredged by the TSHD and disposed at the offshore spoil grounds. Consolidated material which cannot be dredged by the TSHD will initially be crushed using the CSD. The crushed material will be placed on the seabed either directly behind the underwater pump of the CSD or pumped a short distance via a floating pipeline and placed on the seabed via a diffuser. Any consolidated material temporarily placed on the seabed will be placed within the dredge footprint and will not result in additional impacts to marine habitat. The crushed material will then be dredged by the TSHD and taken for disposal at the offshore spoil grounds. The CSD may also be used to remove unconsolidated material from locations not accessible to the TSHD due to the vessel’s draught. The extent of the dredging works is shown in Figure 4-2 and will comprise:

new berth pockets to -20 m CD

new departure basin and channel to tie into existing channel to -15.6 m CD

new turning basins including batter slopes to -10 m CD

dredging to establish a berth basin for the Service Wharf B and to allow larger sized tug vessels to access the tug harbour extension, including batter slopes to -10 m CD

tug harbour extension and Service Wharf B approach to -6.5 m CD

transport and placement of dredged material from the specified dredging areas to Spoil Grounds 1, 2 and 3.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 4-11

Some rock material is located on the fringe of the dredge area. The current dredge plan does not require the removal of this rock. However, should it need to be removed, some drilling and blasting will be required.

The spoil grounds to be used are shown in Figure 4-3. All dredged material will be disposed of at designated offshore spoil disposal grounds, no onshore disposal is proposed. Spoil Ground 1 is located approximately 5.6 km from Cape Lambert adjacent to the outer extent of Western Australian coastal waters. Spoil Ground 2 is 3 km north-east of Spoil Ground 1. Spoil Ground 3 is located approximately 15 km offshore in Commonwealth waters as shown in Figure 4-3.

The capacity of these spoil grounds is sufficient to accommodate the requirement of the proposed dredging program. The volumes to be placed at Spoil Grounds 1, 2 and 3 are 6 057 000 m3, 6 700 000 m3 and 3 150 005 m3 respectively. The locations and coordinates of each of these offshore spoil grounds are shown in Table 4-3. These spoil grounds were used during the 2007 Port A dredging program. The duration of dredging will be approximately 52 weeks.

Table 4-3 Coordinates of existing offshore spoil grounds

Coordinates Easting Northing Spoil Ground 1 522842 7732018 523570 7731490 522453 7729953 521725 7730481 Spoil Ground 2 525748 7735714 526476 7735186 525359 7733649 524631 7734177

Spoil Ground 3 537470 7740726 537470 7739826 535570 7739826 535570 7740726

Tributyltin (TBT) material was recorded in Spoil Ground 1 following the completion of the Port A 2007 dredging program. Management of this material is discussed in Section 9.2.2.

PAGE 4-12 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Underwater Drill and Blast

It is expected that dredging works could be undertaken using conventional dredging equipment, based on comprehensive nearshore geotechnical investigations which comprise 66 boreholes drilled to depths varying from 5 m to 30 m below seabed level and geophysical investigations which comprise continuous seismic profiling, continuous underwater seismic refraction, side scan sonar, high resolution bathymetric survey and high resolution magnetometer survey.

In the unlikely event that harder cemented calcarenite and limestone materials cannot be removed with the CSD, then drill and blast work may need to be carried out. It is difficult to quantify the likely rock volumes, however a contingent amount of 40 000 m3 with an anticipated completion of 12 months would be considered reasonable.

If drill and blasting is required, the blast methodology is likely to be as follows:

identification of hard rock areas

test dredging utilising a BHD and split hopper barges for identification of lower strength areas

drill and blasting will be carried out utilising a self elevating platform with marine drill towers for areas which cannot be dredged with the BHD

drilling will be undertaken according to specific patterns for the material encountered and the holes will be loaded with packaged explosives and then fired

removal of blasted material will be carried out using the BHD and split barges.

Underwater blasts will be designed to ensure sufficient fragmentation of rock occurs so that it can be removed efficiently by the excavator dredge, whilst maintaining acceptable levels of blast pressure and vibration. The blast operation will be designed as far as practicable to limit potential impact to marine fauna and other surrounding infrastructure.

A similar approach to drill and blast to remove hard rock was very successfully undertaken for the recently completed Dampier Port Upgrade within close proximity to the town of Dampier.

4.4 Services and Utilities 4.4.1 Support Services and Infrastructure The following facilities will be required to support the construction activities:

laydown and storage areas, adjacent to the proposed stockpile area

construction contractor offices

a few minor roads.

Borrow material for all earthworks will be sourced from the existing 4.3 kp quarry (adjacent to Boat Beach Road), from within the stockyard footprint, or from the areas adjacent to the stockyard. The car dumper excavation will provide additional material for the stockyard construction.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 4-13

The construction workforce will be accommodated at the existing construction village for the Port A Upgrade and an additional village to be located immediately adjacent. The approvals for construction of this facility are outside the scope of the Port B development.

4.4.2 Power Supply Once operational, the Port B development will require approximately 150 000 MWh of electricity annually.

To meet the forecast growth in demand for power at the ports and the inland mines and associated infrastructure, a new 160 MW Yurralyi Maya Power Station at 7 Mile (approximately 6 km west of Karratha and 8 km south of Dampier) is scheduled to become operational by mid 2010 (SKM 2007c). Development of the Yurralyi Maya Power Station has been approved by the EPA, and it is currently under construction. Once operational, the Yurralyi Maya Power Station will provide electricity to the Cape Lambert and Dampier Ports. Units will be gas-fired with gas supplied from the Dampier to Bunbury Natural Gas Pipeline. Upon successful commissioning of the Yurralyi Maya Power Station, the existing Cape Lambert power station near Cooling Water Beach will be decommissioned.

4.4.3 Water Supply The Port B development will require approximately 2.6 GL of water annually during operations. Water for Port A is currently sourced from the West Pilbara Water Supply Scheme (WPWSS), operated by the Water Corporation. The WPWSS also supplies the Dampier operations and the towns of Dampier, Karratha, Wickham, Roebourne, and Point Samson and other industrial users in the region.

The options considered by the Proponent for augmentation of the WPWSS are outlined in Section 3.4.The conclusion to date of a PFS indicated that a borefield at Bungaroo, potentially in conjunction with mining operations, connected to the existing water reticulation system would be the most appropriate source to augment primarily based on environmental impact and cost.

Process water will be stored in a process water/fire water tank located at the northern end of the stockyard. The stockyard process water reticulation system will consist of a pump station and a network of ring mains, with pipelines running the length of the stockpile conveyors. The system will supply water to all on-site facilities. The process water tank will incorporate a dedicated fire water reserve and will be fitted with a standpipe for filling water carts and road tankers.

Water sourced from the car dumper and screenhouse facility will be recycled. These facilities will be fitted with sump pumps and water available for recycling will be directed to silt traps. Water recovered from the silt traps will be treated before being returned to the process water system.

The potable water tank will be located at the northern end of the stockyard and will distribute potable water to offices, workshops, control rooms and sample stations.

A temporary water supply pipeline is proposed to maintain supply to the Port Walcott Yacht Club during the construction phase. The same pipeline will also provide potable water to the construction contractors’ offices.

PAGE 4-14 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

During the construction phase, water requirements are expected to vary significantly due to the variable nature of activities occurring. Estimated water requirements during construction are provided in Table 4-4. The timing periods for these stated water requirements should be viewed as indicative. During construction, seawater will be used to supplement other water sources to be used for dust control and compaction as part of bulk earthworks. In addition, during construction, water re-use (such as use of effluent from the construction camp waste water treatment plant (WWTP) for stockyard dust suppression, dewatering from car dumper) will also be implemented.

A temporary desalination plant, supplying up to 5 GL per annum is also being considered for the construction phase of the Port B development. Environmental approvals for this plant (should it be required) will be progressed separately to the Port B development.

Table 4-4 Staged water requirements during construction

Indicative period Average water requirement (kL/day) November – December 2009 12 560 January – February 2010 14 080 March – July 2010 9 480 August – October 2010 8 200 November 2010 – completion 130

4.4.4 Workforce The construction workforce required for the Port B development is expected to peak at approximately 2000 personnel, however, with additional construction workforce required for associated expansion projects, this may increase up to 2500. It is anticipated that an operational workforce of up to approximately 600 will be required.

4.4.5 Hours of Operation The construction work will be undertaken over a 12-hour period, seven days per week (although some contracts may require work over a 24-hour period for short periods of time). Dredging activities will be carried out 24 hours per day, seven days per week during the dredging program, except during coral spawning periods. Pile driving activities will be carried out 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, with the exception of the turtle nesting season, where pile driving will only be undertaken during daylight hours.

Noise restrictions may affect scheduling of some construction activities according to relevant regulations (Section 8.3.5).

When completed, port operations will run 24 hours per day, seven days per week excluding shutdowns for maintenance purposes.

4.5 Project Schedule It is proposed to commence construction of the Port B development as market conditions allow, with construction requiring approximately three to four years.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 4-15

4.6 Project Staging The Port B development will have a nominal capacity of 130 Mtpa. There is potential for additional future expansion, which would be implemented as a separate stage and under a separate environmental assessment process. However, due to recent changes in the world economy, implementation of the Port B development might be progressively undertaken to match ore demand profiles.

PAGE 4-16 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

5. Existing Terrestrial Environment

5.1 Environmental Factors In July 2008 the EPA and DEWHA endorsed the ESD (SKM 2008a) as an acceptable basis for the preparation of this PER. The ESD presented a preliminary list of key and minor environmental factors and potential impacts based on the Proponent’s experience with similar port upgrade developments at Cape Lambert and Dampier.

The Proponent has adopted a qualitative risk-based approach to systematically determine the final relevant environmental factors for the Port B development. An internal environmental risk assessment identified potential and predicted environmental impacts that may arise during the construction and operation of Port B and then identified measures to eliminate, reduce, and/or manage any identified risks. The internal risk assessment process, along with consultation with the EPASU, formed the basis for the classification of environmental factors into either key factors or minor factors based on the following qualitative definitions.

The potential environmental impacts associated with the key environmental factors have the following characteristics:

require a high level of mitigation and/or management

direct/permanent loss of environmental attributes of conservation significance and social attributes of significance

require detailed assessment

may raise significant concern from stakeholders.

The potential environmental impacts associated with minor environmental factors comprise the following characteristics:

require minimal management

localised and short term with minimal loss to environmental attributes of conservation significance and social attributes of significance

require less detailed assessment

unlikely to be of significant concern to stakeholders.

The Proponent identified terrestrial fauna, water resources, air quality (particulate dust) and ambient noise and vibration as key terrestrial factors relevant to the assessment of the Port B development.

Marine biodiversity was identified as a key marine factor which encompasses several aspects:

protected marine biota (whales, turtles etc.)

intertidal and subtidal habitats (benthic primary producer habitats (BPPH)) and associated biota

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-1

invasive marine species

marine water and sediment quality.

The key threats to marine biodiversity were identified as being:

dredging and spoil disposal and habitat removal

light spill

underwater noise

marine invasive species.

No key socio-economic factors were identified.

Factors that have been identified as minor during the risk assessment process include the following:

Terrestrial

landforms and soils

vegetation and flora

surface and groundwater

greenhouse gases

solid and liquid waste

hydrocarbons and hazardous materials

rehabilitation, decommissioning and closure

Marine

vessel movements

contaminant spills

waste and stormwater drainage

Socio-economic

Aboriginal heritage

European heritage

population change and service provision

traffic and infrastructure

tourism and recreation

fisheries

visual amenity

land use and land tenure

protected areas.

PAGE 5-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

The key and minor marine factors are discussed in Section 9 and the minor socio-economic factors are discussed in Section 10. The terrestrial factors are discussed in the following section.

5.2 Terrestrial Studies and Surveys Historic studies and surveys undertaken at Cape Lambert form an extensive knowledge base and have been used to define the baseline terrestrial environment. Specific studies and field surveys have also been undertaken to supplement existing information on the baseline terrestrial environment for the Port B development. Key studies undertaken include:

flora and vegetation surveys of the Port B development area in October 2007 and March 2008 by Biota Environmental Sciences (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2)

seasonal fauna surveys of the Port B development area in October 2007 and March 2008 by Biota Environmental Sciences (Biota 2008b; Appendix A3)

species specific surveys for Lerista nevinae (skink) in December 2007 and July 2008 (Biota 2008c; Appendix A4)

desktop soil and landform study of the Port B development area supplemented by a site inspection in January 2008

marine turtle surveys of the local and regional area in January 2008 (Biota 2008d; Appendix A5)

greenhouse gas assessment undertaken by SKM (SKM 2008c; Appendix A6)

air quality assessment undertaken by SKM (SKM 2008d; Appendix A7)

light assessment undertaken by Bassett Consulting Engineers (Bassett 2009; Appendix A8)

ambient noise assessment undertaken by SVT (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9).

5.3 Physical Terrestrial Environment 5.3.1 Regional Physical Setting The Port B development is located on the Pilbara coast of Western Australia, 6 km north-north-east of Wickham (adjacent to the existing Port A operation (Figure 1-1)). It is situated on the Cape Lambert peninsula, which is bounded to the north and west by the Indian Ocean, to the east by tidal inlets and to the south by arid grazing land.

5.3.2 Climate and Meteorology The climate in the Pilbara region is typified by high temperatures, high evaporation rates, low rainfall and regular cyclonic activity. There are two major seasons: hot summers (October–April) when the majority of rainfall occurs; and mild, relatively dry winters (May–September). The weather is largely controlled by the seasonal oscillation of an anti-cyclonic belt (high-pressure system) in the sub-tropics.

The Koppen climate classification system categorises the area as having an arid tropical desert zone climate with mainly summer rainfall. The three specific weather phenomena that are of greatest importance to the region are:

tropical cyclones frequently accompanied by damaging winds, storm surge and flooding

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-3

strong easterly winds in the winter caused by the development and intensification of anti-cyclones over southern Western Australia or South Australia

major cloud bands that develop in winter and extend from the north-west coast, across the continent, bringing rain to the north-west and the interior of the continent.

Meteorological data has been recorded by the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) since 1881 at Cossack (station 4054). The BoM weather station is located 7 km south-east of the Port B development (BoM 2008). The available meteorological data for the BoM Cossack station is shown in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Temperature and rainfall data from Cossack (1881–2008) Temperature (°C) Rainfall (mm) Mean no. of Highest daily Mean minimum Mean maximum Monthly mean rain days rainfall January 25.8 36.6 52.1 2.0 243.5 February 25.7 36.2 62.6 2.5 190.0 March 24.8 35.9 66.0 1.7 282.0 April 22.1 33.4 38.2 0.8 336.0 May 17.7 29.0 27.5 1.0 131.8 June 14.8 25.3 29.0 1.7 64.0 July 13.3 24.4 19.3 1.2 121.4 August 14.3 26.8 8.8 0.4 42.7 September 16.7 29.8 1.2 0.1 39.9 October 19.6 33.4 0.4 0.1 8.6 November 22.2 35.9 0.8 0.1 18.8 December 24.6 36.6 5.8 0.5 52.8 Annual Statistics 20.1 31.9 315 12.1 336.0 Source: BoM 2008

Rainfall in the region is unreliable and highly variable year to year. Climate data indicates the average annual rainfall is 315 mm. Maximum daily falls of up to 336 mm have been recorded.

Annual mean daily temperatures at Cossack range from 20.1–31.9 °C. Monthly mean maximum temperatures range from 24.4 °C in July to 36.6 °C in December and January. Monthly mean minimum temperatures range from 13.3 °C in July to 25.8 °C in January.

The Pilbara coast typically experiences morning land breezes and afternoon sea breezes during summer. The cooler months generally experience light to moderate morning easterlies, particularly in May to July, though a significant number of southerlies and westerlies also occur in August and September. By mid- afternoon the winds tend to be moderate north-easterlies but with some westerlies. Calm conditions or light winds are common in the morning throughout the year but are infrequent during the afternoon.

The annual wind rose for Cape Lambert (July 2006 to June 2007) is presented in Figure 5-1. Figure 5-2 to Figure 5-5 illustrate the seasonal wind roses. The wind roses provide a graphical representation of the frequency distribution of winds of varying strength, from varying compass points. The wind roses

PAGE 5-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

indicate a strong seasonal cycle in wind direction. During winter, south-easterly and south-westerly winds dominate, whilst south-westerly winds dominate during spring and summer.

Average wind speeds are typically 10–12 kilometres per hour (km hr-1) but may blow for sustained periods at more than 40 km hr-1.

Wind Speed (m/s)

≥ 11.1

8.8 – 11.1

5.7 – 8.8

3.6 – 5.7

2.1 – 3.6

0.5 – 2.1 Calms: 4.05 %

Figure 5-1 Annual wind rose at Cape Lambert July 2006 to June 2007 (Source of wind roses: anemometer located at Cape Lambert)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-5

Wind Speed (m/s)

≥ 11.1

8.8 – 11.1

5.7 – 8.8

3.6 – 5.7

2.1 – 3.6

0.5 – 2.1

Calms: 4.05 %

Figure 5-2 2006 wind rose for July, August and September at Cape Lambert

Wind Speed (m/s)

≥ 11.1

8.8 – 11.1

5.7 – 8.8

3.6 – 5.7

2.1 – 3.6

0.5 – 2.1

Calms: 4.05 %

Figure 5-3 2006 wind rose for October, November and December at Cape Lambert

PAGE 5-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Wind Speed (m/s)

≥ 11.1

8.8 – 11.1

5.7 – 8.8

3.6 – 5.7

2.1 – 3.6

0.5 – 2.1

Calms: 4.05 %

Figure 5-4 2007 wind rose for January, February and March at Cape Lambert

Wind Speed (m/s)

≥ 11.1

8.8 – 11.1

5.7 – 8.8

3.6 – 5.7

2.1 – 3.6

0.5 – 2.1

Calms: 4.05 %

Figure 5-5 2007 wind rose for April, May and June at Cape Lambert

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-7

Tropical cyclones in the region generally form over the Indian Ocean and Timor Sea penetrating south into the Kimberley and Pilbara regions of Western Australia. The cyclone season typically extends from early November to late April. On average, the region experiences five cyclones per year with three of these impacting the coastline (BoM 2008). Associated storms can be intense with recorded wind speeds in excess of 250 km hr-1.

5.3.3 Geology The Port B development is underlain by a northern exposure of the Hamersley Basin within the Pilbara craton. The site is dominated by the Mount Roe basalt of the Fortescue Group which is principally composed of basalt (Hickman 2002). Quaternary superficial deposits overlie the Late Archaean bedrock in low-lying areas, with unconsolidated shelly sand in coastal dunes and old beach deposits the most prevalent (Hickman 2002). Marine muds have been deposited across the intertidal zone adjacent to the northern arm of Sam’s Creek (for location, see Figure 5-10) and along the coast south-west of the Port B development area. Small pockets of silt and clay are also present in the adjacent supratidal zone. Figure 5-6 shows the geology of the Cape Lambert area.

PAGE 5-8 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 5-6 Geology of the Cape Lambert area

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-9

5.3.4 Land Systems The condition survey of rangelands across the Pilbara (Van Vreeswyk et al. 2004) provides the most recent comprehensive regional information for the Port B development. Four land systems occur within or in close proximity to the Port B development: Littoral, Rocklea, Ruth and Uaroo (Table 5-2) (Figure 5-7). The Ruth land system covers the majority of the area particularly in the northern and central parts; the Littoral land system exists in the northern, central and coastal portion of the development. The Uaroo land system covers a small area to the south of the development and the Rocklea land system exists to the east of the development. A portion of the Cheerawarra land system is present to the east of the development.

Table 5-2 Distribution of land systems within the Port B Development survey area and wider Pilbara region

Area within Distribution the Port B Land through the Description Land system composition development System Pilbara (ha) survey bioregion area Littoral Tidal mudflats; mangrove 70% tidal flats 230.5 Common in and samphire; little 10% samphire flats coastal areas pastoral value. Coastal 5% sandy plains and islands throughout the dunes when cleared of 5% mangrove outer margins Pilbara. vegetation are highly 4% tidal channels susceptible to wind 3% coastal dunes erosion. 2% alluvial plains <1% limestone ridges <1% beaches Rocklea Basalt hills, plateaux, lower 65% hills, ridges and upper slopes 86.4 Widespread slopes and minor stony 15% lower slopes throughout both plains supporting hard 10% stony plains and interfluves the Hamersley spinifex and occasionally 5% drainage floors and channels and Chichester soft spinifex. Very low 4% upper drainage lines subregions, with erosion potential. 1% gilgai plains numerous occurrences. Ruth Hills and ridges of volcanic 75% hills, ridges and upper slopes 282.6 Restricted to the and other rocks supporting 15% lower slopes and stony plains north-west in the hard spinifex and 5% narrow drainage floors, creek Pilbara, occasionally soft spinifex. lines and channels uncommon. Not susceptible to erosion. 5% sand plains Uaroo Broad sandy plains 82% sandy loamy plains 0.46 Very common in supporting shrubby hard 8% pebbly plains the north and far and soft spinifex 6% tracts receiving sheet flow west of the grasslands. Generally not 3% low rises Pilbara. susceptible to erosion. 1% calcrete plains <1% low hills Source: Van Vreeswyk et al. (2004)

PAGE 5-10 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 5-7 Land systems of the Cape Lambert area

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-11

5.3.5 Landforms and Soils The Port B development is located between a large basalt ridge to the east (with the Port A railway line running along its foot) and the coastline to the west and can be principally divided into the Ruth land system and the Littoral land system (Figure 5-7). Detailed landform mapping of the Port B development is presented in Figure 5-8. A site visit was undertaken by SKM in January 2008 to quantify the key soils and landforms surrounding the Port B development.

A series of small rounded hills of the Ruth land system form a northeast–southwest trending line along the eastern site boundary. Closer to the coast, several large isolated rocky hills exist at a height of approximately 25 m. These hills are characterised by surface mantles of large angular boulders and cobbles with an interstitial veneer of red-brown sandy clay. Hill slopes are typically strong, with the clast size of gravels present decreasing down slope, tending towards cobbles and pebbles at the foot of the slope.

The large rocky hills are separated by a flat coastal plain typically composed of light brown silty very fine sand. The width of the coastal plain ranges from quite narrow between the rocky hills to relatively broad towards the coast, particularly in areas where secondary dunes are absent. Low-lying areas of the coastal plain are characterised by broad salt flats and marshes that are periodically inundated during high tides. These saline flats are typically composed of light brown silty sands, loams and clays, with small gravels and a visible saline crust on the soil surface. Between the low-lying saline flats and the coastal plain are some small interzone areas of intermediate elevation which are subject to seasonal and/or tidal inundation. These interzone areas are typically composed of mildly saline silts and clays. The saline flats in the southern half of the Port B development drain into a mudflat adjacent to the coast. This broad, flat area is composed of saline silt and clay and is regularly inundated by tides.

The coastline west of Port A is an eroding coast with only intermittent beach pockets present (JFA 2008). The interruption of sediment feed along the coastline with sediments being either blown across the land or blown between coastal embayments, combined with the acute orientation of the coast to incident waves and cyclones, has resulted in the development of a predominantly rocky shoreline. Large primary dunes run parallel to the shoreline adjacent to the ocean or rocky coastal areas that are exposed at low tide. These dunes primarily consist of unconsolidated, medium-grained, white calcareous sand. More stable secondary dunes (located on the landward side of the primary dunes) are comprised of fine to medium- grained, pale brown silty sand (Figure 5-8).

PAGE 5-12 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 5-8 Soils and landforms of the Port B development area

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-13

5.3.6 Acid Sulfate Soils Acid sulfate soils (ASS) are soils, sediments and substrates that contain iron sulfides. In Western Australia, acid sulfate soils are commonly associated with freshwater wetlands, tidal flats, floodplains, shallow estuarine marine deposits and saline sulfate rich groundwater (DoE 2006a).

The DEC has established a two step investigation procedure to determine whether acid sulfate soils are potentially present in an area. The first step is a desktop assessment and site inspection, the results of which may lead to the second step, which involves soil sampling and associated results analysis (DoE 2006a). In accordance with the draft procedure, a desktop assessment and site inspection have been carried out for the Port B development to determine the potential for ASS and the likelihood that these soils, if potentially present, will be disturbed. This assessment comprised a review of ASS risk maps, along with a desktop review of soil maps, environmental geological maps, topographic maps, aerial photographs and previous studies completed in the area. The site inspection included a site assessment of topography and geomorphology, surface water and hydrology, plant communities and surface soils.

An ASS risk map covering the Point Samson, Wickham and Roebourne area (including Cape Lambert) has been developed by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC 2003). The ASS risk maps have been developed using geological and groundwater information, as well as partial ground truthing. As such, they provide an indication of areas where ASS potentially exist and are used to assess the requirement for site specific investigations.

An extract from the ASS risk dataset relevant to the Port B development is provided in Figure 5-9. As shown, the proposed stockyard area is located predominately over land assigned low to moderate risk, with small pockets presenting a moderate to high risk of ASS occurring within 3 m of the natural soil surface. The quarry area also lies over land considered to be at a low to moderate risk of ASS within 3 m of the natural soil surface.

PAGE 5-14 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 5-9 Potential acid sulfate soil risks at Cape Lambert

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-15

To assess the risk of ASS further, seven geomorphic or site description criteria were used (DoE 2006a). These criteria are detailed in Table 5-3, along with an assessment for the Port B development.

Table 5-3 Potential for ASS at the Port B development

Areas likely to contain ASS Port B development Areas depicted as geologically recent (Holocene), such as Yes – the site is characterised by Holocene dune shallow tidal or estuarine areas, stranded beach ridges and sands and beach deposits near the coast, marine adjacent swales, interdune swales or coastal sand dunes, muds in the intertidal zone and silt and clay in the coastal alluvial valleys, waterlogged or scalded areas. supratidal zone. Areas where the dominant vegetation is tolerant of salt, Yes – salt tolerant species are present in some areas acid or water logging, such as mangroves, salt couch, of the proposed development. reeds, paperbarks. Areas identified as bearing acid sulphide minerals, former Yes – former marine sediments as described above. marine or estuarine shales and sediments, coal deposits or mineral sand deposits. Areas known to contain peat or a build up of organic No material. Areas where the highest known water table level is within Potential ASS investigations have shown that the 3 m of the surface. water table varies from 2 m to 9 m (WRC 2003). Land with elevation less than 5 m above Australian Height Yes Datum (AHD). Areas with a combination of all of the following: organic No matter, iron minerals, waterlogged conditions or a high water table, sulfidic minerals and deep estuarine sediments below ground surface.

Based on the soil, water and vegetation characteristics of the Port B development, it is concluded that there is the possibility of ASS occurring in some areas. Most of the development is assigned a low to moderate risk, with small pockets presenting a moderate to high risk. In accordance with the DEC investigation procedure, soil sampling and associated results analysis has been scheduled.

5.3.7 Surface and Groundwater There are five (unnamed) main drainage catchments that occur across Cape Lambert. The main surface water body at the Cape Lambert operations is an open drainage channel that runs along the western side of the railway line into Sam’s Creek (Figure 5-10).

Site investigations across the Cape Lambert operations indicate that depth to groundwater varies from 2 to 9 m below ground level (WRC 2003). The groundwater occurs in surficial deposits and fractured basalt and flows westward towards the Indian Ocean. In the northern area of the Port B development, the groundwater flows in a north-west direction, and in a south-west direction in the southern area. The nearest groundwater abstraction bores are at Point Samson, approximately 5 km to the east of the Port B development (WRC 2003).

The Urban Geology Series Map (GSWA 1979) indicates that there are no large supplies of freshwater in the area. Consequently, the Cape Lambert operations and the town of Wickham are supplied with water by the Water Corporation which sources its water primarily from Harding Dam, and the Millstream aquifer if water levels become low at Harding Dam. The groundwater at Cape Lambert is only suitable

PAGE 5-16 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

for stock watering as total dissolved solids are greater than 3000 mg L-1. Groundwater supplies are generally found within the Quaternary alluvial sediments, while some limited groundwater could be obtained from fractured Precambrian bedrock.

A detailed contaminated sites assessment of the Port A facility was conducted in 2006 (URS 2007a). Monitoring of baseline water quality was undertaken via a single borehole located away from any known past or present industrial activity.

Metals occur naturally in the environment but can also be the result of industrial activities. Differentiating the sources of metals in the environment can be difficult. Metal concentrations in groundwater detected from the background water quality monitoring bore are summarised Table 5-4 (URS 2007a). The adopted assessment criteria are included for comparison.

Table 5-4 Background water quality at Cape Lambert

Metal WA DEC Fresh Waters WA DEC Marine Waters Interpreted Background (mgL-1) (mgL-1) Concentration at Cape Lambert (mgL-1) Aluminium 0.055 - <0.01 Arsenic 0.024 0.05 0.004 Cadmium 0.0002 0.0007 <0.0001 Chromium 0.01 0.05 <0.005 Cobalt - 0.001 <0.001 Copper 0.0014 0.0013 0.004 Lead 0.0034 0.0044 <0.001 Manganese 1.9 - 0.023 Mercury 0.0006 0.0001 <0.0001 Nickel 0.011 0.007 <0.001 Zinc 0.008 0.015 0.008

Reported metal concentrations are comparable to those recorded in the previous investigations (URS 2007a). Elevated levels of copper and zinc (exceeding the DEC guidelines for fresh and marine water) were recorded in the background water quality monitoring bore at Cape Lambert.

Hydrocarbons are generally associated with an anthropogenic source and are not expected to occur in natural groundwater at Cape Lambert. Low total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations in the medium to heavy fractions range can be attributed to naturally occurring organic matter. On the other hand, PCBs, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, phenols, volatile organic carbons and semi-volatile organic carbons are generally associated with industrial activities/sources. Total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations (C10-C36: 310 μg L-1) slightly exceeded the limit of reporting in the background water quality monitoring bore.

5.3.8 Water Resources The Water Corporation sources potable water from the WPWSS, sourced from Harding Dam and the Millstream Aquifer. The Harding Dam is located 23 km south-east of Roebourne. It is fed from upstream

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-17

surface runoff that follows significant tropical low pressure systems or cyclone rainfall events. The Millstream aquifer is an extensive, highly transmissive calcrete aquifer, lying between the Hamersley and Chichester Ranges. The aquifer is approximately 400 km2 in area, with a thickness of calcrete greater than 30 m. Recharge is primarily through flooding of the Fortescue River. The aquifer supplies water to groundwater-dependent ecosystems and supports stygofaunal communities, of which little is known (CALM 2002).

Augmentation of the WPWSS is currently being considered by the Proponent, in liaison with the Water Corporation. The preferred option to date is the development of a borefield at Bungaroo (refer to Section 3.4). Bungaroo is located approximately 40 km south-east of the Mesa J mine site and approximately 50 km south-east of the town of Pannawonica. Bungaroo Creek, a tributary of Jimmawurrada Creek which is in turn a tributary of the Robe River, flows through the Bungaroo Valley which is approximately 15 km long and up to 2 km wide. The Bungaroo Creek lies in a broad low gradient valley that is prone to flooding from seasonal tropical storms and cyclone events. It has been estimated that the Bungaroo valley has a water storage capacity in the order of 150 GL.

5.4 Ecological Terrestrial Environment 5.4.1 Regional Ecological Setting Cape Lambert is situated within the Pilbara bioregion of Western Australia (CALM 2002) and more specifically within the Chichester (PIL 1) subregion. The Chichester subregion is characterised by undulating Archaean granite and basalt plains including significant areas of basaltic ranges. Plains support a shrub steppe characterised by Acacia inaequilatera over Triodia wiseana (formerly Triodia pungens) hummock grasslands, while Eucalyptus lencophlioa tree steppes occur on the ranges and drainage lines (Van Vreeswyk et al. 2004).

5.4.2 Vegetation and Flora Seasonal flora and vegetation surveys of the Port B development area were undertaken in October 2007 and March 2008. The survey area covered 602 ha, including proposed disturbance areas, adjacent areas and reference areas to establish the wider distribution of any rare species. The information presented on vegetation and flora is based on the results of these surveys (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2).

Some parts of the Port B development (Figure 5-11) have been previously cleared of native vegetation or are in such a disturbed condition due to the presence of roads, tracks and other disturbances that only introduced (weed) species are present. An area of approximately 111 ha within the survey area is classified as ‘disturbed’. Rocky, coastal areas, which are bare of vegetation, occupy an area of approximately 31 ha within the survey area (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2).

PAGE 5-18 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 5-10 Surface hydrology of the Cape Lambert area

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-19

Vegetation

The surveyed areas were delineated into eight broad habitat types supporting nine vegetation types (Table 5-5), (Figure 5-11):

flat coastal plain

primary dunes

secondary dunes

dune blowouts

rocky hills and outcrops in flat coastal plain

low-lying, saline drainage areas

saline interzone areas between low lying, saline drainage areas and flat coastal plain

drainage basin in flat coastal plain.

Table 5-5 Vegetation types within the Port B development survey area

Area (ha)

Vegetation type Broad description Condition Within the Potential Port B Port B survey area disturbance Flat coastal plain (CP) Scattered shrubs over hummock Good–Poor 158.5 132.7 grassland Primary dunes (PDu) Scattered shrubs over mixed Good–Poor 55.6 1.0 tussock grassland Secondary dunes (SDu) Shrubland over hummock grassland Good–Poor 91.6 45.2 Dune blowouts (BO) Scattered shrubs over scattered Poor 1.1 0.94 hummock grasses Rocky hills and outcrops in Spinifex hummock grassland, Good–Very 49.9 36.6 flat coastal plain (RH) sometimes with scattered low Good shrubs Low-lying, saline drainage Open samphire heath Excellent 52.9 40.4 areas (on silty clay or clay loam soils) (SD) Saline interzone areas Tall shrubland Very Good– 42.3 35.4 between low lying, saline Excellent drainage areas and flat coastal plain (SIZ) Drainage basin in flat Tall scrub Good 1.0 0.0 coastal plain (at base of a rocky outcrop area) (DB) Mangroves (Mang) Mangrove communities Good 1.0 0.0 Source: Biota 2008a; Appendix A2. Note: the surveyed area was ~600 ha. The Port B development footprint is approximately 340 ha.

Detailed descriptions of the vegetation types are provided in Biota (2008a; Appendix A2).

PAGE 5-20 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 5-11 Cape Lambert vegetation types

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-21

Flat Coastal Plain

Flat coastal plain areas are widespread in the survey area and are represented by a flat, broad plain with scattered shrubs in a spinifex (Triodia epactia) hummock grassland and/or buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris) tussock grassland. There is a high level of disturbance in these plain areas as a result of infestation with Cenchrus ciliaris, with the vegetation condition at most of the quadrats assessed in this habitat type recorded as ‘Good to Poor’ using the modified classification system of Trudgen (1988).

The vegetation is described as ‘open shrubland dominated by Acacia stellaticeps or Acacia bivenosa over Scaevola spinescens and Rhagodia eremaea scattered low shrubs over Triodia epactia hummock grassland and Cenchrus ciliaris tussock grassland’ (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2).

This vegetation type covers approximately 158 ha of the surveyed area, of which 133 ha has the potential to be disturbed, as it is part of the Port B development footprint.

Primary Dunes

These areas mainly consist of marine deposits of large-grained, white sand adjacent to the ocean or in rocky coastal areas exposed at low tide, and sparsely vegetated with scattered shrubs in open tussock grassland of mixed species. There is a high level of disturbance in these primary dune areas as a result of infestation with Cenchrus ciliaris, with the vegetation condition at all of the quadrats assessed in this habitat type recorded as ‘Good to Poor’.

The vegetation is described as ‘shrubland to tall shrubland of Acacia coriacea subsp. coriacea over open shrubland of Crotalaria cunninghamii, Santalum lanceolatum, Scaevola cunninghamii and Rhagodia preissii subsp. obovata over tussock to open tussock grassland of Spinifex longifolius, Whiteochloa airoides and Cenchrus ciliaris’ (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2).

This vegetation type covers approximately 56 ha, of which 1 ha has the potential to be disturbed, as it is part of the Port B development footprint.

Secondary Dunes

The secondary dunes (located inland of the primary dunes) are comprised of fine-grained, pale brown sand, which is deposited through aeolian processes. These dunes have a higher level of vegetative cover than the primary dunes and are typically vegetated with shrubland of mixed species over spinifex (Triodia epactia) hummock grassland and/or buffel (Cenchrus ciliaris) tussock grassland. There is a high level of disturbance in the secondary dune areas as a result of infestation with Cenchrus ciliaris, with the vegetation condition at all of the quadrats assessed in this habitat type recorded as mostly ‘Poor’ or ‘Good to Poor’.

The vegetation is described as ‘tall shrubland of Acacia coriacea subsp. coriacea over Crotalaria cunninghamii, Rhagodia eremaea, Scaevola sericophylla and Scaevola spinescens low open shrubland over Triodia epactia hummock grassland and Cenchrus ciliaris tussock to open tussock grassland’ (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2).

PAGE 5-22 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

This vegetation type covers approximately 92 ha, of which 45 ha has the potential to be disturbed, as it is part of the Port B development footprint.

Dune Blowouts

These are areas that are either mostly devoid of vegetation or have a low level of vegetative cover. They are typically located between the primary dune and secondary dune areas, and are comprised of coarse white or pale-brown sand most likely deposited through both marine and aeolian processes. Wind blowing onto the dunes from the ocean over the top of the primary dune crests creates blowouts on the leeward side of the dunes. This constant movement of the sand in these areas prevents the establishment of significant amounts of vegetation. The blowout areas are typically vegetated with scattered shrubs over scattered hummock grasses and open tussock grassland of Cenchrus ciliaris. The high level of infestation by Cenchrus ciliaris in the dune blowout areas means the vegetation in this habitat type is in a ‘Poor’ condition.

The vegetation is described as ‘Acacia coriacea subsp. coriacea and Acacia bivenosa open shrubland or scattered shrubs over Rhagodia eremaea low open shrubland or scattered shrubs over Triodia epactia scattered hummock grasses and Cenchrus ciliaris open tussock grassland’ (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2).

This vegetation type covers 1.1 ha of the surveyed area, of which 0.9 ha has the potential to be disturbed, as it is part of the Port B development footprint.

Rocky Hills and Outcrops in flat coastal plain

These are rocky hills or outcropping areas, located on the coastal fringe of the survey area or inland from the coast in the coastal plain areas. They are typically vegetated with spinifex hummock grassland (Triodia epactia and/or T. wiseana), with only scattered low shrub species present.

There is a low level of disturbance in these rocky hill and outcrop areas, as they are not highly susceptible to invasion by Cenchrus ciliaris. The vegetation condition at all of the quadrats assessed in this habitat type is recorded as ‘Good to Very Good’. One quadrat was located on a rocky coastal area, near a cliff, and is comprised of ‘Triodia epactia hummock grassland and Cenchrus ciliaris scattered tussock grasses’. The vegetation condition at this site is ‘Very Good’, due to the very small amount of Cenchrus ciliaris present.

Quadrats located on rocky hillcrests and upper slope habitats inland from the coast in coastal plain areas contain vegetation comprised principally of ‘Triodia wiseana and/or T. epactia hummock grassland’ (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2). Scattered shrubs of Acacia inaequilatera were also present at one quadrat and a small amount of Cenchrus ciliaris was present at another.

This vegetation type covers approximately 50 ha of the surveyed area, of which 37 ha has the potential to be disturbed, as it is part of the Port B development footprint.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-23

Low-lying, Saline Drainage Areas (on silty clay or clay loam soils)

These sluggish drainage areas, which are located at or just above sea level, are mostly bare or sparsely vegetated with halophytic species. A number of these areas are vegetated with low shrubland or open heath of samphire species (Halosarcia spp.). The soil in these drainage areas is either silty, fine-grained clay or clay-loam, with a visible saline crust on the soil surface in most instances. The level of disturbance in this habitat type is very low to negligible, as it is not susceptible to invasion by Cenchrus ciliaris. The only disturbance is fragmentation due to vehicle access tracks, but this has not resulted in any invasion by introduced flora species. The vegetation condition in quadrats in this habitat type is ‘Excellent’.

The vegetation is described as Halosarcia halocnemoides subsp. tenuis and Halosarcia indica subsp. leiostachya low samphire shrubland or open heath with Frankenia ambita and Muellerolimon salicorniaceum low open shrubland’ (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2).

This vegetation type covers approximately 53 ha of the surveyed area, of which 40 ha has the potential to be disturbed, as it is part of the Port B development footprint.

Saline Interzone Areas between low lying, saline drainage areas and flat coastal plain

Between the low-lying saline drainage areas and the flat coastal plain areas are interzone areas, which appear to be subject to seasonal and/or tidal inundation. Dunes and saline drainage areas are important ecological areas. These areas are higher in the landscape than the low-lying saline drainage areas, and vegetated with species that are tolerant of mildly saline soils. The level of disturbance in this habitat type is low, as it is not very susceptible to invasion by Cenchrus ciliaris (which does not appear to grow well in saline or mildly saline habitats). The vegetation condition in quadrats in this habitat type is ‘Very Good to Excellent’.

The vegetation typically recorded is ‘Acacia ampliceps tall shrubland, with Sesbania cannabina tall open herbland over Sporobolus virginicus tussock to closed tussock grassland’ (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2). Additionally, Triodia angusta hummock grassland is present at one quadrat and Hemichroa diandra low open shrubland is present at another.

This vegetation type covers approximately 42 ha of the surveyed area, of which 35 ha has the potential to be disturbed, as it is part of the Port B development footprint.

Drainage Basin in flat coastal plain (at base of a rocky outcrop area)

A low-lying/drainage basin feature at the base of a rocky hill/outcrop area is recorded as a separate habitat and vegetation type. Only one example of this habitat type occurs. It is a natural rather than an artificially excavated feature. The level of disturbance in this habitat type is high in the understorey due to infestation with Cenchrus ciliaris, but negligible in the overstorey. The overall vegetation condition in this habitat was ‘Good’, due to the level of Cenchrus ciliaris infestation.

PAGE 5-24 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

The vegetation is described as ‘tall closed scrub of Acacia ampliceps and A. bivenosa over tall open shrubland of A. coriacea subsp. coriacea over Triodia epactia very open hummock grassland and Cenchrus ciliaris open tussock grassland’ (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2).

This vegetation type covers 1 ha, none of which is within the Port B development footprint.

Mangroves

Approximately 1 ha of Avicennia marina dominated mangrove vegetation is located along the boundary of the survey area, none of which is within the Port B development footprint.

Vegetation Significance

All of the vegetation types recorded are relatively typical of coastal habitats in the Pilbara region. There are no ecosystems of state significance found in the Port B development survey area. The vegetation associated with poorly reserved low-lying saline drainage areas may be considered regionally significant due to its ‘high reservation priority’ listing by the DEC. None of the landforms or vegetation types are considered to be locally significant.

Flora

A total of 190 taxa of native vascular flora from 101 genera belonging to 45 families were recorded from the survey area. The total number of vascular flora species present was considered relatively low for the survey area, as few ephemeral flora species were recorded during the survey due to a lack of significant rainfall in the six to seven months prior to the survey, especially the October 2007 survey.

The families and genera within the survey area with the greatest number of taxa are indicative of the plant groups which typically dominate survey areas in the coastal Pilbara locality (Table 5-6 and Table 5-7).

Table 5-6 Most species rich families within the Cape Lambert survey area

Family Number of native species Poaceae (grass family) 28 (including two weed species) Papilionaceae (pea family) 23 Mimosaceae (wattle family) 18 Malvaceae (hibiscus family) 14 Chenopodiaceae (saltbush, bluebush family) 10 (including one weed species) Amaranthaceae (amaranth family) 9 Asteraceae (daisy family) 8 Euphorbiaceae (spurge family) 8 Goodeniaceae (fanflower family) 7 Source: Biota 2008a; Appendix A2

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-25

Table 5-7 Most species rich genera within the Cape Lambert survey area

Genus Number of native species Acacia (wattles) 17 Tephrosia 6 Euphorbia (spurges) 6 Eragrostis (lovegrasses) 6 Indigofera (indigos) 5 Ptilotus (mulla-mullas) 5 Scaevola (fanflowers) 5 Sida (sidas) 5 Cassia (cassias/sennas) 5 Source: Biota 2008a; Appendix A2

A full list of flora recorded during the surveys is provided in Biota 2008a (Appendix A2).

5.4.3 Vegetation and Flora of Conservation Significance The flora surveys undertaken in October 2007 and March 2008 confirmed the findings of historical surveys which found no declared rare or priority flora (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2).

Protected Flora

In Western Australia, all native flora species are protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950– 1979 (WA), making it an offence to remove or harm native flora species without approval. In addition to this basic level of statutory protection, a number of plant species are assigned an additional level of conservation significance based on the fact that there are a limited number of known populations, some of which may be under threat (Table 5-8). Species of the highest conservation significance are designated Declared Rare Flora (DRF), either extant or presumed extinct. Species that appear to be rare or threatened, but for which there is insufficient information to properly evaluate their conservation significance, are assigned to one of four Priority flora categories (Table 5-8).

Table 5-8 Categories of conservation significance for flora species

Status Description Declared Rare Flora - Taxa which have been adequately searched for and are deemed to be in the wild either Extant Taxa rare, in danger of extinction or otherwise in need of special protection. Declared Rare Flora - Taxa which have not been collected, or otherwise verified, over the past 50 years despite Presumed Extinct thorough searching, or of which all known wild populations have been destroyed more recently. Priority 1 - Poorly Taxa which are known from one or a few (generally <5) populations which are under threat. Known Taxa Priority 2 - Poorly Taxa which are known from one or a few (generally <5) populations, at least some of which Known Taxa are not believed to be under threat. Priority 3 - Poorly Taxa which are known from several populations, at least some of which are not believed to Known Taxa be under threat. Priority 4 - Rare Taxa which are considered to have been adequately surveyed and which whilst being rare, Taxa. are not currently threatened by any identifiable factors. Source: Atkins 2006

PAGE 5-26 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

A search of the DEC Threatened Flora database was carried out for the Port B development, within a distance of 50 km. There were no known records of Threatened Flora from within the development area. One record of Declared Rare Flora was returned from within the 50 km search area. The record of this species, Drummondita ericoides (R), is believed to be erroneous, arising from coordinates being assigned to the location of White Peak on the Burrup Peninsula rather than White Peak near Geraldton. No flora listed under the EPBC Act are known or likely to occur within the Port B development area. While no priority flora are known to occur within the surveyed areas, ten priority listed species occur within the 50 km search area.

None of the Priority Flora species which were listed by DEC in the database search for the area were recorded during the field surveys.

Threatened Ecological Communities

No threatened ecological communities were recorded within the survey area and none are known to occur in the Roebourne or Chichester subregions of the Pilbara bioregion.

A number of community types in the Pilbara have been listed as Priority Ecological Communities by the DEC (CALM 2002). However, none of these occur or would be expected within the Port B development.

5.4.4 Weeds Seven introduced flora species were recorded within the Port B development survey area:

kapok bush (Aerva javanica)

buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris)

purple top chloris (Chloris barbata)

date palm (Phoenix dactylifera)

pigweed (Portulaca oleracea)

athel tree/ tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla)

three leaved chaste tree (Vitex trifolia var. subtrisecta).

Descriptions and locations of the weed species recorded are presented in Biota 2008a (Appendix A2). Although not recorded in the Port B flora and vegetation surveys, it is recognised that ruby dock (Acetosa vesicaria) is known to occur at Port A and is considered likely to occur within Port B.

5.4.5 Terrestrial Fauna Habitats and Species A two phase fauna survey of the Port B development area was undertaken in October 2007 and March 2008 by Biota. Results are summarised below (Biota 2008b; Appendix A3).

Six broad fauna habitats were defined within the Cape Lambert Port B development survey area:

wirewood (Acacia coriacea) open shrublands over soft spinifex (Triodia epactia) hummock grasslands and/or mixed tussock grasslands on primary and secondary sand dunes

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-27

soft spinifex (Triodia epactia) hummock grasslands and/or buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris) tussock grasslands on loamy coastal plains

marine couch (Sporobolus virginicus) tussock grassland on saline clay plains

shrubby samphire (Halosarcia halocnemoides) low shrublands in low-lying saline drainage areas

mixed hummock grasslands on rocky hills and outcrops

mangal on tidal mudflats.

The two surveys recorded a combined total of 120 vertebrate species representing 45 families. Table 5-9 provides a summary of the number of species recorded from each major vertebrate group.

Table 5-9 Number of species recorded in the Port B development survey area

Fauna Group Phase I Phase II Total Amphibians 0 2 2 Reptiles 30 31 38 Avifauna 43 51 63 Native volant mammals (bats) 4 4 5 Native non-volant mammals 8 5 9 Introduced mammals 3 0 3 Total 88 93 120 Source: Biota 2008b; Appendix A3

5.4.6 Terrestrial Fauna of Conservation Significance Fauna species of conservation significance are listed under the EPBC Act and/or Wildlife Conservation Act and may be classified as per Table 5-10.

Table 5-10 State and Commonwealth conservation classifications

Classification Brief definition Species of Commonwealth significance under the EPBC Act Critically endangered Taxa are considered to be facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild. Endangered Taxa are considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the wild. Vulnerable Taxa are considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild. Conservation Taxa were dependent on conservation efforts to prevent becoming threatened with dependent extinction. Migratory Species listed under the following international conventions: Japan-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention). Species of state significance under the Wildlife Conservation Act Schedule 1 Taxa are fauna which are rare or likely to become extinct and are declared to be fauna in need of special protection. Schedule 2 Taxa are fauna which are presumed to be extinct and are declared to be fauna in need of special protection. Schedule 3 Taxa are birds which are subject to an agreement between the governments of Australia and Japan relating to the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction, which are declared to be fauna in need of special protection.

PAGE 5-28 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Classification Brief definition Schedule 4 Taxa are fauna that are in need of special protection, otherwise than for the reasons mentioned in Schedules 1, 2 and 3. Priority 1 Taxa with few, poorly known populations on threatened lands. Priority 2 Taxa with few, poorly known populations on conservation lands, or taxa with several, poorly known populations not on conservation lands. Priority 3 Taxa with several, poorly known populations, some on conservation lands. Priority 4 Taxa in need of monitoring. Priority 6 Taxa subject to a specific conservation program in need of monitoring.

Three species of Priority fauna (protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act) were recorded within or adjacent to the Port B development during the surveys:

Little northern freetail bat (Mormopterus loriae cobourgiana) Priority 1: echolocation calls recorded over mangrove habitat (outside the footprint area) during both survey phases.

Eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) Priority 4: recorded during Phase II on three occasions on tidal mudflats (outside the footprint area).

Star finch (Neochmia ruficauda subclarescens) Priority 4: recorded on a single occasion during Phase I.

State and Commonwealth Protected Terrestrial Fauna

A search of the DEC Threatened Fauna Database was conducted for the Port B development area. In addition, the Commonwealth EPBC Act Protected Matters database was searched for fauna of environmental significance within the survey area (DEWHA 2007). The search region encompassed an area 50 km east and west, and 40 km north and south of the Port B development. Based on known fauna distributions and habitat preferences, a total of 12 terrestrial Schedule or Priority fauna species (protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act) may potentially occur within the search area (Table 5-11).

Table 5-11 Schedule and Priority terrestrial fauna listed at state and Commonwealth levels recorded or potentially occurring in the Port B development search area

Species Common Status Types of presence name State Commonwealth Dasyurus Northern Schedule 1 Endangered Species or species habitat may occur hallucatus quoll within area. Considered unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat. Liasis olivaceus Pilbara olive Schedule 1 Vulnerable Species or species habitat may occur barroni python within area. Considered unlikely to occur due to lack of suitable habitat. Falco peregrinus Peregrine Schedule 4 – Species or species habitat may occur falcon within area. Considered likely to occur periodically within the survey area and surrounds. *Mormopterus Little Priority 1 – Echolocation calls recorded over loriae northern mangrove habitat (outside the proposed cobourgiana freetail bat impact area) during Phase I and II.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-29

Species Common Status Types of presence name State Commonwealth *Numenius Eastern Priority 4 Migratory Recorded in the survey area during madagascariensis curlew Phase II on three occasions on tidal mudflats (outside the proposed impact area). *Neochmia Star finch Priority 4 – Recorded in the survey area on a single ruficauda occasion during Phase I. subclarescens Ardeotis australis Australian Priority 4 – Considered to probably occur within the bustard survey area. Burhinus Bush stone- Priority 4 – Species may potentially occur within grallarius curlew area. Phaps histrionica Flock Priority 4 – Species may potentially occur within area bronzewing but it is considered unlikely. * Denotes species recorded during the Port B development seasonal fauna survey (Biota 2008b; Appendix A3).

No Schedule listed fauna, or fauna species listed under the EPBC Act were recorded during the survey. Known distributions suggested that two Schedule listed fauna species might occur within the proposed development area (northern quoll and Pilbara olive python). However, core habitats for these species were not recorded in the development area.

Detailed discussion of each of the species listed in Table 5-11 is included in Biota 2008b (Appendix A3).

Short Range Endemics

Targeted SRE surveys were carried out as part of the baseline fauna surveys and are reported in Biota (2008c; Appendix A3). A two-phase survey was completed, including a range of specific measures targeting potential SRE fauna.

These targeted surveys recorded three potential short range endemic (SRE) invertebrate species, specifically mygalomorph spiders of the family nemesiidae and idiopidae, from the Port B development survey area. The specimens have been lodged with the Western Australian Museum and are currently the subject of a phylogeographic survey examining the broader distribution of the putative taxa. It can be confirmed that none of the specimens correspond to mygalomorph spider species formally listed as specially protected.

A risk-based assessment was adopted using defined habitat units as a surrogate for inferring the distributional boundaries of the mygalomorph spiders. Based on the broad distribution of the habitat types and vegetation units in which the mygalomorph spiders were found around Cape Lambert, it is concluded that the recorded mygalomorph taxa have a high potential to be widely distributed beyond the survey area and thus are unlikely to be classified as short range endemic species.

A species of land snail (Rhagada convicta) was also recorded during the SRE surveys. Rhagada convicta has no special conservation status and is known to have an extensive coastal distribution, including additional records from Cape Lambert outside the study area (Biota 2008c; Appendix A4). Rhagada convicta does not qualify as a short-range endemic species.

PAGE 5-30 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

The dragon Diporiphora specimens collected during SRE surveys are of taxonomic interest and may contribute to future revisions of this genus. This largely reflects the poorly resolved state of this group, which probably includes more species than currently recognised. Therefore, while current data is deficient; there is nothing in the available information to suggest that Diporiphora aff. wineckei is of special conservation significance.

Targeted Trapping

Though not formally listed as threatened, the fossorial skink Lerista nevinae is currently only known from the general vicinity of Cape Lambert. Fauna surveys recorded 25 specimens of L. nevinae from the Cape Lambert survey area (Biota 2008b; Appendix A3). At the time of these baseline surveys, the known distribution of L. nevinae extended across 12 km of coastal dunes. The total area of documented habitat was 330 ha (Biota 2008c; Appendix A4).

Two additional surveys for L. nevinae have since been undertaken, in December 2007 and July 2008. In December 2007, pitfall traps were established at four locations between Cape Lambert and the Karratha townsite in an attempt to locate additional specimens of L. nevinae. One specimen of L. nevinae was recorded approximately 3 km west of the survey area (Biota 2008c; Appendix A4).

In July 2008, raking was undertaken at 20 localities from Dixon Headland (4 km east of Karratha) in the west to Point Samson and Cossack in the east. This survey recorded several additional specimens of L. nevinae from five new localities, 1.67 km to the west of the specimen located in 2007 (Biota 2008c; Appendix A4).

The targeted searches extended the distribution of L. nevinae a further 4.5 km to the west, to a point on the eastern side of the Dixon Headland. The estimated area of suitable habitat is now thought to comprise 360 ha, of which 32.1 ha, or 8.9% is within the Port B development. L. nevinae may occur on the remainder of the Dixon Headland thus the estimated total habitat and distribution is likely to be conservative.

Other members of the “muelleri” species complex were recorded at locations where L. nevinae was not recorded (both via trapping and raking). These other taxa appear to be occupying the same microhabitats as L. nevinae and may be ecological analogues. At no site were two or more species belonging to the “muelleri” species group recorded.

Locally, Lerista. clara has been recorded from the Burrup Peninsula including Hearson Cove and several islands of the Dampier Archipelago. Further afield, L. clara is also known from 80 Mile Beach and Enderby, Legendre, Rosemary and North Gidley Islands, Port Hedland, Mundabullangana, Barrow Island and the Exmouth Gulf.

On this basis (in relation to no two species belonging to the “muelleri” complex occurring at the same location), many islands can be excluded from the potential distribution of L. nevinae. An additional targeted survey for L. nevinae was undertaken at Dixon Island and Delambre Island in January 2009.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-31

L. nevinae was targeted by pitfall trapping in dune habitat. The objective of this work was to determine whether the distribution of this skink species could be extended to these other near-shore locations. Two specimens of L. nevinae were successfully collected from Dixon Island, demonstrating that this species occurs there. No L. nevinae specimens were collected from Delambre Island, where L. clara was instead recorded. All specimens collected have been lodged with the Western Australian Museum.

5.5 Atmospheric Environment 5.5.1 Greenhouse Gases Background

The Earth’s atmosphere contains a range of gases, which absorb radiant energy and reflect a portion of it back to the Earth’s surface to produce a warming effect (a greenhouse effect). The main gases responsible for this effect are water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). Human activities, such as the combustion of fossil fuels, release greenhouse gases (principally CO2, CH4 and

N2O). Increases in atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have raised concerns that the Earth’s natural warming effect is being enhanced and will result in global climate change (DCC 2008).

To provide a means of standardising the relative impacts of emissions of various greenhouse gases, a Global Warming Potential (GWP) has been developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC) to describe the contribution of each gas relative to an equal quantity of CO2. The GWP of

CH4 is 21; hence, one tonne of CH4 released to the atmosphere is equivalent to releasing 21 tonnes of

CO2. Table 5-12 shows the GWP for various gases as developed by the IPCC and published by the DCC (2008).

Table 5-12 Global Warming Potential of different gases relative to CO2

Gas Global Warming Potential

Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1

Methane (CH4) 21

Nitrous oxide (N2O) 310 Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) 140–11 700 Hydrofluoroether (HFE) 100–500 Perfluorocarbon (PFC) 6 500–23 900 Source: DCC (2008)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Port A

Estimated greenhouse gas emissions for the Port A facility are provided in Table 5-13. Whilst total emissions of greenhouse gases have increased for the period 2002 to 2007, total emissions per railed tonne of ore have generally been maintained over time.

PAGE 5-32 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 5-13 Historical operational greenhouse gas emissions at Port A (2002–2007)

Total Emissions Total emissions (kg) per Year Ore shipped (Mt) (tonnes of CO2-equivalent) tonne (t) shipped 2003 69 470 45 1.5 2004 77 406 53 1.5 2005 103 309 60 1.7 2006 94 098 55 1.7 2007 92 620 53 1.7 85 Mtpa* 132 861 85 1.6 * Predicted emissions at maximum approved throughput of 85 Mtpa when operational (SKM 2006a)

5.5.2 Air Quality (Particulate Matter) The primary emission to air as a result of the operation of the Port B development will be fine particulate matter. These particles create a potential nuisance in the form of dust and the smaller particles can affect human health. The particles are emitted as a result of wind erosion (for example, from stockpiles) and suspension due to mechanical action (for example, conveyors).

Concentrations of all but the largest particles are measured as total suspended particulates (TSP). Particles smaller than 10 microns (1 micron = 1 millionth of a metre) are termed PM10. Particles smaller than

2.5 microns are called PM2.5. These very fine particles have the potential to enter the alveoli of the lungs and exacerbate the conditions of individuals with pre-existing cardiovascular illnesses.

Only particulate emissions to air from the operation of the Port B development are considered in this assessment. Particulate emissions from other processes, such as combustion and evaporation, are not considered as these emissions are considered insignificant in the context of likely impact to key receptors. This approach is consistent with previous studies of iron ore ports and specifically with earlier Port A studies.

Air Quality Criteria

In Western Australia, the EPA requires that new proposals or significant expansions of existing operations comply with the National Environmental Protection Measure (NEPM) standards for air quality as outlined below. The NEPM standard has been developed to protect human health and provide a measure against which environmental quality can be assessed.

PM10

-3 The NEPM for PM10 is 50 µg m over a 24-hour averaging period. The NEPM goal is that this concentration is exceeded no more than five times per year. This allows natural phenomena such as particulates emitted from bush fires and dust storms to be accommodated. In the Pilbara, these events can be common and are dictated by seasonal and weather conditions.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-33

PM2.5

-3 -3 The NEPM for PM2.5 is 25 µg m for a 24-hour averaging period and 8 µg m for an annual average. This is for advisory reporting purposes rather than being a formal standard.

Total Suspended Particulates (TSP)

There is no NEPM for TSP. However, in Western Australia the Kwinana Environmental Protection Policy (EPP) (EPA 1999) specifies air quality standards and limits for TSP. The Kwinana EPP Standards and Limits vary depending on the site to which they are applied. For the purposes of this assessment, the Kwinana EPP is used as guidance. The Standard and Limit applied are 90 µg m-3 and 150 µg m-3 respectively, over a 24-hour averaging period. These values were intended to be applied to rural and residential areas beyond industry buffer zones and hence are applicable to TSP concentrations at Point Samson, including emissions from Port A and the Port B development.

Deposition

Currently there are no criteria for dust deposition within Western Australia, however an impact assessment criteria does exist in NSW (EPA NSW 2005). This criteria states that the maximum allowable increase in deposited dust over the period of one month is 2 g m-2, with a total allowable maximum of 4 g m-2 for all insoluble dust sources. The 2 g m-2 per month criteria is used when baseline data on deposited dust levels exists, while the 4 g m-2 per month criteria is used when no baseline data exists. In the absence of Western Australian specific criteria and without suitable baseline data at Point Samson, the NSW criteria for total allowable maximum increase (4 g m-2 per month) will be used for comparison in this assessment.

Baseline Air Quality Monitoring

The Proponent has undertaken dust monitoring around Cape Lambert since 1999. The number, types and locations of the monitors have varied over the years in response to changing demands and circumstances.

These measurements include the continuous monitoring of TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 using a Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance (TEOM). This instrument provides real-time concentrations that can then be used to calculate 24–hour average concentrations that are required for comparison with the air quality criteria. A summary of current continuous dust monitoring undertaken by the Proponent around Cape Lambert is presented in Table 5-14 and the locations are shown in Figure 5-13.

PAGE 5-34 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 5-14 Current continuous airborne particle monitoring around Cape Lambert

Site Parameters measured Type of particle Data period availability monitor Point Samson (north- TSP TEOM 15/08/1999–14/12/1999 west corner of Point 30/01/2007–current Samson, near the water storage tanks) Dust deposition Dust deposition 15/06/2007–current bottle

PM10 TEOM 15/09/2000–current Meteorological data Dustscan 02/11/2007–current

PM2.5 TEOM 30/01/2007–current

Rocky Ridge PM10 TEOM 08/07/2004–current (between Cape Meteorological data Lambert and Wickham)

Wickham PM10 TEOM 19/12/2005–current Dust deposition Dust deposition 15/06/2007–current bottle

Port A Operations PM10 Dustscan 25/08/2006–current Dust deposition Dust deposition 15/06/2007–current bottle

Port A Construction PM10 Dustscan 02/11/2007–current Camp

The available 24-hour baseline air quality concentrations from the Point Samson, Rocky Ridge and

Wickham monitoring sites have been compared below to the air quality criteria for TSP, PM10 and PM2.5. Comparison between sites also provides some indication of the contribution of dust emissions on the Point Samson community from the Port A operations.

Analysis of measured ambient concentrations against wind direction provides an indication of whether Port A contributes to the increased dust levels in Point Samson, and the significance of that contribution. To determine whether Port A has had a ‘significant contribution’, exceedences of the trigger value are assessed as detailed in Figure 5-12.

The methodology for determining the significance of contributions from the Cape Lambert operations is similar to that used for the Dampier Port Operations.

Meteorology of the Cape Lambert Area

Details of the climatic conditions experienced in the Cape Lambert region are provided in Section 5.3.2.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-35

Check whether the wind direction included the arc covering the Cape Lambert operation (290–20o).

No Yes

Cape Lambert did not significantly Calculate the percentage of dust contribute contributed when wind is from 290–20o

<50% >50%

Cape Lambert did not significantly Assess contributions from other potential contribute sources: background concentrations based on Rocky Ridge station occurrence of regional fires local sources such as road works or sand mine activities.

