Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings Pty Ltd Assessment on Proponent Information

CAPE PRESTON EAST EXPORT FACILITIES IRON ORE HOLDINGS PTY LTD ASSESSMENT ON PROPONENT INFORMATION

Date: 10 April 2013

Prepared for Iron Ore Holdings Pty Ltd By Preston Consulting Pty Ltd April 2013 Rev_1

PRESTON CONSULTING

Email: [email protected] Website: www.prestonconsulting.com.au

Phone: +61 8 9324 8518 Fax: + 61 8 9324 8528 Street Address: Level 3, 201 Adelaide Terrace, EAST PERTH Western Australia 6004 Postal Address: PO Box 3093, East Perth, Western Australia, 6892

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Iron Ore Holdings Pty Ltd (IOH) proposes to construct and operate a small scale, third party access iron ore export facility at Cape Preston East in the Pilbara region of Western Australia (the Proposal). This Proposal outlines key elements required for the construction and operation of the facility.

Following amendments toe th Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002 (IOPAA) in 2008, an area of land to the east of Cape Preston was set aside by the State Government for the purposes of port development (C Barnett, Hansard 4 December 2008). This area has been selected by IOH as the preferred location for development of iron ore export facilities. The location is known as Cape Preston East (CPE) (Figure E1).

IOH proposes to be the foundation proponent to develop the initial iron ore export facilities at CPE. The scope of the Proposal covers the export facilities which are defined as the infrastructure to the north of the North West Coastal Highway required for iron ore export. The mining and haulage of ore has been submitted as a separate proposal for EPA assessment to facilitate the likely transfer of proponency to the Dampier Port Authority (DPA) upon completion of construction of the Proposal.

The Proposal has been developed in close consultation with DPA, Department of Transport, Department of State Development and Department of Regional Development and Lands. It is proposed to support a larger throughput capacity than that required by IOH – of a planned 20 Mtpa minimum capacity (IOH is expected to require up to 10 Mtpa of the design capacity). The facilities will be multi‐user and open access.

Preparation of the Proposal has considered the available information from nearby projects at Cape Preston, as well as recent proposals assessed and approved regarding the development of Port Facilities at Port Hedland, Anketell, Dampier, Cape Lambert, Oakajee and Ashburton North (Onslow). These proposals provide a useful array of baseline environmental data, management approaches to key environmental issues in environmental management plans, and Ministerial Conditions.

A number of alternative locations were considered for the Proposal. CPE was chosen as the preferred location as access was not restricted by tenure, it has access to a natural deep water channel (making dredging unnecessary) and is located on land set aside by the state Government for a multi‐user port. The Key Characteristics of the Proposal is detailed in Table ES1.

The key elements of the Proposal will be constructed and operated within the Proposal Area boundary shown in Figure E2.

The Proposal was referred to EPA in October 2012. Two key environmental factors were identified by EPA (2012); marine fauna and marine water quality.

Page | III

Highway Highway

60km 60km

Karratha Karratha

Coastal Coastal

To To Date: April 2013

West West

40 Mile Beach40 Mile Beach

North North North East Regnard Is (NR)North East Regnard Is (NR) Study Area / Lease Boundary North West Coastal Highway Existing Road LEGEND Project Location Cape Vessel Loading ZonesLoading Zones Cape Vessel Cape Vessel CAPE PRESTON EAST South West Regnard Is (NR)South West Regnard Is (NR)

420000mE Author: P. Scott

Existing Road Road Existing Existing Transhipment Vessel Route Sino IronSino Iron Cape Preston PortCape Preston Port Carey Is (NR)Carey Is (NR) Section 15 Customs Port Limits (State Waters)Waters) Port Limits (State Port Limits (State Section 15 CustomsSection 15 Customs Potter Is (NR)Potter Is (NR) 7660000mN7660000mN Study Area / Lease Boundary 7720000mN7720000mN

400000mE KalgoorlieKalgoorlie 5km WESTERNWESTERN AUSTRALIAAUSTRALIA KarrathaKarratha PerthPerth CAPE PRESTONCAPE PRESTON Steamboat Is (NR)Steamboat Is (NR) Scale 1:250 000 Scale 1:250 MGA94 (Zone 50) MGA94 (Zone 0 LOCALITYLOCALITY

Fortescue Is (NR)Fortescue Is (NR) 7680000mN7680000mN 7700000mN7700000mN

01.dgn g2106_F0 Ref CAD ~ A4 ~ 2013 April Date ~ www.cadresources.com.au URL ~ 3242 9246 Tel ~ Resources CAD Drawn: ~ Scott P. Author: Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011) April (Flown Landgate Source: Imagery

2km

Highway Highway Date: April 2013

Scale 1:100 000 430000mE MGA94 (Zone 50)

Coastal Coastal

West West and Proposal Area

CAPE PRESTON EAST

North North Study Area / Lease Boundary Author: P. Scott Central Services Facility

420000mE Trestle Jetty Navigation Aids Navigation Stockyard Port Services Area

Cape Preston Port Port Cape Preston Cape Preston

Study Area / Lease Boundary

Study Area / Lease Boundary Proposal Area Proposed Infrastructure Options North West Coastal Highway Existing Road Existing Road Road Existing Existing LEGEND

7680000mN7680000mN 7690000mN7690000mN

02.dgn g2106_F0 Ref CAD ~ A4 ~ 2013 April Date ~ www.cadresources.com.au URL ~ 3242 9246 Tel ~ Resources CAD Drawn: ~ Scott P. Author: Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011) April (Flown Landgate Source: Imagery Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Table ES1: Key Characteristics of the Proposal

Summary of the Proposal Proposal Title Cape Preston East – Iron Ore Export Facilities Proponent Name Iron Ore Holdings Pty Ltd The Proposal is to construct and operate iron ore export facilities at Short Description Cape Preston East in the Pilbara region of WA Physical Elements Proposed Extent Authorised

Terrestrial Disturbance Area Total disturbance of up to 398 ha within the 2,942 ha Proposal Area (Including stockyard, roads, workshops, shown in Figure 4, including up to: accommodation, conveyors, breakwater and  176 ha at the Stockyard area (north of the causeway) supporting infrastructure)  222 ha for supporting infrastructure south of the causeway Benthic Habitat Disturbance Area (Including breakwater, jetty, navigation aids and Up to 3.2 ha of disturbance to benthic and intertidal areas moorings) Operational Elements Element Location Proposed Extent Authorised Groundwater and/or temporary desalination units may be used during Water supply Cape Preston the construction phase, approximately 2 GL/yr capacity desalination plant will be used during operation Power supply Cape Preston Diesel generators with a total capacity of up to approximately 12 MW. Loading of transhipment vessels from a trestle jetty, which transport Export operations Cape Preston the ore to ocean going vessels located offshore. Ore is then loaded onto the ocean going vessels for export.

Marine Fauna The key aspects of the Proposal and potential impacts on Marine Fauna identified are impacts on marine conservation significant fauna and their habitat from:

 Direct disturbance of benthic habitat;  Marine noise leading to fauna behavioural changes, injury or death;  Light spill resulting in disorientation of marine turtles, reducing nesting numbers and hatchling success;  Introduced marine pests (IMP) resulting in alteration of habitat dynamics;  Oil spill resulting in contamination of benthic primary producer habitat and injury or death of marine fauna;  Vessel strike resulting in injury or death of marine fauna;  Changes to coastal processes resulting in changes to intertidal and beach habitat; and  Marine pollution resulting in injury or death of marine fauna.

Marine conservation significant fauna identified as being of most relevance to the Proposal are whales, dolphins, turtles and dugong.

The API document provides background information specific to the key environmental factors, describes the factors, the environmental impact assessment methodology (including relevant EPA objectives, policies, guidelines and standards), relevant aspects of the Proposal and their potential impacts and risks, proposed management actions, expected residual/cumulative impacts and environmental outcomes. The review also provides information on other factors relevant to the proposal to inform the EPA as to how these factors will be managed.

Page | VI

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Potential impacts to marine fauna have been significantly reduced in the site selection and planning processes such that direct impacts on key habitats such as coral, seagrass and mangroves are avoided. The Proposal has been designed to avoid dredging which minimises the risk of significant direct and indirect impacts.

Indirect potential impacts from marine noise are expected to be limited to the construction phase (approximately 20 months). Marine noise, vessel strike, light spill, oil spill and IMP risks and potential impacts are expected to be minimised to insignificant levels via a series of industry standard management actions. Coastal process impacts are expected to be minor in nature, slow to occur and able to be managed by physical translocation of any build ups.

Based on the above, it is expected that the implementation of the Proposal will not result in significant impacts to marine fauna or marine benthic, intertidal and coastal habitats. With eth application of the proposed management actions the EPA objectives and applicable policies can be met.

Marine Water Quality The Proposal is small scale compared to most Pilbara export facilities. Water quality risks are minimised by avoidance of dredging and the small scale of disturbance, desalination and product handling. Potential impacts are expected to be minimised to insignificant levels via a series of industry standard management actions to control risks of fuel spillage, sediment creation, and waste material discharge.

Based on the above, there is a high degree of confidence that the implementation of the Proposal will not result in significant impacts to marine water quality.

Other Environmental Factors Development of the Proposal is expected to require the disturbance of approximately 398 ha of land largely covered in native vegetation to enable the development of facilities. An assessment of the potential impacts on other factors provides a high degree of confidence that any impacts are minor and able to be managed with standard industry controls and regulatory mechanisms.

The majority of stakeholder consultation for the CPE Proposal has been completed over the past two years. Early in this period alternatives to the Proposal were being considered. After the CPE option was selected, discussions were focused on the selected option. During this period IOH has also been developing plans for mining of the Buckland Hills project such that meetings with stakeholders covered both proposals.

A record of all consultation efforts and inputs is being maintained and will be used to support the government approvals process by demonstrating that key stakeholder issues have been identified and responded to by IOH. A summary of the key stakeholder consultation is provided in the review. Historically, proposals in the area have not attracted a lot of public interest. The CPE Proposal is small scale in relation to most iron ore export activities.

Conclusion In conclusion, the Proposal is not expected to cause a significant environmental impact. It is a relatively small scale proposal in a generally well understood environment. The Proponent has

Page | VII

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings completed a suite of additional studies to update and focus the extensive previous baseline environmental data. This information has been considered in detailed project planning and feasibility investigations. IOH acknowledges that there is a shortage of biological data on Pilbara dolphin populations to enable impacts at a population scale to be accurately predicted. IOH has committed to funding research to assist in increasing the knowledge base for dolphin species.

The Proposal has been prepared with management controls identified to avoid, minimise or manage the environmental impacts. Given the configuration of the Proposal to avoid significant impacts, its location in relation to significant environmental assets and values, the management actions and controls to protect the environment, the Proposal is expected to meet the EPA objectives.

Page | VIII

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose and Scope ...... 1 1.2 Proponent Details ...... 3 1.3 Alternatives Considered ...... 3 2 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION AND KEY FACTORS ...... 6 2.1 Key Characteristics ...... 6 2.2 Location, Tenure and Land Use ...... 7 2.3 Relevant Studies ...... 8 2.4 Project Facilities and Activities ...... 9 2.4.1 Stockyard ...... 11 2.4.2 Iron Ore Export Infrastructure ...... 13 2.4.3 Desalination Plant ...... 16 2.4.4 Supporting Infrastructure ...... 18 2.5 Environmental Management Approach ...... 19 2.6 Identification of Key Environmental Factors ...... 19 2.7 Approval and Development Timeframes ...... 19 3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ...... 21 4 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ...... 22 4.1e Marin Fauna ...... 22 4.1.1 Relevant EPA Objectives / Policies / Guidelines / Standards ...... 22 4.1.2 Impact Assessment...... 23 4.1.3 Key Issues – Marine Fauna ...... 27 4.1.4 Expected Environmental Outcomes ...... 38 4.2 Marine Water Quality ...... 39 4.2.1 Relevant EPA Objectives / Policies / Guidelines / Standards ...... 39 4.2.2 Impact Assessment...... 39 4.2.3 Key Issues – Marine Water Quality ...... 41 4.2.4 Expected Environmental Outcomes – Marine Water Quality ...... 42 5 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS ...... 44 5.1.1 Impact Assessment...... 44

Page | ix

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

5.1.2 Key Issues – Other Factors ...... 48 5.1.3 Expected Environmental Outcomes ...... 55 6 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION ...... 56 7 CONCLUSION ...... 60 8 GLOSSARY ...... 62 9 REFERENCES ...... 64 10 APPENDICES ...... 69

List of Tables

Table 1: Key Characteristics of the Proposal ...... 6 Table 2: Impact assessment criteria ...... 21 Table 3: Environmental assessment – marine fauna ...... 24 Table 4: Summary of marine noise controls ...... 34 Table 5: Conservation status of marine turtle species occurring in WA waters ...... 36 Table 6: Impact assessment – marine water quality ...... 40 Table 7: Impact assessment – other factors ...... 45 Table 8: Terrestrial fauna habitats (from Strategen 2009)...... 52 Table 9: Assessment of significance of GHD (2013f) fauna habitats ...... 52 Table 10: Stakeholder consultation summary for the Proposal ...... 56

List of Figures

Figure 1: Location of Proposal ...... 2 Figure 2: Alternative options considered for port location ...... 5 Figure 3: Existing causeway to Cape Preston ...... 8 Figure 4: Proposal Area and Indicative Disturbance Areas ...... 10 Figure 5: Helicopter view of the Stockyard Area ...... 11 Figure 6: Cape Preston East Port – indicative stockyard location and layout* ...... 11 Figure 7: Proposal Area and Indicative Disturbance Area at Cape Preston ...... 12 Figure 8: Take‐off point for Trestle Jetty and Breakwater ...... 13 Figure 9: Indicative export facilities layout and detailed bathymetry ...... 14 Figure 10: Typical self‐powered transhipment vessel ...... 15 Figure 11: Transhipment Area ...... 17 Figure 12: Approval timeframes ...... 20 Figure 13: Development milestones ...... 20 Figure 14: Cape Preston benthic habitat (from Le Provost, 2009) ...... 28 Figure 15: Detailed benthic habitat map for marine disturbance ...... 29 Figure 16: Predicted beach development on west side of breakwater ...... 30

Page | x

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Figure 17: Noise propagation from piling source ...... 31 Figure 18: Effect of strike rate and tide on sound exposure levels at slow swim speed (1 km/hr) ..... 32 Figure 19: Effect of strike rate and tide on sound exposure levels at fast swim speed (5 km/hr) ...... 33 Figure 20: Proposed marine noise monitoring and shutdown zones ...... 35 Figure 21: Proposed MEPA and LEPA ...... 43 Figure 22: Vegetation map showing Proposal Area ...... 49 Figure 23: Fauna habitat map (modified from GHD, 2013) ...... 54

List of Appendices (on CD)

Appendix 1: Background Information Summary Appendix 2: Consolidated List of Management Actions Appendix 3: Clarification of Northern Quoll Habitat Appendix 4: Additional Regulatory Mechanisms Appendix 5: Study Reports Appendix 6: Spatial Datasets Appendix 7: Impact Assessment Criteria Appendix 8: IOH Environmental Policy Appendix 9: Assessment of Lighting against EAG 5

Page | xi

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

1 INTRODUCTION

Iron Ore Holdings Pty Ltd (IOH) proposes to develop an iron ore export facility on the eastern side of Cape Preston, in the Pilbara region of Western Australia (the Proposal; Figure 1). The export facility will be open to third party use and will be used to transport ore from nearby mining operations to overseas markets.

This Assessment on Proponent Information (API) document is written in accordance with the Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA’s) 2010 gazetted Environmental Impact Assessment Administrative Procedures, and has been prepared to inform decision‐makers and stakeholders about the Proposal. This API document addresses the potential environmental impacts from construction and operation of the Proposal and discusses how these will be managed and mitigated.

The submission of this document follows the receipt of the EPA prepared Scoping Guideline in December 2012, which sets out the issues and environmental factors which the EPA considers most relevant to the Proposal and has guided the focus of this assessment.

1.1 Purpose and Scope

IOH, in consultation with the Dampier Port Authority (DPA), proposes to construct and operate a small scale, multi‐user access iron ore export facility at Cape Preston East (CPE) in the Pilbara region of Western Australia (WA). This API document outlines key elements required for the construction and operation of the Proposal.

The purpose of this API document is to provide a detailed description of the Proposal and to enable assessment of the potential environmental impacts that may result, should the Proposal be implemented. The assessment will be completed by the Office of the Environmental Protection Authority (OEPA) under the provisions of Part IV of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act).

The scope of the Proposal presented in this API document is limited to an export facility at CPE, and associated facilities. The Proposal has been scoped to cover the requirements of IOH for the export of iron ore and to eenable th development of export operations by other operators under the management of the Dampier Port Authority (DPA). A detailed description of the Proposal is included in Section 2. The Proposal does not include mining operations or the transport of ore from the mines to CPE.

The Proposal is being separately referred under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act).

Page | 1

Highway Highway

60km 60km

Karratha Karratha

Coastal Coastal

To To Date: April 2013

West West

40 Mile Beach40 Mile Beach

420000mE Author: P. Scott

Fortescue Is (NR)Fortescue Is (NR) 7680000mN7680000mN 7700000mN7700000mN

1.2 Proponent Details

IOH owns a diverse portfolio of iron ore projects within the Pilbara region of Western Australia (WA). Since listing on the Australian Stock Exchange in May 2005, IOH has been implementing a successful strategy of identifying marketable hematite, channel iron deposits (CID) and magnetite resources on its Pilbara tenements.

The Proposal will be constructed under a 100% owned subsidiary company of IOH for the purpose of allowing future multi‐user access to these facilities with no implication to the mining operations.

It is likely that upon completion of construction of the Proposal, DPA will request transfer of proponency.

The key contact persons in relation to this document are:

Iron Ore Holdings:

Mr Michael Klvac Email: [email protected] Phone: 08 9483 2000 Mobile: 0417 982 302

Dampier Port Authority:

Mr Peter King Email: [email protected] Phone: 08 6217 7102 Mobile: 0413 731 183 Preston Consulting:

Mr Phil Scott Email: [email protected] Phone: 08 9221 0011 Mobile: 0418 954 467

1.3 Alternatives Considered

IOH considered several options for iron ore export from the Pilbara prior to making the decision to develop the Proposal:

 Existing and planned port facilities including Ashburton North, Cape Preston, Dampier, Anketell and Port Hedland were discounted due to a lack of spare capacity, distance and the lack of access to support growth opportunities;  Greenfield port options along the coastline from Onslow to Dampier were considered for the development of a new facility, including Mardie, Leteni and CPE (Figure 2).

Page | 3

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Consultation with DPA indicated that suitable tenure had been established and the potential access to deep water without dredging had been identified as favourable features to establish port facilities at CPE. Factors considered during the assessment of alternative locations included:

 Cost;  Development timeframe;  Location in relation to orebodies;  Access to deep water; and  Potential environmental and engineering constraints.

CPE was chosen as the preferred location as access was not restricted by tenure, it has access to deep water (making dredging unnecessary) and is located on land set aside by the state Government for a multi‐user port.

Once the location was chosen, several design alternatives were considered and assessed against potential social, economic and environmental factors. The final design presented in this API document was determined based on the following advantages:

 The Proposal can be operated independently of the Mineralogy port at Cape Preston;  Barge loading and offshore transhipment would be used for the export of ore, which removes the requirement for a shipping channel to be developed (which would require dredging);  The barge loading facility can take advantage of a natural depression and channel to avoid the need to extend the jetty across coral communities into deeper water;  The design includes a potential expansion of the stockyard to allow for third part users; and  The Proposal can be developed with construction and operational cost settings appropriate for the proposed scale of operations.

