Cape Preston East Export Facilities Iron Ore Holdings Pty Ltd Assessment on Proponent Information
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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 420000mE Section 15 Customs Port Limits (State Waters) 7720000mN 0 5km Scale 1:250 000 MGA94 (Zone 50) Cape Vessel Loading Zones 400000mE Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011) Transhipment Vessel Route North East Regnard Is (NR) 7700000mN 01.dgn South West Regnard Is (NR) Steamboat Is (NR) Cape Preston Port 40 Mile Beach Study Area / Lease Boundary Fortescue Is (NR) Highway Potter Is (NR) 60km Coastal Carey Is (NR) 7680000mN Karratha Existing Road West To North LOCALITY Sino Iron LEGEND Study Area / Lease Boundary Karratha CAPE PRESTON North West Coastal Highway Existing Road WESTERN AUSTRALIA CAPE PRESTON EAST 7660000mN Kalgoorlie Project Location Perth 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 420000mE Cape Preston Port Navigation Aids Trestle Jetty 0 2km Scale 1:100 000 Stockyard MGA94 (Zone 50) 430000mE Imagery Source: Landgate (Flown April 2011) 7690000mN 02.dgn Port Services Area Central Services Facility 7680000mN Highway Existing Road Study Area / Lease Boundary Coastal West LEGEND North Study Area / Lease Boundary Proposal Area CAPE PRESTON EAST Proposed Infrastructure Options Study Area / Lease Boundary North West Coastal Highway and Proposal Area Existing Road 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 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