If there were comparatively high If other sources are discounted, then it regional dust levels or other major dust will be recorded that the Cape Lambert sources in 290–20o arc then Cape operation may have significantly Lambert did not significantly contribute contributed to an exceedence

Figure 5-12 Process for determining whether Port A made a significant contribution to an exceedence of the dust target level as recorded at the Point Samson TEOM station

Baseline Air Quality

Ambient PM10 Concentrations

The PM10 monitoring results from all three stations covering the period 2004–2007 are presented in Figure 5-14. These results are presented as 24-hour averages to allow comparison with the NEPM -3 standard of 50 µg m . All monitoring stations display a similar pattern of PM10 concentrations, with a seasonal trend for concentrations to increase over the summer months (December to January). Measured

PM10 concentrations at all sites are below the NEPM standard for the majority of the time; however, within each year there are occasions when the measured 24-hour average is above the PM10 standard as shown in Figure 5-14.

PAGE 5-36 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

200 Point Samson

180 Rocky Ridge

) Wickham -3 160 NEPM 24-hour criteria g m μ 140

120

concentrations ( 100 10

60 24 hour PM

-3 Figure 5-14 24-hour PM10 concentrations (µg m ) at the Point Samson, Rocky Ridge and Wickham monitoring stations (2004 – 2007)

Under the Ambient Air Quality NEPM, there is a goal of no more than five exceedences of the 50 µg m-3 standard per year. Figure 5-15 presents the number of exceedences of the NEPM standard at Point Samson, Rocky Ridge and Wickham between 2004 and 2007 inclusive. In total, 24 exceedences of the NEPM standard occurred over the four years at Point Samson, with the number of exceedences in 2005 and 2007 greater than the NEPM goal of no more than five exceedences per year.

Applying the approach outlined in Figure 5-12 demonstrates that activities at Port A significantly contributed to only five of the exceedences that occurred during 2007. Of the exceedences experienced in 2005, only one approached the criteria for a significant contribution from Port A, however a 50% contribution of PM10 from the 290°–20° wind arc was not reached.

Further analysis of the 2007 data shows that on two of the exceedence days, PM10 concentrations measured at both Rocky Ridge and the Wickham site were also elevated and displayed trends similar to the Point Samson monitor, suggesting the influence of regional PM10 sources.

PAGE 5-38 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

18 Point Samson Rocky Ridge 16 Wickham

12 Exceedences 10 PM 10 hour ‐ 24 8 NEPM

of 6 NEPM Annual Exceedance Goal

Number 4

0 2004 2005 2006 2007

-3 Figure 5-15 Number of exceedences of the NEPM PM10 24-hour standard of 50 µg m at the Point Samson monitoring station

Ambient PM2.5 Concentrations

The PM2.5 concentrations at Point Samson are presented in Figure 5-16. This figure shows that, apart from one measurement on the 29 January 2008, all measured PM2.5 concentrations are below the NEPM assessment criteria.

The annual PM2.5 concentration at Point Samson for the period from the 1 February 2007 to 31 January 2008 was 6.1 µg m-3, which is below the assessment criteria of 8 µg m-3. Further collection of data will enable more detailed analysis of the potential impacts on residents at Point Samson.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-39

30 Series1 PM2.5 concentration NEPM 24 hour criteria

25 ) 3 ‐ m

(ug

20 Samson

Point

15 concentrations

2.5 10 PM

hour

24 5

0 28/01/2007 19/03/2007 8/05/2007 27/06/2007 16/08/2007 5/10/2007 24/11/2007 13/01/2008 3/03/2008

Figure 5-16 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at the Point Samson monitoring site – 29 January 2007 to 2 April 2008

Ambient TSP Concentrations

Figure 5-17 presents TSP concentrations measured at Point Samson between January and December 2007 compared to the relevant air quality assessment criteria. All concentrations are below the Kwinana EPP Standard and Limit.

PAGE 5-40 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

-3 Figure 5-17 24-hour TSP concentrations (µg m ) measured at the Point Samson monitoring station, 29 January 2007 to 31 December 2007

Summary of Baseline Air Quality

Port A contributes to some of the elevated PM10 concentrations measured at the Point Samson monitor and hence exceedences of the NEPM. Approximately 50% of the dust measured during exceedences occurs when winds originate from the Cape Lambert area (within a 290°–20° arc). However, the high proportion of exceedences in the summer months suggests a seasonal influence in PM10 concentrations and that regional influences also exert a significant contribution.

Comparison of data at Point Samson, Rocky Ridge and Wickham illustrated a similar pattern between the three sites. This suggests that regional sources of dust dominate measured PM10 concentrations and that the climatic conditions that generate dust at the sites are similar. Each site may have local sources such as areas with naturally sparse vegetation from which dust increases in the summer months, however, the similarity of the sites does not necessarily rule out local sources, such as from mining or quarrying operations.

The PM2.5 and TSP monitoring results to date do not show any exceedences of the air quality criteria from Port A.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-41

5.5.3 Light Spill Overview

The generation of artificial light from construction and operation of the Port B development has the potential to result in light spill during night-time operations. Light spill from both the Port A and Port B development has the potential to impact marine turtles.

An assessment of light emissions from existing sources at Port A and the Port B development has been undertaken by Bassett Consulting Engineers (Bassett 2009; Appendix A8). The potential lighting impacts on marine turtles from the Port B development has also been assessed and is discussed further in Section 9.2.3.

Illuminance and luminance are both considered in this section. These terms are defined below (Basset 2008):

Illuminance: the quantity of light received at a given point but averaged per square metre. It is measured with an illuminance meter that is corrected to simulate the performance of the human eye. Illuminance at any point is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the light source. Unit of measurement is lux.

Luminance: luminous intensity in a prescribed direction from an object that emits light divided by the projected area of that object towards that observation point. Units are candelas per square metre (cd m-2). Luminance is independent of distance.

Existing Light Levels

Fieldwork Methodology

Existing lighting at both Port A and the Proponent’s Parker Point facility (in Dampier) was inspected by day and by night. Parker Point has recently been upgraded and supports many elements similar to those proposed for the Port B development and was therefore useful for comparison and modelling purposes.

The night-time measurements were timed to coincide with the new moon so that only the effect of electric lighting would be measured. Night-time measurements of illuminance and luminance were taken at the monitoring points (MP1 to MP4) shown in Figure 5-18 and Figure 5-19.

Measurements were taken at Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach. The location of these beaches is shown in Figure 4-1.

Existing Light Sources

The light sources installed on land-based equipment at Port A are primarily high pressure sodium. There was an occasional white light source although that was mostly associated with temporary mobile light tower/generator units for which the light source was metal halide. Some of the floodlights on the tugs and on the ore carriers are white light sources, most likely metal halide although some on the ore carriers may be mercury vapour.

PAGE 5-42 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Power MP3 MP2 MP1 MP4 Station

Figure 5-18 Bell’s Beach measurement locations

MP1

MP2 MP3

Figure 5-19 Cooling Water Beach measurement locations

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-43

Bell’s Beach Measurements

Measurements were taken at three locations along Bell’s Beach and one location at the top of the dune for comparison (Figure 5-18). Recorded illuminance at these locations was an order of magnitude below bright moonlight. Sky glow from electric lighting had values similar to those measured for a bright moonlit night for a similar study (Table 5-15).

Cooling Water Beach Measurements

Measurements were taken at three locations along Cooling Water Beach (Figure 5-19). Two locations were along the section of beach that receives direct light from adjacent plant and equipment, such as the Cape Lambert power station. The third location was in a small section of beach that was in shadow, shielded from permanent direct light in one direction by a rock seawall at the east end of the beach and in the other direction by the dune behind the beach.

Illuminance on the beach surface was quite low; however, illuminance in specific directions such as from the Cape Lambert power station and from the stackers and reclaimers was of the same order of magnitude as full moonlight. Illuminance in the shadow area was similar to that measured on Bell’s Beach, an order of magnitude below bright moonlight (Table 5-16). Sky glow from electric lighting had values similar to those measured in the sky on a bright moonlit night from a similar study (Table 5-15).

There were specific floodlights that were clearly brighter than other electric lights (such as those lighting the power station and the stacker) but they did not completely fill the acceptance angle of the luminance meter which means the results are of limited use.

It should be noted that the Cape Lambert power station will soon be decommissioned. Power will instead be supplied by the Yurralyi Maya Power Station at 7 Mile (approximately 6 km west of Karratha and 8 km south of Dampier), which is currently under construction. The decommissioning of the power station from the Cape Lambert area will eliminate its contribution to light spill in the vicinity of beaches that are frequented by turtles in the Cape Lambert area. The new power station is located 12 km from the nearest section of natural coastline around Dampier and no turtle nesting beach occurs in the Dampier region.

Table 5-15 Luminance measurements at Port A

Measurement point Description Measured values No Location cd m-2 Bell’s Beach 1 20°36'53" S, 117°09'02" E Coarse ore stacker 0.44–2.66 Floodlights coarse ore stacker 25.58 Power station 1.87–6.20 Main jetty 0.33–0.71 Orange sky glow north-east 0.14 White sky glow north-east 0.05 White sky glow south-west 0.01

PAGE 5-44 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Measurement point Description Measured values No Location cd m-2 White sky glow east 0.01 2 20°36'48" S, 117°09'10" E Processing plant not visible but luminance of sky 0.10 glow north-east 3 20°36'42" S, 117°09'18" E Processing plant not visible but luminance of sky 0.05 glow north-east 4 20°36'56" S, 117°08'58" E White sky glow north-east 0.07 Orange sky glow above plant 0.63 Sky glow above rail line 0.04 Cooling Water Beach 1 20°35'45" S, 117°10'19" E Main floodlight on power house 3067 Small luminaires on power house 23.57 White sky glow just above pipeline 0.12 Floodlights on top of stacker 176.25 Floodlights on top of reclaimer 105.21 Screen house near main jetty 21.90 2 20°35'47" S, 117°10'24" E Floodlights on top of stacker 4470 Floodlights on top of reclaimer 2466 Screen house near main jetty 42.83 Wharf 6.26 Sky glow in vicinity of reclaimers 0.05 Sky glow in vicinity of power station 0.11 Sky glow in vicinity of tugs 0.02 3 20°35'48" S, 117°10'25" E Sky glow towards power house 0.08 Sky glow towards construction (white glow) 0.02 Source: Bassett 2009; Appendix A8. Eh = Horizontal illuminance (the value of illuminance on a designated horizontal plane at ground level); Ev = Vertical illuminance (the value of illuminance on a designated vertical plane)

Table 5-16 Illuminance measurements at Port A

Measurement Point Description Measured Values No Location lux Bell’s Beach

1 20°36'53" S, 117°09'02" E Ev from plant north-east 0.01

Eh 0.00

Ev from south-west 0.00

2 20°36'48" S, 117°09'10" E Ev from plant north-east 0.01

Eh 0.01

Ev towards south-west 0.01

3 20°36'42" S, 117°09'18" E Ev from dune direction 0.00

Eh 0.01

Ev from plant (at sand level) 0.00

Ev from plant (at 1.5 m) 0.01

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-45

Measurement Point Description Measured Values No Location lux Cooling Water Beach

1 20°35'45" S, 117°10'19" E Eh 0.02

Ev from power station 0.16

Ev from sea and jetty 0.09

Ev from stacker and reclaimer 0.15

Ev from tugs 0.02

3 20°35'48" S, 117°10'25" E Eh 0.00

Ev from power station 0.02

Ev from sea and jetty 0.01 Source: Bassett 2009; Appendix A8. Illuminance values were irrelevant for location 4 at Bell’s Beach. Illuminance values for location 2 at Cooling Water Beach not recorded but are expected to be similar to location 1.

5.5.4 Ambient Noise and Vibration Background

SVT Engineering Consultants (SVT) conducted an environmental noise impact assessment of the existing Port A and proposed Port B development. The following information summarises the findings of that study, with respect to Port A (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9). The predicted impacts associated with Port B are discussed in Section 8.3.5.

The following noise terms are considered in this section and are defined below.

LAeq: the equivalent sound pressure level (that is the steady sound level that, over a specific period of time, would produce the same energy equivalence as the fluctuating sound level actually occurring)

LA10: noise level which is not to be exceeded for more than 10% of the time

dB(A): Decibel(s) (A-weighted) a unit used to measure noise levels that are adjusted by an electronic filter to approximate the response of a human ear.

Noise Assessments

An acoustic model of Port A has been created using the SoundPlan acoustic modelling software. The input data for this model was derived from:

in-situ measurements taken at the facility

topographical data provided by the Proponent

worst case meteorological conditions in accordance with the default worst case night-time conditions for sound propagations defined in the EPA’s draft guidance note ‘Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors (in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986 – Environmental Noise – No.8 Draft’).

PAGE 5-46 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Model validation undertaken for previous Port A noise modelling has indicated that the model over- predicts noise levels by an average of 1.6 dB(A) within 3 km of the plant and by 5.0 dB(A) beyond 3 km from the plant (SVT 2007).

Background noise levels (incorporating Port A noise emissions) have been compared with noise limits imposed under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA). In recognising that the current noise limit for recreational areas is relatively high, at 60 dB(A), the Proponent is currently in the process of determining an aspirational goal for noise emissions at the Boat Beach recreational area. This aspirational goal will be determined by:

undertaking a site inspection to see if the modelling topography for the dunes separating the beach and the development is an accurate representation of the area

reviewing opportunities to further reduce noise impacts on the beach

consulting the community to assess their use of the beach.

Noise emissions from rail transport were assessed against the West Australian Planning Commission Draft Statement of Planning Policy: ‘Road and Rail Transport Noise’ and the EPA preliminary draft Guidance Statement No. 14: Road and Rail Transport Noise. Noise from Port A has the potential to impact noise sensitive premises at Point Samson, Wickham and the recreational area of Boat Beach.

Emissions from Plant

Modelled noise levels for Port A operating at its maximum approved throughput of 85 Mtpa are presented in Table 5-17. The worst-case scenario based on all plant running represents the maximum predicted achievable noise emissions from Port A and in reality is unlikely to occur.

Table 5-17 Predicted noise levels for Port A operating at 85 Mtpa throughput

Predicted level and level of exceedance in dB(A) above the L assigned noise levels in assigned noise levels for worst case meteorological Location A10 dB(A) (night-time) conditions for Port A Predicted Exceedence

Predicted level LA10 dB(A) based on all plant running (an unlikely occurrence) Point Samson 35 43.2* 8.2 Wickham 35 21.2* - Boat Beach 60 39.6* - Predicted noise level in dB(A) based on plant utilisation Point Samson 35 40.6* 5.6* Source: SVT 2008a; Appendix A9. *As explained in SVT 2007, model validation has shown that the model over predicts by up to 5 dB(A), showing that the model is conservative.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 5-47

Emissions from Rail

The closest noise sensitive premise is approximately 750 m from the rail line at the town of Wickham. Point Samson is over 3.8 km away from the rail line and hence is not impacted by rail noise. At Wickham maximum day and night LAeq noise levels are 42.1 dB(A) for the Port A facility (SVT 2008a;

Appendix A9). This is below the Western Australian Planning Commission’s LAeq recommended noise level of 50 dB(A) set for residential use, and the noise amenity rating for residential spaces of 45 dB(A) set by the EPA for residential use.

PAGE 5-48 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

6. Existing Marine Environment

6.1 Marine Environmental Factors As described in Section 5.1, a qualitative risk-based approach has been utilised to determine relevant environmental factors associated with the Port B development. The environmental risk assessment process identified potential and predicted impacts on the marine environment resulting from the construction and operation of the Port B development and identified measures to eliminate, reduce and/or manage the risks. The process identified marine biodiversity as a key environmental factor, which covered a range of aspects and key threats (Section 5.1).

6.2 Marine Studies and Surveys An extensive study program has been conducted on the biological and physical aspects of the Cape Lambert marine environment. Studies are briefly summarised below:

Surveys conducted in February and March 2008 were designed to describe the distribution and abundance of benthic habitats, including hard corals, macroalgae, turf algae and seagrass assemblages in the Cape Lambert marine environment. Towed camera technology was used to survey 186 deep water sites, while an additional 36 shallow reef sites were assessed using scuba.

Intertidal surveys of two mainland fringing reefs and one mangrove area, in close proximity to the Port B development, were surveyed on foot during a series of low spring tides in February 2008 (Section 6.5.2; SKM 2008e; Appendix A10).

A comprehensive benthic survey of Cooling Water Discharge Bay was undertaken in November 2007. The data collected during this survey was used during the early design phase to minimise disturbance of BPPH and other sensitive marine habitats. The data was also used to calculate estimates of direct loss of BPPH resulting from the Port B development and has also been incorporated into benthic habitat maps (SKM 2008f; Appendix A11).

Turbidity and temperature loggers were deployed at 13 reef sites in the vicinity of Cape Lambert in February and March 2008 to collect baseline data on water quality prior to the Port B development’s dredging and spoil disposal program. The program consists of Water Quality Monitoring (WQM) sites established as part of the 2007 Port A dredging and spoil disposal program and additional sites established on the eastern side of Cape Lambert (Section 6.4.3). Light loggers have also been deployed at four of the 13 locations since April 2008.

A sediment dispersion study by Global Environmental Modelling Systems (GEMS) to predict the fate of sediment mobilised from dredging and spoil disposal activities and to identify potential impacts in relation to BPPH and other sensitive features (Section 9; GEMS 2008a; Appendix A12). Particle Size Distribution (PSD): sediment cores were taken to determine particle size, resuspension potential and settling velocity of sediment to help interpret the model predictions.

A verification report for the dredging and spoil disposal model prepared by GEMS (GEMS 2008b; Appendix A13).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-1

An independent third party validation of data requirements and availability for GEMS modelling by the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Marine and Atmospheric Research Division in June 2008 (CSIRO 2008a; Appendix A14).

Extensive review of literature relating to the Cape Lambert coastal and marine environments, including searches of key data sources such as the Western Australia Museum, DEC, Department of Fisheries, DEWHA databases and reports from the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Data from these surveys, in addition to high resolution aerial photography, bathymetry data and existing benthic habitat maps (including data collected for the 2007 Cape Lambert Port A Upgrade) were used to develop the Port B development benthic habitat map (Section 6.5.2; SKM 2008f; Appendix A11).

6.3 Pilbara - Ecological Levels of Marine Protection Levels of Ecological Protection

The DEC recommends a set of Environmental Values and spatially allocated Environmental Quality Objectives (Table 6-1) and Levels of Ecological Protection (LEP) for Pilbara coastal waters (Table 6-2) (DoE 2006b). The EPA has given interim approval to this environmental quality management framework for guiding environmental impact assessment and regulation, and it has been considered in the preparation of this document. The LEP as they apply to the Cape Lambert area are shown in Figure 6-1.

Table 6-1 Environmental water quality objectives

Environmental Values Environmental Quality Objectives Ecosystem Health Maintain ecosystem integrity. This means maintaining the structure (e.g. the variety and (ecological value) quantity of life forms) and functions (e.g. the food chains and nutrient cycles) of marine ecosystems Recreational and Water quality is safe for recreational activities in the water (e.g. swimming) Aesthetics Water quality is safe for recreational activities in the water (e.g. boating) (social use value) Aesthetic values of the marine environment are protected Cultural and Spiritual Cultural and spiritual values of the marine environment are protected (social use value) Fishing and Aquaculture Seafood (caught or grown) is of a quality safe for eating (social use value) Water quality is suitable for aquaculture purposes Industrial Water Supply Water quality is suitable for industrial supply purposes (social use value) Source: DoE 2006b

Table 6-2 Levels of Ecological Protection for the Pilbara coastal waters

Level of Environmental Quality Condition Ecological (Limit of Acceptable Change) Protection Contaminant Concentration Indicators Biological Indicators Maximum No contaminants ─ pristine No detectable change from natural variation High Very low levels of contaminants No detectable change from natural variation Moderate Elevated levels of contaminants Moderate changes from natural variation Low High levels of contaminants Large changes from natural variation Source: DoE 2006b

PAGE 6-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 6-1 Pilbara Ecological Protection Levels in the Cape Lambert area SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-3

The current proposal will not conform to the Pilbara EQO and LEP (DoE 2006b), therefore, a Moderate LEP has been proposed to include the whole Port B berth pocket and Service Wharf B. This will be consistent in size to the Moderate LEP at the adjacent Port A berth. The proposed Moderate LEP will extend ≈400 m either side of the berth and include the area surrounding Service Wharf B. Elevated levels of contaminants and moderate changes in biological indicators from natural variation are permitted in Moderate LEPs (See Section 6.3, Table 6-2). Once the Port B berth area has been dredged, the only ongoing disturbance in this area will be the temporary disturbance of sediment by propeller action of vessels utilising the berth and future maintenance dredging. This will lead to a moderate, albeit localised level of periodic disturbance to sediment fauna. Turbidity plumes associated with vessel activity at the Port B berth is predicted not to extend beyond the proposed Moderate LEP and thus will not jeopardise biological values in the adjacent High LEP zone.

Only ecosystem health and water quality (for industrial supply purposes) are discussed in this section, with the remaining key social values summarised in Table 6-1 discussed in Section 10. Recreation and aesthetics are discussed in Section 10.4.6 and fishing and aquaculture in Section 10.4.7. Cultural and spiritual values are addressed in the sections on heritage and visual amenity (Section 10.4.2, 10.4.3 and 10.4.8).

Ecosystem Health

The effective environmental objective associated with ecosystem health, is to maintain the structure and function of marine ecosystems (Table 6-1). Figure 6-1 shows the spatial distribution of the LEP assigned around Cape Lambert. The majority of waters surrounding Cape Lambert have been allocated a High LEP (Table 6-2) (DoE 2006b). Relatively small areas of regionally significant arid zone mangroves, south-east of Point Samson and at Dixon Island (DoE 2006b) and the proposed marine conservation reserve (Section 6.5.10) have been allocated as Maximum LEP. The waters in the vicinity of the Port A infrastructure (wharf, berth pockets, turning areas, departure channel and service wharf) have been allocated a Moderate LEP to allow for elevated levels of contaminants and moderate changes in biological indicators from natural variation associated with shipping and other industrial activities associated with the existing infrastructure (DoE 2006b). When seeking approval for the dredging and spoil disposal program for the 2007 Port A dredging and spoil disposal program, an extension to the area of Moderate LEP around Port A was sought, as shown in Figure 6-1, to encompass the extension to the wharf facility (SKM 2007d).

Water Quality

The water quality monitoring program for the 2007 Port A dredging and spoil disposal program at Cape Lambert demonstrated that some trace metals appear to be naturally high in the region as they were found to be high prior to dredging and spoil disposal and the results were spatially and temporally consistent across a very large area (SKM 2008g). However, this may in part be due to the analytical technique chosen (practical quantitation limit (PQL) for ultratrace metals in seawater above ANZECC trigger values). Further discussion on this is provided in Section 6.4.3.

PAGE 6-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

6.4 Physical Marine Environment 6.4.1 Climate Local and regional climate and meteorology is detailed in Section 5.3.2. In summary, the climate in this region is typified by high summer temperatures, high evaporation rates, low rainfall and regular cyclonic activity. There are two major seasons: hot summers (October–April) when the majority of rainfall occurs; and mild, relatively dry winters (May–September). The weather is largely controlled by the seasonal oscillation of an anti-cyclonic belt (high-pressure system) in the sub-tropics.

6.4.2 Oceanography Tides and currents

The dominant influences on water circulation off Cape Lambert are the North-West Shelf tides and the regional winds. During the summer months, prevailing winds are from the west, whilst easterly winds prevail during the winter months. Detailed wind speed and direction information recorded at Cape Lambert is provided in GEMS (2008a; Appendix A12).

Tides off Cape Lambert (Port Walcott) are measured as part of the National Australian Tide Gauge Network. The tides are semi-diurnal (two high and two low tides per 24 hr period) with a spring tidal range of 5.5 m (Table 6-3). Water movements at Cape Lambert during spring tides are influenced more by tidal currents than local wind conditions. Surface current velocities during spring tides can reach 0.75 m s-1 (1.5 knots), whereas during neap tides the peak current velocities are typically 0.25 m s-1 (0.5 knots) (GEMS 2008a; Appendix A12). Illustrated predicted tidal currents for the Cape Lambert region are provided in GEMS (2008a; Appendix A12).

Table 6-3 Tidal ranges for Cape Lambert

Water state Level (m Chart Datum) Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT) 6.2 Mean High Water Springs (MHWS) 5.5 Mean High Water Neaps (MHWN) 3.8 Mean Sea Level (MSL) 3.3 Mean Low Water Neaps (MLWN) 2.7 Mean Low Water Springs (MLWS) 1.0 Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT) 0.0 Source: BoM 2008

Wave climate

Cape Lambert is protected from westerly swell waves, which travel up and along the coast of Western Australia, by the Burrup Peninsula and the offshore islands located to the north-west (JFA 2008). Cape Lambert is affected by locally generated seas travelling either from the west-north-west quarter or east- south-east quarter. Winds from the west are more common; however, the fetch (distance of water over which the wind can generate waves) is far longer to the east and therefore Cape Lambert is more exposed to waves from this direction. Despite the relatively small swell conditions at Cape Lambert, the area can experience extreme wave events associated with passing tropical cyclones between December and March,

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-5

generating swell conditions in excess of 8 m in height. Due to the orientation of the coastline and the complex bathymetry increasing bottom friction surrounding Cape Lambert, swell is greatly attenuated prior to reaching the shoreline.

Wave and swell height data recorded at the existing Cape Lambert wharf by GEMS from February 2004 to October 2004 (Figure 6-2) indicated that seas were generally higher during the winter months, with a strong correlation between wave height and strong easterly wind events (GEMS 2008a; Appendix A12).

Total Hs Sw ell Hs Wave Height 2.0

1.5

1.0 Hs (m) Hs 0.5

0.0 30-Dec-03 18-Feb-04 8-Apr-04 28-May-04 17-Jul-04 5-Sep-04 25-Oct-04

Source: GEMS 2008a; Appendix A12

Figure 6-2 Wave heights at Cape Lambert wharf recorded from February 2004 to October 2004

6.4.3 Water Quality Temperature and Salinity

Waters of the North West Shelf are usually temperature stratified, with sea surface temperatures (SST) attaining a mean temperature of 30.4 °C in February, dropping to 22.5 °C in July/August (Pearce et al. 2003). The degree of seasonal variability varies inter-annually, depending on factors such as the strength of the Leeuwin Current that leads to an influx of warm water from the tropics during the cooler months (June to August). The 2007 Port A water quality monitoring program undertaken at ten monitoring locations (Table 6-4 and Figure 6-3), illustrated a strong seasonal variability, with monthly median temperatures ranging from 19.4 °C in June to 31.8 °C in February from eight of the locations (Figure 6-4).

Salinity remains relatively uniform ranging from 35.2 to 35.7 psu for most of the year, rising to 36.1 psu between December and February off the North West Shelf (Pearce et al. 2003).

PAGE 6-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 6-3 Cape Lambert region with water quality monitoring locations used during the Port A development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-7

Table 6-4 Water quality monitoring locations used during the Port A development

Site Name Site Code General Description Depth (m) Latitude Longitude Bezout Island BZI Water Quality + Coral Monitoring 3.8 20°33´213¨S 117°10´311Ë Bezout Rock BZR Water Quality + Coral Monitoring 5.2 20°33´823¨S 117°09´682Ë Bell’s Reef BLR Water Quality + Coral Monitoring 4.7 20°35´052¨S 117°08´456Ë Dixon Island East DIE Water Quality + Coral Monitoring 6.5 20°37´084¨S 117°04´143Ë Dixon Island West DIW Water Quality + Coral Monitoring 6.2 20°37´574¨S 117°03´139Ë Delambre Island DLI Water Quality + Coral Monitoring 6.3 20°27´736¨S 117°03´916Ë Delambre North DLN Water Quality + Coral Monitoring 4.8 20°27´039¨S 117°03´649Ë Cape Lambert West CLW Water Quality + Coral Monitoring 4.1 20°36´090¨S 117°09´756Ë Water Quality (only contaminants 21.2 Cape Lambert wharf WHARF 20°34´032¨S 117°12´012Ë and TSS) Power Station PWR STN Water Quality (Only TSS) 0.5 20°35´042¨S 117°10´012Ë

Source: SKM 2008g

Figure 6-4 Median water temperature from February 2007 to January 2008 from 8 monitoring locations

Trace Metals and Organics Figure 6-1 shows the LEP for the Cape Lambert area (DoE 2006b). The protection level for Cape Lambert is High, with the exception of the existing Cape Lambert wharf which is classified as Moderate and the coastal waters east of Cossack which are classified as Maximum. No specific criteria have been developed as part of the Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes (DoE 2006b) but the guidelines set by ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000) are applicable. The guidelines state that dissolved

PAGE 6-8 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

contaminants concentration should not exceed the 99% species protection level (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000) for areas classified as High and Maximum, while the 95% species protection level should not be exceeded in areas classified as Moderate.

Water quality samples collected during the 2007 Port A dredging and spoil disposal program were routinely assayed for a suite of trace metals and TBT as part of the water quality monitoring program. The aim of this monitoring program was to detect any potential exceedences of the 99% species protection level for concentrations of the trace metals assayed within the region, and for potential exceedences of the 95% species protection level for the Cape Lambert wharf area. Results indicated that the coastal waters in the region generally have low levels of trace metal concentrations, and at the PQL assayed, most trace metals did not exceed the 99% species protection level, with the exception of copper, lead, zinc and tributlytin (Appendix A15).

Exceedences of the ANZECC trigger levels for these particular trace metals were consistent between monitoring locations throughout the baseline, dredging and spoil disposal period, and post dredging period. This indicates there was a negligible concentration gradient between monitoring locations and distance offshore, suggesting no point source of contamination.

In surface water samples, trace metal results exhibited little variation in concentrations. The 95th percentiles for copper and tributlytin were equal to and less than the PQL, respectively for the region (Appendix A15) and these contaminants have exceeded the trigger value for 99% species protection. However, this may in part be due to the analytical technique chosen (PQL level for ultratrace metals in seawater above ANZECC trigger values).

Trace metal concentrations in seabed samples (water samples taken approximately 1 m above the seabed) varied considerably. The 95th percentile for copper, zinc and lead concentrations exceeded the 95% species protection level for the region. Results may reflect natural background levels; however, given the frequency distribution of these trace metal concentrations, exceedences may be attributed to contamination during sampling. For this reason, the data were examined for evidence of contamination. The spread of data showed only a few outliers, with most of the data lying at or near the PQL assayed. At least some of these outliers can be easily explained by potential contamination, as for example, the use of sunscreen by personnel on the boat could have contaminated some samples with zinc. Therefore outliers were removed during data analysis according to a qualitative assessment of frequency distribution plots.

A study conducted by Wenziker et al. (2006) into the background quality for coastal marine waters of the North West shelf found trace metal concentrations to be naturally very low, meeting all requirements of the ANZECC Guidelines for 99% ecological protection. However, the Practical Quantitative Limits (PQLs) chosen for the assay method for the water quality monitoring associated with the 2007 Port A dredging and spoil disposal program do not provide the same resolution as those that would be required for comparison with the data collected on background conditions.

In contrast, the study found that the concentrations of copper and zinc measured in King Bay (major port facility in the Dampier Archipelago) were slightly elevated in comparison to results from the rest of the Dampier Archipelago. This was attributed to anthropogenic inputs, for example, industrial effluent

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-9

discharges and/or antifouling or corrosion inhibiting products used on the vessels and infrastructure in the area (Wenziker et al. 2006).

In a regional context, Wenziker et al. (2006) compared results to similar studies completed for the coastal waters of Perth and New South Wales. The review indicated that dissolved metal concentrations are naturally very low in seawater and may not differ greatly along the coastline, particularly in areas not influenced by river flow. This is particularly relevant to the Cape Lambert region which is characterised as an exposed, open water environment which is largely influenced by the macrotidal environment and prevailing regional winds. These physical processes potentially limit the retention time of detectable concentrations of trace metals suspended in the water column, as the turbulent mixing associated with high velocity tidal and surface currents would quickly dilute the contaminants.

Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids

Turbidity is a measure of the amount of light scatter caused by suspended material in the water column. In contrast, total suspended solids (TSS) is a measure of the mass of suspended solids in the water column. The duration that suspended material stays within the water column varies according to water movement and suspended sediment type. TSS is considered an important predictor of the amount of light available for photosynthetic activity for corals, seagrasses and other benthic primary producers (Section 6.4.2).

Dredging and spoil disposal activities for the Port A development commenced on 30 July 2007 and continued until 6 November 2007. The water quality monitoring program for this project commenced in February 2007, approximately six months prior to dredging and spoil disposal. Water quality monitoring locations are illustrated in Figure 6-3. Turbidity levels recorded during the program were highly variable, with monthly medians at different monitoring sites ranging from 0.3 NTU in June, November and December to 19.8 NTU in March (Figure 6-5). These graphs demonstrate that during summer natural levels of NTU are generally higher and can vary greatly between sites, indicating greater natural variation driven by wind and tidal movements in comparison to that from dredging and spoil disposal operations.

Turbidity at the shallow nearshore sites fringing the mainland (Figure 6-3) is largely influenced by the tidal and prevailing regional wind conditions. Tidal and wind generated water movement re-suspends fine sediments resulting in naturally elevated levels of turbidity. Turbidity levels are seasonally dependant with high levels of natural turbidity occurring during and after cyclones and rainfall events, as a result of major wave action and episodic freshwater run-off from the mainland or islands.

The recorded levels of TSS varied considerably between each monitoring location with median monthly surface values ranging from 9.5 mg L-1 in August to 34.0 mg L-1 in November, and with median monthly seabed values ranging from 9.0 mg L-1 in July to 74.0 mg L-1 in November. Elevated levels of TSS can be attributed to a variety of natural factors such as storm events or anthropogenic factors such as vessel movements, and dredging and spoil disposal activities. The Port A Cape Lambert Wharf monitoring site appears to consistently record high levels of TSS, especially in near seabed samples, which can be attributed to the close proximity of this site to the wharf and associated shipping/tug movements and dredging and spoil disposal activities (Figure 6-6 and Figure 6-7).

PAGE 6-10 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Dredge commenced Dredge ceased Cyclone event

Source: SKM 2008g

Figure 6-5 Median turbidity (NTU) results - February 2007 to January 2008

Dredge commenced Dredge ceased Cyclone event

Source: SKM 2008g

Figure 6-6 Median surface TSS results - May 2007 to December 2007

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-11

Dredge commenced Dredge ceased Cyclone event

Source: SKM 2008g

Figure 6-7 Median seabed TSS results - May 2007 to December 2007

Nutrients

There are no known published studies on nutrient levels in inshore waters at Cape Lambert, but some data are available for offshore waters in the Dampier Archipelago (summarised in Pearce et al. (2003)). Given its proximity to Cape Lambert, nutrient levels in waters off the Dampier Archipelago are likely to resemble those off Cape Lambert. Waters in the Dampier Archipelago area are considered oligotrophic (having low nutrient levels); however on occasions, blooms of nitrogen-fixing microbes such as Trichodesmium or tidal mud-flat cyanobacteria may contribute significant amounts of nutrients into the marine environment. High spatial and seasonal variability are evident in nutrient and chlorophyll-a concentrations within the Dampier Archipelago (Pearce et al. 2003).

6.4.4 Seabed Morphology Bathymetry

Cape Lambert is located on the North West Shelf which comprises 95 000 km² of continental shelf extending from the North West Cape of Western Australia to the Arafura Sea. The bathymetry of the Cape Lambert region is mapped in nautical chart Aus55–‘Approaches to Port Walcott’. The bathymetry of Cape Lambert has depths generally less than 20 m (Figure 6-8). Small-scale bathymetric data has also been collected for areas directly associated with the Port B development marine works.

PAGE 6-12 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 6-8 Cape Lambert area showing details of bathymetry and spoil grounds

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-13

Regional Seabed Morphology The marine environment off Cape Lambert is characterised by a broad, shallow seafloor with several exposed reefs, such as Bell’s Reef, and islands including Bezout Island (Figure 6-8). Reefs generally lie between 1 and 10 m depth and are typically orientated in an east–west direction. The area immediately north of Cape Lambert is defined by a broad, shallow intertidal flat that gently slopes to a shallow bank stretching for a few hundred metres before quickly sloping down to a uniform depth of approximately -7 to -9 m below Chart Datum (m CD). A further 1.5 to 2 km beyond this area, the seabed steeply slopes to -12 to -14 m CD.

Spoil Grounds 1 and 3 were established as new grounds for the purpose of spoil management during the Port A dredging and spoil disposal program. Spoil Grounds 1, 2 and 3 are in approximately 20 m of water (MSL). The spoil grounds are approximately 1 km wide by 2 km long (Figure 6-8).

The proposed wharf extends from the shallow intertidal region across the sloping gradient and into deeper waters with depths between -12 and -14 m CD. Dredging to a depth of -20 m CD is required to accommodate berths and ship turning areas.

6.4.5 Sediment Chemistry and Composition of Dredge and Spoil Disposal Areas Diver and geochemical coring surveys of sediments were undertaken (Oceanica 2008; Appendix A1) to characterise the sediment chemistry and particle size in the proposed dredging footprint. A total of 67 boreholes were surveyed, with 52 inside the main dredge footprint and 15 outside. The majority of the sediment in the Port B development footprint was found to be free of TBT both during the diver survey and the geotechnical pilot study. However, these studies did find that small pockets of marine sediment within the dredging Area A and Area B (Figure 6-9) possess nickel and TBT levels exceeding the National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material (NODGDM) lower screening levels. However, levels did not exceed the maximum levels in both surface (0–50 cm) and sub-surface (50–100 cm) layers (Table 6-5).

TBT was found to occur at several sites near the existing berth in a westerly direction, this was only within 450 m of the existing berth area. The 95% UCL for Area A (0-50 cm) and Area B (0-50 cm) were both below the NODGDM trigger level. In contrast, one sample in the 50-100 cm layer in Area A with high TBT content caused the 95% UCL to exceed the NODGDM trigger level. No other sample in the layer returned TBT above the laboratory detection limit.

Nickel concentrations were also problematic as they were observed to be consistently above NODGDM trigger levels, but these concentrations were not considered to be anthropogenic.

According to the NODGDM, elutriate and eco-toxicological analyses needed to be undertaken to assess the risk to the environment of these potential contaminants from unconfined ocean disposal. Prior to the 2007 Port A upgrade very high levels of TBT and nickel were found near the existing berth pocket, exceeding any level found during the Port B development study.

PAGE 6-14 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Elutriate testing for TBT using a 1:909 dilution (based on modelling) determined that material found in the Port A areas A, B and C was suitable for unconfined ocean disposal. Further eco-toxicological analysis concluded that this TBT would not represent a significant risk to the environment (SKM 2006b).

Elutriate analysis conducted using a dilution of 1:909 based on modelling (SKM, 2006b), showed that the nickel levels in the elutriate samples were considerably below the 99% ANZECC/ARMCANZ guideline level, and therefore did not pose any contaminant issue to the environment. Furthermore, eco-toxicity testing did not find evidence of acute or chronic toxicity linked to nickel.

All other metals, Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) were below NODGDM trigger levels in all areas assessed.

Small amounts of TBT contaminated material were also identified at Spoil Ground 1 from the previous Port A development. This material will be capped using uncontaminated material dredged during the Port B development as described in Section 2.2 of the DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1). The NODGDM suggests sediment capping is an acceptable method to store some forms of contaminated sediment on the seafloor. Sediment capping is a form of in situ containment, which involves the placement of uncontaminated sediment over contaminated sediments in order to contain it (Fornster & Apitz 2007). Capping provides control through the following mechanisms (Bray 2008):

physical isolation of contaminated sediment from the overlying water and benthic environment

chemical isolation of contaminated sediment by increasing transport path length and providing additional sorptive capacity of the contaminants

stabilisation of sediments preventing resuspension and off site transport.

The success of capping is dependent on developing a contaminant free barrier between the contaminated sediment and the sensitive receptors within the infaunal, benthic and pelagic communities (Fornster & Apitz 2007). A summary of contaminated sediment capping projects in North America, Europe and Asia, from 1984 to 2002, demonstrated that sediment capping was a successful method to contain contaminated spoil (HSRC et al. 2002). Monitoring conducted post capping, found that the majority of the projects recorded no chemical migration, as the interface between the contaminated and cap sediments remained sharp and relatively unmixed. Recolonisation of benthic fauna was also observed at most locations (HSRC et al. 2002).

At a regional level, the Port A project provides evidence that sediment capping is an effective way to contain contaminated sediment on the seafloor in the Pilbara region. Results from the post dredging survey for Spoil Ground 2 found that no TBT contaminated sediment was detected in the covering layer (10–50 cm), suggesting that the contaminants were successfully contained (SKM 2008h). In addition, all of the samples outside the spoil ground boundary were below the 0.5 μg Sn/kg limit of reporting (LOR). This provides further evidence that the contaminated material was successfully covered and contained within the spoil ground (SKM, 2008h). The nearest cyclonic activity between the completion of dredging and final monitoring was Tropical Cyclone Nicholas, which came within 200 km of Cape Lambert in February 2008. Tropical Cyclone Ophelia passed within 400 km of Cape Lambert in March 2008.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-15

The capping of TBT contaminated sediment at Spoil Ground 2 was also deemed successful by studying the level of imposex in gastropods at three monitoring locations. Evans et al (1994) recorded that high concentrations of TBT had an effect on the population level in gastropods in that it altered the sex ratio towards a male bias. The results from pre and post dredging for the Port A project suggest that the populations of Morula granulata are biased towards females (SKM 2008i). This indicates that TBT is not having an effect on the sex ratio of the populations studied. The findings suggest that, at present, M. granulata populations are unlikely to be at risk from TBT (SKM 2008i).

The success of spoil ground capping has also been demonstrated by the recent Dampier Port Upgrade dredging program. Spoil grounds were monitored post dredging and showed no incidence of TBT above NODGDM screening levels. No increase in the incidence of imposex in Thaid snails was observed in post-dredging monitoring carried out (SKM 2008j).

Table 6-5 95% upper confidence limit of trace metal levels in marine sediments from the Port B development footprint

LOR NODGDM NODGDM Area A Area B Service Wharf B Contaminant (mg screening maximum kg-1) level level 0-50 cm 50-100 cm 0-50 cm 0-50 cm 50-100 cm Aluminium 0.5 - - 8805 7344 8845 4388 2963 Antimony 0.2 2 25 0.17 0.18 0.17 0.19 0.26 Arsenic 0.5 20 70 12.6 12.8 16.5 13.8 15.1 Cadmium 0.1 1.5 10

The physical sediment characteristics within proposed dredge Areas A and B (Figure 6-9) varied in composition, ranging from pockets of coarse sand, shell grit and gravel, to areas of thin sand veneer overlaying hard pavement (Oceanica 2008; Appendix A1). Within the Service Wharf B area, sediment structure also varied locally, comprising mainly of coarse sand, shell grit, shell pieces, small pebbles and dead coral pieces, with pockets of dark silty sands.

The particle size distribution (PSD) of collected sediment samples was examined by SKM (2008k) as a part of a pre and post dredge analysis for the 2007 Port A dredging and spoil disposal program. The

PAGE 6-16 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

survey measured sediment PSD in surface sediments (10 cm) with increasing distance (250 m, 500 m, 1000 m, 2000 m and 5000 m) along four separate axes originating at the end of the existing Cape Lambert wharf, specifically as follows:

west-south-west (bearing 255º) from the wharf on a line bisecting the area between the wharf and Bezout Island

north (bearing 0º) from the wharf on a line between Bezout Island and the shipping channel

east-north-east (bearing 74º) from the wharf on a line east of the shipping channel

east-south-east (bearing 111º) from the wharf.

Results indicated that sediment composition changed following the dredge activity with the removal of gravel and coarse sands and the wide lateral dispersion and deposition of fines. Sampling sites within one kilometre radius of the wharf, where dredging took place, showed the largest changes in particle size distribution. A large proportion of the sediment particle sizes within this area shifted from coarse sand/gravel to fine and medium-sized particles, ranging between 63 and 250 µm in diameter. However, not all sampling sites showed evidence of an increase in fine sediments, with some sites maintaining coarser grades of particles after dredging (SKM 2008k).

The seabed at Spoil Grounds 1 and 3 consists of consolidated material with patches of sand veneer, characterised by fine to coarse sand particles, whilst that at Spoil Ground 2 is comprised of sandy substrata, typical of a previously used dredge spoil disposal area.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-17

Figure 6-9 Dredging Area A and Area B

PAGE 6-18 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

6.5 Ecological Marine Environment 6.5.1 Marine Habitats Cape Lambert is located in the Nickol Bay coastal unit, which forms the eastern part of the greater Dampier Archipelago marine environment (Semeniuk et al. 1982). This section provides a broad overview of the Nickol Bay and Dampier Archipelago marine habitats and associated fauna and flora, whereas Section 6.5.2 focuses exclusively on marine habitats dominated by Benthic Primary Producers (BPP). For this reason, corals, mangroves, macroalgae and seagrasses are mentioned only briefly in this section.

Coastal and marine habitats in Cape Lambert can be broadly defined using two attributes: substratum type (rock versus sediment) and tidal influence (intertidal versus subtidal). Wells and Walker (2003) listed four major benthic habitats in the region: rocky shores; sandy and muddy shores; mangroves and corals reefs. These can be further subdivided into habitats dominated by either hard substratum (rock) or soft substratum (unconsolidated sediment), and further into tidal and subtidal components. Hard substratum in the region ranges from continental rock and Pleistocene limestone, to true coral reefs fringing some of the outermost islands in the Dampier Archipelago. True reefs are more prevalent in offshore waters probably because accretion rates by corals in nearshore waters are exceeded by rates of erosion. Thus, although corals successfully persist in nearshore waters at Cape Lambert they, as a general rule, do not form reefs (only occurring as assemblages on rock). Rock is also common in subtidal environments, usually characterised by shoals, pavements and other features of low topographical relief. Soft substratum is defined as unconsolidated sediment ranging from coarse grain material (typically in intertidal areas) to silts and clays (on the seafloor in subtidal waters).

The marine habitats in the Cape Lambert area can be sub-divided into four broad types: intertidal hard substratum (rocky shores); subtidal hard substratum (reefs, shoals and pavement); intertidal soft substratum (beaches, tidal flats) and subtidal soft substratum (seafloor sediments). These habitats are described in SKM (2008e; Appendix A10) and summarised in the following sections.

Intertidal hard substratum (rocky shores and pavements)

Rocky shores are conspicuous features which occur at Cape Lambert, Point Samson, Jarman Island, Cape Lambert and Hat Rock (Plate 6-1). Given the large tidal range, this habitat is extensive in some areas, and often shows broad vertical distributions in the abundance of some species.

As described in SKM (2008e; Appendix A10), a detailed assessment of the intertidal pavements at Cape Lambert was undertaken to describe diversity and distribution of benthic marine organisms. Two intertidal reefs were surveyed extensively (Point Samson to the east and Mangrove Point to the west of Cape Lambert), which are closest to the dredge footprint. The features common to both reefs appear to be typical of many other shore fringing reefs in the region. The common features and the differences between the two shore reefs surveyed are depicted in Plate 6-2 and Plate 6-3.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-19

Plate 6-1 Rocky intertidal shores occur on offshore reefs and islands (Hat Rock foreground and Picard Island middleground and mainland in the background)

Plate 6-2 Intertidal reef pavement at Point Samson (east of Cape Lambert)

PAGE 6-20 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Plate 6-3 Intertidal reef pavement at Mangrove Point (west of Cape Lambert)

The upper part of the intertidal zone is very similar on both reefs, comprising areas of heavily eroded basement rock that is being eroded by waves, producing a complex three dimensional structure as softer parts of the rock are worn away, leaving pinnacles, channels and overhangs. This kind of upper reef area has been well described by Morton and Britton (in Jones 2004) and can be divided into three zones.

Common species in the high intertidal littorine and cthalamid barnacle zone include the littorinids molluscs Nodilittorina spp. and the barnacle Cthalamus malayanus. Typically lying beneath this zone are the oyster Saccostrea cucculata usually associated with the barnacle Balanus cirrata and apart from these sessile organisms, others like the large spiny limpet Acanthopleura spinosa are mobile and can utilise notches, crevices and patches of shade to minimise the risk of desiccation at low tide. The oyster visor described by Morton and Britton (in Jones 2004) is not well represented at either of the two reefs surveyed.

Subtidal hard substratum (reef, shoals, pavement)

Reefs, shoals and pavement are common features at Cape Lambert. Reefs fringing the mainland and islands are normally composed of continental rock, while shoals and pavement consist of limestone. Examples of these reefs can be observed at Cape Lambert, Point Samson (Plate 6-4) and fringing Jarman Island. In most cases, reefs are simply extensions of rocky shores. Shoals are normally restricted to areas well offshore from Cape Lambert, with the closest large example being Tessa Shoals, about 20 km north- east of Cape Lambert. Pavements are low relief features, with sections periodically covered in sediment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-21

(or exposed during storm events). All these features provide habitat for hard corals, soft corals, sponges and macroalgae (Section 6.5.2).

Sponges and soft corals in the Cape Lambert subtidal environment are commonly found in association, forming a mixed sponge/soft coral assemblage on pavements and shoals (MScience 2004; Fromont 2004). Their contributions to benthic primary production in the Cape Lambert area remains unclear, but is considered to be inconsequential, given that the majority of species in these taxa do not harbour photosynthetic symbionts (they are not considered BPP) and so this assemblage type is discussed here rather than in Section 6.5.2. More details on these taxa are provided in Section 6.5.5. Sponge and soft coral assemblages are common in offshore environments, such as at Tessa Shoals, near Bezout and Delambre Islands and other elevated seabeds to the north of the Cape Lambert shipping channel. The soft coral and sponge assemblage in the region are highly diverse and vary from very small patches in the order of a few square metres per hectare to dense areas occupying several hectares (MScience 2004; Fromont 2004). The size and extent of this assemblage appears to be dependent upon the presence of hard substratum for colonisation. Once established, adult soft corals and sponges appear to tolerate sediment accumulation.

Plate 6-4 Subtidal rocky reef at Point Samson with low cover of hard coral

PAGE 6-22 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Intertidal soft substratum (beaches, tidal flats)

Beaches and tidal flats occur on the western and eastern side of Cape Lambert. The sediment closest to the shoreline is predominantly coarse grain, showing a seaward gradation from typical coarse beach sand to fine silts in deeper water (Ecologia 1997). Species that exist in this habitat must be highly mobile (and can move with the tide), or are tolerant to daily desiccation or can burrow into the sediment. At least 14 species of fishes, including the stingray Himantura uarnak, use this habitat at Cape Lambert during high tide (Ecologia 1997; SKM 2008e; Appendix A10).

This habitat supports numerous species of invertebrates (Kohn 2003), described further in Section 6.5.5. Semeniuk et al. (1982) identified a number of biotic assemblages from intertidal soft substratum habitat in the region. They classified these based on the dominant taxa present, identifying the following combinations: Notocallista–echinoderm; Donax–crustacean; Uca–cerithid; Mictyris; Uca– macrophthalmus; and Ocypode.

Subtidal soft substratum

This is the most widespread marine habitat in the Cape Lambert area (Figure 6-10), and is the habitat to be directly affected by the Port B development. It is characterised by low relief compared with topographically complex reef platforms (Plate 6-4). It can be further divided into a thick seafloor sediment column versus a thin sediment column (or veneer) over rock. The latter is rarely stable because storm events redistribute sediments on the seafloor, exposing rock or covering it with a veneer of sediment. Stable unconsolidated sediment is dominated by invertebrates that burrow into or live on top of sediment, but large sessile benthic organisms, such as soft corals, may occur where they are able to attach to a solid object, such as a large dead shell or boulder.

Studies of subtidal animals in this habitat are not common for this region. Taylor and Glover (2004) identified 227 gastropods and 188 bivalves during a dredge survey in the Dampier Archipelago. Marsh and Morrison (2004) collected 260 species of echinoderms from the Dampier Archipelago. Ecologia (1997) recorded soft corals (gorgonians, seawhips) and holothurians from this habitat near the existing Cape Lambert wharf.

The spoil grounds (1, 2 and 3; Figure 6-10) are located in the subtidal soft substratum habitat. The benthic habitat is limited to sparse areas of whip corals and sponges similar to most of the benthic communities in deeper areas of the region. All three spoil grounds are in approximately 20 m of water (MSL) with sandy substrata. Infaunal communities within each spoil ground shifted from protist- dominated infauna communities to those dominated by chordates, crustaceans and annelids as a result of the 2007 Port A dredging and spoil disposal program (SKM 2008l). A similar trend was also observed at most sites to the west and north of the spoil grounds. Protist-dominated communities shifted to those dominated by chordates, crustaceans, and annelids, with echinoderms and molluscs also present at some sites.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-23

Plate 6-5 Featherstar on sediment south-east of Jarman Island (7 m deep)

6.5.2 Benthic Primary Producer Habitats This section describes marine habitats dominated by organisms that contribute to the benthic primary production at Cape Lambert. According to the EPA (2004b), BPP are:

‘predominantly marine plants, such as seagrasses, mangroves, seaweeds and turf algae, but include invertebrates such as scleractinian corals, which acquire a significant proportion of their energy from symbiotic microalgae that live in coral polyps. These organisms grow attached to the seabed, sequester carbon from surrounding seawater or air and convert it to organic compounds through photosynthesis’.

The EPA (2004b) defined Benthic Primary Producing Habitat (BPPH) as the communities they form and the substratum they attach to. In the Cape Lambert area, BPP include mangroves, scleractinian corals, turf algae, macroalgae and, to a lesser extent seagrasses and unicellular algae associated with silty sand.

Larkum (1983) provided a comparison of the primary productivity of macroalgae (benthic algae), turf algae, coral (zooxanthellae) and seagrasses from tropical marine environments (Table 6-6). However, the relative importance of a specific BPP in an area will not only relate to its rate of productivity (Table 6-6), but also its abundance and density. As an example, although seagrasses have large productivity rates, their contribution in an area will be minor if uncommon or rare.

PAGE 6-24 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 6-6 Primary productivities of BPP in tropical marine environments

BPP Productivity (g C m-2 d-1) References (cited in Larkum 1983) Macroalgae (benthic algae) 0.1 to 4 Hillis-Colinvaux (1974) Sournia (1976) Turf algae 1 to 12 Borowitzka et al. (1983) Pollard and Kogure (1993) Coral (zooxanthellae) 0.6 McCloskey et al. (1978) Seagrasses <1 to 7 Qasim and Bhattathiri (1971) Pollard and Moriarty (1991) Source: Larkum 1983

The distribution of BPPH is shown in Figure 6-10. In this habitat map, areas supporting turf algae, macroalgae and corals have been combined to form a single habitat type, which is highly correlated with the distribution of intertidal and subtidal hard substratum. These three primary producers form a mosaic on the intertidal and subtidal hard substratum, with turf algae as the most dominant in terms of the amount of seafloor covered. Most areas surveyed, particularly in the intertidal zone, showed rapid transitions between adjacent areas dominated by different kinds of BPP, sometimes only metres in diameter and ranging from high levels of cover to virtual absence. For example, corals might occur with coverage of 30% and then be absent a few metres further on where the reef pavement at the same height on the shore and with the same substrate was covered with Halimeda opuntia. The conclusion is that inter and subtidal substratum could be best described as BPPH, with a complex association of a variety of BPP, each of which is present in proportions that reflect subtle differences in microhabitats and also the recent history of disturbance.

Mangroves

The geographical distribution of mangrove habitat is typically restricted to sheltered areas such as estuaries, tidal creeks and sheltered bays. The mangroves along the Pilbara coastline are arid zone mangroves. There are seven mangrove species recorded from the Cape Lambert area (Table 6-7) (BBG 1993) and the Western white mangrove (Avicennia marina) is by far the most abundant with the stilt mangrove (Rhizophora stylosa) much less common, although it is typically present at most sites. The remaining five species are very patchily distributed. In general, Ceriops australis is often present as a distinct zone or band of vegetation of varying widths along the hinterland margin, while two of the species, Aegialitis annulata and Aegiceras corniculatum are typically found as small patches on both seaward and landward margins. The remaining two species Bruguiera exaristata and Osbornia octodonta, are relatively uncommon in the Cape Lambert region (Semeniuk 1983).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-25

Figure 6-10 Benthic primary producers and their distribution in the Cape Lambert area

PAGE 6-26 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 6-7 Mangrove species in the Cape Lambert area

Scientific Name Common Name Aegialitis annulata Club mangrove Aegiceras corniculatum River mangrove Avicennia marina var. marina* Western white mangrove Bruguiera exaristata Rib-fruited orange mangrove Ceriops australis** Smooth-fruited yellow mangrove Osbornia octodonta Myrtle mangrove Rhizophora stylosa Long-style stilt mangrove * Previously reported as Avicennia marina (the grey or white mangrove), but now assigned to Avicennia marina var. marina (the western white mangrove) by Duke (2006), with a distribution from Bunbury to Broome.

**Previously reported as Ceriops tagal, but a recent review by Duke (2006) has concluded that the closely related C.australis is the only species of the genus present on the Western Australian coast.

In the area around Cape Lambert, the most diverse range of mangrove habitats and associated mangrove development is present in the catchments of both Pope’s Nose and Sam’s creeks (east of Cape Lambert) (Figure 6-11). A closed canopy forest lines the banks of tidal channels and comprises a seaward zone of A.marina backed by a mixed zone of A.marina and R.stylosa, sometimes with a pure stand of R.stylosa. Then the habitat is dominated by A.marina grading from closed canopy forest into scattered trees that eventually give way to a mixture of samphires and bare tidal flats. At some locations toward landward there is a zone of Ceriops australis, and occasionally one or more of the four other species may be present at either the seaward or landward edges, usually as a thin fringe only one or two trees wide (Plate 6-6).

In a survey of the mangrove habitats in the early 1990s, BBG (1993) divided the mangroves into five main mangrove stands in the vicinity of Cape Lambert (Figure 6-11) comprising:

Cape Lambert

Dixon Island to Cape Lambert

Sam’s Creek

Pope’s Nose Creek

Point Samson to Cossack.

These distinctions are artificial, particularly with respect to the Pope’s Nose Creek and Point Samson to Cossack categories as the two categories are effectively part of the same system in the area directly south of Point Samson (Figure 6-11).

Of the five stands recognised by BBG (1993), the best stands in terms of areal extent and diversity of habitat type and vegetation associations, occur on the eastern side of the Cape, and include Sam’s and Pope’s Nose creeks and the area between Point Samson and Cossack (Figure 6-11). The latter area (and perhaps part of Pope’s Nose Creek) is part of Mangrove Management Area 16, as described in the EPA Guidance Statement for the Arid Zone Mangroves of the Pilbara (EPA 2001).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-27

While all of these stands are typical of the range of mangrove habitats identified in Guidance Statement No.1, they are not among the best examples of these habitat types in the Pilbara and there are no unique features evident. As is common for many other locations on the Pilbara coastline, the mangroves show signs of disturbance from human activities and also from natural events such as cyclones.

Cape Lambert A small stand of mangroves, of approximately 12 individuals of A. marina, occurs along the western edge of Cooling Water Beach (north-west of the power station discharge). A small group of about 10 trees also occurs on the stockyard side of the beach (Plate 6-7).

There are no stands of mangroves along the coastline between the stockyard and the rocky shore reef south of the Port Walcott Yacht Club. There may be a few isolated shrubs of A.marina on some of the rocky headlands, but this area does not support significant stands of mangroves (Figure 6-11).

Dixon Island to Cape Lambert The coastline between Dixon Island to Cape Lambert was described by BBG (1993) as supporting a series of mangrove stands dominated by A. marina and R. stylosa. A detailed survey of the eastern end of these mangroves was undertaken in 2008, as they are near (5 km) the Port B development. The dominant mangrove at all levels of the shore where mangroves can establish and grow was A. marina which is found from MSL right up to the levels of the Highest Astronomical Tide (HAT). Present also was R. stylosa, which typically occurs as a narrow fringe behind the seaward edge zone of A. marina, but at the site surveyed this was not very well developed (Plate 6-6).

Among the mangroves, the substrate was muddy sand, with at least three species of Uca present: U. mjobergii, U. flammula and possibly U.signata. The large sesarmid crab, Neosarmatium meinerti is present, but not common. The mud whelks Telescopium telescopium, Terebralia palustris and Terebralia semistriata are all common, as is the pulmonate mollusc Onchidium daemilli, and the crab Metapograpsus frontalis.

The area in front of these mangroves is a very broad, flat expanse of sand with a little mud. There are a few small tidal islands with a rocky substrate, some sand and usually a stand of A.marina. At the rear of the mangroves is a low dune or chenier which is a very common feature of coastlines where cyclones are frequent. The seaward edge of the mangroves in this area appears to be eroding, however, examination of early aerial photography of the area demonstrates that the distribution and extent of mangroves along the seaward edge is quite stable, although there are obvious signs of large scale changes in the amount of sediment on the tidal flats in front of the mangroves. The entire area occupied by the mangroves at this site appears to be underlain by rock at quite shallow depths and presumably it is this which provides some buffering from the potential effects of erosion on the mangroves and the thin layer of sediment beneath them.

PAGE 6-28 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 6-11 Distribution of mangroves in the Cape Lambert area

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-29

Plate 6-6 Mature stand of A.marina with some R.stylosa showing signs of natural erosion where trees have been uprooted (cyclone)

Plate 6-7 The small stand of mangroves of A. marina at Cooling Water Beach

PAGE 6-30 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Sam’s Creek Sam’s Creek is a tidal creek supporting a well developed mangrove community (Figure 6-11) (BBG 1993). A. marina is the dominant species, followed by R. stylosa. Ceriops australis occurs to landward of the A. marina, while Aegiceras corniculatum occurs as a thin fringe of trees along some of the more stable sand banks in the creek and occasionally fringe the bank of the tidal creek. These mangroves (and those at Pope’s Nose Creek) are the most developed mangroves in the proximity of the Cape with a variety of habitat types, vegetation associations, and flora and fauna.

Pope’s Nose Creek Pope’s Nose Creek is a large tidal creek supporting a well developed mangrove stand, with distinct species zonation (Figure 6-11). It supports the same vegetation associations found in Sam’s Creek but they do not cover as great an area. The trees in this area are well developed with good closed canopy forest of both A.marina and R.stylosa and mixed stands, all with many large mature trees up to about 5 m in height.

The mid and upper intertidal area also supports a well developed salt marsh community, dominated by the samphire Halosarcia halocnemoides.

Point Samson to Cossack This is a sheltered embayment north of Pope’s Nose Creek containing the largest stand of R. stylosa in the region and should be considered to be a part of the Pope’s Nose Creek system. As elsewhere in the region, A. marina is also abundant here.

Hard Coral Background

Reef building corals include scleractinian and non-scleractinian forms. Scleractinian corals differ from non-scleractinian corals by containing zooxanthellae within their tissue. Zooxanthellae are single celled algae and, like all plants, require light to photosynthesise. The symbiotic nature of the process means that the majority of corals tend to be found only in shallow water environments (<20 m). Corals also obtain energy by feeding on planktonic organisms or particulate matter that they capture with their tentacles. Thus, scleractinian corals are both autotrophic (derive energy from the sun and inorganic matter) and heterotrophic (derive energy from living organic matter) feeders.

The Dampier region, including Nickol Bay and Cape Lambert, has many environmental conditions suitable for coral growth. A total of 229 species from 57 hermatypic coral genera have been recorded from the Dampier Archipelago (Griffith 2004). Blakeway and Radford (2005) recognised five coral assemblage types from Mermaid Sound (west of the Burrup Peninsula), based on the relative abundance of the dominant genera. The authors suggested that the distribution of these assemblages were influenced by water quality (turbidity), wave energy and tidal current strength. Coral species diversity and abundance in the region vary spatially. Less turbid waters in offshore areas generally have higher coral cover and diversity than the naturally highly turbid nearshore waters.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-31

Temporal variation in the abundance of corals in the Pilbara can vary significantly between years. Cyclones, and associated freshwater discharge, can greatly reduce the abundance of hard corals, particularly in shallow water environments (Blakeway & Radford 2005). Large waves generated by cyclones can break and ‘sand-blast’ coral colonies, while freshwater flood plumes can kill living coral tissue if exposure persists for prolonged periods. Biological processes, such as predation by the star fish Acanthaster planci (also called crown-of-thorns starfish) can also have a major influence on the abundance of corals in the region (Simpson & Grey 1989). More recently, combined elevated water temperatures and exposure to excessive solar radiation pose another threat to corals in the region (MScience 2005). In 2005 and 2008, corals in the Cape Lambert area were stressed by extraordinarily high and prolonged water temperatures which caused the corals to expel their zooxanthellae (a process called bleaching). Human activities, such as infilling, dredging and spoil disposal, activities have also contributed to localised changes in the distribution and abundance of corals in the Dampier region (Stoddart & Stoddart 2005).