Page | 4

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Figure 2: Alternative options considered for port location

Page | 5

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

2 PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION AND KEY FACTORS

2.1 Key Characteristics

IOH has considered Environmental Assessment Guideline 1: Defining the Key Characteristics of a Proposal (EAG1) ‐ which focuses on how to define the key characteristics of proposals for the purposes of assessment and incorporation in the Ministerial Statement. The objective of EAG1 is to assist proponents to identify and provide the key proposal characteristics that capture all key features of the proposal relevant to Part IV of the EP Act. The EPA has provided IOH with the required format for the Key Characteristics Table. The scope of the key characteristics is expected to allow an export capacity of approximately 20 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of iron ore.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of the Proposal

Page | 6

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

2.2 Location, Tenure and Land Use

The Proposal will be constructed and operated within a defined area which is located on the east side of Cape Preston, approximately 60 km south‐west of Dampier in the Pilbara region of WA (Figure 1; the Proposal Area). The Proposal Area is adjacent to the existing and planned developments for the purposes of iron ore mining, processing and export under the terms of the Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002 (IOPAA) (Mineralogy Proposals). The Mineralogy Proposals have developed a substantial baseline environmental data set adjacent to and including some of the Proposal Area. This Proposal is not related to any proposals or operations under the IOPAA except to the extent that the land containing the existing causeway (Figure 3) will be surrendered to the State under the provisions made in the IOPAA. The central and western portions of Cape Preston are in the process of being developed under proposals prepared under the IOPAA.

Ore to be exported may come from any one or more of a number of deposits in the West Pilbara. IOH proposes to initially haul ore from the Buckland Hill area, located approximately 200 km by road to the south‐east of the Proposal Area. The likely adoption of proponency by DPA at completion of construction of the Proposal necessitates the separation of the mine and export facility proposals.

The Proposal is located on land and waters set aside by the State under Section 19 of the Mining Act 1978 (WA) (Mining Act), a section that excludes the specified land from the Mining Act with the stated purpose of S19/315, to “reserve the land for the development of a multi‐user port”. In addition to this land, a corridor of land connecting to the North West Coastal Highway will be resumed by the State for the purpose of public access to CPE. The land will be vested in the DPA under the Port Authorities Act 1999 (WA) (PA Act).

The lease boundary detailed above forms the basis for the additional environmental survey work that has been completed for this Proposal (referred to as the Study Area). The Proposal Area boundary lies within the Study Area (Figure 4). The Proposal Area is 2,942 ha and identifies the area within which proposed infrastructure will be located, and subsequently sets the boundaries of where the 398 ha of disturbance will occur. Some outlying items and activities such as the navigation markers and ocean going vessel anchorages will be located outside of the Proposal Area shown on Figure 4, but should be considered part of the Proposal.

The indicative clearing required to enable the construction and operation of the facilities is referred to as the Disturbance Area. Detailed design and construction eof th Proposal will define the final location of the disturbance within the Proposal Area.

Page | 7

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Figure 3: Existing causeway to Cape Preston

2.3 Relevant Studies

The Cape Preston area hosts a number of potential and implemented projects under the IOPAA that have been subject to assessment by the EPA and have completed baseline environmental and other relevant studies. Other recent proposals such as the Port Hedland Outer Harbour proposal (BHPB 2012) have also completed significant studies that have added to the body of knowledge of the existing environment and likely impacts of a range of infrastructure and activities associated with ports in the Pilbara. A tabulation of previous relevant studies and outcomes is provided in Appendix 1.

In preparation for this Proposal, IOH consulted, planned and implemented a series of studies to confirm certain aspects of baseline environmental information and likely impacts associated with the Proposal. The Environmental Scoping Document Guideline (ESD) prepared by the EPA in 2012 provided the guidance for these studies. The studies completed are listed below and presented in electronic format in Appendix 5:

 Benthic habitat survey of breakwater and trestle area (GHD 2013a);  Marine noise assessment (GHD 2013b);  Coastal process assessment (GHD 2013c);  Light spill/marine turtle assessment (Imbricata 2013);  Marine water quality assessment for desalination plant (GHD 2013d);

Page | 8

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

 Introduced marine pests (GHD 2013e);  Oil spill contingency assessment (Pelagico 2013); and  Terrestrial flora and fauna level one survey (GHD 2013f).

2.4 Project Facilities and Activities

The Proposal will include the following facilities and activities:

 Stockyard on Cape Preston to support approximately 20 Mtpa throughput;  Trestle jetty to support barge loading facilities for approximately 20 Mtpa of iron ore export extending approximately 1.5 km offshore from a small (approximately 200 m) rock supporting structure on the shoreline;  2 GL/year desalination plant including ocean intake and outfall;  Access road from the North West Coastal Highway. The access across the tidal creek to Cape Preston will be via the existing causeway;  Associated supporting infrastructure (accommodation, power supply, laydown areas and offices);  Operation of the transhipment vessel, including anchoring and loading of ocean going vessels in deep water offshore;  Approximately 150 to 400 vessel movements per year;  Road transport, stockpiling, loading and unloading of iron ore;  Refuelling of vessels, trucks and light vehicles; and  Marine safety and monitoring activities.

The facilities outlined above are to be located within the Proposal Area identified in Figure 4.

Page | 9

2km

Highway Highway Date: April 2013

Scale 1:100 000 430000mE MGA94 (Zone 50)

Coastal Coastal

West West and Proposal Area

CAPE PRESTON EAST

North North Study Area / Lease Boundary Author: P. Scott Central Services Facility

420000mE Trestle Jetty Navigation Aids Navigation Stockyard Port Services Area

Cape Preston Port Port Cape Preston Cape Preston

Study Area / Lease Boundary

Study Area / Lease Boundary Proposal Area Proposed Infrastructure Options North West Coastal Highway Existing Road Existing Road Road Existing Existing LEGEND

7680000mN7680000mN 7690000mN7690000mN

2.4.1 Stockyard The stockyard is located on an area of low relief on the eastern arm of Cape Preston (Figures 5 ‐ 7). The design is expected to initially contain stockpiles with a total capacity of approximately 400,000 tonnes and will meet the capacity required to load 180,000 – 240,000 tonne Cape size vessels.e Sid discharge trucks will unload adjacent to the stockpile and front end loaders will rehandle or reclaim product as required.

Figure 5: Helicopter view of the Stockyard Area

Figure 6: Cape Preston East Port – indicative stockyard location and layout*

(*Note: Breakwater design is not current in this figure)

Page | 11

Date: April 2013 421000mE Port Proposal Area CAPE PRESTON EAST and Disturbance Area Author: P. Scott Stockyard Trestle Jetty Breakwater

419000mE 400m Study Area / Lease Boundary Proposal Area Disturbance Area Scale 1:20 000 Scale 1:20 MGA94 (Zone 50) MGA94 (Zone LEGEND 0

7692000mN7692000mN 7694000mN7694000mN 7696000mN7696000mN

20.dgn g2106_F0 Ref CAD ~ A4 ~ 2013 April Date ~ www.cadresources.com.au URL ~ 3242 9246 Tel ~ Resources CAD Drawn: ~ Scott P. Author: Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011) April (Flown Landgate Source: Imagery Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

The stockyard design allows for progressive expansion, providing appropriate port‐side storage as production increases. As the port expands it is envisaged that the layout will contain four to eight individual stockpiles with a total capacity of approximately 2.5 Mt in a configuration to be agreed with DPA. A mix of radial and rail mounted stackers are expected to form the stockpiles, from which front end loaders or mechanical reclaimers will feed two load‐out conveyors as shown in Figure 6. The final alignment of the stockyard has not yet been finalised and therefore Figure 6 shows an indicative design which may potentially be realigned within the Disturbance Area shown in Figure 7.

The stockyard and associated infrastructure will be set back from the beach, with disturbance occurring behind the primary dunes. With the exception of the breakwater, the primary dune will not be disturbed. The dune system is not extensive, with the ground levelling out behind the primary dune. There is no evidence of dune blow‐outs on the affected beaches.

The closest infrastructure to the dune system is expected to be linear infrastructure such as drainage, roads or services.

2.4.2 Iron Ore Export Infrastructure The trestle jetty and launching ramp will cross the coastline over a basalt outcrop area that forms a natural inflection point in the coastline (Figure 8). The trestle jetty will be approximately 1.4 km in length, and will extend to 6 ‐ 7 m deep water as shown in Figure 9.

Figure 8: Take‐off point for Trestle Jetty and Breakwater

Dredging is not required as a shallow draft purpose built transhipment vessel (Figure 10) will utilise a natural channel (Figure 9).

Page | 13

400m Date: April 2013 Scale 1:20 000 MGA94 (Zone 50) 0

420000mE CAPE PRESTON EAST and detailed Bathymetry -3.0-3.0 -3.5-3.5 Indicative Export Facilities -4.0-4.0 Author: P. Scott -2.0-2.0 -2.0-2.0 Proposal AreaProposal Area BreakwaterBreakwater -3.5-3.5 Trestle JettyTrestle Jetty -4.0-4.0 -4.5-4.5 -4.0-4.0 -2.5-2.5 -1.0-1.0 Cyclone MooringCyclone Mooring 0.00.0 -4.5-4.5 -4.5-4.5 -3.0-3.0 -3.0-3.0 StockyardStockyard -2.0-2.0 -1.5-1.5 -4.0-4.0 -4.5-4.5 -3.5-3.5 -4.5-4.5 -3.5-3.5 -1.0-1.0 -2.5-2.5 -5.0-5.0 -3.5-3.5 -4.0-4.0 -0.5-0.5 -2.0-2.0 -3.0-3.0 -5.5-5.5 -5.0-5.0 -6.0-6.0 -4.5-4.5 -5.0-5.0 -1.5-1.5 -5.5-5.5 -6.0-6.0 -2.5-2.5 -5.5-5.5 -6.5-6.5 -5.0-5.0 -6.5-6.5 -6.0-6.0 -4.0-4.0 -7.0-7.0 -7.0-7.0 Disturbance AreaDisturbance Area Navigation AidsNavigation Aids -6.5-6.5 -7.0-7.0 -7.5-7.5

418000mE -7.0-7.0

Note: Bathymetry is in relation to Chart datum

7694000mN7694000mN 7696000mN7696000mN 7698000mN7698000mN

04.dgn g2106_F0 Ref CAD ~ A4 ~ 2013 April Date ~ www.cadresources.com.au URL ~ 3242 9246 Tel ~ Resources CAD Drawn: ~ Scott P. Author: Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011) April (Flown Landgate Source: Imagery Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Figure 10: Typical self‐powered transhipment vessel

The jetty will be narrow with no road access, but will instead provide for an overhead rail‐ mounted travelling maintenance platform. The jetty will be sized to enable two parallel running conveyors to be installed – one for the single IOH user, the second for the multi‐user stage. The current indicative design incorporates two piles at 30 m spacing, with approximately 8.5 m wide box‐plate crosshead and tubular truss to support conveyors. Raking piles are included in every tenth bent to stabilise the structure.

At the end of the jetty conveyor there will be a fixed slewing type ship loader supported on a piled structure. The loader platform will provide tie downs for the loader and support for a substation and refuelling facilities. The loader will be capable of operating over half the transhipment vessel length and the vessel will move twice during a loading operation.

It is envisaged that six independent berthing and mooring dolphins will be required to enable satisfactory loading of the transhipment vessel. The design includes dolphins consisting of four piles with fenders and bollards.

At the shoreline, a small (approximately 200 m long) rock breakwater will extend from the beach across the intertidal zone. The rock breakwater will include a launching ramp for emergency response vessels (Figure 7). The head of the breakwater will be at right angles to provide a sheltered launching environment.

Navigation markers will be installed at the edge of the navigation channel to mark the surrounding shallower seafloor (Figure 9). A vessel tracking system will be installed by DPA and electronic navigation aids such as radar will further assist vessel movements with a safe course and determining its distance and position with respect to the loading point. Radio will be used as a means for two way communication between the port‐based personnel and the vessels and hence will assist further with navigation.

A nominal 15,000 – 30,000 tonne payload self‐powered transhipment vessel (as shown in Figure 10), will be loaded and transport ore to Cape or Panamax bulk cargo ships moored in deep water (>20 m), within State waters, approximately 18 km offshore (Figure 11). Several designated

Page | 15

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

anchorage locations will be used from the existing array of anchorages under the management of DPA. These anchorages are located within State waters.

The construction phase is scheduled over 20 months and two cyclone seasons. A cyclone mooring is therefore planned to be installed for construction vessels and will be retainedr fo use during operations.

2.4.3 Desalination Plant The desalination plant will be sized to produce approximately 2 GL/year of fresh water for use as dust suppression water and other uses across the Proposal. The inlet will be located on the trestle jetty, approximately 1.3 km from shore, where the water depth is sufficient to ensure reliable clean supply.

The desalination process will involve membrane filtration to separate sand, ocean debris, water impurities, biological growth and refined particles, whereas reverse osmosis will be used for salt separation.

To prevent membrane damage and clogging, the intake water will be treated with chlorine to disinfect the water, and suspended solids will be removed from the water prior to entering the membrane filtration unit. A buffer tank will be used to pre‐treat the intake water prior to entering the membrane filtration unit. The tank will allow for the delay in time for discharge water to be pre‐treated, with the desalination plant in stand‐by mode.

A buffer tank will be used to neutralise the discharge water prior to release from the ocean outfall. The discharge outfall will be piped to the end of the load out jetty, approximately 1.5 km from shore.

Page | 16

Management AreaManagement Area Proposed Regnard MarineProposed Regnard Marine Stockyard

420000mE Trestle Jetty

Transhipment Vessel Route Cape Preston PortCape Preston Port 7690000mN7690000mN

410000mE Date: April 2013 Cape Vessel Loading ZonesCape Vessel Loading Zones 2km Transhipment Area CAPE PRESTON EAST Section 15 Customs Port Limits (State Waters)Waters) Port Limits (State Port Limits (State Section 15 CustomsSection 15 Customs 0 Scale 1:125 000 Author: P. Scott MGA94 (Zone 50)

7700000mN7700000mN 7710000mN7710000mN 7720000mN7720000mN

09.dgn g2106_F0 Ref CAD ~ A4 ~ 2013 April Date ~ www.cadresources.com.au URL ~ 3242 9246 Tel ~ Resources CAD Drawn: ~ Scott P. Author: Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011) April (Flown Landgate Source: Imagery Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

2.4.4 Supporting Infrastructure Power will be provided via diesel generator sets. Modular designs will be used to allow for gradual expansion of capacity. Approval is being sought for a total capacity of 12 MW.

Adjacent to the site access road, workshop, refuelling and accommodation facilities will be constructed. These facilities are termed the Central Services Facility (CSF).

Fuel will be stored adjacent to the stockyard in self‐bunded horizontal tanks, or a designated bunded bulk fuel facility at the CSF. Diesel fuel delivery will be from Dampier or Port Hedland by triple road tankers with a nominal capacity of 100 kL. Fuel will be distributed to the power station, mobile vehicle supply tanks and the transhipment vessel via dual skin pipe leak containment systems.

Waste will be sorted at a transfer station expected to be located in proximity to the CSF, with recyclable material to be stored for pick up and transfer to recycling facilities and other waste for disposal at an appropriate off site licensed landfill facility.

Two services areas are envisaged which will accommodate IOH and DPA facilities as well as allow for potential future users. The areas are planned to support accommodation, administration, workshops and support infrastructure including:

 A 350‐person accommodation camp for construction and operation personnel;  DPA offices;  IOH regional administration building;  Induction and training centre;  Gate house and emergency response / first aid facility;  Road train maintenance workshop;  Light vehicle and general maintenance workshop;  Truck and light vehicle wash facility;  Warehouse dan secure storage compound;  Refuse and recycling facility;  Fuel farm;  Power supply; and  Communications infrastructure.

The CSF layout is designed to separate the long haul trucking from other activities. The most frequent truck activity at the Central Services Area will be refuelling, washdown and maintenance. Entry tol al other areas at the site will be via the gate house and visitors reception.

Page | 18

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

2.5 Environmental Management Approach

IOH operates under an environmental policy that outlines its commitment to designing, constructing, operating and closing the Proposal to minimise impacts on the environment. Control strategies for the mitigation of environmental impacts associated with the Proposal will ultimately be managed through an Environmental Management System (EMS) and any required Environmental Management Plans (EMPs).

IOH regards environmental care as an integral part of its business and is committed to excellence in the management of environmental matters. The company understands that environmental management is essential to its own future and recognises that sound environmental management benefits all stakeholders. IOH aims to minimise environmental impacts where possible throughout all aspects of the Proposal.

2.6 Identification of Key Environmental Factors

The EPA identified two key environmental factors that required assessment in this API document (EPA, 2012):

 Marine fauna ‐ to address potential impacts resulting from loss of Benthic Primary Producer Habitat (BPPH), changes to coastal processes, marine noise, Introduced Marine Pests (IMPs) and light spill.  Marine water quality – to address potential risks and impacts resulting from oil spills, the desalination plant brine outfall and other potential marine pollutants.

These factors are discussed and assessed in detail in Section 3. An assessment of other environmental factors has been included in Section 4.

2.7 Approval and Development Timeframes

Development of the export facilities will be staged. IOH proposes to commence export activity at an initial rate of 2 Mtpa, ramping up to 4 Mtpa over the space of several months. Further development of mining activities would see IOH develop a second stage up to approximately 10 Mtpa capacity. Other potential users will develop their own project development and approval time frames.

Key approval milestone targets for assessment under Section 38 of the EP Act are shown in Figure 12 below. Key development milestones relating to the Proposal and the mining activity at Bungaroo South that will provide the initial ore are shown in Figure 13.

Page | 19

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Figure 12: Approval timeframes

2012 2013 2014 J ASONDJFMAMJ J ASONDJFMAMJJASO IOH Board Approval Approvals Preliminary Feasibility Study Engineering Design Early Contractor Involvement Long lead Procurement Procurement & Contracts Port ‐ jetty pile driving Port ‐ earthworks & roads Port ‐ jetty complete & infrastucture Haul Road Section 1 Haul Road Section 2 Haul Road Section 3 Bungaroo South infrastucture Central Services Infrastucture Mining prestrip Figure 13: Development milestones

Page | 20

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

3 IMPACT ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

This section outlines the key EPA considerations (principles, objectives, criteria, procedures and policies) relevant to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) of the Proposal. Table 2 below provides cross references to sections of the document relevant to criteria.

Table 2: Impact assessment criteria

Criteria Outcome Location in API Document The Proposal has considered the EP Act Principles. EP Act Principles The Proposal is consistent with the EP Act Principles. Assessment against them is presented in Appendix 7. The Proposal has considered The Proposal has been assessed in detail against EPA the EPA Objectives. EPA Objectives objectives for both key and other environmental factors. Assessment against them is The Proposal is consistent with the EPA objectives. presented in Appendix 7. The Proposal conforms to the criteria for API Category A as outlined in 10.1.1 of the Administrative Procedures. EPA Administrative The Proposal has been prepared to address the Appendix 7. Procedures 2012 information requirements identified in 10.1.3; the Principles of EIA for the Proponent identified in Section 5 and the assessment procedure for Category A identified in Section 10.1.2 of the Administrative Procedures. The Proposal has been prepared to address the information requirements identified in the EPA issued The API document has been EPA Environmental Scoping Environmental Scoping Guideline (EPA 2012). The prepared in accordance with Guideline guideline establishes the EPA’s position on significant the guideline. environmental factors. Relevant EPA Guidelines: Defining the key Key Proposal Characteristics that capture all key characteristics of a proposal features of the proposal relevant to the EP Act, Section 2.1 (EAG1) discussed with OEPA. BPPH are defined as seabed communities within which algae e.g. macroalgae, turf and benthic microalgae, Environmental Assessment seagrass, mangroves, corals or mixtures of these groups Guidelines for Protection of are prominent components. IOH has added to previous Section 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 BPPH in WA’s Marine BPPH surveys in the Cape Preston area. Proposal Environment (EAG3) design has negated the need to impact upon any significant coral areas or to dredge. Guidance on an array of approaches available for Environmental Assessment avoiding, reducing, managing and mitigating light Guideline for protecting impacts on marine turtles considered. Alternative Sections 4.1.2 and 4.1.3 marine turtles from light methods for the avoidance and management of light impacts (EAG5) impacts that can be applied using a risk-based approach and by applying best practice methods. Timelines for EIA of Consultation with OEPA and agreement on proposed Section 2.7 Proposals (EAG6) assessment timeframes. EPA Position Statement 56: The CPE baseline environmental surveys have been Consultant Reports in Terrestrial Fauna Surveys completed in accordance with this Statement. Appendix 5 for EIA in WA Position Statement 51. Terrestrial Flora and The CPE baseline environmental surveys have been Consultant Reports in Section Vegetation Surveys for EIA completed in accordance with this Statement 10.3 in WA Guidance Statement 19. The Proposal is not expected to result in any significant Environmental Offsets - adverse impacts on biodiversity assets of ‘high’ or Not required Biodiversity ‘critical’ value. Environmental Quality Criteria Reference Used as a reference document for consideration of Section 4.2 Document for Cockburn marine water quality protection measures Sound (2003 – 2004)

Page | 21

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

4 KEY ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Two key environmental factors were identified by EPA (2012); marine fauna and marine water quality.

The key aspects of the proposal and potential impacts on marine fauna identified are impacts on marine conservation significant fauna and their habitat from:

Marine conservation significant fauna identified as relevant to the Proposal are whales, dolphins, turtles and dugong.

There have been numerous studies completed to allow the assessment of the impacts listed above. Summaries of the findings of these studies are contained in Appendix 1 and recent studies completed for the Proposal are contained in Appendix 5.

This section provides background information specific to the key environmental factors, describes the factors, the environmental impact assessment methodology (including relevant EPA objectives, policies, guidelines and standards), relevant aspects of the Proposal and their potential impacts and risks, proposed management actions (consolidated into Appendix 1), expected residual/cumulative impacts and environmental outcomes.

4.1 Marine Fauna

4.1.1 Relevant EPA Objectives / Policies / Guidelines / Standards Objectives:

 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.  To avoid or manage potential impacts from light overspill and comply with acceptable standards.

Page | 22

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Guidelines:

IOH has considered EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline 5 (EAG5) which specifically addresses approaches to Proposal design and implementation to protect marine turtles from the adverse impacts of light. EAG5 sets out:

 Guidance on an array of approaches available for avoiding, reducing, managing and mitigating light impacts on marine turtles to be considered when preparing documentation relevant to the EIA process and during the implementation of proposals or planning schemes; and  Alternative methods for the avoidance and management of light impacts that can be applied using a risk‐based approach and by applying best practice methods.

IOH has considered EPA Environmental Assessment Guideline 3 ‘Protection of BPPH in WA’s Marine Environment’ in recognition of the fundamental ecological importance of BPPH and the potential consequences of their loss for marine ecological integrity and also the fact that almost all marine development proposals will result in some loss of these important habitats.

4.1.2 Impact Assessment This section presents information relevant to assessing the likely impacts on marine fauna and includes a summary of the existing environment, impact mechanism, potential impacts, proposed management controls (often the same for impacts on different ecosystem elements) and predicted outcomes.

An assessment of distribution and habitat has identified that the following marine fauna species listed under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 (WC Act) may potentially be found within the Study Area:

 Blue Whale (Balaenoptera musculus);  Southern Right Whale (Eubalaena australis);  Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae);  Short‐nosed Sea Snake (Aipysurus apraefrontalis);  Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta caretta);  Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas);  Hawksbill Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata);  Flatback Turtle (Natador depressus); and  Dugong (dugong dugon).

Table 3 summarises the potential impacts to marine fauna and Section 4.1.3 provides additional information and assessment on any key issues identified in Table 3.

Page | 23

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Table 3: Environmental assessment – marine fauna

Existing Environment and Knowledge Impact mechanisms Potential Impacts Proposed Management Controls Predicted Outcomes BPPH  Direct impact  Proposal location has been selected to avoid the  Marine disturbance approval system to track disturbance areas There is a high degree of certainty of direct impact to 3.2 ha of BPPH (habitat removal) need to dredge or disturb mangroves  Monitor beach profiles around the solid breakwater Seven benthic habitat types identified in from the breakwater, trestle jetty and navigation aids. This figure  Smothering or  No areas of dense coral (>10% cover) within the  Relocate any significant sand build up to the east of the breakwater to maintain the proximity to the breakwater and trestle jetty: assumes full disturbance of the trestle jetty alignment, however the erosion due to Study Area ability to launch small vessels. This will also result in a lower area of impact to actual disturbance will generally only be for the piles, therefore the 3.2  Very sparse coral (<5% ground cover) coastal process  The trestle structure will traverse approximately 400 BPPH via smothering or erosion ha estimate is a worst case estimate.  Sparse coral (5-10% cover) changes m of sparse/very sparse coral and dense/sparse There is a moderate degree of certainty that sediment will accumulate on  Dense macroalgae (>10% cover)  Contamination macro-algae BPPH the western side of the breakwater, over algae dominated limestone Sparse macroalgae (5-10% cover) from oil spills   The barge berthing areas will be over sand/rubble pavement and may require removal from time to time to maintain vessel (discussed in  Algae dominated limestone pavement with no BPPH entry and exit from the boat ramp. Commitment to remove sediment Section 4.2)  Very sparse sponges (<5% cover)  A sandy beach is expected to slowly develop over build up is expected to result in a reduced indirect impact of up to 5 ha of  Sand / rubble an area of up to 10 ha as sand accumulates on the smothering of algae dominated limestone pavement intertidal BPPH from Given the sparse nature of most of the west side of the breakwater. The sand may sediment. habitats, many overlap as shown on Figure smother algae dominated limestone pavement 15. intertidal BPPH  Beach profile on immediate east side of breakwater Other key BPPH in the Cape Preston area is expected to gradually erode in response to lower include: sediment supply  Large isolated coral bommies with moderate (10 to 25%) coral cover and turf algae  Island fringing coral communities with high (25 to 50%) coral cover  Small isolated seagrass patches (i.e. predominantly Halophila sp.)  Mangrove communities Coastal Processes Rock breakwater  Accumulation of sediment on west side of  Monitor beach profiles around the solid breakwater Given that sediment will need to be relocated to the eastern side of the forming barrier to  Relocate any significant sand build up to the east of the breakwater to maintain the Sediment is expected to flow from Cape breakwater would eventually (estimated to be over breakwater to maintain access to the launching ramps, the Proposal is sediment movement ability to launch small vessels Preston in an easterly direction. 10 - 20 years) block the launching ramp unlikely to significantly impact on coastal processes. An estimate of the  Sediment wedge develops over an estimated 10 ha  If required, relocate additional sediment or wrack to eastern beaches, to maximum sand wedge build up is expected to be limited to less than 5 area (with no controls), as shown in Figure 16 compensate for any identified significant deficits that may be caused by the ha (with the implementation of controls), with less than 1 ha of erosion  Beach profile on immediate east side of breakwater presence of the breakwater on the beach immediately to the west. is expected to gradually erode in response to lower The primary sediment source of the eastern-facing beaches on the east sediment supply of the breakwater is unclear based on current knowledge. The sediment  Potential for increased erosion on eastern facing source may be the seabed sediments, or sediment may flow from the beaches on the east side of breakwater north-facing beaches, or more than likely it is a combination of both. Given that monitoring and sand relocation will be conducted it is unlikely that the Proposal will significant impact the profiles of these beaches. Whales Marine noise from pile Potential impacts on humpback whales passing through Marine noise controls are defined to mitigate the risk of the impacts to avoid the risk of Pile driving will occur predominantly during daylight hours for up to 12 driving activities the area during southern migration include: PTS and make the risk of TTS negligible. Avoidance and behavioural responses are months. Pile driving will cease during location shifts and according to No quantitative survey data for humpback expected should any whales travel within 2-5 km of pile driving activities during mid-high the management controls identified. whales specific to Cape Preston. General  Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS; equivalent to tides. These responses will be difficult to detect. patterns of migration are well understood. permanent loss of hearing sensitivity – refer to Most of the jetty structure is in or surrounded by shallow water so that Humpback whales are generally expected to Glossary) within 50 m of pile driving The controls identified are as follows: marine noise propagation is expected to be less than predicted, pass Cape Preston in deeper waters offshore,  Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS; equivalent to  Verification of marine noise predictions in first month of pile driving particularly during the lower tide phases. Verification of noise levels will particularly on the northern migration. Some temporary loss of hearing sensitivity – refer to  Modification of proposed controls in consultation with DEC/SEWPaC if required be used to modify management protocols if required. whales, often with calves will stay close to Glossary) within 500 m of pile driving based on verification Extremely low likelihood of whales experiencing PTS, low likelihood of shore on the southern migration. The waters  Avoidance of area/behavioural response within 2-5  Pile driving only during conditions that allow visual monitoring humpback whales experiencing TTS. Whales (should they pass within between South East Regnard Island are very km of pile driving.  Soft start to pile driving activities to prevent sudden increases in noise shallow and may not allow whales to pass in 2 – 5 km of pile driving) may seek to avoid the area, and/or may reduce Humpback whales are expected to avoid the area close  1000 m marine mammal management area around pile driving barge whilst lower tide conditions. their usage of calls and soundings in response to anthropogenic noise. to shore due to very shallow water between Cape operating. Slow down the rate of pile driving activities if marine mammals enter this Other whale species may pass in close Preston and South East Regnard Island. At low tide this area The outcomes identified above are not expected to have a significant proximity to the Study Area, but little is known water is only 1 – 3 m deep.  500 m marine mammal exclusion area around pile driving barge whilst operating. effect on long term population dynamics for whales. Shut down pile driving activities if marine mammals enter this area about their distribution, populations or The temporary nature of the pile driving activity will ensure that whales Potential impacts on other whale species are expected  Suitably qualified observer operating immediately before and during pile driving behaviours. are not affected over more than one migration cycle. to be similar to those identified for Humpback Whales,  Should noise verification or animal observations indicate further controls are assuming the animals may occasionally be present and necessary, the following contingency measures will be considered: are within the noise affected area. o Restricting piling to avoid high tide o Reducing the strike rate of piling o Pre-boring of holes o Source noise controls Vessel Strike Vessel strike may result in injury or death. Potential The risk of vessel strike cannot be eliminated. The likelihood and severity of vessel The application of controls will reduce the likelihood of vessel strikes. causes of vessel strike include: strike can be reduced with the following controls: The severity of vessel strike on whales is markedly reduced at speeds between 8 – 15 knots (Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007).  Ocean going vessels approaching and departing  All vessel crews to undertake site induction to include details of risks, impacts, mooring point management controls, communications and reporting regarding vessel strike  Transhipment barges on return journeys  Whale sightings to be communicated to all vessels in area  Construction vessel movements  Vessel speed reduction below 8 knots if whale sightings are within vessel

Page | 24

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Existing Environment and Knowledge Impact mechanisms Potential Impacts Proposed Management Controls Predicted Outcomes  Small emergency or maintenance craft movements movement areas  Reporting of any vessel strike to DEC/SEWPaC Dolphins Marine noise from pile No species specific noise sensitivity data for humpback Implement marine noise controls as identified for whales. Additional controls include: driving activities Pile driving will occur predominantly during daylight hours for up to 12 No quantitative data are available on dolphin or snubfin dolphins.  Survey of dolphin population and movements prior to construction months. Pile driving will cease during location shifts and according to populations at Cape Preston. Humpback, Potential impacts on dolphins possible include:  Possible modification of marine noise controls if dolphin activity from survey work the management controls identified. bottlenose and snubfin dolphins expected to  PTS within 50 m of pile driving suggests this is required occur in the waters surrounding and including Most of the jetty structure is in or surrounded by shallow water so that  TTS within 500 m of pile driving  Any modifications to noise controls in consultation with DEC/SEWPaC the Study Area. marine noise propagation is expected to be less than predicted,  Avoidance of area/behavioural response within 2-5 particularly during the lower tide phases. Verification of noise levels will Studies have been completed on dolphin km of pile driving. General pattern is reduced use be used to modify management protocols if required. noise sensitivity, mainly on the common and scope of communications and echolocation bottlenose dolphin. during noise episodes Dolphins are expected to pass through the area, however there is an extremely low likelihood of dolphins experiencing PTS (PTS would

Vessel strike for some species of dolphins has require animals to remain undetected within 50 m of pile driving), and a been researched. low likelihood of dolphins experiencing TTS (TTS would require animals to remain undetected within 500 m of pile driving). Monitoring, slowdown and shutdown controls can be expected to significantly reduce the risk of PTS or TTS. Dolphins that pass within 2 – 5 km of pile driving activities may seek to avoid the area, or may be curious and approach. Dolphins in “noisy” environments are expected to reduce their usage of calls and soundings. No population data is available for the dolphin species likely to occupy the waters surrounding Cape Preston. Population impacts cannot be accurately estimated based on current knowledge however IOH commits to funding dolphin population research prior to construction to inform this issue further. This information will determine whether a modification in noise controls is required. Vessel strike Same potential impacts as for whales (discussed above) Same management controls as for whales (discussed above) The application of controls will reduce the likelihood of vessel strikes. The severity of vessel strike on whales is markedly reduced at speeds between 8 – 15 knots (Vanderlaan and Taggart (2007), and dolphins are expected to be more mobile and quicker to respond to oncoming vessels. Dugong Due to the lack of specific noise sensitivity data for Marine noise controls as identified for Whales. Additional controls to include: Pile driving will occur predominantly during daylight hours for up to 12 Marine Noise dugong, the exposure guidelines used for other marine months. Pile driving will cease during location shifts and according to Dugong have been sighted in the Cape  Inclusion of dugong (presence / absence) in the survey of dolphin population and mammals are proposed to be used to provide some movements prior to construction the management controls identified. Preston area and would be expected to be contingency. present based on distribution and habitat.  Possible modification of marine noise controls if dugong activity from survey work Most of the jetty structure is in or surrounded by shallow water so that Key feeding habitat is seagrass, noted by Le Potential impacts on dugong include: suggests is required marine noise propagation is expected to be less than predicted, Provost to occur approximately 2 km north of  PTS within 50 m of pile driving  Any modifications to noise controls in consultation with DEC/SEWPaC particularly during the lower tide phases. Verification of noise levels will be used to modify management protocols if required. the berthing area for the Proposal. Both Le  TTS within 500 m of pile driving Provost (2008) and GHD (2013e) reported  Avoidance of area/behavioural response within 2 - Dugong are expected to pass through the area, however there is an sparse tufts of seagrass in the sand/rubble 5 km of pile driving. extremely low likelihood of dugong experiencing PTS (PTS would require habitat that occurs in the Study Area. animals to remain undetected within 50 m of pile driving), and a low Population density data is limited. Dugong likelihood of dugong experiencing TTS (TTS would require animals to have occasionally been sighted at Cape remain undetected within 500 m of pile driving). Monitoring, slowdown Preston (GHD pers comm from recent and shutdown controls can be expected to significantly reduce the risk of survey). Dugong may move through the PTS or TTS. Study Area looking for food. Dugong that pass within 2 – 5 km of pile driving activities may seek to Existing impact data for dugong is focused on avoid the area, or may be curious and approach. vessel strike rather than marine noise, No population data is available to accurately predict the frequency of however dugong are expected to be less dugong presence in the waters surrounding Cape Preston. IOH intends impacted by noise emissions than dolphins or to include a presence / absence survey of dugong in the dolphin survey whales. to inform this issue further. This information will determine whether a modification in noise controls is required. Vessel Strike Same potential impacts as for whales (discussed above) Same management controls as for whales (discussed above) No impact on seagrass beds to the west of South East Regnard Island. These seagrass beds are not within the path of the transhipment vessel. The application of controls may reduce the likelihood of vessel strikes, and lower vessel speeds may reduce the consequence if a vessel strike occurs. Marine Turtles (water column) Marine noise from pile Potential impacts on turtles possible include PTS, TTS Management controls proposed are the same as for marine mammals except that the Pile driving will occur for up to 12 months. Extremely low likelihood of driving activities animals experiencing PTS, low likelihood of animals experiencing TTS. Very little known about sound levels and or an avoidance of area/behavioural response. zones are reduced in size due to smaller animal size (harder to locate) and the lower impacts expected: frequencies that cause physical injury or Noise impacts on marine turtles is not well understood, behavioural response in marine turtles (BHPB however it is generally accepted that turtles are less  500 m marine turtle management area around pile driving barge whilst operating. 2011). Based on limited information, BHPB likely to be impacted by marine noise than dolphins or Slow down pile driving rate when marine turtles are within this area reported that physical injury and/or permanent whales.  250 m marine turtle exclusion area around pile driving barge whilst operating. hearing damage to adult turtles is likely to Shutdown of pile driving activities when marine turtles are within this area occur at 240 dB re 1 µPa and behavioural and