Investigations into the reproductive ecology of corals in the Dampier Archipelago have been undertaken by several researchers (Simpson 1985, Heyward et al. 2000, Stoddart & Gilmour 2005, Baird et al. 2007). The majority of coral species are broadcast spawners, meaning that they release gametes (eggs and sperm) into the water column. Broadcast spawners in the Dampier Archipelago have two main reproductive events which occur seven to ten nights after the full moon between March and April and a less pronounced spawning event between October and November (Stoddart & Gilmour 2005). Nevertheless, some common taxa in the Dampier Archipelago, such as Porites, are brooders, meaning that eggs are fertilised within the polyp and larvae are released from the parent colony.

Cape Lambert

Although the corals of the Dampier Archipelago, in particular Mermaid Sound, are some of the most studied in Western Australia, those in the Cape Lambert area (the Nickol Bay Complex) have only recently been assessed. The area of habitat (subtidal hard substratum) suitable for coral settlement and growth at Cape Lambert is much less than in Mermaid Sound because of the absence of large islands and limited amount of rocky shores on the mainland. Further, the inshore waters at Cape Lambert are generally much more turbid compared with the more oceanic waters experienced by the outer islands of the Dampier Archipelago. Nevertheless, hard coral communities exist on reefs along the western and northern shoreline of Cape Lambert (Plate 6-8), reefs fringing Point Samson (Plate 6-8), at Bezout Island, Bezout Rock, Boat Rock (Plate 6-9), Bell’s Reef, Middle Reef (Plate 6-9), and at several locations near Dixon Island (MScience 2005, SKM 2007e). More recently, surveys by SKM (SKM 2008e; Appendix A10) found corals in areas supporting subtidal hard substratum and in many areas with intertidal hard substratum, but abundances varied greatly among sites (Figure 6-12). Table 6-8 provides a summary of hard coral cover estimates from reefs in the Cape Lambert area.

PAGE 6-32 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Plate 6-8 Left: large Porites hard coral south-west of Cape Lambert; right: Merulina hard coral colony on a reef near Point Samson

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-33

Table 6-8 Hard cover coral estimates in the Cape Lambert area

Mean Per cent Cover Site Name Survey Date Estimate of Live Coral Source Standard Error (SE) West side of Cape Lambert 2005 20.3 MScience 2005 2007 5.1 (1.5±SE) SKM 2007d Bell’s Reef 2005 21.2 MScience 2005 Bezout Rock 2005 4.8 MScience 2005 2007 4.9 (1.9±SE) SKM 2007d Bezout Island 2007 41 (7.9±SE) SKM 2007d Boat Rock 2005 20.5 MScience 2005 2008 23 (± 3 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10 36 ( ± 0.4 SE) Middle Reef 1 2005 12.1 MScience 2005 Middle Reef 2 2005 6 MScience 2005 Middle Reef (also called Cape 2008 21 (± 1.8 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10 Lambert Reef in SKM 2008f) 4 (± 4 SE) 22 (± 3.5 SE) 7.5 (± 2 SE) Point Samson 2008 21 (±0.6 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10 22.5 (3.5 SE) 21 (±0.6 SE) Jarrman Island 2008 3.7 (±4.3 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10 6.2 (± 3.3 SE) Pelican Rocks 2008 33.7 (± 1.4 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10 25 (± 1.1 SE) Picard Island 2008 6 (± 1.1 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10 Hat Rock 2008 30 (± 1 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10 43.7 (± SE) Delambre Reef 2008 21 (± 0.6 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10 3.7 (± 4.3 SE) Tessa Shoal 2008 2.5 (± 0 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10 1.2 (± 2.5 SE) Power Station (at Cape Lambert) 2008 11 (± 4 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10 27 (± 2 SE) South-west of the Power Station 1997 >80 Ecologia 1997 (pp. 11) Sam’s Creek 2008 1 (± 2.5 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10 7.5 (± 6 SE) Port Walcott Yacht Club (west 2008 6 (± 1 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10 side of Cape Lambert ) 26 (± 3 SE) South of Tug Pen 2008 1(± 2.5 SE) SKM 2008e; Appendix A10

PAGE 6-34 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 6-12 Distribution and abundance of hard corals in the Cape Lambert area

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-35

Coral cover at these nearshore sites in February 2008 was highly variable (Table 6-8), ranging from less than 2% to about 40%, with an average site estimate of 16% (±11.6 SD; n = 33) (SKM 2008e; Appendix A10). Further offshore (for example, Delambre Island), percentage cover is typically much greater. For example, the cover of hard coral at Delambre Island, about 18 km north-west of Cape Lambert, ranged from 45 to 85% (Morrison 2004, Griffith 2004). To date, 52 species of hard corals from 23 genera have been recorded from the Cape Lambert region (SKM 2007d). The dominant nearshore corals, in terms of their per cent cover, belong to the genera Favia (Plate 6-10), Fungia, Goniastrea, Hydnophora, Lobophyllia (Plate 6-9), Pectinia, Platygyra, Turbinaria (Plate 6-11) and Porites (Plate 6- 12) (MScience 2004; SKM 2007d; SKM 2007e; 2008e).

Additional data to describe coral assemblage structure in terms of coral colony density, growth form composition and colony size (diameter and height) was collected in 2008 (SKM 2008e; Appendix A10). The focus of this survey was to describe assemblage attributes that could be used to predict the relative sensitivity of coral assemblages to disturbances associated with dredging and spoil disposal programs.

Growth form composition of hard coral varied among sites, but some general patterns were apparent. Corals with massive (including sub massive), foliose and encrusting growth forms were most abundant. Branching corals were comparatively rare, even at sites furthest from the mainland (for example Tessa Shoals and Delambre Reef). Corals with average widths between 6 and 20 cm were the most abundant, followed by those between 21 and 40 cm. At Jarrman Island most colonies were less than 6 cm.

In terms of maximum height, most colonies fell within the categories of less than 6 cm or from 6 to 20 cm. The high proportion of small colonies reported from most sites in the Cape Lambert area probably reflects a high turnover of corals on reefs due to the frequency of cyclonic activity in this area. Unlike Mermaid Sound, most islands and reefs in Nickol Bay are small and offer little protection to coral assemblages from large destructive waves generated by cyclones. The density of hard coral colonies also varied greatly amongst sites. Mean densities of corals per 50 cm x 50 cm at the survey sites ranged from 0.1 (±0.35 SD) to 6.4 (±3.46 SD). Mean density for all sites combined was 2.6 (±1.9 SD; n = 28 sites). There was not a clear relationship between coral densities and distance from the mainland coast. However, the four sites at Tessa Shoal and Delambre Reef, in comparatively deep water (15 m vs <7 m), had lower mean densities than most other sites. Large numbers of small coral colonies were observed in intertidal areas at the Point Samson Reef, possibly indicating a recent and successful recruitment event.

During the most recent survey, there was no evidence of current or past widespread coral mortality from coral bleaching. However, during the intertidal survey large dead tabulate colonies found along the Point Samson shoreline were most likely the result of severe wave action due to a cyclone. Large living Porites colonies, many probably decades old, were observed at some tidal pools near Point Samson, and in one pool the largest Porites colony observed on the survey was dead. A small number of mucus covered coral colonies were observed at one site near the Tug Pen and a few bleached or partially bleached corals (<5% of the colonies) were recorded from a very shallow water site near Sam’s Creek. There was no evidence to attribute the coral stress to human activities and it is therefore assumed to be a result of elevated sea temperatures. Cape Lambert has experienced two major bleaching events in recent years, the latest in the summer of 2007/2008. At the time of the survey, there were no dredging and spoil disposal activities and

PAGE 6-36 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

corals near the Cape Lambert Power Station (those closest to the existing Cape Lambert wharf) exhibited no symptoms of stress and appeared healthy.

The significance of corals’ contribution to primary production in this area remains unclear. The productivity rate of hard corals is generally low compared with other BPP (Table 6-6). Furthermore, subtidal hard substratum, the habitat of hard corals, is not abundant off Cape Lambert. Whereas Mermaid Sound supports many large islands and a long rocky mainland coastline, the Cape Lambert side of Nickol Bay has few islands, and the mainland coastline is largely dominated by beaches and mangroves. As previously stated, the average coral cover for all sites combined was 16% (±11.6 SD; n = 33). These factors suggest strongly that the contribution of corals to regional primary productivity is likely to be relatively low compared to the potential contributions from other primary producers such as turf algae and phytoplankton.

Plate 6-10 Favia is a common type of hard coral in the area

Plate 6-11 Turbinaria coral is very common in the Cape Lambert area

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-37

Plate 6-12 Large Porites hard coral colonies are found at some sites

Seagrass

Seagrasses are generally found in coastal waters at depths of 2 to 10 m, although they have been recorded at 50 m in some Australian waters (Waycott et al. 2004). It is highly unlikely that seagrasses are present beyond approximately 50 m depth, mainly due to light attenuation.

Seagrasses in the region are generally sparse, occurring in low abundance on shallow sandy sediments in sheltered areas such as flats and large bays (Semeniuk et al. 1982; Jones 2004). Surveys in the Dampier Archipelago, including the Cape Lambert area, have identified nine species (Huisman & Borowitzka 2003):

Cymodocea angustata

Enhalus acoroides

Halophila decipiens

Halophila minor

Halophila ovalis

Halophila spinulosa

Halodule uninervis

Thalassia hemprichii

Syringodium isoetifolium.

The survey of marine habitats in the Cape Lambert area during January and February 2008, when seagrasses were expected to be at their greatest abundance, demonstrated that seagrasses are not abundant or widespread, being found at four sites only (Figure 6-13) (SKM 2008e; Appendix A10). This is consistent with previous surveys in the region (Semenuik et al. 1982; Wells & Walker 2003) that found

PAGE 6-38 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

seagrass was not abundant in the Dampier Archipelago. In the current study, Halophila ovalis (Plate 6- 13) was found at all three sites, while Halophila spinulosa was found only at one site. No sites supported extensive meadows. Rather, seagrasses formed low density patches not exceeding 2 m2 at any site. Poiner et al. (1987) and Lanyon and Marsh (1995) referred to H. ovalis as a pioneering or colonising species, because it is one of the first to recruit following disturbance, thus it can tolerate areas of frequent disturbance. Frequent disturbance in the Cape Lambert area results from seasonal westerly and north- easterly winds that redistribute sediment in shallow water environments. Cyclones can also have major influences on the abundance and distribution of seagrasses (Birch & Birch 1984). Waycott et al. (2004) describes H. ovalis as having one of the widest environmental tolerances of all seagrass species because it has been recorded from the intertidal zone to a depth of 30 m, and from low to hypersaline conditions. It is unlikely that seasonal patterns in seagrass growth confounded the results of the 2008 Cape Lambert survey, because pioneering species such as H. ovalis reach peak abundance (per cent cover and or standing crop) during the wet season (November to March) and die-off in the dry season (Lanyon & Marsh 1995). Seagrass is therefore unlikely to be a major contributor to benthic primary production in the Cape Lambert area.

Plate 6-13 Seagrasses such as Halophila ovalis are not abundant in the Cape Lambert area

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-39

Figure 6-13 Distribution and abundance of seagrasses in the Cape Lambert area

PAGE 6-40 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Macroalgae

Macroalgae, or seaweeds, generally require a hard substratum and sufficient sunlight to allow photosynthesis and so generally reach their greatest abundances in clear, shallow water. In nearshore areas, macroalgae are most commonly found on shallow limestone pavements located throughout the region (Huisman & Borowitzka 2003). Huisman and Borowitzka (2003) reported 201 species of macroalgae (including blue-green algae) from the region. The most abundant macroalgae in the region are the brown algae, or Phaeophyceae. In particular, species from the genera Sargassum, Dictyopteris and Padina are very common. The most numerically abundant group is the green algae (Chlorophyta), including Caulerpa species (Plate 6-14) and calcareous Halimeda species (Plate 6-14) (Huisman & Borowitzka 2003; Jones 2004). A variety of red algae (Rhodophyta) are found in the Dampier Archipelago including corallines (for example, Amphiroa species), calcified red algae (for example, Galaxaura and Patenocarpus species) and algal turf (Huisman & Borowitzka 2003: Jones 2004). In the Cape Lambert area, the most conspicuous genera are Sargassum, Caulerpa, Codium and Padina (Ecologia 1997). Ecologia (1997) reported high abundances (>70% cover) of Sargassum from subtidal reefs near Cape Lambert. Such high abundances were not recorded at any sites during the 2008 surveys (SKM 2008e; Appendix A10), and may reflect the differences in the time of year each survey was undertaken.

During surveys conducted at Cape Lambert in March 2008 (SKM 2008e; Appendix A10), macroalgae and crustose coralline algae (Plate 6-15) were widespread (Figure 6-14). In addition to species of Caulerpa, Halimeda and Padina, Sargassum myriocystum and Neomeris vanbosseae, and Cystoseira sp. and Hormophysa cuneiformis (Plate 6-15) were abundant at some sites. A turf algae assemblage (Plate 6- 15) was highly abundant at most sites, with an average site cover of 37.5% (±23 SD) (Figure 6-15) (SKM 2008e; Appendix A10). Turf algae form the primary benthic component on hard substratum in the Cape Lambert area and, given their high rate of productivity (1–6 g C m-2 d-1; refer to Table 6-6 for comparison with other BPP) is probably the dominant benthic primary producer in subtidal waters. According to Larkum (1983), turf algae may represent the largest component of primary production on coral reefs because they have a very high photosynthetic rate and are intensively grazed by fish and invertebrates. Williams and Carpenter (1990) suggested that given the high rates of productivity by turf algae, combined with high coverage of reef substratum, turfs may contribute between 70 and 80% to whole reef primary productivity. Borowitzka and Mercer (2007) reported clear seasonality in the productivity of turf algae communities in the region, with maximum productivity in August.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-41

Plate 6-14 Left: Caulerpa is a common green macroalgae off Cape Lambert; right: Halimeda is a common green algae

6.5.3 Fish The North West Shelf supports a diverse assemblage of fishes, particularly in shallow waters near the Dampier Archipelago. Hutchins (2004) studied the shallow-water fish fauna of the Dampier Archipelago (to a depth of 30 m) and found it comprised a total of 650 species. However, the sampling effort was not uniform across all habitat types present in the region and therefore the dominance of species associated with particular habitat types may reflect both actual differences in proportions and/or a disproportionate sampling effort in the habitats showing the highest diversity. Coral reef species were particularly well represented (465) and to a lesser extent mangrove species (116). A separate study by Hutchins (2003), which also included species trawled and dredged to a depth of 45 m, identified 735 species of fish fauna in the Dampier Archipelago area. Larger species that attract divers and recreational and commercial fishers include coral trout (Plectropomus spp.), tusk fish (Cheorodon spp.), rock cod, large potato cod (Epinephelus tukula) and manta rays (Manta birostris). Ecologia (1997) surveyed fish from nearshore habitats at Cape Lambert, recording 104 species. They recorded the highest number of species from areas where coral were among the BPP on reefs. There are no known endemic species from the Cape Lambert area (S Morrison, Western Australian Museum, 2008, pers. comm., 29 January).

PAGE 6-42 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 6-14 Macroalgae distribution and abundance in the Cape Lambert area

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-43

Figure 6-15 Turf algae distribution and abundance in the Cape Lambert area

PAGE 6-44 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

6.5.4 Plankton Phytoplankton groups in the waters of the North West Shelf include diatoms, coccolithophorids and dinoflagellates. Studies indicate that the standing crop of phytoplankton on the North West Shelf is not particularly high (approximately 20 to 40 mg Chl-a m-3) and is nitrogen limited (Herzfeld et al. 2003). Surface waters of the North West Shelf contain very little nitrate so that at most times of year, the bulk of the phytoplankton standing crop lies well beneath the surface, either at the base of the thermocline or in the bottom mixed layer adjacent to the seafloor where high concentrations of nitrates exist.

While surface waters of the North West Shelf are oligotrophic (nutrient poor), the mixing and upwelling of deeper offshore waters near the Shelf create localised intermittent fluxes of nutrient rich water and, in turn, enhanced productivity in the surface mixed layer. Areas of enhanced production are also observed at the interface between stable waters warmed by solar heating and unstable waters mixed by tidal turbulence, but such fronts are rarely found seaward of the 40 m isobath (Heyward et al. 2000).

There is limited seasonal variability in the distribution of phytoplankton, with the little variation that does occur, being a more vertical concentration in summer and more dispersion in winter (Herzfeld et al. 2003). This low variability may be attributed to the Leeuwin Current minimising the intrusion of high-nitrate slope water onto the Shelf in winter when mixing would normally result in increased productivity. Summer productivity is naturally low and as a result seasonal variation in the standing crop of phytoplankton is limited.

During the warmer months, extensive blooms of Trichodesmium occur throughout the region, including the waters of the Dampier Archipelago and Cape Lambert, but its role in nutrient cycling and the trophic system is not known (Creagh 1985), although it might contribute significantly to the nitrogen budget. There have been no known deleterious water quality impacts caused by toxic algal blooms in the region (Heyward et al. 2000).

6.5.5 Marine Invertebrates The nearshore Dampier Archipelago, which shares similar habitats to the Cape Lambert area, supports an abundant and diverse group of tropical invertebrate species. Over 2226 species of marine invertebrates have been recorded in the Archipelago, including 1227 molluscs, 438 crustaceans and 286 echinoderms (CALM 2005). The Dampier Archipelago contains a species-rich sponge fauna, with 275 sponge species recorded, of which approximately 20% are presently known to be limited to Western Australia (Fromont 2003). While extensive surveys of the Western Australian coastline are limited, there is data to suggest that some sponge species have limited distributions and Fromont (2003) suggests that the high level of endemism may be the result of a short larval phase and limited dispersal. Some invertebrates can be extremely abundant in this region. Kohn (2003) surveyed the infauna invertebrates of an intertidal sand flat near Dampier and found the polychaete Owenia fusiformis at mean densities of 50 m-2 and the shrimp Ogyrides mjobergi at 10 m-2. Other conspicuous fauna included the crab Macrophthalmus (1.5 m-2) and the predatory gastropods Polinices conicus (0.6 m-2). Coastal (defined as areas within 1 km of shore or islands) soft sediments in the Cape Lambert area support occasional sea anemones, sea cucumbers, numerous polychaete worms (up to 100 m-2), horn shells (family Potamididae), moon snails (Naticidae), dog whelks (Nassariidae) and mitres (Mitridae), razor clams (Pinnidae), cockles (Cardiidae) and the

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-45

watering pot shell (Clavagellidae) (Ecologia 1997). A variety of molluscs have been observed, including large clams (Tridachna maxima) and several nudibranch species (SKM 2003). The substrate at the end of the existing Port A wharf is dominated by turbid environment specialists such as soft corals including gorgonians and sea whips, hydroids, sponges, bryozoans, crinoids and ascidians. There were very few algae, and those that were present were very pale indicating a light-limited environment. Several species of unidentified nudibranch molluscs and cushion starfish have also been observed (Ecologia 1997; SKM 2008e; Appendix A10).

The offshore (defined as areas more than 1 km from shore or islands) sandy environment is dominated by epifauna comprising echinoderms (sea cucumbers, feather stars and sea stars), bryozoans, gastropod molluscs, cnidarians (soft corals and hydroids), sponges and ascidians. Species richness and animal density was dependant on the quantity of hard substratum present and averaged 10 species and 3.3 animals m-2 respectively (SKM 2003).

6.5.6 Marine Reptiles Sea Turtles

At least four species of marine turtle nest in the greater Cape Lambert region (Guinea 2008) and another two species are present as either migratory or foraging species (Table 6-9). Of the four species known to nest in the region, three species (flatbacks, greens and hawksbills) nest on Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach (Figure 6-16) in the Cape Lambert lease (Biota 2009; Appendix A5).

Table 6-9 Species of marine turtles known from the Cape Lambert area

Status (Wildlife Presence at Cape Lambert Status (EPBC Act Conservation (Specially Species 1999) Protected Fauna) Nesting Foraging Migrating Notice 2006) Flatback Marine Rare2 9 9 9 (Natator Vulnerable depressus) Green Marine Rare 9 9 9 (Chelonia Vulnerable mydas) Hawksbill Marine Rare 9 9 9 (Eretmochelys Vulnerable imbricate) Loggerhead Marine Rare 9 9 9 (Caretta Endangered caretta) Leatherback Marine Rare - 9 9 (Dermochelys Critically Endangered1 coriacea) Olive ridley Marine Rare - 9 9 (Lepidochelys Endangered olivacea) Source: Guinea 2008 1 Leatherback turtles are subject to nomination from Vulnerable to Critically Endangered under the EPBC Act. 2 Rare or Likely to Become Extinct in Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice 2006(2).

PAGE 6-46 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 6-16 Location of turtle nesting beaches in the vicinity of the Port B development

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-47

Nesting season for turtles in the Cape Lambert region starts around November and continues through to March with a maximum number of nesting turtles coming ashore in November and December (Blamires et al. 2003). The first hatched nests appear in December and continue through March with a peak of hatching in January and February (Salinovich 2006). The number of turtles that nest at Bell’s Beach is about 200 per annum, while less than 50 nest on Cooling Water Beach per annum (Biota 2008d; Appendix A5). In contrast, some nesting beaches on islands in the Dampier Archipelago host these numbers in a single night. Consequently Bell’s and Cooling Water beaches are not recognised as nationally or regionally significant turtle nesting beaches (Biota 2008d; Appendix A5). Bell’s Beach is the focus beach for community volunteers to monitor turtles.

Seasnakes

Greer (2004) and Guinea et al. (2004) recorded twelve species of seasnake in the Pilbara region, with the olive seasnake (Aipysurus laevis) being the most common. Most of the recorded seasnakes belong to the family Hydrophiidae (true seasnakes) and inhabit a variety of environments. The horned seasnake (Acalyptophis peronii) prefers sandy substrates, whilst species such as Dubois' seasnake (Aipysurus duboisii) and the olive seasnake inhabit coral reefs (Greer 2004; Guinea et al. 2004). The black-ringed seasnake (Hyderelaps darwiniensis) is found in mangroves and mudflats, while other species are found in turbid waters and waters over soft bottoms such as mud, including the spine-tailed seasnake (Aipysurus eydouxii), olive-headed seasnake (Disteira major) and Stoke’s seasnake (Astrotia stokesii) (Greer 2004; Guinea et al. 2004). It is recognised that whilst these species usually occur in marine habitats, there is the possibility they may be found in the intertidal zone (Shine & Shetty 2001) of the marine component of the Port B development area as they are known to utilise a variety of habitats in the nearshore region (Heatwole & Cogger 1994). None of these species are endemic to the Pilbara region, and Cape Lambert area is not a known breeding or feeding area for seasnakes. During a recent field trip (February 2008; SKM 2008e; Appendix A10), a large numbers of seasnakes, (A. laevis) (M. Guinea 2008, pers. comm., 11 February) were observed on Delambre Reef, but were not observed at the other 35 sites surveyed using scuba.

Crocodiles

Estuarine or saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) are infrequently sighted in the Cape Lambert region. The status of this species in the region is unclear, but is probably very uncommon, although there may be seasonal and inter-annual fluctuations in abundance and distribution. Cape Lambert and the Dampier region are not considered to be important breeding areas for this species due to a lack of suitable habitat, and consequently the majority of crocodiles present in the area at any time are likely to be vagrants, primarily smaller crocodiles, displaced from suitable breeding habitat further north by larger individuals.

PAGE 6-48 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

6.5.7 Marine Mammals Whales and dolphins

A total of eight species of toothed whale (including five species of dolphin), and four species of baleen whale have been recorded from the proposed Dampier Archipelago Marine Park (CALM 2005), located less than 20 km from Cape Lambert. The species include the minke whale, Bryde's whale, blue whale, humpback whale, killer whale, false killer whale, common dolphin, striped dolphin, bottlenose dolphin, Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin and Risso's dolphin. Knowledge on the size of the population, distribution, migratory habits and regional and local importance of the Cape Lambert region remains unclear. Prince (2001) undertook aerial surveys of marine mammals and other large fauna of the Pilbara coast in 2000 and concluded that Pilbara coastal waters support small populations of dolphins, the majority of which appear to be bottlenose (Tursiops sp.) and some humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis). Many of the larger whales tend to remain in deep water (>20 m) (Prince 2001).

Compared with all other species, only the occurrence of the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), in the Dampier/Cape Lambert area is reasonably well documented (Jenner et al. 2001). Humpback whales migrate annually from feeding grounds in the Antarctic to breeding grounds in Camden Sound in the Kimberley region of Western Australia (Jenner et al. 2001). During their migration along the Western Australia coast, their north bound migration, seaward of the Dampier Archipelago, peaks during the last week of July and the first week of August (Jenner et al. 2001). The peak of the south bound migration in the region occurs during the last week in August and the first week of September. Jenner et al. (2001) suggested that the majority of migrating whales are found in waters deeper than 50 m; however, some individuals, particularly during the southern migration, come closer to shore near Cape Lambert and are visible from the shore of Cape Lambert Wharf. According to the DEWHA (DEH 2006), the Dampier region, including Cape Lambert is not an aggregation or calving area for this species.

Dugongs

Dugongs (Dugong dugon) are associated with tropical and sub-tropical coastal waters, and in particular shallow, protected waters such as sheltered bays, mangrove channels and in the lee of large inshore islands (UNEP 2002). Dugongs are herbivores that feed on seagrass. The dugong’s reproductive cycle is sensitive to food availability; with breeding delayed if sufficient food is not available (UNEP 2002). The distribution of dugong in the Pilbara region is widespread, including Barrow Island and the Montebello Islands, the Dampier Archipelago and the mainland coastal waters (Prince 2001). However, the Cape Lambert area does not support any significant population of this species due to the absence of large seagrass meadows.

To better understand the potential consequences of the Port B development it is important to note that some sensitive marine receptors do not occur year-round at Cape Lambert (Table 6-10). For example, humpback whales are only likely to be observed in the general region from July to October, whereas marine turtles nesting activity is restricted to the summer months. The potential sensitive windows for coral spawning are February, March, April, November and December. The months when spawning is most likely is two of the months from Feb to April and one of the months either November or December.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-49

Table 6-10 Predictable occurrence periods for sensitive marine fauna in the Cape Lambert area

Receptor Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Turtle nesting Emerging hatchlings Humpback whales Coral spawning

Legend Predicted occurrence Potential occurrence Unlikely to occur

6.5.8 Birds Like the adjacent Dampier Archipelago, the Cape Lambert area contains a range of habitats that are productive feeding grounds for a variety of endemic and migratory marine birds. Seabirds and shorebirds in the area also utilise the many islands off Cape Lambert and Dampier Archipelago and the beaches as nesting and roosting sites. Various species of seabirds and shorebirds nest on the islands of the Dampier Archipelago throughout the year, but mostly in winter (CALM 1990). While many marine birds are resident in the area throughout the year, the area also provides habitat for a variety of migratory shorebird species that journey from Asia and the Arctic Circle to feed on the worms, bivalves and other invertebrates in the area’s intertidal sand and mud flat and mangrove communities (CALM 2005). There are two sites on the Pilbara mainland coast listed by Birds Australia as important Australian bird sites: the Solar Salt Ponds at Dampier Salt works and the tidal flats near Port Hedland. Neither is located in close proximity to Cape Lambert.

6.5.9 Marine Fauna of Conservation Significance Commonwealth Protected Fauna

Threatened fauna and flora may be listed in any one of the following categories as defined in the EPBC Act: critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, conservation dependent and migratory (Table 5-8). Listed threatened species are matters of national environmental significance (protected matters) under the EPBC Act's assessment and approval provisions.

A search of the DEWHA protected matters search tool indicated nine marine species listed as threatened and thus protected under the EPBC Act that are likely to occur within, or migrate through the development area (DEWHA 2007; Table 6-11).

In total, 80 marine species that could occur in the development area are protected under the EPBC Act and are presented in Appendix A16. These include migratory species and those not listed as threatened, however they are still protected under the Act as they have been identified as significant species in maintaining Australia’s marine biodiversity (DEWHA 2007).

PAGE 6-50 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 6-11 Threatened marine fauna protected under the EPBC Act

Scientific Name Common Name Status Type of Presence Fish Rhincodon typus Whale shark Vulnerable, migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area Marine Reptile Species Chelonia mydas Green turtle Vulnerable, migratory Breeding likely to occur within area Caretta caretta Loggerhead turtle Endangered, migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area Dermochelys coriaceaa Leatherback turtle Vulnerable, migratory Species or species habitat may occur within area Eretmochelys imbricate Hawksbill turtle Vulnerable, migratory Breeding likely to occur within area Natator depressus Flatback turtle Vulnerable, migratory Breeding likely to occur within area Marine Mammal Species Megaptera Humpback whale Vulnerable, migratory, Species or species habitat known to novaeangliae cetacean occur within area Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale Endangered, migratory, Species or species habitat may occur cetacean within area Bird Species Macronectes giganteus Southern giant Endangered, migratory Species or species habitat may occur petrel within area

Species linked with benthic habitat are also protected as part of the environment under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981. No benthic habitats in the project area are considered critical feeding, breeding or aggregation areas for these listed threatened species.

Fish

Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) are listed as vulnerable migratory species under the EPBC Act. R. typus are large filter feeding fish species that usually feed on krill, crab larvae and jellyfish (DEWHA 2007). They aggregate annually around Ningaloo Reef during autumn, shortly after the coral has undergone mass spawning (Wilson et al. 2006). This movement into the reef waters allows whale sharks to capitalise on the increased production of zooplankton brought about as a result of this mass spawning of corals and other marine organisms (Taylor 1996). The broad-scale movements of R. typus are largely unknown (Wilson et al 2006); however, they have been observed migrating and feeding from Shark Bay to the Dampier Archipelago (Chevron Texaco 2005). The Cape Lambert area is not a known aggregation or feeding site for this species.

Pipefish, pipehorses and seahorses (family Sygnathidae) are widely distributed throughout Western Australian waters and many have been recorded within the waters of the Dampier Archipelago by Hutchins (2003) in a variety of habitats. Although they are not threatened species, pipefish, pipehorses and seahorses are listed marine species under the EPBC Act and are therefore protected. The protected matters database indicates that there are likely to be 30 species occurring within the Cape Lambert area (DEWHA 2007; Appendix A16). No species is known to be restricted entirely to the Cape Lambert area or the Dampier region as a whole.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-51

Marine Reptiles

Sea turtles are found worldwide in tropical, subtropical and warm temperate waters. The green (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), flatback (Natator depressus), loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) turtles are all listed as threatened species under the EPBC act. The first four species are known to nest in the general Cape Lambert region (Section 6.5.6). Under the EPBC Act, the green, leatherback, hawksbill and flatback turtles are listed as vulnerable, while loggerhead turtles are listed as endangered (DEWHA 2007).

The DEWHA (2007) database identifies 15 seasnake species potentially occurring in the vicinity of the development site, which compares with the 12 species recorded by Guinea et al. (2004) in the Pilbara region. These species are listed as marine species under the EPBC Act and are therefore protected.

Marine Mammals

A total of 13 marine mammal species listed under the EPBC Act are likely to occur within the waters surrounding the development area (DEWHA 2007). Of these, the blue (Balaenoptera musculus) and humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae) whales are listed as threatened, with B. musculus being the only endangered mammal species known to occur in the area (DEWHA 2007). These two species have special protection under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA) where they are described as ‘rare or likely to become extinct’. The other whale and dolphin species found within the development area are listed as migratory and/or marine species under the EPBC Act and are protected as they are regarded as species of national environmental significance (DEWHA 2007). As stated in Section 6.5.7, most large whale species, such as blue whales, remain in deep water (>20 m) off the Pilbara coast, and are not close to the development area. Some humpback whales, during their seasonal migration along the Pilbara coastline, are spotted close to the mainland near Cape Lambert. However, a large proportion of the population remain in deep water well offshore from Cape Lambert. Further, this area is not a known aggregation or calving area.

Dugongs (Dugong dugon) are likely to occur in the area and are listed as migratory marine species under the EPBC Act (DEWHA 2007). The distribution of dugong in the Pilbara region is discussed earlier (Section 6.5.7). The Cape Lambert region is not a known feeding or aggregation area for this species, nor does it support large seagrass meadows.

Birds

Cape Lambert and the offshore islands contain a range of habitats that are productive feeding grounds for a variety of endemic and migratory marine birds. While many birds are resident in the area throughout the year, the region also provides habitat for a variety of migratory marine bird species that travel from Asia and the Arctic Circle to feed on the large intertidal sand and mud flat areas and associated mangrove communities (CALM 2005).

The southern giant petrel (Macronectus giganteus) is the only endangered marine bird species that may occur in the region of the development (DEWHA 2007). Although listed in the EPBC protected matters database as potentially occurring in the region, it is unlikely to be present at such low latitudes away from

PAGE 6-52 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

its usual southern habitat and has not been recorded within the Cape Lambert region (BLI 2004; Birds Australia 2008).

In total, there are 14 migratory and marine bird species as listed under the EPBC Act potentially occurring in the area (DEWHA 2007). This includes four species which are known to have breeding grounds within the development area; the silver gull (Larus novaehollandiae), wedge-tailed shearwater (Puffinus pacificus), crested tern (Sterna bergii) and the caspian tern (Sterna caspia) (DEWHA 2007). The distribution of seabirds and shorebirds around the development area is discussed in Section 6.5.8.

State Protected Fauna

The Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA) provides for the protection of native fauna, with species considered as needing special protection listed under one of four categories in the Wildlife Conservation (Specially Protected Fauna) Notice, these being:

Schedule 1 – fauna that are rare or likely to become extinct

Schedule 2 – fauna presumed to be extinct

Schedule 3 – birds that are subject to agreements between the Australian government and the Japanese Government, which relate to the protection of migratory birds and birds in danger of extinction

Schedule 4 – other specially protected fauna.

The following marine species which have been recorded from the Pilbara region are protected under the Act:

southern giant petrel (Macronectus giganteus) – Schedule 1

loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) – Schedule 1

green turtle (Chelonia mydas) – Schedule 1

leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriaceaa) – Schedule 1

hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) – Schedule 1

flatback turtle (Natator depressus) – Schedule 1

dugong (Dugong dugon) – Schedule 4

blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) – Schedule 1

humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) – Schedule 1

southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) – Schedule 1

Indian yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche carteri) – Schedule 1

Atlantic yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche chlororhynchos) – Schedule 1

masked booby (eastern Indian Ocean) (Sula dactylatra bedouti) – Schedule 1

Australian painted snipe (Rostratula benghalensis australis) – Schedule 1

Barrow Island black-and-white fairy-wren (Malurus leucopterus edouardi) – Schedule 1

grey nurse shark (Carcharias taurus) – Schedule 1

saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) – Schedule 4.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-53

In addition to those species protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WA), a number of species are listed as Priority species by the DEC. The priority categories are presented in Table 5-8. Although not conferred legal protection, these species have been identified as being significant. The following marine species recorded from the Pilbara Region have been listed as Priority fauna:

sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus) – Priority 4

Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis) – Priority 4

spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris) – Priority 4.

International Agreements

Migratory marine bird species which travel seasonally between Australia and Northern Asia are likely to pass through Cape Lambert on their way to islands and the Pilbara coastal habitats. An international agreement between the Government of Australia and the Governments of Japan (JAMBA) and China (CAMBA), protecting many of these birds, was ratified in 1981 under the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975 (Cwth), which has since been replaced by the EPBC Act.

The Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS or Bonn Convention) aims to conserve terrestrial, marine and avian migratory species throughout their range. The provisions of this convention have been incorporated into the EPBC Act.

6.5.10 Key Marine Environmental Sensitivities Commonwealth and State Marine Protected Areas

There are no existing Commonwealth marine protected areas in the Cape Lambert area. The closest is the Ningaloo Marine Park (Commonwealth waters) off Exmouth Peninsula, about 330 km from Cape Lambert.

Cape Lambert is not situated in a state marine protected area. The closest is the Montebello Islands Marine Park, 180 km from Cape Lambert. The proposed DAMP occurs west and north-west of Cape Lambert. Both Dixon and Delambre islands are included in the proposed DAMP. Dixon Island is about 8 km west of Cape Lambert, while the Delambre Island Sanctuary Zone is about 20 km to the north-west (refer Section 7.8.2). The area between Cape Lambert and Cape Thouin is one of six study areas in the Pilbara-Kimberley region from within which marine parks and reserves will be identified (DEC 2008). One of these study areas includes Bell’s Beach.

Some of the islands of the Dampier Archipelago are contained within nature reserves for the protection of flora and fauna and are managed under the Dampier Archipelago Nature Reserves Management Plan 1999 – 2000 (CALM 1990).

Point Samson Reef has fishing restrictions imposed under Section 43 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (WA).

PAGE 6-54 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

The mangroves east of Cossack were described as regionally significant under the EPA’s guidance statement for protection of tropical arid zone mangroves along the Pilbara coastline (EPA 2001).

World Heritage Properties and Ramsar Wetlands

There are no world heritage properties in the Cape Lambert area. The closest is the Shark Bay World Heritage Property over 600 km to the south. There are no Ramsar wetlands in the Cape Lambert area. The closest Ramsar wetland is Eighty Mile Beach, located south-west of Broome.

National and Commonwealth Heritage listings

The Dampier Archipelago, including the Burrup Peninsula is a National Heritage listed property. There are no Commonwealth-listed heritage sites in the Cape Lambert area. Note that the ‘Dampier Archipelago Marine Areas’ (including waters off Cape Lambert) are listed under the Register of the National Estate (Place ID: 17563).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 6-55

Cape Lambert Port B Development

7. Existing Socio-Economic Environment

7.1 Socio-economic Studies and Surveys This section of the PER describes the existing social and economic environment of the local and regional setting in the vicinity of the Port B development. A number of studies and surveys have been undertaken to characterise the existing social and economic environment including:

Social Impact Assessment (SIA), undertaken for the Proponent (URS & ACIL Tasman 2008)

landscape and visual impact survey and assessment, undertaken by SKM (SKM 2008m; Appendix A17)

Aboriginal heritage assessment being undertaken by the Proponent

traffic assessment, undertaken by SKM (SKM 2008n).

7.2 Social Profile 7.2.1 Overview The Port B development is located within the Shire of Roebourne in the Pilbara region. The Shire of Roebourne encompasses the major centres of Karratha, Dampier and Wickham, the smaller communities of Roebourne and Point Samson and the historical township of Cossack. In 2006, the Shire of Roebourne had a total population of more than 17 000 (ABS 2006).

7.2.2 Wickham The town of Wickham is located 6 km south-south-west of Cape Lambert and was established to service the needs of the mining industry in the 1970s. It remains the principal support town for the port operations at Cape Lambert and has a total population of 1823 people (ABS 2006). The Proponent continues to play a major role in the provision of services and infrastructure in the town.

Table 7-1 Wickham key characteristics

Item Information Established 1972 Population 1823 % Population <14 years old 29.3% % Population >55 years old 6.8% Mean individual income $792/week Number of occupied dwellings 535 Average household size 3 people Private home ownership 5% School access Local primary schools with high school in Karratha Governance Former company town now partially normalised Source: URS 2008a

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 7-1

7.2.3 Roebourne Roebourne is located 17 km south from Cape Lambert Port B and 39 km east of Karratha on the North West Coastal Highway. Established in 1867, Roebourne is one of the oldest towns on the north-west coast. It has a population of approximately 920 (ABS 2006). Some Port A employees reside in Roebourne.

Table 7-2 Roebourne key characteristics

Item Information Established 1867 Population 920 % Population <14 years old 25.3% % Population >55 years old 17.6% Number of occupied dwellings 342 Private home ownership 33% School access Local primary school and high school Governance Open town Source: URS 2008b

7.2.4 Point Samson Point Samson is a small fishing and tourist town with a population of under 300 (ABS 2006) located at the eastern tip of the Dampier Archipelago and 5 km east of Cape Lambert Port B development. Point Samson is comprised of residential homes, holiday homes, several restaurants, a caravan park, a small harbour and commercial fishing fleet. The DPI operates the harbour at Point Samson (John’s Creek) which primarily services the fishing industry and provides general marine services.

7.2.5 Cossack Established in 1863 at the mouth of the Harding River near Roebourne, Cossack was once a thriving community servicing the pastoral and pearling industries. The town was abandoned after World War II following unsuccessful attempts to revive the local pearling industry.

The Shire of Roebourne is developing a concept plan for future development at Cossack (DHW & SoR 2006), which includes proposals for a heritage precinct, a commercial zone, residential/tourist accommodation, parkland and improved access and amenities. Cossack is located approximately 7 km south-east of the Port B development.

7.2.6 Other Regional Centres Karratha, with a population of 11 325 is situated approximately 35 km to the south-west of Cape Lambert and is the main service centre for the region (ABS 2006). Dampier is located almost 50 km to the west- south-west of Cape Lambert. The other port facilities operated by the Proponent in the region are at Dampier (Parker Point and East Intercourse Island). The town of Dampier supports a population of approximately 1400 (ABS 2006).

PAGE 7-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

7.3 Economic Profile Mineral and petroleum industries dominate the regional Pilbara economy. In 2004/05, the Pilbara contributed over 62% of the value of Western Australia's mineral and petroleum production (DLGRD 2006). The Department of Local Government and Regional Development estimated the Pilbara’s Gross Regional Product was approximately $4.8 billion in 2004/05.

The production value of the mineral and petroleum industries in the Pilbara was $20.6 billion in 2004/05, with iron ore valued at $8 billion; oil and condensate valued at $7.2 billion; and gas (LNG, LPG, natural gas) valued at $4.8 billion (DLGRD 2006) (Figure 7-1). Commercial activities in the Pilbara primarily service the mineral and energy sector: engineering, surveying, personnel and equipment hiring services are well represented.

Source: PDC 2006

Figure 7-1 Production values of industrial activities in the Pilbara region

The Pilbara is Western Australia’s principal iron ore mining region. Between 1995/1996 and 2004/2005 the value of iron ore production increased from $2.9 billion to $8 billion, accounting for over 90% of the state’s production (DLGRD 2006). The production value of the Pilbara iron ore industry will have increased significantly since 2004/5 due to the major expansions implemented since that time, with further expansions planned or underway.

7.4 Housing and Accommodation The onset of the current resources expansion in the Pilbara region has placed pressure on housing availability and affordability. Housing is a critical component of social and economic infrastructure, as are hospitals, schools, roads, railways, ports, and essential service utilities.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 7-3

Between 1996 and 2006, 917 new house approvals were granted by the Shire of Roebourne. In 2005 and 2006 approvals were high at 133 and 130, respectively. The average value of new housing approvals in the Shire of Roebourne has increased substantially from $123 661 in 1996 to $340 197 in 2006 (ABS 2006).

7.5 Regional Infrastructure and Social Services 7.5.1 Water The West Pilbara Water Supply Scheme supplies water to the towns of Karratha, Dampier, Roebourne, Wickham and Point Samson. Approximately 11.6 GL was supplied in 2007/8 financial year, from the licence value of 15 GL sourced from the Harding Dam and the Millstream aquifer annually (Water Corporation 2008).

7.5.2 Power The North West Interconnected System is the electricity grid that links the coastal regions of Port Hedland, Wickham/Cape Lambert and Dampier/Karratha, and extends inland to Pannawonica, Paraburdoo and Shay Gap. It was formed by the interconnection of systems owned and operated by Western Power (now Horizon Power), Pilbara Iron, Alinta and BHP Billiton.

7.5.3 Roads The region is easily accessible by road from Perth by two major highways – the Great Northern Highway (National Highway) and the North West Coastal Highway. Several transport companies provide daily freight deliveries to major Pilbara centres.

7.5.4 Rail The Pilbara has a rail network totalling 1524 km in length. The network is owned and operated by iron ore producers in the region.

7.5.5 Air Transport The Karratha airport services the towns of Karratha, Dampier, Wickham, Roebourne, Cossack and Point Samson and is currently serviced by Qantas and local charter airlines. Qantas and Qantaslink provide over 30 connections to Perth and a similar number from Perth to Karratha each week.

Given the increased passenger throughput usage (20% per annum increase over the last five years), an upgrade of Karratha airport is underway. This includes the lengthening and widening of the main runway and associated taxiway and apron works. When completed, the upgraded airport will have capacity for larger aircraft and will substantially complete the Airport Master Plan first adopted by the Shire of Roebourne in 1995.

7.5.6 Communication Major towns in the Region are connected to the internet. Karratha, Roebourne, Dampier and Wickham also have access to digital subscriber line (DSL) services. The towns of Karratha, Roebourne, Dampier,

PAGE 7-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Point Samson and Wickham are serviced by mobile telephony. All major towns and most communities receive radio services.

7.5.7 Ports The ports in the Pilbara handle tonnages far in excess of any other ports in the state, dominated by the export of iron ore and salt. The largest regional ports are located at Port Hedland, Dampier and Cape Lambert.

7.5.8 Education and Training Education opportunities in the region range from pre-school to post-secondary. Primary schools operate in Karratha, Dampier, Wickham and Roebourne. High schools are located in Karratha and Roebourne, with the majority of high school students from Dampier and Wickham commuting to Karratha. Pilbara TAFE offers a wide range of vocational education and training courses and services.

7.5.9 Health The regional hospital is located at Port Hedland. The towns of Karratha, Roebourne and Wickham are serviced by district hospitals. Karratha also receives visits from medical specialists. Emergency cases in isolated areas and smaller centres are evacuated to larger hospitals by the Royal Flying Doctor Service based at Port Hedland.

7.5.10 Recreational Services Sport and recreation are important features of Pilbara towns and provide many people with their main access to community and social life. In coastal towns about 50 per cent of people are involved at least monthly in water sports (fishing, boating) and/or ball sports. Camping is also an important activity (URS 2008a).

The Pilbara Recreation Association (PRA) is responsible for the development and implementation of the Pilbara Regional Recreation Plan 2006–2010. This provides an overview of what the Pilbara community requires in regards to sport and recreation, planned activities and facilities.

The Department of Sport and Recreation is finalising a Regional Strategic Plan 2007–2010 for the Pilbara, due to be finalised in 2008. The draft plan recognises that the Pilbara Shires and the mining industry have, in the past through their voluntary endeavours, played a large part in developing the lifestyle and wellbeing of Pilbara residents.

7.6 Land Use and Land Tenure 7.6.1 Land Use Planning Land use planning in the region is guided by a number of strategic planning documents including:

Pilbara Land Use Strategy (PDC 1997)

State Planning Strategy (WAPC 1997)

Shire of Roebourne Local Planning Strategy (Shire of Roebourne 2008).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 7-5

The Shire of Roebourne Local Planning Strategy (SoR 2008) provides a guideline and framework for land use planning for the next 10 to 15 years.

7.6.2 Shire of Roebourne Town Planning Scheme The local planning scheme and development strategy identify planning objectives, intentions and proposals of the council and community within the guidelines and framework provided by the local planning strategy.

The Shire of Roebourne Town Planning Scheme No. 8 lists town planning scheme objectives specific for Cape Lambert, which are to:

facilitate the development of the Cape Lambert precinct as a strategic industry estate which: - allows the efficient and effective processing of primary resources - does not compromise the lifestyle and tourist assets of the Shire - has regard to the environment and heritage values of the area

accommodate the development of additional port facilities, including public wharf facilities

retain access to key coastal recreational nodes within the precinct, in particular Boat Beach.

The Port B development is within an area designated for industrial use in the Town Planning Scheme. Areas designated for urban development have been identified under the town planning scheme for the towns of Wickham, Point Samson and Cossack (SoR 2008).

7.6.3 Land Tenure Land tenure for the Port B development is shown in Figure 7-2. Land-based infrastructure for the Port B development will be located within the following tenure:

Cape Lambert Industrial Area Special Lease 3116/4623

Railway Special Lease 3116/4622.

Marine infrastructure will be located within:

Cape Lambert Marine Structure Special Lease 3116/4624

Cape Lambert Marine Structure Special Lease 3116/4625.

Additional tenure is required for marine infrastructure including the wharf/jetty. Applications for tenure are being undertaken separately to this PER.

PAGE 7-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 7-2 Land tenure in the Cape Lambert area

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 7-7

7.7 Visual Amenity 7.7.1 Visual Amenity Assessment An assessment of landscape and visual amenity has been conducted based on desktop studies and field survey in accordance with the requirements of WAPC 2007. The report is contained as Appendix A17 to this PER. The locations of sensitive receptor sites are shown in Figure 7-3.

7.7.2 Visual Baseline Visual impacts were considered for the following sensitive receptors as defined under Landscape Institute and the Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment (LI & IEMA) (2002) and WAPC (2007) guidelines.

Residential Properties (High Sensitivity or National/State Significance)

The nearest settlements to the Port B development are the townships of Point Samson, Wickham and Cossack (Figure 7-3).

Business and Industrial Premises (Medium-low Sensitivity or No Significance)

With the exception of the existing Port A operations, there are no industrial/commercial premises within the visual ‘zone of influence’ of the Port B development.

The nearest concentration of business premises is located at Point Samson, Cossack and Wickham townships. These premises are of medium to low sensitivity and lie close to or within areas identified as highly sensitive residential areas, and are assessed as such.

Recreational Facilities, Rights of Way and Beaches (Medium-High Sensitivity or Regional Significance)

Cape Lambert encompasses a number of recreational beaches and lookout points which are used by both travelling tourists and residents. The assessment process considered the impacts of the proposed development from the Reader Head Lookout, Settlers Beach, Solveg Wreck Lookout, Port Walcott Yacht Club and Bell’s Beach (Figure 7-3).

Road Network (Low Sensitivity or Regional/Local Significance)

The local road network principally links the local towns with each other and other minor roads serve the existing operations. The visual assessment process considered the Point Samson–Roebourne Road, the junction of Point Samson-Roebourne and Sam’s Creek roads, Walcott Road and Boat Beach Road.

The existing visual environment of the Port A infrastructure from the viewpoint of all receptors is considered in Table 7-3.

PAGE 7-8 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 7-3 Sensitive receptors and photomontage locations

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 7-9

Table 7-3 Visual amenity with respect to Port A

Distance from Port A Receptor Visual baseline infrastructure Point Samson 3.5 km south-east of Port A Topography between the town and Port A obstructs the majority of the views toward the site. No infrastructure is visible. Wickham 8 km south of Port A Topography lies between the township and Port A. No infrastructure is visible, except for the telecommunications lines which are visible from the north of the town. Cossack 8 km south-east of Port A Topography obstructs views towards Port A, and the majority of the infrastructure is not visible from Cossack. Reader Head 7.5 km south-east of Port A A public viewing platform provides unrestricted views across the Lookout coastal flats of Settlers Bay and Port Walcott. Port A operations, wharf and ship loaders are partially visible. Topography is visible on the horizon. There is a walking track along the north-east of the lookout. Settlers Beach 7 km south-east of Port A Recreational beach with wheelchair access, picnic tables and evidence of frequent four wheel drive use. Topography curtails the majority of Port A with stockpiles, screenhouse and car dumpers partially visible. Upper extent of the existing shiploaders and Point Samson are visible to the north of the beach. Solveg Wreck 3 km south-east of Port A Receptor is surrounded by residential housing to the south-east Lookout and has views to the north-west. Port A including jetty/wharf are visible in the far distance. Western views are partially obstructed by topography which dominates the horizon. Port Walcott Within 1 km of the existing rail Includes a main building, car park, lawns, boat ramp and a Yacht Club and rail workshops, 2 km volunteer sea rescue shelter. Bounded on eastern side by south-west of the main Port A topography obscuring Port A. The club’s telecommunications operations lines are visible from the car park. Western side has partial views of Port A, partially obscured by vegetation and topography. Iron ore carrier ships are partially visible beyond the wharf. Bell’s Beach Within 1 km of the existing rail Small recreational beach used for community turtle nesting and rail workshops, 2 km monitoring. Views of lower portions of Port A are obstructed by south-west of Port A local topography. Looking north-east, Port A is partially visible including conveyors, wharf/jetty and iron carrier ships. Point Samson Located to the south-east of Existing Cape Lambert Port A operations are largely obscured - Roebourne Port A linking the towns of by topography. Transient views of the upper levels of existing Road Roebourne, Wickham and conveyors and ship loaders are possible. Point Samson Junction of Located approximately 2 km to The topography on which the roads are located comprises a Samson – the south-east of Port A. large fluvial flood plain. Immediate foreground is dominated by Roebourne low-lying vegetation with topography visible on the distant and Sam’s horizon. Existing telecommunications infrastructure is visible in Creek Roads the immediate foreground. Views to the north-west towards the existing operations are partially obscured by topography, with transient views of the upper portions of the Port A conveyors are visible from the road. Walcott Road Walcott Road is located at the Walcott Drive continues in a northern direction through raised (north-western north-western boundary of ground towards the existing Cape Lambert railway line. The road boundary of Wickham approximately 4 km is utilised by the public to gain access to the Port Walcott Yacht Wickham) to the southwest of Port A. Club. Access to the club is gained from crossing over the railway lines onto Boat Beach Road. The topography over which the road traverses is dominated by the undulating ground and is occupied by low-lying vegetation. The north-eastern section of Walcott Drive is surrounded by topography which obscures any potential views of the existing operations.

PAGE 7-10 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Distance from Port A Receptor Visual baseline infrastructure Walcott Road The intersection of Walcott Walcott Road is located in a relatively flat area. The topography (Intersection of Road and the railway line is of this area is flat alluvial plain, with topography dominating the Walcott Road located approximately 2 km to north-eastern horizon. Port A telecommunications and power and the the southwest of Port A. line infrastructure is visible in the immediate foreground whilst Railway Line) the railway line is in the midrange orientated in a north-east to south-west alignment. Boat Beach Boat Beach Road extends Unsealed road utilised by people accessing Port Walcott Yacht Road northwards along the Cape Club, Bell’s Beach and Boat Beach. The existing road undulates Lambert peninsula from along its length through dune formations and into flatter alluvial Walcott Road at its south- plains which typically comprise grassland and low scrub. Clear western extent to Port Walcott views of the existing Cape Lambert Port A operations for the Yacht Club. majority of the journey northwards, particularly of rail line, workshops, car dumpers and some of the stockpiles.

7.8 Protected Areas 7.8.1 Terrestrial Protected Areas There are no Commonwealth or state terrestrial conservation areas in the Cape Lambert area. A number of state conservation areas exist on the islands of the Dampier Archipelago. The nearest to Cape Lambert is the Unnamed Nature Reserve (No. 36913) covering Delambre Island, which is approximately 19 km to the north-west of the Port B development. The nearest terrestrial conservation area is the Millstream– Chichester National Park, 60 km to the south of Cape Lambert.

7.8.2 Marine Protected Areas There are no existing or proposed Commonwealth marine protected areas in the Cape Lambert area. The closest state marine protected area is the Montebello Islands Marine Park, located over 300 km to the west north-west of Cape Lambert.

The proposed DAMP extends west and north-west of Cape Lambert (Figure 7-4). The area of the proposed DAMP located west of Cape Lambert extends toward the eastern end of Dixon Island, approximately 8 km west of Cape Lambert. The area of the proposed DAMP located to the north-west of Cape Lambert encompasses the Dampier Archipelago, including Legendre and Delambre islands (approximately 20 km north-west of Cape Lambert).

Additionally, six study areas, listed below, have been identified in the Pilbara and lower west Kimberley, within which the potential for marine parks and reserves are being evaluated (Figure 7-4) (DEC 2008):

Locker Point to Rocky Point

Serrurier Island

Fortescue River to Cane River

Cape Thouin to Cape Lambert (including Bell’s Beach)

Cape Keraudren to Spit Point

Eighty Mile Beach.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 7-4 Future marine protected areas

PAGE 7-12 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Point Samson Reef has fishing restrictions imposed under Section 43 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (WA). The Point Samson Reef protection zone extends from the point north of Sam's Creek, south to the old Point Samson Jetty. The prohibition is effective from the high water mark seaward to encompass the reef platform.

The impetus behind the fishing controls at Point Samson was concern over the potential impacts of fishers upon the reef fauna and flora, specifically a number of invertebrate species, such as octopus, giant clams, corals and ornamental shells, that are common on the reef. Fishing activities prohibited at the reef are:

all commercial fishing activities

recreational fishing activities except for:

recreational fishing for finfish by means of a rod, reel and line, or a line held in the hand

recreational fishing for fish of the Class Osteichthyes (bony fishes only – not including cartilaginous fishes like sharks, skates and rays) by means of a pointed instrument (such as a speargun or gidgee).

7.9 Fisheries 7.9.1 Recreational Fishing The waters off Cape Lambert provide opportunities for recreational pursuits. The small populations of Wickham and especially Point Samson typically increase during holiday periods with tourists and local residents from the neighbouring towns and settlements. Boat ownership in the region is high and recreational fishing (including mud crabbing) is popular. A small yacht club (Port Walcot Yacht Club) exists above the Boat Beach to the south-west of Cape Lambert. Boat launching ramps are located at Point Samson, Boat Beach and Cossack. Other water-based activities, such as diving and snorkelling are undertaken; however, they are more commonly pursued around the Dampier Archipelago where numerous islands are located close to the coast.

Recreational fishers target subtidal reefs and rocky shoals offshore. Fishing spots close to boat launching access at the John’s Creek harbour are also utilised. There are numerous coastal line-fishing areas within reach of the launching facilities at John’s Creek.

7.9.2 Commercial Fishing and Aquaculture Several state and Commonwealth managed fisheries operate within the Pilbara region. Within the Cape Lambert region there are several commercial fishing and aquaculture activities operating. However, no commercial fishing areas or aquaculture leases extend into the Port B development area.

State Managed Fisheries

Department of Fisheries Western Australia (state) managed commercial activities in the area include the following:

Nickol Bay Prawn Fishery

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Pilbara Demersal Finfish Fisheries

Pearl Oyster Fishery Zone

Western Australian Mackerel Fishery

North Coast Blue Swimmer Crab Fishery

Western Australia Northern Shark Fishery.

There are also a number of experimental fisheries in the area with some active and some inactive leases. These state managed fisheries either occur outside the influence of the Port B development, or have limited activity.

Aquaculture in the region is dominated by the production of pearls from the species Pinctada maxima. This industry utilises both wild-caught and hatchery reared oysters for the production of cultured pearls. Figure 7-5 indicates the location of the two closest aquaculture leases to the Port B development. The aquaculture lease for a pearling hatchery located less than 1 km to the south-east of Cape Lambert Port A operation is currently inactive.

Commonwealth Managed Fisheries Cape Lambert is located within the vicinity of several Australian Fisheries Management Authority (Commonwealth) managed fisheries, including the Western Tuna and Billfish, Skipjack Tuna and Southern Bluefin Tuna Fisheries; however there is limited fishing under these Commonwealth managed fisheries in the coastal waters around Cape Lambert.

7.10 Tourism and Recreation Tourism is a small but valuable and increasing contributor to the Pilbara’s economy. The industry is growing as there is a heightening awareness of the natural attractions in the Pilbara, especially in the categories of cultural tourism and ecotourism.

The Pilbara has a variety of attractions from the gorges and waterfalls at Karijini National Park to the water bodies of Millstream–Chichester National Park. Closer to Cape Lambert, existing attractions include a range of historical features around Cossack; fishing, diving and boating activities around the Dampier Archipelago and Point Samson; and prolific rock art present on the Burrup Peninsula. Tourists visiting these features also pass through or stay in Dampier or Karratha as well as Point Samson. However, a decline in the availability of affordable accommodation in these centres resulting from the recent resources expansion in the Pilbara has been a constraint to local tourism.

Tourism statistics are calculated by Tourism Western Australia based on biennial averages (average across two years). On average, an estimated 339 000 domestic and international visitors stayed overnight in the Pilbara Region across 2004 and 2005 (DLGRD 2006). Visitor data for the Shire of Roebourne shows that approximately 43% of all visitors to the shire in 2005 and 2006 visited the area for business, 31% for holiday and leisure (approximately 42 000 people), 12% to visit friends and relatives and 8% for other reasons. Although a downturn occurred in the most recent year reported (2006–2007), the total nights stayed in 2005–2006 is over twice that in 2002–2003.

PAGE 7-14 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 7-5 Aquaculture zones near Cape Lambert

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 7-15

7.11 Native Title The Cape Lambert operation and the Wickham township are located within the Ngarluma/Injibandi determined Native Title area. On 2 May 2005, the Federal Court found the Ngarluma people once held connection to the Dampier Archipelago, and they continue to maintain their connection near coastal areas and inland. In its original decision the Federal Court found the Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo people, whose registered native title claimant application overlapped with Ngarluma/Injibandi, may be either Ngarluma or Injibandi and, in that capacity, hold native title rights and interests. Small parcels of land were excluded from the Ngarluma/Injibandi native title claimant application and therefore not considered for determination of native title by the Court. As a consequence, by virtue of the overlapping applications, the Wong-Goo-Tt-Oo and Yaburara Mardudhunera people continue to have parcels of registered native title claims over relatively small areas in the Dampier Archipelago, Karratha and Wickham regions. As registered native title claimants, they maintain various statutory rights over these specific areas under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwth), including future act rights and the right to negotiate.

The Proponent does not have any operating mines within the Ngarluma native title determination area; however, it is acknowledged that its extensive infrastructure has significantly impacted Ngarluma country for over forty years. Ngarluma’s country extends over much of the port and rail infrastructure location.

The Proponent’s plans to expand port infrastructure has necessitated engaging with the Ngarluma people, as native title holders, with a view to reaching a sound agreement and establishing a firm, enduring relationship.

An initial agreement was reached on 16 May 2008 between the Proponent and the Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation. The agreement provides for non-financial, social and financial benefits to be paid by the Proponent to the Ngarluma native title holders. It commits the Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation to carry out priority heritage surveys, and for Ngarluma to consent to the Proponent’s activities on their land. Ngarluma has provided their support for future expansions, and the Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation has agreed not to object to the Proponent’s tenure applications. The Proponent commits to continue to work closely with Ngarluma on all cultural heritage matters.

The initial agreement and commitments form the core elements of a final Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) which will be lodged with the National Native Title Tribunal for registration. The ILUA will provide for cultural heritage and environmental monitoring. It will include other matters such as employment and training, cultural awareness training, business development and contracting and planning over the life of the Port B development.

7.12 Heritage 7.12.1 Aboriginal Heritage Heritage Sites

The western Pilbara region and associated islands contain numerous and diverse Aboriginal sites. Known sites in the region include shell middens, standing stones, stone features (such as possible hunting hides

PAGE 7-16 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

and pits), grinding patches, quarries, occupation scatters and rock art. Some of these sites have been dated and indicate Aboriginal presence in the region over many thousands of years.

Rock art (or petroglyphs) are one of the most distinctive features of the Pilbara region, especially in the coastal areas. The rock art is widely recognised as being prolific and stylistically variable (for example, Lorblanchet 1992; Maynard 1977; McCarthy 1961; McCarthy 1962; Wright 1968). Extensive numbers of rock art motifs occur in well-known localities such as the Yule Rivers sites (Woodstock, Abydos), Depuch Island, Cooya Pooya and the Fortescue River, Cape Preston, Port Hedland and the Dampier Archipelago (documented by Vinnicombe 2002). These areas contain large galleries of petroglyphs, with local stylistic variations as well as thematic and technological commonalities (Vinnicombe 2002).

Results from previous heritage surveys in the Cape Lambert region indicate that 65 Aboriginal heritage sites occur close to or within leases held by the Proponent within the Wickham and Cape Lambert area and in the vicinity of the Port B development. The Department of Indigenous Affairs database lists 50 heritage sites for this area. These sites have been recorded to varying degrees of detail over the past 30 years as part of heritage surveys undertaken for proposed development activities. The nature of the heritage sites comprises largely shell middens within the coastal sand dunes and adjacent to the tidal mudflats, several stone quarries and numerous petroglyphs (rock art) sites within the rocky outcrops and ridges, and flaked stone artefact scatters. Some of these areas are protected against disturbance and some have undergone Section 18 approval processes for disturbance under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA). Specific heritage surveys for the Port B development commenced in August 2008 and are approximately 40% complete to date. The Proponent has engaged the Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation to undertake these surveys, who in turn have engaged archaeologists and anthropologists. The surveys will be undertaken by a group comprised of Ngarluma representatives, independent archaeologists and anthropologists. Due to limited availability of traditional land owners and ongoing land use agreement negotiations between the Proponent and traditional land owners; it is unlikely that surveys will be able to be completed prior to July 2009. The completed surveys will constitute both archaeological and ethnographic components.

Preliminary advice received to date indicates that a number of archaeological sites have been recorded within the Port B development footprint. Once the heritage surveys are complete, the Proponent will review the results of the survey and wherever possible avoid impact to known heritage sites. Should identified sites be unavoidable, the Proponent will seek Section 18 consents to disturb those sites or portions of sites that cannot be avoided. The Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation will be consulted regarding any Section 18 application.