Page | 25

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Existing Environment and Knowledge Impact mechanisms Potential Impacts Proposed Management Controls Predicted Outcomes masking changes are likely to occur at levels Vessel Strike Same potential impacts as for whales (discussed above) Same management controls as for whales (discussed above) The rate of vessel strikes for the Proposal is not expected to be higher above 120 dB re 1 µPa. Noise from pile than for any other Pilbara port – for which this issue has not been driving was considered to pose a medium risk considered significant. The relatively low vessel speeds are expected to to marine turtles in the area of the outer minimise the risk of marine turtle injuries or fatalities from vessel strike. harbour pile driving works. Turtle nesting Light Spill Key sensitivity of marine turtles to light is during  Educate personnel on the need to minimise light spill and the controls in place Earlier work at Cape Preston has shown low utilisation of the beaches  Design lighting to be as low as practicable while maintaining a safe working Marine turtle usage of Cape Preston beaches hatchling emergence and migration back to the sea, for turtle nesting. Imbricata’s (2013) recent work on the northern and environment is documented to be at very low numbers, and however nesting females may also avoid beaches with eastern beaches of Cape Preston has confirmed the low utilisation and  Minimise light intensity to as low as reasonable practicable along shoreline areas in some years no nesting activities occur at all high light levels. confirmed that controls will be required to minimise light exposure on the (Imbricata, 2013).  Avoid use of white lights (mercury vapour, metal halide, halogen and fluorescent) northern and eastern beaches. Potential impacts on turtles therefore include: where practicable on stockpile and breakwater and jetty The eastern beach provides suitable nesting  Avoidance of the eastern beaches by adults looking  Reduce light spill using shielding, directional alignment and behavioural controls The application of light controls is expected to reduce the likelihood of habitat for marine turtles. The beach is facing for suitable nesting beaches; and (use of blinds, need for lighting) adult avoidance and hatchling disorientation. Monitoring of hatchling behaviour will confirm behaviour and adjustments to lighting will provide the leeward side of Cape Preston, offering  Disorientation of hatchlings on the eastern beach  Monitor turtle activity on the beaches adjacent to the Proposal and report to DEC further control. shelter from the south-westerly winds during due to exposure to shore based lighting. This  Locate land-based infrastructure a sufficient distance inland from turtle nesting the summer, and appears to be a stable would reduce the chance of successful hatchling beaches where practicable Given the close proximity of the stockyard area to the beaches, it is beach with no evidence of erosion or transfer to the sea. expected that even though direct light will be shielded, there will be some accretion. The dune system is densely light glow. This is expected to have an impact on turtle hatchlings, vegetated with coastal shrubs and spinifex however the low utilisation of the beach means that the regional and provides the fundamental subsurface population of the species is not expected to be significantly impacted. properties for incubating eggs. Coastal Process Change in beach profiles, with the area to the west of  Physical removal of sand build up and placement on east side as required to Medium term build up of sediment on the west side of breakwater will The results of surveys to date indicate that Change the rock breakwater expected to accumulate sand, and maintain operability of launching ramp and beach profiles result in additional beach likely to be suitable turtle nesting habitat. green turtles favour the south-eastern the eastern beaches may erode over the long term.  Monitoring of coastal profiles and reporting annually to DEC Impact to the eastern beaches is expected to be minimal. Local or beaches. The nearshore algal-rock benthic regional changes to turtle nesting behaviour not likely to be significant habitats and mangrove forests were also given low nesting numbers. utilised as feeding habitats by large juvenile and sub-adult green turtles. Potential light spill impacts on marine turtles is well documented. Other species Marine Noise Potential impacts on other marine species include Additional controls for other species to include: Pile driving will occur approximately 12 months. Piling will migrate from pressure injury to swim bladders, resulting in fauna injury  Slow start procedure to include recording marine fauna visible within 50 m of piling near shore into deeper water over duration of construction. or death. location prior to start and during start-up of piling Possibility of animals experiencing PTS, some animals likely to  Reporting to DEC any animals noted to remain within 50 m of piling activity experience TTS. Few sedentary animals expected to live in 50 m zone of piling activity due to lack of significant benthic habitat. Introduced Marine Vessels and vessel related activity during construction Prepare and implement hull fouling and ballast water management plan in consultation Project area benthic surveys to date have revealed no IMP’s at Cape Pests and operation introducing marine pests via mechanisms with DPA based on existing industry standards. The plan shall include: Preston (Le Provost 2008, GHD 2013e). IMP risk can be managed to including:  Risk assessment of IMP introduction keep risks low via a series of management actions. Adherence to these actions is considered likely to maintain risk of IMPs at Cape Preston as  De-ballasting  Standard protocols for ballast water management for construction and operations low.  Biofouling dislodgement from vessel hulls and phases equipment particularly during anchoring, mooring,  Vessel inspection and hygiene protocols for construction and operations phases Potential to collaborate on IMP monitoring programmes for Cape Preston berthing and pile driving  Record keeping and communication requirements and the Proposal.  Roles and responsibilities Greater risk posed during construction phase due to use of non-trading vessels potentially sourced from areas  Prepare and implement IMP management plan in consultation with DPA based on hosting IMPs. Construction vessels often endure longer existing industry standards. The plan shall include: periods of slow speeds or are stationary. The  IMP monitoring and reporting requirements disturbance and creation of new hard substrates  Roles and responsibilities in responding to any IMPs provides new colonisation opportunities.

Entrapment in Entrapment of small marine fauna in desalination intake  Implement industry standard desalination intake fauna entrapment controls, such as The adoption of controls is expected to limit the potential for entrapment desalination intake screens and low velocity intake to low levels.  Desalination plant detailed design subject to approval by DPA under development approval system Introduction of feral Impacts on native fauna and habitat Implement workforce education to discourage visiting offshore islands Visits to South East Regnard Island only for monitoring purposes species to offshore islands Recreational fishing by Additional pressure on local fish stocks Implement workforce education to include information relevant to recreational fishing Negligible increase to local fish stocks workforce

Page | 26

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

4.1.3 Key Issues – Marine Fauna

Benthic Habitat Benthic habitat mapping completed for Cape Preston is shown in Figure 14 and 15. The map shows that the most significant BPPH in the area is the high density coral to the south west of Cape Preston and around South East Regnard Island.

BPPH disturbance associated with the Proposal has been significantly reduced by site selection and scaling the Proposal such that no dredging is required. Residual impacts to benthic habitat are expected to be:

 3.2 ha direct impact from trestle and breakwater construction footprints over sand/rubble (1.8 ha), algal pavement (0.6 ha), dense macro‐algae (0.1 ha) and sparse/very sparse coral and macro‐algae areas (0.7 ha); and  Minor indirect impacts on sand/rubble, algal pavement and sparse coral as a result of sediment/overtip from breakwater construction, jetty construction and propeller churn sediment loads immediately adjacent to the facilities.

Direct benthic habitat disturbance can be identified with a high degree of confidence and has been calculated using conservative assumptions (such as assuming full disturbance underneath the trestle jetty). Assessment suggests a moderate level of confidence in indirect habitat disturbance predictions as they are dependent upon events or processes that may or may not occur and to differing degrees. For example, the rate of sand build up around the breakwater could occur at a range of rates and may be influenced markedly by an extreme event. Similarly, a diesel fuel spill is unlikely to occur, but if a major spill did occur, in certain conditions, it could have more significant consequences.

BPPH expected to be directly or indirectly impacted by the Proposal is not unique to the area and is well represented along the Pilbara coastline. Significant BPPH such as areas with high coral cover and mangroves are not expected to be impacted by the Proposal.

Assessment of direct impacts in relation toe th Marine Management Unit identified in Le Provost (2008) for Cape Preston shows that the impact of the Proposal (in addition to the existing Cape Preston port) on benthic habitat types does not exceed the EPA’s ‘Cumulative Loss Threshold’ guideline of 10% for any habitat type. The only habitat type subject to cumulative impacts is sub‐tidal algae dominated limestone pavement (Figure 14), where the Proposal would result in 1.8 ha of direct loss. Disturbance of 3.7 ha of this BPPH type was previously approved for the Cape Preston Port, resulting in a cumulative impact on this habitat type of 5.5 ha out of a total of 695 ha within the Marine Management Unit (defined in Le Provost 2008), a cumulative impact of less than 1%. This is consistent with EAG3.

Based on the above, the Proposal is not expected to have a significant impact on BPPH on a local or regional scale.

Page | 27

425000mE Date: April 2013 Benthic Habitat URS - Cape Preston CAPE PRESTON EAST South West Regnard Is (NR)South West Regnard Is (NR) Author: P. Scott Proposed Regnard Regnard Proposed Proposed Marine Management Area Area Management Management Marine Marine

420000mE Trestle Jetty 7685000mN7685000mN 7690000mN7690000mN Stockyard 7700000mN7700000mN 1km Cape Preston PortCape Preston Port Marine Habitats Coral Communities Subtidal Intertidal Sand / mud flats Sand / rubble veneered limestone pavement Algae dominated limestone pavement Patchy seagrass Sand veneered limestone pavement Algae dominated limestone pavement (including low % coral and sponge cover) Deep sand / silt Less than 10% coral coverage More than 25% coral coverage 10 - 25% coral coverage (Source: Strategen 2009) Study Area / Lease Boundary Proposal Area Scale 1:60 000 Scale 1:60 0 MGA94 (Zone 50) MGA94 (Zone LEGEND

7695000mN7695000mN

11.dgn g2106_F0 Ref CAD ~ A4 ~ 2013 April Date ~ www.cadresources.com.au URL ~ 3242 9246 Tel ~ Resources CAD Drawn: ~ Scott P. Author: Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011) April (Flown Landgate Source: Imagery 420000mE Date: April 2013 Benthic Habitat GHD - Cape Preston CAPE PRESTON EAST Trestle Jetty Breakwater Author: P. Scott StockyardStockyard 419000mE 7694000mN7694000mN

418000mE 300m (LeProvost 2008) Marine Habitats Study Area / Lease Boundary Proposal Area Disturbance Area Algae dominant limestone pavement Dense Macro Algae Sparse Macro Algae Sparse Coral Very Sparse Coral Very Sparse Sponges Sand / Rubble (Source: GHD) Scale 1:15 000 Scale 1:15 MGA94 (Zone 50) MGA94 (Zone 0 LEGEND

7695000mN7695000mN 7696000mN7696000mN 7697000mN7697000mN

12.dgn g2106_F0 Ref CAD ~ A4 ~ 2013 April Date ~ www.cadresources.com.au URL ~ 3242 9246 Tel ~ Resources CAD Drawn: ~ Scott P. Author: Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011) April (Flown Landgate Source: Imagery Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Coastal Process Change Changes to coastal processes may affect marine fauna by altering beach profiles and smothering BPPH. Coastal process changes associated with the Proposal are expected to be caused by the solid breakwater structure extending approximately 200 m from the tidal shallows to a pocket of deeper water suitable for launching small vessels. Based on modelling conducted by GHD (2013c), sediment is expected to be deposited on the west side of the breakwater. A conservative assumption is that all sediment expected to be transported up the western beaches, progresses around Cape Preston and onto the northern beach at a rate of 10,000 m3/yr (GHD, 2013c). In the absence of controls this could create a new beach area of up to 10 ha over existing algae dominated limestone pavement intertidal BPPH (Figure 16).

There is a small (<50 m) stretch of beach between the breakwater and a rock outcrop to the east. It is expected that in the absence of controls this section of the beach would erode due to the reduction in sediment movement from the west. The rate that this erosion occurs however is expected to be offset somewhat by the protection provided by the breakwater.

The sediment sources for the eastern beaches are currently unknown, and are expected to be a mixture of the seabed and the western beaches.

With controls in place such as beach profile monitoring and the transfer of sediment to the east of the breakwater (refer to Table 3) there is a high degree of confidence that beaches around the Proposal can be maintained such that impacts to marine fauna are minimised.

Figure 16: Predicted beach development on west side of breakwater

Page | 30

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Marine Noise The impacts of marine noise will arise from two main sources; pile driving during construction and vessel movements. Marine piling is expected to be more significant due to the intensity of the source and potential to cause physical injury to marine fauna. The key points relevant to the assessment of marine piling noise are:

 Piling will occur for 9‐12 months predominantly during daylight hours over shallow water out to berthing pocket;  Noise is expected to propagate for several kilometres from source (Figure 17), with PTS levels estimated at 50 m and TTS at 500 m.  Tide (water depth) is very influential on noise propagation with marked reductions in noise propagation at low tide;  Literature review has been used to select threshold Sound Exposure Levels (SEL) for TTS (temporary hearing loss) and PTS (permanent hearing loss). Relevant thresholds selected for TTS are: o 183 dB re: 1 µPa ‐ 2 s for dolphins; and o American National Marine Fisheries Service noise management criteria for avoidance of tissue damage in fish is 187 dB re: 1 µPa ‐2 s.

Figure 17: Noise propagation from piling source

Analyses have been completed to assess SELs for fauna at different distances from piling activities, and exhibiting different behaviours (simplified as swim speed). The key points from the analyses are shown in Figure 18 and Figure 19 and are considered to be:

 Reduced piling speed significantly increases distance to thresholdL; SE  Low tide very influential on distance to threshold SEL; and  Faster swim speed increases distance to threshold SEL (i.e. animals would have to get closer to source to suffer same effect), but dolphin behaviour expected to be more likely to reflect slow swim speed.

Page | 31

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

The likelihood of exposure and potential impacts on conservation significant marine fauna have been considered are summarised:

 Humpback whales migration paths generally understood, but no site specific study;  Humpbacks tend to stay further offshore (too shallow at low tide to get through passage between South East Regnard Island and mainland);  Humpback population now well understood, other species of whale not studied;  Risk of PTS or TTS for whales able to be almost eliminated with controls, although potential behavioural changes not known;  Dolphins, dugong and turtles expected to be exposed to PTS and TTS risk, controls will minimise likelihood;  Dolphins, dugong and turtles expected to be exposed to SELs that could cause behavioural change. Impacts on populations is not well understood, but controls will minimise likelihood of exposure; and  Fish expected to be exposed to tissue damage risk, controls will minimise likelihood.

Figure 18: Effect of strike rate and tide on sound exposure levels at slow swim speed (1 km/hr)

Page | 32

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Figure 19: Effect of strike rate and tide on sound exposure levels at fast swim speed (5 km/hr)

In summary:

 Noise propagation is expected for several kilometres;  A one kilometre management zone has been identified for marine spotter and piling slowdown ‐ expected to be appropriate;  Noise predictions to be verified in the field during initial pile driving activities;  Marine noise controls as shown in Table 4 and Figure 20;  Controls adequate to prevent PTS and TTS, behavioural changes may occur in marine mammals;  Contingency controls if required include: o Amendment of exclusion zones; o Pre‐boring of holes; and o Source controls (physical barriers, bubble curtains).

Page | 33

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Table 4: Summary of marine noise controls

Zone Control  Survey of dolphin population and movements prior to construction;  Inclusion of dugong in the survey of dolphin population and movements prior to construction;  Verification of marine noise predictions in first month of pile driving;  Modification of proposed controls in consultation with DEC/SEWPaC if required based on verification;  Pile driving only during conditions that allow visual monitoring; General  Soft start to pile driving activities to prevent sudden increases in noise levels;  Suitably qualified observer operating immediately before and during pile driving; and  Should noise verification or animal observations indicate further controls are necessary, the following contingency measures will be considered: o Restricting piling to avoid high tide; o Reducing the strike rate of piling; o Pre-boring of holes; and o Source noise controls.  1000 m marine mammal management area around pile driving barge whilst operating; and 500 - 1000 m from  Slowdown of pile driving rate when marine mammals are observed to be between 500 - 1000 m of piling pile driving.  Shutdown of pile driving when marine mammals are observed to be less than 500 m from pile driving; 250-500 m from  500 m marine turtle management area around pile driving barge whilst operating; and piling  Slowdown of pile driving rate when marine turtles are observed to be between 250 - 500 m of pile driving. 50 - 250 m from  Shutdown of pile driving when marine turtles are observed to be less than 250 m from pile driving. piling <50 m from piling  Shutdown of pile driving when sea snakes are observed to be less than 50 m from pile driving.

The range of potential outcomes of marine noise emissions on marine fauna is identified with high confidence, and with the adoption of the proposed controls there is a high degree of confidence that PTS and TTS events can be avoided for marine mammals and turtles. There is a moderate degree of confidence that noise emissions from both pile driving and vessel movements may lead to some behavioural change in marine mammals and turtles, however, due to the lack of data on species distribution, movement and populations, there is low confidence in predicting exactly what behavioural changes might result, and upon which species. The assessment of consequences of predicted behavioural changes are therefore subject to a low level of confidence, except to acknowledge that the Proposal is relatively small scale for the Pilbara.

Page | 34

Date: April 2013 South WestSouth West Regnard Is (NR)Regnard Is (NR)

Stockyard

1km 1km

420000mE CAPE PRESTON EAST

and Marine Noise Buffers

500m 500m Study Area / Lease Boundary Author: P. Scott

Trestle Jetty 250m 250m

417500mE 7690000mN7690000mN 7700000mN 7700000mN Cape Preston PortCape Preston Port 800m Study Area / Lease Boundary Proposal Area Disturbance Area Trestle Jetty 250m Buffer Trestle Jetty 500m Buffer Trestle Jetty 1km Buffer Scale 1:40 000 Scale 1:40 MGA94 (Zone 50) MGA94 (Zone LEGEND 0

7692500mN7692500mN 7695000mN7695000mN 7697500mN7697500mN

16.dgn g2106_F0 Ref CAD ~ A4 ~ 2013 April Date ~ www.cadresources.com.au URL ~ 3242 9246 Tel ~ Resources CAD Drawn: ~ Scott P. Author: Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011) April (Flown Landgate Source: Imagery Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Light Spill Impacts on Turtle Nesting All marine turtles are protected under the WC Act and six species are listed as Schedule 1 species. All species are listed migratory species under the Bonn Convention and are listed as either Endangered or Vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The four species that have been recorded at Cape Preston are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Conservation status of marine turtle species occurring in WA waters

Species WC Act EPBC Act Convention on Convention on International International Union Migratory Trade in Endangered Species for Conservation Species (CMS) of Wild Fauna and Flora of Nature Appendix (as at (CITES) Appendix (as at (IUCN) Status (as October 2009) October 2009) at October 2009) Loggerhead Turtle Schedule 1 Endangered I & II I Endangered Caretta caretta Green Turtle Schedule 1 Vulnerable I & II I Endangered Chelonia mydas Hawksbill Turtle Critically Schedule 1 Vulnerable I & II I Eretmochelys Endangered imbricata Flatback Turtle Schedule 1 Vulnerable Not listed I Data Deficient Natator depressus

A study containing a review of turtle nesting records, a survey of current (2012) nesting on the northern and eastern beaches, measurements of light spill and prediction of light spill from the Proposal has been completed (Imbricata 2013). The key findings from this study are:

 The eastern beach at Cape Preston provides suitable nesting habitat for nesting and egg incubation, however the annual nesting population appears to be relatively minor at a regional and population level. The study confirmed that the beach appears to support low nesting abundances (although no dedicated nesting survey has been conducted);  Offshore light sources will not adversely influence hatchling orientation but could be viewed as a competitive light source that possibly attracts hatchlings toward the ocean;  The light assessment model showed that the proposed IOH lights standing at 17‐23 m AHD will be visible from the beach areas and adjacent nearshore waters;  The northern dunes shade the northern beach areas from the proposed IOH facility, however swimming hatchlings could be attracted to the light if they move south;  Shielding and directing the IOH light sources away from the beach will reduce the intensity of luminance, but the reflection of light within 250 m of the nesting zone will influence the orientation of hatchlings and possibly gravid females;  As part of the proposed IOH facility, routine lighting from buildings and offices (probably with mixed light fixtures), headlights from truck deliveries and offloading lights on the jetty will also be visible from the .beach

The Proponent has considered the EPA’s Environment Assessment Guideline 5 (EAG 5) with regards to best practice methods for avoiding, reducing, managing and mitigating light impacts on marine turtles. A detailed assessment of compliance with EAG 5 is included in Appendix 9, and the key points are included below:

Page | 36

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

 Minimum lighting required for human safety has been proposed;  Lighting at jetty loading area will be switched off when not in use;  Stockyard and road high level lighting has been reviewed and reduced from an original 25 m pole height to a maximum of 12 m;  No significant rookeries are within 1.5 km of the Proposal;  The stockyard is set back from the beach as far as practicable to maximise the use of natural topography and vegetation as shields;  Lighting will be screened and directed such that direct light spill on the beach will be minimised;  IOH has located its accommodation camp and workshop areas further inland, away from the coastline;  Dust control measures will be used to minimise air borne particles, in turn minimising light diffraction and consequential glow;  Office lighting will be switched off when not in use, and blinds will be installed;  Conveyors will have lighting that is reduced to low anti‐collision levels when unoccupied;  Navigation aids will be selected with a preference for long period flashing lights while complying with Department of Transport requirements;  LED lamps have been selected, and HPS lamps will not be used; and  White lights that emit ultraviolet lights will not be used.