7.12.2 European Heritage Buildings and places of heritage value are those that have a defined connection to the early European settlement and development of the region, and include historic homesteads and buildings, old pastoral stockyards, grave sites, remains of early industry operations, shipwrecks, campsites, beaches, waterways, islands, vegetation, hills and valleys and the wildlife they support. The Register of the National Estate (Australian Heritage Council Act 2003) and the State Register of the Heritage Council (Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990) list places of historical, indigenous and natural significance. Table 7-4

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 7-17

shows the historical places located in the general vicinity of Cape Lambert. The nearest registered historical sites to the Port B development are those located at Cossack approximately 8 km to the south- east of the Port B development.

Table 7-4 Historical places near Cape Lambert

Historical Place Historical Place Cooya Pooya Station (Roebourne) Mount Welcome House (Roebourne) Cossack Cemetery (Cossack) North West Mercantile Store and Office (former) (Cossack) Cossack Historic Town (Cossack) Old Cossack Courthouse (Cossack) Cossack Post and Telegraph Office Old Roebourne School (Roebourne) (former) (Cossack) Cossack School (former) (Cossack) Police Quarters, Lockup and Service Buildings (former)(Cossack) Customs House and Bond Store (Cossack) Registrar’s Office and Residence (Cossack) Galbraiths Store (Cossack) Roebourne Cemetery (disused) (Cossack) Gaol, Police Station and Courthouse Roebourne Courthouse (Roebourne) Precinct (Roebourne)

Holy Trinity Anglican Church (Roebourne) Roebourne Hospital, Kitchen Block and Matrons Quarters (Roebourne) Jagers House (Roebourne) Roebourne Police Station (Roebourne) Jarman Island Lighthouse and Quarters Roebourne Post Office and Quarters (Roebourne) (Cossack) Landbacked Wharf (Cossack) Tambery Station Homestead Ruins (Roebourne) Masonic Lodge (former) (Roebourne) Union Bank Building (former) (Roebourne).

7.13 Traffic Access to and from Cape Lambert is provided by two main roads (North West Coastal Highway (NWCH) and Point Samson–Roebourne Road) and one private road (Cape Lambert Road) (Figure 7-6). The NWCH is under the control of Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA). It is described as a Primary Distributor in the current Regional Area Functional Road Hierarchy and is designated for use by road trains.

The Point Samson–Roebourne Road also comes under the control of MRWA. This road is described as a Primary Distributor in the current Regional Area Functional Road Hierarchy and is also designated for use by road trains. The Point Samson–Roebourne Road is the only main road route in and out of Point Samson, Wickham and Cape Lambert. It is currently an undivided two lane road.

Site surveys in 2008 and a desktop analysis show that current traffic flows on the NWCH and Point Samson–Roebourne Road are considered acceptable (SKM 2008n). The practical operational capacity of road intersections occurs between a degree of saturation of 0.80 and 0.85. Above this, queuing occurs and the risk of accidents significantly increases. No intersections studied were found to have a degree of saturation exceeding 0.20. Therefore, there is capacity for additional traffic on the road network without any adverse impact. The incremental impact of the traffic associated with the Port B development is

PAGE 7-18 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

provided in Section 10.4.5. Table 7-5 shows that the Point Samson–Roebourne Road is currently carrying approximately 1300 vehicles per day at the busiest recorded section.

Table 7-5 Average weekday traffic volumes

Volumes (vehicles Location Timing of survey per day) North West Coastal Highway (north of Roebourne) 2006 370 North West Coastal Highway (south of Roebourne) 2006 2010 Point Samson – Roebourne Road (south of Wickham Drive) 2003 1300 Point Samson – Roebourne Road (north of Cape Lambert Road) 2006 720

The MRWA traffic count data also shows that the peak hours at different locations occur between 6 am to 10 am, then 3 pm to 5 pm. A significant volume of vehicle movements also occurs between Wickham and Point Samson between 11 am to 12 noon. The two most common peak hours for traffic on the Cape Lambert Road are 7 am to 8 am, then 4 pm to 5 pm.

Approximately 90% of the vehicles on these roads are light vehicles. Approximately 2% of the vehicles on Point Samson–Roebourne Road and <1% of vehicles on the NWCH are long vehicles or road trains, such as double and triple road trains.

Observations from turning counts undertaken by SKM on the Point Samson–Roebourne Road and NWCH showed that a range of 10–20% of traffic during peak hours were heavy vehicles.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 7-19

Figure 7-6 Road network around Cape Lambert

PAGE 7-20 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

8. Terrestrial Environment Impacts and Management

8.1 Introduction This section of the PER identifies the potential and predicted terrestrial and ecological impacts and outlines proposed management measures for the Port B development. Further terrestrial detail is available in technical reports and appendices, as referred to throughout the text. Section 8.2 outlines the process for determining ecological significance of impacts; Section 8.3 details the key factors, impacts and associated management measures; and Section 8.4 describes minor factors.

Management measures proposed during construction are based on a draft Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), currently under development (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3). This plan will be updated periodically as required under the Proponent’s ISO 140001 accreditation, or in response to a changing risk profile, incident or near miss.

8.2 Impacts and Ecological Significance The ecological significance of an impact to the physical environment can be assessed by considering the spatial scale, magnitude and temporal scale of the impact. In terms of flora and fauna, impacts are assessed by the extent of the population affected and whether the action resulted in the death of individuals or, less significantly, resulted in temporary behavioural changes. The EPBC Act defines a significant impact to a critically endangered species as an action where there is a real chance or possibility that it will lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population and or reduce the area of occupancy of the species. Quantitative statements have been used wherever possible to make clear the potential impacts to the environment.

These matters were considered during a risk assessment, as described earlier in Section 5.1, to objectively rank activities according to their potential to impact key environmental values in the Cape Lambert terrestrial environment. Activities with the potential to impact the terrestrial environment are referred to as threats.

8.3 Potential Threats and Impacts to Terrestrial Factors 8.3.1 Background Terrestrial environmental factors are classified as either key or minor factors in Table 8-1, along with a reference to the relevant section in the PER where they are assessed.

Table 8-1 Classification of terrestrial environmental factors

Factor Reference Key Factors Terrestrial fauna Section 8.3.2 Water resources Section 8.3.3 Air quality (particulate dust) Section 8.3.4 Ambient noise Section 8.3.5

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-1

Factor Reference Minor Factors Landforms and soils Section 8.4.2 Vegetation and flora Section 8.4.3 Surface and groundwater Section 8.4.4 Greenhouse gases Section 8.4.5 Solid and liquid waste Section 8.4.6 Hydrocarbons and hazardous waste Section 8.4.7 Rehabilitation, decommissioning and closure Section 8.4.8

Key factors are considered in Sections 8.3.2 to 8.3.5 below.

8.3.2 Terrestrial Fauna Overview

A description of the terrestrial fauna found in the Cape Lambert area is presented in Sections 5.4.5 and 5.4.6, and is based on fauna surveys undertaken by Biota in October 2007 and March 2008 (Biota 2008b; Appendix A3) and targeted surveys in January and July 2008 (Biota 2008c; Appendix A4). Relevant key outcomes from the terrestrial fauna surveys and desktop studies undertaken include:

Three species identified as priority fauna were recorded within or adjacent to the Port B development study area, including the Priority 1 little northern freetail bat (Mormopterus loriae cobourgiana) and the Priority 4 eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) and star finch (Neochmia ruficauda subclarescens).

A further six terrestrial Schedule or Priority fauna species may potentially occur within the Port B development study area (but were not recorded), including: Schedule 1 species Dasyurus hallucatus (northern quoll), Liasis olivaceus barroni (pilbara olive python); Schedule 4 species Falco peregrines (peregrine falcon); and Priority 4 species Ardeotis australis (Australian bustard), Burhinus grallarius (bush stone-curlew), and Phaps histrionic (flock bronzewing).

Potential short range endemic invertebrate species, specifically mygalomorph spiders of the family Nemesiidae and Idiopidae, were recorded from the Port B development study area.

Though not formally listed as threatened, the fossorial skink Lerista nevinae is currently only known from the general vicinity of Cape Lambert.

Objective

The EPA objective for terrestrial fauna is ‘to maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of fauna at species and ecosystem levels through the avoidance or management of adverse impacts and improvement in knowledge’.

PAGE 8-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Guidance

The following guideline is applicable to the management of terrestrial fauna:

EPA Guidance Statement No. 56: Terrestrial fauna surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia (EPA 2004e).

Potential Threats and Impacts

Potential threats to terrestrial fauna resulting from the Port B development have been identified as:

disturbance or stress to significant fauna due to habitat loss and fragmentation from land clearing

loss, disturbance or stress to Lerista nevinae through loss of portions of sand dune habitat

direct loss of individual fauna

disturbance or stress due to noise and associated vibrations

disturbance or stress due to the spread of introduced species.

Disturbance or Stress to Significant Fauna due to Habitat Loss and Fragmentation from Land Clearing

Habitats potentially supporting two terrestrial Schedule 1 taxa occur within the footprint of the Port B development. The results of fauna surveys (Biota 2008b; Appendix A3) and examination of habitats indicate that the northern quoll (Dasyurus hallucatus) and Pilbara olive python (Liasis olivaceus barroni) are unlikely to occur more than sporadically within the Port B development area, and as a result, these species are considered unlikely to be affected by the development. Similarly, any change to the conservation status as a result of the proposed works on the Schedule 4 species potentially occurring within the Port B development (Section 5.4.6) is considered unlikely (Biota 2008b; Appendix A3).

Three Priority species were recorded in the fauna surveys; the little northern freetail bat (Mormopterus loriae cobourgiana), eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) and the star finch (Neochmia ruficauda subclarescens). The little northern freetail bat and eastern curlew are generally restricted to mangrove habitats, which will not be impacted as a result of the Port B development (Biota 2008b; Appendix A3). The Port B development may result in some loss of habitat for the star finch, but the species is mobile in nature and widely distributed, so this loss is not considered significant for the species (Biota 2008b; Appendix A3).

Impacts due to habitat fragmentation are considered unlikely, due to the relatively small area of habitat disturbance and coastal location. The cleared area should not form a biological barrier, as species are still able to travel around the disturbance area to access other habitat areas.

Loss, Disturbance or Stress to Lerista nevinae through Loss of Portions of Sand Dune Habitat

Lerista nevinae occurs within dune habitats at Cape Lambert, and similar to other Lerista species, is likely to be restricted to coastal areas. Although not formally listed, L. nevinae has been recorded only

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-3

from the Cape Lambert area. Targeted searches in dune habitats from Karratha to Cossack for this species undertaken by Biota in July 2008 resulted in the identification of L. nevinae in additional locations outside the boundary of the Port B development. The Port B development will utilise up to 32.1 ha, less than 9% of the currently documented 360 ha of habitat for the species documented in the Cape Lambert region (Biota 2008c; Appendix A4). Subsequent targeted surveys in January 2009 have identified that L. nevinae also inhabits Dixon Island, so its range is larger than previously recorded.

Based on the documented habitat less than 2000 km2, the species could potentially be listed as vulnerable under the IUCN criteria adopted for formal listing under the EPBC Act, and Schedule 1 under the Wildlife Conservation Act. Additional survey data will be required to confirm that the species is eligible for listing under those classifications.

It is anticipated that the habitat lost due to the Port B development will not lead to changes to the population size or species distribution likely to alter its potential categories under the EPBC Act or the Wildlife Conservation Act. Therefore, loss of habitat is unlikely to represent a significant impact on the species.

Direct Loss of Individual Fauna

Some localised loss of fauna will occur due to direct mortality arising from construction activities within the immediate footprint, including the clearing of habitat. Additional short-term impacts may also arise from more frequent vehicle movements and machinery operation during construction. It is unlikely that the loss of individuals associated with direct mortalities will be significant enough to affect the overall conservation status of any species (Biota 2008b; Appendix A3).

Disturbance or Stress due to Noise Levels

Noise from construction activities including blasting and haulage may impact on fauna; however, no sensitive habitats or communities such as bird nesting areas were recorded within the Port B development. Management of noise levels is discussed in more detail in Section 8.3.5.

Disturbance or Stress due to the Spread of Introduced Species

Ground disturbance and construction of roads or tracks also offer opportunities for the spread of introduced animals, which may act as predators or competitors to native fauna.

Mitigation and Management

The targets, key performance indicators and management measures identified to meet the EPA’s objective for terrestrial fauna are contained in Table 8-2.

PAGE 8-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 8-2 Terrestrial fauna management measures

Performance Objectives Targets Key Performance Indicators (KPI) To maintain the Minimise disturbance or stress to Area of native vegetation cleared abundance, diversity, significant fauna due to habitat loss and outside the Port B development geographic distribution fragmentation from clearing. footprint. and productivity of fauna Minimise disturbance or stress to Lerista Number of recorded losses of Lerista at species and ecosystem nevinae through loss of portions of sand nevinae. levels through the dune habitat outside the Port B avoidance or management Area of native vegetation cleared development footprint. of adverse impacts and outside the Port B development improvement in footprint. knowledge. Minimise direct loss of individual fauna. Number of recorded deaths to native fauna. Minimise disturbance or stress due to noise No KPI applicable. levels. Minimise disturbance or stress due to the Number of introduced fauna sightings. spread of introduced species. Key Management Measures Design: The design of the Port B development has minimised clearing and disturbance of coastal dune vegetation types known to be significant fauna habitat. Construction: During construction, impacts on fauna will be managed through the implementation of Environmental Management Procedure 007 (Fauna) as detailed in the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3). Key management measures specific to the Port B development include:

additional targeted searches for Lerista nevinae will be conducted outside the Cape Lambert area during the optimal season to better determine the distribution of this species

site inductions will provide details on terrestrial fauna requirements and will incorporate information on significant terrestrial fauna.

Operations: Operational impacts will be managed through the Wildlife Interaction Guidelines (RTIO 2007b; Appendix B4). Key management measures specific to the Port B development include:

additional targeted searches for Lerista nevinae will be conducted outside the Cape Lambert area during the optimal season to better determine the distribution of this species

primary and secondary dune habitat outside the Port B development footprint will be left undisturbed

support reasonable initiatives to secure areas of known suitable coastal dune habitat for Lerista nevinae outside the Port B development area

site inductions will include reference to Lerista nevinae and other significant terrestrial fauna and the need to avoid disturbance to coastal habitats.

Outcome

Disturbance of up to 9% of the documented habitat for Lerista nevinae is not considered likely to lead to significant impacts on its population or distribution, or a change in its potential conservation listing. The EPA objective of maintaining the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of terrestrial fauna at species and ecosystem levels will be met through designing, constructing and operating the development to minimise the clearing footprint and managing potentially adverse impacts as per the terrestrial fauna management measures.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-5

8.3.3 Water Resources Overview

Sections 3.4 4.4.3 and 5.3.8 describe the water requirements and sources for the Port B development as summarised below:

There are no large supplies of fresh water readily available in the Cape Lambert area.

Groundwater in the region is not suitable for potable use as total dissolved solids are generally high.

Port A and the town of Wickham are supplied potable water by Water Corporation which is sourced from Harding Dam and Millstream under conjunctive licence.

The Port B development operating water requirements in isolation are estimated to be 2.6 GL per annum (compared to 1.8 GL per annum for Port A). The majority of water required is for dust control, which is necessary to ensure that dust emissions from the Port B development are within acceptable limits.

The Port B development potable water requirements will be met by the existing Water Corporation scheme; however, in the event that the Water Corporation is unable to meet this demand, temporary water sources may be required.

The Proponent is currently evaluating various additional water supply options, in liaison with the Water Corporation, to supplement existing water schemes. Based on the outcomes of a PRF, the preferred option is the Bungaroo borefield option.

Objective

The EPA objective for water resources is ‘to maintain the quantity of water so that existing and potential environmental values, including ecosystem maintenance are protected’.

Guidance

The following guidelines are applicable to the management of water resources:

Environmental Water Provisions Policy for Western Australia: Statewide Policy No. 5 (WRC 2000)

Transferable (Tradeable) Water Entitlements for Western Australia: Statewide Policy No. 6 (WRC 2001)

Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC & ARMCANZ 2000).

Water Balance Modelling

The water requirements for the Port B development during operation has been quantified through water balance modelling (CyMod Systems 2008; Appendix A18). The modelling was undertaken using a Goldsim water balance model developed for the Port B development. Ore types supplied, dust suppression systems and required moisture content of shipped ore have been taken into account. With a

PAGE 8-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

throughput of 130 Mtpa, water consumption for the Port B development is estimated to be 2.6 GL per annum under an aggressive dust suppression regime.

Potential Threats and Impacts

Low rainfall in the central Pilbara over recent years, in combination with increased demand will result in increased pressure on existing water supply systems. Total water use is rising due to planned expansions at the ports of Dampier and Cape Lambert and corresponding growth in local communities, driving demand for new sources. This presents challenges and opportunities to maximise effectiveness of this water resource:

optimising existing supply arrangements

maximising efficiency of use and recycling

alternatives to water for dust suppression

working with Water Corporation to evaluate the options to augment WPWSS option

ensuring outcomes are environmentally sustainable in the long term.

As a result of the work undertaken during the development of the Proponent’s Water Strategy, it has been recognised that the WPWSS requires water source augmentation to improve supply reliability and provide for contingency measures in the event of long-term drought or water shortage. The Proponent, working with Water Corporation, has studied alternatives to augment supply (refer to Section 3.4). The Proponent plans to apply an adaptive approach to water supply, to provide maximum flexibility and reliability to meet business requirements and the needs of the communities we support. The conclusion to date of a PFS indicated that a borefield at Bungaroo, potentially in conjunction with mining operations, connected to the existing water reticulation system would be the most appropriate source to augment primarily based on environmental impact and cost.

Mitigation and Management

The targets, key performance indicators and management measures identified to meet the EPA’s objectives for water resources are contained in Table 8-3.

Outcome

Once operational, the Port B development will use approximately 2.6 GL of water per annum. The EPA objective of maintaining the quantity of water so that existing and potential environmental values, including ecosystem maintenance are protected, will be met through managing potentially adverse construction and operational impacts as per the water resources management measures.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-7

Table 8-3 Water resources management measures

Performance Objectives Targets Key Performance Indicators To maintain the quantity of Continuously improve water efficiency. Water use per tonne of iron ore railed. water so that existing and Minimise water usage and maximise Percentage water recycled out of total potential environmental water reuse options. water used. values, including ecosystem To maintain the existing quantity of water Water use per annum from each water maintenance are protected. resources. source. Key Management Measures Through its Water Strategy the Proponent is:

adopting long term time horizons in planning for water management

recognising the true value of water to the business

considering management over the whole of water cycle

being transparent and engaging with stakeholders

working cooperatively and adaptively with suppliers and regulators.

Water Efficiency Improvements: The Proponent has commissioned and undertaken a number of studies aiming to identify and implement water efficiency projects. This includes:

risk reviews

water management plans

water balances

recycling opportunities at ports (reduces demands on fresh water)

environmental improvement plans

ongoing work

During construction, water re-use (such as use of effluent from the construction camp WWTP for stockyard dust suppression) will also be implemented. Design Protection of water resources has been incorporated into the design of the Port B development. This includes:

water recycling at the car dumpers and screenhouses

water re-use in the process water system.

Construction During construction, water resources will be managed through the implementation of Environmental Management Procedure 013 (Water Management) as detailed in the CEMP (SKM 2008o). Key measures specific to the Port B development include:

initiate water reuse and saving initiatives

consider alternative options for water supply (for example a temporary desalination plan) for construction purposes

utilise water dewatered/extracted from car dumper and any other areas during construction.

Operations During operations, water resources will be managed through the implementation of the Cape Lambert Water Management Plan (RTIO 2008b) which will be extended to incorporate the Port B development. Key measures specific to the Port B development include:

support implementation of feasible options to augment existing water scheme in liaison with the Water Corporation

use of chemical agents on some dusty/problematic ores to reduce dust emissions and reduce water usage.

In addition to the water efficiency initiatives, the Proponent has demonstrated a commitment to investigating alternatives to water and reduction in water use for dust suppression. An outcome of this commitment is the creation of a business-wide Cleaner Air Community is an integral part of process of continuous improvement. This collaborative forum acts as a driver for change and also provides an effective way to collate and disseminate technical information throughout the business. Information presented within the Community provides the Proponent’s employees with new solutions for dust suppression and ways to reduce water use on site. The Proponent is committed to reduce water used for dust suppression and investigate engineering solutions including (not limited to) dust collection systems, and chemical additives currently being trialled for use on roads, stockpiles and product piles.

PAGE 8-8 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

8.3.4 Air Quality Overview

The primary emission to air as a result of the operation of the Port B development will be fine particulate matter. The issues associated with these particles are as dust (a potential nuisance issue) and, for the smaller particles, potential impacts to human health. Air quality criteria and baseline air quality monitoring results are presented in Section 5.5.2. Relevant key outcomes from this section are summarised below:

analysis of data from Point Samson, Rocky Ridge and Wickham suggests that regional sources

dominate measured PM10 concentrations or that the climatic conditions that generate dust at the sites are similar

a higher proportion of exceedences in the summer months indicates a seasonal influence in PM10 concentrations and that regional influences may be exerting a significant contribution

under certain conditions, Port A is known to contribute to elevated PM10 concentrations at Point Samson and periodic exceedences of the NEPM limits

the PM2.5 and TSP monitoring results do not show any exceedences of the air quality impact assessment criteria.

The effects of particulate emissions on human health are determined with reference to sensitive receptors in the community. As the nearest residential population to the Port B development, Point Samson has been used as the sensitive receptor in this air quality impact assessment.

Objective

The EPA objective for air quality is ‘to ensure that emissions do not adversely affect environmental values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land uses by meeting statutory requirements and acceptable standards’.

Guidance

The following guidelines are applicable to air quality management:

National Environment Protection Goals as defined in the National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure (NEPM) (EPHC 2003)

EPA Guidance Statement No. 18 Prevention of Air Quality Impacts from Land Development Sites (EPA 2000b).

Air Quality Modelling

The impact to air quality of emissions from the Port B development during operation has been quantified through air quality dispersion modelling. Emissions during construction have not been assessed due to high variability during construction and the limited duration of the construction period. The assessment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-9

has been conducted with reference to published WA DEC guidance. Further details are provided in SKM 2008d; Appendix A7. During operations, the Port B development will generate dust from a range of activities, the most significant of which will be:

car dumpers

stackers

reclaimers

conveyors and transfer stations

stockpile areas

rescreening plants

shiploaders

road emissions.

Emissions from all these sources have been quantified and dispersion modelling has then been used to determine the impact at Point Samson. Air quality modelling for the Port B development is based on the application of dust reduction measures as detailed under ‘Mitigation and Management’ in this section. Background emissions from sources other than Port A or Port B have not been modelled or included in calculated contributions to ground-level dust concentrations.

Potential Threats and Impacts

A summary of the maximum incremental concentrations and deposition rates at Point Samson is presented in Table 8-4. Figure 8-1 shows the spatial distribution of predicted concentrations.

Table 8-4 Contribution of Cape Lambert operations to ground level concentrations and deposition rates at Point Samson and Wickham

Percentage Percentage Maximum Maximum Averaging Assessment of criteria of criteria Pollutant Scenario at Point at period criteria Point Wickham Samson Wickham Samson (%) (%) Port A 24-hour 50 µg m-3 18 µg m-3 36 7 µg m-3 14 PM10 Port A+B 24-hour 50 µg m-3 21 µg m-3 42 8 µg m-3 17 -3 -3 -3 PM2.5 Port A 24-hour 25 µg m 6.6 µg m 26 4 µg m 17 Port A+B 24-hour 25 µg m-3 7.2 µg m-3 29 5 µg m-3 18 90 µg m-3 29 8 (Standard) (Standard) Port A 24-hour 26 µg m-3 7 µg m-3 150 µg m-3 17 5 (Limit) (Limit) TSP 90 µg m-3 33 10 (Standard) Port A+B 24-hour 30 µg m-3 9 µg m-3 150 µg m-3 20 6 (Limit) -2 -2 -2 Deposition Port A Monthly 4 g m 0.9 g m 23 0.02 g m 1 (TSP) Port A+B Monthly 4 g m-2 1.1 g m-2 28 0.04 g m-2 1

PAGE 8-10 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 8-1 Predicted maximum 24-hour PM10 concentrations for Port A and B operations

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-11

Table 8-4 shows that suspended particle concentrations at Point Samson as a result of emissions from a combination of the Port A and Port B developments represent 42% of the PM10 air quality standard and 20% of the TSP air quality limit. The maximum deposition rate represents 28% of the applied assessment criteria. These contributions should be viewed in the context of the Pilbara environment where existing airborne particle concentrations and dust deposition rates are high and regularly exceed air quality standards, as described in Section 5.5.2.

The predicted increase in concentrations as a result of emissions from the Port B development to -3 concentrations from Port A is small. An additional 3 µg m is added to maximum 24-hour PM10 -3 concentrations, an additional 0.6 µg m is added to maximum 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, an extra 4 µg m-3 is added to maximum 24-hour TSP concentrations and an extra 0.2 g m-2 is added to the monthly deposition rate. Increase in particle concentrations and dust deposition rate at Wickham are predicted to be more minor.

Potential impacts of dust on native vegetation

Potential impacts of dust deposition on native vegetation and biota are considered low. Previous studies (Farmer 1993 in Doley 2006) determined that direct physical effects of mineral dust on vegetation become apparent only at relatively high surface loads (>7 g m-2). This is due to the low solubility and reactivity of mineral dusts (particularly iron ore dust) (Fowler et al 1989; Gantz et al 2003 in Doley 2006).

Research undertaken in the Pilbara showed that iron ore dust particles did not block mangrove leaf stomata or restrict transpiration, and did not significantly impact on the condition of the mangrove vegetation within the region (Paling et al. 2001).

When the maximum predicted monthly cumulative dust deposition from both Port A and Port B is examined (Figure 8-22 of SKM 2008d; Appendix A7) it is apparent that the 7 g m-2 isopleth is located within the facility on the terrestrial side and extends a short distance outside the facility on the marine side. This indicates that the potential for environmental risk of dust on biota and natural ecosystems is low.

Potential impacts of dust on heritage sites

In response to concerns expressed regarding perceived possible adverse impacts of industrial emissions to air on petroglyphs (rock art) on the Burrup Peninsula, the Western Australia Department of State Development (DSD) commissioned a range of studies. One study (CSIRO 2007) included an investigation of the rates of accumulated dust on the rock art; a second study investigated the potential for colour change to the rock art, including as a result of deposited dust (CSIRO 2008b). The results of these studies are therefore directly applicable to the potential impact of dust emitted from the Port B development.

Petroglyphs are created through pecking, scraping or incising through the thin red–brown rock surface to reveal contrasting colour from below the surface (CSIRO 2007). The colour of rock surface is similar to and has been shown to contain hematite. Hematite exists in the local soil and in the iron ore being

PAGE 8-12 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

transported in the region, thereby representing an opportunity for airborne dust to be deposited on rock surfaces, potentially altering petroglyph images that are defined by the contrast between the rock engraving and background.

There are many factors that affect the settling of airborne particulates on a surface – global weather patterns, local weather patterns, meso-scale structures of the scale of hills and rock piles, in addition to microstructures such as surface topography and roughness. All these factors influence eddies and turbulence around a rock face and substantially control the deposition process.

The interaction of a surface with its environment will define deposition and retention processes. Previous work has shown that particle size distribution of deposited particulates is influenced by surface roughness, and rougher surfaces inhibit the deposition of smaller particle fractions. Washing by rain and dew run-off can be expected to be dictated by microchannelling and micropooling on the surface. Deposited dust has the potential to obscure the rock art and also to cause staining.

The study undertaken by CSIRO in 1997 involved simulated rock surfaces (as rock tiles) being exposed in order to collect dust representative of that depositing on rock surfaces and petroglyphs on the Burrup Peninsula.

Tiles were exposed firstly for three months. An insufficient quantity of dust was collected to allow a comparative diagnosis of the particulate deposit. A small amount of dust was visually discernible in the deepest depressions of tiles from one site (CSIRO 2007).

Considering the negligible amounts of dust collected on the tiles, a decision was made to expose tiles for two periods of six months in an attempt to improve the amount collected. This did not produce any observable effect. Whilst the character of the dust depositing at sites close to industrial activity was different from the dust naturally deposited on control sites, a combination of wind and/or washing from rain on the exposed tile surfaces removed any substantial build-up of deposited material.

As a result, CSIRO concluded that a steady state of accumulation and removal is achieved. Dust accumulates differentially, dependent on the surface roughness. It was observed that in areas of surface roughness less than 2 mm, no dust accumulated. Dust only lodged in the deepest crevices of the roughest tile, and not more than a few micrograms were detected.

An additional study was undertaken by CSIRO in 2008 to determine the potential for colour changes to rock art (CSIRO 2008b). A key issue of concern is the potential for colour change of the rock art, including as a result of deposited dust. The objectives of this study were to assess whether there is a loss of colour contrast between rock art and adjacent rock surfaces and to assess if any colour change is occurring at a rate greater than that due to natural weathering.

Seven monitoring sites were selected, five southern sites close to industrial emission sources on the Burrup and two northern (control) sites distant from the industrial emission sources. The industrial monitoring site included one close to the port at Dampier used by Hamersley Iron to export iron ore.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-13

The selected rock art was monitored annually over four years with a technique known as reflectance spectroscopy that provides information about the colour and mineralogy. The sampling period was annually, due to only small changes expected.

Site averaged colour change values at the southern sites were not consistently different to those at the northern control sites, with two slightly higher, two slightly lower and one comparable to the controls. It was concluded, after examining four successive years of measurement (comprising nearly two and a half thousand individual colour measurements), no perceptible colour change was evident in the colour measurement data (CSIRO 2008b).

Following a review of the available literature, it is concluded that the impact to rock art through obscuration as a result of dust emitted by the Port B development is likely to be negligible. The smooth surfaces of the rock art do not allow significant quantities of dust to accumulate, which in any case is removed by wind and rain. This removes the likelihood of any significant staining of the rock art surface by deposited dust.

Mitigation and Management

The targets, key performance indicators and management measures identified to meet the EPA’s objectives for air quality are contained in Table 8-5.

The proposed locations of two additional DustTrak (or similar) dust monitors are shown in Figure 8-2. The exact locations will decided in consultation with the DEC. It is proposed that one monitor be located immediately to the east of the Port B development and the second monitor approximately half way between the Port B development and Point Samson. Both of these monitors are to be part of a real time monitoring network with a three-tier level of alarms that are triggered by appropriate concentration thresholds. These monitors would be in fixed locations, and would be installed prior to construction.

During construction it is additionally proposed to use three DustTraks mounted on tripods in environmental enclosures. This allows the monitors to be easily moved to monitor dust emissions associated with construction activities.

Table 8-5 Air quality management measures

Performance Objectives Targets Key Performance Indicators To ensure that emissions do not Operate within legislated dust Number of exceedences of NEPM adversely affect environmental emission limits. levels at Point Samson. values or the health, welfare and Minimise community health and Community feedback received amenity of people and land uses by amenity concerns at Point Samson. through the community hotline. meeting statutory requirements and acceptable standards. Key Management Measures Design: Dust mitigation has been incorporated into the design of the Port B development. This includes:

enclosure of car dumper cells

dust extraction for each new car dumper and screenhouse

an extensive system of stockyard water cannons at approximately 50 m spacing to allow for direct water addition to stockpiles

PAGE 8-14 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

application of the chemical surfactant PDX at some mines to ensure ore arrives st the port with the right moisture content

water sprays on all stackers, reclaimers and shiploaders

enclosure of screens and feeders within the screenhouse

moisture addition points and spray booths on selected conveyors

primary and secondary scrapers on all conveyors for the reduction of ore carry-back, spillage and consequential dust generation

sealing of roads to reduce dust generation from vehicular movements

installation of additional dust monitoring during construction and operation linked to an alarm system that alerts construction manager and operations manager of high dust levels

dust monitoring of construction works using mobile DustTrak monitors or similar.

Additional air quality controls are also being implemented at Port A:

installation of roll out covers on the CD1 pit and car dumper cell

installation of a baghouse at the Car Dumper 1 facility

installation of baghouses at the crusher/screening, sinter fines and rubble facilities

installation of spray bar systems at transfer stations at the out-feed of the pisolite plant

sealing of selected roads

installation of water cannons on the coarse ore stockpile.

Air quality modelling undertaken for Port B is based on the incorporation of these design elements.

Construction: Dust will be managed through the implementation of Environmental Management Procedure 009 (Dust) as detailed in the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3). Key measures specific to the Port B development include:

dust suppression applications and/or watering of unsealed roads, access routes, exposed ground surfaces and stockpiles will be implemented

consideration of the prevailing weather conditions when undertaking dust generating activity.

Operations: Dust will be managed through the implementation of the Cape Lambert Dust Management Plan (RTIO 2008c; Appendix B5). The Dust Management Plan is current for January to December 2009 and is updated annually. Detailed management measures for the Port B development will be incorporated in the Plan once construction of the Port B development is nearing completion. Key measures specific to the Port B development will include:

development of an updated dust arc, encompassing the Port B development infrastructure, in consultation with the DEC

continued dust measurement and monitoring on site and at Point Samson, Rocky Ridge, Wickham and Karratha with some enhancement of dust monitoring between Port B and Point Samson

further model validation with actual measured data

predictive forecasting and early warning systems that trigger management actions. This will include two additional fixed monitors along a transect between the Port B development and Point Samson.

Outcome

-3 The Port B development will result in an additional 3 µg m to maximum 24-hour PM10 concentrations, -3 an additional 0.6 µg m to maximum 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations, an extra 4 µg to maximum 24-hour TSP concentrations and an extra 0.2 g m-2 to the monthly deposition rate at Point Samson. The air quality criteria for PM10, PM2.5, TSP and deposition at Point Samson will not be exceeded solely by cumulative emissions from the Port A and Port B operations. The EPA objective of ensuring that emissions do not adversely affect environment values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land uses will be met through managing potentially adverse construction and operational impacts as per the air quality management measures.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-15

Figure 8-2 Proposed locations for additional permanent dust monitoring at Cape Lambert

PAGE 8-16 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

8.3.5 Ambient Noise Overview

Baseline noise levels are discussed in Section 5.5.4. Relevant key outcomes from the baseline noise assessment undertaken (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9) include:

Background noise levels in Point Samson are dominated by noise from wave action on the beaches surrounding the town and insect noise from nearby mangrove areas. Noise recording indicates that

the night-time LA10 background noise levels at Point Samson range between 32 dB(A) and 69 dB(A)

with a 15 minute average LA10 noise level of 42 dB(A) (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9).

As Port A is not yet operating at its maximum throughput, noise modelling was undertaken to estimate the noise emissions from Port A at a throughput capacity of 85 Mtpa. Modelling results

indicate LA10 noise levels of 40.6 dB(A) can be expected at Point Samson when Port A operates at the maximum approved throughput of 85 Mtpa under worst case meteorological conditions (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9).

Under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA), the night-time LA10 assigned

noise level for Point Samson and Wickham is 35 dB(A). The LA10 assigned noise level for the Boat Beach recreational area is 60 dB(A) at all hours. The assigned noise level for Point Samson is predicted to be exceeded by up to 5.6 dB(A) when Port A operates at a throughput capacity of 85 Mtpa based on plant utilisation. However, it should be noted that at Point Samson the background noise levels from natural sources are high and were reported to exceed the assigned noise level by an average of 7 dB.

Rail noise at Wickham was also modelled for the maximum throughput of Port A. Noise emissions from train movements at Wickham associated with Port A were predicted to reach 42.1 dB(A) at a throughput capacity of 85 Mtpa, which is below the EPA’s Noise Amenity Rating for residential use (N1) of 45 dB(A).

Objective

The EPA’s environmental objective for noise is ‘to protect the amenity of nearby residents from noise impacts resulting from activities associated with the proposal by ensuring the noise levels meet statutory requirements and applicable standards’.

Guidance

The following guidelines are applicable to the management of noise:

Draft Statement of Planning Policy: Road and Rail Transport Noise (WAPC 2005)

Preliminary Draft Guidance Statement No. 14: Road and Rail Transport Noise (EPA 2000a)

Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA)

Guide to Noise Control on Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Sites–AS 2436–1981.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-17

Noise Modelling

Fixed Plant

The major noise sources for the Port B development are brake cars, car dumpers, conveyors and drives, transfer stations, stackers, reclaimers, screenhouses and shiploaders (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9). Noise levels were modelled for both the Port B development in isolation (Table 8-6) (Figure 8-3) and the cumulative noise effects of the Port A and Port B developments (Figure 8-4). The figures show noise contours under worst case meteorological conditions and for all plant running. Modelled noise levels are based on incorporation of the noise mitigation design improvements described under noise management in Table 8-8. These improvements will be retro-fitted to existing equipment in the case of Port A, but will be installed on the new equipment as part of the Port B development.

Table 8-6 Predicted noise levels from the Port B development in isolation

Location LA10 Assigned Noise Levels Predicted Level and Level of Exceedance for Worst Case (Night) (dB(A)) Meteorological Conditions Predicted (dB(A)) Exceedence (dB(A)) Predicted Level based on all plant running Point Samson 35 39.2 4.2 Wickham 35 32.4 - Boat Beach 60* 59.9 - Predicted Level based on average plant utilisation Point Samson 35 35.6 0.6 Source: SVT 2008a; Appendix A9

*The proponent is currently in the process of determining an aspirational goal for noise levels at Boat Beach recreational area, as described in Section 5.5.4.

Modelling results for the Port A and Port B developments combined are shown in Figure 8-4 and yield the following:

the maximum achievable noise level at Point Samson, based on all plant running simultaneously (a scenario that is not possible in practice) under worst case meteorological conditions, is predicted to be 43.6 dB(A)

the maximum noise level at Point Samson, based on average plant utilisation under worst case meteorological conditions, is predicted to be 40.3 dB(A).

The combined operation of Port A and the Port B development, incorporating the proposed noise mitigating measures is predicted to result in a 0.3 dB(A) reduction in noise levels from the 85 Mtpa throughput case for Port A operating in isolation with no additional retro-fitted noise controls (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9). However, model validation undertaken for previous Port A noise modelling has indicated that the model over-predicts noise levels by an average of 1.6 dB(A) within 3 km of the plant (SVT 2007).

PAGE 8-18 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 8-3 Modelled noise levels from the Port B development in isolation under worst case meteorological conditions

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-19

Figure 8-4 Modelled cumulative noise levels from Port A and Port B under worst case meteorological conditions

PAGE 8-20 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Rail

Rail noise in Wickham was predicted to be 42.1 dB(A) for the Port B development in isolation and 44.9 dB(A) for combined Port A and the Port B development (Table 8-7). Trains will be passing Wickham more frequently as a result of the Port B development. There will be a 2.8 dB increase from current noise levels from passing trains at Wickham, however no noise limits will be exceeded.

Table 8-7 Modelled rail noise in Wickham

Time Exposure Residential Open Space Modelled Noise Level Period Level Limit (N1) Limit (N2) (WAPC 2005) (EPA 2000) (EPA 2000) Port B Port A + Port B

LAeq in dB(A) LAeq in dB(A) LAeq in dB(A) LAeq in dB(A) LAeq in dB(A) Day 55 51–55 41–45 42.1 44.9 Night 50 56–60 46–50 42.1 44.9 Source: SVT 2008a; Appendix A9

Potential Threats and Impacts

Potential noise impacts arising from the Port B development include:

construction noise impacts at Point Samson and Boat Beach (Port Walcott Yacht Club)

operational noise criteria exceedences from fixed plant at Point Samson, Wickham and Boat Beach

operational noise criteria exceedences from rail noise at Wickham.

Construction Noise Impacts

Increased environmental noise emissions from construction work undertaken at the Port B development will principally be due to:

pile driving during the wharf construction (18–24 month period)

blasting activities

heavy earthmoving machinery.

Of these construction activities, pile driving is expected to be the noisiest activity during construction. Underwater noise impacts arising from pile driving are considered in Section 9.4.4. Noise emissions from other construction activities are unlikely to result in major impacts on Point Samson or Wickham if all construction work is to be carried out in accordance with control of noise practices set out in Section 6 of Australian Standard 2436–1981 ‘Guide to Noise Control on Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Sites’. Construction noise in and around the Port B development stockyard area will be audible at Boat Beach, although some screening will be provided by the dune system between the two areas and the relatively low profile at Boat Beach in relation to the construction area.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-21

Potential Operational Exceedence of Noise Criteria at Point Samson

Fixed Plant

Modelling results indicate the combined noise emissions from the Port A and Port B operations are expected to exceed the assigned noise levels at Point Samson by up to 5.3 dB(A) for the average plant utilisation case under worst case meteorological conditions (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9). As stated above, existing measured background noise levels (15 minute average–LA10) at Point Samson exceed the assigned noise levels by 7 dB(A).

An initial application under Regulation 17 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA) has been prepared and submitted to the Minister and a copy is included as Appendix A19 (SVT 2008b). Further information will be provided to the DEC in order to progress this initial application.

Potential Operational Exceedence of Noise Criteria at Wickham

Fixed Plant

Noise emissions from fixed plant are not predicted to exceed the noise criteria of 35 dB(A) for Wickham as a result of the Port A in isolation, the Port B development in isolation or combined Port A and Port B operations (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9).

Rail

At Wickham, the Port B development results in a small increase in the day and night LAeq noise levels, which increase from 42.1 dB(A) for Port A to 44.9 dB(A) for the combined Port A and Port B operations (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9). Noise emissions from train movements at Wickham are below the WAPC

LAeq recommended noise level of 50 dB(A) set for residential use (WAPC 2005), and the EPA’s Noise Amenity Rating for residential use (N1) of 45 dB(A) (EPA 2000a). The frequency of noise emissions from train movements at Wickham will increase due to the increased number of trains passing the town each day associated with the Port B development.

Potential Operational Exceedence of Noise Criteria at Boat Beach

Fixed Plant

Noise emissions from fixed plant are not predicted to exceed the noise criteria of 60 dB(A) at the Boat Beach for either the Port A in isolation, the Port B development in isolation or combined Port A and Port B operations (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9).

Mitigation and Management

The targets, key performance indicators, management measures and monitoring identified to meet the EPA’s objective for noise are contained in Table 8-8.

PAGE 8-22 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 8-8 Noise management measures

Performance Objectives Targets Key Performance Indicators To protect the amenity of receiving Noise regulations adhered to during Number of exceedences of environments from noise impacts construction and operations noise regulations resulting from activities associated with No impact to sensitive receptors at Number of noise complaints the proposal by ensuring the noise Point Samson, Boat Beach and received levels meet statutory requirements and Wickham applicable standards’ Key Management Measures Design: Noise mitigation has been incorporated into the design of the Port B development. This includes:

low noise idlers will be installed on all conveyors

large 178 mm diameter idlers to reduce the rotational speed of the idlers and hence noise and dust generation while maximising belt capacity

low noise gearboxes

orientation of the screenhouse directing noise away from receptors at Point Samson and Wickham

acoustic panelling/barrier on one side of the screenhouse, acoustic lagging to screen covers, rubbadex liners within the product chutes and acoustic panelling on the rear of the screenhouse

enclosure of car dumpers

silencers on dust extraction systems.

Additional Noise controls will also be implemented at Port A, as part of the Port B development:

low noise idlers will be installed on jetty conveyors

low noise idlers will be installed on stockyard conveyors.

Construction: Noise will be managed through the implementation of Environmental Management Procedure 011 (Noise) as detailed in the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3). Key measures specific to the Port B development include:

a community complaints line will be available for community feedback and concern regarding noise emissions

noise levels at Point Samson and Boat Beach will be monitored to verify noise emissions during construction.

An application has been made to the Minister under Regulation 17 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 to vary the assigned noise levels applicable to Point Samson.

Operations: Operational noise at Port B will be managed through the standard management measures currently employed across the Proponent’s operations.

Outcome

Even with the implementation of proposed noise management measures, it is unlikely that the EPA objectives for noise will be fully met, as modelling results indicate the combined noise emissions for Port A and Port B operations are likely to exceed noise criteria at Point Samson by up to 5.3 dB(A) under worst case meteorological conditions. However, noise impacts at Point Samson are expected to marginally improve by 0.3 dB(A) compared with existing noise levels as a result of noise mitigation applied to the design of the Port B development, and retro-fitted to Port A (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9). Background noise levels from natural sources (waves from the ocean and insects from mangrove areas) were found to be high at Point Samson. A variation to the assigned noise levels at Point Samson has been sought under Regulation 17 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (WA). Noise impacts at Wickham and Boat Beach during operations are not expected to exceed noise criteria (SVT 2008a; Appendix A9).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-23

8.4 Minor Factors 8.4.1 Overview The factors described in this section are not considered key factors for the Port B development as they are unlikely to result in significant impacts. Potential impacts during construction will be managed via the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3), and during operations via standard management measures and other legislation.

8.4.2 Landforms and Soils Overview

Based on the soil, water and vegetation characteristics of the Port B development, it is concluded that there is the possibility of ASS occurring in some areas. As described in Section 5.3.6, the proposed stockyard area is located predominately over land assigned low to moderate risk, with small pockets presenting a moderate to high risk within 3 m of the natural soil surface.

Objective

The EPA objective relevant to landforms and soils is ‘to maintain the integrity, ecological functions and environmental values of the soils and landform’.

The specific objective for ASS is that potentially ASS disturbing activities are managed to avoid adverse effects on all aspects of the surrounding environment (DoE 2003).

Guidance

The following guidelines are applicable to the management of acid sulphate soils:

General Guidance on Managing Acid Sulfate Soils, (DoE 2003)

Draft Identification and Investigation of Acid Sulfate Soils–Acid Sulfate Soils Guideline Series, (DoE 2006a)

Contaminated Sites Management Series: Assessment Levels for Soil, Sediment and Water, Draft for Public Comment, (DEC 2003)

Western Australian Planning Commission Planning Bulletin 64: Acid Sulphate Soils, (WAPC 2003).

Potential Threats and Impacts

Potential threats and impacts to landforms and soils associated with the Port B development include:

disturbance of acid sulfate soils during construction activities

erosion and sedimentation due to construction activities.

PAGE 8-24 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

During the operations phase, the risk of disturbance of ASS is negligible as the need for large scale excavations is considerably reduced. The risks and potential impacts of ASS are therefore limited to the construction phase.

Disturbance of Acid Sulfate Soils during Construction Activities

There is no environmental risk when ASS are left undisturbed; however, when ASS are disturbed and exposed to air, iron sulfides react with oxygen and water to release iron compounds and sulfuric acid, which can cause the release of other heavy metals from the soil. The released products have the potential to seep into waterways, diminishing water quality, harming flora and fauna, and potentially degrading structures constructed of concrete and steel (DoE 2006a).

Potential areas of ASS exist within the footprint of the Port B development which may be disturbed during the construction phase. Any areas of ASS that are disturbed will require management in accordance with the relevant regulations.

Erosion and Sedimentation due to Construction Activities

Erosion may occur as a result of vegetation clearing and earthmoving during construction. Wind and/or water action on disturbed surfaces can contribute to this impact. The potential impact would be the contamination of surface and marine waters by discharge of sediment or other contaminants into the receiving environment.

Mitigation and Management

Disturbance of Acid Sulfate Soils during Construction Activities

When detailed design of the Port B development has been finalised and the precise area of disturbance is confirmed, further investigations into the presence of ASS at the site (including soil sampling at depth) will be conducted. Prior to construction, site testing will confirm the extent of ASS within the Port B development and will enable specific management measures to be prescribed.

If significant ASS is likely to be encountered, management of the ASS will be carried out, in accordance with the relevant state legislation and guidelines and through the preparation of an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan.

The CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) contains provisional ASS management measures, detailed within EMP 013 (Groundwater and Surface Water). Measures specific to the Port B development include:

Should detailed geotechnical investigations and further desktop assessment indicate that ASS are likely to be present within the Port B development footprint, a site testing and management plan will be developed to manage the specific location or locations of disturbance, which will include measures to eliminate the potential impacts of ASS.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-25

Erosion and Sedimentation due to Construction Activities

The CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) contains erosion and sedimentation management procedures, detailed within EMP 015 (Erosion and Sediment Control).

Outcome

The EPA and DEC objectives for soil and landforms and ASS will be met by undertaking further site inspections works, as per the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3), and if required, implementing an Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan.

8.4.3 Vegetation and Flora Overview

A description of the vegetation and flora of the Cape Lambert area is presented in Section 5.4.2, and is based on surveys undertaken by Biota in October 2007 and March 2008 (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2). Relevant key findings from vegetation and flora surveys undertaken include:

no threatened ecological communities or ecosystems of state significance occur within the footprint of the Port B development

vegetation associated with the poorly-reserved low lying saline drainage areas may be considered regionally significant due to its ‘high reservation priority’

no vegetation types found within the Port B development area are considered to be locally significant

no threatened, declared rare or priority flora have been identified within the Port B development

seven introduced flora species were recorded within the Port B development area: kapok bush (Aerva javanica), buffel grass (Cenchrus ciliaris), purple top windmill grass (Chloris barbata), date palm (Phoenix dactylifera), pigweed (Portulaca oleracea), athel tree/ tamarisk (Tamarix aphylla) and three leaved chaste tree (Vitex trifolia var. subtrisecta)

ruby dock (Acetosa vesicaria) is also considered likely to occur within the Port B development area.

Objective

The EPA objective for vegetation and flora is ‘to maintain the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of flora at species and ecosystem levels through the avoidance or management of adverse impacts and improvement in knowledge’.

Guidance

The following guidelines are applicable to the management of terrestrial vegetation and flora:

EPA Position Statement No. 2: Environmental Protection of Native Vegetation in Western Australia (EPA 2000c).

PAGE 8-26 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

EPA Position Statement No. 3: Terrestrial Biological Surveys as an Element of Biodiversity Protection (EPA 2002c).

EPA Guidance Statement No. 51: Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia (EPA 2004d).

Potential Threats and Impacts

The construction and operation of the Port B development has the potential to impact vegetation and flora in the Port B development area. Potential impacts during construction include:

direct loss of vegetation and flora due to land clearing

disturbance or stress to vegetation outside but immediately adjacent to the development

loss of regionally significant vegetation

disturbance or stress to native flora due to the spread of existing weed species

disturbance or stress to native flora due to the introduction of new weed species.

Potential impacts during operations include:

disturbance or stress to vegetation outside but immediately adjacent to the development

disturbance or stress to native flora due to the spread of existing weed species

disturbance or stress to native flora due to the introduction of new weed species.

Direct Loss Land clearing for the Port B development will result in the direct loss of approximately 340 ha of native vegetation (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2). None of this vegetation in its own right is known to be of regional or local conservation significance.

Disturbance of Vegetation outside the Footprint of the Development Accidental disturbance of native vegetation may occur due to erosion, vehicles not using designated tracks and dust deposition. The likely resultant impacts are considered minor given the vegetation condition, its conservation status and the proximity of the Port A operation. The greatest risk will be impacts to the primary and secondary dunes which have been identified as having the greatest biodiversity significance within the Port B development area.

Loss of Regionally Significant Vegetation Types

Up to 40 ha of vegetation associated with the poorly-reserved low lying saline drainage will be cleared for the Port B development. Similar vegetation types are known from Dampier, Cape Preston, Port Hedland and Onslow. The area to be cleared for Port B is considered to be relatively minor compared with its representation in the local and regional area.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-27

Spread of Existing Weed Species Vegetation clearing and soil disturbance create suitable conditions for the spread of weed species. Once weed species become established they compete with native vegetation and they may adversely affect native flora and fauna.

Introduction of New Weed Species New weed infestations may be caused by the introduction of seeds or spores into the Port B development area on plant, vehicles, material or personnel. The establishment of new weed species causes competition with native species.

Mitigation and Management

During construction, impacts on vegetation and flora will be managed through the implementation of Environmental Management Procedures 002 (Ground Disturbance), 005 (Vegetation and Flora) and 006 (Weeds) as detailed in the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3). Key management measures specific to Port B include:

position infrastructure, such as laydown areas and temporary offices, away from coastal vegetation

minimise the disturbance of low-lying saline drainage areas

implement weed control methods on any new weed infestations during construction so that they are effectively managed

inspect all mobile equipment, including earthmoving and construction equipment, for weeds, seeds, vegetation, mud and contaminated soil prior to entry to site

clean all mobile equipment that is found to contain weeds, seeds, vegetation, mud or contaminated soil following inspections.

The small population of Tamarix aphylla adjacent to a roadside and a low lying saline drainage area (Biota 2008a; Appendix A2) will be removed early in the construction phase.

During operations, impacts will be managed through the Proponent’s Weed Management Plan (RTIO 2007c).

Outcome

Impacts associated with clearing and disturbance to vegetation and flora are not considered ecologically significant. Up to 40 ha of poorly-reserved low lying saline drainage area will be cleared, which is considered to be a minor area of that vegetation type when compared with the local and regional representation. The EPA objective of maintaining the abundance, diversity, geographic distribution and productivity of flora at species and ecosystem levels will be met through designing the development to minimise the clearing footprint and managing potentially adverse construction and operational impacts as per the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) and the procedures outlined above.

PAGE 8-28 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

8.4.4 Surface and Groundwater Overview

Baseline surface water and groundwater information is presented in Section 5.3.7. The groundwater at Cape Lambert is not suitable for potable requirements due to high salinity and total dissolved solids. A limited amount of dewatering will be required during the construction and operation of the car dumpers. The Port B development footprint will not directly impact any significant drainage lines.

Objective

The EPA objective relevant to surface water and groundwater is ‘to maintain the quantity of water so that existing and potential environmental values, including ecosystem maintenance, are protected’.

Guidance

The following guideline is applicable to surface water and groundwater:

Water and Rivers Commission (2000). Environmental Water Provisions Policy for Western Australia: Statewide Policy No. 5 (WRC 2000).

Potential Threats and Impacts

The Port B development may impact on ephemeral drainage lines and areas subject to occasional inundation. Impacts may include alteration of natural flow, increased erosion and sediment deposition.

Dewatering for the construction of the car dumpers will impact the water table in the immediate area. No groundwater dependent vegetation types are located within the Port B development footprint, thus impacts are expected to be negligible.

Mitigation and Management

Management of surface water and groundwater involves the implementation of management measures during the design, construction and operations phases. Measures specific to the Port B development are detailed below.

Design:

locate infrastructure away from significant seasonal drainage lines and areas subject to inundation.

Construction:

undertake dewatering at the car dumpers using sump wells within the excavation and obtain the necessary licences or permits for dewatering, as required from the DoW and DEC

use water sourced from car dumper dewatering for construction purposes, subject to water quality parameters

contain runoff resulting from watering of work areas and roads buy water trucks.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-29

Operations:

update Cape Lambert Water Management Plan to include new discharge points and monitoring locations

manage long-term groundwater inflows at the car dumpers by the installation of permanent sumps

use water sourced from car dumper dewatering for dust control or as process water, subject to water quality parameters

ensure that no contaminated surface runoff is discharged via the two discharge points to Sam’s Creek and the ocean west of the existing quarry by:

installation of an oily water separator at the car dumper

installation of sediment retention ponds at discharge locations.

Discharge of water to the environment is expected to occur infrequently.

Outcome

Construction and operation of the Port B development will not significantly impact surface and groundwater at Cape Lambert as no significant drainage lines are impacted and only very minor abstraction will occur from the underlying saline aquifer due to dewatering during construction and operation of the car dumpers. Thus the EPA objective for water is predicted to be met for the Port B development.

8.4.5 Greenhouse Gases Overview

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities can contribute to climate change and avoiding anthropogenic changes to the climate is an important international goal. In order to achieve this goal, reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases are needed. Baseline greenhouse gas information is presented in Section 5.5.1. Port A, operating at maximum throughput of 85 Mtpa has the potential to result in approximately 133 kt CO2-e of greenhouse gas emissions annually (SKM 2006a).

Objective

The EPA objective for greenhouse gases is ‘to minimise emissions to levels as low as practicable on an on-going basis and consider offsets to further reduce cumulative emissions’.

Guidance

The following guidelines are applicable to the greenhouse gas emissions:

EPA Guidance Statement No. 12: Minimising Greenhouse Gas Emissions (EPA 2002b).

DCC National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors (DCC 2008).

2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories (IPCC 2006).

PAGE 8-30 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Greenhouse Gas Assessment

Annual greenhouse gas emissions during construction of the Port B development are estimated to be approximately 44 kt CO2-e.

During the operational phase of the Port B development, annual emissions have been estimated at approximately 105 kt CO2-e (SKM 2008c; Appendix A6). At maximum throughput of 130 Mtpa, this is equivalent to 0.8 kg CO2-e per tonne of iron ore throughput. By comparison, the estimated efficiency for

Port A operating at maximum throughput of 85 Mtpa is 1.7 kg CO2-e per tonne of iron ore throughput. The efficiency will be improved by reduction in energy consumption per tonne and an increase in the greenhouse gas efficiency of the energy produced for the Proponent’s coastal operations.

A summary of construction and operational annual greenhouse gas emissions is presented in Table 8-9.

Table 8-9 Summary of construction and operational emissions for the Port B Development

Emission Types Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimation (t CO2-e) Construction Operation (at maximum throughput of 130 Mtpa) Fuel combustion 32 770 29 300 Electricity 8 610 75 000 Explosives 85 0 Solid waste 2 200 550 Wastewater treatment 20 80 Land use* 0 0

Total 43 665 t CO2-e 104 930 t CO2-e Source: SKM 2008c; Appendix A6 * Note: vegetation to be cleared as part of the Port B development does not constitute a greenhouse gas emission under the DCC methodology (DCC 2008), as the vegetation to be cleared is less than 2 m in height.

Emissions have been calculated based on the Department for Climate Change (DCC) methodology (DCC 2008), which replaces the Australian Greenhouse Office methodology.

Potential Threats and Impacts

Human activities, such as the combustion of fossil fuels, release greenhouse gases (principally CO2, CH4 and N2O). Atmospheric concentrations of anthropogenic greenhouse gases have increased substantially over the past 200 years: CO2 has risen by 35%, CH4 by 148% and N2O by 18% (IPCC 2007). These increases have raised concerns that the Earth’s natural warming effect is being enhanced and will contribute to global climate change. The predicted impacts of global climate change are significant and wide-ranging. Predictions include:

changes in global temperature, rainfall and wind patterns

shifts in climate zones

reductions of polar ice-caps

rises in sea level.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-31

Mitigation and Management

The Proponent’s climate change program is based on preserving and maximising value and reputation through addressing risks and capturing opportunities. Since 2003, the program has been structured around the three following core themes which are set out in more detail in the Proponent’s climate change position:

building support for government action

developing low emission pathways for products

taking a proactive stance at operations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through the setting of short term targets and longer term initiatives.

An example of reduction in greenhouse gases at Cape Lambert is the development of the Yurralyi Maya Power Station at 7 Mile (approximately 6 km west of Karratha and 8 km south of Dampier), currently under construction, which will service the Dampier and Cape Lambert port operations. Through increased efficiency in power generation, this new power station will reduce greenhouse gas emissions per unit of electricity consumed at the port operations.

The Proponent’s climate change position is underpinned by the Climate Change Action Plan. This three year plan, adopted in 2006, sets out the overall strategy for ensuring that the Proponent's response to climate change is appropriate and coordinated, and that actions are effective in addressing the challenges presented. As part of the plan, all operations work within three year climate change work programs and report progress on a six-monthly basis.

Greenhouse gas emissions from Cape Lambert operations have historically been reported under the Greenhouse Challenge Plus program. With the introduction of recent legislation (National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 (Cwth)), emissions will now be reported under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting system. Emissions will be calculated as per the DCC methodology (DCC 2008) mentioned above. The Port B development will be managed and reported upon collectively with Port A as a single operation.

Outcome

Despite anticipated greenhouse gas emissions during construction and operation of the Port B development, emissions are not expected to be significant (44 kt CO2-e during construction and

105 kt CO2-e during operation). The EPA objective for greenhouse gas emissions is predicted to be met for the Port B development through the implementation of current targets and management measures as adopted at Port A.

PAGE 8-32 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

8.4.6 Solid and Liquid Waste Overview

During the construction and operation phases of the Port B development, waste products likely to be produced include:

inert solid waste (such as general office waste, packaging materials and scrap steel)

hydrocarbon waste (oily rags, oil filters, waste oil and waste grease)

building and demolition wastes (packaging materials, steel off-cuts, concrete, electrical off-cuts)

food waste

sewage waste

rubber (conveyor belts).

Objective

The EPA objective relevant to waste is ‘to ensure that emissions do not adversely affect environment values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land uses by meeting statutory requirements and acceptable standards’.

The EPA considers that, in the management of wastes, the following hierarchy should be adopted:

avoidance of waste production

reuse of wastes

recycling wastes to create useful products

recovery of energy from wastes

treatment of wastes to render them benign

containment of wastes in secure, properly managed structures

disposal of waste safely in the long term.

Guidance

The following guideline is applicable to waste management:

Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions 1996 (DoE 1996).

Potential Threats and Impacts

Potential impacts associated with waste disposal include the contamination of air, land or water with a waste material, in the event of inappropriate disposal. This can result in health impacts to humans and animals, as well as a potential reduction in environmental values.

Hazardous waste streams are discussed in Section 8.4.7.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-33

Mitigation and Management

During construction, waste will be managed through EMP 010, the Environmental Management Procedure for Waste within the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3).

During operations, inert waste will be managed through the existing Non-mineral Waste Management Plan (RTIO 2007d). The amount of waste reporting to landfill will be minimised, through a combination of waste minimisation, reuse and recycling.

A new inert waste landfill will be established at Cape Lambert and will operate under strict licence requirements to ensure inert waste is adequately managed. The environmental approvals for this landfill are separate to the Port B development.

Outcome

Although additional waste will be generated by the Port B development, no significant increase is expected. The EPA objective of ensuring that waste does not adversely affect environmental values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land will be met through managing potentially adverse construction and operational impacts as per the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) and existing Port A operating procedures.

8.4.7 Hydrocarbons and Hazardous Waste Overview

During the construction and operation phases of the Port B development, hazardous wastes likely to be produced include:

hydrocarbon waste (oily rags, oil filters, waste oil and waste grease)

explosives

water treatment chemicals

sewage waste.

Objective

The EPA objective relevant to hazardous materials is ‘to ensure that emissions do not adversely affect environmental values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land uses by meeting statutory requirements and acceptable standards’.

Guidance

The following guidelines are applicable to hazardous waste:

Guideline No. 1: Controlled Waste Generators March 2004 (DEC 2004a)

Guideline No. 2: Controlled Waste Carriers March 2004 (DEC 2004b)

PAGE 8-34 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Guideline No. 3: Controlled Waste Treatment or Disposal Sites March 2004 (DEC 2004c)

User Guide No. 4: Controlled Waste Tracking System October 2007 (DEC 2007)

User Guide No. 5: Paper Tracking Forms March 2004 (DEC 2004d)

Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions 1996 (DoE 1996).

Potential Threats and Impacts

Potential impacts associated with the storage and handling of hazardous materials include the contamination of air, land or water with a hazardous material in the event of a leak or spill. This can result in health impacts to humans and animals, as well as a potential reduction in environmental values.

Mitigation and Management

During construction, hazardous waste will be managed through EMP 001 (Hazardous Materials) within the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3). During operations, waste management will be undertaken as per the Non-Mineral Waste Management Plan (RTIO 2007d) and the Controlled Waste Guidelines (RTIO 2007e).

Outcome

The EPA objective of ensuring that emissions do not adversely affect environmental values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land will be met through managing potentially adverse construction and operational impacts as per the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) and existing operating procedures.

8.4.8 Rehabilitation, Decommissioning and Closure Overview

The Port B development is being designed for an economic life of at least 50 years. However the date the port could be decommissioned will be determined by the consideration of many commercial factors, including market demand for iron ore, the availability of the raw product and the introduction of new technology. When the development will be required to be closed, there are potential environmental impacts that will need to be addressed.

Objective

The EPA objective is ‘to ensure, as far as practicable, that rehabilitation achieves a stable and functioning landform that is consistent with the surrounding landscape and other environmental values’.

Guidance

The following guideline is relevant to rehabilitation, decommissioning and closure:

Guidelines for Mine Closure and Completion (DoITR 2006)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 8-35

Potential Threats and Impacts

Poor rehabilitation and decommissioning may result in long-term adverse impacts on flora, fauna, soil and water quality, visual amenity and economic and social impacts. Poor closure planning may result in insufficient allocation of funds and resources for closure, particularly in the event of unforeseen closure.

Mitigation and Management

The Proponent’s Closure Standard provides a framework to influence the design, development, operation and closure of all operations so to as ensure the optimisation of post closure outcomes in terms of social, environmental and economic development needs and expectations.