EAG 5 will continue to be utilised during detailed design to provide best practicable lighting to minimise light spill to the adjacent beaches.

The application of controls to limit light spill and the low usage of the Cape Preston beaches for turtle nesting gives a high degree of confidence that the Proposal will not lead to significant population changes in marine turtles.

Vessel Strike Historical records demonstrate that the most numerous, per capita, ocean‐going‐vessel strikes recorded among large whale species accrue to the North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) (Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007). As vessel speed restrictions are being considered to reduce the likelihood and severity of vessel collisions with right whales, we present an analysis of the published historical records of vessels striking large whales. Examination of the influence of vessel speed in contributing to either a lethal injury (defined as killed or severely injured) or a non‐lethal injury (defined as minor or no apparent injury) to a large whale when struck. A logistic regression model fitted to the observations, and consistent with a bootstrap model,

demonstrated that the greatest rate of change in the probability of a lethal injury (Plethal) to a

large whale occurred between vessel speeds of 8.6 and 15 knots where Plethal increases from 0.21 to 0.79. The probability of a lethal injury drops below 0.5 at 11.8 knots. Above 15 knots,

Plethal asymptotically approaches 1. The uncertainties in the logistic regression estimates are relatively large at relatively low speeds (e.g., at 8 knots the probability is 0.17 with a 95% CI of 0.03–0.6) (Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007).

Page | 37

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Turtles are less likely to flee a vessel that is travelling at high speed, and will flee at shorter distances from a fast‐travelling vessel (Hazel et al. 2007). The ability of the boat operator to see and avoid turtles is lessened in poor sea and/or weather conditions, water turbidity and safety restrictions for emergency stops (Hazel et al. 2007). Turtles will not reliably avoid a vessel travelling at greater than 4 kph (2.2 knots) (Hazel et al. 2007).”

There would be low confidence in any quantitative assessment of vessel strike (numbers of strikes, species involved, outcomes of strikes, population impacts) specific to the Proposal due to the lack of local species distribution data. The application of controls including observations, communications and vessel speed limitations reduces the likelihood and consequence of vessel strike for all species and reflects best industry practice.

Introduced Marine Pests No IMP have previously been recorded at Cape Preston (URS, 2009). The introduction of non‐ native marine species in Dampier and Port Hedland is noted (Huisman et al 2008), although no IMP are noted (http://www.marinepests.gov.au/pest_outbreaks/ interactive_map ‐ accessed 28/2/13). The presence of non‐native marine species underlines the potential for IMP in this environment.

URS (2009) identified ballast water and biofouling as the two most likely vectors for introduction of IMP at Cape Preston. These conclusions are directly applicable to CPE, given the proximity and similarity of operations (construction of export facilities and then transhipping as a load out method).

Without the application of controls, the introduction of IMPs would be likely. Standard industry controls (enforced by AQIS) relating to ballast water and vessel hygiene provide a moderate level of confidence that no IMPs will be introduced at CPE. The continued application of IMP monitoring at Cape Preston consistent with that proposed in URS (2009) is expected to reduce the risks of IMP introduction to acceptable levels.

4.1.4 Expected Environmental Outcomes Potential impacts to marine fauna have been significantly reduced in the site selection and planning processes such that direct impacts on key BPPH (coral and mangroves) are avoided. The Proposal does not require dredging which can also have significant direct and indirect impacts.

Potential impacts from marine noise are expected to be limited to the construction phase (approximately 12 months). The risks and potential impacts discussed are expected to be minimised to insignificant levels via a series of industry standard management actions described in Table 3, which will be addressed in more detail in management plans.

Based on the above, it is expected that the implementation of the Proposal will not result in significant impacts to marine fauna or BPPH and with the application of the proposed management actions the EPA objectives and applicable policies can be met.

Page | 38

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

4.2 Marine Water Quality

4.2.1 Relevant EPA Objectives / Policies / Guidelines / Standards EPA Objectives:

Water Quality (surface, marine or ground) ‐ 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.

4.2.2 Impact Assessment This section presents information relevant to assessing the likely impacts on marine water quality from the Proposal and includes a summary of the existing environment, potential impact mechanisms, potential impacts, proposed management controls and predicted environmental outcomes. The existing environment description is summarised below in text rather than repeated for each potential impact mechanism.

Existing Environment Pilbara marine water quality has recently been a greater focus due to the increased development of port facilities in the Pilbara. DoE (2006) completed a significant planning and consultation process regarding coastal water quality. The report identifies water quality objectives for the Pilbara and indicates that the highest level of ecological protection should be afforded to the currently proposed Regnard Management Area to the east of the Proposal Area.

Pilbara marine waters are tidally dominated with a large semi‐diurnal regime (BHPB 2011). At Cape Preston the highest astronomical tide is 2.35 m and lowest astronomical tide is ‐2.40 m. The large tides drive strong currents of up to 0.75 m/s (1.5 knots) (Le Provost 2008). Wind is also important to near shore water movement, resulting in long‐term drift towards the east and north‐east during spring and summer months (wet season). In autumn and winter (dry season) weaker and less persistent current reversals occur (BHPB 2011).

Key issues and management controls Table 6 identifies the potential impacts, proposed management controls and the expected outcomes for water quality at CPE. Key issues are discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.3.

Page | 39

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Table 6: Impact assessment – marine water quality

Impact mechanism Potential Impacts Proposed Management Controls Predicted Outcome Oil Spill Oil spills may occur via vessel refuelling,  Prepare and implement oil spill contingency plan, and ensure appropriate response capability to the The risk of significant oil spills is limited as larger vessels are located approximately 20 km grounding or collisions. Diesel will be the satisfaction of the EPA upon advice from DPA. The plan will include details of: offshore. Risks of a near-shore oil spill are limited to construction vessels, transhipment barges primary fuel used for vessels in close o Refuelling protocols and any support vessels or activities on the trestle structure and refuelling activities. proximity to the coast, with heavy fuel oil o Diesel fuel pipeline controls used for the export vessels at the o Emergency equipment to be stored on site IOH commissioned an assessment of oil spill risks during construction (Appendix 5) which transhipment area 20 km offshore. o Response strategies and responsible persons determined that the majority of the credible spill scenarios would dissipate within 500 m given the Oil plume on water surface results in oil  Ensure spill equipment is stored on site and is available in the case of an oil spill. Typical spill response highly mixed environment around Cape Preston. These spills would therefore be greatly coating: equipment may comprise of: dissipated before reaching the shoreline or any significant BPPH.  BPPH at low tide o 300m of solid buoyancy booms Beaches The implementation of management controls are expected to reduce the likelihood of spills  5 x 15 kg Anchor Kits o occurring, as well as minimising the potential impact if a spill occurs.  Protected marine fauna 1 x Foilex skimmer o  Other marine fauna o 1 x Diesel powered spate diaphragm pump o 2 x Collapsible oil recovery tank (10,000L) o 1 x Work boat suitable for deploying equipment o Various absorbent booms, pads and rolls o Various PPE  Workforce induction and training to include details of how to reduce the likelihood and consequence of spillage, and what the appropriate response actions are if a spill occurs Elevated salinity, metals or The desalination process requires the  Establish defined Low Ecological Protection Area (LEPA) as a zone 25 m in every direction from the diffuser Outfall designed for 60 fold dilution to achieve the EQG of 0.5 psu at the LEPA / MEPA boundary. temperature from desalination discharge of brine as a waste product, which  Locate LEPA within Moderate Ecological Protection Area (MEPA) for port activities to provide an additional Very low risk of exceeding the EQG criteria for HEPA zone surrounding the MEPA zone for port outfall contains elevated concentrations of Impacts contingency operations. on near field BPPH or species in close  Ensure that 60-fold dilution is achieved at the boundary of the LEPA, to ensure that MEPA water quality proximity to outfall parameters are met Fauna interaction within LEPA expected to be minor as LEPA will be <0.5 ha, and any contact with elevated parameters (salinity, temperature etc) would be short term.  Design diffuser to achieve 60-fold dilution at the LEPA / MEPA boundary during worst case conditions (i.e. no tidal or wave current mixing)  Monitor salinity concentrations at various depths and distances from the diffuser to verify the modelling results  Once the model has been verified, continuously monitor salinity concentrations within the outflow to ensure a minimum 60-fold dilution at the LEPA / MEPA boundary  Prepare and implement desalination outfall management plan to include further detail such as: o Definition of LEPA and MEPA water quality parameters o Model verification programme for plant start up o Water quality monitoring and reporting programme o Contingency measures o Permitted use of anti-scalants Elevated turbidity during  Smothering of BBPH  5 m assumed buffer included in disturbance calculations to account for potential sediment effects during There is no significant BPPH in proximity to the breakwater. The breakwater is small in size and a breakwater construction  Temporary reduction in water quality construction large portion of the structure will be located on the intertidal platform which is high energy so any around breakwater construction area  Visual monitoring of any plume during construction and reporting to DEC regional office if required plumes will dissipate quickly. Small plumes may occur during rock placement in water, however the Cape Preston area is a highly mixed marine environment so plumes will quickly disperse. Elevated turbidity from marine  Smothering of nearby BBPH  200 m MEPA defined around loading areas at the port to identify water quality requirements for port The transhipment barge approaching and departing at lower tides will result in a localised plume of sediment disturbance during  Temporary reduction in water quality operational areas natural sediments stirred up by vessel turbulence. Some minor smothering may occur on areas vessel movements around vessel channel  Vessel speed limits will be enforced adjacent to the channel and berths as sediment settles out locally. Impacts are expected to be (particularly at low tide) minor as the channel is located in areas of sand/rubble substrate with no high value BPPH nearby. Elevated turbidity from  Smothering of nearby BBPH  Workforce induction and training to include details of how to reduce the likelihood and consequence of spillage Product is non-toxic iron ore. Small amounts of spillage are expected and will be cleaned up as product spillage  Temporary reduction in water quality  Spillage controls around conveyor transfer and loading points required prior to entering the marine environment. DEC to regulate product spillage. around product handling areas  200 m MEPA defined around loading areas to identify water quality requirements for port operational areas Contaminated runoff from  Local impacts on water quality from  Develop and implement spill response procedures to ensure spills are responded to as soon as practicable Any spills at the stockyard area that are not cleaned up immediately are expected to be captured shore based activities hydrocarbon, product or other material  Report any spills internally as incidents by the sump. The sump is intended to capture stormwater from typical rainfall events, however spillage  Runoff from stockpile area is directed to sump located behind the primary dunes with capacity to store runoff excess stormwater flow is planned to be discharged from the sump via an overflow drain to the from significant rainfall events mangrove tidal creek to the south. During these overflow events the sump will act as a sediment  Sump to be cleaned out periodically to retain capacity for significant rainfall events trap to reduce the amount of turbidity in the stormwater overflow.  Workforce induction and training to include details of how to reduce the likelihood and consequence of spillage Risks of spillage are reduced by workforce education and precautionary measures. Consequences of spillage are reduced by contingency measures. Waste/refuse Local impacts from spillage of waste/refuse  Workforce induction and training to include details of waste management requirements Minimal risk of waste/refuse due to workforce education and regular inspections  Prepare and implement a waste management plan in consultation with DPA. The plan will include: o Waste avoidance and re-use/recycling measures o Waste disposal arrangements and responsibilities o Education and training requirements o Inspection and reporting o Continuous improvement Contamination from anti-  Local impacts on water quality from Marine management plan prepared in consultation with DPA to identify prohibited activities, approval and reporting Anti-foulants used by vessels and infrastructure are acceptable. No inappropriate maintenance foulants use of inappropriate anti-foulants requirements for potentially contaminating activities. activities resulting in contamination.  Local impacts on water quality due to ship maintenance activities (sanding, sandblasting, painting)

Page | 40

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

4.2.3 Key Issues – Marine Water Quality

Fuel Spill In the absence of any marine dredging, and noting the small scale of the Proposal and hence risks of environmental harm from other activities such as desalination and vessel movements, the key environmental management issue for marine water quality is expected to be the risk of fuel spill. This risk exists at most marine facilities and there are well developed systems for managing the risks that have been adopted as industry standards.

The risk of a significant scale heavy fuel oil spill from a large ocean going vessel occurring near a sensitive location (e.g. coastline, South East Regnard Island) is reduced by utilising transhipment to carry the ore out to approximately 20 km from shore to load into ocean going vessels. Any spills at this location are expected to dissipate prior to reaching land or any other sensitive areas.

There remains a risk of diesel spills within the operational area of the CPE port as a result of vessel refuelling, collision or grounding. IOH commissioned Pelagico to undertake a risk assessment of oil spill scenarios for construction vessels (Appendix 5). This assessment identified that the scenarios involve relatively low volumes of fuel and given the highly mixed environment in the area any spill are likely to dissipate prior to reaching the shore or other sensitive areas.

The inability to remove the risk of fuel spill completely means there is a moderate level of confidence that there will be no significant environmental impacts associated with the Proposal from fuel spillage. Continued, rigorous application of controls would give higher confidence levels.

Desalination The Proposal includes provision for a 2 GL/year permanent desalination plant with temporary water supply of up to 6 GL for construction (potentially sourced from a combination of desalination water from temporary desalination units and groundwater). The compliance requirements for mixing zones are now well established following initial development by EPA (2005) and following the approval and operation of large scale (>40 GL/yr) desalination plants at Cockburn Sound, Binningup and Cape Preston.

Modelling has been conducted for the outfall (GHD, 2013d) based on a typical diffuser design. The modelling was conducted for 2 GL/yr of wastewater discharge, and identified that the emixing zon was expected to only be 10 ‐ 15 m from the outfall (i.e. High Ecological Protection Area (HEPA) levels reached). The area is also a highly mixed environment which will reduce the mixing zone during most conditions.

The desalination plant that forms part of this Proposal is sized at 2 GL/yr of clean water produced, which requires the discharge of 3 GL/yr of wastewater (i.e. 5 GL/yr intake). As this is slightly larger than the scenario that was modelled, a LEPA is proposed to be sized at 25 m from all points of the diffuser to allow for some contingency.

Page | 41

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

The desalination outfall is able to be located under the trestle structure around the berthing area. Figure 21 contains a zone labelled as ‘Boundary of potential LEPA location options’. As the final location of the diffuser is not yet confirmed, the intention is that the diffuser and subsequent LEPA will be located within this zone. As an example, an indicative LEPA is also shown in Figure 21. The zone is bounded by the following corner coordinates:

 419,253 mE, 7,696,590 mN;  419,353 mE, 7,696,579 mN;  419,305 mE, 7,696,116 mN; and  419,305 mE, 7,696,126 mN.

With the adoption of a 200 m MEPA around the transhipment vessel berthing areas as identified in Figure 21, the LEPA associated with the desalination outfall is able to be located within the MEPA. The MEPA will make allowance for turbidity from propeller churn and other minor marine water quality impacts. The LEPA will allow for the brine dispersion and mixing required to meet water quality standards.

Temporary desalination units may be used for construction water supply if required. The units are generally stored within sea containers, and each unit is sized at approximately 250 kL/day. These units run an intake and outfall pipeline into the surrounding waters, with the pipelines being run along the sea bed and weighed down at regular intervals. Approval for the use of the temporary desalination plants will be sought from DEC when the design is available.

The following requirements will apply to the use of temporary desalination plants:

 The outfall will not be located in proximity to any significant BPPH such as corals or seagrass;  The outfall and intake will be have a sufficient separation to ensure that the intake is clean water;  The outfall will be located in an area that is highly mixed, and away from any potential pooling areas; and  The outflow velocity will be set as high as practicable to maximise mixing.

4.2.4 Expected Environmental Outcomes – Marine Water Quality The Proposal is small scale compared to most Pilbara export facilities. Water quality risks are minimised by avoidance of dredging and the small scale of disturbance, desalination and product handling. Potential impacts are expected to be minimised to insignificant levels via a series of industry standard management actions to control risks of fuel spillage, sediment creation, and waste material discharge.

Based on the above, there is a high degree of confidence that the implementation of the Proposal will not result in significant impacts to marine water quality.

Page | 42

420000mE

LEGEND Study Area / Lease Boundary 7700000mN Proposal Area Disturbance Area 0 800m Low Ecological Protection Area Moderate Ecological Protection Area Scale 1:40 000 417500mE MGA94 (Zone 50) South West Regnard Is (NR) Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011)

7697500mN

Cape Preston Port

Boundary of potential LEPA location options

Moderate Ecological Protection Area

Trestle Jetty

7695000mN

Stockyard

N 7,696,590 MEPA N 7,696,579 E 419,253 E 419,353

Boundary of 7692500mN potential LEPA location options

200m

Indicative LEPA

N 7,696,126 N 7,696,116 CAPE PRESTON EAST 7690000mN E 419,206 E 419,305 Study Area / Lease Boundary and Proposed Ecological Protection Areas Enlargement Author: P. Scott Date: April 2013 Author: P. Scott ~ Drawn: CAD Resources Tel 9246 3242 URL www.cadresources.com.au Date April 2013 A4 Ref g2106_F0 17.dgn Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

5 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Consistent with the EPA prepared scoping guideline (EPA, 2012), this section provides a table of potential environmental impacts associated with other environmental factors, a succinct summary of the management of these impacts, other relevant approvals and legal management mechanisms that will give the EPA confidence that these factors will be appropriately managed and the expected environmental outcomes. This information is tabulated for clarity and simplicity.

The Proponent understands the importance of compliance with the relevant statutes that will be used to manage these other factors. A compliance programme will be developed for the Ministerial Statement and other relevant approvals with annual reporting to the relevant agencies.

5.1.1 Impact Assessment Table 7 presents information relevant to assessing the likely impacts on other environmental factors and includes a summary of the existing environment, potential impact mechanisms, potential impacts, proposed management controls and predicted environmental outcomes. Additional information on key issues is provided in Section 5.1.2.