The Standard includes:

planning from project inception to ensure that closure is incorporated into project design

commencement of provision for closure at project onset, followed by regular review and updating of the provision

regular reviewing and updating the scopes of closure strategy and plans

ongoing implementation and stronger linkages between the outcomes of closure planning and core business plans, including mine plans and all other relevant planning documents

development of strong and credible relationships with all stakeholders by consulting fully both internally and externally to increase levels of input and ownership.

The requirements of the Closure Standard are to develop, maintain and manage a process for eventual closure, which addresses all relevant aspects and impacts of closure in an integrated and multi- disciplinary way, and provides a fully scoped and accurate cost of closure to the company that is documented and auditable. Thorough and comprehensive definition of the scope of measures to be undertaken at closure is necessary in order to reach a realistic estimation of the costs, and to provide assurance to all stakeholders that adequate provision for closure has been made.

The existing Closure Management Plan for Port A will be updated to cover the Port B development and will be consistent with the Closure Standard. The plan will be submitted to the appropriate regulatory authority (currently DMP) and actioned in accordance with the regulations in force at the time of closure.

Outcome

Decommissioning and closure of the Port B development will not significantly impact on flora, fauna, soil and water quality, visual amenity and the economic and social environment, thus achieving the EPA objective of achieving a stable and functioning landform that is consistent with the surrounding landscape and other environmental values.

PAGE 8-36 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

9. Marine Environment Impacts and Management

9.1 Introduction This section of the PER includes three main subsections. Section 9.1.1 defines what an ecological impact is and how impacts associated with the Port B development are categorised as ecologically significant. Section 9.1.2 briefly summarises previous experiences of dredging and spoil disposal programs at Cape Lambert, focusing on what impacts were observed, and the management outcomes. Section 9.2 identifies key threats associated with the Port B development, and describes mitigation and management measures to address potential impacts.

Further details on these issues are contained in the Technical Appendices.

9.1.1 Impacts and Ecological Significance An ecological impact consists of two parts: a disturbance and a biological response. Biological responses to natural disturbance events, such as a cyclone or freshwater plume, are seasonally common in the Cape Lambert area, which is a naturally highly dynamic system. Most habitats and organisms (fauna and flora) exhibit resilience to natural disturbances. However, natural disturbances can still significantly influence the abundance and distribution of marine organisms, such as hard coral, seagrasses and macroalgae. It is against this background of naturally induced change that potential marine impacts arising from the Port B development have been assessed.

The ecological significance of a human impact can be assessed by considering the:

spatial scale of the impact

magnitude or intensity of the impact

temporal scale of the impact

scale of the impact relative to natural impacts.

The EPBC Act defines a significant impact to matters of national environmental significance as an action where there is a real chance or possibility that it will lead to a long-term decrease in the size of a population and/ or reduce the area of occupancy of the species. In terms of a habitat, a significant impact would be defined by the amount of habitat damaged or how long it would take to recover. Quantitative statements have been used wherever possible to make clear the potential impacts to the environment.

These matters were considered during a risk assessment conducted by the Proponent to objectively rank actions according to their potential to impact the Cape Lambert marine environment (as described in Section 5.1). As previously stated, activities with the potential to impact habitats or marine organisms are referred to as threats.

Potential threats to marine turtles from the Port B development are: light spill, vibration, temporary and periodic underwater noise and disturbance of habitat (nesting and foraging). These threats are addressed in subsequent sections. This approach does not explicitly discuss additive or synergistic effects, but

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-1

assesses each impact separately. This approach helps to understand the mechanisms for change in the field and to enable design of specific management actions to mitigate threats. The management options outlined in the MTMP (Biota 2008e; Appendix B2) and DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1) will minimise the cumulative impacts.

9.1.2 Previous Experience at Cape Lambert The Proponent has experience in identifying, monitoring and managing impacts associated with dredging and spoil disposal campaigns in the Cape Lambert region. This was demonstrated during the 2007 Port A dredging program and the recent Dampier Port Upgrade dredging campaigns.

The Port A monitoring program involved a number of extensive studies and monitoring programs (Table 9-1) that were used to assist in the identification and management of potential dredging related impacts. Final results from these studies are presented in SKM, 2008p (Appendix A20) and summarised below.

The key findings from relevant reports are as follows:

Coral Health Monitoring Report

no elevation of gross mortality exceeded the pre-determined 3% trigger level at any of the impact sites (BZR & BZI)

gross mortality at the Impact-Stress site (BLR) was at no point significantly greater than the mean of the Reference sites

variation in average gross mortality at any of the sites was small and usually within 1–2% of zero

during October and November (surveys 9–12), gross mortality temporarily increased at the impact sites, becoming the closest point to breaching the trigger value, however this trend was reversed in December.

Long Term Coral Habitat Monitoring and Management Report

All sites were highly variable in coral cover and assemblage structure from pre to post dredging, indicating highly dynamic systems. Any observed reductions in coral cover were independent of the dredge operations as they occurred at intermediate sites and not at impact sites.

coral bleaching as a result of elevated sea surface temperatures has caused high coral mortality within the locality of Cape Lambert; it is believed that this bleaching is unconnected to the Cape Lambert dredge operations (it should also be noted that this coral bleaching also occurred in Dampier Harbour and is considered to have been a regional phenomenon)

Ministerial conditions stipulate that coral loss should not be more than 10% as a result of the dredge operations; coral losses greater than 10% were recorded at a number of sites outside the period of active dredging, and evidence was provided that that these changes were the result of environmental conditions rather than anthropogenic impacts

PAGE 9-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

loss of abundant coral genera was high with a number of sites recording reduced coral richness; these losses were found to be the result of environmental conditions rather than anthropogenic impacts

the only observed reduction of an abundant coral genera at an impact site was the total loss of Astreopora at Bell’s Reef; this is the result of elevated water temperature resulting in coral bleaching rather than the result of dredge impacts

although the structure of the reefs at control, intermediate and impact sites did change from pre to post dredging, This was not a significant overall change in coral assemblage structure

no evidence was found to suggest that dredging operations have adversely impacted upon the size frequency distribution of corals at Cape Lambert

no evidence was found to suggest that the density of coral recruits had decreased at any of the sites from pre to post dredging due to the dredging

dredging operations at Cape Lambert did not impact upon mass coral spawning.

Final Water Quality Monitoring Report

seasonal change and natural events yielded greater variability and more severe conditions than dredging and spoil disposal related activities

exposed monitoring locations generally experienced shorter periods of elevated turbidity and lower rates of sedimentation when compared to more sheltered monitoring locations

Copper (Cu), Lead (Pb) and Zinc (Zn) were above the 95% ANZECC trigger levels consistently throughout the entire WQM program and were not affected by the dredging

dissolved oxygen (DO), pH and conductivity did not provide any potentially valuable inputs to either the monitoring phase of the program, or the subsequent analyses of data.

These results demonstrate there were no significant direct or indirect impacts from this dredging and spoil disposal program, with the exception of temporary decrease in water quality. Deterioration of water quality, however, did not result in significant decline in coral cover within a location or any increase in partial mortality among hard coral colonies at any of the monitoring locations in the Cape Lambert region during the coral health monitoring program (SKM 2008g). Specifically, coral mortality was < 3%; however, this coral loss was related to warm summer temperatures.

The success of the monitoring program was, in part, the result of a robust dredge plume model used to predict areas likely to be affected by the dredge plume. Monitoring locations were selected on this basis and aerial monitoring was undertaken as well as water quality monitoring. The results from the model validation exercise confirmed the predictive capacity of the DREDGE3D model (GEMS 2006). Two model validation surveys were undertaken to compare field measurements of TSS to the modelled TSS values. The first trip in September 2007, found there was a strong correlation (R2 = 0.81) between the measured and modelled values. While the second trip (October 2007) found there was a lower correlation (R2 = 0.57); however, this was attributed to low levels of total suspended solids in the water column on the day of sampling. This exercise will be improved by collecting samples from the dredge overflow

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-3

during the proposed dredging program and this information will be incorporated into the model validation exercise. Another important lesson learnt during Port A dredging relates to the selection of data loggers to measure turbidity, temperature and other parameters. The performance of the loggers used during the Port A dredging program warranted their replacement; this has been undertaken by the use of Alec Compact LW light loggers for the Port B development program.

Other key recommendations were provided in the Cape Lambert Final Summary report (SKM 2008p; Appendix A20) and a summary is provided below. These recommendations were applied to the Port B project:

Coral Health Monitoring

The processes occurring at the various monitoring locations in the Cape Lambert region are typical of exposed, macrotidal environments. Coral community structure varies between monitoring locations as a result of prevailing oceanographic conditions, water quality and underlying habitat. During this program, changes in coral health at impact sites were determined by comparisons to reference sites. As the processes and coral community structure differ greatly between monitoring locations, it is recommended that coral thresholds should be determined by a combination of methods. Initially, they should be site- specific, not only because water quality conditions vary, but also because there is variation in species composition, morphologies, and life histories. Changes in coral health at a specific location should ideally be compared to its baseline values, and can also then be compared to how the other sites have changed relative to their baseline.

It is beneficial to maintain the traditional reference site which does not fall within the 'zone of influence' as this would be important to detect changes in water quality parameters that are not generally affected by construction and which can have a regional effect (e.g. thermal bleaching due to increased water temperatures), however it may not always be possible to find such sites that meet the requirements of lying outside the zone of influence and also having comparable communities of sensitive receptors like corals and be readily accessible.

Any assessment of the potential effect of a plume on a sensitive marine receptor at one or more sites should also be informed by an assessment of the spatial distribution of such apparent effects in relation to other, unaffected sites and the actual location and activities of the dredge.

Water Quality Monitoring

The water quality monitoring program for the Cape Lambert Upgrade to 85 Mtpa successfully demonstrated that the dredging and spoil disposal activities led to no detectable change in water quality at any of the monitoring locations.

The program was comprehensive, collecting data from the monitoring locations during the period of 7 February 2007 to the 9 January 2008. The Cape Lambert region is an exposed, open water environment and the water quality observed at these shallow nearshore sites can be considered to be typical of areas where local conditions are largely influenced by the macrotidal environment and prevailing regional winds which promote mixing and suspension of sediments.

PAGE 9-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Key Recommendations

The key recommendations from the Final Water Quality Monitoring Report are as follows:

light, NTU and temperature need to be monitored as they provided vital information, while DO, pH and conductivity did not provide any potentially valuable inputs to either the monitoring phase of the program, or the subsequent analyses of data

water quality thresholds should be site specific and account for natural seasonal variability in turbidity

telemetry systems are good in theory, but product design must be changed to better withstand this harsh environment

particle size distribution studies should be completed, as a simple means to measure the resuspension of sediments–it is important to have a measure of net sedimentation, but at present lack of quality instruments restrict this study

monitoring instruments should be technologically advanced and proven and the instruments should be cleaned, serviced and validated every fortnight to limit technical problems.

Overall the Port A dredging program successfully limited environmental harm, as there were no impacts on BPPH and infaunal communities, and only temporary and localised impacts on water quality associated with the dredging program. In addition, there were no reported injuries to whales, dolphins, turtles or whale sharks as a result of the dredging and there was only a single reported minor spill incident (approximately 20–50 L of oil, but was initially reported to Government as 200 L) from a ruptured hose (Dredge Superintendent Port A development pers. comm. July 2008). In addition, during the Cape Lambert Port A dredge campaign, 22 dredge and dredge related vessels were inspected as they arrived and departed from Cape Lambert. No introduced marine species (as defined on the CCIMPE List 2006) were identified in WA’s territorial waters which resulted in the triggering of the Non Indigenous Marine Species Management Strategy.

Table 9-1 Summary of the studies completed/parameters measured during Port A

Parameters Studies or Monitoring Programs Reference Coral Coral health Dredging Program for the Cape Lambert Port monitoring Upgrade – 85 Mtpa: Marine Final Summary Report Coral cover (SKM 2008p) Coral spawning Coral recruitments Water quality Turbidity (NTU) monitoring Conductivity (µS cm-1) pH TSS Available light PAR Dissolved contaminants (metals and TBT) Water temperature (ºC) Dissolved oxygen (DO) (mg L-1)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-5

Parameters Studies or Monitoring Programs Reference NTU and net sedimentation loggers Light attenuation (Kd (PAR) m-1) Gross sedimentation Depth (m) Sediment TBT assessments Cape Lambert 85 Upgrade: Compliance Monitoring assessment of TBT at Spoil Ground 2 (SKM 2008h) Dredging Program for the Cape Lambert Port Upgrade – 85 Mtpa: Pre and post dredging TBT surveys at spoil ground 1 (SKM 2008q) PSD studies Dredging Program for the Cape Lambert Port Upgrade – 85 Mtpa: Particle Size Distribution, (SKM 2008k) Spoil ground stability Twelve Month Post Dredging sediment stability assessment – Spoil ground 2 (SKM 2008r) Wave and Drift trackers - currents current Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) – studies waves and currents at a fixed location Correlation Spectral and photosynthetically active Dredging Program, for the Cape Lambert Port between radiation (PAR) attenuation (KD(λ), KPAR) Upgrade – 85 Mtpa: Final Report on relationships sediment between total suspended solids/turbidity and light Turbidity (NTU) particles and attenuation coefficients in dredging and spoil light TSS disposal-induced turbidity plumes (SKM 2008s) Beam attenuation at 660 nm, c(660) DALEC particulate backscatter at 550 nm, bbp (550) Secchi disk visibility Other Dredge plume modelling Dredging Program, for the Cape Lambert Port assessments Upgrade – 85 Mtpa: Final Report on relationships between total suspended solids/turbidity and light attenuation coefficients in dredging and spoil disposal-induced turbidity plumes (SKM 2008s) Imposex sampling in Thaid Snails - April and Cape Lambert Port Upgrade – 85 Mtpa. Comparison November 2007 of Imposex in Thaid snails- April and November 2007 (SKM 2008i) Infauna sampling - pre and post disposal Dredging Program for the Cape Lambert Port Upgrade – 85 Mtpa: Pre and Post Disposal Infauna Monitoring (SKM 2008l)

Sponge monitoring Long Term Coral habitat Dredging Program for the Cape Lambert Port Monitoring and Management Plan – post Upgrade - 85 Mtpa: Long Term Coral Habitat dredging Monitoring and Management Plan (SKM 2007d) Aerial surveys Fortnightly water quality monitoring reports Habitat mapping for BPP CLU – Port A Dredging Program for the Cape Lambert Port Referral document (ARI) Upgrade – 85 Mtpa: Environmental Referral Document (SKM 2007e) Model validation assessment Dredging Program, for the Cape Lambert Port Upgrade – 85 Mtpa: Final Report on relationships between total suspended solids/turbidity and light attenuation coefficients in dredging and spoil disposal-induced turbidity plumes (SKM 2008s) GEMS Model verification study. Presentation to the Dredge Management Group, 11 April 2008.

PAGE 9-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

In addition to the marine monitoring and surveys described above, the Proponent also formed a Dredge Management Group (DMG) that were consulted and reported to, and whom also provided guidance during the dredge program for the Cape Lambert Port A project and also for the Dampier Port Upgrade. Lessons learnt were drawn from these two projects and they will be applied to the Port B development. The proponent has already committed to the formation of a DMG for the Port B development.

9.2 Potential Threats and Impacts to Marine Factors 9.2.1 Background As described in Section 5.1, the Proponent has adopted a qualitative risk-based approach to systematically determine the final relevant environmental factors for the Port B development. An internal environmental risk assessment identified potential and predicted environmental impacts that may arise during the construction and operation of the Port B development, marine biodiversity was identified as a key marine factor which encompasses several aspects:

intertidal and subtidal habitats (BPPH) and associated biota

marine water and sediment quality

protected marine biota (whales, turtles etc.)

invasive marine species.

Four key threats to marine biodiversity associated with the Port B development. These are:

dredging and spoil disposal and direct habitat removal

light spill

underwater noise

invasive marine species.

In addition to these four threats, a further three minor threats were identified:

vessel movement

contaminant spill

waste and stormwater drainage.

Some threats, such as dredging, are associated with the construction phase of the Port B development. Light spill, on the other hand, is a threat primarily associated with the operational phase of the Port B development.

Table 9-2 summarises the threats, the marine factors at risk and potential ecological impacts, and provides cross references to the relevant sections where these issues are discussed in detail.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-7

Table 9-2 Summary of potential threats to key marine environmental factors

Threat Key Marine Factors Potential ecological impact Dredging and spoil BPP and BPPH (Section 6.5.2). Direct loss of habitat (Section 9.2.2) disposal generated Increased turbidity leading to a reduction in light turbidity and to BPP or smothering of BPP and BPPH by sedimentation plumes sedimentation (Section 9.2.2) and habitat loss (Section 9.2.2) Light spill Marine turtles (Section 6.5.6). Behavioural change to hatchlings and nesting (Section 9.2.3) adult turtles (Section 9.2.3). Underwater noise Marine mammals and turtles (Section Temporary behavioural changes in individuals. (Section 9.2.4). 6.5.6 and 6.5.7). Physiological damage to hearing of individuals. Displacement of EPBC listed species from critical habitats (Section 9.2.4). Invasive marine Marine water quality (Section 6.4.3) Displacement of native species and habitats by species (Section invasive marine species (Section 9.2.5). 9.2.5) Vessel movement Marine mammals and turtles Vessel strike (Section 9.3.2). (Section 9.3.2) (Section 6.5.6 and 6.5.7) Contaminant spill Marine water quality (Section 6.4.3) Reduction in water quality and associated (Section 9.3.3) Marine fauna and flora (Section 6.5) impacts to fauna, flora and habitats (Section 9.3.3). Waste and stormwater Marine water quality (Section 6.4.3) Reduction in water quality receptors and drainage Marine fauna and flora (Section 6.5) associated impacts to fauna and flora (Section 9.3.4) (Section 9.3.4).

9.2.2 Dredging and Spoil Disposal and Direct Habitat Removal Related Disturbances Overview

The Port B development will result in direct and potentially indirect impacts to benthic habitats. Direct seabed disturbance and habitat removal will result from the following activities: cutter suction (CSD) and trailer hopper dredging (TSHD); construction of the wharf; and dredge spoil disposal into the existing spoil grounds. The direct removal of seabed can result in the following potential impacts: loss of benthic habitat and mortality of supporting species and benthic assemblages; subsequent indirect effects to marine turtles and dugong resulting from habitat removal through loss of habitat; and reduction in species diversity and abundance (such as fish and sessile benthic infauna and epifauna).

Indirect impacts to marine fauna and flora from dredging and spoil disposal relate to increases in background turbidity and increased sediment deposition from the dredging activity. Turbidity refers to the amount of suspended particulate matter in the water column and the resulting effects on light attenuation. Increased levels of turbidity can impact corals, seagrasses and algae by reducing the amount of light available for photosynthesis. Sedimentation is defined as the deposition of particulate material onto the benthos (Cooper & Fabricius 2007) and can abrade or smother sessile organisms.

The habitats at risk from direct and indirect impacts from the Port B development are a mix of BPPH (hard coral assemblages, patchy seagrass beds, and macroalgae and turf algae assemblages) and non- BPPH (unvegetated subtidal sand, sponge and soft coral communities) (Section 6.5). Definition of

PAGE 9-8 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

habitats as BPPH is based on the EPA Guidance Statement Number 29 (EPA 2004b). BPP and BPPH are considered to be highly important providers of ecosystem services, therefore any disturbance to these features needs to be limited or prevented (EPA 2004b).

Traditionally, reefs in the region have been classified as coral dominated if cover exceeds 5% of the substratum. This can be misleading because algae, which has greater BPP potential than corals (see Table 6-6) is generally more abundant on Cape Lambert reefs. Further, because corals and algae are patchily distributed on the same reef, it is impractical to map individual, discrete patches of coral, macroalgae and turf algae on the same reef. Therefore, collectively referring to a reef as BPPH is more appropriate.

As such the BPP have been combined to form a single habitat type, which is highly correlated with the distribution of intertidal and subtidal hard substratum. These three primary producers form a mosaic on the intertidal and subtidal hard substratum, with turf algae as the most dominant in terms of the amount of seafloor covered. Most areas surveyed, particularly in the intertidal zone, showed rapid transitions between adjacent areas dominated by different kinds of BPP, sometimes only metres in diameter and ranging from high levels of cover to virtual absence. The conclusion is that hard intertidal and subtidal substrata could be best described as Mosaic BPPH, with a complex association of a variety of BPP, each of which is present in proportions that reflect subtle differences in microhabitats and also the recent history of disturbance.

Although grouped with other BPP types on Mosaic BPPH, hard corals are considered to be the most sensitive marine receptors to anomalous increases in turbidity and sedimentation (Brown et al. 1990). Sedimentation associated with dredging can lead to abrasion, smothering and widespread physical stress reactions and mortality in some hard corals (Dodge & Vaisnys 1977; Brown et al. 1990; Wesseling et al. 2001). Impacts to corals due to turbidity and sedimentation vary among species (Stafford-Smith 1993), growth-form (Blakeway 2005) and colony size (Gilmour 2002). Impacts will be influenced by water depth and sediment type. Smaller colonies are more likely to be smothered as they have smaller energy reserves to cope with prolonged shading. Less predictable and much harder to quantify are the sub-lethal effects on adult corals and the effects on coral recruitment (Bourke & McDonald 2006).

Dredging and spoil disposal activities have the potential to impact coral reproduction, settlement success and juvenile coral survival. Stressed and bleached corals produce gametes inferior in quality and number (Mendes & Woodley 2002). For corals that are broadcast spawners, the released eggs and sperm may be negatively influenced by elevated levels of suspended solids (Gilmour 1999). Further, coral larvae settlement may be inhibited on reefs covered in excessive amounts of sediment (Gilmour 1999; Babcock & Davies 1991).

Turbidity levels are known to be naturally highly variable both spatially and temporally in the region around Cape Lambert (Section 6.4.3) but the dredging and disposal activities into the spoil ground can cause levels to exceed background levels at and beyond the dredge and disposal locations. However, as discussed in Section 6.4.3, high turbidity levels in the region are often driven by seasons, winds and tides, more so than by dredging activity.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-9

Sporadic naturally high levels of turbidity at Cape Lambert suggest that sediment deposition is highly variable both spatially and temporally. Areas where the prevailing weather conditions prevent the settlement of all but the heaviest particles, would exhibit the lowest rates of sediment deposition and retention of fines, while those areas with regularly calmer conditions (annually or seasonally) have higher rates of sediment deposition and retention of fines. The finer grades of particles are of interest because those are the components of the sediment to be dredged that may be suspended in the plume and carried considerable distances.

The GEMS 3D Dredge Simulation Model was used for simulating the specific fate of particles discharged during dredging and spoil disposal activities. A discussion of the model, re-suspension and the model outputs are provided later in this Section. Sediment cores were taken as one of the marine studies (Section 6.2) to determine particle size, resuspension potential and settling velocity of sediment to help interpret the model predictions.

Objective

The EPA objectives are:

to maintain the abundance, biodiversity, productivity and geographic distribution of marine fauna

to maintain ecological function, abundance, productivity and biodiversity of intertidal and subtidal species. Guidance

EPA Guidance 1: Protection of Tropical Arid Zone Mangroves along the Pilbara Coastline (EPA 2001).

EPA Guidance 29: Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Protection for Western Australia's Marine Environment (EPA 2004b).

Modelling of Sediment Plumes Arising from Dredging and Spoil Disposal

Dispersion modelling of sediment arising from dredging and disposal has been undertaken by Global Environmental Modelling Systems (GEMS) Pty Ltd. The technical report detailing the methods and full suite of outputs is provided in GEMS (2008a; Appendix A12) and the validation report in GEMS (2008b; Appendix A13). The model predictions have been used by SKM to assess the likely impacts to the marine environment.

Modelling Overview

Four separate predictive models were used by GEMS. The BoM high resolution atmospheric forecast model (MesoLAPS) provided hourly wind and atmospheric pressure data to drive the ocean models. The GEMS 3D Coastal Ocean Model (GCOM3D) was used to simulate the ocean currents in the region and the SWAN model was used to simulate waves. The GEMS 3D dredge model (DREDGE3D) was used to determine the movement of sediments released during the dredging and spoil disposal activities. DREDGE3D has been used to model dredging programs in a number of other projects. These include

PAGE 9-10 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

dredging programs at Mermaid Sound for the Dampier Port Authority and Hamersley Iron, at Barrow Island for Chevron Gorgon, at Albany for the Albany Port Authority, at Fremantle for the Fremantle Port Authority, at Cape Preston for CP Mining, at Port Hedland for BHP Billiton Iron Ore and also for the Cape Lambert Port A project. A model validation exercise for the Cape Lambert Port A project confirmed the predictive capacity of the DREDGE3D model (GEMS 2006). The wide ranging application and subsequent verification provides an increased level of confidence in the model.

Modelling Scenarios

As reported in Section 3.4 the following equipment will be used to undertake the dredging works:

3 one large TSHD (hopper capacity approximately 15 000 m )

one medium TSHD

one large CSD

one BHD with associated hopper barges

one D&B spread (if required).

The environmental advantages of this equipment over others available are discussed in Section 3.4.

Up to 16 Mm3 of both consolidated and unconsolidated material will be dredged using a combination of this equipment. The dredging and spoil disposal activities are expected to take approximately fifty-two weeks to complete.

Model Input Data

Detailed dredge logs were developed for the dredging program by JFA Consultants Pty Ltd. These are logs of the anticipated activity of each of the dredges at time intervals and locations. The details, including volume dredged, are fed into the model to represent as accurately as possible the dredge program. Further detail is provided in GEMS (2008a; Appendix A13).

A large number of cores of the seabed were extracted by Coffey Geotechnics for work in relation to the new wharf. Particle size distributions (PSD) were determined from nineteen of these cores, the locations being representative of the overall dredged area. Three samples were analysed from each core, representing the overburden, the mid-layer (unconsolidated) and the bottom-layer (unconsolidated). This provides a better representation of the PSD of the full dredge depth, than a single sample at each location. Bedrock was not analysed. If the bedrock is very hard then the action of the cutter teeth against the rock may create finer material than analysed in the laboratory. In this case, the laboratory derived results would be unrepresentative of the actual PSD. This is a difficulty faced by all programs where dredging of hard rock is likely. Consequently, to represent the most conservative case possible a very fine distribution (PSD) was applied to the bedrock component of the analysis.

Of the representative cores selected, particle settling velocities were determined for a range of particle sizes by CSIRO using a sedigraph. Sodium hexametaphosphate ((NaPO3)6) was used as the medium

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-11

through which the measured particles fall. This is the standard approach to determine settling velocities. A laser diffraction method was considered; however, this technique has known problems with the agglomeration of clay particles (there were significant amounts of clay in some cores). Larger particles will fall more quickly; therefore the use of the laser diffraction method would have overestimated particle settling velocities and resulted in a less conservative approach.

To ensure that (NaPO3)6 was representative of saline water, a comparison of the use of saline water versus the use of (NaPO3)6 was conducted. The model was then corrected to take into account the difference in the settling velocities between the two media.

The modelling assessed three climatic conditions, reflecting the range of conditions experienced during La Niña, El Niño and ‘average’ years. These years were 2000 (easterly winds more dominant), 2002 (westerly winds more dominant) and 2007 (no directional bias to wind direction) respectively. The results of the modelling (GEMS 2008a; Appendix A12) showed an insignificant difference between all three scenarios. Therefore the final results presented in this section are for the average year of 2007; however, the complete set of results is included in GEMS (2008a; Appendix A12).

Prior to the commencement of plume modelling the Proponent commissioned an independent review of certain data inputs to the model to ensure sufficient data was available for the purposes of the task. The review was undertaken by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) Marine and Atmospheric Research Division in June 2008 (CSIRO 2008a; Appendix A14) and focused on the assessment of the following:

Meteorological data requirements for:

climatological analysis

meteorological forcing for ocean models

model verification.

Tidal data requirements for:

determination of tidal constituents

tidal forcing for ocean models

model verification.

Current and wave data requirements for:

climatological analysis

model verification.

This study (CSIRO 2008a; Appendix A14), which was submitted and approved with the Final ESD (SKM 2008a), concluded that the data assessed satisfied the minimum requirements of the project.

PAGE 9-12 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

However CSIRO noted that subsequent to analysis of the acoustic wave and current data, density driven circulation should be given further consideration, since the modelling did not consider temperature and density. Subsequent analysis by GEMS (2008b; Appendix A13) concluded that there is good agreement between the hydrodynamic model predictions and the data for currents near the surface and also near the bottom. This shows that there are no other significant influences affecting the currents (e.g. density driven currents as a result of surface flows from rivers).

Validation of current, wave and dredge modelling

Verification of the three (ocean currents, waves and particle movement) GEMS models used to predict the transport, deposition and impact of sediment released from the dredging and spoil disposal activities was undertaken for the Port B development. The verification included field studies and analysis that included:

One ADCP (current meter) deployed north-east of the berth area, east of Bezout Island to provide currents through the water column (and waves) to help understand the flux between Cape Lambert and the island. The ADCP was deployed for 41 days commencing on 13 April 2006. The location is shown in Figure 9-1. In addition, two ADCPs were established for the Port B development at two locations close to the Port A wharf and have been recording since 18 December 2008.

Two GPS tracked wireless drifters deployed off Cape Lambert in June 2006 and three drifters in April 2008. Drifters are deployed to capture surface currents; these instruments float around with the currents and data is collected via satellite. Drifters are typically flushed from the area of interest after 5-7 days.

Information on current and historical tides from Port Walcott from the national tidal network.

Analysis of the ADCP data to obtain time series of sea levels and the speed and direction of ocean currents.

Comparison of BoM modelled wind data used in the GEMS modelling with anemometer data from the Cape Lambert region

Comparison of modelled data with results from the above measurements.

Table 9-3 provides details of the equipment specifically deployed for the Port B development and used to verify the atmospheric and ocean models used in this study.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-13

Figure 9-1 Location of ADCP and the two wireless surface drifters deployed during June 2006

PAGE 9-14 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 9-3 Summary of model inputs and data available for verification studies

Parameter Application Location Timeframe Meteorological data Continuous actual Verify predicted weather Existing (Port A) wharf 12 weeks of data obtained measurements (from from Australian BoM from an AWS installed on the automatic weather model high resolution Port A wharf on station (AWS)) of: atmospheric forecast 5 February 2008 model (MesoLAPS) wind speed

wind direction

temperature

humidity Coastal wind (speed Gridded predicted data Across modelling domain Full duration of sediment and direction) from Australian BoM high plume dispersion modelling resolution (10 km) model (MesoLAPS) Marine currents and waves ADCP and Acoustic Verify dispersion model One fixed ADCP north-east 41 days of data commencing doppler Wave And of the berth area, east of on 13 April 2006 Current profiler Bezout Island (AWAC) measured Two fixed ADCPs close to waves Four months of data since existing wharf 18 December 2007 (data One AWAC located at the collection ongoing) end of the Port A wharf May 2006 to present Drift tracker Verify dispersion model Three drifters (these are Short term tracks during June measured currents placed into the water and 2008 (5-7 days, which is the allowed to drift with the tides approximate period of time it and currents, and are takes for the drifters to be tracked by satellite) ‘flushed’ from the Cape Lambert area) Tides Verify dispersion model Port Walcot Standard Tide Many years Station Four months of data since Two fixed ADCPs close to 18 December 2007 (data existing wharf (as above) collection ongoing) Bathymetry Input into dispersion Australian Region Digital - model Marine Charts Airborne Laser Observation - Source: GEMS 2008a & GEMS 2008b

A comprehensive model validation and verification study has been conducted by GEMS for the Port B development (GEMS 2008b; Appendix A13). The wind climate component of the modelling has included a comparison with observations and records, including comparison of BoM predicted data with actual measurements from the BoM recording station at Roebourne and the automatic weather station on the existing jetty at Port A. Overall, the results confirm that the modelled winds provide very good representation of the overall regional wind climate. It is noted that when winds are light and wind error greatest, the meteorological forcing is much less significant compared to tidal forcing. A comparison of inter-annual variability in meteorological variables has also been conducted, leading to the selection of the average year of 2007 explained previously.

Validation of the wave model (SWAN) and the 3D ocean model (GCOM3D) have included a comparison of oceanographic observations with model predictions – waves, water levels and currents. Overall, a very

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-15

good agreement has been shown between predicted and actual observations (GEMS 2008b; Appendix A13). This is consistent with previous studies using the BoM atmospheric models and the GEMS suite of ocean models.

Re-suspension

The SWAN wave model was used to simulate the waves during the dredging operations for calculations of sediment re-suspension. The re-suspension processes were represented in the dredge-plume model by including effects of wave induced orbital velocities. The velocities were available over the full extent of the plume grid over the period of modelling.

Potential Threats and Impacts to Marine Fauna and Fauna Including BPPH

No population level impacts are predicted for EPBC Act listed marine species because of the small area of habitat to be permanently impacted.

Predicted Direct Impacts to Marine Habitats Including BPPH Associated with Dredging and Spoil Disposal and Habitat Removal

Dredging of the turning basins and channel, Service Wharf B and disposal of spoil in selected locations (Figure 4-3) will cause direct physical disturbance to the seabed, but will not result in direct loss to BPPH because the areas to be impacted do not support BPPH. Instead, they are characterised by unvegetated seafloor sediment. However, construction of the new jetty will result in the direct loss of some intertidal habitat including 0.4 ha of BPPH. This BPPH will be smothered where the new access jetty departs the mainland near the headland of Cooling Water Beach.

Mangroves

The distribution of mangroves in the Cape Lambert area was described in detail in Section 6.5.2. It is predicted that there will be no direct impact to regionally significant mangrove stands. Regionally significant mangroves constitute those within Guideline areas 1 and 3 (EPA 2001). According to EPA Guidance Statement 1, the closest regionally significant mangrove stands to Cape Lambert are located at Dixon Island and Cossack (EPA 2001).

A small area of mangrove habitat (0.3 ha) on the headland of Cooling Water Beach, adjacent to the development (Guideline area 4), will be directly impacted on as a result of construction activities. However, these mangroves are considered of low ecological significance based on the following features:

open canopy

less than 15 trees

situated on rocky shores that are predominantly terrestrial

unlikely to support marine biota or specialist mangrove fauna.

PAGE 9-16 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Seagrasses There are no significant seagrass resources in the Cape Lambert area and none in the dredge footprint (Section 6.5.2).

Filter Feeding Communities As mentioned in Section 6.5.1, the spoil grounds are characterised by unvegetated sand and some non- BPPH assemblages at Spoil Ground 1. A small area of sponge/soft coral assemblages is predicted to be smothered at Spoil Ground 1. This represents <1% of this habitat type in the area. Impacts to these organisms are predicted to be highly localised and temporary.

Habitat Fragmentation Habitat fragmentation has not been discussed further as an impact to marine flora and fauna, primarily because only a small area of a very widespread habitat type (unvegetated seafloor sediment) will be disturbed. The disturbed area (the dredged basin and channel) will not form an effective biological barrier, even for benthic species living on the seafloor. Most mobile species should be able to swim or float across on the dredged area and many marine species have a pelagic life-stage. Thus dredging will not inhibit dispersal of pelagic larvae. In addition, tropical marine species on unvegetated seafloor rarely have highly limited distributions such as is common for some terrestrial species. Lastly, habitat fragmentation in marine environments is not considered a Key Threatening Process under the EPBC Act.

Predicted Indirect Impacts to Marine Habitats Including BPPH Associated with Dredging and Spoil Disposal Impacts

Indirect effects to Benthic Primary Producers from Dredge and Spoil Disposal are discussed here in relation to elevated turbidity levels and sedimentation rates. The indirect impacts to BPP were assessed by using numerical models to predict areas that might receive turbidity and/or sedimentation levels that could potentially result in BPP mortality. The modelling is a tool to provide an indication of predicted turbidity and sedimentation patterns associated with the proposed dredging and dredge spoil disposal. These outputs are shown in Figure 9-2, Figure 9-3, Figure 9-4 and Figure 9-5, and the full details are in the BPPH Assessment (SKM 2008f; Appendix A11).

EPA Guidance Statement No. 29 uses Management Units for the spatial definition of areas that are important at ecosystem level, to set the boundaries of the acceptable losses of BPPH. The proposed Management Units are shown in Figure 9-6. The seaward boundaries of the management units were based on bathymetry (SKM 2008f; Appendix A11). One exception to this is Management Unit 1 which encompasses Delambre Island and Dixon Island, both of which are part of the proposed DAMP. For this reason, boundaries for this management unit are not based on ecological attributes but on the proposed DAMP boundaries. The Management Units have been defined to encompass all the areas of BPPH reported from the region, predicted to experience potential impacts (both direct and indirect) based on numerical modelling simulations. Details of the BPPH assessment are provided in SKM 2008f (Appendix A11) and a summary provided below.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-17

Figure 9-2 Potential zones of impact, and influence from turbidity (best case scenario)

PAGE 9-18 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 9-3 Potential zones of impact, and influence from turbidity (worst case scenario)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-19

Figure 9-4 Potential zones of impact, and influence from sedimentation (best case scenario)

PAGE 9-20 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 9-5 Potential zones of impact, and influence from sedimentation (worst case scenario)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-21

A detailed investigation into the potential impacts to BPPH (Section 6.5.2) was undertaken via the sediment plume dispersion modelling undertaken by GEMS as described above. As part of the modelling process it was necessary to develop a set of thresholds for turbidity (NTU) and sedimentation for BPP, the most sensitive receptors being scleractinian corals, to indicate where and when potential impacts might occur as a result of dredging and disposal activities.

Threshold development

An extensive review of available literature with respect to the influence of water quality on other Benthic Primary Producers (macroalgae and seagrass) was undertaken. The review focused on the tolerances of representative species to perturbations in sedimentation and light regimes. Although some critical values that could be used as thresholds for both increased sedimentation and reduced light were presented in the studies, very few are directly comparable either with each other, or to the situation at Cape Lambert due to the scope of the experiments in which these values were determined.

In addition, no literature could be sourced outlining the critical TSS (mg L-1) threshold levels for any seagrass species. Thresholds were reported in literature in terms of minimum light requirements (MLR) and are expressed as a percentage of surface irradiance (SI). There is a considerable range of values (2.5– 37% of SI) reported throughout the literature for the minimum light requirements of seagrasses, varying between species as well as within a single species. The variation in MLR reported in the literature appears in part to be the result of differences in the methodologies used to derive these values.

Currently, the thresholds of critical levels of TSS developed for corals are thought to be conservative thresholds for other BPPH as corals are assumed to be the most sensitive marine receptors. This will continue to be the focus of a monitoring program for potential impacts upon BPPH because the methodology is well established and at present there is no evidence of any impacts upon other BPP types. The baseline collection and the monitoring component of this project which will be implemented during dredging will produce a large dataset capturing light climate and NTU data from a range of monitoring sites. Information on other BPPH will also be collected (SKM 2008f; Appendix A11) and this data could potentially assist in the future development of more specific thresholds for other BPPHs.

Therefore, in the absence of suitable data for thresholds for other BPP thresholds developed for corals, the most sensitive receptors were applied as conservative proxies for other BPP.

The development of thresholds for sedimentation and turbidity utilised the Port A water quality dataset to create draft models of the maximum average NTU and sedimentation over the period from February to December 2007. This included the dredging period and it was regarded as a baseline data set. Equations modelled from the maximum average NTU and sedimentation environment were calculated from the baseline monitoring data. These equations are proposed to form zones of influence and impact that can then be interpreted on a site-specific basis using site specific information.

Sites within the Zone of Impact are those predicted to be at greatest risk of coral mortality due to their proximity to the dredge footprint and because the modelling predicted impacts associated with the turbidity plume and elevated sedimentation rates. Importantly, impacts are not inevitable at these sites.

PAGE 9-22 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Sites within the area titled Zone of Influence are those sites predicted to experience anomalous turbidity levels (above background) at some stage during the dredging program.

In situ verification exercises of GEMS models for the Cape Lambert Port A Upgrade have demonstrated a high congruence between predicted and observed spatial extent and TSS levels in the dredge plume (SKM 2007e). Higher risk of predictive model error in the shallow waters bordering the coastline, requires that both minimum (‘best case’) and maximum (‘worst case’) estimates of the areas defined within the plume model as zones of potential impact and influence be considered. As a consequence, estimates of potential risk of mortality include best-case and worst-case estimates.

The reason for providing ‘worst-case’ and ‘best-case’ estimates is that the modelling approach of GEMS has potential for error within regions immediately bordering the coast. The GEMS models run at a spatial resolution of 200 m2 in order to provide an accurate description of the region’s oceanography. As a result of this high resolution, particles within the model can become trapped at the coastal edge. Rather than accept such error, it was considered a more accurate approach to add a level of reasonable error (e.g. 2 x the model resolution) to provide a ‘worst-case’ estimate of the impact of the dredge plume.

The BPPH assessment predicted both best case and worse case indirect loss values, however the range was often very large. In order to provide a more accurate assessment of the ‘most likely’ impact an average of the best case and worst case was provided.

Predicted turbidity impacts

Figure 9-2 and Figure 9-3 show that the extent of the spatial contours that represent the zone of potential impact caused by the dredging program under best and worst case scenarios. Impacts are predicted to occur at BPPH fringing the mainland from just north of the Cape Lambert West site to the existing Port A wharf. A small area of BPPH may also be impacted southeast of Bezout Island. Overall, 9.7 ha of BPPH may be impacted by turbidity in the Port B development area under the best case scenario, while 40.5 ha may be impacted under the worst case scenario. To better understand the spatial scale of impact, predicted turbidity impacts are discussed separately for Management Units 2 and 3, the only units where BPPH is predicted to be impacted by turbidity. Information is also presented on the types of BPP found at these sites.

Management Unit 2 – turbidity impacts

The estimated best case extent of loss within Management Unit 2 is 6.3 ha of BPPH, and will be restricted to BPPH on the mainland near Cooling Water Beach. Two sites were intensively surveyed at Cooling Water Beach during BPPH surveys (SKM 2008f; Appendix A11) with one site located on the eastern boundary of Management Unit 2 (other sites were also surveyed in this unit but are predicted not to be exposed to the turbidity plume generated by dredging activity). Hard corals at this site represented about 15% cover of the BPPH, while turf algae represented nearly 70%. Turf algae are adapted to marine environments characterised by naturally turbid waters. All other benthic types were uncommon. Hard corals had mean diameters ranging from 6–20 cm and most colonies had maximum heights <6 cm. Growth forms of hard corals were equally divided among massive, encrusting and foliose types.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-23

Under the worst case scenario, 14.6 ha of BPPH (approximately double that of the best case) is predicted to be impacted. Once again, impacts in Management Unit 2 will be restricted to areas west of Cooling Water Beach but will extend further down the coast than the best case scenario. The BPPH in this area was described earlier for the best case scenario, with turf algae dominating reef cover and hard coral and macro algae representing smaller components.

Management Unit 3 – turbidity impacts

The potential losses of BPP in Management Unit 3 represent 3.4 ha for the best case prediction scenario and 25.9 ha for the worst case scenario. Under the best case scenario, impact to BPPH will largely be restricted to Cooling Water Beach. But under the worst case scenario the impact area will range from Cooling Water Beach to the existing Port A wharf. Here hard coral and turf each represent about 25% cover of the reefs. All other BPP occur in much smaller amounts. In addition, there is potential for a small area of BPPH southeast of Bezout Island to be impacted. Bezout Island is characterised by coral communities of 20–30 % cover. However, the dominant BPP, in terms of percent cover, is turf algae (SKM 2008f; Appendix A11). Soft corals and macroalgae are also present at Bezout Island, but comprise a small part of the mosaic of BPP types (<5 %). Two sites at Bezout Island have been intensively surveyed. At both sites most hard corals had mean diameters ranging from 6–20 cm or 21–40 cm. Small coral colonies (diameters <6 cm) were uncommon. At one site, most colonies had maximum heights <6 cm, while at the other most colonies had maximum heights ranging from 6–40 cm. At both sites the dominant growth-form type was massive corals, but encrusting forms were also well represented at one site.

Although the dredge plume modelling suggests there may be some impact to corals occupying BPPH at Cape Lambert it is recognised that these worst case estimates are over estimates of what might happen and reflect a conservative assessment of the risk of a potential impact.

Recent experience in the region suggests that losses of BPP as a consequence of turbidity related impacts from the dredge plume are highly unlikely (SKM 2008f; Appendix A11). In the event some corals would be killed as a consequence of turbidity related impacts, recolonisation by BPP is likely after cessation of dredging. Natural disturbances within this environment from winter storms and cyclones are common occurrences. Despite such disturbances corals appear resilient to recovery within this environment and likely to recover in the long-term if all stressors are removed. These predictions of limited loss are based on results from previous dredging programs within the region. During the Cape Lambert Port A and other Mermaid Sound programs coral mortality associated with dredging did not extended beyond 500 m of the dredge source, and that mortality was associated with sedimentation burial rather than increases in turbidity levels (MScience 2007; SKM 2008a). Although turbidity levels increased above background at sites well beyond 500 m, there were no measurable increases in coral mortality from the same sites (MScience 2007).

Areas of BPPH predicted to be impacted by turbidity are unlikely to have any substantial impact to the BPP that occupy them. However, these BPP, particularly corals may experience sub-lethal stress. Sub- lethal impacts due to turbidity, if prolonged, could result in reduced growth and metabolic processes, and potentially a resultant down turn in fecundity. This would only result if the dredge operations resulted in

PAGE 9-24 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

the turbidity plume consistently remaining over one or more locations with sensitive BPP’s. The site specific model interrogations (SKM 2008f; Appendix A11) show this is not the case and the estimated zones of impact only predict the spatial extent of the area within which the dredge plume will produce TSS levels that will exceed the thresholds one or more times and usually only for a few hours at a time.

Predicted sedimentation impacts

Figure 9-4 and Figure 9-5 indicate that the zone where the model predicts exceedences of sedimentation impact thresholds includes several areas containing BPPH. Figure 9-4 represents the best case prediction scenario and Figure 9-5 the worst case. Overall, 21.7 ha of BPPH may be impacted under the best case prediction scenario, while 76.9 ha may be impacted under the worst case scenario. As with turbidity related impacts, the sedimentation impacts are largely predicted to be restricted to BPPH fringing the mainland, from north of the Cape Lambert site around to areas south of the existing Port A wharf. BPPH southeast of Bezout Island is also predicted to be impacted by sedimentation. To better understand the spatial scale of impact from sedimentation, impacts are discussed separately for Management Units 2 and 3, the only units where BPPH is predicted to be impacted by sedimentation. As for turbidity impacts, the range between best case and worst case is large – thus the justification of using ‘most likely’ impacts.

Management Unit 2 – sedimentation impacts

Under the best case scenario prediction, 16.0 ha of BPPH could potentially be impacted by sedimentation in Management Unit 2. The best case scenario predicts that potential sedimentation impacts to BPPH in this Unit will be restricted to an area west of Cooling Water Beach. BPPH in this area was described above in the section relating to turbidity impacts. In brief, this area is dominated by turf algae in terms of percent cover, but hard corals are also present. Under the worst case scenario prediction, 17.4 ha of BPPH could potentially be impacted – but most of this area is covered in algae not corals.

As described above, BPP at Bezout Island and Cape Lambert is dominated by algal assemblages that are thought to have a considerable tolerance to high sedimentation. In the unlikely event that macroalgal assemblages were impacted, macroalgae is predicted to recover rapidly following the cessation of disturbance. The ‘worst-case’ estimates would also extend the area of potential impact to the BPPH at Bezout Island. The smallest coral colonies (<6 cm in diameter and or <6 cm in maximum height) are most vulnerable to sedimentation and turbidity related impacts because they are readily smothered during periods of above background sedimentation rates and have less energy reserves to survive prolonged periods of reduce light. Consequently, any mortality of coral in this area is likely to be greatest among the smallest colonies. Provided that sediment does not remain on the reef at the cessation of the dredging program (see discussion above on sediment retention), then the BPPH would only suffer a temporary loss of BPP and there should be recolonisation of the BPPH by a mosaic of BPP types, perhaps with a succession beginning with turf algae and eventually including the recruitment of hard corals.

This worst case estimate has the potential to cause at least some sub-lethal impact to the corals surrounding Bezout Island and at the mainland at Cape Lambert but large scale coral mortality is not expected to occur within these areas. This is because exceedences of the thresholds are unlikely to occur for more that 12–14 days at a time. However, as mentioned previously, it is important to consider that

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-25

exceedences are unlikely to be continuous throughout that period as tides will move the source of the plume away from this reef for up to 12 hours every 24 hours and may also resuspend and remove any sediment build up.

Of the two stressors turbidity and sedimentation, it is sedimentation that is most likely to cause any stress or mortality. Other studies within the area concluded coral mortality was only associated with sedimentation burial rather than increases in turbidity levels (MScience 2007; SKM 2008d). In assessing the potential risk of sedimentation (and turbidity) impacts occurring at these sites it is important to recognise that the coral assemblages at these sites are comprised of mixed species that have varying tolerances to stress. For example, some species of coral such as Turbinaria mesenterina (common at some of the Cape Lambert sites) have been found to be resilient to persistent sedimentation levels exceeding 110 mg cm-2 day-1 (Sofonia & Anthony 2008).

Therefore, if stress (lethal or sub-lethal) does occur at any location, this is unlikely to impact upon the whole assemblage and would be taxa specific. In terms of algae, the most abundant BPP, impacts to this BPP are predicted to be localised and short term for three main reasons:

survey data indicating there are no significant macroalgae habitats within the potential zone of impact or influence

evidence that macroalgae populations in Cape Lambert are highly seasonal in abundance and distribution

evidence that some macroalgae species are tolerant of sedimentation and turbidity impacts.

Management Unit 3 – sedimentation impacts

Under the best case scenario, 5.2 ha of BPPH could potentially be impacted by sedimentation. The best case scenario predicts that potential sedimentation related impacts will be restricted to BPPH surrounding Bezout Island and a small area at Cape Lambert near Cooling Water Beach. BPPH in both areas is already described above in the section relating to turbidity impacts. Under the worst case worst case scenario, 59.5 ha of BPPH is predicted to be impacted by sedimentation. In this scenario, sedimentation could potentially impact BPPH south of Bezout Island and BPPH on the mainland from just north of Cape Lambert West (CLW) around to an area south of the existing Port A wharf. Importantly, even if such a large area was ‘impacted’, the magnitude of impact would not be homogeneous across the area. Instead, impacts (for example dead and/or buried BPP) would probably be patchily distributed depending on the type of BPP exposed to sediment, the height of the BPP above the seafloor and their location in relation to a gradient of water movement (sheltered areas versus exposed areas where natural resuspension is more likely).

Cumulative Impacts to BPPH

Turbidity impacts to BPP could be compounded by sedimentation impacts however only small areas will potentially be impacted by both. The total area of BPPH which may be impacted by both turbidity elevations and increases in sedimentation rates in both best and worst-case scenarios are the same area

PAGE 9-26 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

values as those calculated for potential turbidity related impacts above. There is a possibility that a combination of sedimentation and turbidity could produce a cumulative impact that might be worse than one or the other in isolation. However, although the plume may occur over these areas during the dredging campaign, it will not always be the case that these events would occur during the weather and sea conditions conducive to settlement of sediment. SKM (2008f; Appendix A11) provides details on predicted model impacts.

Table 9-4, Figure 9-7 and Figure 9-8 summarises best case and worst case cumulative losses, including estimates of historical losses of BPP and BPPH within Management Units 1–5. Table 9-4 contains the current estimates of BPPH (including mangroves) in each management unit, which allow a percentage loss to be calculated per management unit as per the EPA Guidance Statement No. 29 (EPA 2004). The cumulative loss threshold to be applied in each management zone is also provided. Cape Lambert is considered a development area and falls within Category E with a 10% threshold loss, while the proposed Dampier Archipelago-Cape Preston Marine Conservation Reserves surrounding Delambre Island and Dixon Island fall into Category A.

Cumulative losses are only predicted for Managements Units 2, 3 and 5, with no predicted losses for Management Units 1A, 1B and 4 (Table 9-4). The historical loss in Management Unit 2 has been 0.58 ha (.1%), while Management unit 5 has lost 0.45 % of Mangroves. Management Unit 3 has suffered the greatest historical loss with 0.82 % of subtidal BPPH. Details on historical loss are provided in Appendix A11 (SKM 2008f). Table 9-4 also shows predicted cumulative losses due to this project, but the predicted cumulative losses under the ‘most-likely’ scenario in all management units lie below the EPA Loss Threshold for a Category E Management Zone. Predicted cumulative losses are 4.3%, 8.4% and 0.4% for Management Units 2, 3 and 5, respectively. The most-likely scenario is defined as the average cumulative loss value based on the best and worst case scenario estimates. This approach is considered the most realistic impact scenario given the great uncertainty in estimating cumulative impact assessments as shown by the two extreme estimates defined as best and worst cases. Further, the predicted cumulative losses for Management Unit 2 (4.3%) and Unit 3 (8.4%) are likely to be over estimates because these impact predictions are based on highly conservative thresholds. During the previous Cape Lambert Port A Upgrade, exceedences of these same thresholds did not result in impacts to corals or other BPP. In addition, indirect impacts are unlikely to be permanent because the habitat will not be altered. If BPP are indirectly impacted as a result of the Port B development dredging program, rapid recovery is predicted for the following reasons:

Net sedimentation is likely to be low in the Cape Lambert area because of large tidal currents and wave action. Consequently, sediment settling on BPP or BPPH during slack tide will be resuspended during periods of major tidal movement and major wave action.

BPP in the Cape Lambert area are naturally adapted to deal with high sedimentation rates and major peaks in turbidity levels associated with cyclones and major storm events. Anecdotal evidence suggests high turnover rates for the mosaic of BPP occupying hard substrates due to natural disturbances.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-27

Table 9-4 Predicted cumulative coral losses in proposed management units 1–5 Source: EPA 2004b Predicted/indirect (non-permanent) impact Type of (ha (%)) Cumulative EPA benthic Current Predicted loss Category habitat Size of Current historical permanent Best-case Worst-case and loss Mgmt occurring in mgmt area of loss direct loss (most likely- threshold Zone mgmt zone zone (ha) BPPH (ha) (ha (%)) (ha (%)) Turbidity Sediment Turbidity Sediment case) (2004b) 1 A Mosaic BPPH 11 185.1 56.4 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 0% A 0% 1 B Mosaic BPPH 64 606.9 1 473.9 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 0% A 0% 2 Mosaic BPPH 17 115.2 632.12 0.58 (0.1) Nil 6.3 (1) 16.01 14.6 17.4 4.36% E 10% 3 Mosaic BPPH 28 310.4 625.34 5.2 (0.8) 0.4 (0.06) 3.3 5.2 25.9 59.5 8.4% E 10% 4 Mosaic BPPH 8 995.8 95.51 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil 0% E 10% 5 Mangroves 7 448.9 1 118.8 5 (0.45) 0.3 (0.01) Nil Nil Nil Nil 0.46% E 10%

Notes:

* Mosaic BPPH–Hard substrate occupied by a mosaic of corals, turf and macroalgae (see description above or Section 6.5.2)

# Predicted Permanent direct loss–habitat loss permanently due to construction of infrastructure

Δ Non-permanent impact–indirect loss due to increased turbidity and sedimentation. Unlikely to be permanent

^ EPA Category and threshold is a cumulative loss threshold to be applied in each management zone as prescribed by the EPA (2004b). Cape Lambert is considered a development area and falls within category E with a 10% threshold loss, while the proposed Dampier Archipelago–Cape Preston Marine Conservation Reserves surrounding Delambre Island and Dixon Island fall into Category A where 0% loss is acceptable.

Most likely case – the average of the best and worst case scenarios values.

PAGE 9-28 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 9-6 Position of BPPH in relation to management units

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-29

Figure 9-7 Cumulative loss of BPPH including mangroves in management units including predicted direct and indirect losses due to the Port B development (best case)

PAGE 9-30 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 9-8 Cumulative loss of BPPH including mangroves in management units including predicted direct and indirect losses due to the Port B development (worst-case)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-31

This conservative approach to the assessment of the estimated impacts of a dredge plume was considered an appropriate means of limiting environmental risk in diverse marine habitats. This is because modelling of the potential impacts of a dredge plume on marine benthos is fraught with difficulty due to the paucity of biological information that is available. The assessment of the impacts of the dredge plume in the Port B development have utilised an approach that considers an exceedence of conditions that deviate from the normal environment to represent a tangible risk.

Not only is there limited information about diverse species tolerances to stressors such as reduced light and sedimentation, but it is also well recognised that adaptation is a local process and tolerances observed at one location cannot always be assumed applicable at other locations. Utilising water quality thresholds based on known tolerances of individual species to stressors to assess the potential impacts of a proposed dredge plume is a methodology that incorporates an unknown level of risk. Such a strategy would be inappropriate for the sustainability of iron ore development at Cape Lambert as the thresholds selected will not reflect the ability of an ecosystem to maintain functions but rather the likelihood of protecting a number of individual species. Using a conservative method as proposed is therefore a means of controlling and limiting this risk.

Representation of impact sites in the Cape Lambert region (impacts to biodiversity)

Dredge plume modelling has indicated that there are two locations in the Cape Lambert region that may be impacted by elevated NTU and TSS in the ‘worst case’ scenario, these are Power Station (Cooling Water Bay) and Bezout Rock.

The analyses of data from two sampling times at Power Station (July and October 2008) and one time of sampling at Bezout Rock (October 2008) w ere investigated to determine if any loss at these locations would significantly disrupt the proportional occurrence of benthic primary producer habitats. Data on the percent cover of benthic communities were collected using underwater videography (SKM 2008f; Appendix A11) and the composition of macroalgae was measured by harvesting macroalgae from the substrata.

Corals

The cover of live coral (hard and soft) at Power Station and Bezout Rock was approximately 25.2% and 15.8% respectively in October 2008 (Table 9-5). This compares with live hard coral cover at other sites ranging from a low of 8% at Cape Lambert West to a high of 55% at Delambre Island. The mean among all 13 sites sampled in October was 23.8%. However live coral cover is a coarse measure and more information can be gained from the composition of corals based on coral growth forms. A more diverse composition of growth forms would generally be regarded as an area of higher biodiversity.

Of the ten growth forms used in analyses (Table 9-5) five were recorded at Power Station and six were recorded at Bezout Rock. The growth forms recorded at Power Station were massive (9%), encrusting (12.7%), foliose (2%), soft (0.1%) and submassive (1.4%). The growth forms recorded at Bezout Rock were branching (0.25%), massive (1.2%), encrusting (10.5%), foliose (0.7%), soft (2.4%) and submassive

PAGE 9-32 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

(0.8%). The site which recorded the highest coral cover and the largest number of growth forms was Delambre Island. Delambre Island was represented by nine of the ten growth forms used.

Table 9-5 Benthic cover types recorded at the Power Station and Bezout Rock sites that might be impacted by dredging activities.

Benthic Cover Type Power Station Bezout Rock Delambre Island Mean Min Max Branching 0 0.25 19.6 1.5 0 22 Fungid 0 0 1.8 0.1 0 4.5 Corymbose 0 0 0.9 0.1 0 2.5 Massive 9 1.2 11.4 6.7 0 2.5 Encrusting 12.7 10.5 15.9 11 0 41.5 Foliose 2 0.7 0.3 1.9 0 16.5 Digitate 0 0 1.2 0.4 0 5 Tabulate 0 0 0 0.06 0 3 Soft 0.1 2.4 0.55 0.4 0 9 Submassive 1.4 0.8 3.75 1.6 0 19.5 Total live coral cover 25.2 15.8 55.4 23.8 Macroalgae 14 12.1 0 9.1 0 44.5 Turf algae 24 36 12.9 31.6 1.5 74 Total algae 38 48.1 12.9 40.7 1.5 118.5 TOTAL BPPH 63.2 63.95 68.3 64.46 Note: Delambre Island has been included as a comparison and it is the area of highest coral cover of the sites sampled; the min, max and mean for all sites have been added for comparison.

Algae

Macroalgae and turf algae were recorded in the benthic video transects. The cover of macroalgae at Power Station and Bezout Rock was 14% and 12% respectively. The mean cover of macroalgae across all 13 sites sampled was 9.1%. Turf algae were also abundant growing on most hard substrata that was not colonised by corals. Turf algal cover at Power Station and Bezout rock was 24 and 36% respectively. The mean cover of turf algae across all sites was 31.6%.

Macroalgae were harvested from the substrata at Power Station in July and October, and from Bezout Rock in October 2008, as part of the BPPH baseline monitoring assessment (SKM 2009).

The composition of macroalgae (species and their wet weights) differed significantly when all sites were analysed simultaneously using ANOSIM. However some sites were not significantly different when pairwise comparisons were done. Cluster analyses indicated different levels of similarity among sites. For example in July and October Middle Reef and Power Station were not regarded as significantly different (ANOSIM R-value 0.155 and 0.172 respectively) and were regarded as 80% and 60% similar respectively, in cluster analyses. Bezout Rock and Bell’s Reef, that were sampled in October only, were regarded as moderately different in terms of the macroalgal assemblage (ANOSIM R-value 0.578 sig <5%), but were still 60% similar in cluster analyses.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-33

There were significant differences among times (July and October) at individual sites indicating seasonality. This will be further understood as the baseline monitoring continues.

Summary of significance of impact sites

The benthic primary producer habitat (coral cover, growth forms and algal assemblages) at Power Station (Cooling Water Bay) and Bezout Rock are well represented at the other sites sampled. The dominant growth form types are well represented elsewhere in the Cape Lambert region. There were some differences among sites in terms of macroalgae but there is also significant variability among times sampled. Analyses of the data to date indicate that neither of these sites appears to have disproportionate occurrences of benthic primary producer habitats that would render them special or outstanding because they are under-represented elsewhere. Delambre Island, which is approximately 20 km from the Cape Lambert Port B region, could however, be regarded as special or outstanding due to the high cover of live coral and the diversity of coral growth forms represented. However, modelling predictions illustrate that Delambre Island will not be impacted by the dredge plume. This was verified in the previous Port A monitoring program.

Mangroves

The plume model predicts that the zone of influence will reach Dixon Island at least once during the dredging program (Figure 9-4). This will correspond to a slight increase in TSS above background at one or more times during the dredging program. However the Proponent believes that this will not result in loss of mangroves because mangroves in the Pilbara are adapted to naturally turbid marine environments. Indeed, mangroves develop best in depositional environments where fine sediments are accreting (Saenger 2002; Woodroffe 1992). This includes estuaries where substantial loads of sediment may be deposited in a short period of time by fluvial processes. The root systems of many species of mangrove trees act to enhance sediment deposition by slowing water currents.

Seagrass

Seagrass at Cape Lambert has a sparse distribution and is ephemeral in nature. Despite extensive surveys (over 24 months) by the Proponent, no known seagrass meadows have been identified. As a result it is predicted there will be no widespread loss of seagrass from dredging and spoil disposal activities. However, it is likely there will be short term and localised impacts on individuals such as Halophilia ovalis that occur in the zone of influence.

The seagrass H. ovalis, which is one of two species known from Cape Lambert, has the widest environmental distribution of all seagrasses. It is tolerant to sediment deposition and poor water quality, including variations in salinity and high turbidity (Waycott et al. 2004; Waycott et al. 2005). It has been shown to suffer total mortality after 30 days of complete shading, but is able to quickly regenerate from seeds (Longstaff and Dennison 1999). It is also the first species to colonise disturbed areas (Waycott et al. 2004; Waycott et al. 2005). Due to these adaptations, H. ovalis is generally more tolerant of deteriorating water quality compared with other species. The potential effects on seagrasses are fully described in Appendix A11 (SKM 2008f).

PAGE 9-34 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Filter feeding communities

TSS levels exceeding natural levels can potentially have detrimental effects on soft corals and sponges. Some soft corals, including species from the common genera Sinularia, Sarcophyton and Lobophytum contain zooxanthellae and rely to some degree on energy from photosynthesis (CRC Reef 2006). Likewise, some sponges have symbioses with single celled algae and cyanobacteria, but it is unclear to what extent they rely on photosynthesis for energy input (Thacker 2005) given that the dominant mode of energy accumulation in the phylum is through filter feeding.

Persistent shading caused by turbidity could result in the inability of these organisms to photosynthesise and can result in bleaching and mortality (Roberts et al. 2006; Michalek-Wagner & Willis 2001). Many sponges and soft corals are entirely heterotrophic and are therefore not affected by limited light.

Little is known about tolerance levels of sponges and soft corals to turbidity. A study by Rogers (1979), attempting to simulate shading caused by turbidity, demonstrated that gorgonians displayed no signs of paling when shaded for five weeks.

Many species of sponges and soft corals can tolerate naturally turbid marine environments. However, large volumes of suspended solids can clog the pores of filter feeders like sponges and may eventually lead to tissue necrosis and mortality. Little is known about the tolerance levels of sponges to sedimentation but it is evident that it varies between species (Burns and Bingham 2002). Sponge morphology probably influences tolerance levels with smooth, vertical surfaces tending to collect less sediment than vase-shapes and level, rough surfaces. There is also evidence that sponges can clear themselves of smothering (Burns and Bingham 2000a; Reigl 1995) though the exact mechanism is unknown.