Page | 44

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Table 7: Impact assessment – other factors

Factor & EPA Objective Existing Environment Potential Impacts Proposed Management Controls Relevant Legislation Predicted Outcome BIOPHYSICAL

Terrestrial Flora & Vegetation  Numerous flora & vegetation surveys completed  Direct loss of vegetation as a result  Implement ground disturbance procedures to contain  Native Vegetation Clearing  Clearing of approximately 398 ha of across Cape Preston area since 2001 of clearing for construction disturbance within approved boundaries Regulations able to address vegetation will be required to implement To maintain the abundance,  GHD commissioned to complete Level 1 survey of  Loss of Priority Flora from clearing  Strip and store vegetation and topsoil during ground any additional clearing the Proposal diversity, geographic distribution Study Area in 2012 native vegetation disturbance for use in future rehabilitation outside of authorised  No disturbance of TECs or PECs is & productivity of flora at species  Reduction in available water supply,  Seasonal survey to be completed to check proposed boundaries. API approval expected as none have been found within & ecosystem levels through the Vegetation or direct loss (via erosion or footprint area for Priority Flora will provide exemption from the Proposal Area avoidance or management of  No Threatened or Priority Ecological Communities accretion) as a result of an  Project design will take into account the location of these regulations within  Proposal will not impact the conservation adverse impacts & improvement (TEC or PEC) recorded in or in close proximity to alteration of surface or groundwater Priority Flora and locally significant vegetation sites authorised boundaries status of any of the 5 Beard vegetation in knowledge. Study Area (GHD, 2013f) regimes and avoid them wherever practicable  WC Act and EPBC Act can associations within the Study Area  Vegetation condition assessed as predominantly  Introduction or spread of weed  DEC to be notified of the extent of any populations or address impacts to  Disturbance of areas of high local ‘Excellent’ to ‘Very Good’ (GHD, 2013f) species via earthmoving equipment individuals of Priority Flora, including any areas Threatened Flora if found. At conservation significance will be minor: present no Threatened Flora,  Locally significant vegetation communities are or vehicles outside of the Proposal footprint, areas able to be o No mangroves will be cleared TEC’s or PEC’s have been mangroves, dunes, creeklines and floodplains  Smothering of leaves as a result of avoided and unavoidable disturbance. Surveys to o Impacts to coastal dunes will be found in the Proposal Area. (Strategen, 2009) dust emissions, which may restrict estimate number and location of Priority Flora limited to the area required for the Flora growth  Rehabilitate any cleared area not required for  Weed management will be in construction of the breakwater  Increase in fire risk due to increased operations accordance with the (<20 ha)  No species listed as Threatened Flora under State requirements of the human presence  Implement surface and groundwater controls as o Creeklines will only be impacted or Federal legislation recorded within Study Area discussed below Agriculture and Related (GHD, 2013f) by the access road, which has a  Implement a weed management procedure, which will Resources Protection Act narrow linear footprint  Cucumis sp. Barrow Island (Priority 2 DEC listed include requirements for weed inspections and the 1976 (WA)  No disturbance of Declared Rare Flora is species) was identified within the Study Area in cleaning of soil and plant matter from incoming expected as none have been found within two locations (GHD, 2013f) earthmoving equipment 4 Priority Flora species considered likely to be in the Proposal Area   Map any weed infested areas within the Proposal Area  No impacts to currently known locations of the Study Area. Two of these are ephemeral and clean any vehicles or equipment leaving these Priority Flora species of the genus Goodenia (GHD, 2013f) areas 4 introduced flora/weed species were recorded  Further survey of footprint area prior to   Implement effective dust management controls to the construction to determine and report any within the Study Area (GHD, 2013f) satisfaction of the EPA upon advice from DPA. The unavoidable impacts to Priority Flora approved dust management plan will utilise some or all  Spread of weeds is expected to be able to of the following as appropriate: be controlled using weed hygiene controls o Regular application of water to roads, bare areas and stockpiles o Dust suppressants o Hard stand areas o Regular cleaning of spillage o Dust extraction and capture at conveyor transfer points o Telescopic chutes on shiploaders o Conveyor covers  Maintain adequate fire response equipment on site  Maintain adequate fire breaks across the site as required Terrestrial Fauna  Numerous fauna surveys completed across Cape  Direct loss of fauna habitat as a  Proposal design avoids disturbance to high  Native Vegetation Clearing  Clearing of approximately 398 ha of Preston area since 2001 result of clearing for construction, as conservation value mangrove areas Regulations under Part V of potential fauna habitat will be required to To maintain the abundance,  GHD commissioned to complete Level 1 survey of well as the potential to disrupt  Proposal design minimises disturbance to locally the EP Act will address any implement the Proposal diversity, geographic distribution Study Area in 2012 existing fauna linkages significant dunes/beach habitat unauthorised clearing of  No habitat was recorded that is unique to & productivity of fauna at  Individual fauna deaths or injury as  Proposal design avoids disturbance to high fauna habitat. API approval Proposal Area (GHD, 2013f) species & ecosystems levels Recorded Species a result of vehicles or earthmoving conservation value samphire and claypan areas will provide exemption from  Mangroves and beach habitat was through the avoidance or equipment  236 fauna species identified in greater Cape  Proposal design minimises impact on creeklines and these regulations within considered to be locally significant. The management of adverse Preston area during previous surveys (122 bird,  Increase in introduced fauna as a authorised boundaries Proposal is expected to have: impacts & improvement of drainage lines by locating infrastructure away from 77 reptile, 33 mammal and 4 amphibian) result of additional food sources, them  WC Act and EPBC Act can o No impacts to mangrove habitat knowledge. resulting in additional predation and  3 species protected under the WC Act identified  Implement ground disturbance procedures to contain address impacts to listed o Minor impact (< 20 ha) to competition as known or likely to occur within the Study Area: disturbance within approved boundaries fauna dune/beach habitat  Alteration of behaviour as a result of o Dasyurus hallucatus (Northern Quoll) –  Implement workforce education about significant fauna light spill, noise and food wastes  Avoidance of Northern Quoll habitat Schedule 1, Endangered habitat and prevent personnel from entering these  No impact to Arlie Island Skink habitat o Ctenotus angusticeps (Arlie Island areas where practicable (including offshore islands) expected (Samphire vegetation/claypans) Skink) – Schedule 1, Vulnerable  Speed limits will be implemented and enforced on  Of the SRE species potentially occurring in Falco peregrinus (Peregrine Falcon) – o internal roads in areas where conservation significant the Cape Preston area, none are expected Schedule 4. fauna vehicle strike risk is considered high to be affected by the 398 ha of disturbance  7 Priority species (DEC) identified as known or  Workforce education about the risks of providing food for the Proposal (all have expected habitat likely to occur within the Study Area: for native and introduced fauna (directly or indirectly) of over 30,000 ha)  Feral animal control in consultation with DPA and o Mormopterus loriae cobourgiana (Little  4 of the 7 previously recorded SREs North-western Mastiff Bat) – Priority 1 DAFWA if required species were noted as having a minor area o Pseudomys chapmani (Western Pebble- of potential habitat within the Study mound Mouse) – Priority 4 Area. Based on these habitat maps the o Numenius madagascariensis (Eastern Proposal is expected to impact less than 0.1% of the potential habitat extent of each

Page | 45

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Factor & EPA Objective Existing Environment Potential Impacts Proposed Management Controls Relevant Legislation Predicted Outcome Curlew) – Priority 4 of these SRE species in the Cape Preston o Burhinus grallarius (Bush Stone-curlew) – area Priority 4; o Leggadina lakedownensis (Lakeland Downs Mouse) – Priority 4 o Ardeotis australis (Australian Bustard) – Priority 4 o Dasycercus blythi (Brush-tailed Mulgara) – Priority 4  27 migratory species identified as known or likely to occur within the Study Area. Of these, two species were recorded as having numbers >1% of flyway population utilisation: o Arenaria interpres interpres (Ruddy Turnstone) o Tringa brevipes (Grey-tailed Tattler)  7 potential SRE species have been recorded in the Cape Preston area (Phoenix, 2009)  5 non-native mammals have been recorded in the Cape Preston area (GHD, 2013f) Fauna Habitat  7 fauna habitats recorded in the Cape Preston area (Phoenix, 2009)  Of these, only the mangrove/beach environment was considered to be of conservation significance (Strategen, 2009)  No habitat was recorded that is unique to Study Area (GHD, 2013f)  Existing causeway across the tidal creek will be used  Part V of the EP Act can Surface water Significant surface water features within the Study Area  The access road proposed will cross Proposal utilises existing causeway across the  Crossings of Eramurra Creek will use culverts that are address any pollution of include Eramurra Creek and the tidal creek crossing to Eramurra Creek in several locations. tidal creek to Cape Preston, therefore no impacts To maintain the quantity of designed to not impede flow surface waters as a result of Cape Preston. Eramurra Creek is an ephemeral creek These crossings have the potential are expected to this watercourse. The access water so that existing and  Disturbance of the creek and its banks will be kept to construction or operation of that flows generally in a north direction. to impact the water quantity and road will cross Eramurra Creek on several potential environmental values, quality of the creek the minimum practicable the Proposal (i.e. product or including ecosystem oil spills) occasions however these are minor crossings of The area is subject to extreme rainfall events from  Hazardous material spills and  Accommodation, office, workshop, laydown and an ephemeral creek and are expected to be maintenance, are protected.  RIWI Act can manage tropical cyclones and occasional thunderstorms. discharge of treated wastewater storage facilities will be located outside of the 1:100 easily managed. may affect surface water quality year flood zone for Eramurra Creek unauthorised impacts to To ensure that emissions do not The stockpile area at the Cape is internally draining  Runoff from the stockpile area  Stockpiles, accommodation, office, workshop, laydown waterways Retention of stormwater runoff from the stockpile adversely affect environment through a sand dune area. In very extreme events it is would contain turbid water and may and storage facilities will be located outside of defined area within the Cape for defined storm events. values or the health, welfare planned to overflow to the south-east into the tidal creek. and amenity of people and land impact on the beach area or marine storm surge level Overflow water retained in sediment basin prior uses by meeting statutory water quality  Hazardous materials will be stored within bunded to release. Conditions are generally turbid in the requirements and acceptable  Surface water may be retained in areas that are compliant with AS 1940 and in natural environment during extreme events. compliance with Dangerous Goods Act 2004 (DG Act) standards. borrow pit areas creating Borrow pits will not retain surface water run-off  Hazardous materials will not be stored in close opportunities for feral animals and from other areas. mosquito breeding proximity to surface water bodies  Wastewater irrigation area sited and operated in Assessment provides a high confidence level that accordance with DEC licence impacts to surface waters will not be  Borrow pits will be constructed, operated and environmentally significant and can be rehabilitated to prevent surface water running into appropriately managed under existing legislation. them Groundwater  Hazardous materials will be stored within bunded  Part V of the EP Act can Proposal does not include significant Small quantities of groundwater within the Study Area Hydrocarbon spills or discharge of treated address any pollution of exist in a superficial aquifer and within basement rocks wastewater may affect groundwater areas that are compliant with AS 1940 and in requirements for groundwater, or any activities To maintain the quantity of compliance with DG Act groundwater as a result of that have the potential to significantly impact water so that existing and beneath with low permeability and often brackish quality.  Spills will be cleaned up as soon as practicable in construction or operation of groundwater levels or quality. potential environmental values, groundwater. Groundwater abstraction may be used for accordance with spill response procedures the Proposal (i.e. oil spills) including ecosystem Assessment provides a high confidence level that Surface expressions of groundwater may be retained in water supply during construction which  Any groundwater drilling and abstraction will be  RIWI Act will manage any maintenance, are protected. impacts to groundwater will not be pools in Eramurra Creek for extended periods. may impact local groundwater levels conducted in accordance with RIWI Act licences drilling and abstraction that may be required during environmentally significant and can be To ensure that emissions do not construction or operation appropriately managed under existing legislation. adversely affect environment values or the health, welfare and amenity of people and land uses by meeting statutory requirements and acceptable standards.

Conservation Areas The only conservation area in proximity to the Proposal No direct impacts to SE Regnard Island The controls proposed in Section 3 to manage impacts on The Conservation and Land No direct impacts to Great Sandy Island Nature Reserve. To protect the environmental is SE Regnard Island, part of the Great Sandy Islands are expected as part of the Proposal. marine fauna and water quality will be implemented, which Management Act 1984 (WA) values of areas identified as Nature Reserve, and located approximately 2.5 km also apply to this factor. manages activities and impacts Assessment provides a high confidence level that north-east of the end of the proposed export jetty. There is a potential for indirect impacts within conservation areas. having significant environmental within the waters of SE Regnard Island as No other management controls are proposed to manage this impacts to the Great Sandy Island Nature

Page | 46

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Factor & EPA Objective Existing Environment Potential Impacts Proposed Management Controls Relevant Legislation Predicted Outcome attributes. a result of the construction or operation of factor. Reserve will not be environmentally significant the Proposal (marine noise, IMPs, marine and can be appropriately managed under pollution etc.). existing legislation. POLLUTION MANAGEMENT

Air and dust emissions Site is remote, with the nearest sensitive receptor being  Dust emissions may be produced  Water trucks will be used on dust-prone areas  Part V of the EP Act will Given the remote location of the Proposal, and CITIC Pacific Mining’s (CPM) Accommodation Camp, during construction (initial ground  Chemical suppressants may be utilised if required address any excessive dust the general suite of control mechanisms to be To ensure that emissions do not more than 8 km east of the Proposal Area. disturbance, road traffic etc.) or  Stockpile and ore transfer operations will utilise water leaving the premises. Power implemented, air and dust emissions are not adversely affect environment operations (ore stockpiling and sprays supply will require a works expected to cause significant impacts. values or the health, welfare The Cape Preston area has been set aside for a port, transfer)  Works approval will be sought from DEC for export approval and licence if and amenity of people and land and some background dust emissions are expected from Assessment provides a high confidence level that  Any emissions are not expected to operations and power station if required capacity exceeds 10 MW. uses by meeting statutory CPM’s magnetite export operations, and air emissions impacts from air emissions will not be impact sensitive receptors due to Licence for bulk material requirements and acceptable from their power station environmentally significant and can be the remote location of the Proposal loading will address dust standards appropriately managed under existing legislation. area emissions from loading and stockpiling of ore.  Power station emissions are expected to be minor due to the  Health Act will address any relatively small size of the proposed risks to worker safety from air plant (12 MW), and the distance to emissions. receptors Noise Site is remote, with the nearest sensitive receptor being The operation of the Proposal does not  Ensure construction and operational activities comply  Environmental Protection Given the remote location of the Proposal, noise CPM’s Accommodation Camp, more than 8 km east of include high noise activities such as ore with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations (Noise) Regulations 1997 emissions are not expected to cause significant To protect the amenity of the Proposal Area. crushing, screening or blasting. Noise 1997 (WA)  Approval under the PA Act impacts. nearby residents from noise emissions are therefore expected to be  Maintain operational equipment on a regular basis may require noise controls impacts resulting from activities Some background noise emissions are expected from relatively minor and associated with ore  Select low noise equipment where practicable Based on the remote location, lack of nearby associated with the proposal by CPM’s mining, processing and export operations unloading and reclaiming. These noise sensitive premises and, lack of significant ensuring the noise levels meet emissions may cause the following noise making activities, assessment provides a statutory requirements and impacts: high confidence level that impacts from air acceptable standards. emissions will not be environmentally significant  Nuisance for sensitive receptors and can be appropriately managed under  Alteration of fauna behaviour existing legislation.

Waste The Sino Iron Project contains a Class II landfill for Waste will be collected and taken offsite  Waste will be separated using designated bins  Part V of the EP Act can Proposal is not expected to produce quantities of disposal of waste from that project. No other waste (expected to be the Shire of Karratha or  Waste will be stored within specified areas before address any pollution hazardous wastes and waste is not proposed to disposal facilities are in the surrounding area. Sino Iron Project landfill). Potential being taken offsite to a licensed facility resulting from waste be disposed of onsite. collection and storage impacts are therefore limited to the  Controlled wastes will be collected by a licensed Based on the small scale of activity and ability to collection and temporary storage of waste operator  Controlled waste regulations can address the transport of implement waste management controls, prior to transport offsite.  Hazardous materials will be stored within bunded controlled wastes assessment provides a high confidence level that areas that are compliant with AS 1940 impacts from waste will not be environmentally significant and can be appropriately managed under existing legislation. Recreation The Study Area is not frequented by tourists, with the The Proposal Area will be designated as a No additional controls proposed or expected to be required PA Act (via DPA) will control Access to Cape Preston is already restricted by exception of some fishing vessels. Some tourist traffic port under Section 19 of the Mining Act, for this factor access, Section 19 of the Mining the Mineralogy projects. The remainder of the passes the Study Area to the south on the way to the which will prevent recreation access in the Act will be used to determine the Proposal Area is not extensively used for Fortescue River mouth. area. boundaries of the port recreational activities; therefore a restriction of recreational access is not expected to be a significant impact for the community. Aboriginal Heritage The Study Area intersects numerous DIA registered The Proposal may require the disturbance  Aboriginal Heritage surveys will be conducted prior to AH Act contains requirements for IOH is aware of its requirements under the AH sites of Aboriginal Heritage sites to allow the ground disturbance the protection of Aboriginal Act. construction of infrastructure.  Implement ground disturbance procedures to control Heritage sites disturbance within approved boundaries Based on the small scale of activity, experience  Proposal design will take into account the location of from the adjacent Mineralogy Projects and Aboriginal sites and avoid them wherever practicable agreements with Traditional Owners, assessment  Approval under Section 18 of the AH Act will be sought provides a high confidence level that Aboriginal for any sites that cannot be avoided Heritage can be appropriately managed under existing legislation. Visual Amenity The Proposal Area is remote and not frequently visited The majority of the infrastructure will be The majority of the infrastructure will be set back from the EP Act The area does not contain any significant by the public. No significant viewsheds are located set back from the beach and therefore will beach and therefore will be mostly shielded from view. viewsheds. nearby. be mostly shielded from view. Some elevated infrastructure within the coastal Based on the small scale of activity (no portion of the Proposal is however landforms) and lack of significant viewsheds expected to be visible from the water assessment provides a high confidence level that surrounding Cape Preston, as well as the impacts will not be environmentally significant breakwater and jetty. and can be appropriately managed under existing legislation. No significant landforms are required for the implementation of the Proposal.

Page | 47

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

5.1.2 Key Issues – Other Factors Other factors have already been considered by the EPA through the referral process. Due to the low level of impact, application of industry standard controls and other regulatory mechanisms, these factors are not expected to be assessed in detail by the EPA. This section provides information additional to that presented in Table 7 for selected “Other Factors”. The additional information is considered relevant to the EPA being confident that the impacts are not significant and are manageable under other existing regulatory processes.

Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation The terrestrial components of the Proposal require the disturbance of up to 398 ha. The disturbance will require the clearing of native vegetation from the majority of this area, although some areas support sparse or no vegetation (e.g. beach). All clearing would be within six land systems: Macroy, Horseflat, Cheerawarra, Rocklea, Boolgeeda and Littoral.

There are no significant or listed wetlands within the Study Area or immediately adjacent to it.

The vegetation is predominantly in Excellent (2) to Very Good (3) condition (GHD, 2013f). Grazing from cattle and clearing in some areas of the Study Area has influenced the structure and composition of the native vegetation. Vegetation is more degraded around watering points and creek lines.

Based on the mapping by Beard (1975) the vegetation types present are Vegetation Associations 43, 93, 117, 127 and 175. The vegetation within the Study Area was also classified into seven broad floristic associations/formations and nine vegetation associations (GHD, 2013f) that are presented in the vegetation map (Figure 22). Analysis of vegetation extent by Government of WA (2010) shows that all of the Beard (1975) vegetation associations have 63‐99% of pre‐ European extent of vegetation remaining (GHD, 2013f).

In summary, the Vegetation survey of the Study Area found:

 A total of 120 plant taxa from 28 families;  No TECs or PECs;  No flora classified as Threatened pursuant to any legislation;  Cucumis sp. Barrow Island, a Priority 2 DEC listed species was identified within the Study Area in two locations;  A desktop assessment identified Goodenia pallida, a Priority 1 DEC listed flora species, as occurring within the Study Area. This species was not located during the survey, however the ephemeral species: Goodenia sp. East Pilbara P3 and Goodenia nuda P4 are expected to be found in the Study Area; and  Four introduced flora/weed species were recorded, including *Cenchrus ciliaris (Buffel Grass), *Aerva javanica (Kapok), *Malvastrum americanum (Spiked Malvastrum) and *Prosopis pallida (Mesquite).