Similarly, sedimentation has the potential to negatively impact soft corals (Reigl & Bloomer, 1995). Some species are resilient to high deposition rates as their soft shapes enable them to sway with the ambient water movement (Sorokin 1995). Some soft corals have encrusting growth forms, as exemplified by some species of Sinularia, which are more susceptible to sediment accumulation than more rounded growth-forms. Further, active sediment rejection rates for soft corals have been shown to be lower than for hard corals with inflation of tissue the only active means observed (Riegl 1995).

Impacts to Point Samson and Dampier Archipelago Marine Park

The proposed DAMP adjacent to the Port B development is a sensitive environment that requires consideration of both short-term and long-term impacts. This is because the area has high conservation importance related to its high marine biodiversity. Modelling of the estimated extent of the dredge plume indicates that the Cape Lambert dredge operations will not impact or influence any area of the proposed marine park approximately 10 km away. It is estimated that the coral assemblages and other benthic organisms within the proposed DAMP will not be altered, damaged or killed by the proposed dredge plume.

Point Samson Reef has fishing restrictions imposed under Section 43 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 (WA). The Point Samson Reef protection zone extends from the point north of Sam's Creek,

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-35

south to the old Point Samson Jetty (Figure 7-4). The prohibition is effective from the high water mark seaward to encompass the reef platform.

all commercial fishing activities

recreational fishing activities except for:

recreational fishing for finfish by means of a rod, reel and line, or a line held in the hand

A concern relating to dredging at the Port B development is the potential effects of turbidity and sedimentation on benthic habitats and associated marine populations at Point Samson. This area is also used by local residents for recreation (swimming, sightseeing and fishing). The dredge plume model also predicts that there may be some influence to water quality just offshore from Point Samson. However, whilst this plume may be visible to the eye it is unlikely to cause impacts to the benthic marine habitats including corals. The model estimates that any dredge induced turbidity will become quickly dispersed over a matter of hours by the strong tidal fluxes around Cape Lambert. In addition, this area is exposed to large natural variations in water quality due to the shallow water environment. As such the BPPH that occur here are resilient to increases in turbidity and sedimentation. A water quality and coral health monitoring program will record any changes to water quality and coral health and if any impacts are detected reactive management measures will be implemented as set out in the Dredge and Spoil Disposal Management Plan (DSDMP) (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1).

Impacts to marine fauna

There are no direct impacts to marine fauna associated with dredge and spoil disposal activities. The effects of dredging on plankton populations, fishes and other invertebrates in the Cape Lambert region are predicted to be insignificant. Most taxa will not be exposed to elevated sedimentation rates or turbidity plumes for prolonged periods of time. The Cape Lambert region is not a known breeding, feeding or aggregation area for marine mammals. Although whales, dolphins and dugongs migrate through the area seasonally or periodically, they are not expected to be adversely affected by localised increases in turbidity associated with the dredging.

Sea turtle and seasnake populations in the Cape Lambert area are adapted to naturally turbid environments, and are unlikely to be adversely affected by short term increases in turbidity associated with the dredging.

PAGE 9-36 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Tributyltin impacts

Tributyltin (TBT) has historically been the most common active ingredient in marine antifouling paints and is therefore detected in the waters of most major harbours, especially in sediments in the vicinity of dockyards. Although no longer used, TBT is known to accumulate in sediments thus requiring long periods to breakdown. The main effect attributed to TBT is deformities such as imposex in marine invertebrates (for example, mussels and oysters), thus habitat containing marine gastropods can be at risk from imposex and other deformities in the gastropod populations.

As the TBT and nickel levels found in the Port B development surveys were considerably lower than the levels found in the Port A survey, the elutriate and ecotoxicity results described in Section 6.4.5 are considered worst case for the sediment within the Port B dredge area. It is also the case that the samples in the Port B development survey that contain TBT are spatially close to the existing berth and this strongly suggests a common source for the TBT found in both sets of samples (Port A and the Port B development). Since the last survey for Port A in 2006, the only potential source of TBT is likely to have been the bulk carriers visiting the existing berth and they will have ceased to be a source in January 2008. The common source of TBT is further supported by the observation that the concentrations of TBT in the Port B development samples are lower than those recorded for the Port A samples and this is logically consistent with the spatial distribution of the Port B development samples further away from the existing berth and the elapse of time since there was a potential source of this contaminant in the region. In addition, there is no readily identifiable source of TBT within the region other than the historical use of the existing berth by vessels coated with TBT. This strongly supports the contention that the current pocket of contaminated material contains TBT derived from the same source that provided the TBT detected at nearby sites during the Port A survey.

On this basis, it is not proposed to undertake further analysis, as it is highly likely that no toxicity will be exhibited by the sediments from anywhere in the Port B development main dredge footprint. Likewise, it is considered the material to be dredged from within the Port B development footprint is suitable for unconfined ocean disposal due to its low concentration of TBT present and the evidence that this TBT is derived from the same source as that tested for toxicity during the 2007 Port A upgrade environmental assessment process.

Mitigation and Management

To address threats to BPPH from dredging and spoil disposal and mitigate potential impacts a detailed DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1) has been prepared. Table 9-6 presents a summary of the mitigation and management measures to ensure no adverse impacts associated with dredging and spoil activities. A brief summary of key management methods is provided below.

The Management Units shown in Figure 9-6 will be used to assist in the management of the dredging and spoil disposal activities. Proposed management targets that encompass the percentage estimates of impact have been determined and are shown in Table 9-4.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-37

The sites where potential impacts on corals may occur all lie within Management Unit 2 and 3. The sites that occur within Management Unit 4 and 5 may be influenced by the dredge plume but no losses are predicted. The upper limit of cumulative loss permitted within each of these units, based on the EPA Guidance Statement 29 (Table 9-4), is 10% of the total of each of the BPPH types present.

For Management Unit 2 and 3, the predicted most-likely case is for 5% and 9% of loss respectively. Therefore, the management target for losses within these units have been set at 10% net mortality averaged across all of the sites within the unit and wholly attributable to the activities of the dredge.

The predicted losses for Management Units 4 and 5 are is 0%. However recent monitoring programs have shown accurately measuring change in corals communities at levels of 3% or less is difficult to achieve using methods which have been shown to be robust in the field and allow a rapid turnaround within the fourteen day timeframe which is a key requirement of the reactive management approach. As such the management target for loss in Unit 4 has been set at 5% net mortality averaged across all sites monitored within the unit, and only if wholly attributable to the activities of the dredge. Management unit 5 only includes mangroves and therefore is not relevant in this case.

The sediment plume modelling also predicted that no impact to the proposed DAMP is likely to occur. Modelling of the estimated extent of the dredge plume indicates that the Cape Lambert dredge operations will not impact or influence any area of the proposed DAMP. To meet the requirement of the proposed DAMP, management targets with respect to coral loss within Management Units 1A and 1B have been set at 0%. The 0% net mortality should be directly related to the dredging and spoil disposal activities.

Coral trigger levels for management responses will be set for each individual management unit to provide a logical three step process of potential management options before breaching the upper limit of loss set as a target for each unit. Trigger levels will be set between 0% net mortality and the proposed management target level (for example, 10% net mortality across all sites within Management Unit 2 and 3). These trigger levels will be calculated from baseline data and based on exceedences of natural rates of change.

Data relating to other BPP will be collected at the monitoring locations before dredging commences in order to build a data set that records ‘natural’ variation in BPPH (annual and seasonal variation). These techniques are being proposed as a way to develop field methodologies to monitor BPPH and to assist in determining quantitative threshold values for other BPPH to test if thresholds developed for corals can be applied to other BPP.

Table 9-6 BPPH mitigation and management measures

Performance Objectives Targets Key Performance Indicators To ensure that any impacts to Zero exceedence of the limits of The number of exeedences of water coral communities, as the most acceptable coral loss in each quality triggers at monitoring sites sensitive marine receptors, are Management Unit The number of exceedences of coral kept within the limits of acceptable trigger levels at monitoring sites loss The number of sites where coral cover To better understand impacts to Collect data on other BPP to declined as a result of dredging other BPPH develop relevant trigger levels The percentage of net coral loss in each

PAGE 9-38 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Management Unit Collection of data on other BPPH Cape Lambert Port B Development DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1) Potential impacts to BPPH from dredging and spoil disposal will be managed in accordance with the DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1). The relevant Sections of the DSDMP to manage the effects of dredging on BPPH are:

Section 4.1 Strategy 1 – Water Quality, Sedimentation and Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Management

Section 4.2 Strategy 2 – Coral Spawning

Section 4.7 Strategy 7 – Spoil Ground Management.

The following key management measures will be implemented throughout the dredging and spoil disposal program: Proactive Measures

Reducing turbidity by using a valve within the overflow pipe of each TSHD.

Increasing overflow levels to the highest point during spoil transport to ensure minimum spillage of sediment.

Confinement of hopper de-watering to the dredging and spoil disposal areas.

Maintenance of and properly calibrated dredging vessels will be implemented.

Inclusion of features such as on-line visualisation of bathymetric charts, loading diagrams, production statistics and vessel movement on all vessels.

Reactive Measures

Monitor coral health and water quality during dredging

A three tiered approach to coral monitoring will be applied using comparative methods to determine coral mortality within management units.

Four levels of reactive management will be applied based on net coral mortality trigger levels. These trigger levels will be calculated from baseline data and based on exceedences of natural rates of change. Management measures will be applied should coral mortality trigger levels be exceeded.

Water quality triggers will be used in conjunction with the coral health triggers. These triggers will be used to provide early warning of potential coral stress associated with water quality deterioration at the coral monitoring sites.

Stop dredging during mass coral spawning periods.

Undertake detailed baseline monitoring of BPP and BPPH.

In addition, as small amounts of TBT contaminated material have been identified at Spoil Ground 1, this material will be capped using uncontaminated material dredged during dredging for the Port B development. Material dredged from areas identified as uncontaminated will be strategically placed over the spoil ground to ensure that the resident TBT contaminated material is covered by clean sediment.

Outcomes Although the plume model predicts that the dredge plume will, at least once during the program extend over BPPH at Bezout Island and Cooling Water Bay and may impact upon these sites, it is not expected that it will result in permanent loss of any or all BPP at these sites. The surveys undertaken at these sites confirm the presence of a mosaic of different BPP types occurring together on most of the hard substrate suitable for colonisation, and there is some preliminary evidence that the patterns of community structure and spatial distribution of the BPP types may vary considerably over short time spans (SKM 2008e; Appendix A10). Therefore, in the absence of the total eradication of the underlying BPPH, which is suitable hard substrate, and the unlikely loss of all BPP types colonising it, the results of any dredge related impacts are likely to be expressed as shifts in the relative abundances and percent cover of the suite of BPP making up the mosaic of BPP at that site. Given that there may be relatively rapid natural shifts in abundances and spatial distribution of BPP types, driven by a variety of other factors, any dredge related impacts are likely to be both difficult to detect, and short-lived.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-39

The most likely scenario of Mosiac BPPH in Management Units 2, 3 and 5 respectively fall into the EPA Category E, which allows up to 10% loss. Through the application of the Management Measures detailed above, the management targets will ensure the EPA acceptable loss is achieved and the objective to protect BPPH is met.

9.2.3 Light Spill Overview

The Port B development will include a new access jetty, wharf and associated infrastructure such as stockyards, stackers and reclaimers, sample stations, transfer stations, conveyors, car dumpers and screenhouses. Operation of this infrastructure requires lighting appropriate to the task and compliant to occupational health and safety requirements. During operations, lights on the new access jetty, wharf and other infrastructure will to some extent contribute to ‘ecological light pollution’. Ecological light pollution is defined as artificial light that alters the natural patterns of light and dark in surrounding ecosystems. Ecological light pollution includes direct glare, chronically increased illumination, and temporary, unexpected fluctuations in lighting. The Port A infrastructure uses a combination of high pressure sodium light (HPS) and white light (Bassett 2009; Appendix A8). The light sources on land- based equipment are primarily HPS. There is some white light associated with temporary mobile light towers. Some of the floodlights on the tugs and on the ore carriers use white light sources, typically metal halide, although some on the ore carriers may be mercury vapour. Consequently, docked and moored vessels will contribute to light pollution.

The Port B development has the potential to result in ‘ecological light pollution’ as a result of night lighting from vessels and the new wharf. Longcore and Rich (2004) coined the term ecological light pollution to describe “artificial light that alters the natural patterns of light and dark in ecosystems”. Ecological light pollution includes direct glare, chronically increased illumination, and temporary, unexpected fluctuations in lighting (Longcore & Rich 2004). Fish and other marine animals are adapted to a few forms of night light associated with moonlight, starlight and bioluminescence. However, light pollution can modify the intensity, spectra, frequency and duration of night time light reaching and penetrating water surfaces (Nightingale, Longcore & Simenstad 2006), which in turn can illicit unnatural biotic responses.

In marine environments, artificial light is known to attract organisms to the light source and to the lit areas of water. Birds are typically attracted to the light source (Wiese et al. 2001), but this response is less clear with animals living below the water surface. The ecological effects of artificial night light may range from individual level effects (physiological responses) to population and ecosystem effects. The phenomenon therefore involves potential effects across a range of spatial and temporal scales. The consequences of ecological light pollution may vary latitudinally. The tropics, in which Cape Lambert lies, may be especially sensitive to alterations in natural patterns of light and dark over a 24-hour period because of the year-round constancy of daily cycles (Gliwicz 1999). Although organisms other than marine turtles will be influenced by light spill onto water, the effect of this activity is predicted to be highly localised to areas immediately adjacent to the wharf. Indeed, proposed management to mitigate the impacts of light spill on marine turtles (for example shrouded or directional lighting see Table 9-9) will

PAGE 9-40 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

reduce the spatial scale of this impact on other organisms. Light pollution is of particular concern to marine turtles and consequently light pollution as a threatening process for marine turtles is well documented (Biota 2008d; Appendix A5). For example, an adult turtle that is moving up a beach to nest or a hatchling that is moving seaward from a nest may be disorientated by artificial light (Salmon 2003). A specific terminology has been developed in regards to the various types of effects light has on turtles (Witherington & Martin 1996):

disorientation: used to described turtles that repeatedly change direction in response to different light cues

misorientation: used to describe a turtle that has oriented on an artificial light source and moves consistently toward this instead of the ocean

photopositive: movement response toward light source

photonegative: movement response away from a light source.

Objectives

The EPA objectives are to maintain:

the abundance, biodiversity, productivity and geographic distribution of marine fauna

ecological function, abundance, productivity and biodiversity of intertidal and subtidal species.

Guidance

There are no guidance statements related specifically to light impacts on turtles and other fauna groups.

Potential Threats and Impacts

The three species of marine turtles that nest at Cape Lambert are at risk from light pollution originating from the Port B development. Specifically, the concerns are:

marine turtle hatchlings that emerge during December to April from Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach (Biota 2008d; Appendix A5)

adult flatback, hawksbill and green turtles that nest at Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach from November to March. Potential impacts to turtles at these beaches include:

disorientation of adult turtles by light spill during nesting

misorientation of hatchlings by light spill as they move seaward from the nest

aggregation of hatchlings at areas of lit water (photopositive influence) potentially increasing their risk to predation.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-41

The Port B development will result in an increase in light sources and general light levels in the Cape Lambert locality. Cooling Water Beach is already subject to artificial light sources (and has a much lower level of turtle use compared with Bell’s Beach) therefore the effect of the Port B lighting on Bell’s Beach forms the key consideration for this assessment. The Proponent commissioned Bassett Consulting Engineers (hereafter Bassett) to calculate the amount of light spill (measured as a unit of lux) from the Port B development that will reach Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach. Bassett (2009; Appendix A8) used a computer model to simulate the amount of light spill onto these beaches. Equipment known to be lower than the dune level was not included in the Bell’s Beach model as only lights above dune height have the potential to directly affect this beach.

The lighting information included in the computer model used a worst-case scenario because it did not take into consideration proposed management measures to reduce the amount of light spill onto these beaches.

Potential light-related impacts on turtles may be attributed to both direct light spill (Tuxbury & Salmon 1996) and an increase in overall light glow (Witherington & Martin 1996; Bassett 2009).

Individual turtles can be affected by this, either as adult females emerging to nest or re-orientating to return to the ocean after egg-laying, or hatchlings attempting to orientate seaward on emergence from the nest.

Increased light levels can affect overall reproductive success at either life history stage, via:

discouraging nesting females from emerging onto beaches affected by artificial lighting, or reduce nesting activity time (Witherington & Martin 1996)

disorienting or misorienting females attempting to return to the water (Witherington & Martin 1996)

disorientation of emerging hatchlings, resulting in a range of factors leading to lower survivorship (including exhaustion, dehydration and increased predation risk; Tuxbury & Salmon 1996, Witherington & Martin 1996, Guinea 2008)

misorientation of hatchlings immediately after entering shallow water, causing them to parallel the coast or display wider dispersal patterns, rather than swimming directly offshore (conflict between light and wave cues; Witherington 1991, Harewood & Horrocks 2007).

Bell’s Beach

Light spill modelling enabled a more site-specific assessment of these risks for the Port B development (Bassett 2009; Appendix A8). This included field measurement of existing light levels on Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach under conditions of no moonlight. The illuminance values at Bell’s Beach were found to be an order of magnitude below bright moonlight (Bassett 2009; Appendix A8). By comparison, the data from Cooling Water Beach (adjacent to existing infrastructure) showed that illuminance in specific directions (such as from the power station) is of the same order of magnitude as full moonlight. Light on the remainder of this beach though was similar to Bell’s Beach levels (an order of magnitude below bright moonlight) (Bassett 2009; Appendix A8).

PAGE 9-42 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Modelling of light spill onto Bell’s Beach from the Port B development indicated that 95% of the beach will remain in shadow and will not receive direct light spill from the proposed facilities (see Figure 9-9; Bassett 2009). This is largely due to the presence and planned retention of the elevated foredune landform between the Port B facilities and Bell’s Beach. This is likely to minimise the risks of the strongest misorientation effects on nesting females and emerging hatchlings. GIS analysis of the known locations of nests at Bell’s Beach shows that none of these occur in the 5% of the beach that will be directly affected by light spill from the new facilities (see Figure 9-9).

Increased sky glow may still, however, be a factor. When turtles are close to the foredune, the high shielding angle of the dune combined with the limited vertical angle of view of turtles means that any sky glow is not likely to be noticed (Bassett 2009; Appendix A8). Tuxbury and Salmon (2005) also suggest that the elevation of a darkened horizon (typically from a foredune) may also be a visual cue in its own right to orient hatchlings in the opposite direction. From positions closer to the water’s edge though, sky glow may have a greater influence, as the shielding angle of the dune is lower and the brighter region is more likely to be within the upper limits of a turtle’s vertical viewing angle (Bassett 2009; Appendix A8).

While direct light spill onto Bell’s Beach appears likely to have little impact, there may be an effect from light spill onto shallow offshore waters. The predicted illuminance contours shown in Figure 9-9 indicate light levels between 0.001 and 0.5 lux in the 300 m offshore from the beach. For context purposes, bright moonlight is the equivalent of 0.2 lux, and 0.01 or less lux is barely perceptible light at the limit of illuminance meter sensitivity (Bassett 2009; Appendix A8). The modelled 0.2 lux contour is exceeded at approximately 100 m offshore (as the shielding influence of the foredune is reduced and the planned port facilities become more visible). At the equivalent of bright moonlight, this could represent a potential threshold where hatchlings may become misoriented when moving offshore.

Harewood and Horrocks (2007) examined swimming success in hatchlings leaving dark and light beaches by measuring the proportion that reach 100 m offshore within 20 minutes. This study, one of few empirical studies on this aspect of turtle biology, found that 66% of hatchlings successfully reached this distance offshore from dark beaches in the prescribed time, compared to 35% from light beaches (Harewood & Horrocks 2007). Hatchling success at light beaches improved during full moon conditions (when natural light cues were presumably stronger than artificial ones), but hatchling predation rates in the shallows also increased from 6% to 12% under brighter moonlight (Harewood & Horrocks 2007).

Considering these findings in the context of the Port B development, swimming hatchlings will be exposed to light spill less than bright moonlight until past the 100 m offshore distance used by Harewood and Horrocks (2007). As hatchlings move offshore, light cues become less important as the effect of wave energy cues increase (Witherington & Bjorndal 1991; Wang et al. 1998). It is unclear where one cue becomes stronger than another, particularly at any specific site (such as Cape Lambert), and evidence suggests that local coastal geomorphology and wave energy conditions can affect this (Witherington 1991). It is also worth noting that Barbados (where the Harewood and Horrocks (2007) study was completed) has a tidal range of less than 1 m. Cape Lambert has a 6 m tide and experiences greater summer wind and wave action, which is likely to hinder the ability of hatchlings to swim parallel to shore

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-43

towards port lighting (M. Guinea pers. comm. 2008). On balance, it seems more likely that the offshore lighting levels might lead to more dispersed swimming patterns across individual hatchlings (as in Witherington 1991), than that large-scale misorientation would occur as a result of light spill 100 m offshore.

While some of the major light-related issues at Bell’s Beach (for example direct light spill onto Bell’s Beach) appear manageable, the Port B development is still likely to lead to an overall increase in terrestrial light glow in the area, plus a risk of affecting hatchlings in shallow offshore waters. Although already subject to existing light sources, it also appears likely that artificial light levels, and consequent risks of turtle disorientation, will be increased at Cooling Water Beach.

Light modelling results for Bell’s Beach are shown in Figure 9-9. It indicates that some direct light is expected at the south-western end of Bell’s Beach with less than 5% of the beach being affected by direct light spill, provided the large back dune is maintained. No known nesting areas are in the area predicted to receive direct light spill (Biota 2008d; Appendix A5). There is also expected to be some direct light spill on the water past the surf line (about 100 m out from the beach) where the dune no longer provides effective screening as indicated in Figure 9-9. Cumulative light levels are estimated at approximately 0.51 lux in the area of direct light spill. The cumulative effect on Bell’s Beach will not exceed any known criteria.

Cooling Water Beach

Light modelling results for Cooling Water Beach are shown in Figure 9-10. Cooling Water Beach currently experiences more light than Bell’s Beach due to the proximity of the Power Station and Port A, and this will increase with the Port B development (Bassett 2009; Appendix A8). It is expected that the majority of Cooling Water Beach will be affected by direct light from luminaires used to light the adjacent conveyors, transfer stations and the access jetty. The highest values are towards the west end of the beach and will be up to two orders of magnitude greater than existing levels (Figure 9-10). However, it should be noted that decommissioning of the Cape Lambert Power Station was not considered in the light spill modelling, resulting in an over-estimate of impacts. Once the existing Power Station is decommissioned, power will be supplied by the Yurralyi Maya Power Station at 7 Mile (approximately 6 km west of Karratha and 8 km south of Dampier), which is currently under construction. The decommissioning of the power station from the Cape Lambert area will eliminate its contribution to light spill in the vicinity of beaches that are frequented by turtles in the Cape Lambert area. The new power station is located 12 km from the nearest section of natural coastline around Dampier and no turtle nesting beach occurs in the Dampier region.

The maximum cumulative illuminance for Cooling Water Beach is approximately 1.16 lux in areas of direct light spill. The east end of the beach, which is currently the darkest, will continue to receive the least amount of light with almost zero on the horizontal; however, in the vertical plane when facing towards the west, there will be one to two orders of magnitude more light than currently exists and this may affect marine turtle hatchlings. As this light level is brighter than moonlight, it is possible that misorientation of both nesting females and hatchlings could occur at Cooling Water Beach. Instead of moving directly towards the sea, hatchlings may initially move towards the source of light.

PAGE 9-44 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

0.3 lux

0.1 lux Figure 9-9 Light spill prediction at Bell’s Beach

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-45

Figure 9-10 Light spill prediction at Cooling Water Beach

PAGE 9-46 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Another potential effect is that once in the water, hatchlings may aggregate around areas of lit water, potentially increasing their risk to predation. It is also difficult to predict the consequences of this additional light on adult female turtles nesting on Cooling Water Beach. The current level of light spill onto the beach from Port A and the power station has not prevented adults nesting so it might be assumed that the adults will continue to nest.

Other nesting beaches

There will be no direct light spill from the Cape Lambert Port B development on important nesting beaches on islands off Cape Lambert because the distances are too large (illuminance diminishes rapidly) (Biota 2008d; Appendix A5).

Regional significance of Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach

The Marine Turtle Assessment (Biota 2008d; Appendix A5) summarises data at a regional scale from several other mainland sites including Mundabullanaga, Cemetery Beach and Pretty Pool. These data support the view held by other turtle researchers that Bell’s and Cooling Water Beaches are relatively minor flatback rookeries at this spatial scale (Prince 1994, Guinea 2008).

This is especially evident when comparing Bell’s Beach to island beaches of the Dampier Archipelago, particularly Legendre Island and Delambre Island. There is considerable merit in considering islands when evaluating the status of the Bell’s Beach rookery and Cooling Water Beach as any consideration of the significance of a particular site for a species of animal must take into consideration relative abundance and utilisation of the habitats present.

Considering new individuals only, the three highest nightly nesting emergences of flatback turtles across the sites surveyed within the broader Dampier Archipelago locality were:

64 flatback turtles on Delambre Island (24/1/08)

38 flatback turtles on Legendre (18/1/08) and Delambre (21/1/08 and 22/1/08)

23 flatback turtles on Keast Island (24/1/08).

The highest nightly flatback turtle tallies across other Pilbara region beaches during the December and January monitoring periods of the 2007/2008 season were similar, with:

35 flatback turtle individuals from Mundabullangana Beach (12/12/07)

56 flatback turtles from Terminal Beach on Barrow Island (20/1/08).

By way of comparison, often only single individuals are recorded at Bell’s Beach on single sampling nights, while the maximum number of new flatbacks recorded was n=15 (on 15/12/07). An estimate of the number of female flatbacks using Bell’s Beach during the 2007/2008 season is 90–100 individuals, which is more than the estimate of Guinea (2008), but still only comparable to what was recorded from Delambre Island on a single night.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-47

Salinovich (2006 and 2007) recorded 17 flatback turtle nesting events on Cooling Water Beach during the 2005/2006 season, 43 in the 2006/2007 season and 36 during the 2007/2008 season (an average of 32 nests; Table 9-7). The data indicate substantially lower level of use compared to Bell’s Beach for the same periods (9%, 29% and 15% of the nesting records at Bell’s Beach in 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08 respectively). Two Hawksbill nests were recorded in the 2007/08 season, whilst no Green turtles were recorded across the three seasons. Based on an average of 2.8 nesting events per individual per season, this suggests that approximately 10–15 individuals might utilise Bell’s Beach in an average season.

When the data from the island beaches of the Dampier Archipelago are compared directly with key flatback beaches monitored on Barrow Island, the potential size and importance of the island Archipelago rookeries are again highlighted. Clearly the island beaches of the Dampier Archipelago warrant further investigations to more accurately quantify population size, but these comparisons suggest that the islands of the Dampier Archipelago may support rookeries comparable to those seen on Barrow Island. This is significant, as it has previously been thought that the beaches on Barrow Island represent the most important flatback rookeries in WA.

The highest number of nightly emergences during the current season on the Port Hedland beaches and Bell’s Beach were all recorded during the December monitoring period, suggesting that by January, nesting activity at these mainland beaches may be tapering off. This is also borne out by examination of the preceding three seasons data for Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach tabulated by Salinovich (2006, 2007, 2008), which show a decrease in flatback nesting of between 40 and 50% across December and January 2007 at Bell’s Beach and a decrease between the 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 nesting season at Cooling Water Beach.

Table 9-7 Nesting activity by flatback turtles on Cooling Water Beach

Season Nests False Crawls Total Emergences 2005/2006 17 21 38 2006/2007 43 60 103 2007/2008 36 28 64

Similarly, the peak nesting period on the two primary nesting beaches at Port Hedland (Cemetery Beach and Pretty Pool Beach) for the preceding three seasons has typically been in the first half of December (Ms Kelly Howlett, Care For Hedland Environmental Association Inc, pers. comm.). The peak flatback nesting season on Barrow Island, Lowendale Islands and the Montebello Islands occurs in December and January, and is completed by February (Pendoley 2005). It would therefore seem likely that the nesting turtle population of the Dampier Archipelago in the latter half of January 2008 (when the second survey was undertaken) was reduced compared with potential totals likely during December 2007. If this trend can be applied more generally throughout the Dampier Archipelago (as is suggested above), then many of the island beaches are locally, regionally and perhaps nationally significant in respect of the numbers of nesting flatback turtles (as many as 1 000 individuals in the Archipelago; M. Guinea pers. comm. 2008).

Bell’s Beach, and to a considerably lesser extent Cooling Water Beach, therefore represent just two of many beaches in the locality and region which support nesting flatbacks. Their level of use is, however,

PAGE 9-48 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

amongst the lowest of the beaches considered in this assessment (both island and mainland beaches).Cumulative light impacts

Light modelling for the Port B development in isolation at Bell’s Beach indicated:

there is no direct light contribution from tug harbour to Bell’s Beach

there is some direct light spill on the western end of the beach as shown in Figure 9-9.

At Cooling Water Beach, modelling of the Port B development in isolation showed:

the proposed tug harbour does not provide additional direct lighting

the majority of Cooling Water Beach will be affected by direct light from luminaires used to light the adjacent conveyors, transfer stations and the access jetty (Figure 9-10).

To estimate the cumulative effects of light on the turtle nesting beaches, onsite measurements incorporating Port A lighting, other artificial lighting and natural light sources have been added to the modelled light spill from the Port B development (Table 9-8).

Table 9-8 Direct Illuminance from cumulative light sources

Description Background Port B modelled Cumulative Measurements (lux) illumination (lux) illumination (lux) Bell’s Beach Illuminance Eh & Ev from surroundings 0.00–0.01 0.001–0.2 0.001–0.21 (includes view towards plant, SW, plant NE, SW , dunes) Cooling Water Beach Illuminance Eh & EV (from , sea & jetty, 0.02–0.15 1–5 1.02–5.15 stacker & reclaimer, tugs)

Light from the existing power station at Cape Lambert has not been accounted for in cumulative predictions, because as stated in Section 5.5.3, the existing Power Station will be decommissioned before the Port B development is operating. Power will instead be supplied by the Yurralyi Maya Power Station at 7 Mile (approximately 6 km west of Karratha and 8 km south of Dampier), which is currently under construction. The decommissioning of the power station from the Cape Lambert area will eliminate its contribution to light spill in the vicinity of beaches that are frequented by turtles in the Cape Lambert area. The new power station is located 12 km from the nearest section of natural coastline around Dampier and no turtle nesting beach occurs in the Dampier region.

At Bell’s Beach the existing lighting level is minimal and barely perceptible light is received at the limit of the illuminance meter (refer Section 5.5.3). Cumulative light spill, incorporating the Port B development is expected to be in the order of moonlight (Figure 9-11).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-49

Figure 9-11 Cumulative illuminance predictions at Bell’s Beach

PAGE 9-50 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

At Cooling Water Beach, the east end of the beach will continue to receive the least amount of light with almost zero on the horizontal; however in the vertical plane when facing towards the west, there will be one to two orders of magnitude more light than currently exists.

Skyglow varies with the particulates in the atmosphere including humidity. Hence the skyglow (if any), from the proposed lighting cannot be ascertained by computer simulated calculations. On-site measurements show that luminance of the sky glow from the existing facilities measure less than the luminance of the full moon (3500 cd m-2 for baseline comparison) and less than the sky luminance from the moon (1 to 5 cd m-2 for baseline comparison). The skyglow luminance for the Port B development is expected to be in the order of magnitude of the existing skyglow as a similar luminaire layout and similar luminaire type will be used.

Potential impact of temporary lighting sources

Lighting from temporary sources such as shipping and the construction activities is known to have some influence on Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach either in the form of direct light spill on the beach or skyglow from the luminaires.

Lighting from mobile construction sources

Lighting from the mobile construction plant was observed on site as a sky glow. Existing skyglow is known to be an order of magnitude less than natural light on a full moon lit sky and the dunes are likely to shield turtles while on the Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach. Lighting from mobile construction plant is not considered further since it is known to be temporary and the exact sources of light are unknown.

Lighting on ships

Lighting from the ships on water is transient and cannot be considered in cumulative light spill calculations. The predominant luminaires in the ship are floodlights for area illumination (such as deck lights) and floodlights used while loading the ship. These lights are usually a combination of mercury vapour, metal halide and high pressure sodium. The position of these lights on ships relative to the Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach is seaward, and any attraction of turtle hatchlings towards brightness of horizon or specific luminaires will lead them towards water so that they can complete phase 1 of navigation from nest to deep water.

Direct light spill on Bell’s Beach (if any) from ships is expected to be instantaneous due to the location of Bell’s Beach with respect to the jetty. Hence this is not considered to be significant. Cooling Water Beach is likely to be affected over short durations only, by inappropriately aimed luminaires on the ships approaching and docking at the proposed Port B development wharf.

Mitigation and Management

To address these threats and mitigate potential impacts, a detailed Marine Turtle Management Plan has been prepared (Biota 2008e; Appendix B2). Table 9-9 presents a summary of mitigation and

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-51

management measures to ensure there are no adverse impacts on turtles as a consequence of light spill from the Port B development.

Table 9-9 Light spill mitigation and management measures

Performance Objectives Targets Key Performance Indicators To prevent the disturbance Limited light spill from the Port B No additional increase in light spill at sections or death of marine development onto Bell’s Beach. No of Bell’s Beach where turtles nest (measured organisms due to light spill direct light spill where turtles nest as part of the Turtle Management Plan) originating from the Port B Limit light spill onto water from the Light spill from the Port B wharf on the water development. Port B wharf will be minimised.

No reduction in the number of No significant reduction in the number of turtles nesting at Cooling Water turtles nesting at Cooling Water Beach Beach due to the Port B (measured as part of the Turtle Management development Plan) Management Measures Cape Lambert Port B Development Marine Turtle Management Plan (Biota 2008e; Appendix B2) Mitigation will include:

utilisation of real-world calibration of light spill modelling completed by Bassett (2009; Appendix A8)

assessment of the light-reduction design aspects of the development

identification of sections of the beaches that are subject to elevated light levels from artificial sources

consideration of additional design modifications to address these light sources (including shrouding, introduction of timed lighting or other methods)

ensuring the final design does not result in any direct clearing of the elevated foredune separating Bell’s Beach from the Port B development.

Targeted measures to minimise light spill from the Port B development:

increased use of shrouded and directional lighting

review intensity specifications for lighting for particular functions where lower levels may be acceptable

the use of high pressure sodium vapour or other long wavelength lighting if more effective

the use of asymmetrical louvered bollard lighting rather than pole mounted luminaires

incorporating motion-sensor or timer lighting in areas with intermittent activity.

Management and monitoring measures:

Field measurements of incident light levels will be conducted at a selection of representative locations at both Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach throughout the project.

Turtle behaviour monitoring including adult nesting activity and hatchling dispersal.

Long term population monitoring.

If monitoring indicates a significant decline in nest success relative to other beaches due to light spill a nest relocation programme for Cooling Water Beach will be implemented with consultation with DEC.

Predicted Outcomes

With the proposed management measures to prevent light spill from the Port B infrastructure (Table 9-9 and Biota 2008e), the risk to marine adult turtles and hatchlings is low. The predicted outcomes include:

no significant impact to the population of marine turtles that forage, nest or migrate in the Cape Lambert area

no direct light spill associated with Port B on those sections of Bell’s Beach supporting turtle nesting activity

no impacts to regionally important nesting beaches in the Cape Lambert area

PAGE 9-52 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

potential for adult turtles and hatchlings to be affected as a result of increased light spill onto Cooling Water Beach but this threat will be reduced with targeted lighting design for the Port B development and continued monitoring of nesting numbers on the beach.

Management measures that meet performance objectives and achieve predicted outcomes will provide alignment with the EPA requirements for protection of local turtle species, which are recognised as important components of the local fauna.

There will be no long term detrimental effect to the marine turtles as a result of light spill from the Port B development. As such, the EPA objectives to maintain the abundance, biodiversity, productivity and geographic distribution of marine fauna and inter and sub-tidal species will be achieved.

9.2.4 Underwater Noise Overview

This section describes the potential impacts of underwater noise and vibrations produced by activities associated with the construction and operation phases of the Port B development.

Underwater noise – pile driving

The main sources of underwater noise generated during the Port B development are pile driving (construction phase only) and vessel activity. Construction activities associated with the access jetty and wharf require the driving of piles into the seabed. The underwater noise that is generated by the hammer hitting the top of the pile is of short duration lasting approximately 90 milliseconds and can therefore be described as an impulsive noise (SVT 2009; Appendix A21). Noise generated from driving a pile is broadband and does not have any tonal characteristics. Depending on the hardness of the seabed sediment, it can take 3–10 hr to drive each pile into the seafloor. Two to three pile hammers will be operating concurrently.

The TSHD and CSD (Section 4), that will be operating during the construction phase of the Port B development will also contribute to underwater noise. Dredging will continue for 12 months. Noise from a cutter-suction dredge has low to moderate frequency with some tonal noise and an acoustic intensity of around 180 dB re 1 µPa (Table 9-10). Comparative data shows that dredging activities are within the typical range of intensities and frequencies of ship noise, but at considerably lower intensities and frequencies than noise generated by seismic activities.

Ore carriers and other vessels also produce underwater noises (Table 9-10). Based on 2008 data (January to March 2008), approximately forty-eight ore carriers visit Cape Lambert to load iron ore per month. The acoustic intensity of these vessels is typically less than dredges.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-53

Table 9-10 Intensity and frequency of anthropogenic marine noise sources

Source Acoustic intensity (dB re 1μPa) Frequency range (Hz) Ships 177 5–100 Seismic 215–230 10–300 CSD (working) ~180 100–300

Marine turtles and mammals, such as whales and dolphins, are known to be sensitive to underwater noises which are louder (greater intensity) than normal background levels. Sensitivities to underwater noise vary among species and potential effects also depend on a number of factors including the type of noise, whether or not the noise source is stationary or moving, or if it is constant or sporadic.

Underwater noise – drilling and blasting

Underwater drilling and blasting will be required only if BIF material is encountered and is unable to be removed using a cutter suction dredge. At this stage of project design, it is considered unlikely that underwater drilling and blasting will be required. However, potential impacts and management associated with drilling and blasting activities have been included in this Section to allow for underwater drilling and blasting work to take place if required.

If required, underwater blasts will be designed to ensure sufficient fragmentation of rock occurs so that it can be removed efficiently by the excavator dredge, whilst maintaining acceptable levels of blast pressure and vibration. The blast operation has been designed, where practicable, to limit potential impact to marine fauna.

Minimising the charge is one of the most effective ways of reducing impact. The charge per delay is a function of the cut depth and for the deeper areas the charge per delay (maximum instantaneous charge or MIC) is likely to be in the order of 30–35 kg. The blast design incorporates the minimum practical MIC required to ensure rock fragmentation with minimal impact occurs. The effect of the blasting operation will be minimised by confining explosives within drill holes. The holes will be stemmed by inserting and packing gravel above the explosives. This will make each blast more effective and reduce peak pressure experienced in the water column by approximately 40% compared with an unconfined blast. The maximum size of any blast is likely to be no more than 150 holes.

While several charge columns will be detonated on each blasting event, they will be separated by intervals of between 100–200 milliseconds. This will effectively isolate the blasts into individual charges rather than a single cumulative charge. This will greatly reduce potential impact of the blasting program.

Vibrations

Most human activities, including earth moving equipment, trains, vehicles, infrastructure construction can contribute to ground vibration. Earthquakes and ocean waves are natural phenomena that contribute to ground vibrations. Piling activity and underwater drilling and blasting (if required) during the construction of the Port B jetty and wharf and operation of the new stockyards and train movements have the potential to contribute to ground vibration levels at nesting beaches near Cape Lambert (SVT 2008c;

PAGE 9-54 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Appendix A22). The maximum background ground vibration level at Cooling Water Beach due to piling is of the order of 0.25 mm s-1 which is significantly less than the background levels of 2 mm s-1 (SVT 2008c; Appendix A22). The main source of background vibrations at Cooling Water Beach is train movement. There has been some concern that ground vibrations, above background levels, may pose a risk to turtle eggs and hatchlings (Biota 2008d; Appendix A5).

Objectives

The EPA objectives are to maintain:

the abundance, biodiversity, productivity and geographic distribution of marine fauna ecological function, abundance, productivity and biodiversity of intertidal and subtidal species.

Guidance There are no guidance statements relating to underwater noise or vibration impacts on turtles and marine mammals.

Potential Threats and Impacts

Underwater noise and vibrations generated during dredging and construction activities have the potential to impact:

turtles (noise)

marine mammals (noise)

turtle eggs and hatchlings (vibration).

A number of consultants were commissioned to undertake studies to assess the risk of underwater noise and vibrations on sensitive marine fauna. The results of these studies (Biota 2008d (Appendix A5); SVT 2008d (Appendix A22) & 2009 (Appendix A21)) are summarised in the following sections.

Potential noise impacts to marine turtles–pile driving

In the Cape Lambert area, marine turtles have been identified as taxa at greatest risk from underwater noise associated with piling activities. Hatchlings and nesting adults are at greatest risk to piling noise because of the proximity of the proposed jetty and wharf to Cooling Water Beach. Marine mammals are at less of a risk to the proposed piling activity due to their less frequent occurrence at the proposed jetty and wharf location. Bell’s Beach, where the majority of local nesting activity occurs (Section 6.5.6), is well removed from the risk associated with piling activity (SVT 2009; Appendix A21).

SVT Engineering Consultants were commissioned to undertake an underwater noise assessment to determine the spatial scale of the zone of turtle avoidance and injury, associated with piling in relation to Cooling Water Beach (SVT 2009; Appendix A21). The zone of injury was defined by predicting peak pressure levels and sound exposure levels that could damage the hearing organs of turtles. The zone of

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-55

avoidance was defined by predicted peak pressure levels and sound exposure levels that could alter the behaviour of turtles.

Field measurements and modelling studies were conducted to predict likely sound pressure levels in the marine environment during pile-driving. To calibrate the model, actual underwater sound pressure levels were measured during pile-driving at Cape Lambert Port A at a distance of 880 m from the pile in a depth of 32 m of water.

As outlined in SVT (2009; Appendix A21), there have been few empirical studies that have identified threshold levels for marine turtles for these categories of potential noise impact. Given this context, the approach of extrapolating from studies of sound pressure level impacts on fish and other animals was adopted. Studies on fish have indicated that smaller mass animals are more susceptible to underwater noise impacts, leading SVT (2009; Appendix A21) to assume that hatchlings would be more strongly affected than adult turtles. On this basis, the modelling study identified three zones of potential underwater noise impact associated with the planned alignment for the new jetty and wharf:

A zone of potential hearing damage for adult and juvenile turtles of approximately 10 m circumference around each pile close to the shore, and a circle of 25 m around the piles at the end of the jetty and wharf.

A zone of avoidance (behavioural response) for adults and juveniles comprising a 300 m circle close to shore and a 400 m circumference at the end of the jetty and wharf.

A zone of potential hearing damage for hatchlings of approximately 400 m circumference close to the shore, expanding out to a 600 m circumference around the piles at the jetty and wharf end.

These risk zones are plotted in relation to Cooling Water Beach (Figure 9-12), the closest nesting beach for marine turtles. Pile driving operations will in reality be discrete events (around an active pile hammer), and the actual zone of risk will be a spatial subset of that shown in Figure 9-12, at any given point in time. Further, the zones of injury and avoidance will shift seaward and away from Cooling Water Beach as the piling activity moves seaward and away from the beach.

The key findings of this assessment are:

During the nesting period, and only when piling is occurring close to Cooling Water Beach, nesting females may be inhibited from approaching some sections of the beach (Figure 9-12).

The potential for adult turtles to be exposed to piling noise that could potentially lead to hearing loss is low and will only occur if turtles approach within a 25 m circumference around an active pile hammer. Turtles are likely to hear and thus avoid the active pile location well before they are at risk of being exposed to sound levels that could result in injury.

If marine piling activities coincide with hatchling emergence at Cooling Water Beach, there is a risk that hatchlings will be injured as they enter the water. However, marine piling activities are short- term, and this risk will diminish as piling activity moves further offshore. Once hatchlings enter the sea they are predicted to move seaward into deep water and well away from the piling area.

PAGE 9-56 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Cooling Water Beach is a minor nesting beach and thus only a relatively small number of adult turtles and hatchlings are likely to be at risk from exposure to noise generated by the piling activity. In addition, since the planned duration of pile driving is for twelve months, the risk of noise exposure will be limited to a single nesting season and single hatchling period.

Bell’s Beach will be unaffected by this activity.

Potential noise impacts to marine mammals–pile driving

Dolphins and whales are known to migrate through the area (Section 6.5.7) but in low numbers (Prince 2001). During the migration season marine mammals are normally observed in deeper waters, well beyond the proposed wharf site, however less frequently they are seen within site of the Port A wharf. Dolphins are infrequently observed near the existing wharf and/or in the case of humpback whales only seasonally observed (Jenner et al. 2001). Consequently, marine mammals, particularly humpback whales, are more likely to encounter underwater noise pollution associated with vessels entering the channel from the open sea.

Toothed whales, including dolphins, produce a wide range of whistles, clicks, pulsed sounds and echolocation clicks. The frequency range of toothed whale sounds excluding echo location clicks are mostly <20 kHz with most of the energy typically around 10 kHz, although some calls may be as low as 100 to 900 Hz (Richardson et al. 1995). The sounds produced other than echolocation clicks are very complex in many species and appear to be used for communication between members of a pod in socialising and coordinating feeding activities. Echolocation clicks are of a much higher frequency as shown in Table 9-11. The frequency and source intensity range provides an indication of each species’ auditory capabilities, as well as indicating what noise types and levels have the potential to disrupt communication and echolocation.

Table 9-11 Frequency and source range for the bottlenose dolphin and humpback whale

Marine Mammal Vocalisation Echo-location Call frequency Dominant Source level Frequency Source level (db re (Hz) Frequency (Hz) (dB re µPa.m) (kHz) 1µPa.m) Bottlenose dolphin 0.8–24 3.5 –14.5 125–173 110 –130 218–228 Humpback whale 25–8200 25–4000 144–192 Source: Richardson et al. 1995

Humpback whales produce a rich and complex range of underwater sounds (Table 9-11; McCauley 1994). This combined with studies of their hearing apparatus suggests that their hearing is also best adapted for low frequency sound (McCauley 1994; Richardson et al. 1995). Physical damage to the auditory system of cetaceans may occur at noise levels of about 230–240 dB re 1µPa (Gausland 2000), and avoidance begins to occur at around 110–130 dB re 1µPa (McCauley 1994).

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-57

Figure 9-12 Predicted zones of avoidance and physical injury and the hatchling predicted zone of injury

PAGE 9-58 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

The impact of noise generated by vessels during the construction and operational phase of the Port B development is predicted to have negligible impacts to local marine mammals. The acoustic intensity produced by the dredge and bulk carriers may result in some avoidance, but is unlikely to result in hearing damage typically associated with high intensities or frequencies (Richardson et al. 1995). In the case of dolphins, the fact that they are accustomed to the noise of ships suggests that the impacts are unlikely to be significant. In regards to humpback whales, it is likely that individuals in the area will avoid the dredge and ore carriers well before noise will cause physiological damage.

Potential noise impacts to marine fauna–underwater drill and blast

Fish

Shock waves associated with underwater blasting can potentially cause impact to marine fauna including injury or death. Most marine fish, including seahorses and pipefish, are considered to be hearing generalists, that is, they do not have any auditory specialisations or more sensitive hearing abilities. They only hear up to approximately 1500 Hz (as opposed to 20 000 Hz for humans) and have relatively high hearing thresholds at these low frequencies (sounds must be reasonably loud before they become audible to these fish). By contrast, other fish that have developed hearing specialisations, are termed ‘hearing specialists’. These fish can hear up to 4 000 Hz and have lower hearing thresholds (they are more sensitive hearers). Most hearing specialists are freshwater fish (Hastings & Popper 2004).

Most fish possess a swim bladder which is a gas-filled organ that is used for both communication and buoyancy. A rapidly changing acoustic field can cause the swim bladder to contract and expand suddenly, resulting in physical injury which can result in death. Limited studies by Hastings and Popper (2004), and McCauley et al. (2003), have examined other ‘hearing generalists’. The most relevant research was by McCauley et al. (2003) which showed that pink snapper, approximately 230 mm in length, suffered permanent hearing loss when exposed to SPL of approximately 180 dB re 1µPa.

The following table has been calculated utilising the methodology sourced from the ICI Handbook of Blasting Tables (ICI 1980). The ICI methodology was applied based upon its application of blast intensity versus potential for impact upon fish species. Table 9-12 outlines the relationship applied for determining lethality relevant to peak pressure (kPa) variance and distance from the blast source.

Table 9-12 Fish Lethality as a result of underwater blast detonation

Impact Zones by Distance Estimated Peak Estimated Sound Fish Lethality from Detonation Pressure (kPa) Pressure (dBI) Kill Zone 11,160–3,500 235–225 100% lethal 5–14m High Impact 3,500–280 225–203 >50% lethal 14–131m Medium Impact 280–40 203–186 Up to 50% lethal 131–730m Negligible Impact <40 <186 Safe >730m Zones of Influence calculated where Mass/Delay = 30 kg and confinement coefficient = 0.35.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-59

There are a number of fish species that occur in the Cape Lambert near-shore waters (Section 6.5.3) and it can be expected that many will be found in and around the new jetty area. Therefore pile driving activities are likely to impact these fish as they are usually small and often site bound, therefore some loss due to physical injury can be expected. There is a paucity of studies that have evaluated the effect of noise on trophic feeding for fish in general. However it has been observed that bigger fish use pile driving as an opportunity for feeding on smaller fish that are probably stunned as pile driving commences.

Marine mammals

The principle effect of underwater detonation upon individual marine mammals located within ‘impact zones’ relates to damage to the lungs and the potential for non lethal injury (such as damage to ear drums) caused by the resultant shock wave.

Whilst Table 9-12 has provided a conservative basis for the development of the environmental management requirements proposed for this drill and blast operation, there is evidence that marine mammals have lower lethality rates relative to fish lethality. Richmond et al (1973) and Yelverton et al (1973) conducted a series of tests to assess the effects of underwater explosions on injury/mortality using sheep, dogs and monkeys as a basis for assessing potential blast impacts upon marine mammals. Based on the results of this study, Yelverton et al (1973) developed underwater blast criteria for marine mammals. These studies indicated that an estimated peak pressure of 275.8 kPa resulted in no mortality, but with a high incidence of moderate blast injury including eardrum rupture. They suggested that at that blast impulse, individual animals should recover unassisted.

An alternate methodology was developed by the Canadian Department of Fisheries utilising the assumptions of a 78 kg confined charge in 10 m water depth. In this instance, the ‘impact zone by distance’ from detonation indicated no mortality, but high instances of moderately severe blast injuries including eardrum rupture (animals should recover) in the range of 0–387 m. Between 387 and 645 m from the blast source it was calculated that there would be a high incidence of slight blast injuries, including ear drum rupture.

Comparing these findings with those documented in Table 9-12 would suggest that at the outer extent of the high impact zone of 14–131 m, mortality of small marine mammals is still well below the >50% lethality documented. There is also further evidence that potential blast impacts are further reduced subject to the increasing mass of the individual animal, suggesting that cetaceans in particular would have significantly greater survivability relative to that of much smaller fish.

Humpback Migration Routes and Resting Areas

Humpback whales in general (even although there is limited data) appear to be relatively tolerant of manmade noise and appear to show high levels of allostasis, at least to short term transient noise. Humpback whales, for example, have generally not been observed to exhibit behavioural reactions (including vocal ones) to explosions, even when close enough to suffer injury (hearing or other) (Ketten et al 1993; Todd et al 1996; Lien et al 1993). In Newfoundland, humpbacks displayed no overt reactions within about 2 km of 200–2000 kg explosions. Whether habituation and/or hearing damage occurred was

PAGE 9-60 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

unknown (Ketten et al 1993). Other humpback whales in Newfoundland, foraging in an area of explosive activity, showed little behavioural reaction to the detonations in terms of decreased residency, overall movements, or general behaviour, although orientation ability appeared to be affected (Todd et al 1996).

The whale resting areas and migration route distances from the new jetty and wharf at Cape Lambert are given in Figure 9-13. As can be seen from the figure, the closest migration route is approximately 28 km from the wharf while the resting area for females and calves is approximately 42 km from the wharf. The resting area is also well shielded (as shown in the figure) by the landmass associated with the Burrup Peninsula.

If cylindrical spreading loss is considered, the expected loss at 28 km will reduce pile noise by approximately 45 dB. If absorption and bottom loss is also taken into account, it can be expected that noise from the pile driving will have been reduced to levels below that which will cause any avoidance or behavioural change to whales travelling along the closest whale migration route. The resting areas will be even less affected than the closest migration route as it is approximately 42 km from the wharf and jetty (cylindrical spreading loss of is estimated at approximately 46 dB) and it is also protected by the landmass associated with the Burrup Peninsula. Considering these distances and factors the modelling and estimation of the sound energy and peak pressure was not warranted for this assessment.

Turtles

Whilst no specific data is available on the risk of marine blasting to marine turtles, they are conservatively assumed to have similar risk as marine mammals. The issue of turtle hearing is addressed in Guinea (2008). Hearing mechanisms in this fauna are summarised as:

‘Sea turtles have no external ears. The ear canal contains fat and fluid (Ketten et al. 2006). Vibrations travel from the tympanic scale along the stapes to the cochlea (Wyneken 2001). In water, sea turtles respond to frequencies of 100 Hz to a maximum of 500 Hz. Most studies give values of between 200 Hz to 400 Hz in air (Moein Bartol & Ketten 2006). By contrast the human ear detects frequencies from 20 Hz to 20,000 Hz (Van Wynsberghe et al. 1995).’

Blasting would likely cause temporary disturbance and avoidance effects in turtles should any be present within the vicinity of the blasting activities.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-61

Figure 9-13 Whale resting areas and migration routes in relation to the Port B development

PAGE 9-62 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Vibration impacts to turtles

It has been raised as a concern that excessive ground vibrations could compromise the health of turtle egg embryos and the emerging hatchlings. This is raised in relation to Cooling Water Beach, which is the closest nesting beach to where piling will be undertaken. To assess this risk, SVT measured background vibration levels, expressed as a velocity (distance/time), and predicted additional vibration levels associated with piling activity. The background vibration level at Cooling Water Beach was estimated to have a particle velocity of 2 mm s-1 and is due primarily to the train activity immediately behind the beach (SVT 2009; Appendix A21). Consequently, this background vibration level is not constant but decreases when trains are not active nearby. During the driving of the closest piles (500 m away), SVT predicts that a single hammer during piling will add a particle velocity of 0.25 mm s-1 to background (an order of magnitude lower than that already incident on Cooling Water Beach from existing train movement levels). Obviously each hammer will result in discrete vibration events (the vibration level will not be continuous). Although one or more pile hammers may be operating at the same time, the probability of the hammers hitting piles simultaneously, and causing a doubling of the vibration level, is low. Given that train activity at Cape Lambert has been on-going for over 30 years, and that hatchlings continue to emerge at Cooling Water Beach, it is reasonable to assume that existing backgrounds levels do not compromise the health of the egg embryos or contribute significantly to hatchling mortality. Exceedences above 2 mm s-1, the maximum peak velocity already experienced here is very unlikely to occur. Certainly the contribution due to piling is insignificant and will be short-term because vibration levels associated with piling with decrease as this activity moves seaward and away from the beach. Given these findings, it is very unlikely that ground vibration from pile driving would result in any significant impact on nest success beyond existing disturbance at this site.

Impacts to turtles from airborne noise

Turtle hearing in air is limited to only low frequency sounds below approximately 400 Hz and is very limited compared to the range heard by the human ear. SVT (2009; Appendix A21) quantify the noise levels in terms power level (dB(A)) which is used as normal industry standard rather than frequency. This limits the ability to directly relate the values in the report to the likely turtle response to an increase in overall noise level. However, some observations can still be made: one of the impulsive noise impacts identified is due to brake car squeal. This is described by SVT (2009; Appendix A21) as a ‘high frequency tonal noise’ and it is therefore unlikely that turtles would hear or display behavioural response to this noise source.

Noise contours generated by SVT (2009; Appendix A21 predict cumulative noise levels of 60-65 dB(A) at Bell’s Beach with the Port B development, depending on weather conditions. Noise levels equivalent to or exceeding this currently occur at Cooling Water Beach, where turtle nesting activity still occurs (Biota 2008d). By inference then, it appears that noise at this level alone does not prevent turtles from nesting.

The Biota field team noted that Bell’s Beach has a naturally high level of background noise, due to sustained high winds and waves breaking. It is questionable how much additional air-borne noise would be discernible to turtles at this location with the development of Port B, given this existing environment

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-63

and their far more limited hearing range compared to humans. Guinea (2008) also noted this, and reached a similar conclusion:

‘The sound of the Cape Lambert plant at present is inaudible to the human ear on Bell’s Beach due to the prevailing wind blowing from the west towards the plant. Given the nature of the hearing of sea turtles and the direction of the wind, the sound is unlikely to be audible to sea turtles coming ashore at night during summer months.’

On this basis, while difficult to quantify, Biota (2008d) consider that there is a relatively low risk that any additional disturbance to nesting turtles would be caused by airborne noise at Bell’s Beach due to the Port B development.

Mitigation and Management

To address these threats and mitigate potential impacts, a detailed Marine Turtle Management Plan has been prepared (Biota 2008e; Appendix B2). Although the impacts of noise on marine mammals is predicted to be minimal, management measures outlined below for turtles will also limit noise impacts to marine mammals. Table 9-13 presents a summary of mitigation and management measures to ensure no adverse impacts associated with piling activity.

Table 9-13 Marine turtle and marine mammal mitigation and management measures

Performance Objectives Targets Key Performance Indicators To limit impacts to nesting To limit impacts to turtles as a The number of turtle deaths as a result of piling adult turtles and hatchlings result of piling and drill and blast or drill and blast in the lease area activity Turtle nesting success To ensure no turtles enter the The number of turtles reported in the zone of zone of injury during piling or injury during piling or drill and blast drill and blast To limit impacts to marine To limit impacts to marine The number of reported injured or dead marine mammals in the project area mammals as a result of piling or mammals within 1 km of the construction site drill and blast activity Management Measures Cape Lambert Port B Development Marine Turtle Management Plan (Biota 2008e) During the turtle nesting period, measures to address risks associated with underwater noise will include:

Pile driving conducted during daylight hours only. However, outside of the turtle nesting period the Proponent may apply to pile drive at night if required.

Any requirement for piling outside of daylight hours is to be staged so that areas closest to Cooling Water Beach are preferentially completed outside of the nesting season.

Acoustic controls on the pile drivers will be implemented to reduce noise at source.

Pile driving to be commenced with a partial capacity strike or warning with an airgun to disperse any turtles in the vicinity prior to normal driving.

If humpback whales or dolphins are observed within 1 km of the new wharf then pile driving will commence with a partial capacity strike or warning with an airgun to disperse any animals in the vicinity prior to normal pile driving.

Management and monitoring measures:

Field measurements of vibration levels will be conducted at a selection of representative locations at both Bell’s Beach and Cooling Water Beach during pile driving.

Turtle behaviour monitoring including adult nesting activity and hatchling dispersal.

Develop and implement a possible nest relocation programme for Cooling Water Beach in the event that monitoring indicates a significant decline in nest success relative to other beaches due to noise or vibration.

PAGE 9-64 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Management of underwater drill and blast If underwater drill and blast is required, a blasting management plan will be developed prior to commencement which will include:

A description of the drill and blast methodology, developed according to detailed site characteristics not available to date (i.e. area and depth to be blasted, rock hardness and proximity of other infrastructure) and environmental protection requirements

Environmental Management including: o identification of potential impacts to the marine environment o nomination of target blast pressures to afford suitable protection to the environment o area inspection from a vessel immediately prior to the blast to identify if large marine fauna are present in the immediate area o confirmation that large marine fauna have cleared the area before the blast is initiated (have not been sighted from a vessel for at least 20 minutes or are more than 500 m from the blast site) o post blast inspection from a vessel for injured or dead fauna o management of injured fauna o stakeholder communication o reporting requirements.

The management approach is based on that undertaken for the recent Dampier Port upgrade at Parker Point, and no reports of injured or deceased marine mammals or cetaceans were recorded as a result of the drill and blast program.

Predicted Outcome

There will be no long term detrimental effect to the marine environment as a result of piling. The Marine Turtle Management Plan outlines specific mitigation and monitoring measures to limit environmental effects and management. The predicted outcomes can be summarised as:

no significant long term impact to the population of marine turtles that forage, nest or migrate in the Cape Lambert area as a result of underwater noise or ground vibrations

no impacts to regionally important nesting beaches in the Cape Lambert as a result of piling activity or other sources of underwater noise associated with the Port B development.

As such, both EPA objectives to maintain the abundance, biodiversity, productivity and geographic distribution of marine fauna and of inter and subtidal species will be achieved.

9.2.5 Invasive Marine Species Overview

Introduced or invasive marine species are marine biota that are translocated into waters outside of their natural geographical distribution range and subsequently settle and survive. An introduced species is considered invasive if it tolerates a range of local environmental conditions, forms a common component of the habitats and communities into which it spreads, and or colonises a relatively wide geographical area (Hutchings et al. 2002).

Invasive species are capable of invading new ecosystems, disturbing the ecological balance of existing marine communities and potentially impacting on recreational and commercial fisheries, and aquaculture.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-65

The successful establishment of an invasive species depends primarily on two factors: the frequency of immigrant arrivals (introduction) and their post-arrival mortality (survival).

The Department of Fisheries has recorded 92 invasive species in the waters of Western Australia (Department of Fisheries 2005), but no known invasive species have been recorded within the Cape Lambert area (Ecologia 2002; URS 2007b).

URS (2007b) identified specific localities and habitats in and around the Cape Lambert area as presenting the features most amenable to colonisation by invasive species, on the basis of the amount of artificial substrate that is conducive to settlement, nutrient levels and seasonal salinity reductions/emergence of estuarine conditions. These included John’s Creek marina, the tidal reaches of Sam’s Creek and John’s Creek, existing Service Wharf and access jetty.

Objectives

The EPA objectives are to maintain:

the abundance, biodiversity, productivity and geographic distribution of marine fauna

ecological function, abundance, productivity and biodiversity of intertidal and subtidal species.

Guidance

Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) ballast water guidelines

National Introduced Marine Pest Identification System (NIMPIS).

Potential Threats and Impacts

Potential impacts from invasive species to the ecological balance of existing marine communities include competition for food and space with native species; predation of native species (including commercial species); and possible hybridisation between native and invasive species (Hass & Jones 1999).

Invasive species are typically introduced by one of three vectors: within vessel ballast water; attached to hulls and other vessel structures (for example, water intakes or sea chests and propeller shafts); and contained within residual sediment in dredges and flotsam in the well around the cutter boom and head of cutter section dredges or ballast tanks.

Mitigation and Management

To address these threats and mitigate potential impacts a detailed DSDMP has been developed (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1) and the draft Cape Lambert Marine Environmental Quality Management Plan prepared for Cape Lambert Port A which will be modified to include the Cape Lambert Port B development. Table 9-14 presents a summary of mitigation and management measures to ensure no adverse impacts associated with invasive species occur.

PAGE 9-66 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 9-14 Invasive marine species mitigation and management measures

Performance Targets Key Performance Indicators Objectives To prevent the Work undertaken only with vessels Number of reports recording vessels achieving a introduction of classified as low risk (either via risk low risk status invasive marine assessment or vessel inspection) Number of reports recording vessels achieving a species to the marine high risk status environment via the dredging equipment Zero detection of invasive marine Number of reports reporting the detection of species or sediments during Vessel invasive marine species and sediments during Pest Inspections conducted at Cape inspections Lambert Zero establishment of invasive marine Number of ‘new’ marine invasive species species within waters adjacent to the recorded at Cape Lambert attributable to the development as a result of the dredging current project and disposal works

Management Measures: Cape Lambert Port B Development DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1), Strategy 4.4. This document deals with managing this risk during the construction phase. Strategies include:

Implementation of Invasive Clearance Procedure

Invasive Response Plan

Vessel Clearance Procedures

A risk assessment will be undertaken for all dredging construction related vessels (excluding transport/delivery vessels and local vessels that have not sailed outside of the local marine ecological area) to assess their risk as potential vectors for invasive marine species. High risk vessels will undergo inspections as per Section 3.13. Strategy 4 –Invasive Marine Species Management, DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1). Draft Cape Lambert Operations Marine Environmental Water Quality Management Plan August 2008, Section 5.4 This document was developed for the Port A Upgrade; however, it will be applied and extended to the Port B development. It focuses on detecting a set of invasive marine species known to be tolerant of tropical marine waters. The objective of Section 5.4 Invasive Marine Species is to monitor:

target areas at Cape Lambert at least every three years for as long as the Minister for the Environment deems necessary to identify if any marine pests are present

in accordance with the Marine Pest Monitoring Manual (Australian and New Zealand Governments).