Page | 48

2km

7680000mN7680000mN

Highway Highway Date: April 2013

Scale 1:100 000 430000mE MGA94 (Zone 50)

Coastal Coastal

West West CAPE PRESTON EAST

and Vegetation Communities

North North Study Area / Lease Boundary Author: P. Scott Study Area / Lease Boundary Central Services Facility

420000mE Trestle Jetty Navigation Aids Navigation Open Heath and Triodia epactia Tussock Grassland and Hummock Grassland Hummock Grassland

Low Open Forest Open Samphire

Tussock Grasslands

Existing Road Road Existing Existing Stockyard Port Services Area Cape Preston Port Port Cape Preston Cape Preston Hummock Grassland Scaevola cunninghamii Highly degraded/ cleared (Source: GHD Job 6128777) Mangrove High Open Shrubland Vegetation Study Area / Lease Boundary Proposal Area Proposed Infrastructure North West Coastal Highway Existing Road Eucalyptus Eragrostis Triodia secunda Triodia epactia Tecticornia Triodia lanigera Spinifex longifolius Acacia ancistrocarpa LEGEND

7690000mN7690000mN

14.dgn g2106_F0 Ref CAD ~ A4 ~ 2013 April Date ~ www.cadresources.com.au URL ~ 3242 9246 Tel ~ Resources CAD Drawn: ~ Scott P. Author: Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011) April (Flown Landgate Source: Imagery Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

The survey followed the guidelines recommended for a Level 1 Flora survey (EPA, 2004) and is considered to have identified dominant vegetation associations within the Study Area. Due to the relatively large size of the Study Area, the survey effort expended, the sub‐optimal timing of the survey (November 2012) ande th vegetation types present, it is considered that the ephemeral, Priority listed, flora species Goodenia sp. East Pilbara, P3 and Goodenia nuda, P4 may be present in the Study Area (GHD, 2013f).

The scale and intensity of the field survey was considered sufficient to infer vegetation type boundaries although it is inherently difficult to demarcate transitions between vegetation types.

Baseline survey investigations and assessment of the disturbance area against the vegetation map shows:

 No Threatened Flora, TECs or PECs to be disturbed by the Proposal;  Potential for Goodenia pallida (P1), and the ephemeral species Goodenia sp. East Pilbara (P3) and Goodenia nuda (P4) to be disturbed; and  All vegetation associations to be disturbed are well represented in the region.

The Proponent has committed to a series of controls to ensure that clearing is limited to the Proposal Area boundaries and the area of disturbance approved. Further targeted survey work will be completed within the Proposal Area ahead of construction to check for the Goodenia species on the Priority Flora list. Planning and detailed design work will endeavour to avoid disturbance of Priority Flora where practicable. Any Priority Flora unable to be avoided will be reported to DEC.

Terrestrial Fauna and Fauna Habitat

The area immediately to the west of the Study Area (and some of the Study Area itself) was surveyed and mapped to support other Proposals for the development of Cape Preston prior to the preparation of this Proposal. A total of 236 fauna species, comprised of 122 bird, 33 mammal, 77 reptile and 4 amphibian species were recorded previously in the Cape Preston surveys. These records were reviewed and assisted in planning the 2012 survey.

A Level 1 Fauna survey was completed in the form of a habitat assessment and reconnaissance survey. The fauna assessment was aimed at identifying habitat typesd an terrestrial vertebrate fauna utilising the Study Area. This survey was carried out in November 2012 in combination with the vegetation and flora survey. The survey found:

 63 fauna species, including 51 birds, five mammal and seven reptile species;  Seven primary fauna habitats were identified in the Study Area; and  No habitat types were recorded that are considered to be unique to the Study Area. The habitat types are the same as those used for assessment of the adjacent Mineralogy Expansion Project as described in Strategen (2009).

Page | 50

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Taken together, the surveys of the Study Area and immediate surrounds have recorded two of the three expected Threatened (Specially Protected) species:

 Falco peregrinus (Peregrine Falcon) Schedule 4; and  Ctenotus angusticeps (Arlie Island Skink), Schedule 1 and Vulnerable (probable sighting); and  The third species, Northern Quoll was not recorded in the survey.

Based on habitat assessment it is likely that only the Arlie Island Skink has a restricted habitat and will occur within the Study Area. However, the habitat for this species is samphire which is outside of the Proposal Area and will not be disturbed by the Proposal.

Taken together, surveys of the Study Area and immediate surrounds (Cape Preston) recorded five Priority listed species:

 Burhinus grallarius (Bush Stone‐curlew), Priority 4  Ardeotis australis (Australian Bustard), Priority 4  Mormopterus loriae subsp. cobourgiana (Little North‐western Mastiff Bat), Priority 1  Pseudomys chapmani (Western Pebble‐mound Mouse), Priority 4  Leggadina lakedownensis (Lakeland Downs Mouse), Priority 4

Other priority species expected from desktop work but not recorded are:

 Dasycercus blythi (Brush‐tailed Mulgara) – Priority 4;  Numenius madagascariensis (Eastern Curlew) – Priority 4,

Twenty migratory species have been identified as present or likely to occur at Cape Preston. Two of these species were recorded as having >1% flyway population utilisation ‐ Arenaria interpres interpres (Ruddy Turnstone) – Migratory, Marine and Tringa brevipes (Grey‐tailed Tattler) – Migratory, Marine. The Proposal has avoided the majority of possible habitat for these species by avoiding disturbance to mud flats, clay pans, samphire, mangroves and minimising the impact to the beach and tidal platform area.

The conservation value of fauna habitats at Cape Preston was reviewed by Strategen (2009). The review identified seven habitat types that were then ranked in terms of conservation significance “based on their importance as a potential habitat for significant fauna species, habitat value (extent of fauna diversity supported) and ecological function”. The significance of each habitat as assessed in Strategen (2009) is shown in Table 8 below.

Page | 51

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Table 8: Terrestrial fauna habitats (from Strategen 2009)

Habitats Significance of Habitat* (as defined in 2008 survey) Cracking clay Moderate – (habitat value and significant species) Moderate – High – contain mature trees with hollows that provide roosting sites. Drainage line (minor and major) May also provide fauna linkages for amphibians and some mammals. Dunes Moderate – Habitat is restricted in distribution in the Pilbara to the coast Hilltop / hill slopes / rocky outcrops Low – Habitat is widespread in the Pilbara Mangrove / beach High – (significant species, habitat value and ecological) Samphire Moderate – Habitat is restricted in distribution in the Pilbara to the coast Stony Spinifex Low – Habitat is widespread in the Pilbara *Based on importance as a potential habitat for significant fauna species, habitat value (extent of fauna diversity supported) and ecological function.

The habitats recorded in the Study Area are common and widespread in the coastal region of the Pilbara (GHD, 2013f). The stony spinifex plain is noted by GHD to be locally of moderate conservation value due to its habitat diversity and potential to support the Western Pebble Mound Mouse and Northern Quoll. Due to the low grade habitat for the Northern Quoll and lack of capture or evidence of occupation, an assessment of likelihood of occurrence was sought from Phoenix Environmental Sciences. Their assessment confirmed that the likelihood of the Study Area supporting a population of Northern Quoll is low (Phoenix 2013; Appendix 3).

A single Australian Bustard was noted in the spinifex habitat at the southern end of the Study Area. A single White Bellied Sea Eagle was recorded flying above the dune habitat at the Cape. Western Pebble Mound Mouse was noted as being present in the GHD survey, but Northern Quoll and Mulgara individuals or evidence of presence has not been found (nor were they in previous surveys of Cape Preston).

The habitat types mapped by GHD have been assessed in terms of their likely value for conservation significant species and their extent (widespread, limited or very limited). The outcome of this assessment is presented in Table 9.

Table 9: Assessment of significance of GHD (2013f) fauna habitats

Habitats defined in 2012 survey Potential Use of Habitat by Protected Fauna Extent

Cracking clay/grasslands Limited

Creek lines/drainage lines Peregrine Falcon Limited

Dunes/beach Migratory birds Limited White Bellied Sea Eagle

Hilltop / slopes / rocky outcrops Peregrine Falcon Widespread Northern Quoll (rock outcrop areas) Very limited

Mangrove Migratory birds Limited

Samphire Airlie Island Skink Very limited

Spinifex plain with or without low shrubs Peregrine Falcon Widespread Australian Bustard

Claypans Opportunistic use by migratory birds Limited

Page | 52

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Based on the GHD survey of the Study Area, review of existing data and previous work, priority habitat types for significant terrestrial fauna are:

 Mangroves (restricted distribution and high habitat value for both marine and terrestrial);  Samphire (Airlie Island Skink habitat);  Beach (migratory birds); and  Rocky outcrops (restricted distribution and possible Northern Quoll habitat).

The potential Northern Quoll habitat is limited to a very small area of rock outcrop that is not connected to any other areas of Northern Quoll habitat. The area is not intersected by the Proposal Area. The surrounding area is considered to have low grade habitat potential due to the lack of denning habitat and shelter (Appendix 3), and therefore unlikely to support a population of Northern Quoll. This perspective is supported by the fact that a series of fauna surveys of the Cape Preston area has not revealed any evidence of Northern Quoll. A map showing the distribution of the habitat types in the Study Area and the Proposal Area is shown in Figure 23.

Assessment of the Proposal Area against the significant fauna habitat map (Figure 23) shows:

 No disturbance to Mangrove habitat ‐ assessed as being of the highest significance;  The small area (<1 ha) of beach habitat impacted by the Proposal is not predicted to impact upon Migratory listed species (GHD, 2013f)  No impact to samphire or claypan habitats;  No direct impact to potential Northern Quoll habitat, assessed to be of moderate local conservation value; and  Pebble Mound Mouse habitat will be disturbed.

The application of controls identified in Table 7 will assist the Proponent to ensure that the impacts identified above are the maximum extent of fauna impacts. The impacts are considered to be at a local scale and not significant at a population or distribution level.

Remaining Other Factors Given the alternative regulatory mechanisms and experience in developing suitable controls, sufficient information on the remaining other factors is considered to be provided in Table 7 and the Referral and Supporting Information provided in IOH (2012) for the EPA to develop confidence that the impacts are manageable for each Factor. The Referral included an assessment of alternative legislation applicable to the Other Factors. A revised table of alternative regulatory mechanisms is presented in Appendix 4.

Page | 53

2km

7680000mN7680000mN

Highway Highway Date: April 2013

Scale 1:100 000 430000mE MGA94 (Zone 50)

Coastal Coastal

West West and Fauna Habitats

CAPE PRESTON EAST

North North Study Area / Lease Boundary Author: P. Scott Study Area / Lease Boundary Central Services Facility

420000mE Trestle Jetty Navigation Aids Navigation

habitat

Existing Road Road Existing Existing Stockyard Port Services Area Cape Preston Port Port Cape Preston Cape Preston Fauna Habitat Ctenotus angusticaps Fauna water point Nothern Quoll potential habitat Pebble mouse mounds observed Clay pan Creek lines / Drainage lines Dunes / Beach Grasslands / Cracking clays Hill tops / Slopes rocky outcrop Mangroves Samphire Spinifex plain with or without shrubs (Modified from: GHD Job 6128777) Study Area / Lease Boundary Proposal Area Proposed Infrastructure North West Coastal Highway Existing Road LEGEND

7690000mN7690000mN

13.dgn g2106_F0 Ref CAD ~ A4 ~ 2013 April Date ~ www.cadresources.com.au URL ~ 3242 9246 Tel ~ Resources CAD Drawn: ~ Scott P. Author: Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011) April (Flown Landgate Source: Imagery Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

5.1.3 Expected Environmental Outcomes The Proposal is small scale compared to most Pilbara export facilities. Development of the Proposal is expected to require the disturbance of approximately 398 ha of land largely covered in native vegetation to enable the development of facilities. Prior to commencement of terrestrial flora and fauna survey work, previous work from the adjacent Sino Iron and Balmoral South Projects was reviewed where available. Some work completed for these projects overlaps the Proposal Area. The estimated 398 ha of terrestrial disturbance will occur within the 2,942 ha Proposal Area identified in Figure 22.

An assessment of the potential impacts on other factors provides a high degree of confidence that any impacts are minor and able to be managed with standard industry controls and regulatory mechanisms.

Page | 55

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

6 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION

IOH prepared for stakeholder consultation by identifying key agencies relevant to the establishment of a new iron ore export facility prior to completing site selection. Consultation with these agencies was pivotal in the selection of the CPE site for the Proposal.

In addition to identifying individual stakeholders, IOH has also brought together multiple stakeholders where necessary to ensure there is alignment between key decision making authorities. Meetings between IOH, Department of State Development (DSD), Department of Mines and Petroleum, DPA, and Department of Transport (DoT) have been critical in progressing the Proposal. It is through several meetings in Q3 2012 with this group of stakeholders that an acceptable method (to the State and IOH) to develop the Proposal was agreed and is now being implemented.

The majority of stakeholder consultation has been completed over the past two years. Early in this period alternatives to the Proposal were being considered. After the CPE option was selected, discussions were focused on the selected option. During this period IOH has also been developing plans for mining of the Buckland Hills project such that meetings with stakeholders covered both proposals.

Table 10: Stakeholder consultation summary for the Proposal

Stakeholder Issues Raised Response Site Selection Site selection for export activities – preference for location with existing Selection of CPE for Proposal location. tenure (Mining Act section 19/315 area at CPE) and identified port potential. Close liaison with DPA on facility design aspects. Design prepared for minimum 20 Mtpa export Design capacity (IOH expected to utilise 10 Mtpa). DPA Project design needs to accommodate will manage port access and development under DPA third parties and open access – this is the Port Authorities Act 1999. a requirement of the State as per the A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between amendment to the Mineralogy State DPA and IOH was signed in November 2102 agreement in 2008. outlining the process to prepare and implement a port solution. The MOU outlines accountability for each step.

Tenure and Commercial IOH will continue to liaise with DSD who will Area “D”, currently within Mineralogy progress the transfer of Area “D” from Mineralogy. tenure will need to be transferred to IOH will continue to liaise closely with DPA on the State in a timely manner for the facility design aspects. The jetty has been re- development of CPE. aligned to avoid IOPAA tenure. Design includes The lands required for the facilities will small vessel launching ramp for independent

Page | 56

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Stakeholder Issues Raised Response need to be compulsorily acquired from emergency services. those with an interest in the land. The IOH has liaised with DPA and DRDL regarding the land and waters upon which the NOITT for the compulsory acquisition. NOITT Proposal will be based will be vested issued in February 2013. in the DPA. IOH and DPA currently negotiating lease Terms for the construction and agreements for construction and operation of the operation of the facilities need to be facilities. agreed and will ultimately be IOH have relocated central services facility to documented in the form of leases. accommodate future plans Citic Pacific have in Land to the east of Cape Preston regard to using land to the east of Cape Preston. potentially being used by CITIC Pacific Project design modified to avoid placement of Mining. facilities at the southern end of the Proposal Area. Proposal design has avoided the need to directly Environmental disturb coral areas by shortening the trestle Proposal design should seek to avoid structure and altering alignment. The need to key environmental assets of Cape dredge has been avoided by utilising a natural Preston – particularly high value coral channel. between SE Regnard Island and Cape Disturbance to mangroves avoided by utilising Preston and mangroves. existing causeway to Cape Preston. IOH has executed native title agreements containing consents for the taking of the land Heritage and Native Title required by IOH for the construction and operation IOH to complete the necessary work of the facilities. IOH completed extensive surveys to reach Native Title agreement with of the CPE area to enable the NOITT to be Claimants. created and registered. IOH to complete the necessary work Extensive heritage surveys are being conducted to identify Indigenous Heritage sites. throughout the Proposal Area and management of heritage values in the area will be in accordance with agreed protocols. Project Design Proposal design has avoided the need to directly Proposal design should seek to avoid disturb coral areas by shortening the trestle key environmental assets of Cape structure and altering alignment. Need to dredge Preston – particularly high value coral has been avoided by utilising a natural channel. between SE Regnard Island and Cape Disturbance to mangroves avoided by utilising Preston and mangroves. existing causeway to Cape Preston. Benthic Habitat Mapping Benthic habitat mapping will need Benthic habitat mapping completed for Study updating as recent experience has Area. See section 4.1.2. EPA shown how dynamic the marine environment is. Key Factors Key factors are Marine Water Quality The API document focuses on the two key factors and Marine Fauna. Other factors identified and provides a brief overview of other identified should provide information to factors. satisfy EPA they can be managed.

Oil Spills EIA includes oil spill assessment for construction Potential for oil spills should be activities. Detailed OSCP to be prepared in addressed for specifics of Proposal consultation with DPA. DEC’s Environmental Management Branch raised issues regarding impact IOH has approached Murdoch University of operations on marine fauna – in Cetacean Research Group regarding additional particular dolphins and recommended funding to add Cape Preston to the existing sites DEC pre and post construction surveys be being investigated to examine dolphin populations. conducted to assess impacts.

Local DEC office raised no major Further consultation planned in Q2 2013 to plan issues. out the details of secondary approvals.

Page | 57

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Stakeholder Issues Raised Response DOT and DPA have been in discussions regarding How will the operations be managed jurisdiction of port – IOH met with DPA and DoT effectively taking into account the in March 2013 and understand that the preferred interests of DPA and DoT option is for the port waters to be vested in the DoT Marine traffic management and DPA and the DPA have control over all port of mooring need to be co-ordinated Cape Preston activities. between IOH and Mineralogy/CITIC Mooring locations and traffic management plan Pacific recommended by DoT – to be prepared and implemented prior to operations commencement. Water supply for construction may be partly or totally sourced from groundwater. Licences will be Water supply for construction and Department of Water sought as required. Mobile desalination plant is operation. an option for construction water supply. Small desalination plant proposed for operations. Assessment Suggested Proposal should be Proposal has been referred to EPA and is being assessed by EPA. assessed at API level of assessment. Marine Reserves

Department of Raised location of Proposal in relation Location of marine reserves noted and Proposal Fisheries to marine reserves. avoids them. Other Issues Biosecurity, oceanographic, long- Biosecurity addressed in marine fauna section shore currents, increase in shipping (section 4.1). Coastal processes addressed in movements and the EPA guidance section 4.1.3. Shipping movements defined in statement on Pilbara mangroves all Proposal description. No impact on coastal raised as issues to consider. mangroves required. Department of Tenure processes and project Minerals and Tenure processes to be coordinated by DSD. coordination. Petroleum Native Title agreements including Heritage Native Title and Heritage agreements Department of agreements and protocols for survey have been will need to be formed with the Indigenous Affairs executed with the KM and YM Native Title groups. relevant groups These are the only two claim groups at CPE. Port access road will be vested in DPA. Intersection with NWCH is being designed in NWCH existing intersection will need consultation with MRWA. to be designed in consultation with Not relevant to this Proposal. Traffic usage of Main Roads WA MRWA. road by IOH haulage is relevant to the Bungaroo Limits to road transport haulage for South Mining Proposal. Plan to develop private public safety. haul road to separate ore haulage trucks from public road traffic. Accommodation to be located on DPA land and Plans for accommodation, subject to DPA development approval process. development application and building licence processes (if required). Traffic usage of road by IOH haulage is relevant to the Bungaroo South Mining Proposal. Plan to Shire of Roebourne Concern about increase in traffic, develop private haul road to separate ore haulage particularly road haulage of ore. trucks from public road traffic. Shire would like further updates in IOH have scheduled briefing with Shire in June June 2013. 2013. Agreement with DRDL/DPA/IOH that IOH will facilitate Native Title consent for the taking of the Native Title consents. land required for the port and provide surveying Department of data required by DRDL to define the NOITT area. Regional Development IOH executed native title agreements containing and Lands Land survey. consents for the taking of the land required by IOH for the construction and operation of the facilities. IOH completed extensive surveys of the CPE area

Page | 58

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Stakeholder Issues Raised Response to enable the NOITT to be created and registered. Supported CPE site selection for export activities. Currently progressing area “D” surrender from Agreed to progress the surrender of DSD Mineralogy. area “D”. IOH continues to brief DSD on a quarterly basis. Scale of the project insufficient to warrant a State Agreement Act.