Predicted Outcomes

Predicted impacts to the marine environment from invasive marine species will be managed in accordance with the DSDMP and through modification to the draft Cape Lambert Operations Marine Environmental Quality Management Plan updated August 2008. The latter is currently being updated. The DSDMP outlines specific mitigation, management and monitoring measures to limit environmental effects, and will be implemented prior to commencement of dredging activities. The draft Cape Lambert Operations Marine Environmental Quality Management Plan will manage this risk during operations, with a predicted outcome that there will be no establishment of marine pests as a result of construction and operational activities. Consequently, there will be no long term detrimental effects to the marine environment as a result of dredging or additional shipping activity. As such the EPA objectives to maintain the abundance, biodiversity, productivity and geographic distribution of marine fauna and intertidal and subtidal species will be achieved.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-67

9.3 Minor Threats 9.3.1 Background The threats in this section have been defined as minor because their consequences are well documented and easily managed through standard practice or other existing legislation. Also, previous experience in the Cape Lambert area has demonstrated a low risk of these threats under normal operating conditions.

9.3.2 Vessel Movement Overview

Vessel collisions can contribute to the mortality of several marine taxa including turtles (Hazel & Gyuris 2006), dugongs (Greenland & Limpus 2005) and whales (Laist et al. 2001). Large whale deaths and serious injuries that result from ship strikes are of increasing concern worldwide (Kraus et al. 2005). Laist et al. (2001) indicated that all sizes and types of vessels can hit whales. However, the most lethal or severe injuries are caused by ships 80 m or longer; whales usually are not seen beforehand or are seen too late to be avoided; and most lethal or severe injuries involve ships travelling 14 kn or faster. The mean number of ore carriers visiting Cape Lambert is currently 48 ships per month. The speed of ore carriers in the channel ranges from 8 to 12 kn slowing to less than 4 kn as they near the wharf (D Frost 2008, Vessel Traffic Manager, Dampier Port Authority, pers. comm., 7 July 2008). The TSHD will operate at a speed of 1–3 kn while dredging and 12–16 kn when travelling between the spoil grounds and the dredge area. Support and fuel vessels will operate at a similar range of speeds depending on their proximity to the wharf and dredge, and the activities they are performing (transit versus refuelling).

In the Cape Lambert marine environment, the fauna of most concern in regards to vessel movement are marine turtles, cetaceans and dugongs.

Objectives

The EPA objectives are to maintain:

the abundance, biodiversity, productivity and geographic distribution of marine fauna

ecological function, abundance, productivity and biodiversity of intertidal and subtidal species.

Guidance

There is no specific guidance relating to vessel activity and marine turtle, cetacean or dugong impacts.

Potential Threats and Impacts

The potential for collisions between marine turtles or mammals and vessels is considered slight given that these taxa are likely to exhibit behavioural and avoidance responses and the majority of vessels will be moving at low speeds (less than 12 kn). The relatively low frequency range of turtle hearing (Ketten & Bartol 2006) lies well within the broad frequency spectrum of noise produced by vessels (Richardson et al. 1995). Consequently, marine turtles should hear and thus avoid these slow moving vessels well before a collision. In addition, the potential for collisions between dugongs and vessels is considered low given

PAGE 9-68 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

vessels will not be moving through known dugong feeding areas. During the migration season marine mammals are normally observed in deeper waters, well beyond the proposed wharf site and area with majority of vessel movement; however, less frequently they are seen within sight of the existing Port A. In conclusion, the risk of the dredge or an ore carrier striking a turtle or marine mammal is predicted to be low because:

ore carriers travel at low speeds (<12 kn) when in port limits

turtles and marine mammals are likely to hear these large vessels well before there is likely to be a collision

the dredge will have a dedicated fauna observer on board (and there were no reported collisions with marine fauna during the Port A development; Section 9.3)

the area is not a known aggregation, breeding or resting area for large cetaceans

humpback whales and some turtles are only seasonal migratory visitors to the area.

During the construction and operational stage of Port B there will be an increase in marine traffic associated with dredges, support vessels and bulk carriers. The use of John’s Creek harbour by these vessels will be avoided where possible. Dredge operators will not use the John’s Creek Harbour for dredge vessels. Marine construction contractors will only use the harbour in the case that local marine subcontractors who already uses John’s Creek as a base are employed.

John’s Creek will not be used by dredging vessels in the case of a tropical cyclone. Dredge vessels will move out to sea, away from the path of a tropical cyclone, rather than seeking shelter along the coastal areas of Cape Lambert. Jack-up barges will be moved to Flying Foam Passage or other suitable shallow waters in the case of a tropical cyclone. Once operational, Service Wharf B and the Tug Harbour extension area will also be used for cyclone protection areas for construction vessels.

The likelihood that this additional marine traffic will compromise the safety of fishing vessels moving between John’s Creek and the open ocean is unlikely. As noted already, barges and bulk carriers near the wharf operate at slow speeds (< 4 kn). Even in the channel, bulk carriers are travelling only at 8 to 12 kn.

Mitigation and Management

Management action is described fully in the Cape Lambert Port B Development DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1), Section 4.3 Strategy 3–Marine Mammals and Turtle Management, and summarised here:

marine turtle, marine mammal activity will be monitored throughout the dredging and spoil disposal works

prior to commencement of dredging activities, all crew will receive an induction which will include details of procedures to be followed in the event of marine mammal or turtle injury or death

marine turtle and marine mammal (except dolphin) observation and response procedures including the application of a 300 m exclusion zone will be implemented during dredging and spoil disposal activities

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-69

turtle exclusion devices will be used on the TSHD when dredging in areas with an under keel clearance in excess of 5 m

vessel pilots will be kept informed of the occurrence of humpback whales and dolphins in the project area and will be instructed to take practical steps (such as slowing the vessel), without compromising the safety of the vessel and crew, to minimise risks of collisions with whales.

Section 3.18 of the DSDMP lists in detail management actions to minimise the impact of vessel operations on recreational boating/fishing activities

lighting on the new wharf and bulk carriers will minimize navigational hazards at night

the Proponent will provide public notices prior to dredging activities.

Predicted outcome

There is a low risk of collision between vessels and marine turtles and mammals as a result of the Port B development. This outcome will be consistent with the earlier Port A development where there was no recorded injuries to marine fauna associated with the dredging activity or shipping movement (Section 9.3). As such the EPA objectives to maintain the abundance, biodiversity, productivity and geographic distribution of marine fauna and intertidal and subtidal species will be achieved.

9.3.3 Contaminant Spills Overview

Contaminants including hydrocarbons (such as diesel fuel, heavy fuel oil (HFO), hydraulic oils, engine oils, greases and lubricants) and chemicals are used and handled everyday during dredging operations. The accidental release of these substances presents a potential risk to the environment. The main potential sources of release of contaminants into the marine environment are:

diesel or HFO spills during refuelling (bunkering)

hydraulic oil spills due to equipment failure (for example, burst hydraulic hose)

incorrect storage and handling of hydrocarbons and chemicals

release of oily bilge waters

contaminated deck wash.

During operations, potential sources of contaminant releases into the marine environment are collisions between vessels or between a vessel and fixed infrastructure or a reef. Realistically, however, contaminant spills to the marine environment from the Port B development during construction and operational activities is limited to small scale (2–5 m3) events. A catastrophic release of diesel from the rupture of a vessel diesel tank through striking the seabed or vessel collision is a highly uncommon event and the consequences of such an event occurring are not considered further other than to note that spill response planning is in place for this outcome. Large volumes of hydrocarbons, including bunker fuel, will not be stored on the proposed wharf.

PAGE 9-70 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Objectives

The EPA objective is to maintain:

the abundance, biodiversity, productivity and geographic distribution of marine fauna

the ecological function, abundance, productivity and biodiversity of intertidal and subtidal species.

Guidance

EPA Guidance 29: Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Protection for Western Australia’s Marine Environment (EPA 2004b).

Potential Threats and Impacts

Small to medium oil spills (<20 L) are the most likely scenario during the Port B development. Impacts to the Cape Lambert marine environment from them are predicted to be minor. Major spills are highly unlikely. Observations and modelling of small diesel spills in the marine environment (NOAA, undated) show that diesel spreads rapidly, and approximately 40% of the initial mass is lost to evaporation over the first 24 hours.

In the Cape Lambert area, the risk of wind moving a spill directly to the shoreline is low because prevailing winds during winter are south-easterly, whilst westerly winds dominate during spring and summer. Further, the direction of an oil spill during spring tides will be under considerable influence of strong tidal currents which move parallel to shore, and consequently the spill is likely to be moved parallel to the coastline, rather than directly onto it.

Physical effects commonly associated with hydrocarbon spills are smothering leading to contamination and mortality of the exposed benthic organisms. Severe coating of oil can restrict vital life functions including the ability to feed, and to maintain insulation, respiration and movement/migration. Sub-lethal effects limiting organisms’ capacity to feed, grow and reproduce, and chronic exposure to hydrocarbons at varying concentrations can lead to mortality. The most toxic components of hydrocarbons are those that evaporate more rapidly on the sea surface, particularly in tropical environments, and therefore large scale mortality events are rare, short lived and associated with spills of light refined products or fresh crude. Fuel oil on the sea surface could negatively affect organisms, including their larvae and eggs, which are restricted to the upper few centimetres of the water column. However, the effects would be highly localised to the spill location (Swan et al. 1994). In the event of a spill reaching the coastline at Cape Lambert, hard corals and other BPP, which occur predominantly in the subtidal environment, should have limited exposure to high concentrations of the fuel because much of the spill will remain near the surface.

Mitigation and Management

Documents relevant to the management of oil spills in the Cape Lambert area are:

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-71

A Port Walcott Cape Lambert Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) for Cape Lambert has been developed (RTIO-LO-0014608) to manage small to large spills.

Cape Lambert Port B Development DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1), Section 4.8, Strategy 8– Hydrocarbons and Chemicals Management to manage spills associated with dredging operations.

Cape Lambert Operations Marine Environmental Quality Management Plan (2007).

Key management measures and actions to combat an oil spill during construction and operations include:

Spill response will be undertaken in accordance with the existing Cape Lambert OSCP.

Each vessel will maintain a Ship Board Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) in accordance with Australia Government requirements and the MARPOL 73/78 convention.

Suitable and sufficient oil spill response equipment (spill response kits) including oil absorbent booms and pads will be available and easily accessible in case of a hydrocarbon spill.

Only approved dispersants will be used at any time.

Predicted outcome

A significant environmental impact from an oil spill is considered to be of low risk due to the high level of response planning described in the OSCP. This is consistent with observations made during the Cape Lambert Port A development in which only a single small (20 L) oil spill was recorded and which did not result in any measurable impact (Section 9.2). If, in the unlikely event that a small spill reached the mainland, the impact would be localised and short lived.

9.3.4 Waste and Stormwater Drainage Overview

This section relates to threats associated with solid and liquid wastes in the marine environment. Stormwater drainage is also included here as it is a potential source of contaminants to the marine environment.

Waste

Three broad types of wastes are expected to be generated during the Port B development with the potential to affect marine: solid waste, hazardous waste, sewage and grey water.

Solid waste may include discarded material used for the wharf and associated infrastructure construction, or on vessels. Large volumes of packaging materials will also be generated.

Hazardous waste will include paints and cleaning products. Such products will be required during construction and for maintenance purposes during operations.

Sewage and grey water will be associated with vessels used during the dredging construction and operational phases, and new infrastructure on the mainland.

PAGE 9-72 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

None of these wastes are permitted to be discharged legally into the Cape Lambert marine environment. There is potential for incidental loss of solid waste or spillage of hazardous waste into the marine environment during the construction and operational phases of the Port B development.

Stormwater drainage

The Port B development will result in a change to the natural drainage patterns at the site and stormwater from a 1:100 year or greater event will need to be diverted to the sea. Stormwater drainage will be required to divert rainwater from the Port B development site to stormwater drainage systems that will overflow into coastal waters. The two proposed discharge points are described below:

outlet to ocean near small embayment – south of the proposed stockyard, west of the existing quarry

outlet to Sam’s Creek (existing) – north of existing Car Dumper 2, east of existing rail (SKM 2008t).

Major discharge events are predicted to be infrequent, and correlated with high rainfall events during summer. Greatest volumes will be discharged during cyclones passing close to Cape Lambert. The factors at risk from accidental loss of waste into the marine environment and stormwater drainage are water and sediment quality. Deterioration in water and sediment quality can influence the abundance and distribution of marine fauna and flora, including BPP. There is also potential for localised erosion near the discharge outlets.

Objectives

The EPA objective is to maintain:

the abundance, biodiversity, productivity and geographic distribution of marine fauna

the ecological function, abundance, productivity and biodiversity of intertidal and subtidal species.

Guidance

EPA Guidance 1: Protection of Tropical Arid Zone Mangroves along the Pilbara Coastline (EPA 2001).

EPA Guidance 29: Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Protection for Western Australia's Marine Environment (EPA 2004b).

National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material (NODGDM) (2002).

Potential Threats and Impacts

Waste

Marine impacts from solid and liquid wastes and hazardous wastes are expected to be negligible. The accidental loss of solid waste (material used to construct the jetty and wharf) into the marine environment could result in the localised smothering of seafloor habitat. Benthic organisms would quickly colonise large pieces of metal waste in the event they were not found during retrieval attempts.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-73

The use of paint and cleaning products during the jetty and wharf construction, and subsequent maintenance, will be controlled so that accidental spillage is unlikely. However, if such an event occurred, the spill volume would typically be small (for example, the volume of a tin of paint) and environmental effects localised and limited to the sea surface. Sea surface dwelling organisms may be affected, but waste on the surface that could not be retrieved would be rapidly diluted and dispersed.

Sewage and grey water will be generated by the vessels using the Port B facilities and staff using the onshore facilities. Such waste is treated in accordance with Australian and international regulations. Accidental loss of such waste is not anticipated but the effects on the marine environment would be negligible because of the rapid dilution and break down of the organic material.

Stormwater Drainage

Stormwater drainage off the Port B development land infrastructure could potentially transfer contaminants deposited on land to the sea. At the Port B development land site, there is potential for iron ore dust, sediment, hydrocarbons and some heavy metals to accumulate. Vehicles are a potential source of hydrocarbons and heavy metals, but other factors like roof runoff and industrial discharges also contribute. However, contaminant volumes associated with cars should be low given the relatively small amount of vehicle traffic anticipated for the Port B development compared with a major street in a town or city. The toxicity of stormwater contaminants can affect fauna living on, or in, the sediment. Such effects are predicted to be highly localised around the discharge outlet pipe. However, the main concern would be the periodic input of large volumes of sediment laden freshwater into embayments that might not normally receive this direct input of freshwater. The dominant BPP near the two proposed discharge sites are mangroves, which are generally tolerant to waters characterised by high suspended solids. However, persistent flows of even small volumes of freshwater discharged over long periods of time would be the case during the wet season could potentially alter the vegetation lining Sam’s Creek by providing respite from the typical salinity regime in the region. Stormwater drainage in the Cape Lambert area would be associated with infrequent high rainfall events, typically associated with summer weather patterns and stormwater sediment plumes would, consequently, be short-lived. The effects would be masked by natural turbidity plumes generated by large waves or freshwater runoff from local drainage systems. Stormwater runoff already enters Sam’s Creek from a portion of the Port B development area.

Mitigation and Management

Management measures to minimise impacts associated with waste generated during the construction and operational phases of the Port B development include:

Waste:

solid waste will be placed in suitable containers and recycled or disposed of via a licensed contractor

inert waste will be taken to the new 7kp landfill site being developed adjacent to the railway line

hazardous waste will be stored in an appropriate manner prior to disposal

empty oil and chemical containers will be returned to the supplier for recycling where appropriate

controlled wastes will be disposed of via a licensed contractor to a licensed controlled waste facility

PAGE 9-74 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

records of disposal of controlled wastes will be kept.

Stormwater drainage:

sediment sump system will be used to capture coarse grain sediments during discharge

the discharge will be licensed and discharge volumes and water quality monitored.

Outcome

Waste and stormwater drainage are considered to have low risk to the Cape Lambert marine environment. In the unlikely event of accidental loss of solid or hazardous wastes into the marine environment, environmental impacts will be highly localised. Stormwater discharge is predicted to have highly localised impacts on marine fauna and habitats after significant rainfall events. Recovery should be rapid after the disturbance event. As such the EPA objectives to maintain the abundance, biodiversity, productivity and geographic distribution of marine fauna and intertidal and subtidal species will be achieved.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 9-75

Cape Lambert Port B Development

10. Socio-Economic Impacts and Management

10.1 Introduction This section of the PER identifies the potential and predicted impacts on the local communities of the townships of Wickham, Point Samson and Roebourne, as well as economic impacts on a state and national scale, and outlines management measures for the proposed Port B development.

Section 10.2 outlines the process for determining social significance of impacts; Section 10.3 details the potential threats and impacts and Section 10.4 describes minor factors.

10.2 Impacts and Socio-Economic Significance The Port B development has the potential to impact both negatively and positively on a range of social and economic factors. However, not all of these will be significant. The significance of social or economic impact on the community can be assessed by considering the spatial scale, magnitude and temporal scale of the impact, and by determining the real or perceived impacts of change through consultation with residents and other stakeholders.

These matters were considered during a risk assessment, as described earlier in Section 5.1, to objectively rank activities according to their potential to impact key social and economic values in the surrounding community. Activities with the potential to impact the socio-economic environment are referred to as threats.

10.3 Potential Threats and Impacts to Socio-Economic Values Social and economic factors are classified in Table 10-1, along with a reference to the section in the PER where they are assessed.

Table 10-1 Classification of social and economic factors

Factor Reference Key Factors No key social factors - Minor Factors Aboriginal heritage Section 10.4.2 European heritage Section 10.4.3 Population change and service provision Section 10.4.4 Traffic and infrastructure Section 10.4.5 Tourism and recreation Section 10.4.6 Fisheries Section 10.4.7 Visual amenity and landscape character Section 10.4.8 Land use and land tenure Section 10.4.9 Protected areas Section 10.4.10

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 10-1

There are no social key factors for the Port B development as there are unlikely to be any activities associated with the development that result in significant and long term adverse social and economic impacts.

10.4 Minor Factors 10.4.1 Overview The factors described in this section are not considered key factors for the Port B development as they are unlikely to result in significant impacts. Potential impacts from minor factors (with the exception of Aboriginal heritage) will be managed via the CEMP and standard management measures.

10.4.2 Aboriginal Heritage Overview

The Proponent and the Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation have reached an initial agreement over the proposed expansion program in the coastal areas, allowing for a comprehensive new Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) to be developed. This ILUA is anticipated to provide significant mutual long term benefits to both the Ngarluma people and the Proponent. For the Proponent, the ILUA will provide the context for future liaison with the Ngarluma people and provide enhanced certainty in project delivery.

Results from previous heritage surveys for the Cape Lambert region indicate that 65 Aboriginal heritage sites are located close to or within leases held by the Proponent within the Wickham and Cape Lambert area and in the vicinity of the Port B development.

Aboriginal heritage surveys for the Port B development commenced in August 2008 and are approximately 40% complete. Once these are complete, the Proponent will review the outcomes of the surveys and wherever feasible avoid impacts to known heritage sites. Should Aboriginal heritage sites be unavoidable, the Proponent will seek Section 18 consent under the Aboriginal Heritage Act (1972) (WA) to disturb those sites or portions of sites that cannot be avoided. The Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation will be consulted regarding any Section 18 application. This process will run in parallel with the environmental approvals process.

Objective

The EPA objective relevant to Aboriginal heritage is ‘to ensure that changes to the biophysical environment do not adversely affect historical and cultural associations and comply with relevant heritage legislation’.

Potential Threats and Impacts

Potential impacts to Aboriginal heritage arising as a result of the Port B development are damage and loss to Aboriginal heritage sites.

PAGE 10-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Mitigation and Management

Potential impacts to Aboriginal heritage sites will be managed through the Cultural Heritage Management Procedure (008) within the CEMP and the Cultural Heritage Management Plan (RTIO 2008d; Appendix B6). Key measures specific to the Port B development include:

continue regular and ongoing involvement of the Traditional Owners in heritage management throughout the life of the Port B development

complete the heritage surveys of the Port B development area in conjunction with the Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation

apply for Section 18 approval under the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972 (WA) (in consultation with the Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation) to disturb those sites within the Port B development area that cannot be avoided

inspect on a regular basis all known heritage sites using qualified Proponent personnel and/or others by agreement with Traditional Owners.

The known heritage site near the power station will remain undisturbed throughout construction and operations. Entry to this heritage site will remain restricted.

Outcome By implementing the Aboriginal heritage management measures described above, it is considered that Port B will not result in a significant detrimental effect on historical and cultural associations and will comply with relevant heritage legislation.

10.4.3 European Heritage Numerous items of European significance have been identified in the Pilbara coastal region within the general locality of the Cape Lambert Port B development. Most of these significant heritage items are located in the townships of Cossack and Roebourne, as detailed in Section 7.12.2. These European heritage items will not be affected by the Port B development; however, some visitations by the construction workforce during days off will be anticipated, and similarly operations personnel and their families may participate in day visits to local attractions in the future. In this regard, visitations to these European heritage items by the construction and operations workforce will be unavoidable and will be undertaken as general members of the public.

As there are negligible potential impacts on European heritage resulting from the Port B development, no mitigation or management measures are required and this factor is not discussed further in the PER.

10.4.4 Population Change and Service Provision Overview

The Proponent commissioned a cumulative Social Impact Study (URS & ACIL Tasman 2008) to identify the potential social and economic impacts of its planned expansion program within the Pilbara region,

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 10-3

incorporating the Port B development along with proposed developments such as rail and power station developments.

The Port B development will require a peak construction workforce of approximately 2500 personnel during the construction phase (required to be accommodated around Cape Lambert), which is scheduled to be mobilised between 2009 and 2013. In addition, approximately 600 permanent employees will be required for the operation of the Port B development (incorporating some additional rail support personnel), with operations planned to commence in 2013. For the purposes of examining population changes it has been assumed that employee family sizes will reflect current employee family patterns being an average of approximately 3.3 persons per employee. The Proponent intends to house construction personnel on-site at accommodation camps. Recent experience in managing construction projects has determined the appropriate size of the construction camp infrastructure to adequately service the construction activities in the required timeframe.

The Proponent is currently considering a range of scenarios regarding potential employee residential locations during the operations phase. The scenarios under consideration incorporate various ratios of local accommodation predominantly based in Wickham combined with fly-in-fly-out (FIFO) employees using accommodation camps provided by the Proponent. In order to predict the possible range of impacts from various scenarios, the Proponent has considered two key options (URS & ACIL Tasman 2008):

Option A (Existing Residential Patterns): This scenario assumes that the residential workforce uses the Proponent’s existing local accommodation portfolio and assumes construction of new houses and accommodation or refurbishment of existing houses for the Port B development.

Option B (Increased Reliance on FIFO): This option assumes a limited residential growth pattern, especially in Wickham, and assumes an increased reliance on a FIFO workforce. This option includes construction of 250 houses in Wickham, 50 houses in Roebourne, development of a 200-person FIFO accommodation facility in Wickham and a 100-person FIFO accommodation facility in Roebourne.

Table 10-2 provides predicted increases in the number of new employees in residences in the townships of Wickham and Roebourne compared to those predicted to be housed in FIFO accommodation provided by the company.

Table 10-2 Workforce residential locations

Town Maximum increase in workforce over existing numbers Option A (Existing Residential Pattern) Option B (Increased reliance on FIFO) Workforce / Population FIFO Workforce / Population FIFO Wickham 469 / 1547 116 242 / 798 293 Roebourne Nil Nil 50 / 165 Nil Source: URS & ACIL Tasman 2008

As a result of the predicted workforce increases shown in Table 10-2, Option A is predicted to increase the population of Wickham from 1823 (ABS 2006) to 3370. No increased population is predicted for

PAGE 10-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Roebourne in Option A. Option B is predicted to increase the population of Wickham to 2621, and Roebourne from 900 to 1065 (URS 2008a).

Objective

The relevant objective is “to minimise the impacts on the local community, social profile and service provision”.

Potential Threats and Impacts

An increase in the number of employees predicted to reside in a town will affect the total population, the number of households and the number of children. These are key indicators for services in education, health and policing.

The impacts of increased employee numbers on these services have been predicted for Options A and B by determining the relationship between current service users and the existing employee numbers.

Childcare

The inability to access childcare and out-of-school care is currently seen by residents across the region as a significant deficiency in service delivery in the Pilbara (URS & ACIL Tasman 2008). The ratio of 0–4 year old children to childcare places across all towns is 7.4 children per registered childcare place. Based on Pilbara Development Commission (PDC) estimates, there are believed to be at least 2.2 children on the waiting list for every position in the Shire of Roebourne. Figures reflecting current childcare places in Wickham and Roebourne are provided in Table 10-3. The ratio of 2.63 0–4 year old children per childcare place is used as the target level of service provision.

Table 10-3 Predicted increases in required childcare places

Aspect Option A Option B (Existing Residential (Increased reliance on FIFO) Pattern) Wickham Roebourne Wickham Roebourne Current population of children 0–4 yrs 180 69 180 69 Number of licensed childcare places 24 20 24 20 Number of 0–4 yrs children per childcare places 7.5 3.5 7.5 3.5 Additional number of 0–4 yrs childcare places to 44 6 44 6 address known unmet demand Maximum increased number of children 0–4 yrs 153 Nil 79 12 Number of 0–4 yrs childcare places to address 58 Nil 30 5 Port B population increase Increased number of 0–4 yrs childcare places 102 6 73 11 required Source: URS & ACIL Tasman 2008

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 10-5

Education

Predicted increases in the number of primary school students living in the towns of Wickham and Roebourne as a result of increased employees under Options A and B are provided in Table 10-4. Estimated numbers of additional staff required to manage the increased student numbers are also provided.

Table 10-4 Primary school predicted increases in students

Aspect Option A Option B (Existing Residential Pattern) (Increased reliance on FIFO) Wickham Roebourne Wickham Roebourne Primary school enrolments (2007) 308 140 308 140 Predicted maximum enrolments as a result of 33 additional 678 (2013) Nil 528 expansion (year) students Requires school Will need Capacity for expansion with existing buildings Not known Not known expansion expansion 28 FTE (16 17 FTE 3 FTE Estimated increased staff needs Not known teachers) (9 teachers) (2 teachers) FTE= full time equivalent. Source: URS & ACIL Tasman 2008

High school students currently travel from Wickham and Roebourne to Karratha to attend one of two high schools. The Karratha high schools have sufficient capacity to manage the predicted increases in student numbers arising from the expansion program (URS & ACIL Tasman 2008), and increased enrolments will improve the viability of the existing schools. The preference of the Department of Education is that current commuting patterns continue, with the total number of students commuting each day predicted to increase to 170.

Face-to-face local tertiary education is provided only at the TAFE College in Karratha. There are opportunities for expansion in the number of enrolments and in the array of courses provided as a result of the predicted increase in student numbers. This would require students to commute from Wickham and Roebourne to attend the Karratha TAFE, which is not seen as a constraint.

Health

Table 10-5 provides predicted increases in general practitioners (GPs) resulting from the predicted population impacts of the Port B development.

As shown in Table 10-5, the proposed Port B development (Option A) will generate the need for almost two additional doctors to service the possible population increase at Wickham, whereas population changes resulting from Option B are predicted to require one additional doctor. In addition, the populations of Karratha and Wickham are currently underserviced by around 2.5 GPs compared to the Australian average (URS & ACIL Tasman 2008).

PAGE 10-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 10-5 Health service impacts

Aspect Option A Option B (Existing Residential Pattern) (Increased reliance on FIFO) Wickham Roebourne Wickham Roebourne Increased number of GPs to reach Australian standards for existing 0.5 Nil 0.5 Nil population Maximum increase in population numbers 1547 Nil 798 165 due to the Port B development Increased number of GPs due to the Port B development to achieve the Australian 1.3 Nil 0.7 0.2 average Total increase in FTE GPs 1.8 Nil 1.2 0.2 Source: URS & ACIL Tasman 2008

With the support of the major resource companies operating in the Shire of Roebourne (including the Proponent and Woodside Energy Limited), and the Pilbara Division of General Practice, the Shire has developed an Operating Manual titled Attracting and Retaining Private Practice Practitioners in the Shire of Roebourne (Shire of Roebourne 2006) addressing the difficulty with attracting and retaining GPs and medical staff in the Shire. The Proponent supports this through its Medical Services Incentives Package.

The Operating Manual sets out a GP attraction package that has the following key elements:

Managing the attraction phase–as part of the commitment the Proponent is providing five houses, Woodside is providing four, and the Shire of Roebourne is constructing two.

Adding value to GPs living experience in the Shire.

Retention incentives provided by the Commonwealth government and the Shire of Roebourne.

Police

Increases in township populations can result in the need to consider increasing police force numbers to maintain the existing standard of law and order, crime prevention and for community safety. Table 10-6 provides an indication of the likely need for increased police presence based on the current relationships between existing police numbers and township population.

In addition to policing requirements generated by increased numbers of residents, an increased number of FIFO employees has potential to also require an increased police presence to ensure community safety. The Proponent will maintain a code of practice for residents of its FIFO accommodation infrastructure to establish acceptable patterns of interaction between FIFO personnel and the community.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 10-7

Table 10-6 Police staffing requirements

Aspect Option A Option B (Existing Residential Pattern) (Increased reliance on FIFO) Wickham Roebourne Wickham Roebourne Current population 1823 920 1823 920 Current police staffing 3 15 3 15 Increased population due 1547 0 798 165 to expansion Suggested increased 2 0 1 2 police numbers Source: URS & ACIL Tasman 2008

Mitigation and Management

Management of social infrastructure for the Cape Lambert area is not the direct responsibility of the Proponent; however, the Proponent will continue to provide support to local service providers, in the way of community investment in the areas of environment, health, education and culture.

Childcare

The Pilbara Community Partnerships Program currently provides sponsorship and support for childcare services in the Pilbara. This program will continue.

Education

In 2007 the Proponent directly supported the following programs at Regional Education centres:

Karratha Pathways Partnership–secondary education and training at the Karratha Senior High School

Roebourne Pathways Partnership–employment for indigenous youth run from the Roebourne School

Training for community organisations at Pilbara TAFE.

Sponsorship of this nature will continue in the future across the Pilbara.

Health

The Proponent will continue to support the actions associated with the Medical Services Incentives Package which seeks to attract and retain GPs and medical staff in the Shire.

Outcome

Although the Proponent is not directly responsible for the provision of social services in the region, it continues to support local communities through local authorities and community groups and partnerships. Support of this nature will be continued into the future, specifically in the areas of environment, health, education and culture. The objective for social impacts on the local communities will continue to be met through these measures.

PAGE 10-8 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

10.4.5 Traffic and Infrastructure Overview

A transport assessment has been conducted, including road traffic modelling for both the construction and operational phases of the Port B development. The incremental traffic movements as a result of the development have been added to existing traffic levels outlined in Section 7.13. These existing levels have been factored by an assumed increase of 10% by 2010 and a further 5% by 2012. The assessment predicted the impact that traffic generated by the Port B development will have on key intersections and sections of roads within the Cape Lambert area.

There are two peak hours for traffic in Cape Lambert, from 7 am to 8 am (morning peak) and from 4 pm to 5 pm (afternoon peak). As new rosters are implemented, a large portion of the Cape Lambert workforce will commence work at 6 am.

The proposed access route is on the North West Coastal Highway and the Point Samson to Roebourne Road. These roads currently provide the only access route to the Port B development and are approved for road train use by MRWA.

Objective

The EPA objective is ‘to minimise disturbance to local traffic and ensure road safety is not compromised’ by the Port B development.

Potential Threats and Impacts

The proposal has the potential to increase traffic volumes and percentages of heavy truck traffic (during construction) and increased train movements (during operation) resulting in a decrease in the existing level of service for intersections and the road network in general.

During the construction of Port B the total traffic, other than road trains along the access route, is likely to be less than 2500 vehicles per day. Traffic will reduce once the development becomes operational, as the workforce will reduce from an additional 2500 personnel to an additional 600 personnel.

There is currently one railway level crossing on the proposed access route, located on the North West Coastal Highway to the west of Roebourne. There is not expected to be any significant increase in queues and delays at the rail level crossings with the increased Port B development traffic. The maximum stoppage time for trains on the North West Coastal Highway is generally 3 minutes per train. A small scale survey conducted in February 2008 recorded average total stoppage time due to trains was approximately 2.5 minutes. Based on the number of additional trains (14 per day), the frequency that stoppage will be required will increase proportionally; however, the duration of each stoppage will remain unchanged.

There will not be any impact on pedestrian, cycling or public transport, as there is currently little or no pedestrian, cycle or public transport activity.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 10-9

It is anticipated that there will be a temporary increase in traffic levels within local towns due to the construction workforce. Although traffic levels will increase, the Port B development is not expected to have a major impact on the operation of intersections along the access route during the morning peak hour, afternoon peak hour or during off peak times. Road sections are expected to adequately accommodate the estimated increases in traffic without adverse effects on capacity. Furthermore, siting the construction camp off the Roebourne-Point Samson Road precludes the need for early commuter traffic on that section of road, thereby reducing potential conflict with, or delays to, local and tourist traffic on the road leading to Point Samson.

The increased number of FIFO workers associated with construction and long-term operations of the Port B development will place additional demand on the Karratha airport which services the towns of Karratha, Dampier, Wickham, Roebourne, Cossack and Point Samson.

Potential impacts associated with marine traffic are discussed in Section 9.3.2.

Mitigation and Management

As the impacts on road networks are not expected to be significant, no additional management measures beyond the standard procedures contained in the CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) are required.

The existing Karratha Airport Upgrade program being undertaken by the Shire of Roebourne will enable the use of larger aircraft at that facility. This will result in improved air services with greater capacity to service the increasing needs of the region.

Outcome

With the construction and increased operations workforce, it is inevitable that local traffic will increase. A detailed assessment based on road traffic modelling for both the construction and operational phases of the proposal, predicted that traffic generated by the Port B development is not expected to generate unacceptable levels of congestion or delay to traffic within the Cape Lambert area.

10.4.6 Tourism and Recreation Overview

Given the attractions of the coast and the Dampier archipelago, and the rock art on the Burrup Peninsula, it is likely that a high percentage of tourists pass through, visit and/or stay in Dampier, Karratha, Wickham, Point Samson and/or Cossack for a part of their time in the Shire, assuming that accommodation is available in the locality. Within the immediate vicinity, the areas that receive high visitation rates would include Point Samson, Cossack, and possibly Wickham and Roebourne historical sites. Boat Beach receives high visitation by local residents, especially from Wickham and Roebourne, but may also receive some visitation by tourists.

As noted in Section 7.5.10, sport and recreation are important features of all Pilbara towns and provide many people with their main access to community and social life. There is a trend for people to rank sport

PAGE 10-10 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

as being more important for personal activity and town social life in smaller towns such as Wickham; however, in all towns it is very important (URS & ACIL Tasman 2008).

Sections of Boat Beach Road are currently within the development footprint. Boat Beach Road provides access to the beach and Port Walcott Yacht Club and the general vicinity of Bell’s Beach.

Objective

The EPA objective for Tourism and Recreation is ‘to minimise disturbance to recreational and tourist areas and ensure that existing and planned recreational uses are not compromised’ by the Port B proposal.

Guidance

The Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes: Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives (DoE 2006b).

Potential Threats and Impacts

An increase in the population of Wickham and Roebourne resulting from the Port B development will inevitably result in a small increase in day visitors to areas such as Cossack, Point Samson and more widely, the Dampier archipelago. Whilst there are not anticipated to be any direct adverse impacts on tourism visits to these areas as a result of the proposed Port B development, tourism generally in the local area is generally constrained in the current economic climate because of a scarcity of affordable and appropriate accommodation.

The increased populations predicted for Wickham, and to a lesser extent Roebourne, have potential to increase the demand for recreational services such as boat ramps, sports grounds and public facilities such as halls. The construction camps will provide high quality and diverse range of activities for retaining the workforce within the camp, reducing the need for them to go out. Inductions will cover social responsibilities. However, the increased populations predicted for these small towns may also provide a stimulus to local sporting clubs through supplying more players, volunteers, officials and trainers, potentially improving the viability and diversity of recreational activities currently available to the existing population.

The Proponent recognises that the Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes – Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives (DoE 2006a) requires that social values need to be protected. It must be emphasised that while there may be aesthetic issues related to increased turbidity during dredging activities, there will be no long term impacts on marine-based recreational activities, such as swimming. Potential impacts on boating (for example limited access) will be very low and of short duration. Dredge movement is unlikely to be a significant increase above current commercial traffic in the area.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 10-11

Mitigation and Management

The Proponent intends to address the potential impacts of further demand on accommodation during construction of the Port B development by housing the construction personnel in on-site accommodation camps at Cape Lambert.

Options regarding public access to Boat Beach remain under review. Dredging and support vessels (except those of local subcontractors that already use John’s Creek as a base) will not utilise John’s Creek harbour.

The dredging works will be undertaken in a manner that minimises turbidity and turbid plumes (refer Section 9.2.2), so that visual impacts during and following dredging, observable from the coast or recreational boats will be very low. The visual presence of a dredge plume from vantage points at Point Samson from time to time is likely. The management of dredging and monitoring to be undertaken is outlined in the DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1).

Workforce inductions will include social responsibilities with respect to the local community. In addition, consultation with the local community will continue through existing forums to gauge community feedback during construction to allow for timely intervention if issues arise.

Outcome

By implementing the management measures described above, it is considered that the Port B proposal would not result in a significant long term detrimental effect on tourism or recreational activities. There will be some increased demand on existing infrastructure and attractions as a consequence of the construction workforce and increased operations workforces.

10.4.7 Fisheries Overview

Section 7.9 provides a brief overview of the fisheries in the Cape Lambert region. No commercial fishery areas are located within the footprint of Port B infrastructure, dredging or spoil disposal areas.

Objective

The objective relating to fisheries is ‘to ensure that existing and planned fisheries are not compromised’.

Guidelines

The Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes: Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives (DoE 2006b).

Potential Threats and Impacts

The Port B development will not directly impact any existing or proposed fisheries in the vicinity of Cape Lambert. Short-term indirect impacts associated with dredging may occur to the aquaculture lease located

PAGE 10-12 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

1 km to the south-east of the proposed wharf and dredge area; however, there are no aquaculture activities occurring within the lease area.

Potential impacts of dredging programs on oyster/pearl farms relate to: impacts to infrastructure and to the animals being farmed.

Impact to infrastructure The main threat to pearl farm infrastructure is collisions from vessels. During the construction and operational phases of Port B, vessels will not be operating near the Fantome Pearl Farm lease or the Dixon Island lease area.

Impact to the oyster stock Pearl oysters (Pinctada) are filter feeders so could potentially be affected by anomalous levels of TSS associated with dredging programs. However, impacts to Pinctada associated with the Port B dredging program are unlikely because local Pinctada are naturally adapted to turbid environments and rapid deterioration of water quality due to cyclonic events. Aquaculture in the north coast bioregion is dominated by the production of pearls from the species Pinctada maxima (DoF 2005). However, some operators in the Cape Lambert area are trialling other species of Pinctada such as P. fucata and P. margaritifera (Terry Molloy, WA Fisheries, pers. comm. Nov. 2008).

According to Kailola et al. (1993), P. maxima are particularly abundant in habitats characterised by substantial amounts of terrigenous sediments combined with high nutrient inputs and productivity levels. In contrast, P. margaritifera is more abundant in nutrient poor and low turbidity environments. Feeding studies by Yukihira et al. (1999) suggest that P. maxima is well adapted to turbid conditions. They found that this species feeds efficiently and thus gains the greatest energy from natural suspended particulate matter under relatively turbid conditions (3 to 15 mg l-1). Yukihara et al. (1999) also reported that the habitat and feeding response of P. maxima under turbid conditions suggest that it uses resuspended sediments as valuable additional food source, and “potentially grows and reproduces even under relative high turbidity conditions (up to SPM concentration of ca 30 to 40 mg l-1)”. According to Yukihira et al. (1999) both P. maxima and P. margaritifera maintain high feeding rates over a wide range of environmental conditions.

No published studies were found that demonstrated that anomalous turbidity or TSS levels have directly or indirectly contributed to mass mortality of these species. Indirect impacts of turbidity plumes could include depletion of some food sources. It is highly unlikely that Pinctada in the lease will be impacted by the dredging program for two main reasons: a) dredge plume excursions into the lease area are predicted to be infrequent and short-lived, and b) Pinctada has some capacity to tolerate elevated TSS levels in the water column. According to the turbidity plume modelling results (Section 9), there is potential for zone of turbidity ‘influence’ to reach the northern side of Dixon Island, at least once during the program. However, as described in Section 9, the zone of influence is characterised by low TSS levels (approximately 3–4 mg l-1 based on a locally derived TSS/NTU relationship), which is not high relative to natural levels experienced in this area and should not impact pearl oysters.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 10-13

Mitigation and Management

The dredging works will be undertaken in a manner that minimises turbidity and turbid plumes, so that impacts during and following dredging will be very low. Additional detail regarding management measures is provided in Section 9.2.2 and the DSDMP (Appendix B1).

Outcome

Potential impacts associated with dredging will be managed as per the DSDMP. The short-term residual impacts concerning fisheries are not expected to be significant.

10.4.8 Visual Amenity Overview

Visual impacts of Port A at the sensitive receptors of Point Samson, Wickham and Cossack are summarised below:

views of the site from Point Samson are significantly curtailed by existing sand dunes and Rocky Ridge

views of the site from Wickham are obstructed by topography in the vicinity of Walcott Road and Rocky Ridge

the site is not visible from Cossack due to topography and distance separation

other than Port A, there are no industrial/commercial premises within the visual zone of influence at Cape Lambert.

Objective

The EPA objective for visual amenity is ‘to ensure that aesthetic values are considered and measures are adopted to reduce visual impacts on the landscape as low as reasonably practicable’ (EPA 2004a).

Guidelines

Impacts were assessed in accordance with the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LI & IEMA 2002) and with regard to the Western Australian Visual Landscape Planning Guidelines (WAPC 2007).

Potential Threats and Impacts

The visual impacts of the Port B development have been based on the layouts provided in Figure 4-1 to Figure 4-3.

The assessment of potential impacts on visual amenity due to the port has in part, been evaluated using photomontages developed by SKM from digital terrain elevation modelling and a 3D model of the port generated from using preliminary design data. Simplistic overlays of the 3D model within the digital terrain elevation model were also produced from other sensitive viewpoints to assist with the assessment.

PAGE 10-14 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

The modelling has been applied to all elements of Port B development to provide a preliminary indication of the eventual ‘as built’ appearance from various receptors in the vicinity of Cape Lambert.

Visual impacts on Residential Properties (High Sensitivity – National/State Significance)

The majority of the Port B development will be screened from residential receptors by Rocky Ridge and other prominent topography.

Rocky Ridge is likely to screen the majority of the Port B development from Point Samson. In addition, immediate screening is provided by dune formations to the north-west of the town. However, taller sections of infrastructure such as the screen houses and conveyors may be partially visible in the context of infrastructure associated with the existing operations. In addition, properties on the north-western and north-eastern extent of the town would have views of the proposed access jetty and wharf; however, the proposed infrastructure will be partially screened by the existing jetty and wharf and the Cape Lambert headland. Figure 10-1 and Figure 10-2 provide the original image and photomontage outlining views from Solveg Wreck Lookout1 in Point Samson.

Views from Wickham will be unlikely given the presence of significant topography to the south of the Port B development.

Recreational Facilities, Rights of Way and Beaches (medium-high sensitivity or regional significance)

From both Settlers Beach and Reader Head Lookout (north-east of Cossack), the visual prominence of the Port B development will be reduced or visual impacts eliminated altogether by a combination of the significant distance between the receptor and the proposed development and the screening effect of Rocky Ridge. Partial views of both higher infrastructure such as the screen houses/conveyors and the marine components, for example, the access jetty/wharf may possibly be seen against the backdrop of existing infrastructure.

Views from Solveg Wreck Lookout (Point Samson) will be restricted to partial views of the proposed access jetty/wharf (Figure 10-1 and Figure 10-2). These views will be further obscured by the presence of the Port A wharf.

From Port Walcott Yacht Club, views of the upper sections of the stockpiles within the new stockyard are likely, as will be partial views of the stackers, reclaimers and, to a lesser extent, conveyors at the north- eastern extent of the stockyard. Figure 10-3 and Figure 10-4 provide the original image and photomontage outlining views from Port Walcott Yacht Club. The dune formations to the south-east of Bell’s Beach will provide screening to the Port Walcott Yacht Club given that the beach is sited at a lower height than the yacht club house and car park. From Bell’s Beach, it is likely that only the screenhouses will be visible above the dunes.

1 Views from houses in Point Samson were unavailable due to access restrictions. However, the view from Solveg Wreck Lookout is adjacent to residential properties in Point Samson and as such, it is considered to be an appropriate comparative view to depict the impacts of the Port B development.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 10-15

Visual Impacts on Road Network (low sensitivity or regional/local significance)

For the majority of the southern and south-eastern extent of the Point Samson–Roebourne Road, the Port B development will be obscured due to significant topography. However, at the section of road in the vicinity of Pope’s Nose Creek between Point Samson and Wickham, the flat estuarine conditions facilitate clear north-westerly views in the direction of the Port B development. At this location and near the junction of Sam’s Creek Road, partial views of taller infrastructure such as conveyors and screenhouses may be possible above Rocky Ridge.

The Port B development will be largely screened for the majority of the length of the road with the exception of the most northerly extent near the junction of Beach Road. From this location, the rail/road corridors and the stockpiles in the stockyard will be evident. This infrastructure would, however, be visible in the context of a significant amount of infrastructure associated with Port A.

Visual Impacts on Rights of Way, Footpaths, Four Wheel Drive Tracks, Recreational Facilities, Beaches and Reserves (medium-high sensitivity)

Recreational boat users and tourist vessels in the local area when on water, would have views of the most north-easterly extent of the Port B development. However, this infrastructure including the wharf and access jetty will be seen in the context of the existing Port A operations. Boat access would also be restricted in the vicinity of the jetty and the existing wharf further minimising visibility.

The degree of visibility of the Port B infrastructure will be significantly reduced for all recreational features (with the exception of Bell’s Beach and Port Walcott Yacht Club) by the distance between the receptor and the Port B development. Views from the south-east are further diminished by the presence of Rocky Ridge which dominates the horizon. Partial views of the proposed access jetty, wharf and higher infrastructure such as the screen houses/conveyors may be possible from Reader Head Lookout and Settlers Beach but the majority of these views will be curtailed by prominent topography (in the case of the terrestrial infrastructure) or existing infrastructure (particularly for the offshore components).

Views from Solveg Wreck Lookout are reduced by the presence of dune formations to the north-west of Point Samson. The access jetty and wharf may be visible to a limited extent behind the existing Port A wharf.

From Bell’s Beach, views of the shiploaders, the access jetty and wharf at the northern end of the Port B development are likely for observers looking in a northerly or north-easterly direction. Figure 10-5 and Figure 10-6 provide the original image and photomontage from Bell’s Beach. Observers looking in a south-easterly direction from the Port Walcott Yacht Club are likely to view the top of some stockpiles in the stockyard above and between the dune formations. These stockpiles will be considerably better screened from Bell’s Beach due to the height of the dunes from this lower vantage point. From parts of the Port Walcott Yacht Club, the sample stations are likely to be clearly visible. From Bell’s Beach, only the upper parts of the sample stations are likely to be visible.

The overall impact significance from each of the receptors is summarised in Table 10-7.

PAGE 10-16 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table 10-7 Summary visual impact significance table Receptor location Overall significance

Wickham Neutral Point Samson Neutral – Slight Adverse Reader Head Lookout Neutral – Slight Adverse Settlers Beach Neutral – Slight Adverse Solveg Wreck Lookout Neutral – Slight Adverse Port Walcott Yacht Club Moderate – Substantial Adverse Bell’s Beach Slight – Moderate Adverse Point Samson – Roebourne Road/Sam’s Creek Road Neutral – Slight Adverse Walcott Drive Neutral – Slight Adverse

Management

The design of the Port B development utilises the natural screening effects of surrounding topography. Where possible, buildings and infrastructure will be coloured to blend in with the surrounding terrain.

Outcome

The Port B development benefits from the presence of natural screening through existing topography, most notably from residential receptors at Point Samson, Cossack and Wickham. During formulation of the design, measures have been adopted to minimise the visual impacts of the proposed development. The siting of the Port B development compared to possible alternative locations around Cape Lambert has provided the greatest benefit to screening from local towns. This has resulted in a proposed development that from the majority of receptors, will not generate notably significant visual impacts; however, there will be a moderate to substantial visual impact of Port B from the Port Walcott Yacht Club when viewing inland.

The EPA objective for visual amenity has been met through the siting of Port B and management measures proposed to minimise visual impacts.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 10-17

Figure 10-1 Original view from Solveg Wreck Lookout (north-west of Point Samson) looking north-west towards Cape Lambert

Figure 10-2 Photomontage from Solveg Wreck Lookout (north-west of Point Samson) looking north-west towards the Port B development

PAGE 10-18 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Figure 10-3 Original image of the view from Port Walcott Yacht Club looking south-east

Figure 10-4 Photomontage showing the view from Port Walcott Yacht Club looking south-east following completion of Port B (assuming maximum stockpiles)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 10-19

Figure 10-5 Original image of the view from Bell’s Beach looking north-east

Figure 10-6 Photomontage showing the view from Bell’s Beach looking north-east following completion of Port B (power station assumed to be present, but will be decommissioned)

PAGE 10-20 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

10.4.9 Land Use and Land Tenure As the Port B development is situated on land currently held by the Proponent (Section 7.6), no social impacts associated with land use or land tenure have been identified and this factor is not discussed further within the PER. Areas of the Port B development that currently do not have tenure have been identified and there are processes in place for the appropriate tenure to be secured.

10.4.10 Protected Areas Overview

The Port B development footprint does not intersect any state or Commonwealth marine or terrestrial conservation areas (Section 7.8). The proposed DAMP is within 10 km of the proposed Port B marine works. A study area under consideration for possible future marine conservation exists directly east of Cape Lambert and at Bell’s Beach (DEC 2008).

Objective

The EPA’s objective relating to conservation areas is ‘to protect the environmental values of areas identified as having significant environmental attributes’.

Guidelines

The Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes: Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives (DoE 2006a).

Potential Threats and Impacts

The Port B development will not directly impact any known or proposed conservation areas. However, the Port B development will be immediately adjacent to the Bell’s Beach study area being considered for possible future marine conservation areas. The Proponent will continue to be involved in this study process as a key stakeholder and will continue to liaise with the study team involved in the study process. The Port B development marine infrastructure, dredging areas and spoil grounds are within areas assigned moderate or high LEP (DoE 2006a). Short term impacts to water quality may occur in the localised area as a result of dredging and spoil disposal activities.

Management

The Proponent has been involved in the initial consultation with the DEC regarding the study areas at Bell’s Beach and east of Cape Lambert, and will continue to be involved as the study progresses. The dredging works will be undertaken in a manner that minimises turbidity and turbid plumes, so that water quality impacts during and following dredging will be very low. Additional detail regarding management measures is provided within Section 9.2.2 and the DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1).

Outcome

Potential impacts associated with dredging will be managed as per the DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1). The short-term residual impacts concerning conservation areas are not expected to be significant.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 10-21

Cape Lambert Port B Development

11. Environmental Management

11.1 Overview Mitigation and management measures will be applied throughout the life of the Port B development to ensure that significant environmental effects associated with the proposed development are avoided or minimised.

The ‘Pilbara Iron & Robe River Joint Venture and Expansion Projects Environmental Policy’ shown in Figure 11-1 provides the framework for Proponent’s approach to environmental management, to ‘Protect, Restore and Do It Better’.

Figure 11-1 Proponent’s environmental policy

In the scoping phase of the environmental impacts assessment consideration was given to the principles contained in the EPA Position Statement No. 7 (Principles of Environmental Protection (EPA 2004a)). The application of these principles to the Port B development is summarised in Table 11-1.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 11-1

Table 11-1 Principles of environmental protection

Principle Consideration 1. The precautionary principle Investigations and specialist studies have Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack been carried out to provide sufficient of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for information to address potential environmental postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In impacts. application of this precautionary principle, decisions should be The environmental risks associated with the guided by: selected project option have been assessed. (a) careful evaluation to avoid, where practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment (b) an assessment of the risk – weighted consequences of various options. 2. The principle of intergenerational equity It is considered that this proposal can be The present generation should ensure that the health, diversity implemented without adversely impacting the and productivity of the environment is maintained and enhanced environment for future generations. for the benefit of future generations. Where practicable, indigenous heritage sites have been avoided and if any sites or objects are to be disturbed by the proposed works, the Proponent will seek to obtain relevant clearances. 3. The principle of the conservation of biological diversity and Baseline studies have been undertaken at the ecological integrity site to assess the environmental value of Conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity areas which could be impacted by construction should be a fundamental consideration. and operations and management plans will be developed and implemented as required. Although the marine and terrestrial environments will be disturbed, the biodiversity and ecological integrity of the region will be maintained. 4. Principles relating to improved valuation, pricing and incentive The full life cycle costs of the port operation, mechanisms including the decommissioning and closure will (a) Environmental factors should be included in the valuation of be costed for internal purposes at various assets and services. stages of the project life. (b) The polluter pays principles – those who generate pollution The Proponent recognises the polluter pays and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance and principle, and will design the development to abatement. minimise emissions. (c) The users of goods and services should pay prices based on the full life cycle costs of providing goods and services, including the use of natural resources and assets and the ultimate disposal of any waste. (d) Environmental goals, having been established, should be pursued in the most cost effective way, by establishing incentive structure, including market mechanisms, which enable those best placed to maximise benefits and/or minimise costs to develop their own solution and responses to environmental problems. 5. The principle of waste minimisation The Proponent has adopted the following All reasonable and practicable measures should be taken to approach to waste management for the minimise the generation of waste and its discharge into the proposal: environment. avoid and reduce at source

reuse and recycle

treat and/or dispose.

PAGE 11-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

11.2 Environmental Management Plans The potential impacts, management and predicted outcomes associated with the relevant environmental factors are discussed in detail in Sections 8, 9 and 10. Potential impacts related to the key environmental factors will be managed through the implementation of the following detailed management plans:

Dredging and Spoil Disposal Management Plan (DSDMP) (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1)

Marine Turtle Management Plan (MTMP) (Biota 2008e; Appendix B2)

Dust Management Plan (DMP) (RTIO 2008c; Appendix B5)

Water Management Plan (WMP) (RTIO 2008b; Appendix B7)

Cultural Heritage Management Plan (CHMP) (RTIO 2008d; Appendix B6).

The DSDMP has been developed for the management of potential impacts on the marine biodiversity of the area due to the proposed dredging and offshore spoil disposal activities. The DSDMP provides details of the environmental management of the dredging and spoil disposal activities to be undertaken as part of the Port B development. It details the environmental management and monitoring strategies that will be implemented throughout the dredging and spoil disposal activities to ensure that the risk of potential environmental impacts associated with the works are reduced to as low as reasonably practical and are within the approved limits. It is anticipated that if Part IV approval is granted for the Port B development, the DSDMP will be similarly approved.

The MTMP has been prepared to manage impacts associated with marine turtles not associated with dredging or spoil disposal activities (these impacts are managed under the DSDMP). The MTMP covers actions pertinent to the design phase, the construction phase and the operations phase and outlines specific actions relating to management, monitoring and reporting. The MTMP builds on an earlier MTMP (Guinea 2008) that applies to Port A (Biota 2008e Appendix B2).

Both the DMP and WMP are existing operational environmental management plans for Port A. These will be updated where appropriate to incorporate management measures for the Port B development. It is intended that single management plans cover both Port A and Port B as they will be operated as one single facility. This approach is logical as both Port A and Port B have similar environmental issues and they are best managed consistently.

A draft CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) has been prepared to outline management measures to be employed during construction of the Port B development. The CEMP includes specific management procedures for the following environmental factors relevant to construction activities:

Hazardous Materials Environmental Work Procedure

Ground Disturbance Management Procedure

Borrow Pit Management Procedure

Topsoil Management Procedure

Vegetation and Flora Management Procedure

Weed Management Procedure

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 11-3

Fauna Management Procedure

Cultural Heritage Management Procedure

Dust Management Procedure

Waste Management Procedure

Noise Management Procedure

Waste Water Management Procedure

Water Management Procedure

Groundwater and Surface Water Management Procedure

Erosion and Sediment Control Procedure

Blasting Environmental Management Procedure

Wharf Abutment/Breakwater Environmental Management Procedure

Turtle Management Procedure.

These plans are included as appendices to the PER to provide decision-making authorities, advisory agencies and key stakeholders with the opportunity to review and make comments. In the event that the Minister for the Environment considers the project to be environmentally acceptable, then the plans will be amended to incorporate any conditions of approval or additional commitments.

For all factors assessed, it is considered that with the implementation of the proposed mitigation and management, the EPA and project environmental objectives can be met. The Proponent’s proposed Environmental Conditions for the project which, if accepted, will become legally binding as Ministerial Conditions under the EP Act, are contained in Section 11.5.

11.3 Environmental Monitoring Specific environmental monitoring programs will be undertaken for the Port B development where required. The monitoring programmes are outlined in detail within the environmental management plans (EMPs) and include:

information needed to provide a suitable baseline for subsequent monitoring

the types of project effects that are likely to require monitoring

the ecosystems parameters to be monitored

the timing and frequency of monitoring

policies for evaluating and amending the monitoring programme.

11.4 Environmental Management Summary The Proponent is committed to a level of environmental management and performance consistent with or exceeding national and international standards and statutory obligations. The most economically effective, environmentally sound technology and procedures have been incorporated into the design of the Port B development.

PAGE 11-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Table ES-1-3 (within the Executive Summary section of the PER) presents the environmental factors, the EPA’s objectives, the potential impacts, and applicable standards and guidelines. The Port B development will be undertaken in a manner that will minimise impacts on the surrounding biophysical and social environments. Accordingly, management actions have been nominated throughout the PER and are summarised in Table ES-1-3.

11.5 Environmental Management Commitments/Proposed Conditions In addition to conditions set under Part IV of the EP Act, the Port B development will also be subject to numerous regulatory controls. Conditions will also be set under the EPBC Act (Cwth) and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981(Cwth). These regulatory instruments are tabulated in Table 1-2 of the PER. Conditions to be set under Part IV of the EP Act are likely to be in respect of management of key environmental factors applicable to the Port B development. A summary of environmental factors and regulatory control instruments, including environmental conditions is provided in Table 11-2.

It is considered that the mitigation and management measures proposed within the PER, or other applicable regulatory instruments, will ensure that relevant environmental factors are managed at an acceptable level of risk. Aspects that are considered to warrant ministerial conditions are in relation to:

dust emissions

disturbance of benthic primary producer habitat

coral spawning

nesting by marine turtles.

Proposed draft environmental conditions for incorporation into the Ministerial Statement issued to allow the proposal to be implemented are included in Table 11-3. The proposed conditions have been drafted as outcome based conditions to provide specific mitigation or management to achieve an acceptable environmental outcome.

Table 11-2 Summary of management and controls for environmental factors

Environmental Aspect Environmental Other applicable Applicable Factor Conditions Regulatory Environmental instruments Management Measures/Plan Terrestrial Environmental Impacts and Management Terrestrial Fauna Disturbance or stress to No Wildlife Conservation Wildlife Interaction fauna due to habitat loss Act 1950 Guidelines (RTIO 2007b; and fragmentation from Appendix B4) clearing CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) Loss, disturbance or No Wildlife Conservation Wildlife Interaction stress to Lerista nevinae Act 1950 Guidelines (RTIO 2007b; through loss of habitat Appendix B4) CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3)

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 11-5

Environmental Aspect Environmental Other applicable Applicable Factor Conditions Regulatory Environmental instruments Management Measures/Plan Direct loss of individual No Wildlife Conservation Wildlife Interaction fauna Act 1950 Guidelines (RTIO 2007b; Appendix B4) CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) Disturbance or stress due No Wildlife Conservation Wildlife Interaction to noise levels Act 1950 Guidelines (RTIO 2007b; Appendix B4) CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) Disturbance or stress due No Wildlife Conservation Wildlife Interaction to introduced species Act 1950 Guidelines (RTIO 2007b; Appendix B4) CEMP (SKM 2008o; Appendix B3) Water Resources Water resource No Rights in Water and WMP (RTIO 2008b; management Irrigation Act 1914 Appendix B7) Air Quality Dust management Yes Environmental DMP (RTIO 2008c; Licence under Part V Appendix B5) of EP Act Ambient Noise Noise management - No Environmental CEMP (SKM 2008o; construction Protection (Noise) Appendix B3) Regulations 1997 Noise management – No Environmental operations Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 Landform and Disturbance of acid No Soil and Land CEMP (SKM 2008o; soils sulphate soils Conservation Act Appendix B3) 1945 and ASS management plan if Regulations (1992) required and Contaminated Sites Act 2003 and Regulations (2003) Erosion and No Soil and Land CEMP (SKM 2008o; sedimentation due to Conservation Act Appendix B3) construction activities 1945 and ASS management plan if Regulations (1992) required Vegetation and Direct loss Yes CEMP (SKM 2008o; flora Appendix B3) Loss of regionally No Wildlife Conservation CEMP (SKM 2008o; significant vegetation Act 1950 Appendix B3) Spread of weeds/weed No Wildlife Conservation CEMP (SKM 2008o; management Act 1950 Appendix B3) Surface and Drainage management No CEMP (SKM 2008o; groundwater Appendix B3) Greenhouses Greenhouse gas No National Greenhouse Climate Change Action gases emissions and Energy Plan Reporting Act 2007 (Cwth) Solid and liquid Air, land and water No Environmental CEMP (SKM 2008o; waste contamination Licence under Part V Appendix B3) management of EP Act and

PAGE 11-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Environmental Aspect Environmental Other applicable Applicable Factor Conditions Regulatory Environmental instruments Management Measures/Plan Health Act 1911 Hydrocarbons Air, land and water No Environmental CEMP (SKM 2008o; and hazardous contamination Licence under Part V Appendix B3) materials of EP Act and Health Act 1911 Rehabilitation, Decommissioning and No RTIO Closure Standard decommissioning closure and closure Marine Environmental Impacts and Management Dredging and Impacts to BPPH – direct Yes Environment DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Spoil Disposal and indirect disturbance Protection (Sea Appendix B1) Dumping) Act 1981 (Cwth) Coral spawning Yes DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1) Marine fauna Yes Wildlife Conservation DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Act 1950 Appendix B1) TBT No Environment DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Protection (Sea Appendix B1) Dumping) Act 1981 (Cwth) Light spill Marine turtles – nesting Yes Wildlife Conservation MTMP (Biota 2008e; and response of Act 1950 Appendix B2) hatchlings Underwater Pile driving Yes Wildlife Conservation MTMP (Biota 2008e; noise Act 1950 Appendix B2) Invasive marine Introduction of invasive No DSDMP (SKM 2008b; species species Appendix B1) Cape Lambert Operations Marine Environmental Quality Management Plan Vessel Vessel strike No Wildlife Conservation DSDMP (SKM 2008b; movement Act 1950 Appendix B1) Hydrocarbon Spill management and No Marine and Harbours Port Walcott Oil Spill spills response Act 1981 Contingency Plan DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Appendix B1) Waste and Waste management No Environmental Port Walcott Oil Spill stormwater Licence under Part V Contingency Plan drainage of EP Act and DSDMP (SKM 2008b; Health Act 1911 Appendix B1) Stormwater management No Environmental Licence under Part V of EP Act Socio-Economic Impacts and Management Aboriginal Site disturbance No Aboriginal Heritage CEMP (SKM 2008o; heritage Act 1972 Appendix B3) European Site disturbance No Heritage of Western heritage Australia Act 1990

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 11-7

Environmental Aspect Environmental Other applicable Applicable Factor Conditions Regulatory Environmental instruments Management Measures/Plan and Australian Heritage Council Act 2003 (Cwth) Population Local community support No change and service provision Transport Increase in rail and road No Rail Safety Act 1998 infrastructure transport and Main Roads Act 1930 Tourism and Access to recreation No recreation areas Fisheries Commercial fishing No Fish Resources activities Management Act 1994 Visual Amenity Visual impact from No residential and recreation areas Land use and Social impact No land tenure Protected areas Impact on conservation No areas

Table 11-3 Proposed environmental conditions for the Port B development

Number Condition 1 Proposal Implementation 1-1 The Proponent shall implement the proposal as described in Schedule 1 to this statement [HOLD, to be supplied during condition setting], the management plans and measures described in the PER (as updated) and subject to the conditions in this statement. 2 Proponent Nomination and Contact Details 2-1 The Proponent nominated by the Minister for the Environment under section 38(6) or 38(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) is responsible for the implementation of the proposal. 2-2 The Proponent shall notify the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Department of Environment and Conservation of any change of the name and address of the Proponent for the serving of notices or other correspondence within 30 days of such change. 3 Time Limit of Authorisation 3-1 The authorisation to implement the proposal provided for in this statement shall lapse and be void within five years after the date of this statement if the proposal to which this statement relates is not substantially commenced. 3-2 The Proponent shall provide the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation with written evidence that demonstrates the proposal has substantially commenced, on or before the expiration of five years from the date of this statement. 4 Compliance Reporting 4-1 The Proponent shall prepare and maintain a compliance assessment plan and shall submit it to the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation. 4-2 The Proponent shall submit to the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation the compliance assessment plan required by condition 4-1 at least six months prior to the first compliance report required by condition 4-6. The compliance assessment plan shall indicate:

frequency of compliance reporting

PAGE 11-8 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Number Condition

approach and timing of compliance assessments

retention of compliance assessments

reporting of potential non-compliances and corrective actions taken

table of contents of compliance reports

public availability of compliance reports.