Use of facilities and commercially Proposal prepared in the light of publically sensitive data subject to Mineralogy available data. No reliance on Mineralogy approval. facilities. Tenure application processes are Citic Pacific Mining Possible plans for using land to the utilised to identify any tenure related issues. Management Pty Ltd east of Cape Preston. IOH have relocated central services facility to accommodate future plans Citic Pacific have in Traffic management for shared use of regard to using land to the east of Cape Preston. causeway. To be addressed in liaison with DPA. Access to Mineralogy tenure for haul Not relevant to this Proposal. Mineralogy are road purposes. seeking direction from their board regarding Mineralogy Pty Ltd Traffic management for shared use of access agreement conditions. causeway. To be addressed in liaison with DPA. IOH has modified the location of the Central Pastoral Management Concerns about access and Services Area to ensure future project plans for Pty Ltd (Mardie management complications due to tailings facility can be implemented without having Station) Proposal infrastructure. to relocate the infrastructure. Data deficit acknowledged. IOH agreed to Lack of data on dolphin populations to Murdoch University sponsor research into dolphin populations and enable impact assessment. Cetacean Research behaviour at Cape Preston. Provided feedback on marine noise Group EIA includes details on marine noise (section responses and issues. 4.1.3). Extensive heritage surveys are being conducted Kurama Marthudunera Survey and possible disturbance of throughout the project area and management of Native Title Claimant heritage sites. heritage values in the area will be in accordance Group with agreed protocols. Extensive heritage surveys are being conducted Yaburara & Survey and possible disturbance of throughout the project area and management of Mardudhunera Native heritage sites. Heritage values in the area will be in accordance Title Claimant Group with agreed protocols. Department of IOH completed briefings in November 2012 and Resources, Energy General nature of Proposal. February 2013. and Tourism (Federal) Two briefings have been provided and the Department of Interested in impact on Matters of Proposal will be referred with submission to Sustainability, National Environmental Significance SEWPaC in March 2013. Controls to marine Environment, Water, (NES). Potential impacts on listed noise and contribution to dolphin and dugong Population and marine fauna. Potential impacts on research to understand population dynamics. Communities (Federal) Northern Quoll. Clarification on Northern Quoll habitat sought. Department of Premier Coordination of Native Title processes Agreement for IOH to negotiate with native title and Cabinet – Native and activities. claimants. Title Branch

Page | 59

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

7 CONCLUSION

Following amendments to the IOPAA in 2008, an area of land to the east of Cape Preston was set aside by Government for the purposes of port development (C Barnett, Hansard 4 December 2008). This area has been selected by IOH (in consultation with DPA) as the preferred location for development of iron ore export facilities. The location is known as CPE.

IOH proposes to be the foundation proponent to develop the initial iron ore export facilities at CPE. The Proposal covers the export facilities – defined as the infrastructure to the north of the North West Coastal Highway required for iron ore export. The mining and haulage of ore will be submitted as a separate proposal for EPA assessment to facilitate the likely transfer of proponency to the DPA upon completion of construction of the Proposal.

The Proposal has been developed in close consultation with DPA, DoT, DSD and Department of Regional Development and Lands. It is proposed to support a larger throughput capacity than that required by IOH – of a planned 20 Mtpa capacity (IOH is expected to require up to 10 Mtpa of the design capacity). The facilities will be multi‐user and open access.

Preparation of the Proposal has considered the available information from nearby projects at Cape Preston, as well as recent proposals assessed and approved regarding the development of Port Facilities at Port Hedland, Anketell, Dampier, Cape Lambert, Oakajee and Ashburton North (Onslow). These projects provide a useful array of baseline environmental data, management approaches to key environmental issues in environmental management plans, and Ministerial Conditions.

The Proposal is located immediately adjacent to Cape Preston where a series of proposals for mining, processing and export of magnetite ore are either under construction, approved or proposed under the IOPAA. Consequently, the area is well understood, having been the subject of numerous baseline environmental studies, and more recently environmental monitoring. Proposals under the IOPAA are of a more significant scale.

The Proposal is not expected to cause a significant environmental impact. It is a relatively small scale proposal in a generally well understood environment. The Proponent has completed a suite of additional studies to update and focus the extensive previous baseline environmental data. This information has been considered in detailed project planning and feasibility investigations. In the case of dolphins there is an acknowledged shortage of biological data to enable impacts at a population scale to be accurately predicted. IOH has committed to funding research to assist in increasing the knowledge base for dolphin species.

The Proponent has completed extensive consultation that will continue and develop as the Proposal proceeds into the construction and operations phases. The environmental issues the Proposal raises are able to be managed within existing condition setting frameworks and are supported by other legislation.

Page | 60

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

The Key Environmental Factors for the Proposal are marine fauna and marine water quality. These and other environmental factors have been assessed against EPA objectives and relevant guidelines. The EIA has considered both direct and indirect impacts, and also cumulative impacts. The Proposal has been prepared with management controls identified to avoid, minimise or manage the environmental impacts. Given the configuration of the Proposal to avoid significant impacts, its location in relation to significant environmental assets and values, the management actions and controls to protect the environment, the Proposal is expected to meet the EPA objectives.

Page | 61

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

8 GLOSSARY

Term Meaning Assessment on Proponent Information – the level of assessment API relevant to this Proposal Benthic Primary Producer Habitat – marine sea floor habitat with BPPH high primary production capacity such as coral reef, algal and seagrass beds and mangroves CALM Act Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 (WA) CID Channel Iron Deposits CPE Cape Preston East CSF Central Services Facility DG Act Dangerous Goods Act 2004 (WA) The actual area of disturbance required to implement the Proposal. Disturbance Area The Disturbance Area will be within the Proposal. DRDL Department of Regional Development and Lands DPA Dampier Port Authority EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMPs Environmental Management Plans EMS Environmental Management System EPA Environmental Protection Authority (WA) Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 EPBC (Commonwealth) GL/year Gigalitres per year High Ecological Protection Area – a level of ecological protection HEPA based on water quality that is expected to protect 99% of species IMPs Introduced Marine Pests IOH Iron Ore Holdings Pty Ltd IOPAA Iron Ore Processing (Mineralogy Pty Ltd) Agreement Act 2002 (WA) km Kilometres LA Act Land Administration Act 1997 (WA) Low Ecological Protection Area ‐ a level of ecological protection LEPA based on water quality that is expected to protect 80% of species m Metres Moderate Ecological Protection Area – a level of ecological MEPA protection based on water quality that is expected to protect 90% of species Third party developments on land situated to the west of CPE as Mineralogy Projects approved pursuant to the IOPAA Mining Act Mining Act 1978 (WA) Mtpa Million tonnes per annum MW Megawatt NOITT Notice of Intention to Take Land – process under the LA Act NVCP Native Vegetation Clearing Permit OEPA Office of the Environmental Protection Authority PA Act Port Authorities Act 1999 (WA) PEC Priority Ecological Communities – plant communities listed as being

Page | 62

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

potentially threatened under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 As defined under the EP Act ‐ a project, plan, programme, policy, Proposal operation, undertaking or development or change in land use, or amendment of any of the foregoing, but does not include scheme. Cape Preston East Proposal – this document as considered under the the Proposal Environmental Protection Act 1986. The 2,942 ha area that forms the boundary of the 398 ha of terrestrial and 3.2 ha of benthic habitat disturbance for the Proposal Area Proposal. The Proposal Area is located within the boundaries of the Study Area. Permanent Threshold Shift – the effect of a severe sudden or PTS cumulative noise exposure, causing permanent loss of hearing sensitivity due to tissue damage within the auditory system The broad area that forms the basis for the Proposal. It is effectively Study Area the area within which baseline environmental data was acquired Threatened Ecological Communities – plant communities listed as TEC being threatened and legally protected under the Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 Temporary Threshold Shift – the effect of sudden or cumulative TTS noise exposure, causing temporary loss of hearing sensitivity WA Western Australia WC Act Wildlife Conservation Act 1950 WA

Page | 63

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

9 REFERENCES

ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Volume 1, Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.

API (2010). West Pilbara Iron Ore Project Anketell Point Port Development Proposal Public Environmental Review/Draft Public Environment Report December 2010. Prepared by: API Management Pty Ltd.

Austeel (2000). Iron Ore Mine and Downstream Processing, Cape Preston, Western Australia. Public Environmental Review. Prepared by Halpern Glick Maunsell. December 2000.

Allen, M. C. and A. J. Read (2000). Habitat selection of foraging bottlenose dolphins in relation to boat density near Clearwater, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 16(4): 815‐824.

Bejder, L., A. Samuels, H. Whitehead and N. Gales (2006a). Interpreting short‐term behavioural response to disturbance within a longitudinal perspective. Animal Behaviour 72: 1149‐1158.

Bejder, L., A. Samuels, H. Whitehead, N. Gales, J. Mann, R. Conner, M. Heithaus, J. Watson‐Capp, C. Flaherty and M. Krutzen (2006b). Decline in relative abundance of bottlenose dolphins exposed to long‐term disturbance. Conservation Biology 20(6): 1791‐1798.

BHPB (2011). Proposed Outer Harbour Development, Port Hedland. Public Environmental Review/Draft Environmental Impact Statement. April 2011.

CALM (2000). Regional Perspective Damper Archipelago / Cape Preston. Department of Conservation and Land Management.

CALM (2000) Department of Conservation and Land Management. An inspection of sea turtle nesting activity, Cape Preston, December 2000.

CALM (2005). Department of Conservation and Land Management. Aerial survey of coastal beaches for marine turtle activities (Dec 2004). CALM, Karratha.

Constantine, R., D. H. Brunton and T. Dennis (2004). Dolphin‐watching tour boats change bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) behaviour. Biological Conservation 117(3): 299‐307.

DEC (2006). Department of Environment and Conservation. An inspection of marine turtle nesting activity, Cape Preston, December 2006.

DoE (2006). Pilbara Coastal Water Quality Consultation Outcomes Environmental Values and Environmental Quality Objectives. Report from the Department of Environment (now DEC) to the Environmental Protection Authority and the Rangelands NRM Coordinating Group Department of Environment. Marine Report Series. Report No. 1. March, 2006

Page | 64

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

EPA (2012). Letter of correspondence “EPA Prepared Environmental Scoping Guideline” dated 20 December 2012.

EPA (2012). Environmental Assessment Guideline for Defining the Key Characteristics of a Proposal Environmental Protection Act 1986. May 2012. Environmental Protection Authority, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.

EPA (2010). Environmental Assessment Guideline for Protecting Marine Turtles from Light Impacts. November 2010. Environmental Protection Authority, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.

EPA (2010). Environmental Assessment Guideline for Timelines for Environmental Impact Assessment of Proposals. November 2010. Environmental Protection Authority, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.

EPA (2009). Environmental Assessment Guideline No. 3: Protection of Benthic Primary Producer Habitats in Western Australia's Marine Environment. December 2009. Environmental Protection Authority, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.

EPA (2008). Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors (in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986) No. 19: Environmental Offsets ‐ Biodiversity. September 2008. Environmental Protection Authority, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.

EPA (2005). Environmental Quality Criteria Reference Document for Cockburn Sound (2003 ‐ 2004) Environmental Protection Authority Report 20 January 2005. A supporting document to the State Environmental (Cockburn Sound) Policy 2005.

EPA (2004). Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors (in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986) No. 56: Terrestrial Fauna Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia. June. Environmental Protection Authority, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.

EPA (2004). Guidance for the Assessment of Environmental Factors (in accordance with the Environmental Protection Act 1986) No. 51: Terrestrial Flora and Vegetation Surveys for Environmental Impact Assessment in Western Australia. June. Environmental Protection Authority, Government of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.

EPA (2004). Protection of Benthic Primary Producer Habitats in Western Australia’s Marine Environment. Guidance Statement No. 29. Environmental Protection Authority. June 2004.

Ersts, PJ, Rosenbaum HC (2003). Habitat preference reflects social organization of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) on a wintering ground. Journal of Zoology 260: 337‐345

Hazel, J., I. R. Lawler, et al. (2007). Vessel speed increases collision risk for the green turtle Chelonia mydas. Endangered Species Research 3(2): 105‐113.

Page | 65

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Hodgson, A. J. (2004). Dugong behaviour and responses to human influences. PhD thesis, School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography. James Cook University. Townsville.

Hodgson, A., Bejder, L., Allen, S. and Smith J (2012). Browse LNG Precinct Strategic Assessment Report Part 3 Environmental Impact Assessment (Marine) Public Submission. Murdoch University Cetacean Research Unit Murdoch University, South St, Murdoch WA 6150

Huisman, J.M., Jones, D.S., Wells, F.E., and Burton, T. (2008). Marine Introductions into Western Australian Waters. Records of the Western Australian Museum 24: 323‐366.

GEMS (2008a). Analysis of Cape Preston Meteorological & Oceanographic Conditions, Volume 1: Methodology, Report Prepared for Sandwell Australia Pty Ltd

GEMS (2008b). Technical Report: Cape Preston Coastal Stability Study, Final Report

GHD (2013a). Marine Benthic Habitat Assessment Habitat Mapping. Report on the Cape Preston East Project for Iron Ore Holdings. January 2013.

GHD (2013b). Marine Piling Underwater Construction Noise Assessment. Report on the Cape Preston East Project for Iron Ore Holdings. January 2013.

GHD (2013c). Coastal processes. Report on the Cape Preston East Project for Iron Ore Holdings. January 2013.

GHD (2013d). Brine dispersion study. Report on the Cape Preston East Project for Iron Ore Holdings. January 2013.

GHD (2013e). Introduced marine pest risk assessment. Report eon th Cape Preston East Project for Iron Ore Holdings. January 2013.

GHD (2013f). Flora and Fauna Review. Report on the Cape Preston East Project for Iron Ore Holdings. January 2013.

GHD (2013g). Marine Benthic Community Assessment. Report on the Cape Preston East Project for Iron Ore Holdings. January 2013.

Greenland, J. A. and C. J. Limpus (2006). Marine wildlife stranding and mortality database annual report 2005. I. Dugong. pp. 31. Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane.

Groom, R. A., I. R. Lawler and H. Marsh (2004). The risk to dugongs of vessel strike in the Southern Bay Islands area of Moreton .Bay. pp 22. James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland.

Imbricata (2013). Marine Turtle Habitat and Light Spill Assessment on the Eastern Beach of Cape Preston, Western Australia. Report to GHD for the purposes of planning and assessing light spill at CPE.

IOH (2012). Section 38 Referral – Supporting Information Document. Cape Preston East Project. October 2012. Prepared for Iron Ore Holdings by Preston Consulting.

Page | 66

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Jenner, K. C. S. and M.‐N.M. Jenner (2009) (in API, 2010). A Description of Humpback Whale and other Megafauna Distribution and Abundance in the Western Pilbara Using Aerial Surveys ‐ Winter 2009. Report to API Pty Ltd. 40pp.

Jenner, KCS, Jenner M‐NM, McCabe KA (2001). Geographical and temporal movements of humpback whales in Western Australian waters. APPEA Journal 38: 749‐765

Krupp, F. and A. H. Abuzinada (2008). Impact of oil pollution and increased sea surface temperatures on marine ecosystems and biota in the Gulf. Protecting the Gulf’s Marine Ecosystems from Pollution, Switzerland, Birkhäuser: 45‐56.

Lusseau, D. (2003). Effects of tour boats on the behaviour of bottlenose dolphins: using Markov Chains to model anthropogenic impacts. Conservation Biology 17(6): 1785‐1793. 28(16): 2152‐ 2159.

Le Provost (2008). Sino Iron Project Marine Management Plan. Unpublished report prepared for Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd.

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd (Maunsell) (2008). Cape Preston Mining Estate Consolidated Vegetation, Flora and Fauna Assessment. Unpublished report prepared for International Minerals Pty Ltd.

Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd (Maunsell) (2004). Baseline Turtle Survey Cape Preston 2002/2003. Unpublished report prepared by Maunsell Australia for Mineralogy Pty Ltd.

Parsons, E. C. and T. A. Jefferson (2000). Post‐mortern investigations on stranded dolphins and porpoises from Hong Kong waters. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 36: 342‐356.

Pelagico (2013). Iron Ore Holdings – Cape Preston East: Construction Phase Marine Oil Spill Risk Assessment and Management. Unpublished report for Iron Ore Holdings.

Phoenix Environmental Science (2009). Vertebrate Fauna Survey of the Mineralogy Cape Preston Iron Ore Project and Impact Assessment of the Mineralogy Expansion Proposal. Unpublished report to CITIC Pacific Mining Management. July 2009.

Phoenix Environmental Science (2013). Memorandum: Opinion on likelihood of Northern Quoll presence in the Cape Preston East Port Project survey area. Memo to P Scott. March 2013.

Preen, A. (1989). Technical Report, Dugongs, Volume 1: The status and conservation of dugongs in the Arabian Region. Saudi Arabia.

Sadiq, M. and J. McCain (1993). The Gulf War Aftermath: An Environmental Tragedy. The Netherlands, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Salgado Kent, C.P., McCauley, R.D. and Duncan, A.J. (2009), ‘Environmental Impacts of Underwater Noise Association with Harbour Works, Port Hedland’, Centre for Marine Science and Technology ‐ Curtin University.

Page | 67

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

Stensland, E. and P. Berggren (2007). Behavioural changes in female Indo‐Pacific bottlenose dolphins in response to boat‐based tourism." Marine Ecology Progress Series 332: 225‐234.

Strategen (2009). Mineralogy Expansion Project. Public Environmental Review document prepared for Mineralogy Pty Ltd.

URS (2009). Sino Iron Project, Cape Preston Port Environmental Management Plan, Appendix B, Ballast Water and Hull Biofouling Management Plan. Prepared for CITIC Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd. June 2009.

Vanderlaan, . A. S. M. and Taggart,. C. T. (2007), Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science, 23: 144–156

Van Parijs, dS. M. an P. J. Corkeron (2001). Boat traffic affects the acoustic behaviour of Pacific humpback dolphins, Sousa chinensis. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 81(3): 533‐538.

Wells, R. S. and M. D. Scott (1997). Seasonal incidence of boat strikes on bottlenose dolphins near Sarasota, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 13(3): 475‐480.

Williams, R., D. Lusseau and P. S. Hammond (2006). Estimating relative energetic costs of human disturbance to killer whales (Orcinus orca). Biological Conservation 133(3): 301‐311.

Yeates, M. A. and C. J. Limpus (2003 ). Dugong mortality from boat strike in Queensland. Marine wildlife stranding and mortality database annual report 2002, Brisbane, Queensland, Environmental Protection Agency & Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service: 53.

Xodus (2009) (in Port Environmental Management Plan Stage 1 Port Operational Activities (Citic Pacific Mining Management Pty Ltd November 2011)). Cape Preston Port Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP).

Page | 68

Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings

10 APPENDICES

The following Appendices are provided on the attached CD:

Page | 69