4-3 The Proponent shall assess compliance with conditions in accordance with the compliance assessment plan required by condition 4-1. 4-4 The Proponent shall retain reports of all compliance assessments described in the compliance assessment plan required by condition 4-1 and shall make those reports available when requested by the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation. 4-5 The Proponent shall advise the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation of any potential non-compliance as soon as practicable. 4-6 The Proponent shall submit a compliance assessment report annually (by 31 March each year covering the preceding calendar year) commencing from the date of issue of this statement or as agreed by the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation. The compliance assessment report shall:

be endorsed by the Proponent’s Managing Director or a person, approved in writing by the Department of Environment and Conservation, delegated to sign on the Managing Director’s behalf

include a statement as to whether the Proponent has complied with the conditions

identify all potential non-compliances and describe corrective and preventative actions taken

be made publicly available in accordance with the approved compliance assessment plan

indicate any proposed changes to the compliance assessment plan required by condition 4-1.

5 Performance Review and Reporting 5-1 The Proponent shall submit to the Environmental Protection Authority a Performance Review report every five years commencing upon the issuing of a formal notice by the Minister for the Environment under section 45(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 which addresses: 1. the major environmental issues associated with implementing the project; the environmental objectives for those issues; the methodologies used to achieve these and the key indicators of environmental performance measured against those objectives 2. the level of progress in the achievement of sound environmental performance including industry benchmarking 3. significant improvements gained in environmental management, including the use of external peer review 4. stakeholder and community consultation about environmental performance and the outcomes of that consultation 5. the proposed environmental objectives over the next five years, including improvements in technology and management processes.

5-2 The Proponent shall make the Performance Review reports required by condition 5-1 publicly available. 6 Dust Management 6-1 Update the Cape Lambert Dust Management Plan to include Port B development. The updated Management Plan is to include a defined arc of influence and additional monitoring stations necessary to assess impact on nearby communities in agreement with the Department of Environment and Conservation. 6-2 Report on the implementation of the Dust Management Plan referred to in condition 6-1 together with details of results from the regional dust monitoring network to the Department of Environment and Conservation in the Annual Environment Report, by 31 March each year covering the preceding calendar year, or in a manner agreed by the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation. 6-3 Make results of the regional dust monitoring programme available to interested stakeholders in real time via the internet or similar.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 11-9

Number Condition 7 Dredging and Spoil Disposal 7-1 Confine direct removal of seabed by dredging to shipping departure channel, berthing pockets, turning basins, Service Wharf B and tug harbour to 355 ha as shown Figure [HOLD, to be supplied during condition setting] and as delineated by coordinates listed in schedule 2 [HOLD, to be supplied during condition setting]. 7-2 Confine disposal of dredge spoil in state waters to spoil ground 1 as shown in Figure [HOLD, to be supplied during condition setting] and delineated by coordinates listed in schedule 2 [HOLD, to be supplied during condition setting], or to other spoil disposal grounds 2 and 3 located in Commonwealth waters and approved under the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act as shown in Figure [HOLD, to be supplied during condition setting] and delineated by coordinates listed in schedule 2 [HOLD, to be supplied during condition setting]. 7-3 The proponent shall verify that dredging and spoil disposal activities are confined to areas referred to in conditions 7-1 and 7-2 and demonstrate this through operational dredge logs every three months, and pre and post bathymetry. 7-4 Submit the final results of the verification exercise referred to in condition 7-3 to the Department of Environment and Conservation in the Annual Environment Report, by 31 March covering the preceding calendar year, or in a manner agreed by the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation. Three monthly dredge log data will be included in the reports specified in condition 7-8. 7-5 Confine indirect impacts to BPPH areas as predicted by the GEMS modelling as shown in Figure [HOLD, to be supplied during condition setting] 7-6 Establish a monitoring programme to demonstrate that the coral trigger values established to manage indirect impacts as defined in condition 7-5 from dredging and spoil disposal activities are not exceeded. 7-7 Submit the results of the monitoring programme referred to in condition 7-6 to the Department of Environment and Conservation at four weekly intervals or earlier if there is an exceedance event. 8 Coral Spawning 8-1 During the period from the commencement of dredging and spoil disposal operations until the completion of those operations, the Proponent shall conduct coral spawning assessment surveys in the area of those operations 21 days prior to predicted coral spawning events. 8-2 The Proponent shall cease any dredging and spoil disposal activities that may impact on coral larvae [at least two days] prior to each predicted coral spawning event. 8-3 The Proponent shall not recommence dredging and spoil disposal activities until monitoring confirms that the significant coral spawning event did not take place or is completed. 8-4 The Proponent shall submit the results of the coral spawning event surveys referred to in condition 8-1 together with details of any cessation and recommencement of dredging and spoil disposal activities to the Department of Environment and Conservation in the Annual Environment Report, by 31 March each year covering the preceding calendar year, or in a manner agreed by the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation. 9 Marine Turtles 9-1 The Proponent will limit pile driving associated with this proposal to daylight hours during the turtle nesting season (November to March). 9-2 The Proponent will install appropriate project lighting and establish light screening where necessary to ensure that less than 5% of Bell’s Beach is affected by direct light spill as a result of the Proponent’s operations associated with this proposal. 9-3 The Proponent shall, during the term of the proposal, monitor marine turtle nesting activity [in the area indicated in Figure [HOLD, to be supplied during condition setting] on the: 1. number of successful nestings 2. location of nest sites 3. number of emergences.

9-4 Submit the results of the marine turtle nesting monitoring programme referred to in condition 9-3 to the Department of Environment and Conservation in the Annual Environment Report, by 31 March each year covering the preceding calendar year, or in a manner agreed by the CEO of the Department of Environment and Conservation.

PAGE 11-10 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 11-11

Cape Lambert Port B Development

12. Glossary

95% UCL The upper 95% confidence limit of the mean used to determine compliance with sediment contaminant guideline values in the NODGDM. Anthropogenic Created by humans. Australian height datum In 1971 the mean sea level for 1966–1968 was assigned the value of (AHD) zero on the Australian Height Datum at thirty tide gauges around the coast of the Australian continent. The resulting datum surface, with minor modifications in two metropolitan areas, has been termed the Australian Height Datum (AHD) and was adopted by the National Mapping Council as the datum to which all vertical control for mapping is to be referred. Elevations quoted using this datum are normally followed with the acronym (AHD). Bathymetry Measurement of the changing ocean depth to determine the sea floor topography. Beaufort scale A scale that uses observations of the effects of wind to estimate its speed. Benthic Bottom dwelling. Benthic Primary Producers Predominantly marine plants (e.g. seagrasses, mangroves, seaweeds and turf algae) but include invertebrates such as scleractinian corals which acquire a significant proportion of their energy from symbiotic microalgae that live in coral polyps. These organisms grow attached to the seabed (i.e. subtidal and intertidal), sequester carbon from surrounding seawater or air and convert it to organic compounds through photosynthesis. Benthic Primary Producer Biological communities, including the plants and animals within which Communities the benthic primary producers predominate. Benthic Primary Producer Benthic Primary Producer communities as well as the substrate that can Habitat and does support these communities. Benthic Primary Producer The area defined by the predicted zone of influence of turbidity Habitat Management Unit Bioaccumulation The accumulation of contaminants in organisms at levels above that of the ambient environment. Bioavailability Degree to which chemicals can be taken up by organisms. Biodiversity The variety of all life forms the different biota, the genes they contain and the ecosystems they form. Bleached Coral Corals that have expelled their zooxanthellae (symbiotic algae), due to stress. A bleached coral becomes ‘whitened’ because the skeleton is

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 12-1

revealed beneath its transparent tissue. Capital Dredging Dredging for navigation, to enlarge or deepen existing channel and port areas or to create new ones. Cetaceans The group containing whales, dolphins and porpoises. Migratory whales are identified as of significance under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 Community Ecologically, any naturally occurring group of different organisms sharing a particular habitat. Contaminant Any physical, chemical or biological substance or property which is introduced into the environment. Contaminants of Concern Those chemical substances for which sources are known or suspected in the dredge area or its catchment, based on the historical data. Where good chemical data are available on the sediments, the contaminants of concern are those substances that are present at levels greater than the relevant Screening Level. Coral Mortality The death of the coral generally seen as bleaching, although, bleaching of corals can often be reversed if conditions improve in time. Epifauna Benthic animals that live on the surface of the seabed either attached to it (sessile) or freely moving about (mobile). Flora The plants of a particular region or period listed by species and considered as a whole. Habitat The place where the physical and biological elements of ecosystems provide a suitable environment including the food, cover, and space resources needed for plant and animal livelihood. Heavy Metals Metals such as zinc, copper, lead and chromium which accumulate in sediments and tissues or biota and may be passed up the food chain. Hermaphrodite A plant or animal with both male and female sexual organs. Illuminance (E) The physical measure of illumination. It is the luminous flux arriving at a surface divided by the area of the illuminated surface. Unit: lux (lx); 1 lx = 1 lm m2. (a) Horizontal illuminance (Eh) The value of illuminance on a designated horizontal plane at ground level. (b) Vertical illuminance (Ev) The value of illuminance on a designated vertical plane Impact The change in the chemical, physical (including habitat) or biological quality or condition of a water body caused by external sources. Infauna Animals that live within the sediments of aquatic environments. Intertidal Lying between the high and low tide marks.

PAGE 12-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

in situ In place. Light attenuation Light attenuation usually refers to a reduction or decrease in available light which occurs with increasing depth of water. The light attenuation coefficient quantifies the rate at which light is attenuated as a result of all absorbing and scattering components of the water column. These components include a background rate (0.1 m-1 of clear water), and varying components of total suspended solids, phytoplankton, dissolved organic matter and coloured dissolved organic matter (dissolved organic molecules sometimes called humics or gilvin). The light level at a depth of ‘z’ metres can be calculated from:

Iz = I0 exp (AC z)

where I0 is the surface light, and AC is the attenuation coefficient. Luffing The horizon vertical movement of a boom on a stacker/reclaimer. The boom is ‘luffed’ upwards as the stockpile height grows. Macroalgae Large algae commonly called seaweed. MSL (Mean Sea Level) MSL is the average level of the sea surface over a long period, preferably 18.6 years or more, or the average level, which would exist in the absence of tides. Percentile The term for denoting thresholds or boundary values in frequency distributions. Thus the 5th percentile is that value which marks off the lowest 5 per cent of the observations from the rest, the 50th percentile is the same as the median, and the 95th percentile exceeds all but 5 per cent of the values. When percentiles are estimated by ranking the items of a finite sample, the percentile generally falls between two of the observed values, and the midway value is often taken. Photosynthetic reactive Solar radiation with a spectral response range from 400 to 700 radiation (PAR) nanometres. PQL The Practical Quantitation Limit (PQL) is the lowest level achievable among laboratories within specified limits during routine laboratory operations. The PQL represents a practical and routinely achievable detection level with a relatively good certainty that any reported value is reliable. The PQL is often around five times the method detection limit. Reference site Specific locality on a water body which is unimpaired or minimally impaired and is representative of the expected biological integrity of other localities on the same water body or nearby water bodies. Salinity The measure of the total soluble (or dissolved) salts i.e. mineral constituents in water.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 12-3

Screening level Level of a substance in the sediment below which toxic effects on organisms are not expected. Slewing Rotation of an object around the z axis. ‘When stackers and reclaimers rotate about their axis, the boom slews’. Species A group of organisms that, under normal circumstances, can interbreed. Species richness The number of species in a habitat. Tier 1 oil spill Oil spill of less than 20 tonnes (less than 157 barrels) which could be handled by personnel and equipment held on site. Tier 2 oil spill Oil spill of 20 to 500 tonnes (157 to 3 930 barrels), the response to which would require resources from Oil Spill Response resources. Tier 3 oil spill Oil spill in excess of 500 tonnes (greater than 3 930 barrels) or a spillage which may result in significant impact on the shoreline. Such an incident would invariably involve the mobilisation of response resources from abroad. Total organic carbon Sum of all organic carbon compounds in water or sediment. This is the (TOC) sum of organic carbon and is a monitoring parameter analysed in environmental programs. It is a physical sediment factor that can influence the concentration of other compounds. Represented variations in concentration can be attributable to spatial and temporal variations in sediment type. Total suspended solids A measure of the mass of fine inorganic particles suspended in the (TSS) water. Indicative limits are as follows: Low 0.1 to 0.5 g m-3 Medium 0.5 to 10 g m-3 High 10 to 100 g m-3 Turbidity Measure of the clarity of a water body and generally represented in Nepthalometric Turbidity Units (NTU). Vegetation All the plants or plant life of a place, taken as a whole, typically considered as a community.

PAGE 12-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

13. Acronyms and Units

13.1 Acronyms

Ag silver ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler AHD Australian Height Datum ANZECC Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council AQIS Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service ARI average rainfall immunity ARMCANZ Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand As arsenic ASS acid sulphate soil AWT average weekday traffic AWS automatic weather station BHD backhoe dredge BIF banded ironstone formation BO (dune) blowouts BoM Bureau of Meteorology BPP Benthic Primary Producer BPPH Benthic Primary Producer Habitat CALM Department of Conservation and Land Management (now DEC) CAMBA China Australia Migratory Bird Agreement CCEF Coastal Community Environmental Forum CD chart datum Cd cadmium CEMP Construction Environmental Management Plan CEO Chief Executive Officer

CH4 methane CLCAG Cape Lambert Community Advisory Group CMS Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals

CO2 carbon dioxide CP (flat) coastal plain Cr chromium CSD cutter suction dredge CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 13-1

Cu copper Cwth Commonwealth D&B drill and blast DB drainage basin in flat coastal plain DAMP Dampier Archipelago Marine Park DEC Department of Environment and Conservation (formerly CALM and DoE) DEH Department of Environment and Heritage (Commonwealth - now DEWHA) DEWHA Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Commonwealth – formerly DEH) DHW Department of Housing and Works DIA Department of Indigenous Affairs DoE Department of Environment (now DEC) DoIR Department of Industry and Resources (now DMP or DSD) DoW Department of Water (formerly Water and Rivers Commission) DLI Department of Land Information (now Landgate) DLGRD Department of Local Government and Regional Development DMAs Decision Making Authorities DMP Department of Minerals and Petroleum (formerly DoIR) DMP Dust Management Plan DO dissolved oxygen DPA Dampier Port Authority DPI Department for Planning and Infrastructure (previously MfP) DRF Declared Rare Flora DSD Department of State Development (formerly DoIR) DSDMP Dredging and Spoil Disposal Management Plan DSL digital subscriber line DWT deadweight tonnage EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EP Act Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) EPA Environmental Protection Authority EPA SU Environmental Protection Authority Service Unit EPBC Act Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Commonwealth) EPP Environmental Protection Policy ERA Environmental Risk Assessment ERMP Environmental Review and Management Program

PAGE 13-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

ESA Environmentally Sensitive Area ESD Environmental Scoping Document FIFO fly-in fly-out FS feasibility study GEMS Global Environmental Modelling Systems Pty Ltd GP General Practitioner GWP Global Warming Potential HACC Home and Community Care HAT Highest Astronomical Tide HDPE High Density Polyethylene Hg mercury ILUA Indigenous Land Use Agreement IPCC International Panel on Climate Change JAMBA Japan Australia Migratory Bird Agreement LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide LEP Level of Environmental Protection LEPA Low Ecological Protection Area LNG Liquid Natural Gas LPG Liquid Petroleum Gas LoP Level of Protection MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution From Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 MesoLAPS Australian BoM high resolution atmospheric forecast model MHWN mean high water neap tide MHWS mean high water spring tide MLWN mean low water neaps tide MLWS mean low water spring tide MP monitoring point MRWA Main Roads Western Australia MSL mean sea level MTMP Marine Turtle Management Plan

N2O nitrous oxide

(NaPO3)6 sodium hexametaphosphate Ni nickel NEPC National Environmental Protection Council NEPM National Environmental Protection Measure

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 13-3

NES National Environmental Significance NODGDM National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material NWCH North West Coastal Highway OSCP Oil Spill Contingency Plan PATS Patient Assisted Travel Schemes PAHs polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PAHPF Pilbara Aboriginal Health Planning Forum Pb lead PDC Pilbara Development Commission PDGP Pilbara Division of General Practice PDu primary dunes PECs Priority Ecological Communities PER Public Environment Report / Public Environmental Review PES Preliminary Engineering Study PFS Pre Feasibility Study PIANIC Permanent International Association of Navigation Congress PM particulate matter PQL practical quantitative limit PRA Pilbara Recreation Association Proponent the organisation putting forward this proposal (Pilbara Iron Pty Limited, a part of the Rio Tinto Iron Ore group of companies) PSD particle size distribution ROBE Robe River Iron Associates RTIO Rio Tinto Iron Ore SCUBA Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus Sb antimony SD standard deviation SDP Sea Dumping Permit SE standard error SIA Social impact assessment SL shiploader SOR Shire of Roebourne SRE short range endemic SST sea surface temperatures SVT SVT Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd TBT tributyltin

PAGE 13-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

TEOM Tapered Element Oscillating Microbalance TSHD trailing suction hopper dredge TSP total suspended particles TSS total suspended solids UCL unclassified land UNEP United Nations Environment Program vpd vehicles per day WA Western Australia WAPC Western Australian Planning Commission WC Act Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 WPWSS West Pilbara Water Supply Scheme WQM water quality monitoring WRMP Water Resources Management Plan WWTP waste water treatment plan Zn zinc

13.2 Units % percent °C degrees Celsius cd m-2 candelas per square metre Chl-a m-3 chlorophyll-a per cubic metre d day dB decibel dB(A) A-weighted decibels g C m-2 d-1 grams of carbon per m-2 per day GL gigalitre (1 billion litres) ha hectares kHz kilohertz km kilometres km2 square kilometres kn knots kp kilometre point kt kilotonne (1000 tonnes)

LA10 noise level which is not to be exceeded for more than 10% of the time

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 13-5

LAeq The equivalent sound pressure level (i.e. the steady sound level that, over a specific period of time, would produce the same energy equivalence as the fluctuating sound level actually occurring) m metres m3 cubic metres m3 hr-1 cubic metres per hour m s-1 metres per second CD chart datum mg L-1 milligrams per litre ML megalitres (one million litres) ML d-1 megalitres per day mm millimetres Mm3 million cubic meters Mt million tonnes Mtpa million tonnes per annum MW megawatts (of energy) MWh megawatt hours nm nautical miles NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit

PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns

PM10 particulate matter smaller than 10 microns psu practical salinity unit t tonne μg L-¹ micrograms per litre μg m-3 micrograms per cubic metre μm micrometres/microns yr year

PAGE 13-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

14. References

ABS – see Australian Bureau of Statistics

ANZECC – see Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council

Atkins, KJ 2006, Declared Rare and Priority Flora List for Western Australia, prepared by the Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth.

Au, WWL, Pack, AA, Lammers, MO, Herman, LM, Deakos, MH & Andrews, K 2006, ‘Acoustic properties of humpback whale songs’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol.120, no.2, Aug 2006.

AQIS – see Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, 2006 Census Data, viewed in July 2008, .

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council & ARMCANZ 2000, National Water Quality Management Strategy No. 4. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture, and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. Canberra, ACT.

Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service 2008, Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements

Babcock, R & Davies, P 1991, ‘Effects of sedimentation on settlement of Acropora millepora’, Coral Reefs, vol. 9, pp. 205–208.

Baird, AH, Blakeway, DR, Hurley, TJ, & Stoddart, JA 2007, ‘Coral spawning in Dampier Harbour’, Conference Abstracts from the 83rd Annual Conference, Australian Coral Reef Society.

Bassett 2009, Cape Lambert Port B Development: Assessment of Lighting Effects on Turtles, report by Bassett Consulting Engineers for Pilbara Iron Pty Limited, February 2009.

BBG – see Bowman Bishaw & Gorham

Biota 2008a, Cape Lambert Port B Development: Flora and Vegetation Survey, report by Biota Environmental Sciences for Pilbara Iron Pty Limited, July 2008.

Biota 2008b, Cape Lambert Port B Development Seasonal Fauna Survey, report by Biota Environmental Sciences for Pilbara Iron Pty Limited, July 2008.

Biota 2008c, A Survey of Coastal Dunes between Cossack and Karratha for Lerista nevinae, report by Biota Environmental Sciences for Pilbara Iron Pty Limited, August 2008.

Biota 2008d, Cape Lambert B Expansion – Marine Turtle Assessment, report by Biota Environmental Sciences for Pilbara Iron Pty Ltd, March 2009.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 14-1

Biota 2008e, Marine Turtle Management Plan, report by Biota Environmental Sciences for Pilbara Iron Pty Ltd, August 2008.

Bird Life International 2004, Threatened Birds of the World 2004, CD-ROM, Bird Life International, Cambridge, UK.

Birrell CL, McCook LJ & Willis BL 2005, ‘Effects of algal turfs and sediment on coral settlement’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 51, pp. 408–414.

Birch, WR & Birch, M 1984, ‘Succession and pattern of tropical intertidal seagrasses in Cockle Bay, Queensland, Australia: a decade of observations’, Aquatic Botany, vol. 19, pp. 343–367.

Birds Australia 2008, database search results, viewed July 2008, < http://www.birdsaustralia.com.au>.

BLI – see Bird Life International

Blakeway, DR 2005, ‘Patterns of mortality from natural and anthropogenic influences in Dampier corals: 2004 cyclone and dredging impacts’, in Stoddart, JA & Stoddart, SE (eds) Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction during the Dredging Programs of 2004, Mscience.

Blakeway, DR & Radford, B 2005, ‘Scleractinian corals of the Dampier Port and Inner Mermaid Sound: Species list, community composition and distributional data’, in Stoddart, JA & Stoddart, SE (eds) Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction during the Dredging Programs of 2004, Mscience.

Blamires, SJ, Guinea, ML & Prince, RIT 2003, ‘Influence of nest site selection on predation of flatback sea turtle (Natator depressus) eggs by varanid lizards in northern Australia’, Chelonian Conservation and Biology vol. 4, no. 3, pp 557–563.

BoM – see Bureau of Meteorology

Borowitzka, MA, Day, RW & Larkum, AWD 1983, ‘The importance of primary production of turf and crustose algal communities in One Tree Lagoon’, Proceedings of the inaugural GBR Conference, Townsville. JCU Press, pp. 287–292.

Borowitzka, MA & Mercer, J 2007, ‘Productivity of benthic turf algae in the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia’, Australian Coral Reef Society 83rd Annual conference proceedings, 9–11th October, 2007, Australian Coral Reef Society, Fremantle, Western Australia.

Bourke, SA & McDonald, JI (eds.) 2006, ‘On the Use of Coral Spawning Predictions for Management’ Workshop Proceedings, The University of Western Australia, May 2006, MScience Pty Ltd, Perth, Western Australia.

Bowman Bishaw Gorham 1993, Review and Assessment of Mangrove Communities in the Vicinity of Cape Lambert., 1977–1992, report to Robe River Iron Associates.

PAGE 14-2 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Bray, RN 2008, Environmental Aspects of Dredging. Tayleo and Francis/ Balkema, The Netherlands.

Brown, BE, Le Tissier, MDA, Scoffin, TP & Tudhope, AW 1990, ‘Evaluation of the environmental impact of dredging on intertidal coral reefs at Ko Phuket, Thailand, using ecological and physiological parameters’, Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 65, pp. 273–281.

Bureau of Meteorology 2008, Australia, Bureau of Meteorology Website, viewed in July 2008 www.bom.gov.au.

Burns, DO & Bingham, BL 2002, ‘Epibiotic sponges on the scallops Chlamys hastata and Chlamys rubida: increased survival in a high-sediment environment’, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK, vol. 82, pp. 961–966.

CALM – see Department of Conservation and Land Management

Chevron Texaco 2005, Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Review and Management Programme for the Proposed Gorgon Development.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 2007, Field Studies of Rock Art Appearance. Final Report: Fumigation and Dust Deposition. Progress Report: Colour Change and Spectral Mineralogy, March 2007, CSIRO.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 2008a, Review of GEMS Pty Ltd Report: Review of Data requirements and Availability for Cape Lambert Dredge Modelling, Undertaken for Rio Tinto by CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, June 2008.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 2008b, Burrup Peninsula Aboriginal Petroglyphs: Colour Change and Spectral Mineralogy 2004 – 2007, September 2008, Draft, CSIRO.

Cooper TF & Fabricius KE, 2007, Coral-based indicators of changes in water quality on nearshore coral reefs of the Great Barrier Reef, report to Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility (MTSRF), Cairns, Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Creagh, S 1985, Review of Literature Concerning Blue-Green Algae of the Genus Trichodesmium, Western Australian Department of Conservation and Environment, Perth, Bulletin 197, pp. 33.

CSIRO–see Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

CyMod Systems 2008, ‘Estimated water use for the Cape Lambert Port B at 100, 115 and 130 Mtpa’, Memorandum to P Royce, Rio Tinto, 5 August 2008.

DCC – see Department of Climate Change

DEC – see Department of Environment and Conservation

DEH – see Department of Environment and Heritage

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 14-3

DEWHA – see Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

DHW – see Department of Housing and Works

DLGRD – see Department of Local Government and Regional Development

DoE – see Department of Environment

DoF – see Department of Fisheries

DoITR – see Department of Infrastructure, Training and Resources

Department of Climate Change 2008, National Greenhouse Accounts (NGA) Factors. Updating and replacing the AGO Factors and Methods Workbook, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.

Department of Conservation and Land Management 1990, Dampier Archipelago Nature Reserves Management Plan 1990–2000, Management Plan No. 18.

Department of Conservation and Land Management 2002, Bioregional Summary of the 2002 Biodiversity Audit for Western Australia.

Department of Conservation and Land Management 2005, Indicative Management Plan for the Proposed Dampier Archipelago Marine Park and Cape Preston Marine Management Area.

Department of Environment 1996, Landfill Waste Classification and Waste Definitions (as amended).

Department of Environment 2003, General guidance on managing acid sulfate soils.

Department of Environment 2006a, Draft Identification and Investigation of Acid Sulfate Soils–Acid Sulfate Soils Guideline Series, Land and Water Quality Branch, Department of Environment, May 2006.

Department of Environment 2006b, Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes: Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives, Report No 1, March 2006.

Department of Environment and Conservation 2003, Contaminated Sites Management Series: Assessment Levels for Soil, Sediment and Water, Draft for Public Comment, Version 3, November 2003.

Department of Environment and Conservation 2004a, Guideline No.1: Controlled Waste Generators, March 2004.

Department of Environment and Conservation 2004b, Guideline No. 2: Controlled Waste Carriers, March 2004.

Department of Environment and Conservation 2004c, Guideline No. 3: Controlled Waste Treatment or Disposal Sites, March 2004.

Department of Environment and Conservation 2004d, User Guide No. 5: Paper Tracking Forms, March 2004.

PAGE 14-4 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Department of Environment and Conservation 2007, User Guide No.4: Controlled Waste Tracking System, October 2007.

Department of Environment and Conservation 2008, Pilbara and Eighty Mile Beach Planning Process, Department of Environment and Conservation, site viewed July 2008, .

Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts 2007, EPBC Protected Matters Database. .

Department of Fisheries 2005, State of the Fisheries Report 2004/2005, Department of Fisheries and the Government of Western Australia, Perth.

Department of Heritage 2006, Humpback whale: distribution, migration and recognised aggregation areas map Department of the Environment and Heritage, February 2006, site viewed July 2008, .

Department of Housing and Works, Shire of Roebourne & Heritage Council of WA 2006, Draft Master Plan–Concept Stage (Cossack), November 2006.

Department of Infrastructure, Training and Resources 2006, Mine Closure and Completion Handbook.

Department of Local Government and Regional Development 2006, An update on the Economy of the Western Australia’s Pilbara Region – Pilbara Economic Perspective, prepared by the Department of Local Government and Regional Development and the Pilbara Development Commission, July 2006

Dodge, RE & Vaisnys, JR 1977, ‘Coral populations and growth patterns: Responses to sedimentation and turbidity associated with dredging’, Journal of Marine Research, vol. 35, pp. 715–730.

Doley, D 2006, ‘Airborne particulates and vegetation: Review of physical interactions’, Clean Air and Environmental Quality Journal, vol. 41, No. 2, May 2006.

Duke, N 2006, Australia’s Mangroves: The authoritative guide to Australia’s mangrove plants, University of Queensland, Centre for Marine Studies, Brisbane.

Ecologia 1997, Cape Lambert Port Facility Extensions, Marine environmental impact assessment, prepared for Robe River Iron Associates.

Ecologia 2002, Port Walcott: Baseline Port Survey for Introduced Marine Species, report to Robe River Iron Associates.

Environmental Protection Authority 1999, Environmental Protection (Kwinana) (Atmospheric Waste) Policy, December 1999.

Environmental Protection Authority 2000a, EPA Guidance Statement No. 14: Road and Rail Transport Noise (Preliminary Draft), May 2000.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 14-5

Environmental Protection Authority 2000b, EPA Guidance Statement No. 18 Prevention of Air Quality Impacts from Land Development Sites, March, 2000.

Environmental Protection Authority 2000c, EPA Position Statement No. 2: Environmental Protection of Native Vegetation in Western Australia, December 2000.

Environmental Protection Authority 2001, Final Guidance No 1: Guidance Statement for Protection of Tropical Arid Zone Mangroves along the Pilbara Coastline.

Environmental Protection Authority 2002a, Environmental Protection Act 1986: Environmental Impact Assessment (Part IV Division 1) Administrative Procedures 2002.

Environmental Protection Authority 2002b, EPA Guidance Statement No. 12: Minimising Greenhouse Gas Emissions, October 2002.

Environmental Protection Authority 2002c, EPA Position Statement No. 3: Terrestrial Biological Surveys as an Element of Biodiversity Protection, March 2002.

Environmental Protection Authority 2004a, EPA Position Statement No. 7: Principles of Environmental Protection, August 2004.

Environmental Protection Authority 2004b, EPA Guidance Statement No. 29: Benthic Primary Producer Habitat Protection for Western Australia’s Marine Environment.

Environmental Protection Authority 2004c, EPA Guidance Statement No. 41: Assessment of Aboriginal Heritage, April 2004.

Environmental Protection Authority 2004d, EPA Guidance Statement No. 51: Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia, June 2004.

Environmental Protection Authority 2004e, EPA Guidance Statement No. 56: Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia, June 2004.

Environmental Protection Authority 2006, Guidelines for Preparing a Public Environmental Review/ Environmental Review and Management Programme. July 2006.

Environmental Protection Authority 2007, EPA Draft Guidance Statement No. 8: Environmental Noise, May 2007.

Environmental Protection Authority New South Wales 2005, Approved Methods for the Modelling and Assessment of Air Pollutants in New South Wales, . (accessed 21/12/2007).

EPA – see Environmental Protection Authority

EPHC – see National Environment Protection Council

PAGE 14-6 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

EPHC 2003, National Environment Protection (Ambient Air Quality) Measure, National Environment Protection Council. Canberra, 7 July 2003.

Evans, SM, Hawkins, ST, Porter, J & Samosir, AM 1994, ‘Recovery of dogwhelk populations on the Isle of Cumbrae, Scotland following legislation limiting the use of TBT as an antifoulant’, Marine Pollution Bulletin Vol. 28, pp 15-17.

Förstner U, Apitz SE 2007, ‘Sediment Remediation: U.S. Focus on Capping and Monitored Natural Recovery’. Fourth International Battelle Conference on Remediation of Contaminated Sediments. J Soils Sediments, Vol 7, Issue 6 pp 351–358.

Fowler, D, Cape, JN, Unsworth, MH, Mayer, H, Crowther, JM, Jarvis, PJ, Gardiner, B & Shuttleworth, WJ 1989, ‘Deposition of Atmospheric Pollutants on Forests’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B, Biological Sciences (1934–1990), Vol. 324, no. 1223, pp. 247–265.

Fromont, J 2003, ‘Porifera (Sponges) In the Dampier Archipelago: Taxonomic Affinities and Biogeography’, in Wells, FE, Walker, DI & Jones DS (eds), The Marine Flora and Fauna of Dampier, Western Australia.

Fromont, J 2004, ‘Porifera (Sponges) of the Dampier Archipelago: Habitats and Distribution’, in Jones, DS (ed.) 2004, Marine Biodiversity of the Dampier Archipelago Western Australia 1998–2002, pp. 101– 120, records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement No. 66.

Gausland, I 2000, ‘Impact of Seismic Surveys on Marine Life’, The Leading Edge, August 2000, site viewed July 2008, .

GEMS – see Global Environmental Modelling Systems

Geological Survey of Western Australia 1979, Urban Geology Series Map, Sheet 2536, 1:50 000.

Gilmour, J 1999, ‘Experimental investigation into the effects of suspended sediment on fertilisation, larval survival and settlement in Scleractinian coral’. Marine Biology, vol. 135, pp. 451–462.

Gilmour, J 2002, ‘Acute sedimentation causes size-specific mortality and asexual budding in the mushroom coral, Fungia fungites’, Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 53, pp. 805–812.

Global Environmental Modelling Systems 2006, Rio Tinto Cape Lambert Port Development, Verification of Winds, Waves and Currents used in the Dredging Program Simulations, December 2006.

Global Environmental Modelling Systems 2008a, ‘Cape Lambert Port B. Oceanographic Studies & Dredging Program Simulations. For Rio Tinto. July 2008’. Global Environmental Modelling Systems, Melbourne.

Global Environmental Modelling Systems 2008b, ‘Cape Lambert Port B. Report on Validation of Environmental Modelling. For Rio Tinto. August 2008.’ Global Environmental Modelling Systems, Melbourne.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 14-7

Gliwicz, ZM 1999, ‘Predictability of seasonal and diel events in tropical and temperate lakes and reservoirs’. In: Tundisi JG, Straskraba M (Eds). Theoretical reservoir ecology and its applications. São Carlos, International Institute of Ecology.

Greenland JA, Limpus CJ 2005, Marine wildlife stranding and mortality database annual report 2004: Volume 1-Dugongs, Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.

Greer, AE 2004, Encyclopaedia of Australian Reptiles. Australian Museum Online, viewed on 15 March 2004 .

Griffith, JK 2004, ‘Scleractinian corals collected during 1998 from the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia’, in Jones, DS (ed.) 2004, Marine Biodiversity of the Dampier Archipelago Western Australia 1998–2002, pp. 101–120, records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement No. 66.

GSWA – see Geological Survey of Western Australia

Guinea, ML, Limpus, CJ, & Whiting, SD 2004, Marine Snakes, National Oceans Office: Description of Key Species Groups in the Northern Planning Area, National Oceans Office, Hobart, Australia.

Guinea, ML 2008, Draft Marine Turtle Management Plan for Cape Lambert, prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore.

Harewood, A and Horrocks, J 2007, ‘Impacts of coastal development on hawksbill hatchling survival and swimming success during the initial offshore migration.’ Biological Conservation, vol 141(2): pp. 394- 401.

Hastings, MC, Popper, AN 2005, Effects of Sound on Fish. California Dept of Transportation Contract No. 43A0139, 2005 (Revised Appendix B)

Hass, CG & Jones, DS 1999, Marine Introduction to Western Australia, with a focus on Crustaceans.

Hazardous Substance Research Centres (HSRC), McDermott, Will & Emory and Johnson Company (2002). Summary of Contaminated Sediment Capping Projects. Web Publication: http://www.sediments.org/capsummary.pdf

Hazel J & Gyuris E 2006, ‘Vessel-related morality of sea turtle in Queensland, Australia’, Wildlife Research, vol. 33, pp.149–154.

Heatwole, H & Cogger, H 1994, ‘Sea snakes of Australia, Chapter 5 (pp. 167–205)’, Gopalakrishnakone, P (Ed) Sea Snake Toxinology, Singapore University Press, Singapore.

Herzfeld, M, Parslow, J, Sakov, P, & Andrewartha, JR 2003, Biogeochemical Modelling of the North West Shelf of Australia, Technical Report 8, North West Shelf Joint Environmental Management Study.

PAGE 14-8 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Heyward, AJ, Revill, AT, & Sherwood, CR 2000, Review of Research and Data Relevant to Marine Environmental Management of Australia’s North West Shelf, produced for the Western Australian Department of Environmental Protection.

Hickman, AH 2002, Geology of Roebourne 1:100 000 Sheet Geological Survey of Western Australia. Explanatory Notes, pp. 35.

Hillis-Colinvaux, L 1974, ‘Productivity of the coral reef alga Halimeda (Order Siphonales)’, Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Coral Reefs, Brisbane: Great Barrier Reef Committee, vol. 1 pp. 35–42.

HSRC – see Hazardous Substance Research Centres

Huisman, JM & Borowitzka, MA 2003, ‘Marine benthic flora of the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia’, in Wells, RE, Walker, DI and Jones, DS (eds) 2003, The Marine Flora and Fauna of Dampier, Western Australia, Western Australian Museum, Perth.

Hutchings, PA, Hilliard, RW & Coles, SL 2002, ‘Species introductions and potential for marine pest invasions into tropical marine communities, with special reference to the Indo-Pacific’, Pacific Science, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 223–233.

Hutchins, JB 2003, ‘Checklist of Marine Fishes of the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia’, in Wells, RE, Walker, DI and Jones, DS (Eds) 2003, The Marine Flora and Fauna of Dampier, Western Australia, Western Australian Museum, Perth.

Hutchins, JB 2004, ‘Fishes of the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia: Department of Aquatic Zoology (Fishes), Western Australian Museum’, in Jones, DS (ed.) 2004, Marine Biodiversity of the Dampier Archipelago Western Australia 1998–2002, pp. 101–120, records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement No. 66.

ICI – see Imperial Chemical Industries

Imperial Chemical Industries 1980, Handbook of Blasting Tables.

Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change 2006, 2006 Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.

IPCC – see Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Jenner, KCS, Jenner, MN, & McCabe, KA 2001, ‘Geographical and temporal movements of humpback whales in Western Australian waters’, APPEA Journal, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 692–707, site viewed July 2008, .

JFA 2008, Cape Lambert 320MTPA Study Review of Coastal Geomorphology at Cape Lambert, report by JFA Consultants and prepared for SKM and HI.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 14-9

Jones, DS (ed.) 2004, Marine Biodiversity of the Dampier Archipelago Western Australia 1998–2002, pp. 101–120, records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement No. 66.

Kailola J, Williams MJ, Stewart C, Reichelt RE, McNee A and Grieve C, 1993, Australian Fisheries Resources. Canberra, Australia: Bureau of Resource Sciences, Department of Primary Industries and Energy, and the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, pp. 422.

Ketten, DR & Bartol, SM 2006, Functional measures of sea turtle hearing, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA.

Ketten, DR, Lien, J, Todd, SP 1993, ‘Blast injury in humpback whale ears: Evidence and implications’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 94, pp.1849-1850.

Kohn, AJ 2003, ‘Infaunal invertebrates of an intertidal sand flat, Dampier, Western Australia’, in Wells, RE, Walker, DI & Jones, DS (eds) 2003, The Marine Flora and Fauna of Dampier, Western Australia, Western Australian Museum, Perth.

Kraus, SD, Brown, MW, Caswell, H, Clark, CW, Fujiwara, M, Hamilton, PL, Kenney, RD, Knowlton, AR, Landry, S, Mayo, CA, McLellan, WA, Moore, MJ, Nowacek, DP, Pabst, DA, Read, AJ & Rolland RM, 2005, ‘North Atlantic Right Whales in Crisis’, Science, vol. 309, pp. 561–562.

Laist, DW, Knowlton, AR, Mead, JG, Collet, AS & Podesta, M 2001, ‘Collisions between ships and whales’, Marine Mammal Science, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 35–75.

Lanyon, JM & Marsh, H 1995, ‘Temporal changes in the abundance of some tropical intertidal seagrasses in North Queensland’, Aquatic Botany, vol. 49, pp. 217–237.

Larkum, AWD 1983, ‘The primary productivity of plant communities on coral reefs’, Barnes, DJ (ed.) Perspectives on Coral Reefs, The Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville.

Landscape Institute & Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment 2002, Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, 2nd ed., United Kingdom.

LI &IEMA 2002 – see Landscape Institute & Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment

Lien, J, Todd, S, Stevick, P, Marques, F, Ketten, D 1993, ‘The reaction of humpback whales to underwater explosions: orientation, movements, and behavior’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 94, Issue 3, p. 1849.

Longcore, T & Rich, C 2004, ‘Ecological Light Pollution’, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol 2, issue 4, pp. 191-198.

Longstaff, BJ & Dennison, WC 1999, ‘Seagrass survival during pulsed turbidity events: the effects of light deprivation on the seagrasses Halodule pinifolia and Halophila ovalis’, Aquatic Botany, vol. 65, pp. 105–121.

PAGE 14-10 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Lorblanchet, M 1992, ‘Introduction’, Lorblanchet, M (ed.), Rock art in the Old World, pp. xv–xxxii. IGNCA Rock Art Series 1, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, New Delhi.

Marsh, LM & Morrison, SM 2004, ‘Echinoderms of the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia’, pp. 293–342, in Jones, DS (ed.) 2004, Marine Biodiversity of the Dampier Archipelago Western Australia 1998–2002, pp. 101–120, records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement No. 66.

Maynard, L 1977, ‘Classification and Terminology in Australian Rock Art’, Ucko, PJ (ed.) Indigenous Art, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

McCarthy, FD 1961, The Rock Engravings of Depuch Island, North-west Australia, Australian Museum, Records, vol. 25, pp. 121–148.

McCarthy, FD 1962, ‘The Rock Engravings of Port Hedland, North-Western Australia’, Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 26, pp. 1–73, University of California, Berkeley.

McCauley, RD 1994, ‘The Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Development in Australia – Seismic Surveys’, in Swan, JM, Neff, JM & Young, PC (eds) 1994, Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Development in Australia – The Findings of an Independent Scientific Review, pp. 19–122, Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Sydney.

McCauley, RD, Fewtrell, J & Popper, AN 2003, ‘High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears’, Journal of the Acoustic Society Am., vol 113, no. 1, pp. 638-642.

McCloskey, LR, Wethey, DS, & Porter, JW 1978, ‘Measurement and interpretation of photosynthesis and respiration in reef corals’, in Stoddart, DR & Johannes, RE (eds), ‘Coral Reefs: Research Methods, Paris, UNESCO’, Monographs and Oceanographic Methodology, no. 5, pp. 379–396.

Mendes, JM & Woodley, JD 2002, ‘Effect of the 1995 – 1996 bleaching event on polyp tissue depth, growth, reproduction and skeletal band formation in Montastraea anularis’, Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 235, pp. 93–102.

Michalek-Wagner, K & Willis, BL 2001, ‘Impacts of bleaching on the soft coral Lobophytum compactum, I. Fecundity, fertilisation and offspring viability’, Coral Reefs, vol. 19, pp. 231–239.

Morrison, P 2004, ‘A general description of the subtidal habitats of the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia’, in Jones, DS (ed.) 2004, Marine Biodiversity of the Dampier Archipelago Western Australia 1998–2002, pp. 101–120, records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement No. 66.

MScience 2004, Cape Lambert Tug Harbour: Benthic Coral Community Monitoring Baseline Data Report, prepared for Robe River Iron Associates Pty Ltd.

MScience 2005, Cape Lambert Marine Monitoring Program, report for Pilbara Iron, August 2005.

Mscience 2007, Review of recent dredging projects in Dampier Harbour, Report to Woodside Burrup.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 14-11

Nightingale, B, Longcore, T & Simenstad, CA 2006, ‘Artificial night lighting and fishes’, Pages 257–276 in Rich, C & Longcore, T (eds.). Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

NOAA undated, ‘Fact Sheet: Small Diesel Spills (500-5000 gallons)’, NOAA / Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, site viewed July 2008, .

NODGDM 2002, National Ocean Disposal Guidelines for Dredged Material (2002) Environment Australia, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, May 2002

Oceanica 2008, Cape Lambert Port B Development: Draft Sediment Sampling and Analysis Implementation Report: Volumes I and II, August 2008.

PDC – see Pilbara Development Commission

Paling, EI, Humphries, G, McCardle, I & Thomson, G 2001, ‘The effects of iron ore dust on mangroves in Western Australia: Lack of evidence for stomatal damage’, Wetlands Ecology and Management, vol. 9 pp. 363–370.

Pearce, A, Buchan, S, Chiffings, T, D'Adamo, N, Fandry, C, Fearns, P, Mills, D, Phillips, R & Simpson, C 2003, ‘A review of the oceanography of the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia’, in Wells, RE, Walker, DI & Jones, DS (eds) 2003, The Marine Flora and Fauna of Dampier, Western Australia, Western Australian Museum, Perth.

Pendoley, KL 2005, Sea turtles and the environmental management of industrial activities in north-west Western Australia. Ph.D. Thesis. PhD Thesis, Murdoch University: Perth.

Pilbara Development Commission 1997, Pilbara Land Use Strategy, July 1997.

Pilbara Development Commission 2006, Pilbara Economic Perspective.

Poiner, IR Staples, DJ & Kenyon, R 1987, ‘The seagrass communities of the Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia’, Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 38, pp. 121–131.

Pollard, PC & Kogure, K 1993, ‘The role of epiphytic and epibenthic algal productivity in a tropical seagrass, Syringodium isoetifolium (Aschers.) Dandy, community’, Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, vol 44(1), pp. 141 - 154

Pollard, PC & Moriarty, DJW 1991, ‘Organic carbon decomposition, primary and bacterial productivity, and sulphate reaction, in tropical seagrass beds of the Gulf of Carpentaria’, Australia, Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 69, pp 149-159.

Prince RIT 1994, ‘Status of the Western Australian marine turtle populations: the Western Australian Marine Turtle Project 1986-1990’ In Proceedings of the Australian Marine Turtle Conservation

PAGE 14-12 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Workshop: Sea World Nara Resort, Gold Coast, 14-17 November, 1990 (ed R James). Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. pp. 1–14

Prince, RIT 2001, Aerial survey of the distribution and abundance of dugongs and associated macrovertebrate fauna – Pilbara coastal and offshore region, WA, Department of Conservation and Land Management, May 2001.

Purcell, SW 2000, ‘Association of epilithic algae with sediment distribution on a windward reef in the northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia’, Bulletin of Marine Science, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 199–214.

Qasim, SZ, Bhattathiri, PM 1971, ‘Primary production of seagrass bed of Kavarati Atoll (Laccaclives)’, Hydrobiologia, vol. 38, pp. 29–38.

Richardson, WJ, Greene Jr, CR, Malme, CI, & Thomson, DH 1995, Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA, and Academic Press Ltd, London, UK.

Richmond, DR, Yelverton, JT, & Fletcher, FR 1973, Far-field underwater blast injuries produced by small charges. Unpublished Report. Lovelace Foundation for Medical Education and Research. DNA 3081T.

Riegl, B 1995, ‘Effects of sand deposition on scleractinian and alcyonean corals’, Marine Biology, vol. 121, pp. 517–26.

Riegl, B & Bloomer, J 1995, ‘Tissue damage in scleractinian and alcyonacean corals due to experimental exposure to sedimentation’, Beitraege Zur Palaeontologie, vol. 20, pp. 51–63.

Rio Tinto Iron Ore 2007a, 220+ Order of Magnitude (Beyond 300), June 2007.

Rio Tinto Iron Ore 2007b, Iron Environmental Management System Procedure: Wildlife Interaction Guidelines, RTIO-HSE-0013116.

Rio Tinto Iron Ore 2007c, Iron Environmental Management System Procedure: Weed Management Plan, IEMS-PI-PRO-070.

Rio Tinto Iron Ore 2007d, Iron Environmental Management System Procedure: Non-mineral Waste Management Plan, RTIO-HSE-0010849.

Rio Tinto Iron Ore 2007e, Iron Environmental Management System Procedure: Controlled Waste Guidelines, RTIO-HSE-0012439.

Rio Tinto Iron Ore 2008a, Referral of Proposed Action: Cape Lambert Port B Development, referral to the DEWHA under the EPBC Act.

Rio Tinto Iron Ore 2008b, Water Management Plan, Cape Lambert, RTIO-HSE-0015646.

Rio Tinto Iron Ore 2008c, Dust Management Plan 2009, Cape Lambert Port Operations, December 2008.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 14-13

Rio Tinto Iron Ore 2008d, Cultural heritage management plan

Roberts, JM, Wheeler, AJ & Friewald, A 2006, ‘Reefs of the deep: The biology and geology of coldwater coral ecosystems’, Science, vol. 312, pp. 6.

Rogers, CS 1979, ‘The effect of shading on coral reef structure and function’, Journal Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 41, pp. 269–288.

RTIO – see Rio Tinto Iron Ore

Saenger, P 2002, Mangrove Ecology, Silviculture and Conservation, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Salinovich, P 2006, West Pilbara Community Turtle Program Season Report 2005/2006, Data Report: 36.

Salinovich, P 2007, West Pilbara Community Turtle Program Season Report 2006/2007.

Salinovich, P 2008, West Pilbara Community Turtle Program Season Report 2007/2008.

Salmon, M 2003, ‘Artificial night lighting and sea turtles’, Biologist, vol. 50, pp. 163–168.

Semeniuk, V 1983, ‘Mangrove Vegetation in northwestern Australia in relation to regional and local freshwater seepage’, Vegetatio vol. 53, pp.11–31.

Semeniuk, V, Chalmer, PN & Le Provost, I 1982, ‘The marine environments of the Dampier Archipelago’, Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, vol. 65, pp. 97–114.

Shine, R, & Shetty, S 2001, ‘Moving in two worlds: aquatic and terrestrial locomotion in sea snakes (Laticauda colubrina, Laticaudidae)’, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, vol. 14, pp. 338–346.

Shire of Roebourne 2006, Annual Report 2005-2006.

Shire of Roebourne 2008, Shire of Roebourne Town Planning Scheme No. 8 Scheme Report, June 2008

Simpson, CJ 1985, Environmental factors affecting coral growth in the Dampier Archipelago, Environmental Note No. 168, Department of Conservation and Environment, Coastal Waters Branch, Perth, Western Australia.

Simpson, C & Grey, K 1989, Survey of Crown-of-thorns starfish and coral communities in the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia, Technical Series No. 25, pp. 1–24, Environmental Protection Authority, Perth Western Australia.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2003, Cape Lambert Dredging Marine Monitoring Program. Post Dredging Marine Survey, prepared for Robe River Iron Associates.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2006a, Cape Lambert Port Upgrade – 85 Mtpa Greenhouse Gas Assessment, unpublished report for Pilbara Iron.

PAGE 14-14 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Sinclair Knight Merz 2006b, Cape Lambert Upgrade: Sampling and Analysis Plan Implementation Report, prepared for Robe River Iron and Associates, submitted to DEH, Revision, 20th January 2006.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2007a, Cape Lambert Port B Development: Referral Document, prepared for Pilbara Iron Pty Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2007b, Cape Lambert Upgrade Wharf Extension and Shiploader Replacement Geotechnical Report For Dredging, report prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, April 2007.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2007c, RTIO Pilbara Coastal Gas-Fired Power Station: Supporting Documentation for Project Referral, report prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2007d, Dredging Program for the Cape Lambert Port Upgrade - 85 Mtpa: Long Term Coral Habitat Monitoring and Management Plan, prepared for Robe River Iron Associates.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2007e, Dredging program for the Cape Lambert Port Upgrade Environmental referral Document, prepared for the Robe River Iron Associates.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008a, Cape Lambert Port B Development: Environmental Scoping Document, prepared for Pilbara Iron Pty Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008b, Cape Lambert Port B development dredging and dredge spoil management plan, Revision G, August 2008.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008c, Cape Lambert Port B Development: Greenhouse Gas Assessment, unpublished report for Pilbara Iron.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008d, Cape Lambert Port B Development: Air Quality Assessment, unpublished report for Pilbara Iron.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008e, Cape Lambert Port B development: Abundance and distribution of inter and subtidal benthic habitats in the Cape Lambert Area: 2008 Survey, prepared for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008f, Cape Lambert Port B development dredging and dredge spoil assessment, including benthic primary producer habitat assessment, prepared for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008g, Cape Lambert 85 Upgrade: Final Water Quality Monitoring Report, prepared for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008h, Cape Lambert 85 Upgrade: Compliance Monitoring of TBT at Spoil Ground 2, prepared for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008i, Cape Lambert Port Upgrade – 85 Mtpa. Comparison of Imposex in Thaid snails- April and November 2007, prepared for Robe River Iron Associates.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008j Dampier Port Upgrade Phase B Dredging Program 2006/7: Tributyltin Monitoring Program, prepared for Hamersley Iron.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 14-15

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008k, Dredging Program for the Cape Lambert Port Upgrade – 85 Mtpa: Particle Size Distribution, prepared for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008l, Cape Lambert 85 Upgrade: Pre and Port Disposal Infauna Monitoring, prepared for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008m, Cape Lambert Port B development: visual impact assessment, prepared for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008n; Cape Lambert Port B development: transport assessment, prepared for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008o, Rio Tinto Iron Ore project procedure: construction environmental management plan for Cape Lambert Port B project, SKM-CEMP-209.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008p, Dredging Program for the Cape Lambert Port Upgrade – 85 Mtpa: Marine Final Summary Report.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008q Dredging Program for the Cape Lambert Port Upgrade – 85 Mtpa: Pre and post dredging TBT surveys at spoil ground 1, prepared for Robe.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008r Twelve Month Post Dredging sediment stability assessment – Spoil ground 2, prepared for Pilbara Iron Pty. Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008s Dredging Program, for the Cape Lambert Port Upgrade – 85 Mtpa: Final Report on relationships between total suspended solids/turbidity and light attenuation coefficients in dredging and spoil disposal-induced turbidity plumes, prepared for Robe.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2008t, Preliminary Engineering Study, in preparation for Pilbara Iron Pty Ltd.

Sinclair Knight Merz 2009, Cape Lambert Port B BPPH Baseline Survey, July 2008, draft report in preparation for Pilbara Iron Pty Ltd.

SKM – see Sinclair Knight Merz

Sofonia, JJ & Anthony, KRN 2008, ‘High sediment tolerance in the reef coral Turbinaria mesenterina from the inner Great Barrier Reef lagoon (Australia)’, Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 78, pp. 748–752.

SoR – see Shire of Roebourne

Sorokin, YI 1995, ‘Ecological Studies’, Coral Reef Ecology, vol. 102, Berlin: Springer–Verlag.

Sournia, A 1976, ‘Oxygen metabolism of fringing reef in French Polynesia’, Helgolander wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen, vol. 28, pp. 401–410.

PAGE 14-16 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Stafford-Smith, MG 1993, Sediment-rejection efficiency of 22 species of Australian Scleractinian corals. Marine Biology 115, 229–243

Stoddart, JA & Gilmour, J 2005, ‘Patterns of reproduction of in-shore corals of the Dampier Harbour, Western Australia, and comparisons with other reefs’, in Stoddart, JA & Stoddart, SE (eds) 2005, Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction during the Dredging Programs of 2004, Mscience.

Stoddart, JA & Stoddart, SE (eds) 2005, Corals of the Dampier Harbour: Their Survival and Reproduction during the Dredging Programs of 2004, Mscience.

SVT 2007, Acoustic Model Verification of the Proposed Cape Lambert Port Upgrade, report Prepared by SVT Engineering Consultants for Rio Tinto, June 2007.

SVT 2008a, Cape Lambert Port B Development Noise Assessment, report Prepared by SVT Engineering Consultants for Rio Tinto, June 2007.

SVT 2008b, Application to Vary the Assigned Noise Levels at Point Samson under Regulation 17 of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Letter prepared for RTIO.

SVT 2008c, Vibration Measurements Taken during Pile Driving Operations at Cape Lambert, letter to Rio Tinto.

SVT 2009, Cape Lambert Port B Development Underwater Noise Assessment, report Prepared by SVT Engineering Consultants for Rio Tinto, February 2009.

Swan, JM, Neff, JM & Young, PC (eds.) 1994, Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Development in Australia – The Findings of an Independent Scientific Review, pp. 19–122, Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Sydney.

Taylor, JG 1996, ‘Seasonal Occurrence, Distribution and Movements of the Whale Shark, Rhincodon typus, at Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia’, Marine & Freshwater Research, vol. 47, pp. 637–642.

Taylor, JD & Glover, EA 2004, ‘Diversity and distribution of subtidal benthic molluscs from the Dampier Archipelago, Western Australia; results of the 1999 dredge survey’, in Jones, DS (ed.) 2004, Marine Biodiversity of the Dampier Archipelago Western Australia 1998–2002, records of the Western Australian Museum, Supplement No. 66.

Thacker, RW 2005, ‘Impacts of shading on sponge-cyanobacteria symbioses: a comparison between host specific and generalist associations’, Integrative and Comparative Biology, vol. 45, pp. 369–376.

Todd, SP, Stevick, P, Lien, J, Marques, F, Ketten, D 1996, ‘Behavioural effects of exposure to underwater explosions in humpback whales’, Canadian Journal of Zoology, vol. 74, no. 9, pp. 1661- 1672, Ontario, Canada.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 14-17

Trudgen, ME 1988, A report on the Flora and Vegetation of the Port Kennedy Area. Unpublished report for Bowman Bishaw and Associates, West Perth.

Tuxbury SM, Salmon, M 2005, ‘Competitive interactions between artificial lighting and natural cues during seafinding by hatchling marine turtles’ Biological Conservation, Volume 121, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 311-316

UNEP – see United Nations Environment Program.

United Nations Environment Program 2002, Dugong Status Report and Action Plans for Countries and Territories.

URS 2007a, Cape Lambert Phase 2 Contaminated Land Assessment Performed June to September 2006, report prepared for Pilbara Iron.

URS 2007b, Port Survey for Introduced Marine Species – Cape Lambert, report prepared for Pilbara Iron.

URS 2008a, A Baseline Community Assessment of Wickham, report Prepared by for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, February 2008.

URS 2008b, A Baseline Community Assessment of Roebourne, report Prepared by for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, February 2008.

URS & ACIL Tasman 2008, Social Impact Assessment – A social impact assessment of Rio Tinto Iron Ore’s proposed 320 Mtpa iron ore expansion in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, prepared for Rio Tinto Iron Ore, June 2008.

Van Vreeswyk AME, Payne, AL, Leighton, KA, Hennig, P 2004, Inventory and Condition Survey of the Pilbara Region Western Australia, Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin No. 92.

Van Wynsberghe D, Noback CR, Carola R 1995, Human Anatomy and Physiology. 3rd edn. McGraw Hill, New York

Vinnicombe, P 2002, ‘Petroglyphs of the Dampier Archipelago: Background to Development and Descriptive Analysis’, Rock Art Research, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 3–27.

Wang, JH, Jackson, K, Lohmann, KJ, 1998, ‘Perception of wave surge motion by hatchling sea turtles’, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 229, no. 177–186.

WAPC – see Western Australian Planning Commission

Water and Rivers Commission 2000, Water & Rivers Commission State-wide Policy No. 5: Environmental Water Provisions Policy for Western Australia.

Water and Rivers Commission 2001, Water & Rivers Commission State-wide Policy No. 6: Transferable (Tradeable) Water Entitlements for Western Australia.

PAGE 14-18 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ

Water and Rivers Commission 2003, WIN database search results, viewed January 2003, .

Water Corporation 2008, Demand Stakeholders Meeting, June 2008.

Waycott, M, McMahon, K, Mellors, J, Calladine, A & Kleine, D 2004, A guide to tropical seagrasses of the Indo-West Pacific, James Cook University, Brisbane, Queensland.

Waycott, M, Longstaff, BJ & Mellors, J 2005, ‘Seagrass population dynamics and water quality in the Great Barrier Reef region: A review and future research directions’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 51, pp. 343–350.

Wells, FE &Walker, DI 2003, ‘Introduction to the marine environment of Dampier, Western Australia’, in Wells, RE, Walker, DI & Jones, DS (eds) 2003, The Marine Flora and Fauna of Dampier, Western Australia, Western Australian Museum, Perth.

Wenzicker, K, McAlpine, K, Apte, S, Masini, R 2006, Background quality for coastal marine waters of the North West Shelf, Western Australia, North West Shelf Joint Environmnetal Management Study Technical Report 18

Wesseling, I, Uychiaoco, AJ, Alino, PM & Vermaat, JE 2001, ‘Partial mortality in Porites corals: variation among Philippine reefs’, International Review of Hydrobiology, vol. 86, pp. 77–85.

Western Australian Planning Commission 1997, State Planning Strategy:Report and Manual.

Western Australian Planning Commission 2003, Western Australian Planning Commission Planning Bulletin 64: Acid Sulphate Soils, November 2003.

Western Australian Planning Commission 2005, Western Australian Planning Commission Draft Statement of Planning Policy: Road and Rail Transport Noise. May 2005.

Western Australian Planning Commission 2006, Western Australian Planning Commission Transport Assessment Guidelines for Developments, August 2006

Western Australian Planning Commission 2007, Visual Landscape Planning In Western Australia: A Manual for Evaluation, Assessment, Siting and Design, November 2007

Wiese, FK, Montevecchi, WA, Davoren, GK, Huettmann, F, Diamond, AW & Linke, J 2001, ‘Seabirds at risk from around offshore oil platforms in the north-west Atlantic’, Marine Pollution Bulletin, vol. 42, pp 1285-1290.

Williams, SL & Carpenter, RC 1990, ‘Photosynthesis/photon flux density relationships among components of coral reef algal turfs’, Journal of Phycology, vol. 26, pp. 36–40.

Wilson, SG, Polovina, JJ, Stewart, BS, & Meekan, MG 2006, ‘Movements of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) tagged at Ningaloo Reef, Western Australia’, Marine Biology, vol. 148, pp. 1157–1166.

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PAGE 14-19

Witherington, BE 1991, ‘Orientation of hatchling loggerhead turtles at sea off artificially lighted and dark beaches’, Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, vol. 149, pp. 1–11.

Witherington, BE & Bjonrdal, KA 1991, ‘Influences of Artificial Lighting on the Seaward Orientation of Hatchling Loggerhead Turtles Caretta caretta’, Biological Conservation, vol. 55, pp. 139–149.

Witherington, BE & Martin, R 1996, Understanding, assessing, and resolving light-pollution problems on sea turtle nesting beaches, Florida Marine Research Institute Technical Report RT-2.

Woodroffe, C 1992, ‘Mangrove sediments and geomorphology’, pp. 7–41, In Robertson, AI & Alongi, DM (eds.), Tropical mangrove ecosystem, American Geophysical Union, Washington D.C.

WRC – see Water and Rivers Commission

Wright, BJ 1968, Rock Art of the Pilbara Region, North-west Australia, Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies, Canberra.

Wyneken, J 2001, The Anatomy of Sea Turtles. US Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-470, 172pp.

Yelverton, JT, Richmond, DR, Fletcher, ER & Jones, RK 1973, Safe distance from underwater explosions for mammals and birds, Defence Nuclear Agency, Dept. of Defence, Wash. DC, Tech. Rept. DNA 3114 T, pp. 67.

Yukihira, H, Klumpp, DW, Lucas, JS 1999, ‘Feeding adaptations of the pearl oysters Pinctada margaritifera and P. maxima to variations in natural particulates’, Marine Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 182, pp. 161-173, 11 June 1999.

PAGE 14-20 SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